The return of Newt

Newt is now leading in the polls. This is weird. After his campaign staff quit on him a few months ago, I figured he would have dropped out of the race by now. But instead, he is in first place.

At least Newt is smart. Unlike Perry, Cain, and Bachmann. If someone other than Romney has to win the Republican nomination, Newt is the best second choice.

Would evangelical Christians prefer to vote for Newt, who converted to Catholicism and has many moral issues in his past, over Mitt Romney the Mormon? Is this what’s happening?

* * *

My opinion is that, although Newt is the candidate I would most like to have a beer with, I think that Romney is the candidate most likely to beat Obama. And even if Gingrich magically wins, I think that President Romney would be better at getting things accomplished than President Gingrich. Gingrich is also left of Romney on immigration. As far as I can tell, the only reason why people think that Romney isn’t “conservative” enough is because he flip-flopped on abortion (big deal, I’m glad he’s not an anti-abortion fanatic, we don't need more babies in this country), and because he doesn’t advocate for some gimmicky and stupid tax rewrite that would never happen anyway.

Comments

[MC]

If evangelicals vote for Newt just because he is more "Christian" than Mitt Romney, then they have no comprehension of what "Christian" means.

[Commander Shepard]

No mention of Newt's shady 1.5 million dollar work with Freddie Mac as a "historian" offering "strategic advice".

[Thrasymachus]

Gingrich is the only politician to make a direct challenge to the system. He was crushed, but he should get credit for trying.

Republican voters are just casting about for somebody, anybody, who might challenge the system. Romney will ultimately get nominated, because he ran last time, and is the only electable candidate. He will not challenge the system.

[Who-no]

Newt will drop off. Just wait, he'll start getting testy with the media again, the other candidates will start to attack him more in the coming debates and his hypocrisy, inconsistencies and gaffes will come back to derail him.

Besides, he looks funny and walks like a grade school fat boy. Seriously, look at the way he walks. He has a weird gait.

Romney is the only one in the republic field who is both smart and good looking (except. Of course for Huntsman, but he could never get anything going).

Romney is going to get the nomination.

[nooffensebut]

Romney can afford to lose Iowa, but I am shocked to see that he is practically tied in New Hampshire! This sense that Gingrich is good enough actually makes him more dangerous to the conservative cause than the non-reader, Cain. Gingrich would not beat Obama. Only Romney is beating Obama in current polls, and Obama would mine the rich reserves of Newtisms. (“If combat means living in a ditch, females have biological problems staying in a ditch for 30 days because they get infections…”) The biggest criticism of Romney is that he is too moderate, a charge that evaporates in the general election. The real reason for needing an anti-Romney is Mormonism, not health care. Once again, dumb Republicans are doing their best to keep a Mormon out of the White House, at the expense of losing national elections even before the minority majority, and this election will probably switch the Supreme Court back to the left if Obama wins.

[Kaz]

Just another god damn shill.

[dearieme]

I wouldn't mind voting for a cradle Catholic but I'd hesitate at a convert. They tend to be loopy.

[DaveinHackensack]

"I think that Romney is the candidate most likely to beat Obama. And even if Gingrich magically wins, I think that President Romney would be better at getting things accomplished than President Gingrich."

That's correct on both counts.

"Gingrich is the only politician to make a direct challenge to the system. He was crushed, but he should get credit for trying."

Gingrich was a revolutionary -- he got the GOP its first Congressional majority in forty years. That was huge. But, except perhaps for welfare reform, which he got in concert with Clinton, he failed to make much material, lasting change in government. This is the lesson hard-headed Republicans need to understand:

Democrats have shown an ability to change the system enormously on their own (Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, etc.), but for Republicans to make major domestic policy moves, they need to work with Democrats. That's what Reagan did with the 1987 tax reform (with Sen. Bill Bradley). That's what Romney did in MA with Romney Care.

Now, of all the Republican candidates, ask yourself which one will be most likely to negotiate successfully with Dems. The answer is obvious: Romney.

And for those of you concerned that Romney is a little too ideologically malleable, consider that a feature, not a bug: vote in enough conservative Republicans in Congress, and he'll tilt more in their direction.

[Prole]

"the only reason why people think that Romney isn’t “conservative” enough is because he flip-flopped on abortion"

And because he seems to be the chosen man of party insiders.

"Would evangelical Christians prefer to vote for Newt, who converted to Catholicism and has many moral issues in his past, over Mitt Romney the Mormon?"

Evangelicals have the same view of Mormanism as Jews do of Messianic Jews.

"Is this what’s happening?"

No. Conservatives don't want the established Republican, or anything that smells of it. You need to understand how toxic the parties history is of shoving these guys down conservatives throats

[Prole]

nooffensebut:

"The real reason for needing an anti-Romney is Mormonism"

For some, but not enough to make a deal. Conservatives want a fight. They are ready to "die on that hill", Romney will not pick a fight...

[Playing Roots Backwards]

Do any of you actually remember Newt's reign as Speaker Of The House? He was great. He kept members of both parties pissed off at him most of the time, sometimes without an obvious reason, so he must be capable of playing a good behind-the-scenes game.

He proposed taking the future hood rats, hookers and gang-bangers away from their welfare queen mothers and having them raised in facilities similar to Boys Town.

He twisted Clinton's nuts hard enough to make him get on board with his efforts to balance the budget.

He pushed through legislation to reform welfare.

I personally don't care what his religion is or how many wives he's screwed around on, nor do I care that he made a lot of money peddling his knowledge to Fanny and Freddy. Looking at the rest of the Republican lineup puts me in a mood to overlook a lot in Newt's past.

You've all heard Huey Long's much quoted line: "He'll get elected unless he gets caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy." Well, I intend on voting for Newt in the primaries even if he gets caught in the sack with three of each AND a miniature donkey.

Any other choice would be suicidal.

[Sid]

I've heard that Newt Gingrich is a horrible manager. People are usually left wondering what to do. If he makes a deal with one person on a topic, he'll cut a deal with someone else which opposes the previous one. In that respect, he seems a bit like Nixon. The fact that his campaign staff quit on him last summer evidences this to me.

I like Newt in a lot of ways, but he's more or less the Republican Hillary Clinton: he's liked by his own party because of what he did in the 90s, but he's anathema to the opposing party. In the 90s, there was no real competitor to the US (in the 80s, the USSR competed with us militarily, and Japan and Germany competed with us economically. In the 2000s, we worried about Islamic terrorist attacks, and China and India really began putting down the economic gauntlet). Consequently, Republicans and Democrats had no one to hate but each other.

In short, Newt is great ideas man, but from what I gather, he's not the best at management. Furthermore, he has a lot of baggage and acrimony from the left. Obama destroyed Gaddafi with a billion dollars. Obama is gonna have that kind of campaign money, and I'm not confident that Newt will be able to withstand the barrage.

[DaveinHackensack]

"He twisted Clinton's nuts hard enough to make him get on board with his efforts to balance the budget."

Is that what happened? Clinton raised income taxes (though he cut cap gains taxes), while shrinking the military. Gingrich wasn't a supporter of either move, but, in any case, those moves weren't enough to balance the budget on their own -- the Clinton administration's own projections didn't anticipate their first budget surplus. What led to the surplus was the dot-com bubble, plus the beginning of the mortgage equity withdrawal bubble.

[Feh]

"the only reason why people think that Romney isn’t “conservative” enough is because he flip-flopped on abortion"

He has flip-flopped on EVERYTHING. There is no issue that he hasn't been on both sides of.

Also he is a spineless worm. He sat there grinning like a fool while McCain savaged him. This is not the man who is going to take on the liberal establishment, this is a man who will roll over to them.

[nooffensebut]

“For some, but not enough to make a deal. Conservatives want a fight.”

So, conservatives don’t want a RINO who takes liberal positions on health care mandates and global warming? Do they want someone who flip-flops or says “any ad which quotes what I said on Sunday is a falsehood”?

“Romney will not pick a fight...”

Well, he will raise his voice and invade your personal space if you try to talk over him. Just because a Mormon becomes the governor of a state that would tolerate a Mormon governor does not mean that he is a hippie. I think he is a likely to be a stealth conservative, except on issues in which high IQ usually precludes conservatism (global warming, health care mandates).

[Observer]

"Would evangelical Christians prefer to vote for Newt, who converted to Catholicism and has many moral issues in his past, over Mitt Romney the Mormon? Is this what’s happening?"

No. Newt has been doing well in the debates, an arena in which he does better than 98% of all candidates in both parties.

[John]

"Democrats have shown an ability to change the system enormously on their own (Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, etc.), but for Republicans to make major domestic policy moves, they need to work with Democrats."

That's only because Democrats have had supermajorities, and the GOP hasn't. Obamacare passed only because the Democrats had 60 Senate seats, a comfortable majority in the House, and the Presidency. The GOP hasn't had those numbers for about a century.

If the GOP ever gets numbers like that, expect Social Security reform, Health Care entitlement reform, serious missle defence, tax reform, a real conservative majority on the supreme court, and maybe even immigration reform, if we had the right president.

Welfare reform was the only major thing the GOP could do pretty much alone. Clinton vetoed it the first two times Gingrich got it passed. The third time, Dick Morris warned Clinton that he would probably lose in 1996 if he kept vetoing the bill, so he reluctantly signed it.

I would love watching Gingrich debate Obama. It would be a historic thrashing.

[Commander Shepard]

"Gingrich was a revolutionary -- he got the GOP its first Congressional majority in forty years. That was huge." - Dave

They were already trending towards that. They had won five out of the last six presidential elections before Clinton (who barely won himself).

"He twisted Clinton's nuts hard enough to make him get on board with his efforts to balance the budget." - Roots

The budget was balanced mostly due to a bi-partisan tax increase signed into law by George HW Bush in 1991 and then again due to a tax increase (supported only by Democrats) signed into law by Clinton in 1994 (before Newt was even speaker).

[Jostein]

These polls really aren't worth so much. Romney is still owning the betting markets on intrade.com, though Gingrich has moved ahead of everyone else. If anyone believes the polls more than the market he should put his money where his mouth is a post a bet.

[Jay]

"I wouldn't mind voting for a cradle Catholic but I'd hesitate at a convert. They tend to be loopy."

I think you're absolutely wrong on this count. Catholic converts tend to be the only legitimately intelligent breed of Christian conservative left. Look at guys like Pat Buchanan, Robert Novak, or Tony Blair. Unlike the aggressively anti-intelectual Evangelical subculture, the Catholic Church still celebrates logic, reason, argument, and education. It's the only religious option remaining for someone that wants to cling to Christianity for political reasons but not go full prole in the process.

Which is historically ironic, I know, since Catholicism used to be the ultimate proley NAM signifier in this country. But now it's fast becoming THE religion of the educated right.

[jef]

Your beer with Newt will go fine unless you ask him one of those "got-ya" questions.

[Sid]

"Catholic converts tend to be the only legitimately intelligent breed of Christian conservative left."

Catholic converts were also raised outside of the superstitions and enforced that cradle Catholics were subject to. Thus, Catholic converts can appreciate the utility of disparaging sex, for example, without suffering the unfortunate repercussions themselves.

In any case, I'm no Christian, but I respect, or at least understand, conservative Christians more than liberal ones. Evangelicals aren't deep thinkers, but I understand why they're Christian: so that they can live forever in eternal bliss. Liberal Christians, conversely, rarely can explain why they go to church, read the Bible or spent 10 years in seminary, when they don't believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and are deeply unsure if there even is a god. Their motivations are murky to me, and they are usually, in effect, crypto-commies who want the rich to suffer for the poor. I may not care for Evangelicals, personally, but they want immortality and to make money before they get it, and that's sensible to me.

[Wes]

Newt will fade. Romney will be forced on the party. Romney will lose huge.

[ErisGuy]

"I wouldn't mind voting for a cradle Catholic but I'd hesitate at a convert. They tend to be loopy."

Why did Newt convert? Some people convert when marrying someone of another religion or for opportunity*. I think you "loopy" doesn't apply to such converts of convenience.

* I knew of a lawyer who pretended to be a fundamentalist to gain their business. Outside the office he lied. Inside among a selected circle, he told the truth about himself.

[Peter A]

"If evangelicals vote for Newt just because he is more "Christian" than Mitt Romney, then they have no comprehension of what "Christian" means."

Not true. Mormons are no more Christians than are Jews or Muslims. Mitt may be morally superior to Newt or Obama. But the latter two men have publicly declared their Christian faith, Mitt has publicly declared he is not a Christian.

[Ano Nymus]

Herman Cain is plenty smart. He has a master's in mathematics. He speaks with a low class accent and doesn't do any research on the issues (remember his Libya gaffe).

Even though Romney is a mormon, him and Huntsman (also a mormon) seem to be the only candidates who aren't infatuated in their religion; and they don't use god in every argument. I live in Utah (not mormon). Huntsman did an amazing job. I would vote for him in a heartbeat. The problem with him is, he is too smart for his own good, as is Newt. The best thing for this country would be a Romney/Gingrich ticket, with Huntsman as Secretary of State.

I would trust Huntsman more than Romney. The Utah government is horrendously corrupt, mainly the doing of the mormon church. Huntsman stood up to the church. I doubt Romney would do the same.

[Black Death]

HS, did you know about this? From the "Washington Post":

Politics often produces strange bedfellows. But yesterday, on the 55th anniversary of the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision that integrated the nation's schools, when former Republican House speaker Newt Gingrich shared the stage at a boisterous rally in front of the White House with the Rev. Al Sharpton, even Gingrich called the two the "Original Odd Couple."

What unites the conservative Gingrich and the liberal Sharpton, Gingrich said, is the urgent mission to close the persistent achievement gap that divides students along racial and socioeconomic lines and to make educational equality the civil rights issue of the 21st century.

"I know it's possible to educate every child from every background," Gingrich said to loud applause from the largely African American crowd that had come to Washington in 70 buses from 22 cities. "We're not telling you what the answer is. But we're telling you to keep changing until you find a solution."

Gingrich and Sharpton said that despite their differences, coming together, as they did in a recent meeting with President Obama, is the first step in calling more attention to the gap and creating a nationwide grass-roots movement to close it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/16/AR2009051602265.html

....

Why you're so fond of Newt is a mystery to me, unless you feel his ultra-neoconism is all that's important. Surely HBD denial isn't important.

[HS: Thanks for sharing the article. My opinion of Newt just went down quite a bit. He did a good job with welfare reform back in the 1990s, but he's not a good candidate for president.]

[jeanne]

"But now it's fast becoming THE religion of the educated right."

This. People cling to Christianity for social and moral reasons also. I don't think people realize what the prechristian world was like but they should consider it before tossing Jesus overboard.

Anyway, the evangs are stupid and the mainline Prosties are inert. Liberal denominations like the U-U's are the truly loopy ones.

[not too late]

I would love watching Gingrich debate Obama. It would be a historic thrashing.

Posted by: John | November 18, 2011 at 08:42 PM

yeah, I admit I would like to see that, too.

[Bruce Banner]

The GOP is "pulling a Dole" again. That is, fielding a loser to throw the election. Last time it was Cain. Reagan went wrong and won.
The game is rigged. The regime has given Obama four more years. Enjoy.

[Prole]

"If the GOP ever gets numbers like that, expect Social Security reform, Health Care entitlement reform, serious missle defence, tax reform, a real conservative majority on the supreme court, and maybe even immigration reform, if we had the right president."

No. A large part of GOP, including the part that wags the dog, doesn't give a damn about most of these things.

[Tanizaki]

""I know it's possible to educate every child from every background," Gingrich said to loud applause from the largely African American crowd that had come to Washington in 70 buses from 22 cities. "We're not telling you what the answer is. But we're telling you to keep changing until you find a solution.""

This is obviously an HBD-denialist statement. However, we can't know if he truly believes this or if he is smart enough to know that espousing HBD would be campaign suicide.

[Tom Bri]

Cain is no dummy. What is isn't is a professional, lifelong politician. So he doesn't know everything a pol should know, and can come off sounding dumb to people who have specific knowledge he does not. He hasn't learned to hide his ignorance, like Obama and other pros have.

It would be just too much fun to see a Newt/Hermon ticket. Watch liberal heads popping. Even if Obama won, it would destroy the Dem party.

[Bruce Banner]

McCain, not Cain. Though Cain will do.

[Bob]

I can't vote for Newt because he is an adulter. That should disqualify you from serious consideration.

[Bruce Banner]

"I can't vote for Newt because he is an adulter. That should disqualify you from serious consideration. "

I can´t see why unless you plan to marry Newt.

[JHB]

While other conservatives may or may not disagree, RomneyCare is my biggest hangup with Romney. That the man has flipflopped on everything else, but wants to make a stand on this, sends a bad, bad message -- especially since we need to make the case for repealing Obama's RomneyCare at the federal level.

Put bluntly, I'll vote for the best candidate not named Mitt Romney in the primary.

(I'd vote for Romney in the general though, which is more than I can say for Ron Paul, who doesn't take our security seriously. In that unlikely scenario, the Osama-killin Obama gets my vote.)

[ATC]

Even if Newt was still with his first wife, a candidate who breaks with incrementalism scares off I-am-safe-in-the-herd female voters.

As long as women have the right to vote, a candidate with truly game-changing policies can never withstand a fear campaign that appeals to a comforting status quo, no matter how unsustainable.

[Anthony]

Newt can't manage well enough to be an effective president. He wasn't terribly effective as Congressional leader, as he inspired a coup against him from within his caucus.

Althouse pegged Gingrich watching his answer to the targeted killing question: he's a law professor at heart. As such, he should be some sort of adviser to President Romney, but not VP, and probably not in the formal Cabinet.

[Nick Nailer]

Bush = Obama = Newt.

Just another criminal.

Voting is for fools who think they live in a Democracy.