Thursday, December 08, 2011
Ann on Newt
Ann Coulter, who has on occasion said some things that attracted some attention, reminds us all why the nomination of Newt Gingrich to run for president would be such a risky bet for those of us who are at the end our rope with Barack Obama. Ann's column is so free of the usual edgy jokes that one is forced to assume that she is damned worried that the anti-Mitts in the GOP are going to coalesce around Newt and put victory in 2012 in jeopardy.
I am too.
11 Comments:
By 
, at
Thu Dec 08, 03:12:00 PM:
Mitt can lose to Obama. Agreed.
But you and Ann both assume that Romney will do better than Mitt in the general. That's not necessarily true, as I keep saying.
Mitt will "poll" well with some elements within the Republican party. You and Ann both fit within this base. But Mitt hasn't been able to break out and so keeps hitting a 25% ceiling -- and that's among Republicans.
In the general, he's going to have no end of problems trying to reach key segments. That doesn't mean he's a bad guy, just a bad choice as a candidate.
Working class whites -- the Republican should kill. Mitt won't. His biggest liability.
White pro choice women -- Mitt will lose, because he's been so Born Again.
Evangelicals -- Will be cold to Mitt, because they won't believe he's Born Again
Hispanics -- lost. Mitt only cares about them as gardeners. This will hurt in a few key states
Unemployed -- would rather keep getting checks from Obama.
Low earners -- Obama keeps putting a little more in their paychecks.
Elderly -- Obama will scare them.
Veterans -- Mitt never served. No one in his family ever served. Obama killed bin Laden.
Obama is a cold, calculating bastard. But he grew up as a community organizer. He know how to fake being warm and fuzzy. Mitt can't fake it.
The Republican Establishment still has time to hit the Reset button.
By , at
Thu Dec 08, 03:12:00 PM:
Mitt can lose to Obama. Agreed.
But you and Ann both assume that Romney will do better than Mitt in the general. That's not necessarily true, as I keep saying.
Mitt will "poll" well with some elements within the Republican party. You and Ann both fit within this base. But Mitt hasn't been able to break out and so keeps hitting a 25% ceiling -- and that's among Republicans.
In the general, he's going to have no end of problems trying to reach key segments. That doesn't mean he's a bad guy, just a bad choice as a candidate.
Working class whites -- the Republican should kill. Mitt won't. His biggest liability.
White pro choice women -- Mitt will lose, because he's been so Born Again.
Evangelicals -- Will be cold to Mitt, because they won't believe he's Born Again
Hispanics -- lost. Mitt only cares about them as gardeners. This will hurt in a few key states
Unemployed -- would rather keep getting checks from Obama.
Low earners -- Obama keeps putting a little more in their paychecks.
Elderly -- Obama will scare them.
Veterans -- Mitt never served. No one in his family ever served. Obama killed bin Laden.
Obama is a cold, calculating bastard. But he grew up as a community organizer. He know how to fake being warm and fuzzy. Mitt can't fake it.
The Republican Establishment still has time to hit the Reset button.
By , at
Thu Dec 08, 03:17:00 PM:
I meant to open with "Newt can lose. Agreed." Sorry for the double post.
By , at
Thu Dec 08, 05:08:00 PM:
I favor Romney, but I fear the results of his candidacy and tenure in office. Not just for all the reasons mentioned here and elsewhere, but because he's just such a nice soft-spoken guy. Does anybody remember what happened to Republicans and conservatives the last time a Republican President was a genuinely nice, turn-the-other-cheek kind of Republican? Yeah, George Bush 43. The landslide of 2008. An unconstrained Democratic majority that we're all so familiar with. And IMHO, mostly on account of George Bush's refusal to fight back. The most insidious lie were absorbed into the political reality because nobody in the White house would fight back. It must have been a Bush policy, because when Dick Cheney, by then tired and weary from his heart condition, nevertheless began to take it to Obama after he was sworn in he had a real effect on the debate. Would that they had done so the last two years of the Bush administration. maybe we wouldn't have Obamacare now, maybe federal spending would not be completely out of control.
The question oin my minis, given all we know about Mitt, will he do the same?
By , at
Thu Dec 08, 05:56:00 PM:
They said he was too nice a guy.
They said his background wasn't the same as his base.
They said he wasn't passionate enough.
They said his religion was a problem.
Everyone expected him to fail when he got the job, but all he did was win.
But enough about President Romney, did you hear the latest about Tim Tebow?
By 
Assistant Village Idiot, at
Thu Dec 08, 06:53:00 PM:
Ignoramus, the horse race considerations are clearly a part of any discussion of candidacy, but I think you are mixing your feelings with general feelings about Romney. Not terribly far off the mark, maybe, but I think you could tighten it up.
By , at
Fri Dec 09, 08:44:00 AM:
This is in no way an endorsement of Newt because I'm still vetting each candidate with my personal beliefs. Given that, I have to ask this:
Everyone keeps bringing up Newt's history from 1994 et al as if to say that absolutely nothing, not time nor age nor experiences has effected any changes in the man. Can any of you say that you still hold every single belief that you held in 1994? Have none of you experienced any changes in thoughts, beliefs or mores since then -- or ever, for that matter? 1994 was a long time ago. I know I have changed since then.....
By , at
Fri Dec 09, 10:38:00 AM:
"Buy this magazine, or we''ll shoot this dog" is what Ann Coulter (and the Establishment) are saying,
Tight enough for you?
By TigerHawk, at
Fri Dec 09, 10:55:00 AM:
Iggy, I don't agree. Start with, nobody thinks that Ann is part of the GOP "establishment." I know her well, personally and her writings. She is a free thinker if there ever was one, and irritates the heck out of professional pols.
More to the point, I do not think she is concerned with anything other than beating Obama. Like it or not, the candidates that stand the highest probability of running a competent campaign are not in the race. Newt is a high risk choice to beat Obama for at least three reasons. First, his history is packed with edgy public ejaculations that will make for great negative ads. Second, his still thriving penchant for ego-reflecting arresting generalities runs the great risk that he will blow himself up in the home stretch. Third, he has an affirmatively unattractive personality to most people (not to me, because I like snarky give and take, but I also understand that most people do not).
By , at
Fri Dec 09, 02:20:00 PM:
TH, you made this point before: Why is the Republican field so weak? That's the problem. I don't understand why. The 2008 campaign started with several former governors and Rudy -- they were all proven competent. Even Huckabee (compare Bachmann and Santorum).
I thought a "Goldilocks" candidate would emerge -- not too hot, not too cold. Newt isn't that.
The Republican JV -- Christie, Ryan, Cantor, McCarthy, etc. -- is better than their Varsity. I would take anyone off the JV over anyone in the current field.
To win, Mitt should get Paul Ryan on board and then make him his VP. Batman and Robin.
By TigerHawk, at
Fri Dec 09, 02:31:00 PM:
I think the GOP field is so weak because the Bush administration did not produce any younger people of national stature that could succeed. Cheney is too old and unhealthy. Rumsfeld (who considered a run for president back in the day) is too old and controversial. Rice, who might have been awesome, either does not have the ambition or holds too many positions that are incompatible with today's GOP.
I think the bigger problem is that the GOP activists are really very hard right now, especially on social issues. The harsh reality is that very, very, few highly educated, professional, accomplished people -- the kind of people who can raise serious money for a run -- actually adhere to the idea that *all* abortion should be unlawful, abstinence education "works," creationism should be taught in the public schools alongside evolution, and that new taxes are unacceptable under any circumstances, even in war time. So combine poor succession planning with a distasteful nomination process, and you are going to chill a lot of potential candidates.
