Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: fightinJAG
I like Newt and right now I think he may be the last best chance to stop Romney. However, I'm not a Cult follower and will criticize any candidate when I see fault. One thing in that article that I don't much care for is this:

New Newt is conciliatory, even bipartisan. In several debates, he's refused to criticize his rivals and has scolded moderators for — gasp! — trying to accentuate their differences. As president, he told voters in Iowa, one his first acts would be to reach out to Democrats.

"It's become much too partisan in both parties," said the man who has been accused of destroying the bipartisan tradition in the House of Representatives.

I'm not down with this notion on reaching out to Democrats. I'm more in the Rush camp on this. I think that the Democrats have shown that they can't in good faith be worked or negotiated with. It's fool-hardy to try to reach out to them. Instead, the only rational view left is that they must simply be defeated. This smacks of trying to court moderates. The cost benefit analysis doesn't pan out in my view. I believe that this risk alienating far more conservatives than what moderates it might woo. My hope is that Newt doesn't start trumpeting this. I can only see that this tack will be damaging if he does.

About cult followings... I see a lot of stuff here and elsewhere that borders on it. This is a choice about politicians not saints. Being a fanatic sports fan can be admirable, especially when you teams sucks (re. Colts). There's something to be said about home town pride and all that. But, some of these folks that continue to cling to hopeless candidates is something else. They're politicians... That's all.
47 posted on 11/17/2011 7:56:11 PM PST by TBBT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

I enjoyed your interesting and thoughtful take on that. And, frankly, I'd somehow missed that point in the article, so I was glad to have it highlighted.

I like Newt, too, but "we" go back a long way. I've experienced a lot of his "reaching across the aisle" moments and, frankly, am not enthused about going there again or about how Newt's political instincts could affect the nation at this time.

I've been a pretty strong advocate for Newt in a VP slot, but I'm reconsidering even that a little after going down Memory Lane with him again.

Someone posted yesterday he's like the boyfriend you break up with over and over again. Then he shows up at your door with flowers and candy, and you suddenly take him back. I replied that the next step was waking up going WHAT THE HELL WAS I THINKING?? NOW I KNOW WHY I DROP-KICKED THIS "BIPARTISAN" LOSER!!

Not that Newt is a loser, per se, but you get my drift.

My hope is that Newt doesn't start trumpeting this. I can only see that this tack will be damaging if he does.

Problem is that this is exactly what reflects Gingrich's deep-seated POLTICAL INSTINCTS. This is who he is because of when he became a fully-formed politician, 20 years ago.

It's like what they say about Tebow. He (they say) can practice and practice new, more effective mechanics. But when the pressure is really on, when he gets into his zone, he's always going to revert to how he's always thrown the ball. I.e., his instinctive throw.

Seems to be working out for Tebow, despite the naysayers, eh. But I'm not willing to extend the analogy that far to Newt. I don't think his political instincts are ones that would help lead to victory over the nation's problems.

But, some of these folks that continue to cling to hopeless candidates is something else. They're politicians... That's all.

Speaking of the Colts, more on that in a minute.

I look at the presidential election, including the primaries, as a hiring decision. I don't just look at a stack of resumes, and interview records, and say if I "like" one guy, I'm just immediately throwing the other files out.

The more important the hiring decision, the more important it is to keep your options open (keep the files of your top applicants in play) WHILE you drill down into their records and character to make that hiring decision.

Pushing hard on an applicant's weaknesses is a test and an appropriate one. Of course, you have to do that before saying "yes, he's the guy, hire him."

And the reason you don't just immediately throw away your other top applicants' files (the other candidates, Cain if you're leaning toward Newt, Newt if you're leaning toward Cain), is, by golly, you may be drilling down and find something really rotten. But no problem: you're not in love with this guy, you're thinking about hiring him for a job. So if you find a problem, you set his file aside and revisit your other top applicants' files.

As for the Colts:

Here's a story I've told on FR before and I really love it.

Remember when the Colts were thinking about drafting Peyton Manning. They had to choose between drafting Petyon Manning and Ryan Leaf. Of course, looks like a no-brainer now, but at the time it was a difficult decision. The owner said he just went back and forth on it. Problem was these two players both had fantastic football skills and they both had various good things about their football decision skills and instincts.

I remember reading the owner said he was literally laying awake at night trying to decide. Then it came to him: go with the player with the highest level of character and the best work ethic. That was Peyton Manning and the rest is history.

I think that's a lesson for all of life, but it also applies in politics. If you've got two candidates who are about equal in skill (if not equivalent), go with the one with the best character.

76 posted on 11/18/2011 7:35:24 AM PST by fightinJAG (NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION! Everyone should pay taxes, everyone should pay the same rate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]


There’s a fine line with regards to “reaching across the aisle”.

As far as Newt’s comments, well, the country is a lot more divided now than it ever was, and a lot of swing voters dislike that’s where that comes from.

Back to “bipartisanship.” When you have a divided government, you HAVE to be bipartisan, or nothing will get passed. That’s a reality that many of us refused to face when the budget/debt ceiling debacles were going down. The Democrat-controlled Senate was JUST NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR the GOP bills, no matter how much we jumped up and down.

Bipartisanship, if it means “learning how to schmooze the other side into supporting your bill” is fine. If it means “bend over and surrender” it’s not. The GOP, unfortunately, does the latter too often.

However, when you control both houses of Congress AND the Presidency, well, it’s different now. However, you still have to be able to “sell” your ideas, so you don’t lose the next election.

78 posted on 11/18/2011 7:48:38 AM PST by RockinRight (The circular firing squad among conservatives has Romney smiling.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson