Yuval: You say that Romney and Gingrich are both Rockefeller Republicans and “Substantively, their views are largely indistinguishable from one another.” That is, of course, correct. But I think it’s important to underline that the differences in temperament that you outline are substantive. In other words, Gingirch’s “revolutionary disposition” is itself inherently anti-conservative — or, more accurately, his disposition is better suited for the French Revolution, not the American one. When Will said that Gingrich would have made a “marvelous Marxist,” that wasn’t a gratuitous slam; you can see Gingrich joining Lenin to “tear down the old.” Gingrich is running for head of the Committee for Public Safety but, speaking only for myself, I’m looking for a Coolidge to vote for, not a Robespierre.
Mr. Krikorian,
Your comparison is a little too hyperbolic for me. I think you need to keep your feet on the ground as to not get carried away. Who needs the Dems to destroy the Rep nominee when we have people like you and Will?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm not buying the Newt as Revolutionary stuff here. Newt is boomer version of Nixon. All the revolutionary stuff is a means to an end. That's why it rings so hollow when he starts talking about Six Sigma. Those of us who know about these things see right through his nonsense. When you look closer at the rest of his act, you see the same paper thin veneer of rhetoric covering pretty conventional and timid polices.
What drives Newt is pure ambition. That's what he has in common with Nixon. Like Nixon, he wants desperately to be accepted by the people he denigrates. That's why he was such a smitten kitten around Clinton. The fat kid wanted to be with the cool kids and Clinton would let him in, as long as he got what he wanted from Newt.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExcept that Clinton was also "the fat kid".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney is no Coolidge.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot to mention that the Democrats are not running a nobody like John W. Davis in this election.
Barack Obama is a skilled campaigner and speechmaker (even if I, personally, can't stand to listen to him, he does inspire his own troops).
The Republicans need to nominate someone who can inspire the base with his words and stand up to Obama in the debates. Romney can do neither of these things.
As I've said before, Romney couldn't inspire a man engulfed in flames to jump into a pool of water. If the Republicans nominate Romney, he will lose. Nominating Newt may still lead to a loss (I think the health of the economy will determine the election), but it will give us the best chance overall.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust so, Mark. Well said.
Bill Buckley said of George W. Bush: " He's conservative, but he's not a conservative".
All of the Republican contenders have conservative impulses to one degree or another, of some sorts or others. But few are principled, core conservatives. Bachman and Santorum - who else?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAt least Gingrich has a conservative record.
Too many people focus on what people say rather than what they do.
1. Historic GOP win in 1994.
2. Contract with America
3. Balanced budget
4. Medicare reform.
vs.
1. RomneyCare
Simple error really.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is another emblem of the fashionable folly, which is completely wrong.
Gingrich is a life long Politician who made his fame and fortune via the Public Sector, exploiting the taxpayer - even for 1.8 Million via Fannie and Freddie.
Gingrich not only supported the Mandate in Mass, he has entertained a Federal Mandate.
His recent interview with Beck exposed the folly again, showing the image isn't the reality:
"GLENN: All right. Well, and I think this is where we fundamentally differ is it seems to me ‑‑ and let me just play the audio here ‑‑ that you are for the individual mandate for healthcare and you have been for quite some time. Let’s play the audio.
GINGRICH: I am for people, individuals, exactly like automobile insurance, individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance, and I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals on a sliding scale a government subsidy so it will ensure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.
GLENN: Okay. That’s 1993. Here is May 2011.
GINGRICH: All of a sudden responsibility to help pay for healthcare. And I think that there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I’ve said consistently we ought to have some requirement to either have health insurance or you post a bond or in some way you indicate you are going to be held accountable.
VOICE: That is the individual mandate, is it not?
GINGRICH: It’s a variation on it."
External Link
Gingrich embraced Cap and Trade, even peddled Global Warming on TV with Nancy Pelosi.
Newt blew it with the "Contract With America" revealing a very weak offering, failing to deliver on so much, including someone who cannot lead or manage. Given such a great opportunity, Gingrich was forced to resign in disgrace.
Unlike Gingrich, Romney's entire life is an embrace of the Free Market - while Newt has revealed his non-conservative embrace as living off of Our Government.
Romney is the Private Sector emblem of success, a life devoted to the Free Market. His actions are vividly conservative as displayed with his empowerment of Our fine US Capitalist System.
