E. J. Dionne sent me a note this morning (yep, I’m name-dropping; I value his friendship) in which he shared a link to his post-SC column, which you can read here. I was particularly struck by this passage:
Then came the rebuke to CNN’s John King, who asked about the claim from Gingrich’s second wife that her former husband had requested an “open marriage.” By exploding at King and the contemporary journalism, Gingrich turned a dangerous allegation into a rallying point. Past sexual conduct mattered far less to conservatives than a chance to admonish the supposedly liberal media. Gingrich won evangelicals by 2-1, suggesting, perhaps, a rather elastic definition of “family values” — or a touching faith in Gingrich’s repentance.
E.J. was very generous to admit even the possibility that the evangelicals’ choice reflected their simple belief that Newt is repentant.
I saw how the forgiven man behaved when reminded of his sin. And if there is anything we all know about Newt Gingrich, it is that he does not walk, talk or comport himself like a penitent. Sure, he’s new to being Catholic, but he forcefully projects the image of a man who is “hardly sorry” rather than “heartily.”
And that is what seems to appeal to his supporters. That he’s not sorry. For anything. That rather than donning sackcloth and ashes, he stands up, throws out his chest and demands that those people out there, those elites, and those worthless shufflers who want to live off his tax money, be sorry instead.
And the crowd roars, more like 1st century pagans in the Colosseum than like Christians.
No, I’m in no position to judge. I am certainly not Newt’s confessor, and I have no idea what’s in his heart. Nor do I know what’s in those hearts in the crowd. But I know how he chooses to act outwardly. And I know how the crowd reacts — outwardly.
And that’s probably all I can know. So I share it.
Basically, I think the evangelicals who voted for him didn’t have their evangelical hats on at the moment. People are complex, and have layers. And just because an individual answers to one sort of identification doesn’t mean he is expressing that in everything he does.
So E.J. made me think today. And he made me nod in the paragraph before that one:
There was also the matter of race. Gingrich is no racist, but neither is he naive about the meaning of words. When Fox News’ Juan Williams, an African-American journalist, directly challenged Gingrich about the racial overtones of Gingrich’s staple reference to Obama as “the food-stamp president,” the former House speaker verbally pummeled him, to raucous cheers. As if to remind everyone of the power of coded language, a supporter later praised Gingrich for putting Williams “in his place.”
Yep, that’s what was happening.
Related Posts
“People are complex, and have layers. And just because an individual answers to one sort of identification doesn’t mean he is expressing that in everything he does.” -Brad
That was the best line in your post. The best question would be why on earth CNN chose to lead off the debate with that question? We know Newt is an adulterer. We will never know, however, how things ended and why with his wife (pick a number). The real point is, it shouldn’t matter. Or be given weight by anyone one way or the other – this kind of personal pain often translates into far too much ax-grinding.
Now the part where Newt was having a six-year affair while he was attacking Clinton for the President’s stupid daliances; that is something that should be much harder for people to give Newt a pass on.
Hear, hear. Viewing the spectacle of “religious” folk embracing someone like Gingrich, this protestant historian is reminded of nothing so much as the importance of the confidence man in American literature, be he Melville’s or Meredith Willson’s. Like Professor Harold Hill, Gingrich talks the talk rather than walks the walk–but that doesn’t really matter, given that his congregation often does the same thing; the confidence man is a fraud, but in a sense so are we. But in any case, for the religious right morality is less to be lived by than to be used as a bludgeon. Evangelicals are, if anything, poorer at actually living “family values” than non-evangelicals–but perhaps by that very token they’re much more demanding of people who aren’t like them. For Gingrich, personal responsibility is something to be preached, not to be lived–and that’s actually attractive to a certain kind of voter.
Leading off the debate with that question was idiotic. Personally, I wouldn’t have asked the question at all, much less led off with it.
And Newt’s response to the question was appalling. It doesn’t matter that the question shouldn’t have been asked.
People need to separate such things. Liberal Democrats like to excuse Clinton for lying under oath, on the grounds that he should not have been questioned at all, that there shouldn’t even have been an investigation going on.
