But, entertain me if you will, with a comparison to a former president who, back in his campaign, seemed a lot like dear old Newt is today. Richard Nixon in 1967 was washed up. He served as Ike’s VP in the ’50′s and lost an incredibly close close race to JFK for the White House in 1960. According to every rule of politics, he was destined to retire to the role of elder statesman, making some cash in the private sector while being a source fo advise for rising GOP stars. But, Nixon went against all conventional wisdom and, seizing an opportunity to win over a disillusioned public at a highly polarized time in American politics (huh, sounds a lot like today), won the nomination and the Presidency. Sure, Nixon and Gingrich are very different people — Nixon always put party-first, self-second, while Gingrich is more inclined to pull the GOP to wherever he wants it. But, it is eery how someone like Nixon, so outside of the political loop in 1967, was able to defeat both fading GOP star Nelson Rockefeller and Michigan Governor George Romney (yes, that would be Mitt Romney’s father) for the nomination. The key to Nixon’s success, though, was that he was a uniter when the country was divided; a proponent of “law-and-order” while police were beating rioters outside of the 1968 Democratic National Convention. If Gingrich wants any shot at nomination, he’s going to have to shed any divisive elements and campaign as the wise, experienced, uniting politician. Scarily, Gingrich as been trying this strategy to a certain degree — and it’s been working.

For one, stupid comments, even ones related to core elements of an electoral platform, don’t necessarily destroy a candidacy — if anything, let George W, Bush be a testament to that. But, more importantly, one has to realize that there are two ways to view the primary season: in the short-term and the long-term. Yes, in the short-term, Perry looks bad — besides “oops,” he has been a minor or embarrassing presence at all the recent debates, and since September has been on a long downward spiral in the polls, being beat not just by Mitt Romney but also Herman Cain and now even, shockingly, Newt Gingrich.

But, the great (or terrible, depending on your partisanship) thing about primary season is that it’s long, and people have short memories. Iowa is still two months away, and the Convention is in a distant nine. What this means is that, while the memory of debate performances will fade, two things will still remain come voting time — ideology and money. Perry, for all his problems and difficulties taking the national stage, is a Republican star in both. He’s the only candidate in the field that is both conservative enough for the Tea Party and insider enough for the establishment to be willing to at least give some support to. In money, Perry’s also a fundraising savant, a legend in raising campaign cash in Texas (even when compared to the greatest Republican fundraiser of the last decade, George W. Bush) who was able to raise cash twice as fast as Beltway-entrenched Romney.

But, even more important for Perry than his virtues are his opponents’ shortcomings. Cain and Gingrich are both jokes short on cash and support from GOP kingmakers — the two stepstools to winning Iowa, New Hampshire, and the nomination. Meanwhile Mr. Romneycare, while benefitting from all of the attention all the other candidates are getting, will never be absolved by a GOP establishment that fears the last time a moderate won the nomination — George H.W. “No New Taxes” Bush, who lost the White House to some upstart governor from Arkansas thanks to the former’s breaking that pledge. Thus, no matter how calm, cool, and collected Romney looks now, his kryptonite of Massachusetts healthcare and general lack of strong ideology will inevitably lose him the support of key GOP cash and endorsements and thus his chances of surviving post New Hampshire.

So, with no other choice, the party, and thus the voters, will inevitably turn, no matter how reluctantly, to the only other remotely feasible candidate — Rick “Oops” Perry. And, while the GOP may cringe at having to make this difficult, but necessary, choice, Barack Obama and Democrats will be thankful that this recent debate performance is hardly the defining element of Mr. Perry’s candidacy.

The film, directed by George Clooney, stars Clooney as PA Governor Mike Morris running for the Democratic nomination for President in the Ohio primary, and Ryan Gosling as his simultaneously slick and idealistic wunderkind communications head Stephen Meyers. Alongside them are Morris’s campaign manager Paul, played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Morris’s rival’s campaign manager Tom Duffy, played by Paul Giamatti, an NY Times reporter Ida (Marisa Tomei), and young intern Moly (Evan Rachel Wood).

The movie, is on the whole, very good. The cast are all great (especially Giamatti and Hoffman) and the directing is very well done. Clooney comes off as an inspirational, progressive fantasy democrat a la Martin Sheen in the West Wing or Barack Obama in 2008. But, the film does seem to merely mimic the same fare of basically ever other political movie — that is, politics makes young idealists into scheming cynics (The Candidate), inspiring candidates are never what they seem (Primary Colors), and people will do anything to keep power (State of Play). Still, the Ides of March is a very enjoyable film and, well let’s say it’ll be more fun then Mitt Romney and Herman Cain arguing about the right number of points a policy plan should have.

In other news, it’s been fun to see the Republican presidential candidates squirm on the issue.  It seems like Obama’s strategy has been vindicated so far – he’s solicited international support but accepted America’s leading role, seized a golden opportunity to topple Qadhafi but kept American boots off the ground.  The NATO bombing campaign did exactly what it should – weakened loyalist forces and allowed Libyans themselves to take their country back.  (Contrast with, say, the Rumsfeld doctrine in Iraq.)  Obama’s work as Commander-in-Chief has, briefly at least, silenced the peanut gallery.  Thus are the perils of dogmatically sniping at everything Obama does – when the results bear him out and the Republicans can’t admit it, they end up looking a little silly.

Whether or not you’d have voted for the deal yourself, I think we can all agree on three things: 1. it was necessary, 2. it was ugly, and 3. the whole situation was terrifying and irresponsible.  If you needed proof that the Republicans would rather take America down in flames than let Obama get something done, you’ve got it now.

Please don’t let this behavior get rewarded.  Washington Republicans are proving that they care very little about whether ordinary Americans sink or swim.  In 2012, let’s show them the feeling is mutual.

I am now working at Chemonics International, an international development contractor for USAID, which is a very interesting experience.  I am able to attend meetings and workshops where people who have just finished projects overseas come to discuss what they were able to accomplish and what they learned from their experiences.  I look forward to posting more about my experiences here and then later on as an intern for Chris Van Hollen in Rockville, Maryland.

Peter Gross is working for Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York

Allegra Pocinki is working for Chris Van Hollen, U.S. Representative from Maryland

Julio Alicea and Christina Keller are Chester Community Fellows through the Lang Center.  Julio is at the housing authority and Christina is at the library.

Swat Dems, let me know if you have any other interesting summer plans or if you’re interested in blogging about them for the Donkey!  Email me (Nick Allred) – you can find me on Swatmail or the Cygnet.

Willets Cat may have a lot of facebook friends, but they clearly didn’t turn out to vote in our special election.  Congratulations to Allegra and thanks to Julio Alicea for his distinguished tenure.  We wish him luck in Spain next semester.

Congratulations are in order as well to everyone who made it through finals, and particularly to graduating seniors.  We are losing some wonderful Dems.  Jon, Jordan, and the whole class of 2011 will be missed.

Unfortunately, there was something of a late-breaking news story and a quite-late-breaking White House address.  Thus, we rose at the crack of dawn on Monday May 2nd a little tired but ready to go down to Washington, low on sleep but high in spirits.

We came, we saw, we conquered.  We looked very spiffy in formal attire (photos to come).  We knew our facts stone cold.  We did it without accompaniment – in other words, aca-PellGrant.  (By far the day’s best/worst pun.)

Thanks very much to the offices of all five of the legislators with whom we met: Reps. Holt, Matheson, and Van Hollen and Senators Casey and Levin.  A special thanks to Swat alumnus Rep. Van Hollen in particular, who took the time to meet with us personally.