Posted on 12/12/2011 5:59:51 AM PST by C. Edmund Wright
While the entire elite insider structure of both parties in a full tizzy over the out-of -the crypt rise of Newt Gingrich -- and the national pundit class totally vexed by it -- allow me to unlock the deep dark mystery that has them all scratching their pointy little heads. It's the persuasion, stupid. Now before you slough that off as too simple and too shallow of an analysis, keep in mind how rare true persuasion is these days in politics. And by true persuasion, I mean the ability to persuade voters to consider changing their minds to agree with the politician who is speaking. Generally, the only persuasion we see today is the phony attempt to make voters think the politician agrees with them. This normally happens after some shallow political hack has persuaded some soulless office seeker that this is the way to win the precious moderates and independent voters. Too many folks running for office are merely thermometers, hiring a consultant to take the electorates pulse and then attempting to reflect it. True leaders are like thermostats. They set the temperature and bring the electorate to them.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/newts_rise_its_the_persuasion_stupid.html#ixzz1gKQQ80Qu
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Already posted here by 2ndDivisionVet: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/2819170/posts
*which can’t easily be quantified…
oops, didn’t know that.
It’s worth repeating.
One comment Newt made: I don’t want you to be FOR me, I want you to be WITH me.
I would like to see each candidate present their platform position points, uninterrupted by the sniping and sarcasm of “de baits”.
Easier to quantify is the degree to which Romney inspires people...
...which is not at all.
“Too many folks running for office are merely thermometers, hiring a consultant to take the electorates pulse and then attempting to reflect it. True leaders are like thermostats. They set the temperature and bring the electorate to them.”
Good point.
So: Newt on the couch with Pelosi re global warming. Which camp does that put him in?
Slick Romney is that statement. Except no need for consultants to make him the phony he is.
Dumb--it means nothing.
I can't get on the Newt bandwagon. This Newt rise is superficial. That's not to say it won't last but Newt has simply been at the right place in this campaign at the right time. Given enough time, he, too, will fade. Newt's attack on Paul Ryan had substance to it. What the heck was he thinking?
Voters are reacting to performances in debates and forums as though this is how we choose presidents now. To heck with records.
I’ve been making the same point for a while. Instead of “persuasion”, I used the words “engaging” and “inspiring”. Those words cannot be used to describe any of the other candidates on that stage so far this primary season. Most of our guys/gals abilities seem limited to running down campaign prepared checklist. That’s about it. As a listener/viewer, it leaves you cold.
What was that old commercial jingle?: “When E. F. Hutton talks, people listen”. Newt has that E.F. Hutton factor. The others don’t.
I tried to call into Rush’s show a while back when there was a lot of clamor about Christie getting into the race. Rush was trying to explain the enthusiasm for Christie even though Christie isn’t the most conservative. I tried to explain the “simple” points of your article to Snurdley. Snurdley was having none of it. Perhaps because my points wouldn’t support Rush’s ongoing/on-air analysis (In fact I was suggesting that Rush was missing it - getting it wrong) and perhaps because my point was just too simple (which made me a simpleton).
I find myself gravitating to the American Thinker more and more. There are certain people who have the power of persuasion. Newt could be telling you the sky used to be orange and changed to blue 1 million years ago and you would be tempted to beleive him because in the way he says things. Turns out what he does say is true. It might sound controversial or out of the mainstream, but the history professor can back it up because he knows history. The other candidates just can’t compete with his depth of knowledge and his main competitor Romney cannot reference a reason to do something now because we did it in WW II. The other candidates can only go as far back as the 1960s, but Newt frequently refers to the 1860s and in other speeches on CPAN along the campaign trail, Newt will go through the Declaration of Independence and tell us exactly what those words meant. It’s like we’re all getting a free history class and I find it engaging, interesting and educational.
Now match his experience and historical perspective of the United States against Obama’s lack of experience and questionable historical perspective. How could Obama possibly compete with Newt without revealing himself as the true Saul Alinsky radical and Socialist he really is. Newt will put all the things we’ve suspected about Obama on the front of the stage for all to see. This is the election we need to have because this is the conversation this nation needs to hear right now. It will serve as a wakeup call and I frankly can’t wait. Newt will not only destroy Obama in the debate, but he will respond to stupid things Obama and Biden say during the campaign. The nation will finally get it and Newt will eventually win and win big next November.
In the category of men who make a mistake, admit it, own up to it and learn from it.
In other words, not a RAT or a member of the MSM, but then, I repeat myself.
Thanks for an excellent commentary, CEW. Merry Christmas and a Happy Newt Year!
Thanks, Mr. Wright...excellent analysis.
The concensus appears to be that none of the GOP candidates meet all of the voters’ preferences. I agree with your opinion that these ‘debate debacles’ are not dignified or substantive.
If acceptable, stronger candidates with better character traits and leadership qualities did not find the courage or commitment to step up and fight for America’s future - then they don’t exist.
Those that are in the arena should be respected for their efforts on our behalf.
>> So: Newt on the couch with Pelosi re global warming. Which camp does that put him in? >>
That puts him in the camp of flawed human beings who make mistakes. He repeatedly called this the biggest mistake of his career.
Maybe on day you’ll make a mistake and join us in the flawed human camp.
IMHO...
Newt’s website says he would eliminate the 39 “czar” positions.
Other than that, I don’t hear much about reducing the scope and power of the Federal government, specifically, elimination of departments. Elimination of whole departments is necessary to make it a bit more difficult to have them spring back larger than ever a few years later.
Seems to me a President would need to campaign on eliminating departments as a centerpiece of their ideas in order to have the political mandate to get it done.
When it comes to healthcare, his website gingrich.com from his consulting firm has a lot of talk about what government can do to fix healthcare, when, IMHO, government should be getting out of healthcare altogether over the next few decades. And in order to do that, it has to start. I’d be real excited if his ideas were suggestions for the private sector coupled with plans to shrink government involvement down to mostly just data reporting. But
Newt’s real sharp, no doubt he would beat zero, but he seems like he’s talking more about “fixing” government than “shrinking” it - whenever one looks at the details.
Persuasion doesn’t exist, IMHO. I’ve never seen anyone persuade anyone to change their political views. When someone votes for a candidate whose views differ from their own on various issues, it’s simply because they prefer them to the alternative candidate. When a person changes their political views from liberal to conservative, it’s because they came to their own realization. They may have heard a speaker or read something, but, at the end of the day, they started thinking for themselves. Young people are mostly indoctrinated by schools to think along left-wing lines; I don’t call that persuasion, but indoctrination.
With the economy in the tank, a voter in the political center will sometimes vote for the candidate who appears to be going to stop the train wreck even though they are perhaps far more conservative than the voter. A good example would be a voting group like middle-aged liberal women who have always been pro-abortion their whole life. Because the economy is in such a mess, a small number of them may vote Republican even though they disagree with the candidate on abortion because their job and investments are being destroyed by zero.
And persuading Congress - that’s horse-trading, not persuading. When Congressmen speak on the floor in so-called “debate”, they’re grandstanding for the electorate, not trying to actually persuade each other of anything.
Washington DC is simply dealmaking.
Lol, true that.
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.