Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

June 11 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew

Close

New on NRO . . .

The Corner

The one and only.

Print   |  Text
 

Extra, Extra!

First, a correction: In my debate Impromptus today, I cite RMN, whose habitual preface to a statement was “Let me be perfectly clear.” Often, politicians, and other people, have such a preface — a sentence or phrase that allows them to gather their thoughts. In my column, I say, “Another great one was, ‘Let me say this about that.’ I think that was Nixon, too.”

Several readers have written me to say, “Yo, Jay, that was JFK!” Quite right.

I make many points, in these Impromptus, but not as many as I could, because I had a little DVR malfunction — leaving me with my own 18-and-a-half-minute gap (speaking of Nixon). Actually, more like an hour’s gap.

I have since watched some videos, of what took place during that gap, and have a few more points to make. Gluttons for punishment can have them, after the “jump” . . .

Did Romney really imply that George Stephanopoulos was kind of in cahoots with President Obama on the matter of birth control and religious institutions? What the . . . (Check the transcript, to see if you can figure it out.)

Santorum clobbered — absolutely clobbered — Romney when it came to balanced budgets in Massachusetts. Yes, Romney balanced his budget all four years. But the Massachusetts constitution requires that. Mike Dukakis balanced his for ten. Does that make him Calvin Coolidge?

(In fairness, Romney is anti-tax hike, and some called Dukakis “Tax Hike Mike.”)

The candidates were asked — told, rather — “Define yourself using one word, gentlemen, and one word only.”

I would have said, “Incapable of defining myself in one word — or many words, probably.”

Ron Paul said, “Consistent.” Well, consistency is good. But, all together now: “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of . . .”

Rick Santorum used a noun — his first mistake. He said, “Courage.” He says this rather a lot: “I had the courage to do this, I had the courage to do that.” Normally, courageous people don’t call attention to their own courage. It just flows naturally from them. But campaigning, it is true, is a shabby boastful business.

Romney did a little better: “Resolute,” he said. I think they once named a ship that.

Newt said, “Cheerful”! I think that was his way of showing contempt for the question (a contempt I share). I also think that cheerfulness was his watchword of the night: “Don’t forget to be cheerful, big fella!”

Candidates should say what they believe and what they intend to do — and leave the defining to others, I think, if defining there is to be.

But I’ve never been elected dog-catcher, and prospects ain’t good!

New on The Corner. . .


COMMENTS   7

EXPAND  

   02/23/12 12:57

Ah, great, following the Constitution is now "small-minded".

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/23/12 13:00

I don't doubt for a second that George Stephawhatever communicates with the Obama White House off the record on a regular basis.

Stephanopawhatever was coordinating communications strategery while at ABC with Carville and congressional Dems during W's presidency. Why would he have stopped?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/23/12 13:33

Kennedy was way before my time, but even I knew that, from my parents' "First Family" album. "Well, let me say this about that..."

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Hah Bumbug
   02/23/12 13:37

Describe yourself in one word? Presidential candidate debates have come down to that?

All I can say is, I won't vote for anyone whose favorite tree is not the same as mine.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Bereanracer
   02/23/12 14:57

There needs to be a word which has the definition of "unable to define oneself in a single word." Something like automonovanidisabled.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/24/12 07:19

Nachum

I used to have that album, I wore it out playing it. May favorite was the description of the bathtub toys . . . "and the rubber ducky is mine."

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/24/12 12:40

...Read all about it! This is one of my favorite headlines I've read of yours so far, Mr. Nordlinger. Very vintage classic. In your debate article, "One mo' time," I think you mentioned about not liking to be called by your first name so casually? I've never thought age had much to do with the distinction between formal and familiar forms of address, myself, but I do see your point. Usually, it's a form of respect to call someone by their surname, I think. It's like in French: the polite form "vous" verses the familiar form "tu." My French hairdresser would get really offended if I ever "tued" him. But I've heard American southerners use the polite form of address "ma'am" more in a back-biting tone than a really polite one. So etiquette is a really tricky thing.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact