The Republican Choice: Why Gingrich?

Is Newt for real? This is the question increasingly asked as polls indicate that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has taken the lead among the Republican presidential contenders. The simple answer may be yes, boding badly the for campaign of Mitt Romney who has struggled for months to be the inevitable last choice candidate once all the others have faded. But Newt’s rebirth and Romney’s campaign strategy are linked, pitting inevitability against reliability.

Don’t Hate Me Because I’m Mitt

Mitt Romney has had an identity problem from the get go. Best summed with the label “Multiple Choice Mitt,” Romney faces an initial problem that no one knows where he really stands on the issues. He is a former moderate Massachusetts governor who supported reproductive rights, gay rights, and he signed into law a health care bill essentially identical to Obamacare. Romney is a skilled businessperson and politician who saved the 2002 Olympics. He knows how to get things done. This should be his political narrative for his presidential campaign. But it’s not.

In 2008 Mitt ran away from this narrative. He pandered to the conservative base of the party, renouncing his moderate positions. Yet given the global economic collapse and John McCain’s avowal that he did not understand economics, had Romney stressed his business experience then he might have won the nomination. Now in 2012 as the Republican Party has moved further to the right Romney has abandoned even more of this narrative, seeking to out-duel the other presidential contenders in terms of xenophobia against immigrants, bashing gays, abortion rights, and taxes, or in renouncing health care reform. Mitt both wants to be the can do governor and businessman and the right wing extremist. No one really trusts him anymore–especially the Tea Party base–thus the moniker Multiple Choice Mitt.

But Mitt also suffers from another flaw–he is a pretty boy. Pantene shampoo famously featured a 1990 commercial with Kelly LeBrock who cooed “Don’t hate me because I am beautiful.” Mitt may be hated for that reason. He is rich, handsome, has perfect hair, and a trophy wife. All reasons to hate him because he has it all. Few can identify with him because of that. Voters bonding with presidential candidates is important. In 2004 voters preferred Bush over Kerry because the latter came across as an aloof prig.

Mitt also has another identify problem–no charisma. He is wonkish and more of a technocrat. He is reminiscent of another former Massachusetts governor–Michael Dukakis–who was similarly skilled but also boring. Politics is about passion and no one can really get passionate over Mitt.

Romney, though, has labored to make a virtue out of all of this. Be the viable second choice who outlasts everyone else in the race. Manage the best campaign, raise the most money, site the most offices, and script the best choreographed speeches. Romney’s strategy is to be the “steady Eddy”; be the one true love or candidate who is there for you after the quick romances and one night stands for the others pass by. Romney’s strategy–Mr. Inevitable.

But why Newt?

He’s not Romney. That is only part of the appeal. The other part of the appeal is that he is the last candidate standing. Gingrich appeared to flame out early before it became fashionable for the other Republican contenders to do so. Stories of infidelity, million dollar credit lines at Tiffanys, growling at the media, and a campaign staff quitting en masse; Newt was just ahead of his time. Since then we have see the other flavors of the month, as the media calls them, rise and fall. Trump. Bachmann. Perry. Cain. Each had an Andy Warhol 15 minutes but each faded as the presidential debates and vetting process grinded on. But eventually each undid themselves. Who was the last one standing? Not Romney, but Gingrich.

Most importantly, Gingrich is actually Mr. Reliable. Unlike Romney where no one knows where he really stands, everyone knows Gingrich and his views. His reliability is a political virtue compared to claims of inevitability. Gingrich was there with the Contract for America in 1994. He led the impeachment against Clinton in 1998. He carries the mantle of the Reagan brand. He is a known and dependable conservative. Yes he is full of warts, but unlike Cain and others, he admits them and says it’s time to move on. Americans hate denial or lying but can accept sinners and that is what Gingrich understands.

Conservative Republicans distrustful of Romney and not liking the other choices finally came back to Gingrich. He is more than the flavor of the month. But even if he is, it is good to be the flavor when it is your month and with it being T-minus less than a month to the Iowa caucuses. The timing is great. Gingrich leads in Iowa, South Carolina, and Florida, three of the first four contests. He is behind in New Hampshire but picked up the critical Union Leader newspaper endorsement. Romney was expected to win big in New Hampshire. He may still win but unless it is a blowout he will look vulnerable.

What is happening now with Gingrich is different than what transpired with Bachmann, Perry, and Cain. What is now occurring is the coalescing of the party around him. Cain’s endorsement is a sign, look to see others also endorse him as they leave the race early in January (except for Ron Paul who will potentially run again as the third party Libertarian candidate and complicate GOP strategy). By the end of that month look to see a race between Gingrich and Romney. Beyond January, the task will be organization, money, and momentum. Right now Romney has the first two but not the third. Gingrich has the third but not the first two. His challenge is taking his momentum and the passion around him to create the organization and money he needs to win the nomination. If he can do that, Romney is done.

