You watch the debate if you like
I can’t. I’m just plain exhausted with these things.
I cannot even imagine where the candidates get the energy to do this again so soon. I guess the answer would be “vaulting ambition, which o’erleaps itself.”
You can go here and read if you want a bit of a chuckle as you listen.
I can’t escape the notion that the main purpose for all these debates is to collect plenty of sound bites that show each candidate looking foolish, evasive, or stupid.
What you saw Newt do tonight is the reason we need him in this campaign. He has something no one else has or ever could. There has to be a place for him in the campaign, either as nominee or something else.
He is General U.S. Grant. We do not need a nice guy. The stakes are too high. We need general Paton.
newt would eviscerate Obama. Forget the debate. Obama wouldn’t dare. he would dog him every day before he knew what hit him. I believe Obama would cry after a while and simply quit.
newt is amazing. I have been waiting decades for someone to say to vicious little propagandist Pr*&ks like John King and the entire MSM exactly what he said tonight.
May he please please please say the same thing every day five times a day, in unison with every Republican everywhere what he said tonight.
The reaction from the crowd was visceral and real and as strong as I ahve ever seen at one of these things.
Yeah, I’m done too. I’ve made my choice and I doubt there is much more to learn, especially through debates.
I tend to agree, Mike. Newt seems to be the only one that recognizes that the media is the enemy of a Republican candidate, even more so than Obama at this point in time.
I am sick of race-baiting, gotcha questions from the media towards conservative candidates, whilst the toughest question Teh One suffers is along the lines of “How do you get up each day and manage to become even more awesome than you were the day before?”
This country doesn’t need a husband, it needs a President. And for the media, which idolizes the Kennedys, despite their well known serial adultery, to attempt to derail a conservative candidate on the same issue, is, like Newt said, pretty despicable.
And the sworn enemy of any Republican these days, in or out of office, is the MSM.
I have a perfect record of not having watched a single minute of any of the debates.
Instead, I watched a perfect Delta IV launch of the WGS-4 communication satellite for the Air Force, at the ULA website. Here it is on YouTube, in case you missed it.
Maybe so, but I’ve said repeatedly that I think the main purpose of the debates was to allow the media and pollsters to pick a clear front-runner before the primaries began and all those pesky voters got to have their say. It’s just like 2008: The primary season has just begun and candidates are already dropping out. Why couldn’t the debates have been interspersed with the primaries?
It was worth it to see the Newt opening.
Well worth it. I stayed waiting for more.
Good Newt is good. I enjoy listening to grandiose ideas for many of the same reasons I spend so much time arguing on the internet.
I find I now tune Romney out. I mean, I listen to his words, but so much they are boilerplate GOP material, and I simply don’t trust him to keep to whatever he says. He had the chance to explain important things (like Bain) but he punted to platitudes. Promising to replace Obamacare with some other Federal set of rules increases my desire to see his political career terminated.
Paul is my favorite, but he had a bad night. I can identify with him, because in meatspace I tend to talk too fast and run on. Like Romney, he had chances to clarify and settle important (mis)perceptions, but fell into his talking points.
Santorum is the one I am still evaluating. He had a fine night, but I can’t summarize his views. He’s not a pure enough anything, except pro-life.
My answer to one of the questions asked tonight: If I could change anything in this campaign, I wish Cain hadn’t quit.
Rickl,
Funny I saw a Delta IV launch once, too, from the beach. The first one. The one that blew up.
No commentary meant, that happens with rockets from time to time, but it sure was spectacular.
West:
I don’t think any Delta IV launches have blown up (so far). There was a Delta IV Heavy test flight where the boosters shut down prematurely and it was classified as a failure.
Do you mean this Delta II launch in 1997? It was one of the worst accidents in the history of the Cape, since it occurred so close to the ground.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4WHG_GgKdI
It happened on 1/17/97, so it was almost exactly 15 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS_IIR-1
I haven’t watched any of the debates, but my views are narrowing to the following items:
1. Destroy Obamacare and socialized medicine in general.
2. Be ready to kick Islam’s ass, when necessary. I want a President who would be willing to crush Iran and any other Islamic aggressors who want to destroy freedom in our nation. Ditto Mexican/Latin American drug dealers and gang bangers. Protect our borders.
3. Return to a more constitutional government. If there were a party called the Constitution party, I might join it.
Right now Gingrich looks better than all the other candidates. He’s an unpredicable man, but he’s pro-American and aggressive. I’d rather have General Patton as president than a wimp. Obamacare is an outrage, and we Americans need to kill it like we would a vicious dog.
Since it was a nice clear night I got to watch the Delta launch tonight form the other side of the Florida peninsula. It always amazes me you can see a rocket launch from that far away.
The audience was behind newt 110% during his response to that first question. They loved it.
Promethea: On your point 2) I have some genuine questions.
Would you prefer a multi-decade war against Islam, or sharp short wars against any faction that posed a credible threat. Or, I suppose, a sharp massive war aimed at purging Islam from the globe?
For any of those options, what will it cost and how do you fund it?
For the sharp versions, would you wait for authorization by a supermajority in Congress?
I see an avenue that leads to a global purge of Islam, and see political Islam as an existential threat to Western societies.
Would you consider wholesale decriminalization of drugs as a means to disempower the drug gangs?
Should we treat foreign/immigrant gangs as militarized terroristic organizations?
These questions are where I see the same problems as the saber-rattlers, but find their solutions inadequate. For all the posturing, I doubt any of their commitment to enduring total victory. They are not GWB. Or Churchill.
The root cases of the trouble in which USA is now do run deep. They are not economical, but cultural and religious. They include a terrible loss of meaning of human life due deviation from moral philosophy which alone can rekindle all the things which rise humans above materialistic worldview. Progressivism is only a tip of iceberg which can sink the “Titanic” of Western civilization. It can not be resonably fought against without destroing its deeper parts – humanism and Enlightenment, this disastrous emancipation of humankind from moral order, God and transcendent meaning of everything. We need a true cultural warrior, not a businessmen, to reconnect us with irrational and trancsendent sources of our existence. Let him be a SOB, but we must be sure that he is our SOB.
I can’t see what so many of you see in Newt. Pompous, obnoxious, egotistical, perhaps brilliant but completely undisciplined rendering the former useless. Pugnacious, divisive, laden with baggage — much of which reveals him to be a hypocrite as in “Do as I say, not as I do.” Very ambitious, of course…..perhaps megalomaniacal; a blatant liar never at a loss for nerve….and he does have an affinity for taking credit for most everything he can think of.
Hmmm…seems as if he’s the mirror image of the guy we all love to hate. In fact, he is. Without the “cool,” definitely without the charm, and not even remotely good-looking though no doubt he considers himself a ladies’ man. While he may well be a historian, he also appears to be making an art of rewriting his own history.
He’s entertaining, but his ego intervenes in the gift of leadership He’s also vindictive and vengeful…and I, personally, don’t trust him worth a darn.
Yep! a lot like Obama (way too much) except for the likeability qualities. (Personally I don’t know how Obama still scores so high in likeability — I find it hard to like such an ethically challenged, immoral, shallow and ego-invested guy. But then, I find The more I think about it, the more parallels between Newt and the guy he’d like to replace become apparent. And speaking of similarities, if you think Gingrich is a small government Conservative whose looking to return us to the Constitution of our Forefathers, and surrender power and much of governing to the States, think again. As for the number one need in rectifying the economy, hehas absolutely zero real world business experience unless you count peddling influence and contacts in govt. and collecting obscene fees from taxpayer coffers thru deals with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, think again. Funny that he comes from academia, too — just like Obama!
The last thing we need is another Obama, with different ideology to stymie the major changes we so dearly need. Newts ideas? Ideas are a dime a dozen. The ability to take an idea, make it into a plan and execute it by leading the major players and translating it throughout our economy and government is what the job calls for.
Enjoy debates as much as you want and all the witticisms and clever retorts. TIVO them and play them over and over when you feel down in the dumps. But think long and hard about who you REALLY would like to see become President, and who you realistically believe has the best chance to unseat Obama and redirect this great nation back to prosperity and common good (as opposed to Obama’s selective nanny protocol and wealth redistribution). We need someone with strong character and integrity who can convince the people of this country that success is not a zero sum game, contrary to what has been preached to them by Obama and his minions these last 4 1/2 years (starting with his campaign for President). Regenerating the engine of the economy is the way we all have optimal opportunity.
