Newt Gingrich and the revenge of the base

Washington Post ^ | Dec 18, 2011 | E.J. Dionne, Jr [from the left]

[Jim Robinson]

It is one of the true delights of a bizarrely entertaining Republican presidential contest to watch the apoplectic fear and loathing of so many GOP establishmentarians toward Newt Gingrich. They treat him as an alien body whose approach to politics they have always rejected.

In fact, Gingrich’s rise is the revenge of a Republican base that takes seriously the intense hostility to President Obama, the incendiary accusations against liberals and the Manichaean division of the world between an “us” and a “them” that his party has been peddling in the interest of electoral success.

The right-wing faithful knows Gingrich pioneered this style of politics, and they laugh at efforts to cast the former House speaker as something other than a “true conservative.” They know better.

The establishment was happy to use Gingrich’s tactics to win elections, but it never expected to lose control of the party to the voters it rallied with such grandiose negativity. Now, the joke is on those who manipulated the base. The base is striking back, and Newt is their weapon.

~~snip~~

This quality endows Gingrich with a peculiar integrity, which I realize is a problematic word to apply to such a problematic figure. I use it in a very specific sense: He is who he is and always has been. The base knows this and loves him for it. But for Republican leaders, Gingrich has become inconvenient. He’s the loudmouthed uninvited guest who is trying to rejoin the country club. The effort to blackball Newt Gingrich will be the next drama in this fascinating train wreck of a campaign.

[PhilDragoo]

Rove is obviously sending waves of kamikazes and Zeroes to Sink the Newtmarck.

Bachmann is standing by Her Man, Mitt Romney.

Santorum underwhelms.

Perry remains, and gets more relaxed and personable.

Obama has launched his It Was Worse Than They Told Us campaign.

There will be a Wag the Dog Foreign Adventure attempting to scare the sheep into huddling round the crypto-Islamo-Communist traitor.

Perhaps Ron Paul and Gary Johnson and Donald Trump can form the Tres Amigos Third Party.

When the winged monkeys, shrieking fairies and carping harpies of the media are exhausted

and the last box of bogus ballots has been "found" in Hoffa's safe, we'll exorcise our Republic.

[MagnoliaB]

I think the propagandist media, that is in the tank for Obama, is itching for Gingrich to run against Obama. They can use him to scare the sh!t out of the 49% of Americans that pay no taxes and get another massive turnout to the polls. Let’s face it, even though the comments he makes sounds great to conservatives for the most part, they’ll be able to make him into a crazy Nazi figure.

[Bobalu]

[Zeppo]

Manichaean division of the world between an “us” and a “them”

Once again Dionne unwittingly reveals his apparent total lack of political sophistication and self-knowledge.

Who is it, besides Obama himself, that is constantly banging the drum to identify Republicans as the embodiment of all that is evil, if not Dionne?

[Humbug]

I think the propagandist media, that is in the tank for Obama, is itching for Gingrich to run against Obama.

I'm not sure that's true, for i think they do fear Gingrich. Yes, they will try to make him out as "a crazy Nazi" but they'd play that game with anyone to the right of Romney. Gingrich though is the one most capable of fighting back. No disrespect to Bachmann, Perry, or Santorum, but Gingrich is much more a master at combating a hostile media.

The bottom line is that we have to take the fight to the media or we'll always be under their thumb. It is time to take a stand. Or rather, it's high time to put the media on the stand. To put them on the defensive lest they come off as too one-sided. For that's the only way we're going to win in the long run. For if we go with Romney out of fear of what the media will do with a conservative candidate, then the media will have gained even greater power over us.

And besides, the more often they paint conservative Republicans as the "bad guy", the more people are going to realize that the media has it in for all conservatives, that they are by and large an extension of the left wing of the democrat party and are a power in their own right that needs to be held accountable for their not-so-hidden agendas.

[Yaelle]

Gingrich is the current pick because he is so very great at debate. Perry can’t really debate, no matter how good he may be at campaigning. He probably can’t explain much to the American people. But Gingrich may not have the consistency or strong, secure ego one needs to be a leader. Gingrich is an emotionally insecure man. Things backfire on him. He is insecure and arrogant. It’s consistently gotten him into trouble. Thst’s the most consistent thing about him.

Waiting for the Santorum surprise.

[pingman]

“Baghdad Bob” Dionne? Puh-leeze!

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

And the remaining 51% will go for NEWT.

[Condor51]

“And in truth, the party took his approach to heart. If discrediting John Kerry’s service in Southeast Asia through false attacks in 2004 was what it took to reelect a president who had avoided going to Vietnam, what the heck.”

