Just as it was in 2010, it's Insurgents vs. The Establishment again in 2012. So says the WSJ's usually ho-hum Gerald Seib. He's right about that.
Though Newt has lived in Washington DC for 33 years, has cozied up to the Clintons, sat on the love seat with Nancy Pelosi, advocated ethanol subsidies, the individual mandate, and home ownership for everyone, he is now the darling of the Tea Party Insurgents. How can that be?
There are many answers to that.
Newt's opponent is Mitt Romney, Mr. Establishment, the next guy in line. ( Here Mark Steyn nails the problems with Mitt.)
Newt was an insurgent before the Tea Party, ballot-boxing the House leadership into submission from the back bench.
Newt is willing to bring down the hammer of Thor on the hated establishment press, exposing their white hot leftist activism. I'm surprised he didn't tell the audience last night to ignore Brian Williams' injunction to keep quiet and instead applaud when they felt like it.
What should we believe about Newt in the future?
Even in pragmatic moments his conservatism has been apparent. He has said that we'll never get rid of Social Security and Medicare. Nevertheless it's clear that he advocates substantial changes to those programs that would move them toward solvency without increases in taxes.
He has recognized that cutting the budget by $1.6T in one year is practically and politically impossible -- the received establishment wisdom. Yet Newt would be much more willing than Mr. Establishment to push the budget down in smaller steps, say by passing legislation that would require cutting this year's -- not next year's -- budget by 10% of every debt limit increase. That step that would lower all future CBO baseline budgets and, if continued for ten years, drive expenditures toward revenue and the budget toward balance.
Most of all, Newt's insurgent's heart is exposed in his willingness to unequivocally advocate strong conservative solutions to the nation's problems. Mitt's establishment soul inhibits him from doing anything like that.
If your heart persists in feeling that Newt can't win, I remind you that we don't vote for President, we vote by state for electors in the Electoral College and I refer you to the Gallup Swing State Poll I analyzed for you a month ago during Newt's last surge in popularity: it showed him leading Obama among swing state registered voters. I also remind those of you old enough to remember that during the 1980 Republican primary contest the establishment told us that Ronald Reagan couldn't win. After securing the nomination, he went on to win 91% of the electoral college votes against an incumbent Democrat president.
If you are sure that Mitt is stronger against Obama than Newt, you should look at the most recent Gallup trial heats among registered voters where you will see that Newt and Mitt both come in at 48% vs. Obama's 50%. Not such a great result for either, but remember the difference between registered and likely or actual voters.
If you are sure that Newt trails Mitt nationally among Republicans, so that he can't win the nomination, you can look at the latest Gallup national tracking update -- the first one since the second South Carolina debate -- that shows Newt leading Mitt 31% to 27%. Even the tracking poll average over the preceding few snapshots has him within 1%
If you are sure that Newt's negatives are too high for him to win -- an oft-quoted 56% in this recent national poll of registered voters -- I urge you to remember that all Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents who support other candidates in the nomination fight might report a negative impression, along with all the Democrats and left-leaning Independents. Furthermore, I urge you to remember that the poll I cited above was conducted January 12 through 14, when Mitt still led Newt by 10 points or more in South Carolina and by 20 points nationally!
Finally, I suggest that you remember who the Republican Establishment is: people who are part of the status quo in Washington DC, who make money or have power because of it, and who are therefore most afraid that it will change.
On the other hand, that would seem to include Newt himself.
