Originally Posted by SDW2001
Agreed, though not on Romney vs. Obama. He'll take him on and not do damage to himself in the process. There is a risk that Gingrich goes off the reservation and goes back to his older, more acerbic and arrogant ways.
You do realize that acerbic and arrogant are just how the media portrays someone crazy enough to get conservatives agenda items done. Someone is acerbic and arrogant when they presume they can cut the rate of spending growth and balance the budget without grandma dying. Where's the proof he is actually this way or is different from any other candidate in say, being arrogant enough to believe they should be president.
Gingrich is very good at this, but I think Romney is just as good and delivers the message in more a appealing way.
If by appealing you mean bland and unmotivational, then you are right.
Again, I agree in principle, but I think that you're implying Romney doesn't put these things "out there." He does, but he does so in a different way than Newt does. Gingrich is all intellectual. Romney is intellectual as well (not as much as Gingrich), but packages the message much better and much more optimistically.
I'd say Gingrich is very optimistic. However he is also forceful when the time calls for it. When someone is noting that rockets are launching at Israel daily or that Iran is trying to go nuclear, there isn't an optimism you want there. You want to advocate for clear force in a strong manner and if the media want to just make you sound like a warmonger, then you've got to forcefully make a clear case and Gingrich has done this. I'm not sure it can be done with a smile.
According to your own logic, the public won't care because the media will be slamming him on it. They'll also go after him on Freddie Mac, his personal life and some of his grandiose statements/positions.
They've already been going after him on it. His statements have met the media onslaught pretty well. I don't Gingrich will win Iowa but I'm not sure he ever would have one Iowa. I foresee him doing second in Iowa, probably second in New Hampshire and the starting to take the lead as things move on to Florida and South Carolina.
Romney really has none of those negatives.
Seriously? They'll say Newt made $1.2-1.6 million from Wall Street/Freddie Mac but somehow won't note that all the Romney family money and the entire private sector experience including a massive chunk of Romney's personal $250 million plus of personal wealth came from Wall St./Bain Capital?
I'm not saying they will ring completely true and I just don't think Americans hate on success the way Democrats believe. I think Obama's class warfare is a loser of an issue but the point remains that there's no way to bring up one and not seriously bring up the other as a negative.
They can go after him on healthcare, changing abortion positions, and being Wall Street. In my opinion he can counter those things much more effectively than Gingrich can counter the problems he's had. He can probably explain away the infidelity thing, but the ethics charges, the GOP turning on him, global warming, the moon mirror-type stuff and taking $1.2 million from Freddie...that's a tough road to hoe.
I think he can turn them to strengths because the GOP brand is not completely untarnished. People are still looking for someone who can claim to be outside the problems even if Gingrich isn't a complete outsider. The point is that he left power in 1999 and hasn't been back since. That decade out of office happens to be when the GOP left some of their priorities he can say he will be bringing them back to them. No one claims the GOP is a completely united party and it is clear there's about 70% of the party that tea party/paleocon and the Rockefeller/establishment wing is what is attracted to Romney. As you noted part of what shut Romney down in 2008 was the division between him and Huckabee. That could well happen to Gingrich and Paul this time but the reality is that the majority of the party isn't what Romney promotes. They aren't North-Eastern Semi-Conservatives. The infidelity thing I believe has been addressed. The ethics charge (not multiple) was minor and he can show the partisan nature of them because he beat back I believe it was 97 other filed charges. American can understand that if you had a cop who had your number and who wrote you 98 tickets that if you beat 97 of them, you've really shown the motive of the cop and managed to have one minor thing stick rather than being a bad person.
As for the space stuff, I think America needs stuff like that. I think the nerd contingent (of which I count myself) is serious sad that we have to rely on Russia to get to space and that we have no vehicles to take people there ourselves right now. They don't want America's space capabilities to only be represented in a frigging museum. The Freddie stuff I've explained. It makes more than enough sense and is small potatoes compared to what others make for speeches, appearances or consulting.
That's quite a statement...one that I'm surprised to read. No one doubts that Gingrich is a great thinker, a fountain of policy ideas, etc. But people in the party have serious concerns about his leadership style, his personal and political past, his positions on past issues (he makes Romney look like Plymouth Rock), and his overall likability. I'm not even saying I take issue with all of it, but that many people in the party do. Making the statement that he's the only one who can unify the party is pretty darn amazing, trump. I totally disagree with it.
You don't seem to remember that Newt was the whip before he was the speaker. Of course those who do nothing but sit on the sidelines and pontificate have reservations. Anyone can when they are an arm chair quarterback versus being in the trenches. That is why I used the anecdote about football and getting hit. Leadership means getting hit and Gingrich didn't have a problem with it. Who did was the party after the got the budget balanced, then lost a few seats in the midterms in 1998. It wasn't Gingrich though who backed away from conservative principles and from wanting to balance budgets and push legislation through, it was elements of the party who then had us deficit spending again in the early 2000's.
As an aside, I don't frankly care about his personal past. I think the ethics charges are bogus. Overall he's been a consistent conservative. But I do find him to be somewhat erratic, arrogant and unlikeable at times. I would support him as the nominee and would enjoy watching him shred Obama in a debate. But elections are about much more than just debates, policy and even ideas.
I understand and it's been a blast in my opinion throwing all this out there and basically having us political wonks get our thoughts and opinions expressed to each other.
Reasonable point, though I think it may have been simpler. Gingrich was too acerbic. He picked too many fights. Once he became The Gingrich that Stole Christmas, the GOP decided to part pays with him.
Hey those fights need to be picked. I've never claimed Gingrich was the man to lead the party forever. Much like Churchhill, he might just be the man for the moment. The man who bends the curve down and starts the discussion in a different direction. Hopefully this time the direction continues on the downward path. Before the revolution got a little comfortable in Washington and 4 years later decided they'd rather start letting spending inch back up and cave rather than fight.
You know who else Gingrich reminds me of in terms of leadership? Pat Riley. I love that guy as a coach and a GM. It's clear winning is going to happen wherever he is at and he absolutely makes the unpopular decisions and picks the fights when they need to happen. However remember that Pat Riley got tossed out of LA as a coach when Magic Johnson got a little too tired of the ever present extended practices, needling an cajoling to improve. Sure the Lakers had won back to back's and had won five in a decade, but Pat wanted more and Magic wanted to go home a little early.
That doesn't mean Pat Riley was wrong though. It just meant the team choose wrong and didn't care to win as much. I think that is much like the Republicans coming into 2000. They want from fighting to balance the budget, to gee...let's just let this little bit slide, stay in power and not have people hating on us continually in the media.
For now we need the former and not the latter. We need to fight.