Victor Davis Hanson, two days ago:
All the Romney-alternatives — Bachmann, Cain, Christie, Giuliani, Palin, Perry, Rubio, Trump — came and went, or never came at all, except the most unlikely one, Newt Gingrich. With the implosion of the Cain campaign, and the realization that there are for now no more great conservative hopes on the horizon, Gingrich has pulled off one of the more unlikely comebacks in presidential-primary history, and finds himself ahead in the Republican polls.
Half the Republican electorate is relieved, or even delighted, about Gingrich. They are sure that almost any Republican could beat an imploding Barack Obama, who gets weirder with each rant about the rich.
Why then not nominate a brilliant, imaginative, and exciting live-wire chatterbox like Gingrich?
[....]
There isn’t actually much difference between the two on the issues. Gingrich has flip-flopped as much as Romney — take your pick whether you think Romneycare is as bad as Newt’s embrace of an individual mandate, or whether Newt’s cap-and-trade alliance with Pelosi trumps Mitt’s former support for gun control and abortion.
Both are sixty-something establishment white guys. Romney appears younger and fitter, but not necessarily more energetic. Gingrich is quicker on his feet and sharper of tongue, but less circumspect and reliable in what he says. Mitt’s grudges and peeves are more apparent but of shorter duration; Newt’s are less perceptible, but deeper and more enduring. The Left hates both, though its dislike of the hypercapitalist Romney is more abstract, while its loathing of the conservative gladiator Gingrich is visceral and has a long history. That distinction either delights blood-spattered conservative brawlers or frightens worry-wart Republicans dreading daily New York Times hit pieces.
If Romney’s orthodox Mormonism bothers evangelicals, so do Newt’s abandoned former wives and mistresses. Gingrich over the years has accumulated lots of enemies, but Romney doesn’t seem to have gained lots of friends. Some Republicans insist that Romney is not a conservative in a way they assured themselves that he certainly was four years ago when he ran against maverick John McCain. Others swear that beneath the conservative slogans, tea-party postures, and Reaganesque lectures, Gingrich’s actual record is more centrist or erratic than conservative.
How, then, did Gingrich surge ahead of not only the other non-Romneys, but Romney himself? By a brilliant political strategy of playing the senior statesman above the fray. A grandfatherly Newt focused anger on Obama and the media rather than his rivals and at the same time dispelled the worst memories of his firebomber younger self of the mid-1990s: The new Gingrich apparently would not like the slash-and-burn partisanship of the old Gingrich. Newt also made the brilliant calculation that in all the talk about who is the true conservative, most primary voters would agree that Romney’s flip-flop from a moderate to a conservative was far greater than his own from conservative to moderate....
And as for the debate:
The Candidates Act Like Themselves
.... We have arrived at a weird state in which we would rather listen to and cringe at an exciting and sometimes loose-cannon Gingrich than to a more reliable Romney. My sense is that Gingrich surges ahead each debate, then like the tide falls back as yet another op-ed points out yet another past or present contradiction.
Gingrich has the flair for the melodramatic moment, as in “The first thing I would do as president would be to . . .” and usually some good things follow, like an executive order withholding federal funds to sanctuary cities that flout federal law. But just when the audience appreciates that forthrightness (sort of a professorial version of Perry’s Texism), Gingrich turns to the utterly impracticable, like dressing down (or worse) federal judges (he will quietly drop all that soon, I think, despite all his allusions to his past judicial criticism). His academic mode can become condescending, especially in his pat-on-the-head-like dismissals of Bachmann. He can’t quite deal with the Freddie Mac charges, and needs to admit that his fee was as unwise as the Pelosi commercials or the recent Bain left-wing critique. Gingrich doesn’t deal well with criticism or with practical implementation — but 90 percent of his ideas are impressive and weighty. The other 10 percent are better unsaid.
Perry is now coming off more statesmanlike, as a Sam Houston, ramrod-straight, simplifying issues into a matter of tough Texan yes or no. He is much better than before, but, and unfairly so, each little slide into something different — like his initial Tebow reference or turning the Congress into a part-time legislature — brings memories of past strangeness instead of offering levity or creativity. One gets the impression that when Perry does well, like tonight, it still is not enough, which suggests his earlier disastrous debates in the end have not have mattered all that much....
Posted by: yeshiva son | Friday, 16 December 2011 at 03:22 PM
Posted by: Yael | Friday, 16 December 2011 at 03:24 PM