Newt Redux, or, the Robinson Response
I'm posting from the road, so I'll keep this brief, but here's my concise response to Peter's questions re: Newt:
1) Yes, I did envision Newt getting near the lead or taking it outright. What surprises me, however, is how quickly it happened. I suspected that Cain would gradually trail off as his suitability for the job was called into question on substance. Having to spend a few weeks combatting the sexual harassment allegations, however, seems to have catalyzed that process. This is a mixed blessing for Team Gingrich, as more time at the front of the pack means more time for frontrunner-level scrutiny. That is going to be the last great test for whether Newt can endure as a major contender -- and it's going to be far and away the most difficult challenge he's faced thus far.
2) Like most GOP primary voters, I'm a rent-to-own guy at this stage in the race. Newt is the most attractive figure in the field right now and the only one I've seriously considered supporting apart from Rick Perry (that is, until Rick Perry actually began running for president). If we were voting today, I'd cast my ballot for the former speaker, but having the field set isn't the be all and end all of my judgment. Seeing how Newt performs under scrutiny over the next few months will be highly instructive.
3) I agree with 90 percent of Peter's reasoning as to why Newt could be in this for the long-haul. I'd only add two points: the substance of Newt's past transgressions are known; the details are not, necessarily (particularly outside of the conservative base). How he handles them will be the acid test of whether his candidacy has legs.
Also, it's salient that Peter cites Patton as an example of a great leader with a somewhat jarring personality. He's completely right, as per usual, but Patton never faced an electorate. One of the things I noticed about Newt while working for him was that it was easy to get audiences to respect him, but much more difficult to get them to like him on a personal level. Normally, that would be a definitive strike against someone in a presidential race, but perhaps not this time. If Newt's the nominee, the question becomes whether the American electorate is more in the mood for erratic brilliance or predictable failure.
If Newt endures, the fight for the nomination comes down to whether the GOP is in a betting mood. Gingrich is the ultimate high-stakes wager; his nomination either results in a decisive victory or a Goldwateresque defeat (and it's how he performs, not the substance of his message, that will be dispositive). With Romney, I suspect we're talking about much narrower margins -- and it's not clear which side of them he ends up on.
- Comment (65)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Re: Newt Redux, or, the Robinson Response
Troy Senik
Gingrich is the ultimate high-stakes wager; his nomination either results in a decisive victory or a Goldwateresque defeat (and it's how he performs, not the substance of his message, that will be dispositive). With Romney, I suspect we're talking about much narrower margins -- and it's not clear which side of them he ends up on. ·
Very nicely put. But doesn't the consideration of just what that "Goldwateresque" defeat would mean for the country, in fact, lend weight to the case for Romney? If Mitt loses, we live to fight another day, and with an incredibly strong "bench." If Newt loses -- and I agree that if he loses, he will likely lose badly -- we are, in a word, hosed. Just look at what the last "Goldwateresque" defeat got us -- the Great Society, Nixon, Ford, Carter.... Maybe I'm just risk-averse, but even for gamblers some risks are just not worth taking. We could survive (however painfully) a narrow, credible loss in '12 -- but a blowout? Boy, I don't know.
Re: Newt Redux, or, the Robinson Response
Steve Manacek
Troy Senik
Gingrich is the ultimate high-stakes wager; his nomination either results in a decisive victory or a Goldwateresque defeat. With Romney, I suspect we're talking about much narrower margins -- and it's not clear which side of them he ends up on. ·
Maybe I'm just risk-averse, but even for gamblers some risks are just not worth taking. We could survive (however painfully) a narrow, credible loss in '12 -- but a blowout? Boy, I don't know. · Nov 14 at 5:18pm
I think I know the answer to this, Troy and Steve, but, just to be explict, let me ask the question: You're worried that a Gingrich defeat would affect other Republican races, denying the GOP the Senate and shrinking its majority in the House. Have I got that right?
Aug '10
Re: Newt Redux, or, the Robinson Response
Troy Senik
2) Like most GOP primary voters, I'm a rent-to-own guy at this stage in the race.
So true.
Though I might still be in the rent-to-rent stage, myself.
Dec '10
Re: Newt Redux, or, the Robinson Response
Peter Robinson
I think I know the answer to this, Troy and Steve, but, just to be explict, let me ask the question: You're worried that a Gingrich defeat would affect other Republican races, denying the GOP the Senate and shrinking its majority in the House. Have I got that right? · Nov 14 at 5:31pm
Some see the nomination of Romney as the best way to deny the GOP the Senate and shrink its majority in the House.
Edited on Nov 14, 2011 at 5:40pmJan '11
Re: Newt Redux, or, the Robinson Response
This is a real quandry. I really don't trust Romney (just like McCain) but I can really see how he could get those miserable Independent 'squishes' and even some Democrats that are honest enough with themselves to realize what a disaster Obama has been. Recall also, that McCain was the most centrist 'electable' Republican and the MSM had no problem dumping their favorite Republican to prop up the empty suit that is Obama. If Romney is the candidate, they'll turn on him in a heartbeat and we'll be stuck with a candidate that inspires no one.
I've always liked Newt and love to listen to him. I'm confident he can make the case in a debate format and in interview format. Don't know how the general public will receive him. Things are real bad right now and they may be more open to actually listen.
A strong challenge to Romney might force him to select a conservative running mate early, in order to sway/appease conservatives. He only came out with his entitlement plan after being forced to by polling. Maybe polling will force him to actively court conservatives.
Jun '10
Re: Newt Redux, or, the Robinson Response
The prosperity curve of the 1990s more closely follows the political ascendency of Newt Gingrich and the Republican House, than it does the political ascendency of Bill Clinton. Most of the time, they dragged Bill Clinton and the Democrats to surpluses and reform kicking and screaming. Newt has a great story to tell, and he's the one to tell it.
Re: Newt Redux, or, the Robinson Response
The King Prawn
Peter Robinson
I think I know the answer to this, Troy and Steve, but, just to be explict, let me ask the question: You're worried that a Gingrich defeat would affect other Republican races, denying the GOP the Senate and shrinking its majority in the House. Have I got that right? · Nov 14 at 5:31pm
Some see the nomination of Romney as the best way to deny the GOP the Senate and shrink its majority in the House. · Nov 14 at 5:35pm
Edited on Nov 14 at 05:40 pm
Exactly why I was asking. In his famous anti-Romney column of a couple of weeks ago, George Will made just this argument. I'm not sure Will is right about this, but I'm by no means sure he's wrong.
Dec '10
Re: Newt Redux, or, the Robinson Response
Must confess, I'm giving Newt a very long look and like what I'm seeing. My dad & I had a conversation at the very beginning of the race and he shocked me when he said that Newt was sounding like his candidate. I'd paid no attention to him then.
I'm definitely paying attention now.
No one debates like him. I'm convinced he'd wipe the floor with Obama, giving no quarter, and certainly not taking time off the campaign trail to go back to Congress to vote. Now, he just might take time off the trail to go to Hawaii (my boss ran into him on Maui earlier this year).
He stuffs the press. I'd pay money to see him in the WH press room staring down the current lap dog denizens that will turn into Rottweilers the moment the election results are final.
I pray this election will come down to voters standing in that voting booth and asking themselves who they really believe will be able, from day one, to return our country to the principles upon which we were founded.
That may well be Newt, heaven help us.
May '11
Re: Newt Redux, or, the Robinson Response
One of Newt's problems is that he will be perceived by the general electorate as an old inside Washington politician and yet he is very disliked by the inside Washington establishment. It is hard to envision the party rallying around Newt. When conservatives such as Tom Coburn say that Newt is the last man they would want for President, there is a problem. I don't think that is based just on personality and petty back room party grievances. There are many reasons his speakership ended in disgrace for him and it had more to do with not playing well with others than his marital indiscretions.
Oct '10
Re: Newt Redux, or, the Robinson Response
McCain did not run on "electability". He ran on being right on Iraq and The Surge in 2007 and he won the nomination. This was before the economic meltdown in sept 2008. Imagine if GOP voters have advanced knowledge of this prior to selecting their nominee. Romney could have won if the issue was the economy and his main rival was know-nothing-about-the-economy mccain. And general voters might have chosen Mitt over the unqualified and inexperienced Obama for the same reason.
Edited on Nov 14, 2011 at 7:03pmDec '10
Re: Newt Redux, or, the Robinson Response
I'm over wanting someone who will play well with others. I want a president that will take charge of the situation. I don't want an XO that will run the paperwork; I want a CO that will take the deck and the con, direct the helm on a heading, and order up a speed from maneuvering. Someone has to drive this ship.
Edited on Nov 14, 2011 at 7:00pmOct '10
Re: Newt Redux, or, the Robinson Response
The Only Way the Tea Party Survives beyond 2012, OR, the danger of nominating a Romney for the Republican Party
- if mitt romney is the nominee, the only way the tea party remains relevant is to see romney defeated. if romney loses to obama, then they can blame the establishment for not nominating a true conservative, and this sets the stage for a third party movement which will hurt the repubs more than the democrats.
- OTOH, if a weak non-romney Tea Party conservative gets the nomination and still loses to an unpopular Obama (using the Reid-Angle model), what will happen to the tea party after Nov 6, 2012?
Look, I'd rather have somebody else be the GOP nominee (pawlenty, daniels, christie), but i see the current field and i see one competent unacceptable candidate and the rest a weak bunch.
Re: Newt Redux, or, the Robinson Response
Peter Robinson
I think I know the answer to this, Troy and Steve, but, just to be explict, let me ask the question: You're worried that a Gingrich defeat would affect other Republican races, denying the GOP the Senate and shrinking its majority in the House. Have I got that right? · Nov 14 at 5:31pm
I can't speak for Troy, but if you accept his premise that a Gingrich candidacy could result in a "Goldwateresque" defeat, I think the risk is not just in the down-ticket races in '12, but in presidential as well as congressional races for years to come. Goldwater's defeat was followed by 16 years of overwhelming Democratic hegemony in Congress and simply God-awful presidents. Conservatism was effectively discredited in the eyes of 2/3 of the electorate for much of that time. And yes, it eventually regained its footing and found its popular champion in Ronald Reagan -- but 16 years is a long time, and a lot of damage was done, which Reagan only began to undo, and which we are still living with today. I understand the desire to swing for the fences -- but if we strike out???
Re: Newt Redux, or, the Robinson Response
John Marzan
McCain did not run on "electability". He ran on being right on Iraq and The Surge in 2007 and he won the nomination. This was before the economic meltdown in sept 2008. · Nov 14 at 6:54pm
This is an very good point. Don't forget that just before the meltdown, McCain was actually up a few points in most polls -- and this was when Obama was all "hope and change," with no record. I find the argument that a "centrist" can't beat Obama singularly unconvincing.
May '11
Re: Newt Redux, or, the Robinson Response
Gingrich became very unpopular with his co-workers in congress because of a tempermental, erratic and egotistical style of management that was excessive even for Washington politics. Even if he has mellowed in such a fashion that he is now wants to be the most humble man in Washington, his past will come back to haunt him. I would buy a ticket to listen to him debate anyone you could name but he is well down on my list of preferences in this primary.
Re: Newt Redux, or, the Robinson Response
Steve Manacek
John Marzan
McCain did not run on "electability". He ran on being right on Iraq and The Surge in 2007 and he won the nomination. This was before the economic meltdown in sept 2008. · Nov 14 at 6:54pm
This is an very good point. Don't forget that just before the meltdown, McCain was actually up a few points in most polls -- and this was when Obama was all "hope and change," with no record. I find the argument that a "centrist" can't beat Obama singularly unconvincing. · Nov 14 at 7:22pm
I may be far afield here,..but given the singular disaster that Obama has visited on the country, and the resulting stampede of independents away from him and his party, I think Mark Levin's orange juice can could beat him. This race is imminently winnable. The question for me then becomes; who best to roll back the collectivist damage? A centrist could beat him,...but could a centrist pull us back from the cliff?
Re: Newt Redux, or, the Robinson Response
Dave Carter
I may be far afield here,..but given the singular disaster that Obama has visited on the country, and the resulting stampede of independents away from him and his party, I think Mark Levin's orange juice can could beat him.... · Nov 14 at 7:35pm
Well, that's the million-dollar question, isn't it? I'd give a lot to believe it, but at least for now I don't. The gold standard in unpopular incumbency was set by Jimmy Carter and roughly equaled by GWB. Obama has yet to poll anywhere near their levels of disapproval. At the moment, he is barely underwater in the Real Clear Politics average. Is it all that hard to imagine, with just a little bit better economic news, his approval ratings crossing the 50% mark? I don't think so.
At the time, liberals never understood what ordinary people "saw" in Reagan -- and so they consistently underestimated him. Those of us who don't get what anyone "sees" in Obama need to remember that not all the ordinary people have give up on this guy yet.
Oct '10
Re: Newt Redux, or, the Robinson Response
Dave Carter
I may be far afield here,..but given the singular disaster that Obama has visited on the country, and the resulting stampede of independents away from him and his party, I think Mark Levin's orange juice can could beat him. This race is imminently winnable. The question for me then becomes; who best to roll back the collectivist damage? A centrist could beat him,...but could a centrist pull us back from the cliff? · Nov 14 at 7:35pm
How do you think a vulnerable and unpopular Harry Reid won over a well funded and fully backed (by tea partiers and GOP establishment) candidate like Sharron Angle? By taking advantage of the GOP's weak candidate and making her unacceptable to general voters. Reid was losing to the generic republican candidate in rasmussen prior to Angle's nomination.
Wish Christie, Daniels or Pawlenty are in the race, but it's just romney and the anti-romneys.
Edited on Nov 14, 2011 at 8:26pmMar '11
Re: Newt Redux, or, the Robinson Response
Dave Carter
I may be far afield here,..but given the singular disaster that Obama has visited on the country, and the resulting stampede of independents away from him and his party, I think Mark Levin's orange juice can could beat him. This race is imminently winnable. The question for me then becomes; who best to roll back the collectivist damage? A centrist could beat him,...but could a centrist pull us back from the cliff? ·
So Dave, Paul Rahe, and many others seem to think that Obama is a house of cards that the slightest gust can topple, whereas most of us "reluctant Romneyacs" look at the polls and think that, barring an Obama meltdown, this race will be a nail-biter under the best of circumstances.
First point: I think you guys don't appreciate how easily independents can be scared by tough conservative talk back to Obama.
Second point: Gingrich may be the only current candidate who can appeal to both groups: he's bringing out the conservative philosophical red meat now, but he can always fall back on his previous love-ins with the left to prove he's not that threatening after all.
Edited on Nov 14, 2011 at 8:25pmOct '10
Re: Newt Redux, or, the Robinson Response
Mendel
Dave Carter
I may be far afield here,..but given the singular disaster that Obama has visited on the country, and the resulting stampede of independents away from him and his party, I think Mark Levin's orange juice can could beat him. This race is imminently winnable. The question for me then becomes; who best to roll back the collectivist damage? A centrist could beat him,...but could a centrist pull us back from the cliff? ·
So Dave, Paul Rahe, and many others seem to think that Obama is a house of cards that the slightest gust can topple, whereas most of us "reluctant Romneyacs" look at the polls and think that, barring an Obama meltdown, this race will be a nail-biter under the best of circumstances.
Krauthammer: GOP's big resurgence is over.