Offered as Exhibit A in the case of the Republic vs. Big Government Republicans: George W. Bush. He ran as a "compassionate conservative", which means "I'll spend your money for you almost as fast as Al Gore would."
What's needed is to crush the leftist ideology. Not to show merely that it is wrong, but that it is illegitimate. Ron Paul gets that:
The problem with Paul is not that he's loopy on foreign policy, but that he's too much of the kindly old uncle, rambling his way to something that makes sense instead of hitting you between the eyes. He's a walking tl;dr, and his delivery is so laid back that half of the electorate will stop listening before he gets to his point.
Newt knows how to bring the ideas, hard, to where they make you stop and think. Here he shreds Juan Williams. His answer starts with a simple, blanket denial that he agrees with anything that Williams said. Then he takes 90 seconds to flay any legitimacy that anyone thought Williams' question might have had from the bone, and then chews the bone to small pieces. Williams is left utterly defeated, and the crowd is left on its feet in a standing ovation.
I realize that in Politically Correct circles it's not allowed to raise uncomfortable facts. That's not Reaganesque, it channels the best of Margaret Thatcher, breaking the British Labour party.
Crush your enemy's ideology. The crowd booed Williams. Booed. And this isn't just a one-off, either:
We actually think that work is good. But remember, the enemy ideology lives not just in the Democratic Party. George W. Bush's "Compassionate Conservativism" also falls under is icy glare.
Crush the enemy's ideology. See it driven from the airwaves. Listen to the lamentation of his professors. Newt does it, over and over.
Ron Paul does, too. But Paul is incoherent on foreign policy. That might not have made a difference in 2000, but it does in 2012. Newt brings the ideological hammer down:
Andrew Jackson had a good idea about what to do with America's enemies: kill them.
There are many things that I do not like about Newt, but one advantage that he has over the entire GOP crowd is that he knows how to deflate the Democrat's ideology, to show not that it is mistaken, but that it is immoral. Four years of that hammer will leave the political discussion in this country profoundly different. The Republic needs that, and someone who will not flinch from repeatedly telling the opposition that they hate the poor:
It's the same conflict of visions. Today's UK is profoundly different than it was in 1979, because the Iron Lady refused to back down in the face of a left - unions, the media, the universities - that held her in withering contempt. By returning that contempt with equal fervor and backing it up with unarguable facts, she wrenched the Realm off of the track to ruin, to the point that "Red" Ken Livingston is a curiosity, and not the head of the Labour Party.
Newt is probably the only one here who can do the same.
Attitude is a little thing that makes a big difference.
UPDATE 19 January 2012 08:52: Thanks to Bob Owens for pointing out it was Juan Williams, not Juan Cole.
9 comments:
I've thought much the same for some time now. I was for Cain, and would still write him in over Romney, but Newt can get to the meat of the matter better than most.
Maybe that's why they'll use the last person he thought would ever stab him in the back to bring him down.
Just like Herman.
I hope I'm wrong........we'll know by this weekend.
It's too bad the UK fell anyway after she left office. We MUST do better here!
I'm pretty sure I would have kissed Newt full on the mouth had I been at the debate. He drives me nuts sometimes, but when he manages to stay on point there are few better.
I don't think Paul is incoherent, per se. Him getting booed is more a matter of people being repulsed by those views. Us bombing terrorists hiding in Pakistan is the same as if China bombed us for giving sanctuary to a Chinese Dissident?... As much as they may love some of Paul's domestic views I think a lot of people (aside from Paulbots) have heard quite enough of that BS from him. I know I have.
I really want to dig Newt more. Especially when he's on an inspiring kick like he was the other night. Then next week he'll veer out of the lane and start chirping about "vulture capitalism" or somesuch and I start looking for a soft spot to jump off the Newt-bus.
Borepatch, that's Jaun Williams, not Juan Cole, even though all leftists sound alike.
FWIW, I agree with Paladin. When he's on his game, Newt is an inspiring speaker and leader, and would make a good president. Problem is, when he's off his game, he scares me. How could any fiscal/business conservative have launched those attacks on Romney over Bain Capital?
Thanks, Bob. Long week. :-/
The booing started as Paul started his answer not during it. It seemed a bit planned to me.
Paul is for Constitutional use of force rather than presidential declaration. That's the whole point not to be nice or to be a patsy like Obama.
Most people missed the China point entirely which showed the short attention span of Americans. What would we do if China sent a drone and dropped bombs on a Chinese terrorist living in Seattle? Or if the Chinese ran an armed sortie into Memphis to shoot someone there?
You know the answer, we would all be up in arms.
Dave
My first job other than mowing lawns was at the Stone Mountain Railroad at Stone Mountain Park, back in the mid-70's. I was 13 at the time. I rode my bike 5 miles each way ("What? Drive you to work? The hell you say!" quoth my parents.) My job? Cleanup. I emptied trash cans, I swept, I cleaned restrooms, I polished anything metal that would stand still long enough to be polished. I very occasionally got to work in the ice cream caboose. And I appreciated having that job, too! It helped me realize what I didn't want to do the rest of my life, let me tell you!
Dave, Newt makes THE distinction. If we ever shelter a Chinese "dissident" who killed thousands of Chinese, then they can be mad. Until then, Ron Paul's analogy is nonsense.
I flat out don't believe that we shelter Chinese terrorists. But if we did, and the Fed.Gov wasn't doing anything about it, I might think that it would be OK if the ChiComs whacked some bastard who killed a bunch of innocent civilians.
Maybe that's just me. I like a *lot* of what Ron has to say, and might even think seriously about backing him. There's no doubt that he'd be the most aggressive in trying to reduce the size of government.
But I don't think he'd be effective (i.e. get the job done), and I think that his policy against terrorists (including the entire government of Iran) is madness.
Post a Comment