The South Carolina Republican debate on CNN last night (and the “grandeur” of Gingrich)
I don’t think that last night’s GOP debate on CNN substantially altered the lay of the land for the contest (with voting on Saturday), and that’s basically good news for Newt Gingrich, since things have been shifting his way in South Carolina. Mitt Romney floundered on life issues (and it was good to see him finally nailed in a debate on this) and on the far less significant issue of releasing his tax returns. But both instances also underlined another point: he is very far from being the greatest debater we’ve ever seen. In some respects, he can be woefully unprepared for fairly obvious lines of attack, and he can get quite flustered in those situations.
Everyone is raving about Newt Gingrich’s response to the first question of the night from moderator John King, pursuant to allegations made by his ex-wife Marianne that he wanted an “open marriage,” etc. I have my reservations about the nature of his response. I think that he said more than he intended, and more than was advisable. Let’s look at the transcript (this via Lynn Sweet in the Chicago Sun-Times):
JOHN KING [Moderator]: As you know, your ex-wife gave an interview to ABC News and another interview with The Washington Post, and this story has now gone viral on the Internet. In it, she says that you came to her in 1999, at a time when you were having an affair. She says you asked her, sir, to enter into an open marriage. Would you like to take some time to respond to that?
NEWT GINGRICH: No — but I will. (Cheers, applause.)
I think that Gingrich could have stopped after “no,” and he would have gotten the same great applause and would have dealt with this whole issue sufficiently (in the context of this debate). And arguably he should have stopped after “no.”
Nevertheless, his immediate follow-up line was not bad at all:
I think — I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office. And I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that. (Cheers, applause.)
Point made. That’s where he definitely should have stopped.
The rest was ill-judged, because it lacked appropriate humility, given the subject matter, and it also took on the material facts of Marianne Gingrich’s statement.
JOHN KING: Is that all you want to say, sir?
NEWT GINGRICH: Let me finish.
JOHN KING: Please. (Boos, cheers, applause.)
NEWT GINGRICH: Every person in here knows personal pain.
Every person in here has had someone close to them go through painful things. To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question in a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine. (Cheers, applause.)
My — my two daughters, my two daughters wrote the head of ABC, and made the point that it was wrong, that they should pull it. And I am frankly astounded that CNN would take trash like that and use it to open a presidential debate. (Cheers, applause.)
JOHN KING: As you noted, Mr. Speaker, this story did not come from our network. As you also know, it is a subject of conversation on the campaign. I’m not — I get your point; I take get your –
NEWT GINGRICH: John, John, it was repeated by your network. (Boos.) You chose to start the debate with it. Don’t try to blame somebody else. You and your staff chose to start this debate with that. (Cheers, applause.)
JOHN KING: Now, OK –
NEWT GINGRICH: Now, let me be quite clear. Let me be quite clear. The story is false. Every personal friend I have who knew us in that period says the story was false. We offered several of them to ABC to prove it was false. They weren’t interested, because they would like to attack any Republican. They’re attacking the governor, they’re attacking me. I’m sure they’ll probably get around to Senator Santorum and Congressman Paul. I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans. (Cheers, applause.)
It’s self-evidently a mistake at this juncture to argue the facts of what he may have said to his ex-wife versus what she says he said, and I have to assume that Gingrich did not intend to go there but got carried away with his ire, and encouraged by the vocal support of the crowd. He will be lucky indeed if this doesn’t lead to a further opening up of this issue. (What if Marianne comes forth with a family friend whom she confided in contemporaneously and who supports her version? I can see a “60 Minutes” segment being planned …)
And, as already mentioned, in his eagerness to rip into the media, he forgot to temper his argument with any humility in the light of his failings. Despite all of the applause last night, I think he said far too much on this subject, claimed victim-status to an unbecoming degree, and should have stopped at one of the much-earlier points mentioned.
…
A better response to a significant attack made on him last night was his retort to Santorum’s allegation of “grandiosity.” Let’s face it: it’s a real Newt weakness. Santorum put it this way:
Grandiosity has never been a problem with Newt Gingrich. He — he handles it very, very well. (Cheers, applause.) And that’s really one of the issues here, folks. I mean, a month ago, he was saying that, oh, I’m — it’s inevitable that I’m going to win the election and it’s — I’m destined to do it.
I don’t want a nominee that I have to worry about going out and looking at the paper the next day and figuring out what is he — worrying about what he’s going to say next.
Newt Gingrich’s response is exactly the argument to make—the only argument he can make—and he made it well.
Well, it’s a very simple question: How big a scale of change do we want in Washington? I started working with Governor Reagan in 1974. I helped, with Jack Kemp and others, the development of supply-side economics in the late ’70s. I participated in the ’80s in an enormous project of economic growth, and with President Reagan’s leadership, the American people created 16 million jobs. With President Reagan’s leadership, the Soviet Union disappeared.
I came back — I spent 16 years on a grandiose project called creating a Republican majority in the House. Sixteen years. And most of the Republican leaders in the House thought it was a joke.
And we created the first majority. We then worked for two solid years, reformed welfare; two out of three people went back to work or went to school. We got — ultimately became the first reelected Republican majority since 1928. We then went on to cut taxes for the first time in 16 years, the largest capital gains tax cut in American history. In the four years I was speaker, the American people created 11 million new jobs. We balanced the budget for four consecutive years, the only time in your lifetime.
You’re right: I think grandiose thoughts. This is a grandiose country of big people doing big things, and we need leadership prepared to take on big projects. (Cheers, applause.)
I looked up “grandiose” in the Meriam-Webster dictionary, since we’re accustomed to only hearing it in a pejorative sense. Here are the two meanings offered:
1: characterized by affectation of grandeur or splendor or by absurd exaggeration
2: impressive because of uncommon largeness, scope, effect, or grandeur
|
|
Make no mistake: If we go with Newt Gingrich (and at this point I believe he is the one that we should go with) his tenure as a presidential candidate and (if successful in that) his term as president will be in constant tension between those two ways of defining grandiose.
I for one will glady take it over business-as-usual Mitt Romney. And it should go without saying that it will sure beat the hell out of the decay and decline being peddled to America by our current president, Barack Obama.
collection (various artists singing Dylan’s gospel songs), which is not too surprising since that album had a similar concept. However, in the case of “When You Gonna Wake Up,” I have a peeve about how Lee Williams and Spiritual QC’s changed the lyrics of that song for that album, and it seems that those same lyrics are being used in this rendition. 
that was put out on Egyptian Records in 1996. If you happen to look for it on YouTube currently, you’ll see multiple instances where it’s been uploaded, but most of the people uploading and commenting on it seem to be under the impression that the song is actually a Bono or U2 original.
collection) constitutes a tribute to Martin Scorsese. I guess the tribute part is just in Bob Dylan showing up. And, when they do the glitzy tribute for me in Hollywood a few decades hence, I’ll be quite happy with Bob merely showing up. He can do 
