December 14th, 2011
Jonah Goldberg has a typically astute column today about the push-back against Gingrich, here’s his kicker:
Mitt Romney is still the sensible choice if you believe these are rough, but generally sensible, times. If, however, you think these are crazy and extraordinary times, then perhaps they call for a crazy, extraordinary — very high-risk, very high-reward — figure like Gingrich.
This helps explain why Newtzilla is so formidable. In order to stop him, you need to explain to very anxious GOP voters that the times don’t require him.
As a strategic matter, I think this is probably correct, but at the tactical political level I suspect it’s still possible to stop Newt. If someone were to drop, say, $30M in negative ads on him between now and Feb. 1, it might build up his negatives enough to matter.
P.S.: Josh Kraushaar makes the best-case argument for Newt–that he’s Steve Jobs.
And here I thought “Newtzilla” was a reference to Newt’s casually floating the idea of doing Jurassic Park for real.
What I don’t understand about the punditocracy, and I’ve posted this elsewhere is the complete disregard for Gingrich’s time in office and more of a focus on his statements since that time. When he was actually in power he
Only if you know, ignore his 20 years in Congress.
He cut taxes in 1997.
He reformed welfare.
He balanced the budget.
He was responsible for the greatest GOP victory in 40 years and his Congress got more conservative with time.
From 1992-2000 Republicans spent much of their time trying to convince the country that “Character Matters.” No one individual did more to discredit Republicans on this issue than Newt Gingrich. The notion that he might be the nominee is frightening.
Newt’s big 1994 triumph came when he was 51 or so. He’s now 68. Is he getting better with age?