Is Newt Gingrich's recovery for real?

Yahoo News ^ | 11/17/11 | John A. Tures

[johnatures]

COMMENTARY | Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's rebound in the polls is real enough. The question is whether conservative Republicans are simply trying him out as the newest anti-Mitt Romney candidate, or whether he is about to be the newest Republican for the 2012 nomination.

Recent polls show the ex-Georgia congressman has made a tremendous recovery in the polls, passing former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and ex-CEO Herman Cain with 23 percent of the vote, according to a Nov. 16 Fox News poll. Other surveys, such as the show a tighter race, but nobody disputes Gingrich's strong recovery from earlier stumbles. The question is how he got back into the nomination race.

[LS]

Good points. Cain is still my first vote, although I do think he has hurt himself badly with some of his foreign policy comments. Again, this is where Newt, the bookworm, shines, so the comparison is stark.

Cain has to constantly reaffirm two things: CONSERVATISM and anti-Obamaism. And I think DJ this is what rubs you about Newt. Whether you like him or not, he has been the most consistently outspoken anti-OBAMA candidate, at every debate even singing the praises of his GOP competitors over Obama---something all of them have been loathe to do. I think that has earned him a lot of credibility and affection in the eyes of the tea party types.

It's not to late for Cain, just as prior to the last two weeks it wasn't too late for Perry (it is now). But Herman absolutely has to make more sense when it comes to foreign policy and apply basic conservative values: al-Qaeda is worse than an impotent dictator; no one who doesn't pose a direct threat to us or our troops is worth new military adventures; finish the wars we have strong; all options on the table with Iran, especially supporting Israel.

[ez]

Obama and the media are performing their own version of Operation Chaos. As soon as anyone takes a lead they attack them back to the pack, thus assuring that the R candidates themselves, and their willing accomplices in the conservative movement, will continue to tear each other to shreds. Nice job. peeps...

[nathanbedford]

The polls are telling us that Herman Cain was a bright, shiny new thing which has lost its luster. That is largely unfair, I think, and somewhat due to the use of scurrilous charges of sexual harassment. I call the charges scurrilous not because I disbelieve them but because I disapprove of law and the culture which has imposed this kind of political correctness on us and given us over to a witchhunt which we now see played out against Herman Cain. Of course, a physical touching is another matter and that has been alleged against Cain. My problem is that no one now should be heard 15 years later to allege a crime against someone when they failed to come forward at the time.

Nevertheless, we are not here to debate the fairness of the sexual-harassment laws we are here to select a candidate one of whom has been damaged in the area of electability by application, fairly or unfairly, of the culture created by this law.

Gingrich on his part faces much the same unfair dilemma. His first wife was six or seven years his senior and few should be surprised that that marriage did not work out. His second marriage evidently broke up because of his infidelity, or was his infidelity the result of the deterioration of the marriage? In any event, he married the gal with whom he dallied. Nevertheless, Gingrich election chances are haunted by an urban legend of the bogus scene in the hospital room. I did not expect the electorate to be knowledgeable enough to dismiss this urban legend entirely. I am not naïve, I know that smears work.

Herman Cain just found out the same truth applies to him.

Additionally, there is the ineffable matter of repentance. Christian conservatives almost by definition are committed to the doctrine of repentance and forgiveness, a subject I have explored on my about page. Conservatives will have to judge for themselves whether Gingrich has made a genuine repentance. If they assume that he has, we must then ask ourselves can you sell it to the rest of the world that does care about the necessity for repentance. Presumably, there are many independents who do not care about where Newt Gingrich put his pee pee 15 years ago. But there might be a substantial number of women, especially single women, who do care and we conservatives must calculate that on the issue of electability. The same applies to Herman Cain.

It is true that Herman Cain's cancer appears to be in remission but I recall we were told the same thing by a candidate named Paul Tsongas and, sadly, that prognosis was wrong.

I revert to your reasons for picking Cain over Gingrich and I simply cannot believe that the bulk of the Republican Party will be convinced that the man who can bring change is Herman Cain and not Newt Gingrich. We know what Gingrich has done, balanced budgets, reformed an entitlement, reduced taxes, shut down the government and engendered a revolution named after himself, just as had Ronald Reagan. To believe that Gingrich will take office and continue business as usual seems to me to represent the triumph of animosity over history.

As to the threat of militant Islam and the assertion that Herman Cain was early off the mark, Newt Gingrich was preaching on this issue long before the world heard much about Herman Cain. Indeed, Gingrich authored the report which warned of domestic attacks on the heartland which proved regrettably only two prophetic on 9/11.

We are clearly in an evolving inflection point. If Obama is reelected, the country likely will founder and we will see massive defaults, massive unemployment, massive misery. If Mitt Romney is elected he will be in the words of Newt Gingrich, a competent manager. I don't think that will be enough. If Herman Cain is elected, we will no doubt see gaffes, missteps, and an aura of incompetence that fails to inspire. The failure to inspire is absolutely critical because if the country is to survive it has to pull together under conservative leadership and undertake massive and painful reforms. We are in this mess because it was the easier way and recovery will be the harder way. We need a leader who has more to tell us about sacrifice than we must "eat our peas." Gingrich can do it, Cain cannot.

More, we face an inflection point in the political world. If we win the presidency we will likely also win the Senate, but not a filibuster proof majority. Gingrich is a proven leader who can get a program through-he did that brilliantly as Speaker of the House. If Gingrich is the president with the decent majority in both houses he can set the country on a new course which is something qualitatively different from merely undoing the harm that Obama has done. If that is the best we can muster, demographics tells us that where only one election away from the next Obama.

We need a man of Gingrich's vision who can fundamentally alter the entire course of our political adventure and to keep the within the Constitution. Neither Romney nor Cain show any promise whatsoever compared to Gingrich. If we do not fundamentally change our political system and keep it within the Constitution, the Democrats will come back and they will simply give us more of the same and the Republic will crumble.

At the end of the day it is more than a matter of electability and conservative bona fides, it turns on the matter of vision. I believe it is hard to argue that any candidate can compete with Newt Gingrich and offer a more innovative and compelling vision.

[Buddygirl]

Thanks for the quote from Jim Robinson! He sees through Newt! I don’t want Newt!

Sarah, where are you?

[USS Alaska]

I'm an Herminator and this week sent Herman another donation, but if Herman fades after the first five states actually vote and Newt is the one that is standing {besides mittens} then Newt becomes my new guy.

I've supported so many candidates and non-candidates that I'm starting to feel like a teenaged girl with a new boyfriend every couple of months.

Well, the voting dates are almost here and we will soon see some clarity and formation of the field.

[JimInMO]

Superb comments from a reasoning and reasonable mind (and heart). I share your thoughts, and regret their likely limited impact. "To those who wish to believe (something), no proof is necessary, and to those who wish to disbelieve (something), no proof is sufficient".

Am reproducing a comment I made several days ago, as they relate to your posts:

"Yes. Simply regurgitating the same, over-used stump talking points doesn’t do any good, or change many minds. What we need to do is reclaim some of the empty space between many people’s ears. Reintroduce some of the ideas, principles, history, civility, morality, loss for many of self-reliance that has been so lacking in much of our educational institutions, and, too often, from one generation teaching the next."

"Simply hurling out our position and then arguing about it does not serve the larger and necessary requirements of redirecting this country back toward our formative values."

"We need people who understand our past greatness to teach those principles to ensuing generations. Otherwise, all we have is a bickering, downward-spiraling, uncivil society bent on each component getting what it can at the expense of someone else."

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Cain also partly endorsed Obama in 2008. But nothing about that is being presented much around here. Had it been any other candidate, it would be thread upon thread, 24/7.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Thank you for that subliminal prompt on how we are expected to think and believe. But most of us will decline. This is not our first day on the forum.

