Mistah Gingrich, He Mad
Posted: January 29, 2012 Filed under: Mitt Romney, Newt Newt 4 Comments »“Carpet-bombing”—that was Newt’s big word on two of the Sunday morning shows today when describing the scope of Romney’s negative ads in Florida. (I assume that invitations were proffered to Romney as well and he declined, but you never know; if I were the booker on one of these shows, I’d always try to get Newt on before Romney.) I can see where that might cause some trouble for him, in that it’s a term so strongly identified with the Vietnam War. At the very least, I expect the requisite manufactured indignation from Romney: “And now the Speaker is comparing me to a military strategy that killed untold numbers of innocent Vietnamese citizens in a war that tore our country apart—gosh, that’s just reckless.”
The one thing I got out of this morning (beyond the fact that Newt continues to plug this blog, name-checking “managing the decay” no less than three times) is that even if Romney wins by 15-20 points on Tuesday, Gingrich will still be wreaking havoc a month from now. There are a lot of southern states that don’t come up till March, and Gingrich seems convinced that he just has to get Santorum out of the race and everything will turn his way again. There were also polls this week where Gingrich’s lead widened nationally, and even though they’ll again reverse themselves after Tuesday, no one’s going to walk away from a race any time soon where he was still leading national polls in late January. I’ve been resisting all along the idea that any of this will hurt Romney in the general, believing that it’ll all be forgotten down the road when it’s him and Obama and some new development (surprise or otherwise) suddenly becomes the focus of the election. But listening to Laura Ingraham on Meet the Press—not someone I care for, but I take it she ought to know—she framed what’s happening in a way that made me think, “Some of this really may be doing long-term damage to Romney.” Hardly a stunning revelation—you said the same thing a few posts ago, Scott, and people say it all the time on the message board. For me it’s just been an entertaining and mostly meaningless warm-up, but I’m starting to come around some on that. And the chance to lose the battle (the nomination) but win the war (irrevocably damage Romney) is a powerful incentive for Gingrich to stick it out.
I looked into ordering one of these, but they’re $100!
Ballroom Blitzer
Posted: January 27, 2012 Filed under: CNN, Debates, Mitt Romney, Newt Newt, Obits 1 Comment »John Dickerson on the night’s key exchange:
[Gingrich] was even the least effective attacker of the media. He had to follow on after Rick Santorum had interrupted the bickering of the front-runners to call for a return to the issues. Gingrich tried to echo him, arguing that it was OK to attack Romney for his tax returns in a TV interview but “nonsense” to try to get him to talk about it during the debate — a theory that is itself nonsense. Moderator Wolf Blitzer stood his ground. For a man who has profited from the debates and promises to whup Obama in the debates, to shrink from repeating onstage what he says in interviews was confusing and weak.
Yeah, this, for me, was where the Gingrich candidacy effectively shot itself in the face, from the Speaker’s all-too-transparent technique of sidling up to the moderator before delivering a smackdown (“Wolf, you and I have had a good relationship over the years, but…”) to his opponent’s masterful reading of the situation, which enabled him to step right in and deliver said smackdown himself — not on Blitzer or “the media,” but on the Speaker. The Europeans have a phrase for this sort of thing; it’s called getting your ass handed to you on a silver platter.
Au revoir, Newt.
And if Your Head Explodes with Dark Forebodings Too
Posted: January 26, 2012 Filed under: Newt Newt, Photos Leave a comment »
One small step for Newt…
Say Hello to Vivian
Posted: January 25, 2012 Filed under: Obama 3 Comments »I mentioned on ILX the other day that one thing Obama will have working against him in the general is something I expect to become more and more an inescapable fact of presidential elections from now till the end of time: incumbent fatigue. I think “Clinton fatigue” was the first time I ever heard the phrase, although it was probably around before that. But it’s growing exponentially at the moment for a bunch of obvious reasons: social media, cable news, talk radio, etc., etc. The problem seems that much worse because the historical nature of Obama’s presidency collided with all of this head-on; his ascension was so unexpected and so meteoric in 2008 that there would have been a degree of saturation coverage at any time the past half-century, but nothing like what became possible these last four years. And even if the next president were to be only half as interesting, the news cycle will probably be twice as accelerated, and the sheer amount of stuff out there five times as mountainous.
I’m making an obvious point, but it explains why I nodded off for five or ten minutes during last night’s speech. It wasn’t terrible or anything—Sullivan’s screed was almost funny on the heels of all his rah-rahing earlier in the day—and there were a few effective moments. The milk joke was bizarre enough to provide what we used to call in Radio On lots of “puzzlement value.” Mostly, though, it was, heard that, heard that, heard that, that bit’s kind of interesting, heard that, heard that, right—good luck. I’m not commenting on strategy or policy or anything except what it felt like to sit there and listen. If enough people were experiencing something similar—i.e., actual Americans who’ll be voting—that will be a problem in November.
The clip has nothing to do with anything. I was just really happy to stumble over it today.
Seven Minutes of Madness
Posted: January 24, 2012 Filed under: Debates 2 Comments »Mostly ho-hum, except for that amazing seven minutes where the whole room vanished and it was just Romney and Gingrich (skip to 25:35). Almost everybody I’ve read thought Romney got the better of the exchange, but I don’t know. When Newt took that long pause at 30:38—what is he going to say?!—I agree with whoever it was who wrote that it wasn’t a case of him groping around for an answer, it was more that for once in his life he’d decided not to go off and spew out something reckless, but to instead choose his words carefully. “Let me be very clear [which is a lot like being perfectly clear], because I understand your technique, which you used on McCain, you used on Huckabee, you use consistently…”—that was good. I’m hoping (though not confident) that that was enough to salvage the night and save Florida.
On the Implausability of Newt
Posted: January 23, 2012 Filed under: Newt Newt, Primaries 2 Comments »I didn’t have much access to my PC on the weekend so was unable to chime in with any thoughts. Of course I’m salivating for a Gingrich-Obama debate, just like the next guy, but the more I think about it now, the more implausible it seems:
1) Phil wrote in his last comment: “But I continue to be cognizant of the fact that rooting for Gingrich is like rooting for Manny Ramirez. Discipline may be an issue.” Yeah, I predict Newt will stay on course in the immediate future (while contributing mildly amazing gaffes of grandiosity which will mainly just serve to entertain everyone), but this thing is shaping up to be a long slog, and if so, it’s hard to imagine Gingrich not self-destructing with remarkable hubris under an endless barrage of attacks from all corners.
2) “All corners,” I should add, of his own party. I didn’t watch loads of the Sunday coverage, but it’s telling that I have yet to hear an actual prominent Republican, or Republican-identified media shill, endorse, or even give words of encouragement to, the guy. The best you’ll get out of anyone these days is, “He’s done good things for the party in the past” (it took a lot of prodding to get even that much out of Chris Christie on MTP yesterday), and “the man knows how to fight.” The establishment are currently lining up to line up against Gingrich. Which isn’t to say it’s a done deal, but it does present a hugely daunting obstacle to the finish line, no?
3) I just don’t see Newt “increasing his likables” the further this thing carries on (and I don’t mean Florida, which I believe he can win). That is, among those who consider him a viable Presidential candidate to begin with, i.e., his base, which can more or less be defined as people who don’t think Mitt Romney is a viable Presidential candidate. Soon enough, Newt’s going to be chained in the tea party imagination to the “establishment” he chides at every opportunity. Once that’s out there, and repeated ad nauseum (and in places more centrist than S.C.) it’s hard to imagine it not having an impact, maybe to the point of relegating Newt to the mountainous pile of not-purist-enough pretenders.
There are, no doubt, major flaws with these rationalizations, the biggest of which is that a Romney victory suddenly seems every bit as implausible as a Gingrich victory. And a Paul victory even more so (I predict that Santorum — truly the John Edwards of this race — is not much longer for this game). In other words, the fun is just starting.
Hold It There, Kitty-Kat
Posted: January 21, 2012 Filed under: Newt Newt, Primaries 1 Comment »The latest poll out of South Carolina has it 40-26 for Newt, which makes it seem like a sure thing. (I think Obama was only running 8-10 points ahead of Hillary on the eve of New Hampshire in 2008.) If it does happen, I’ve got to believe that everything opens up again. Romney is way ahead in Florida right now, but Gingrich was ahead just as solidly two months ago; the loyalty there seems to run as deep as whoever’s the latest frontrunner. In the wake of an SC win, Gingrich would, of course, have to contend with the same onslaught that came his way in Iowa, probably even intensified this time around—every living Republican eminence going back to Howard Baker will be trotted out for a Romney endorsement. And there’ll be more unseemly stuff about Gingrich, the amount of which that must be out there for anyone who wants to start digging is probably limitless. But I don’t want to hear about logic and inevitability today. Today is about hopes and dreams and ideas. It’s about a vision of the future in which the people who are really to blame for everything that ails us—Obama, obviously, but also John King, Fredricka Whitfield, and (especially) Ali Velshi—will finally be given a good talking-down-to and put in their place by the one man with a fundamental grasp of what’s at stake come November.
C’mon, South Carolina—you’ve got the power. Do the right thing.
Early Shades of Newt vs. John
Posted: January 21, 2012 Filed under: Media Leave a comment »Matthews mentioned this on “Hardball” last night; I have a pretty vague recollection of hearing about it at the time. (The over-the-shoulder shots of Rather talking to Bush on a small TV screen look so 1984, in the Orwell sense.)
You Can Call Me Al
Posted: January 20, 2012 Filed under: Obama, Pop Music 1 Comment »Nice. Shame he didn’t keep going.
Much better than Clinton’s Arsenio moment, no?
Classic Cainisms
Posted: January 20, 2012 Filed under: CNN, Herman Cain 1 Comment »The Hermanator’s been popping up all over the place lately, and it would be a shame not to start cataloging here some of his daily bon mots, as I suspect he’ll be a lingering presence for some time to come. (He’s loving every second of this, clearly.)
This morning, on CNN, Soledad O’Brien asked Cain if Gingrich’s fiery performance last night was enough to “seal the deal”:
Cain: “I think it was enough for him to seal the surge, but no, I don’t think he has yet sealed the deal.”
So Flamboyant
Posted: January 19, 2012 Filed under: Debates 2 Comments »That was good! I went to one of the films, but it was an early start, so I was home by 8:30. What I missed, I’ve been catching up on via TPM. Gingrich going off on John King right at the start was spectacular—completely phony (Newt should have snuck in a subliminal little wink at one point, and I think he’s out having a beer with King right now), but I loved it. Shades of the ’64 convention, where delegates shook their fists in the direction of the press box. Romney’s response to the question about his father releasing 12 years’ worth of tax returns (“Maybe”), followed by that trademark forced laugh of his—and then rolling his eyes when the audience booed—was really bad. Three-for-three looked like a sure thing a few days ago, now 1-1-1 seems quite possible. Mildly amazing, in Newtspeak.
On the way home tonight, I got a reminder of what I really need in order to refocus: 10 minutes of Hannity and Palin on the radio. He eggs her on, she puts the emphasis in the wrong place on two out of every nine words, back and forth they go. I can’t remember if I kept my little Sirius contraption from four years ago, but I should think about resubscribing through November.
Rick and Ted’s Excellent Adventure
Posted: January 19, 2012 Filed under: Obits, Rick Perry 1 Comment »
All day I’ve been working on my concession speech for tonight’s minor domestic squabble regarding the 37th Republican debate of the last four months and the second episode of American Idol, but my plans have now erupted into chaos. Well, maybe. It’s hard to say if all today’s exciting headlines (Perry out in South Carolina! Santorum on top in Iowa — maybe! Newt’s ex spilling the beans on ABC!) will amount to anything remotely substantive on the main stage, but… hey, there are at least more possibilities on the table now than there were 24 hours ago.
“Goodbye, Rick. God bless you“
First time I heard of Perry was a few years ago when his offhand comment about Texas seceding from the union got loads of play on MSNBC (Chris Matthews was relentless in his pummeling). Not so long after which I saw him interviewed both on CNN and “The Daily Show,” and though I don’t remember a single thing he said in either sitting, I do remember coming away from them thinking, wow, there’s someone Obama might need to worry about in 2012. Seriously. At least in the setting of a one on one, Perry communicated whatever folly he was communicating with a fairly irresistible blend of good ol’ boyism and political — what’s that word again? — gravitas. Didn’t work out so well, of course, for three reasons, though at this point I can’t even remember the first two never mind the third.
“When Albaugh showed him video of the debates, he grimaced. It’s worse than I thought ran through his mind. He pledged to do better. “I need to figure out how to get this right,” he said. But as the debates went along and he continued to founder, Perry’s frustration mounted. He started showing up late for prep sessions or cutting them short. Or spending the whole time on his BlackBerry. Or finding excuses to avoid them altogether. “You guys don’t have this together,” he said at one mildly disorganized run-through. “I’m going to shoot some coyote.”
- John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, Game Change, 2008
[Editor's note: Albaugh = Axelrod; Perry = Obama; "shoot some coyote" = "take a nap"]
Pictures of Romney
Posted: January 18, 2012 Filed under: Photos, Primaries 1 Comment »I don’t really have anything to say about it, but here’s a really excellent portfolio of images from New Hampshire, by Charles Ommanney, published in the Daily Beast. Most priceless moment: the expression on Cindy McCain’s face in the fourth slide.
Some Way Out of Here
Posted: January 17, 2012 Filed under: Debates, Mitt Romney Leave a comment »Like I’ve done four or five times thus far, I sat hunched over the computer watching last night’s debate. Initially, I couldn’t get the Fox stream going, so I actually watched an open live-blog on some site, with people posting comments faster than I could read them. Pretty sad—not sure what it is I’m afraid I’m going to miss. After 10 minutes or so, someone posted a link to where the Wall Street Journal was carrying everything, so I was able to watch the rest there, with all the usual buffering problems.
I’ve been reading all day that it was a bad night for Romney, but those parts must have gone right past me. He just needs to glide through these things at this point, and it seemed to me that he did. I know Gingrich brought the crowd to its feet—low point of the night, if you know what that was all about—but so what. There’s another one Thursday night—I think I’ve reached my limit; there are two good movie options around town that night—and then, incredibly, there are still another six after that. By the time they get to the last couple, you may literally be looking at what probably should have been the set-up all along: Romney up there alone, debating himself. The not-Romneys just get in the way.
All the Critics Love You in Newsweek
Posted: January 16, 2012 Filed under: Media, Obama 3 Comments »My guess is that this will not end well — for any of the parties involved. It is going to be used as a stick by by both sides with which to beat the three principle players involved: Obama, Sullivan, and Newsweek (Governor Palin and Alexander Cockburn are working on their responses now). It will — with some justification — be dismissed as elitist claptrap on the right, blind subservience on the left. A part of me thinks it’s hilarious. The Onion could reprint the headline as is, and you wouldn’t forget that you are reading The Onion.
I read the piece, and it’s fine. A little too forgiving of some of Obama’s policy punts. And the failures of what I will call mass communication and response — to my mind, the core weakness of the last few years — are almost entirely glossed over. Still, for all its championing of the strategy and the policy-making of the Obama presidency, to me the piece feels devoid of any real emotional connection between writer and subject. Which is appropriate enough. Positive ambivalence seems much more realistic and in tune with reality than wide-eyed zeal. Drives home, however, just how relatively uninspiring this whole process may be; exactly what Phil’s been saying all along, I think. (That is, if you believe that the next several months are going to be about who is the next president of the United States. About which I remain undecided, if not ambivalently positive.)
Comments