Gingrich No Darling of the Conservative Pundits

     That doesn't necessarily matter as he has been doing very well in most recent polls. He had a 15 point lead in the first Gallup poll of the Republican primary, he is leading by 14 in Iowa, a healthy second place in NH, a healthy lead in South Carolina, and is simply running away right now in Florida.

     However the conservative braintrust-using the word "brain" in any form here advisedly-is not enamored by Newt. Politico for example quotes from three conservative pundits-George Will, the National Review's editor, Ramesh Ponnuru and New York Times editorial writer, David Brooks.

     I got a kick out of Brooks being listed as Right of Center-he is sometimes referred to as liberal but I for one don't want him. How I feel about Mr. Brooks is borne out by a recent post I wrote entitled, "David Brooks' Vapid Centrism."

    http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2011/12/david-brooks-vapid-centrism.html

     To me he's the proof that-his NYT colleague-Paul Krugman's Very Serious People (VSP) is no straw man. True Brooks sometimes seems to "admire" Obama, but what he amounts to is someone who tries to always plausibly remain in the center. For him political wisdom and "seriousness" means staying in the Center. The trouble with this is the Center is no fixed stationary position but constantly shifting. The real leader or visionary makes the Center he doesn't search for it. As the American political landscape has continuously moved Right over the last 30 years a David Brooks continuously moves Right while plausibly continuing to claim he is a man of the Center.

    Anyone worth listening too does not seek the Center as this is a derivative effect not the end of meaningful political engagement.

    In case it is thought that I am being too hard on Mr. Brooks consider what he says in the Politico piece about Gingrich:

    “He has every negative character trait that conservatives associate with ’60s excess: narcissism, self-righteousness, self-indulgence and intemperance. He just has those traits in Republican form,” New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote Friday. “It doesn’t matter if a person shares your overall philosophy. If that person doesn’t have the right temperament and character, stay away.”

    This is an almost completely meaningless "analysis" so full of all the worst cliches of recent American political discourse. Only a fairly shallow liberal who will settle for almost anything will take comfort in such a "criticism."

    Still, bellwether that Brooks is it does reveal that a certain meme is out about the Gingrich campaign. Let's hear from George Will:

    "There is almost artistic vulgarity in Gingrich’s unrepented role as a hired larynx for interests profiting from such government follies as ethanol and cheap mortgages,” Will wrote in The Washington Post. “His Olympian sense of exemption from standards and logic allowed him, fresh from pocketing $1.6 million from Freddie Mac (for services as a ‘historian’), to say, ‘If you want to put people in jail,’ look at ‘the politicians who profited from’ Washington’s environment.”

    I'll say this for Will: his criticism of Gingrich is a lot more on point than Brooks vapid centrism particularly when Will calls him a “rental politician."

    "Gingrich “embodies almost everything disagreeable about modern Washington.”

   Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70178.html#ixzz1g5bRDqaw

     I mean "rental politician" is about the best description I have heard for what Gingrich is. Again his critique of Gingrich is much more on point-meaningful, accurate-than Brooks who simply chases the current that he baptizes "the Center." I like the touch of "artistic vulgarity" I know what he means. Honestly I've been struggling for the right words to nail what Newt is and Will nails it.

     For good measure Ramesh Ponnuru, National Review piles on: “The people who know Gingrich best — the ones who worked for him, or worked with him, or watched him closely as journalists in the 1990s — have almost all concluded that he is a bad fit for the presidency,” Ponnuru said in an email. “That judgment is shared by conservative and moderate congressmen, by people who support Romney and people who want an alternative to him. The common denominator is alarm at what Gingrich would do to the Republican party as nominee and to the country as president.”

    Among all that have concluded that Gingrich is a bad fit was his own campaign team during the summer.

    In a word Gingrich is a flake and his candidacy is a joke. That does not mean he can't win, to the contrary recent polls suggest he most certainly can. The real worry for him though is whether or not his poll numbers will come through in the actual election considering he has done so little organizing in a place like Iowa. The real worry for the Republican establishment is that he certainly can win.

   As a Democrat I don't necessarily have a preference. As Gingrich is a joke, it says something about this year's Republican presidential field the he is leading at this late date. I still think Romney is the most viable candidate to beat Obama which is why the Republican establishment wants Romney. Gingrich is a risk to flake out at any moment so that alone would make you prefer Romney if you're a Republican.

   As I'm not I'm just gonna enjoy the show. Romney has intelligently rejected Trump's extravaganza cum debate for December 27. Gingrich of course is all in. Evidently though Trump himself is now having second thoughts.

 

   Barnum Bailey would be ashamed of this performance.