The Gingrich Who Stole Political Sloth
Love him or hate him, you really have to respect his intelligence as well as his flair for the dramatic. In that vein, I was particularly impressed with Newt’s latest challenge to Presidential candidates, what he calls “The Nine Nineties in Nine Pledge.” With little fanfare at the time, he extended this challenge during his February 28 discussion with Mario Cuomo at Cooper Union, on the doorstep of Manhattan’s East Village.
Cuomo and Gingrich met there, in Newt’s words, “to demonstrate that it was possible for leaders from opposing political parties to have a thoughtful and civilized conversation about the future of America.” I haven’t heard the former Governor’s take on the exchange, but Newt seems to believe it was quite successful, even a model for future dialogue and debate, hence his challenge to the candidates to take “the pledge,” which goes like this …
“If I receive my party’s nomination for President of the United States, I pledge to participate in nine, ninety-minute dialogues in the nine weeks before the general election with my opponent. In the Lincoln-Douglas style, I will agree to debate my opponent with only a time-keeper, and to insist upon no rules. I understand it will be just me and my solutions and my opponent with theirs.”
Candidate Giuliani — who ran into Newt walking in Midtown the day of the Cuomo exchange — has apparently already taken the pledge (grammatical errors notwithstanding). It will be interesting to see if others do the same.
Regardless, in a world of 5-second soundbites, I can only believe this type of effort — no matter how grueling it might be for the candidates and the viewers — is critical to restoring substance to our politics. It’s certainly not the only step, but it’s a start, and while I may disagree with him on some things, I wish Newt the absolute best on this endeavor.
5 Responses to “The Gingrich Who Stole Political Sloth”
I also hope Newt is successful in promoting these debates. This is what makes the long campaigns worth the effort for those of us trying to determine who is the most pragmatic one to lead us.
“How can you have the mess we have in New Orleans, and not have had deep investigations of the federal government, the state government, the city government, and the failure of citizenship in the Ninth Ward, where 22,000 people were so uneducated and so unprepared, they literally couldn’t get out of the way of a hurricane.”…..all 22,000 weren’t from the 9th Ward, and the hurricane didn’t directly hit N.O., infact it twas the levees that the Army Corps of Engineers guranteed to the public that failed.
Yep Newt is a heck of a guy. I would like to see debates held that use the Lincoln-Douglas format no doubt, but without Newt anywhere near them.
Pyst,
Point taken, though we seem to agree that, despite the flaws of the messenger and some of his messages, the specific message about substantive debates is a good one.
Pete, great initiative by Gingrich. Remember the YouTube I put up of Chomsky and Buckley a while ago? I imagine that the result will be something like that. That’s, quality wise, terrific.
[...] Mar 8th, 2007 by mvdg Pete Abel wrote a good article for The Moderate Voice about Newt Gingrich’s “9-90-9-plan”. In his (Gingrich) own words: “If I receive my party’s nomination for President of the United States, I pledge to participate in nine, ninety-minute dialogues in the nine weeks before the general election with my opponent. In the Lincoln-Douglas style, I will agree to debate my opponent with only a time-keeper, and to insist upon no rules. I understand it will be just me and my solutions and my opponent with theirs.” [...]