Mitt vs. Newt
WASHINGTON — It’s Iowa minus one month, and barring yet another resurrection, or something of similar improbability, it’s Mitt Romney versus Newt Gingrich. In a match race, here’s the scorecard:
Romney has managed to weather the debates unscathed. However, the brittleness he showed when confronted with the kind of informed follow-up questions that Bret Baier tossed his way Tuesday on Fox’s “Special Report”—the kind of scrutiny one doesn’t get in multiplayer debates—suggests that Romney may become increasingly vulnerable as the field narrows.
Moreover, Romney has profited from the temporary rise and spontaneous combustion of Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Herman Cain. It required no exertion on Romney’s part.
Enter Gingrich, the current vessel for anti-Romney forces—and likely the final one. Gingrich’s obvious weakness is a history of flip-flops, zigzags and mind changes even more extensive than Romney’s—on climate change, the health care mandate, cap-and-trade, Libya, the Ryan Medicare plan, etc.
The list is long. But what distinguishes Gingrich from Romney—and mitigates these heresies in the eyes of conservatives—is that he authored a historic conservative triumph: the 1994 Republican takeover of the House after 40 years of Democratic control. Which means that Gingrich’s apostasies are seen as deviations from his conservative core—while Romney’s flip-flops are seen as deviations from … nothing.
Romney has no signature achievement, legislation or manifesto that identifies him as a core conservative. So what is he? A center-right, classic Northeastern Republican who, over time, has adopted a specific, quite bold, thoroughly conservative platform. His entitlement reform, for example, is more courageous than that of any candidate, including Barack Obama. Nevertheless, the party base, ostentatiously pursuing serial suitors-of-the-month, considers him ideologically unreliable. Hence the current ardor for Gingrich.
Gingrich has his own vulnerabilities. The first is often overlooked because it is characterological rather than ideological: his own unreliability. Gingrich has a self-regard so immense that it rivals Obama’s—but, unlike Obama’s, is untamed by self-discipline.
Take that ad Gingrich did with Nancy Pelosi on global warming advocating urgent government action. He laughs it off today with “that is probably the dumbest single thing I’ve done in recent years. It is inexplicable.”
This will not do. He was obviously thinking something. What was it? Thinking of himself as a grand world-historical figure, attuned to the latest intellectual trend (preferably one with a tinge of futurism and science, like global warming), demonstrating his own incomparable depth and farsightedness. Made even more profound and fundamental—his favorite adjectives—if done in collaboration with a Nancy Pelosi, Patrick Kennedy or even Al Sharpton, offering yet more evidence of transcendent, trans-partisan uniqueness.
Two ideologically problematic finalists: One is a man of center-right temperament who has of late adopted a conservative agenda. The other, more conservative by nature, is possessed of an unbounded need for grand display that has already led him to unconservative places even he is at a loss to explain, and that as president would leave him in constant search of the out-of-box experience—the confoundedly brilliant Nixon-to-China flipperoo regarding his fancy of the day, be it health care, taxes, energy, foreign policy, whatever.
The second, more obvious, Gingrich vulnerability is electability. Given his considerable service to the movement, many conservatives seem quite prepared to overlook his baggage, ideological and otherwise. This is understandable. But the independents and disaffected Democrats upon whom the general election will hinge will not be so forgiving.
They will find it harder to overlook the fact that the man who denounces Freddie Mac to the point of suggesting that those in Congress who aided and abetted it be imprisoned, took $30,000 a month from that very same parasitic federal creation. Nor will independents be so willing to believe that more than $1.5 million was paid for Gingrich’s advice as “a historian” rather than for services as an influence peddler.
My own view is that Republicans would have been better served by the candidacies of Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan or Chris Christie. Unfortunately, none is running. You play the hand you’re dealt. This is a weak Republican field with two significantly flawed front-runners contesting an immensely important election. If Obama wins, he will take the country to a place from which it will not be able to return (which is precisely his own objective for a second term).
Every conservative has thus to ask himself two questions: Who is more likely to prevent that second term? And who, if elected, is less likely to unpleasantly surprise?
Charles Krauthammer is a columnist for the Washington Post. His email address is letters@charleskrauthammer.com.
Dec 6, 2011 at 4:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
SuperDave:
Funny you said that, because I tuned into the GOP headquarters (Fox News) and Krauthammer was on the panel at the end. All the talk was, who will win, Newt or Mitt? Then someone on the panel says "Paul is near the top in Iowa, and may win that caucus" , and Krauthammer was like, that doesn't matter..Just brushed it aside, and they went back talking about their chosen finalists. Paul made an EXCELLENT move by DECLINING, and publicly MOCKING that SHAM of a debate run by Donald Trump, saying it was a mockery to the office, and beneath a Presidential candidate..A PERFECT response...A least someone still has sense in this race. Why not just have the WWE all stars host the next debate. Whoever Trump endorses is GREAT HELP...I always love the ANTI endorsement angle. Just see who the biggest clown gives their endorsement to, and you go against that person!
Dec 5, 2011 at 3:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Neither of these guys are conservatives. They both stink of liberalism, and flip flop to suit the day.
Dec 5, 2011 at 3:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Oh, and if there was a way to get off the Newt 2012 robo call list, I sure would like to know of it. Those @$#&%$@# have been calling my house literally 5-6 times a day; as early as 7 AM, and as late as 9PM...That ALONE is enough to make me NEVER vote for the guy. In complete seriousness, if I EVER get a robo call for a candidate, I will NEVER vote for them. It's beyond a waste of my time. More like a total insult to me!
Dec 5, 2011 at 3:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
If anyone saw Newt back in the summer coming out of this thing, I sure hope you bet it, because you may likely cash a lottery ticket on that one. He was so written off after making negative comments toward his own party leadership (Paul Ryan) and firing all his campaign staff, and heading on European Cruse, that he was literally over 500/1 odds on Intrade. He was a far bigger longshot then picking the Cleveland Browns to win the Super Bowl, or the Kansas city Royals winning the world series!
.
Barring a total collapse, I don't see Newt losing it now. He is so politically savvy, that he won't make mistakes, and implode like Cain and Perry did, when they took the lead..He has all the momentum, and most republicans don't like Romney...They just chose him because they think he can beat Obama.
.
FOTH: I say Ron Paul 2012 as an INDEPENDENT-3rd party candidate!!
Dec 5, 2011 at 10:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Nothing is more deeply entrenched than the IGNORANCE of the "experts"........
Dec 4, 2011 at 8:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Charles! Stop ignoring Ron Paul!
Dec 4, 2011 at 6:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Sorry, Barack not Barrack
Dec 4, 2011 at 6:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
tthompson...you are right! Some times I wonder why we spend so much of our time arguing about our politicians who really don't care about us, just what's in it for them and winning the next election. We should put our time to better use, don't you think? We hurl insults at each other and get angry and really, what for? We are all in this together, sink or swim.
Dec 4, 2011 at 5:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ron Paul 2012!
Dec 3, 2011 at 10:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Dems may be shallow. I've also seen repubs type president obamas middle name on numerous occasions. Depth?? No ones party is free of shallowness...or hypocrisy
Dec 3, 2011 at 8:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Barrack? Haha, you've been spending too much time hanging around soldiers.
Dec 3, 2011 at 7:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
JohnWicket... and you think the name Barrack sounds good? Should we be concerned about the name? How shallow Dems are!
Dec 3, 2011 at 6:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
""Republicans claim to be fiscal conservatives but never seem to follow through on that. Watching Newt speak makes my skin crawl. Obama has lied and lied. RonPaul2012"" we agree!! Now I would rather have Buddy Roemer(Republican) be pres but as crazy as Paul is he is HONEST and intelligent, and on top of all consistent.
Unlike Mitt, Holy Cow what a flip flopper makes John Kerry look like a rock!!
Yeah what did RAF say that got removed? I cant remember the last time that happened!!
Dec 3, 2011 at 6:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
"" I agree we should go back to the principles of the founding fathers: slaves and a government run by the minority"" Excellent and VERY true!!
Dec 3, 2011 at 6:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Robot in Tokyo said, ""Both of them suck. Career politicians."" Then why is it you continue to shoot your mouth off in favor of Scott Walker , another "career politician"?
Dec 3, 2011 at 6:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Acai- Newt is principaled? He has CHEATED on 2 wives, he has been a "historian" for Freddie and Fannie and taken over 100,000 an hour from them for advice, all while talking about how others involved with them should be in Prison? That is founding fathers style principaled? WOW the GOP has changed since I left about 7 years ago!! Goodness!!
This question should be ," Beavis Vs Butthead". Repubs should be asking why the best candidates either don't run or can't get the support monetarily to be heard. BC thats what it takes to just get in the debates, how sad!! Buddy Roemer is the best repub out there, followed by Paul, and huntsman, yet michelle Bachman and Rick Perry have had their moments in the sun? They must really not care about replacing Obama. They can't.
Dec 3, 2011 at 5:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
916WI,
You seem to be under the impression that to become POTUS a candidate is required to have a business background. You act as though President Obama was just allowed to take office even though he didn't fit your imaginary requirement. Obama was, as you mentioned, a community organizer. Of course, you neglected to mention that he was also a lawyer prior to running for office. You can criticize Obama's resume all you want, but you know what's on there that isn't on Romney's or Gingrich's? President of the United States. The fact is that his record shows people going back to work while Romney's shows jobs and lives being destroyed. Gingrich's record...well, he likes to think that shutting down the government was his bright shining moment; that and cheating on his extremely ill wives. Note the plural form. So, if you think I'm not "classy" for pointing out the monumental failures of these two possible Presidential candidates, I'm perfectly fine with that. I'll back the man who has helped more people than he's hurt over two men whom have hurt more people than they've helped.
Dec 3, 2011 at 5:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Robot_Lord said, "Both of them suck."
-
We agree on something!
-
RAF said, "(This comment was removed by the site staff.)"
-
Behave yourself, raffy.
Dec 3, 2011 at 5:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yeah, Gary, anyone except Herman Cain. :-O
Dec 3, 2011 at 4:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Actually, it's a good test for the "anyone but Romney crowd".
Anyone?
Really?
Dec 3, 2011 at 4:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
There's a candidate that the media doesn't discuss much, because he would rock the status quo of the power and monied elite. He's now within striking distance of winning Iowa and trending up. And active military members want him to be President more than any other GOP candidate and more than Obama. http://www.politifact.com/texas/statemen...
Dec 3, 2011 at 4:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sort of a Letterman Oscar Oprah Uma moment.
Mitt, meet Newt,
Newt, meet Mitt.
Dec 3, 2011 at 4:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Republicans claim to be fiscal conservatives but never seem to follow through on that. Watching Newt speak makes my skin crawl. Obama has lied and lied. RonPaul2012
Dec 3, 2011 at 1:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
When either of these two win, will the Senate Democrats run to Mexico when the new Pres submits his budget?
Dec 3, 2011 at 12:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
President Newt, President Mitt? I have a problem with those names. They remind me of a children's book on amphibians or a first grade reader(recall Mitt?) Not RECALL Mitt, just think about him. Few of these candidates are capable of instilling confidence in the office of the Presidency. Why is the Republican leadership not fielding a better group of candidates? Are they trying to lose?
Dec 3, 2011 at 11:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
Yes Wally, it must be so nice for Obama to sit back on his resume as a "community organizer", never having any experience in the business world, while having his followers blast his opponents for having to make the difficult decisions that Obama didn't have the drive or ambition to put himself in the position to make in the first place. Really great point you made there buddy! Stay classy!
Dec 3, 2011 at 10:11 a.m.
Dec 3, 2011 at 9:37 a.m.
Dec 3, 2011 at 9:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Newt is better than Herman because he at least left his wiveS rather than having a long term affair?? smh
Ron Paul 2012!!
Dec 3, 2011 at 9:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Romney destroyed the lives of hundreds of workers at an Indiana facory in the 90's when his company took over another. These hardworking taxpayers came back from the July 4th holiday to find that they had all been fired.
Gingrich recently described the two month stretch earlier this year beginning when his entire campaign staff summarily resigned as the hardest 2 months of his life. Let's examine this. Gingrich has been through seeing his wife in the hospital battling MS. He's also seen his wife (a different wife mind you) in the hospital battling cancer. These events didn't strike him as being more difficult than when is campaign staff quit on him? Perhaps that's because he has ways of softening those personal hardships like serving his first wife with divorce papers as she recovered from cancer surgery so he could run off with his mistress who he would eventually marry, cheat on and divorce as well.
Pick your poison, Republicans. President Obama is more than ready for either one.
Dec 3, 2011 at 9:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
I agree we should go back to the principles of the founding fathers: slaves and a government run by the minority.
Dec 3, 2011 at 9:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Dumb vs Dumber
Dec 3, 2011 at 9:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Both of them suck. Career politicians. Mark Neumann made me laugh this week when he said that he's the only candidate for Senate who has a track record in business. Career politician. What the hell is he talking about?? Does he realize how stupid he sounds? Dark days ahead....dark indeed.
Dec 3, 2011 at 9:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Wow. The hell of being a Republican in a few hundred words. Good luck with all that you guys...OK so this one's in the bag. Who are we runnin' in 2016? Hilary Clinton? Russ Feingold?
Dec 3, 2011 at 9:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
We wouldn't want Newt...NO, a person who actually believes in the founding fathers principles that have kept this country alive for over 200+ years. Let's just keep empowering people to continue to compromise those principles like the Clinton's, Bush's and Obama's have. This country is gravely ill and everyone thinks a band-aid will fix it.
Dec 3, 2011 at 8:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
not newt.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.