There are many distinctions between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, but a key one is tone. To Romney skeptics, many of the former governor’s statements appear to have the subtext “Please like me.” Newt Gingrich’s subtext often seems like “I don’t care if you like me.”
And sometimes the subtext isn’t quite so subtle:
Juan Williams: Speaker Gingrich, you recently said black Americans should demand jobs, not food stamps. You also say poor kids lack a strong work ethic and proposed having them work as janitors in their schools. Can’t you see that this is viewed as at a minimum as insulting to all Americans but particularly to black Americans?
Newt Gingrich: No, I don’t see that.
The exchange continues:
Williams: Speaker Gingrich, the suggestion you made was about a lack of work ethic, and I’ve got to tell you that my e-mail account and twitter account has been inundated with people of all races who are asking if your comments are not intended to belittle the poor and racial minorities. We saw some of this reaction during your visit to a black church in South Carolina. You saw some of this during your visit to a black church in South Carolina where a woman asked you why you refer to President Obama as “the food stamp president.” It sounds as if you’re seeking to belittle people.
Gingrich: Well, first of all, Juan . . .
The fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history. Now, I know among the politically correct you are not supposed to use facts that are uncomfortable.
I’ve talked in the past about Newt’s power of confidence in these debates. Almost every Gingrich response to every question carries the subtext,“The evidence to support the wisdom and benefits of my idea is so overwhelming and irrefutable that I can scarcely believe that we need to have this discussion, but I will lay it out for you slowly and clearly so that even the dullest-witted person within earshot can grasp the futility and madness of any other course.”
Juan Williams is probably one of the more open-minded liberals typically weighing in on such matters and appears to be one of the smartest and yet . . . he still has to view everything through those liberal eyeglasses that prevent even the obvious from being visible. There was a time in this country when there were NO types of employment considered "insulting" or "belittling" but being on welfare was. Liberals haven't been entirely successful in reversing this dynamic, where certain jobs are demeaning but continued dependence upon welfare programs is, but it is not from a lack of trying.
Moving into a job is the first step in moving up on the latter of success which is why those in lower (earned) income brackets do not stay there for long. Those dependent upon Government typically cannot move into a higher income bracket. As much as I wished starting at the bottom of the employment ladder wasn't required, that's just how it is. It's the same for a newly degreed potential employee, too; it's just a different ladder. Those new grads with employment experience typically move up quicker than those without that prior work experience, whether it relates to their education or not.
One only has to read the biography of virtually any successful person and it's almost inevitable that they had gainful employment as a youth. As far as whether the primary purpose of that employment was building self-esteem, consider this:
If you refuse work because it "belittles" you, you can count on being little all your life.
Newt did really well at the debate. It was a pleasure to listen to him. I almost forgot about Newt's other problems and the damage he has already done to himself. External Link
New't arrogant subtext is precisely why I'm concerned his strong GOP debate performances won't translate into the general election phase. While conservatives (myself included) love the kind of logical red-meat defenses of conservative positions he provides, he does so in a manner that seems to look down upon anyone who is not naturally inclined to think that way. It's more than just an explanation, it's "this is true and if you don't realize it you're a fool." I don't think that will fly with moderates and independents.
The post here is great, except his intellect an ego are a two-edged sword, and too often Mr. Gingrich cuts the other side well then cuts his own throat with it. In 2013 I wonder how much he will regret in his own mind his Bain Capital errors and four or five other statements he shouldn't have made in the campaign. We surely will never know the answer in this life.
Juan asked a very real question about perception of the narrative. Instead of hitting the softball out of the ballpark fair- Newt hit an outside the park foul ball.
When conservatives or Republicans wade into the black culture and racism waters, they have to be more careful than the other side. Juan was trying to set Newt up for a homer, but instead, Newt attacked the stereotype. I mean, I love the red meat, but still, it wasn't what Juan was getting at, with which a good response would elevate him to get the voters he needs- the moderates and slightly center of right of the Republican party.
Lest anyone forget, Romney has the mantle of frontrunner and has been the go-to guy for attacks from Obama and all the non-Romneys for several months. He has held up fantastically. Going against Mr. Cool Hand Bam, our guy has to be cool and surgical in his attacks. There is only one in the field who can accomplish that.
I, for one, have gone up and down with excitement with each of the candidates and feel 6-7 months is enough. Now is the time to end it.
First, I doubt Juan was trying to help Newt in any way, shape, or form.
Second, anyone who has already bought the "Repubs are racists" subtext of Juan's question - or who is leaning that way - is beyond the reach of reason or logic.
Third, the best way to campaign is to promise the same policy at every stop. If any tailoring is needed then explain why your program will help whomever you're taking to right then. Before WHAT group of American parents would it be a mistake to give the talk Newt gave; "I want to create a set of conditions in which every person can get a job and one day, through their effort and talent, own the job. My goal is not to give anyone a job. I want to arrange things so that the government stops putting roadblocks in the paths of those who want to hire and those who want to work."
First, Juan is one of few blacks who openly admits the black family society is broken. There are not enough fathers to the kids. He mirrors Cosby in his beliefs. So yes, he was hoping to further the dialogue and Newt responded with the wrong answer.
Right answer in another context or as a stereotype answer, but wrong with Juan. And Newt should have known better since they are fellow employees of Fox.
Second, read the Democrat Party who think Rs are racist. That is quite a large number, though I agree it is all but impossible to penetrate their thick skulls.
Juan was suggesting that harboring the notion that people who would benefit from the ability to make money and the chance to learn a work ethic should be given an opportunity to DO those things is somehow insulting to blacks or bigoted.
That's bunk. I used to like Juan Williams. I think he's a dope at this point.
Almost every Gingrich response to every question carries the subtext,“The evidence to support the wisdom and benefits of my idea is so overwhelming and irrefutable that I can scarcely believe that we need to have this discussion, but I will lay it out for you slowly and clearly so that even the dullest-witted person within earshot can grasp the futility and madness of any other course.”
Well...Good Newt was on display last night, and while it reminds us of all we love about the guy, it also serves to highlight the fact that he is, when cornered, a viciously ineffective below-the-belt fighter.
It's like watching the battle for dominance between Smeagol and Gollum. Who will win?
Let's let someone else carry that lil' ol ring, shall we?
“The evidence to support the wisdom and benefits of my idea is so overwhelming and irrefutable that I can scarcely believe that we need to have this discussion, but I will lay it out for you slowly and clearly so that even the dullest-witted person within earshot can grasp the futility and madness of any other course.”
Yes, that will be fantastic when President Gingrich reverts to supporting cap and trade and health care mandates, or whatever Third Wave claptrap he decides to impose on his Republican party. Certainty is wonderful, as long as there are consistent principles behind them.
It is an interesting topic. But having read Mr. Luntz, studied so much of the various debate theories, Newt's approach often is less than successful. We love it when there is an obvious Democratic Partisan piece of garbage to refute, in Our smaller community. However, there are equally and more affective ways.
The more one sees of Newt, the more tiresome it becomes. Newt will drive away as many as he may thrill. But Gingrich's debate performances simply haven't always been wonderful either in this Primary. Many on the NRO, believed Newt dominated in Iowa, only to learn later (as some of us were suggesting) Gingrich's Beltway Insider exposure under the spotlight was far from attractive. Newt was crashing, and began to attack Romney from the left at this time - desperately trying to deflect attention from his Fannie and Freddie graft.
If it were such a successful trick, then Newt would never have been such a failure in the 1990's, forced to resign as Speaker, he would have gone on to defeat the horrid Clinton - not the other way around. The problem remains within a fashionable element which has grown to believe a "real" conservative must be offering evangelistic bombast. It is silly.
I think John Hinderaker said it best, when he admitted to being appalled as I was, for some Conservatives to turn to Newt after hyping Trump, Cain, Bachmann, Perry, etc. He remarked about all those regretful memories about Gingrich's self serving destructive past, and referenced the reality Newt often sounds good saying it, but often makes it up as he goes along.
"Newt's approach often is less than successful.."
Yeah, that's why he got a 30 second standing ovation after refusing to let Juan Williams cow him into a PC manufactured corner.
"The more one sees of Newt, the more tiresome it becomes" ....
Yes, much like your anti-Newt screeds (indeed, your completely predictable screeds against anyone who dares display less than total lockstep approval of Mr. Romney).
"... then Newt would never have been such a failure in the 1990's"
Yes, failures like welfare reform, the four balanced budgets in a row .... I'd be happy for some more of those kinds of failures today.
Perhaps you can regale us with a long dissertation of Romney's successful job growth record in Mass. I can hear it now "Mr. Romney the Wonderful's job growth performance during his governorship was higher than '3 - that's right, THREE - other governors over that four year period! Woo whoo!! Oh, and don't forget his signature achievement - RomneyCare! Woo whoooo!"
The fact of the matter is that there are a LOT of people for whom Newt gives voice, via his refusal to be put on the defensive by letting the media and the elites set the tone and parameter of what is acceptable to talk about and what facts are acceptable to use. When the media or the elites are using twisted thinking or contorting a reality description, he calls them out on it. Good for him. All of the candidates would do themselves a favor by doing some of the same. We'll never be able to fix these big problems if we can't look plainly at the naked truth of them.
Newt was a loser during the 1990s? He broke the Democratic stranglehold on an entire branch of government. I'd say it was the most consequential political event of my generation. GOP control was sustained for 12 years, and his influence continued beyond his tenure. Clinton may have one two plurality elections, but he was an inconsequential President and a tedious roue. Clinton will be forgotten by history.
A President Gingrich would invite the kind of hatred that Scott Walker has invoked among the indolent unions of Wisconsin. They would spin into the ceiling, and unlike Bush we'd have a President who would have no compunction about breaking his political enemies. He'd certainly have the support of the military, whose loyalty will not last through a second Obama regime.
I enjoyed Newt putting Juan back in his place. There need to be more bold individuals willing to challenge Black racial rubbish.
"Juan Williams is probably one of the more open-minded liberals typically weighing in on such matters and appears to be one of the smartest and yet . . . he still has to view everything through those liberal eyeglasses that prevent even the obvious from being visible."
Perhaps Mr. Newt like his Augustine (City of God, Book II, Chap 1):
If the feeble mind of man did not presume to resist the clear evidence of truth, but yielded its infirmity to wholesome doctrines, as to a health-giving medicine, until it obtained from God, by its faith and piety, the grace needed to heal it, they who have just ideas, and express them in suitable language, would need to use no long discourse to refute the errors of empty conjecture. But this mental infirmity is now more prevalent and hurtful than ever, to such an extent that even after the truth has been as fully demonstrated as man can prove it to man, they hold for the very truth their own unreasonable fancies, either on account of their great blindness, which prevents them from seeing what is plainly set before them, or on account of their opinionative obstinacy, which prevents them from acknowledging the force of what they do see. There therefore frequently arises a necessity of speaking more fully on those points which are already clear, that we may, as it were, present them not to the eye, but even to the touch, so that they may be felt even by those who close their eyes against them. And yet to what end shall we ever bring our discussions, or what bounds can be set to our discourse, if we proceed on the principle that we must always reply to those who reply to us? For those who are either unable to understand our arguments, or are so hardened by the habit of contradiction, that though they understand they cannot yield to them, reply to us, and, as it is written, "speak hard things,"1 and are incorrigibly vain. Now, if we were to propose to confute their objections as often as they with brazen face chose to disregard our arguments, and so often as they could by any means contradict our statements, you see how endless, and fruitless, and painful a task we should be undertaking. And therefore I do not wish my writings to be judged even by you, nor by any of those others at whose service this work of mine is freely and in all Christian charity put, if at least you intend always to require a reply to every exception which you hear taken to what you read in it; for so you would become like those silly women of whom the apostle says that they are "always learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."
Juan Williams is probably one of the more open-minded liberals typically weighing in on such matters and appears to be one of the smartest and yet . . . he still has to view everything through those liberal eyeglasses that prevent even the obvious from being visible. There was a time in this country when there were NO types of employment considered "insulting" or "belittling" but being on welfare was. Liberals haven't been entirely successful in reversing this dynamic, where certain jobs are demeaning but continued dependence upon welfare programs is, but it is not from a lack of trying.
Moving into a job is the first step in moving up on the latter of success which is why those in lower (earned) income brackets do not stay there for long. Those dependent upon Government typically cannot move into a higher income bracket. As much as I wished starting at the bottom of the employment ladder wasn't required, that's just how it is. It's the same for a newly degreed potential employee, too; it's just a different ladder. Those new grads with employment experience typically move up quicker than those without that prior work experience, whether it relates to their education or not.
One only has to read the biography of virtually any successful person and it's almost inevitable that they had gainful employment as a youth. As far as whether the primary purpose of that employment was building self-esteem, consider this:
If you refuse work because it "belittles" you, you can count on being little all your life.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNewt did really well at the debate. It was a pleasure to listen to him. I almost forgot about Newt's other problems and the damage he has already done to himself. External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNew't arrogant subtext is precisely why I'm concerned his strong GOP debate performances won't translate into the general election phase. While conservatives (myself included) love the kind of logical red-meat defenses of conservative positions he provides, he does so in a manner that seems to look down upon anyone who is not naturally inclined to think that way. It's more than just an explanation, it's "this is true and if you don't realize it you're a fool." I don't think that will fly with moderates and independents.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe post here is great, except his intellect an ego are a two-edged sword, and too often Mr. Gingrich cuts the other side well then cuts his own throat with it. In 2013 I wonder how much he will regret in his own mind his Bain Capital errors and four or five other statements he shouldn't have made in the campaign. We surely will never know the answer in this life.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJuan asked a very real question about perception of the narrative. Instead of hitting the softball out of the ballpark fair- Newt hit an outside the park foul ball.
When conservatives or Republicans wade into the black culture and racism waters, they have to be more careful than the other side. Juan was trying to set Newt up for a homer, but instead, Newt attacked the stereotype. I mean, I love the red meat, but still, it wasn't what Juan was getting at, with which a good response would elevate him to get the voters he needs- the moderates and slightly center of right of the Republican party.
Lest anyone forget, Romney has the mantle of frontrunner and has been the go-to guy for attacks from Obama and all the non-Romneys for several months. He has held up fantastically. Going against Mr. Cool Hand Bam, our guy has to be cool and surgical in his attacks. There is only one in the field who can accomplish that.
I, for one, have gone up and down with excitement with each of the candidates and feel 6-7 months is enough. Now is the time to end it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFirst, I doubt Juan was trying to help Newt in any way, shape, or form.
Second, anyone who has already bought the "Repubs are racists" subtext of Juan's question - or who is leaning that way - is beyond the reach of reason or logic.
Third, the best way to campaign is to promise the same policy at every stop. If any tailoring is needed then explain why your program will help whomever you're taking to right then. Before WHAT group of American parents would it be a mistake to give the talk Newt gave; "I want to create a set of conditions in which every person can get a job and one day, through their effort and talent, own the job. My goal is not to give anyone a job. I want to arrange things so that the government stops putting roadblocks in the paths of those who want to hire and those who want to work."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFirst, Juan is one of few blacks who openly admits the black family society is broken. There are not enough fathers to the kids. He mirrors Cosby in his beliefs. So yes, he was hoping to further the dialogue and Newt responded with the wrong answer.
Right answer in another context or as a stereotype answer, but wrong with Juan. And Newt should have known better since they are fellow employees of Fox.
Second, read the Democrat Party who think Rs are racist. That is quite a large number, though I agree it is all but impossible to penetrate their thick skulls.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJuan was suggesting that harboring the notion that people who would benefit from the ability to make money and the chance to learn a work ethic should be given an opportunity to DO those things is somehow insulting to blacks or bigoted.
That's bunk. I used to like Juan Williams. I think he's a dope at this point.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAlmost every Gingrich response to every question carries the subtext,“The evidence to support the wisdom and benefits of my idea is so overwhelming and irrefutable that I can scarcely believe that we need to have this discussion, but I will lay it out for you slowly and clearly so that even the dullest-witted person within earshot can grasp the futility and madness of any other course.”
Refreshing, isn't it?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell...Good Newt was on display last night, and while it reminds us of all we love about the guy, it also serves to highlight the fact that he is, when cornered, a viciously ineffective below-the-belt fighter.
It's like watching the battle for dominance between Smeagol and Gollum. Who will win?
Let's let someone else carry that lil' ol ring, shall we?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse“The evidence to support the wisdom and benefits of my idea is so overwhelming and irrefutable that I can scarcely believe that we need to have this discussion, but I will lay it out for you slowly and clearly so that even the dullest-witted person within earshot can grasp the futility and madness of any other course.”
Yes, that will be fantastic when President Gingrich reverts to supporting cap and trade and health care mandates, or whatever Third Wave claptrap he decides to impose on his Republican party. Certainty is wonderful, as long as there are consistent principles behind them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is an interesting topic. But having read Mr. Luntz, studied so much of the various debate theories, Newt's approach often is less than successful. We love it when there is an obvious Democratic Partisan piece of garbage to refute, in Our smaller community. However, there are equally and more affective ways.
The more one sees of Newt, the more tiresome it becomes. Newt will drive away as many as he may thrill. But Gingrich's debate performances simply haven't always been wonderful either in this Primary. Many on the NRO, believed Newt dominated in Iowa, only to learn later (as some of us were suggesting) Gingrich's Beltway Insider exposure under the spotlight was far from attractive. Newt was crashing, and began to attack Romney from the left at this time - desperately trying to deflect attention from his Fannie and Freddie graft.
If it were such a successful trick, then Newt would never have been such a failure in the 1990's, forced to resign as Speaker, he would have gone on to defeat the horrid Clinton - not the other way around. The problem remains within a fashionable element which has grown to believe a "real" conservative must be offering evangelistic bombast. It is silly.
I think John Hinderaker said it best, when he admitted to being appalled as I was, for some Conservatives to turn to Newt after hyping Trump, Cain, Bachmann, Perry, etc. He remarked about all those regretful memories about Gingrich's self serving destructive past, and referenced the reality Newt often sounds good saying it, but often makes it up as he goes along.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOld,
"Newt's approach often is less than successful.."
Yeah, that's why he got a 30 second standing ovation after refusing to let Juan Williams cow him into a PC manufactured corner.
"The more one sees of Newt, the more tiresome it becomes" ....
Yes, much like your anti-Newt screeds (indeed, your completely predictable screeds against anyone who dares display less than total lockstep approval of Mr. Romney).
"... then Newt would never have been such a failure in the 1990's"
Yes, failures like welfare reform, the four balanced budgets in a row .... I'd be happy for some more of those kinds of failures today.
Perhaps you can regale us with a long dissertation of Romney's successful job growth record in Mass. I can hear it now "Mr. Romney the Wonderful's job growth performance during his governorship was higher than '3 - that's right, THREE - other governors over that four year period! Woo whoo!! Oh, and don't forget his signature achievement - RomneyCare! Woo whoooo!"
The fact of the matter is that there are a LOT of people for whom Newt gives voice, via his refusal to be put on the defensive by letting the media and the elites set the tone and parameter of what is acceptable to talk about and what facts are acceptable to use. When the media or the elites are using twisted thinking or contorting a reality description, he calls them out on it. Good for him. All of the candidates would do themselves a favor by doing some of the same. We'll never be able to fix these big problems if we can't look plainly at the naked truth of them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNewt was a loser during the 1990s? He broke the Democratic stranglehold on an entire branch of government. I'd say it was the most consequential political event of my generation. GOP control was sustained for 12 years, and his influence continued beyond his tenure. Clinton may have one two plurality elections, but he was an inconsequential President and a tedious roue. Clinton will be forgotten by history.
A President Gingrich would invite the kind of hatred that Scott Walker has invoked among the indolent unions of Wisconsin. They would spin into the ceiling, and unlike Bush we'd have a President who would have no compunction about breaking his political enemies. He'd certainly have the support of the military, whose loyalty will not last through a second Obama regime.
I enjoyed Newt putting Juan back in his place. There need to be more bold individuals willing to challenge Black racial rubbish.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSurfcat,
"Juan Williams is probably one of the more open-minded liberals typically weighing in on such matters and appears to be one of the smartest and yet . . . he still has to view everything through those liberal eyeglasses that prevent even the obvious from being visible."
You are so right. Your entire post is 'right on'!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePerhaps Mr. Newt like his Augustine (City of God, Book II, Chap 1):
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf the feeble mind of man did not presume to resist the clear evidence of truth, but yielded its infirmity to wholesome doctrines, as to a health-giving medicine, until it obtained from God, by its faith and piety, the grace needed to heal it, they who have just ideas, and express them in suitable language, would need to use no long discourse to refute the errors of empty conjecture. But this mental infirmity is now more prevalent and hurtful than ever, to such an extent that even after the truth has been as fully demonstrated as man can prove it to man, they hold for the very truth their own unreasonable fancies, either on account of their great blindness, which prevents them from seeing what is plainly set before them, or on account of their opinionative obstinacy, which prevents them from acknowledging the force of what they do see. There therefore frequently arises a necessity of speaking more fully on those points which are already clear, that we may, as it were, present them not to the eye, but even to the touch, so that they may be felt even by those who close their eyes against them. And yet to what end shall we ever bring our discussions, or what bounds can be set to our discourse, if we proceed on the principle that we must always reply to those who reply to us? For those who are either unable to understand our arguments, or are so hardened by the habit of contradiction, that though they understand they cannot yield to them, reply to us, and, as it is written, "speak hard things,"1 and are incorrigibly vain. Now, if we were to propose to confute their objections as often as they with brazen face chose to disregard our arguments, and so often as they could by any means contradict our statements, you see how endless, and fruitless, and painful a task we should be undertaking. And therefore I do not wish my writings to be judged even by you, nor by any of those others at whose service this work of mine is freely and in all Christian charity put, if at least you intend always to require a reply to every exception which you hear taken to what you read in it; for so you would become like those silly women of whom the apostle says that they are "always learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."