Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin regularly score lower than their GOP rivals in general election matchups with Barack Obama, and both have a great excuse for it -- if they're not doing well, it's because they're too good.
As Gingrich's campaign has spun off track, he's offered a number of excuses, all of which render blame on anyone but himself.
Actually, strike that -- he does admit blame, but only, again, because he's too good.
In a speech today, he explained the continuing exodus of campaign staff:
"Philosophically, I am very different from normal politicians, and normal consultants found that very hard to deal with."
In other words, I'm not a normal politician.
Or, as Gingrich actually put it in explaining the debacle: If I am like a politician, I'm like that Ronald Reagan.
"Reagan was seen as a genuine outsider, and I think people here realize that I really am different."
In another interview, he claimed his political transcendence extended to his wife .
"Callista and I have a very similar relationship to Nancy and Ronnie Reagan.
.... I think that unnerved some of the consultants who thought they ought to own everything, they ought to control everything."
It's odd, isn't it, that Reagan actually found enough people to staff his two presidential administrations. Maybe that should be the subject of Newt's next (strike that -- "Newt and Callista's" next) book.
But perhaps Newt's clearest articulation of the "I'm Too Good" principle comes from May when he blamed his creativity and innovation for the fall-out after saying Paul Ryan was engaged in "right wing, social engineering.".
"My reaction is if you're the candidate of very dramatic change, it you're the candidate of really new ideas, you have to assume there's a certain amount of clutter and confusion and it takes a while to sort it all out, because you are doing something different."
It's very rare for someone to actually be too good.
For example, Einstein was rarely understood.
In fact, one of my favorite stories comes from his Atlantic crossing with the biochemist and president of the World Zionist Organization, Chaim Weizmann.
As they crossed the sea, Einstein explained all the ins and outs of his theory of relativity to Weizmann, who sat transfixed and humbled that he'd get such an intimate lecture.
After the two landed in America, a reporter asked Weizmann , a brilliant scientist himself, whether he now understood the theory.
Weizmann replied, nodding at Eintstein:
"He explained his theory to me everyday, and by the time we arrived, I was fully convinced that he really understands it."
Einstein could be accused of being too good to be gotten.
But Gingrich, his DVD's on Poland notwithstanding, doesn't seem in danger of that.
Sarah Palin is another candidate who seems chronically unable to acknowledge any flaw -- except for being too good.
In fact, she, like Newt, has already prepped an excuse for electoral failure. In explaining to the BBC why she might not run, she asked aloud...
"whether the American electorate is ready for someone a bit unconventional, who is willing to tell it as she sees it, not be beholden to special interest or such obsessive partisanship as to let a political machine get in the way of doing what's right for the voters."
In other words, if voters don't like her, it's only because they like corrupt, partisan politicians.
In a meeting last year with GOP luminaries in Florida, she sounded very Newtonian, telling the audience that she wasn't sure if voters were ready for her "unconventional" and "out-of-the-box" style.
How Newt Gingrich June 2011 does that sound?
It's not surprising at all that both Gingrich and Palin find it very difficult -- and very noxious -- to keep many advisers around. Advisers are supposed to counsel; not kow-tow, but to Palin and Gingrich, "unconventional" seems to mean "whatever my whimsy".
And if their whimsy crosses your judgment, guess which wins?
The only thing is that, in the end, a candidate starts to lose.
If there are no consultants left to blame, if there's no media left to accuse, if voters are left cold, there can be only one explanation for such a bad response -- the candidate is Shakespeare, and everyone else is alphabet soup.
Note: This is a new feature "Little Essays", where I take one news item from the day and write a longer entry on it.
Previous entries are "Huntsman Tries Selling Cool", "In Defense of Newt and Callista", "T-Paw: the Talking Car","Rick Perry is on the Move, and "Mitt Huntsman and Jon Romney (and scared Democrats)".
