Tonight, the GOP candidates appear in the last debate before the Iowa caucuses. And for Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, it will be his second debate since becoming the frontrunner for the Republican nod.
Newt’s surge is due largely in part because his name is not “Mitt Romney” and his path to the nomination will rely heavily on the support of conservatives and Tea Party activists.
But is it safe to assume that just because Newt is the anti-Romney that he is the automatic choice of the grassroots?
Over at the Weekly Standard, PJTV alum Owen Brennan takes an interesting look at the complicated relationship between Newt Gingrich and the Tea Party. Is Newt really the choice of the movement?
Brennan illustrates the Gingrich/Tea Party paradox:
An ABC News headline screams, “Democrats Blast Newt Gingrich in First Video Ad as ‘Original Tea Partier.’” CNN claims “strong support from the tea party movement is contributing to the former House speaker’s surge among likely Republican primary voters and caucus-goers.”
But two politicians supported by Tea Party activists say, “Not so fast.”
Senator Rand Paul says he knows the Tea Party movement. And Newt Gingrich is no Tea Party guy. Rep. Michelle Bachmann goes even further suggesting Gingrich is a Romney-esque ‘Not Romney.’
So the DNC and some folks in the media think Newt is the Tea Party candidate. But conservative voices, like Glenn Beck and Michele Bachmann, blast Newt’s Tea Party credentials.
But what do the grassroots think? Familiar voices like Stephen Kruiser and Tony Katz offer their analysis:
Katz explains that even though some of Gingrich’s past, present, and future policies might not be congruent with Tea Party core principles, Tea Party activists should like his style. “There’s some rugged individualism with Newt and that will set him apart from Romney.”
In short, Gingrich has got some ‘splainin’ to do if he wants to capture the Tea Party vote.
But what say you? Do you think Gingrich can maintain the support of the Tea Party to propel himself to the nomination?
The Tea Party is a practical movement, not an idealistic one.
People tend to assume it is rigidly socon, but it isn’t true. Common sense fiscal policies are the primary focus. Beyond that, Tea Partiers are pretty diverse, although more conservative than not.
And a lot of people don’t want to say it, but the other key element is virulent anger that an unamerican marxist managed to lie his way into the presidency.
Is Newt a fiscal conservative….well, duh, that’s how his made his reputation.
Is Newt virulently opposed to Obama. Probably no more than Bachman, Perry or Santorum, but he sure says it better.
So Newt matches the Tea Party’s only two themes. Of course, he is the Tea Party choice. All the stuff Bachman and Santorum talk about ad nauseum are distractions to the Tea Party. They want a balanced budget and to get rid of Obama.
Adultery? Global Warming? Consulting fees? Leadership issues? Hatred of the Ruling Class? Tea Partiers don’t care much about them. Hard core conservatives do, but the Tea Party movement isn’t about hard-cored conservate ideology.
The only reason Gingrich is losing traction right now is that the Ruling Class attacks are making people wonder about Newt’s electability. They don’t care what he has done in his life. They are practical people, after all, but they do realize that he has to be elected to purge Obama out of our system.
It has been awhile since I have fully agreed with you, proreason. I am glad to be able to do so again. You hit this one out of the park! Nice work.
thanks Marc. I always read your comments because even when we disagree, I know that they will be thoughtful.
Nwet is another chunk of establishment GOP. That means he has as many doners expecting payoffs out of the Tax payers wallets as Mitt.
The tea party gets by without leaders because they have a goal, not an agenda. That goal is reducing Gobbermint Spending. Neither Newt nor Mitt will do that. Not sure they can, since both of them have bus loads of cronies that expect to be paid off.
The establish has successfully fought off the attempt to reform the GOP. So now the system will crash and the Establishment will pay the price every establishment throughout history has paid when they let their greed overcome their responsibility to the commoners. When the food trucks stop running and nobody has eaten in several days, the guys with the ropes won’t care if the ones they are lynching are (D)’s or (R)’s.
The establishment thinks that just because it has never happened in America, it never will happen in America. Clueless.
“goal is reducing Gobbermint Spending. Neither Newt nor Mitt will do that.”
Newt was the Speaker of the House who last balanced the Federal budget.
Romney was fiscally conservative as the governor of Massachusetts. It’s his PLATFORM.
Why bother to comment if you just make stuff up.
