There is no question that Newt Gingrich connects with voters during his debate performances. This is also no question that he is studied in history. He threw enough “red meat” to the Conservative audience in South Carolina that you wouldn’t believe he’s failed in New Hampshire and Iowa.
Gingrich claims he’s the only candidate who could seriously take on President Obama in debates. But will debating be enough?
President Obama has no need to comply with Gingrich’s plan for three three-hour debates. The President doesn’t have to do any. I’m sure we’ll see at least one debate but what would President Obama gain from participating in more than one?
The President has been campaigning since taking office. He has a mammoth war chest in which to hammer any opponent. He has a history of politically destroying anyone who stands in his way. What chance would Gingrich have?
1) Gingrich has a temper that gets him in trouble. Team Obama would certainly tap into his fury. 2) There’s the past life of the former Speaker that will dog him throughout the campaign. (Telling people you’ve asked forgiveness from God is not enough for most Evangelicals) 3) Gingrich pulls the same amount of hate as likeability. He’s similar to Hillary Clinton in this aspect. Could he overcome the media-driven perception of him?
Of course there are quite a number of appealing aspects to Candidate Gingrich. We saw the best during the South Carolina debate. Could he stay above the “gotcha questions” from the media to speak his plan? Could he provide the clear alternative to President Obama’s vision to grab the zeal of moderates?
There is no doubt an Obama/Gingrich race would be entertaining – to say the least. It’s one I would like to watch. An Obama/Romney race sounds as fun as basket weaving. I want to see two candidates with completely different views of government and visions for our country. An Obama/Gingrich contest would provide that stark contrast. It’s what we need.
