Jan 26 2012
Revenge Of The GOP Sithe
Yes, I deliberately mangled the Star Wars analogy. I know it is hard to detect when I deliberately do that versus my penchant for typos and dyslexic writing. My apologies – but I love strategery
Today we see another lame effort by the GOP establishment to take out Newt – by calling on the Ghost of GOP Past: Ronald Wilson Reagan.
Unmentioned by Gingrich then, or in any of the 2,414 debates during this campaign, was his 1985 criticism of President Reagan’s historic meeting with Mikhail Gorbachev as “the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with (British Prime Minister) Chamberlain at Munich in 1938.”
I’m unimpressed. A young and cautious Gingrinch was schooled on politically bold moves by one of the masters of using his beliefs to guide his path. Similar to the successful behavior of George W Bush, who won his goals and the support of the people by sticking to principles, not saying one thing and doing another.
But why cry foul now because Newt did not always agree with Reagan back then? Is this piety to the image of a man of the people who rose to the Presidency going to impress anyone but the slavish Reagan Groupies (think Hannity here, who wants to be like Reagan but is not even close)?
Does the GOP establishment think Reagan was the reason they rode road to victory in 2010? Talk about your misfire.
I will say it again – this year’s key voters are the same Tea Party insurgents who swept away the old-tired guard in 2010. They hitched their cart to the small-government GOP and are taking the Republican Party by storm. They are going to change the GOP party through the age old art of democracy. Because they are going to change DC.
The other GOP establishment attack strategy has been to (1) claim Newt is too volatile, too bold and (2) Newt is impure. In fact the Reagan swipes are part of the “Newt is impure, too imperfect” gambit.
Let me take the 2nd issue first. The 2010 insurgent voters sees all of DC as dirty and conniving. No one is going to win by trying to convince these voters they are the least stained, or the others are more stained. Romney has RomneyCare, Bain Capitol and his liberal, big government dark side. Newt has no claim to fidelity and honor at home. As the WSJ noted previously, the best way to look at this field is:
As for the current GOP field, it’s like confronting a terminal diagnosis. There may be an apparent range of treatments: conventional (Romney), experimental (Gingrich), homeopathic (Paul) or prayerful (Santorum). But none will avail you in the end. Just try to exit laughing.
We are swimming in imperfections, so this impure and imperfect attack mode is a none starter.
So what will work? Well generalities won’t because the 2010 insurgent voter is not stupid nor naive. Vague and empty phrases only repel this upper middle class, successful voter (once know as the silent majority). They (or we) see things differently. We don’t want cautious or conventional (Romney). We want action. And that answers why the first kind of attack is failing.
We don’t want prayers or new age promises of instant success (Santorum and Paul). We want bold experimentation with an eye to shrink government to its minimum size (note well I did not say optimum size). Now that has some serious appeal!
I noted yesterday that I was going to explain why Romney and Bain are not the paragons of the free market so many Romney supporters want to claim. Bain is, and was, part vulture capitalism. Newt’s documentary on the wreckage left by Romney and Bain after pulling millions of dollars out of corporate carcasses is spot on in this regard. He did not do it universally, but he did do it a lot. Too much.
The defense has been “it is legal and he paid his taxes”. Well let me introduce you to a legendary business man who made is wealth legally and paid his taxes. He too was a big fan of destructive capitalism:
Yes folks, it is the fictional character Ebenezer Scrooge. The worst of the corporate raiders to be known by so many around the world. He has his real life contemporaries like robber barons and sweat shop owners. He is an example of what no business owner or manager should ever want to be associated with.
Now, if any of you Romney backers are thinking I am comparing Romney and Bain to Scrooge chill down. My only point here is you can be a legal, tax paying businessman and rightfully despised. Sadly for Romney, his actions at Bain allow a connection to this well known image of businessmen who forget or ignore the human factor when chasing profits.
In Dickens’ A Christmas Carol there was the counter example to Scrooge, the image of an admirable and loved businessman. This is embodied in the character of Mr. Fezziwig:
Fezziwig is one of the few people to whom Scrooge is thankful, for he says, “He has the power to render us happy or unhappy; to make our service light or burdensome; a pleasure or a toil…The happiness he gives, is quite as great as if it cost a fortune.” Scrooge is reminded how much he once appreciated Fezziwig. Since Fezziwig is the elder Scrooge’s opposite in many ways — in kindness, generosity, affection for his employees, relationship with family, and apparent happiness — Scrooge is thus confronted with the fact that his own choices have diverged greatly from those of someone he admires.
Now I would say, on the home front, Romney is closer to Fezziwig. But on the corporate front he is definitely tilted to the Scrooge side of the spectrum. And when we look to someone to dismantle Big Government, we are not looking for someone who takes an ax to the deal. There are still lives, careers and families to deal with.
So is there a Fezziwig in the race? Not any more. Herman Cain was playing that role (which is why he was succeeding so well). But there are Fezziwig like examples out there – and they exist in small businesses (not Big Government).
