More than anything, the GOP wants to take back the White House, not just posture, and the only candidate who has consistently polled even with Obama has been Mitt, and because Mitt has done his groundwork in the last four years, he is drawing the lion's share of establishment support and money. And, despite all the criticism of Romney's flip-flopping, he has managed to position himself in a very interesting way, taking centrist stances on lots of issues in prep for the general, but harder lines on tax reform and immigration for the nomination, and on the latter issue a harder line than some of his supposedly more conservative rivals. Gingrich has been out of power for more than a decade, has his own flip-flop issues, has articulated positions lately that are likely to alienate the conservatives he has to court, and is incredibly undisciplined and gaffe-prone. He is just all-around a much spookier, and more hostile, general election candidate than Romney is. One paper's endorsement doesn't change any of that. It's the sudden, flash in the pan, support for Gingrich that strikes me as an inch deep, not Romney's. I'm sure my own biases are showing in this assessment, of course, so, JMO. But if I were on the Obama campaign staff, I'd rest a lot easier with a Gingrich nomination than with a Romney nomination, for lots and lots of reasons.
anvi, to a large extent the general election race will depend on how the economy does, not how the candidates do. It's one reason why the republican base is not making electability a litmus test. As for myself, yes Gingrich has his problems, but Romney's flip-flops have always been a little too politically convenient.
