Calling Dr. Groseclose, Or It Takes a Brave Man to Dispute George Will
Peter Robinson ·
December 5, 2011 at 8:58pm
George Will in his Washington Post column last week:
[Conservatives]...anticipated choosing between Mitt Romney, a conservative of convenience, and a conviction politician to his right. The choice, however, could be between Romney and the least conservative candidate, Newt Gingrich [italics mine].
Tim Groseclose, writing here on Ricochet just yesterday:
Some recent evidence suggests that Gingrich—the more conservative candidate in my judgment—is just as electable as Romney [italics, once again, mine].
Well, Dr. Groseclose?
- Comment (52)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments:
May '10
Re: Calling Dr. Groseclose, Or It Takes a Brave Man to Dispute George Will
From the standpoint of policy support Gingrich and Romney's histories seems much too alike. If we concede to narrowing the race down to between these two, we've more or less acquiesced to nominating a managerial technocrat and are left to argue simply about preference over style. I think it's in the best interest of conservatives to give serious consideration to a third candidate to diversify things a bit. I think Perry's the most reasonable remaining alternative, so I'm pushing for people to give Perry a serious second look. Has he really been so bad that we're all willing to forget why he was considered a viable option upon entering the race?
Jun '10
Re: Calling Dr. Groseclose, Or It Takes a Brave Man to Dispute George Will
Freeven
This is one reason why I'm taking another long look at Perry. He doesn't just want to retard growth and eliminate waste. He's looking to eliminate things. Anything short of that is simply circling the drain. · Dec 5 at 3:52pm
Freeven, I would love to see things of this elimination sort circle the drain because things circling drains are just about to drop out of sight. Oh, if only.
And Ben, you must be reading Paul Rahe so why not use his insult: "managerial progressives" for these guys?
The thing is Gingrich has actually done conservative things even though he might talk about a lot of things. Don't get confused.
Re: Calling Dr. Groseclose, Or It Takes a Brave Man to Dispute George Will
Me? Stirring the pot? Why, David, coming from you, one of the most accomplished pot-stirrers I know, I'll take that's a compliment. But to your questions:
1. Do I agree with George Will's scathing condemnation of Newt? No. I still need to study up on Newt before deciding whether he's my candidate, but Will's shrillness was completely over the top. Newt was the architect of the first Republican House in four decades, of welfare reform, and of farm legislation that (until George W. Bush got to it) was slowly weaning American agriculture from federal subsidies. Whatever his present standing, Newt represents a historic figure in the conservative movement.
2. On Perry, though, I agree with Will. Presidents don't need debating skills. They need the skills of chief executives, which Perry seems to possess.
David, what say we get together on a podcast soon to hash this out?
Edited on December 6, 2011 at 2:05amMay '10
Re: Calling Dr. Groseclose, Or It Takes a Brave Man to Dispute George Will
Will's concerns are more with Newt's history of lacking big-idea impulse control, I think. Newt's lack of a small-c conservative temperament -- his manic nature, if you will -- makes him susceptible to abandoning big-c Conservative principles in spasms of enthusiasm for faddish grand ideas.
Ironically, that same manic nature could also be his biggest asset -- so long as it's channeled in the right direction.
Jul '10
Re: Calling Dr. Groseclose, Or It Takes a Brave Man to Dispute George Will
Jonathan Cast
NB: your last item is a conservative, free market measure (it's the opposite of imposing price controls). · Dec 5 at 12:44pm
Not on my planet. Every libertarian I know would like to go back to Gold Standard.
Re: Calling Dr. Groseclose, Or It Takes a Brave Man to Dispute George Will
Peter Robinson
Will's shrillness was completely over the top. Newt was the architect of the first Republican House in four decades, of welfare reform, and of farm legislation that (until George W. Bush got to it) was slowly weaning American agriculture from federal subsidies. Whatever his present standing, Newt represents a historic figure in the conservative movement
2. On Perry, though, I agree with Will. Presidents don't need debating skills.
David, what say we get together on a podcast soon to hash this out? ·
Peter: I agree with both of your points, and had made the same point re good debate skills not being a condition precedent to presidential qualifications, though he did so poorly he caused much doubt. That should be explored. I also thought Will made some good points, but his criticism WAS over the top and it sounded personal, just as when he mocked the notion that Newt is a historian on TV a few weeks ago. I think Scott Reusser in the post following yours makes some good points about Newt.
And, yes, I accept your invitation to join the Podcast; just let me know.
May '10
Re: Calling Dr. Groseclose, Or It Takes a Brave Man to Dispute George Will
Duane Oyen
This all boils down to the question of whom do you trust to do what most needs to be done.
A month ago, I pegged Newt as someone driven by principles but not always the right principles. He seemed like the ultimate grab bag. He's against federal intrusion in some aspects of our lives and in favor of it in others. But Gingrich could at least, I thought, be counted on to act on his beliefs and consider issues deeply enough to not be derailed by liberals.
Today, I simply can't trust Newt. What I have read about his work for Freddie Mac suggests he was actively working against conservative ideals in a way he himself has decried. He set his own advocated principles aside for money and prestige.
If I'm going to gamble that any candidate might do the right thing for the wrong reason (securing one's place in history — ego), I would rather gamble on Perry.
The candidate I trust is most committed to stopping federal expansion is Ron Paul. He's willing. But is he able? He doesn't seem very influential as a legislator.
May '10
Re: Calling Dr. Groseclose, Or It Takes a Brave Man to Dispute George Will
By the way, here's a remark from Steyn about Newt's legislative record, from a conversation with Hugh Hewitt:
Sep '10
Re: Calling Dr. Groseclose, Or It Takes a Brave Man to Dispute George Will
just as when he mocked the notion that Newt is a historian on TV a few weeks ago.
I seem to recall a dismissive remark by the now departed Henry Hyde to the effect that you cannot conflate Plutarch and Alvin Toffler and claim yourself to be a serious historian.
Jun '10
Re: Calling Dr. Groseclose, Or It Takes a Brave Man to Dispute George Will
Aaron Miller: By the way, here's a remark from Steyn about Newt's legislative record, from a conversation with Hugh Hewitt:
Dec 5 at 6:04pm
And what a silly thing for Mark to say! The Contract was to put 10 items up for vote. Newt never had enough votes to get his way with these items.
Cheap shot.
Apr '11
Re: Calling Dr. Groseclose, Or It Takes a Brave Man to Dispute George Will
Brit Hume savaged Newt on O'Reilly tonight. Hume did a good job of pointing out that even Newt's supposed strengths as a debater can't really be relied on against Obama. Newt is just as likely to blurt out something so bizarre that we have to spend the next week "clarifying" his remarks right before the election.
Edited on December 6, 2011 at 3:52amJun '10
Re: Calling Dr. Groseclose, Or It Takes a Brave Man to Dispute George Will
wmartin: Brit Hume savaged Newt on O'Reilly tonight. Hume did a good job of pointing out that even Newt's supposed strengths as a debater can't really be relied on against Obama. Newt is just as likely to blurt out something so bizarre that we have to spend the next week "clarifying" his remarks right before the election. · Dec 5 at 6:52pm
Edited on Dec 05 at 06:52 pm
Full court press from the friendly press for Newt. What going on? Full story in January.
May '10
Re: Calling Dr. Groseclose, Or It Takes a Brave Man to Dispute George Will
The reason I still prefer Newt to Romney is because Newt is open to massive change, while I can only imagine Romney pursuing incremental changes. We don't have the time. Incrementalism is what the Founders intended, but the Constitution became generally irrelevant decades ago.
A Gingrich presidency is a big gamble, but America doesn't have time for anything but the greatest gamble now. Our past choices have limited our present options to only the most extreme.
Dec '10
Re: Calling Dr. Groseclose, Or It Takes a Brave Man to Dispute George Will
Scott Reusser: [Newt's] manic nature... makes him susceptible to abandoning big-c Conservative principles in spasms of enthusiasm for faddish grand ideas.
Ironically, that same manic nature could also be his biggest asset -- so long as it's channeled in the right direction.
Well observed.
I'm an avid Backgammon player, and I frequently reflect on how the principles of the game illustrate larger life lessons. One of the key concepts is risk management -- learning how to minimize risks when things are going your way and how to recognize and exploit them when things aren't going well. Despite the emergence of the Tea Party and the welcome appeal to first principles, I believe the country is in real, imminent danger. This leads me to prefer Newt over Mitt rather strongly. We simply can't afford to go quietly when things are so decidedly not going our way. We've got to make a big move to turn things around, and this may be the last chance we have to do that. Perry, if he can come back, may be an even better choice, promising more reward than Mitt and less risk than Newt.
Dec '10
Re: Calling Dr. Groseclose, Or It Takes a Brave Man to Dispute George Will
Aaron Miller: By the way, here's a remark from Steyn about Newt's legislative record, from a conversation with Hugh Hewitt:
I agree with some of your earlier remarks, but this doesn't seem fair. The Contract was to bring those issues to a vote. Newt was Speaker, not King. Even Reagan wasn't able to actually reverse the trend toward bigger government. This is why I'm desperately wanting to vote for someone who is at least campaigning on bold ideas. If elected, he may have enough of a mandate to actually dismantle a few programs instead of simply slowing their growth. I'm not optimistic, but I see this as the last, best chance we'll have.
Jan '11
Re: Calling Dr. Groseclose, Or It Takes a Brave Man to Dispute George Will
Here's an easy and accurate way to discern the true conservative in any debate or race today:
How many times does he use the word "abolish" when discussing his plans for Washington DC?
"The Recession will end in the USA on the day it begins in the Beltway."
Jul '10
Re: Calling Dr. Groseclose, Or It Takes a Brave Man to Dispute George Will
Who does Mr. Steyn see as an alternative? Santa Claus?
I'll start respecting Mr. Steyn as soon as he puts his cards on the table.
Until then, he is another useless pundit trying to make a buck.
As they say where I come from: "Money talks and bull$hit walks."
Edited on December 6, 2011 at 4:48amMay '10
Re: Calling Dr. Groseclose, Or It Takes a Brave Man to Dispute George Will
To my knowledge, Steyn hasn't offered many complimentary remarks about any candidate yet, let alone chosen a favorite (or even least favorite). But he is one of very few pundits who is willing to acknowledge how severe America's troubles really are... and so how vital it is that our candidate in the main election be committed to dismantling DC.
Too many conservative commentators assume American life is sure to carry on basically as before regardless of whom is elected President... or, at least, if anyone but Obama is elected. The truth is that, while our nation might be relatively young, our government is relatively old. And present policies endanger its very survival.
That's one reason I hope Steyn will eventually be brought back into the Ricochet podcasts. Rob and Peter could use some of Mark's pessimistic outlook for balance.
May '10
Re: Calling Dr. Groseclose, Or It Takes a Brave Man to Dispute George Will
I agree with y'all about that particular remark from Steyn, by the way. But it's worth considering because it demonstrates that our next President must be not only willing to dismantle government but also able to convince American citizens to support such dismantling. As always, the will of individual Americans should not be ignored. If they choose ruin, so be it.
In other words, a candidate's communication skills and trustworthiness matter. Our next President must talk citizens into some hard sacrifices and convince them to pressure Congress to agree.
Oct '11
Re: Calling Dr. Groseclose, Or It Takes a Brave Man to Dispute George Will
I just took the Political Quotient test on Tim's website. (Oh, man, all those vile things our Congress has done. Where's the key to the whiskey locker ...) Anyway, my PQ is 3. I think I overthought one of the questions.
I'm in favor of nominating Newt Gingrich, over any of the other candidates. I take this position in full knowledge of all his wild ideas, moral foibles, even that disgusting global whining commercial with the WWoTW. (He just might have done that out of sympathy after that house fell on her sister, you know.) I think he's our best chance to win, and the most likely to govern conservatively if he does. I don't trust good intentions or gut-level instinct, a la Perry or Bachman. (Kiss my humanity, Rick. I remember another compassionate conservative.) Competence rules.
All things considered, he's the most likely to accomplish significant rollback of the Obama and Bush debacles. As for "root and branch" reform, his position on judicial reform outweighs everything else except Obamacare repeal.
Nobody's perfect, but this guy would be the smartest Republican nominee since Nixon and the most conservative since Reagan.
Edited on December 6, 2011 at 6:08am