Krauthammer: Mitt vs. Newt

It's Iowa minus one month, and barring yet another resurrection, or something of similar improbability, it's Mitt Romney​ versus Newt Gingrich​. In a match race, here's the scorecard:

Romney has managed to weather the debates unscathed. However, the brittleness he showed when confronted with the kind of informed follow-up questions that Bret Baier tossed his way Tuesday on Fox's "Special Report" -- the kind of scrutiny one doesn't get in multiplayer debates -- suggests that Romney may become increasingly vulnerable as the field narrows.

Moreover, Romney has profited from the temporary rise and spontaneous combustion of Michele Bachmann​, Rick Perry​ and Herman Cain​. It required no exertion on Romney's part.

Enter Gingrich, the current vessel for anti-Romney forces -- and likely the final one. Gingrich's obvious weakness is a history of flip-flops, zigzags and mind changes even more extensive than Romney's -- on climate change, the health care mandate, cap-and-trade, Libya, the Ryan Medicare plan, etc.

The list is long. But what distinguishes Gingrich from Romney -- and mitigates these heresies in the eyes of conservatives -- is that he authored a historic conservative triumph: the 1994 Republican takeover of the House after 40 years of Democratic control.

Which means that Gingrich's apostasies are seen as deviations from his conservative core -- while Romney's flip-flops are seen as deviations from ... nothing. Romney has no signature achievement, legislation or manifesto that identifies him as a core conservative.

So what is he? A center-right, classic Northeastern Republican who, over time, has adopted a specific, quite bold, thoroughly conservative platform. His entitlement reform, for example, is more courageous than that of any candidate, including Barack Obama. Nevertheless, the party base, ostentatiously pursuing serial suitors-of-the-month, considers him ideologically unreliable. Hence the current ardor for Gingrich.

More