South Carolina's conservative voters chose a GOP presidential candidate on Saturday who has unfavorable ratings nationally of 58-60%.
Newt Gingrich, despite his willingness to bait white conservative voters through outrageous racist arguments, would be utterly humiliated in a national election against Barack Obama. That is why Democrats are saying of a Gingrich candidacy...bring it the hell on.
When you give it some thought, perhaps Gingrich would be the right candidate at the right time....not for the nation, of course....but for the Republican Party. Perhaps a forty state loss to Obama and the national embarrassment that a Gingrich presidential campaign would soil his party with....would finally be enough to persuade the Party Of Lincoln....to reform it's damned self.
One can hope.
However, with 60% disapproval numbers nationally.....it's not likely that Republican primary voters in the other states that are not South Carolina will be so willing to experience the national-party humiliation that a Gingrich presidential candidacy would surely bring to the GOP. Possible? Yes. But not likely.
Even MSNBC's Morning Blow (sic) Scarborough knows what a lot of other non-S. Carolinian Republicans know.....
"Mitt Romney could attack Newt for not being a conservative because Newt is not a conservative. Google it! We [Republicans] ran him out of Congress in 1998 because he sold us out on taxes, he sold us out on spending, he went to the floor and he sided with Democrats on his last speech, calling us the perfectionists caucus. He called us jihadists. He's not a conservative..."
Not exactly nuanced.
So again...that leaves Mitt Romney.
If Romney is the eventual GOP nominee, he plans on running against President Obama by hammering him on his economic record. But how convincing of an argument can Romney make against Obama's economic record when he says stuff like this....
(Radio show host Laura)INGRAHAM: Youíve also noted that there are signs of improvement on the horizon in the economy. How do you answer the presidentís argument that the economy is getting better in a general election campaign if you yourself are saying itís getting better?
ROMNEY: Well, of course itís getting better. The economy always gets better after a recession, there is always a recovery. [Ö]
INGRAHAM: Isnít it a hard argument to make if youíre saying, like, OK, he inherited this recession, he took a bunch of steps to try to turn the economy around, and now, weíre seeing more jobs, but vote against him anyway? Isnít that a hard argument to make? Is that a stark enough contrast?
ROMNEY: Have you got a better one, Laura? It just happens to be the truth.
Romney is aware of the data which I shared with readers on January 11th. Almost two years worth of consecutive private sector job growth, a bullish stock market, record corporate profits, and returning consumer confidence is all evidence pointing to a recovering economy.
But if Romney's plan is to hit Obama hard on the national economy.....and yet, according to Romney, the economy is "getting better" under Obama's leadership....how do Mitt and the Republicans expect to make a compelling argument for changing presidents?
Rock...meet hard place.
In essence then, conservative, anti-Obama voters have two choices in front of them. Pick a guy who the nation overwhelmingly disapproves of in Newton Gingrich, or pick a guy who thinks that President Obama's stewardship of the nation's economy is producing positive results.
All of this puts flesh to Ann Coulter's bony framing awhile back that if
Chris Christie didn't enter the race, Romney would be the candidate and the GOP
will lose to President Obama.
Sadly...and most likely discouraging for conservative Republican voters....is the reality that Ann Coulter, like a blind (though hideously skinny) pig, actually stumbled onto an acorn of truth.