By now it is abundantly clear that Newt Gingrich is the best debater among the Republican presidential candidates. Some of Newt’s critics will grudgingly acquiesce to this fact, but still brush the legitimacy of the Gingrich candidacy aside. However, Newt’s magnificent debating skills, his unmatched knowledge of American and political history, his tremendous command of the issues and his eloquent oratory skills should not be taken lightly.
The highest hurdle any Republican candidate faces in a campaign is messaging. It is very difficult to articulate why conservative values and policies are superior to liberal ones. Liberals get to self-righteously tell the electorate all the things he or she will give them, if elected. Liberals, for better or worse (worse), are known as those who care about the poor, the needy and the environment. As Obama recently noted, “Then you’ve got their plan [the Republicans], which is, let’s have dirtier air, dirtier water, less people with health insurance. So far at least, I feel better about my plan.” Remember Howard Dean on Meet the Press a few years ago: “Our moral values, in contradiction to the Republicans’, is we don’t think kids ought to go to bed hungry at night.” Conservatives are consistently stereotyped as mean, greedy, racist, xenophobic, homophobic; the list goes on and on. This is what conservatives face in every election.
In such circumstances, it is essential for the Republicans to nominate someone who can effectively communicate why conservative values are better than liberal ones–not just economically, although, of course they are, but morally, as well. Newt Gingrich does this spectacularly, and with historical examples to support his claims. Can you imagine Obama versus Newt in a debate?
That great intellect and debating skills are essential for the next Republican nominee immediately renders Rick Perry and Herman Cain unelectable (of course, I would vote for both of them over Obama in a heartbeat).
I’m sorry, but I’ve never been a big fan of Herman Cain. Yes, he’s refreshing and bold, and has a great energy about him. But, I agree with Tucker Carlson, who recently said that Herman Cain is “not qualified” to be President. And this has nothing to do with the recent sexual assault allegations against him.
Herman Cain has made mistakes that, if a Democrat had made in similar circumstances, would have been greeted with a unanimous uproar from the right, mocking the candidate as a joke. I’ll give a few examples: Cain’s not knowing what the Palestinian “right of return” was on Fox News Sunday was unacceptable. On Meet the Press, he admitted he was not familiar with the Neo-conservative movement. And did any of you catch the Gingrich/Cain debate a few nights ago on CSPAN? Cain was asked about “defined benefit plans” with regards to Medicare, and passed the question to Newt, as he clearly had no idea what the moderator was asking. Everyone laughed it off, but really? This is who conservatives want to be represented by in a presidential election against Obama? Someone who makes Obama look like Henry Kissinger with regards to knowledge about international affairs?
The left constantly demeans the right as stupid, shallow, and unintelligent, not being able to grasp the nuance of certain complex issues. Herman Cain feeds right into this stereotype. Obama would destroy Herman Cain in a debate, no question.
Unfortunately, I feel like many on the right who zealously support Herman Cain for president, are doing what we always accuse the left of; that is, engaging in soft racism. The left routinely does not hold blacks up to the same standards as whites, as is apparent through affirmative action, and plenty of other examples. Are some on the right doing the same with Herman Cain? Are we not holding him up to the same standards we would a white candidate because he is black? This is the soft bigotry of low expectations.
As far as Rick Perry is concerned, well, after the last debate I don’t think I need to say anything to convince you that he is not the man for the job.
Yes, I know Newt has a less than stellar record in his personal life, but he has admitted to his mistakes and has asked for forgiveness. I think in this election, more than ever, people are going to be most concerned with who has the ability to fix America’s very serious problems, not either of the candidate’s personal lives. That leaves us with Romney versus Newt. Your call.
Gingrich lost me when he said that we should surrender to the climatati. He has no spine. He’s done.
It seems odd to me that anyone should care about a candidates’ baggage, when Mr. Obama is single-handedly trying to destroy the country.
Since the author has said exactly what I have been saying for about a month, I can assure him that he is going to be attacked vigorously by the Cain Groupies and the Gingrich haters.
It boils down to communication skills. They are required to win. Newt has them.
