Posted on | November 15, 2011 | 100 Comments
Just now, I called Dan Collins to talk about the grim prospect that threatens to destroy all hope of carrying forward the Tea Party momentum of the 2010 midterms: Mitt vs. Newt as the final showdown for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination. Dan was saying that this has provided him an occasion to remember all the reasons he can’t stand Newt Gingrich.
The idea that Newt could fill the role of a champion of grassroots conservatism against the Republican Establishment is so absurd as to be laughable, if the situation were not so tragic.
“The limits of Newt Gingrich’s staying power” is the Washington Post headline expressing what is perhaps the only hopeful aspect of the most recent polls: The Newt Bubble can’t possibly last, and eventually some other Not Romney will emerge as the leading alternative. However, viewing the situation as it stands now — seven weeks before the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses — by the time the Newt Bubble ends, there will be little time for any other Not Romney to raise the big money needed to fund a campaign against Romney in Florida.
Gingrich Said Paid by Freddie Mac to Win Allies
— Bloomberg News
Gingrich needs to explain what
he did for Freddie and Fannie
— Jennifer Rubin
Yeah, a bit more attention to that kind of stuff would be helpful. This whole “Second look at Gingrich” nonsense — I’m looking at you, Ed Morrissey — is almost as much a waste of time as the Jon Huntsman campaign, and the sooner people wake up and realize it, the better.
Da Tech Guy has excoriated me for my anti-Gingrich attitude, but I’m serious and will repeat what I said yesterday: To support Newt is tantamount to advocating the re-election of Barack Obama.
Anyone who thinks Newt can beat Obama is delusional. As bad as Romney is, he’s not worse than Gingrich, and if this Newt Bubble isn’t deflated PDQ, I fear that I might be stuck making that argument next February, a profoundly depressing prospect.
UPDATE: My friend Jeffrey Lord has taken leave of his senses. Comparing Gingrich to Winston Churchill? The most obvious difference is that the latter was a man of action, who understood that deeds counted more than words.
Churchill’s disrepute among his political rivals can be attributed chiefly to their envy of his superior qualities. The way Churchill, as First Lord of the Admiralty, became the scapegoat for the failure of the Gallipoli campaign is one episode that must be studied to see how Churchill was damaged by this resentment. He had won early fame in the Boer War and self-interested rivals, concerned mainly with their own status, viewed Churchill’s success as likely to result in their own eclipse — as of course it ultimately did, but only after their had kept him in the wilderness during the years of appeasement in the 1930s.