Sunday, January 22, 2012

Complacency and Newt

I fear that liberals and Democrats are becoming complacent about the 2012 Presidential election. A number of times, I have heard or read liberals and Democrats express hope that Newt Gingrich will get the Republican nomination because he will be easy for Barack Obama to beat. I wonder why. Because of his marital history? Please. In my opinion, the lesson of Newt’s victory in South Carolina last night is that even many Christian conservatives are willing to disregard that, for they think that Newt has a greater chance of defeating Barack Obama. If the decision is between Barack Obama and Newt in the general election, Christian conservatives will vote for Newt, regardless of his sordid past.

How about the moderate or the swing-voters? I doubt that they’ll care much about Newt’s marital history. To them, Newt can easily come across as an intelligent man with a grasp on the issues of the day—-even if they might find him pedantic. President Obama, in my mind, does not have much of a record to run on. Saying that Obama captured Osama Bin-Laden will only go so far, in my view, for my impression is that this has become old-news. Although there are some jobs that are being created and Obama perhaps did prevent the United States from plummeting further into an economic abyss, people are still feeling the pinch of a bad economy. They could easily turn to Newt—-not so much because they love him, per se, but for the same reason that incumbents often get the boot: because people want a change, whatever it is.

Liberals and Democrats should not be so complacent, therefore. Even if Newt wins the nomination, it’s not smooth-sailing for Obama. Far from it.

3 comments:

  1. I think the nature of the infidelity is something. I mean look how hated John Edwards became when the nature of his infidelity really came to light. Hammer it enough and it'll really become a bigger issue. But it's much more than that. The way that Newt left as Speaker, his lobbying for FM (even though he says he was just a consultant as a historian or something like that), his support for an individual mandate, the ethics issues while he was in office, all the Republicans that used to work with him and say he was terrible, and the fact that he's his own worst enemy. They think he'll self destruct because of his ego and lack of discipline. I think liberals know how vulnerable he is and that's why they much more prefer Newt over Romey.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That could be. But he has managed to survive these things so far----either because many people don't care, or because they think that's in the past, or because (after many years) they don't expect much out of him anyway in terms of ethics and fidelity, or because they think he's preferable to Obama, or because they feel that his brains will compensate for his ego and lack of discipline (notwithstanding his factual errors). But it will be interesting to see what happens.

    ReplyDelete
  3. He survived among 40% of Republicans in SC, but it hadn't been that great before. Apparently he had a much bigger ground game going on over there than the others and it's where he's been putting all his chips. It payed off. It'll be different elsewhere. They haven't really hit him with the character and ethics stuff yet but they will and then we'll see how the Republican primary voters respond. These next few weeks should be fun! : )

    ReplyDelete

Search This Blog