If there was an infinite field to choose from, there might be a better choice. But we are down to seven, and Newt is certainly at least worth strong consideration.
Republicans are their own worst enemies in national elections. This article is an example.
You buy into the notion that there is some narrow notion of “qualification” for the US presidency beyond the Constitutional requirements. Presumably this has something to do with foreign policy and familiarity with your personal favorite issues. That is a false argument that plays into the Democrats’ hands, and gives you an excuse to write silly insults about a very accomplished man, moreover, a man who has skills and experience relevant to the greatest problems we face at the moment.
No one human being has all the knowledge needed to make presidential decisions on his own. That is why our presidents have a staff. Ignorance on a given subject can be cured, provided the individual has enough executive ability to recognize the need to consult. Mr. Cain does have a stellar history of executive skill and success within our free enterprise system, from the user’s point of view. This is a skill and experience set we do need right now.
I whole-heartedly agree, Valerie.
I don’t need another unprincipled career politician like Newt, who is crafty enough to say what he wants you to hear. He is as synthetic as Romney.
Right.
That’s why he hired–and refuses to fire–a spokesmouth who falsely accuses innocent reporters.
The hiring could be forgiven, but the refusal to fire after such an egregious error is itself an egregious error on Cain’s part.
Ya…that’s why Obama has been learning on the job for 3 years now…liberals really don’t care about experience..just emotions.
In a Perfect World ANY Natural Born American Citizen could be President (with a few small caveats).
But the truth of the Matter is that the US of today is so far different from the US of say 1780 as to be totally unrecognisable.
We have a Byzantine Labyrinth of a bureaucratic maze for Government. The Elected Officials only have very limited input into how our country is run.
We Honestly don’t have the Time or the Money to train ANOTHER person on the job, to be President.
Just curious…did you ever point out, either to your friends or in a post on PJMedia, that Obama was unqualified to be President based on his lack of experience?
If so, what makes Herman Cain any different?
In a campaign vs. Obama, a few well-worn cliches and incessant 999 references aren’t going to cut it. And I like my presidential candidates to know more about the issues than I do…and Herman Cain knows less.
Oh, Sammy is all atwitter for Newt.
Newt has been practicing to be a presidential candidate since 1999, when he was eased out of Congress. He is just a tad better than Romney who also fashions himself a superior debater. But don’t we have a supposed superior orator in the White House right now?
Newt has also perfected the fine art of double-speak, being on both sides of contentious issues. For example, during his Center Seat performance on Fox News Special Report he lamented his “dumb” couch appearance with Nancy Pelosi only to take every conceivable side of the underlying matter of man-caused global warming. I find it interesting that his American Solutions went bankrupt right around the time he decided to make his run for the nomination. There are a number of questionable stances he took there of which there now is no records.
Gingrich is a big idea, big government career politician who, like Romney, will take every side of an issue in order to win your applause while being able to say he said something different when challenged. As for man-caused global warming, he at once says he thinks conservatives should be in the discussion, wants to be the leader in innovative alternative energy (see Solyndra), while professing it shouldn’t be a big government effort. That’s 360 degree coverage if not hypocritical.
As for Gingrich’s role as a “consultant” for Freddie Mac, dismissively saying Freddie Mac failed to take his advise, while pocketing $300,000. Another too smart by half comment. You don’t get on Freddie Mac’s payroll and lend your name to the embattled money drain GSE without providing a tactic endorsement.
Newt will now get the scrutiny that Perry, Bachmann, and Herman have had. We will see how he fares under the scrutiny. His attitude towards debates may well find him coming off as condescending. You can only play the role he has chosen for so long.
I’m fine with Herman Cain. My preference is not to have a career politician like Newt be the nominee. Herman has made some mistakes that he has since corrected. I understand and appreciate his appeal, as does, it seems, a solid cadre of his supporters.
there are qualifications to be president. knowing what the right of return is is one of them. the article is cautioning us not to adopt left-wing standards, i.e., low standards. did you think obama was qualified to be president. if yes, you’re crazy; if no, you just contradicted yourself and admit you do believe in qualifications. what “silly insults” did the writer indulge?
I am not holding a low standard for Cain. I just have different standards.
If I want someone who understands all the political issues of the day inside and out, then I will choose a professional politician like Newt. I just won’t expect a different result.
Cain has an excellent track record for executive performance. He is not knowledgeable about political things. I do not expect him to be. his expertise is in another area, an area that is critically lacking in the current administration, and which Gingrich also lacks.
Cain does not stack up well against a politician in his arena. However, let’s see Gingrich debate him on business, money, and executive workings. Folks are comparing Cain’s weaknesses to others’ strengths. They are not comparing others’ weaknesses to his strengths.
What’s most important to you? Do you prefer expertise in the same-old same-old? Then Newt’s your guy.
Nothing changes, if nothing changes.
i was addressing the previous commenter’s post. she seemed to doubt the existence of anything called “qualifications.” you seem to at least have standards beyond someone’s being conservative. as for cain, you don’t have to be a politician to be knowledgeable about politics and foreign policy. it isn’t too much to ask that someone know what a neoconservative is. it takes reading maybe one history book. same thing with right of return. his advisors better start, well, advising him on this.
If Newt rises to first place, let’s see if the Democrats leave him be or attack him as they did Cain.
I bet they attack him because they want Romney vs. Obama.
This article is nonsense. Newt is nothing but another RINO. Endorsing the wacky Dede Scozzafava, schmoozing with Pelosi, endorsing the religion of global warming – none of these is even close to conservative. He is brilliant, and has an amazing grasp of history, but when it counts, he repeatedly makes the wrong choices. I respect Newt, but he is too easily swayed by leftist pap and propaganda. Cain is genuine and has real experience handling large organizations, delegating responsibility and getting the information he needs from the right people in order to make the right decisions. Cain is infinitely more qualified than Obama. And what a delicious choice it would be for all those screaming racism at every disagreement with Obama’s moronic philosophy. I will throw in with the true conservative every time, despite any perceived misgivings. Cain, like Obama, can learn on the job, and unlike Obama, he has some background upon which to draw, and a philosophy grounded in experience and reality in making decisions and getting things done.
“It is very difficult to articulate why conservative values and policies are superior to liberal ones.”
Huh? Big government dependency, increasing taxation and regulation, discourages private sector job creation, the engine of a healthy economy. Government is 1. necessary, 2. inherently dependent on private sector capital, and 3. a monopoly with no Gov. B or C competitors; thus with no incentives to operate cost effectively or efficiently, the latter two traits being solid reasons to keep it small.
A president is the chief foreign policy architect for a nation; candidates need to do their homework, before the cameras and mics are on them. Outside his area of business knowledge, Herman Cain, an impressive American success story and likeable personality, strikes this voter as being over his head.
What makes Tucker Carlson qualified to say who is or isn’t qualified to be president?
What gives you the impression that Tucker Carlson knows anything about being president? Has he ever run for office? Has he ever held an elected office? Has he ever ran a presidential candidate’s campaign?
You are entitled to your opinion but it is wholly myopic. You’re suggesting that Mr. 57 States would defeat Cain in a debate? You don’t know. Obama could well defeat Gingrich or Romney in a debate too.
Gingrich has been in training for a presidential run since 19999, when he left as a polarizing Speaker to both the Republicans and Democrats. He is a career politician whose only attribute is his ability to pitch his own brain storms, with questionable outcomes.
I think Herman is handling the primary process just fine. Any doubters, has anyone thought to check and see if Chicago thuggery had an input on the Cain scandal of the past 2 weeks?! That crap has Axelrod written ALL OVER IT!
There is more to the Cain story than the media is willing to clarify!
Newt? Don’t all of us battle daily with people that have an abundance of “book sense” and absolutely ZERO “common sense”?!
For the most part I agree with the article, Newt would be our most formidable candidate, would make Obama look like the dazed empty suit that he is and would most likely be a very effective president, especially if we can get close to 60 senators.
