With the bulk of the Republican Party finally waking up to Herman Cain’s foreign policy ignorance and his campaign’s ineptitude, the media has embraced the latest trend in the GOP race: the Newt Gingrich boomlet that has seen the former Speaker of the House’s poll numbers rise in recent weeks. As Alana noted, a McClatchy poll issued yesterday even shows him scoring the highest of any Republican in a head-to-head matchup versus President Obama.

The reasons for the rise of Gingrich are not obscure. Virtually every other candidate has had their 15 minutes of notoriety and soon collapsed. Gingrich, who has thrived in the numerous debates that have become the focus of the race, suddenly looks a lot more attractive than he did a few months ago if for no other reason than the alternatives. But before we start thinking seriously about the prospect of Gingrich actually winning the nomination, it is necessary to recall why it was that this possibility was so widely dismissed when his campaign was launched. If Gingrich is no longer merely one more talking head on the stage but a genuine contender, then we’re going to be hearing a lot more about why few thought his presidential ambitions realistic. Which is a polite way of saying it shouldn’t take too long for his bubble to burst.

The beauty of the debates for Gingrich is that they have taken the spotlight off of his record and personality and allowed him to play the role he likes best: the professorial ideas maven who rises above the political fray to pontificate on the great issues of the day. As Charles Krauthammer noted on Fox News yesterday, the comparison with the last two candidates to try on the role of conservative frontrunner — Herman Cain and Rick Perry — is especially flattering for Gingrich. Compared to Cain’s abysmal ignorance and cliché-ridden non-explanations of policy and Perry’s chronic case of foot-in-mouth disease, anyone would look like a genius, let alone a veteran policy wonk who has been part of our national political life for more than 30 years. So it’s no surprise that those Republicans shopping for a candidate not named Mitt Romney as well as some stray moderates might alight on Gingrich after watching him perform credibly on television. Though his big ideas are often as not superficial takes on the issues, he is what passes for an intellectual in our public life. That is no small thing in a field where some of the contenders have seemed to be in short supply of intellect.

But as much as the debates have dominated the campaign, the nomination will not be decided solely by what has become the nation’s favorite political reality show. If Gingrich is really going to challenge Romney, he will resume getting the scrutiny he has avoided since the spring. During the course of this period we’ve learned in excruciating detail about the name of Rick Perry’s hunting camp, Mitt Romney’s religious activities and his financial career, the sexual harassment charges leveled at Herman Cain and even Michele Bachmann’s headaches. But none of that compares to the mother lode of opposition research material that exists about Gingrich.

Even a brief summary of Gingrich’s baggage would require a great deal of space, but here are a few bullet points:

• Support for a government health care individual mandate that is comparable to the Massachusetts legislation that is the millstone around Romney’s neck.
• Consulting work done for the Freddie Mac government mortgage giant that helped sink the economy in 2008 and which is part of the mantra of GOP complaints about Democrats.
• Support for global warming initiatives including shooting an advocacy spot on the issue with Nancy Pelosi.
• His made-for-Iowa ethanol love affair.
• His bizarre flip-flops on foreign policy issues such as Libya.
• His tasteless personal attacks on the president such as claiming Obama was the product of a “Kenyan anti-colonial mentality.”
• His personal life and public hypocrisy.

In short, Gingrich can easily be portrayed as being as much, if not more of a RINO than Romney, which makes the case for his role as the new conservative “non-Romney” untenable.

As for the last item, many Republicans have taken to viewing any discussion of a candidate’s personal life as beyond the bounds of decency. Americans are basically forgiving of celebrity flaws so long as people are honest about them. Divorce hasn’t been a disqualifying factor in political life for several decades. But it would be dishonest to pretend Gingrich’s circumstances are not unique. Many Americans may not care that much about whether he cheated on his first two wives, but the fact that he was committing adultery with wife number three while married to number two at the same time that he was leading a moral and legal crusade against Bill Clinton for his peccadilloes remains one of the most loathsome examples of public hypocrisy by a major political figure in our nation’s history.

Even if you argue this is all in the past and forgiven, Gingrich has never stopped producing weird stories that, while not damning by themselves, paint a portrait of an unstable character on a personal journey with an uncertain destination. Though some of us have rediscovered the speaker as the guy at the debates who isn’t afraid to talk about ideas or scold idiot moderators, the notion that a man with this much baggage can win the nomination or survive the onslaught of the Democratic attack machine is comical. While some conservatives have carried on about Romney’s vulnerabilities, they pale in comparison to those of Gingrich.

The tenor of the discourse of the GOP race may be the better for Gingrich’s participation, but with that record, he has very little chance of being sworn into office in January 2013.