Have American conservatives given up?
Freddy Gray 9:04pm
That tubby, unlovable rogue Newt Gingrich is on a big roll. His poll ratings are
surging ahead of the Florida primary
next week. This despite the fact that almost everyone, even the good fellows at National Review, can see what a disastrous candidate he is.
Gingrich has — this hardly needs saying — a terrible record in office, a long list of involvements in dodgy deals, an embarrassing private life, a dubious legacy as a man of
‘conservative principles’, and a deeply unpleasant face. (Sorry, but such things can matter in elections.)
For a good run-down of his failings, see here. Or, as a sample, look at this image flying around the internet:
No wonder the Democrats are upping their attacks on Newt’s rival Mitt Romney. They know that Newt the nominee would all but guarantee four more years of President Obama. (Not that Mitt represents much more of a threat, mind.) Republican voters, for their part, just seem to get bored and turn against whichever candidate happens to be winning.
Have American conservatives realised, like everyone else, that neither Romney or Gingrich has a coherent conservative philosophy or any real chance of reaching the White House? It feels at the moment as if they’ve decided they might as well make this election year a bit more fun — by sending in Gingrich rather than Romney — because he is at least the more entertaining cretin.
Previous
Redneck
January 23rd, 2012 9:27pm Report this commentMr Gray
Annoyingly your article states the truth. There is no really viable GOP candidate. Appalling, given the alternative.
Still not clear why Mr Paul is so roundly ignored by the conservative hierarchy
daniel maris
January 23rd, 2012 10:00pm Report this commentWell if we're talking looks, Ron Paul looks like Mr. Magoo who some might recall.
tom jones
January 23rd, 2012 10:09pm Report this commentIf Republicans want to actually win this year then they need to vote for Ron Paul. He's hardly popular with Republicans, but he could gain widespread support from disaffected Obama voters. The more comfortable a party is with their leader - the less likely it is the leader will win power. IDS, Hague, Howard - all liked by Tories, but they never stood a chance at winning floating voters. Cameron wasn't exactly right wing, but he won the election-ish.
Johnnydub
January 23rd, 2012 11:02pm Report this commentI agree Red - although the opposition to Ron Paul is easily explained; he's a full blooded libertarian and he do his best (which not be much even as President) to end the crony capitalism thats crippling the western world.
Dimoto
January 23rd, 2012 11:58pm Report this commentJohnnydub - ah, yes, crony capitalism.
First step should be to ban ALL western politicians from attending the corruptionfest that is "Davos".
Adam Smith must be revolving in his (modest little) grave.
Steve Tierney
January 24th, 2012 12:12am Report this commentRon Paul might not look presidential - but he's an honest, principled and intelligent man. God forbid we have somebody like that in the White House. They might, you know, change something!
TomTom
January 24th, 2012 4:11am Report this commentThe candidates that get profile have Media sponsorship and Goldman money which is why it is an insider's game of brand recognition. Whoever wins in November will have to impose much higher taxes on the 1% or watch the US fragment - it cannot continue with this soaring debt ceiling once Greece folds and Portugal slides off the cliff
richardj
January 24th, 2012 8:29am Report this commentLooks like Jeb Bush then!
Roy
January 24th, 2012 8:53am Report this commentThese comments sound depressingly like the Democrats. The very ones responsible for blindly voting in a President whose background could have told them what they are slowly coming to realise. To make fun of Americans when the present line up for election have a far better understanding of what needs to be done, than anything I've heard issuing from the British side.
Kevin
January 24th, 2012 9:51am Report this commentSo Gingrich has loyal daughters. Good for him. I bet he does not view grandchildren as a curse, as Obama apparently does (quoted on mediamatters.org):
"I've got two daughters - 9 years old and 6 years old. I'm going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby" (comment at a campaign event in Pennsylvania, 2008).
Great family values, Mr. President! No wonder he was toasting Roe v Wade last weekend.
I think the term "cretin" should be reserved for people who think terms like "fat" and "ugly" constitute substantive criticisms of a political candidate.
callingallcomets
January 24th, 2012 4:05pm Report this commentShabby, vindictive and infantile, this article is the perfect illustration for why in this internet age there there is little point in reading about US politics in British publications.
To offer the NRO as the benchmark of US conservative politics is absolutely laughable - the Tea Party changed all that.
Newt is not perfect but some on the right have realised that he has the best chance of constructing a conservative coalition that would have enough blue collar appeal to win in the general.
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2012/01/newt-the-tea-party-palin-perry-reform-evangelicals-etc-.html
As for Ron Paul the man's links with anti semites and white supremacists plus his record of delivering pork for his congressional district outweighs any value gained from his fiscal positions.
Back to top