Newt’s Fake Presidential Run
Newt Gingrich has been in the news an awful lot recently for someone who’s essentially a washed-up has-been. And I think you have to understand him floating the idea of a 2012 presidential run in that context. The idea of a campaign keeps him in the news which helps him with his fundraising. And I’m sure he’s enjoying a very comfortable life raking in some special interest bucks to make occasional TV appearance and launch fake “ideas” that amount to “tax cuts and giveaways to fossil fuel companies.” But as Jason Zengerle says “the odds that Newt runs for president in 2012 are as low as they were in 2008. Still, you’ve got to love the way he carefully constructs excuses he can use for when he ultimately decides not to toss his hat in the ring.”
The latest twist on this is that his consultations about whether or not to run include the delicate sensibilities of his grandchildren. But the whole thing is preposterous. Even back when Gingrich was a powerful officeholder he was hideously unpopular! Bill Clinton’s re-election campaign strategy in 1996 largely revolved around painting Bob Dole as similar to Newt Gingrich. It’s very easy to paint Newt Gingrich as similar to Newt Gingrich. They even look the same. They’ve got the same name. The same voting record. The main’s a Gingrich clone. No, wait, it’s the same guy!
The strange thing, from where I sit, is how much difficulty the GOP seems to be having in finding a white Catholic guy from the Midwest and deciding that he’s the big rising star. It’s clear from the election results that a large number of white midwestern Catholics are Republicans, and that’s the winning identity for a GOP national figure. Instead you get Bobby Jindal, the bizarre Michael Steele, and a procession of warmed-over southern evangelicals.
39 Responses to “Newt’s Fake Presidential Run”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
March 6th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
don’t forget mitt romney, plastic wonder!
March 6th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
There’s always Brownback, heh, or maybe they can get Pawlenty to re-convert, or they can convince the newly Catholic Newt to move to Iowa.
March 6th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Odious and unpopular as he is, I don’t think Newt qualifies as an evangelical. Though he’s from Georgia, he doesn’t really register as southern either. I’d classify him as more of a white wingnut, which has the added bonus of being alliterative.
March 6th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Let’s start a Draft John Roberts movement! I mean, he’s from Buffalo, but that’s just down the Lake from Cleveland or something, innit?
March 6th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
The strange thing, from where I sit, is how much difficulty the GOP seems to be having in finding a white Catholic guy from the Midwest and deciding that he’s the big rising star.
I think he’s an evangelical now (did he convert from RC?), but my guess is that after Huckabee and Giuliani and Palin and Jindal are done flaming out, the GOP will settle on the decaf skim latte that is Tim Pawlenty.
Rob Mac: I think about a year ago, Newtie tried on some evangelical garb, but it didn’t help with speaking fees, so he’s back to crackpot libertarianism on money and garden variety authoritarianism on ’social issues’.
March 6th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
The strange thing, from where I sit, is how much difficulty the GOP seems to be having in finding a white Catholic guy from the Midwest and deciding that he’s the big rising star.
You’re just baiting Douthat, aren’t you?
March 6th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Paul Ryan.
March 6th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
It’s clear from the election results that a large number of white midwestern Catholics are Republicans,
Is it? I’m too lazy to check right now, but I didn’t know that white midwestern Catholics go Republican any more reliably than non-midwestern white Catholics or non-Catholic white midwesterners. For that matter, I didn’t even know there were all that many Catholics in the midwest.
To just pick a name from the most obvious choices, Mitt Romney seems the most likely next Republican leader, whether as an informal spokesman, as RNC chair or as the 2012 nominee. He’s religious but not a southern evangelical, he can claim some accomplishments even if they were in a liberal state, and not holding office now means his approval ratings won’t go down with the economy. And as for the superficial side, the weird names in his family aren’t as weird as Obama’s, and he’s tall. (Half an inch taller than Obama, in fact.)
March 6th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Isn’t Jindal Catholic?
