Mitt vs. Newt

Spread the love

Loading

It’s Iowa minus 32 days, and barring yet another resurrection (or event of similar improbability), it’s Mitt Romney vs. 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. No exertion required 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.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

2 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Curt, which of the candidates for the GOP nomination for the Presidency are suggesting does not have a healthy dose of ego? It is just your opinion Gingrich’s is less controlled. Considering the egos he has had to deal with, I woulld say you are flat wrong. Who has a resume as deep as Gingrich? Who has the list of accomplishments Gingrich has? Who will make Obama cry and wimper in a debate other than Gingrich? Do not be baffled by the brilliance or blinded by the BS. Gingrich IS the sharpest pencil in the box.

Zelsdorf, that’s Krauthammer’s writing, not Curt’s. Curt may or may not agree with every detail. I think it’s a good article (aside from Krauthammer’s attempt to narrow the race prematurely).
As for Newt’s ego… yes, of course everyone running for President has a pretty high opinion of themselves. But Newt really borders on delusions of grandeur. Since I happen to agree with Krauthammer’s assessment (in fact I think he doesn’t go far enough), I’ll offer some supporting anecdotes:
– the note Newt wrote about himself (came to light in 1997 during his ethics investigation), where he describes himself: ‘‘Gingrich — primary mission, Advocate of civilization, Definer of civilization, Teacher of the rules of civilization, Arouser of those who fan civilization, . . . leader (possibly) of the civilizing forces.’ ”
– his comments to his second wife , when she accused him of hypocrisy for touting family values while cheating on her: ““It doesn’t matter what I do, people need to hear what I have to say. There’s no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn’t matter what I live.“
– his recent premature declaration that he would win the nomination
– when Newt attained a leadership position in Congress in the 1980s, General Odom (then head of the NSA under eagan) invited him to a two hour NSA briefing reserved for the top few officials in Congress. When Newt showed up, he talked for two hours straight, giving the assembled NSA staff his opinions and vision.
– his description of himself as a one-man think tank

The one thing not touched on by Krauthammer as regards Romney is that Romney is a coward (politically) compared to Newt. I’ll take that over the borderline clinical pathology of Newt, though, I guess.