I am not endorsing ANYONE as of yet. But I had to share these 3 revelations I had about Newt’s media savvy, Reagan’s parallels and what it will mean to a GENERAL ELECTION for any of our candidates. As I watched the videos of OWS protestors and their accomplices in the media and government – it finally dawned on me why we are so wooed by Newt. It’s not just the ability to deliver a good speech or be “deep.”
What sets Newt apart is the ability to respond QUICKLY
while pointing out the HOLES in an argument or attack.
All of us regret not having the right thing to say when we are embattled with a debating opponent. In “You’ve Got Mail,” the (adorable) Meg Ryan character has a breakthrough when she is finally able to THINK of, and DELIVER a witty and scathing comeback when in the past she normally just stood there. (How many of us have been in that position!?)
The exhilarating thing about Newt, I think, is not so much his meaningful and articulate policy responses, but is memory recall. Palin supporters may ESPECIALLY want to pay attention to an MSNBC reporter try to get Newt to agree with the propaganda that Sarah Palin’s resume isn’t strong enough to be a Presidential Candidate. Why ANY Palin supporter would still be against Newt after witnessing this is beyond me.
Gingrich didn’t give just one reason why Palin was qualified (and the reporter was an idiot), he gave SEVEN. And tied them together to bring reality the MSM was ignoring BACK to the feet of Obama.
I mentioned the issue of “recall” in my piece, GINGRICH IS THE CLOSEST WE WILL EVER GET TO PRESIDENT LIMBAUGH. In a aggressive (if not hostile) interview with the great one - Mark Levin – he was asked about his REAL stance on global warming if he thought the earth was, and was it caused by humans. Gingrich gave the correct “scientific” answer that there is no way to know but there is no data to suggest it is so definitive that any government approach should be put in place. THE HE BLEW AWAY Levin (you could hear the change in Levin’s tone) as he cited the specific scientific study of vapor and heat evaporation that are not accounted for in the climate models. I am in that business and I couldn’t have been as specific as Gingrich was. Now, I still think Gingrich should have focused on the myraid of data suggesting climate cooling or stabilization and the attempts of the ex-Romney and current Obama aide who has tried to illegally circumvent FOIA laws in coordinating with the UN’s International Panel on Climate Control – but no other candidate could come close to having THAT MUCH information at his fingertips on so many subjects.
AND THIS IS IMPORTANT not just against Obama, but in interviews he will have to give as President to either sell his programs or defend liberal attacks.
Just this week Obama gave a blatant lie that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae weren’t that bad LYING on what portion of failed loans were run by them (71% by the way). In a debate or against a reporter that THROWS out talking points (aka LIES) – too often our candidates don’t know the truth and can’t dismantle it. Not so with Newt.
We are all fantasizing about a President who can acquit himself against hateful and dishonest attacks.
Karen Tumulty (WaPo) Makes a snarky comment, “well, Speaker it seems Michele Bachmann is a moron…” – and Newt tears the whole premise apart. KEY: Not answering the question given a FALSE assumption.
Chris Wallace. Goes to the HEART of the issue – it’s a “gotcha question” not one to try and further the debate. He answers it but then challenges the Congress to NOW start repealing stuff and puts the pressure BACK on Wallace calling them “Mickey Mouse games”.
When Wallace comes back and tries to ridicule the Speaker, Gingrich doesn’t let him get away with it or just try to “make peace.” He knows he is right and says so forcefully.
So is this just the “Wit Guilt” of the GOP I talked about this week wanting to make up for the inane verbal defenses given by George W., Dan Q., and Michael Steele? I think it’s more than that. Notice that not only does Newt change the tone of the question Politico reporters are trying to bait him into, but Newt changes the ENTIRE subject to take over the debate. And he doesn’t look angry or mad or threatening in doing it.
If you sit back and remember the first three or four debates they were generally apparent anger management commercials watching Palwenty/Bachmann, Paul/Perry, Santorum/Romney, Romney/Perry, or Bachmann/Cain angrily and in apparent mortification over the other’s position or accusation. GINGRICH SINGLEHANDEDLY CHANGE THE TONE OF THE ENTIRE PRIMARY SEASON (thus far) by not only refusing to attack or take easy shots at his opponents, but in defending them EACH against charges made by each other or the media.
Isn’t this what we consider leadership? Especially when IT WORKS?
Here is the kicker. In this clip of Ronald Reagan, Brian Williams acknowledges that it was Regan’s ability to take on the media that suddenly propelled him into the the lead in New Hampshire to take on Jimmy Carter.
Haven’t we seen the same progression with Gingrich? If Barack Obama is Jimmy Carter 2.0, I don’t think it is unfair to say that Speaker Gingrich’s media savvy abilities are Ronald Reagan 2.0.
Watch the Gipper now in action. This is from the Reagan/Mondale debate. One last clip of the Gipper’s best debate comeback
I am not saying Gingrich has the conservative core of Reagan, the moral compass or even ALL of the necessary conservative policies (although Newt is undeniable part of the Reagan revolution’s success.)
But it was THIS ability that won so many of the “Reagan Democrats” and Independents and is an asset that can not be overlooked.