Gingrich and the likability thing
Commenter “Wolla Dalbo” asks the following question:
Neo”“Over the years you have been very calm and even-handed in your criticisms and treatment of all sorts of people and issues.
Yet, in the language and arguments you have been using with regard to Newt, I detect what seems to me to be a very active hatred of him.
What gives?
I do try—very hard—to be “calm and even-handed in my criticisms and treatment of all sorts of people and issues.” I like to think that’s one of my distinguishing features as a blogger (in person, well—let me just say I plead the apple). I’m not sure exactly which language and criticisms Wolla Dalbo is referring to, but he (I’m pretty sure Wolla’s a he) is a commenter whose opinions I value, and the question is a good one.
After a moment of reflection (we bloggers only get a moment; it has to be churned out at a fast and furious pace here), I think the answer is that I consider my arguments to be calm and even-handed and based on reason and observation, but I would also say that I have, not an active hatred of Gingrich, but a combination of what I consider a dispassionate evaluation of his pluses and minuses in terms of policy and position and temperament and record, an assessment of his appeal in terms of polls and the reaction of others, and a gut-level negative reaction of my own. In politics, I feel I must always pay attention to my visceral personal reactions, not because they’re mine and therefore important (only to me, really), but because I believe (as I wrote here, perhaps in the comment that sparked Wolla’s question?), that the intangible quality of likablity is a large factor in politics, whether we like it (pun intended) or not:
Most Americans are not political junkies, unlike political bloggers and commenters at political blogs. I know; I spent most of my life as a typical only-somewhat-interested American voter. My observation is that people vote at least 75% with their guts, on impressions they have of the candidates. Romney and Gingrich both are unfortunate in that regard, in almost entirely different ways. Romney is bland and goodlooking, and he doesn’t seem to have much fire in the belly or much conviction. Gingrich is quite different, but his personality is offputting to most people who are not already in his camp, and when I say “offputting” I mean it in the most forceful way possible. He repels people on a visceral level. At least, that’s my observation.
The only other president in my memory who won despite a personally repellent quality (although of a somewhat different type) was Nixon. Americans like to vote for people who seem likable. For neither Romney nor Gingrich is that a strong suit, but Gingrich is the more unlikable. Perhaps not to you or to many of the readers of this blog, to a lot of people.
I didn’t list them in the above comment, but some of the personal characteristics of Gingrich’s that lead to my perception of his generally high unlikability include his arrogance, a destructive rather than a constructive combativeness, his egotism (a characteristic of many politicians, of course), and his shiftiness. He’s hardly the only one with problems on the likability scale, as I wrote above—I think all the remaining Republican candidates have them—but his seem greater to me, and of course that’s a judgment call.
But that “repels people on a personal level” statement was not primarily about me. It’s about my observation of others, both people I know (especially Independents; forget the liberal Democrats, who will vote for Obama anyway) and commenters around the blogosphere. Candidates have a certain je ne sais quoi that’s a plus or minus for them. You may think Bill Clinton’s a slimebag (and strangely enough I was not drawn to him back in 1992, although I voted for him), but a lot of people consider him a lovable scamp. You may think Gingrich is a street fighter, and I would agree, but my observation is that people want that in a VP and not in a president, as a rule.
Ah, but you say that Nixon was every bit as personally repellent (actually, I guess I pointed that out myself, too), and he won, didn’t he? Yes, I remember it well. But in the election of 1968 Nixon was not running against a once-popular incumbent; his opponent was Hubert Humphrey, the VP of the discredited Johnson administration. The country was also in major turmoil, and the battles in the primaries for the Democratic nomination of 1968 make this year’s Republican infighting look like an actual tea party. What’s more, one of the leading candidates of 1968, Robert Kennedy, had been assassinated. Plus, Nixon’s victory was a real squeaker; the winner wasn’t announced till morning.
In 1972, the Democratic Party erred (IMHO) by nominating George McGovern, a mild-mannered man who came off as simultaneously too weak and too extreme—too far to the left—for the majority of Americans at that time. The result was a landslide for Nixon, who had incumbency on his side as well that year.
I’m not sure any of this has much to do with what would happen if Gingrich were to be nominated in 2012, but it certainly doesn’t indicate to me he’d be elected.
But let’s leave the subject of likability for now, because it’s by no means my only or even my most important objection to Gingrich. I believe that the right conservative candidate can appeal to moderates, something I think must happen in order to win an election (Reagan did it, by the way), but Gingrich is very far from being that candidate. The vulnerabilities in his record include but are not limited to his ethics violations (“Newt has done some things that have embarrassed House Republicans and embarrassed the House,” said [Republican] Rep. Peter Hoekstra), his marital history, his own “flip-flopping,” his payments from Fannie/Freddie, and his off-putting attacks on Bain that earned him the ire of many former supporters.
All of this is about the race for the Republican nomination, which I’ve never seen as inevitably going to Romney. It’s early yet, and Gingrich has a fighting chance. If in the end he were to be designated the Republican nominee, my ABO would probably kick in. But I continue to think he’d be a weak candidate despite his pugnaciousness (or maybe in part because of it), less likely to win in the general than Romney, who’s weak as well.
Of course, for an incumbent, Obama is pretty weak, too. Picture, picture on the wall, who is the weakest of them all?
Ah, politics!
Actually, one can simply despise Gingrich for the old fashioned reason: “He’s earned it.”
There’s really only one thing to decide about Gingrich: Schmuck or Putz?
Sooner or later, I thought, Gingrich will show forth his spitefulness and lose the race. He did and so far he hasn’t lost the race. He’s a scrapper and Americans like a good scrapper so maybe Gingrich isn’t as unlikeable as he appears.
Even before the primaries began, I investigated Gingrich but any investigation from as far away as I am is shallow with respect to his real character. I do share Wolla Dalbo’s belief that Newt has an abiding love for our country and it’s basic philosophy and institutions. That he is dysfunctional? Well, that’s a hard one. Who isn’t these days.
vanderleun: I think you have just posited a variant on the old “knave vs. fool” question.
definition of “schmuck“: “A schmuck’s behavior ranges from pesky and inconsiderate, to obnoxious and manipulative. A schmuck’s personality type ranges from jerk to bastard.”
definition of “putz“: “A fool; an idiot.”
Of course, they share a more literal definition as well, which I will now skip. I think Newt more clearly falls into the “schmuck” rather than the “putz” category.
I think “likability” is a different standard from “who would you most like to drink a beer with?”
I think the beer standard is a superior reflection of a candidates electability. Voters:
1. want an amusing companion
2. do not want a candidate (companion) who will, on a level of personal taste, and over a 4 year period: drive voters crazy.
A “likable” person might be a deadly boring companion; also might, on a personal level, drive you crazy. OTOH: a son of a bitch might be an amusing companion; and, on a personal level, might not drive you crazy.
Therefore, imo, when predicting election results, the beer standard is superior to a “likability” standard.
gcotharn: Not being a beer drinker, I think the standards are similar. I often think of likability in candidates for president as being “who wouldn’t make you ill after a few months of watching them on TV?”
Re: Gingrich’s arrogance. I keep going back to the article linked on Drudge which gives some background on NG’s first few years teaching at the college level in Georgia. Apparently, IN HIS FIRST YEAR, (I assume at the assistant prof level, no tenure, no record of teaching/scholarship), he puts himself in for the presidency of the college. He is laguhed off, but does that deter him? No, he next proceeds to push to become dept. chair.
I can only conclude his ego borders on pathological ( and we already have one of those currently in the White House), or he has no real grip on reality. Either, doesn’t make me think he would be presidential material.
