Yesterday Newt Gingrich stood before 60+ conservative voices and answered some tough questions. While I understand there are many negatives to the man, the fact that he has no hesitation to enter the lions den is admirable.
His speech started with the obvious:
“if Obama is re-elected America will be a very, very different country from the one we grew-up in.”
Obvious but a oh so important point. This election is very important and this very fact is one reason why people should pause before they pull the lever for this guy. Can he win the general election?
The Speaker then went on to outline the four parts of his 21st Century Contract with America: A set of legislative proposals to shift America back to job creation, prosperity, freedom, and safety; A “Day One Plan” of Executive Orders to be signed on inauguration day to immediately transform the way the executive branch works; A training program for the transition teams and the appointees who will lead the shift back to Constitutional, limited government; and, a system of citizen involvement to help us sustain grassroots support for change and help implement the change through 2021.
…One of the earliest and toughest questions came from Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli who noted many of the ideas Speaker Gingrich had championed seemed like they might end-up growing government. “How can we be sure, what’s the restraint on you that these ideas won’t end up being more big government?” asked Cuccinelli.
Speaker Gingrich replied to laughter that “there’s nothing to restrain a President from doing something dumb, but I trust the people in this room to tell me if that is the case.” But then he noted more seriously that, “I’m a Federalist. I look to the Federalist Papers and the Constitution to guide me and restrain government.”
…When asked about how he intended to win the general election Gingrich said he expected Obama to have $1 billion to spend, but that he would counter that by challenging Obama to a series of seven Lincoln – Douglas-style un-moderated debates, “…and he’ll say yes. There are two reasons: The first is his ego. Can you imagine him looking in the mirror? Graduate from Columbia, Harvard Law, and editor of the Law Review. How is he going to say that he’s afraid to be on the same podium as a West Georgia College teacher? Plus, if he says ‘no’ I’m going to say ‘the White House is now my scheduler’ and wherever he goes I will show-up within four hours to take apart whatever he said, that’s how Lincoln got Douglas to debate.”
His ability to destroy people in debates is well known and one reason someone might vote for the guy. Everyone knows how important the general election debates are, and his idea of forcing the Lincoln/Douglas style debates is a great idea with his skill.
So then we are left with the question, if he did win the Presidency would he indeed govern as a conservative, or would he turn back to his old neo-conservative ways?
Or do we trust that Romney will govern as a conservative?
Steven Hayward makes a Churchill comparison that is interesting:
But before becoming prime minister, Winston Churchill was often dismissed in similar terms by members of his own party, who complained that “his planning is all wishing and guessing,” that he was “a genius without judgment,” and that he had been “on every side of every question.” His many non-fiction books were even characterized as “autobiographies disguised as history of the universe.” This is not to suggest that Newt is the next Churchill, which would indeed feed Newt’s grandiosity. Rather, it is to prompt us to recognize one important fact and to ask two questions that have heretofore not been asked.
The important fact is this: The example of Churchill (and also Reagan to some extent) shows that we cannot prospectively identify those whom we will later come to laud as great statesmen. Very few leading Republicans thought Reagan would be Reagan, even after the 1980 election, just as Churchill was not a popular choice of his own party in 1940. One of the best studies of Churchill’s pre-1940 career could almost be adapted for Newt, Robert Rhodes James’s Churchill: A Study in Failure.
Two questions must be asked in order to judge whether Newt might have Churchillian qualities (both good and bad) once in office, or whether Romney’s predictable managerial qualities are more suited to the present moment.
The first question is whether we require someone utterly unconventional to match up to the circumstances of the moment. The same negative qualities that kept Churchill from high office in the 1930s — his resolute stubbornness, his unconstrained and unpredictable imagination and occasional recklessness — paradoxically made him the best person to lead the nation when it reached the point of extreme crisis in May 1940. But the crisis had to reach the extreme before the Churchill option became thinkable.
Even the outbreak of war in 1939 didn’t immediately lead to the thought that Churchill should become prime minister. And even after the invasion of France, it wasn’t clear that his mixed qualities would prove a source of reassurance to the nation, or a formula for success in the war. Is Newt’s long-time embrace of “radical change” what is necessary to address the fiscal crisis of our time? One reason a large portion of the Tea Party has embraced Newt, his mixed record notwithstanding, is that he appears to be the only candidate who will both argue for and attempt to implement the large changes necessary to right our listing ship of state.
“The Conservatives have never liked nor trusted me,” Churchill wrote in the 1920s. According to King George VI’s biographer biographer, the king was “bitterly opposed” to Churchill’s becoming prime minister. He remained a figure of suspicion within his own party even after he became prime minister in 1940. The description of cabinet secretary John Colville sounds like much of the Newt-angst of conservatives right now: “In May 1940 the mere thought of Churchill as Prime Minister send a cold chill down the spines of the staff working at 10 Downing Street. . . . Seldom can a Prime Minister have taken office with the Establishment . . . so dubious of the choice and so prepared to find its doubts justified.” “This is not the last war administration by a long way,” a leading member of Churchill’s own party remarked. Another Tory MP, Peter Eckersley, wrote: “Winston won’t last five months! Opposition from Tories is already beginning.” MP David Kier wrote in his diary a month after Churchill took office: “The more I think of the position, the more uncertain the future of Winston’s present Government is.” One Conservative-party grandee wrote that “I regard this [Churchill as PM] as a greater disaster than the invasion of the Low Countries.”
As the British learned, he was anything but a disaster. But nominating Newt is a huge risk. I guess it comes down to whether we are willing to take that risk. As Mata wrote earlier in her excellent post, the liberals are predicting a landslide if Newt is nominated which actually has me wondering, as Mata is, are we on to something with Newt:
What I want is someone who sees the way out of a fiscal disaster, and won’t take crap from either side. They must be fearless from political assault and threats. I’m not interested in them putting their personal popularity or legacy first. I don’t expect a perfect individual… especially from a politician. But don’t do the dance of blame. Own up, and move on. And most importantly, they have to be a believer of this nation’s free market and capitalist economic foundation.
If the mutual hatred by both sides for Newt is any indication, it may be that Newt is just the guy. He’s certainly adept at being a scrapper, and is not beaten down easily. And it should be the responsibility of the Tea Party conservatives, and those who may end up putting him in office, to make sure he holds true to small government and fiscal responsible beliefs.
Man o’ man…times like these I really wish Sarah had entered.
See author page
Long before this race for the nomination turned into a whack-a-mole game, I admitted I would most love to see Newt in debates with Obama.
Over and above every other of the candidates I thought Obama would not be able to stand on the same par as Newt.
Now it looks like this might actually happen.
So, what are the latest detractors saying about Newt?
That he is a verbal loose cannon who might put his foot in his mouth at any moment.
Hey!
When you speak from your own heart and with your own words there’s always the potential for using poor choice of words.
Newt was accused of that over his point that poor children have no work ethic taught to them from home, therefore they might benefit from a program at school where they ”work.”
Obama,OTOH, has no history of speaking from his heart in his own words.
So, when he puts his foot in it, it might be the result of him going off-teleprompter or it might be that his speech writer missed something or that his teleprompter broke or got out of speed with his spoken words.
Whichever, Obama has already put his foot in it more than Newt over the last few years.
Newt threatened Obama that he would debate him…..Lincoln/Douglas style (no moderator, no rules, just the two of them for three hours on one subject).
Newt has said that, as nominee, if Obama refuses to debate, he will show up everywhere Obama is a couple hours later and rebut every point Obama made.
Gotta love that!
Well, Curt… if you really want to see the Dems up the “landslide” ante, imagine a Newt/Palin ticket. LOL This would, of course, have the added entertainment bonus of a Palin-Biden debate, which doubles the pleasure of a Newt-Obama debate. Not enough popcorn on the planet for that season….
BTW, just posted this on my thread, but think it’s appropriate here. From Steve McCann at American Thinker today… He not only begins the article with his surprise at how hated Newt is within the beltway GOP establishment, but ends up with conclusions that… if I didn’t know better… I would think I wrote it myself.
“I’m a Federalist. I look to the Federalist Papers and the Constitution to guide me and restrain government.”
Well that’s pure Barbara Streisand. As near as I can tell, Newt thinks the federal government should dictate every aspect of our lives. He has praised the FDA, the EPA, and “global warming”. In a recent interview he lauded Alexander Hamilton for advocating government subsidies to businesses. Unfortunately, Newt neglected to mention that both Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and the U.S. Congress opposed such subsidies, fearing that:
This divide (north vs. south) would come up again and again in issues of economic policy until the issue of subsidies to favored businesses was settled by the American Civil War.
Sorry, but Gingrich is a Teddy Roosevelt Progressive who thinks “The federal Government can do great things”, while never considering the “forgotten men” who have to pay for all his statist schemes.
This doesn’t mean I won’t vote for Gingrich is he is the nominee, but we should all be aware of what we’re getting.
Mata–
The McCann article perfectly describes the enthymeme in conservative circles, but it seems like a non-sequitur. Do you see the Steve McCann article the way I do – as propaganda? There are a lot of folks trying to rehabilitate Newt at the moment, including Steven Hayward who is comparing to Newt to Churchill. Really?
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/285198/newt-churchill-steven-f-hayward
@John Cooper:
“As near as YOU can tell….?”
Maybe you need to quit guessing and start looking at Newt’s own plans.
I don’t agree with all of these 100% but I seriously doubt any candidate and I will agree 100%.
Not only that, these are AIMS, Newt might not be able to get all of them done, or fully done.
Most are big steps in the right direction, however.
I didn’t see any sign from these that Newt expects bigger government to be a solution to anything.
Did you?
“the fact that he has no hesitation to enter the lions den is admirable.”
