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!
[LOL] I guess I gave away that I never worked for the Feds...
So... Newt must be referring to perhaps... that it was not implemented throughtout the “whole” government, just certain depts ?
Oh.... and I can’t resist.... so, pray tell, how did those two implementations work out ? [he asked, closing eyes and plugging ears]...
So basically you're saying that intelligent people make you insecure, or what? Take it you must be a Perry supporter (kidding).
Honestly, I don't see Newt adamantly boasting about it his intellect that much (it's usually other people doing the gushing over it). Yeah, Newt uses bigger words and more complex rhetoric than your average politician—but what of it? I'd be proud to have a well-read, intelligent president for a change.
“If you’re quoting Peggy Noonan to make your case, you’ve already lost it.”
I have to agree. At that point you have lost the argument once you quote Peggy Noonan.
“If you’re quoting Peggy Noonan to make your case, you’ve already lost it.”
AMEN!
UCLA Political Scientist says Newt Gingrich is Biggest Threat to Obama.
An equally simple answer: Mitt.
Sure there are other options, but none of them are viable for anything other than a symbolic gesture. It comes down to one of these two.
A firm believer in ABO, I will pull the lever for whomever runs against Øbongo but my preference is Newt before Mitt.
I was totally undecided and I thought Newt's "baggage" was going to be a problem. I wanted to support Perry until he opened his mouth. Then I watched the Cain train come to town. Never got on board but I went to the station. After watching the debates and his performance in Iowa, I am all in for Newt. Screw his baggage. He will be an infinitely better President than Obama.
Bite your tongue!
I take what Coburn and Talent say with a grain of salt. Talent is a Romney guy and Coburn is the guy who said Pelosi’s a nice lady.
I realize that Gingrich can come across this way, but who else is there? Judging by your posts, you come across as a closet Romney supporter.
I wouldn’t marry Newt, that is for sure. I can’t think of any elitist I would marry, come to think of it.
You have to have an outsized ego to fancy yourself ready to run the United States of America and all I would do in a marrige to Mr. Ego is poke ‘em in the eyes.
Newt’s doing well because he can think and talk at the same time. We have not had that in the Republican party for a long time.
Finally, this smear the Liberals did on Newt being a poor sport is a total media lie in the context of the politics of that time when he was speaker. During that time, the media claimed the WORST thing was for politicans to be “partisan” and, ofcourse, partisan was being conservative in opposition to socialism. The Rinos were said to be bi-partisan good guys cooperating with Clinton. This was an effort to force conservatives like Newt to stop pushing and arguing for reform (contract with America).
When Clinton acted partisan, Newt objected in public so the media, with the help of Rinos smeared Newt as vindictive and whining.
Clinton and the Rinos - a minority of the House - were digging in their heels against reform promised to voters by Newt and his elected conservatives in the Contract with America. They were trying to shut out conservatives in the name of “bi-partisanship”. It did not work. Welfare reform and balancing the budget were two of Newt’s acheived goals, Clinton now takes credit for doing.
I apologize for accusing you of such. If you don’t like Mitt or Newt, than who do you like?
Newt’s problem is he thinks every idea he has is brilliant. Most aren’t, and he’s not capable of the level of self-criticism necessary to weed out the good ones from the bad. I also don’t see him as particularly open to criticism from others, which leads to questionable decision-making.
Newt’s intelligent. That’s not the same thing as smart.
That’s exactly how I feel about him. He’s too caught up in his own intelligence for me.
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.