Curtis: I think that conservative Republicans like a good scrapper more than moderates and independents do. That old Jacksonian impulse.
neo, then you are using likability and beer standard interchangably. I think of them more in this way:
My neighbor is COMPLETELY LIKABLE. Yet, she is unamusing, and grating. I truly like her as a person, yet do not wish to drink a beer with her. My other neighbor is a son of a bitch. Still, he is an amusing son of a bitch.
Yeah, there’s a rich comparison: Gingrich and Jackson. It’s kind of insulting to Jackson to call him a mere scrapper, however. More like a stone cold killer, it’s sure he wouldn’t have fired into the air against Aaron Burr.
Mr. Gingrich is as much weighed down by his personal affairs as his pugnacious/pedantic persona. You can’t have so mucked up two marriages (double the vows, double the contracts) and think yourself tenable for any position that has you on top. Vanity, thy name is Newt.
In my opinion the importance of likability is a secondary factor. When times are good and people are happy it can swing elections. When times are tough and people are looking for solutions likability is far down the list. Even for causal voters.
While his personal likability was briefly slightly underwater, Obama once again “liked” by more voters than dislike him. This is true, even among polls of independents who disprove of his job performance by 66% and 48% of whom have already decided to vote for someone else.
This plays directly into primaries. On the important issues that face the nation, the candidates for the Republican nomination, have very similar views and policies. Yes there are differences, and some matter more to some of us than others, but viewed from a non-activist context they are very similar. In this situation, likability is more important. It will be much less important in the general, if only because a huge chunk of voter who “like: Obama have decided that is no reason to vote for him.
This struck a chord with me; I find Gingrich “repulsive” too, and it has baffled me until now (I’d actually avoided looking at my reaction until now). Not being the sort to have visceral reactions to candidates, I was surprised to find that I had this gut reaction even when looking at photos of the man (it’s worse when his current wife is in the photos). Part of the repulsion does stem from his ethics violations, “his marital history, his own “flip-flopping,” his payments from Fannie/Freddie, and his off-putting attacks on Bain.” Part of it though is a more instinctive reaction, a literal repulsion toward him as someone I not only would not want to have a beer with, I’d leave the pub if he were there.
I really do hate the concept that it might come down to voting for him or Obama. Not voting is simply not an option for me, but day-um, to vote for Gingrich would feel like eating boiled okra.
As an independent, I would have to agree with neo-neocon. There is a gut level repulse response to Newt. I just don’t like him.
As for being a scrapper – well, in his own way, I see Romney as a scrapper too – the kind that digs in and keeps coming back at you until he gets to his goal. It sounds like Newt tries for a while and then shifts his attention to a different challenge.
I’d rather have the gritty determined bulldog type scrapper taking on the mess in DC than a passionate but unaimed pistol type going off all over the place. And passionate and the “red button” sure doesn’t sound like a good combination to me.
P.S. Not sold on Romney, per se…just sayin’ he looks better than Newt right now.
uncleFred: I couldn’t disagree more about the importance of likability in politics. One thing about it is that I think it may influence women’s votes more than men’s. On the surface, using likability as a standard for voting may seem like a stupid thing. But I’m not so sure, although I think my argument that it’s not so very dumb should be the subject of another post.
But right now the choice is Gingrich and Romney. The Dems would love to run against Mitt. Why you say?
1. He is a finance guy: He’s not just a finance guy but a private equity guy. His whole career is based on understanding how to put together clever deals that take advantage of special tax considerations (read loopholes). He’s not a venture capitalist or entrepreneur. While what he (and Bain) do is necessary and perfectly legal, this is what people hate about big finance. It smells of deals that they cannot take advantage of.
2. He’s Rich: Look at the WSJ today about Romney’s $10M IRA account. I’m a partner in a small business and we have a generously funded IRA for the past 20 years. There was no way I could accumulated $10M even if I had contributed the maximum amount (varied from $30-$40K per year by statute over this time). Again he legitimately took advantage of loopholes.
3. He is not a line manager: This is important, while he might make a great Secretary of Treasury, he has no skills as a general manager. He is unlikely to help swing public opinion to make changes in entitlements or impress/intimidate other heads of state.
Newt is not my first choice (I was hoping for Rick Perry to move ahead, or a Hermann Cain) but he’s a ball of energy for the GOP. He can stand up to Obama, while Mitt would hedge. Combined with a GOP Congress things can happen.
Does his personal life matter? Only his current behavior does. After the Cain ambush, perhaps only a public scalawag has a chance.
DirtyJobsGuy: I’ll repeat it once more, with feeling:
You can list all of Romney’s vulnerabilities, and even though I agree, I can list the vulnerabilities of the other candidates. The real question is whose positive attributes are stronger than their vulnerabilities, and strong enough to defeat Obama with his strengths and vulnerabilities.
It not a simple question nor an easy one to answer. Not at all.
I have big concerns about Newt’s likeability, as I think it tends to be a pretty significant factor in how people actually vote. It’s not simply a matter of people voting for the guy they like the most. It’s also that likeability seems to color voters’ perception of the candidate’s other qualities, including their positions on substantive issues. For example, Reagan was “teflon” because everybody liked him. He could start WWIII and half the country wouldn’t care because the old dude was just so damn cheerful. It works the other way too: Once the country decides you’re a pr***, everything you do is seen through that lens.
In Newt’s case, it may not just be an unfair perception. He may really BE a pr***. The stuff with his ex-wife somewhat suggests this. So does going after Mitt on Bain AFTER having already having this issue blow up on him in December. So does being ousted by his fellow House Republicans in 1998 (?). So does having his whole staff quit on him earlier in this campaign. So does shutting down the government because Clinton didn’t sit with him on AF1. So does tossing Paul Ryan under the bus over “social engineering.”
Like Nixon, Newt may overcome his unlikeability and get elected. But let’s not forget what happened to Nixon: The same qualities people disliked Nixon for — the vengefulness and paranoia — are what brought him down eventually. The GOP should be very cautious about potentially nominating a guy whose last stint in national politics earned him the label of “most hated politician in America.”
I have to judge Newt on how he would assemble a team and have them work together toward a coherent set of goals. Then I hear about the way he treated fellow Republicans when he was Speaker. Then I recall that his first campaign team quit when Newt decided to take a cruise with Callista. I don’t trust him not to screw Paul Ryan if his ego is threatened. I don’t like him tossing out the name of John Bolton as if Bolton was consulting with him. Then he says he would consider Palin for a position. He is name dropping and teasing. I can’t see a Newt cabinet meeting as being more than a chance for him to show off. Serious, competent people wouldn’t put up with him.
Obama wanted a team of rivals in his cabinet; Newt has a team of rivals in his brain. Neither is capable of adhering to a coherent plan to fix our economy or command our military. Both are egomaniacs, but Obama has a tiny bit more class, at least on the surface.
Conrad: I agree that the campaign staff quitting ought to be a major red flag. I mean, this wasn’t just some random collection of volunteers: these were people who knew him and knew politics well enough to agree to work with him in getting his campaign up and running, and all of them–not just one or two–found him so difficult to deal with that they all quit rather early in the game.
Even with that in mind, I can imagine a scenario where he might do well enough to win a close election only to be extremely unpopular once in office. And if that happened, I can imagine another nightmare scenario: Obama could come back in 2016 and defeat the even more unpopular Newt Gingrich.
Needless to say, I really am starting to hope that the Republicans nationwide wise up enough not to nominate him.
Neo outlined succinctly and eloquently many of my own objections to Newt Gingrich. She is especially on point in regards to voters going with their gut instinct a majority of the time. And that is the main reason why Newt would be a disaster (and almost certain loser) were he to be nominated.
Newt’s current rise is due to many factors, but the biggest one is that he fulfills a deep yearning among many conservatives. They’re sick of being condescended to and mocked by the media. They’re frustrated with the DC Establishment in both parties. They are deeply outraged by an incompetent President causing untold damage to our economy due to outdated and largely discredited policies. And they crave for a politician who can express all of their anger and frustration intelligently and forcefully.
Newt Gingrich satisifies that craving. Because of this, many conservatives are willing to ignore all of Newt’s serious shortcomings, minimizing their significance and offering rationalizations that I’m not sure they themselves believe.
Of course, I share much of this frustration. But I do think it can get reckless. I think that many conservatives would rather lose with Newt, so long as he wages an impassioned war against Obama and the media rather than win with Romney running a tepid campaign.
This is where I disagree. I want to win, first and foremost. And I am following WFB’s dictum: Go with the most conservative candidate who can win. And that simply is not Newt.
This post will likely generate some “Yeah, but Romney…” responses. Let me pre-emptively say that like Neo, I acknowledge Romney’s weaknesses. I have never heard any Romney supporter intimate that he is an ideal candidate. However, in a general election campaign, his weaknesses are far more surmountable than Gingrich’s. Romney might still lose to Obama in the end, but I doubt he will implode so dramatically and completely that he takes the GOP downticket with him (welcome back Speaker Pelosi?) I can’t say the same for Gingrich.
At this point, I think the best possibility would both of them withdrawing in favor of Paul Ryan: even if he has to be dragged kicking and screaming to the nomination. Can anyone doubt that if both Gingrich and Romney withdrew and endorsed Ryan, he would be nominated almost unanimously (aside from the hardcore Ron Paul contigent)? I can’t.
Ah, it’s okay to dream, right?
…but-but-but
He’s up six points in SC?
And at 46% FTW at InTrade?
So.
Somehow his “likeability index” (??? …again btw) got a boost?
Somewhere, the so-cons (full disclosure: I’m one), have swallowed the pill (probably because they’ve accepted that all things being equal in this particular cycle, all things aren’t equal at all)? Pun intended.
Somehow, the electability and/or inevitability probability has slipped a few points?
Indeed, the race is all about the ABO voter.
Kind of funny neo: you’re a Mitt loses ABO, and I’m a Mitt wins ABO. The net effect is still “Point, GOP”.
Sigh. It will all work out in the end.
@ Kurt:
I still think Romney wins. Newt may win SC on the basis of his completely over-hyped debate performance, but how long will it be before he blows it again and hands the race back to Romney? Mitt’s not going away.
Newt not only has his infamous “baggage,” he also seems to have a habit, once he tastes success, of assuming that he’s invincible and that people are going to lap up whatever stupid thing pops into his head. Just watch: He’ll win SC, and by Tuesday will have made some other alarming, unnecessary pronouncement (like summonsing judges to explain their bad decisions) that will cause his support to crater again. Mitt is right to have tried to wrap this up in SC, but it’s not essential to his ultimate victory to win there. He just needs to outlast Newt.
If you like Collins, Snowe, Brown then you should like Romney… Romney cannot beat Obama.
The establishment, pundits, elites, the running class are starting to realize that MITT did not win Iowa (no history) and he may well be losing SC…
WE NEED A MONSTER TO BEAT ANOTHER MONSTER:
NEWT FOR POTUS.
What do I care about what his ex wife is saying. We know everything about Newt and I say it again Newt for POTUS to save the Country.
gellieba: now, there’s a winning slogan if I ever heard one:
WE NEED A MONSTER TO BEAT ANOTHER MONSTER: VOTE NEWT!
You have your finger on the pulse of the American electorate.
PS: Kind of like Mothra vs. Godzilla?
Or one just might say Newt has true git.
Right, I know I said true git, not true grit. Somehow, I just couldn’t give him full John Wayne status.
davisbr: I hope those points we give the Republicans are earned, and justified in the long run by their not only winning the election, but by their laudable post-election behavior. I won’t sit on a hot stove till that happens.
But as far as SC goes, Newt has long been popular there. I’ve been puzzled by the myth that Romney was the obvious winner there for a long time and Newt wasn’t doing well for a long time, and now Newt is changing things and gaining ground. The ground Newt is gaining is actually ground Romney had only very temporarily won from him, right after Iowa. Before that, Newt had been the clear frontrunner in South Carolina for months.
I’m not sure why this piece of news has been so ignored by the pundits, but it has. I wrote about it at length here, with an analysis of the poll results in SC from October of 2011 on.
And by the way, note in that post that Gingrich had already made gains on Romney before the debate.
I detected a hint of irony in Neo’s recent comment.
Newt would be a much more interesting President than Romney x10. That’s the only thing I’m sure of.
(more of an observation than endorsement)
There are lots of shallow, uninformed voters in this country. Obama is a young, trim, fit and energetic man. Newt is and looks like an old, overweight, pasty, unfit man with a wife twenty years his junior who looks very cold. Surely all of this will matter, and I’m surprised that nobody has mentioned these issues.
In short order McCain was painted as a doddering, old fart. On the stage with Obama the contrast was overwhelming. Looks matter.
Mr. Frank: I agree.
Sometimes I think one of the problems with Republicans and/or conservatives, and one of the reasons they often have trouble picking winning candidates, is that they forget or perhaps never understood that simple fact about the electorate. Reagan, their champion, may have been old, but otherwise he looked good and had the “likability” factor in spades.
Honeyimhome wrote: Newt would be a much more interesting President than Romney x10. That’s the only thing I’m sure of.
And at this point it’s worth recalling that the Chinese consider the wish “May you live in interesting times” to be a curse. As far as I’m concerned, times are more than “interesting” enough already!
I’d pick either Mothra or Godzilla over anyone in the Republican field. I’ll bet they could hold their own in a debate with Obama.
I agree that Newt is just not very likable. And that probably matters to a lot of voters, alas. Probably enough to swing the election.
On the other hand, Obama consistently gets fairly high marks for likability, which completely mystifies me. I think he’s cold, arrogant, and condescending.
I guess I just don’t understand people very well.
rickl: I’ve got a theory about that.
There seem to be 2 types of reactions to Obama. One is what you mention: that he’s cold, arrogant, and condescending. I happen to have that reaction to him, too.
But I can see that he has a surface affability and charm (sometimes it even seems real, depending on what he’s talking about, such as his kids). He has a surface ability to seem smooth and relaxed and calm, too. I think many people just look at those surface qualities and find him likable. Others sense something else, those other things I listed in the paragraph above. But I think the signals for that are more subtle, and some people miss them.
Neo–As I see it, we are, in effect, Republican Rome, about to slide into–or perhaps we may have already become–Imperial Rome, with its increasingly powerless, rubber-stamp Senate, the incipiently violent, only temporarily bought off mob screaming for ever more “bread and circuses,” and its dictators calling the shots, with all of the baleful consequences that “transformation” implies, and brings with it. And our task as the “opposition,” the only and primary task, is to defeat Obama, and to root out and/or reverse as much as is humanly possible of every pernicious and deadly change in law, policy, and regulation, every appointment that he and his administration and Congressional Democrats (often with help from Republicans) have put into place.
As I see it, the harm that would occur should Obama remain in power and his program of “Fundamental Transformation” continue and burrow ever deeper into the U.S. is so great that nothing else matters other than defeating him.
As I have likely said here several times before , I worked on Capitol Hill for 25 years, doing full-time, heavy duty research on a number of subjects at a government think tank. Probably more than most, I have paid close attention to, and have seen some of what goes on on the Hill, and have worked on the issues of the day.
Thus, my analysis is one that looks for which Republican candidate has the necessary depth and breadth of knowledge, the vision, the experience, and the drive to be able to identify the central, often interlinked, critical issues, among them:
A. The far too large and expensive, and increasingly intrusive, smothering, and dictatorial Federal government, the Tenth Amendment and State’s rights, curbing the Judicial branch to re-balance the three branches of government.