Why? Newt knows how to answer a question to satisfy the person he his talking to. He could answer questions from RINOs and make them happy too. That’s the problem, he has no solid foundation or principles. He throws out solutions willy-nilly. Its the new ideas and solutions that excite him not any principle. So, we won’t know which way he will swing but since he is proud to be a T. Roosevelt Repub rather than a Reagan Repub, I’m guessing more progressivism than conservatism. He’s no better than Rockefeller Repub Romney.
CURT
very interesting POST, it should help the many readers who stay out of FA’S COMMENTS,
but read the POSTS, and comments. to check on what CANDIDATES ARE BEST EQUIP TO WIN, this so important election. where OBAMA will buy votes with his billion dollar, donated by forcing the many to empty their pockets for him, instead of helping AMERICANS struggling for jobs,
as oppose to a less pocket full CANDIDATES BUT with the know how to create jobs and know how to close the borders and know how to stop the spending of AMERICANS ‘S MONEY on foreign lands instead of in AMERICA FOR AMERICANS FIRST,
bye
@John Cooper, I read NRO’s article, and also read the opposite spectrum with Ann Coulter’s column today, and Quin’s at American Thinker (how decided to use the David Duke analogy, but says he wasn’t “comparing” Newt to David Duke, of course… LOL) Quin also says “debates are overrated” (paraphrased…). So he disses the import of Newt’s skill there. I disagree.
Do I consider McCann’s piece propaganda? Well, if I do, my own is the same. McCann’s mirrors my own more closely in that Newt may be imperfect – and only at the top after everyone else has virtually eliminated themselves (except Romney) – but overall possesses the scrapper, or fighting spirit that it’s going to take in these times.
Unlike some who want to revise history, Newt headed a Congress that had a a positive conservative record overall, with some deviations, of course. But there’s no doubt the Congress moved right and significantly slowed the progressive inroads that had been happening for decades under the Dems.
He also tackled some entitlement reform, balanced the budget, yada yada. I find it pretty amazing that many conservatives, who have so praised the GOP Congress of the 90s, crediting them with the budget, etal, think Newt had absolutely nothing to do with it. Perhaps they should be reminded that it was later in the Clinton 2nd term, post Newt, that the progressive tax hikes started happening, the dot com bubble bursting and the onset of the housing bubble in earnest.
Are there flaws? Oh yeah…. Arrogant, fraught with really bad choices in his personal life, and some political stances that he’s made that haven’t settled well with constituents. None of that erases the actual record on the books for Congressional leadership.
We have what I consider a very “thin” selection. So far most of them have been busy shooting off their own feet. Newt should have been history a long time ago, but he’s like the energizer bunny. And he’s definitely not been a favorite, or the first choice.
There is no single article that can “rehabilitate” Newt. He knows his baggage. He owns up and talks about his baggage unabashedly. But in reality, all of Newt’s baggage pales in comparison to Obama’s baggage… non transparency, spending, healthcare and financial debacles, Fast & Furious, Solyndra etc.
Newt is an astute historian. There isn’t anything that Obama can put forth, other than lofty ideas, that Newt can’t shoot out of the sky with his hands tied behind his back. There is great value to knowing history… something Obama tends to ignore. There is no doubt that Obama would be mincemeat in any debate.
But, I suspect that most of us still harbor that queasy feeling of which Newt would preside in the Oval Office. However I’d be remiss if I didn’t say that’s a queasiness I have with all of them. A POTUS can only veto legislation, and propose bills to be carried by others. That’s going to take someone who knows the system, and can pull together the elements in those bodies who’d do it, and get it accomplished against all odds. That is another proven skill of Newt’s.
The rest? I give no glory to a GOPer simply because they voted to repeal O’healthcare and Dodd-Frank. That’s showboating, pure and simple. They knew very well it would never get past the Senate.
Personally, I don’t have time for that stuff.
Nor do I see any significant leadership skills in the other active Congressional members that place them as obviously superior to Newt. Pretty hard to buck his track record.
Plus, I have to say I loved that Newt put Pelosi in her place within 48 hours of her not so coy dance with illegal disclosures and threats. It’s been some time since anyone shut that woman up in that short of time, and it did give me a huge grin. Right now, I’d like to line them all up, and wait for Newt to shout “PULL!”
Here’s the thing. I’m like some others here… the game is done before it gets to Oregon, so what I think is unlikely to matter. But as I said in my own post on this, when I see the GOP establishment and the lib/progs equally venomous towards Newt… and I despise both of them… there might be something there.
And apparently, despite all the fear tactics and mud being slung by conservative pundits, the GOP establishment and the Dems, Newt still rides high in the polls…. much to their dismay. You can’t say this is from those unfamiliar with Newt’s past because the latest polls have the age breakdowns. This isn’t young, uninformed and unaware supporters. They were around in the 90s.
McCann said what I’ve been saying. This is really about citizens vs the central government. If the GOP is foolish enough to run McCain, the sequel, they are likely to be starting the demise of their own party. Because no one wants an Obama’lite successor. If the conservatives want Newt, they’d better give him to them, and put their full backing behind him. The price of shoving another unwanted candidate onto the Republican ballot, in this economic time, is not something they can afford to do. And believe you me, all this establishment and pundit sniping is already being gleefully archived by the DNC, and we’ll hear it again from their own lips downline.
If the tea partiers are suspicious of Newt’s conservative creds, he could fix that and take on Palin as Veep. That would really make me laugh too… Ah, the steam and venom that would ensue from all over. But it would make the TP conservatives far more comfortable.
Guess we’ll just have to wait and see what ensues… but we’re running out of selections unless… Trump comes in (in which case I’ll be exiting…), or Palin reconsiders (which I doubt).
@Nan G, don’t forget Newt’s Day One EOs that he’ll do within an hour or so of Inauguration. He’s taking suggestions online even now from the public.
I’m rather fond of the ban on all Czars, plus the immediate withdrawal of all AG lawsuits against the states over immigration. Oh yes… the latest added is immediate approval of the Keystone pipeline.
‘That is why, despite the best efforts of the media and the Democratic and Republican establishment, Newt is surging in the polls.’
He has some in the media on his side, too. As for the Republican establishment, it will be interesting to see how that plays out. He has plenty of enemies, but on the local level there are probably also lots of leaders who would be happy to back a potential winner.
If the local Republican organizations don’t get behind him, he will really have to work to get his organization together in order to get on the ballot everywhere. Collecting signatures and filing them in time requires one of
a) a good organization and a fair bit of money
b) strong grassroots support
c) help from the local political leadership
… but realistically in order to succeed nationally you want to be at least two out of three on that list. In Newt’s case, he apparently just missed the filing deadline for Ohio despite a last-minute push (according to WaPo anyway). It may be changed retroactively because of redistricting confusion, but if not, he won’t be on the ballot there. In and of itself, not disastrous. But it doesn’t give you a lot of confidence in his organization.
As for the rest… yes, Gingrich has courage. It’s one of the few areas where he can really set himself apart from Romney in a positive way (Romney being clearly cautious to the point of being rather craven). My personal take on this is that it’s the courage that comes from being an egomaniac who genuinely doesn’t care what other people think, which is not really the best kind.
I think that you can make a case for Gingrich as the best candidate in a truly catastrophic situation – one where you don’t want someone with even normal levels of caution (let alone Romney) but instead someone who embodies Patton’s advice: ‘A good plan violently executed right now is far better than a perfect plan executed next week’. But we aren’t there. Despite everyone’s doom and gloom, the problems we face are beancounter problems – budgets that don’t balance, economic incentives that don’t make sense, and so on. I’d take Romney (who has actual managerial skills and attention to detail, unlike Newt) for this situation.
MATA
the latest approval of the KEYSTONE PIPELINE, it’s a winner,
there are MANY AMERICANS WORKING THERE, and they votes
bye
@MataHarley:
Thanks, Mata.
I read that section on the EOs.
Forgot about the Czars.
How relevant is that today?
Obama not only put forward another Czar to be shot down by Republicans today, this Czar would have had a budget OUTSIDE the ability of Congress to oversee!
He would have had $1/2 billion just to get started without any oversight whatsoever.
And Cordray’s entire ”job?”
Looking over your shoulder every time you want a credit card, a loan, a car and so on.
@Nan G:
I’m not guessing, I’m going by Newt’s own words.
The “Prosperity Plan” you posted is…I’m sorry…mostly drivel. Take this one item for example: “Remove obstacles to job creation imposed by destructive and ineffective regulations…”. Parsing that, he doesn’t oppose regulations per se, just “ineffective ones”. We know this to be true because Newt favors “effective” regulations like the FDA and the EPA, his recent comments notwithstanding. He has already said he admired Progressive Teddy Roosevelt for forming the FDA after reading The Jungle and while “eating a plate of sausage and eggs and wondering what was in it.” Is that really the proper basis for regulation… a shot from the hip after reading a muckraking screed by a socialist?
I LIKE newt, but his philosophy is totally statist and I completely distrust his new-found libertarianism. He says one thing now, but his history says just the opposite.
@John Cooper:
did you read Newt’s context, JC?
Here’s how it went after the sausage quote:
One source on the web:
http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/12/06/transcript-of-newt-gingrich-interview/
Romney’s peculiar reaction to Neil Cavuto’s questions at the end of his interview with Neil showed characteristics of someone who stays ‘controlled’ for show, but evidently ‘loses it’ when he thinks the cameras have stopped rolling – thin skin just isn’t useful when the Nation urgently needs powerful and confident leadership. If he doesn’t get his way, Romney loses it? Sounds too much like the guy in the W.H.
There is something appetizing about having an ultimate career insider, Gingrich, leaping to the fore, leading the charge against ‘government-insiderism’ and ‘big government’, and now being seen by Dem and Rep insiders as the ultimate ‘outsider’. What a turn of events that is.
After the petty simpleton ego-slap-ups between Perry and Romney during the debates, Gingrich looks downright statesmanly. I most enjoyed Gingrich’s refusal to duplicate the Perry/Romney bitch-slap on his fellow Rep debaters. It was telling of Gingrich that he repeatedly pushed back on the moderators. Everyone else is too scared shitless to do so.
America is not at a proverbial ‘cross-roads’. It is in crisis. Romney shows little spine for tough decisions. Gingrich looks like he’s biting at the bit for an opportunity to get those tough decisions.
I feel that the items outlined above in #5 by NanG are the kinds of decisions that I fully expect Gingrich to take. He is at a stage in his life when he just may be ready to do the right thing for his country, instead of strictly for himself.
Reading some of Gingrich’s ‘solutions’, I see he’s just throwing stuff out there and hoping that no one notices that his own proposals contradict themselves. I was curious about his view of NCLB, so I looked at his education ideas (under ‘A 21st Century Learning System’). Well, it looks like he wants to do a whole bunch of stuff: implement Pell-grant style system for K-12, require transparency and accountability, implement a no-limits charter system, and so on. *At the same time*, he claims to want to shrink the DoEd so that “The Department’s only role will be to collect research and data, and help find new and innovative approaches to then be adopted voluntarily at the local level.”. I suppose, depending on his audience, he can now either claim to be really federalist *or* really interested in forcing education reform using the federal government.
Can’t find any mention of his Six Sigma idea. Maybe he realized it was stupid. More likely someone told him it wouldn’t sell. Looks like he’s not interested in discussing specific budget cuts either.
@James Raider: ‘He is at a stage in his life when he just may be ready to do the right thing for his country, instead of strictly for himself.’
Apparently not, actually. His latest campaign filings show something that I find bizarre: he had his campaign (which was struggling financially and owes, or owed at that time, over a million dollars) pay him, personally, $42,000 dollars for a list of email addresses. A normal person would have just given his campaign the list of addresses as an in-kind donation; it costs you nothing and helps your own campaign, for pity’s sake! But for Newt I guess even this is just another opportunity to line his own pockets.
@ Mata #8,
Another absolutely exquisite piece of irony is that the Gingrich ‘luggage’ will play against the Obama empty suitcase. Obama came to office a blank slate, not even college transcripts, and has sat in the Oval Office for 3 years with a blank stare, a teleprompter and a putter. At least the country will have a good idea of what it’s getting with Newt.
I am also convinced that above all, a majority of taxpayers will be looking for a strong-minded decision maker above all else. The economy, China, energy, Iran, etc., all await strong decisions.
Even today, Obama couldn’t make a decision to take action on the lost drone in Iran. That was a major loss and in the hands of China as well as in the hands of Putin, this drone is priceless, . . . and should be destroyed.
I agree, James. Newt has demonstrated himself to be fearless when faced with confrontation (whether moderators, Dems or his own). Most are “scared shitless” to take on the opposition (even when it’s primary peers). Or when they do, it’s only done by mischaracterizing what the other has said in order to score cheap points. I have to say that when it comes to effective, and documented “bitch slapping”… and not looking petty while doing so, Newt has excelled. He has also stayed above the fray in attacking the other candidates for the most part.
I also can see healthy skepticism, such as JC displays above.
But, JC… INRE your “drivel” comment. I’m somewhat confused as to your “drivel threshhold”… LOL
Personally, I think all the candidates tend to post non specific “drivel”. Take, for example, Michelle Bachmann’s “American Jobs, Right Now Blueprint”. Filled with non specific talking points and vagaries.
Or, if you prefer, “drivel”.
Let’s not stop there. Let’s to to the “More Secure America” page. Six paragraphs of more “drivel”, and half of them are devoted to Obama instead of what she would do differently.
Call me wacky, call me zany… but there’s always been a skill in Newt’s ability to simply lay out what he intends to do in straightforward language. That puts it up to criticism, or acceptace. But at least you have a clue. After reading Bachmann’s truly deplorable website… even knowing something about what she believes in her heart… I don’t have a clue as to what she intends except that she promises to “do whatever it takes “, and not be Obama.
???
I can go to any of the other candidates campaign sites and find the same. I can say one thing for Newt’s site… he has all his “solutions”, with expandable hotlinks, on one page. Each issue has a bit more, and videos of his appearances and interviews, on the subjects. If nothing else, Newt lays out who Newt is… at least today… with great organization and thoroughness.
Now that’s nothing more than a compliment on his cyber organization presentation, compared to others. But it still begs the question of you… exactly what constitutes your “drivel threshold”. And is there one for Newt, and another for the rest?
Last, you keep going back to what you say is his “words” and that he is a progressive. Yet you totally ignore the 90s GOP Congress, and their accomplishments, under his Speaker leadership. Why do you find his record so irrelevant, and your perception more relevant?
Like I said, whether we end up with Newt or not, all of this internal debasement is going to come right back out during the general…. and used by the DNC themselves. I don’t care what anyone says about Newt today. He’s hands over fist above Obama. And I guess some, while pushing their own preferences over the poll favorite, want to forget that.
I think my point is that all the candidates say what we want to hear. After all, they are all on the conservative side, compared to Obama. And I certainly won’t question that Ms. Bachmann is a stalwart conservative in all ways. Basically, all of them are… at least in talking the walk.
I like Ms. Bachmann, but I also think her attempt at reaching the voting audience via anecdotes… many ill thought and incorrect… trap her. I’m not impressed with her debate skills as of yet. I also think that, despite her time and voting conservative voting record, she’s not really demonstrated she can influence and lead her peers in Congress… yet. I suspect she will grow more formidable in time, but I don’t find her at the top of my list right now. But I would pull the lever for her in a heartbeat over Obama.
It’s funny that people just assume Newt would murder Obama in a debate. Did I miss all Obama’s debates againt McCain, the ones where Obama had his clock cleaned? Or those primary debates where he made such a fool of himself? Should I also erase from my mind all the times Newt’s had to backtrack from something, uh, unpolitic he’s said and had to reverse/clarify? Believe me, I would love to see that debate too.
@James Raider… LOL! Yes, I’ve been following that “lost” drone bit. Still trying to sort out what happened. Of course, it’s “NATO” control.. or lack of control. Supposed communication lost and it’s found it’s way over Iran instead of Afghanistan. ??? But then the NYTs said they’ve been mapping Iran nuke facilities via drone, which I’m most likely to believe.
But how did Iran get it? They say they “guided” it down intact, and their video with it today proves it is, indeed, intact. So if NATO lost communication, how did Iran have the communication to guide it down? Will be an interesting story will all the first release speculation BS flies past… right now it’s just a lot of BS and finger pointing. But I digress…
I’m having a bit of amusement at bbartlog… an admitted Ron Paul fan… analyzing Newt’s more complete plans out there, while prior to that admitting that Romney was a better bet than Newt. Seems to be an extreme to be a Ron Paul supporter, willing to settle for a second in Romney. Extreme much?
As I said, you can’t argue the 90s GOP conservative Congressional record under Newt. You can way argue any semblance of “conservative” under Romney’s MA gubernatorial leadership.
But some people have a bizarre threshold. And some candidates annoy more than others, apparently. All are, admittedly, better than Obama. It’s just that some won’t live thru the debate section of the process.
I do think that people are maybe a little overoptimistic about the prospects for Newt demolishing Obama in debate, but that’s not because he wouldn’t be able to mop the floor with him given a sufficiently open format. It’s because Obama can probably set enough conditions that the format will be constrained, at which point it might be hard for Gingrich to really take him down.
Speaking of debates, does anyone know what’s happening with the Trump-moderated debate on the 27th? Last I heard everyone except Gingrich and Santorum had bowed out. Is Gingrich going to debate Santorum, or are they going to call it off? I’d guess the latter, I don’t think Newt is going to want to give Santorum the air time, even if he can easily come out ahead in the debate. Plus it would look a little weird with just two of seven+ candidates up there.
@Tom, thanks for that lib/prog view point that Newt would result in an Obama “clock cleaning”. But you see, bigger, and far more influential, progressives than you have already said that.
Are we assuming that you have such a big heart as to tell conservatives when they are on the wrong track? Funny… just can’t get to there from here. Perhaps it’s time to remind you that you, personally, are not the target of any GOP candidate. You’d vote for Obama no matter who was running.
Gotta love the smell of fear in the air….
@bbartlog:
because you will agree with Newt, or because Newt is a better debater than Obama? If the latter, what’s your reasoning? Is “Obama can’t debate” just another conservative truism along the lines of “Obama needs a teleprompter to speak”? By the way, doesn’t the second dubious cliché fall if the first can’t be proven, or are there teleprompters in debates?
bbartlot, is that true. Bummer… I thought that the “Comb Over debate” would be highly entertaining… LOL
@MataHarley: ‘Seems to be an extreme to be a Ron Paul supporter, willing to settle for a second in Romney. Extreme much?’
Well, Romney is anything but extreme. I freely admit that my dislike for Gingrich is partly visceral; since I detest the man (as I see him) I have trouble then just looking at the politics in a dispassionate way. I actually think that some people are probably the same way about Romney; his gutlessness is the sort of thing that would make some people see red. To say nothing of the Paul-loathing that’s out there.
Anyway, Paul for principles and Romney for electability. Simple enough. I don’t see any way for Paul to win the Republican nomination, though (which doesn’t mean he wouldn’t be strong in the general… but it’s a moot point). After that I’d probably go Bachman > Perry > Huntsman > Santorum > Gingrich . I have trouble deciding where to put Huntsman; I don’t have anything against him, really, but I feel like he should run as a Democrat. And I don’t mean that in a snarky, look-what-a-liberal-goofball he is way. I mean that if he ran as a Democrat, I’d say ‘hey, the Democrats are running someone who isn’t useless, for the first time since 1964 – I could vote for him’. Whereas when he runs as a Republican, it’s like a mislabeled package.
