<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Involvement Issues</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/2012/02/04/involvement-issues/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/2012/02/04/involvement-issues/</link>
	<description>A First Things Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 13:21:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pete Spiliakos</title>
		<link>http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/2012/02/04/involvement-issues/comment-page-1/#comment-17011</link>
		<dc:creator>Pete Spiliakos</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 01:30:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/?p=5918#comment-17011</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Mick, my sense is that the plurality of the liberal-leaning voters who cross into the Republican primaries are going to Ron Paul. I don&#039;t think Democrats were tactically voting is south Carolina and Florida (closed primaries I think could be wrong?) to help Obama by supporting Gingrich in one state and Romney in the other.  The debates hae had a palpable influence on the course of the primary campaign as Perry and Cain would be glad to tell you (and as Gingrich would have told you when he was riding high.)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mick, my sense is that the plurality of the liberal-leaning voters who cross into the Republican primaries are going to Ron Paul. I don&#8217;t think Democrats were tactically voting is south Carolina and Florida (closed primaries I think could be wrong?) to help Obama by supporting Gingrich in one state and Romney in the other.  The debates hae had a palpable influence on the course of the primary campaign as Perry and Cain would be glad to tell you (and as Gingrich would have told you when he was riding high.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mick Lee</title>
		<link>http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/2012/02/04/involvement-issues/comment-page-1/#comment-16965</link>
		<dc:creator>Mick Lee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 12:56:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/?p=5918#comment-16965</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Well, OK.  I think Mr. Spiliakos&#039; analysis is correct--as far as it goes.  What equally matters is that many primaries across the fruited plain are &quot;open&quot; primaries.  That is, Democrats can vote in Republican primaries and tilt the results toward the candidate they most think is defeatable in the November election.  I doubt the Democrats who &quot;cross over&quot; actually trouble themselves to watch the debates.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, OK.  I think Mr. Spiliakos&#8217; analysis is correct&#8211;as far as it goes.  What equally matters is that many primaries across the fruited plain are &#8220;open&#8221; primaries.  That is, Democrats can vote in Republican primaries and tilt the results toward the candidate they most think is defeatable in the November election.  I doubt the Democrats who &#8220;cross over&#8221; actually trouble themselves to watch the debates.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pete Spiliakos</title>
		<link>http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/2012/02/04/involvement-issues/comment-page-1/#comment-16890</link>
		<dc:creator>Pete Spiliakos</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2012 22:39:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/?p=5918#comment-16890</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;To label him as unprincipled is quite unjust.&quot;  So we are to assume that Gingrich&#039;s change of heart on a federal mandate was principled or that he was not being evasive when he said he was giving Freddie Mac advice as a &quot;historian&quot; and that his advice was for them to abandon their business model and that they paid him over a million dollars over a period of years for this public spirited wisdom?  This is not to say that every charge against Gingrich is accurate.  Just that the accurate ones are damning enough.

&quot;Pete Spiliakos might consider that extensive debates are an excellent chance for in depth evaluation of candidates ideas.&quot;  Yes.  they were also a chanced that was missed over and over again because of the low quality and dishonesty of the candidates. 

&quot;That is if the candidates themselves have depths. That is precisely why Gingrich outshine others in an extended debate format.&quot;  The two candidates who rose fastest as a result of the debates were Herman Cain and Gingrich.  We will have to invent a new word because &quot;shallow&quot; doesn&#039;t capture the epic quality of Cain&#039;s shallowness.  Gingrich&#039;s awesome debate performances were mostly from attacking the moderators in an environment where the circumstances and the audience prevented the moderators from hitting back.  It was quite cowardly (and to some degree dishonest if you break down his answer on the question about his second ex-wife) when you look at how the exchanges were structured.

&quot;An important characteristic of an effective President is to be capable of sustaining a prolonged and muscular debate.&quot;  I agree.  so what are we to make of a candidate who folded and whined when confronted by the rhetorical superpowers of Mitt Romney?  Especially after the candidate preened about how he would take on Obama in three hour Lincoln-Douglas debates.

&quot;What this country and the Republican party needs as a moderator is a historian with the depth of a Gingrich.&quot; I&#039;m sure the personnel department of Freddie Mac&#039;s lobbying division could provide some suitable candidates.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;To label him as unprincipled is quite unjust.&#8221;  So we are to assume that Gingrich&#8217;s change of heart on a federal mandate was principled or that he was not being evasive when he said he was giving Freddie Mac advice as a &#8220;historian&#8221; and that his advice was for them to abandon their business model and that they paid him over a million dollars over a period of years for this public spirited wisdom?  This is not to say that every charge against Gingrich is accurate.  Just that the accurate ones are damning enough.</p>
<p>&#8220;Pete Spiliakos might consider that extensive debates are an excellent chance for in depth evaluation of candidates ideas.&#8221;  Yes.  they were also a chanced that was missed over and over again because of the low quality and dishonesty of the candidates. </p>
<p>&#8220;That is if the candidates themselves have depths. That is precisely why Gingrich outshine others in an extended debate format.&#8221;  The two candidates who rose fastest as a result of the debates were Herman Cain and Gingrich.  We will have to invent a new word because &#8220;shallow&#8221; doesn&#8217;t capture the epic quality of Cain&#8217;s shallowness.  Gingrich&#8217;s awesome debate performances were mostly from attacking the moderators in an environment where the circumstances and the audience prevented the moderators from hitting back.  It was quite cowardly (and to some degree dishonest if you break down his answer on the question about his second ex-wife) when you look at how the exchanges were structured.</p>
<p>&#8220;An important characteristic of an effective President is to be capable of sustaining a prolonged and muscular debate.&#8221;  I agree.  so what are we to make of a candidate who folded and whined when confronted by the rhetorical superpowers of Mitt Romney?  Especially after the candidate preened about how he would take on Obama in three hour Lincoln-Douglas debates.</p>
<p>&#8220;What this country and the Republican party needs as a moderator is a historian with the depth of a Gingrich.&#8221; I&#8217;m sure the personnel department of Freddie Mac&#8217;s lobbying division could provide some suitable candidates.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: De Las Casas</title>
		<link>http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/2012/02/04/involvement-issues/comment-page-1/#comment-16888</link>
		<dc:creator>De Las Casas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2012 20:55:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/?p=5918#comment-16888</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[To this one observer, who has been around long enough to make a first hand judgment rather than received media analysis, I am convinced that Gingrich has been quite effectively slandered. To label him as unprincipled is quite unjust.  

Pete Spiliakos might consider that extensive debates are an excellent chance for in depth evaluation of candidates ideas. That is if the candidates themselves have depths. That is precisely why Gingrich outshine others in an extended debate format.  An important characteristic of an effective President is to be capable of sustaining a prolonged and muscular debate. 

The Republican party should realize that the bad taste left by recent debates result from the fact that the moderators are journalists, and are representatives of the depraved and sensation-seeking mind set that the media have proselytized through out our culture.  

The debates should not be the captive of these trivial journalists. They should be conducted by the party itself so that major issues receive substantive discussion.  What this country and the Republican party needs as a moderator is a historian with the depth of a Gingrich. That the country needs a person of his quality as president is evident to me.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To this one observer, who has been around long enough to make a first hand judgment rather than received media analysis, I am convinced that Gingrich has been quite effectively slandered. To label him as unprincipled is quite unjust.  </p>
<p>Pete Spiliakos might consider that extensive debates are an excellent chance for in depth evaluation of candidates ideas. That is if the candidates themselves have depths. That is precisely why Gingrich outshine others in an extended debate format.  An important characteristic of an effective President is to be capable of sustaining a prolonged and muscular debate. </p>
<p>The Republican party should realize that the bad taste left by recent debates result from the fact that the moderators are journalists, and are representatives of the depraved and sensation-seeking mind set that the media have proselytized through out our culture.  </p>
<p>The debates should not be the captive of these trivial journalists. They should be conducted by the party itself so that major issues receive substantive discussion.  What this country and the Republican party needs as a moderator is a historian with the depth of a Gingrich. That the country needs a person of his quality as president is evident to me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pete Spiliakos</title>
		<link>http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/2012/02/04/involvement-issues/comment-page-1/#comment-16886</link>
		<dc:creator>Pete Spiliakos</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2012 16:52:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/?p=5918#comment-16886</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Carl, thanks and good point on Jeb Bush.  On the one hand his brand is too damaged for the moment (I think), but on the other, he is worlds and worlds better than the others.  I heard (on the radio) an event that Romney and J. Bush did in 2009 and the difference is quality was enormous (even if Bush was too fond of &quot;dream&quot; tropes - chasing dreams, living dreams, pursuing dreams, reaching for dreams, blah.)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Carl, thanks and good point on Jeb Bush.  On the one hand his brand is too damaged for the moment (I think), but on the other, he is worlds and worlds better than the others.  I heard (on the radio) an event that Romney and J. Bush did in 2009 and the difference is quality was enormous (even if Bush was too fond of &#8220;dream&#8221; tropes &#8211; chasing dreams, living dreams, pursuing dreams, reaching for dreams, blah.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Carl Eric Scott</title>
		<link>http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/2012/02/04/involvement-issues/comment-page-1/#comment-16883</link>
		<dc:creator>Carl Eric Scott</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2012 15:05:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/?p=5918#comment-16883</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Very fine analysis, Pete, even if JEB should have been with your Daniels, Jindal, Christie group.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very fine analysis, Pete, even if JEB should have been with your Daniels, Jindal, Christie group.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
