Did you watch the Republican presidential debate in Charleston, S.C., last night? Well, I did. No, I didn’t watch it in Charleston itself: You know what I mean. Just a few notes for you.
CNN plays some pounding, gladiatorial music as the candidates emerge from the wings. Incredibly vulgar, I think. Oh, our democracy!
Mitt Romney has a bit of a buzz in his voice. You know what I mean? You can hear it the second he opens his mouth. I think his first words are, “Hi, guys.” And then he says (I think), “And then there were four.” There are now four candidates on the GOP stage, down from nine, I believe.
Advertisement
John King, the CNN guy, says that we are “blessed” to have the national anthem performed by cadets from the Citadel.
Wow, did he say blessed? And in connection with the national anthem? And the Citadel?
Holy-moly. Is that legal at CNN? Wouldn’t Ted Turner have had the guy drawn and quartered?
I’m afraid that standards at CNN have become all too lax. Next thing you know they’ll be voting Republican.
The candidates, and the audience, I suppose, look at a video image of the American flag as they sing the anthem. The flag is waving in the breeze. I’m sorry, but I think the video image, in such a circumstance, is incredibly cheesy. Better to turn and face some nice, limp flag on the stage, as we all did in elementary school eons ago.
Didn’t we?
As soon as he can, Mitt says he’s been married to Ann for 42 years, as Newt stands beside him. Well, that wasn’t obvious!
Newt says he’s glad to be home in the South. Of course, he says this in the northern accent that is natural to him.
Then we have a congressman from Texas, Ron Paul, speaking in his strong, unsuppressable Pittsburgh accent. (“Insuppressible” is the legit word, but I like “unsuppressable.” And, hell, it’s my language.) (And yours.)
Paul says, “I’m the only U.S. veteran on this stage tonight.” The veterans I admire don’t talk like that.
Besides, “only U.S. veteran”? Someone else a Danish veteran?
John King says to Newt, “Your ex-wife gave an interview . . .” I’m thinking, “‘Ex-wife’? Could you narrow that down, John?”
Newt always manages to be the victim, doesn’t he? When he says “destructive,” “vicious,” and “despicable,” he’s talking about what others are doing to him, never about what he does to, for example, someone to whom he has pledged his life and honor.
When he can tangle with the media, of course, he’s at his best. He shines brightest.
I wonder whether Newt’s “personal” record will hurt him, electorally. When you think about it, betrayal and divorce are as American as apple pie.
He’s a clever one, Newt: Out of his ex-wife’s testimony, he makes a Republican, conservative, anti-media cause.
Mitt says the “right” thing: “Let’s get on to the real issues.” But I put “right” in quotation marks, because, you know, for some — moral character is a real issue.
As I listen to Newt go on to talk about various policy matters, I think, “We used to say that Clinton could ‘compartmentalize.’ Boy, can Newt do it too.”
Nikki Haley, the governor of South Carolina: a hell of a smile.
Rick Santorum again seems to be running for president of the manufacturing sector. I know it’s important . . .
I have a funny reaction, in the middle of this four-man debate: “The answers are too long now!” Dumb reaction, I know. But I still have it.
Great answer from Santorum: Obama gutting defense so as to keep the welfare state nice and bloated.
Mitt trips over himself when he talks. The words tumble out, and on top of one another. He talks with an eagerness, often an overeagerness.
A strong answer from Romney, on health care. Want your health care to be like Amtrak and the post office? Trite, but true and effective.
Fabulous, boffo line from Newt: “I have an offer to the parents of America: Elect us and your kids will be able to move out, because they’ll have work!”
Candidates have to watch insiderness. Santorum says “Heritage” like everyone’ll know he’s talking about a think tank in Washington, D.C. Most people would hear that word without the upper case, you know?
In general, Santorum quite strong on health care.
When in accusation mode, he is quite whiny and unpleasant, I think. Also sneering. Mean.
Says “playing footsies” when he means “footsie.” At least it’s “footsie” where I come from. Can’t vouch for western Pennsylvania.
Santorum excellent in saying, I am solid and steady. I can’t excite a crowd like Newt. But you don’t have to worry about my character or mental state. I won’t shock or embarrass you.
Newt is right: He did build a Republican majority, in the House. And people did doubt him. They did doubt that it was possible.
Newt needs to commune with his dictionary: He “owns” the word “grandiose,” applying it to himself in a self-congratulatory way. “Grand” is good (often), “grandiose” is bad. Newt the intellectual should know this.
The Santorum-Gingrich squabble over the early and mid-’90s in Congress? Ancient history. But interesting, I find.
Great read Mr. Nordlinger, completely understand the political junkie line.
Have to disagree regarding Romney referencing Newt and Rick's Washington Politician status. Both Gingrich and Santorum looked silly trying to argue over each other. Romney's proven Private Sector Executive accomplishment and his outsider status from the Beltway is a huge strength.
We all know the American Public understandably sees the Beltway Politician with contempt. Both Santorum and Gingrich have pros and cons in their careers, but clearly they both have failed - as they both were handed their pink slips.
Romney did incredibly well again this time, he is very strong and sound.
On a larger note, seeing Newt wag his finger like Bill Clinton and blame the media for his problems is not an image one needs to see, especially in a Race to remove Obama. Also, Rick Santorum's peevish nature, his gimmick of whispering in a microphone, even the suggestion he is for censoring - regulating the Internet, etc., are all very unattractive.
Newt is equally as bad, and his claim he can win an election due to some rhetoric designed to exploit Our Base, is pure fantasy. Gingrich should be asked, if he cannot get on a Ballot on VA, how can he run in the General Election? How could he possibly manage the job as President, when he cannot even manage a Campaign?
especially Republicans who like candidates like Herman Cain and Allen West. they're just hiding their racism by pretending to like these African American gentlemen. yah right...
Romney has a great narrative that he needs to back with policy positions. He says the private sector and individual freedom is what creates jobs. Great. Then why not talk about eliminating a few departments. Would anyone miss the department of education? Let local school boards run the show. The department of commerce, which is full of lazy bureaucrats, serves no purpose. The EPA could certainly be turned over to the states.
The fact is, state and local spending have increased from 10 percent to over 40 percent since 1925. Romney should advocate cutting government spending to the bone. Then the economy will take off like a rocket.
I find it amusing that in the first page of this piece, Mr. Nordlinger cites the old saw about the Post Office & gov't health care, in the second a discussion of whether gov't health care should be called "MassCare" or "RomneyCare."
I find Mr. Nordlinger's support of Romney disturbing because I have read many of his works, bought his book so I'd always have them around - I have respect for his intellect. So Mr Nordlinger, or any Romney supporter, please answer me this: How is Mitt Romney the "most electable" candidate when RomneyCare takes away the GOP number one issue?
I live in a manufacturing town in Wisconsin. Many traditional Dems here are plenty mad at Obama - Keystone might assure Walker's re-election by splitting industrial unions from public sector leeches - but I assure anyone reading this that if the GOP nominates someone who has his own Government Health Care Plan we will be unable to convince my neighbors that there is anything as much as a dime's worth of differnce between the parties.
Just stopped by to peruse the corner. Mostly found boobish takes on last nights debate ... a concerted effort to ignore the obvious. Checked out the comments as well. I've noticed that there are now few critical remarks ... everyone humming the same tune. Means NRO has lost more than a few readers ... a lot more.
Was once a great publication. Those days, along with dear Mr. Buckley have passed though. Now NRO reads like a Frum piece ... headed in the direction of David Brooks.
Well, my visits to these pages have become so much rarer ... they are likely to grow rarer still. You chaps have spoiled it you know ... alienated a loyal base. With a heavy handed hubris and tin ear you all have helped to undo in a matter of weeks what took decades to build. Tsk, Tsk.
Just stopped by to peruse the corner. Mostly found boobish takes on last nights debate ... a concerted effort to ignore the obvious. Checked out the comments as well. I've noticed that there are now few critical remarks ... everyone humming the same tune. Means NRO has lost more than a few readers ... a lot more.
Was once a great publication. Those days, along with dear Mr. Buckley have passed though. Now NRO reads like a Frum piece ... headed in the direction of David Brooks.
Well, my visits to these pages have become so much rarer ... they are likely to grow rarer still. You chaps have spoiled it you know ... alienated a loyal base. With a heavy handed hubris and tin ear you all have helped to undo in a matter of weeks what took decades to build. Tsk, Tsk.
Just stopped by to peruse the corner. Mostly found boobish takes on last nights debate ... a concerted effort to ignore the obvious. Checked out the comments as well. I've noticed that there are now few critical remarks ... everyone humming the same tune. Means NRO has lost more than a few readers ... a lot more.
Was once a great publication. Those days, along with dear Mr. Buckley have passed though. Now NRO reads like a Frum piece ... headed in the direction of David Brooks.
Well, my visits to these pages have become so much rarer ... they are likely to grow rarer still. You chaps have spoiled it you know ... alienated a loyal base. With a heavy handed hubris and tin ear you all have helped to undo in a matter of weeks what took decades to build. Tsk, Tsk.
Newt is our most rhetorically gifted candidate, there is no doubt about that. Romney and Santorum are intelligent and articulate, but they do not have the same eloquence or expansiveness of knowledge that Newt does. So, Newt shines in these debates, as has been commented ad nauseum.
What has gotten Newt the most press are his various tussles with the moderators, most notably with Chris Wallace, Juan Williams, and now John King. But there’s something important here that I think is being missed amongst all of those that are wowed by Newt’s rebuttals (and I count myself in that group).
These moderators are pressing Newt issues related to him, to Newt himself. First, Chris Wallace questioned Newt about his (seemingly) imploding campaign. You know, after Newt’s senior staff quit on him. Second, Juan Williams asked Newt about a not-so-greatly-articulated idea of putting children to work as janitors. Conservatives understand and appreciate his point; but don’t be shocked when moderates and others don’t quite get what Newt is talking about. And last night, John King asked a question regarding Newt’s ex-wife, who gave an interview claiming that Newt asked for permission to sleep with his mistress. Let that soak in a bit.
Personally, I am disgusted by ABC News. But, unfortunately, this is Newt Gingrich. Remember when Newt ascended to the top of the polls and everyone talk about his “baggage”? This is it: His staff quits; he says controversial things; he has two ex-wives, and he has mistresses. In a campaign that desperately needs to be about President Obama, it is invariable that things would get turned on Newt. It is all Newt, all the time. It always has been, and it always will be.
I love it when he pummels the liberal media because I hate the liberal media as much as anybody, and Newt is uniquely gifted to trounce them in these exchanges. But beneath the moderators’ condescension and bias is the unfortunate truth that the Newt “baggage” is real, and we don’t know what more is out there.
Sorry Chad, are you really pressing the point that we should disqualify a candidate based on what his ex-wife says about him? You know anybody who is divorced and has good things to say about their ex? So you going to vote for O when some woman comes forward in 6 months to say Mitt and she held hands in 4th grade - and he had bad breath? Patton slaped a coward, Kenedy was a drugie and adulterer, Grant drank too much, Lincoln was ugly and had a crazy wife, Clinton - my gosh where to begin. I'm looking for a leader who will fight for the country and you're looking for a Pope.
I think you grazed the surface of my concern with Newt, but then drove on by it.
He runs the risk of a Nixon-style relationship with the network and Washington press corps media.
That doesn't mean his presidency will end in like fashion, it just means his negative relationship with them will take a large chunk out of everyone's focus elsewhere.
So, ironically, what galvanizes people to him, even people who have no inclination toward the GOP, can eventually unwind his administration's focus.
He could, counter-intuitively, defuse this with a weekly press conference. They'd come to respect, rather than resent, the sparring partner in the Oval Office.
I'd pay him double-time to be my press secretary, any day.
This is such a trivial issue, but I have to speak up, because nobody ever does:
Jay, have you ever even been to the South?! There are a lot of southerners who don't have a "y'all drawl" when they speak. It might have to do with the fact that some of the larger cities down here have--gasp--schools! And, I know this may also be a surprise, but some of those born and raised in the South have parents and grandparents *not* originally from the South (because they ACTUALLY wanted to come down here). Those kind of factors actually play a part in developing a dialect, "don'tcha know?"
Having been born and raised for half of my life in the Great Lakes area, and now residing in the rural south, I have noticed the only people who expect southerners to have a southern accent are northerners.
You may have eschewed the taint of Ann Arbor, but you still need to work on that Northern-centric perception of the South
Perhaps you don't regularly read Jay's Impromptus. He travels broadly and is frequently in the South. Deciphering people's accents is a hobby of his.
He loves the English language and how different regions have different ways of speaking it. He has never been condescending toward those with a southern or any other type of accent. Quite the opposite.
And of course, no one has implied that every southerner has or should have a southern accent. He's just saying that he notices the way people say certain words and how you can sometimes tell where they're from based on that.
Don't know where all you've been in the South, but if you haven't encountered many southern accents, you haven't been very many places. As a born-and-bred southern girl (who doesn't have much of an accent), I have often found myself nodding along with his observations of our way of talking. He's not making fun! He's paying homage!
And not all Southern accents sound like Scarlett O'Hara. I love it when I watch a movie supposedly set in NC and everyone talks like they're from Alabama.
CNN plays some pounding, gladiatorial music as the candidates emerge from the wings. Incredibly vulgar, I think. Oh, our democracy!
