A Refreshing Candor
A few days ago, I was in town long enough to take my Dad to a doctor's appointment. You may recall my disclosure a couple of weeks ago regarding Dad's diagnosis of Alzheimer's. We sat in the waiting room watching the people go by while Dad maintained a running stream of commentary about the things and people he saw. His hearing, made bad by a grenade that detonated too close to him while he was in the Army, is much worse now. Consequently he talks louder without realizing it, making his observations known to everyone around him including the object of his occasional barbs. I finally helped him understand that he was unwittingly broadcasting his remarks for general consumption, at which point he said, "So you want me to shut up." At about the time he agreed to put a cork in it, Murphy's Law arranged for a spectacularly outrageous example of human ostentatiousness to parade by. This lady, tall and gaunt, wore pants so tight they appeared to have been sewn onto her. She wavered precariously with each step atop nosebleed-inducing high heels. She sported a canary yellow sweater and a large, hot pink purse that was so bright it must have been freshly recharged. On her head she wore a leopard print hat right out of the Moammar Gadhafi Designer Collection. Dad watched in silence as she strutted by, while I waited both with dread and anticipation for his next comment. When she was about 30 feet from us, he leaned over and said, "Can I say what I think yet?" Perfect response, I thought,..and the chuckles of the people around us seemed to support that conclusion. In fact, I think it would have been a breath of fresh air if he had given voice to the things we were all thinking at the moment.
Candor, spoken effectively, is the antidote to the euphemistic pablum we've come to expect from the political class. It is an important reason, in my mind at least, for the rise of Newt Gingrich's standing the polls. Like or dislike him, watching him at work in debates is like living vicariously through your favorite sports team as they clobber a rival. He says the things we on the right think, which is itself a remarkable change of pace from Republican politicians who seem ashamed of their supporters' values. As the American Spectator's Ross Kaminsky pointed out yesterday, both Gingrich and Romney have taken left turns in the past. Gingrich embraced the individual mandate and occupied a couch with Nancy Pelosi, while Romney gave us the framework for Obamacare. And while it's true that at least Gingrich recognized his mistakes while Romney stubbornly refused to do so, neither one of them strikes me as a reliably conservative 100 percent of the time. But unless Professor Rahe can convince a few prospects to embrace the imperatives of real public service, these are our choices.
Interestingly, Dick Morris breaks the question down thus:
Is your chief priority in this thing turning the economy around and bringing us back to a really good, healthy long-term posture of economic growth? Or is your priority undoing the left-wing radical social-engineering agenda of the Obama presidency?
I don't know that it's an either/or proposition, to be honest, but I'll tell you one thing that I find compelling about Gingrich at this point: He is consistently making a compelling case for limited government in a way that is both unassailable and infuriating to the left. He would not only obliterate Obama in any debate, but as President he would do something we haven't seen a Republican do in a very long time. He would advance a conservative agenda effectively and defend his administration from consistent mischaracterizations on the part of leftists in government, academia, and the media. I don't know about you, but I've grown weary of watching Republicans cede half the playing field. Why not go on offense for a change? After watching in frustration as President Bush allowed his enemies to define him and his policies without mounting any real defense, the idea of having a president who is also an effective advocate is very, very tempting. Can we say what we think yet? Newt can.
- Comment (35)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Dec '10
Re: A Refreshing Candor
Win, lose, or draw Newt will do it standing up. We're not necessarily itching for a fight, but if one comes we want to actually hit back this time. It is impossibly hard to imagine Romney doing so.
May '10
Re: A Refreshing Candor
David, I post this in your thread because Mitt shares it with daddy George:
Like watching a duck (make love) to a football....
Re: A Refreshing Candor
EJHill: David, I post this in your thread because Mitt shares it with daddy George:
Like watching a duck (make love) to a football.... · Dec 10 at 3:13pm
The University of Oregon had a similar problem this year too.
Apr '11
Re: A Refreshing Candor
I don't know how so many people have convinced themselves that Newt would "obliterate" Obama in the debates. There is no reason whatsoever to think this. The aspects of Newt that appeal to so many people on Ricochet and in the Republican primary electorate do not appeal to moderate and swing voters.
.
Apr '11
Re: A Refreshing Candor
Here's another American Spectator article that does a good job of puncturing the myth that Newt Gingrich is some kind of great debater:
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/12/07/the-fallacy-of-the-master-deba
Aug '10
Re: A Refreshing Candor
Sure hope you're wrong about that "either or" part. Might just get a twofer.
Newt has candor and the Palestinians are an "invented people" . Guess he's been a provocateur all along.
Trust and politics are opposites, let's get more comfortable with that reality and maybe we'll give the democrats fits.
May '10
Re: A Refreshing Candor
Anyone who saw that ad with Newt on the couch with Nancy Pelosi would agree that Newt is one of the great intellectual master debaters of our time.
Maybe he would, and maybe he would not do well in a debate with President Obama. You can rest assured that the rules will be rigged, and the moderators stacked in such a way as to minimize Gingrich's debating advantage. And it is impossible to rule out that he'd choose that moment to strike a grand bargain or some other BS.
He's always been first to aggrandize his ego by being the first to sign onto a "compromise."
If nominated, if elected, Gingrich will be a disaster.
May '10
Re: A Refreshing Candor
[posted twice somehow, sorry]
Edited on Dec 10, 2011 at 4:04pmRe: A Refreshing Candor
Nick Stuart: Anyone who saw that ad with Newt on the couch with Nancy Pelosi would agree that Newt is one of the great intellectual master debaters of our time.
Maybe he would, and maybe he would not do well in a debate with President Obama. You can rest assured that the rules will be rigged, and the moderators stacked in such a way as to minimize Gingrich's debating advantage. And it is impossible to rule out that he'd choose that moment to strike a grand bargain or some other BS.
He's always been first to aggrandize his ego by being the first to sign onto a "compromise."
If nominated, if elected, Gingrich will be a disaster. · Dec 10 at 3:59pm
He could be an unmitigated disaster, as could Romney. But these seem to be the choices with which we are left. I sense in Newt something of a force that could arrest our descent into the collective abyss. In Romney, I sense only someone that could slow the descent.
Oct '10
Re: A Refreshing Candor
Is there a Dark Horse somewhere ? Just holding ones nose over the two remaining options will get nowhere.
Re: A Refreshing Candor
I'm not aware of one. If a third party candidate surfaces, we learned from Ross Perot how that plays out. So unless another Republican gets an attack of conscience, we have the current field, or Obama. That's the hand we've been dealt.
Apr '11
Re: A Refreshing Candor
wmartin: I don't know how so many people have convinced themselves that Newt would "obliterate" Obama in the debates. There is no reason whatsoever to think this. The aspects of Newt that appeal to so many people on Ricochet and in the Republican primary electorate do not appeal to moderate and swing voters.
. · Dec 10 at 3:38pm
Moderates and those in the middle, in most cases, are there because they either "don't want to offend someone (which means they are on the left because conservatives realize sometimes the truth hurts), or they can't make up their mind in the first place. So guessing what they want is an exercise in futility. Think McCain.
As to any reason(s) that Gingrich would demolish Obama in a debate - Let's start with intelligence, proceed to research, then follow with the ability to state what you think in direct terms. The proper question isn't whether Gingrich would win a debate with Obama, it's whether Obama would be stupid enough to debate him. All evidence points to a debate.
Re: A Refreshing Candor
WMartin, I would agree with Boots On The Table, and would add a couple of things:
1. Obama isn't all that adept at debate to begin with. Paul Ryan offered an effective counterpoint to Obama during the healthcare debate, and Obama simply characterized it as a "talking point," without ever refuting it. Assuming the viewing audience has an I.Q. above room temperature, Obama would be in huge trouble debating Gingrich.
