Thursday, May 19, 2011

Just What We Don't Need: Another Unacceptable Candidate

Rich Lowry:
Newt Gingrich hadn't been in the Republican presidential race a week before embroiling himself in his first damaging, inadvertent controversy.

On Meet the Press, the former House speaker excoriated the Medicare provisions of the Paul Ryan budget as "radical" and "right-wing social engineering." As a presidential hopeful who will have to appeal to elderly and near-elderly voters, Gingrich's hesitation about the Ryan plan is understandable and shared by other potential GOP candidates. Only Gingrich, though, felt compelled to take a rhetorical flamethrower to the document endorsed by almost every House Republican.

That's Newt being Newt. When he went to Iowa and predictably plugged ethanol subsidies, he inveighed against "folks in big cities" who "decide what should happen to people in rural America." Every candidate in Iowa endorses ethanol. Only Gingrich makes it a grand sociological clash between different regions of the country.

He can't help himself. Gingrich prefers extravagant lambasting when a mere distancing would do, and the over-arching theoretical construct to a mundane pander. He is drawn irresistibly to operatic overstatement - sometimes brilliant, always interesting, and occasionally downright absurd.

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. is reputed to have said FDR had a first-class temperament but a second-class intellect. Gingrich flips the Holmes formulation around: He has a first-class intellect but his temperament belongs in steerage.
I don't support candidates for the Republican nomination running against their own party. For me, the question is whether Gingrich falls in to the Sarah Palin category: if nominated, I may not vote.

(via reader Doug J.)


suek said...

I understand your pessimism, but half a loaf is better than none. How about a Perry/Cain ticket? I like what I hear about Cain, but although I don't want a lawyer-politician, I do think some political experience is desirable.

Assuming the "natural born" issue doesn't derail Obama from running, I think I'd vote for Ronald McDonald rather than not vote if the the result meant O for another 4 years.

Carl said...

I'm supporting Mitch Daniels right now, but think re-election is more probable--and even McDonalds is under pressure to dump Ronald. Another four years may result.

OBloodyHell said...

>> Another four years may result.

Only because of idiotic notions like this:

>> whether Gingrich falls in to the Sarah Palin category: if nominated, I may not vote.

Geez, gimme a freaking BREAK already!!!

It would be hard to find a vaguely serious GOP candidate who would not be a VAST improvement over The Big 0.

If NOTHING else because a somewhat divisive Executive/Legislative individual would be a substantial improvement over the abortion of a government that put out Obamacare.

Further -- AND FAR MORE CRITICALLY, The Big 0's opportunity to shift the SCotUS has been close to ZERO.

Another 4 years, and that will almost certainly NOT be the case.

Get f***ing REAL.


OBloodyHell said...

Let me put it another way:

You may not want to vote FOR a candidate, but you can almost ALWAYS tell who you should be voting AGAINST.