Cheney and Gingrich: the GOP's worst enemies

Already, more than a few Republican pols are steaming down the dual tracks of fear and loathing -- of their own.

At first it all seemed so happily serendipitous -- the self-presented target of San Francisco-überliberal Nancy Pelosi; plus, like manna from heaven, visions of pampered, Gitmo-released, daggers-in-their-teeth, swarthy terrorists roaming the streets of wholesome Des Moines at Barack Obama's invitation -- almost gifts from St. Jude, the saint of hopeless causes, including hopelessly imprudent political parties.

But now it appears the good saint carries boomerangs of regret as well as crosses of hope.

With respect to Pelosi, "After a one-two punch from Newt Gingrich and Dick Cheney," as Politico has reported, "House Minority Leader John Boehner and other Republican lawmakers worry that their party has overplayed its hand."

The specter of the ghoulish former vice president -- who by the way had had his own problems with the CIA -- nipping in his standard unchivalrous fashion at Pelosi's speakership heels was bad enough. But the GOP went and put Newt Gingrich in charge of the general attack, whose ultimate goal -- "Pelosi's ouster" -- is now being described as quixotically "unattainable."

That means this overeager saga has evolved into a tale of yet more GOP extremism and yet another GOP failure. And as one "senior Republican lawmaker" so aptly framed it: "If the story becomes about us and not her, it’s a problem for us." It did and it is.

The "problem" wasn't unforeseeable. As Democratic Congressman Bill Delahunt mused: "The best thing for anyone, let alone Nancy Pelosi, is to be the subject of a petty, venal, absurd attack by Newt Gingrich. He’s the gift that keeps on giving."

Yet, almost unbelievably, some amorphous strategy team inside the GOP is shipping Newt out to give some more tomorrow on "Meet the Press" -- to the ongoing horror of Republican moderates, whatever their shrinking numbers, everywhere.

But that ain't the half of it. The party's much larger problem is the hauntings of Dick Cheney.

In time, the geniuses at GOP Strategy Central will undoubtedly ask Newt to sheath his Pelosi-directed sword. Given his presidential aspirations and their concomitant need for some internal brotherly love, Newt will likely listen and obey. But Cheney has no such restraining aspirations for the future. What's more, he knows he's singularly right -- about everything -- while everyone else is wrong. And in this final act of his tragic life he means to let you know it.

In short, he doesn't give a damn about his party and its needs. And what is it his party needs now more than ever? You got it: the retention as well as return of moderates -- which is going to be slow going, or no going, as long as Dick Cheney is out there, recementing the party's image as one of hateful immoderation.

His initial national-security barbs at Obama were, in general, viewed by his party as helpful. He was a man of national conservative presence, but his out-of-office presence allowed him to take on the most popular pol in America without hammering the appearance of a direct GOP assault.

Cheneyism, however, has since become core Republicanism. The former's message as well as dark image could not be contained; now the moderates are fleeing from any association.

To date, John McCain has been perhaps the bluntest in his open disgust. When "asked about Cheney’s role in the party," the party's former presidential candidate -- and by all rights its titular head -- snapped: "I don’t have the time or energy to discuss that -- or the inclination."

When asked if she might want any campaign assistance from her party's former vice president, Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski said, pointedly and tellingly, "You know, I haven’t thought that far." Chimed Utah Sen. Robert Bennett, who, not incidentally, has a 2010 primary challenger: "The most powerful national politician in Utah is Mitt Romney, and he’s already come to Utah to campaign for me. And I think I’ll leave it at that." Utah, no less.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee's head, John Cornyn, said two days ago -- the day of Cheney's pro-torture, pro-Gitmo speech -- that he’d be "proud to appear with the vice president anywhere, anytime"; nonetheless "in the next breath, Cornyn said it would be up to individual GOP candidates to decide whether they want Cheney campaigning with them in 2010."

In Florida, Ohio and North Carolina, Democrats seized on Cornyn’s suggestion and pressured GOP candidates in those states to choose whether they want Cheney to stump in their states. Neither former Rep. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) nor Florida Gov. Charlie Crist -- both of whom are running for the Senate in 2010 -- responded to requests for comment about Cheney’s role, or lack thereof, in their campaigns.

As for North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr? "I’m not going to go there yet."

Sometimes it is well to remember that inside every silver lining there is a cloud. The GOP is now stuck with one that it can't just whisk away. While party moderates can indeed avoid further association with Dick Cheney, they cannot very easily shut down his increasing identification as the party itself. And that, as that Republican lawmaker said of the much shorter-term Pelosi affair, is a real "problem."