Besides his excellence with Bain, growing opportunity, prosperity, for all Americans, his record as Governor was excellent. Romney balanced a budget after inheriting a 3 Billion dollar deficit. He reduced tax/regulation burdens which turned around an entrenched anti-Business failure created by Democrats. Unemployment dropped to 4.7% when he was Gov. - stunning for a traditional Democratic Partisan malaise. Romney also empowered local law enforcement to be able to deal with illegal immigrants, vetoed numerous Democrat folly including minimum wages - gay marriage sophistry, passed a tough drunk driving law, offered no pardons, etc.
Even the Mass Health Care Reform offering, a State level effort, was endorsed by the Heritage Foundation and numerous conservatives. It was even supported by the tired Beltway Insider named Newt Gingrich.
Newt is going to give the Democratic Party the biggest gift of all this 2012. And it is all due to the irrational bias over Mr. Romney, which is not conservative or reasoned.
We are stuck on self destruction, with many not even paying attention to the facts. It is truly embarrassing and very sad.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust a minor nit, but the voters were more responsible for the 1994 blow-out than Gingrich. Gingrich was just smart enough to stay on top of the wave.
Also, that was all 15-17 years ago. What's he done lately other than write a few books?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGingrich created the wave. People used to watch the one-minute addresses on C-SPAN, for God's sake, just to get some red meat during the Bob Michel years.
People have short memories. Or selective ones.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"it’s important to underline that the differences in temperament that you outline are substantive"
Translation: Mark likes Romney better on immigration.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMark:
Do you think Newt may be a modern day revival of the Whig Party? I've recently read a biography of Henry Clay, and I note that there are similarities between Newt's language regarding public/private partnership, and that used by Clay. I even heard Newt use the term "American system" the other day, which strikes me as very Whig.
Thoughts anyone?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is a very interesting question, and there might be something here. The Whigs weren't exactly the party of big government, but unlike the Democrats they were willing to utilize the federal government to at least some extent (one of the most amazing things about American history is how the Democrats morphed from absolutist anti-government forces to the party of statism, though perhaps that's not entirely non-coincidental).
Newt's brand of technocratic conservatism - for lack of a better term - is hardly as bad as what we find on the left, and arguably not even as bad as the big government conservatism of the previous GOP administration. It is slightly insidious in that it tacitly endorses the assumptions of the utopian left. In other words, Gingrich thinks that if we just tinker enough we can develop a perfect social order, or something close. I think in many ways he's a bit like Huckabee. He employs conservative rhetoric but at the end of the day his philosophy is not really conservative.
But we can do worse. Sadly.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell said Mr. Krikorian.
But the insanity has gripped many.
They are doomed to repeat the same folly again, pushing an unattractive - failed Beltway Insider to lose another National Election.
While they foolishly malign a successful Private Sector Product who has a stellar CEO record in Mr. Romney.
It could not be more absurd, but a sign of the dysfunctional enabled, coddled, condoned, by so many in the Conservative Arena today.
They sold books, ratings, readership, etc., but lost basis, reason, reality. They now have a movement which is stuck on image/identity, rumor and myth sinking all.
It is stunning and sad all at once.
To pay these types for their insight? To think these sideline players without any real accomplishment are helping to reelect this disastrous Democratic Partisan President?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExactly right. G. Will made a great point - at heart, Newt is a technocrat. He believes, just like every progressive, that our problems will be solved if we just get the right people to run things in Washington (i.e. him and smart people who think like him). He disagrees with progressive policy proposals, but he agrees with them on the problem: the right people aren't running things in Washington. Burke, Kirk, Buckley and other conservatives would say that it doesn't matter who you have running things in Washington, a technocratic, centralized state is doomed to fail and stifle the small, local and individual.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't know, a few busy guillotines in Washington DC may be just what I'm looking for, and not just metaphorically.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBirds of a feather this Romney and Gingrich, if you ask me. Governments solutions for all and to all another nightmare.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCoolidge is dead. So is Reagan.
Now what?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDoes anyone care what Krikorian says?
Seriously...This guy has been peddling his hyper-restrictionist immigration policies for an eternity here, and now we are supposed to believe he has any skill talking about anything else?
It seems to me that Krikorian has figured out that his xenophobia is a non-starter in this election, so now he is trying to branch out and remain relevant. But you need competence to be relevant, Mr Krikorian.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseApparently *you* care very much.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse