The GOP’s death wish: "Anyone but Mitt"

[웃 910]

The GOP’s death wish

“Anybody but Mitt” has become a familiar mantra throughout the Republican primary campaign. It is also weird and self-defeating.

Republicans apparently want to nominate anyone except the one person who can defeat Barack Obama. And for all the strangest reasons:

One: He’s changed his mind. True. He changed his mind, thus becoming more conservative.

Two: He’s too perfect.

Three: You can’t drink beer with him. Whatever.

The result of these petty obsessions has been a pathological flirtation with a parade of lesser candidates who could replace Romney. This parade has persisted despite polls consistently showing Romney as themost likely to defeat Obama. It continues even though it’s perfectly clear the White House worries most about Romney.

First came Rick Perry, who, now desperate for attention, has turned his sights on gays in the military and Obama’s “

.” Next was Herman Cain, who, though he has suspended his campaign, seems unable to leave the stage.

Now it’s Newt Gingrich’s turn.

You don’t get more un-Romney than Gingrich. Imperfect and untidy, he’s the serial husband with whom anyone could feel comfortable sharing a beer. Or a keg. A sinner like the rest of us, he’s as familiar and comfortable as an old sofa.

But no one other than Callista Gingrich thinks her husband can prevail in a general election. No. One. The consensus on Gingrich is so overwhelming that conventional wisdom has taken a holiday. That is, no one in Washington thinks he can win, and Washington is where Gingrich is known best. Instead of rallying to support him, former colleagues are going out of their way to politely say, “He can’t lead.”

Gingrich’s record of leadership is demonstrably erratic. He is, in the words of former senator Jim Talent, who served with Gingrich from 1993 to 1999, “unreliable.” Another insider speaking to me privately was blunter: “He’s unstable, and everybody knows it, but no one wants to say it. Yes, he’s a genius and is respected for his many great ideas. But he’s Icarus. He flies too close to the sun.”

Examples of Gingrich’s unreliability are plentiful and soon will become familiar through political ads, including:

●Ethics violations when, just before he was sworn in as speaker of the House, Gingrich tried to cash in with a book contract. While campaigning even now, he’s lining his pockets with book sales, profits that supporters may mistakenly believe are going toward the campaign.

●Throwing Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) under the bus by calling Ryan’s Medicare reform plan “right-wing social engineering,” though Gingrich later recanted and said he would implement the plan as an option while keeping the current system in place.

●Accepting $1.6 million in consulting fees from Freddie Mac to help persuade conservatives not to dismantle the mortgage company, even as he called people who supported Freddie criminals.

But this is Washington talking, and too many Americans beyond the bubble don’t want to hear what Washington has to say. They prefer to hear Gingrich say, “I’d rather be effective representing the American people than be popular inside Washington.”

This is music to the ears of those who have come to loathe and distrust all things Washington, even though Gingrich is as much a Washington insider as anyone. And there’s a reason for his unpopularity. It isn’t because of his marriages or his Tiffany’s expense account. It is because his erratic behavior and his inability to resist the sound of his own voice have caused Republicans to lose too many fights.

Gingrich’s campaign may tell the larger tale. Thanks to poor management, he has been playing catch-up in Iowa. He accumulated massive debt during his high-flying early days of the campaign. Might voters extrapolate that as one runs a campaign, one may also run the country? By comparison, Romney’s campaign is a seamless, debt-free marvel of spreadsheets and bottom lines.

This is not to diminish Gingrich’s many good qualities, which even his detractors are eager to acknowledge. He is creative and stimulates fresh thinking. He is a unique legislator who knows history. He cuts a swath through any room and commands an audience as no other.

But when a man who intends to lead the country cannot marshal the loyalty of those he has attempted to lead before, voters might pay heed. Then again, if Republicans want to make Democrats happy, Gingrich is their man.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gops-death-wish/2011/12/09/gIQALe5CjO_story.html

[maning 36]

The GOP’s death wish

“Anybody but Mitt” has become a familiar mantra throughout the Republican primary campaign. It is also weird and self-defeating.

Republicans apparently want to nominate anyone except the one person who can defeat Barack Obama. And for all the strangest reasons:

One: He’s changed his mind. True. He changed his mind, thus becoming more conservative.

Two: He’s too perfect.

Three: You can’t drink beer with him. Whatever.

The result of these petty obsessions has been a pathological flirtation with a parade of lesser candidates who could replace Romney. This parade has persisted despite polls consistently showing Romney as themost likely to defeat Obama. It continues even though it’s perfectly clear the White House worries most about Romney.

