"Zany is great in a campaign. It’s great on talk radio. It’s great in print, it makes for fun reading... But in terms of a president, we need a leader, and a leader needs to be someone who can bring Americans together."
And, re Gingrich: "He’s a great historian... If we need a historian leading the country, I’m sure people would find that attractive. I actually think you need someone who actually understands the economy leading the country."
Wait. Isn't it zany to describe Gingrich as a "great historian"?
१४ डिसेंबर, २०११
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
७७ टिप्पण्या:
He's being polite. That's intelligent.
Romney has joined my campaign to point out the obvious truth that Gingrich is a totally unserious joke candidate.
And remember that video Romney's crew put out saying that Perry was too dumb to be president?
It's eery how prescient I am.
Poor Bill Zany. And he so wanted a career change. ;)
Also, there is something deeply hilarious about Romneybot criticizing another candidate for having human-like qualities. He's zany? Someone please to help me to my fainting couch.
Second also: if I'm reading one of the quotations right, Romney compares himself to Santorum, and means it as a compliment!
"Great historian" is tongue in cheek, Ann.
It plays into Romneys observation that Newt must be one heck of a "great historian" to get 1.3 million dollars from Fannie and Freddie for "historical advice"..That no other history professor can get near that rate of compensation for what they say.
"Loser" is not what we need in a nominee. We could just chose McCain and use all those old campaign materials and save a forest and a ton of money!
If he is the nominee, there will be a point (and I'm not saying it will be exactly on September 15th this time around) when everyone realizes that Obama has his number.
Newt's far from perfect, but in all the things that matter about defeating Obama he is a cut above. This sort of mildly cloaked desperation from Romney pretty much tells you he will be, if nominated, a big mistake.
Wonderful -- lessons on the proper level of zaniness, from Gummo...
A lot of things I could call Newt, but zany isn't one of them.
Now, Hatman,
Andy R. said...
Romney has joined my campaign to point out the obvious truth that Gingrich is a totally unserious joke candidate.
And remember that video Romney's crew put out saying that Perry was too dumb to be president?
It's eery how prescient I am.
This from the unserious joke commenter who wants us to buy the idea that the Occupiers turning a neighborhood into an open sewer has nothing to do with the businesses in that neighborhood suddenly failing.
He needs to see somebody about those nightsticks he took to the head.
Well, excuse meeee!
Mittens has already flubbed his debates. Gingrich ate his lunch. That "little" clip with the waving of a "false flag" ... for a group of victims ... Was a "Mitt" bug. Not a feature.
While interestingly, enough, the Brits called the whole area "Palistine." (As did the Romans.) While Arik Sharon's birth certificate said he was born in Palistine.
So, it's truly a European way to isolate the Jews.
Add to this! THE FUCKING BANKS! You think MF Global was the only company to co-mingle investors accounts with their own?
Think again. LONDON is a toilet. If a broker or a bank ... "sub-lets" its accounts through LONDON ... all of them can "HYPOTHICATE" (commingle and mix) your personal savings accounts ... and investments accounts ... SHEDDING THEM of any responsibility of keeping the funds "separate." PERIOD.
And, Jon Corzine? Sails away into the sunset knowing the Federal Reserve has a RULE "T" ... which HYPOTHICATES a brokers responsibility to keep funds separate.
STOP BELIEVING WHAT YOU HEAR REPORTED. Or you read in the Wall Street Journal. And, other puppets of the insiders. PERIOD.
Hatboy - There are some good features to Santorum, once you get past the off-putting antigay warrior and More-Christian-Than-Thou aspects to Santorum.
He knows foreign policy and certain American government institutions very well. He has legislative accomplishments, is fearless, non-PC, and is an able administrator. He is not a dummy.
Santorum - if you keep him out of the culture wars and on actually doing something - could be a valuable contributor in a republican Administration. He would be great in a role that sought to work with Congress to dismantle regulations that are economically crippling America.
In 3 weeks, you'll know if MITT is a survivor. Or if he's OFF THE ISLAND!
Mitt lives in New Hampshire! He's been around every single street corner and dining place in the state of New Hampshire! IF he can't win there? He can't win anywhere.
So just wait. If someone other than MITT comes in,in first place in New Hampshire, you'll know the real score.
What if Newt wins? Or Ron Paul?
This race is so fluid ...
Oh, "those ZANY voters." That's why people keep watching.
Wait. Isn't it zany to describe Gingrich as a "great historian"?
Well, if you've ever read any of his "alternate history" books (with William R. Forstchen) then you'd be forced to agree that Newt's not exactly a great historian.
But I see that Romney still can't make the case that he's the right person to fix Obama's mess. He's reduced to trying to make the case that Newt's even worse. I don't think he's made that case.
Carol_Herman said...
Mittens has already flubbed his debates. Gingrich ate his lunch.
False meme by Carol. Romney has done very well in debates, including getting Newt to admit the idea of the Federal individual healthcare mandate was an idea Newt started with the Heritage Foundation.
Where Newt has done better is not in debating Romney - but going into full Perfessor Mode to throw red meat to the rubes. "Oh, that thar Perfessor Newt are soooo smart and I love it when he stands up and tells them thar media people and Elites what's what! We need to send an Outsider like Newt to Washington to clean the mess up, by gum! Yupper!"
As the popular comment goes, Newt has an act tailor-made to convince stupid people and college freshmen (not necessarily exclusive) just how smart, brilliant, and profound he and his observations are. It is the same schtick as "Perfessor Obama" uses - just with a different set of rubes and different political principles.
"A leader needs to be someone who can bring Americans together. A leader needs to be someone of sobriety and stability and patience, temperance, to think through issues..."
This sounds like Romney is running as the updated version of Obama. Obama was supposed to be all those things -- remember? Romney thinks that Americans want all those things that Obama claimed to be and that Romney will do better. Romney is Obama Vista.
Conservatives want a hammer, not an operating system. I can't really blame them, even if I think Gingrich is a disastrous choice.
When Romney says that he can "bring America together" what he is really saying is that he is not a conservative.
I remember in 1979 the Republicans had a candidate that the party establishment and the media was saying did not have the right kind of experience, was some what of a conservative wacko, had a plastic wife, and could not bring America together. That candidate's name was Ronald Reagan.
With Obama, you have a period where he made a hundred grandiose speeches full of grandiose ideas and themes that you slowly realized he had no intention of doing the hard work to get any of them done - they were done just to show how great and smart The One - was!
With Newt, 100 ideas a year..mainly to position Perfessor Newt as the man of Great Ideas, sell his books, sell his influence. The few ideas he had that he bothered to push into some organizational existence - he quickly tired of, even worked to actively sabotage (he pronounced term limits in the Contract inoperative right after the 1994 election, then went after sabotaging pieces that interfered with getting "pay to play" money from K-Street).
Can anyone name one thing that Mitt Romney has done in his career to further the conservative agenda?
I can name at least a hundred things Newt has done to attack socialism head on starting with running Tip O'Neil, Jim Wright, Tom Foley and Dan Rostenkowski out of office.
Also, there is something deeply hilarious about Romneybot criticizing another candidate for having human-like qualities
When you've got hair that good, you don't have to worry about things like that.
Before Newt Gingrich, congressional Republicans were middle of the road, lets all get along, Bob Michaels saps.
Newt, following in the footsteps of Reagan, is the guy who made the modern conservative Republican party.
It is interesting to see who now wants to throw that all a way and go back Republicans being a polite party of compromisers.
Romney supporters are either really liberals in disguise or fools.
Romney believes keeping a poker face and all cards close to himself means he will win the game he is always playing.
OK, that works in Bain Capital's game.
But it does not connect to voters whose emotions need some expressive leadership applied that they can follow behind to get political acts done.
Cain was the master at that. But all we have left is Gingrich who at least lets his anger emotion and passion show among his futurist schtick.
Romney is Mr Cardboard Man...not zany... and not there.
Romney hints at the qualification issue. A mere historian might not have the skills required for job of PotUS. Then a mormon businessman with an MBA from Harvard might not either. The implications of Romney's deeep thought being..Senor NOTA*'s probably the wisest choice
(None Of The Above).
starting with running ... Tom Foley .... out of office.
How quickly they forget George Nethercutt!
Yeah, Santorum's the reasonable candidate--that is, for the Vichyites of the US
I'm sick and tired of voting for people who are just going to cave time and time again.
In a perfect world my candidate is Chaney
Thirty years ago the Establishment was telling us Reagan was too dumb to be president. Now they are telling us Gingrich is to smart.
But what their real fear is, is that he could be the conservative Republican President who finishes what Reagan started. If Gingrich got elected president he would not just be happy to have a seat in the Oval Office. Gingrich has always been about ideas. That is what has the liberal establishment shaking in their $300 loafers.
Lem, the only person who received more of a pounding from the mainstream media than Chaney has been Newt Gingrich. That should tell you something.
"But in terms of a president, we need a leader, and a leader needs to be someone who can bring Americans together."
Yes. That was what Obama was going to be, the great bridge builder across the political divide. That worked well.
"Romney supporters are either really liberals in disguise or fools."
Can't they be both, like the late Earl Warren?
"Conservatives want a hammer, not an operating system."
Frankly, I think conservatives - ones worthy of the name - want a scythe now. Or, failing that, napalm and Agent Orange.
"Romney has joined my campaign to point out the obvious truth that Gingrich is a totally unserious joke candidate."
I suspect, hat, that Gingrich - besides knowing how to pronounce "corpsman," would also know better than to light every candle of a menorah at once, unlike the stuttering, coke-addled joke candidate you're still fellating.
The newt I remember wasn't afraid to name democrats by name. The horror.
Romney supporters are either really liberals in disguise or fools.
I've never been accused of the former. Must be the latter then.
Freeman Hunt, please name one thing Romney has done in his career to advance the conservative cause? I will take no answer as a "nothing."
I'm wondering the same thing as Dane County Taxpayer is. I know a few actual conservatives who seem to be backing Romney, but not enthusiastically. When I put this question to them, they hem and haw. They know he's not a conservative.
I'll be very interested if Ann, Freeman, Meade or any other folks who consider themselves conservatives and are backing Romney can explain their thought process. I'll especially be interested to see if they can do it without resorting to "he's better than what we've got now" type arguments. We all understand how you feel about that and aren't interested in why you're against Obama. Why are you *for* Romney?
ricpic: "But what if leading means offending certain Americans who must never be offended or the sky will fall? That would mean you'd have to risk being controversial, Mister-perfect-every-hair-in-place-Mitt."
Mitt: "Controversial?!" Romney runs screaming into the night.
He eliminated the deficit in Mass.
It's not about being for Romney. It's about being for Romney over the other available, viable candidates. Remaining viable candidates are Gingrich and Romney. Neither Gingrich nor Romney are what I would call conservatives.
Romney, however, is a more competent executive than Gingrich. If Congress presses for conservative changes, Romney will get them done.
Althouse posted the other day that Romney is like Clinton. The same thing had been said at our house. He's the Republican Clinton. With what will be a very conservative Congress, I think that will work out just fine.
I understand the idea of wanting a conservative standard bearer for President. I get it. The problem is that there isn't one running. We've got to play the hand we're dealt.
Heh. And the man did have five sons. Considering the difference between how men and women as populations vote, that's a push for the conservative agenda.
n Hunt wrote "Neither Gingrich nor Romney are what I would call conservatives."
Gingrich is clearly much more conservative than Romney. Romney is like Obama. Both of them are now pretending to be more conservative than they are to get elected president.
Newt on the other hand has take a very few select moderate positions as a way to get the "radical conservative bomb thrower" stink off of him that the media has worked so hard to tar him with. I believe that Newt was wasting his time in taking this tactic. But I know why he did it.
We do have a candidate in this race who has spent his whole adult life pushing conservative ideas and the conservative cause. That candidate is Newt Gingrich. That is why the media and Big Government Republicans are against him.
Freeman Hunt in trying to answer my question "please name one thing Romney has done in his career to advance the conservative cause?" replied
"He eliminated the deficit in Mass."
Like almost all other states, Massachusetts has a constitutional requirement to have a balanced budget.
Thank you for proving my point Freeman Hunt.
“A lot of the evangelicals believe God would give us four more years of Obama just for the opportunity to expose the cult of Mormon. ...There’s a thousand pastors ready to do that.”
Gingrich guy. I don't know exactly what he's saying or if he's right or not. But stuff like this just reminds me how crazy we are. This is just one little slice of the Big Crazy.
I'm not really all that excited about who wins or loses. If my wife makes me I'll probably vote again. That's how I feel about the electoral process these days.
Do you think the EP is consistent with being a good Christian? Just curious.
Oh for God's sake. After Gingrich slunk off into the shadows post his public corruption scandal, he became a highly paid DC consultant and cocktail party influence peddler. He's the definition of establishment.
Neither Gingrich nor Romney are what I would call conservatives. Romney, however, is a more competent executive than Gingrich. If Congress presses for conservative changes, Romney will get them done.
Well said, Freeman.
Dane, Romney hasn't spent his life working in government. I don't see that as a deficit.
Gingrich has not been a big help to the current conservative cause. Evidence that Gingrich is a reliable conservative? Evidence that he's an effective executive? I have seen zero evidence that he's more conservative than Romney or that he's at all wedded to the idea of small government.
Romney's Nixon to Newt's Spiro Agnew. Or is it the other way around.
And the "Dane County" troll's mistaken. The good ol boys in the country don't care for Newt either (at times he has supported Gun Control..and a marian).
If Newt comes out ahead; I hope when nominated, he picks MORRY TAYLOR as his veep!
Morry Taylor fascinated Michael Lewis. Who would not have had a book (TRAIL FEVER), during 1996, without him. (Monica is not even mentioned once.)
But Morry Taylor did write a book. You can get it at Amazon.
If Newt picks Morry Taylor as his veep ... he'd win the November 2012 election in a landslide.
His campaign slogan could be:
WE MEAN BUSINESS.
Of course, I'd have to re-adjust my Trifecta ticket. (But then I thought Morry Taylor would opt to run as an Independent. Yes. Even to "challenge Donald Trump.)
If you only got to know more about Morry Taylor!
Gingrich isn't any historian I ever heard of and having served as one for Fannie/Freddie apparently didn't serve us well either.
Gingrich is an establishment fig'ger for sure. Romney would do better to say nothing, rather than call Gingrich some kind of historian and then pose some if-then about what folks might like.
If I'm Romney I am selling my accomplishments, laying out my vision for leadership and doing my best to put a positive face, forward.
Disclaimer: this is not an endorsement of any candidate.
Well freeman Hunt, you are a fool. No doubt that Newt has a lot of battle scars from his thirty years in the political arena, but can anyone name anyone else who has done more for the conservative Republican cause than Newt Gingrich? Also, while Newt has made a lot of money in the private secter he has used much of it to finance his conservative message and to keep himself relevant. It is too bad the Freeman Hunt's of the world buy into the media's continuing smear of Newt.
Out of zany, one.
(e fatuis unum)
wv pudiacro, my shame increases
Romney hasn't spent his life working in government
_____________
But he has spent much, if not most, of his life running to work in government (and losing), after being raised in a family that was pervasively in or connected to government. And the time that he did formally spend in government office was not all that fantastic.
can anyone name anyone else who has done more for the conservative Republican cause than Newt Gingrich?
Like what? What are you talking about? Contract with America? Gingrich has been part of the big government expansion. I wasn't counting that as conservative even if supposed "conservatives" were on board with it.