[campaignPete R-CT]

if Mitt gets smashed worse than Dole NH '96, and Cain fades ... and it becomes a marathon primary race ... with several candidates chasing Newt, perhaps Perry winning some states.

It is not out of the question that a new candidate could enter the race. Thune, Ryan or somebody prominent.
What then, oh field marshal?

[MitchellC]

Whether you like him or not, he has been the most consistently outspoken anti-OBAMA candidate, at every debate even singing the praises of his GOP competitors over Obama---something all of them have been loathe to do. I think that has earned him a lot of credibility and affection in the eyes of the tea party types.

This has been Newt's strategy from the very first debate, and it's been such an obviously cynical political ploy on his part that I wish so many people hadn't been falling for it.

1.) Avoid talking about the issues in any way that forces you to have to speak about your past crappy positions. When pressed on an important issue, like where you stand on Romneycare, do one or both of:

1a.) Attack Obama!
1b.) Attack the media!

Doing this gets you a lot of cheap pops and you get to soak up the adulation. Any candidate that tries to point out your crappy positions will look like a jerk: 'hey, don't you want to see Obama defeated?!'

2.) Since you have no following, suck up hard to the followers of all the other candidates by constantly praising all the candidates. Over time as some of those candidates falter, you'll siphon off enough support from them to actually have a following of your own.

Newt talks a good game, but where's the beef? Remember a few weeks ago when @#$^! Romney made him look like a lying fool at the debate? And this is the guy some people want to be the anti-Romney?

[LS]

Well, sorry. that's not a "ploy" it's exactly what we have been waiting for SOME Republican---ANY Republican to do for three years.

If everyone does that, guess what? Then the next question is "Ok, what is your plan?" But since everyone else is so busy attacking other GOP candidates, Barry has been getting a free ride.

[Buddygirl]

Sarcasm duly noted. If you want a wishy-washy man like Gingrich, fine. Just be prepared to read, “I told you so” on this web site.

[MNJohnnie]

"Yes. Simply regurgitating the same, over-used stump talking points doesn’t do any good, or change many mind

I'm sorry but that exactly why many of us are resisting the Newt bandwagon. We here an awful lot of Cult of Personality American idol style talking points about Newt, but almost no actual argument why to support Newt. We keep hearing "Newt did this, Newt did that". Unfortunately, those of us who part of the 1994 reovolution know better. Newt has done a very good job of claiming credit for what other men like Tom Delay and John Kasich accomplished. Newt is very very good at putting himself at the head of a parade. He is very very bad at actually leading the parade. Too many of us remember Dole 1996 and McCain 2008. We keep hearing the hard sell personality PR about what a great talker and thinker Newt is. We are being told "just ignore all the facts about Newt's record, just worship at the shrine of his genius". Sorry heard this all before. Not falling for it again.

[MNJohnnie]

Again, shamelessly lying about Cain. You been given the actual quote and continue to lie about it anywhay

Don't you ever get sick of lying? Don't you ever feel any shame at all for your reckless childish behavior?

[RockinRight]

I realize you’re being sarcastic, but regarding Newt’s personal life...if I’m going to support him, I’m more concerned about the relationship/divorce with Newt’s SECOND wife than his first. There was an Esquire article last year, about how Newt asked for the divorce while Marianne was told she had MS...and, unlike his first wife, I think she actually DOES have MS and has said some rather nasty things about Newt.

[Clintonfatigued]

I think that Newt is more suited to White House Chief of Staff or Chief Domestic Policy Advisor than for President. That being said, he might not be that bad a nominee. It could be that he’s mellowed since the 1990’s and has learned from his mistakes. Meanwhile, Herman Cain may not be ready for prime time.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Since I doubt either of us will convince the other, I'll just confine myself to addressing a few points here...

"Gingrich on his part faces much the same unfair dilemma. His first wife was six or seven years his senior and few should be surprised that that marriage did not work out. His second marriage evidently broke up because of his infidelity, or was his infidelity the result of the deterioration of the marriage? In any event, he married the gal with whom he dallied."

Unlike Cain, who faces allegations from nefarious individuals, there is no doubt regarding Newt's life. Aside from the peculiar point about an age difference between himself and his first wife -- given they were together for 18 years, he was 37 and she was 44, and had children -- I can't see how it is "not a surprise" that it didn't work. It so happens his mistress for the first marriage was, yup, the second wife. While married to the second wife, he cheated on her with, yup, the third wife. Worse yet, during the Lewinsky business, he was engaged with that full-on affair with the "much younger" woman, for which had it come to light, would've painted the ENTIRE GOP as a party of hypocrites. That kind of shameful, reckless behavior while holding office demonstrates a serious lack of moral judgement and common sense/reason.

"Nevertheless, Gingrich election chances are haunted by an urban legend of the bogus scene in the hospital room. I did not expect the electorate to be knowledgeable enough to dismiss this urban legend entirely. I am not naïve, I know that smears work."

The problem is in having to deal with this is that, even if false, given Newt's unfortunate moral record, it seems completely within his character to do something like that. The media and the pop culture (regardless of their own moral hypocrisy) will be unrelenting in illuminating Newt's personal life. Too many Conservatives will find this enough justification to pass on supporting him in the general. Exactly what Zero's supporters are counting on.

"I revert to your reasons for picking Cain over Gingrich and I simply cannot believe that the bulk of the Republican Party will be convinced that the man who can bring change is Herman Cain and not Newt Gingrich. We know what Gingrich has done, balanced budgets, reformed an entitlement, reduced taxes, shut down the government and engendered a revolution named after himself, just as had Ronald Reagan. To believe that Gingrich will take office and continue business as usual seems to me to represent the triumph of animosity over history."

"At the end of the day it is more than a matter of electability and conservative bona fides, it turns on the matter of vision. I believe it is hard to argue that any candidate can compete with Newt Gingrich and offer a more innovative and compelling vision."

Unfortunately, the rest of this reads too much like a press release and exhibits the same kinds of rah-rah boosterism reflected far too often by the rather quiet (at present) Perrywinkles. The Newt you want and believe in is not the Newt of reality and in practice. If he was such a candidate possessing all these qualities, it would be hard to argue that that would be the best candidate... But the problem here is that that's not the Newt I and other Conservatives know. As JimRob well put it, when you get right down to it, he's phony. I've had quite my fill of phonies.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Aside from being a pretty face, why would Thune be seen as Presidential ?

[fieldmarshaldj]

The one thing when it comes to Gingrich... I always trust Newt to be Newt. One big reason I’d never vote for him to be President.

[campaignPete R-CT]

if Dole failed in ‘96, the party would not have nominated Buchanan or Forbes. Kemp was the backup plan.

if Mitt fails, the Istablishment would prob be fine with Perry or Newt. But I wouldn’t want to assume a certain crowd would not fish around for another alternative. One of these guys who already opted not to run.

Maybe not and they would quickly do the coronation with Newt.

Or Mitt could lose everything through FLA ... and make a comeback in the next 4 states: NV ME MN CO
He currently would seem unbeatable in all 4. Caucuses in all 4. And mitt figures fight to the death like Hillary did, as it is his last chance.

Perhaps the conventional thinking on NV is wrong. Mormon strength for MITT. COL: sees mitt as western candidate and borders on UT. MN? not sure why they went for Mitt so big over Huck and McCain. Perhaps Mitt was the only one with the $$ to organize it.

Back to the original question, if Newt wins all 4 of IA NH SC FL, what happens next? As soon as MITT drops out, it gives somebody like Cain an opportunity for a surge. Cause voters like a choice. So Mitt’s presence is what is killing Cain. Many are deciding beating Mitt is more important than promoting a conservative.