The point of my comments was not that Gingrich was the best choice, though overall I think that he was. Santorum in my view was a one trick pony and did not have the historical heft that Gingrich had.
Our best candidate in my view would have been Palin. She was a powerhouse and would have destroyed Romney on sheer support alone. With her destroyed, the conservative mantle was split among several candidates and shifted from one to the next while Romney’s established base of support remained the same. Gingrich was the only candidate (once Cain was out) who could rally the people just on his own ideas and his own voice. Just like Reagan, he won a primary on those alone. Unlike 1980, the establishment manufactured Romney’s momentum and destroyed all opponents because they remembered what happened after New Hampshire in 1980.
You may be right that if Reagan was in a crowd of conservatives, the vote splitting would have allowed the more moderate candidate to squeak through. That’s just a lesson that we must choose our potential nominee as early as the establishment does. I think the establishment are getting behind Rubio while the Tea Party is getting behind Paul. Keep your eye on anti-Paul stories.
That’s it exactly. Altho I do think Palins support was soft enough in certain areas to make her vulnerable. I don’t see her doing well against Gingrich in debates ... and the first part of the GOP primaries recently has been about Conservative going after each other before going after the moderate ( who ends up being the nominee). Gingrich would see her as the first obstacle to get past before knocking off the other Conservatives and then finally going after Romney.
A Paul - Rubio contest in 2016 would be preferable. But my guess us that there are four or five other Conservatives in it as well. So we end up with a repeat of 2012: three final candidates of which two are Conservative and one GOPe ( or at least percieved as such ... I still need to do more homework on Rubio).
“Historical heft”? More like baggage.