Ramesh Ponnuru: The Case Against Newt
Writing today at Bloomberg View, Ramesh Ponnuru makes the most powerful case against Newt that I've seen (at least in a single column). Excerpts:
The race for the Republican nomination appears to have come down to two intelligent, knowledgeable men in Gingrich and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Neither of them has a history of down-the-line conservatism. Gingrich can match Romney flip-flop for flip-flop and heresy for heresy. He has supported cap-and-trade legislation, federal funding for embryonic stem- cell research, the expansion of Medicare to cover prescription drugs and a federal requirement for everyone to buy health insurance. He has been neither more consistent nor more conservative than Romney.
True, Gingrich has done more to advance the cause of conservatism than Romney. But he’s also done more to damage it. He lost his job as speaker of the House because conservative representatives were fed up with his inconstancy....
Gingrich’s energy and creativity are admirable, within limits. But recognizing his own limits is not a Gingrich specialty. Voters are likely to see, as he cannot, that he is temperamentally unsuited for the presidency.
In re which, two questions--to which, fwiw, I honestly have no answers:
One: Does Ramesh's case against Newt necessarily represent a case for Mitt? Or does it argue instead for taking look at Huntsman? And a second look at Perry?
Two: "Voters," Ramesh writes, "are likely to see" Newt's many shortcomings. When?
- Comment (66)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Nov '10
Re: Ramesh Ponnuru: The Case Against Newt
Huntsman will work for term limits. Term limits would fix so, so much in government. I'm trending to Huntsman.
Dec '10
Re: Ramesh Ponnuru: The Case Against Newt
The Republican purification process seems a little flawed. We keep the dross and throw out the silver. We're down to the last not-Romneys and Romney, who is the reason we've been so fired up for anyone other than him. So, the case against Newt does not argue for Romney. I've seen hints within the punditocracy of a look at Huntsman and a second look at Perry. George Will is most notable in this regard.
May '10
Re: Ramesh Ponnuru: The Case Against Newt
#1: While I'm tempted by Newt, one true strength of Mitt Romney is his organizational ability. I know conservatives have often dismissed this quality as merely being "technocratic" but the President is an executive position. He has to be a manager as well as a leader. The lack of serious management is one major flaw in the Obama administration. Newt is clearly no manager.
I can see myself and other center-right Republicans supporting Huntsman if it weren't for his obvious contempt for, well, us. The icing on the cake is his media-darling status with the Left. Maybe it's a knee-jerk reaction, but I can't support a man who has been Arianna Huffington's preferred GOP candidate for months.
#2: The "Not Mitt" candidates seem to have a shelf-life of one major gaffe before the base turns to the next flavor of the month. Judging by his history, I imagine Gingrich will make a self-aggrandizing statement so absurd he will become the fodder for late-night comedians for weeks. The base will eventually move on once he is properly vetted.
Edited on Dec 6, 2011 at 12:26pmRe: Ramesh Ponnuru: The Case Against Newt
While much of this critique hits the mark, I disagree strongly with one line which gets a little too cute: "Gingrich can match Romney flip-flop for flip-flop".
In sheer numbers, perhaps. Gingrich was a legislator, not an executive. His opinion has clearly changed on a number of issues since he arrived in Congress two-plus decades ago. But on big, hot-button issues? There is simply no comparison between the two. Either that, or I missed where Newt Gingrich flip-flopped on abortion, gun rights, flat taxes, or Ronald Reagan.
Apr '11
Re: Ramesh Ponnuru: The Case Against Newt
Ramesh endorsed Romney at NR the other day, so it is unlikely that he is suggesting another look at Huntsman.
Jun '11
Re: Ramesh Ponnuru: The Case Against Newt
My responses to your three-part first question, in order:
Yes.
No.
No.
And this from someone who fell briefly in love with every "not Romney" who came along.
Jun '10
Re: Ramesh Ponnuru: The Case Against Newt
Unlike Obama, Gingrich doesn't just dither around and vote "present." Right or wrong, Newt always has a definite opinion based on something tangible. He's also willing to listen to new evidence and change his opinion. But, he comes to a decision, he shows his hand. Even just that is a big improvement over what we have now. I guess I care more about HOW people decide things than if they''re sometimes dead wrong. I'm sometimes dead wrong too, but I can be convinced to change. With Obama, there's no change (of mind) ever. Rather ironic now.
Edited on Dec 6, 2011 at 12:34pmApr '11
Re: Ramesh Ponnuru: The Case Against Newt
Mr. Robinson and Mr. Ponnuru manifest the 13th Floor effect. Ron Paul leads Romney in Iowa. He's right behind Newt, yet nary a mention.
This isn't like climate science, sirs. Reality matters.
Edited on Dec 6, 2011 at 12:36pmApr '11
Re: Ramesh Ponnuru: The Case Against Newt
Plus, he's kind of a social conservative. Huntsman is appealing if you're all about spending, but he was never going to be Ponnuru's guy.
May '10
Re: Ramesh Ponnuru: The Case Against Newt
I guess too many of us don't know what or who we're for, only what or who we are against.
When we play that game, we are playing Obama's game. Let us do all of their opposition research and slice one another's throats! Welcome to the Party of Stupid!
Edited on Dec 6, 2011 at 12:43pmDec '11
Re: Ramesh Ponnuru: The Case Against Newt
Romney does not have a conservative soul. He doesnt really believe in the policy, its convienent, and only held since he decided that he wanted to be president. He has never been a warrior in the fight, there is no burning core of conviction on anything, outside of maybe his church, wife, and family. Conservativism is a vehicle for promotion of Romney. Now gingrich has the soul of a conservative, he has been a warrior in the fight, while he also spirits all around the landscape, his heart is with the core ideas of conservativism. Sure Gingrich is unpredictable, and the same intellectual hubris that gives global warming some attention is the hubris that will shut down the government (which has been working for belgium for a few years now with fabulous results apparently) to get a decent budget.
Romney will be conservative and will cut spending until 10 seconds after he receives substantial pushback. He cant win the arguement because he doesn't believe it. The day needs more than winning an election, you can put republican butts in seats and still not have a mandate for the policy change. Ask Obama and Pelosi on failure to aquire buyin.
Jun '11
Re: Ramesh Ponnuru: The Case Against Newt
EJHill
I guess too many of us don't know what or who we're for, only what or who we are against.
When we play that game, we are playing Obama's game. Let us do all of their opposition research and slice one another's throats! Welcome to the Party of Stupid! · Dec 6 at 12:39pm
I agree, but my fear is that Gingrich will, sooner or later, slice his own throat in a spectacularly boneheaded fashion. Better to draw a little blood now and see how he recovers?
Dec '10
Re: Ramesh Ponnuru: The Case Against Newt
Jeff Younger: Mr. Robinson and Mr. Ponnuru manifest the 13th Floor effect. Ron Paul leads Romney in Iowa. He's right behind Newt, yet nary a mention.
This isn't like climate science, sirs. Reality matters. · Dec 6 at 12:34pm
You might as well give up. You will not convince people who study the world to go for Paul. Ever. He may be dead on accurate with domestic things, but he is bat guano crazy on everything else.
Jun '10
Re: Ramesh Ponnuru: The Case Against Newt
Gamgee for President.
Apr '11
Re: Ramesh Ponnuru: The Case Against Newt
Answer to question two: as soon as low-information moderate voters start tuning in next summer-fall, and are subjected to Obama's massive ad campaign highlighting Newt's past intemperate or weird statements ("Kenyan anti-colonial attitudes," child labor laws are stupid, etc.) that seem calculated to terrify Nice White Ladies. For good measure, the press can bring out more info about his unsavory private life, ethics fine, lobbying, etc. ad infinitum.
