Newt? Yes, Newt
For a couple of weeks now, Ricochet's Troy Senik has been predicting a Gingrich boom--and I've been thinking (but not, I confess, saying) "Silly Troy." But today, as afternoon dwindles into evening, I find that a single item I read earlier today keeps coming to mind. In "Why Gingrich Could Win," in today's Wall Street Journal, Dorothy Rabinowitz described the former Speaker's recent appearance at a candidate forum in Iowa:
Mr. Gingrich announced that as the Republican nominee he would challenge President Obama to seven Lincoln-Douglas-style debates. "I think I can represent American exceptionalism, free enterprise, the rights of private property and the Constitution, better than he can represent class warfare, bureaucratic socialism, weakness in foreign policy, and total confusion in the economy."
Have you heard a more vividly stated contrast between conservatism and the Obama agenda? And have you ever had a lovelier daydream than one in which Obama finds himself in seven three-hour debates with the likes of the former Speaker--or (and I add this note after the comment below from Roberto) forced to spend the entire campaign explaining why he's ducking them?
You know what? Troy and Dorothy Rabinowitz just may be on to something. We'll see how he does in the next few debates, beginning with the Michigan debate tonight, but I'm starting to suppose that Gingrich could win.
- Comment (26)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Re: Newt? Yes, Newt
One never knows. American politics is quite different from European politics. Here the electorate occasionally gets uppity.
Re: Newt? Yes, Newt
Beautiful.
Mar '11
Re: Newt? Yes, Newt
Why in the world would Obama agree to a debate format which he knows would only serve to his disadvantage? Something moderated by a pliant MSNBC personality seems more likely to be the eventual outcome. Mr. Gingrich can challenge all he pleases, Obama is not obliged to accept. A lovely daydream yes, but it is difficult to imagine it becoming something more.
Edited on Nov 9, 2011 at 4:15pmJan '11
Re: Newt? Yes, Newt
Newt Gingrich is impressive in so many ways - a great thinker, a wonderful debater, and convincing in his arguments. On occasion he comes across as the sole mature candidate in the debates, resetting the discussion at a high professional level. That said, should he succeed in obtaining the nomination, he will lose spectacularly to Obama.
Jan '11
Re: Newt? Yes, Newt
Roberto - I agree wholly re the debate formats. I was puzzled in 2008 with how questions in some of the debates were submitted through YouTube by people dressed in chicken suits. Obama shies away from the mano a mano debates - and prefers the scripted highly refereed format.
Apr '11
Re: Newt? Yes, Newt
Erik - I'm interested in why you think Newt would lose spectacularly to Obama.
Dec '10
Re: Newt? Yes, Newt
It's a nice thought and I wish Gingrich well, but I doubt debates will be important in the General. Recall that 53% voted for Obama in 2008, despite him being questioned about his plan to raise capital gains taxes. Charlie Gibson actually followed-up and asked, even if raising capital gains taxes wound up reducing revenue to the Treasury, Obama supported increasing the tax.
Too many voters just don't give a darn about the details, or watch debates. The victor in 2012 will be the one that wins the swimsuit competition, that attracts voters and best skates on the wonky details. If Gingrich is to win, it won't be based upon Lincoln-Douglas debates. I'd hate to see him in a swimsuit, but if I do, he had better have a smile on his face. He needs to win the votes of 60,000,000 non-Ricochet members.
Mar '11
Re: Newt? Yes, Newt
I have the utmost reverence for Gingrich's talent for communicating both ideals and ideas, especially his own. However, these are not the talents I value most in a president.
When it comes to those values -- leadership, persuasiveness, organization -- Gingrich is sorely lacking. I do not believe he would be a capable leader.
I do hope that he stays in the race until his money runs out. His contribution to the debate is much appreciated.
Nov '11
Re: Newt? Yes, Newt
After having witnessed former-Speaker Gingrich's bob-and-weave, "dazzle-with-my-brilliance/baffle-with-my-whatever" (per CoC) appearance on FNC's "Center Seat" last evening - I came away with one overriding thought: Integrity Matters. The gentleman from Georgia is, no doubt, talented. I am unsettled with respect to his past personal conduct - and put off by his lightly-reined temper...We shall see.
Aug '11
Re: Newt? Yes, Newt
CJRun: It's a nice thought and I wish Gingrich well, but I doubt debates will be important in the General. Recall that 53% voted for Obama in 2008, despite him being questioned about his plan to raise capital gains taxes. Charlie Gibson actually followed-up and asked, even if raising capital gains taxes wound up reducing revenue to the Treasury, Obama supported increasing the tax.
Too many voters just don't give a darn about the details, or watch debates. The victor in 2012 will be the one that wins the swimsuit competition, that attracts voters and best skates on the wonky details. If Gingrich is to win, it won't be based upon Lincoln-Douglas debates. I'd hate to see him in a swimsuit, but if I do, he had better have a smile on his face. He needs to win the votes of 60,000,000 non-Ricochet members. · Nov 9 at 4:39pm
Ain't that the truth? I have a friend who voted for Obama because he was"cute." I ask her all the time how that "cute thing" is working out for her now.
