George Will, who compared Mitt Romney to Michael Dukakis in a blistering October column, has now turned his fire on Newt Gingrich:
Gingrich … embodies the vanity and rapacity that make modern Washington repulsive. And there is his anti-conservative confidence that he has a comprehensive explanation of, and plan to perfect, everything. …
His temperament — intellectual hubris distilled — makes him blown about by gusts of enthusiasm for intellectual fads, from 1990s futurism to “Lean Six Sigma” today. On election eve 1994, he said a disturbed South Carolina mother drowning her children “vividly reminds” Americans “how sick the society is getting, and how much we need to change things. . . . The only way you get change is to vote Republican.” Compare this grotesque opportunism — tarted up as sociology — with his devious recasting of it in a letter to the Nov. 18, 1994, Wall Street Journal. And remember his recent swoon over the theory that “Kenyan, anti-colonial” thinking explains Barack Obama.
Gingrich, who would have made a marvelous Marxist, believes everything is related to everything else and only he understands how. Conservatism, in contrast, is both cause and effect of modesty about understanding society’s complexities, controlling its trajectory and improving upon its spontaneous order. Conservatism inoculates against the hubristic volatility that Gingrich exemplifies and Genesis deplores: “Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel.”
So who does Will like? Well, he praises Jon Huntsman as the candidate who currently has the “most conservative” agenda. Full column here.
In the first paragraph, Will described himself perfectly.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn the past thirty years, I can't remember ever caring what George Will had to say about anything. Maybe, just maybe... while I've been ignoring him as yet another spokesman for conventional Washington thinking... perhaps he has at some time stepped boldly out to lead on some critical conservative issue, bravely taking arrows to advance something I care about. But if he did, I sure don't recall hearing about it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't know how Newt uses or misuses the term, but lean six sigma is a good thing. In general though, Will's observations are spot on. Newt is not a small government conservative. (And I'm not saying that to shill for any of the other candidates.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGingrich is to the right of Huntsman and Romney.
There's no question about that.
Will and the pundits have some bug up their butt about Newt's personality. I get that, but this isn't a personality contest, and Huntsman is arrogant and annoying as well.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMany of Gingrich's policy positions are conservative, but his ideology is to the left of any of the other candidates. He believes that his big brain, along with the rest of the best and brightest, can come up with. But reinventing society out of whole clothe is never what conservatism has been about. Burke and Kirk said we need to rely upon the accumulated wisdom of the ages. I don't see Gingrich doing that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Gingrich is to the right of Huntsman and Romney."
Based on what evidence?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI would say that Gingrich is indeed to the right of Huntsman and Romney. Also to the left of them, above and below, and before and behind.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOk, so you hate Gingrich for flip flopping, but you worship Romney who is known for flipping from being a solid liberal as governor in Mass to wanting to be some kind of Reagan conservative in 2008 to reverting back to the middle in 2012.
I see your logic, and I and most other conservatives reject it. That is why you are out of sorts right now. :)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh, yeah, I really worship Romney. You won't find any evidence there, I assure you.
Gingrich doesn't so much flip-flop as flutter hither and yon. Insofar as a roasted Manningtree ox can flutter.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou want perfection with Gingrich.
You are giving Romney a free pass at the same time.
I do find that quite curious. I think most conservatives do agree with me that Gingrich is more conservative than Romney. Pretty much everybody is.
Romney is our Obama. There are some conservatives projecting their own beliefs onto him because they don't know much about him but he seems smart and nice enough.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, I can't abide either one of them, and I'm not persuaded that either will be the nominee. However, I do think Gingrich is more unpredictable, personally more obnoxious (obviously), and a man of lower character where his personal life is concerned (obviously, again). Plus, he is utterly unelectable, which, in its own way, is a good thing.
I am familiar with all your arguments in his favor. I seriously doubt you are changing anyone's mind.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOk I would argue Clinton was far worst in his personal behavoir (he was) and yet Americans still voted for him twice.
It would seem Gingrich is going to win the nomination at this point. You are the one that needs to change minds at this point.
This nomination nprocess hasn't gone like Romney wanted it to. He was counting on a divided conservative vote allowing him to win a plurality, much like McCain did in 2008. But the rapid implosion of Bachman, Perry, and Cain has left conservatives with no other option than Gingrich if they don't want Romney.
Seems to me it's clear they are picking Gingrich over Romney.
I don't think Americans are going to vote against Gingrich because he had an affair in the 1990s. They didn't care that Obama used crack cocaine.
We are in a tough time economically and I have no patience for holier than thou types blasting Gingrich for not being some perfect person.
If you want Jesus, go to a church. This is an election for president, brother.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseClinton was arguably worse in his personal behavior, but aside from the rape allegations, he was similar. No matter -- Gingrich is bad enough, and I wasn't talking about electability when I mentioned Gingrich's character, anyway. His non-electability is a separate problem. His personality is far worse than Clinton's, whose charms have always for some reason appealed to some, although not to me. Note, too, that Clinton did not get elected after the Monica business came to light. Moreover, I think most people have had more than enough of Clintonian behavior in the White House. Clinton got the one free grope.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTo be honest, I think Newt's has modified his personality a lot this campaign.
In my view, part of the reason he's surged is he's been so polite to the other candidates.
Somehow that goes missing in all the haste to make him out into some cartoonish villian. He has both good and bad elements like we all do, but I can't believe anybody would argue the Contract with America guy is less conservative than the former liberal Republican governor who implemented RomneyCare and supported the ban on assault weapons in Mass.
That defies all reason, and by god, you will not get away with it on my watch, which could go on for days with my OCD flaring up. :)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHardcastle is certainly not a MittBot. When Old Liberal and Sheryl are cranking out the Little Lord MittleRoy talking points, it can get a little confusing as to who's a MittBot and who's not.
Hardcastle clearly is not and if NRO had a search engine from this century this would be very, very clear from the posts themselves.
Likewise, I'm careful to identify not MittBot NROniks like Steyn, Levin, Walsh, and McCarthy. Williamson doesn't attack Mittens but he's a Perry guy by his own admission. As noted, Ponnuru, Lowry, K-Lo (initially, she went dark a couple of months ago), and Trinko are all hip deep in Mittomania. Gingrich's ascension is causing more revealing faultlines as Mona Charen finally admitted she hearts Mitt this week and Mark Krikorian tore Newt a new one for a more conservative immigration stance than Romney has and has repeatedly refused to say one word about Romney's past and present support for amnesty and making illegals citizens.
Anyone reasonably observant cam tell who's what. Follow the NRO Twitter feed during the debates and all of your suspicions will be confirmed.
I don't know if Hardcastle has ever indicated which candidate(s) are preferable but that's always a good idea.
I support Bachmann, Cain, Santorum and Perry in that order. I won't vote for Gingrich, Romney, Huntsman, or Johnson were they the nominee.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe are basically on the same page, Teflon. My candidates (in order of preference at the moment) are Bachmann, Santorum, and Perry.
I think Romney is utterly untrustworthy, but if he is the nominee, it will be painful, but I will vote for him, primarily because of the likelihood of Supreme Court vacancies. He has Bork as an advisor and would probably appoint actual constitutionalists. Strong appointments could never be a certainty with him, but there is little chance he would appoint anyone as bad as a Kagan or a Sotomayor.
If it were to come down to Gingrich -- I simply can't believe it will -- I would detest voting for him, but I might have to do it for the same reason. Fortunately, I don't need to hypothesize what I would do about Huntsman or Johnson. Or Paul, whose foreign policy disqualifies him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMatt, contrary to your belief, the world is not binary.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn my view, you are a hack if you criticize Gingrich as not being conservative enough while at the same time you support Romney.
There's no intellectual honesty in that. Sorry, dude, it's not personal, but you are a hack.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMatt, you were banned from this site once, and at the rate your OCD is flaring, you'll be banned again.
Now, go find a single comment of mine that ever said Romney was conservative.
I'll wait.....
What I have said is that if we're not going to get a conservative candidate (meaning, it's a Romney vs. Gingrich choice), I'll vote for Romney every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
I know in your simplistic thinking that means I hate Gingrich, don't like Gingrich, can't stand Gingrich or something of a similar theme. But you would be sadly mistaken. And I have much better things to do than try to explain it to you.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI was never banned from this website.
I always praise these writers as men. I think Lowry and Goldberg and Ramesh are all fine men. Lowry is really the other father I've ever had.
I understand some of you guys see me as some kind of rabble rouser. It's not my point to intentionally offend people. Like my comments about Joseph Smith are not meant to offend Mormons. But how can I say what I think about Joseph Smith without offending Mormons? Should I censor myself? What's the point of freedom of speech if we can't even talk about religion without calling each other bigots? Mormons are free to try to get my mind right on Joseph Smith and his religion.
I only bring up Mormonism because everybody's always saying how smart Romney is while they seize any opportunity to ridicule Palin or Bachman and Cain and the other less than perfect candidates. I've see Romney supporters compare Palin and Bachman to frickin' Christie O'Donnel, which is so stupid and dishonest.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse