The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Lungren Impressed

Text Size

I know Jim is writing a full piece for tomorrow on Dan Lungren and the race for House Minority Leader, so I don't want to steal his fire, which means I will provide here only a few general observations, to be followed by more after I read Jim's piece.

Let it be said, first, that I am not a major Boehner basher (although at one point I was such a basher, because of his handing out campaign contributions on the House floor, which infuriated me). I think he did a slightly better job in the last two years than I expected, and I think his heart is in the right place and so too usually are his mind and his principles.

That said, just on his own merits without regard to Boehner, I thought Dan Lungren was terrific today. (I was only able to listen to about half of his phone conference with bloggers because I had another meeting, but this is based on the half of it that I heard.) Apparently some other bloggers weren't quite as impressed -- which may be an indicator that I am, at age 44, hopelessly outdated with what impresses these young techsters. I am beginning to think that their way of communicating and my own are hopelessly disconnected, which also means that they probably would not respond well today to a Ronald Reagan (stylistically) even if Reagan's message were updated to apply his principles to today's issues. Anyway, if the bloggers on the call weren't impressed, I don't know what will impress them.

Lungren came across to me as the principled, forceful, articulate leader I remember from the 1980s. Other bloggers are noting that, well, ho hum, he made a case against the auto industry bailout, as if that were just to be expected. But to me the key thing is HOW he made the case: He made it in a coherent fashion, with a concise explanation of what the alternative is (bankruptcy, which means not going out of business but business reorganization, which is a good thing, not a bad one).

He made a strong case, to me at least, about process. He gave quite an example about how and why he objected last year to a new slogan the House GOP Conference adopted that exploded in their faces. Maybe process bores people these days. To me, it makes a huge difference -- especially when one explains, as Lungren did, the NEXUS between process and substance. He explained WHY the bad process led to bad substance, and ALSO why the substance itself was bad on its own merits irrespective of process. That dual understanding is, to me, extremely important.

But again, I will leave a more detailed discussion (and explanation of what I was just writing about) until later, because I am curious to see Jim's fuller take on things tomorrow -- especially since, presumably, he got to listen to the entire call. But for now, let's just say that the GOP caucus is crazy if it doesn't seriously consider Lungren for a prominent role, very prominent, in the next two years.