Electability?
We are told that, in a contest with Barack Obama, Mitt Romney would do better than Newt Gingrich. Romney, it is said, will appeal to "moderates." Gingrich won't
There may be some truth in this. Gingrich will be easy to demonize, and he has high negatives. Women, who tend to be more cautious than men, are wary of the man.
To be fair, however, the same was true of Ronald Reagan. If I may borrow the language that one thoughtful Romney admirer recently used in juxtaposing Gingrich with Romney, Reagan was an "ideological flamethrower," He was not a "bloodless manager." He polarized the country -- and he not only won. Precisely because he articulated the conservative argument and divided the house, he won big. And as President, initially at least, he had the Democrats on the run.
I note also that, in the latest Gallup matchup, both Gingrich and Romney trail Barack Obama 50-48%. Of course, at this stage of the game, polling results do not mean much. But they ought to be a reminder of something important.
It is by no means clear that a middle-of-the-road Republican will outpoll a candidate who divides the house. Thomas E. Dewey, the original "New Deal Republican," was twice nominated for the Presidency and lost twice. Gerald Ford lost. George H. W. Bush lost in his re-election campaign. Bob Dole and John McCain lost. All of these men sought the middle road. All of them pitched their appeal to "the moderates." All were, as campaigners, lackluster and bloodless. Not one of them articulated the conservative argument.
Gingrich has flaws -- terrible flaws. To this day, he does not understand the dangers associated with GSEs like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He backed the individual mandate for a long time. He fell for the global warming scam hook, line, and sinker. He does not consult. He is impulsive. He is, to use a euphemism, erratic.
But Gingrich also has fire. He led an insurgency in the early 1990s within the Republican party. He staged a campaign in 1994 that won that party the House of Representatives, which it had not held since 1952, and under his leadership, in 1996, the party held onto the House -- which it had not done since 1928.
We saw a hint of his capacities in the two debates in South Carolina last week. Romney partisans attribute his success on these occasions to his ability to channel the anger of the voters. There is something to this. But, in the first of these two debates, he managed to articulate a rational argument that could win the Republicans the Presidency, defending the work ethic against the ethic underpinning the administrative entitlements state and doing it in a manner that touched a nerve. Gingrich connects. A good bit of the time, Romney does not. This matters. It really matters.
I still lean towards Mitt Romney -- not because I am delighted at the prospect that he would become our standard-bearer but because I take seriously what Gingrich's record (both political and personal) tells us about the likelihood that he will go off the rails.
I lean towards Romney but I am very, very glad that he is being tested. It is not at all clear that he is more electable than Gingrich. It is not at all clear that he would be the better President. There is, in his record in politics, not a great deal to admire and much to dislike. If he persists in being lackluster, bloodless, and incapable of articulating the conservative argument, we would be better off not having him as our standard-bearer.
There is much to be said for the grueling contest we put the contenders through. We learn a lot in the process -- about them and about ourselves.
- Comment (38)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: Electability?
This would be my campaign billboard.
Apr '11
Re: Electability?
Umm...isn't there another candidate in this race? One who doesn't have a checkered marital history and isn't a wooden, milquetoast multimillionaire?
And isn't a loon on foreign policy.
Sep '10
Re: Electability?
That's an interesting choice of relative picture sizes of Mitt versus Newt, Paul. It definitely supports the thesis that Mitt needs to step up to the plate.
Re: Electability?
As Byron York notes today, Romney and Gingrich's favorability/unfavorability ratings are essentially the same.
Aug '10
Re: Electability?
I have never bought the line about Romney's "electability".
For all his faults, Newt can work a camera, can work a room, looks like he wants to be there, and knows how to speak in public. Even his smile appears more genuine.
Nov '10
Re: Electability?
Precisely. Newt didn't win big in SC because he took the press to the woodshed (although that helped). He won big because he can articulate the conservative position better than anybody else. And he can win over millions of moderates with that kind of talk.
Re: Electability?
Yes, it was meant to convey that.
Re: Electability?
billy: Umm...isn't there another candidate in this race? One who doesn't have a checkered marital history and isn't a wooden, milquetoast multimillionaire?
And isn't a loon on foreign policy. · 7 minutes ago
Yes -- and in person he connects. On stage, before an audience, however, his manner is grating. He has not caught fire, and he won't.
Apr '11
Re: Electability?
Paul A. Rahe
billy: Umm...isn't there another candidate in this race? One who doesn't have a checkered marital history and isn't a wooden, milquetoast multimillionaire?
And isn't a loon on foreign policy. · 7 minutes ago
Yes -- and in person he connects. On stage, before an audience, however, his manner is grating. He has not caught fire, and he won't. · 0 minutes ago
Which is odd, I think. It makes you wonder how he won PA in the first place.
He really does have all the qualities, on paper at least, that conservatives are looking for.
Dec '10
Re: Electability?
This is the important part. The Romney folks, those peddling his inevitability, would have us shortcut the process, but we as a party need the process. Romney will be strengthened by it, or he will be proven inadequate and eliminated. I can live with either, but one must come to pass.
Feb '11
Re: Electability?
"There is much to be said for the grueling contest we put the contenders through. We learn a lot in the process -- about them and about ourselves."
I think this falls under the category of when you have lemons, make lemonade.
Nov '10
Re: Electability?
Paul A. Rahe
billy: Umm...isn't there another candidate in this race? One who doesn't have a checkered marital history and isn't a wooden, milquetoast multimillionaire?
And isn't a loon on foreign policy. · 7 minutes ago
Yes -- and in person he connects. On stage, before an audience, however, his manner is grating. He has not caught fire, and he won't.
I'm not entirely sure about this. His manner in the concession speech the night of the South Carolina primary was extremely attractive. He really won me over, and he was on stage before an audience. I think it's the debate format that doesn't work for him.
Apr '11
Re: Electability?
Yes Reagan drew a clear contrast between himself and his opponent, so did Goldwater. One swept the election the other got swept. Gingrich is closer to Goldwater than to Reagan, I think.
Let us be honest here they both suck (can I say that on Ricochet?). I have resigned myself to Obama wining...I just hope we can get the Senate and House...that might workout then...maybe.....probably not........God I'm depressed.
Jun '10
Re: Electability?
Let's have a look on the other side of the equation. Is Barack Obama electable? According to Rasmussen his strongly opposed vs. strongly support ratio is running 2:1 against him. He has lost the independents by the same margin. Except for Ron Paul, any Republican candidate should be able to beat him. Why not just nominate the best man for the job? My choice will be based on character. There's no debate about who that would be. A decent campaign manager and plenty of money should put Rick Santorum over the top.
Edited on Jan 24 at 7:43amApr '11
Re: Electability?
What moderates? Was South Carolina an open primary? People have a tendency to assume moderates secretly will agree with you if you put your case right. I don't see that happening Moderates are moved probably by who they will like more. They are moderate because they don't care one way or another how the issues shake out. Those who care are decided already either lib or con. Moderates are moved by disliking one fellow and liking the other...not policy or doctrine. That is why attack ads work.
Edited on Jan 24 at 7:46amMay '10
Re: Electability?
Of the people remaining, none is perfect, and none were my first choice. That said, Santorum is the most conservative, and if I had a say in it (which unfortunately I don't) he'd be the nominee.
This sudden upswell of favorability for Newt, and his rocky road this far, just tells me the electorate is very fickle and/or doesn't really know what the candidates stand for.
Yes, I'd take Newt over Romney. He could be a brilliant, and simultaneously deeply flawed, President.
And yes, I'd take Romney over Obama. But the enthusiasm for that choice would be very lacking. That is a bigger liability than it appears to be.
Apr '11
Re: Electability?
May '11
Re: Electability?
Electability?
I dearly wish we would nominate someone based on the ability to articulate and contrast. Someone who can articulate conservative goals and contrast progressive policies will be electable.
Sep '10
Re: Electability?
In order for our country to be saved the march toward socialism, and the left-wing assumptions need to be exposed and vanquished. Now. Otherwise we are doomed in the long run.
If Romney becomes the nominee and is elected, my fear is that he won't make much progress, (regress?) the left's narrative will continue unchecked while he is in office, and if he doesn't defend himself and his administration deftly and forcefully, the coming crises on the horizon now will be pinned on his administration and the GOP. 2016 will bring another left-winger into office to do more damage and deliver the final blow. I believe we are that close to the tipping point.
I have my questions about Newt, but he is the only one I see who can navigate in these waters. Even if it's a longer shot, it's worth betting on because the reward is greater. I am of the mind that some "independents" can be swayed by someone with Gingrich's skills. The ones who won't be will, to a man and woman, vote for Obama even if Romney is the nominee.
Re: Electability?
Lucy Pevensie
Paul A. Rahe
billy: Umm...isn't there another candidate in this race? One who doesn't have a checkered marital history and isn't a wooden, milquetoast multimillionaire?
And isn't a loon on foreign policy. · 7 minutes ago
Yes -- and in person he connects. On stage, before an audience, however, his manner is grating. He has not caught fire, and he won't.
I'm not entirely sure about this. His manner in the concession speech the night of the South Carolina primary was extremely attractive. He really won me over, and he was on stage before an audience. I think it's the debate format that doesn't work for him. · 22 minutes ago
As a libertarian, I will never be a Santorum voter. And I should confess that I had an extremely negative view of the man up until quite recently. But that's my point -- I have come to have new respect for him and his arguments over the course of his campaign. His Iowa victory speech was one of the best speeches of this entire race, in terms of "connecting" with voters.