You do realize that acerbic and arrogant are just how the media portrays someone crazy enough to get conservatives agenda items done. Someone is acerbic and arrogant when they presume they can cut the rate of spending growth and balance the budget without grandma dying. Where's the proof he is actually this way or is different from any other candidate in say, being arrogant enough to believe they should be president.
I'm not talking about media spin. I'm talking about seeing him in debates, in extended interviews by non-lefty sources, watching him in public life, etc. There are a lot of examples out there of his grandiosity, his smartest guy in the room persona, etc. It's not a deal breaker for me, but it's there.
If by appealing you mean bland and unmotivational, then you are right.
We just disagree. I really like Romney in that sense. 4 years ago I might have agreed, but he seems much looser now.
I'd say Gingrich is very optimistic. However he is also forceful when the time calls for it. When someone is noting that rockets are launching at Israel daily or that Iran is trying to go nuclear, there isn't an optimism you want there. You want to advocate for clear force in a strong manner and if the media want to just make you sound like a warmonger, then you've got to forcefully make a clear case and Gingrich has done this. I'm not sure it can be done with a smile.
I really don't think he is. He's an intellectual who fiercely wants change for the better, who would be aggressive as you note at the right times. But I wouldn't call him optimistic. To me, he's always come off as the teacher that enjoys showing students how smart he is. It's like that teacher you may have had in college that was brilliant and effective, but kind of a d*ck, too. I had a guy like that as a choir director. He was a genius and got great results. But he was also a real a-hole at times.
They've already been going after him on it. His statements have met the media onslaught pretty well. I don't Gingrich will win Iowa but I'm not sure he ever would have one Iowa. I foresee him doing second in Iowa, probably second in New Hampshire and the starting to take the lead as things move on to Florida and South Carolina.
I really doubt he'll finish second. He'll be third at best. Bachmann might even beat him if this trajectory continues. In other words, the attacks from Bachmann, the media and Romney's ads have damaged him badly. And if Romney wins Iowa and New Hampshire, it's probably going to be over really quick.
Seriously? They'll say Newt made $1.2-1.6 million from Wall Street/Freddie Mac but somehow won't note that all the Romney family money and the entire private sector experience including a massive chunk of Romney's personal $250 million plus of personal wealth came from Wall St./Bain Capital?
Surely you can see how these are different, especially politically and especially for the media. Romney made money as an investor and CEO who was truly in the private sector. Gingrich made $1.2 million to "advise" a corrupt, failing GSE that has taken billions in bailouts. It just looks bad. I'm not saying he did anything improper, but it just looks bad from a political standpoint.
I'm not saying they will ring completely true and I just don't think Americans hate on success the way Democrats believe. I think Obama's class warfare is a loser of an issue but the point remains that there's no way to bring up one and not seriously bring up the other as a negative.
They're just not the same. It's not Gingrich's net worth that is at issue, it's his ties to government and this particular GSE.
I think he can turn them to strengths because the GOP brand is not completely untarnished. People are still looking for someone who can claim to be outside the problems even if Gingrich isn't a complete outsider. The point is that he left power in 1999 and hasn't been back since. That decade out of office happens to be when the GOP left some of their priorities he can say he will be bringing them back to them. No one claims the GOP is a completely united party and it is clear there's about 70% of the party that tea party/paleocon and the Rockefeller/establishment wing is what is attracted to Romney. As you noted part of what shut Romney down in 2008 was the division between him and Huckabee. That could well happen to Gingrich and Paul this time but the reality is that the majority of the party isn't what Romney promotes. They aren't North-Eastern Semi-Conservatives.
I don't know. I think he does represent the majority of the party. I suppose we'll find out.
The infidelity thing I believe has been addressed.
Has it? It will come up...a lot.
It's still going to be something that the Dems beat him over the head with. Just watch. You yourself implied the voters don't know any better, partially because of the media.
As for the space stuff, I think America needs stuff like that. I think the nerd contingent (of which I count myself) is serious sad that we have to rely on Russia to get to space and that we have no vehicles to take people there ourselves right now. They don't want America's space capabilities to only be represented in a frigging museum. The Freddie stuff I've explained. It makes more than enough sense and is small potatoes compared to what others make for speeches, appearances or consulting.
I agree, but he's made some pretty looney statements. Moon mirror to light highways? OK then.
You don't seem to remember that Newt was the whip before he was the speaker. Of course those who do nothing but sit on the sidelines and pontificate have reservations. Anyone can when they are an arm chair quarterback versus being in the trenches. That is why I used the anecdote about football and getting hit. Leadership means getting hit and Gingrich didn't have a problem with it. Who did was the party after the got the budget balanced, then lost a few seats in the midterms in 1998. It wasn't Gingrich though who backed away from conservative principles and from wanting to balance budgets and push legislation through, it was elements of the party who then had us deficit spending again in the early 2000's.
I'm talking about mainstream conservative Republicans...voters. It's their reservations that matter. We can debate whether they should or not, buy they do.
I understand and it's been a blast in my opinion throwing all this out there and basically having us political wonks get our thoughts and opinions expressed to each other.
We need BR to attack someone to keep the thread entertaining
Hey those fights need to be picked. I've never claimed Gingrich was the man to lead the party forever. Much like Churchhill, he might just be the man for the moment. The man who bends the curve down and starts the discussion in a different direction. Hopefully this time the direction continues on the downward path. Before the revolution got a little comfortable in Washington and 4 years later decided they'd rather start letting spending inch back up and cave rather than fight.
That is a good point.
You know who else Gingrich reminds me of in terms of leadership? Pat Riley. I love that guy as a coach and a GM. It's clear winning is going to happen wherever he is at and he absolutely makes the unpopular decisions and picks the fights when they need to happen. However remember that Pat Riley got tossed out of LA as a coach when Magic Johnson got a little too tired of the ever present extended practices, needling an cajoling to improve. Sure the Lakers had won back to back's and had won five in a decade, but Pat wanted more and Magic wanted to go home a little early.
That doesn't mean Pat Riley was wrong though. It just meant the team choose wrong and didn't care to win as much. I think that is much like the Republicans coming into 2000. They want from fighting to balance the budget, to gee...let's just let this little bit slide, stay in power and not have people hating on us continually in the media.
For now we need the former and not the latter. We need to fight.