Posted on 12/22/2011 9:26:30 AM PST by orthodoxyordeath
Watching the last few GOP debates will have had one of two effects on you. Either 1) your love and admiration for Newt Gingrich has been cemented, or 2) you now despise him. I personally fall into the second category. As Peggy Noonan's article title says, "Gingrich Is Inspiring—and Disturbing." While at times his ideas seem brilliant, it's the other times that are problematic. As Noonan later said,
"Ethically dubious? True. Intelligent and accomplished? True. Has he known breathtaking success and contributed to real reforms in government? Yes. Presided over disasters? Absolutely. Can he lead? Yes. Is he erratic and unreliable as a leader? Yes. Egomaniacal? True. Original and focused, harebrained and impulsive—all true."
At times, I'm convinced Newt is simply spewing ideas out because they make him sound brilliant, and because they help boost his wild ego. Former Senator and Representative Jim Talent, who worked with Newt said, "He's not reliable as a leader." Great, that's what I want in a president, and unreliable leader. Senator Tom Coburn (another Newt colleague) said Newt was "the last person I'd vote for for president of the United States." So his colleagues don't like him? That's another fantastic sign. Having a president working with members of his own party that don't like him? Lovely. Regardless of what you think of the above Senators as legislators or human beings, it's a telling sign when former colleagues think so lowly of Newt.
Now, like I said, Newt has brilliant moments, either in quips or just sound legislative plans. There have been times in fact, during debates, that I catch myself inwardly cheering Newt. For example, when he attacked Chris Wallace for the "gotcha questions." I thought to myself, "Good one! These debates shouldn't be about "gotcha questions!" Substance man!" Then he used the quip at in his next interview, and in the next debate. He's like those little irritating kids we all have met, you know, the ones who when you make the fatal mistake of laughing at their fart jokes, then proceed to make the joke for a month straight until they realizes it's gotten old? Yeah, that's Newt. He's like a political vuvezela.
I actually just rewatched the clip before writing this post, because I wanted to make sure I remembered what he said. Here's a little transcript:
WALLACE: Thank you. Speaker Gingrich, one of the ways that we judge a candidate is the campaign they run. In June, almost your entire national campaign staff resigned, along with your staff here in Iowa. They said that you were undisciplined in campaigning and fundraising, and at last report, you're a million dollars in debt. How do you respond to people who say that your campaign has been a mess so far?
GINGRICH: Well, let me say, first of all, Chris, that I took seriously Bret's injunction to put aside the talking points, and I wish you would put aside the gotcha questions. (APPLAUSE)
Like -- like Ronald Reagan, who had 13 senior staff resign the morning of the New Hampshire primary and whose new campaign manager laid off 100 people because he had no money, because the consultants had spent it, like John McCain, who had to go and run an inexpensive campaign because the consultants spent it, I intend to run on ideas.
Congress should come back Monday. They should repeal the Dodd-Frank bill. They should repeal Sarbanes-Oxley. They should repeal Obamacare. They should institute Lean Six Sigma across the entire federal government, a hard idea for Washington reporters to cover, but an important idea, because it's the key to American manufacturing success.
I'd love to see the rest of tonight's debate asking us about what we would do to lead an America whose president has failed to lead, instead of playing Mickey Mouse games. (APPLAUSE)
Now, this little passage provides for an endless amount of analysis. Let me give my overall opinion here first. Only a polished, slick-Willy politician could spin questions about his campaign into being "mickey mouse games." That requires some glib rhetorical skills. Next, let's read the exchange again.
Like like Ronald Reagan, who had...staff resign the morning of the New Hampshire primary and whose new campaign manager laid off 100 people because he had no money, because the consultants had spent it, like John McCain, who had to...run an inexpensive campaign because the consultants spent it, I intend to run on ideas.
So first off, how does Newt move into this rhetorical maneuvering? By comparing himself to Ronald Reagan. He also uses this phrase "because he had no money, because the consultants had spent it," which gives this sense of victimization, further making him look like a victim of the evil Chris Wallace's questioning. Secondly, look at the list of things he invokes.
They should repeal the Dodd-Frank bill. They should repeal Sarbanes-Oxley. They should repeal Obamacare. They should institute Lean Six Sigma across the entire federal government...
Now the average person definitely knows what Obamacare is. The average person has a good chance of knowing what the Dodd-Frank bill was, and might have an idea of what Sarbanes-Oxley was. Personal note here as an example, I knew what Dodd-Frank was, but had no clue what Sarbanes-Oxley was. Then we get to "Lean Six Sigma." Ooooo. That sounds cool. Sorta sci-fi-ish eh? Any idea what it is? Nope? Me either. Apparently, upon research, it's some sort of business management strategy that has to do with the manufacturing industry. Does the average person know that? No. So what does this passage do? Makes Newt sound brilliant. He knows all these bad bills, and he wants to repeal them, so he must be great! Maybe, but really dear friends, it's all simply a ploy to make him sound like a brilliant scholar, make you feel like an idiot, and make him seem like a viable candidate.
Tomorrow, a look into some of Newt's claims, and an analysis on their truth!
If you’re quoting Peggy Noonan to make your case, you’ve already lost it.
So, basically this author criticizes Newt for being too smart? I guess I forgot politicians had to be idiots.
Anyway, no, you’re not the only one who shares that opinion—there are more than a few of you around here.
You’ll just have to decide if you like Romney more.
The Federal government implementing anything like six-sigma would be an enormous windfall for Federal contractors and a colossal boondoggle.
Noonan lost all credibility when she backed Obama.
Noonan is the motor mouth; a tool of the country club republicans. Romney is just another half-assed, non conservative, casper milk toast, yes I did and no I didn’t, and no I won’t attack Obama republican. And anointed by the main stream media. It angers me no end that the news media is running this country through corrupt, lying, marxist loving jerks who think they are God’s gift to world. Screw them all. Not Mitt, Not Now, Not ever. Go Newt!
Romney was on Fox&Friends yesterday, and I had to agree with his assessment of Gingrich’s recent complaints about negatives ads against him.
Romney basically said, if Gingrich couldn’t take the ads his GOP opponents are showing now, how will he, if he is the nominee, manage to withstand the certain barrage Team Obama, the Media and the Dems would unleash on him?
Gingrich was rather thin-skinned when he was in the House. Recall his seeming tantrum because Clinton made him sit at the back of the plane? If Team Obama play it right, they will use that weakness. Remember the Muskie Moment? The Deaniac Scream?
I agree she lost much of her credibility, I do think the quote by her sums up Gingrich well...
I ask this simple question. If not Newt then who?
By God! You are correct and I salute you! You are a great and patriotic American! I mean it and no sarcasm is intended or implied.
That’s why, like her or not (I actually don’t), Noonan’s description is right, “erratic and unreliable as a leader? Yes. Egomaniacal? True. Original and focused, harebrained and impulsive—all true.” He’s liable to have a screaming session like Howard Dean!
Noonan, you and Coulter vs Sowell, Rush and Levin.....
Your kidding right?
I cannot vote for Romney and I will not vote for Newt. It is time for the one man who can beat Obama steps back into the fracas!
Gee, we wouldn’t want any brilliant ideas or mention of things we don’t know about. Nor do we want anyone that has a record of actually accomplishing anything conservatives support. And we certainly don’t want any one that has made the establishment Republicans he has worked with upset. No sir, we sure don’t want that.
Let’s just nominate McCain again to be safe.
If Mitt was serious about taking the heat himself, he would have accepted at least one of Newt’s two challenges to debate him mana a mano. But predictably, Mitt chickened out both times.
He’s a hypocite and a liar.
ROTFLMAO....They already have.....a LONG time ago...I think I was on the tail end of the second go around and that was 5 years ago.
Way to misunderstand the point.
Newt wasn’t whining over attack ads in and of themselves—his criticism is that it’s idiotic for Republicans to be savaging each other like this, weakening all of our candidates across the board, and giving ammo for the enemy to use in the general. The Democrats are laughing their asses off watching the Republican candidates rip each other limb from limb.
I’m going to guess you mean Paul?
Newt is smart and sometimes brilliant, but he is not smart enough to use fewer words and be quiet once in awhile. His answer to Chris Wallace was good but the federal judge nonsense this weekend was, in my opinion, the wrong thing to say.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.