I have to admit that I am a bit disappointed in the GOP base. They had 9 candidates from whom to choose and at the end of all of the sound and fury, they seem to have settled on the meanest and nastiest candidate and zounds isn’t Newt both of those things in spades. Some of you out there, fellow Democrats and Progressives in particular reading this would probably admonish me and say that I should know better than to expect anything different, but I did have some hope.
From the perspective of a Democrat, except for Ron Paul, there isn’t any material difference in policies between any of the nine candidates who started out running for the GOP Presidential nomination. When Republicans seemed to be turning to Rick Santorum in Iowa, I thought, OK, channeling the perspective of someone who comes from the conservative viewpoint, that makes sense. Like all the rest of the GOP candidates, the things he stands for alternately anger and disgusts me or simply make me sad and concerned for the country, but I could understand that choice coming from voters who believe in the current American incarnation of conservatism.
I cannot understand the choice of Newt the Snarkapotamus.
Of all the people to carry the message of your point of view, why pick the meanest and nastiest person, the king of the sarcastic remark (Snark). Why pick someone who embodies the exact opposite of what you are trying to say in terms of family values. Excuse me, nearly the opposite. The only way Gingrich could have been closer to 180 degrees off from the Family values crowd would have been if the affairs he had behind the backs of both of his first two seriously ill wives would have been with men.
As a Democrat, all of what I just outlined in the above paragraph, and the rest of Newt’s copious baggage is good news. It means getting my candidate re-elected is going to be that much easier. As a plain citizen, I have to deal with an unpleasant, nasty, snarky individual on my television screen and in the rest of the news media for the next ten months. This is what we are in for:
That snark by Gingrich has nothing to do with policy, nothing to do with how someone would govern and gives you no real insight into anything about Mitt Romney. It’s a nasty and vacuous remark and frankly, a waste of the time of the audience watching.
Now, some Conservatives, like those over at Free Republic, are of the mistaken opinion that those kind of nasty remarks if delivered by Newt against President Obama, will make the electorate like him and vote for him. That is not going to work like some conservatives think it will. Throughout American history, Presidential candidates like Newt who are snarky debaters and orators never win the general election. Americans do not like that kind of person as their President. Americans like Presidents who are well mannered and with whom they would feel comfortable coming to their home and having dinner. As the trite expression goes, Americans want their President to be someone with whom they would like to have a beer.
The last thing people want to do is go out and have a beer with a snarky person because that person might get snarky with you. But that’s who Gingrich is, it has been his best weapon in Republican debates so far and the Conservative base seems to like it. Unfortunately for them, I don’t think it plays with independents and swayable moderates. The interesting part of the campaign if Newt gets the nomination will be the point where Gingrich and his campaign realize what I am talking about and that he cannot use that debate style.
If you take that away from Newt Gingrich, he has nothing.
Actually, he has worse than nothing, he has his baggage.