After S.C.: Newt Heads for Fla. with Victory in Sight
Give the devil his due. In South Carolina on Saturday, Newt Gingrich didn’t just defeat Mitt Romney and the other Republican candidates: he crushed them. With the scale of his victory, he is now perfectly placed to rampage into Florida. If he doesn't defeat Mitt there, he will surely give him the scare of his life.Closing out an amazing week, Newt won the Republican primary by twelve percentage points—40-28—and carried forty-three out of forty six counties. Even in Charleston, a virtual retirement home for rich corporate executives like Mitt, he ran within a few points of the erstwhile front-runner.
The CNN exit poll illuminated the extent of Gingrich’s victory and Romney’s defeat. Newt won by sixteen points among men and nine points among women. He topped Romney in every age group by at least eight points. He outpolled him handily in every income group except those earning more than two hundred thousand dollars a year, which Romney won by four points. He ran well ahead of him in every education group except post-graduates.
Newt stomped on Romney so badly that even Karl Rove, doing his punditry duties on Fox, could hardly think of anything positive to say about the candidate he and many other members of the Republican establishment have thrown in their lot (and cash) with. The best Rove could come up with was that previous Republican winners in South Carolina had done even better than Newt. Since 1980, he said, they had averaged forty-five per cent of the vote and a victory margin of seventeen per cent. But none of the prior winners had started the final week so far behind in the polls, and none of them had been heavily outspent by another candidate. Newt overcame both of these things. Given where he was a couple of weeks ago, this wasn’t just a win over Romney: it was a whupping.
In the circumstances, he could afford to be magnanimous in his victory speech, and he was. With the mannequin-like Callista by his side, her peroxide helmet seemingly held in place by a cryogenic freezing agent, he didn’t waste time attacking Paul, or Santorum, or even Romney. Paul was right about the monetary system and had been for twenty-five years; Santorum had displayed great courage in Iowa; Mitt was a hard-working fellow who did a terrific job at the 2002 Winter Olympics.
Yes, that Mitt—the one Newt has spent the past month depicting as a job-destroying, company-looting, tax-evading plutocrat. The former Speaker, it was clear, had now moved on. Beyond South Carolina, beyond Florida, which votes January 31, beyond all the Republican primaries and to the fall, when he would be where he feels most alive—on a debate stage, facing down Barack Obama, the liberal media, and all the other members of the New York/Washington “elite” that take their inspiration from the legacy of Saul Alinsky.
Saul Alinsky? If you haven’t heard of the Chicago-based community organizer, who died in 1972, a year after he published a book called “Rules for Radicals,” you haven’t been listening to Newt for the past twenty years—and for that I commend you, and envy you. Alinsky is a fixture in Gingrich’s speeches. In this one, he came up three times, which was twice more than Romney did. “The centerpiece of the campaign is American exceptionalism versus the radicalism of Saul Alinsky,” Newt declared.
If you suspect that most Americans had no idea who Gingrich was talking about, you are right. ("He was a Jewish guy who tried to help blacks," my wife said, after looking it up.) But Newt is a lot cannier than he sometimes appears. When many Republicans listen to him speak, they don’t sweat the details. They let the aura, the anger, and the erudition pour over them, and it feels good. Here is an eloquent pugilist who gives voice to their resentment and fears and desires, and he’s not doing it from a bar stool, or a church lectern, or the back of pick-up truck with a confederate flag on the bumper. He’s a PhD and former Speaker of the House, who can quote just as many obscure professors and academic studies as any Harvard-trained Democrat.
This isn’t just my theory of Gingrich. It’s his, almost entirely. “It’s not that I am a good debater,” he said in a display of false-modesty that didn't fool anybody. “It is that I articulate the deepest held values of the American people.” Substitute “prejudices” for “values” and “some of the” for “the,” and there you have Newt in a nutshell.
Now onto Florida. Romney has money (which means ads), endorsements—but not one from Jeb Bush, it emerged Saturday night, and an estimated 200,000 votes that have already been cast in advance of polling day. In an electorate that may total 1.2 million, this is a big margin for Newt to overcome. Right now, I’d bet on him doing it.
Why so? Lots of reasons. He has the best storyline: the “double Lazarus.” That will ensure him lots of free media. There are two television debates to come—Monday and Thursday—where he will get the opportunity to demonstrate, yet again, that he is a far better speaker than Mitt. Plus—and this is important—most of the dirt on him is already out there. Short of a former lobbyist for Lehmann Brothers stepping forth to reveal he’s been having a torrid gay affair with Gingrich behind Callista’s back, it’s hard to see what could unbalance the portly Georgian.
But the main reason I think Newt could win is what is happening to Mitt's campaign. Outside of his own backyard, the former Massachusetts governor has yet to win more than twenty-seven per cent of the vote. At this stage, he is beginning to look ominously like another establishment favorite from the North East who had everything going for him except the voters in his own party: Ed Muskie.
Mitt's poor showing on Saturday, and his potential weakness in Florida, reflects several factors. First, there was his religion. It clearly cost him in Iowa, where he did very poorly among evangelical Christians, and the same thing happened in South Carolina. According to the CNN exit poll, twenty-seven per cent of those surveyed said that in deciding how to vote the religious beliefs of the candidate mattered a great deal to them. In this group, Gingrich got forty-five per cent of the vote, and Romney got nine per cent—yes, nine. Another thirty-three per cent of those questioned said the candidates’ religious beliefs mattered somewhat. In this group, Gingrich got forty-seven per cent of the vote, and Romney got twenty-seven per cent.
Then there is the issue of Romney’s record at Bain Capital, and, inextricably linked to it, his tax history. This is now threatening to rob him of what was supposed to be his greatest advantage: his strength on economic issues. Ninety-seven per cent of the people interviewed in the CNN exit poll said they were worried about the economy, but that didn’t help Mitt much. More than six in ten voters said the economy was the most important issue in the election. And in this group, he lagged Newt by eight points—32-40.
The other problem facing Romney is his weakness as a campaigner. In the last couple of debates, particularly, his performance has been lackluster. When he was going up against Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and even Rick Santorum, his failure to engage the audience, and his tendency to get rattled by questions he doesn't like, didn’t matter very much. But in taking on a buoyant and deadly brawler like Newt, he desperately needs to step it up.
The Romney campaign knows it is facing a crisis. If he loses in Florida, the Republican establishment will look around for another candidate—a Chris Christie or a Jeb Bush—to enter the race and take on Gingrich. Mitt will now go after Gingrich more aggressively, especially on his record as Speaker. He may even release some information about his taxes. Will this be enough? CNN's David Gergen, whom I regard as the best cable pundit of the lot, expressed some doubts. “Newt Gingrich is a street fighter who carries a switchblade,” he said. “I don’t think Mitt Romney owns a switchblade.”
Gergen regards Newt as a potential menace not just to Romney and Rove, but to President Obama too. This, of course, is a minority view. Most Democrats think that if Newt were to secure the nomination the Obamas could start ordering new curtains for the Lincoln Bedroom. But Gergen points out that things might not be so straightforward. Gingrich could end up doing a better job than Romney of appealing to white working class voters—the sort of voters who often decide the presidential election. “He speaks in the vernacular—there’s a strength to it,” Gergen said after Newt’s victory speech. “That sledgehammer approach—in a country that’s angry, that’s something for the White House to be worried about.”
Maybe that is getting ahead of things. But one thing is incontestable. The 2012 election looks different now than it did a week ago.
Newt stomped on Romney so badly that even Karl Rove, doing his punditry duties on Fox, could hardly think of anything positive to say about the candidate he and many other members of the Republican establishment have thrown in their lot (and cash) with. The best Rove could come up with was that previous Republican winners in South Carolina had done even better than Newt. Since 1980, he said, they had averaged forty-five per cent of the vote and a victory margin of seventeen per cent. But none of the prior winners had started the final week so far behind in the polls, and none of them had been heavily outspent by another candidate. Newt overcame both of these things. Given where he was a couple of weeks ago, this wasn’t just a win over Romney: it was a whupping.
In the circumstances, he could afford to be magnanimous in his victory speech, and he was. With the mannequin-like Callista by his side, her peroxide helmet seemingly held in place by a cryogenic freezing agent, he didn’t waste time attacking Paul, or Santorum, or even Romney. Paul was right about the monetary system and had been for twenty-five years; Santorum had displayed great courage in Iowa; Mitt was a hard-working fellow who did a terrific job at the 2002 Winter Olympics.
Yes, that Mitt—the one Newt has spent the past month depicting as a job-destroying, company-looting, tax-evading plutocrat. The former Speaker, it was clear, had now moved on. Beyond South Carolina, beyond Florida, which votes January 31, beyond all the Republican primaries and to the fall, when he would be where he feels most alive—on a debate stage, facing down Barack Obama, the liberal media, and all the other members of the New York/Washington “elite” that take their inspiration from the legacy of Saul Alinsky.
Saul Alinsky? If you haven’t heard of the Chicago-based community organizer, who died in 1972, a year after he published a book called “Rules for Radicals,” you haven’t been listening to Newt for the past twenty years—and for that I commend you, and envy you. Alinsky is a fixture in Gingrich’s speeches. In this one, he came up three times, which was twice more than Romney did. “The centerpiece of the campaign is American exceptionalism versus the radicalism of Saul Alinsky,” Newt declared.
If you suspect that most Americans had no idea who Gingrich was talking about, you are right. ("He was a Jewish guy who tried to help blacks," my wife said, after looking it up.) But Newt is a lot cannier than he sometimes appears. When many Republicans listen to him speak, they don’t sweat the details. They let the aura, the anger, and the erudition pour over them, and it feels good. Here is an eloquent pugilist who gives voice to their resentment and fears and desires, and he’s not doing it from a bar stool, or a church lectern, or the back of pick-up truck with a confederate flag on the bumper. He’s a PhD and former Speaker of the House, who can quote just as many obscure professors and academic studies as any Harvard-trained Democrat.
This isn’t just my theory of Gingrich. It’s his, almost entirely. “It’s not that I am a good debater,” he said in a display of false-modesty that didn't fool anybody. “It is that I articulate the deepest held values of the American people.” Substitute “prejudices” for “values” and “some of the” for “the,” and there you have Newt in a nutshell.
Now onto Florida. Romney has money (which means ads), endorsements—but not one from Jeb Bush, it emerged Saturday night, and an estimated 200,000 votes that have already been cast in advance of polling day. In an electorate that may total 1.2 million, this is a big margin for Newt to overcome. Right now, I’d bet on him doing it.
Why so? Lots of reasons. He has the best storyline: the “double Lazarus.” That will ensure him lots of free media. There are two television debates to come—Monday and Thursday—where he will get the opportunity to demonstrate, yet again, that he is a far better speaker than Mitt. Plus—and this is important—most of the dirt on him is already out there. Short of a former lobbyist for Lehmann Brothers stepping forth to reveal he’s been having a torrid gay affair with Gingrich behind Callista’s back, it’s hard to see what could unbalance the portly Georgian.
But the main reason I think Newt could win is what is happening to Mitt's campaign. Outside of his own backyard, the former Massachusetts governor has yet to win more than twenty-seven per cent of the vote. At this stage, he is beginning to look ominously like another establishment favorite from the North East who had everything going for him except the voters in his own party: Ed Muskie.
Mitt's poor showing on Saturday, and his potential weakness in Florida, reflects several factors. First, there was his religion. It clearly cost him in Iowa, where he did very poorly among evangelical Christians, and the same thing happened in South Carolina. According to the CNN exit poll, twenty-seven per cent of those surveyed said that in deciding how to vote the religious beliefs of the candidate mattered a great deal to them. In this group, Gingrich got forty-five per cent of the vote, and Romney got nine per cent—yes, nine. Another thirty-three per cent of those questioned said the candidates’ religious beliefs mattered somewhat. In this group, Gingrich got forty-seven per cent of the vote, and Romney got twenty-seven per cent.
Then there is the issue of Romney’s record at Bain Capital, and, inextricably linked to it, his tax history. This is now threatening to rob him of what was supposed to be his greatest advantage: his strength on economic issues. Ninety-seven per cent of the people interviewed in the CNN exit poll said they were worried about the economy, but that didn’t help Mitt much. More than six in ten voters said the economy was the most important issue in the election. And in this group, he lagged Newt by eight points—32-40.
The other problem facing Romney is his weakness as a campaigner. In the last couple of debates, particularly, his performance has been lackluster. When he was going up against Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and even Rick Santorum, his failure to engage the audience, and his tendency to get rattled by questions he doesn't like, didn’t matter very much. But in taking on a buoyant and deadly brawler like Newt, he desperately needs to step it up.
The Romney campaign knows it is facing a crisis. If he loses in Florida, the Republican establishment will look around for another candidate—a Chris Christie or a Jeb Bush—to enter the race and take on Gingrich. Mitt will now go after Gingrich more aggressively, especially on his record as Speaker. He may even release some information about his taxes. Will this be enough? CNN's David Gergen, whom I regard as the best cable pundit of the lot, expressed some doubts. “Newt Gingrich is a street fighter who carries a switchblade,” he said. “I don’t think Mitt Romney owns a switchblade.”
Gergen regards Newt as a potential menace not just to Romney and Rove, but to President Obama too. This, of course, is a minority view. Most Democrats think that if Newt were to secure the nomination the Obamas could start ordering new curtains for the Lincoln Bedroom. But Gergen points out that things might not be so straightforward. Gingrich could end up doing a better job than Romney of appealing to white working class voters—the sort of voters who often decide the presidential election. “He speaks in the vernacular—there’s a strength to it,” Gergen said after Newt’s victory speech. “That sledgehammer approach—in a country that’s angry, that’s something for the White House to be worried about.”
Maybe that is getting ahead of things. But one thing is incontestable. The 2012 election looks different now than it did a week ago.
No comments:
Post a Comment