Gingrich Says Paul Worse Than Obama

Jill Lawerence - Newt Gingrich has finally found a politician he considers even worse than the president he calls socialist, anti-colonialist and radical. That would be his fellow Republican Ron Paul.

"I think Barack Obama is very destructive to the future of the United States. I think Ron Paul's views are totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American," Gingrich said Tuesday in a CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer.

Could he vote for Paul? "No." If it came down to Paul vs. Obama? "You'd have a very hard choice at that point."

From National Journal:

YEAR IN REVIEW
Most Inspiring Stories of 2011

YEAR IN REVIEWTop Political Quotes of 2011

YEAR IN REVIEW
Best Fake Campaign Ads

Gingrich's fencing with Mitt Romney seems like an afternoon at a gentleman's club compared with his slams on Paul. "As people get to know more about Ron Paul, who disowns 10 years of his own newsletter, says he didn't really realize what was in it, had no idea what he was making money off of, had no idea that it was racist, anti-Semitic, called for the destruction of Israel, talked about a race war - all of this is a sudden shock to Ron Paul?" he asked. "There will come a morning people won't take him as a serious person."

Right now in Iowa, the week before the state's Jan. 3 caucuses, Paul is a very serious person - in the top tier along with Gingrich and Romney and playing aggressively to win. "If Dr. Paul will have to soldier on without Newt's vote, then so be it," Paul campaign manager Jesse Benton said in a statement. He called Gingrich "a divisive, big-government liberal who is unelectable" and his attack on Paul a "childish outburst."

(RELATED: Romney: Gingrich Like 'Lucille Ball at Chocolate Factory')

Paul's supporters have complained for months that Paul wasn't getting the attention he deserved. Now that he's within reach of an early-state victory, the media scrutiny and attacks from rivals are escalating rapidly.

Michele Bachmann piled on Paul  in an interview Tuesday with Rodney Hawkins of National Journal and CBS News. She cited "racist statements" in Paul's newsletters and said he is indifferent about the prospect of Iran having a nuclear weapon. "Ron Paul would be dangerous for the United States on foreign policy," she said.

Gingrich unloaded on Paul after Blitzer showed a tough Paul attack ad accusing Gingrich of "serial hypocrisy." Gingrich said Paul's "total record of systemic avoidance of reality" makes him unthinkable as a president. He is, Gingrich said, "a person who thinks the United States was responsible for 9/11, a person who ... wrote in his newsletter that the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 might have been a CIA plot, a person who believes it doesn't matter if the Iranians have a nuclear weapon."

(RELATED: Perry Campaign Sues to Get on Virginia Ballot)

Gingrich declared twice during the interview that Paul won't get the GOP nomination. Benton countered with the rhetorical equivalent of "neither will you."

Conservatives and tea party activists are fleeing Gingrich due to his support for TARP and an individual insurance mandate (which he has since renounced), Benton said, while independent voters "are horrified by Newt's history of ethics violations, insider pay-to-play politics and influence peddling."

It isn't New Year's Eve yet, but it's safe to say the holiday season is over.

Gov. Mitt Romney's Electability Fraud on Republican Party?

John Hawkins of Right Wing News thinks so, but most of his arguments are unpersuasive.  He asks:

Doesn’t it say something that GOP primary voters have, at one time or another, preferred Donald Trump, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and now even Ron Paul (In Iowa) to Mitt Romney?

It does.  On the other hand, doesn’t this say something?

Newt Gingrich (62%) and Mitt Romney (54%) are the only two candidates Republicans say would be acceptable presidential nominees from their party, emphasizing the degree to which the GOP race has narrowed down to these two men at this juncture. A majority of Republicans say each of the other six candidates measured would not be acceptable nominees.

Indeed, with Newt coming under increased scrutiny, those numbers might favor Romney today.  Doesn’t it say something that a plurality sees Romney as the candidate most likely to beat Obama, or that head-to-head polls consistently show Romney faring better against Obama than his rivals?
Hawkins then discusses Romney’s moderate image:

To some people, this is a plus. They think that if conservatives don’t like Mitt Romney, that means moderates will like him. This misunderstands how the process of attracting independent voters works in a presidential race. While it’s true the swayable moderates don’t want to support a candidate they view as an extremist, they also don’t just automatically gravitate towards the most “moderate” candidate. To the contrary, independent voters tend to be moved by the excitement of the candidate’s base (See John McCain vs. Barack Obama for an example of how this works). This is how a very conservative candidate like Ronald Reagan could win landslide victories. He avoided being labeled an extremist as Goldwater was, yet his supporters were incredibly enthusiastic and moderates responded to it.

