National Review is not a fan of Newt Gingrich:

Exit polls suggest that South Carolina Republicans considered Gingrich the most electable candidate. He argues that he would make the strongest Republican nominee because he would be able to beat Obama in debates — a claim that his strong performance in the Republican debates so far reinforces.

Gingrich’s best moments in the debates have come when he has hammered the press for liberalism and triviality. Republicans have responded positively, in part because they think, as we do, that the mainstream media has had too much influence over the Republican nomination contest because of all of these media-sponsored debates. The general election will be very different. It is unlikely that the debates will be as numerous or will matter as much; they rarely do.

The public at large dislikes the media too, but not with the same intensity that conservatives do: Gingrich as nominee would have to train his fire on Obama, who will be able to fight back as John King could not. Nor will the public at large be as impressed by Gingrich’s willingness to attack Obama as a clueless radical as Republicans are. (If voters decide in 2012 to reward the most slashing or sardonic debater before them with the presidency, it will be a first.) When Republicans found themselves in tight spots during the Reagan presidency, they waited for their leader to give a speech to show them the way forward and rally the troops. When Gingrich was Speaker, Republicans never sought him to intervene in legislative debates to turn the tide.

There is much more to general elections than debates, and there is much more to the presidency than giving speeches. On an intellectual level Gingrich knows this, but he has little experience either in contesting elections with large numbers of voters of varying views or in running large organizations. [Mitt] Romney has executive experience, unlike Gingrich or [Rick] Santorum, and in past elections voters have seemed to value that experience. But at least Santorum, like Romney, has been elected to statewide office before, and like Romney has shown himself able to reach beyond the Republican base in doing so. Santorum’s record in this regard beats Romney’s, since Santorum won statewide in Pennsylvania twice. Only Gingrich has never been elected to office from anything larger than a congressional district; only Gingrich has never had to reach beyond the Republican base vote to win an election.

Gingrich has been a nationally known figure for a long time: when the economy was booming and when it has been in a slump; when Republicans were on top and when the public disliked them; when the national mood was sunny and when it was sour. Amid all the tumult of the last 18 years there has been this constant: Gingrich has never been popular. Polls have never shown more than 43 percent of the public viewing him favorably at any point in his career. Gingrich backers say that he is inspiring. What he mostly seems to inspire is opposition.

It should go without saying that Gingrich also offers more material than the other candidates for Democrats to drive his numbers in the wrong direction. Any Republican nominee will draw criticism for being too biased toward the rich. Not every Republican nominee will be attacked for cruelty in his personal life.

Speaking of “cruelty in his personal life,” there is the obvious comparison of Gingrich and Bill Clinton, a comparison that Gingrich can’t win in National Review editor Rich Lowry‘s mind:

Newt is the Republican Clinton — shameless, needy, hopelessly egotistical. The two former adversaries and tentative partners have largely the same set of faults and talents. They are self-indulgent, prone to disregard rules inconvenient to them, and consumed by ambition. They are glib, knowledgeable, and imaginative. They are baby boomers who hadn’t fully grown up even when they occupied two of the most powerful offices in the land.

Steven Gillon, author of The Pact, a book about the Gingrich–Clinton interplay in the 1990s, was struck by their “unique personal chemistry, which traced back to their childhoods.” Both were raised by distant or abusive stepfathers and surrounded by strong women. Both were drawn to politics and wanted to serve, in Newt’s case on a vast, civilizational scale. Both were allegedly sleeping around on the campaign trail before they had won anything.

Yet their personalities are different. Growing up in an alcoholic household, Gillon notes, Clinton was a natural conciliator. Gingrich was given to defiance. Clinton was gregarious, a people-pleaser. Gingrich was bookish, a lecturer at heart. Clinton made his way in politics in the unfriendly territory of Arkansas; he had to dodge and weave and seduce. Gingrich climbed through the ranks of the House Republican conference; he stood out as a partisan provocateur.

And so he remains today. He utterly lacks the Clinton soft touch. No one will ever consider him a lovable rogue. Quin Hillyer of the American Spectator says he’s the “Bill Clinton of the Right with half the charm and twice the abrasiveness.” Republican voters lit up by his debate performances believe he’s the most electable candidate, even though the three recent national polls show him with a favorable rating in the 20s. Presidents dip that low after they lose a war or before they get impeached. Newt Gingrich starts out there.

Could he turn it around with smashing debate performances against President Barack Obama in the fall? Doubtful. In a presidential debate, a candidate’s bearing matters. Al Gore may have beaten George W. Bush on points in their first debate in 2000, but he audibly sighed. That small indicator of an arrogant impatience sank him. If Gingrich shows the slightest bombast or ill temper, if he hectors or gives off a sense of intellectual superiority — in short, if he conducts himself in a typical Gingrichian manner — he will lose the debates in a rout even if he bests President Obama on the merits.