However, some of the cricism of Cain and Perry was gratuitous. Who can define neo-conservatism? That’s about like asking Palin to define the Bush Doctrine. The definitions are in the eye of the beholder. I’ll concede that Cain is not all that sharp on the issues and that yes, in some ways, he is our pet. Cain is not uninteligent, in fact the opposite, he simply hasn’t studied and studied and studied the issues.
I know that’s terribly unfair, but if Cain was white he would be tied with Bachmann, notches above Huntsman and Santorum simply because he’s imminently likeable.
Perry can’t think and speak quickly on his feet, that’s painfully obvious, but he would make an excellent president, but I fear his time and chance has passed him by.
Newt’s the man, Obama himself makes Newt’s past off limits. Newt unlike any other would be more than happy to bring up all of Obama’s past that the MSM refuses to disclose. If Newt’s past is attacked, they would have no choice but to at least define Obama’s past as the sordid details are brought out by Newt so that their readers, watchers or listeners would understand what he is talking about.
How does that only leave us with Newt and Romney. What about Ron Paul!?!?!
“Someone who makes Obama look like Henry Kissinger with regards to knowledge about international affairs”
That would make Cain a superman. Fortunately, the statement is unsupported, and probably insupportable.
But seriously, what are the qualifications for a successful President? We really don’t know. Most Presidents ascend to the office directly from a successful high-profile military career, one or more terms in Congress (most commonly the Senate, but sometimes the House), a State governorship, or occasionally from a Cabinet post in a previous administration. From the evidence of history we can’t really claim that any of these routes is guaranteed to prepare a candidate for a successful presidency. In practice, it seems that successes and failures can come from anywhere.
A President’s personal knowledge of any particular subject is not all that important, just so long as he has no delusions that he’s a f’king know-it-all. I would expect a President who is an adequate manager to handle lacunae in his own expertise the Henry Ford way – by hiring somebody who does know.
One thing we can be pretty certain about, though – the future of the United States of America does not hinge on a candidate’s Trivial Pursuit-level knowledge of anything to do with the Middle East.
I’m sorry, It would take a lot for me to vote for Newt. Yes he is a Brilliant Debater and his general knowledge is awesome. There is no doubt that HE was the brains behind the economic recovery under Clinton. BUT His lack of Honesty and his loathsome Character, give me pause.
Vote for a Lying Cheating Scumbag? I’m not sure I can. If it came to the Newt v Obama, I would have to. Obama is worse, Obama is knowing changing our Country for the Worse – To destroy it.
Newt Gingrich talks a good game but he must be judged by his actions.
He attacked the Paul Ryan Healthcare Plan.
He was paid $300,000 by Freddie Mac for a ‘history lesson’
He supports the Fairness Doctrine
He was in over with cap and trade (TAX) until he was caught
He supported a mandate for health care.
Do not get me started on his serial adultery.
Newt is a disaster and will not beat Obama.
Jdog and tb have some good comments on Newt, that’s for sure. But when jdog writes, “Cain is genuine and has real experience handling large organizations, delegating responsibility and getting the information he needs from the right people in order to make the right decisions,” I have to differ.
Herman Cain promised he would surround himself with the best people, but look at the mess his campaign staff made of these harassment allegations. If Herman is a great exec, why can’t he fire these clowns?
This is a point Erick Erickson at Redstate has been making, and I think it is valid. It takes a real talent to manage a staff. Is Herman showing he has that talent?
The whole problem is that Herm MUST have that talent because he hasn’t got Newt’s knowledge or connections. Admiral Nimitz kept Admiral Kimmel’s staff after he, Nimitz, took over the fleet. Nimitz weeded some of that staff out, of course, but he had the talent to do it. Nothing Herman’s done so far suggests that he has this sort of skill, and since he doesn’t know the wide-range of things he has to, he had better pick the right people–so far, he most certainly has not done so.
Do any of you really feel comfortable with this?
An Préachán
I have now adopted my own “expert” opinion…I’m adopting the ABA position.
Anyone but anyone.