B. The Federal Budget, out of control federal spending, the deficit and debt, Tax policy, the Fed, our massively increased money supply, the dollar, and the growing potential for hyperinflation , entitlement programs and their mechanisms.
C. Industrial and trade policy and unemployment, our straightjacket Energy policy, massive, job-killing and liberty narrowing over-regulation.
D. Border control, National Security, and Illegal Aliens.
E. Understanding Islam and its Jihad and effectively fighting it, and Iran’s nuclear program.
F. Military policy and the missions, size, budgets, R & D programs, and composition of our military forces,
just for starters, and to craft workable policies and solutions that are true to our American heritage and history–I am not interested in an American Augustus–and the oratorical, the persuasive ability to frame the issues and solutions in a way that will, first, defeat Obama and get a Republican elected and, then, get the American people to rally behind his policies, and to pilot them through Congress and into policy and law –safely navigating us for the next extremely perilous few years though the increasingly turbulent, and dangerous, shark-infested waters that are our early 21st century world.
In my view, most of the candidates just don’t even meet the initial threshold requirement for sufficient knowledge, much less breadth of experience and vision, and none, save Newt, has the brains, experience, ability to persuade, the courage and daring —the moxie–to try. It is a two-step process. Who can best defeat Obama in what will be a dirty, no holds barred, knock down drag out fight, where a gouge to the eye or kick to the groin will be the norm, then, who can best identify, comprehend, and to have the courage and fortitude to rip out the metastasizing Cancer Obama & Co. have implanted throughout our government, economy, and society.
Of the remaining candidates, Santorum just doesn’t have the wide focus or the necessary punching strength, Paul is an anomaly and a crazy, ignorant, delusional Isolationist who was bought the “blame America” meme, and hasn’t the remotest idea of what he is dealing with in Islam, and will not be the nominee. Romney, as I said in an earlier comment, is just too “nice” and too ”squeamish”–seemingly a bloodless, robotic technocrat–who is just unwilling and perhaps incapable of being in, much less winning, a barroom brawl. And that leaves, admittedly imperfect, un-Central Casting looking, pudgy, much married, but immensely learned and wily Newt–sometimes a loose cannon, but with the absolutely essential killer instinct necessary to win the barroom brawl, capable of and willing to open up a major can of whupass on Obama, no matter how rumpled or bloodied Newt might get in the process.
I am not, quoting Voltaire, about to “let the perfect be the enemy of the good. “ Frankly Newt, not perfect by any means, and flawed as he is, is, in my estimation, the best chance we have to first, defeat Obama and then, to turn our ”ship of State”–currently headed for an iceberg or to 1984—around, and steering it towards a safe harbor on the shores of what I like to fondly call, the traditional United States of America.
P.S.–For me, it is also imperative that our nominee really understand just what historical position the U.S. is in at this present moment in time, and the supreme stakes involved–not just a candidate who intones a pro forma recitation going something like ” this is the most important election in our lifetimes, etc., etc,– but a candidate who has an actual, a deep appreciation, understanding, and knowledge of the fact that we are facing something as consequential–and potentially as essentially irreversible–as Rome’s transition from a Republic into an Imperium–that we stand in very great danger of losing, irretrievably, those things that made us great and uniquely free Americans and, as a historian and a long time student of American history, I believe that Newt understands this–and the peril we are in– as no other candidate does.
I am, thus, much more concerned about Newt’s understanding of our situation, and his capability to get us out of the increasingly deep hole we are in, than I am about whether he has had several wives, was a cheater, or had acrimonious divorces.
And, finally, as someone who has had intimate experience with an angry, bitter ex-wife’s ability to rewrite history, to selectively remember things, and to create a whole alternative universe–I am not buying all nor much of what Newt’s ex-wife is peddling.
Thank you for that, Wolla, because I second your thoughts with vigor.
It troubles me greatly that so many of us find reasons to distrust and doubt the anti-Obamas for many reasons big and small, while downplaying the past and present everyday lies & malevolence of Barack Hussein while he and his unsheath their knives yet again for yet another unparried thrust ‘twixt our ribs. How can we accept that? Have we no sense of history? No shame?
We are descending voluntarily into a pit from which there will be no escape, especially exhibited here when Neo (!) writes, “…my ABO would probably kick in.” Probably??? Neo might find Barack Hussein preferable? Are we brainwashing ourselves?
Wolla,
Like Newt, you should ease up on historical analogies.
We are not Rome
We are not Greece
We are not Imperial Britain in the 19th Century
Were are not France under the Sun King
We are not Russia under Peter the Great
We are Sweden under Gustavus Adolphus
We are not Persia under Cyrus the Great
We are not India under Asoka
We are not China under the Han Dynasty
We are not …. well …. you get the idea.
We are the United States in the early 21st Century. Period.
Those who do not learn from history may be doomed to repeat it. But those who completely immerse themselves in history often have trouble understanding the uniqueness of the present. Newt seems to have that problem as well.
I am not looking to elect a historian or an archivist, or a writer, or a story-teller. I am looking to elect a President: A person with the discipline and focus to successfully manage and direct the executive branch. And in that regard, Newt Gingrich (who clearly has trouble managing his own personal life) has not demonstrated much skill.
uncleFred comes close:
“When times are good and people are happy it can swing elections. When times are tough and people are looking for solutions likability is far down the list.”
So what is at the top of the list in these times? Well, we have some historical insight – the landslide elections of 1932, 1952 & 1980. FDR, Ike and Reagan. I can’t say as I remember FDR but I was around for Ike and Ronnie. What they had in common was a people upset and exhausted by turbulent times.
FDR, Ike and Reagan, all over the ideological spectrum, but they had one thing in common – optimism and a calm, kind demeanor. Father figures.
People don’t want, don’t believe in Messiahs anymore. They just want shelter from the storm.
Like it or not, Romney comes closest to what the people have chosen when times have been tough.
Roy Lofquist: and FDR, Ike, and Reagan were all exceptionally likable, except for those who hated their politics. They were three of the most personally likable presidents we’ve ever had.
I remember Eisenhower very well, and his campaign slogan relied on this: I LIKE IKE!
Actually, come to think of it, I don’t think anybody hated Eisenhower, even those who didn’t vote for him (like my family; they never said anything against him).
Don Carlos: The word “probably” there is my bow to the fact that one never can know the future for certain, and Gingrich, if nominated, could do something so abominable that I would be hard-pressed to hold my nose firmly enough to be able to bear the stink of voting for him. But I am an ABO gal.
I think Newt would be a rash, egotistical, emotionally unstable, and just plain bad president, one so divisive that there would be a huge backlash against him. But if he were to be elected, I would be fervently hoping I’m wrong about that. I would love to be pleasantly surprised.
Neo,
I wore an I LIKE IKE button to school.
Yes, they were all likable, but in a different way than JFK or Clinton or Obama. Goes back to the father figure – likable and reassuring. The partisans remember them shaded by ideology. The partisans, I think, will have little influence on the 2012 election.
It looks like the Democrats intend to make the next election as partisan as possible. I think they are making a huge mistake. People are sick and tired of the sturm und drang.
Romney, so far, appears to be the calm one amongst the Republicans. You can almost hear “there you go again” in a lot of his debate responses. At least I can.
He’s a pro and his staff are pros. I think they understand the currents in this election better than the rest.
Roy
Funny how people throw things against the wall and by virtue of no one challenging them they become “truth”.
Bain is, or was during Romney’s tenure, a venture capital operation. I have posted before that I have first hand knowledge, as they funded the start-up of an airline when I was in the initial pilot cadre. They risked their capital, or the capital of their investors, on little more than a concept. Their capital helped to create hundreds of jobs. Ultimately, the airline faltered. I do not know if Bain recovered their investment or not. I do know they took the initial risk, and that is what venture capitalists do. If they are smart and do their homework well, they make money in the long run. If not, they fail.
You misspoke Dirty Jobs Guy. It is companies like Bain that make this economy go.
Isn’t it curious that Romney’s wealth is an issue, but John Kerry’s wealth was not an issue? The best thing Mitt could do is to strike back and forcefully demand than the MSM explain how Kerry, far wealthier than Romney, was exempt from this line of attack but he is not. The best defense is a strong, persistent, ruthless offense. Give no quarter and take no prisoners. Either you have dead aim or you are the target.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSvo27aA4NM
Neo-
I think you would have good chance of being favorably surprised by a Newt presidency. I believe he would feel the full weight of the office upon his shoulders. You think he would be divisive, but divisive re whom? The totalitarian Left? The manhating enviros? The crony capitalists? The country is divided and will remain so for at least a generation, It is no longer a United States, and we know the Dems have brought that upon us.
Barack Hussein has not and will not feel that weight, of course; for him, it’s a kettle of perks and revels (“I’m President and you’re not”), followed by an infinity of personal entitlements. He will be an ugly force as ex-pres., keeping the fires of divide brightly burning.
Parker,
Ya gotta keep your eyes on the prize. Sure, you want to see the smug smiles wiped off the faces of those MSM @#*&^s. Mitt did a pretty good job of that tonight.
But that’s not what it’s about – it’s about winning an election. The audience is the people, not us nuts who haunt the intertubes.
The MSM are legends in their own minds. Their actual influence on ordinary people, as shown by numerous studies over the years, is way down on the list. As I remember they show family, friends, coworkers, church members, fraternal organizations and neighbors, in about that order, to be more influential.
Far more people read “Field and Stream” than the NYT, WAPO and LAT combined. Millions more watch American Idol or Most Dangerous Catch than the Sunday talks shows. Those are the people who will decide the election. Pissing contests leave them cold.
Roy
Neo–this is the type of language I was referring to:
“neo-neocon Says:
January 19th, 2012 at 10:45 pm
Don Carlos: The word “probably” there is my bow to the fact that one never can know the future for certain, and Gingrich, if nominated, could do something so abominable that I would be hard-pressed to hold my nose firmly enough to be able to bear the stink of voting for him. But I am an ABO gal.
I think Newt would be a rash, egotistical, emotionally unstable, and just plain bad president, one so divisive that there would be a huge backlash against him. But if he were to be elected, I would be fervently hoping I’m wrong about that. I would love to be pleasantly surprised.”
Newt “…doing something so abominable…”Newt”…rash, egotistical, emotionally unstable and [a] just plain bad president, one so divisive…”
You really hate this guy, and I can’t quite see why.
So what might you imagined “abominable” act be? “Pissing on the altar at the National Cathedral during the Sunday service?
Oral sex administered to Newt while he is on the phone in the Oval Office? Oh, wait, that has already happened.
Perhaps it might be nationalizing and looting a major U.S. corporation i.e. a little Economic Fascism? Oh, wait, that has already happened too.
Maybe the abominable act might be perverting the course of justice, and deliberately not enforcing the law to benefit one racial group at the expense of others? Sorry, Obama’s already done that with the DOJ’s Black Panther non-prosecution decision.
Or, maybe it might even be something that results in lots of people getting killed. Say, didn’t Fast and Furious do that?
So, tell me Neo, what abominable, “abominable act” do you conceive of a President Gingrich committing?
Don Carlos,
You raise an interesting point. Not only would a Repub president face many obstacles cleaning up Obama’s mess, but he would also have to contend with Obama as an omni-present EX president. That would be 3 (Obama, Clinton and Carter) always willing to second guess anything that’s accomplished—OMG it’d be like waking up to hear Debbie Wasserman-Schulz every day.
On a more related note, about this entire “likeability” issue. I am a registered Republican mostly because I live in a closed primary state. I more accurately am fiscally conservative and social libertarian (although I do espouse traditional values for myself). In essence, I think more like an independent than a party-line Republican. I like to think that there are many many more like me out there, and I suspect that many of those fall under the “Independent” rubric.
Now, let’s ask the following questions:
How many of those independents are tired of seeing our CIC bow to foreign potentates?
How many of those independents are tired of seeing our CIC, who presents our country to the world, apologizing for the remarkable achievement that this country is?
Likewise the disparity of a “laser-like” focus on job creation while disallowing the Keystone pipeline?
. . . closing up to 32 coall fired generating plants ina a era of expensive energy?
. . . hindering natural gas production which would reduce energy prices?
. . . permitorium on gulf deep-sea drilling while other countries are drilling in our backyard?
The list goes on, but one gets my drift.
To such independents as myself, male or female, the likeability factor is a distant second to someone who shows the “brass” to be willing to work to reverse current trends and to begin to restore our economy and our country to international respect and prominence.
If a voter makes likeability mkore important than demonstrated or potential action, then s/he can not be looking at 4 more Obama years as irreversible damage to our country. Likewise, they must be prepared to live with 4 more years of Obama Scoutus and federal judicial appointments which will carry Obama’s influence over a generation.
For those like me, who see Obama’s danger as orders of magnitude greater than the worst Republican fault of any of the current candidates, Newt’s likeability is almost irrelevant. One might worry that Newt could bring harm to this country, but we live knowing that Obama certainly WILL do inestimable damage in a second 4 year term.
Now the question always returns to “can Newt win the general election?” I think he can, because I believe that he has demonstrated that he can bring a clarity of vision to his criticisms of Obama that has proven to be lacking in any of the other candidates. Of course, as I noted yesterday, this is all speculative opinion-mongering.
Neoneocon,
If I may add to Wolla Dalbo’s post above (1:23 am). If any voter says that they are ABO, but then qualifies that by saying they could concieve of extreme possibilities where they would NOT vote for the Republican (even if only by sitting out the election), then that voter really isn’t ABO are they?
The differences between left and right are deep, and as I see it, permanent. They don’t seem to be, to me, something that can swing back and forth election to election, with them “getting their way” for 8 years, and me “getting my way” for 8 years. Not anymore.
Politics is no longer seasonal, no longer exercised only at the voting booth, and one can no longer vote and go home and forget about it, trusting that the box you x’d, chad you dimpled, etc., means anything at all.
The right doesn’t need the left, but refuses to see that. The left sees that the right is needed, and that they need to control the right. The left cannot survive without the right. At least not in a manner that will have a nation such as the U.S. capable of staying in existence.
And damned right. ABO.
In 08 I did not vote for O because I did my “due diligence” on O. I knew who he was and I did not give a **** about the historical event of electing O. As a legal immigrant, I did not want to see this great country going down to a marxist direction, hided under “hope & change”. We have it now and one thing I know, dictators never lose elections, they buy it or they distroy opposition. And yes O is elegant … but I prefer the Winston Churchil style.
WE NEED A MONSTER TO BEAT ANOTHER MONSTER: VOTE NEWT!
I just reread this thread and couldn’t help comparing it with other comment threads from our side. We have some very thoughtful people here who consider different takes on issues and who give solid reasons for the positions they take. Neo is to be congratulated for attracting a great group of participants.
Yeah, I second expat.
This thread has been especially good.
neo – to add to Wolla’s observation, I noticed in a thread (not in the main post) not too long ago that you called Newt “despicable.” I don’t think you’ve ever even called Obama despicable. (I’m not judging – in a heated moment here I once called Romney a scumbag, which I don’t really believe; and I’ve probably never called Obama a scumbag, even though I think he is).
Honestly, I just took it for granted that you hated Newt with a passion, so I never thought to ask if you really did. Perception, perception, perception!
I think some of you are making a huge assumption in your presentations. You are assuming that Gingrich will remain “Un-loose cannon” enough to do the things he’s talking about if/when he became President.
“Clarity of Vision” does not automatically translate into “Precision of Action”.
Rhetoric can be electrifying, but can he walk the talk? I’m not convinced he can or even that he truly intends to.
I’m still open to persuasion and I certainly would pick any of the four over O, but I think Newt’s “loose cannon” history (and tied to that – his likability – since it very well may be a red flag to his stability and stick-to-it-iveness) is relevant and concerning.
Newt as a loose cannon…
Newt distrusted by his fellow Republicans in the house.
Newt erratic and unable to focus.
Well really not so much.
I’m not sure how many people here actually know their congressman/congresswoman and or Senators. As it happens, over the last 18 years I have known three of my congressmen, and four of my Senators. I’m not a fat cat donor nor an insider, it just worked out that way.
With the exception of one Senator, one of the primary things they had in common was, above all else, the desire to get elected. For each of those that meant, try to be as uncontroversial as possible. I am not demeaning their principles, nor their honesty, but in the world of the sound bite the goal was not to feed attack opportunities to the other side (or the press).
Prior to Newt and the Contract with America, the Republicans had lost the belief that they would ever achieve majority status in both houses. They viewed their brief Senate majority in the early Reagan years as the unintended consequence of the media calling the 1980 election as a Reagan landslide before the polls closed in the Central, Mountain, and Pacific time zones. Newt nearly single handedly showed them a path to majority status and drove them forward. The country was also very very hostile to Hillary care and to the imperial attitudes of liberals who believed they held their seats for life. A number of factors came together and Newt emerged as Speaker.
Prior to 1995 the conventional wisdom was that, other than the key leadership positions, a congressman was pretty below the press radar. That there were to many with to diffuse line of responsibility to feel the pain of hostile press scrutiny. It had pretty much been that way for the decades of Democrat control. In 1995, the press demonstrated that it was perfectly capable of portraying any congressman, freshman or committee chair, as the second coming of idi amin who was solely responsible for denying a child a hot lunch. Consider for a moment how much someone dedicated to avoiding controversy liked such an experience.
Newt who, as minority leader, was used to having to say outrageous things just to get coverage, found that every comment was picked up and restated in the worst possible context. The first Republican house majority had a lot of learning to do about a suddenly very different press environment. Many of them, especially the more senior members were both horrified and terrified. For many of them, Newt was a double edged sword, he’d brought them to the promised land but it was a place full of land mines.
Newt managed to keep people in line, to vote on the contract, to put in real reforms, and to make real spending cuts. But many many of his fellow Republicans were not happy about the visible votes they had to make and the press coverage that brought them. Many really wanted to go back to the go along get along ways of the past. A great deal of the loose cannon and erratic Newt themes stem from this period.
Newt’s bad habit of thinking out loud in front of the press, and voicing “novel” ideas as possible solutions caused them lots of angst. They did not like being questioned if they “supported” something which in the question was posed as policy, when it was just Newt blue skying about some problem. Newt also was not above goring a few Republican sacred cows as well. By the time of his “ethics investigation” Newt had stepped on a lot of toes. Of course he and his cohort of allies had also accomplished a tremendous amount.
When you read the questions about Newt’s stability, or his discipline, or his stick-to-it-iveness, please consider that he developed a theory on how to build a conservative base in the house and from that foundation a Republican majority. That process took over a decade, and for most of that time he did it largely on his own. In that process he made friends and enemies both of which, today, stand with him and firmly against him in his bid for the presidency.
If you look back at my various posts here over the last few months, you’ll see that I was not much enamored of Newt’s candidacy, and that I preferred others who are no longer in the race. In the sense that Newt is not my “perfect” candidate, that is still true. But of the remaining field, Newt is by far more capable of taking the hardball fight to Obama, and herding the legislature (assuming Republican) control into passing legislation that undoes things like Obamacare.
The point about the legislation is important. Obamacare is unpopular, but the press is going to put any reform/repeal effort in the ugliest possible light. The forces of the left will drown congresses switchboards, and crush their email servers. Getting legislators, possibly the most controversy adverse creatures on earth, to repeal Obamacare and then start from scratch is going to be a very very hard task.
I’ve been watching Mitt Romney since his run against Ted Kennedy. He is NOT a fighter. He’ll let a pac throw bombs on his behalf, but he just isn’t willing to stand toe to toe, face to face and fight.
Gellieba gets it.
May I also add that, if Newt is elected, he will be POTUS, not KING. Some of the commenters seem to have become persuaded by the events of the past three years that we are ruled by a regal.
Obama has trampled us with his chariot, but that ain’t the way it’s supposed to be. He must be dethroned, MUST BE!
kolnai: actually, I didn’t call Newt “despicable.” You may think it too fine a point, but what I actually said was this:
I am describing his actions in savaging his own conservative principles as despicable. I continue to believe that is the case. But it’s not the same as saying “he is a despicable person,” or “I despise him.” Again, you may not think there’s any difference, but I certainly do.
As for things I’ve said about Obama, how’s this, written before he was even elected:
Here I call some actions of Obama’s “disgusting; shameful.”
And see this 2-part series I wrote just a few months into the Obama adminstration (part II this. I didn’t use the term “despicable,” but I didn’t need to; I say plenty. And that was early in the game.
I could cite dozens of other pieces I’ve written, but I think you get the point. If you weren’t reading this blog back then you wouldn’t necessarily have encountered what I said about Obama early on. I no longer say these things because I assume they’re understood, and I’ve said them so many times, but maybe that’s an improper assumption. I’m sure that relative newcomers to the blog wouldn’t know what I’ve said in the past, and oldtimers don’t necessarily remember. Hey, I don’t remember everything I’ve said here!
I belive uncleFred, above, comes closest to describing how things were within Republican ranks when Newt was the Speaker.
Wolla Dalbo: in answer to your question about the “abominable acts” I foresee from Gingrich, they have nothing to do with sex and everything to do with abuse of power.
I don’t have specific acts in mind, but the trend would be towards variations on the theme of power moves by an arrogant and full-of-himself egotist. I see Gingrich as a great deal like Obama that way, and I distrust him on a deep level and do not “read” him as sincere in his statements. My gut feeling is that a huge part of what drives Gingrich is egotism, power, and revenge. I also see him as very much of an emotional loose cannon.
In short, I do not trust him. I do not trust his judgment or his temperament, and I am concerned that the power inherent in being president would magnify the worst in him rather than the best. I would have an enormous amount of difficulty in voting for him were he to be nominated because of this sense of something deeply twisted deep within him. As I said, if he does get nominated and elected, I would hope I am wrong.
By the way, his attack on Bain solidified and magnified this feeling in me—not because it was an attack on Romney (that’s expected), but because it seemed completely expedient and to go against not only Gingrich’s own principles but those of conservatism. It may not be the “abominable act” of which I speak (although I did call it a “despicable” act in one of my comments), but it actually comes close in its stunning cynicism and opportunism, its willingness to embrace an argument from the other side if he sees it as a way to crush his opponent.
I repeat, I do not trust the man, and what’s he done goes way beyond the ordinary type of political lying, distortions, and hypocrisy that one sees from almost all campaigning politicians. Of Gingrich, I fear that one could say—and mean almost literally—that he would betray his own mother if he thought it would help him get ahead politically.
This is based not only on his actions (and by the way, he’s shown a marked propensity to be unable to work with people except by bullying them), but on my gut perceptions. You may say the latter are incorrect, but we all must go at least partly on these gut perceptions if they are strong, and mine are.
Neo-I think you are wrong but, fair enough.
Neo
The attacks by Romney’s super pac on Newt in Iowa were if anything worse. Yet you give him a pass.
In fact the case could be made that Newt was forthright enough to level the attacks himself, and not hide behind the “thats a super pac not me” dodge that Romney employed. Yes Newt’s super pac attacked Romney as well, but Newt also made the attacks and took the heat.
I find your comment about Newt and his mother interesting. A close friend who is herself a close friend of Romney’s wife and knows Mitt well, once told a mutual friend that “If being a widower would help Mitt win the presidency, I wouldn’t expect her to see another sunrise”. Clearly this is bit of hyperbole, and I have no doubt that Mitt loves his wife and would defend her at all costs. I share it to make the point that church deacons don’t generally pursue the presidency, and that those who do generally have are capable of being ruthless when needed.
Can you back up your statement, presented as fact, that he has a propensity to be unable to work with people except by bullying them? I ask because I know a number of people who found that to be untrue. I am not saying that he did not push people around and twist arms, for that is the very nature of legislative politics, and he certainly did and with some frequency. However, according to comments made by some of his fellow congressmen, he had other equally effective techniques for finding agreement and making progress.
As I said in my previous comment, he made stout friends and enemies, in some cases bitter enemies. I have no doubt that some viewed him as a heartless bully. Your commentary over the period I have enjoyed your blog demonstrates an understanding of the complexities of human nature. You have greatly simplified a man who is rather more complex than most.
I find myself wondering on what your gut reaction to Newt has been formed. Television coverage? Personal meetings? Discussions with people with whom he has worked?
You are right that we tend to “listen to our gut”. But it is also prudent to determine WHY our gut reacts that way. Is it reacting to the context, the person, the spin, or a reminder of something or someone else that really does not pertain to the person in question.
Anyway – something to think about or not as you choose.
Neoneocon,
Clearly one can not discount such perceptions. I do not, but I agree more with Wolla Dalbo than your assessment at this point. With that in mind, may I take a shot at presenting the other side of the argument?
Before I do, however, let me note that I have not been a Newt supporter from the outset. I first had high hopes for Rick Perry who then seemed to trip over his own feet from the get-go. I also supported Herman Cain (I have a bias toward successful businessmen/women). I only recently entered into the Gingirch camp because of his recent performance.
FIrst of all, political opportunism. Are any of the semi-finalists on the stage immune from that? Santorum’s performance in Thursday nights debate reeked of a desperate of political opportunism and the only result was to reveal that he is not ready fro prime time.
I understand and cede your point about Gingrinch’s attacks on Romney’s capitalism. For the time being I am willing to dismiss them because we are in the primary stage. I think they were a mistake, but I also think this is where the sausage gets made–it’s just that in our media saturated world sausage is no longer ground in closed party session, but with millions of viewers looking on. In fact, I would go so far as to say that Newt misses a great opportunities by not chiming in when Romney’s wealth comes up for discussion. He could reverted to his first claim of Republicans being attacked to defend Obama and asked why the fuss over Romney when there was no such fuss over Kerry’s or Edward’s wealth in 2004? He could have really cemented his image, but didn’t; he chose to let Romney squirm. Sausage.
Why then do I supprot Newt. I also agree that your gut-reaction that he doesn’t play well with others is probably correct. Simply, I don’t much care. He has accomplished some important things (as Wolla Dalbo and Uncle Fred have enumerated above). Furthermore, he is the only candidate who speaks with a vision as to what this country should be (reduce govt to meet the tax level, not the othert way around–Newt gets it, even if such is not achievable within a single or double presidential term).
As a president, I believe that the office has a way of shaping the occupant if the occupant takes the office seriously. Obama doesn’t; Newt has demonstrated that he does. To chastize John King for his trashy interrogation in a presidential debate is the diametric opposite of an Obama sitting back in a PR photo with his feet on the Resolute desk.
Furthermore, can anyone see Newt bowing to a Saudi Prince? Apologizing for the American dream? Giving secret technological information to the Russians? I can’t, and IMO, this is where the rubber meets the road.
I am heartened by the fact that Thomas Sowell, William Jacobson (Prof. Law, Cornell Univ), Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, Wolla Dalbo and Don Carlos (among others at this site) see fit to support Newt at this time. These are all people I’ve come to respect.
You may be correct; this could all blow up in our face if Newt is elected and your fears are realized. The question becomes, are you (is one) willing to take that chance or would one settle for another four Obama years? Certain commenters have called Gingrich’s performance Churchillian. That may well be the case, and keep in mind that Churchill was not unanimously loved or appreciated. Yet, if one really believes that we are in a “war” for the future of this country, why would one NOT want a “wartime consigliere?”
I’m actually quite heartened by the choice between Mitt or Newt (at one time I had great suspicions about which I’ve shared on this site). I believe that both have proven successful track records (albeit quite different paths). Newt’s presidency would be more of a roller coaster ride than Mitt’s “Tunnel of Love” presidency, but I believe that both have the capacity to do great things. Yes, Newt is “cranky,” but sometimes cranky is an absolute necessity to getting things done. Perhaps it’s better to think of the two of them as the difference between Patton and Eisenhower–both crucially important to winning WW II; I don’t draw that comparison lightly, by the way
My challenge to all who claim to be ABO is to determine if one truly means that. If so, one would even vote for Ron Paul before sitting out the next election.
My apologies for some repetitive material here, but I think it’s the only way to fit together a meaningful thesis.
T: I’m planning another post on the subject of Newt, and perhaps it will answer some of your questions.
But I wanted to emphasize here that I agree that most politicians are opportunists (at least, most successful ones), narcissists, and/or hypocrites. Newt is all three on a much larger scale than most. The example of the nature of his attack on Bain is a good one to exhibit both the opportunism and the hypocrisy, as well as the ease of throwing away basic principle for the sake of personal expedience. I didn’t think much of Newt before that, but I think much much much less of him after.
And by the way, I think it was you who in another thread (don’t have time to find it now) asked me a question about how dedicated I was to ABO. My answer is that I am “ABO” (a phrase I’ve used a little but not a lot) not in the literal sense but in the general sense.
Language is an imprecise instrument, especially when it involves the use of absolutes. “ABO” (Anyone But Obama) is, quite obviously, an absolute statement, not ordinarily meant to be taken absolutely literally. I think we could probably all think of an actual person who would be worse than Obama as president, and for whom we could not vote.
Is such a person likely to be nominated to oppose Obama? I don’t think so. But yes, I can conceive of it; for example, I said a while back that I have such grave doubts about Ron Paul’s foreign policy that I would have extreme difficulty voting for him if he were nominated. And as I’ve said in this thread, I have such grave problems with Gingrich that would make it very hard for me if he were nominated. Very very hard (which doesn’t mean I wouldn’t do it in the end; it means my reservations are very very great and I just can’t wrap my mind right now around doing it).
I originally thought there would be a Republican candidate I could really get behind with enthusiasm. That didn’t happen. Then I felt that the nominee would be Perry or Romney, either of whom I would vote for. Huntsman and Cain, likewise (although I only thought Cain had a chance for a while, and I never thought Huntsman did).
I never really thought Santorum or Bachmann had a chance, either, so I didn’t think much about them as nominees. Likewise Gingrich and Paul, although I always knew I’d have a lot of trouble with either of them if either were nominated. But I didn’t think much about it because I thought the chances of that approached zero.
Now that I think Gingrich’s chances have improved, I’m having to really examine my potential vote for him far more seriously. I know that voting for him would be something I would do with the greatest of reluctance. That’s about as far as I can get with it right now. As I wrote in another comment, I might be hard-pressed to hold my nose firmly enough to be able to bear the stink of voting for him. I hope I’m not faced with that choice. And if he wins the presidency, I hope he pleasantly surprises me.
