A portmanteau post, filled with interesting stuff
Bookworm on Nov 16 2011 at 9:31 am | Filed under: Uncategorized
I read a lot of things that intrigued me this morning, so I’ll just including them here, with frequent updates.
To begin with, Jonah Goldberg certainly nailed one of the reasons I find Newt appealing right now. If you read on in the Goldberg article, you’ll also see him identify the concerns Newt’s tactic raises:
But the core of his strategy has been to plant a question in the minds of Republican voters. The question he wants them to ask is, “Whom would you most like to see debate Barack Obama?”
In each debate, he keeps mentioning how he wants to challenge the president to as many Lincoln-Douglas-style debates as possible. And if the presidential baloney won’t march into the Gingrichian grinder? Well then, the grinder will come to the baloney. Gingrich vows to follow Obama on the stump, offering rapid response after every presidential utterance.
It’s a brilliant tactic. Watching Gingrich walk onto the debate stage, it’s like seeing a great beast returned to its natural habitat. They should play “Born Free” whenever he comes out from behind the curtain.
The tactic works because the unifying conviction among hard-core Republican voters is that Obama is both overrated and full of it, a man pretending to be presidential and intellectual rather than the real thing. (Ironically, Gingrich has long been the subject of similar criticisms, mostly from the left.) Gingrich’s promise to goad Obama into a fair fight is beyond tantalizing.
Talk to rank-and-file conservatives about such a matchup and they grow giddy, like nerds asked if they’d like to see a battle between Darth Vader and Gandalf the wizard. Ask them if they’d like to see an Obama versus Romney debate (the thrilla with vanilla!) and they shrug. Meanwhile, if you nominate Gingrich, you’ll get a ticket to the fight of the century.
Ben Shapiro also confronts head-on both Newt’s virtues and his vices. He makes a point that Mike Devx made in a comment earlier, which is that having Newt as a candidate undercuts one of the favorite attacks the MSM routinely levels against Republican candidates, which is the charge that they’re stupid (never made that Dubya had a higher GPA than both Kerry and Gore). No one can say that about Newt:
It is clear that Gingrich is the smartest man on the stage in the Republican debates. Virtually everyone has acknowledged it over and over again. He is dazzlingly articulate. He knows the issues inside and out. Is there any other candidate on that stage that Republicans would trust with Obama? Gingrich would undoubtedly turn the bloviating incumbent inside out. As Dorothy Rabinowitz of the Wall Street Journal rightly wrote this week, “The former speaker has stood out at these forums, the debater whose audiences seem to hang on his words and on a flow of thought rich in substance, a world apart from the usual that the political season brings.” He has done that while avoiding attacking the other candidates on the stage. And he has done it while keeping his ire squarely on the liberal media and the White House.
If only he didn’t have that baggage. But then again, so does the default candidate, Mitt — except his baggage isn’t about his personal life, it’s about his political choices.
Think 1968: that’s when ordinary Americans looked at the Left and, responding with complete and appropriate revulsion, voted Right. Just two stories today to make that point: hysterical 1960s’ style Leftist protests at UC Berkeley and the unions’ plan to shut down myriad bridges across America this coming Thursday. (If your commute is across a bridge, you might want to check out that last link to make sure you won’t be stuck behind a few SEIU thugs on your way to work.)
MORE TO FOLLOW.
UPDATE: My day has gone by so quickly, I’m abandoning this portmanteau, and I’ll just do other posts. Sorry for the u-turn in goals.
Related posts:
- A portmanteau post with all sorts of interesting stuff *UPDATED*
- Really interesting stuff today which is all going to get piled into one post
- Tuesday morning round-up of really interesting stuff
Email This Post To A Friend
9 Responses to “A portmanteau post, filled with interesting stuff”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
“Could I vote for Newt?” Pause. “Yes.”
That is what my husband said a few days ago. I was stunned. I don’t think it’s possible to be more Libertarian than my husband. Newt is a far cry from a Libertarian. But… . The presidential race is just one of hundreds of races in 2012. If we Tea Party/Libertarian types keep filling seats in congress with like-minded folks, and Newt brings some brains to the WH, … .
I see Prof. Jacobson is supporting Newt. http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/11/why-i-support-newt-gingrich/
i didn’t know Thursday was Run over A Union Asshole Day – thanks for the update.
I really like Herman Cain. That said, Newt has been looking better and better. I won’t vote for another Plastic RINO, selected for us by the main stream media and the Republican establishment. I believe Gingrich would expose Obama for the poseur that he is in a head to head debate. Also in Newt’s favor is the fact that he’s been a high profile pol in an unpopular administration already, so he has been through the media meat grinder and they have pretty much exposed all the dirt he’s got so there won’t be any little surprises in October. He knows the system on the Hill too and I think he knows where a few of the bodies are buried, and would be able to get some cooperation out of intractable political foes as well.
Could I vote for Newt? Yup.
Please understand that Obama will not debate Newt head-to-head unless he owns the format. His lackeys in the media will make sure that in the back and forth to set up a debate, Newt will be made to come off looking petulant, spiteful, and overly demanding. Obama will declare that he’s not going to play with such an unscrupulous character, with the result that Newt will look bad and Obama will retain his Orator of the Ages title by default.
This is so painfully obvious to me.
Oh, Charles. You make me weep — because you’re correct.
Ben Shapiro’s article, linked below, closes with this:
“If he can make us remember what he did while in office and forget what he did while out of office, Newt might be worth more than just a second look.”
http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2011/11/16/ben-shapiro-what-about-newt/
Piggy backing on the above quote, we all know what Romney did while in office.
And about the media…Zippy does not control all of them.
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/category/ratings
Charles M, in #4, I’ve heard of raining on a parade, but that was a downpour of pessimism!
If Newt plays by their game, you are absolutely right. But of all the GOP contendahs, in the debates he is the ONLY one who has taken on the media, repeatedly. He sees them clearly and knows exactly what they’re up to.
This is a new Newt. Could I vote for him? Yup. You bet.
I’ve waited my two weeks on Herman Cain. I am moving from being a Cain supporter, to studied neutrality. I’m just going to wait these months to see which candidate breaks out. My movement from Cain is based on my reasons for supporting him in the first place: He is the only one of the candidates that I see could inspire and enthuse ENOUGH of the American People to foment the next conservative revolution. And we need a new revolution, because nothing can change in Washington DC until the political *will* is there for it to change. That can’t happen unless the American people (enough of them) move solidly behind it. Right now the people are concerned and worried, but they haven’t bought into any conservative movement. The Tea Party is a good start and we continue slowly moving in the right direction. But not enough are on board yet to generate the kind of political will for things to really change. The GOP leaadership are NOT leaders, they are followers. In its current state, GOP congressional leadership will fail us.
How much does it cost to erase four years? It cost Nixon a fortune for 18 minutes.
Sadie, that’s relatively good data security. I approve, for general clauses.