I’m sure by now you’ve figured out I’m for Romney. (Paul is entertaining, too while I just feel badly for Santorum. The standout attraction about Santorum has always been that he’s a nice guy. He seems to have led an exemplary life with integrity and character. But watching him devolve in the last few weeks into the negative campaigner trying above all to mortally wound his rivals has just struck me as sad. Maybe pitiful. And he doesn’t fit my idea of a strong leader. Conservative he may be, but Presidential material? I think not.
I am not a Gingrich hater from way back. Not at all! I’m familiar with his history, but never really studied him until the recent campaign. And the more I’ve learned and observed, the more I’ve found to dislike And though I’m not far Right, I am definitely right of center, and Obama’s presence has driven me more rightward.
To me, Romney is the one who makes sense. Now I admit I have no clue why his being Mormon would be a negative; likewise his having been successful in the business world. I find it hard to believe that so many people are looking beyond his accomplishments and resenting his wealth and perhaps his dearth of rollicking sound bites during debates rather than looking at what he can contribute — i.e. what his talents are, and how they might lead us away from Obama’s cliff. He’s self-made (contrary to rumour and assumption that he is a scion of great wealth). He understands what opportunity in America means: he studied, he learned, he became disciplined and then worked hard to first learn with experience in the business world, and then took advantage of further opportunity to head his own firm which we know was a success while he was CEO, and has continued to be a success both as a result of his leadership and no doubt the persons working at Bain today.
He then decided to give something back and accepted the position of CEO of the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics which were in serious crisis because of serious financial problems. Well, he took on that job, and no doubt built a good team, because they pulled off a Games that were an unqualified success. (And with the Olympics — what could be a better precursor to foreign policy than running the Olympics and dealing with all the countries’ demands: large countries, small countries. They want what they want and usually push for power in direct proportion to their size and strategic importance on the world stage.. Sounds like a ton of fun, huh?
There’s actually a lot to Romney, if you do a little more research than watching TV or logging on to AOL where you will certainly find the latest hits on the GOP candidates from HuffPo News Service. (why does that come off as an oxymoron?) I honestly think the man wants to be President because he believes he has much to contribute, and I think he does. Newt Gingrich? I think he wants to be president because he sees opportunity, wants to get back at all those who judged him and kicked him out of Congress (an inconvenient truth he avoids these days like the plague), and he seeks power and wealth — in either order, both being his great lifelong motivators as opposed to government service for the sake of serving the nation.
See this interesting little piece about Newt way, way back. I’ve said before that there is no “new” Newt. He is exactly who he has always been (tonight he blamed the PR handlers for trying top present an image of him — the nice Newt — that isn’t him so he dumped them and hired new ones who have worked for Mario Rubio. If he wins he’ll crow for credit. If he loses, it’s THEIR fault. (Sounds familiar — again, something about that kind of character….BHO!
@Promethea:
There _is_ a Constitution Party, but honestly, as much as what they say lines up with my beliefs, sort of Christian Libertarianism if you will, there’s something a little, it’s hard to put my finger on it, but… weird… about them. I’ve visited their website a few times over the years and there’s a vibe about it that just puts me off… maybe it’s merely the fact that it looks like it was made in 1995 style-wise.
Anyhow, they’re there, and they are on the right track.
Goldby,
Newt may be like Obama in form. But not substance. That’s all the difference in the world.
Romney is fine. He’s infinitely better than Obama. So is Newt. So is Santorum. So is Sarah Palin.
Newt’s talent right not is he is a true fighter. When you need one of those, the others won’t do.
Everything is on the line.
We need Newt in the game somewhere.
I’m about convinced Ron Paul is a letist funded plant in the republican race. His comments disparaging American consumerism smacks of leftism through and through. What the hell is a non consumer society besides an unemployed society?
I think people are really being duped by Newt. His campaign is on a roll not because he’s taking the fight to the other candidates or to Obama, but rather because he’s adopted a strategy of running against the MSM. It makes for great “moments” in debate, but we’re electing a POTUS, not a media-critic-in-chief.
Think about it: He’s scoring all of his points at the expense of the QUESTIONERS. Against Romney and Santorum, he’s just holding his own, at best.
I thought Santorum won last night. Actually, I think he may have mortally wounded Newt with his eyewitness testimony against Newt’s failed tenure as Speaker. Rick spelled out in plain terms why Newt cannot be counted on to lead the GOP. It was a searing indictment and Newt had no real rebuttal other than to suggest that it was a fictional narrative Santorum had dreamed up out of political expedience. But that didn’t ring true at all. Santorum came across as a very credible, honest, and humble guy who was just tellin’ it like it is. Moreover, the fact remains that Newt’s conservative colleagues DID oust him from leadership.
As I said, I think Santorum may have done irreparable damage to Newt, even if it takes a while for the impact of his attack to set in.
goldby621,
I’m with you. One addition to your point about the Olympics and its foreign policy relevance: Post 9/11, security was also a big, big issue, and Romney would have been involved in implementing the recommendations of the security pros and getting other nations on board. Romney was long ago primed to learn about the terrorist threat. It has always irritated me that the flavor of the month enthusiasts have brushed this and other foreign policy issues aside, eg, in their enthusiasm for Cain. And it has disappointed me that some Tea Party people didn’t set higher standards for candidates. It is insulting to the American people to throw your hat in the ring without doing at least a bit of preparation on major issues.
By the way, how contrived was Newt’s display of indignation over the question about his ex-wife? Newt absolutely knew that question was coming and had apparently spent much of the day addressing the controversy with the media. He wasn’t angry or surprised with the question; he just made a calculated decision to respond as though he were angry and surprised.
Are we really expected to believe that Newt wasn’t THRILLED to get that question right out of the chute, just so he could play victim and score another cheap point off the MSM? Please.
I’m with you, Neo. I haven’t watched the last 5 or 6 debates. I **WILL* watch the presidential debates and cheer on the Republican nominee mightily.
And I agree with goldby621’s positive comments about Romney. That’s coming from a Texan who originally supported Perry and got mad at Romney because of his silly attacks on Perry about his “subsidizing” college education of illegal aliens.
Romney is intelligent, competent, and conservative enough for me, especially compared to Obama.
If Romney can survive all the attacks from the “not-Romney” GOP candidates and still win the GOP nomination, he can damn sure beat Obama.
One other comment:
I think Newt would make a great attack dog as a VP nominee.
In all the fireworks last night I think a lot of people might have paid little attention to Paul declining to release his tax returns, on the nonsensical grounds that he made so little money in comparison to the other candidates that he would be embarrassed to release his returns.
Do we really buy this idiotic excuse?
It seems obvious that he has something to hide.
“”Moreover, the fact remains that Newt’s conservative colleagues DID oust him from leadership.””
Conrad
Yes. The same “conservatives” that subsequently caved to PC liberalism, leftist media and oppresive government in a big way about that time and allowed the mess we have now.
But hey…At least they didn’t ruffle many feathers and got post offices named after themselves.
Interesting that you’ve decided to bail, neo. I don’t blame you *at all*, as last night was the first time I managed to make myself watch. These things sort of make me cringe. My reaction: Obama can probably win against any of these. Also, that IF (big IF) I didn’t know anything else about Newt, I would have thought him the best choice. (further comments here if anyone is interested).
I’m thinking that if I bet several hundred dollars on Obama I can have a new guitar as a consolation prize for his victory.
@ SteveH:
Perhaps I was unclear. I wasn’t trying to suggest that Newt’s colleagues ousted him BECAUSE they were conservative (a characterization you seem to dispute), and Newt was not conservative. I was simply pointing out that his own caucus — the people to whom he was providing leadership — chose to toss him out of a leadership role. The reason, as I understand it, wasn’t really ideological but rather that Newt doesn’t have the focus or temperment to set a clear agenda and follow through on it. He is an ideas man par excellence, but he doesn’t have the executive skills to see his ideas implemented.
@texexec:
I think a Romney-Santorum ticket could be really effective. Conservatives could envision Santorum as playing sort of a watchdog role in the administration, haranguing Romney and his people behind the scenes to maintain a conservative course. You’d also be giving ostensible outsider Romney a partner who knows how both houses of Congress operates. Santorum also mitigates the evangelicals’ qualms about the Mormon thing. Plus, Santorum helps in Pennsylvania, and he’s young enough to be a future prez nominee.
I think both of those guys would really benefit from such a pairing, and it could really help unify the party for the general.
I think Newt supporters are buying into a myth of his ability to combat the media narrative against him. I haven’t seen any evidence to suggest that he would be equipped to do better than he did in the nineties when his lost the narrative to another Democratic President.
If anything, Newt hasn’t demonstrated the patience or professionalism to effectively combat or defend his record. It seems that his supporters are so pleased with the fact that someone is finally attacking the media that they forgot that attacking the stupid media types isn’t the mission of the Republican nominee.
I feel that the Republican’s have to start attacking the narrative and myth behind the president. The president is a sloven, inconsistent liar, and anything to illustrate that large amount of variance between the president’s manufactured image and his true face reduces the number of independents who might support him. And I believe the Republican party will have a hard enough time doing that singular task, that it will not be helped having to simultaneously defend a nominee who has been so effectively character assassinated before.
I’m sorry. Newt’s reputation is damaged. And image will be used again and again to destroy him. And I don’t believe he has the discipline to combat it. He will take every low blow and bs aguments against him personally, and complain and get off track.
The role of a winning republican nominee is to be the sober adult who reluctantly has to step up and clean up a mess some one else could not. And I can not square Newt with that requirement.
One other thing about Newt last night: Anyone catch his comment about how he can’t run a “conventional” campaign, he needs to run an internet-based insurgency-type campaign (I’m paraphrasing here)? My first thought was, “Great! Just like Howard Dean!” My second was that we’re screwed if our nominee thinks he’s going to run a general election campaign against Obama like a viral advertising promotion. Here we are with the perfect opportunity to win back the WH from a socialist interloper, and Newt is going to put that whole enterprise at risk in yet another vanity-fueled attempt to deomstrate how advanced and innovative he is.
I haven’t even started watching political stuff, Neo.
The best defense against propaganda is to never let it through, so that even the best of filters don’t have to fail.
I wholeheartedly endorse these Sergey comments:
For the first time, I have become a devoted Christian, and have been seriously studying Christianity. I have observed some of the internet give and take between Christians and “New Atheists” (who are significantly inspired by Hitchens – who was himself inspired by atheist existentialists such as Sarte and Camus). Watching the Christian v New Atheist debate has educated me about Christianity, atheism, and America. Sergey is exactly correct: our true problem is not economic, but rather cultural and spiritual. Mankind longs for God: for transcendent meaning to our existence. The United States was founded on that, yet we are deep into a process of losing our understanding of it. Until a couple of years ago, I was ignorant of it. I better understand the issues now, and am thankful for that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Conrad said:
I think this misses the point, which is: the media are on the other side. The media are part of what is ruining America. Just as progressivism must be defeated, so, also, must media’s overt campaign to promote progressivism be defeated; so, also, must media’s overt campaign to destroy “moral order, God, and transcendent meaning” be defeated. Media are on the other side, and are destroying what is good about America. That is the point. It is a point which Newt understands, yet Romney does not.
Conrad said:
“I think a Romney-Santorum ticket could be really effective. Conservatives could envision Santorum as playing sort of a watchdog role in the administration, haranguing Romney and his people behind the scenes to maintain a conservative course. You’d also be giving ostensible outsider Romney a partner who knows how both houses of Congress operates. Santorum also mitigates the evangelicals’ qualms about the Mormon thing. Plus, Santorum helps in Pennsylvania, and he’s young enough to be a future prez nominee.
I think both of those guys would really benefit from such a pairing, and it could really help unify the party for the general.”
I could go for that.
@gcotharn:
I understand that the MSM is aiding and abetting Obama, but our nomiee should be running against Obama, not against the media. Look at it this way: Even if Newt were so compelling in his petulance over being questioned about his ex-wife’s charges that we woke up this morning to find that the entire LSM had become perfectly objective and ideological neutral, we’d still need to defeat Obama and the Dems, right? Newt needs to go directly after Obama and liberalism. Running against the media is a complete sideshow. It’s like fighting in hockey: some people may enjoy the spectacle, but it doesn’t have anything to do with deciding who wins and who loses.
Newt is using debate emcees as props in a choreographed display of righteous indignation. Again, it’s great theatre, but it’s beside the point of the election.
Also, keep in mind what Mark Twain once said: “Never pick a fight with someone who buys his ink by the barrel.” The joke is going to be on Newt (and us!) when the media tires of being held up to scorn by a guy with who could fill a cargo ship with his negative baggage.
Here is a great list of Newt quotes from the Tatler.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/headline/%E2%80%9Ci-think-grandiose-thoughts%E2%80%9D/
Plus as a first year associate prof who hadn’t even completed his thesis, he asked to be made president of the college.
When he was boning up on Catholicism, he obviously missed the bits on the seven deadly sins and seven virtues. That says something about the thoroughness of his research.
Conrad, your comments highlight the two separate ways of thinking about how to win an election.
The first way is the “defeat Obama” way, which is Karl Rove’s “get 51% of the vote” way, which is to appeal to undecided voters via 1) moving one’s policies towards “moderate” positions, and 2) taking care to refrain from saying or doing things which threaten and alarm and disturb undecided voters.
The second way is to defeat progressivism via unapologetically standing for righteous principles of governing. Undecided voters (i.e. uninformed voters) will be swayed by the enthusiasm of their friends who are informed conservative voters. The result will not be a 51% victory, but, rather, a landslide victory, such as when Reagan won 44 states against Carter.
I believe “defeat progressivism” is the superior strategy for maximizing the chances of victory in Nov 2012.
Also, unlike most here: I believe Obama is going down. I believe it will be VERY difficult for Obama to pull out a victory in 2012. I actually believe one of the few potential building blocks of an Obama victory would be that the Repub nominee would run an apologetic “win 51%” “compassionate conservatism” style of campaign.
Therefore, imo, the road to victory, in 2012 and beyond, includes direct attack against an MSM enemy which is overtly fighting against that which is good about America. MSM are on the other side.
Twain was correct, in his time. We are, now, in another time. We either fight, or we surrender.
A little whoops! I forgot to include the link in my post above re: Newt from his earliest days. Better late than never:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203735304577167041714568630.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read
@gcotharn:
I don’t the difference in our viewpoints is as you describe. I’m not suggesting that the GOP only try to win 50% of the vote, and to only do that by cowtowing to moderates. I never said any such thing. If Karl Rove did, take it up with him.
All I’m saying is that Newt should take aim at Obama and the socialist ideas that guide his administration. Taking potshots at debate moderators is great entertainment for conservatives who already hate the MSM, but it doesn’t constitute a compelling case for why the country needs conservative leadership in the WH. At best, it suggests we need a fairer press corps, but how is electing Newt going to produce that result?
I’d would add that questioning Newt about his ex-wife’s charges was 100% legitimate, and the way John King did it was also completely fair and appropriate, IMO. So not only was Newt’s petulant outburst a sideshow, it was a grossly unfair inappropriate sideshow at that.
In 2000, my heart was with Pat Buchanan, but I wound up voting for Bush. Now, my heart is with Rick, my head loves listening to Newt pitch his ideas, but I’m guessing I’m going to be voting for Romney. Tomorrow will tell a lot.
goldby621,
Didn’t Gingrich also say something about wanting to teach a history course when he was in the WH?
Nice to see we’re now dragging out the 2002 Olympics in defense of Romney. With all costs accounted, the operation only lost $124.5 million.
Mitt did a fantastic job using the special subsidized status of the Olympics to raise money. And his “Bain Way” management skills turned a huge loss into a small loss that everyone liked.
Will we all be similarly pleased when President Romney efficiently cuts the FedGov deficit from $1.5T to $500B per year? And when does so by shifting costs to entities off his “official” budget?
Conrad says:
My argument is this: media are Obama, and Obama is media. They are one and the same. Media are socialist ideas, and socialist ideas are media. When you fight the intellectual premises upon which media prop up their questions: you are fighting Obama and socialism. It is the same fight. It is not a question of directing fire at Obama vs directing fire at media. Rather, it is the same fight: directing fire at one = directing fire at both.
Mike Mc,
@7:18 above your wrote “[Newt] is he is a true fighter. When you need one of those, the others won’t do.”
You’re talking “wartime consigliere” here.
Now this comment I would like to address …as much because it is a nice encapsulation of the same argument other’s make rather less succinctly, Conrad (I’m not picking on you specifically), as due to my not agreeing with the premise.
How is it “buying into a myth” when you can watch Newt’ do it in real time?
Did you watch last night’s debate, and miss something that to others of us was quite obvious? Newt’ tearing into King and totally destroying his aplomb?
And – in a later discussion amongst the panel – Fleischer (Ari Fleischer) saying CNN should not have run with it. And the journolisto’s mumbling?
To some (many?) people, that was a publicly iconic moment. The MSM. Humbled by a politician. Live. On TV.
Devastating.
…and from the looks of at least two others present there (Romney and Santorum), they were impressed too.
That live and in living color Newt’ “performance” (I’d grant that as an argument, at least) does not appear to be typical of what you’d categorize as “myth”.
…but it DOES appear to be the stuff of which myths are made.
And I don’t think of that as being an unimpressive characteristic at all.
—
I’d like to suggest something else while I’m about this. Promethea [above] mentioned Newt’ as an example of the George Patton archetype (and I’ve read that on other threads too).
But I would suggest Newt as less of a Patton figure, and as more of a Churchill type.
Churchill was deeply unpopular for most of his career. Pugnacious. Argumentative. Mercurial. Unlikeable to the point of being despised by both his collegues and his opponents.
Doesn’t that remind you a bit of the reasons people give for not “liking”** Newt?
And. Churchill was the right man in their time of need, precisely because those qualities that made him a social and political pariah, also made him peculiarly fit to accomplish that task that destiny had fitted him to.
…though afterwards, the Brit’s chucked him out again.
(I’m sure someone is going to say that I’ve suggested Newt is of the stature of Churchill. I’m not [not yet, at least]. My major point is that weaknesses viewed from another viewpoint can equally be considered strengths.)
**I find the whole idea of a “likeability index” both vaporous and deeply disingenuous btw. When it should be on the order of “you say tomato and I say tomahto” and akin to “one man’s ceiling being another man’s floor”.
It’s okay to like or not to like someone/anyone, and to vote that way …but how does advancing what is in the end a purely emotional and wholly anecdotal preference – as being some kind of measurable attribute of a candidate – really any different that what an actual vote is?
Is this a high-school popularity contest? (And confess: you voted for your best friend over the geek who would have done the school treasurer job better, simply because well, you liked your best friend.)
I mean, I don’t care if you say you’re voting for someone because you like them. Fair enough. Me too.
But to suggest likeability as a hypothetical generalized attribute, is not really very useful in the argument.
(As an argument, this ploy is also akin to the entirely premature “inevitable” and the “electability” memes which some Romney partisans have been particularly egregious at making the past few weeks, which memes themselves are really palindromes …c’mon: isn’t inevitable in politics is generally determinative only in hindsight, and electability is what the outcome of the voting is about?)
davisbr: on Churchill’s “likability.”
…thanks, neo, missed that one (I wouldn’t have re-visited this, if I had).
FWIW: Those non-verbal cues you mention? – Thinking on’t, that may be one reason why I mistrust Romney, in exactly the same way – via, I suspect, exactly the same internal mechanism – you (and others) mistrust Gingrich.
…again, not enough so as I wouldn’t vote Romney, as an ABO voter.
I don’t like any of the candidates particularly well.
But I’ve known a [very] few people exhibiting similar characteristics – quirks – as Gingrich over the years …and often enough, I’ve numbered them amongst my small coterie of actual friends …with friendships that have sometimes stretched through decades.
“You say tomato, I say tomahto” LOL.
Dunno what “the real Newt'” is actually like personally, of course, (granted, he could actually be as repellent as some intimate …but his daughter’s belie that, don’t they?) …just don’t give much creedence to too much of the negative said about him, in trying to see the man as he is.
I think he would be a good [effective] president. Better than Bush II, at least (whom I had problems with).
…I think Romney would be merely adequate (I’m not fond of technocrats, and arguably he’s one if there ever was).
Santorum? – Dunno. I’d ABO vote for him in the general, too though.
Paul? – Disastrous. As bad in his own way as O’.
…the snow has made me all reflective and stuff LOL.
Rickl. that must have been it, although I thought it was a lot higher when it went up. I remember it had a 500 million dollar satellite on it, and was the first launch of that model booster. I thought it was farther into the flight than that video showed, but memory is not the best historian, I guess.
I was working at the Kennedy Space Center at the time, installing the first fiber optic communications system on the cape, the CFON (Cape Fiber Optic Network).
I was and still am very proud to have contributed to the space program.
Thanks for the link.
West:
Do you remember what year it was? I could try to look for it.
There was a Titan IV that blew up higher than the Delta, but I don’t remember whether it was at the Cape or Vandenberg. I think it was in the late 80s.
Yes, you should be proud of your contributions to the space program. Thank you! I’ve been a space buff since I was a little kid.
You may be interested in checking out NASASpaceflight.com, if you’re not already aware of it.