Gingrich's South Carolina victory is in reality, it seems to me, a momentary far-right surrender; an overt admission from the reddest of the red that their party will never whip Barack Obama in November, so why not revel in an utterly futile, barn-burning hurrah?
They are now mired squarely in the muck of Goldwater territory -- the gold standard of wild political swinging, of political hopelessness, of political collapse. Tonight, the Grand Old Party, in an intoxicated stupor of Gingrichian ire, conceded wholesale irrelevancy and inescapable defeat.
I do not, however, expect the party's drunken jag to last. A sobering-up period would seem inevitable, or at least such periods usually are. The stark horror of a Gingrich nomination will ripple throughout the remaining lower 47's base; the faithful will suddenly take heart that Mitt Romney actually knows how to run for office; they'll convince themselves out of desperate ideological necessity that Obama is indeed vulnerable.
Which he isn't -- not given what the GOP is coughing up this year, whether it's a Romney or a Gingrich. No way.
***
Update: While listening to Gingrich's losing victory speech tonight I got the creepy feeling that he, too -- not just Ron Paul -- is running to lead a radical movement, and not, after all, win a major party's nomination. His "Saul Alinsky" drivel was astonishingly off-key, even for the contemporary GOP, but it is likely destined to keep him and Callista in clover well after this race.
I think we may thank people like John King who asked that first question about open marriage at the last debate. That was calculated to elicit one of Newt's patented media attacks. Pure red meat and King opened the buffet. Elsewhere I have mentioned that I think this was a calculated move to show Newt at his pugilistic finest. Without a horse race what would the pundits and journalists have to prognosticate about. That is cynical perhaps but I believe it to be true. We'll see if the Republicans regret indulging their inner desires for a firebrand to speak on their behalf.
Posted by: Peter G | January 21, 2012 at 07:50 PM
Be prepared for the false equivalence between this race and Obama - Clinton. You know, the extended contest makes the eventual winner stronger.
Democrats, being Democrats, would not harbor dirty fighting between a woman and a black man. So, as fierce as the race was, all blows were above the belt.
Gordon Gecko and Boss Hogg will have no such constraints. After 30 days of mud wrestling, the winner will be the one one that does not have to face Obama.
Posted by: Robert Lipscomb | January 21, 2012 at 08:22 PM
There is nothing radical about Ron Paul's wanting to return to the Constitutional form of government that made this nation great, rather than continue on with the same failed fascist policies and private central banking which wrecked it.
Posted by: Michael Rivero | January 22, 2012 at 10:40 AM
I for one, am not ready to buy into the notion that Obama is lucky when it comes to this sorry bunch of presidential hopefuls. I refuse to underestimate the power of the blinding hatred of Obama on the right and the petulance of some on the left who don't think he's done enough and will want to just stay home on election day.
Posted by: AnneJ. | January 22, 2012 at 11:42 AM
Ron Paul is the only candidate who isn't completely owned by Wall Street, the central bankers and the major war profiteers. All the others including Obama are puppets who will continue to facilitate the looting and destruction of the US. There's nothing radical about following the Constitution, the primary law of the land. There's nothing radical about not attacking and occupying countries that are no threat to us. The radicals are the ones currently in power.
Posted by: Mr. Mojo | January 22, 2012 at 01:48 PM
A 27% higher turnout that in 2008. Is that unusual? And the diebold voting machines - where nobody can check or recount the votes. Isn't that contrary to all good voting practice too? I'm beginning to view USA elections with the same mix of horror and fascination that I used to get when watching Mugabe and other 3rd World despots "win" their elections. Ron Paul appears to be America's only hope - but the rigged elections (and media!) are giving him one hell of a rough time.
Posted by: Cllr Chris, UK | January 22, 2012 at 02:56 PM
It was laughable to watch Newt have his "Harumph! How dare you!" moment. Since his adultery is indefensible, he goes on the attack instead. What bothers me is how many gullible "Christians" ate that performance up. I'd love to see him and his ex-wife take a polygraph test for Maury. ;-)
Posted by: AndersonC | January 22, 2012 at 06:00 PM
Darn an infestation of libertarians! I've met many Ron Paul types over the years. Poorly informed about basic theory in economics and damned near everything else. Yet they always seem to have a coterie of even less informed acolytes prepared to spread the word that they don't even understand. I guess some dummies have to buy gold.
Posted by: Peter G | January 22, 2012 at 06:47 PM
Btw Chris Clir, it was an open primary which allowed independents to vote for the Republican primary. Absent a democratic primary to absorb some of these independents I don't think the increase on the Republican side was entirely unexpected.
Posted by: Peter G | January 22, 2012 at 06:49 PM
Oh, is that right Peter G.? And what "type" are you? Are you are pro-war,pro-Israel,pro-NAFTA, pro-bailout Republican or Democrat? Since you are obviously so well informed, then you should have noticed that they are all exactly the same.
Only Ron Paul stands for FREEDOM.
Posted by: Goliath | January 23, 2012 at 10:06 AM
No Ron Paul stands for Lyndon LaRouche without the Obama-as-Hitler posters.
Not out in public, anyway.
Posted by: janicket | January 23, 2012 at 06:04 PM