I do not know where Hawkins got any of this.  In the first instance, Romney appeals less to moderates than you may think.  Hawkins likely exaggerates the impact of ideology on voter choices, ignoring the fundamentals.  Reagan won in 1980 in large part because the economy was terrible.  Had the GOP nominated George H. W. Bush instead, Anderson likely would not have run as an independent and Bush would likely have garnered more votes than Reagan.  That doesn’t mean the GOP should have nominated Poppy Bush; far from it.  But Reagan could run against a lousy economy, while Goldwater was running against Johnson in a booming economy.  Pure independents are the most likely to vote on the state of the economy; the argument that enthusiasm affects election outcomes is not supported much by the data.
Hawkins notes Romney is a proven political loser.  He doesn’t add “in Massachusetts.”  Not too many Republicans win in Massachusetts.  Romney did and ended unpopular, suggesting he was too conservative for the land of Ted Kennedy and Barney Frank.  But being Mitt means getting to be a double-loser to Hawkins: insufficiently conservative and not good at winning statewide in a liberal state.  Hawkins makes a related argument that Romney will be hammered for his tenure at Bain Capital.  I have no doubt Democrats will make those attacks, but they likely play stronger in places like Massachusetts than elsewhere (how they play in states like PA and OH is a valid point).  Presumably, if Romney is the nominee, he will point out that some Bain acquisitions grew (e.g., Domino’s Pizza), while others were downsized, and then launch into a spiel about rightsizing bloated government bureaucracies, something Obama has manifestly failed to do.
Hawkins claims Romney will run poorly in Southern states, but then delves into GOP primary numbers, which is not the same as electability in the general.  Currently, Romney runs as well as or better than Gingrich against Obama in swing states, including those mentioned by Hawkins.
Hawkins maintains Romney will lose his advantages in fundraising, organization and establishment support in a general election.  That’s largely true, but not an argument that a NotRomney who has been unable to match Romney in these areas is thus a better choice in terms of electability.  Hawkins also claims Romney has been avoiding serious scrutiny, which is inaccurate.
Hawkins notes “the Mormon factor” and cites a poll suggesting it’s a problem.  He does not cite the Pew poll suggesting it’s a bigger problem for Romney in the primaries and not so much in a general election.  Indeed, the poll Hawkins cites makes clear that Mormonism is a problem for Democrats.
Finally, Hawkins notes Romney is a flip-flopper, asking “Is it just me or didn’t George Bush beat John Kerry’s brains in with the “flip flopper” charge back in 2004?”  It’s not just Hawkins who thinks that, but again, the data doesn’t really support that theory.  As Jay Cost notes, Kerry did a better job at peeling away voters from the “other” side than Bush did.
In sum, there is not a “plethora of evidence” that Romney’s electability is a myth.  That does not mean that Romney must be the nominee.  Indeed, as noted earlier, the challenger’s ideology matters maybe a percent or two — important in a close election, but most things are important in a close election.  Romney is not my ideal candidate, but none of the candidates is my ideal candidate.  At the moment, to paraphrase Philip Klein (on Twitter), Romney is the only candidate showing up to the job interview wearing a suit.  With Gingrich sliding, conservatives have to hope some NotRomney can up his or her game soon.

Can Ron Paul Win Iowa In A Landslide?

Ever since Newt Gingrich started slumping in the polls, a number of pundits and bloggers have been wondering if Ron Paul might end up winning the Iowa cauci. He has a dedicated base of supporters. And currently leads in the RealClear Politics average:

Dedicated supporters are more likely to show up on a cold winter night to vote for their guy.
Commenting on Ron Paul’s surge, Byron York wonders if Paul’s supporters are, “in fact, Republicans“.
Let us hope, however, that Republicans don’t discount the essence of the libertarian Republican’s appeal:  the Texas Congressman has long been unequivocal in his opposition to big government.  He may have some rather isolationist views on foreign policy and may have showed a lack of good judgment in publishing his newsletter, but on domestic issues at least, the candidate is in tune with the times.
If he is to be successful in November, the eventual Republican nominee bears that in mind.  Should the nation be so fortunate as to see that nominee replace the incumbent come January 20, 2013, he must needs act in the spirit of Ron Paul’s domestic agenda, that is, on fiscal issues.  And perhaps even monetary ones.