Jul '10
Re: Newt? Yes, Newt
So tonight the music stops on Newt?
I'll be sure to take that into account while checking out the Live Chat.
Sep '10
Re: Newt? Yes, Newt
This is purely a personal comment, and I don't claim any great credibility for it.
I cannot imagine Newt as a successful presidential candidate. Even in his erratic and mercurial way, to me there is something very calibrated and self-conscious about his performances. He's quick enough to give the appearance of spontaneity, but I just don't buy it. I think he's an opportunist. He's smart enough to figure out the right answers to a lot of questions, but I don't trust him to act on principle.
Re: Newt? Yes, Newt
I can't speak for Erik, but I agree with him. A large part of the electorate -- particularly those not already committed to one ideology or another -- does not engage at a detailed level across multiple policy areas. At best, they vote based on one or two issues; at worst, on longstanding party affiliation or personality. Besides being, in a phrase from Wodehouse, "brilliant but unsound," Newt has a personality that those who do not already agree with him find abrasive. Combine that with his personal baggage, and the "middle" of the electorate will hold their noses and vote in droves for Obama, who would have abandoned his "class warrior" persona and re-adopted his "soothing and reassuring nice guy" persona the minute Newt got the nomination. And it is simply impossible to imagine the emergence of any "Gingrich Democrats." I think you'd be looking at a repeat of 2008 -- and that's without a major Gingrich gaffe along the way (which is not a bet I'd care to take).
May '10
Re: Newt? Yes, Newt
Fun theoretically, but in practice Obama would say, "Er, no. I'm busy. See you in October -- there'll be time enough to debate then."
Gingrich insists he would then follow Obama around the country pestering him. Not good. The political cartoons would have Newt as the wild, yippy fu-fu dog nipping at the above-it-all president trying to govern. After a few weeks it would stop. Winner: Obama.
Jun '10
Re: Newt? Yes, Newt
Steve Manacek
...
A large part of the electorate -- particularly those not already committed to one ideology or another -- does not engage at a detailed level across multiple policy areas. At best, they vote based on one or two issues; at worst, on longstanding party affiliation or personality. Besides being, in a phrase from Wodehouse, "brilliant but unsound," Newt has a personality that those who do not already agree with him find abrasive. Combine that with his personal baggage, and the "middle" of the electorate will hold their noses and vote in droves for Obama, who would have abandoned his "class warrior" persona and re-adopted his "soothing and reassuring nice guy" persona the minute Newt got the nomination. And it is simply impossible to imagine the emergence of any "Gingrich Democrats." I think you'd be looking at a repeat of 2008 -- and that's without a major Gingrich gaffe along the way (which is not a bet I'd care to take).
In 1994, there were loads of "Gingrich Democrats".
He had sufficient integrity to live up to the Contract with America -- that brilliant idea from the greatest living Republican. He never put a foot wrong.
Nov '10
Re: Newt? Yes, Newt
Peter, don't let the naysayers on this particular thread get you down. Lots of us have been saying just this kind of thing on one thread or another over the past few days.
Jul '10
Re: Newt? Yes, Newt
Bruce in Marin: This is purely a personal comment, and I don't claim any great credibility for it.
I cannot imagine Newt as a successful presidential candidate. Even in his erratic and mercurial way, to me there is something very calibrated and self-conscious about his performances. He's quick enough to give the appearance of spontaneity, but I just don't buy it. I think he's an opportunist. He's smart enough to figure out the right answers to a lot of questions, but I don't trust him to act on principle. · Nov 9 at 5:09pm
But Romney...you'll buy that?
Aug '10
Re: Newt? Yes, Newt
Smart is an interesting option.
Re: Newt? Yes, Newt
Peter,
Good to see you coming around. Remember that all checks can be made payable to cash.
Let me state here that, even as a former Gingrich staffer, I share many of the concerns that are raised on these threads. Newt at his best is miles beyond everyone else in the race. Newt at his worst is deeply problematic. Anyone considering pulling the lever for him should do so while cognizant of the fact that they'll be voting for both versions of the former speaker.
In the end, we must accept -- particularly with the field set -- that the quest for perfection is sure to end in disappointment. The question now is which set of imperfections we find the least unpalatable.
Apr '11
Re: Newt? Yes, Newt
Scott Reusser: Fun theoretically, but in practice Obama would say, "Er, no. I'm busy. See you in October -- there'll be time enough to debate then."
Gingrich insists he would then follow Obama around the country pestering him. Not good. The political cartoons would have Newt as the wild, yippy fu-fu dog nipping at the above-it-all president trying to govern. After a few weeks it would stop. Winner: Obama. ·
I'm more optimistic about the Lincoln-Douglas debate idea, although I don't think that it's only available to Newt. There are a ton of pundits who love to talk about how poor the debate formats are, and if Obama eschews the proper debates, the silly debates can be filled with "I can't properly explore this idea in the time alotted, and my opponent has declined to debate in a manner that allows issues to be resolved, but here's a synopsis" stuff. People seem to really like attacks on the debate process, and this would provide a strong link between Obama and the journalists asking stupid questions. Plus, who says Obama (D-IL) won't believe that he'd win at Lincoln-Douglas?