Jonah Goldberg Humorously Misses The Mark

Jonah Goldberg has quite a humorous column up at the LA Times describing the rebellion in Republican grass roots ranks against the "conservative establishment." Ultimately, Goldberg concludes that the problem is a general dissatisfaction with the field of Republican candidates and whether they can win against Obama. He was good up to that point, but I think he misdiagnoses the angst among the electorate. I feel pretty confident that Romney or Gingrich could win against Obama. I am less certain about the second tier candidates, but they are second tier and not likely to win the nomination. It is not the weakness of the field that is the problem, its the acts of the Republican "establishment," the punditry as well as current and former lawmakers, that are causing the angst. Not since 1964 have we seen the "establishment" engage in such a grossly unfair slash and burn campaign against our own Republican candidates. As I wrote in a post below, Are These NRO People Nuts:

Precious little of what is coming from the right leaning pundits has been reasoned criticism. To the contrary, its largely been overheated hyperbole of the ilk used by the left to demonize and delegitimize Sarah Palin.

In that sense, the actions of the "Republican establishment" have been disgusting and unforgivable. Mr. Goldberg humorously gets the angst, but misdiagnoses its genesis:

've made a disturbing discovery: I am a member of the conservative "establishment." I felt like Michael Douglas at the end of "Falling Down": "I'm the bad guy?"

For the last few years, the rank and file of the GOP and the conservative movement have become deeply disenchanted with what they see as the rubber-spined, foot-dragging quislings drinking from a trough of chablis at some Georgetown party. The term "RINO" (Republican In Name Only) has become an epithet of ideological enforcement, spit out in much the same way Mao cursed "running dog capitalists." . . .

Though he never intended any of this, Mitt Romney is largely to blame for the anti-establishment tumult. Somehow, he has managed to become the Arlen Specter of the 2012 field. (Specter is conservative-speak for "demon RINO from hell." You're supposed to spit on the ground after you say "Arlen Specter." Ptooey.)

In 2008, Romney was the conservative alternative to John McCain, earning endorsements not just from National Review magazine but from the titans of right-wing talk radio — Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham. Now Limbaugh insists that support for Romney proves that "the Republican establishment does not want a conservative getting the nomination." Erick Erickson, a CNN contributor and editor of the conservative site Red State, says that if Romney is the nominee, "Conservatism dies and Barack Obama wins."

After National Review issued a stinging anti-Newt Gingrich editorial, many of the same voices insisted that the magazine (where I work, though I didn't write the editorial) has, in the words of one right-wing blogger, lived long enough "to become the villain." Fox News, Karl Rove, Charles Krauthammer, George Will and even pro-Romney columnist Ann Coulter are routinely denounced as part of some RINO cabal. . . .

The mere fact that there's something one can meaningfully describe as a conservative establishment today is a victory, never mind that it is more conservative than it has ever been. But a conservative establishment is useless if it doesn't bring the nation with it. The frustration on the right stems from the fact that none of the candidates seems up to that task.

Read More...

Summary only...

Why - & Why Not - To Pull The Lever For Newtzilla

It's rare that I find myself in 100% agreement with another on just about any topic. That said, I think Jonah Goldberg has it precisely accurate on the right's war on Newtzilla, why it is ineffective, and why - or why not - to pull the lever for Newt come the moment of truth. This from the LA Times:

. . . The other night while having drinks with some prominent conservatives, I said I thought there was a significant chance that Gingrich will not only win the nomination but that he might be the next president. Going by their expressions, I might as well have said I put a slow-acting poison in their cocktails.

Not surprising then that there are more knives out for Gingrich than in a Ginsu infomercial. For instance, former New Hampshire Gov. John H. Sununu has been nurturing a grievance against Gingrich since he was White House chief of staff in 1990. For two decades he's been like Inigo Montoya in "The Princess Bride." "Hello, my name is John Sununu. You destroyed my boss' presidency; prepare to die."

But Sununu's barbs bounce off Gingrich, as has George Will's more brutal rhetorical artillery fire. Conventional weapons are useless against Newtzilla.

First, what are you going to say about the guy that people don't already know? Just as it's OK to speak openly about the fact that Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father, Gingrich's backstory provides no spoilers. Herman Cain was undone because people were still forming their first impressions of him. Everything bad about Gingrich — the flip-flops, the wives, the ego — is known. Once voters have convinced themselves they can overlook that stuff, it's hard to change their minds simply by repeating it.

Moreover, conservative voters distrust the conservative establishment — variously defined — almost as much as they distrust the liberal establishment (that's why David Brooks, the notoriously moderate New York Times columnist, leveled the most vicious charge he could against Gingrich: He touted their similarities!)

Also, Gingrich benefits enormously by being the last obvious "not-Romney" candidate. Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Cain were all well to Gingrich's right, and many voters assume that Gingrich is being attacked for the same reason that his not-Romney predecessors were.

But the stop-Newt forces are not synonymous with the stop-Bachmann/Perry forces. The conservative establishment knows Gingrich, or at least thinks it does. The insiders worry that Bachmann and Perry aren't smart enough or can't beat President Obama. The stop-Newters have no doubts about how smart Gingrich is.

As to whether he can beat Obama, opinions vary. But many feel that a Gingrich victory might be scarier than a GOP defeat. Gingrich's defenders say such fear is a compliment because it shows that he's a "change agent" threatening the status quo.

They have a point. Inside D.C., it sounds very strange to say that Gingrich is an "outsider." Gingrich has eaten from just about every trough imaginable inside the Beltway. And yet, he's always been very clear that he wants to ("fundamentally," "historically," "categorically" and "radically") overturn the existing order. Some critics always thought, plausibly, that such pronouncements were part of his act or a sign of his megalomania.

But there's another possibility: It's true. Moreover, the times may be ripe for precisely the sort of vexing, vainglorious and all-too-human revolutionary Gingrich claims to be. That's the argument a few people have been wrestling with. Gingrich, after all, is the only candidate to actually move the government rightward. While getting wealthy off the old order, he's been plotting for decades how to get rid of it. To paraphrase Lenin, perhaps the K Streeters paid Gingrich to build the gallows he will hang them on?

That remains a stretch. Mitt Romney is still the sensible choice if you believe these are rough, but generally sensible, times. If, however, you think these are crazy and extraordinary times, then perhaps they call for a crazy, extraordinary — very high-risk, very high-reward — figure like Gingrich.

This helps explain why Newtzilla is so formidable. In order to stop him, you need to explain to very anxious GOP voters that the times don't require him.

That pretty much sums it up. As I see it, these are indeed "crazy times," and I think Newt the man for the moment.

Read More...

Summary only...