GOP Smackdown: Gingrich v. Romney (Who of the two will govern more conservatively?)

National Review ^ | 11/23/2011 | Jonah Goldberg

[SeekAndFind]

Whether the matchup between Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney is the final bout on the GOP primary card is impossible to know. The whole season has been more like professional wrestling than boxing, with weird characters sporting implausible hair appearing out of nowhere to talk smack and explain why they are the greatest in the world. (I’m looking at you in particular, Mr. Trump.)

Still, let’s assume for the moment that it’s a Gingrich-Romney contest.

It’s quite a matchup. Romney has been brutalized for having too little personality, Gingrich for having way, way too much. Romney looks like the picture that comes with the frame. Gingrich looks like he should be ensconced in royal velvet as he gestures at you with a half-eaten turkey leg in one hand and a sloshing goblet of wine in the other. Romney seems terrified of fully committing to any idea. Gingrich speaks as if he just text-messaged with God.

Gingrich would have everyone believe he is the winner of the anti-Romney mantle not merely by default but by hard-won effort and a well-deserved reputation for conservative steadfastness. Many in the media, meanwhile, think that since Gingrich is taking the slot once held by Palin, Bachmann, Cain, and Perry, he is a conservative of similar stripe. And many liberals think that since they hate him so much, he must be really right-wing. (They made the same mistake with Richard Nixon and George W. Bush, both of whom were far less ideologically conservative than their press clippings indicated.)

The reality is more complicated. For starters, it’s not altogether clear that Gingrich is that far to the right of Romney.

Gingrich’s record — political and rhetorical — is so vast and diverse, there’s plenty of evidence to build almost any narrative you want. He’s said some of the most bombastic right-wing things of any mainstream Republican in our lifetimes, but he’s also reached across the aisle more frequently than far-more-liberal Republicans would ever dare.

As House speaker, he cut a deal with President Clinton on the budget. He infamously joined forces with Nancy Pelosi on climate change, with the NAACP on prison reform, and with Al Sharpton on education. He was one of the few movement conservatives to vocally back George W. Bush’s expansion of Medicare, and he continues to support ethanol subsidies with a straight face. And, of course, last April he tore into Paul Ryan’s budget proposal as “right-wing social engineering,” immolating himself in the process.

Gingrich has since retracted and modified his stance on the Ryan plan. And he’s called his pairing with Pelosi one of the stupidest things he’s ever done.

Still, those who dismiss Gingrich as hopelessly unelectable in the general election should at least keep in mind that Gingrich’s apostasies will make it harder to tar him as a cookie-cutter “right-wing extremist.”

The crucial question for most Republicans will be: Who would govern more conservatively? The candidate who answers that question to the satisfaction of the GOP base will likely be the nominee. But that question begs another: What will Congress look like?

If the Republicans take back the Senate and hold the House, you could make the case that Romney is the better man for the job. Given his unpopularity with the base of his own party, he would be on a much shorter leash and be expected to fly Ryan’s flag over the West Wing while making Republican proposals seem more reasonable to the public. He very well might be the technocrat in chief, implementing reforms not necessarily of his own choosing.

Gingrich, meanwhile, is much more of a wild card. It’s no secret he sees himself as a world historical figure, the last of the great statesmen. And part of that self-conception is his idea that statesmen cut grand bargains with the opposition when history calls for it. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, if you know for sure when history calls for it. If the GOP controlled Congress, conservatives would be on constant “Nixon to China” watch with a President Gingrich.

Given the craziness of the season, I’ve been humbled enough to say I have no idea how this will play out. But I will admit, I’m looking forward to the next steel-cage match.

— Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

[federal__reserve]

Just some of Newt's inconvenient Facts: (MSM knows much more)

“Criticized Paul Ryan's plan saying social engineering from the right is bad”
“Era of Ronald Reagan is over!”
“We are not going to deport 11 million people”

For healthcare mandates before he is against it!
For man made global warming before he is against it!
Newt was actually FOR Cap & Trade!!
Partnering with Al Sharpton on Obama’s education reform.
Partnered with Hillary Clinton to advocate health-care IT legislation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThwVp0cwOMA individual mandates http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi6n_-wB154 climate change


Newt voted to create the Department of Education.
Newt voted for the Amnesty.
Newt voted to lock up 65 million acres of Alaskan wilderness.
Newt voted to give China Most favored Nation status.
Newt pushed the liberal Scozzafazza in NY23( a GOP district) when there was a perfectly good conservative running in the race.
Newt is for the Individual Mandate where Health Insurance is concerned.
Newt is for a limited Amnesty.
Depending on the day of the week, Newt believes Global Warming is real.
We need a conservative, not a moderate globalist.
Gingrich Received Over $300K for Work for an Ethanol Lobbying Group

[BillyBoy]

>> Romney and Gingrich are both RINO’s at heart, and will be indistinguishable if elected president. <<

True, though I would rank Gingrich ever lower than Romney (I know I'm in the minority in FR), simply because Newt won't have a chance to govern at all. The number of Americans who have an unfavorable view of him is sky high (especially with independents) and we virtually gurantee a second Obama term if he the nominee. Not to mention Romney looks like a saint (no pun intended) when you compare his "personal life" to Newt's.

[Brilliant]

Gingrich.

[federal__reserve]

I have to agree!!!

[bmwcyle]

Both are go alone to get alone men.

[BillyBoy]

>> There is no question that Gingrich is and would govern as a conservative <<

I question that. Newt may have once been a Reagan Republican and rising GOP star in the '80's, but today's Newt has been bought and paid for, and has been hanging out with liberals and promoting their garbage for at least a decade.

>> Romney is merely an opportunist with no real convictions <<

So is Newt. I say this as someone who met Newt face-to-face and shook his hand four years ago when he had a tent set up and was hawking his books. Newt was only interested in getting $$$ from gullible conservatives and forced everyone to pay for a quick photo-op and wouldn't allow anyone to shake his hand unless you signed for his "American Solutions" newsletter. It was a grassroots event, not a fundraiser, and he was a non-candidate and retired politician at the time. Every other big-name politician that day was more than happy to meet voters for free and get to know their concerns. Not Newt.

[lurk]

Isn’t the headline question a lot like asking who is more attractive, Helen Thomas or Betty Friedan?

[hinckley buzzard]

Gingrich has since retracted and modified his stance on the Ryan plan. And he’s called his pairing with Pelosi one of the stupidest things he’s ever done

Good enough for me. I can accept someone making a premature judgment if he's willing to reconsider and admit, "hey I goofed."

The people who make other people die are the ones who rigidly refuse to admit new information into their beetlebrowed world view, and sail full steam ahead into the iceberg that they could have avoided if they hadn't been too arrogant to admit they ought to reconsider their course as conditions change

[hinckley buzzard]

It's way too late, but hey-- whatever floats your boat.

[hinckley buzzard]

Jonah Goldberg is one of those boy wonders that has never done anything on his own in his entire life, but got a writing job through his mother's influence, and has never looked back.

He is an adequate wordsmith but he doesn't know anything the rest of us haven't known for years.

Plus I am skeptical of any boy who's hair is longer than his mother's. Makes me wonder what kind of envy he has.

[Antoninus]

I could vote for Newt and feel pretty good about it.

Anyone who votes for Romney is either not conservative or criminally ignorant.

[hinckley buzzard]

Not to mention Romney looks like a saint (no pun intended) when you compare his "personal life" to Newt's.

Hah. Even here on FR we have a cadre of Romney haters who will gladly write the ads for the democrats, ridiculing Romney for his religion and his "animal abuse." If everything I have heard spewed here about Romney's religious beliefs were true, I would take an "adulterer" over him any day.

Either way. I will vote for daffy duck if he runs against obama.

[Antoninus]

This article is a pathetic attempt to push Romney. Jonah Goldber should be asamed of himself.

Absolutely correct. National Review is part of the problem. They are lackeys for the GOP establishment liberals.

[Antoninus]

I’m voting for Cain in the primary (if he’s still standing), and will support Newt if he’s the nominee. Will not vote for Mitt even if he is the nominee. Unlike Mitt, either Cain or Newt can rally the conservative base to exitement levels that will allow a sweep of the congress. I’m hoping they team up.

You and I see things exactly the same. Ditto 100%.

[truthfreedom]

Newt and Cain have already teamed up. They have their own debated.

Newt and Cain are the McCain and Thompson of 2012.

[elpadre]

Gingrich is not a proven leader by any stretch of the imagination. Even when elected Speaker, his management skills were naught.

[Bigg Red]

...matchup between Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney....

&&&
Uh..NO and NO!

[lonevoice]

Isn’t the headline question a lot like asking who is more attractive, Helen Thomas or Betty Friedan?

That is the perfect rejoinder to an utterly ridiculous headline question.

Which of the two liberals would govern more conservatively? Bah! If this is what we're left to choose from, the biggest loser is conservatism.

[trebb]

Newt has been a movement conservative. He would tear the executive establishment asunder. Mitt would buy them all new staplers.

Yep - Newt understands consrvatism where Mitt understands the importance of looking conservative. No contest that Newt will govern far more conservatively than Mitt. Of course, ALL the rest of the field will do so. I'm hoping Caim comes out above Newt, but will not have to agonize over my vote if Newt is last man standing. I think he's genuinely teachable and we might be able to exert some positive pressure on some of the hot button issues.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

The northeast country club Republicans are not happy with Gingrich. He is a southerner with a proven conservative record as Speaker.

Actually N. Leroy is from the Northeast. He is what they call in the South a carpetbagger. But he never did leave his Northeastern liberal statism behind.