Forget Bachmann/Clark, The Real Focus Should be Minnesota's Third District

Political pundits and analysts need to take a new look at Minnesota’s third congressional district race pitting DFL challenger Jim Meffert seeking to unseat first term GOP incumbent Erik Paulsen. Democrats have a far better chance picking up this seat than they do knocking off Michelle Backmann with Tarryl Clark.

The Futile Effort to Beat Bachmann
There is virtually no chance the Democrats will defeat Bachmann. I have argued this for months. Bachmann’s sixth district seat is apportioned approximately six points ahead for Republicans. She is a conservative candidate in a conservative district. She is the Tea Party leader in a Tea Party GOP year. She fits her district well and has already survived several attempts to knock her off in previous years (most recently '08) more favorable to Democrats. Democrats would be better served to wait until 2012, after reapportionment, when new lines may change the Sixth and make it more competitive, or when Bachmann makes the foolish move to run for the senate againt Klobuchar and gets waxed by her.

Yet Democrats cannot resist themselves. Democrats from around the country are pouring millions into this race and yet there is no evidence that Clark is catching up or gaining ground. Yes, Democrats have to challenge her and force her to campaign at home so that she does not travel and fundraise and campaign for others. But from a cost-benefit perspective, pouring millions here makes no sense. Sure there might be a symbolic victory in knocking her off, but with Democrats having to defend so many seats and having to decide where to best spend, resources need to be placed where it makes the most sense. That is why Minnesota’s Third District makes more sense.

Minnesota’s Third District
Minnesota’s Third District is a moderate suburban area mainly encompassing the western suburbs of Minneapolis. For years it was represented by Republican Jim Ramstad who had a reputation as a moderate. In 2008 he did not seek reelection and the seat looked ripe for Democrats to pick up. After all, many of the state seats in that district were occupied by Democrats.

The ideal Democrat I argued was a moderate pro-choice and perhaps female candidate. I thought that State Representative Melissa Hortman or State Senator Terri Bonoff were perfect profile candidates for the district then, but Melissa did not run and Terri’s campaign did not see Ashwin Madia coming. Ashwin did a great job organizing and hunting delegates.

In the end, the Democrats picked Aswin Madia, a political novice, Iraq vet who ran again the war. He challenged Erik Paulsen, a 10-year conservative state legislator. Paulsen won, mostly by hiding his conservative credentials and running as a moderate. Additionally, Madia ran out of steam in October '08, especially when the war as an issue was waning and the economy became the focus. Madia did not do a good job pivoting from war to the economy and he lost his message at a critical time. Finally, the race had a Independence Party candidate who, on election day, took about ten percent of the vote. The result? Paulsen won by eight points.

Since election, Paulsen has spoken moderate but voted right. He has a voting record nearly identical to Bachmann’s, voting with her over 90% of the time. He has no real accomplishments to show, and about the only news about him has been how he appeared to gouge the House franking privilege by sending out hundreds of thousands of dollars in mail to his constituents, at taxpayer expense.

More importantly, for a moderate district, his voting record is way to the right of where most of the voters are.

Too many people have heard me argue that campaigns are won or lost based on how well you capture the swing voter. The most critical swing voter in Minnesota remains the suburban mom with kids–the soccer mom. These women are less and less likely to vote GOP because of its agenda. These women are worried about family issues–early childhood ed, K-12, jobs, and health care for their children. Minnesota’s Third District is soccer mom heaven. It is heavily dominated by soccer moms in the suburbs, and they are ready to swing.

Some analysis and polls suggest Paulsen’s agenda is way out of line with voters here. Less than half have a favorable view of him, with many outright unwilling to vote for him again were there a choice. This is where Jim Meffert comes in.

Who is Jim Meffert?
Jim Meffert is a terrific candidate for the third district, if only he could get the attention of the media, Democrats, and the voters. He is a St. Olaf grad, serving there as the president of the college Republicans. He became a Democrat because, like the soccer moms of his district, he saw the GOP moving in a direction he did not like. Jim has worked with the PTA and on education issues, he comes from peace and justice wing of the religious community, and he talks of government and business working together to solve problems. All of these are perfect themes for this district.

Final Thoughts
Yet so far his race has not received the attention it deserves. Democrats are too preoccupied with Bachmann, in part because she is a fundraising tool. She is the bogey(wo)man they can use to raise money. Keith Olbermann and MSMBC give her too much attention, in large part to hype their own ratings. Too much media attention is focused on Clark and Bachmann, like the train wreck we cannot resist watching. Or it reminds me of that old commercial–“I have fallen and can’t get up.” Here, the media and Democrats cannot resist covering or giving money in this race. They seem foolishly fixed on the race. Yes it may be sexy to cover or think about it. But if the real goal of Democrats is to win races, the right mix of money, media, and luck could make this a real race and seat they could win.