After Saturday night’s Iowa debate, I’d bet $10,000 that Mitt
Romney has sunk himself. Well, I might if I had an extra $10,000
lying around, which I don’t. But after that debate, and more than a
week of relentless attacks on him, why is Newt Gingrich still
rising and Romney still sinking?
Gingrich’s staying power has the Washington cognoscenti
frustrated. When the Romney campaign launched its attacks on
Gingrich, there was a flood of seemingly coordinated press
promoting the attacks. In response, Gingrich had two New York press
avails, looking friendly and presidential. And, in a now
much-reported conference call with his staff, the former Speaker
ordered them to avoid going negative.
The political consultants working against Gingrich seem
unable to absorb facts or adapt their ideas to them. One of the
biggest criticisms of Gingrich is his inability to organize staff
and run a campaign. Karl Rove wrote what was supposed to be a
devastating criticism of Gingrich’s leadership deficiencies in the
Wall Street Journal last week. Rove said, among other
things, that Gingrich had failed to qualify for the ballot in both
Missouri and Ohio and that the former House speaker had little or
no organization in Iowa.
Rove’s article would have been devastating but for one
fact: it wasn’t true. Gingrich has, for example, qualified in both
Missouri and Ohio. His Iowa staff is strong and getting stronger by
the hour.
Gingrich’s key staffers have been with him a long time,
and know their man well. The consultants who resigned loudly
earlier this year weren’t the Gingrich insiders. The veteran staff
— with a few new additions — is also proving its worth hourly in
dealing with the media.
Another reason Gingrich isn’t fading is Mitt Romney. Let’s
face it: Mitt Romney is the Republican version of Al Gore. Even
people who are predisposed to liking him can’t seem to get there.
Romney is supposedly more electable than Gingrich, at least
according to the Inside the Beltway crowd and the major
media.
Really? Liberal pollster Peter Hart’s focus
group, asked to pick a family relationship to Romney, labeled
him “black sheep,” “fun neighbor,”
“cousin,” “second cousin,” “dad that was never home.” The same
group labeled Gingrich “grandfather,” “father,” “my favorite
uncle,” and “uncle who keeps bringing home different wives.” Is
grandpa less electable than the dad who was never home?
In the Saturday night Iowa debate, Texas Gov. Rick Perry
again challenged Romney on the statement in his book No
Apology that the Romneycare law in Massachusetts should be a
model for the nation. Romney denied the book said that. (Perry was
referring to a sentence in the hardback edition which said that the
“Massachusetts Model” achieved portable affordable health insurance
for everyone and “We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in
the country, and it can be done without letting government take
over health care.”)
Romney’s denial was sort of true. That sentence was
removed in the later paperback edition. Romneycare, we must recall,
was the biggest reason the Wall Street Journal editorial
page said a few months ago that Romney would be a better running
mate for Obama than an opponent.
When Perry raised the issue of Romney advocating
nationalizing the Massachusetts system, Romney said it wasn’t true
and held out his hand to dare Perry to bet $10,000 on Romney’s
truthfulness.
In 2010, according to the Iowa Department of Human
Services, the median income for a family of four in Iowa was
$61,657. How many Iowans — or Americans outside
of Iowa - would bet $10,000 on anything? Probably the same number
as who will vote for Romney.
While Gingrich remains positive, the media eagerly await
what they believe is the inevitable act of Newtonian
self-destruction. They seize on anything he says that doesn’t sound
like something they hear around their newsrooms and try to make a
feeding frenzy out of it. Yes, it could still happen. But the odds
are against it because what Gingrich has been saying is what a lot
of people are thinking.
When Gingrich said that school kids, especially those in
poor families, could work in schools to learn the habits of
reliability and earning, the media jumped on him. But people
understood that Gingrich was right. Young Americans don’t have the
work ethic of their parents or grandparents.
Gingrich told the Occupy Whatever kiddies to take a bath
and get a job. Those aren’t the words of a wild man. They’re what
most working Americans think when they see the Occupy Whatever
rabble.
When Gingrich said that the Palestinians were an “invented
people,” the media — and the Palestinians — thought the feeding
frenzy could start.
On Saturday night, Romney came after Gingrich on this
point. Romney said that he wouldn’t make any statement like that
without first consulting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu. Gingrich claimed the Reagan mantle and spoke about the
Palestinians again in terms he equated to Reagan calling the Soviet
Union an “evil empire.” Gingrich said he’d speak the truth even if
it discomfited the “timid,” meaning Romney.
Even the strongest supporters of Israel among us,
including me, do not want an American president who will ask
Israel’s permission to make a speech or decide a policy. That’s
what Romney pledged to do and which Gingrich — properly —
rejected.
With Iowa around the corner and New Hampshire and South
Carolina following quickly behind, Gingrich is in a position to
clinch the nomination. He can do it with a speech for which he has
already laid the foundation.
In two televised debates, Gingrich went after the
moderator for asking “gotcha questions” and demanding that the
Republicans attack each other. He alone has dared challenge the
all-knowing, all-powerful media.
It’s long past time for a Republican leader to make a
speech that says pointedly that the major media aren’t in the news
business. They’re political activists abusing their power to propel
Obama to re-election, and Americans know it. They’re as angry at
the media as they are at Congress.
The major media outlets — the New York Times,
Washington Post, ABC, NBC, CBS and many more — are
populated entirely by liberals. In 2005,
Washington Post editor Marie Arana
said, “The elephant in the newsroom is our narrowness…. If you
work here, you must be one of us. You must be liberal, progressive,
a Democrat. I’ve been in communal gatherings at the Post,
watching election returns, and have been flabbergasted to see my
colleagues cheer unabashedly for the Democratic candidates.” It’s a
culture, not a conspiracy.
Americans know this and if Gingrich makes a speech that
humorously criticizes the media rather than condemning or
threatening them, Americans will respond enthusiastically with
their votes in the primaries and, if he’s nominated, in the general
election.
Gingrich can reduce the liberal media’s power in the 2012
election by pointing out that, for example, the New York
Times is a dysfunctional liberal family the likes of which
isn’t usually found outside of Hollywood. He should take on the
“suits” — the people such as NYT publisher Pinch
Sulzberger and the guys who run NBC/MSNBC — who make people such
as Chris Matthews, Maureen Dowd, and their ilk prominent voices on
television and in print.
Gingrich should make this speech soon, before the Iowa
caucuses, to make it a primary issue that will carry over into the
general election campaign. People have been waiting a long time for
this, and Gingrich is perfectly suited to do it. If he does, the
nomination will be his and he’ll disarm one of Obama’s biggest
weapons in the general election.