2. Gingrich's skill in presenting the case for limited government isn't useful only in a Presidential debate. Whomever the Republicans nominate, and if that nominee goes on to win the general election, the media will be in endless debate mode with them. How utterly cool would it be to look forward to a press conference for a change?
As an example, I offer the following:
Apr '11
Re: A Refreshing Candor
Boots on the Table
As to any reason(s) that Gingrich would demolish Obama in a debate - Let's start with intelligence, proceed to research, then follow with the ability to state what you think in direct terms. The proper question isn't whether Gingrich would win a debate with Obama, it's whether Obama would be stupid enough to debate him. All evidence points to a debate. · Dec 10 at 4:37pm
Just more chest-pounding-"Obama would be stupid to even debate him, Newt would obliterate him,etc". The level of wishful thinking and self-delusion has become pathological.
Barack Obama is very smart and will be well prepared. Other than the special circumstances of 1980, there is no evidence that the debates have made any kind of decisive impact on a presidential election.
You are correct when you say that conservatives realize that sometimes the truth hurts. There are many here at Ricochet who need to finally face some of those hard truths themselves. Unfortunately, one of them is that Newt Gingrich cannot be elected President.
Dec '10
Re: A Refreshing Candor
Anyone else want to shove a couple of those carrots up Waxman's nose?
Re: A Refreshing Candor
"Other than the special circumstances of 1980, there is no evidence that the debates have made any kind of decisive impact on a presidential election."
You are watching the decisive impact of presidential debates unfold before you right now, as Gingrich has made steady progress in direct proportion to his debate performances.
Edited on Dec 10, 2011 at 4:59pmApr '11
Re: A Refreshing Candor
Dave Carter: "Other than the special circumstances of 1980, there is no evidence that the debates have made any kind of decisive impact on a presidential election."
You are watching the decisive impact of presidential debates unfold before you right now, as Gingrich has made steady progress in direct proportion to his debate performances. · Dec 10 at 4:58pm
Edited on Dec 10 at 04:59 pm
And Newt has gotten an easy ride so far, as he has been too inconsequential for any of the other candidates to bother with.
Re: A Refreshing Candor
wmartin
Dave Carter: "Other than the special circumstances of 1980, there is no evidence that the debates have made any kind of decisive impact on a presidential election."
You are watching the decisive impact of presidential debates unfold before you right now, as Gingrich has made steady progress in direct proportion to his debate performances. · Dec 10 at 4:58pm
Edited on Dec 10 at 04:59 pm
And Newt has gotten an easy ride so far, as he has been too inconsequential for any of the other candidates to bother with. · Dec 10 at 5:03pm
His inconsequentiality has thus far given him a comfortable lead.
Apr '11
Re: A Refreshing Candor
The biggest influence on my view of the 2012 election was seeing some of the exit poll data in news stories about the Harry Reid-Sharron Angle race. Here was a state stuck in the doldrums, highest foreclosure rate in the nation, etc. Harry Reid was massively unpopular, regarded as ineffectual if not actively malevolent. What stuck out was that even in those circumstances, a relatively large number of voters who said they disapproved of Reid's job performance nevertheless voted for him because Sharron Angle was made so toxic by Reid's campaign.
Even in economic misery, persuadable independents would vote for a reviled Democratic incumbent because the Republicans did not put up an appealing candidate. Next year, Barack Obama will have at least 700 million bucks to work with, and a certain portly former House Speaker gives him a wealth of targets to aim for. As John Derbyshire said this week at National Review "by election day, all of Newt's follies and malfesances will be better known to the electorate than the multiplication table."
Edited on Dec 10, 2011 at 5:42pmMay '10
Re: A Refreshing Candor
Dave, I totally agree with your central point that Newt makes a "compelling case for limited government". It is exactly on target. Through all the discussions back and forth- Gingrich, Romney, not Romney, someone else, anyone else - on Ricochet for the last few weeks, to me, this says it all. An articulate message with clarity and focus. We're a free people, and our people need to know the decision they're making. And they need to be challenged as to why one road (limited government) is better than the other (nanny state government). Newt's the best one available to do this.