Why Not Newt?

By Charlie Cook
© National Journal Group Inc.

January 18, 2005

This column was originally featured on CongressDaily/AM on January 18, 2005.

It's impossible to tell whether the story last week that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was contemplating a bid for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination was a real trial balloon or just some savvy publicist's great idea for drawing attention to Gingrich's new book. But it might not be quite as nutty as some, particularly Democrats, liberals and most journalists, think that the architect of the 1994 "Contract with America" electoral revolution might run and be a real player in the race.

A glance at the early polls testing preliminary support (or at least name recognition) for those mentioned as possible candidates reveals that the former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Sen. John McCain of Arizona start out as the co-front-runners. A December 17-19 Associated Press/Ipsos survey of 381 Republicans and independents who say they vote in GOP primaries showed Giuliani with 29 percent to McCain's 25 percent, while Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Florida Gov. Jeb Bush were tied for third with 7 percent each. Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and New York Gov. George Pataki tied with 3 percent each, with Sen. George Allen of Virginia next with 2 percent. Rounding out the field were Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and Sen. Chuck Hagel; each had 1 percent.

Of course, not all of these candidates are running, while others -- Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, for instance -- have been frequenting Iowa of late. This poll is a measurement of name recognition more than anything else. But let's assume for the moment that Giuliani and McCain top the popularity contest.

It is not yet known whether the aversion that GOP establishments have toward the maverick McCain has dissipated any. The closer one gets to the middle of the ideological spectrum, the more independent a voter is, the more likely he or she thinks McCain is the cat's meow -- a great attribute in a general election, but not so great in winning a nomination. Clearly McCain's campaigning on behalf of President Bush was designed to repair some of that damage.

Giuliani, meanwhile, was one of the most popular campaign surrogates last year. Indeed, he was the "O Positive" surrogate, the universal donor -- you could send him anywhere for any candidate and he would be a big hit, even in the deep South. There is no doubt that Giuliani has an enormous reservoir of good will, and not just because of his performance in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 tragedy and leadership he provided. The guy was also a very effective mayor, turning around a city that had been dysfunctional for years, and making the place work reasonably well.

But while all of that may sound like very reasonable qualifications for someone to run for president, it is also true that Giuliani stands a world apart from the base of his party on many of the GOP's litmus-test issues. He is pro-choice on abortion, pro-gun control and supportive of gay rights. While these attributes would make Giuliani a perfect candidate for siphoning support away from all but the strongest Democratic nominee, and peel off countless independent and moderate voters in the middle of the spectrum, his stands on these social and cultural issues are the antithesis of where the party base is.

This is certainly not to suggest that there are no liberal or moderate Republican voters out there, people who are pro-choice or support gun control or gay rights, just as there are conservative and moderate Democrats who are pro-life, against gun control or gay marriage. But both groups are enormously outnumbered, particularly in their respective party's presidential nomination process.

Only a complete fool would make a prediction about a presidential election nearly four years out, but my hunch is that cows will fly before someone with Giuliani's ideological profile will win a GOP nomination this decade and probably next. At the same time, it is not at all clear to me that McCain will run, or that his relationship with the conservatives who dominate the process has improved enough for him to win a nomination.

And if one discounts the likelihood of either Giuliani or McCain winning the GOP nomination, the fight is as wide open as the Republican Party has seen since at least 1980 and probably much longer than that. This normally hierarchical party always has an heir apparent, but in 2008 it doesn't.

So if the fight for the GOP nomination is wide open, why doesn't Gingrich have a shot? Granted, last time I saw any favorable/unfavorable numbers on the former speaker among the electorate at large, they were hideous, but I suspect he remains a pretty popular figure among the GOP rank and file. He would almost certainly be able to raise significant amounts of money, and draw crowds of conservatives nearly anywhere he goes.

Gingrich is far from a front-runner -- after all, the contest is wide open, right? But the former speaker is a politician who would occupy a great deal of space in the race for a good long while, and make it more difficult for many of the lesser-known candidates, particularly those with somewhat limited political skills, to get any traction. That book tour might be worth watching.