March 6th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Mittens the GOP nominee in ‘12? The Mormon, CEO Slick-Willie 2.0, rallying the party whose base consists of Rush, Palin and Joe the Plumber?
Nah. Gah. Happen.
March 6th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Spot-on observation. Gingrich is the one GOoPer who knows he’s not an expert, though he plays one on TV. Gingrich recruited and advised candidates in the 80s and 90s based on their lack of self-awareness and limited knowledge of the real world. He trained them to slime their opponents with words from his approved list of epithets, none of which had anything to do with actual issues.
But Newt knows he is a lying wanker, a moral cheat and political coward. And he knows his appeal is limited–it was always his design to lead a small cadre of fanatics. He doesn’t actually get along with people. He had leveraged himself into a situation similar to Rush’s: the worse the GOP does, the more he prospers.
March 6th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Plus his name is Newt.
March 6th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
I don’t understand why people still think Romney has got a shot. The GOP has spent decades transforming itself into a primarily religious party. When you choose a primarily religious identity as a group, you are not going to select somebody without that identity to be your leader.
It is, by the way, the same reason the GOP hasn’t chosen a Catholic leader. Having grown up in a religious right community I can tell you that evangelical protestants regard Catholicism as little better than a cult, which they do think Mormonism is. The only Catholic who could plausibly win the GOP nomination is Jeb Bush, whose name is enough of a disqualifying factor.
March 6th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Haha.
It is quite amazing, isn’t it? Ross Douthat, Palin/Jindal fanboy extroidinaire! Like, Douthat was supposed to be all “Smart, new, young conservative with neat, new ideas!” And two of his most promising politicians to help usher in the Grand New Party? Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal! That’s pretty rough. I feel bad for him somewhat b’c he does seem like a reasonable guy, but he has a propensity to pick the wingnuttiest of wingnuts as his rising political stars.
March 6th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Pawlenty is so white bread that he totally disappears when there’s snow on the ground. He weaseled out of accountability for the collapsed bridge by throwing his lieutenant governor under the bus. She was removed as head of the Dept. of Transportation with his tacit agreement, and now makes virtually no public appearances. At the same time this was all going on, Gov. Tim spent 120 days outside the state campaigning for McCain. He pretty much wasn’t missed because, with huge Dem majorities in both house of the legislature, he wasn’t relevant.
Like Mitt, Pawlenty doesn’t actually believe in anything except for his destiny to be elected to something higher. Whatever the party stands for in 2012, Tim Pawlenty will stand for it, too.
March 6th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Newt Gingrich was and is hideously popular among the Washington Press Corps. This explains why there has always been and will always be discussion of Newt 00, Newt 04, Newt 08, Newt 12, Newt 12+4x as long as he is alive.
March 6th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Matt’s right about the Midwest. If the GOP wins a presidential election in the next 12 years, they’re going to have to do it by competing in Iowa or Michigan or Ohio, or for god’s sake Indiana. And normally they ought to have a decent shot at those states. Especially if we Dems attack agricultural subsidies (as we should).
But my answer to Matt’s question about the missing Catholic Republican from Michigan would be this: one of the consequences, when a party doubles down on stupid, is that it fails to attract the sort of smart people who might provide the next generation of leadership.
In the last five years, I bet a lot of smart 40-year-old conservatives have decided not to bother running for public office.
March 6th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
To be entirely fair, Douthat didn’t continue on the BS train after both Palin and Jindal turned out to be duds, which separates him from the Krauthammers and Limbaughs of the world.
And Palin and Jindal both seemed like they could plausibly be pragmatic, moderate reformers until they actually opened their mouths on the national stage. But yeah, I’d short whatever stock Ross is selling these days.
March 6th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
When Newt Gingrich is the Voice of Reason, there’s something wrong with your party. And when a guy like Newt has to compete with Joe the Plumber as an intellectual force, the problems are much worse than they appear. Stick a fork in their ass, they’re done. Sadly, the Democrats can’t really claim victory here. The Republicans killed themselves. You can’t stand over the dead body of a suicide victim and say you killed him.
March 6th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Douthat is a good example of why it’s so unrewarding to be a smart Republican right now. He really isn’t dumb, but he doesn’t have a lot of promising options. Lately he seems to spend a lot of time shrugging, or writing about Tolkien, or film.
March 6th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Having grown up in a religious right community I can tell you that evangelical protestants regard Catholicism as little better than a cult, which they do think Mormonism is.
*Shrug* Not having grown up in such a community, I’ll take your word for it. It’s not like there are any good potential leaders, though, just ones that are bad in different ways.
March 6th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
But hold on, the Republican Party will rise again, just like The South did. Oh wait….
March 6th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Newt Gingrich has been in the news an awful lot recently for someone who’s essentially a washed-up has-been.
Matt, you’re hilarious. There’s no such thing as a has been to these right-wingers. It’s kind of like being on a science fiction show that was canceled a long time ago: you’re always invited to the conventions or to host marathons on the Scifi channel. Newt Gingrich is Johnathan Frakes.
March 6th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Why no white Catholic? The base still doesn’t trust the Catholic Church, simple as that.
March 6th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
What is the difference between “washed-up” and “has-been?”
I had this discussion very late one night in Las Vegas after witnessing a performance at Bally’s by Tom Jones.
March 6th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Most has-beens are washed up, but not all. If you get out before you look bad, you’re just a has-been. Jim Brown was never washed up.
March 6th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Whoever said “Paul Ryan” above is right. I live in his district. Not only is he Catholic with the large family to prove it, he comes off as smart and polished and seems to be biding his time and picking his battles. This district (WI-1) should be contestable for democrats, but hasn’t been for a long time. He’s definitely one to watch. I fear him.
March 6th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
For those of you dismissing Mitt’s chances of winning the GOP nomination in 2012, did you forget how the 2008 GOP primary played out? If not for Huckabee splitting the conservative vote in several states, Romney would have beat McCain.
Plus, if the economy hasn’t fully recovered by then, Romney would probably get a boost as the Republican with the most financial smarts.
March 6th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Ok then Ryan, but I think that your hopes will improve substantially if you stopped referring to yourself in the third person.
March 6th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Paul Ryan.
Yes, and Jeri Ryan would make a really hot First Lady.
Oh, wait, I almost forgot.
March 6th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Sorry, can’t keep my Ryans straight. Jeri was married to Jack Ryan. Carry on.
March 6th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Sorry, can’t keep my Ryans straight. Jeri was married to Jack Ryan. Carry on.
I thought he was a Tom Clancy character…
March 6th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Sadly, the Democrats can’t really claim victory here. The Republicans killed themselves. You can’t stand over the dead body of a suicide victim and say you killed him.
Well, they can at least claim to have followed Napoleon’s advice: Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
More seriously, the Republicans’ real problem is that they can’t stop running to their base. Their base is intolerant of compromise, ambiguity, or nuance. Anything less than full-throated commitment to the base’s ideology uber alles is unacceptable, and if they ever *do* nominate a moderate for pragmatical reasons, he’ll have to spend the rest of the campaign placating the base at the expense of his general election chances. (See McCain, J. – and note that the Republican base actually believes that he lost because he wasn’t conservative enough.)
March 6th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Political parties don’t “find” people to run, not in this day and age. Nominations are seized, not given.
March 7th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Re: For that matter, I didn’t even know there were all that many Catholics in the midwest.
Depends what you call ‘Midwest’, but Wisconsin, central and eastern Michigan, and the Chicago area are all heavily Catholic areas.
March 7th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Political parties don’t “find” people to run, not in this day and age. Nominations are seized, not given.
Not for local and state races. The parties definitely cultivate up-and-comers. And nationally, it’s hardly dead. Palin, for example, was “found” at a meet-and-greet where national politicos met state and large-city officeholders.
March 7th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Minnesota, Iowa and the plains states from Kansas all the way north have plenty of Catholics as well.