Doesn’t matter. He lied under oath, and then vehemently lied to the American people for months after it came to light. He deserved to be impeached.
Ditto with this. If Newt had said, I don’t think that question is relevant to this discussion, so no, I won’t address it, it would have been fine. But instead, he chose to go on the attack, and played to the crowd. That was what was unacceptable.
Politicians ALWAYS play to the crowd.
When Newt said “No” and paused for a long moment, I almost thought he was just going to leave it there. I think he still would have won had he done so. Now, there’s all this noise about the media. Typical deflection stuff…
Mark, when he said “No,” and paused, and I thought he was going to stop there, he had me. Then he went on…
It is my hope that the country is going to have the opportunity to really consider it’s ideals and goals through this election cycle. Brad sees nothing but the certainty of polarization and more strife. I’m not so sure; things might actually find a way to synchronize (I want to avoid the word “moderate”) in a way that will serve the whole country.
Aren’t these the people of the same persuasion as those who booed the golden rule?
Clinton was impeached. The jury passed down its verdict. You might not like it, or agree with it, but the issues had their day in court.
“Basically, I think the evangelicals who voted for him didn’t have their evangelical hats on at the moment.” -Brad
It wasn’t just voters you call ‘evangelicals’. Many were soured Democrats.
Allowing for the 3% SC population increase since the 2008 GOP Primary, one might have expected 12,000 more voters in 2012 (ignoring the gloomy rainfall). In fact, the latest vote exceeded the population increase by a whopping 162,000 (at a minimum) who faced the gloom.
Apparently, you underestimate the rage and resentment of even the many Democrats and independents who have tired of the tawdry DNC tactics to which voters have become accustomed.
DNC strategists no doubt plan a last-minute (indefensible) bimbo eruptions to have Gingrich defeated By Obama in an October surprise have been lined up. The lawyer hypocrites hope. “One-way” appeals to conservative morality by Democrat libertines is losing its sure-fire effectiveness. Thank you both, Newt and Nikki!
So, the Newtron Bomb is dropped on the GOP South Carolina primary.
In a state where “character matters”, South Carolina picked a person who lies and cheats.
Newt is ethically and morally challenged with his GOPAC in the House and having mistresses on the side. Once his current wife gets a serious disease like cancer or MS, he is eager to trade his wife in for a newer model.
South Carolina chose to pick a person with the morals of John Edwards, Bill Clinton, and Mark Sanford.
However, there is one shining light to yesterday’s result.
It was a resounding defeat for SC Governot Nikki Haley who hitched onto his coattails for a VP slot or cabinet appointment.
The sad news is that we have to suffer with Governot Nikki Haley fore a few more thousand days.
Newt did feed red meat to the crowd. Was it overboard? Yes. But, the question should be asked, was his response necessary? Maybe. The host should have never asked the question, no doubt about it. If Newt had left his answer at just “no”, most likely, the host wouldn’t have let it go and insisted on Newt answering it.
His response may give future hosts a pause before asking such questions. It’s not as if his past hasn’t been in the news 24/7, it has. There will be future debates and his response may give hosts and questioners pause to reconsider some questions that maybe should not be asked.
“Evangelicals are, if anything, poorer at actually living “family values” than non-evangelicals-…” David Carlton
Mr. Carlton, you claim to be a protestant historian. Now, could you please provide the research or empirical evidence to back it up or is this just your opinion?
That’s right; he was impeached. And as I said, he deserved to be…
“And if there is anything we all know about Newt Gingrich, it is that he does not walk, talk or comport himself like a penitent.”
This sounds like you are referring to Newt’s political sins (divisive politics, ethics violations, etc.) as opposed to Newt’s personal sins of adultery/lapse of values. If not, then what about Newt’s composure or mannerisms suggests that he does or doesn’t act like someone that is repentent for having cheated on wives in the past? If Newt’s mannerisms was that of a shirt-chaser in the present, then this would make sense.
His response may give future hosts a pause before asking such questions.
-Bart
A presidential candidates character, ethics and morality are definetely fair game for questions at debates. Hopefully questioners won’t be deterred by the bullying tactics by the ever-more disgusting likes of Newt Gingrich. If anything the press has gone far too easy on him. Who’s ever heard of his (false) rumor spreading of a congressional collegue that he was gay? Do we really have an answer to his renumeration by Freddie Mac? Why is he allowed to claim (falsely) that Ronald Reagan inherited a 10.8% unemployment rate? Why does he get a pass on his many, many flip-flops while Mitt Romney is crucified for his? Why is he given a pass on his role in shutting the government down in 1995? And most importantly why are people so willing to forgive his serial adultery by accepting his nonsensical proclaimation that he has asked for God’s forgiveness. Please, gag me with a spoon.
Newt Gingrich has an incredible amount of baggage to such an extent that he’s completely unfit for the presidency. The media and his opponents need to bring that out and the public needs to quit blaming the “liberal media” for Newt’s behavior.
Over the years, I’ve come to believe that character is far more important than particulars of what candidates say they would do in office.
I look for a depth of understanding of the job and the issues the candidate would have to deal with, a track record that indicates the person will deal well with the challenges he will face, and character — is this a person I trust?
All of those relate to the fact that no candidate can fully anticipate what he will face in office. For this reason, I’m uninterested in campaign promises — would just as soon not hear any. Because campaign promises bind a candidate to courses of action that may be — probably will be, since promises tend to be more about what the electorate wants to hear than about what would be wise — unwise under the circumstances the winner of the election will likely face.
Show me a person who has demonstrated the ability to make good decisions in the past, and that is likely a person who will make good decisions in the future.
(This is one reason why Doug and I disagree so much about term limits and the value of experience. If someone has not demonstrated ability in elective office in the past, he or she is a wild card. I just don’t have enough information about that person, whatever his or her good qualities. That doesn’t mean you don’t go with a newcomer sometime; but it raises the bar for anyone who hasn’t shown you anything in the past.)
In order of importance:
1. Issues. If a candidate is wrong on the issues nothing else matters. Certainly no one is right on all the issues but there comes a point when enough wrong issues becomes a clear deal breaker. That is why I cannot consider Rick Santorum even though he seems ethically like a pretty good guy.
2. Physical and mental fitness. Given the serial stupidity of George W. Bush this is pretty important. I’d be highly uneasy about a really old president like Ron Paul. John McCain likewise had an age issue. Fitness is very important during times of extreme stress.
3. Personal character. This is a tough one to judge, but at some point personal character is a deal breaker. John Edwards and Newt Gingrich both had crossed that thresshold. Bill Clinton and Mark Sanford had not. (Sanford is unacceptable for many other reasons besides his moral character).
Bud,
Just from the looks of it, I would say Ron Paul is in better physical shape/physically younger than Newt. I think Newt’s doughy face and big gut indicate some health issues. Reagan was a younger, healthier 69 than Gingrich at 67.
“Gag me with a spoon”…..bud
Well, if you insist.
First of all bud, where was any mention of “excusing” Newt for his past behavior? If anything, Newt would be my last choice on anything and I have made it abundantly clear.
My comment was directed at the inane and stupid “celebrity type” questions these moderators seem to enjoy asking. If the general public was not already aware of the appearance of his 2nd wife on network television and her story BEFORE the debate, they must be living in isolation on a remote island.
As for all of the other tidbits you dragged out – old news – and they have been relentlessly covered by the press. You really do have selective memory, don’t you? If anyone who posts on or reads this blog, reads a newspaper, listens to a media outlet of almost any type, goes to other blogs, or is over the age of 5 and is not aware of Newt’s past deeds, they probably have their heads buried you know where.
Is character important? Yes, it is. Should EVERY candidate, Republican or DEMOCRAT be asked questions on character? Yes.
In order of importance:
1. Issues. If a candidate is wrong on the issues nothing else matters. Certainly no one is right on all the issues but there comes a point when enough wrong issues becomes a clear deal breaker. That is why I cannot consider Rick Santorum even though he seems ethically like a pretty good guy.
2. Physical and mental fitness. Given the serial stupidity of George W. Bush this is pretty important. I’d be highly uneasy about a really old president like Ron Paul. John McCain likewise had an age issue. Fitness is very important during times of extreme stress.
3. Personal character. This is a tough one to judge, but at some point personal character is a deal breaker. John Edwards and Newt Gingrich both had crossed that thresshold. Bill Clinton and Mark Sanford had not. (Sanford is unacceptable for many other reasons besides his moral character)…….bud
Considering all of your comments made to date about Republicans, why did you even bother placing 2 and 3 on your list, “In Order of Importance”? As far as you are concerned, Republicans are WRONG on EVERY issue – period. You have so stated on so many occasions, listing them would probably fill up several pages on Bradwarthen.com.
However, your last issue in “Order of Importance” is your own response to your tirade/rant. You claim that Bill Clinton’s, and of all people, Mark Sanford’s character issues had not crossed a threshold. Now, from the minute it was discovered that Mark Sanford was not hiking the Appalachian Trail but was engaged in other activities on a private boat off the Argentine coast with his “soul mate”, his “character” was attacked with an unrelenting honey badger obsession by Brad and you.
Clinton was a serial adulterer and it is on the record. He lied in a court of law. He lied to the public until there was no longer any way to deny his numerous affairs. Sanford lied to his staff and the citizens of South Carolina but never in a court of law, not that it matters, but a lie is still a lie, no matter where you are or what the forum is used when you tell it. Or, is lying a less serious character flaw than adultery or any of the other deadly sins of the flesh?
Now you have the temerity to excuse Clinton and Sanford by merely stating that they did not cross your “unacceptable character threshold”? Or was Sanford tossed in for balance to justify excusing Clinton for his misdeeds?
“I look for a depth of understanding of the job and the issues the candidate would have to deal with, a track record that indicates the person will deal well with the challenges he will face, and character — is this a person I trust?”….Brad
I will address this with two questions to you Brad.
After your interview with Obama, were you convinced of his experience, capability, and ability to handle the job if elected and why?
Did you have a depth of understanding about Barack Obama and the issues he would be faced with and were you satisfied he would be able to handle them with his track record as an Illinois state senator and then the U.S. Senator from Illinois for a little over 3 years before his announcing his candidacy for the presidency?
I am not questioning his character because there wasn’t enough information available from his past to be able to form an accurate or reliable “character” assessment.
What you just did was point to my greatest source of uneasiness with regard to Obama. On the other scores — particularly understanding, and ability to articulate it — he did well. I was acutely aware that Hillary Clinton had more experience. But on the other considerations, he came across as better.
That said, I’ve been impressed at the degree of leadership ability he HAS demonstrated.
Back when I was reading up on the process that led to the mission to get bin Laden, I was struck by how, at critical times in the process, Obama took it on himself to make very risky calls about how to go forward — and they were the right calls.
And I was thinking at the time, “Here’s this guy who’s never been an executive over ANYTHING, and he’s in a room full of four-stars and civilians with comparable leadership experience — people who’ve had to demonstrate leadership skills every day for 30 years under the most demanding conditions — and he’s able to decide which of them to listen to and which to reject, and he makes a call like this, on something this high-stakes? Where did the ability to do that COME FROM?”
The guy mystifies me. I don’t know where that poise comes from.
And remember, between Obama and McCain, I went with McCain. And experience was a bit part of it.
because government isn’t a business and it isn’t the military.
I suspect President Obama has amazing social skills, having been successful despite being the outsider in so many milieus. For example, my husband, whose parents are New England Brahmins, but no longer wealthy, felt out of place at Harvard–so you can only imagine what a mixed-race, from wherever kind of guy like POTUS felt, yet he thrived.
Bart, would you vote for Gingrich over Obama? Obama even has the experience now, something he lacked 4 years ago. Plus his character is spot-on. The worst the GOP spin machinge could come up with 4 years ago was the rantings of his pastor. (Unless you count his lying about his Kenyan birth place) He’s smart and physically fit so nothing to exclude him there. That leaves the issues. Personally I find many of decisions flawed. Too bad he’s not more liberal.
One of the great values of experience is that it tells you why you DON’T want somebody.
Lincoln was a 1 term congressman. Interestingly, he rose roughly the same time as the Know-Nothings, that latter-day Tea Party.
Yep. And if I’d been considering whether to endorese Lincoln, I’d have been impressed by his deep understanding of issues, and his character — to the extent that I saw enough of him to get a read on that.
I have to kind of come down somewhere between Bart and Bud on that famous first Newt question. There are a million questions worth challenging Gingrich on, a million reasons a Gingrich Presidency is unthinkable, but his marital history ranks about 999,999th to me on that list. There are many positions by these candidates left unchallenged at the debates, so leading with such a question seems frivolous in the extreme to me and, even worse, allows Gingrich to play the aggrieved victim. (Of course, Gingrich and the press have a totally symbiotic relationship, but that’s another matter).
@Bart, I understand that questioning Obama’s experience prior to 2008 was a legitimate concern. But I can’t agree that “there wasn’t enough information available from his past to be able to form an accurate or reliable “character” assessment.” The guy’s life was pored over pretty thoroughly, and he wasn’t 25 years old, he had a track record of showing strong character that still, to me, is his greatest strength. And Brad, as for that poise, I think the lion’s (lioness’) share of credit has to go to that remarkable mom of his.
@ bud–you left out that he’s a Muslim. 😉
He’s a pragmatist, which gives us liberals the best possible outcome. A Jimmy Carter liberal might be purer, but far less effective.
@Phillip– you are not trumpeting “family values”– not to say you don’t actually practice them.
It’s the hypocrisy that people for whom personal virtue is so important (when it’s Bill Clinton) have no problem with a serial adulterer who dumped not one, but two sick wives….doesn’t seem very Christian to me….President Obama is clean as whistle (or they would surely have found out by now), yet they think he’s Satan incarnate.
“This is one reason why Doug and I disagree so much about term limits and the value of experience. If someone has not demonstrated ability in elective office in the past, he or she is a wild card. I just don’t have enough information about that person, whatever his or her good qualities. That doesn’t mean you don’t go with a newcomer sometime; but it raises the bar for anyone who hasn’t shown you anything in the past.)”
Here’s where the disconnect occurs – you value experience of politicians who apparently can’t get anything done that you want them to do. In SC, that experience has given us the government you want to completely overhaul. So, if they are so good at what they do, what in the world would make then change what they have done to create the system?
It’s like saying you value the experience of a driver because he’s lived through so many accidents. Maybe he’s really experienced at doing the wrong thing.
And you’d really have to convince me that requiring a limit of 12 years for any politician would harm the country. If they haven’t figured it out after a couple years, what else is there to learn? And if they are really good, they take a one term break and get elected again. Might be MORE useful for insulated politicians to get out in the real world for a few years.
@ Phillip
I will agree that his life was pored over pretty thoroughly but to “pore” over his life and not to thoroughly investigate it are not the same thing. I think maybe you meant investigate thoroughly. To pore over is to read or study attentively. Yes, he was studied and read about but investigated? No.
No one investigated his years at Columbia and his association with socialists. No, I do not intend to become engaged in an argument that not result in either of us changing our mind or opinion.
Suffice to say, I did read his books, listened to several of his speeches, listened to his pastor, Reverend Wright, read some writings of his mentor in Hawaii, and several other articles, pro and con, before I reached my own conclusion that Obama was never vetted in the same manner as a GWB was.
@ bud – I haven’t decided who I will vote for. It may be Obama, it may be Romney, or it may be Gingrich. I find Gingrich an odious piece of work but after my experiences with politicians from both sides of the aisle, Gingrich doesn’t emit a stronger offensive odor than any of the others do.
And, gasp, the sun may not come up tomorrow, it may stay where it is and keep us in the dark forever. The reason? I happen to agree with bud wholeheartedly that we do need to have a paper trail when we cast our vote. After reading the potential for manipulating electronic voting machines, not Diebold but the ones used in SC and most other states, a paper trail should become an absolute.