The choice in 2012 is not only the path American voters wish to choose but the path Republicans as a party wish to choose. And this choice is presented aptly by the Washington Post’s conservative blogger Jennifer Rubin who reports on the differences in the style and content of the current frontrunner for the 2012 Republican nomination former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and the widely-longed-for candidate who got away, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.
The difference, really, is between a candidate who will play to the base and try to win in a party mobilization election by throwing red meat and demonizing the opposition to get out the party vote and a candidate who would talk tough but likely expand the party’s coalition. She reports on their speeches to the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC). Key sections:
Gingrich at the RJC showed some of that lack of discipline and raging ego, and also had the misfortune to follow New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), who not only was infinitely more skilled and likable, but (I assume unintentionally) mocked some of the rhetoric that Gingrich used.
Gingrich, for example, in his over-the-top style called this election the most important since 1860. Christie at lunch had mocked the elf-importance of those who say such things. Gingrich at one point declared that he’d need not just eight years but solid majorities in the Congress. Christie had chided pols who are obsessed with the time in office rather than the progress they make on big issues. Gingrich explained how he couldn’t get anything done without big GOP majorities. Christie had spoken about how a leader can pull in Democratic support.
The speech certainly revealed Gingrich’s exaggerated regard for his own intellect, his tone deafness, his penchant for self-delusion and his serious handicap in reaching voters beyond the GOP base.
What continues to be astounding is the degree to which many current Republicans want to alienate anyone who does not totally agree with them. The term “political enemy” has been greatly expanded. And it’s also quite demonstrative that the biggest insult for a candidate, the filthiest phrase to hurl at them is that they might “go moderate” at some point. Which pretty well tells moderates where they should go: to a place with notably warm temperatures or to the Democratic Party, if they can stomach that party’s liberal wing.
At the end she writes:
Ah, but he assured the voters that he has the electability thing all taken care of. He will solve that by following the president around the country daring him to undertake Lincoln-Douglas style debates. Obama won’t be able to avoid him! Well, he either will or he will decide letting Gingrich vent his crazy ideas is jsut the thing to cinch his re-election. And is the problem with Gingrich’s electability going to be solved by this sort of desperation?
The question-and-answer period was certainly revealing. When asked about his ethics problems, Gingrich insisted it was all a Democratic scheme by Nancy Pelosi (weren’t Republicans in the majority?) and that he was exonerated on all but one charge. Yeah, that thing about lying to the ethics committee. And the $300,000 fine he received was a record. Not only does this emphasize a liability (his character), but it refutes the argument that he has learned from past errors. In fact, he’s deep in denial and once again reconstructing his past to make himself out to be the martyr.
If you compared Christie’s speech, which was a clarion call to put action above rhetoric, with Gingrich’s white-hot rhetoric and lack of workable solutions, you would conclude that Gingrich is entertaining but Christie might get elected and accomplish something. Christie isn’t running, of course. So one of Gingrich’s actual rivals will have to call out Gingrich, expose him as a charlatan and make the case that the GOP is heading for a trainwreck if Gingrich is the nominee. Is there someone able to do all that? Stay tuned.
I don’t know about the stay tuned part. I get the sinking feeling that today’s GOP is all about red meat, and getting the candidate who can say the most over the top, demonizing things. Hey, it’s kind of like conservative talk radio. (What a coincidence…)
Will Americans buy it — even if many have sadly concluded that Barack Obama may lack the vision, political courage or skills to provide what it takes to make quick and substantive economic progress?
Do you just eat red meat or do you try hard to find a balanced diet?
Stay tuned.
UPDATE: When Occupy protesters interrupted a Romney rally Christie in Des Moines last night, Christie had these remarks:
Christie told them to let it all out. Romney staffers and a West Des Moines police officer escorted the group of about a dozen out the door within a few minutes.
“Where was I before I was so New Jersily interrupted?” Christie said, to laughs from an audience of 150 to 200 at the Kum & Go headquarters on Westown Parkway.
Christie said the protesters’ “anger is rooted in the fact that they believed in this hope and change garbage that they were sold three years ago by this president. … But they’re not mature enough to know they should be angry with themselves so they’re going to be angry with me or Governor Romney or some of you.”
Romney is an ideal leader who would make the best president, Christie said. He’s not only the best qualified, but “I believe he’s the only Republican who can win.”
“If you’re looking for a candidate who agrees with you on everything, buy a mirror,” Christie said.
That last comment will run as a Quote of the Day individually here on TMV. It’s an interesting take. And instructive for people in both parties.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.