salon.com: A cautionary tale for Obama and his supporters as they rejoice over Newt Gingrich's rise

[Douglas Carpenter]

Thursday, Dec 8, 2011 11:06 PM 01:37:34 UTC+1000

When a Democratic dream turn into a nightmare

A cautionary tale for Obama and his supporters as they rejoice over Newt Gingrich's rise

By Steve Kornacki


Ronald Reagan gives the thumbs-up sign as he leaves the podium after addressing supporters at his Los Angeles election headquarters on Nov. 5, 1980. (Credit: AP)

A solid victory in Illinois steadied Reagan’s campaign and ended the Anderson boomlet and Ford chatter, but an ABC News poll starkly illustrated the damage that had been done: Against Carter and his dismal approval ratings, the survey showed Reagan losing by 18 points. (By comparison, Ford ran ten points ahead of Carter in the same poll.) That Reagan would end up extending the Carter presidency for another term became conventional wisdom. Typical was this March ’80 column from Joseph C. Harsch, the long-time writer for the Christian Science Monitor:

And Mr. Carter’s chances for re-election go up every time another vigorous and moderate Republican like Sen. Howard Baker or a vigorous, modern, decisive, and experienced Republican like John Connally has to withdraw from lack of support

Does this mean that history is bound to repeat itself if Newt walks away with the nomination? Not necessarily. Obama isn’t in as bad shape as Carter was, while Gingrich, as Lloyd Bentsen might say, is no Ronald Reagan. Gingrich may simply be the Goldwater that everyone thought Reagan was back in 1980.

Then again, when voters are motivated enough to throw out an incumbent, the bar for the opposition party isn’t that high. Reagan’s triumph showed this. Had he been the nominee in ’76, when voters were still angry with Republicans for Watergate and Carter was just a refreshing outsider from Georgia, all of the general election attacks on Reagan that fizzled in ’80 would have had a very different impact. Which is another way of saying that when the climate is just right, very strange things can happen.



read full article:

http://www.salon.com/writer/steve_kornacki/

[TwilightGardener]

1. Reagan was likable. Newt isn't doing well because he's Newt and everyone likes him.

He's doing well because the Republicans are now digging in the trash for candidates they already threw away, in a desperate gambit to keep from having to vote for Mittens.

[Douglas Carpenter]

4. oh I absolutely agree..personally I both hope and honestly think Obama would beat Gingrich in the

biggest Democratic landslide since 1964. But, then again. We never know. Especially when the economy is not doing that well - the unlikely becomes possible. I wouldn't think it wise to be too over confident.

[Inuca]

15. That was my very first thought as well

Reagan was indeed likable, even when you completely disagreed with him. Gingrich exhudes disadain for everybody around him and pure nastiness. This being said, and in spite of all the rational arguments why the Newt is a better alternative, I still hope he will implode. Soon. Mainly because things are so crazily umpredictable that he may end up winning, and even the thought of that is an abominaiton (not Romney winning will make me exactly happy, but I think it would be more survivable).

[ProSense]

2. It's better

to watch Republicans implode. Still, Gingrich has issues.

Gay half-sister of Republican Gingrich backs Obama

And speaking of Reagan, here's a new ad by Priorities USA

[Mz Pip]

3. Or Nixon. Or Bush 2.

History can and does repeat itself.

I've talked to young people who weren't around in the 1968 or 1980. They feel frustrated and powerless. Humphrey wasn't Gene McCarthy; Carter didn't live up to expectations, and now in 2012 there certainly are some parallels.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

5. Obama is essentially our "Reagan" IMHO

He is personally appealing and well-liked even though he doesn't have the staggeringly high post-9/11 approval ratings that George W. Bush enjoyed for much of his first term though just about anybody serving as POTUS right now (except for maybe John McCain had he been elected- his would probably be lower) would probably be struggling with his approval rating given the ongoing nature of the economy but he still outpolls and outperforms all of the GOP candidates for POTUS so far, so it's clear to me that the public - if these numbers hold up (and/or improve) during the next year- are more likely to be willing to muddle through things with President Obama rather than replace him next year.

[boxman15]

7. ^This

The public may not be completely satisfied with Obama, but they like him and are hopeful he can still turn things around. Meanwhile, public approval for the GOP is extremely low and candidates like Newt are extremely unlikable.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

13. I agree

the case must be made by President Obama and the Democratic Party next year that the kind of obstructionism that has been perpetuated by the Republicans in Congress needs to be repudiated and that in order to get things done President Obama needs the public to also deliver a Congress to work with that isn't allowed to simply throw sand in the gears of government at every turn. I know that that's a lot to hope for maybe but our federal government has become virtually paralyzed by unprecedented levels of Republican obstructionism. I think that everybody needs to come to some kind of understanding that Congress was created for the express purpose of allowing issues to be debated and voted on and for nominees for cabinet offices and judiciary need to be allowed to be debated on voted on. I'm not of the mind to totally eliminate filibusters but there needs to be some reform of the measure so that it doesn't become a permanent logjam to getting things done that need to be done. I realize that, whenever a Democrat is President, not getting things done is pretty much the point but we need to argue back that they are public servants that have a job to do and that they need to do their damn job and not play games like what they have been done since Obama was elected POTUS!

[boxman15]

6. It's true we cannot become complacent this upcoming election year and that Obama has some obstacles,

Ronald Reagan was very likable and charming, though. Newt Gingrich comes off as an asshole and has so much baggage with him, I will be absolutely stunned if he even comes close to winning.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

26. We must also remember that Reagan had an advantage that Obama doesn't enjoy...

Though Reagan had to contend with a Congress that was dominated by Democrats, the atmosphere was much more congenial and parliamentary. Democrats and Republicans worked together and there was some civility. It was when Newt Gingrich became Speaker that it all changed. Neither Clinton nor Obama enjoyed that level of civility, and it was largely due to Gingrich.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zambero]

10. Republicans yes. Independents & other moderate swing voters?

The ones who decide elections? I can't see them flocking to this guy.

[Inuca]

16. And not even all republicans, I think

The mythical "base", yes. But I believe (or I want to believe) that there are still rational sane Rs out there. You see some on them on TV (David Frum, Steve Schmidt... they are sane and horrified, or so they seem).

[Zambero]

9. Gingrich would be the "un-Reagan"

Reagan effectvely used his charisma, personal charm, and nice-guy image to transcend a carefully crafted political agenda that could have otherwise been a liability for any another candidate. And Reagan was able to stay on message. Newt has none of these attributes, and as a candidate would dig himself into a deeper hole than the one he's already standing in, baggage in hand. His "outstanding debate performances" typically include bombastic and ill-advised utterances that will show up in subsequent sound bytes (aka negative campaign ads). Remember what he once said about Medicare? "Just cut off the money and let it wither on the vine". Women in particular can't seem to stomach the guy. I say "bring him on".

[WI_DEM]

11. First of all--Obama is NOT Jimmy Carter. Obama has never had anywhere near as low approval ratings

inflation and interest rates are not what there were in 1980 & while unemployment is way too high, there are signs that the job market is picking up. Second, Newt is NOT Ronald Reagan, who like him or not, came across as a likable sort of guy (though I can't explain why). Newt does not--Obama, however, does.

[jeff47]

12. The difference is Reagan was much, much smarter than Newt

Reagan was vaguely intelligent about appealing to people, had enough charisma for people to like him, and hearkened back to the 'good old days'.

Newt's an idiot, and has the charisma of a coffee table. I really don't think we'd need to worry much about a candidate calling for a return to the child labor of the old days.

[Inuca]

17. No, Newt is NOT an idiot

He is a long list of things, ranging from bad to horrible, but idiot is not one of them. Assuming that by "idiot" you mean stupid & uninformed, he is neither of these.

[Zambero]

18. How about "Loose Cannon"?

A Gingrich presidential campaign would be on permanent damage control.

[Inuca]

22. That I definitely agree with n/t

[Skraxx]

28. Actually Newt is too smart for his own good and Reagans lack of intellect

Was a strength for him. He was merely smart enough too stay on script. Newt is intelligent enough to believe he doesn't need one.

[Skittles]

30. reagan was dumb as a bag of hammers

only slightly dumber than all the people who fell for his act

[Jim Lane]

14. The tough question for progressives: Vote for Newt?

If you're in a state with open primaries, and there's no Democratic race that interests you, you could take a Republican ballot and --
(1) Vote for Gingrich as the candidate who'd be easiest to beat.
(2) Vote for Romney as the candidate who'd be less objectionable as President.
(3) Vote for Huntsman as the candidate who'd be least objectionable as President, even though this vote wouldn't accomplish much because he has zero chance of being the nominee.
(4) Vote for Paul to encourage him or someone else to mount a third-party effort.
(5) Vote for whichever candidate is in second place in the overall race, to delay the time when the contest is effectively over. (This is the mirror image of Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" of 2008.)

The point of the OP is that choice #1 could well backfire. I think most DUers would be aghast at a Romney presidency but even more aghast at a Gingrich presidency. Still, any Republican win would be bad, so there's something to be said for trying to sabotage their process.

[Politicalboi]

20. It's only ok if

THEY do it. LOL! I think they should vote for Bachmann no matter what. She is the craziest one of the bunch, and she has a gay husband and doesn't know it. LOL!

[Jim Lane]

If, when the circus reaches my state, the leading contenders are Romney and Bachmann ....

then I might follow your advice and vote for her.

Who knows, maybe Newt will crash and burn and the Anyone But Mitt types will have to go back to Bachmann. Also, if she gets enough votes in the primaries, Mitt might be pressured into taking her on as VP.

[Jim Lane]

21. If, when the circus reaches my state, the leading contenders are Romney and Bachmann ....

then I might follow your advice and vote for her.

Who knows, maybe Newt will crash and burn and the Anyone But Mitt types will have to go back to Bachmann. Also, if she gets enough votes in the primaries, Mitt might be pressured into taking her on as VP.

[Lord Magus]

19. Reagan won because voters found him likable. Newt is less likable than his amphibious namesake.

Not to mention slimier.


Also, I'm not sure I buy the long-standing meme that Carter supporters were mistaken in thinking Reagan was the weaker opponent. Who's to say Bush Sr wouldn't have done even better? In 1980, virtually everything that could go wrong for Carter did.

[Pirate Smile]

25. Newt is more like Nixon - who won two terms.

[RFKHumphreyObama]

23. Gingrich is not a Goldwater or a Reagan

The comparisons to both are flawed. Both Goldwater and Reagan were ideological zealots, promoting an ideology much more extreme than what was considered to be acceptable to the status quo at the time. Gingrich, by contast, is relatively moderate compared to some of the entrants we have seen from the Republican field -i.e. Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Perry et all. He is also a savvy politician who led his party out of 40 years in the political wilderness to take control of the House. So he would be more like the Connally or the Baker of our time. Which will actually make him quite a formidable challenger for that very reason, instead of the reason that the author is putting forward (that he seems unelectable now). The author has a valid point in saying that we should not underestimate our opponent and the fact that the prevailing political climate often plays a key role in determing the outcome, he's just picked the wrong example to illustrate his point

A more apt comparison for an article like this would be someone like Michelle Bachmann or Rick Perry, whose right wing extremism and zealotry is considered extreme now just like Reagan or Goldwater's ideologies were back in the day. And the point about not underestimating Bachmann and Perry's ability to benefit from the prevailing national climate is one I've been making for a long time

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

24. The differences are that a. Reagan was likable and able to fool many Americans

including Democrats! And b. Newtie is NOT likable and has a horrible record to stand on, and c. The Republican Establishment absolutely HATES Newt Gingrich!!

[okieinpain]

27. i'm been worried about this very problem. it's almost like it going

to be too easy.

[ibegurpard]

29. Newt's a dick

charm and charisma are not something you can fake

[Jennicut]

31. Reagan was an actor and knew how to get people to like him.

Does anyone find Newt's personality enjoyable to watch? I mean, its NEWT.