Debates are overrated anyway; if debates determined the best president, then high school forensics competitors should run for president. The scorched-earth campaigning that Gingrich supporters appear to want from their man is not likely to convince the few undecided voters that Gingrich is a better choice. And, as with Clinton two decades ago, I still wait to hear how serial adultery isn’t a sign of someone’s character.

The State of the Union address is tonight.

Since I have something better to do (my son’s Cub Scout Pack meeting), I won’t be watching unless Obama drones on after we get home.

Presidents occasionally use visual aids in their State of the Union addresses. (Remember Bill Clinton’s Hillarycare card?) I’m confident you will not see visual aids like this, from Gallup via Doug Ross:

Those are record bad numbers, according to Ross:

… Among the Gallup observations: “As President Barack Obama prepares his annual address to Congress, Americans are broadly dissatisfied with the state of the nation in several specific issue areas, with satisfaction down sharply in some cases since January 2008. However, three issues — the nation’s economy, the size and power of the federal government, and the moral and ethical climate in the country — fit both of these unwelcome criteria.” And with the only response the administration has in the past three years consisting of either printing more money which sends all assets, especially energy, higher in price, or fiscal stimulus of which 90% and more is lost due to inefficiencies and corruption, we don’t see satisfaction rising any time soon.

The second, from the American Enterprise Institute, posits how a venture capital firm might analyze this country’s fiscal situation:

A week ago, I wrote about Fox News psychiatrist Keith Ablow and his partially dubious claim that binge drinking statistics prove we’re becoming “a nation of drunks.”

Ablow must have been drinking a lot of something to believe this about presidential candidate Newt Gingrich (yes, this Newt Gingrich):

I will tell you what Mr. Gingrich’s personal history actually means for those of us who want to right the economy, see our neighbors and friends go back to work, promote freedom here and abroad and defeat the growing threat posed by Iran and other evil regimes.

First, one note on what Mr. Gingrich’s married life, including his history of infidelity does not mean: It does not mean that Mr. Gingrich would be unfaithful to the United States of America or the Constitution of the United States.

You can take any moral position you like about men and women who cheat while married, but there simply is no correlation, whatsoever—from a psychological perspective—between whether they can remain true to their wedding vows and whether they can remain true to the Oath of Office.

I want to be coldly analytical, not moralize, here. I want to tell you what Mr. Gingrich’s behavior could mean for the country, not for the future of his current marriage. So, here’s what one interested in making America stronger can reasonably conclude—psychologically—from Mr. Gingrich’s behavior during his three marriages:

1) Three women have met Mr. Gingrich and been so moved by his emotional energy and intellect that they decided they wanted to spend the rest of their lives with him.

2) Two of these women felt this way even though Mr. Gingrich was already married.

3 ) One of them felt this way even though Mr. Gingrich was already married for the second time, was not exactly her equal in the looks department and had a wife (Marianne) who wanted to make his life without her as painful as possible.

Conclusion: When three women want to sign on for life with a man who is now running for president, I worry more about whether we’ll be clamoring for a third Gingrich term, not whether we’ll want to let him go after one.

Well, Gingrich’s opponent during the 1990s, President Bill Clinton, apparently was able to use “his emotional energy and intellect” to similarly “move” women to whom he was not married as well.

During the attempt to impeach Clinton in the late 1990s, I wrote that if someone was willing to violate vows made before God, his spouse and the community, one should wonder what other vows he’d be willing to violate as well. The question still bears asking with Gingrich, who, let’s remember, cheated on his first wife with a woman who he married and then cheated on with the woman who became his third wife. (Hard to follow, isn’t it?)

I have no idea, nor do I particularly care, about what went on to dissolve marriages one and two. That’s Gingrich’s problem. But Ablow claims “no correlation, whatsoever—from a psychological perspective—between whether they can remain true to their wedding vows and whether they can remain true to the Oath of Office” while presenting no evidence to support his assertion. And whether voters can trust Gingrich is certainly Gingrich’s problem.

Ablow wants us to believe that Gingrich may be the man to lead our country based on this:

Two women—Mr. Gingrich’s first two wives—have sat down with him while he delivered to them incredibly painful truths: that he no longer loved them as he did before, that he had fallen in love with other women and that he needed to follow his heart, despite the great price he would pay financially and the risk he would be taking with his reputation.

Conclusion: I can only hope Mr. Gingrich will be as direct and unsparing with the Congress, the American people and our allies. If this nation must now move with conviction in the direction of its heart, Newt Gingrich is obviously no stranger to that journey.

Conclusion: Ablow is channeling his inner Oprah Winfrey in writing this bilge. The next time I see a Corvette, perhaps I should follow my heart and steal it, because I really want a Corvette. That is the same line of reasoning Ablow wants us to buy with Gingrich.