Neoneocon,
Yes, indeed , it was I who brought up the ABO question earlier. Let me carry this discussion just one step further. Above I likened Romney and Gingrich to Eisenhower and Patton. It think that this is a very telling comparison.
EIsenhower was the Supreme Commander of the ETO (European Theater of Operations). As such he had numerous allied commanders taking order from him. This included Patton and Patton’s British nemesis, Bernard Law Montgomery. Eisenhower was charged with winning the war, but the only way he could win the war was to get the allied troops to cooperate with each other. That meant he had to both feed and rein in Pattons’ and Mongomery’s competing egos.
Patton on the other hand was a wartime general. He defeated Rommel in the first US-German encounter in North Africa (not the British-German encounters) and he was responsible for moving farther and faster across Europe with his Third Army than any army in history. Then when in need of reinforcements at Bastogne, only Patton was able to pull his troops out of battle, march for three(?) days and then plunge back into battle at Bastogne. He was able to do this because, like Newt, he was master at reading the enemy tactically and has made certain preparations to do this in the event that it became necessary. It is generally accepted that had Patton not been able to do that and provide relief at Bastogne, that Bastoigne would have fallen, the German invasion (Battle of the Bulge) would have likely succeeded and WWII would have likely been lost as a result.
Eisenhower eventually became president; Patton never did. Killed in a car accident shortly after the end of the way, many people still believe that Patton was asassinated by the Russians because they so feared having him alive and influential with all of this army paraphenalia in Europe.
This is precisely where I see Newt Gingrich at this time. Not a manager of forces like Romney (not to disparage Romney for this), but a “damn the torpedoes full speed ahead” kind of warrior. When such a character jumps headlong into the fray, they sometimes make mistakes. But sometimes, those mistakes are the price one has to pay to achieve a crucial victory. Patton was both simultaneously beloved and hated by his own troops, and I now see the same kind of disparate response to Newt.
As I implied above, perhaps the real question for us all is what we believe this country needs at this time–a manager or a warrior. Those that think a manager is more beneficial will be willing to overlook Romney’s bland nature; those who believe in a warrior will likely be willing to overlook Newt’s abrasiveness. I clearly stand in the warrior camp at this time.
Either opinion could be wrong; I believe that the risks of Newt imploding are no greater than the risks of Romney being ineffectual; I just think that Newt’s risks are more overt. I think that either failure would be equally dangerous to the future of this country, because let us all remember, that if either one of them is elected and fails, Barack Obama will be waiting in the wings for his second term.
My mistake. Patton defeated Rommel in HIS first encounter with Rommel’s Panzer Corps, not THE first U.S. encounter. In THE first encounter (Kasserine Pass), the Germans mopped the floor with the U.S. troops.
T: actually, I would prefer a manager and a warrior. I wouldn’t mind a Romney/Gingrich ticket, with Gingrich as VP attack dog.
Somehow I doubt that scenario will be the one that comes to pass.
Neo says: “I think we could probably all think of an actual person who would be worse than Obama as president, and for whom we could not vote.”
If this thread isn’t spent, why don’t we ask for some nominations for the “Worse than Obama” category? Among American citizens known to us all (no felons). Candidates would need to poll perhaps as well as Ron Paul. That would tend to exclude the likes of Sharpton,Kucinich, Blago. Blackness disqualifies, given its unreasonable voting bias.
I don’t have a nominee. Gore and Kerry would’ve been close, but worse than Hussein? Dunno.
Neo?
T Says:
January 20th, 2012 at 6:11 pm
Not to veer off topic, but do you have a citation for that? A loss at the Battle of the Bulge would have certainly prolonged the war, but I find it hard to believe that the Allies were on the brink of losing it in late 1944.
Neoneocon,
Given your thoughts on Gingrich’s attacks on Romney, I though you’d like to see this article which I just found this evening. I’m not sure it clarifies anything, but it provides some potential rationale for Newt’s actions.
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/method-newts-madness/325541
rickl,
I got that info from several documentaries I’ve viewed so I don’t have an actual citation. I can more or less replicate the rationale as presented in the documentaries. Bastogne was a strategic crossroads at which 5 (or 7, I forget) roads merged. It was crucial to allow the ease of movement of supplies to the various areas of the German front during the Battle of the Bulge. If Bastogne had fallen the ease of supply would have kept the German forces equipped and enabled them to continue to drive to the English channel splitting the allied forces in Belgium and Holland v the allied forces in central France. This would have cause major problems for the allies regarding war planning and especially regarding allied supply lines and likely permitted the Germans to gain a second wind. By holding Bastogne, the allies were able to restrict the delivery of German ordnance, fuel and supplies causing the German offensive to whither.
Note: I am not a military historian. I accept this at face value because I have seen it cited in several documentaries. This is my understanding of the events.
Don Carlos,
Worse than Obama??? Rod Blagojovich perhaps?
rickl,
In rethinking that comment (WWII would have likely been lost) I was repeating the claims of the documentaries. In fact, the more I think of it, we would have had “The Bomb” and after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is there really any reason we wouldn’t have threatened Berlin to bring the war to an end? Perhaps you are correct in that it would have been prolonged, but perhaps we were the inevitable winners since we crossed the atomic finish line before anyone else.
Worse? Obviously I could come up with a bunch of obscure crazy people, or people like the head of the current Nazi Party, or even some of the more viciously out-there talk show hosts (can’t remember their names because I don’t listen to them). But if it’s limited to people who are bona fide politicians (or people who have been bona fide politicians), these names come up pretty quickly for me as possible contenders:
Debbie Wasserman Schultz?
Bernie Sanders?
Alan Grayson?
Ross Perot?
Pat Buchanan?
Barney Frank?
Not sure they’re all worse, but they’re all pretty awful. And these are just off the top of my head; I’m pretty sure there are plenty more who are just not quite as well known.
Neo: some people miss them because they were programmed to miss them. Other people miss them because they prefer self-delusion over facing reality.
I agree that Neo’s nominees are close to being as bad as Obama. But worse? Point is, it’s tough to find someone clearly and unequivocably worse than BHO.
Don Carlos: it’s tough to find someone worse if you look at people who are actually likely to be nominated. It’s not tough at all if you look at historical figures, felons, or people who are not likely to be nominated such as the head of the Nazi Party.
The reason I mention them is that my original point was that the term Anyone But Obama isn’t meant to be literally true. It’s not “anyone,” it’s “any likely candidate.”
And yet, even looking at people who could theoretically be nominated, I came up with a couple of close contenders, anyway.
The bulge was intended to split the Allies, maul allied forces in western Europe, and lengthen the war so that Germany could negotiate a peace before the Russians overran Germany. None of Germany’s general staff thought they could win the war, they were hoping to avoid unconditional surrender.
Had Bastogne fallen to the Germans they may have been able to drive to the coast splitting allied forces. Much depends on how long Bastogne held. However it is highly unlike that war in Europe would have been lost. It might have lasted another year and the Germans may have been able to briefly contest allied air supremacy using their jet fighters, but allies were only a few months away from introducing their own jet fighters, so that advantage would have been short lived.
Then there was the bomb. The Germans nuclear research had taken a path that would not have produced the bomb, but the allies did not know that until after they invaded Germany. The most likely outcome of German success in the battle of the bulge, would have been nuclear attacks on Berlin and other key german industrial cities. We would not have “threatened” the Nazis at least not until we nuked a couple of their cities.
Despite all that Patton’s strategic and tactical foresight was by far the best of all Allied Generals.
His relief of Bastogne stands as one of the greatest maneuvers in the history of warfare, he prevented Germany from lengthening the war and ultimately saved tens of hundreds of thousands of lives.