In a quaint, sepia-tinted time in the not-too-distant past, titans within the GOP--Howard Baker, George Herbert Walker Bush, John Connally, Lamar Alexander, James Baker, Ronald Reagan, to name a few--had a rule, what was then famously called the Eleventh Commandment. That commandment was simple: thou shall not speak ill of thy fellow Republicans.
Today that political directive seems about as relevant as that box of 8-track tapes stored in a loft in my garage.
With nearly 100 percent of the precincts reporting by early Sunday morning, Newt Gingrich had pulled off a remarkable comeback, achieving what would have seemed impossible only a few weeks ago. Gingrich's reeled in roughly 40 percent of the votes cast by South Carolina Republicans, as compared to Mitt Romney's 28 percent, Rick Santorum's 17 percent and Ron Paul's 13 percent.
In a caucus and primary season already filled with surprises and wild turns-such as Herman Cain's rise and fall, Rick Perry's departure, and Santorum's late vindication with a win in the Iowa caucus--Gingrich's come-from-behind may be the most shocking for the GOP. And the former House Speaker's big win in the Palmetto State may also be an indication of a long, hot primary and caucus season, certainly not the second or third round knockout that Team Romney had envisioned only thirty days ago in their blueprint for early victory.
Unlike the smaller, more subdued civil war fought by Republicans four years ago, in which the struggle was over more nuanced definitions of social or fiscal conservatism as exemplified by Mike Huckabee or Fred Thompson or John McCain, or over re-evaluations of U.S. security and military issues in the wake of neo-con thinking, this new fight carries with it overtones of revolution and apocalypse.
Romney accuses his opponents (read: Gingrich) of questioning the fundamentals of free enterprise and capitalism and success in private sector investment. Santorum accuses Romney of closet liberalism and a broad cooption of the Obama idea bank on health care and social change. Gingrich accuses Romney of being a rich, out-of-touch member of the financial establishment and a slick, empty suit lacking in passion or conviction.
Santorum says that Gingrich will take the GOP down the path to disaster through his grandiosity, verbal atom bombs and politically incorrect loose language. Ron Paul says that Santorum was the king of Congressional earmarks.
Each candidate accuses the others of pandering, feeding negative material into the marketing machine of the Democrats, and thus handing easy re-election victory to President Obama.
Gingrich, whose recent rapid ascension was due largely to his superior--even at times aggressive--debate performances on Fox News and CNN earlier in the week, wisely and shrewdly turned the most recent questions of his personal past (his ex-wife Marianne Gingrich has accused him on ABC's Nightline of, among other things, asking her for an open marriage) into a referendum on an unhealthy media obsession with things sordid and prurient.
Gingrich's now infamous lashing out at John King (and the media in general) at the beginning of Thursday night's debate on CNN, which brought about an eruption of cheers within the room, seemed to galvanize many undecided South Carolina voters. Poll movement toward Gingrich was already strong, but the drama that night, which was then replayed hundreds of times on the other networks, gave many unsure voters a reason to channel their frustrations and energies toward Gingrich at the very moment when the other candidates seemed to be merely treading water.
Newt Gingrich is, of course, right to suggest that there is a disconnect between many in the media establishment--including the vaguely defined world of political analysis-and Main Street American. Much has been said in the last few days about CNN's debate producers and moderator John King's use of a hot-topic, unproven bitter personal issue as the very first question to be tossed out at a major Presidential debate. And much has been said in King's defense even by some generally conservative analysts such as Fox News' Neil Cavuto. (Cavuto's comments on this subject can be found in video form at Fox News.com).
King's question, I believe, was a fair question. Gingrich's response was also fair, but more importantly, smart--even if it was a grand-standing way to dodge the question. Avoiding a direct question and blaming the media or the journalist for asking it is an age-old and time-honored tool of the politician. Just check the tactical playbooks of Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton...or Hillary Clinton, for that matter.
But the reaction from many rank-and-file Republicans, especially so many Carolinians who had been previously undecided just days and hours earlier, indicates the growing wedge between the GOP's elite thinkers and planners, and the unfocused frustrations of many average Americans who see themselves as Republicans but do not see themselves getting excited by Mitt Romney.
It is now conventional wisdom that Romney suffers from a why-don't-they-love-me syndrome with the GOP. This year, as four years ago, he seems to have reached that glass ceiling of support. Even with the multiple dangers inherent in a Newt Gingrich candidacy in the fall--the former Speaker's ethics violations, his vulnerabilities regarding mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, his forcible retirement from the top post in the House after only four years--many of the GOP faithful just find Romney lacking in conviction and passion.
The smart money also says that Romney is in obvious trouble. His problems began with the virtual tie he pulled out of Iowa, first beating Santorum by a mere eight votes, then being stripped of that win by Iowa officials who discovered, upon a careful recount, that Santorum had won more votes. Either way Santorum claimed a moral victory. Romney leads in the delegate count, but another close call or loss in Florida on January 31 and Romney's bad stretch may turn into mortal danger.
And Romney's stage performances in the last two debates seemed to reveal a candidate who is now wavering on certain key questions--personal taxes and personal income, and well as his positions on health care and abortion. When Romney was asked by King in Thursday night's debate on CNN whether he planned to release his financial information, Romney answered with a "maybe," then stumbled badly through an awkward minute of equivocation. Some in the audience booed.
The matter of his personal income has become such an apparent distraction that early Sunday he announced on Fox News that he plans to release tax returns--or partial returns and estimates--as early as Tuesday of this week. And Romney counter-attacked Gingrich today while campaigning in Florida, calling the former House Speaker a "failed politician" and later "a failed Washington insider."
The divide between Republicans seems to be following the narrative--at least in some respects--of the divide which faced Democrats four years ago. Romney, like Hillary Clinton, had a plan to start early and campaign heavily as the de facto front runner. Like Barack Obama four years ago, Gingrich has become the most powerful insurgent to this process, challenging voters to reconsider the Romney-Is-Inevitable story. This rebel action has worked strongly in Gingrich's favor in large part because the Tea Partiers and social conservatives and evangelicals have faced so many divisions among their various favorites, from Herman Cain to Michelle Bachmann to Rick Perry.
But now that those other candidates are gone, the question becomes this: why would social conservative or Christian conservatives move en masse to Gingrich? Why has Rick Santorum not been more of a beneficiary of these political activists?
If Santorum fails to achieve a solid showing in Florida, his cash will almost certainly begin to dry up, and if his fundraising grinds to a halt, Santorum will not survive past Nevada.
This turns the race into a long distance marathon between Romney and Gingrich. And if Romney has in fact reached his glass ceiling again, as he did four years ago, Gingrich will almost certainly continue to parlay good debate performance and media exposure into large blocs of votes, and with enough of those votes flowing his direction, the former Speaker may become the GOP nominee.
This presents a challenge--some would say a danger--to the Republican Party. Gingrich wisely and smartly sees himself as a Reagan-style advocate of revolutionary changes in Washington. He also sees himself as a master debater of the issues. As a historian, Gingrich is able to bring his formidable understanding of how world and national events connect along the tableau of past and recent history.
Trading on this obvious strength, Gingrich has repeatedly said he will challenge President Obama to a series of long-format debates. Gingrich believes he has the edge in such an arena. Obama's show-don't-tell methodology and his lack of grand showmanship mean the President often finds it hard to brag at the microphone. As Andrew Sullivan wrote of Obama in the most recent Newsweek, "what matters to him is what he can get done, not what he can take credit for." Gingrich has no compunctions about taking credit--full credit in some cases--for his political or social achievements. Gingrich routinely touts the sixteen million new jobs created through his political partnership with President Bill Clinton in the 1990s.
Which of these two styles will play better for the television and internet audiences? If Romney's recent setbacks are any indication, Obama's prudence, carefully-chosen words and patient inclusiveness may actually work to Gingrich's advantage, even as the current polls of a theoretical match-up between two show Obama trouncing Gingrich.
Still, Gingrich is seen as a nightmare scenario by some in establishment Republican circles. On NBC's Meet the Press this morning, New Jersey governor Chris Christie.
"My view," Christie said, "is that the worst news possible for President Obama is a Romney candidacy." Christie went on to cite Romney's executive experience, his record as governor in Massachusetts and his value system. But when moderator David Gregory pressed Christie, the New Jersey governor acknowledged that Gingrich also had a fair shot at defeating Obama in November, but that Romney was still the more electable of the two Republicans.
But when Gregory pushed the conversation toward the Speaker's character, Christie changed tact. "I'm not talking about the Speaker's character. I take him at his word that he's a changed person. I'm not attacking him on that basis. What I'm saying is this is a guy who's never run anything. And on-the-job training should not be the Presidency of the United States."