Yesterday afternoon I somehow sliced my right index finger on my guitar string. It's sort of like a paper cut and hurts like hades even with 'New Skin' on it.

Now to the point -- If I was John Kerry and I was sitting on 'my boat' in Vietnam instead of a chair in my bedroom -- I'd put in for a Purple Heart. As that was about the extent of any of his three (cough-BS) 'battle wounds'. Nothing more than a paper cut!

It was also how he was able to scoot out of Nam in approx four months due to some obscure Navy Reg that 'Cong Killer Kerry'(/s) was amazingly all too familiar with.

If EJ gets wind of my post the poor guy will get a case of the vapors ;-)

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

If Newt is nominated I’ll vote for him, but Fannie/Freddie is an issue that can be exploited quite well by Alinsky tactics, and some people will abandon him on this issue alone that is all I am saying.

Freddie/fannie are just not natural populist bogeymen. It would take quite a bit of subtlety to attack Gingrich over $1M from Fred/Fan without simultaneously condemning the tens of millions that democrat career types (e.g. Jamie Gorelick) ripped off from them.

[greeneyes]

Oh yeh, that old excuse - Everyone else was doing it works real well with voters who are already fed up with the dishonesty and graft of all politicians.

In fact, his Fannie/Freddie ties are really a great positive in Newt's favor. Everyone should vote for Newt cause he is really a conformist, and his actions prove that.

Yep that's a winning argument: he's just like all the other inside the beltway types-especially the dems - why he can match the dems - sheesh. Do I need the sarcasm tag?

I hope he wins the nomination, I love the way he takes the media and everyone else to school. I am just saying he is NOT perfect, and this is one of his vulnerabilities. But if you want to deny it and pretend he's perfect and this issue is really a positive and will not cost him one single vote go ahead and put your head in the sand.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Hey, I never said that Newt was perfect, or even particularly good. But let's face it, on a debate the rest of the field looks like a bunch of stumblebums.

I figured out two years ago that we would be lucky if we could avoid a repeat in '12 of the '08 McCain nomination debacle. And I have had the same tagline since January '10.

All the things that are wrong with Newt are things that are not wrong with Palin. And Palin would fight, if nominated. But, just as I feared, she couldn't see her way clear to fight for the nomination and fight the general election campaign. We needed to "draft" her, at least in the sense that we needed a grassroots movement to prepare the way for her primary campaign. But even on FR we had a complete fracture, and no unity at all. So here we are, and our choices leave much to be desired.

My take is that other considerations probably don't matter if we nominate someone who cannot, or will not, fight. Which means, will not confront the Associated Press journalism cabal which is in league with the Democratic Party. It is a tough thing to have to do. But if it were impossible, we would never have had a President Reagan, and we wouldn't have a Governor Christie in New Jersey, either.

[bruinbirdman]

Nice "Newt-ron Bomb", PhilDragoo.

yitbos

[greeneyes]

Ok so I agree with you on these points. I think his debate skills and ability to deliver a concise and simple enough message gives him a chance to sell his ideas, and they are definitely better than Zero ideas.

I also like his record of helping to bring the Pubbies, the contract with America, and the legislative accomplishments during the Clinton years. A candidates statements at any point in time are less important to me than the actual record and results.

So now that we have established that he is not perfect, what do you see as his 2 biggest weaknesses that might hurt him in the primaries and the General?

[Randy Larsen]

That’s why I like him!

[dixiechick2000]

The one thing that I’ve witnessed over the past several months is conservative candidates being totally demolished by one candidate who is a “moderate.”

They want the conservative vote split, so any conservative who has threatened their candidate has been demolished in the media. The opposition research has been in abundance...whether true, or not.

Never mind that the “moderate” candidate can never get more that a few points + or - 25%.

However, in the meantime they, who are supposed to be on our side, are destroying any chance that we will take the White House.

Just look at the support Ron Paul has...sheesh.

He’s next...

[dixiechick2000]

Your graphic.....bump to the tippy top!

[MagnoliaB]

“The bottom line is that we have to take the fight to the media or we'll always be under their thumb. It is time to take a stand. Or rather, it's high time to put the media on the stand. To put them on the defensive lest they come off as too one-sided. For that's the only way we're going to win in the long run. For if we go with Romney out of fear of what the media will do with a conservative candidate, then the media will have gained even greater power over us.”

What they did to Herman Cain isn't proof of their power over us? You're not going to do any thing to the media until people quit watching their entire networks en masse and let them know that their constant propaganda spewing is why they are tuning out. That's not going to happen because even conservatives are not going to give up their sports, their DWTS, their American Idol etc.....

I desperately don't want BO for another four years. My nerves and blood pressure won't take it. But, I am trying to look at each one of our remaining candidates objectively and make a rational decision of who has the best chance of beating BO. (Cain was my man.) I am not going to go off half cocked with support for any one person just yet because they have catchy things to say (even if I agree).

I am developing a point system of various issues as I think they will be perceived by the public in general. Take for example the issue that tanked Cain. Marriage. Just looking at BO, Newt and Mitt lets see how they line up:

Mitt: Married 42 years. No scandals that we know of gets +1

Newt: Married three times which wouldn't be so bad if the previous two marriages hadn't been adulterous and our potential next first lady also an adulterer. Not going to sound well that he hunted Bill Clinton for infidelity while cheating on his second wife who by the way has an axe to grind and has already been excoriating him. I give Newt -3

BO: Married 19 years to same woman. Gets +1
Even though it's been rumored that BO is a closet homosexual and his marriage to Mooch was a coupling of ‘down-low’ (closeted) gay black men with embittered, hard-to-match black women by Rev. Jeremiah Wright no one in the media will touch the story. So the picture painted for the general public by the media is ‘happy marriage’.

[Humbug]

What you say about the media is true and frankly i have bordered on despair in that regard, especially seeing what they did to get Obama elected and what they continue to do to keep him from completely tanking with the public, and yet they have suffered no discernible backlash from their blatant manipulations of the public. They are too powerful, too corrupt, and i see little hope in the near term of limiting their power or their corruption.

I’m with you about not being able to stomach another 4 years of Obama. And i also appreciate your rational approach to picking a candidate but for better or worse i’ve always gone with my gut feeling. And my gut tells me that....

Bachmann and Santorum: are better positioned for winning the Republican primary than the general election. So if they are struggling here, then i do not like their chances in the general should one of them happen to win by virtue of staying out of the line of “friendly” fire that’s been so prevalent this campaign season.

Rick Perry: i think he has the most “likeability” of all the candidates and there’s a lot to be said for that. Not brilliant like Newt but more stable, fewer negatives. The bottom line is that he is potentially the strongest candidate to go up against Obama but the question is whether he can overcome his early missteps to have a chance to take on Obama. I’m hoping he can since i think he has the best candidate to able to keep the party united against Obama.

Newt: his main hope in the general would be to have multiple debates with Obama and completely blow people away with his performances while clearly illustrating the many ways that Obama and his policies have made the country worse off than when he took over. Many of us have gravitated toward Gingrich because we feel that the best chance to beat Obama (or more specifically: to overcome his billion dollar war chest and his many rabid defenders in the media) will happen during the debates and Gingrich is the most capable of delivering a knock-out blow. Also he gives off an air of competency which contrasts well with the incompetency of Obama and his administration.

Romney: under different circumstances he probably wouldn’t make a bad President but we can’t afford a middle of the road kind of President at this time; so that when the dems come back into power they would easily get the country off track again and resume shaking down we the people once more. Plus he is the favorite of the media/Republican establishment and we need to send a strong message that we don’t appreciate them picking our candidates for us.

Paul: he has his libertarian niche but can’t go beyond that; he could play a spoiler role but i’m not sure if he’d take more votes away from the Republican nominee or from Obama, especially if it’s mostly young rebellious types who are attracted to him.

Huntsman: great name for a Republican candidate but beyond that there’s not much going for him especially since Romney holds the position that would have otherwise been reserved for him. Without Romney he could well be leading at this point, but as it is his candidacy comes off as rather pointless.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

So now that we have established that he is not perfect, what do you see as his 2 biggest weaknesses that might hurt him in the primaries and the General?

Let's face it - it was a bit of a scandal, tho only a bit, that Reagan was divorced and remarried. The fact that he hadn't instigated the divorce, tho, meant that he had theological wiggle room, even for Christians. Newt hasn't even practiced serial monogamy faithfully. And that is a problem, in both the primary and the general elections. Indeed, my conscience bothers me even to suggest electing a publicly poor example to the office designed for a paragon named George Washington.

It matters but little that there have been others who have strayed and been known to stray, or that Clinton made a public mockery of fidelity. When you drive through town and see a billboard picturing the man, and know that the label it assigns to him - "faithful Republican, unfaithful husband" - is the truth, it smarts.

And there are other things relating to policy - sitting down with Nancy to promote the AGW hoax, for one, and questioning the Tea Party for another. Palin would have been so much better. But there it is - I guess the alternative is to vote for Santorum or Bachmann or Perry, and hope for a miracle of suddenly enhanced ability to keep foot out of mouth.