I don’t know what classes Tucker Carlson took to become “qualified” to announce which candidates are “not qualified”. Is there an online version, a syllabus and curriculum that one can follow…or is it simply enough to get on TV or into the media and begin making pronouncements.
I would venture a guess that precious few people have been CEO of a major corporation, run a turnaround of any significant enterprise, have not been involved in the Federal Reserve system and have not achieved a degree in mathematics.
Those may not be all the necessary attributes of “qualification” for President…but they sure beat the hell out of the resume of the current occupant, who…last I looked…IS the President.
So, while a sound argument could be made that there is a list someplace of all the items required to be “qualified” for President…it appears that most of the country has never seen such a list, doesn’t care about any such list and we elect our leaders in a sort of pari-mutuel horse racing style…not by media punditry blackballing.
What skills, attributes, experiences, and talents are necessary to do the job we need done?
1)Economic, free market, executive experience would be high on my list. Our greatest problem currently is based upon the minor fact that our prior leaders have screwed the pooch and have deteriorated the greatest financial system on earth to the brink of ruin.
2)Messaging, articulation of ideas, charisma, charm, level-headedness are nearly imperative. The assault on capitalism, attempted overthrow of the free market, indoctrination of small c communism is in full fury. The Stupid Party is to messaging what Rosie O’Donnell is to runway modeling.
3)Undamaged brand. The leftists have a blood type, H-negative. Hypocrisy courses through their veins. They not only can lie with impunity to non-leftists…they lie to themselves…and then believe it. Marry your own daughter? Fine. Drive a young girl off a bridge? No problem. Rape a teenager? In Hollywood, that’s a rite of passage.
But, non-leftists? Jaywalk and you did it because their were black, Hispanic, and gay drivers on the road and you were trying to cause them grievous harm. And, you wanted little old ladies to die in the pileup and to cause the environment to suffer.
One thing non-leftists do…is hold their candidates to at least some minimal moral standard. The smear machine tears into the fabric of a candidate…and that candidate is cooked. You can’t be open season based on your past actions. It’s too high a hurdle in a rigged game.
4)Understand the rigged game and all the hoaxes. I read and hear people discuss the Global Warming/Climate Change/Weather Chaos hoax…and they still don’t get it. It’s not whether the weather is doing “something or other”…it’s the attempt to redistribute wealth through a fraudulent use of science. Period. Pollution/clean air/clean water is NOT “global warming”.
Entitlements, union preferences, tax schemes…are all pages in the “overthrow capitalism” playbook. Unless and until non-leftists start to connect the dots of the Midwest Academy, Cooper Union, New Party, Soros, Bill Ayers, …they will continue to make stupid statements about the wrong solutions to the wrong attacks.
5)Illegal Immigration: Once again, understanding the issue is paramount. Talking about paying college tuition for offspring of border crashers does what, exactly…to stem the tide of millions of new crashers each year? We can’t afford to educate our own children properly…and we are focusing on how important it is to educate non-citizens? We don’t have the money, the resources, the jobs to give our own kids a future. I think that would be the first priority.
And, suing our own states for protecting their borders from drug running, murder, car jackings, theft, identity theft, from criminals from across the border…and from gun-running from criminals in the DOJ…is a travesty.
A candidate ought to be able to address those issues…and not whimper about the rest of us not having a heart.
So…which of the candidates meets my ABA standards?
None of the above.
Paul Ryan…your country is calling you. Please respond quickly. We are nearly out of time.
This is a serious problem, indeed.
And the Obama campaign by now knows about it, and they would hammer Cain with extremely difficult (technical and detailed) discussions.
A position in the cabinet would do. Especially if announced long before the elections.
Personally speaking, (not in my official capacity as President and founder of theaclp.org), I find the thesis of this article refreshing and something I wish conservatives would talk a whole lot more about. I also find the comments from Newt critics to be way off base. Newt a Republican in name only? (RINO). Pulleaze!
Not only did Newt almost single handedly come up with the winning policy points of the 1994 “Contract with America” responsible for helping Republicans take back control of Congress for first time in over 40 years, (not to mention orchestrate this politically with the entire field of Republican candidates and yes, “execute” the plan, something we’re told is a skill unique to Herman Cain), but most of the other claims about Newt I believe are way off base as well, (and if not some sources please?)
