Here’s MY view of manliness and SOUTHERN STOICISM, a crucial supplement to the MIDWESTERN Mansfield.
Newt, for what it’s worth, has the repulsive side of manliness. He overrates his significance, and he praises his own greatness (for little good reason) in words that would be better reserved for others (if they had any merit).
On the good side of manliness, what’s found in the fictional Attticus Finch or the real Churchill, Newt has nothing. We’re talking here genuine magnanimity, generosity, physical and moral courage, rugged integrity, and not being a sell-out (not to mention not selling out people for whom you are responsible). So I hope the Newt is a sell-out line that Pete and Ron Paul are pushing really catches on. I have my doubts. I also doubt that Newt would decimate the president in the debates, but I will discuss that issue later.
Our friend Mr. Cheeks asks whether I would vote for Newt. Over the president, sure, and with the confidence he’s not going to win anyway. Over Huntsman, no. If Huntsman’s strange stategy (as nicely described by John Presnall) starts to catch on this time, I’m for him. He’d be a decent president. Not only that, he’s actually more conservative than Newt. He and Gingrich don’t disagree on evolution and manmade global warming probably happening, but the ex-governor does have a firmer grasp on what’s required to deal with the economic crisis of our time. He’s even more reliably pro-life. I don’t like his “I’m too cool to be a regular Mormon” vibe, but that’s not all that big a criticism.
December 7th, 2011 | 9:52 am
If we’re looking for real manly virtue, why not Tim Tebow for President?
December 7th, 2011 | 11:26 am
Heraclitus: good thinking converges. see the reference to T squared in the post above..Jwc
December 7th, 2011 | 11:36 am
I’d be for Tebow over Newt, of course, even with the constitutional issue (which could be solved through a quickie amendment).
December 8th, 2011 | 3:35 pm
Dr. Lawler, you’re antipathy toward the Newt is rarely seen on these pages. At least with you as author of the attack. I understand Newt’s something of a less-than-satisfactory candidate from both our perspectives (republicanism and neoconservatism?) but you’re rarely this agitated when the subject is a radical leftist. In fact, you’ve rather eloquently defended Barry and described him, if I remember correctly, as a run-of-the-mill Democrat.
I do think Huntsman’s out of it and Mitt can’t seem to overcome 30%, in fact Rush said today that the conservative wing of the party won’t jump for him because he’ll be another McCain and wimp out in any confrontation with our second black president and won’t fight. Rush says Newt will fight and that that’s what the party (by and large) wants.
I continue to be enamored with Michelle. She would fight, too.
December 8th, 2011 | 6:03 pm
“Rush says Newt will fight and that that’s what the party (by and large) wants.”
That’s what it wants, alright.
“I continue to be enamored with Michelle. She would fight, too.”
Heh.
December 9th, 2011 | 8:56 pm
Bachmann is too immature puts a foot in her mouth in ways the media will just giver her the Palin treatment. I think Palin made her big mistake and did not run for GOP chairman and get the rep as a rainmaker for the party… But Bachmann is too Palinlike not to get her negatives in the eyes of the independents. And lets be honest.. sexism is at work here as voters will do her her in the general election what BO did to Hill C in the 08 primary.
Look Newt isn’t my ideal of a husband. And and its we want to deal with the guy who looks like a nice guy and good father and hubby.. hell BO will hands down. He dare not do otherwise as Michelle (BO’s wife not the GOP congresswoman) will kick is …..
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact