In serious conversations among Republicans since their election debacle Tuesday, what name is mentioned most often as the Moses, or Reagan, who could lead them out of the wilderness before 40 years?
To the consternation of many Republicans, it is none other than Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House.
Gingrich is far from a unanimous or even a consensus choice to run for president in 2012, but there is a strong feeling in Republican ranks that he is the only leader of their party who has shown the skill and energy to attempt a comeback quickly.
Even one of his strongest supporters for president in 2012 admits it is a "very risky choice." But Republicans are in a desperate mood after the fiasco of John McCain's seemingly safe candidacy.
Republicans appear chastened by the failure of seeking moderate, independent and even Democratic votes. They are ready to try going back to the "old-time religion."
One Republican critic of Gingrich concedes that he has an "unlimited" energy flow and a constant stream of ideas, an important commodity in a party that appears to have run short of ideas during the Bush years. But there is widespread concern about what is described in the party as deep "character flaws" of Gingrich's that would be difficult to overcome in a presidential campaign.
Nobody in Republican ranks, however, matches Gingrich's dynamism.
The consternation among Republicans is concentrated on McCain's failure to capitalize on Democratic flaws.
It would be a rocky road for Gingrich to the nomination, much less the presidency, but there are no other serious candidates inside the party at the moment.
What's clear is that Republicans are unanimous in trying to avoid a repeat of what happened this year, and there is a surprising consensus that McCain was going in the wrong direction and was the wrong candidate.
What one GOP critic calls Gingrich's "unlimited energy supply" must be overcome by anyone opposing him. Several old Republican hands feel that Gingrich in 2012 is no more outrageous than Ronald Reagan was in 1980.
What is certain is that Gingrich has the desire and the will. He has a deep-seated ambition. He had not even settled into the House speaker's chair in 1995 when he confessed to me his presidential desires for 1996. That was not to be, but he never abandoned the personal dream and is ready to pursue it now.
To find out more about Robert D. Novak and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
|
 |
Comments
|
2 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
Sir;... I'd love to see a candidate like Newt who could alienate the base and drive away the center...It brings to mind the possiblity of a rout, a stampede, and quiting time all rolled into one... If I have but one independent vote to give to a polarizing figure, let it be for Newt... I'm there for you buddy... Right... Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Fri Nov 7, 2008 8:22 PM
|
|
|
|
Bob,
If the Republicans are determined to revert to the "old-time religion", then they must be prepared to lose elections for some time yet. As close contests in Virginia and North Carolina this election showed, shoring up the Republican base is no longer suffient for winning presidential elections - it is simply too polarizing, given the rising number of independents. Unfortunately, Gingrich, who will be 69 years old by the time of 2012 election, embodies many of the qualities associated with Republicans that repelled voters last Tuesday. He is old, staunchly conservative and, by 2012, his rise and fall in national politics will be perceived - by many voters - to have occured over a decade ago. In short, he is the antithesis to the "change" offered by Obama, and only a (seriously) failed Obama presidency would make him a viable candidate; given the margin of Obama's victory, this would require the alienation of an inconceivable number of voters.
That said, many of the points made by Republicans in decades past could do with reiterating. The populist Keynesianism preached by Obama needs a supply-side counterpoint, while the idealism of both the Obama liberals and the Bush neo-cons could do with a dose of Kissinger realism. A presidential candidate with a long-term economic vision and bold plans for confronting threats to American hegemony - whether Sinic or Islamic in origin - would be a serious prospect for reviving Republican fortunes. As China continues to artificially deflate its currency, assertive intervention is needed before rapidly expanding Chinese stockpiles of U.S. dollars - a ticking inflation time bomb - gives them the upperhand in international negotiations. If Obama fails to engage in the necessary confrontation, China's rapidly growing power will become a greater concern for the American public, swinging popular opinion in favor of a more militant, Republican president. More innovative, and less ideological, proposals to prevent economic crises like the one we are currently experiencing will also be appreciated.
The albatross around the Republican Party's neck is social conservatism. As American enters the 21st century, public resentment to government intervention in private affairs is growing. On issues like gay and abortion rights, the progressive agenda is gradually making inevitable inroads. Though Republicans need not abandon their social conservatism entirely (nationwide European-style liberalism is unlikely to subsume the U.S. in the immediate future), it is no longer a sufficient point of distinction with the Democrats for the purpose of winning votes. Rather, it simply polarizes the electorate, with the "rise of the Religious Right" increasingly cited as a reason to vote Democratic. Gingrich, as a figurehead of the Republican Party establishment associated with these positions, is unlikely to bring success to the party in the short-term, and in the long-term, could do a lot to hurt it.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Henry
Tue Nov 11, 2008 6:40 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