First came Rick Perry, who, now desperate for attention, has turned his sights on gays in the military and Obama’s “

.” Next was Herman Cain, who, though he has suspended his campaign, seems unable to leave the stage.

Now it’s Newt Gingrich’s turn.

You don’t get more un-Romney than Gingrich. Imperfect and untidy, he’s the serial husband with whom anyone could feel comfortable sharing a beer. Or a keg. A sinner like the rest of us, he’s as familiar and comfortable as an old sofa.

But no one other than Callista Gingrich thinks her husband can prevail in a general election. No. One. The consensus on Gingrich is so overwhelming that conventional wisdom has taken a holiday. That is, no one in Washington thinks he can win, and Washington is where Gingrich is known best. Instead of rallying to support him, former colleagues are going out of their way to politely say, “He can’t lead.”

Gingrich’s record of leadership is demonstrably erratic. He is, in the words of former senator Jim Talent, who served with Gingrich from 1993 to 1999, “unreliable.” Another insider speaking to me privately was blunter: “He’s unstable, and everybody knows it, but no one wants to say it. Yes, he’s a genius and is respected for his many great ideas. But he’s Icarus. He flies too close to the sun.”

Examples of Gingrich’s unreliability are plentiful and soon will become familiar through political ads, including:

●Ethics violations when, just before he was sworn in as speaker of the House, Gingrich tried to cash in with a book contract. While campaigning even now, he’s lining his pockets with book sales, profits that supporters may mistakenly believe are going toward the campaign.

●Throwing Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) under the bus by calling Ryan’s Medicare reform plan “right-wing social engineering,” though Gingrich later recanted and said he would implement the plan as an option while keeping the current system in place.

●Accepting $1.6 million in consulting fees from Freddie Mac to help persuade conservatives not to dismantle the mortgage company, even as he called people who supported Freddie criminals.

But this is Washington talking, and too many Americans beyond the bubble don’t want to hear what Washington has to say. They prefer to hear Gingrich say, “I’d rather be effective representing the American people than be popular inside Washington.”

This is music to the ears of those who have come to loathe and distrust all things Washington, even though Gingrich is as much a Washington insider as anyone. And there’s a reason for his unpopularity. It isn’t because of his marriages or his Tiffany’s expense account. It is because his erratic behavior and his inability to resist the sound of his own voice have caused Republicans to lose too many fights.

Gingrich’s campaign may tell the larger tale. Thanks to poor management, he has been playing catch-up in Iowa. He accumulated massive debt during his high-flying early days of the campaign. Might voters extrapolate that as one runs a campaign, one may also run the country? By comparison, Romney’s campaign is a seamless, debt-free marvel of spreadsheets and bottom lines.

This is not to diminish Gingrich’s many good qualities, which even his detractors are eager to acknowledge. He is creative and stimulates fresh thinking. He is a unique legislator who knows history. He cuts a swath through any room and commands an audience as no other.

But when a man who intends to lead the country cannot marshal the loyalty of those he has attempted to lead before, voters might pay heed. Then again, if Republicans want to make Democrats happy, Gingrich is their man.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gops-death-wish/2011/12/09/gIQALe5CjO_story.html

[Darnell 8,478]

Ron Paul FTW !

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Why are Democrats SO beside themselves that Republicans like someone other than Mitt Romney?

These silly polls they put out seem to be written by 20-somethings with maybe two Presidential elctions in their memory bank.

Check back on the polls going back a few decades, to the early 70s for example. Back to Nixon '72 Check the polling data for incumbent 1 year before the election. If the incumbent is "leading" 47-43% one year before the election, he ends up losing the election 52-48% In all but two cases. WHY?

Over the past 4 decades (possibly further back I only went back to Nixon) the "undecideds" go for the challenger 83-17% in the general election. I mean, WHO is "undecided" about Barrack Obama at this point? This is why Reagan-Carter, 1980 was "too close to call" the day before Reagan wiped up the floor with Carter. People writing this nonsense have no recollection of that and studying it would not support their position so they don't.

The only exceptions were the 1992 (George HW Bush incumbent) and 1996 (Clinton incumbent)elections where there was a strong 3rd party candidate (Perot) and Clinton won with no more than 43% of the vote.

Without a strong 3rd party candidate right now, Obama would lose to either Romney or Gingrich.

[brian_n_phuong 193]

Without a strong 3rd party candidate right now, Obama would lose to either Romney or Gingrich.

What will be interesting is "who" will be the running mate?

Romney and GIngrich probably will not work, never good politics to match the two lead dogs on the ballot. My guess is would be the addition of a tea party conservative as the VP-2-B. Cain is too damaged; perhaps Bachman?

[brian_n_phuong 193]

Ron Paul has some cool ideas, but then drives off the cliff when he speaks about foreign policy. I don't think will ever be a serious contender and seems more interested in pushing his message out. Trump does the same thing, except his message is nothing more than pumping his own ego.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

What will be interesting is "who" will be the running mate?

Romney and GIngrich probably will not work, never good politics to match the two lead dogs on the ballot. My guess is would be the addition of a tea party conservative as the VP-2-B. Cain is too damaged; perhaps Bachman?

How old are you? 20 something? 30 something? No offense intended, just asking. In 1980 Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush were ripping each other new @ssholes during the Republican primary debates, the rhetoric and insults are unmatched to date. Bush said Reagan was promoting "Voodoo economics", Reagan said "Some people look up the facts, others make them up". Reagan chose Bush as his running mate. I would have guessed Reagan was going to pick Gerald Ford, there was even talk among the "talking heads" at the time of a "co-presidency" Reagan made a good choice and Bush became the first VP to be elected as president immediately following his VP term since the mid 1800s.the two top people are actually the BEST choice since you keep the people that supported the number 2 guy. At least so goes the theory. It has worked so far in recent history.

Gingrich is from the South, Romney from the north...also a good combination since...forever, check it out. Gingrich the politician, Romney the business man, another long time winning combination.

Cain is too damaged, correct. Racist Dems were not going to allow a black man to be President unless he was one of the Plantation Blacks from the Dems. Bachman is too stupid. Santorum is a loser.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Ron Paul has some cool ideas, but then drives off the cliff when he speaks about foreign policy. I don't think will ever be a serious contender and seems more interested in pushing his message out. Trump does the same thing, except his message is nothing more than pumping his own ego.

Ron Paul is, actually, a Libertarian. I am a Libertarian, meaning I identify most with their positions but do not agree with all of them. Ron Paul has always come off a bit as the crazy uncle that lives in the basement, too bad. His son may be the guy for the future. Ron Paula allows himself to get called out and sucked in and that is why he will never make it.

Libertarians often allow themselves to get called out for extremes of beliefs and that is a shame actually. Anyone could do the same for Dems or Repubs but they do not because they know that either will feed the system they rely on. There is little difference. One COULD make out a Repub or Dem to be just as goofy as a Libertarian on issues such as abortion, illegal immigration etc. They always try to discredit Libertarians over things which are really not all that important as issues to them. Because the issues imporatn to Libertarians would destroy the very cozy little system the Republican and Democrat politicians have a lot invested in. Ths is why in a free country of 300 million people you have only TWO viable political parties.

[brian_n_phuong 193]

How old are you? 20 something? 30 something? No offense intended, just asking.

Twenty-Something?? In 82 I entered Federal service, and still a Federal Employee. Ronnie was my boss (and also GHWB) for many years. Go ahead, ask me if I can spell "Potato", or know how to eat a Tamale?

Debate jabs indicate nothing, just whom has the sharpest staff writers. I've met both of these gentleman, and both have huge egos. Placing GIngrich as #2 on the ticket with Romney would be as likely as a "Fill in any name"/Trump or a Obama/Clinton ticket, its NOT going to happen.

Santorum is not a loser, he's just too nice a guy to be elected at POTUS level.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Twenty-Something?? In 82 I entered Federal service, and still a Federal Employee. Ronnie was my boss (and also GHWB) for many years. Go ahead, ask me if I can spell "Potato", or know how to eat a Tamale?

Debate jabs indicate nothing, just whom has the sharpest staff writers. I've met both of these gentleman, and both have huge egos. Placing GIngrich as #2 on the ticket with Romney would be as likely as a "Fill in any name"/Trump or a Obama/Clinton ticket, its NOT going to happen.

Santorum is not a loser, he's just too nice a guy to be elected at POTUS level.

OK then. I just do not rule out them as running mates because of what I see so far.

I have no doubt they both have huge egos and I do not consider either one of them to be an "outsider" Even though they both want to try and say they are somehow.

If they were really ousiders, like Cain, they would have everyone trying to destroy them.