@MataHarley:
Fear? Why would one fear an intelligent person articulating a liberal vision next to an intelligent person articulating a conservative one? Sounds fair to me. Likely everyone will agree with whomever they already agree with, and as for those who are undecided, well, let’s see if they’re inclined to embrace what’s elementally a heartless, miserly and selfish vision of America’s future over Obama’s. I’m willing to take my chances and I’m sure so is Obama.
@Tom: I don’t know whether I would agree with Newt because I have no idea what would come out of his mouth in a debate. As for Obama, yes, it’s my contention that he does poorly in unscripted situations. Simply doesn’t have the quick recall of Gingrich. He’s somewhat better at delivering set-piece speeches (he has the slow speech and deep voice down pat) but that gets you almost nothing in a debate, other than the ability to buy yourself a little time to think by talking real slow :-).
But as I said, I think team Obama can probably make it not matter too much. Gingrich would have to somehow gain the upper hand *first* in order to be able to force a debate on his terms, and given Obama’s war chest I think that would require unusual events.
@Tom: Tom, your comments about 0-bama and his ability to debate leave out a very very important fact. That is, 0-bama now has a record of failure rather than no record at all. Last time he debated with a blame Bush and the Republican Strategy which he can’t do this time. He may try but it will fail.
@bbartlog:
I respect your opinion and appreciate your sharing it, but again, I wonder where it comes from. Why does everyone who shares your “he does poorly in unscripted situations” seem to forget his debate performances? How many hours of debates do you think are on record of Obama, between primaries, etc., and where are all the smoking gun clips of his alleged ineptness? Look at what idiocy Rick Perry has generated in a fraction of the time.
I’m sort of baffled here. All the “debates” so far, have had LEFT leaning people running them, and rules/questions etc, set up it would seem, to make all the participants end up in catfights, and look stupid… hence the “whack a mole” comment above!!
Now, we have a much more Conservative person, running the “Debate”… and all the SO CALLED Conservatives RUN the OTHER WAY???? W T H ??????
@Common Sense:
In the narrowest sense of “debating skill”, that’s irrelevant. A good debater will debate well regardless of the subject matter. In a practical sense, I agree that his performance as President will be a huge factor. But so would Mitt’s record. It’s not exactly pristine. Overall, I think you raise a good point, though I can’t agree Obama’s record is all “failure”.
@ TOM… McCain it think, was HALF SENILE… his responses stank, he didn’t put up a fight to win at all… he was the WORST Candidate, we could have sent up THEN…. we’ve got ONE SHOT at getting somebody in who hopefully will be able to do SOME good….. If we get 4 more years of Obama…. we’re finished. I don’t think, we could recover from the damage they left will do to use, unchecked for 4 more.. in my lifetime.. if EVER….. I really feel, it’s THAT BAD…….
@Hankster58: Trump isn’t much of a conservative. Look up Karl Rove’s comments. Also, you must have missed the Huckabee forum. It was pretty good (though technically I guess not a debate). Anyway, the candidates have given their reasons for not participating in Trump’s show. Personally I agree that it’s pretty poor to choose a moderator who has floated the idea of running against your candidate next year.
@Hankster58: So dramatic. What is Obama going to do in the next four years, that a Republican would do differently, that will somehow sink the country? Don’t get me wrong – it would be sad and damaging and infuriating. And I think you can make a case for long-term, hard-to-reverse damage from illegal immigration. But ‘finished’? ‘I don’t think we could recover’? People need a little perspective on just what constitutes an actual national disaster (say, Germany 1945) so they can stop panicking about four years of the wrong guy in office.
The only important question is Does it make any differnce?
When he was Speaker he had it all. And sold us out.
dramatic?? You can’t take a CRAP, without sitting on a GOV regulated TOILET, you flip on, a GOV regulated Light bulb, guns, cars, clothes, food, can’t even put a DOG House in the yard in many places, without GOV approval. Debt going out of sight…. lack of jobs going UP….. And Obama, seeks to turn up into a FAILED European Socialist Sewer. I have relatives who still LIVE there now, you don’t have a CLUE how bad it REALLY is there, for the NATIVE CITIZENS!! Dramatic?? Don’t think so… SAD, that I’m old enough, to remember, how good we HAD it, and now, how bad we HAVE IT? And, to want BETTER for my kids n GRANDKIDS?? And to feel, THEY WON’T GET IT?? Dramatic?? No, PISSED to the point of …. THAT is how i feel!! OWS was “dramatic”. Feeling, you’d like to AID in someone “leaving this earth”….. that’s something entirely different…
HANKSTER
you could even be better than OBAMA, so the candidates could be better too, and GINGRISH is ahead and whatever in the past, he now is resolute to make it happen, because he see it, maybe more than anybody, because he know how it happened, so he will do a better job for sure no doubts,
now there is the support he get, that mean something, it mean to me the AMERICANS FOLLOW HIM FOR HIS ABILITY TO WIN OVER OBAMA, THIS IS A FIRST PRIORITY, and the rest will come,
at this time there is so much depress people, and lost of confidence over this election,
but as we get closer to NOVEMBER, THE HOPE WILL RAISE ,AND IT WILL MOVE TOWARD ACTION TO PREPARE FOR VOTING TO WIN,
@ bees.. I SINCERELY hope so!!
@Hankster58:
Again, that proves Obama was/is a terrible debater how?
Are ya DENSE?? When you are Debating a half senile fool… like McCain was.. you don’t HAVE to be a “good Debater”…. do you.
So tell me, are you one of those Obama lovers??
There’s an inherent value to doing a side-by-side taste test. If one had two dinners on the plate before them, and one was warmed over spam from last week, and the other a plump all beef hot dog… I’d say most would concur the hot dog won. But if the plates contained a choice between Chateaubriand and that same hot dog, the hot dog would look like…. well… a hot dog.
If you taste tested wine, using a bottle of Mondavi merlot and a box of red wine, the Mondavi would stand out as superior. But if you took that same bottle of Mondavi, and sampled a bottle of Lafite Rothschild Bordeaux as comparison, the Mondavi is little more than an upscale box of wine.
Moral of the story, Tom… oh Mr. die hard O’faithful? Obama will always be a hot dog and a Mondavi merlot at best. And if you want to make him look good, you’d better hope that the GOP picks either another piece of week old spam or box of wine from the local 7/11.
This is, of course, why you… who has no vested interest in any GOP candidate save for nerfarious reasons… insists on trying to tell the conservatives what is a “good” candidate. Obviously – with the lower shock and awe threshold you have set for Obama’s debate prowess – you’re shopping for spam and box wine to make your guy look good.
Hankster, you’ve been MIA of late, guy. Yes, “Tom” is a die hard progressive Obama faithful, and a semi- regular troll with less than adept debate skills. But then, he is cuts above the one liner parrot, liberalman. All in all, save for our regular long time FA libs, the new class of O’trolls is a proverbial scrapping the bottom of the barrel.
@Tom: You said:
It never fails to amuse me when the left says that running a government with no deficit is heartless and miserly and only Obama’s vision is caring.
Tell me, is it caring when the government is so in the red that it has to start draconian austerity measures which will really spread the misery, not the wealth?
Is it caring when the government takes on every citizen’s health care, then realizes it cannot pay for everyone’s health care and has to start denying procedures, meds, etc…?
Is it caring when the government makes promises about its’ unfunded liabilities, and then cannot make good on those promises?
Re Newt:
His original Contract with America saw 31 of the 33 measures pass the house. The Senate, while not running on the whole CoA thing took their time on passing those provisions. However, history shows that Newt can get things done. Of his supposed ethics violations, none bore any fruit save the tax problems, and even that saw the IRS investigate and find…nothing.
Newt has the self confidence and historical knowledge to trounce Obama in a debate – a true debate, not an MSM farce that is created to protect Obama.
I am a huge, HUGE fan of Reagan’s and even he signed a controversial (to conservatives) abortion bill while Governor of California. In today’s political climate, would Reagan get a pass on this or would he be picked apart by the GOP and Conservative base such as Newt is experiencing?
One last point; I keep hearing how thin and weak this crop of GOP hopefuls is. Again, I ask – four years ago, were we even discussing the tax code or EPA over regulation like we are now?
Mata is right, any of the GOP candidates would be a far sight better in the Oval Office than the empty suit we have now.
TOM is nailed to the ceiling now, upside down.
@ antics.. AMEN!!
MATA
Mondavi merlot sound good,
I’LL check that next week for my friend at the farm , I’m invited for CHRISTMAS,
SCOTCH FOR HIM, AND 2 MONDAVI MERLOT for her,and me,they end up with my reserve last september, he liked the scotch and she liked the cabernet,
I never touch it, only with people I like in a special time like this one coming.
bye
@Tom: You said:
I am going out on a limb here, but maybe it is because of these things that Obama said:
I could go on, the man is a virtual gaffe machine.
@MataHarley:
Nice thoughts. Although I’d like to see Bachmann or Santorum as the nominee, they don’t have a prayer in the general election. No doubt, Newt is a mixed bag, but I’d rather vote for a repentant Catholic Christian, than a holier-than-thou, timid Mormon.
Newt will be able to bring the corruptions of the Obama administration to full light and keep the focus on the failed putative president. Having experienced the partial loss of traditional America, due to the Obama (unconstitutional non natural born citizen) “presidency,” the election (without) a John McCain type Republican choice, will then not be a choice between a Democrat Party (turd) candidate and a Republican Party (shit sandwich) candidate. The 2012 election process is a clear choice between the Obama turd and the Republican lard sandwich. Voters can take their choice – eat crap or choose something far better…..
Unfortunately, too many people–like the author of this article–view debate according to the classical university model: A game in which the winner is measured by their sophism, rather than truth.
@MataHarley:
GUFFAW!
When you post, Mata, it’s hard to tell if you’re serious or not.
Let’s face it, Obama is a shoe-in for reelection. Shoe-in.
He’ll have over $1,000,000,000.00 to spend to destroy his Republican opponent, and with his confederates in the media, the Republican don’t stand a chance.
Game over.