Gingrich vs. Dodd, but first, the Brinkley, Deaver and Meese discussion of the “Reagan Diaries” served to remind everyone of the vast gulf between Ronald Reagan and any other American political leader of my lifetime. Ronald Reagan is Ronald Reagan because he possessed the perfect marriage of ideology and conviction with pragmatism and compromise blessed with the insight to condense issues to their core and the communication skills to express that core in immediately understandable language for mass consumption that democracy requires. That’s how you tear down the wall and win 94 states in process.
I was wrong about Russert on this one; he let the candidates pretty much just argue. Both Dodd and Gingrich wanted to have more open and lengthy debate on the issues instead of the sound bite driven pressers that pass for debate. You have to give Dodd credit for getting in that ring so let's give the feisty legacy from Connecticut some props on the effort.
Gingrich simply wasted Dodd and the appeasement agenda. Dodd spent almost the entire show simply describing problems. Particularly rich is the liberal claim that the world and the American people don’t support the President after the liberals have spent the last six years in a constant barrage of rarely deserved and always exaggerated attack. Dodd’s view of Iraq simply equates the existence of any conflict as negating the existence of anything positive or progressive.
Dodd even goes so far as simply dismissing the presence of Al Qaeda as somehow a trivial part of the Iraq problem. Even if there were a civil war in Iraq we have a big stake in its outcome, as Gingrich quickly indicated. Newt also expressed the obvious, we can also win a civil war and that the forces of chaos cannot be the victor in Iraq-and Dodd simply has no answer to this proposition. Just the litany of problems.
Newt delivered so many blows they should have stopped the fight. The best was probably the last. Newt twice asked Dodd how Dodd would have advised the French government in 1777-78. After all, we were engaged in a terrible civil war as well as a war of independence from the world’s leading imperial power. We (thinking of myself as an American and not a mere citizen of the world) had been defeated in virtually every battle. Our primary general, George Washington had yet to win a battle and was surrounded by secret cabals in and out of the army. We had lost our capitol and our two largest cities. Our only major victory was in a collateral and ancillary theater.
Dodd ducked the first time completely and had no argument in response. The second time he stuttered out that he’d take Washington. Well Senator, Washington wasn’t Washington until Yorktown, four years later. IF the French would only have focused on the bad news there’s be no USA. Gingrich followed that unanswerable question with another, watch how Al Qaeda and our other enemies would respond to an American vote to withdraw from Iraq. Dodd pretty much just piped down from that point until, at the very end, he agreed with Newt that there should be more and better public debates.
After watching this one I sure agree. The Democrat appeasement agenda is so historically repudiated that only our willingness to abide it and its very flawed and hysterical messengers gives it traction. Newt once again reminded everyone in both parties (why do you think the Democrats hate him so very badly) that, warts and all, he is the smartest on policy and the most articulate in presentation politician in America. The larger question remains-is America ready for Newt Gingrich?
I was wrong about Russert on this one; he let the candidates pretty much just argue. Both Dodd and Gingrich wanted to have more open and lengthy debate on the issues instead of the sound bite driven pressers that pass for debate. You have to give Dodd credit for getting in that ring so let's give the feisty legacy from Connecticut some props on the effort.
Gingrich simply wasted Dodd and the appeasement agenda. Dodd spent almost the entire show simply describing problems. Particularly rich is the liberal claim that the world and the American people don’t support the President after the liberals have spent the last six years in a constant barrage of rarely deserved and always exaggerated attack. Dodd’s view of Iraq simply equates the existence of any conflict as negating the existence of anything positive or progressive.
Dodd even goes so far as simply dismissing the presence of Al Qaeda as somehow a trivial part of the Iraq problem. Even if there were a civil war in Iraq we have a big stake in its outcome, as Gingrich quickly indicated. Newt also expressed the obvious, we can also win a civil war and that the forces of chaos cannot be the victor in Iraq-and Dodd simply has no answer to this proposition. Just the litany of problems.
Newt delivered so many blows they should have stopped the fight. The best was probably the last. Newt twice asked Dodd how Dodd would have advised the French government in 1777-78. After all, we were engaged in a terrible civil war as well as a war of independence from the world’s leading imperial power. We (thinking of myself as an American and not a mere citizen of the world) had been defeated in virtually every battle. Our primary general, George Washington had yet to win a battle and was surrounded by secret cabals in and out of the army. We had lost our capitol and our two largest cities. Our only major victory was in a collateral and ancillary theater.
Dodd ducked the first time completely and had no argument in response. The second time he stuttered out that he’d take Washington. Well Senator, Washington wasn’t Washington until Yorktown, four years later. IF the French would only have focused on the bad news there’s be no USA. Gingrich followed that unanswerable question with another, watch how Al Qaeda and our other enemies would respond to an American vote to withdraw from Iraq. Dodd pretty much just piped down from that point until, at the very end, he agreed with Newt that there should be more and better public debates.
After watching this one I sure agree. The Democrat appeasement agenda is so historically repudiated that only our willingness to abide it and its very flawed and hysterical messengers gives it traction. Newt once again reminded everyone in both parties (why do you think the Democrats hate him so very badly) that, warts and all, he is the smartest on policy and the most articulate in presentation politician in America. The larger question remains-is America ready for Newt Gingrich?
2 comments:
Isn't Dodd one of Teddy Kennedy's hard drinking womanizer cronies?
Sporer,
You appear to have an awful lot of time to dedicate to political talk shows. Lucky you.
Just a quick response to your constant references to D’s and the “existence of conflict means defeat” line: The mere existence of conflict does not prove that the conflict is worthy or that it advances our strategic goals and needs.
Plus, historic parallels and trivia are all well and good. But, you can use history just like the bible. You can pick and choose your issues and parallels to fit your predetermined conclusions. When being trained in historical methods, the most important lesson I learned was that you must find out as much as possible about the author of a historical book/statement to properly evaluate it.
Post a Comment