Additionally, I want a President who will work well with Paul Ryan. I think Romney is perfect for that. He loves numbers and analysis, and Ryan has them. I can see an excellent team there.
I also want an executive who can work well with people generally, the Rubios, the Christies, etc. That's Romney, not Gingrich.
Maybe we can get Freeman Hunt to regale us again with how Romney is a conservative because he balanced the budget in Massachusetts like the governors of 49 other states!
Romney is a competent manager and turn-around artist at a moment when we frankly need quite a few things turned around. I'm surprised that pundits only recently have begun to recognize that his particular talents perfectly fit the times. (See, for example, Holman Jenkins' opinion piece in today's WSJ online).
In combination with a Republican Congress (and maybe even Senate), a Romney administration has the potential to accomplish a great deal: Taking on entitlements; experimenting with health care solutions at the state level; appointing constructionists or "originalists" to the courts (as I understand those two terms); a strong but sober foreign policy; a notably friendlier business environment; and, something that often is overlooked, a certain restrained style to the presidency that can only be reassuring to those who have begun to question the priorities of golf outings, tournament brackets, talk shows, hip-hop, and the latest plot developments on "Entourage."
Romney is not the second coming of Reagan. But then no one could be because Reagan has become myth.
I thought you were going to give us evidence that Gingrich is conservative.
I already wrote that Romney is not conservative. Neither is Gingrich.
I'll stipulate Romney knows about the economy if I find out he didn't lose money in the Panic of 2008. I'm sure he knows about private industry, but it's government that fucked things up, and it will only make things worse without the radical changes that Europe and the Democrat party are incapable of.
Newt Gingrich is no conservative
That's a decent rundown of what I'm talking about.
The traditional GOP-bots don't discuss Newt's actual record--such as de-reg, Enron, dismantling the New Deal, and, initially, support of the moral majority. Then, the yokeltariat considers those points in Newt's favor.
Mericans get what they deserve
That's funny; I automatically assumed that "zany" referred to Ron Paul.
By the way, he (Ron Paul, that is) should really use Billy Joel's "You May Be Right" in his campaign somehow.
Romney hasn't spent his life working in government . . . like Paul Ryan has.
Romney hasn't spent his life working in government . . . like Paul Ryan has.
That's not one of Paul Ryan's good qualities. His good qualities, however, entirely outweigh that and more.
Romney is such a competent manager that after more than five years of running hard for president, he still has never gotten more than 20-25 percent support, and most of that rather lukewarm support.
He is so competent that he has managed to not get anyone really all that excited about him.
Obama was great at campaigning.
Campaigning and vote getting doesn't seem to be a good measure of competence.
When Romney says Newt is zany, he actually means that Newt is erratic and flaky. "Great historian" translates to a guy with a Phd who has made a living teaching history. In both cases Romney is just being nice.
Ryan's good qualities? A null set as it were.
con usura
Campaigning and vote getting doesn't seem to be a good measure of competence.
And sometimes they don't.
Obama was great at campaigning
That's the myth, but Joe the Plumber tripped him up pretty easily (no reporter would, of course). Some people were predisposed to swoon over him.
"Maybe we can get Freeman Hunt to regale us again with how Romney is a conservative because he balanced the budget in Massachusetts like the governors of 49 other states!"
Forty nine states have balananced budget amendments.
Guess how many states have balanced budgets in FY2011?
Answer: Four.
The more you know (musical rainbow).
Spending your life in politics isn't necessarily a bad thing. However, if it leads you to say things like this:
"I would just say that if Gov. Romney would like to give back all of the money he's earned from bankrupting companies and laying off employees over his years at Bain, that I would be glad to listen to him. I'll bet you $10, not $10,000, that he won't take the offer."
If you are that ignorant of how the free enterprise system works, such that you think consulting firms "bankrupt" companies, then yes, you've been in Washington too long and are seriously out of touch. Frankly, you can hardly call yourself a conservative.
I am sold - Newt/Romney ticket. Newt to excite the crowds, debate Obama, and bring people out to vote. Romney as the VP/COO to restrain the more zany ideas and execute the program. He's still young enough to run for the top slot in 4 or 8 years.
Dane, can you point out any instance where the greater good of the Republic and the greater good of Newt Gingrich did not completely coincide. Newt, not Romney, is the Republican Clinton. He's got a knack for presenting his selfishness as a higher form of morality.....Next to Howard Zinn, Gingrich is a great historian. Not so much when compared with other historians. I agree with C4 that Romney's statement was probably meant sarcastically. However, it's telling that Althouse (and, for that matter, me) didn't catch it. A Presidential candidate needs to paint in large, bold strokes, not with dainty points of snark.....Did Romney coordinate his "zany" comment with Maureen Dowd? Her column today, detailing some of Gingrich's flakier ideas, seems designed to reinforce that meme......I agree with much of what Gingrich says, but I still find him dislikable. I diagree with Ron Paul, but still find him likable. Romney? The charm is too visible, but the raw data of his life indicates that he's sane, smart, and decent.
I feel strange defending Newt so much, but to simple tell it like it is requires a comment that Newt really is a good historian.
He does rough house electoral politics and lectures on many history subjects without missing a beat. His income also comes from Historical Fiction books.
He graduated from a College in Atlanta with a fine History Department and went on to get a Phd and teach history at the college level.
Southerners take their history seriously. I knew his history Professors in college, where Newt was 2 years ahead of me.
I remember meeting one of my old college history Professors at a reception honoring the 50th year since the publication in 1947 of a fine History by an Emory Graduate named James Mackay called "Who Runs Georgia". That was an intellectual bombshell for its time coming after WWII as the south began to make its changes. And that Professor remembered me well from 30 years earlier.
If Newt were president, he'd ride triumphantly back into DC and the first thing he'd do is re-assure all his old cronies and all the bureaucrats that "don't worry, your job is safe, we are just gonna tune things up and make everything more efficient". Then he'd install one of those consulting firms to "analyze" the fed govt, pay them big bucks, and when he got their report, he'd file it the same place Obama filed the Simpson-Bowles report.
JohnJ:
I agree we need a turnaround artist desperately and Romney seems perfectly suited for that. Yet why hasn't Romney shown us even a hint of what he has planned?
I agree we need a turnaround artist desperately and Romney seems perfectly suited for that. Yet why hasn't Romney shown us even a hint of what he has planned?
I think that this is really hard to do here. What would be easy is to say that he would create this commission or that task group. But beyond that?
What Romney was famous for was immersing himself in the details of a company enough that he understood what needed to be changed or fixed to turn it around. Different strategies for different situations. Some of the problems we have with our federal government right now are system wide, but some are department or agency wide. For example, the systemic corruption that Eric Holder has introduced into the Department of Justice needs root level pruning, including the firing of a number of the most recently recruited career attorneys, which is going to be excessively difficult, given their civil service protections.
Which gets into another problem - the sorts of things that need to be done don't make good sound bites, and no one is really interested in the sorts of policy papers that would result from an extensive discussion of fixing our federal government. It just doesn't make very good campaign fodder, and at this point would likely take away from any campaign messages that a candidate is trying to get out there.
Some of the problems we have with our federal government right now are system wide, but some are department or agency wide.
Whoever wins the GOP nomination and then the WH;
1) Convince Ron Paul to serve as a cabinet member
2) Make him the head of each department your want to close and give him a year to do so before moving to the next one.
3) ???
4) Profit.
I don't know Bruce. Let me try this example. Prez Obama says Americans have gotten lazy and so we have not gone after jobs etc across the globe. If I am running for president, I respond "Mr. president- isn't that also the role of the Commerce Dept and if so, wtf has it been doing?"
Zany?
What about madcap?
I want a madcap president!
Sorry, Andy R., not that type of madcap.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा