Thanks for the thoughtful comments.

I go against the grain in this way: I think Obama is going down: both Gingrich and Romney would defeat him – but I agree with you, Papa Dan, and J.J. Former Jimmy, that Gingrich has a better chance. I could see a scenario in which Axelrod and friends shake-up Romney to his core, i.e. cow Romney into a shadow of the candidate which Romney currently is. Gingrich would be far more difficult to shake-up in that way. Gingrich is far less brittle; more supple; takes a hit far better. And the hits will come. Big hits, at whomever is the Repub nominee. BIG HITS. Inevitable.

It is ironic that the 1990s era demonization of Gingrich is, now, to some degree, inoculating Gingrich (at least with undecided Repub voters).

Three potential POTUS candidates have come through media storms which have inoculated them with many future voters: Gingrich, Hillary, Palin. Odd, that. All three are pre-vetted. Voters do not worry about sudden surprises springing up regarding any of the three. Future voters will be less concerned with old charges against any of the three: the old charges will have lost some power. Media, via massively attacking Gingrich, Hillary, and Palin, actually did each of them a favor, via vetting them in the eyes of future voters.

Of course there are so many Obama failures and broken promises to highlight that just running on Obama’s non-record seems a no brainer. However, show-casing Obama’s goofs, flip flops, broken promises, and narcissistic detachment may be seen by many indies as too mean to that nice black man who is our president. (Or closet racism.) It certainly is the reaction among indies that I talk with.

Many indies don’t know why the economy is still in the doldrums. They have only a vague sense of understanding why an anti-business governmment can have such a chilling effect on economic activity. So, the R candidate must be prepared to educate the indies on economics and stay on an, “It’s the economy stupid,” message. IMO, either Gingrich or Romney could do that effectively. On the other hand the negatives that can be used against them are much greater in the case of Gingrich. (His involvement with Freddie Mac is really problematic, IMO.) Since neither man is a true conservative, (Bachmann, Santorum, and Perry come closer to those values) the next thing to be considered is electability. In other words, how they will play to indies. I’m thinking that Romney has the edge there, but that may be because I live in a neighborhood populated by mostly independents. In the enclave where I live there are three of us who are conservative, five who are hard core lefties, and thirty-one who call themselves independents. Not representative of the larger voting population, but it provides me with insight into other people’s political thinking, particularly the independents.

Believe me, I have been absolutely savage towards Romney in my comments on other threads, and I have the same concerns you do – I just wanted to back-up and get some detachment, just on the general principle that it’s a good idea to not let oneself blow things out of proportion.

Your point that these “tics” I’ve called attention to are signs of weakness is one I agree with. We just don’t know how much they’re going to matter should Romney make it to the general.

Despite the fact that I am very reluctantly supporting Newt because his rhetorical skills are light-years better than Romney’s – with all else being basically a wash – I’m able to do so only because I don’t think Newt is all that much more likely to lose to Obama than Romney. That is, I think all of the pundits have VASTLY overestimated Romney’s chances against Obama.

Nonetheless, I think Newt’s idea of following Obama around like Lincoln did to Douglas is daffy. I hope he’s just blowing smoke, because he’d look like a psycho stalker and would be portrayed as such if he actually followed through on it. But with regard to the topic at issue, my considerations boil down to these:

1) At this point in time, I’d put Romney’s chances against Obama at about 45%, and I’d put Newt’s about 40%.

2) We have (re-)learned from the Cain fiasco that voters can tolerate the devil they know, as opposed to finding out that an apparent saint has devilish qualities right now.

Romney has no skeletons, but his comportment and his sarcasm-laced insecurity are highly off-putting, and most people haven’t experienced that yet (the feeling of “not liking” him).

Gingrich has many skeletons that make him a known devil (people already know the feeling of “not liking” Newt), but if he continues to act mature and positive, sticking to policy and vision, he can activate the American urge to forgive the fallen – for we do love ourselves some redemption narratives. And I think Newt is skilled enough to manage the building of such a narrative.

Which is to say, the negatives of Romney will tend to be fresh but the negatives of Gingrich will tend to be old news. People will thus be comparing Romney’s flaws and virtues “in real time,” as it were, while they’ll be comparing Gringrich’s past failings with his present virtues. It’s a trust question in both cases, but the modality of it is different for the two of them. (This is an aggregate statement of course – many people will be learning about Newt for the first time, but everyone will be learning about Romney for the first time.)

3) Therefore, it is a risk to nominate either Romney or Gingrich (whereas the Romney pumpers don’t think it is risky to nominate Romney AT ALL – they act like his victory was every bit as foretold as the birth of Christ). Both could fall apart given the “gut” dynamics of the American center. Both, I believe, are more likely to lose than to win. So my question has simply been, Who has more of what I’d like? Newt does, because at least he is willing to articulate a vision.

Thin gruel, indeed, but that’s the gruel we were served by the field.

4) Obama had a vision in 2008; McCain did not. Obama will have no vision in 2012, and will instead go full-on Harry Truman.

My reading of the tea leaves is that if we send someone against him with no vision and no ability to connect on a gut level, then the center will go with the devil they know (Obama).

If we send someone with a vision who is willing to engage the American people on all sorts of emotional levels – activating the “redemption narrative” component of our psyche – we probably have a better chance. It goes without saying that the latter option is NOT safer, because the potential downside is heavy. Newt could just as well take the existing negativity toward him and square it – along with help from the media – in which case his vision probably won’t matter. Still, I think our best chance is to get the vision + the positive gut level engagement. Romney doesn’t give either, so he doesn’t give us the possibility of our best chance. He is more a completely steady decent chance. Newt, on the other hand, is more like a potential good chance and a potential awful chance, depending on how events pan out.

As Dirty Harry might say, How lucky do you feel, punk?

My personal inclination, given the facts on the ground, is to take a higher risk for what I judge to be a higher upside. Others think that the risk of Newt is TOO high, thus swamping whatever upside there might be – and they could be right. It’s just not what I see. Still, we agree in principle: If I thought Newt’s chances were as bad as that, then I wouldn’t take the risk.

And this all comes back to the dimensionality question. I honestly don’t blame any of the people in the Republican field for our current situation – they at least got some skin in the game, whatever their motivations. It’s our entire cowardly A-Team who I think is to blame. We the voters are simply trying to figure out how to play the best hand from the crappy cards we’ve been dealt.

Overall, because of such, I’m not to sanguine about America’s chances of returning to her root values. But I’m too stubborn to quit pushing.

And I do find it passing strange that Perry gets no play in this thread: compared to the glaring defects of the candidates highlighted above, his “sins” are venial. He also has that all-important charisma factor going for him: he’s a hundred times more charming and likeable than either Newt or Mitt. Handsome, too.

All of which, plus his heartland values and overall conservatism, and the great Texas economy, make him a very attractive candidate. I find it hard to believe that he can be washed out the scuppers because he’s not a great debater. He does do very well in one on one interviews.

I think he’d have a better chance of winning over the indies. They’d like him a lot more, and would feel more comfortable with him, than with either Mitt or Newt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiCRW5zGSG4&feature=player_embedded

I really like him. Warm, patriotic family man: and Texas’s economy is Booming.

Or, we could vote for the best captain for the high school debate team.

I don’t remember the precise details, but they used some esoteric parliamentary procedure that would have required more votes than a simple majority. There is NO excuse for that. That was an issue that should have gotten broad bipartisan support among both Republican and Democrat voters. Nobody apart from green extremists wants the federal government to dictate what kind of light bulbs we are permitted to use.

Read Romney’s (likely focus group-tested) economic plan and tell me if there’s anything objectionable in it. It seems solid. How is Gingrich different on the most important issue?

And actually, here’s a decent comparison:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2011/1201/Newt-Gingrich-and-Mitt-Romney-How-different-are-they-on-the-economy

Newt just has slightly more conservative ideas, which have less chance of actually being implemented. That is basically the Gingrich primary dilemma in a nutshell.

Testify!

The way righties have made repeal of Obamacare a linchpin issue will lead to losses on pretty much every other issue. Significant tax restructuring? No, but I will repeal Obamacare! Make the border secure? Sounds good, but did I mention I will repeal Obamacare! Remake the Defense department to reflect the 21st-Century world? I will keep *your* local contractor employed, and I will repeal Obamacare! Reign in the EPA, sure, after we Repeal Obamacare!

If politics is the art of the possible, how much more freedom do we have to give up in order to get a little back? The ratchet of government goes only one way. If we don’t vote a revolution, one will be delivered upon us anyway.

Gingrich is not the droid were are looking for.

Excellent points, across the board.

A thing, about some 1950s/1960s style salesmanship, which grates … is that TECHNIQUES were substituted .. in place of getting at the genuine truth about various concerns of customers.

I do not want to endlessly repeat my criticisms of Romney. Yet, I suspect you partially object to your perceived Romney-1950s-salesmanship … not merely b/c of voice inflection … but also b/c Romney often substitutes TECHNIQUES in place of getting at the genuine truth about various concerns of voters.

Romney supporters see this as slickness and capability. I do not. I see it as weakness. I see it as lack of capability. I see it as a sign of extreme narcissistic weakness and brittleness. I see it as a major part of the reason Romney leaves 80% of Repub voters feeling cold.

When Romney is challenged, I do not see him as capable and slick. I look at his facial expression and body language, and I see, again and again, a frightened rabbit who is desperately trying to cover up. I do not see a strong candidate. I see a vulnerable, fatally flawed candidate. I do not think Romney is more slick and more electable. I think Romney is massively vulnerable and therefore less electable.

And, I do not want my comments to be consistent Romney bashers. But, I think this is relevant for this point in this thread.