Last Night's Debate
I'm blissfully behind the news cycle (try it sometime -- it's therapeutic), having attended what turned out to be a Carnivale-themed Christmas boat parade last night (you’ve gotta love Los Angeles). Thus, I've only just now had the chance to watch last night's presidential debate.
What was striking to me was how much the roles have changed. Newt came off the way Romney used to — unflappable and with quiet confidence in his lead. Romney came off the way Perry used to — wandering into rhetorical cul-de-sacs and grasping fecklessly at lines of attack (Romney on defense is passable, if uninspiring; Romney on offense is virtually unwatchable). Perry seems to have regained his wits, though with just enough hint of that old instability to keep anyone from giving him a serious second look. Michele Bachmann, alas, is making a fool of herself and generally looking less serious than Ron Paul.
I think this is Newt’s to lose at this point and I’m actually heartened by that fact.
Is there a lot of baggage where the former speaker's concerned? Sure. But there’s part of me that thinks we’re just shifting the public’s learning curve forward by 18 months. We’ve become accustomed in recent years to learning our president’s deficiencies on the job. Newt has been a public figure for so long, however, that they’re all on the table up front. It seems to me that the electorate is making a rather sophisticated calculation that’s what good about Newt outweighs what’s bad — which is perhaps preferable to falling head over heels for a savior figure who proves to be all too human (see the Democratic Party, circa 2008). Far from being the politically immature purists they’re often portrayed as in the press, I think the conservative base has determined that they’d rather have someone who understands the movement — even if he occasionally strays — than someone who sees the base merely as a weigh station on the road to the White House.
At this point, my thinking shifts to the utility of the process. The change in the delegate allocation rules are likely to drag this process out for longer than it would have gone in the past. If Newt can keep his act together for such an extended period of time, it seems to me that he will have proved his critics wrong about his capacity for self-discipline. Those critics, by the way, have the analysis wrong. Newt never came undone as a campaign strategist. He did so when he had to govern ...
- Comment (16)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: Last Night's Debate
People laugh at me when I compare Newt to Churchill, but Churchill wasn't very good in normal times either. They both shine when the wolf is at the door. At other times, they go offtrack. Well, I don't know if you've noticed, but I hear growling out there....
Dec '11
Re: Last Night's Debate
Troy Senik
, I think the conservative base has determined that they’d rather have someone who understands the movement — even if he occasionally strays — than someone who sees the base merely as a weigh station on the road to the White House. ·
That really is it, isnt it.
Aug '10
Re: Last Night's Debate
I remember Gingrich from before and cannot get that out of my mind. He just seems slimy to me. Always on to the next wife--Calista this and Calista that as though he had always been with her (and not condemning Clinton for the same thing he was doing at the same time). I am willing to be "won over" if the preponderance of the party wants him (many I hear do not). I will wait and see..............
Sep '10
Re: Last Night's Debate
Churchill wrote historical works that showed genuine wisdom of a first rate mind. He had also proved that he could be disciplined in what we would today call junior executive positions. His memos were sharp and penetrating, and he often complained of wordy and vacuous musings by others. Newt's prose stylings (to the extent they aren't augmented by ghost writers) don't show the same caliber of wisdom as Churchill did.
Jul '10
Re: Last Night's Debate
If Newt can keep his act together for such an extended period of time, it seems to me that he will have proved his critics wrong about his capacity for self-discipline. Those critics, by the way, have the analysis wrong. Newt never came undone as a campaign strategist. He did so when he had to govern ...
Hmm. It's all the same though, isn't it?
The government "shutdown" was a campaign. A failed one as I recall...
Dec '10
Re: Last Night's Debate
Those critics, by the way, have the analysis wrong. Newt never came undone as a campaign strategist. He did so when he had to govern ...
Yeah, that's not comforting.
Jan '11
Re: Last Night's Debate
Exactly, WC. It's not comforting at all.
Apr '11
Re: Last Night's Debate
Pseudodionysius
Churchill wrote historical works that showed genuine wisdom of a first rate mind. He had also proved that he could be disciplined in what we would today call junior executive positions. His memos were sharp and penetrating, and he often complained of wordy and vacuous musings by others. Newt's prose stylings (to the extent they aren't augmented by ghost writers) don't show the same caliber of wisdom as Churchill did. · Dec 11 at 7:40pm
Newt just writes works of pop conservatism. They don't compare to Churchill in any way.
I can't believe we are actually going to nominate a man who wrote (or at least, put out under his name) a book titled To Save America : Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine.
Edited on Dec 11, 2011 at 9:27pmApr '11
Re: Last Night's Debate
"It seems to me that the electorate is making a rather sophisticated calculation that’s what good about Newt outweighs what’s bad... Far from being the politically immature purists they’re often portrayed as in the press, I think the conservative base has determined that they’d rather have someone who understands the movement — even if he occasionally strays — than someone who sees the base merely as a weigh station on the road to the White House."
I don't really see any calculation here at all. The base is just taking the conservative id out for a walk, doing what feels good now rather than defering gratification and making serious plans for for the future. They are indulging in fantasies of Obama running from the debate stage to weep alone in his hotel room while Newt pumps his fist to cheers from the crowd.
I didn't use to believe that the conservative base are "politically immature purists," but if they go down this road I will have to change my mind.
Mar '11
Re: Last Night's Debate
wmartin
I can't believe we are actually going to nominate a man who wrote (or at least, put out under his name) a book titled To Save America : Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine. ·
Seems like a perfect book title to me - just what we need.
Sure, Newt is no Churchill - nobody is - but he is the nearest we've got (Romney is our Chamberlain - nice guy, but squishy).
I suspect Newt will at least return Churchill's bust to the Oval Office.
Apr '11
Re: Last Night's Debate
Looks like we can add John Hinderaker of Powerline to the list of RINOs :
"It strikes me that those who prefer Gingrich to Romney must either be very young, or suffer from selective memory. We have barely begun to recall the embarrassing moments that will be used against Newt should he be the nominee. A common theme of these missteps is that Newt’s ego sometimes runs away with him. The air of assurance that impresses so many debate viewers is usually justified, but too often it conceals the fact that Newt has little idea what he is talking about.
For a case in point, check out his spirited but deeply misguided defense of Government Sponsored Enterprises like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. If social issues are your thing, there is also his ever-shifting position on stem cell research.
Although it may not seem like it at the moment, I personally am fond of Gingrich and grateful for his contributions over the years. But the Republican Party would be crazy to nominate him for president."
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/12/the-i-of-newt.php
Apr '11
Re: Last Night's Debate
Romney may be a square, jock, gunning for the ultimate job in the land cause it would make his father proud. Newt may be an angry nerd, who thinks he is smarter than everyone he meets because he can name every president and their vice president. What I want to know if if this is our choice who can actually get things done...
Who can get a stable tax code that isn't due to change in 2 years?
Who can get republicans and democrats to create a path to a balanced budget?
Who can untangle the Obamacare mess?
Who can get our government workers and agencies to car more about the rest of us and not just the businesses and NGO's that fund the current White House occupant?
Frankly I don't think either is up it. But, I need some one to convince who to vote for cause I'm not feeling it guys. I said I'd vote for a "turnip over Obama"...well we have a potato or a carrot lined up to win the Republican nomination... are either of those better than a turnip?
Mar '11
Re: Last Night's Debate
There is recently ascendent tendency in conservative punditry to describe the world of political action as though it were divided up, at every moment, between Churchill's and Chamberlain's. I think I've heard this example invoked in every context of importance since the Iraq War of 2003, through every single election cycle, up to the 2012 primary.
Part of the reason we see this, I suspect, is the paucity of historical imagination most adult Americans possess as a result of the poverty of their historical education. We perceive ourselves to be at a moment of crisis and turn and refer to the only large moment of crisis which is familiar to everyone.
But drawing a proper historical analogy takes a great deal of study, care and learning. When rendered poorly, analogies serve only to encumber and obscure rather than illuminate.
I don't think the Chamberlain/Churchill analogy fits our moment well at all.
Mar '11
Re: Last Night's Debate
"Those critics, by the way, have the analysis wrong. Newt never came undone as a campaign strategist. He did so when he had to govern"
But, Troy, this is exactly what troubles me.
Newt has proven he has the discipline to win an election: 1994. He did it with a flashy package--the Contract with America--and did get a few important things accomplished (Welfare Reform, Balanced Budgets).
That was before he got distracted and pursued political scandal and government shutdown as preferable to the defense of the commonweal. He lost the support of his own party in the process and squandered half of the 1990s.
I'm not concerned about whether Newt can market himself to the American people--he's reinvented himself again and again, and once already in this election cycle.
It is less his lack of personal discipline that worries me (though I think it symptomatic in his case)--it is unfortunately true that political skill can go together with a very dissolute personal life--I fear he won't be able to focus his administration's authority and efforts consistently over time to accomplish the proper priorities in their order of importance without getting sidetracked.
Oct '10
Re: Last Night's Debate
Newt is good at gaining power, but not very good at administering it once he has it. That's my biggest concern about him. The stakes are really high this time around considering the condition of the country and we can't afford yet another Newtron Bomb going off. Still...there's that little voice in the back of my head that posits that maybe he'll rise to the occasion and be a historically significant figure. Unfortunately, that's probably Newt's voice saying it to me.
Nov '10
Re: Last Night's Debate
Troy, you worked for Newt, didn't you? There are lots of posts around on Ricochet that say that people who have worked for Newt tend not to support him. Do you agree? Please try to give us your insight.