The best example I can come up with I think people could connect with is a man named Chef Robert Irvine and his uplifting show Restaurant Impossible.
I love this show because it is admirable on so many levels. Here is a successful man answering the calls of desperate small businesses (many family owned and run). Chef Irvine comes in with 2 days and $10,000 and literally saves people from ruin and despair. He does not walk away with millions. He does, however, try to save every job. He gives secrets, talents and skills he has learned away to the needy.
He teaches the people how to fish (or run a restaurant), he does not hand out fish.
This show is an example of what 2010 voters cherish and admire – and why Romney will never connect. He is not this kind of corporate re-builder. These people work their butts off to help others. And many of these people are below rock bottom. Savior versus profiteer.
Does Irvin and his folks get some financial return? Of course. But his goal is to salvage the company at all costs, not savage it for all potential profits.
2010 voters instinctively know the difference. They know Big Government is incapable of such actions (though the big government types strive to be Robin Hood, while they decide who is ‘worthy’). They know the difference between a Romney and an Irvine (or the Fezziwig verses Scrooge class).
Is Newt imperfect and radical? Yes. Is that bad? Not to a 2010 insurgent voter.
Is Newt an impure conservative? Yes. Is that bad? Not to a 2010 insurgent voter.
Is Newt pissing off the GOP establishment? Yes. Is that the primary goal of the 2010 insurgent voter?
You Betcha!
What Romney is doing should cost him EVERY self-respecting Republican vote in America and disqualify him forever as a candidate or even a presence within the conservative movement. Romney is channeling the Left in every despicable aspect and nature of character destruction through narrative distortion; he is not simply adapting their techniques but simulating their very essence. It is not merely an unjust attack on a man, but a larger attack on the complicated processes of civic good-faith in the political system and on the inherent conservative respect for these processes.
Romney has chosen to misrepresent for his own purposes a hallmark case study in the Left’s mission of political assassination at a moment of national peril when conservatives should be calling out this case and the larger mission as the crimes they are, not seeking, opportunistically, to imitate them.
The offense is even more striking given Gingrich’s struggles and battle scars in the fight against the Left while Romney was never close to this war and indeed dodged it, disdained it and disavowed it. It is akin to a peacenik or presumed conscientious objector distorting the record of a war hero or even daring to comment or offer insight into the conditions of a war he never neared and could not imagine.
It is a moral crime and a total political betrayal in the deepest sense. Romney has endorsed not only a gross political lie but the particular, insidious form of its propagation through which the Left sustains itself.
The “disgrace” belongs to Romney, and in a just world his political “career” — such as it is — would be over.
“… his 1985 criticism of President Reagan’s historic meeting with Mikhail Gorbachev as “the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with (British Prime Minister) Chamberlain at Munich in 1938.”
Missing from this storyline is the fact that Newt was no an outlier with this criticism of the Reykjavík Summit. Since the summit was a closed affair, most of the world had no idea what had happened for hours, if not days or years, after the meeting of the heads of the two “superpowers” had concluded.
Romney has RomneyCare, Bain Capitol and his liberal, big government dark side. Newt has no claim to fidelity and honor at home<
Gotta say, I almost spit out my morning coffee when I read the simple contrast of supposed 'cons' that AJ summarized in that quote.
Romneycare is being stretched as much out of proportion by some on the right as they are doing on the left. It was an early social experiment passed by an 85% democratic majority legislature in one of the most liberal states in America. Romney worked with the liberal majority on this health care measure, banned assault rifles and said he wouldn't attempt to chip away at the abortion laws already in place, although he did veto legislation that came across his desk dealing with using embryonic cells in 2005, which he has said, much like what happened to Reagan, was a turning point in clarifying his pro-life resolve.
I truly don't see how you can extrapolate a "big government dark side" from displaying a moderate government leadership in this dark blue area of the country. Furthermore, Romney, not disassociating himself from Romneycare, only indicates to me that, unlike Newt, he is not stepping away from his past role, in what is now viewed negatively because of the left’s linkage of it to their attempts to nationalize HC, in order to please and cater to the conservative base. Romney sees MA’s HC policy as an appropriate “new idea” at the time, comprising components that were praised by not only conservative think tanks but also his primary opponent Newt Gingrich.
BTW, you guys never bring up Newt’s health mandate involvement, including how he lobbied for them as his work as a ‘consultant.’
Treating Bain like it is a stain on Romney’s record is another distortion, a dangerous one, as taken out of context the right continues to highlight the failures of Bain, while ignoring the majority of successes this company attained. It’s a lopsided way to look at venture capitalism, especially when using Gingrich’s campaign film as a template for your disdain of Romney’s work with this company.
Also there is much more to people’s concerns with Newt Gingrich’s than simply his sordid personal life. What has Gingrich ever done outside of DC? He has needed “big government” to make a living!Take away his consulting work (aka influence peddling) how has he ever personally engaged in or interacted with the private sector? His work as a college professor was as unremarkable as was Obama’s. His glory days in Congress had the Reagan legacy, a booming economy, and a president willing to go to the center, as the wind at his back. Even with all these advantages, the words coming from his cohorts in Congress have little praise for either Gingrich’s leadership or for him as a person. His popularity at one point was 14%, in the 90″s, which is now the era cited by him for his claim to conservative fame.
Also, Gingrich cajoles people by saying “I’ve changed, mellowed.”
But, has he?
Just look at the last debate, when he sent thrills up your leg by putting down ABC’s opening salvo dealing with his infidelities:
Gingrich admits ABC claim was false
At best Gingrich puts a lot of “falsies” in dwelling on the history of himself, and putting a colony on the moon. At the very worst, the man is a lyer.
At the best Romney might be able to use his turn-around business expertise and focus, using it in the government to cut spending, waste and create jobs in the private sector, a place he has spent most of his life and knows well. At the very worst, he will not stress putting a colony on the moon, and continue to be very rich.
Some more info on Romney term as MA governor:
MA was at 47, I believe, when he left office.
Below is a quote from someone who worked in political campaigns during Gingrich’s Congressional years:
This differs from RedTeams experience with Newt in Georgia. But, it does show another perspective from the vantage point of someone working in political races, on the other side. He’s a fair person, though,whose posts lack the normal fare of ideology that most political junkies tend to have.
I’ll also add the most recent polls, in juxtaposition to the ones posted earlier here:
This could all change, of course, as the debate forum is where Newt throws out his magic dust and everyone falls in love with him…until they get to know him.
LOL!
Jan – RomneyCare = Big Government.
How did you miss that????
AJ
With all due respect, that was explained in my post. But, I will do it again.
When Romneycare was passed, it was at a time when conservatives were flirting with the idea of mandates as being a genuine (but untested) option to off-set the rising health care costs. Newt was for health care mandates as well…as was the Heritage Foundation. Are they for “big government?”
Romney has not denounced Romneycare as it was devised and passed as a state healthcare intervention, not a big government health care plan, as Obamacare is.
There is a difference.
Furthermore, Romney has said consistently that he opposed big government healthcare, will issue waivers to states, and work with congress (hopefully a cooperative one) to repeal/reform Obamacare.
Below is yet another poll done on the 25th:
Jan,
First rule of holes, stop digging.
Not ALL conservatives were flirting with disaster.Just the ones who still believed in Big Government Only solutions.
Thats funny, I was thinking last night Newt reminds me of Jabba the Hut.
I must say I am depressed.
A house divided can not stand.
What I see is a divided country and a party deeply divided, with internecine fighting all over the place.
Furthermore, I haven’t seen anything, even remotely, close to the hatred showing up everywhere, in the society, our political life, our media, our blogs, EVERYWHERE.
I place that squarely at the feet of the man in the WH and the self elected “elites” , in both parties, who are only for themselves, country be damned.
Romney shills are a disgrace.
LOL! Oneal!!!
You owe me new computer screen
😉
Yeah, and Morrissey went with the Star Wars them too today.
Jan,
NOW that we have polls that used to show a Gingrich lead showing a Romney lead, NOW you can claim Romney has changed the dynamics and is bouncing back.
Mathematically, you could not say that yesterday.
Just the facts ma’am
In a race changing this quickly I don’t put much faith in any of the polls no matter what they show. When Florida votes, then we’ll know a little bit more about what voters are thinking, and not before.
And MarkN, the personal attack on Jan is way out of line. AJ has always tried to run a blog that allows people to disagree without letting the comments degenerate into a pile of meaningless personal insults. Try to show a little bit of class if you expect your posts to earn any respect.
The establishment has taken the Republican contest past the point of no return. There is no way I can cast a vote for Romney in the general election. Period. I’m quite certain I’m not the only one who feels this way.
WWS: you didn’t read the first post. Every self-respecting. Coulter is not self-respecting. She has gone off the disgraceful deep end.
AJ, You want the 15 or 17 inch monitor?
Dbostan, yes it is depressing. It seems like we had 3 years to get ready for this election and this is the best we could do?
Currently I am praying for a brokered convention, but then who could we pick?
OL
oneal lane:
That’s the Great Question. From my perspective, NONE of the people mentioned as contenders a year ago (Palin, Barbour, Christie, Daniels, Jeb Bush) can be put forward. If they didn’t have the moxie to run against this weak field, they don’t have the moxie to run for President at all.
The options I can see are two. First, we could nominate someone from the second tier of potential candidates. Rand Paul. Paul Ryan. Bob McDonnell (the best bet, in my opinion). The other option would be “double or nothing” – to go completely outside the political class. In which case I can think of only one person who has both the requisite profile and reputation: Victor Davis Hansen. Not my first pick if I could CHOOSE a President, but definitely in my top three.
AJ,
The trend is not Gingrich’s Friend in Florida:
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/trend-florida-polling/339941
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/romney-surge-real/341336
Mike,
Outside the political class, I would go for Chuck Norris.
John Kasich of Ohio is a good choice, agreed?
OL