I listened to Ann Coulter on O’Reilly the other night and I caught a glimpse of why she “supports” Romney over Gingrich, not that I’d ever vote for that flip-flopping b@st@rd, but I think I see what she’s getting at.
The 2008 voters were completely ignorant, devoid of logic, and thoroughly enchanted by Obama’s stage presence, style, and “perfect” family that they didn’t base their votes on quality or quantity of experience. Obama was a picture-perfect candidate (in their ignorant view). Ann seems to think that the stupid voters are disenchanted with Obama’s policies and need a reason to vote for someone else. She thinks the stupid voters will see Romney as similar enough to Obama circa 2008: smooth-talking, non-threatening, stylish, good-looking, prom-king-ish. All style, no substance. She thinks we can win by luring stupid voters away from Obama to Romney. She sees Newt as the typical old white guy who will turn off those disenchanted with Obama and considering an alternative.
She’s right about that, but she’s wrong about our priorities on this. Settling for someone who can attract Obama voters should NOT be our goal.
re Coulter - it’s really much simpler than that long scenario ;o)
She’s part of the champagne circle in DC.
Newt will take all the bubbles out of their champagne...He won’t appoint ONE member from the Establishment Ivy League Cabal.
Their decades old reign will be over - for the foreseeable future - especially any of them alive today. They are in a panic.
The only future they see is the dustbin of history.
It can be argued that the most “charismatic” candidate has won every presidential election since at least 1980. Putting policy completely aside, wouldn’t most people of both parties agree that the winner of all the below presidential match-ups was the most likable or charming candidate? Perhaps the most likely to succeed as a salesman?
Obama/McCain
Bush/Kerry
Bush/Gore
Clinton/Dole
Clinton/Bush/Perot
Bush/Dukakis
Reagan/Mondale
Reagan/Carter
Half of the above winners were older than the loser, so that charisma factor isn’t solely based on youth. I think it’s accepted that Lloyd Bentsen won the debate against Dan Quayle by using his age and experience in his favor and having more memorable lines and better rhetoric.
Good looks might be a more important factor than age. Arguably every one of the last 8 winners would be rated as better-looking than the loser. However, looking at the V.P. races, you can point to Bentsen/Quayle where the gravitas factor seemed to overwhelm the looks disadvantage. Perhaps the same could be said about the Cheney/Edwards debate.
It seems to come down to which candidate “connects” with voters more. Newt has done a very good job in the primary reinventing himself and reconnecting with voters based on the strength of his communication skills and rhetoric. He shows gravitas up against Romney and the others. He would probably exhibit the same qualities against Obama, leading to a Bentsen/Quayle style result in the debate. Remember these results from a focus group done on Republican voters:
“When asked what relative Gingrich reminded them of, several Republicans said a favorite uncle or a grandfather. They described Romney as a “missing father” or a second cousin.”
Again, you have to look at Romney’s electoral history. Read “Overestimating Romney” in the Weekly Standard at the link below. Romney becomes LESS popular the more that voters get to know him. He’s lost 17 out of 22 elections and was an unpopular one-term governor. He doesn’t “connect” with the public. He seems to have that same out-of-touch air about him that Kerry, Dole, Dukakis, or Bush Sr. in his 2nd run had. With Romney, it seems like we’d be setting ourselves up for a Clinton/Bush style defeat.
While Newt would have to buck the trend on the best-looking candidate being the winner at the top of the ticket, there is evidence from the V.P. races to show that can be done. The reality is that Obama has extreme charisma and the public still likes him personally. NONE of our candidates can beat Obama on sheer charisma, not one. If we place our bets on that, we are sure to lose. In order for us to win, the country either has to be doing badly at the moment of the election, or we need to be able to articulate why Obama’s policies will produce bad long-term results. Therefore we’re either going to win by default no matter who we nominate, or we need to nominate the most skilled communicator that we have. In either case the choice is clear, Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2818702/posts