Professor vs. Professor (Newt vs. Obama Fantasy)

New York Times ^ | Ross Douthat

[Brookhaven]

Obama was never a professor. He was a “guest lecturer”/instructor.

This is the same title given to grad students that teach introductory courses to pick up some extra money.

It’s starter position. The bottom rung on the university teaching ladder.

[Hoodat]

This piece is spot on. I am surprised the NY Times published it. Newt supporters should take note. We should nominate someone with the courage to lead - not the courage to talk.

[Hoodat]

Newt seems to be pulling ahead because he’s not Romney . . .
We want a President who loves America, who takes America’s side always, and who refuses to coddle those who do not. This is separate from scoring intellectual points in any debate. It is a matter of taking the correct side in the debate and having your heart in it.

Agreed. I want someone who sees America on the verge of collapse, who has passion for the obligations and responsibilities of the job, and who is more interested in rejuvenating this nation instead of stroking their own ego. Newt Gingrich simply doesn't fit that bill.

[rogue yam]

I want someone who sees America on the verge of collapse, who has passion for the obligations and responsibilities of the job, and who is more interested in rejuvenating this nation instead of stroking their own ego. Newt Gingrich simply doesn't fit that bill.

Compared to whom?

[Hoodat]

Compared to whom?

Compared to someone who does. (It's not a comparison statement.)

[rogue yam]

An election is a comparison activity.

You have to order from the menu.

[Hoodat]

Fair enough. How about Herman Cain, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, John Huntsman, and Michele Bachmann?

[AndyTheBear]

Ross Douthat is the most conservative columnist on the Times. He may not always be right but he deserves more respect than that.

No way does he deserve respect. He is a professional, and should be LESS clueless than a layman not MORE clueless than a layman.

[AndyTheBear]

Ouch! A quadruple! What's going on FR??? We being attacked?

When I pressed the "post" button, it gave me a page telling me the server was too busy. So I retried several times until I stopped hitting that page...and alas...found that some of the previous tries showing up on the page.

[rogue yam]

Fair enough. How about Herman Cain, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, John Huntsman, and Michele Bachmann?

I would prefer Sen. Santorum as President to Newt, and possibly Rep. Bachmann as well. Cain has withdrawn, Rep. Paul's isolationism is disqualifying, and Huntsman I just don't know about. But the bottom line is that all of these people are in single digits and show no sign of catching fire.

So we're back to Newt.

[Hoodat]

But the bottom line is that all of these people are in single digits and show no sign of catching fire. So we're back to Newt.

Taking that line of reasoning one step further, the conclusion will be, 'So we're back to Obama'. In a primary process, any vote works against every other candidate. So a vote for Santorum works against Mitt just as effectively as a vote for Newt. So why not go with the better candidate?

It wasn't too long ago that Newt Gingrich showed any sign of catching fire, yet look at him now. There is a hunger in the electorate to come up with that non-Romney candidate who will hold fast to conservative ideals. Newt Gingrich qualifies for the former but not the latter. Rick Santorum qualifies at both. So why not give him your support? If we are going to save our vote for the person who happens to be highest in the polls at the moment, we might as well vote for Obama.

[x]

I guess "clueless" means "does not agree with me 100%." Douthat does a very good job at pointing out the pretentions of Obama supporters and the possible error of Gingrich supporters, but you insult him for not saying exactly what you want him to say in his throwaway opener about John Kerry. It's possible to disagree with him both about John Kerry's war record and who "won" the 2004 debates without demeaning him. This article is better than most of what the Times or we amateurs have come up with.

[AndyTheBear]

I guess "clueless" means "does not agree with me 100%."

Projection.