« GOP Occupied with Amending the Constitution (Guest Voice)
Extra-Marital and Harassment Allegations Did In The Cain Campaign Pure & Simple »
Gingrich and Christie: A Contrast in Republicanism
The choice in 2012 is not only the path American voters wish to choose but the path Republicans as a party wish to choose. And this choice is presented aptly by the Washington Post’s conservative blogger Jennifer Rubin who reports on the differences in the style and content of the current frontrunner for the 2012 Republican nomination former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and the widely-longed-for candidate who got away, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.
The difference, really, is between a candidate who will play to the base and try to win in a party mobilization election by throwing red meat and demonizing the opposition to get out the party vote and a candidate who would talk tough but likely expand the party’s coalition. She reports on their speeches to the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC). Key sections:
Gingrich at the RJC showed some of that lack of discipline and raging ego, and also had the misfortune to follow New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), who not only was infinitely more skilled and likable, but (I assume unintentionally) mocked some of the rhetoric that Gingrich used.
Gingrich, for example, in his over-the-top style called this election the most important since 1860. Christie at lunch had mocked the elf-importance of those who say such things. Gingrich at one point declared that he’d need not just eight years but solid majorities in the Congress. Christie had chided pols who are obsessed with the time in office rather than the progress they make on big issues. Gingrich explained how he couldn’t get anything done without big GOP majorities. Christie had spoken about how a leader can pull in Democratic support.
The speech certainly revealed Gingrich’s exaggerated regard for his own intellect, his tone deafness, his penchant for self-delusion and his serious handicap in reaching voters beyond the GOP base.
What continues to be astounding is the degree to which many current Republicans want to alienate anyone who does not totally agree with them. The term “political enemy” has been greatly expanded. And it’s also quite demonstrative that the biggest insult for a candidate, the filthiest phrase to hurl at them is that they might “go moderate” at some point. Which pretty well tells moderates where they should go: to a place with notably warm temperatures or to the Democratic Party, if they can stomach that party’s liberal wing.
At the end she writes:
Ah, but he assured the voters that he has the electability thing all taken care of. He will solve that by following the president around the country daring him to undertake Lincoln-Douglas style debates. Obama won’t be able to avoid him! Well, he either will or he will decide letting Gingrich vent his crazy ideas is jsut the thing to cinch his re-election. And is the problem with Gingrich’s electability going to be solved by this sort of desperation?
The question-and-answer period was certainly revealing. When asked about his ethics problems, Gingrich insisted it was all a Democratic scheme by Nancy Pelosi (weren’t Republicans in the majority?) and that he was exonerated on all but one charge. Yeah, that thing about lying to the ethics committee. And the $300,000 fine he received was a record. Not only does this emphasize a liability (his character), but it refutes the argument that he has learned from past errors. In fact, he’s deep in denial and once again reconstructing his past to make himself out to be the martyr.
If you compared Christie’s speech, which was a clarion call to put action above rhetoric, with Gingrich’s white-hot rhetoric and lack of workable solutions, you would conclude that Gingrich is entertaining but Christie might get elected and accomplish something. Christie isn’t running, of course. So one of Gingrich’s actual rivals will have to call out Gingrich, expose him as a charlatan and make the case that the GOP is heading for a trainwreck if Gingrich is the nominee. Is there someone able to do all that? Stay tuned.
I don’t know about the stay tuned part. I get the sinking feeling that today’s GOP is all about red meat, and getting the candidate who can say the most over the top, demonizing things. Hey, it’s kind of like conservative talk radio. (What a coincidence…)
Will Americans buy it — even if many have sadly concluded that Barack Obama may lack the vision, political courage or skills to provide what it takes to make quick and substantive economic progress?
Do you just eat red meat or do you try hard to find a balanced diet?
Stay tuned.
UPDATE: When Occupy protesters interrupted a Romney rally Christie in Des Moines last night, Christie had these remarks:
Christie told them to let it all out. Romney staffers and a West Des Moines police officer escorted the group of about a dozen out the door within a few minutes.
“Where was I before I was so New Jersily interrupted?” Christie said, to laughs from an audience of 150 to 200 at the Kum & Go headquarters on Westown Parkway.
Christie said the protesters’ “anger is rooted in the fact that they believed in this hope and change garbage that they were sold three years ago by this president. … But they’re not mature enough to know they should be angry with themselves so they’re going to be angry with me or Governor Romney or some of you.”
Romney is an ideal leader who would make the best president, Christie said. He’s not only the best qualified, but “I believe he’s the only Republican who can win.”
“If you’re looking for a candidate who agrees with you on everything, buy a mirror,” Christie said.
That last comment will run as a Quote of the Day individually here on TMV. It’s an interesting take. And instructive for people in both parties.
6 Responses to “Gingrich and Christie: A Contrast in Republicanism”
Now the Tea Party poison is seeping into the mainstream of our political life. The Republicans now have the choice of a grifter or a brokered convention which may produce something worse.
The virus of these uninformed but politically active voters is threatening not only the semblence of stability and unity of our political life, but the actual ability of any person or party to continue to act in a stable and unifying way.
This is the result of not fighting them with everything in our arsenal when these no-nothings started disrupting the political process in town hall meetings 3 years ago.
It remains to be seen whether our body politic can heal itself, and soon, or if we will go the way of other failed countries.
I’ve got a scary feeling that Newt will be our next President, along with more Republicans elected to Congress. The only positive outcome for me, would be a reversal of social liberal interventions. The rest is a horror story.
War with Iran is now inevitable, possibly Pakistan too. Sparing with China over the Spratley’s and Sudan could also appear. Death will rule for sure. Gingrich, by all appearances, may become America’s first Adolf Hitler. Our old will be left to die and our children left uneducated, save for the rich. All welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, Family poverty considerations will be dumped upon the Religious community. Child labor laws will disappear and Unions destroyed. Small business will be absorbed by mega corporations. Military service may even become compulsory. Our unemployed bused to labor camps for room and board. Illegal aliens, shot.
It is a brave new world.
That editorial cartoon is PRICELESS. Thanks Joe.
“What continues to be astounding is the degree to which many current Republicans want to alienate anyone who does not totally agree with them. The term “political enemy” has been greatly expanded.”
There is so much truth to this comment from above article and is 50% of the problems we have today. But I find it very interesting that we do not see the same comment made about Obama and his alienation of those that do not buy into his agenda. He is the other 50% of the problem we have today. Blaming millionaires and billionaires, dividing the country, but doing nothing to promote the prosecution of Wall Street big wigs that promoted fraud, knowingly signed false certification statements about their business and gave millions to the party and candidates. Why the double standard?
Real leadership does not need a political majority nor does it promote class warfare. As stated “Christie had spoken about how a leader can pull in Democratic support.” Change one word in this quote for either party from “Democratic” to “bipartisan” and we could make real progress on our problems.
Obama could not pull in bipartisan support. That was not his ‘fault’; it was because no matter what he was willing to put on the table, the Reps would not allow anything. If the Dems had put only their own plans through many of the bills passed would be very, very different.
1) The stimulus would have had much more stimulus and probably few tax cuts.
2) The health care bill would have a public option (possibly a mandatory one)
3) The Bush tax cuts for the very wealthy would not have been extended
4) Gitmo would be closed
Don’t try to tell me about the Democrats who voted against the above. They did it because the Reps would not allow the things in the first place. The Dems who followed their colleagues across the aisle were only trying to pander to the right-wing talk radio blatherers. In the end, most of them found that it did no good as they were ousted in the next election anyways.
I am not suggesting that Obama will be an effective president (if the GOP has anything to do with it, he won’t). I am also not suggesting the Christie would be a bad one (from his above statements, he might make a good president at this time–assuming that the Democrats wouldn’t use the axiom of ‘payback is a bitch’). I am only pointing out that Obama actually alienated some of his own base to try to reach out to Reps and they dragged him through industrial slime and threw him to the wolves.
[...] Gingrich and Christie: A Contrast in Republicanism (themoderatevoice.com) [...]