Book of the Month

From the Dagbloggers

more
Articleman's picture

Newt/RINO, or, The Physics of Tea

by Articleman 2/1/2012 - 1:22 am   |

One of my favorite Onion headlines is South Postpones Rising Again For Yet Another Year.  As Homer Simpson once said, it's funny because it's true.  And there is a parallel truth in the failure of the Tea Party to control a party in which it seems to command a majority.  How does Mitt Romney, of Romneycare and abortion rights, win a Florida primary?  Because the Tea was strained into two cups -- a Newt, and a Rick.  With Establishment carpet bombs a-bombin', and Newt lacking any defenses against Air Romney, that was just enough.  The RINO beat the Newt. 

This is going to continue for the forseeable term.  Nationally, Newt was still up in Gallup today, meaning the pummeling in Florida wasn't really moving the needle.  It is all about localized destruction of Newt.  Meanwhile, GOPers nationally have not fallen behind Mitt.  He hit 37 after New Hampshire, and was in the upper 20s still today.  His party has not united behind him, at least not yet.  And the Tea folks don't much want to.  But after winning in a Tea-drinking South that is culturally more Gingrich than Romney, is there any reason that Mitt cannot roam the nation with his Establishment deathray, training millions upon the hapless airwaves of Nevada, Ohio, and other lands to come?  

Nope, not really.  

Yet the war will stagger on.  Newt got into the 30s in Florida in a horrible week.  He's petty, vindictive, and has enough of a base within his party (his base actually is the GOP base, after all) to continue forward against the man who stole his vainglory, his brief moment in the sun during which he was the national frontrunner in the GOP in what should for it be a winnable election.  He is the O'Donnell to Mitt's Castle, the Angle to Mitt's whoever-ran-against-Angle (Sue Lowden was her name-oh).  This is a real faultline in the GOP -- Newt and the RINO.  It's built into the very fabric of GOP space.

Those who said GOP voters would get to the moment of decision and simply pick Romney because he was the sensible choice are only sort-of-kind-of right.  That isn't really what happened this week.  Mitt was bombing a grossly underfunded Newt into the Stone Age, and he won by a decent margin.  Over 90% of ads in Florida were negative.  Romney didn't sell Romney.  He sold the proposition that Newt was worse than anything, including Romney.  The AntiGingrich beat the AntiRomney.  They didn't affirm Romney at all.  To read this result otherwise is fatuous.  It proves Romney can be tolerated enough, if there is a blitzkrieg of ads and elites paving the way, to eke out respectable primary wins against a hideously flawed narcissist, hypocrite, and demagogue.

All the wins count, though.  Tonight Illinois beat Michigan State 42-41.  It's a W, even if it was Cro-Magnon era hoops, with more bricks than a three-story walkup in Wrigleyville.  Mitt will take his.  But the inability to sell the endangered RINO to GOP primary voters drunk on Tea leaves the GOP on the horns of a RINO dilemma that sounds familiar -- sell your soul and lose your enthusiasm for a hope of beating Obama (who tied Romney in a new Gallup poll), or keep your soul and lose the election Goldwater-style (Obama thumps Gingrich in Gallup).  

So when you atomize Romney's 46-32 Florida win, the physics of Newt/RINO are clear:  Mitt seems to win only when he has overwhelming advantages that tip the scales, which will not be the case when Obama's skills and enormous warchest enter the experiment.  Long after this instant of the Newt/RINO-conflict accelerates past our attention, we will face an election of negative charges on both sides that will repel and not attract voters.  The physics of this to me seem very clear.  Mitt will bomb in the general, and at this time next year, will be gone fission.  Probably in the Caymans.

Sue Lowden.. good times.

 

by DF 2/1/2012 - 1:45 am

Ain't we lucky we got 'em?

by Articleman 2/1/2012 - 1:53 am (re: DF)

Oh, so true.....

Romney didn't sell Romney. He sold the proposition that Newt was worse than anything, including Romney.

And it only took him mega millions and the force of his shadow bully brigade to sway those who, despite their tea stained fingers, abandon their principals and mantras to vote for the rich guy whose smug sneer they mistake for a smile.

Excellent post AMan.  Appreciate.

 

by Aunt Sam 2/1/2012 - 1:58 am

Romney did get cocky in the days before his win.  I don't think he wears that well.  I don't think that extreme negativism aids Romney in the general.  I think it is far more easy to move Romney's negatives further south than it will be for him to move Obama's.  This happened to John Kerry.  He made with Bush's negatives, but they were fully known.  His weren't, and scorched earth opened up his negatives.  That is on its way here.

by Articleman 2/1/2012 - 10:14 am (re: Aunt Sam)

A-man, is there anything in the Fla. race or the primary so far that affects Obama's ability to tie Romney to the tea party Congress?  

by Oxy Mora 2/1/2012 - 10:45 am (re: Articleman)

Nothing I have seen.

by Articleman 2/1/2012 - 12:07 pm (re: Oxy Mora)

That's a good observation RE: Bush and Kerry.  I hadn't thought about it that way before, but it's actually quite obvious.  And the same should work for Obama.  The right-wing media has spent the last four years blasting him from every direction, yet he remains a strong contender even in a worse economy than any post WWII POTUS has faced.  Given how easy it was for Newt undermine Mitt's tepid support by ransacking the R-money garbage bin, it would seem Team Obama has a decent advantage in the ops research department.

Speaking of which, this primary has been ridiculous on many counts, but perhaps none more than the apparent lack of ops research.  Herman Cain is probably the best example, but Mitt's team seemed unprepared to address the tax question, Rick Perry had his colorfully named ranch, Newt's got his ex-wives, Ron Paul has his newsletters.. all of which should have been known to their respective teams.  Yet, in every case they seem to have been flat-footed when these stories surfaced.

by DF 2/1/2012 - 1:17 pm (re: Articleman)

Absolutely so on your last point.  The 2008 primaries are a gift that keeps giving.  When was the last time the GOP had to do real politics at a national level, with strategy, and with tactics?  It was Rove revving the base in 2004.  I envision a GOP campaign as a McCain or a Romney with one or two trusted aides nodding their heads at high-level thoughts, not as the fanatical energy and focus of a David Plouffe, or the determination of a Terry McAuliffe, to pick two examples.

To find grassroots on their side, it was the grassroots evangelical organization in 2000.  The Democrats, both on the ground and in terms of the leadership that runs campaigns, *do national politics better* and from recent experience.  They have the data, they have OFA, they have DCCC, and they are starting from ahead.

I think Mitt is about to be schooled on negative definition carpetbombing.  He gets to play with the big boys and girls now.  He also might want to consider getting some boots on the ground in Virginia and North Carolina.  August will be too late for that, and Obama never left those states, which is worth some number of points.  Romney cannot lose either of them and still win.

by Articleman 2/1/2012 - 1:29 pm (re: DF)

I keep thinking of the Hillary/Barack wars and how Obama outwitted her.

Hillary was so very proud of winning these huge state primaries and Barack was grabbing second place delegate numbers and then picking up all these caucus delegates.

Newt does not have a prayer. He does not have the organization, he does not have the feet on the ground, he does not have the mega-monies.

I think Mitt is a shoe-in. Not that it will not cost him upwards of a couple of hundred million bucks to grab the nomination.

But what is 200 million when the people who own this country will surely hand him a billion to take on Obama?

by Richard Day 2/1/2012 - 3:43 am

I do not think Romney is winning with organization.  It all comes through media, free and bought.  There is very little conventional GOTV happening.  Mitt is doing the top-down style of campaign with way more cash, and last week he also did it better.  

There is going to be a huge difference in donor sources as between Mitt and the President, and the activities in the GOP primaries draw a line under that ("Newt Gingrich, brought to you by megaspending hotel magnate X").

by Articleman 2/1/2012 - 10:21 am (re: Richard Day)
You are right, I don't see how the GOP is going to win over Florida in the general. I have been voting for over 40 years and this was the nastiest and ugliest campaign I have ever watched. On top of that people already dislike Rick Scott and the way he governs. The local news on Tuesday pointed out that there was 13,000 commercials bought for Mitt and only 2000 bought for Gingrich in just a short period of time of a couple of weeks in Florida. I saw a car commercial tonight on the news and it brought tears of joy to my eyes. I can now watch the evening news with out GOP pac money nastiness. Someone in the grocery store said to me in the check out line,"If the rich can spend money on wall to wall commercial time, then they need to have their taxes raised to keep them from wasting it for no good."
by trkingmomoe 2/1/2012 - 4:49 am

I hope you're right about Florida.  That too would be a deathknell.  Rootman thinks the ground game there is good for Obama.  I hope he's right about that, and about Rubio, who surely should be their VP pick.

by Articleman 2/1/2012 - 1:30 pm (re: trkingmomoe)
The ground game is in full swing on the south west coast. They are getting voters regestered. I saw them at our local fair this month. It is no easy feat for them to do so. I have also heard DCCC commercials against Vern Buchanan (R-Fl 13). He is on their target list of 25.
by trkingmomoe 2/1/2012 - 6:00 pm (re: Articleman)

"If the rich can spend money on wall to wall commercial time, then they need to have their taxes raised to keep them from wasting it for no good."     

 

That is is the best line out there, and should be a constant message.

"If the rich can afford to send Made in America Money to the Cayman Islands, then something's wrong here."

"If the rich can spend money on wall to wall commercial time then they need to have their taxes raised to keep them from wasting it."

"The rich are wasting Made in America Money by sending jobs offshore. Let's make 'em bring it back here."

"Made in America Money can't create American jobs if it's sitting in an account in the Cayman Islands."

by erica20 2/1/2012 - 1:38 pm (re: trkingmomoe)

k, man

by Articleman 2/1/2012 - 1:40 pm (re: erica20)

Robert Reich proposes that Biden and Clinton switch jobs, to make it Obama-Clinton 2012.  I think it would be a great move to add vigor to the campaign, and prepare Hillary for 2016, but I doubt it will happen, it's too big a leap for O, and Hillary might not like a VP role.

by NCD 2/1/2012 - 11:05 am

Biden had a more visible role in the deliberations about what to do in Afghanistan, but I think Hillary was part of the winning side in that argument, and the current policy is more Hillary than Biden.  I think the job-swap would be net-beneficial to the Democratic ticket. 

Obama has downside with whoever might want to use positions as springboards to run in 2016.  Everyone is strategic.  I think if Obama is re-elected, Hillary runs in 2016, regardless of what job she has now.  State might be a safer play for her, as it insulates her from criticism of domestic policy.  But if the President asks, I think you have to do it.  I hope and trust that four years of working together has made them an effective team.

by Articleman 2/1/2012 - 1:07 pm (re: NCD)

Bill would be a more effective VP choice than Hillary.

by erica20 2/1/2012 - 1:27 pm (re: NCD)

Bill would never settle for second chair (and it would be unlawful because the VP has to be able to succeed the POTUS if needed).  

That said, it would certainly be a very high octane campaign tour!  It is fun to consider all the fireworks and Bill running amuck with his barbs and jokes at Repubs expense.

by Aunt Sam 2/1/2012 - 1:31 pm (re: erica20)

Ah, I forgot--Bill would actually have to be able to be Pres. Serves me right for posting before thinking!

by erica20 2/1/2012 - 1:34 pm (re: Aunt Sam)

A person can't be ELECETED to POTUS more than twice, but they could become POTUS as part of the order of succession.

 

 

by Anonymous (not verified) 2/4/2012 - 11:52 am (re: erica20)

Well that changes things a bit. I guess I don't see Barack and bill as a couple though.

 

by Erica (not verified) 2/4/2012 - 2:28 pm (re: Anonymous)

No, one cannot run or elect to the office of Vice President someone constitutionally ineligible to succeed to the office of President.  This was settled correctly partway up this thread.

by Articleman 2/4/2012 - 5:59 pm (re: Erica)

Ummmm. Wait a minute. 

A week ago, Florida was gonna give Newt "a clear path" to the nomination. So where's that obligatory "I was wrong" blog? (This is the "we wuz robbed" one, which is very nice, and a favourite of mine, but... still.)

Ok, more seriously. 

I think you got half the picture right - and early (which makes it worth more) - with the whole "anti-Romney" storyline. Which could still, things being things, win the day.

But maybe you missed the coin's flipside, the anti-Newt. Your last post seemed to get stuck on Romney's personal "niceness," arguing that he couldn't outnasty Newt, and that he was a latter day GHW Bush. But now... Mitt's got deathrays and he's relentlessly bombing Newt as a hidesously flawed, hideous thing. Full of hideousness.

Which says to me that Mitt-the-Man-In-Person is not necessarily Mitt's-Organization-When-It's-Funding-Nasty-Ads. Which is a lot like GHW Bush. These are the bastards who will order peoples' deaths, but face-to-face, aren't really very keen on personal attacks.

So now you've got the other half, the anti-Newt. Which most ad-bombardiers would agree is a big, fat and wide wide open kinda target. 

Which means it's really down, as the pretenders scatter, and Newt swamps into view, to the forces of Anti vs Anti. 

Flip a coin?

by Qnonymous (not verified) 2/1/2012 - 11:34 am

Newt had that path open to him, and failed.  He ran badly last week, and he didn't convert South Carolina into financial parity, or at least closer-to-parity.  He needed to keep within 5 or so, and then raise some money.  His campaign seems too inept to do that.  So yes, there will be the long-promised Dr. Houseman column.  E-mailing readers have demanded it, and their demands will be met.

The antiRomney spirit has had a lot of explanatory force throughout the primaries and up to now.  It made sense that Romney would seek to define Gingrich negatively, as he began to do in Iowa.  The insane part is how Gingrich lay down in the tracks and acted above it for several weeks, until his lead was dissipated.  Then it was hilarious as the GOP elite implored him not to attack Romney with the same aggression, and of course he ignored them, but by then he really had to thread the needle with perfect debate performances and better fundraising than ensued. 

So Romney won with negativity and ad resourcing, but the part I would not have expected was how unilateral the negativity was until it was too late.  If Gingrich were resourced at rough parity with Romney, and started his attacks and defining Romney early enough, I still think he would have won, because I think the antiRomney argument -- when you consider the tilt in the GOP primaries and electorate -- has as much good text going for it or more as the antiGingrich argument, and would have found as much traction or more as the antiGingrich argument.  

Instead, we're now living in the what-if-Hitler-didn't-invade-Russia version of the GOP future, and it's tres weird.

by Articleman 2/1/2012 - 12:36 pm (re: Qnonymous)

EARLY BIRD SPECIAL: Florida’s voters say they made up their minds early. Just 26 percent say they made a final decision about whom to support in the last few days, compared with 55 percent in South Carolina and 46 percent in New Hampshire and Iowa.

From Washington Post

This might explain how Mitt rose in the polls while Newt leveled out. 

But one big point in my opinion is what a lot of the pundits were saying - Romney spent all his money on defining Newt and not himself.  The longer that goes on, the more likely Obama's team will be able to define who Romney is.  (Newt with his 100% name recognition and 60% unfavorable is a gimme).

Of course the Romney campaign wants Newt to go away so Mitt can tack to the center.  The longer he has to appease the far right, the more bits of goodies he gives the Obama team.  The worse possible world is to the conservatives he is a RINO and to the liberals he is a 1% wall street and corporate raider.

In 2010 - it was Democrats who had the bad end of the enthusiasm gap.  This year it very well could be the Republicans (which is of course tempered with their hatred of Obama).

by Another Trope 2/1/2012 - 12:28 pm

I think Mitt can now run to the center.  This will of course bore and annoy and frustrate the very voters who he needs to be enthusiastic.  The piece about the Tea mom who doesn't like him, while anecdotal, is a good metaphor for this.  The 2012 GOP campaign has the need for Rubio written all over it.  He's charismatic and has at least some right-wing cred.  Mitt is pretty limited in that way, though he will try.  Rubio is like Palin if she wasn't an imbecile.

by Articleman 2/1/2012 - 1:02 pm (re: Another Trope)

But her imbecility is where her charm comes from!  She operates on a Buseyesque level of compulsiveness where even she is unsure of what she is going to do or say before she does it.  Rubio's hand is too practiced to entertain in that regard.  It's like the difference between Sid Vicious and Johnny Rotten.

by DF 2/1/2012 - 1:26 pm (re: Articleman)

Sid's My Way is a top 20 alltime song, IMO.  The idea of Palin duetting it with him is nice.  I think he'd appreciate that.

by Articleman 2/1/2012 - 1:32 pm (re: DF)

I think having the guy taking care of the turkey behind them as they sang would be perfect. And I suppose Charlie Sheen would be the opening act to get the crowd warmed up.

by Another Trope 2/1/2012 - 1:40 pm (re: Articleman)

I can only hope the turkey got posthumously converted.  I wonder if its eternal life will be headless, though.  I was always bad with theology.

by Articleman 2/1/2012 - 1:43 pm (re: Another Trope)

if he runs to the center, he will confirm Newt's charge that he is the Massachusetts moderate.  Which as you say will bore and annoy and frustrate the base. 

A big question will the Obama team - seeing the repub nomination writing on the wall - kick into high gear and define Romney as the leader of the 1%.

Romney has to connect with the blue collar moderates (who make up a big part of the independent base in places like Ohio).  I just don't think he can do it.

And Rubio, who I don't much about, has struck me as a typical Republican politician.  There is a fine line between being charismatic and coming across as slick.  And he would be going up against Scranton Joe (who has seem to have found Cheney's bunker).  In the debates, Rubio will appeal to the conservatives and make them feel better about voting for Mitt, but Joe will take it to him on the hard working family populist front.

by Another Trope 2/1/2012 - 2:03 pm (re: Articleman)

I do not think the GOP could design a candidate less appealing to Ohio than Mitt Romney.  I think he's modestly better for Pennsylvania, but I'm ready for this, and I think Obama is too.

by Articleman 2/1/2012 - 4:14 pm (re: Another Trope)

Correction: Heard Newt on 1/30 say that Mitt is a Massachusetts liberal. You may like the alliteration value of "moderate," but Newt has higher rhetorical goals.

by artappraiser 2/1/2012 - 4:18 pm (re: Another Trope)

Another "smear" of him as a liberal in this American Spectator  pro-Tea Party piece ranting about his win which "Aunt Sam" posted in the news section:

What's notable about the rise of Romney is not the extent to which he has pandered to conservatives -- the usual media narrative -- but the ease with which he has left his liberalism open for all to see and still won. In the debates, he has defended statist mandates, extolled gay rights (short of marriage), and waxed nostalgic about FDR's New Deal. Remember his rebuke of Rick Perry for even contemplating a system other than Social Security? Good Republicans, Mitt let Perry know, don't entertain such impure thoughts.
 

by artappraiser 2/1/2012 - 5:47 pm (re: artappraiser)
Rubio wants to be president not a VP. He is also easily tied to the Jim Greer scandal with his miss use of Florida GOP credit card. I think he will wait until 2016 if the Obama numbers go up.
by trkingmomoe 2/1/2012 - 6:26 pm (re: Articleman)

An unsuccessful VP run would only elevate his national profile at the cost of very little effort, and could make him closer to "next in line," which seems to be the charm.

by Articleman 2/1/2012 - 7:06 pm (re: trkingmomoe)

I'm glad that you're finally coming around to my AntiGingrich theory. smiley

Though Newt can certainly be petty, I see him as more calculating than vindictive. If it becomes clear that he can't win, and if Romney offers him a pretty prize to drop out, I expect that he'll take it.

That said, I'm not sure what that prize would be, other than a keynote speech. I don't think that Romney would let him into the cabinet.

by Genghis 2/1/2012 - 1:49 pm

I think you underestimate the depths of hatred between these guys.  It's about manhood and taunting.  Gingrich will endorse, so he doesn't become persona non grata on the speaking circuit with the Tea folks who still need to support the GOP against Obama.  But he will wait a long time to do so after his loss, and while the tree is falling, it's not nearly over-over.  The things Newt has said about Romney will make it impossible for him to work in a Romney administration.  Newt has basically been filming ads for Obama for the last month.  

by Articleman 2/1/2012 - 1:54 pm (re: Genghis)

Yeah, maybe so. I can't recall a time when a primary battle did so much damage to the contenders. It's not just that Newt has talked trash about Romney, which happens in divisive primaries. It's that he has succeeded in defining Romney so brilliantly--as if he were decorating a cake for Obama to chow down on.

by Genghis 2/1/2012 - 2:14 pm (re: Articleman)

Newt doesn't seem to know how to criticize without practicing, as Bill Clinton put it from experience, the politics of personal destruction.  Romney's negatives with independents are way, way up.

by Articleman 2/1/2012 - 4:13 pm (re: Genghis)

He has not just been a history professor for mortgage institutions. wink He basically created the modern academic discipline of Politics of Personal Destruction. He started writing the taped courses for Politics of Personal Destruction 101, 102 and 103 in 1987, and had a boatload of avid students taking the courses by 1990. Clinton hadn't much to do with it, wasn't even prez yet. Matter of fact, he respected Clinton so much as an adversary that he couldn't handle being with him; Dave Maraniss recently wrote in WaPo that Newt said about Clinton as prez: “I melt when I’m around him. After I get out, I need two hours to detoxify. My people are nervous about me going in there because of the way I deal with this.”

by artappraiser 2/1/2012 - 4:39 pm (re: Articleman)

Reported that Newt didn't make usual obligatory call to Myth after Florida count to congratulate or even acknowledge the 'win'.

by Aunt Sam 2/1/2012 - 2:25 pm (re: Articleman)

Newt:  I'll Endorse Romney... From the Gates of Hell!

by Articleman 2/1/2012 - 8:08 pm (re: Aunt Sam)

New poll by PPPD shows Obama up by 7 points in Ohio over Romney and about double that over Gingrich. 

by Oxy Mora 2/1/2012 - 1:50 pm

As is true of Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia, if Obama wins Ohio, Romney is in a very bad way.  Romney has always had weaker state polling there.  It's something in the middle-class and blue-collar nature of the state.  Or maybe they just hate them some Michiganders.  Go Buckeyes.

by Articleman 2/1/2012 - 1:56 pm (re: Oxy Mora)
Also, Mitt is polling badly with independents. It is the I-4 corridor that you have to carry inorder to win Florida where all the independents are.
by trkingmomoe 2/1/2012 - 6:36 pm (re: Articleman)

Latest Comments

more