How Newt is winning

By Michael J.W. Stickings

So just how did Newt win South Carolina? More broadly, just how has he come back from seeming oblivion, after his initial surge pre-Iowa, to be a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination, as the only credible anti-Romney conservative alternative there is left?

I looked at this in my South Carolina primary live-blogging post the other day, as well as in various previous posts on the race, but I think Steve Benen hits the nail on the head:

[T]he top three most important factors in South Carolina were the debates, the debates, and the debates. By the time he’d received his second standing ovation in Thursday night's debate, it was hard to not think, "You know, maybe Newt is going to win this primary after all." Back in October, the Romney campaign adopted a strategy predicated on the belief that the debates really do matter. They were right.

Gingrich used these forums to play to the worst instincts of his party's right-wing base, aiming right at the Republican id — presenting himself and his party as victims, condemning the media, and adding some not-so-subtle racial politics to connect with South Carolina Republicans on a gut level. As I mentioned the other day, Gingrich's debate performances are like dopamine for the right-wing soul.

His next challenge: duplicating the efficacy of this strategy elsewhere.

It's not clear that he can, and, indeed, the odds are against him, what with Romney holding an enormous financial and organization edge not just in Florida but everywhere.

But Newt has some advantages of his own. Romney's various weaknesses (his moderate past, his seeming phoniness / artificiality, his inability to connect with the base, his douchebaggery) are certainly helping (a strong Romney would be well ahead by now), but Republicans aren't just voting against Romney, they're voting for Newt. And what they're voting for is not so much Newt but what they see as his ability to voice their anger, channel their frustrations, and go on the attack against their enemies, specifically liberals, the media, minorities, and, of course, President Obama.

Try as he might, Romney just doesn't seem genuine when he goes on the attack. Newt does. And obviously many Republicans love him for it, even if they don't exactly love him.

So what now? Well, the establishment will now try even harder to knock Newt off, but politics aren't what they used to be, not with the ability now of national figures like Newt to connect directly with voters both through the media and even by circumventing the old media with the help of the new. Gone are the days of back-room brokering, when elites could hand power to the chosen -- well, not entirely, but it's much more difficult now. The establishment may succeed, and Romney is still the likely nominee, but Newt is on the rise precisely because the elites can't contain him. And they certainly can't contain him when he's crushing Romney in the debates, which many Republican primary voters are obviously using as a test to see which of the candidates has what it takes to fight their fight this year. As I've written before, Republicans (40% of them in South Carolina) aren't voting for Newt because they think he's a saint, which is most certainly is not, but because they think he'll punch Obama in the face.

How else to explain the popularity of someone so deeply unpopular?

Live-blogging the 2012 South Carolina primary: Newt rising, Mitt stumbling, the GOP in disarray

By Michael J.W. Stickings

UPDATED FREQUENTLY. INCLUDING THE NEXT DAY.

7:22 pm - It being Saturday evening, and with other things to do (like spending some quality time with the family), I won't be live-blogging quite to the extent I did for the Iowa and New Hampshire votes. But I'll be back with updates throughout the night.

7:25 pm - The polls were showing a potentially big win for Newt, and today the exit polls are showing very much the same: Gingrich 38, Romney 29, Santorum 17, Paul 15. (Wouldn't it be something if Newt passed the 40 percent mark?) I was predicting an 8-point Newt win, but with so much momentum on his side, with the tide turning so dramatically in his favor, I wouldn't be surprised if he won by 10 or more.

7:31 pm - Only 2 percent of precincts are reporting. For what it's worth, which isn't much, it's 40-32 for Romney. You can follow the returns here.

7:32 pm - As I won't have much time tonight to much in the way of analysis or lengthy commentary, let me point you to a few posts I wrote in recent days:

-- "Another win for Newt: Observations while not live-blogging tonight's Republican debate in South Carolina";

-- "Sarah Palin says Newt will "soar," but will his ex-wife's allegations finally be his undoing?";

-- "Privileged rich douchebag: The Mitt Romney narrative for 2012"; and

-- "Marianne Gingrich interview tonight: Is this the end for Newt?".

Needless to say, the answer to the questions posed above, in the second and fourth posts, is a resounding No.

7:40 pm - And that's it. CNN has called it for Newt. Looks like all the drama in South Carolina was in the days leading up to today. There no drama tonight, and I suppose now all we have to focus on is the margin of victory, specifically: Will Newt hit 40 percent? And/or will he win by 10 points? A thorough drubbing of Romney would certainly make things a whole lot more interesting as we turn our attention to Florida, with the primary there coming up in 10 days, on January 31.

More questions: Will Santorum drop out after this? If so, will he endorse Newt? And if Newt is the only viable anti-Romney alternative left (because Paul isn't a viable contender), will conservatives rally behind him? (Newt will certainly need more money and better organization if he hopes to contend in Florida and beyond.) Or will they hold their noses and turn to Romney?

And what of the generally pro-Romney party elites? At what point does panic set in? Or has it already?

4:04 pm (the next day) - Well, obviously, I didn't get back to blogging last night, nor, until now, today. There just wasn't much to say (and I was too busy to say it anyway). Newt won. By a lot. And he hit those two artificial marks I identified: 40 percent of the vote, 10+-point margin of victory -- with a 40-28 win over Romney, with Santorum in third at 17 and Paul in fourth at 13. It played out as expected, or at least as it had come to be expected with Newt's late surge. He just won by a few more points than I thought he would.

4:07 pm (watching the Ravens-Pats game) - So what does it all mean? Well, it means that Newt has established himself as the largely unchallenged conservative alternative to Romney (Santorum doesn't have much left), that Romney is incredibly weak (with an overwhelming majority of Republicans looking for someone else, even a tainted blowhard like Newt), and that the race will go on, which is exactly what's best for the media, if not the GOP.

4:10 pm - Here's Chait:

My view all along has been that any remotely plausible candidate could beat Mitt Romney. My current view is that there are no remotely plausible candidates, which leaves us with Newt. So we have the immovable object meeting the irresistible force, except the exact opposite. Like almost everybody outside Gingrich's immediate family, I had already written him off twice. But he really seems okay. If some really crazy rich conservatives decide to write him some seven- or eight-figure checks, who knows?

Right, who knows?

Unless the Romney-leaning elites are prepared for a brokered convention, they'll have to do even more to try to derail Newt. Apparently what they did to him in Iowa wasn't enough. And yet, the reality of the GOP right now is that it's deeply divided and unhappy with its options. Even if the elites succeeded in knocking off Newt, the risk is that they'll further alienate the party's conservative base, everyone from Dear Leader Rush all the way down to your average right-wing redneck in South Carolina.

Basically, the situation is perfect for the emergence of a compromise candidate -- sufficiently conservative but also with appeal to independents, and hence electable -- who can bring the party together. But can that even happen? Such an alternative, if one could even be found, couldn't get on primary ballots, and of course it's not like Romney would ever play along. Jeb Bush? Maybe, if his last name weren't Bush. But who else? Christie? Jindal? Ryan? Rubio? No one other than Jeb seems to have what it would take. And so the party remains deeply divided without a clear resolution in sight.

4:20 pm - Here's Marshall:

Newt Gingrich isn't going to be the GOP nominee. I'm not saying Romney will be, though I think it's still very likely. You can never say never in politics. But I think the anchor point for understanding where we are right now is that the institutional GOP, the establishment Republican party, won't let Newt get the nomination.

Look at these numbers: nationwide Newt Gingrich’s favorability number is 26.5%, unfavorable 58.6%. (see the chart here.)

It would be quite difficult for Newt Gingrich to beat President Obama. The bigger story is that he would likely devastate the congressional Republican party. He'd probably weigh down the GOP up and down the ticket. And that puts the whole thing in much sharper relief for Republican officeholders, committee chairs and money folks.

If I'm right about that, that means they have to and will do virtually everything possible now to crush Gingrich and make Romney the nominee.

My best guess is that Gingrich will come on strong or even win Florida. And it'll be bad for Mitt for a while. But eventually Mitt and really the GOP establishment will just grind him down. Do I know that? Not at all. Unless Mitt can totally shut Gingrich down in Florida, it's really all bets are off territory. But again, the one thing I think you can rely on is that Gingrich isn't the nominee — simply because I think the costs to the GOP are simply too grave to let it happen.

I think I agree with all that. Unless the party turns to someone like Jeb, the race is still Mitt's to lose. And we know he's in it for the long haul, with money and organization well beyond anything Newt has.

It's certainly possible that Newt will win Florida, or at least finish a close second, but beyond that he'll say something or do something that reminds voters just who he is. It's just hard to imagine that he'll be able to make it through the long primary season without somehow imploding. And of course Mitt and the elites -- the so-called "establishment" -- will do everything in their power to make that happen.

So I think it's still fairly safe to say that it'll be Romney in the end -- but, by then, just how damaged will he be?

Is Newt poised for a big win in South Carolina?

By Michael J.W. Stickings 

***UPDATED BELOW***

Via twitter: 

Gingrich led today's interviews in the PPP survey by 14 points. Could be headed for big win in SC. 

-- Nate Silver (@fivethirtyeight)

The world is a crazy place, and I defy anyone to make sense of it.

As Chait writes, we're witnessing the re-re-Newtening. And what fun it is.

Democrats for Newt! Let him feel our wind in his sails!

(Even if things are lined up nicely for Romney after this: FL, NV, ME, MI, etc. Even if Mitt has the money and organization to win it all. Even if the party elites will make sure he wins. And even if Newt will surely find some way to implode. You just never know, what with conservatives still looking for a way, any way, to stop Romney from being the nominee. Like it or not, Newt is their last hope.)

**********

UPDATE: PPP has Newt up 37-28 over Mitt, with Santorum in third at 16 and Paul in fourth at 14. That's a pretty healthy lead.

Another Silver tweet: "There's a lot of disagreement in the SC polls so we cannot rule out a Romney upset. But also cannot rule out double-digit Newt win."

Predictably, Romney is lowering expectations on the eve of the vote. Quite the formidable frontrunner he is, eh?

Another win for Newt: Observations while not live-blogging tonight's Republican debate in South Carolina

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I'm not live-blogging, but I'm watching closely, with another eye on American Idol, on this perhaps the most important day of the 2012 Republican presidential race so far.

Quick impression: Newt, as expected, is doing exceptionally well, while Romney, as usual, is playing what in football would be the most preventative of prevent defences, doing everything he can to avoid a gaffe, saying nothing of substance, resorting to his usual talking points, most of them ridiculously anti-Obama (his default position to deflect attention away from his own positions and appeal to the anti-Obama right) being anything but a persuasive, dynamic leader -- anything but genuinely presidential and more like some sort of presidential caricature as performed by some sort of robot programmed by aliens who base their understanding of what is presidential on two-dimensional stereotypes.

(UPDATE: Here are my grades for the debate -- In a vacuum, Santorum (A-) won. But Newt (B+) did what he had to do to keep his surge going and to deflect attention away from Marianne and his even worse past than we thought. Romney (C) was typically mediocre and unimpressive. Paul (B-) was okay but seems less and less relevant. In the end, Newt was the winner if only because he will benefit the most from a strong performance.)

I'm also following Andrew Sullivan, who is doing some very fine live-blogging tonight (as usual). Here are a few of his finer observations, in reverse chronological order, with my comments in blue italics.

-- "Why can't Romney once - just once - directly answer the question asked, instead of insisting on saying what he wants to say first? It's deeply irritating and underlines his too-polished, too arrogant affect. And then he forgets even what the actual question was in the first place. Then he segues into a bizarre attack on Newt's relationship with Reagan. He lost it back there. It's his worst performance yet - at the very moment he needs to deliver his best." (It was just Romney being Romney. What else is new?) (9:00 pm)

-- "Buzzfeed says that Newt won the debate in the first five minutes. There's still some time to go but that's my impression as well. Romney is being flattened tonight. Santorum's brutal, relentless attacks, Newt's ccontempt, Paul's jocular indifference... they all contrast with classic, mindless robo-speak from Mr Plastic." (That's a shorter way of saying what I said above: "classic, mindless robo-speak.") "Now Gingrich has ambushed him on his tax returns. This is what South Carolina always does. It's sometimes necessary to look away before the feeding frenzy ends. But the result is always bloody. Romney's sinking. He's sinking." (But will he sink far enough for Newt to win on Saturday? With such a decisive win here, there's hardly any doubt the Newt surge will continue. But what about the Marianne G. interview later? That could quickly derail his astonishing comeback.) (8:48 pm)

-- "A classic Gingrich phrase: 'Mildly amazing.' Classic passive aggression from the 'shy boy' who's now so angry he explodes spontaneously. Then Newt tickles the Southern g-spot, by saying that his debating Obama will be a battle between 'knowledge' and a 'TelePrompTer.' I don't think Newt realizes how his contempt and condescension toward Obama is riddled with racism." (He recoils in horror and then lashes out whenever he's faced with the racism charge, but he has a long record of this sort of racially-charged rhetoric.) (8:44 pm)

-- "Santorum hones his manufacturing working class economic chops in a very deft and indrect criticism of Romney's kind of capitalism. A very effective performance. They're all on tonight, it seems. But Gingrich's spirited, angry, anti-media rant at the start towers over the rest. (Yes, Santorum has been typically strong: confident and coherent. But I'm just not sure it matters anymore. At this point, unless Newt completely tanks as a result of the Marianne interview tonight, all Santorum will be doing by staying in the race is dividing the anti-Romney vote and hindering Gingrich's chances of knocking off the frontrunner. Still, while I don't agree with him on, well, on anything, I've got to credit him with an impressive performance ever since he surged up the polls pre-Iowa. He has way too much baggage, but if he'd been seen as a serious contender much earlier in the race, he might have been a potent conservative alternative to Romney, everything Perry and Bachmann were not.) (8:30 pm)

-- "Gingrich is on a roll - rattling off a list of South Carolina issues, including the port of Charleston. Then he quickly and effectively summarizes a core case against the dodgy practices of Bain Capital. Romney then tries to avoid answering the direct question about Bain and seems to conflate 'crony capitalism' with Democrats' relationships with the union. He does not address the core issue of how you make millions off bankrupting companies." (I don't see the Bain attacks hurting Romney all that much in the GOP primaries, given that he can position himself as a successful capitalist and where there is little concern for the poor and disadvantaged, or for income inequality, or for justice, but this could come back to haunt him in the general election, with independents particularly.) (8:20 pm)

-- "Newt's response to the open marriage is turned into a tour de force against the media. He calls John King's questions 'as close to despicable as I can imagine.' The crowd loves it. The first response as to whether he wanted to talk about it: 'No, but I will.' Perfect. Then he rounds on King and gets another standing ovation. I think he may have won the primary tonight with that response." (You knew this was coming, and I wrote about it earlier: Newt always tries to turn the tables by going after the media.) (8:12 pm)

The wildest day of the campaign so far keeps exceeding expectations. And we still have the interview to come. Crazy.

Sarah Palin says Newt will "soar," but will his ex-wife's allegations finally be his undoing?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

***UPDATED BELOW***

I'm beginning to think this may be the most important single day of the 2012 Republican presidential race so far, with the race tightening in South Carolina, key conservatives backing Newt, the Marianne Gingrich interview later, another debate (possibly meaning a boost for Newt, who does so well in debates), a retro victory for Santorum in Iowa...

It may certainly be the wildest day.

Romney is still the frontrunner and likely nominee, but today may prove, in retrospect, to have been a turning point, one way or the other.

Read on...

**********

Via twitter: 

Palin: Ex-wife's allegations will help Newt "soar" (link) (story)

-- Talking Points Memo (@TPM)

Palin may be right that a lot of what Marianne Gingrich has to say is "old news," and I was thinking earlier today that the damage to Newt might be minimal if she avoided the more sordid details -- in part because those who like Newt do so not because they think he's a saint but because they think he'll punch President Obama in the face (figuratively but maybe also literally) and in part because Newt has already owned up to much of his bad behavior, "found God," and been largely absolved by conservatives.

But now I'm not so sure. The talk all day in the media is about the "open" marriage Newt wanted as a way of enabling his cheating, and basically about his self-righteous, egomaniacal bullying of his wife, about how he was out to get what he wanted, largely disregarded her, and ruined her life. This wasn't just bad behavior. This was abuse.

There are still many who will excuse him his ugly transgressions, like Palin and Dear Leader Rush (who thinks Newt's a victim), but there are surely a lot more, even among Republicans, who will recoil in disgust.

There may yet be a way for him to get out of this -- by admitting again to some things, denying others; by saying he really is a different and better person now; by using it as an occasion to bash the media (always a favotite Newt deflectional tactic); by taking the high road with respect to his wife (I loved her, she's a great person, but we had our problems, common to many married couples) while implying that she's crazy, a liar, or both; by alleging that Romney's behind this "attack" somehow, just days before the South Carolina primary -- but it's getting more and more difficult to see how this doesn't hurt him badly, if not destroy what's left of his campaign.

And somewhere, whether he's behind this or not, Romney, who otherwise has been having a terrible day (Santorum certified the winner in Iowa; Perry dropping out and endorsing Newt; new polls showing his lead dwindling rapidly in South Carolina, and even Newt ahead; Newt getting a big-time Tea Party endorsement; another debate coming up tonight, another occasion for Newt to shine), must surely be thinking he's one of the luckiest people in the world.

If he isn't, he should be. As terribly weak as he is, everything seems to be breaking his way, with the nomination all but his by default.

UPDATES:

I see Jon Chait has a post up on Romney's run of incredible luck (or incredible run of luck, however you want to look at it):

Everything has gone Romney’s way. A slew of credible opponents all declined to run, or dropped out prematurely (poor, poor Tim Pawlenty.) He was mistakenly credited with winning the Iowa caucuses. The opponents who have challenged him all self-destructed, and when persistent unease with Romney resurrected them, they self-destructed again.

Yup.

**********

Here's the full Palin quote, via ThinkProgress:

I call them dumbarses. They, thinking that by trotting out this old Gingrich divorce interview that's old news — and it does feature a disgruntled ex, claiming that it would destroy his campaign — all it does, Sean, is incentive conservatives and independents who are so sick of the politics of personal destruction, because it’s played so selectively by media, that their target, in this case Newt, he’s now going to soar even more. Because we know the game now, and we just won't put up with it.

So, good call media! Way to go to covertly hype this, even Gingrich opponents, for being so brilliant they sure are dumb. 

Ah, yes, when in doubt, attack the media. But even if the media is guilty of taking advantage of a salacious story, Marianne Gingrich isn't the media. She has every right to be heard.

**********

ABC News reports on the interview:

Newt Gingrich lacks the moral character to serve as President, his second ex-wife Marianne told ABC News, saying his campaign positions on the sanctity of marriage and the importance of family values do not square with what she saw during their 18 years of marriage.

In her first television interview since the 1999 divorce, to be broadcast tonight on Nightline, Marianne Gingrich, a self-described conservative Republican, said she is coming forward now so voters can know what she knows about Gingrich. 

As I suggest above in how Newt can effectively respond to all this, he is indeed taking the high road, with his two daughters from his first marriage providing useful cover:

Gingrich declined to comment to ABC News for this report, but told NBC's Today Show Thursday morning he would not "say anything negative about Marianne."

"Now, I'll let my daughters speak for it... I'm not going to comment beyond that because I'm focused on the big issues that concern the American people, which are the current challenges we have, largely because of the failure of the Obama presidency," he said.

It's not terribly responsible of him to let his daughters be his surrogates on such a deeply personal matter, but he's obviously doing what he can to minimize the likely negative impact of the story. And you can see how he's trying to minimize the importance of the story and trying to position himself as above it all, and trying to guilt the media into not taking it seriously -- what do his past marital problems matter compared to "the big issues that concern the American people"?

I'm not sure it'll work, but it's all he's got.

Marianne Gingrich interview tonight: Is this the end for Newt?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The race in South Carolina appears to be tightening, with Gingrich solidifying his position as a clear #2 behind Romney, if still well back (Mitt 33, Newt 23), likely to narrow the gap with another stand-out debate performance tomorrow, and positioned to pick up further support should Santorum, currently running third, fade in the remaining days before Saturday's vote, but there are some ominously dark clouds on the horizon for poor Newt, and his campaign might just be on the verge of exploding (or imploding, if you prefer) into oblivion.

And why would that be?

Two words: Marianne Gingrich.

His second wife (of three), that is, who once said that she could destroy The Newt's career with a single interview... and who has given an interview to ABC News that is scheduled to be aired on tonight's Nightline (after the GOP candidates' debate).

It's not like she courts the media's attention. She gave an interview to Esquire in 2010, but that was pretty much it. To her credit, perhaps, she hasn't tried to bring Newt down with salacious stories of his past.

But this is television, not a magazine, and it's the height of the political season, with Newt challenging for the Republican nomination for president. Even if she doesn't say anything new or even all that remarkable in the interview, the damage to Newt is potentially enormous.

Of course, it's fair to ask, why now? I suppose an interview before Iowa would have been damaging, but this could finish him off for good, and just when he's showing a few signs of life. (Rasmussen has Newt just three points behind Mitt nationally. Rasmussen is hardly the most credible pollster, and this would appear to be an outlier, but still.)

As my good friend Joe Gandelman notes, "[t]he real story here will be less about what his ex-wife says: what can she tell people about Gingrich that people already don't suspect or think he is capable of? The REAL story is a) how did this story come about; b) did she contact ABC out of the blue; c) did ABC seek her out; and d) was she encouraged to come forward by the Romney camp?"

Good questions. Romney is clearly worried, and he's going negative: "He released two new negative web videos, unleashed attacking surrogates and even went after the former House speaker himself. And that was all before lunch on Wednesday." (Yikes.) Given how brutally the Romney Super PAC (which may not coordinate with the candidate but which certainly does his bidding) went after Newt in the lead-up to Iowa, helping to crush his short tenure as frontrunner, would you really put it past Romney to play the Marianne card now?

Maybe he has, maybe he hasn't. But suspicions of playing dirty will hound Romney and provide a subtext to tonight's interview. Perhaps Newt can even turn it to his advantage: "Yes, I did bad things. I've admitted that, and apologized. I'm a different man now. A good, god-fearing man. And" -- pointing at Romney -- "all this moderate from Massachusetts can do is try to smear me. For shame!"

Needless to say, we shall see. The next couple of days promise to be one long fireworks display. And not in a good way. Unless you happen to like watching Republicans try to destroy each other.

Behind the Ad: Colbert Super PAC identifies Romney as a "serial killer"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(Another installment in our "Behind the Ad" series.) 

Who: Stephen Colbert, or rather "Stephen Colbert," or rather the pro-Colbert Super PAC known as Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow, now run by Jon Stewart, attacks Mitt Romney. 

Where: South Carolina. 

What's going on: There's no need to go behind this one. If Romney really thinks that corporations are people (Citizens United!), which he does, and if he really has a long history of destroying companies for profit, which he also does, then, ipso facto, he's a serial killer.

That's some indisputable logic.

Behind the Ad: Rick Santorum goes after "liberal" Mitt Romney in South Carolina

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(Another installment in our "Behind the Ad" series.)

Who: Rick Santorum attacks Mitt Romney. 

Where: South Carolina.

What's going on: It's pretty obvious. As Mark Halperin explains: "New Santorum South Carolina TV spot finally goes where many conservatives (and commentators) expected Romney rivals to go." This is a long, long time coming. Gingrich has gone there as well, making the anti-Romney case that we've been waiting for, but this makes the case more clearly than any effort previously, particularly in targeting Romneycare as a glaring problem (from a conservative perspective) from Romney's past. (Santorum is also calling on Romney to release his tax returns. What's he hiding, anyway?)

Basically, Santorum has one shot at the nomination, and that's to win South Carolina -- or at the very least to do so well there, a clear and strong second with some momentum, that Gingrich drops out and the race effectively becomes Romney-Santorum (with Paul still in it as the libertarian alternative). He likely still wouldn't be able to knock off Romney, who has the organization and elite support to win the nomination even in the face of a great deal of conservative opposition within the Republican Party, but he's obviously trying to capitalize on his social conservative (and simply conservative) bona fides (particularly now that the religious right is in his corner) and appeal to the huge constituency in the party that isn't just skeptical of Romney but even actively loathes him.

The problem for Romney isn't that this ad (and the attacks in South Carolina) will deny him the nomination but that the accumulation of attacks on Romney from his fellow Republicans, characterizing him as either a vulture capitalist or not conservative and barely even a Republican, or both, will eat into his support from conservatives come general election time. I suspect that conservatives will generally come to accept him as the only choice they have against Obama, but it is likely that enthusiasm on the right will be extremely low, possibly leading to significantly depressed voter turnout by the Republican base.

Romney may be screwed no matter how he plays it. If he panders still more to the right, he risks losing whatever appeal he has left for independents and disgruntled Democrats. But if he shifts to the center and in some way points to his more moderate bona fides, he risks losing conservatives altogether. There may be a narrow path between those two alternatives, but in taking that he risks alienating both sides and appealing only to his core support from establishmentarian Republican elites. In any event, the damage done by ads like this one may extend much further than South Carolina.

Newt says a vote for Santorum is a vote for Romney is a vote for Obama... or something like that

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Desperate to do well in South Carolina and emerge as the only viable anti-Romney, The Newt is throwing darts in all directions. Shifting determinedly into negativity, he's launched some blistering (if for the most part accurate) attacks on Romney and is now also trying to draw a clear distinction between himself and his remaining right-wing rival, Rick Santorum, the man he must knock off if he is to get the mano-a-mano with Romney that could, but likely won't, win him the nomination.

His argument against Santorum isn't ideological, though, it's numerical: He's the only one positioned in the polls to take down Romney and, what's more, Santorum isn't electable (as he proved with his massive defeat in Pennsylvania in 2006, as an incumbent senator running for re-election, at the hands Bob Casey):

If you vote for Sen. Santorum, in effect, you're functionally voting for Gov. Romney to be the nominee. The only way to stop Mitt Romney, for all practical purposes, is to vote for Newt Gingrich. It’s a fact. It’s a mathematical fact... Any conservative who votes for anyone but Newt helps elect a moderate as the nominee.

*****

Evangelical voters would like to have a nominee that will win a general election, and somebody who set the all-time Pennsylvania record for the size of their defeat has a harder case to make as to why they could be elected.

To the second point first: While Santorum did indeed lose badly, 59 to 41, 2006 was a terrible year for Republicans generally and Santorum lost to a conservative Democrat who was riding that year's electoral wave.

To the first point: He may be right. Santorum may have gotten the endorsement of the religious right over the weekend, but he lacks the organization and broad appeal to mount a serious challenge to Romney at this late date. Iowa was a great story for him, but he fell badly in New Hampshire and is running fourth in South Carolina with just 14 percent support -- Romney is leading with 30, followed by Gingrich at 22 and Paul at 15. He won't be able to make that up, even to second place, in the few days that remain before Saturday's primary. I'm not sure Gingrich has much of a case either, but at the very least he's running a clear second to Romney in both South Carolina and Florida (where Santorum is at 15 to Romney's 39 and Gingrich's 24), even if nationally he's barely ahead of Santorum, if at all.

"If you're a conservative, just look at the polls. I am the only candidate capable of stopping a moderate from winning the nomination," said Newt. Well, again, maybe. Allahpundit explains what he means:

I don't know what he means by "mathematical fact." True, Santorum has slid in South Carolina since his post-Iowa bounce and now trails Gingrich, but if Newt's supporters defected to him en masse, he'd still have a fantastic shot at surprising Romney. What Newt really means to say, I think... is that Santorum's still widely thought of as a boutique social-issues candidate whereas Gingrich is known for being a policy polymath. If you're an independent thinking of rolling the dice on Obama's opponent, who are you more likely to take a chance on: The guy who, according to the media caricature, is obsessed with abortion and gay marriage or the guy who’s known for being able to debate about nearly anything? This is going to be Gingrich's message for the next week, I think, especially at the debates — that Romney can't beat Obama and Santorum can't beat Romney, therefore there's only one truly, frankly, profoundly, fundamentally electable option still on the table. Turns out it’s the guy who finished fourth in both Iowa and New Hampshire. Who knew?

Hey, however remote, it's pretty much all he's got left. I would just note three things:

1) Remember when Newt said that "it's very hard not to look at the recent polls and think that the odds are very high I'm going to be the nominee." Well, he was wrong.

2) Republicans don't much care for mathematics or facts. So to whom is he making this case?

3) I'd really like to see either Gingrich or Santorum emerge finally as the single conservative alternative to Romney, with the other one dropping out. If nothing else, let's have that fight between Romney, who has the backing of the party's establishmentarian elites, and the majority of the Republican Party, which rightly views him as not one of its own however much he may pathetically pander to the right.

Romney the (faux) right-wing extremist

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Via twitter: 

Romney touts anti-abortion, anti-gay positions in South Carolina radio ad (link)

-- ThinkProgress (@thinkprogress)

Is he really a right-wing extremist? Is he really anti-choice? Is he really an anti-gay bigot?

Maybe not. In fact, probably not.

But there's Mitt Romney (the real person) and "Mitt Romney" (the candidate who will do and say anything to get elected), and I'm not sure anyone can tell the difference anymore. He's such a shameless panderer, such a suck-up to any and every constituency he needs to win over, and in South Carolina, with Newt hot on his tail and playing up his Reaganite bona fides, he's gone into full extremist mode.

Basically, it's just Mitt being Mitt. And it's not clear at all if he has a soul or if he's just an automaton who has programmed, by himself, to sell himself for votes.

I suspect the latter. Don't let yourself be fooled. He's as faux as they come. And the only thing truly genuine about him would appear to be his penchant for destroying jobs and ruining lives through his vulture capitalism. The rest of it is all for show.

Romney's devastation: Bain, vulture capitalism, and massive profiteering off human suffering

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Romney may be defending his extremist vulture capitalism, capitalism that destroys jobs and ruins lives, and Republicans may be rallying to his side, aghast that anyone should dare question even capitalism at its worst, but there's no doubt one of his core weaknesses has been exposed. As Andrew Sullivan, hardly one to advance a left-wing take on capitalism, writes:

I just watched the Bain documentary featured below and being broadcast throughout South Carolina by Newt Gingrich's SuperPac in full. It's loaded with out-of-context quotes and heavily biased; it focuses on the specific human suffering of the necessary "creative destruction" of capitalism not its general benefits to the economy. It does so through the voices and stories of ordinary Americans. And, as an emotional bludgeon, it's devastating.

But what makes it so dangerous to Romney, it seems to me, is that the Bain Brahmin didn't just fire thousands of working class people in restructuring and in closing companies. He made a fucking unimaginable fortune doing it. That's the issue. Other Republicans can speak about the need for free markets in a sluggish economy. But with Romney, we have a singular example of someone who made a quarter of a billion dollars by firing the white middle and working class in droves in ways that do not seem designed to promote growth or efficiency, but merely to enrich Bain.

*****

I simply cannot imagine a worse narrative for a candidate in this climate; or a politician whose skills are singularly incapable of responding to the story in any persuasive way. This ad is powerful. Romney has already seen a drop in South Carolina. I suspect he'll drop some more. And I suspect once the potency of this line of attack is absorbed by the GOP establishment, there will be some full, if concealed, panic.

I'm not exactly as fond of the "creative destruction" of capitalism as Sullivan is, nor do I think it as "necessary" as he does, and I'm not sure this video is quite as twisted as he says it is, but otherwise I'm in agreement. It's a pretty "devastating" line of attack. And one based on Romney's actual record, not one just made up to make him look bad.

I suspect he'll still go on to win the Republican nomination, not least because many Republicans (particularly the elites) applaud his brand of capitalism and the immense wealth he made at the expense of others, but the long-term damage to his electability could be immense.

**********

In case you haven't seen it yet, here's the preview for the documentary. It's pretty powerful.

Gingrich on the offensive

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Following up on my post from yesterday on Newt's "chickening out" on Romney and Bain, retreating from his justifiable comments about Romney's "vulture" capitalism, I must say that it does look at if Gingrich is following through on his pledge to attack Romney. He's just making his line of attack broader, and less anti-Republican, and less dangerous to himself, than questioning capitalism.

As Conor Friedersdorf reported at The Atlantic, Newt sent out a "blast" to National Review's e-mail list that hits Romney hard and asks for conservative support to take him down:

We can either nominate a timid Massachusetts moderate Republican to take on a secular socialist who threatens to turn us into a nation like the decrepit Republics of Western Europe, or we can nominate a bold Reagan conservative who will take the fight to Barack Obama in the Fall. Will you join me?

There's no more time for talking about stopping Mitt Romney. We're going to do it next week in South Carolina or he's almost certain to be the Republican nominee, whether conservatives like us want it or not. It's up to you, right now.

*****

As Speaker of the House, I forced Bill Clinton to accept welfare reform, four straight balanced budgets, and extensive tax cuts. Since then, Republicans have governed like moderates. My 21st Century Contract with America is the boldest, most conservative plan put forward. We will get America back on the path to job creation and economic growth with conservative principles. If that's the kind of President you want in the Oval Office, then I need your help today because the mainstream media and Republican establishment absolutely cannot wait to nominate Mitt Romney.

You can have a conservative nominee for President if you want one, but you have to stand up and fight for it. Not next week or next month, but right now. I hope you will stand with me today.

So much of this is ridiculous -- Obama as "secular socialist"? Dubya as "moderate"? Newt pushing Clinton around all by himself? -- but, then, Newt himself is pretty ridiculous, an egomaniac with a rather delusional sense of self and rather dubious ideological rhetoric. And yet he's making the anti-Romney case that we've been waiting for these many long months.

His problem is that while he can be an effective messenger there's just no way Republicans are going to let him be their nominee. Even if he would be able to stand up far more forcefully than Romney ever could to Obama, particularly in the debates (another of his current selling points), he's just too egomaniacal and too unstable, too much of a renegade, too much of a risk.

Romney is extremely vulnerable, to be sure, not least with so many prominent conservatives (e.g., Limbaugh, Will, Kristol) refusing to back him, but he continues to benefit from the lack of effective opposition, from the lack of a credible alternative. Newt will give it a run in South Carolina, where he's doing fairly well in the polls, but that will likely be that.

Romney will go on to win the nomination, likely with all of these attacks clinging to him like gonorrhea. That will turn out to be Newt's great contribution to the 2012 presidential race.

Gingrich chickens out on Romney/Bain, but "Armageddon" still on the way in South Carolina

By Michael J.W. Stickings 

What is it with Newt? For all his bluster, when push comes to shove, as they say, he backs down and collapses like a house of cards. We saw this when he referred to GOP wunderkind Paul Ryan's "radical" budget plan as "right-wing social engineering" and then, humbled and humiliated, came crawling back. And we're seeing it now as he's retreating from his recent comments about Mitt Romney's job-destroying tenure at Bain Capital:

Newt Gingrich signaled Wednesday that he believes his criticism of Mitt Romney's record at Bain Capital is a mistake — and that he’s created an impression that he was echoing Democratic rhetoric.

Gingrich conceded the problem when pressed by a Rick Santorum supporter at a book signing here Wednesday.

"I'm here to implore one thing of you. I think you've missed the target on the way you're addressing Romney's weaknesses. I want to beg you to redirect and go after his obvious disingenuousness about his conservatism and lay off the corporatist versus the free market. I think it's nuanced," said Dean Glossop, an Army Reservist from Inman, S.C.

"I agree with you," Gingrich said. "It's an impossible theme to talk about with Obama in the background. Obama just makes it impossible to talk rationally in that area because he is so deeply into class warfare that automatically you get an echo effect... I agree with you entirely.

The anti-Obama comment is ridiculous, of course. Obama has proven to be a middle-of-the-road technocrat, not a class warrior, and indeed a great deal of what he's done so far has been about rescuing capitalism from itself and otherwise trying to relieve some of the excesses around the edges. As for the rest of his response, Gingrich may just have been unwilling to be as blunt as he usually is when challenged face-to-face. But his point was never about corporatism or the free market, as if those two absolutes are the only options. Rather, it was about ethical capitalism (to the extent capitalism can ever really be called ethical) or unethical "vulture" capitalism (making money at all cost with no regard for the consequences).

But it's not clear how far he's willing to do, in either direction, and Newt seems to want to have it both ways. On the one hand, he doesn't want to come across as anti-capitalist, which is how anyone who dares say a bad word about capitalism comes across to conservatives, not least because he still has a highly profitable future as a leading conservative public figure but also because going too far could lose him valuable conservative support in South Carolina and, should he stay in the race, beyond. On the other hand, he sees a huge opening and wants to bring down Romney, whom he seems to loathe for both personal and political / partisan / ideological reasons. So what to do? Well, play both ends, in the typical Newt way, and try to shift the debate away from capitalism generally, which is where it's gone, and more towards Romney personally. Hence this, from a Gingrich spokesman:

This issue at hand is neither about Bain Capital, private equity firms, nor about capitalism. It is about Mitt Romney's judgment and character. It was Governor Romney's decision to base his candidacy, in large part, on his background as a portfolio manager. Thus, it is entirely legitimate to ask questions about whether he is accurately presenting how he conducted himself during that career.

In a broad sense, it's still about Bain Capital, private equity firms, and capitalism, of course. But that won't work, because Republicans have generally recoiled in horror at Gingrich's (and Huntsman's and Perry's) populist attack on "vulture" capitalism. So it has to be about Romney, about his "judgment and character," about his specific role at Bain, about what he did there, about the consequences. No matter that all he did there was act like (and profit like) the sort of capitalist Republicans hold in high regard -- which is why Santorum, who certainly has no great love for Romney, is arguing that an attack on Romney/Bain is an attack on capitalism.

All of which is to say, Newt, who is running neck-and-neck with Romney and who has only this shot left to save his campaign, has to walk a very fine line here. And while he appears to be retreating from the Bain line of attack, he also appears to be broadening his overall line of attack on Romney with a clear message that he hopes will resonate with a Republican electorate in South Carolina that is far more conservative than the one in New Hampshire:

"This is going to be Armageddon – they are going to come in here with everything they've got, every surrogate, every ad, every negative attack," Gingrich said. "At the same time we'll be drawing a sharp contrast between a Georgia Reagan conservative and a Massachusetts moderate who's pro-gun control, pro-choice, pro-tax increase, pro-liberal judge, and the voters of South Carolina will have to look and decide."

Gingrich framed the attacks on the former Massachusetts governor as a gauntlet any candidate must face if they expect to succeed against President Barack Obama.

"The last thing you want is to nominate somebody who collapses in September because they can't answer the questions," Gingrich said. "I mean, so you better answer - you know, people want to attack me for my past, that's fine. I either will answer it and be ready to be the nominee or I won't. Romney ought to have to meet the same test."

Gingrich, who has sparred with Romney frequently at debates, said he had no personal opinion of his opponent.

"No, I have no view," Gingrich said when asked his personal judgment of Romney.

Really? No view? But I thought this was now all about Romney's "judgment and character." (Again, we see that Newt wants to have it both ways. The lesson is to question the honesty of everything Newt says. Always.) Regardless, it's finally happening. After months of the non- and anti-Romneys turning their guns on each other, Newt at least is taking the fight straight to Romney and saying, assuming he follows through on this (which may not be a safe assumption given his tendency to chicken out), what many, if not most, conservatives, and hence most Republicans, think of their current frontrunner.

Behind the Ad: Newt Gingrich hits "Massachusetts moderate Mitt Romney" over abortion

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(Another installment in our new "Behind the Ad" series.)

Who: Newt Gingrich attacks Mitt Romney

Where: South Carolina.

What's going on: Well, he said it was coming, an all-out offensive against Romney in South Carolina, a last-ditch effort to tear down the frontrunner and likely nominee and to resurrect his campaign.

Assuming it really does materialize, a lot of it will be about Bain Capital, where Romney set about making millions destroying jobs and ruining lives, but of course that leaves open the charge -- a huge problem in a hyper-capitalist party like the GOP, where the slightest bad word about capitalism amounts to indefensible heresy -- that Gingrich is anti-capitalist. (What he's really doing is advocating an ethical capitalism inimical to the unregulated capitalism that Romney exploited and is defending now, but Republicans like their plutocrats to be self-aggrandizing looters with no regard for the consequences.).

In South Carolina, though, the opening against Romney is really on the social conservative front, and Newt and others, like Santorum, will no doubt focus a great deal of their energy in the coming days on Romney's fairly progressive (at least by Republican standards) past, including on key wedge issues like abortion. Hence this ad, which accuses Romney of having "governed pro-abortion" in Massachusetts:

Massachusetts moderate Mitt Romney: He can't be trusted.

That's a powerful message that hasn't gotten much of an airing so far in the Republican race, what with the various non- and anti-Romneys so often turning their fire on each other instead of on Romney. It may not be enough to knock Romney off his perch, what with the conservative opposition deeply divided and with neither Gingrich nor Santorum possessing the broad appeal or clear electability that one would need to mount a serious challenge at this point in the campaign, particularly with most of the party elites in Romney's corner, but if pressed enough it could resonate strongly with the many Republicans uncomfortable with the thought of Romney as their party's nominee, particularly in a state like South Carolina.

If nothing else, though, it highlights one of Romney's glaring weaknesses, one that Democrats will no doubt seek to exploit come general election time. If he embraces or even acknowledtges his progressive past, he picks up independents but loses vital conservative support. But if he continues to run to the right, as he will have to do as long as this conservative challenge continues, he risks further alienating the center and losing whatever lingering credibility he may have with non-Republicans. One thing he'll try to do is avoid having to talk about issues like abortion altogether, focusing instead on jobs and the economy (while lying about his ugly record at Bain) and smearing Obama as an anti-American socialst Europhile (while playing up American exceptionalism in a shameless appeal to knee-jerk, delusional patriotism), but there's not much he can do as long as these conservative efforts to expose him as a faux conservative continue.

It looks like it'll be Romney, whether you like it or not

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Via twitter: 

"SC GOP veteran tells me he sees signs of consolidation around Romney. Growing feeling that SC wants to keep up tradition of deciding nominee"

-- David Gregory (@davidgregory)

Well, sure. All you had to do was watch that ridiculous GOP "debate" Saturday night. It wasn't really a debate, it was a sort of friendly-fire formality in preparation for Romney's imminent coronation. Shots were taken by the various anti-Romneys, but nothing stuck and he left largely unscathed. (Indeed, the most damage done to Romney was done by himself the next day, when, as if trying to cement his plutocratic bona fides, he said during the Meet the Press debate that politics is for the rich.)

It may well be over. With a big win in New Hampshire tomorrow, Romney could sweep into South Carolina and wrap up the nomination. (There are reports that Newt, suddenly flushed with cash, is preparing to go ballistic on Romney, perhaps out of revenge for what Romney and his SuperPACs did to him in Iowa, but I'll believe it when it happens. Newt still has a lot of money to make as a loyal if occasionally renegade Republican, and I doubt he's going to jeopardize his future by trying to destroy the likely nominee.) He's got Gov. Haley's endorsement, after all, and the opposition is divided, mostly between Gingrich and Santorum.

And yet he remains deeply unpopular with conservatives and the non-elite elements of the party, including the grassroots base. It certainly appears that resignation has set in for many of the movers and shakers in the party, but what of the ideologues, the hardcore loyalists, Tea Partiers and social conservatives alike, who refuse to compromise and who rightly see Romney as an interloper, a phony, and worse? How will they take to being told it's Romney whether they like it or not?

Behind the Ad: Ron Paul targets "serial hypocrite" Santorum in South Carolina

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As we proceed through the primaries and then the general election campaign, not only for the presidency but for Congress and various governorships as well, we're going to be posting some of the more prominent political ads -- in our new "Behind the Ad" series -- and offering some beneath-the-surface analysis. This will complement our extensive political coverage. And, besides, who doesn't like watching political ads, especially when they're viciously negative?

The image here, as you may know, is from Lyndon Johnson's famous 1964 daisy ad, one of the most effective ads in U.S. political history -- not that LBJ was going to have much trouble with the right-wing Goldwater, but this association of the Republican with nuclear armageddon was awfully powerful. (You can watch it here.)

Okay, let's get started...

**********

Who: Ron Paul attacks Rick Santorum.

Where: South Carolina.

What's going on: Just as he attacked Gingrich as a "serial hypocrite" in Iowa, contributing to Newt's collapse in the polls (and dismal showing in the caucuses), Paul is going after the surging Santorum in South Carolina, the next battleground state after New Hampshire.

In a way, though, SC matters more than NH at this point. Romney will win NH, his backyard, in a landslide. The only question is by how much. Paul will finish second, most likely, but will struggle from then on. Why is he going after Gingrich and Santorum?

On the one hand, he may well want Romney to win -- if it's not going to be him (which it won't be). It makes sense that he would prefer the business-minded, plutocratic Romney to social conservative authoritarians like Gingrich and Santorum, whatever their allegiance to the unregulated free market. And in any event he may realize that Romney is the likely nomination.

On the other hand, he may (delusionally) think he still has a shot and is hoping to take down the anti-Romney alternatives one by one so as to be the only one left standing. There's no way the GOP would pick him over Romney, but, well, who knows what he thinks.

Whatever the case, he may just want to make sure he finishes a strong second, assuming he stays in the race for the long haul (like Pat Buchanan did in '92), so as to have a place of prominence at the convention and more generally within the party. It's not that he'll be the veep pick or have a Cabinet post in any Republican administration, but he can still be a major player, his right-wing libertarian agenda part of the party platform whether the establishmentarian elites like it or not.

At this point, it looks like Santorum is the only credible anti-Romney left. (Yes, I'm assuming that Gingrich is done. Right now he's just pathetically lashing out, once more the egomaniacal bully, at both Romney and fellow conservative Santorum. Wasn't it just a short while ago that Newt was bemoaning all the negativity when it was directed at him?) And so he's the obvious target for Paul's venom. And the place to take him down is South Carolina, where Romney has the lead but Santorum is coming on strongly (and may even be running a very close second) and, with a strong showing, could turn the race into a one-on-one affair, with Paul pushed out.

Just imagine the look on Romney's face when he first saw this ad. And imagine him rubbing his hands together gleefully. If he ends up winning the nomination, he should give Paul an expensive gift (or profusive thanks), just like a running back rewards his o-line after a great season. There would many reasons for Romney's success, starting perhaps with behind-the-scenes Romney booster Karl Rove, but it certainly helps that Paul, who has no chance of winning the nomination himself, is helping to clear the path of major obstacles.