Yes, Newt did all those things … then returned to pork-barrel politics by 1998, setting the stage for the profligate spending during GWB’s two terms. I remember the date, because that was when I left the GOP and became a support-the-man-not-the-party independent, because of it.
Practicality also demands that we have someone who can be trusted to actually extend conservative principles into Federal policy, and not fold/spindle/mutilate them in a moment of expediency. We no longer have the fiscal and economic cushions to buffer us from the consequences of even dabbling in Progressive idiocy.
In this regard, Newt does have some ‘splanin to do before many of us will line up behind him as anything more than the least-worst choice.
The same goes for Romney … and frankly, for the rest of them. Every one of the remaining candidates is either a career politician, or (i.e. Bachmann) is sinking to that level. (Yes, even Ron Paul.) Tea Party supporters also see the DC-insider culture — what I refer to as the professional/political complex — as an enemy of good governance that must be interdicted, instead of accommodated.
We had two candidates who actually exhibited some deafness to the siren songs of the professional/political complex … and an intellectually-dishonest media, including some conservative-leaning members of it, ran both of them out of the race with sensational, but unsubstantiated allegations.
The jury’s still out on whether Newt, or any of the others, have their noise-cancelling headphones on, so they are able to listen to principled and practical people.
Stoicheion – The United States spends 45% MORE than it earns and the real debt to GDP ratio has shot past the 100% danger zone towards infinity with no slowdown in sight.
Look at the PIIGS in Europe to see how that’s working for them. As for the “we are TBTF as we have the worlds reserve currency”,that’s not set in stone, with enough effort/money printing and credit downgrades due to crack addict spendulus on cronies and bailouts for campaign contributors I’m sure Obama can degrade the US dollar enough that the rest of the world will be forced to make other arrangements. He’s doing a awesome job so far. AA anyone?
Gobbermint spending WILL be reduced, we will take the Reagan way or the Greece/Argentina/Zimbabwe way of total economic collapse.
A nation of destitute peasants – Change your getting… 4 MORE years.
Newt will sandbag anyone for bigger headlines. This makes his press needs hostage to the MSM and thus an acceptable candidate. Not as desirable as the ONE, but, like Romney and Huntsman, acceptable.
this election is also about the Media fifth column learning how to control elections in the connected post blogger Internet world.
It looks like they are learning just that.
>Is Newt a fiscal conservative….well, duh, that’s how his made his reputation.
He made his reputation by PRETENDING to be a fiscal conservative, just like most of the other dregs in congress who have an (R) after their names. He never delivered on his promises. As far as any tea partier is concerned, Newt might as well be Bennett.
-jcr
The lessons of history tell us that of today’s prominent politicians, Newt may well be the only one who has actually acted as if he believes that money doesn’t grow on trees, or that the taxpayers are geese who lay golden eggs.
The famous “balanced budget” of the Clinton era (or, more specifically, the years of the Gingrich Congress) was not quite the accomplishment people assume. Federal expenditures still exceeded revenues for the two years or so of the “balanced” budget. But the increase in the national debt – a good measure of real money coming in vs. going out, rather than the imaginary dollars of the budget – was lower than at any time since 1957, the last year federal revenues actually exceeded federal spending.
So, Newt’s performance in those days as a man with some trace of fiscal sanity was not as good as perhaps it might have been. But it still leaves him head and shoulders (not to mention wallet) above the rest of the field. Assuming he isn’t suffering from Moynihan Disease, in which we watch an intelligent man turn into a silly old fool with age, Newt seems from the Tea Party perspective to be the only man for the job.
Speaking of the Tea Party, I don’t see so many news stories about the movement these days. Of course, the MSM would just as soon we all forget about the Tea Party, but even on PJ Media, I don’t see any mention of ongoing Tea Party gatherings. Are they still happening? If so, how can I find one near me (currently Maryland)?
Y’see, I was working outside the country during the time the movement got started and I could only watch it from afar. I feel left out. Got back into the states in September, but haven’t had a chance to attend one of these events.
Grizzly, part of the reason you are not hearing about the movement is because a lot of it is working at the state and local level, marching the long march through those levels of government to displace the Progressive kudzu that has grown there … and growing local leaders that can reliably carry the “weeding” into the Federal level.
Doesn’t make for good headlines … but it does pave the way for good governance.
Bachmann is the tea party natural.
Newt is last. To know him is not to love him.
The more folks know, the more they dislike.
repeated across the board, by voices I trust,
from George Will, to Ann Coulter.
Just say no.
Anyone but him.
Zany is a good word. Flakey another.
On top of that is the elephant in our elephant’s room.
We do not need the depends what is is era
animosity revived to emotionally drive
the opposition, currently in disarray,
angry, and on its heels.
The issue needs to be the 0.
Not Clinton era nostalgia.
Newt has more need to be liked by the cool kids. That is the fatal flaw.
Newt’s problem is much like Romney’s, *which Newt* would we be voting for? As Ritchie The Riveter and John C. Randolph have pointed out, he talked a good fiscal conservative line in 1994. By 1998, not so much. Both Mitt and Newt are very smart guys and have the potential to be great presidents. Unfortunately, Neither seems to have much in the way of bedrock principles. Given the right (wrong) incentives, either could sell us out in a heartbeat if it became expedient.
That said, proreason is also right, Mitt and Newt have the potential to be great fiscal conservatives, the others less so. We’re standing on the edge looking into the fiscal abyss. We really, really need to table all the distracting and divisive social con stuff until we get our financial house in order. This is simply not the time to be tilting at windmills, which much of the social con agenda is anyway.
We’re not going to roll back Roe v. Wade. We’re not going to put the gays back in the closet. We’re not going to outlaw birth control. We’re not going to force women to stay at home, submit to their husbands and take care of the kids. As for prayer in schools, that will never be outlawed so long as there are math tests, but let’s let the kids make up their own prayers, hmm?
I had been liking Newt a lot, but the last Fox debate gave me real pause.
First, to defend his association with Fannie Mae, he winds up defending GSE’s so vigorously that he winds up looking like he thinks Fannie Mae is just great, and we should have more entities just like them, hardly a tea Party position.
Then he made his comment about grilling judges before congress, and abolishing judicial positions to get rid of judges we dont like. Sure the line got big cheers, but personally I am not thrilled with undermining an independent judiciary. It may feel great with repubs in charge, but what if we get another full dem gov like in 2008, and another Obama starts firing all the conservative constitutionalist judges (with no protest possible anymore, since we did the same thing first).
He also has some really bad moments in the past, like his infamous commercial with Pelosi, and his absurd attack on the Ryan plan.
Gingrich is starting to look like he is entirely too fond of using gov to solve our problems, not a quality we want in a Tea Party standard bearer. Yes he may be proposing conservative oriented gov solutions, but they are still gov solutions. I do not see conservative activist gov as a significant improvement over leftist activist gov.
Unfortunately all the other non-Romneys have problems too. Bachman, Perry, and Santorum all seem to be on a socon tear lately, when as a Tea Partier I want to hear about spending cuts. Also Bachman has no exec experience, Perry reminds me too much of Bush, and Santorum couldn’t even win his Penn Senate race. Paul is honest, great on economics, and the constitution, but nutty on Iran and Israel, no executive experience, and getting pretty old. Huntsman is even more colorless than Romney, and seems even less conservative, and too likely to not challenge a leftist journalist when they feed him leftie talking points. If another Reagan was running, to carry the conservative banner, I would vote for him, but he isn’t.
Romney is not very exciting, but he is a competant executive, free of scandals, can hold his own in a debate, and not likely to fly off the handle with some huge gaff. He trimmed his conservatism in the past sometimes, but in a state like Mass, with an 80% dem legislature, what choice did he have, losing in a landslide with his principles. I think he did the best to get what he could, in a very hostile leftist environment. All the recent plans I have seen from him sound reliably fiscally conservative, with firm promisses to repeal Obamacare, and significantly reduce spending, and reduce regulation. He also ran as a clear conservative in 2008, far to the right of McCain, when the repub party was much more centrist than today. And unlike Bush he looks much more reliable on fiscal conservatism, and less obsessed with social conservatism.
I think Obamas record is miserable enough that we can win, unless he can shift the campaign to looking at defects in the repub nominee. Romney is the contendor who is the most free of debilitating defects. In some ways Romney reminds me of a conservative Clinton, competant, pragmatic rather than idealogical, governing in a state dominated by the other party, able to stand up for his parties values, but also able to get things done through compromise, and with the added bonus that he has never cheated on his wife. Whatever you think of Clinton, remember that he won 2 terms, and after Bush and Obama, many people are thinking much better of him. Having a center right version of center left Clinton may not be that bad.