Newt's Implosion
The Gingrich campaign has collapsed so rapidly, so abruptly, and so seemingly hopelessly that it seems incredible that anybody could ever have thought of Newt Gingrich as a serious candidate for president.
Yet only a few months ago, Gingrich ranked as one of the four top-tier candidates for president, along with Huckabee, Palin, and Romney.
Now consider what's left of the field.
Huckabee decided no-go, as did Mitch Daniels, Haley Barbour, and Jeb Bush. Palin is ... Palin. The Trump candidacy aborted on the launch pad. Rick Perry is thinking about it, but making no sign of movement. Rudy Giuliani is talking about it, but ditto. Chris Christie and Paul Ryan are waiting for a draft. Marco Rubio is waiting for the vice presidency. Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain are sports and diversions, Rick Santorum not even that.
So what's left? We're down to a three-person field: Romney, Tim Pawlenty and Jon Huntsman. Huntsman appeals to me, which suggests bad news for him. Which reduces us to a Romney vs. Pawlenty race.
Probably most pundits would give the edge to Pawlenty in such a contest. He's been consistent on abortion, he did not impose 'Hitlercare' on his state, and he has just proposed a whopping great big tax cut.
Yet Romney has out-organized and out-fundraised Pawlenty for months. Romney has avoided over-identification with the lethal Ryan plan, which Pawlenty has not. When Romney meets big-dollar donors, they leave the room feeling impressed. Pawlenty? Not so much.
So here's the question: If Romney does win, how do we make sense of the media narrative of the past 2 1/2 years? Does it mean that the Tea Party was overhyped from the start? Or that Tea Party candidates somehow canceled each other out? Or was the problem one of followership -- that Tea Party voters were drawn to candidates so fatally flawed that they failed before they had properly begun?