A fair and balanced appraisal of Mitt vs. Newt by Charles Krauthammer. He nails my own main objection to Gingrich:
Take that ad Gingrich did with Nancy Pelosi on global warming, advocating urgent government action. He laughs it off today with "that is probably the dumbest single thing I've done in recent years. It is inexplicable."
This will not do. He was obviously thinking something. What was it? Thinking of himself as a grand world-historical figure, attuned to the latest intellectual trend (preferably one with a tinge of futurism and science, like global warming), demonstrating his own incomparable depth and farsightedness. Made even more profound and fundamental -- his favorite adjectives -- if done in collaboration with a Nancy Pelosi, Patrick Kennedy or even Al Sharpton, offering yet more evidence of transcendent, trans-partisan uniqueness...
[He is] possessed of an unbounded need for grand display ... that as president would leave him in constant search of the out-of-box experience -- the confoundedly brilliant Nixon-to-China flipperoo regarding his fancy of the day, be it health care, taxes, energy, foreign policy, whatever.
Exactly. An undisciplined overconfident creative thinker (let's be generous) is one thing in Congress, quite another in the White House. It pains me to say it, now that Romney has chosen to demagogue immigration policy while Gingrich has been brave, but the Newt surge amazes me. I know it has come as an afterthought, out of desperation, following the elimination of every other conceivable non-Romney. And as a famous detective liked to say, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Even so.
You have to wonder if literally anything is possible in American politics.
This article available online at: