As an English major I can tell you the word “grandiose” does have a negative connotation. As in ambitiously reaching in a way not indicated by the circumstances, or acting like it’s a bigger deal than it actually is.
Whether Wallace looked it up, who knows, but Wallace’s statements and premise is silly.
It does also have a negative connotation, but as you can see, it also has a positive one. An honest reporter would have said there was both a positive and a negative connotation and that Newt was using it appropriately in its positve sense.
Now, THAT would have been honest.
Not reporting that it also has a positive connotation, when you’ve just claimed to have looked the word up, is dishonest.
Wallace is a Romney butt sniffer - nuff said!
“As an English major I can tell you the word “grandiose” does have a negative connotation.”
Of course it does which is why Santorum used that word to describe Newt.
should have said Wallace’s statement and premise is silly
I second that. Nowadays it is the more common usage, the default, if you will. Gingrich was practicing a little verbal jiu-jitsu there, taking Santorum's choice of word and whacking him with it, the way a martial arts practitioner would seize the energy of an attack and use it against the attacker. Takes guts and skill, normally, but if one's opponent is much weaker, as Santorum is, well...it merely takes a bit of restraint so you only school him rather than fatally injure the pup.
You should be careful -
The negativity is subjective.
Similar to “baroque”. Some people like that. See “Lady Gaga’s career” for support.
One could have a “grandiose gesture on grandmas 100th birthday” - etc.
It is stupid anyway - and really tells us much more about Wallace than anything else.
He probaly looked it up after Newt gave him such a “bloody” nose at an earlier FAUX “debate” which it is far from being, but nothing than a Q & A session!!!