-
Eugenic Abortion 2.0
May 23, 2013 | 68 comments
-
Yoani Sánchez Uncaged
April 12, 2013 | 163 comments
-
Take the Helmets Off
February 4, 2013 | 68 comments
-
Let’s Pay Women Not to Abort
January 23, 2013 | 69 comments
-
The Millennial Divide
January 22, 2013 | 30 comments
Another Perspective
The Keyesian Trap
Don’t forget what happened the last time Republicans nominated a smart, eloquent, combative egomaniac to take on Obama.
Ask Republicans to explain the appeal of nominating Newt Gingrich to take on President Obama and it won’t be long before you’re reminded of the former House speaker’s intellectual and rhetorical acumen. Indeed, some Republicans become downright giddy when speaking about the prospect of Gingrich debating Obama.
It’s hard to blame them. After a decade of inarticulate and reticent standard bearers, and amid a field of much the same, Republicans see in Gingrich a learned and eloquent debater able and unafraid to take it directly to the supposedly golden-tongued Orator-in-Chief.
Gingrich, many Republicans believe, would make the presidential debates something to look forward to for the first time since Reagan.
Gingrich knows that his ability to talk is his chief asset and has invited Obama to debate him in seven three-hour Lincoln-Douglas-style debates should he secure the Republican nomination. “I will concede in advance that he can use a teleprompter,” Gingrich said mockingly of Obama when he proposed the debates in early December.
But before Republicans conclude that as their nominee Gingrich would be able to debate his way to the Oval Office, they should take a moment to remember what happened the last time Obama squared off against a smart and eloquent, but bombastic, pompous and egomaniacal Republican.
Consider the following analysis.
“[He] was not lacking in confidence.… There was no doubt the man could talk. At the drop of a hat [he] could deliver a grammatically flawless disquisition on virtually any topic. On the stump, he could wind himself up into a fiery intensity, his body rocking, his brow running with sweat, his fingers jabbing the air, his high-pitched voice trembling with emotion as he called the faithful to do battle against the forces of evil.
“Unfortunately for him, neither his intellect nor his eloquence could overcome certain defects as a candidate. Unlike most politicians, for example, [he] made no effort to conceal what he clearly considered to be his moral and intellectual superiority.…
Moreover, [his] self-assuredness disabled in him the instincts for self-censorship that allow most people to navigate the world without getting into constant fistfights. [He] said whatever popped into his mind, and with dogged logic would follow over a cliff just about any idea that came to him.
These words describe almost perfectly the intellectual and rhetorical bearing and style of Newt Gingrich. Only they weren’t written about Gingrich. They are Barack Obama’s words — from The Audacity of Hope — about former Ambassador Alan Keyes, Obama’s Republican opponent in the 2004 election for Illinois’ open Senate seat.
I was struck by two things as I recently watched old footage of the 2004 Obama-Keyes debates. First, Keyes comes across as a better debater than Obama. He seems more polished, smarter, and more confident than Obama. Keyes’ verbal fluency makes Obama’s use of verbal fillers and stutters, his repeated words and incomplete and restarted sentences, all the more noticeable.
The second thing I noticed were the striking similarities between Keyes and Gingrich. Keyes is more theatrical than Gingrich, while Gingrich is more overtly egoistic and self-reverential. (He has at various moments called himself “the most serious, systematic revolutionary of modern times” and a “definer of civilization.”)
But the two share many characteristics. For one thing, they both hold Ph.D.s (Keyes in government, Gingrich in history). Perhaps this helps explain why both Keyes and Gingrich have a tendency to talk down to opponents and debate moderators. Keyes was antagonistic toward the Illinois journalists who moderated the Senate debates, cutting off questioners and reacting harshly when moderators told him his time was up.
In a debate in which the candidates got to ask one other questions, Obama asked Keyes about Keyes’ past endorsement of repeal of the 17th Amendment. Keyes replied dismissively, “I think that the question actually illustrates the ignorance that I’ve noticed of your understanding of the American Constitution and its background,” before launching into a history lesson of the Constitution.
The remark — and the condescension with which it was delivered — may have pleased conservatives. But it probably didn’t play well to moderates in Peoria.
About the Author
Daniel Allott is a writer in Washington, D.C.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (83) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Daniel Allott
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/12/27/the-keyesian-trap
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
- Nuts to Nutter
- We Have Her Example
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.27.11 @ 7:18AM
Daniel,
I simply refer you to Jeffrey Lord's article here today.
Obama has run out of "other people's money"...my money.
If we nominate Romney, all we have done is kick the can down the road should he be elected.
Only a solid conservative majority in Congress could force him to commit to any roll-back of the communist state.
c. j. acworth| 12.27.11 @ 7:30AM
Exactly, Ken. We have now had three years to see what Obama's agenda amounts to. When he ran for the Senate, he had no record. When he ran for President, he had no record. He will try to blame it all on Bush and the Republicans, but by next year only the willfully blind will be unable to see what four more years of Obama will mean.
John Navratil| 12.27.11 @ 8:33AM
Ken,
It seems that the people are looking for a king when all we really NEED is a signing pen. The action will all be in the House and Senate. While the President can certainly lead the discussion (wouldn't that be a change) his biggest role is signing the legislation. It's the only reason we have to get rid of Obama.
I still think just about any of the bunch can beat Obama - he has a record now. Vote your preference in the primary and the nominee in the Fall. It really doesn't get easier than that.
Dan| 12.27.11 @ 11:48AM
You really think that Boehner is going to gin up the kinds of legislation that's needed to turn this country around.
Moreover, ONLY THE PRESIDENT has the authority to strip federal regulation binding on various federal regulatory agencies.
John Navratil| 12.27.11 @ 12:29PM
Dan,
Boehner has to stand for election in a new Congress. The job isn't easy and Boehner is by no means perfect. Reid has been effective in stifling things in the Senate because his Democrats know that if they don't stand in lock-step with him they lose. Boehner has a large conservative caucus to manage.
Conservative House legislation won't come from Boehner. If he attempts to bottle the conservatives up, he will lose control and will not get anything he wants through. It's the art of compromise. (If you really want things done right, just appoint me king :)
Perhaps the President has the authority to strip federal regulation, but the Congress provides to money to enforce such regulation. The light-bulb reprieve is an example.
Alan Brooks| 12.27.11 @ 2:04PM
"Gingrich knows that his ability to talk is his chief asset."
His ONLY asset.
Alan Brooks| 12.27.11 @ 6:45PM
Newt is very smart- yet so was Carter! better to be an average, well balanced,conservative such as the Gipper who doesn't have his mind clogged up with Jimmuh-brand "human rights";
or in Newt's case, colonizing space without any spacecrafts on hand.
Gingrich thinks he is Flash Gordon or something.
Fred| 12.29.11 @ 12:40PM
Love the NASA reference. People have forgotten Gingrich's dopy book calling for huge increases in the NASA budget.
Newt Gingrich: "conservative."
Tejano Jack| 12.29.11 @ 5:03PM
Ken (OT):
You are exactly correct about Romney. All Romney will do, when inaugurated, is start his 2016 campaign. Truthfully however, Mr. Allot makes an excellent point regarding both conservative and moderate dissatisfaction with the Republican field. We have no real "statesman" emerging and all are flawed.
Gingrich was pretty well covered by Allott except that he could have expanded more on, my biggest worry, Newt's tendency to take verbal intellectual side trips, which inevitability lead to regrettable gaffs. Furthermore, he still has not vigorously put to rest the concerns of certain quarters of the pro-2D Amendment community - no small number with 90 million gun owners.
Ron Paul will fizzle after Iowa, but may not as badly as some predict. Paulites ramble about objectivism, logic and national self-interest to obfuscate the fact that they are isolationists and unrealistically reactive in their military and foreign policy views. Besides, if one really studies Libertarians, he would see that their philosophy would lead to 50, or as Obama thinks, 57 independent states with a Post Office for a Federal government.
I'll catch the devil for my next remarks, but conservatives should pay heed to them. Perry, Bachman and, to a lesser degree, Paul market their evangelist beliefs to garner support from the Christian right. They must understand that Christian fundamentalists are not the majority of voters, not even the majority of Republicans. Candidates, who use or appear to use religion to get votes, frighten non-fundamentalists. Voters only need to read what the blogs are saying about Mormons to be deeply concerned. They should also look to the limits of Huckabee's success, one of the nicest guys, in my opinion, to ever run for office. It is wonderful to be a person of faith and decency, but the majority of Americans still believe a person's religious beliefs do not belong in one's campaign platform, personal values yes, religion no.
Santorum and Huntsman are good men. I believe either one would be very good presidents but I believe many voters fear they are not electable. They just don’t project fire in their belly. Also, sadly, money still swings a big political stick.
Money can also backfire, of course. John McCain, in spite of himself, is a good example. Americans still love an underdog, if the underdog plays clean. Gingrich, Bachmann, Paul, Huntsman, and Santorum need to remember that. I'm sure Newt can be very caustic, but thus far nothing like Allen Keyes. Jumpin' June Bugs Mr. Allott, Newt's an amateur compared to Keyes! Besides, Obama doesn't even know the history of this nation. That's already been established, and Newt cannot be blamed for chopping Obama off at the knees when Obama puts his foot in it. Nor can Newt be criticized for demonstrating, with Euclidian logic, the folly of Obama's Keynesian economics or his Alinskyite world view. Whomever runs against Obama, absolutely must unravel Obama’s duplicity, cognitive dissonance and mendacity.
Perhaps if candidates and their families were not subjected to such viciousness, hyperbole and bald faced lies by the press, the PACs and each other, we might get better people to run for office. If all Americans remained informed and voted, perhaps once again, we might have some real statesmen and honest people, run for office. In this order, I do believe Gingrich, Santorum, Bachman, and Perry are better than Romney and Paul. I believe all of them are good people and better than Obama. V/r, Tejano Jack
Larry| 12.27.11 @ 7:30AM
A woefully facile comparison.
SDGLaw| 12.27.11 @ 9:57AM
A woefully conclusory comment.
old white guy| 12.27.11 @ 10:57AM
obama is neither intelligent or eloquent. he is a programed communist. the reason he is doing as well as he has been is simple. the average american has been dumbed down to almost the point of stupidity and the press has been in the tank for him from day one. when half the voters are at the trough and another ten percent or more are actually stupid then you get obama as a so called leader.
William L. Gensert| 12.27.11 @ 7:46AM
Sadly, it seems we have been reduced to taking Barack Obama's advice on who should be the Republican nominee. There is a reason Mitt Romney is the Obama approved candidate. The "play nice" theory of campaigning gave us John McCain's dismal performance, as well as Barack Obama. The only way to beat Barack Obama is to oppose him rigorously, relentlessly and without remorse.
NB Forrest| 12.27.11 @ 1:54PM
Agreed......if it is not done that way, the moderate courting Republicans will have their hat handed to them again in November by those that know how to slug it out in this game.
BD57| 12.27.11 @ 9:17PM
Agree with the last sentence, with one qualifier - the candidate must also be a "happy warrior."
Fortunately, whoever the Republican nominee is, he'll be running against a President known for his own arrogance & self-regard.
Tenn Slim| 12.27.11 @ 7:47AM
All Right. Newt, Keyes, etal are just as the article lays out.
Now what,? Are we to nominate some ignorant ass of a candidate that cannot speak, write or articulate the frustration of the past 3 + years?