I have PERSONALLY heard Newt criticize cogently “Cap and Trade” as well as the “Fairness” doctrine on Foxnews more than once, can’t wildly imagine him supporting a mandate for health care with his strong believe in free markets,(as well as united Republican opposition to Obama care) and so what if he was paid to be a consultant to Fannie and Freeddie? (It’s not like this White House hasn’t pandered to every imaginable left-wing interest group and union under the sun, to say nothing of doing it under the radar with refusing to hand over White House log books, stimy subpoenas, etc.). At least Newt’s influence peddling/consulting was above board, and last time I checked it was not illegal to make a living in this country, (at least not yet).
As far as adultery is concerned, what has this got to do with being an effective President and mouthpiece who can articulate REASONS, (not just talking points), for why conservative, free market solutions are superior to liberal big government ones? Seems to me another “big ideas” man who was quick-witted and philosophically-oriented was once similarly criticized as being “too liberal” with one too many divorces to be considered the Republican nominee. What was that obscure fellow’s name again? Oh, yes, none other than RONALD REAGAN! (And we know how that turned out).
As even the critics agree, Barack Obama is a silver tongued communicator who will say ANYTHING to ANYONE to get reelected and is more than capable of convincingly arguing two completely contradictory things at the exact same time with an entirely straight face,(indeed, B.O. seems more capable of doing so than master pol “Slick Willy” Bill Clinton ever was, and that’s saying a lot!). An example of this is Barack Obama’s giving lip service to the need to “cut government spending” and the federal deficit even as he pushes for more failed “stimulus.”
Thus, whoever is nominated to go against Obama in 2012 must be quick on their feet with a strong grasp of the FACTS, American history/political philosphy, (the “why’s” behind the policy), and the ability to articulate conservative solutions to the huge problems facing us as a country.
On all counts, with the possible exception of Rick Santorum, (who I don’t think has the remotest chance of winning), Newt comes out not just ahead but CLEARLY SO compared to the other candidates. Compared to Herman Cain, it’s not even a contest, (as the Lincoln Douglas “debate” gaff re: the Palestinian right of return and Cain’s ignorance of “defined benefit plans” clearly shows).
Accordingly, if ever there were a time to impose a purely ideological “litmus test” now is NOT the time to do so, (at least not if we want to defeat Barack Obama in 2012, which is why I personally, as well as the group I head, will, in all likelihood, be rooting for whoever the Republican nominee is in the end for philosophical and pragmatic reasons, not political).
But Ron Paul? You have GOT to be kidding! The same Ron Paul who wants to legalize drugs and would logically follow suit on prostitution, gambling, etc. as well as abandon our seventy-year commitment to our friend Israel, the only STABLE democracy in the Mid East? Whose only response to Iran getting the Nukes that would render us utterly impotent to defend freedom and our allies and interests around the world and hold Americans hostage (no pun intended) to a totalitarian regime that executes Christians and gays alike and has clearly indicated its desire to launch a strike on Israel that would likely usher in a world-wide nuclear conflict is that “we should be friends with them”? (see Michigan and other debates). The same Ron Paul who is against building a border fence because “the same fence that can keep illegal immigrants out can be used to ‘keep Americans in’”? That Ron Paul? Clearly, to support this loon’s candidacy you have GOT to be smoking some of the same stuff he wants to legalize! jp
“Cain has an excellent track record for executive performance.”
Really? How do we know this? Because he says so? Because he ran a pizza chain? Not exactly the USA. Maybe he was a good exec, but why was he out so quickly as CEO of the National Restaurant Association? We don’t know. Should we?
Also, you call the “right of return” “political things.” Again, really? Seems like basic knowledge of international affairs to me. The president is our commander in chief. That’s something he should have known.
If the choice really is going to come down to two RINOs, wouldn’t it make sense to vote for the one who is actually electable?
Oh, God, did I just endorse Romney? I need a drink.