Michael Maiello's picture

    Noodling About Newt

    I don't believe that Newt Gingrich's candidacy for the Presidency is real in the slightest.  Like Ron Paul or Sarah Palin, Newt makes a great deal of money selling books and himself as a speaker and lecturer, to conservative groups.  This candidacy is a way of using donor money to promote himself as a lecturer, author and pundit.  For Palin, it happened by accident.  But Newt's been an industry ever since he left office.

    But I'm still surprised by how quickly he was sunk for criticizing Paul Ryan.  It's am amazing moment for modern conservatism when a Republican candidate can't argue that the continued existence of Medicare in something like its present form is a legitimate point of view to take.  Remember, most Republicans like their Medicare.  Even most Tea Partiers do.  But it's no longer okay with the mainstream Republican leadership.

    Or maybe it's the coddling of Paul Ryan.  He's the new star, the new shining intellect.  Are they circling the wagons around him?  He doesn't take criticism well, and was reportedly irked when Obama took down his plan during an earlier budget debate.  So maybe this is just the party trying to protect one of its future candidates -- somebody they have big plans for.

    Certainly, some of this is just the hard right swing of the party.  After all, it's not news around here that Obama's signature legislation on health care is at best a piece of center right work.  The individual mandate was once a Republican idea.  Requiring people to purchase insurance from private providers is what the Republicans wanted.  Absurdly, Paul Ryan's plan to turn Medicare into a voucher system is really a plan to turn a single payer health system for the elderly into something a lot more like what Obama pushed on the rest of America.  Back during the health care debate, some of us supported "Medicare of everyone and be done with it."  Ryan supports "Obamacare for everyone."

    It's likely time for me to stop expecting all of this to add up.  I'm going to go with these conclusions: the Republicans stand for anything that Obama doesn't; Paul Ryan is not to be criticized because Republican donors have big plans for him down the line; Newt knows he doesn't have a chance but that this is his last opportunity to advertise his other wares on the national stage and so he needs to hang in there.

    Topics: 

    Comments

    I don't think that this is about Ryan. Republicans are getting hammered on Medicare, and there's a lot of pressure to drop the proposal, but for now, the GOP leadership is sticking to the Ryan plan. Newt's mutiny threatens to force the issue, so the GOP is trying to quash it before others join the chorus.

    The real trouble for Newt is that he simultaneously crossed the Tea Partiers whom he has been courting since 2009. They have been pressuring the leadership the GOP leadership not to drop the Medicare proposal, so they're obviously displeased by Newt's comments as well. That leaves him without any constituency to back him up.

    The funny thing, to me, is that the Medicare proposal is dead in the water, as I've argued a couple of times here. Newt the Astute recognized that political reality. But in voicing it, he challenged Republicans' denial of the obvious, so they all flipped out.


    On the Takeaway (I think) they mentioned Reagan's 11th Commandment, "Thou shalt not criticize another Republican" as the reason.


    I don't believe that Newt Gingrich's candidacy for the Presidency is real in the slightest.

    Well who are the 'real' candidates here? Romney isn't a real GOP candidate - there's no daylight between him and Obama. Daniels? Ditto - not interested in social issues and otherwise a technocrat like Obama and Romney. Huntsman? Does he have any kind of financial backing? Pawlenty? Is he even a real human being?

    In short I don't see a single 'real' GOP candidate. None of them are serious candidates for the presidency in the sense of "in with a chance". Unless Obama suddenly implodes this is a one candidate, one party, election.

    Welcome to democracy 2.0.


    Or unless the recession double-dips.


    Could be. Though the blame would go to both parties if it double dips because of the debt-ceiling crisis or a new banking crisis. Of course, for ordinary people the recession never ended and he still has 50+ approvals. Just astounding to me.


    May 16 Politico-GW Battleground Poll

    The survey found that 52 percent approve of Obama’s overall job performance -- a seven percentage point increase from its last measure in October 2010 -- while about six in 10 disapprove of his handling of the economy and the deficit, and say the nation is on the “wrong track.”

    The poll of 1,000 registered likely voters conducted May 8- 12, which has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percent, shows Obama’s popularity has rebounded since the 2010 midterm congressional elections. Fifty-nine percent of respondents said they would vote to re-elect him or consider doing so in 2012, and 38 percent said they definitely wouldn’t.

    The numbers also show continuing challenges for the president, with 65 percent saying they are concerned, frustrated or angry with the direction of the country. Forty-eight percent ranked jobs and the economy or spending and deficits as their top concern; jobs were seen more widely as the most important issue, cited by 28 percent compared with 20 percent who named the deficit."

    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-05-16/obama-job-approval-rebounds-amid-voter-discontent-on-economy.html

     


    Kind of difficult to draw conclusions from the popularity question asked a week following Bin Laden's death. All things considered, I see those numbers as pretty brutal.

    Republicans clearing the decks will secure Obama another term - not any particularly high degree of support from the American public.


    I put it up for the numbers on 'handling the economy' and 'jobs and economy' as #1 prority'.  I should have bolded them.  It shows high approval, but not on the economy.  And NBC poll had a plurality of Hispanics (55%?) angry at him over the economy.  Thus, I thought: immigration reform talk, which was 'tell Congress to do it' and 'contact me at WhiteHouse.gov.'

    Doesn't indicate the answer to 'whose fault is the recession', but even Obama says he gets that it's his now.


    He'll have a mandate then?

    Can he then be trusted to bring forth more progressive ideas? 


    What is impressive there is the approval rating on Obama as a person - 72% approval vs 19% disapproval. Even Mother Teresa didn't have that kind of love. That's why I say he'd have to implode somehow to lose this one.


    Yeppers; it flies in the face of conventional wisdom about right-track, wrong-track, and economic concerns was my point.  The election is 'his to lose', if I can use a crap cliche.  (Can't see it, really.)

    But did ya have to use Sister Theresa?  ;o)  I may be one of twelve humans on the planet who thinks she was a cow.


    Christopher Hitchens made a compelling case against her back in the day.


    Me and Hitch: like this, then (twines index and bird fingers..).     ;o)  It still drives me batty when folks who admire her call her 'Ter-REE-Suh'.  Arrrrgggghhhh!


    Ha. I bet you even hate the Pope, and just because he encourages AIDS, enslaves women to livestock version of compulsory reproduction (h/t Hitch), and aids, abets, and institutionalizes sexual abuse of children.

    Is there no love and compassion for these otherwise fine people in your heart...?

    ;0P


    Um.  Erm.  Well.  Egads. Hmmm.  Uh.    Innocent    I did buy some Pope-on-a-Rope when John the 23rd  (now beatified, remember) visited America; does that count, huh, Obey, huh?  Does it?


    Newt probably realizes these are the exact same wags that had Donald Trump leading the field not three weeks ago. Medicare is popular and he's making a run for president - it would be kind of insane for someone seriously making a run to embrace the Ryan budget (recognizing your premise that Newt isn't serious). The Ryan budget will be a memory by August, but "he wanted to privatize(kill) medicare" is a soudbite gift that could linger for quite some time.

    Also, too. In addition to selling books or whatever, Ron Paul's guys are actually working an internal strategy playing for delegates. His goal is to influence the GOP as much as it is to take the office of POTUS. That's why he didn't drop out of the primary race in '08 .... of course the GOP did all sorts of screwed up stuff at the state level and ended up not seating any of his delegates in the end. But he *did* earn them.

    IMO, that's actually an interesting dynamic to keep an eye on. I imagine Ron Paul is going to do basically the same thing again - he's been raising money like crazy. The internal stakes are somewhat higher this time if the establishment guys try and pull off another delegate grab/convention snub.


    Ron Paul and Santorum are consistent.

    I despise them both, regard of the fact that I probably agree on Ron Paul's stances fifty percent of the time--get out of the war, legalize drugs....

    But Newt is no more consistent than Beckerhead. He changes his mind every other day, literally.

    On the delegate fight, Obama won because he kept his eyes on those caucuses and pushed the states where he could win primaries or come in second thereby grabbing a bunch of delegates.

    Hilarry lost because of her inability to sell herself to the caucuses.

    Ron Paul might surprise us. Who knows?

    But any repub running for prez would gut every damn social program he could get his hands on, just like Walker in Wisc.

    They are all, all of them, blood sucking monsters.

     


    Latest Comments