We who frequently read and comment on political websites tend to overestimate how clued-in the average voter is at this stage of the process. There is a lot people have forgotten about Newt's day in the sun in the mid-late 90's (when he was regularly out-dueled by Bill Clinton, as Ponnuru notes). Once they get a little reminder from Obama and the media, they will remember why they hated him so.
May '10
Re: Ramesh Ponnuru: The Case Against Newt
Take a good look at the pictures chosen by Peter to accompany this post... Ramesh calmly looking into the lens, Newt downcast and frustrated, as if losing Ponnuru's endorsement is a disappointment... Playing the mainstream media's game, too, are we?
Oct '10
Re: Ramesh Ponnuru: The Case Against Newt
Jeff Younger: Mr. Robinson and Mr. Ponnuru manifest the 13th Floor effect. Ron Paul leads Romney in Iowa. He's right behind Newt, yet nary a mention.
This isn't like climate science, sirs. Reality matters.
I think the lack of attention to Ron Paul is because he's an orthodox libertarian rather than a Republican. If the GOP nominates Ron Paul, that means it's really the Libertarian Party and that's not the case. The GOP isn't going to nominate a 1930s style isolationist as its candidate.
Colin B Lane
I agree, but my fear is that Gingrich will, sooner or later, slice his own throat in a spectacularly boneheaded fashion. Better to draw a little blood now and see how he recovers?
Waiting for that Howard Dean scream? It really does sort of feel like Newt could throw a campaign destroying bomb at any moment.
Peter Robinson
In re which, two questions--to which, fwiw, I honestly have no answers:
Oh, and Peter, because you admit you have no answers...Newt Judges You.
Aug '10
Re: Ramesh Ponnuru: The Case Against Newt
The past is not necessarily prologue. Ramesh leaves no room for maturation.
What are we going to do when we get there ? Build the Olympic Village ?
We need some legislative wizardry in the armory if we are lucky enough to win. The town will be full of liberal cabals and they will need rooting out. Sappers will be rounded up, snipers shot from trees,and the home guard dismantled. Consider denazification ,only in Washington and call it a different name. Temperamentally unsuited for president ? It's going to be an occupation for awhile.
Apr '11
Re: Ramesh Ponnuru: The Case Against Newt
The King Prawn
You might as well give up. You will not convince people who study the world to go for Paul. Ever. He may be dead on accurate with domestic things, but he is bat guano crazy on everything else. · Dec 6 at 12:45pm
I wasn't trying to convince; I prefer clarity to agreement.
I'm canvasing for accurate reports. At this point, Paul is second and almost first in the race among Republicans. This is an objective fact.
The blackout on Paul inaccurately portrays the will of Republican voters. I don't think it is intentional. We tend to report within our own horizons. I'm asking people to take higher ground, to see a little farther than normal, to bring lots of other Republican voters within their compass. I think that's reasonable.
Apr '11
Re: Ramesh Ponnuru: The Case Against Newt
Ben Domenech: While much of this critique hits the mark, I disagree strongly with one line which gets a little too cute: "Gingrich can match Romney flip-flop for flip-flop".
In sheer numbers, perhaps. Gingrich was a legislator, not an executive. His opinion has clearly changed on a number of issues since he arrived in Congress two-plus decades ago. But on big, hot-button issues? There is simply no comparison between the two. Either that, or I missed where Newt Gingrich flip-flopped on abortion, gun rights, flat taxes, or Ronald Reagan. ·
Mitt hasn't flipped on flat taxes, either. He wants to flatten and simplify taxes now, and has done since '94 at the latest. He doesn't want to go all the way to a flat tax, though, and has never done so. Likewise gun rights, which he supported as governor, and supports now.
It's true that Mitt moved on abortion laws (although he was pretty fanatically pro-life within his church before then; has Newt ever run into a hospital to stop a woman from aborting her kid?). Reagan... half true. Still: individual mandates, the surge, CAGW, universal laptops, Libya (repeatedly)..... Not important/ comparable?