Give the US Electorate a break. We are fed up to our ears with rhetoric. We need a candidate, like Sarah P, who speaks our langauage, who can and has articluated in plain ordinary citizenry language the needs, fears and solutions we all understand.
Newt knows this, as did Keyes, probably. Thier egos get in the way.
Of Obama simply nods, smiles, tosses his head and artfully puts down our ego filled candidate, the EPA will shut down our energy (coal) sources within a month. Then the lights will go out period.
end
Semper FI
Michael Tomlinson| 12.27.11 @ 7:50AM
Keyes turned out to be a race hustling, carpetbagging sellout from Maryland. He deserved to be humiliated.
While I'll be voting for whoever the Republican nominee is it is unfair to compare Gingrich to a man who consistently lost elections and tried to win votes by embracing reparations. (NOTE: liberalterian, DC insider, Blame America First, 9/11 Truther, jihadist apologist and Iranian defender cult leader Ron “Pork King” Paul isn't even a passable RINO much less an acceptable Republican nominee.)
Newt Gingrich for all his problems led our Party to victory and then once Bill Clinton turned governing over to Republicans balanced the budget and produced legislative victories for conservatives that Reagan could only have dreamed of.
Clint| 12.27.11 @ 8:18AM
Dr.Ron Paul,
" I have never voted for an earmark. I voted against all appropriation bills. So, this whole thing about earmarks is totally misunderstood.
Earmarks is the responsibility of the Congress.
If you cut off all the earmarks, it would be 1 percent of the budget. But, if you vote against all the earmarks, you don't cut one penny. That is what you have to listen to. We're talking about who has the responsibility, the Congress or the executive branch?
I'm saying, get it out of the hands of the executive branch. Just listen again about what I have said about the TARP funds. We needed to earmark every penny. Now we gave them $350 billion, no earmarks, and nobody knows..."
Dr.Ron Paul Gets It About Earmarks & Congress Having It's Responsibility Usurped By The Executive Branch.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Wayne| 12.27.11 @ 11:30AM
And when you are old and senile you befriend every left wing wacko in Congress.
Oldefarte| 12.27.11 @ 2:02PM
".... Newsmax....Ron Paul: Long-Time Former Aide Eric Dondero Slams Candidate Tuesday, December 27, 2011 12:09 PM...By: Tom O'Connell...Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul of Texas “was opposed to the war in Afghanistan and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11,” but ultimately voted in favor of them because of pressure from his staff, a former aide says.The aide, Eric Dondero, worked for Paul from 1987 to 2003. In a statement released Monday, Dondero said he resigned over political and personal issues, including Paul’s opposition to the war in Iraq, reports DailyCaller.com.
Dondero claims Paul subscribed to conspiracy theories behind the Sept. 11 attacks, including that they were “coordinated by the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about” them. Paul also took a cold stance on the victims, says Dondero.“He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration,” the statement reads.Dondero writes that he and other Paul staffers agreed to resign if Paul voted against the invasion of Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks, and that Paul changed his vote “at the very last minute.”“I strongly suspected that he realized it would have been political suicide,” Dondero says.Dondero’s statement also responds to allegations that the candidate is anti-Semitic, homophobic, and racist.On anti-Semitism: Paul, is “absolutely” not an anti-Semite, he continued, but he is “most certainly anti-Israel and anti-Israeli in general,” and “supports [the Palestinians] calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs.” On racism: “In short,” Dondero said, Paul is not a racist — just “out of touch with both Hispanic and black culture.”On homosexuals: Dondero writes that Paul has no interest in their private lives but is ” personally uncomfortable around homosexuals, no different from a lot of older folks of his era,” Dondero writes........'
Clint| 12.27.11 @ 4:00PM
When Will The Media Smear Bund's Gloria Borger Apologize To America For Being A Smear Artist,Who Failed To Be A Professional Journalist?
Even Dr.Ron Paul's Israel Firster Staffer Turned Opponent, Dondero/Rittberg Demonstrates That The Media Smear Bund Are Agenda Driven Liars.
" Written By : Eric Dondero
Fmr. Senior Aide, US Cong. Ron Paul, 1997 – 2003
Campaign Coordinator, Ron Paul for Congress, 1995/96
National Organizer, Draft Ron Paul for President, 1991/92
Travel Aide/Personal Asst. Ron Paul, Libertarian for President
1987/88
I have been asked by various media the last few days for my comments, view of the current situation regarding my former boss Ron Paul, as he runs for the presidency on the Republican ticket.
I’ve noticed in some media that my words have been twisted and used for an agenda from both sides. And I wish to set the record straight with media that I trust and know will get the story right: conservative/libertarian-conservative bloggers.
Is Ron Paul a “racist.” In short, No. I worked for the man for 12 years, pretty consistently. I never heard a racist word expressed towards Blacks or Jews come out of his mouth. Not once. And understand, I was his close personal assistant. It’s safe to say that I was with him on the campaign trail more than any other individual, whether it be traveling to Fairbanks, Alaska or Boston, Massachusetts in the presidential race, or across the congressional district to San Antonio or Corpus Christi, Texas.
He has frequently hired blacks for his office staff, starting as early as 1988 for the Libertarian campaign. He has also hired many Hispanics, including his current District staffer Dianna Gilbert-Kile. "
The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On The Media Smear Bund.
Oldefarte| 12.27.11 @ 4:21PM
'.... Written By : Eric Dondero...' PROVE/VERIFY/DATE/SOURCE it!!!!!!!
Fred| 12.29.11 @ 12:43PM
Let me get this straight: you favor Newt Gingrich, who voted to create the Department of Education in 1979, wrote a book calling for a gigantic expansion of NASA's budget in 1982, campaigned against global warming with Nancy Pelosi last year, praised Mitt's Romneycare two years ago, favors cap and trade, and wanted actually to send Marines into Libya, and you criticize Ron Paul -- Ron Paul! -- for pork? Really?
Just checking.
Dick Nome| 12.27.11 @ 7:55AM
Keyes never had a chance. He was a last minute fill-in after the Alynski team nuked the primary challenger in the most dispicable way. Any comparison to Newt's campaign is not valid.
Floating| 12.28.11 @ 12:51AM
If Alan Keyes' message was popular -- and that was the whole point of Republican bigwigs puttin him on the ticket in the first place -- Illinois voters in 2004 certainly didn't see it that way. Sorry, Dick, but when your man gets stomped by a 70%-27% margin, there isn't any way to spin it. Keyes had plenty of chances to defeat Obama ( he was not a "last minute" selection), but he was highly unpopular. He was perceived, properly, as a black shakedown artist, a religious fanatic and an extremely arrogant person. And he met the same fate he experienced twice in presidential primaries and in the Maryland Senate general election in 1992.
Jabber3| 12.27.11 @ 8:01AM
While Daniel has built his case on a comparitive scenario there is really no need to draw a comparison to understand that Newt would be annililated in a debate with Obama simply because he is a "human grenade" and Obama would clearly pull the pin. As Daniel is pointing out this has nothing to do with Obama and everything to do with Gingrich and his "self -reverance".
Tejano Jack| 12.30.11 @ 10:18AM
Hey Jabber3: That's funny - good one and I like Gingrich. TJ
Big Tony| 12.27.11 @ 8:01AM
Newt got elected in Cobb county Georgia when it was a safe seat for any republican. And while he was effective at firing up the base with his contract for America. It was Clinton's hard left policies that got the republican majority elected to congress not Newt. Then once in power Newt prove himself unable to govern and he was a perfect foil for Clinton. And while Clinton looked moderate Newt was made to look like an extremist insuring Clinton's reelection in 96. I'll hold my nose and vote for whoever the republican nominate knowing if it any one of the current front runner he will lose to Obama.
Jim| 12.27.11 @ 8:15AM
If there is this silent, angry majority out there who have a ravenous dislike for the obuzzard's policies then this majority had best vote for whoever gets the nod. It is imperative that we defeat this "fundamentally transform Amercia" president. I believe if we all stand together it will happen. No one, I repeat no one can be worse than the jerk we have now.
VonMisesJr| 12.27.11 @ 8:51AM
This is about the most inane and ignorant analysis I have read. I fought through reading it so I could honestly comment on how stupid it really is.
W. Stanley Jevons (Mises Institute) wrote in 1888 in "Elementary Lessons in Logic" relative to abstractions. Classifications for abstractions and comparisons are "best defined as the arrangement of things, or our notions of them, according to their resemblences and identies." Apparently the writer belives the similarities are two black men running in the state of Illinois. But Chicago, IL, the most corrupt city in perhaps the most corrupt liberal state that is choosing bankruptcy and leaching off the suburbs and neighboring states is not America! And in 2004, we had a Republican POTUS, Senate and House that was running a small budget deficit with a relatively stable dollar. Four Congresses later, two completely controlled by Pelosi and Reid, and the current still hamstrung by Reid; as well as a POTUS who did the opposite of what he put out for public consumption giving us ObamaCare, Dodd Frank, Stimulus, Nationalization of two car companies, Solyndra, LightSquared, "Fast and Fruious", etc....is not copmparing "apples with apples" when contrasted with 2004 before subprime or stagflation (11% real U3 unemployment and almost double digit inflation when food and energy are included unlike the phony "Core Inflation" number).
This is like trying to convince your sister to go out with this really nice guy after she has been date raped. We have been abused for 7 years by Bush policies and Obama's statism. Perhaps even the dolts in Chicago would understand the good Dr. Keyes at this point. But the rest of flyover country has no difficulty with the lesson.
Wayne| 12.27.11 @ 11:28AM
I wish more people understood what is really going on as you do. Having grown up in Chicago in the 50s and 60s I know the evil of corruption. One of the goals is to institutionalize it. We are seeing that process play out today. The press acts as though this corruption is normal and no big deal. It alone should be enough to bring the entire Democratic Party down. But we have a weak Republican Party that worries more about getting blamed than the reality that like Chicago, the US will turn into a ONE Party system if Obama wins in 2012. Its the Chicago Democratic Machine gone nationwide.
SpiralArchitect| 12.27.11 @ 1:59PM
Vote Totalitarian
Obama '12
VonMisesJr| 12.27.11 @ 3:01PM
Again. We tried it in 2008 and it ain't working. And neither are many good Americans.
Tejano Jack| 12.30.11 @ 10:31AM
"Republicans...worry about getting blamed"
Yes they do and that's why we lost the last round to Obama on the Payroll Tax.
However, Republicans also recognize something. Half the country doesn't even know who is running in the Republican Primaries. Most will never see a primary ballot. But they will hear a 15 second sound bite on CBS, telling them that the "Republicans voted for a tax increase". TJ
Gregg| 12.27.11 @ 9:16AM
John Navratil writes:
"While the President can certainly lead the discussion (wouldn't that be a change) his biggest role is signing the legislation. It's the only reason we have to get rid of Obama."
I have to disagree here. The Office of the President has certain very powerful tools. Notice how Reagan got many important pieces of legislation through even with a Dem Congress. This is because Reagan knew how to use those tools, a few of which are:
Persuasion,
Bully Pulpit,
Veto threat.
And Reagan beat then-Speaker Tip O'Neil who was no political slouch.
The office of the President is not omnipotent, but the office holder has some very powerful tools available and is much more than a paper signer.
John Navratil| 12.27.11 @ 9:35AM
Gregg,
I didn't mean to suggest the office didn't have power, it most certainly does and a strong conservative holding it would be an unallowed good. I also slighted foreign policy as this election is primarily over domestic issues.
My point should have stressed that without taking the Senate, there will be no important bills to sign. Without taking the White House there will be no important bills signed.
It is not likely that any Republican candidate for President will tell the House much that they don't already know. Hence my conclusion that the action will be there and the real necessity is having a President to sign them. Only in the sad case of not taking the Senate does the Presidential veto become important (a veto-proof majority is only possible in a mathematician's dreams).
John Navratil| 12.27.11 @ 10:06AM
Gregg,
My editor is off. I should have said a conservative holding the Presidency would be an UNALLOYED good. (A particularly bad example of misspelling).
Gregg| 12.27.11 @ 8:29PM
John,
To THAT I will heartily agree:
That it's vital to win a filibuster proof Senate and retain - if not extend - the GOP majority in the House.
Michael A. Gabel| 12.27.11 @ 9:35AM
If the author thinks so little of Americans that we cannot tell the difference between a person who believes in the principles that made America great, vs. those espoused by Mr. Obama, then I believe he has made a severe miscalculation.
God help the United States of America, however, if the author is right and the American people make the same mistake in 2012 as they did in 2008.
SpiralArchitect| 12.27.11 @ 3:02PM
Amazing how so many speak of the corruption & Chicago style politics yet narry a wrod about election fraud.
ACORN is gone as an entity, it's members are still on the beat.
A billion dollars buy a lot of things...
Many peoepl were added to the Gov dole, many of them are pleased as can be to get the freebies. This also favors Zero, the incumbant.
Bob Miller| 12.27.11 @ 9:40AM
Let's focus on the current non-candidates, the A Team of able conservative Republican governors and members of Congress who all found excuses not to run. If the nation now needs them, or at least one of them, to step forward to save our Republic, who are they to beg off? I'm tired, tired, tired of all this crap about horseraces and funding and who knows what. The best have to run.
KennesawJack| 12.27.11 @ 10:55AM
We need to draft Mitch Daniels and his wife will just have to get over it.
SDGLaw| 12.27.11 @ 10:07AM
The author wrote: "Such combativeness has made Gingrich look tough against a media that so many conservatives loathe. But it may not play as well with moderate and independent voters in a general election."
But what if the alternative you seem to be proposing (i.e., Romney) "[does] not play as well with [conservative and Republican base] voters in a general election[?]" The author, as well as establishment-types, seems to think that running a candidate who is NOT conservative has no cost (i.e., they seem to believe the benefit of "not turning off" the precious and sensitive "moderates" and "independents" does not have the cost of turning off conservatives).
TommyFrisco| 12.27.11 @ 10:28AM
Comparing Newt Gingrich to Alan Keyes is as stupid as the RNC thinking they could just trot out their own black candidate to challenge Obama in the 2004 Senate race.
As for egos, who in politics does not have an ego problem? Isn't that a pre-requisite for anyone thinking they are qualified to be the leader of the free world? Should we be looking for an insecure candidate? That would be as ridiculous as this article.
russel| 12.27.11 @ 10:35AM
Rush pointed out ( and he should know ) what liabilities there are with a tv appearance . He used the Nixon / Kennedy debate as an example . Those who listened gave it to Dick hands down . Versa with those who watched . The eyes step in and assume control over the mind . Many have remarked about Newts appearance , such as Coulter , who calls him Humpty Dumpty . I prefer the Pillsbury dough boy , but whatever , you get the drift . Lastly , what if Zero simply refuses any debate ? . He can you know . Poof goes any chance for Newt to show his stuff , and Zero is THAT shrewd .
Dave | 12.27.11 @ 10:54AM
Let's see if I follow young Daniel's line of analysis. All we conservatives need do is as simple as building a fort out of Lincoln Logs. OK, maybe I should have updated the reference and said Legos. So sue me.
Anyway ...
Dan's analysis is the same kind of analyzing that generally seems to get us another wandering RINO who's primary goal is to sniff out the freshest prairie grass, eat its fill, then find a shady spot, and take a nice long nap until the next sunrise, or next election -- whichever comes first. Meanwhile, the roving lion prides walk around eating any d-mn thing they want. Usually what's left behind is what the buzzard feed on.
I don't know about you, but I'm tried of nibbling on Bawana Barry's buzzard leftovers. At this point in the hunt, another RINO won't do much more than provide the citizen bird population with another couple of carcases to battle over while sitting on a rock listening to the monkeys chatter. Meanwhile, Barry's female and their pampered offspring will be dining on roast pig and pineaple, compliments of the great state of Hawaii and a few million tax paying buzzards who'll still be out there scavenging throughout the remaining 49. Or maybe it's 57. Isn't that what Barry said? I'll have to get back to you on that.
So, what's it gonna be? Another RINO? Or maybe this time we stash our money in Tarzan's hut? Just a thought.
I guess we'll see. Won't we?
Happy New Year, kids.
Vern Crisler | 12.27.11 @ 11:12AM
Two times in a row, Mr. Allott has served up dumb ideas. Last week it was the idea that Romney should stress his Mormonism. Now Allott is claiming that Newt is like Keyes -- an absurd comparison as most have pointed out. Keyes may have been articulate but he always came across to me as someone teetering on the brink of fanaticism. With Newt, the only thing we have to worry about is when Newt erupts into a hot, suffocating cloud of "world-historicness" -- to paraphrase Jonah Goldberg.
I think a more apt comparison is with Bill Clinton. Clinton was a progressive with a conservative streak, while Newt is a conservative with a progressive streak. In Clinton's case, we had welfare reform, despite his progressive trajectories. I think with Newt, we'll have conservative programs, but we'll have to put up with a lot of stupid progressive rhetoric (e.g., the "greatness" of Roosevelt, etc.).
Well, at least Allott didn't compare Newt to David Duke, as an earlier AmSpec writer did, to near universal derision.
Vern Crisler | 12.27.11 @ 11:14AM
Or was it Hitler; can't recall.
Wayne| 12.27.11 @ 11:16AM
So I take it the author would rather have a man who created the model for ObamaCare and the man who accepted hook-line and sinker AGW and supported Cap and Trade. Neither Romney nor Gingrich will get my vote in November. We don't need another idiot in the White House.
Drunken Sailor| 12.27.11 @ 11:23AM
You don't like Newt. Got it. Attack our own without offering a solution. Got it. Next article please.
Kingofthenet| 12.27.11 @ 11:32AM
All The President should request for ANY debate with Newt is that the podiums be close enough together to catch BOTH candidates at the same shot, all debate long. It would be over before Newt opens his big joweled mouth. The President would look like Superman next to Newt, and I don't care if it's Bizzaro World Superman, it's still freak'n Superman.
PattyMor| 12.27.11 @ 11:33AM
This is the most stupid article. That Obama is a marxist, is true. Google it and you can hear Obama in his own words saying he sought out the Marxist professsors.
We need someone who is conservative and can win. Not the cranky (and probably too old) Dr. Paul with his racist newletters. Sorry, but who did Dr. Paul ever win over while he was in the House? Did he even join the RSG? So where's his leadership ability. Or is he trying to lead a marching band of exactly one person?
Rick Perry engaged in crony capitalism with his funding of business and his Garasil. And I'm not sure of his committment to defending the border and he doled out education benefits to illegal alien children. Fund them if you want to, but send your OWN money to a Texas university and set up scholarships. Why do these seemingly self-rightous acts always come from public money? And does that make them right?
Where to go with Mittens? He nominated liberal judges. He flipflopped on abortion (ending up with the right choice for the election). And he instituted Romneycare, an abomination he foisted on the people of Mass. Nothing, and I mean nothing in his record has anything to do with conservatism. Just wait until he snags the nomination and then the stories about how he threw people out of jobs to enrich himself will surface. And it will be relentless because the marxist media will support their guy at any cost.
And, the perfectly coifed Mr. Huntsman is going no where. Just why is he running?
So that leaves us with Santorum, Bachmann, or Gingrich. Neither seems to have much money, nor got on the ballot in Virginia. Unless Bachmann or Santorum bubble to the top in Iowa, that leaves Newt as the I'm Not Romney.
A flawed, sometimes conservative, with a lot of baggage. But more baggage than Barack?
The independents have already left Barack. We need a candidate that will keep them in our column.
John Navratil| 12.27.11 @ 12:34PM
PattyMor,
"Why do these seemingly self-rightous acts always come from public money?"
Because it is recognized that public money comes from the people who pay the taxes. In the case of Texas, it's the 6.25% state sales tax which funds the state government. It is paid by everyone making any purchase in the State of Texas: Texas resident, legal or illegal, foreign visitor, or Californian on his was through to Florida.
In the case of providing in-state tuition for illegals it was in recognition that they pay as much into the system as the next man.
Kingofthenet| 12.27.11 @ 12:39PM
BS, the Feds don't contribute to Texas Universities? maybe we should give a free education to any family who save 10,000 lottery tickets, aren't they funding it too?
John Navratil| 12.27.11 @ 1:21PM
Kingofthenet,
The Feds provide student loans and grants. I'm sure that there is some R&D money somewhere which could potentially pay some professor who is educating an illegal alien. Of the FY2012 operating budget, the category "Federal Sponsored Programs" including all those loans and grants (which, by the way require registration for the draft) comprises 15%.
Anne Richards sold the Texas Lottery on the promise that it would fund education. It goes into the General Fund. It was another liberal lie so I reject your last suggestion.
ohio jim| 12.27.11 @ 11:47AM
this story is really nothing more than the usual pap we have been getting from national review in their attempt to follow the rino lead in securing the nomination for romney. this former conservative site has gone to great pains to curry favor with the inside the beltway crowd and have sold their souls to the liberal devil. when you , if you ever do decide to be fair and balanced, write a story on it so we can decide if the NR is worth reading.
ohio jim| 12.27.11 @ 12:02PM
Correction, In the last sentence, NR, should have read, TAS.
Sorry about that.
Bob Grant| 12.27.11 @ 12:21PM
Look at Newt's history.
Newt is as much of a RINO as Mitt allegedly is.
Newt is an intellectual and policy wonk which keeps him temptingly close to other policy wonks who are 90% socialist and fascist.
Look at it this way: Newt CHOOSES to be around these policy wonks because of some intellectual kinship but Romney, a republican governing an extremely liberal state, became a moderate on some issues because of political reality and perhaps not because of ideology.
Let's get real. Who is more likely to govern as a RINO?
Bob Grant| 12.27.11 @ 12:04PM
The criticizers of this article perhaps are missing the point. It's an object lesson on HOW NOT to debate Obama, regardless of whom it will be.
Gingrich is the only potential candidate who could destroy Obama in a debate but is he self disciplined to do so? He has between his ears a vast array of weaponry but he possess the self discipline to effectively use it?
Alan Keyes had an excuse for failing because he did not know his enemy, but Gingrich has no such excuse.
Can Gingrich learn from Mr. Keyes mistakes and his own or is he too arrogant to think nothing is to be learned?
These questions persist for me about him and apparently Mr. Allott as well.
C Smith| 12.27.11 @ 12:37PM
Keyes's 1996 presidential campaign gained "Christian" support when the Romanist was featured on "Focus on the Family" James Dobson's pseudo gospel program emphasizing morality as a substitute for the Word of God. In 2008, Dobson again demonstrated his neglect of the Spirit's leading with the endorsement of another cult:
THURSDAY, JANUARY 31, 2008
The End Justifies the Means Theology
Many wonder why James Dobson has not endorsed Huckabee. Is there a more unwavering pro-life candidate? Is there another who has been “born again”? Have any, under spiritual conviction and contrary to political consensus, withdrawn a news release that would have justifiably reproved an opponent?
Many find it perplexing. Even the secular world is finding something amiss. Time magazine, in a recent article of remarkable spiritual perceptiveness, was stunned by Dobson’s reluctance to make “the natural Christian right choice.”
For months, Dobson has [seemed to favor] … [Mormon] Mitt Romney over Baptist preacher Mike Huckabee … the natural Christian right choice. In December, Dr. Dobson praised a Romney speech, as ‘a magnificent reminder of the role religious faith must play in government and public policy. His delivery was passionate and his message inspirational.’ Dobson even made a congratulatory phone call to the candidate.
When Romney lost the Iowa caucuses to Huckabee, Dobson attributed the outcome to ‘conservative Christians,’ but he has not warmed to the former governor…. who has spoken of his great and longtime friendship with the Dobsons, [wondering] … why no endorsement appears to be coming…. In … [Dobson’s] citizenlink.com assessments, Huckabee was found wanting in terms of foreign policy and ‘fiscal’ issues…. Romney, on the other hand, was praised as ‘solidly conservative’ and unlikely to renege on that stance.
The question remains: WHY no endorsement? And the answer appears to be Dobson’s “The End Justifies the Means” theology. The “End,” reconciling the lost to the Lord is commendable, but the “Means” are much less so. In order to save the world, Dobson has become more like it. He seems to have honed the political arts of alliance, compromise, and concession far better than the discipline of unwavering Spirit lead conviction. All things considered, perhaps Dobson HAS given Huckabee the endorsement he needed.
http://popularapostasy.blogspo.....h?q=dobson
coal carrier| 12.27.11 @ 12:57PM
Mr. Allott, the difference now is that Obama has a record that he can’t defend.
Kingofthenet| 12.27.11 @ 1:14PM
Newt is a kid with a Hammer....and EVERYTHING looks like a nail.
shipley130| 12.27.11 @ 1:26PM
Newt Gingrich, the Sweet Talker. Ewwwww.
Imissbuckley| 12.27.11 @ 1:30PM
I had to double check after I finished reading this that this wasn't a Quin Hillyer article. Now I'm not a fan of Gingrich, and have no desire to see him as President. But, what is the alternative? Mitt Romney is Obama-lite, Ron Paul is......Ron Paul, Santorum has no chance, Bachmann's faded away, Perry stumbles more than Obama, Huntsman is uninspiring, so.........what do we do? It's sad that we have a President that's this beatable, and the candidates who are challenging are this lacking in creditability, or electability.
Ivan Ivanovich| 12.28.11 @ 5:54AM
Imissbuckley
So you would have us vote for Buckley? Or Goldwater, who I supported? Allott was right on! I saw the Keyes/Obama debate and I like Keyes but he had is ass handed to him. Now I like Romney because he is like his father who did a good job in Michigan.
Imissbuckley| 12.28.11 @ 5:42PM
"So you would have us vote for Buckley? Or Goldwater, who I supported? "
Well, if he either of these men were alive and younger then yes, but since that isn't the case then no.
"Now I like Romney because he is like his father who did a good job in Michigan."
Good, I'm glad that you've found a candidate to support. I still haven't yet, which is why I typed this, "But, what is the alternative? Mitt Romney is Obama-lite, Ron Paul is......Ron Paul, Santorum has no chance, Bachmann's faded away, Perry stumbles more than Obama, Huntsman is uninspiring, so.........what do we do?"
I don't like any of the candidates running, (I briefly backed Herman Cain), everyone else has left me uninspired and unconvinced.
Tejano Jack| 12.30.11 @ 10:51AM
Imissbuckley:
"It's sad that we have a President that's this beatable, and the candidates who are challenging are this lacking in creditability, or electability."
You just made the best comment on this election that anyone has said!
Maybe I'm a windbag, but you said in one sentence what took me four paragraphs to say.
I miss W.F.B. too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Tejano Jack
Ron| 12.27.11 @ 2:05PM
Ah, here we go again...Newt and the crafting of the "Contract With America."
What exactly, has been fulfilled in that contract? It was a non-starter, designed to show how Newt was going to bat for America back in the Klintoon days, to be basically cast aside for the last 20 years.
If that keeps getting paraded around, the short defense is that the GOP has not fulfilled it's promises, and that is exactly what NerObama is going to hammer at the electorate with.
Anthony| 12.27.11 @ 3:33PM
Gee, And all this time I thought the smart, eloquent, combative egomaniac we chose to run against Obozo was....McCain.....
Looks like were about to nominate another McCain type loser in Romney. History repeats itself again!!!
When the hell will we learn????
Bob Grant| 12.27.11 @ 4:26PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think Romney ever voted against a republican-led tax cut...TWICE!!
For what it's worth, Romney was a governor AND CEO of a private corporation, unlike McCain who basically parlayed his military 'heroics' into a career of 'public service'.
There's really no comparison between Romney the CEO executor and McCain the career politician.
DaveS| 12.27.11 @ 5:15PM
During a Keyes/Obama debate, the question of Obama's citizenship came up. Obama's answer: I am not running for President.
At least Keyes got Obama to incriminate himself - long before there was a crime: Democratic Party nominating him for President.
Stormy| 12.27.11 @ 7:21PM
No one knew what to expect form Obama when he ran against Keyes. In 2012, eveyrnoe should know what to expect. Either you love it or hate it. If Gingrich said it like he can, people will still love it or hate it. Voters are not going to be influenced by the diplomatic language of the Republican candidate.
Brad9883| 12.27.11 @ 7:24PM
This analogy is flawed.
Barack Obama was running for U.S. Senate in a heavily deep-blue state and without a record to speak of.
In 2012, he has a record, and the U.S. as a whole nation is not merely a larger version of Chicago.
Floating| 12.28.11 @ 12:54AM
Reality check: Downstate Illinois is anything but "heavily deep blue." Voters there didn't know much about Obama, but they definitely couldn't hack Keyes. Hence, a rout.
DaveS| 12.28.11 @ 10:34AM
Chicago, duh. Statewide election.
Flee| 12.27.11 @ 8:58PM
Throw in all the dirt Obama could toss on Newt and you have a winner. The pic here tells the real story. Obama looks like he is about to bust a vein trying to hide how nervous he was because he had to restrain his true lecturer self. Keyes looks like he is waiting for the next peon's question. I believe Newt would be able to rein in his professorial tendencies but not enough to escape his past preferences. Unless you come out and wholeheartedly renounce your old ways it will be hard for us to forget sitting on the couch with Pelosi or a few other transgressions.
Brian| 12.28.11 @ 2:36AM
I remember how the Repubs attacked Keyes. Bush would campaign for Spector but Keyes was on his own.
NH Lawyer| 12.28.11 @ 9:44AM
I found this Article misleading in large part due to the writer’s concentration solely only on the Obama-Keyes Debates, his assumption Newt Gingrich would mirror Keyes’ performance in 2004, and overlooking Other Very Important Factors that were likely far more important in contributing to Obama’s lopsided victory over Keyes in the 2004 Illinois Senate Election in which Obama received 70% of the vote than the debates. As far as discussion of ego he overlooked Obama’s now famous big and inflated ego it. I do if think to play it safe Newt Gingrich should read this Article but more for his debating style rather than substance. Important Factors the Writer Overlooked Include:
1. An Important Overlooked Factor. In 2004-2008 Illinois was an overwhelmingly Democratic State. In 2004, 1,243,000 voters voted in the Illinois Democratic Senate primary compared to only 662,000 voters in the Republican Senate primary. Though in 2010 Illinois voters elected Republican Mark Kirk its Senator to take the seat Obama had held, Kirk garnered 48% of the vote to 46% for the troubled Democratic candidate. And Kirk is no conservative. Illinois to this day remains predominantly a Democratic State. As other commentators have noted, most of the United States is not like Illinois
2. Another Important Overlooked Factor. Barack Obama had an impressive win in the 2004 Democratic Senatorial Primary. In a field of eight candidates, he garnered nearly 53% of the vote, a clear majority and 361,000 more votes (among 1,243,000 cast) than his closest rival. Jack Ryan, not Alan Keyes, won the Republican Primary also in a field of eight candidates with less than 36% of the vote, not nearly as impressive a win.
3. Still Another Important Overlooked Factor. Alan Keyes was a last minute pick to replace Republican nominee Jack Ryan, who withdrew from the Election and as noted received less than 36% of the vote Republican primary. Illinois Republicans drafted Keyes less than three months before the 2004 Illinois Senatorial Election to replace Ryan.
4. Still Another Important Overlooked Factor was the Illinois media. Ryan withdrew as a candidate after the Chicago Tribune persuaded a California Court to release Ryan’s child custody record. To date, the mighty Tribune and the rest of the Illinois media, and most of the national media, has never exerted the effort comparable to the effort the Tribune used against Ryan to investigate who is Barack Obama. The Illinois media likely treated Keyes’ candidacy the way the Tribune treated Ryan’s.
5. Still Another Important Overlooked Factor. In 2004, though a perennial candidate, Alan Keyes not only had never held elective office but had he had also moved to Illinois from Maryland shortly before being chosen as nominee to replace Ryan. He had no links to Illinois politics. In 2004 Obama had been an Illinois resident for about 14 years and had served in the Illinois State Senate since 1997. And Obama of course had the backing of the powerful Chicago Democratic machine.
6. Still Another Important Overlooked Factor. 2004, 2006 and 2008 were clearly Democratic years. I doubt 2012 will be a Democratic year.
7. Still Another Important Overlooked Factor Others have noted. In 2004, Obama was pretty much a “Stealth Candidate”, though he had been a State Senator for seven years. In 2008 Obama was still a Stealth Candidate without much of a record or much known about his background though he had served four year in the US Senate. With January 2012 just about here, as other commentators have noted, Obama now has a record! I repeat Obama now has a record! We have all endured three years of the Obama presidency with its systematic corruption, lack of transparency, and ineptitude to name a few of its attributes.
Mike Stroven| 12.29.11 @ 12:39AM
Yeah... Newt's ability to talk is enhanced by the ability to talk out both sides of his face... He's a globalist neocon, just like the vast majority of the GOP has become. However, the American people are not yet on board with being the policeman of the world, especially when the bill keeps showing up in the form of inflation.
Nestor | 12.29.11 @ 11:35AM
The author makes a good point, but I think a big reason for Keyes loss was that he was seen as a carpetbagger. He was pretty much rushed to Chicago to run against Obama.
ACORNInsider| 1.10.12 @ 10:48AM
Really liked this article and the writing style. Keyes and Cain shared one thing they both seemed...Mascots. Cain was viewed as a fetchin steppin kinda shuffle along to get along co opting Chris Tucker lines from old Jackie Chan movies.
And Keyes who seems like a reverse example of Oswald Bates character http://www.clickhereforinternetcash.com/ from In Living Color the more Oswald Bates/Alan Keyes spoke the less likely the Parole Board was going to let Oswald free or that the American People would take Alan Keyes seriously. Cain and Keyes were parodies and I submit both knew it and one simply played it more deftly than the other.