Newt, Get in to Win, or Get Out of the Way

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich announced this week that he is exploring whether he will possibly, maybe, but probably at least consider whether he will officially announce what we already all know:  he is running for president in 2012.  He claims he needs 6-7 weeks to "explore" the viability of his potential candidacy, which, translated into Washingtonese, simply means he will see how many donations his exploratory organization can generate in 6-7 weeks as an indication of the support he can expect from conservative backers.  Am I the only observer out there who finds it ironic that in the same interviews in which Newt criticizes the Obama Administration for exhibiting indecisiveness in its handling of uprisings in Libya and Iran, Newt himself exudes indecisiveness on running for president?

Newt, President Obama may be indecisive in handling world affairs, but at least he did not hesitate for one second to make it clear to the world in 2007 that he wanted very much to run for and win the presidency.  We knew what he wanted, even if we were unsure of exactly what he was politically, or what he might do once in office.  His ambitions were no secret.  Neither are yours, yet you approach them as if you should keep them to yourself until the last moment.  Campaign seasons are starting earlier and earlier, and those who know what they want and go all out for it, like candidate Obama did in 2007-2008, have more opportunity to influence voters.

Newt has had since the late 1990s to explore his viability as a candidate for the presidency.  He has been a rumored candidate in several previous presidential elections, and his strengths and weaknesses (skeletons may be a more accurate term) have been vetted in the media ever since he led the Congress that impeached President Clinton.  The media will continue to attack him and dredge up any and all past indiscretions whether he throws his hat into the presidential campaign ring or not, because Newt has palpable influence on conservative political thought.

Whether he enters the race today, 6 months from now, or not at all, he will be targeted by the White House and its media accomplices who view him as an ever-present threat to liberal ideology.  President Obama does not want to participate in any televised debates with Newt, who is far more prepared, articulate, and experienced in world affairs.  The White House would prefer almost any other potential GOP candidate to square off against.  What Newt will discover during his announced 6-7 week exploratory period is that he scares people on the left, and I don't mean because they consider his views radically conservative.  He scares them because he would be their most formidable foe.  Likewise, fellow conservatives seeking the White House fear Newt above all other potential opponents.  Newt's war chest is already building more rapidly than any other potential conservative candidate's.

In his sharp criticisms of the Obama Administration delivered at CPAC 2011, Newt aggressively stated his domestic priorities:  dramatic cuts to Federal government spending; dramatic permanent tax cuts for all taxpayers, which leads to business expansion and more jobs; and aggressive pursuit of domestic energy sources to lessen our dependence on Middle East regimes.

Although Newt wasn't exactly decisive on running for president in his exploratory announcement, his broadside attack on President Obama's foreign policy and national security indecision covered a lot of ground in just three sentences and illustrated why a debate matchup of President Obama and Newt Gingrich would be intriguing:

This was an administration which was very aggressive about an American ally, Mubarak in Egypt, and very confused about an American opponent, Gadhafi in Libya. This is an administration which doesn't notice the demonstrations and the brutality in Tehran, and it confuses Israelis building apartments with Iranians building nuclear weapons. And I think it's very, very dangerous.

Newt, if, as you say, at the end of your exploratory period (that you've had 15 years to explore) you expect to be in the race, get in now and be a decisive conservative leader.  Candidate Obama was in the race to win it already by March 2007.  He even had Secret Service protection that early, which certainly enhanced his image of viability as potential winner of his party's nomination.  Potential voters knew his ambitions, and he was not apologetic or modest about them.  Voters want decisiveness in their leaders.  Be all in, or all out, but never waffling in between two choices.  The Bible tells us it is better to be hot or cold, than to be lukewarm in our commitments.  If you lack the heart or the stomach for the long-haul campaign and the incredible pressures of the presidency if victorious, step aside now for someone with more vigor who is sure of what he or she wants.  If you have the heart and stomach for the brutality of a campaign and the job itself, then get in it to win it.

Ann Coulter's CPAC Remark: Room in Politics for "Loving the Sinner, but not the Sin?"

Is it possible in today’s instant-media politics to “love the sinner but not the sin?” At what point does a person’s worth become synonymous with his/her actions or words, especially if those actions or words become a political liability for anyone considered a friend or supporter? In today’s politics it seems that members of both political parties routinely rush to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater whenever someone speaks frankly but perhaps with little tact. Influential organizations, with media complicity, demand that politicians not only distance themselves from “inflammatory” or “intolerant” statements made by others, but they are further urged to personally condemn or malign the person who made the comments. In effect, political correctness today demands nothing less than a complete shunning of anyone whose friendship or support could be viewed as political baggage. Ambition trumps friendship, and popularity eschews loyalty.

Recent examples of this phenomenon illustrate the political danger presidential candidates face when someone they know and have publicly associated with does or says something controversial. Their perceived risk of being associated with a controversial figure or policy position almost immediately results in the candidates’ lemming-like dash to jump into the abyss of political correctness to preserve their popularity and appeal.

Unfortunately Ann Coulter placed several 2008 Republican presidential candidates in an awkward position with her controversial remarks at the 34th annual CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) on Friday. The candidates’ political views and personalities were overshadowed by the media focus on one sentence uttered by Coulter and the efforts of top Republican 2008 presidential contenders Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Senator John McCain to distance themselves from her remark. If you missed it, during her speech to CPAC Coulter made the following comment:

I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.

Clearly, Ann Coulter has a low opinion of Senator John Edwards, but the number of Republicans (and many Democrats as well) who hold similarly low opinions of Senator Edwards is legion. Coulter expressed her sentiment in a forceful manner, leaving no doubt about her disdain for Senator Edwards as a politician and as a person. One could reasonably question her judgment in using a term that has been ascribed only one possible meaning in today’s politically correct climate. It can also be reasonably assumed that she intentionally used the term on such an austere occasion to gain publicity, as the analysis by Right Wing News convincingly argues in the post titled, “Ann Coulter's Juvenile Comment at CPAC.”

Coulter, in manner ironically similar to John Kerry after his derogatory comments toward the intelligence of U.S. Military personnel, explained that her remark was an attempt at humor, or in Kerry’s words, “a botched joke.” When asked about criticism of her comment, Coulter stated, “C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.”

Traditional liberal media outlets, including the Washington Post, who defended Senator Kerry by immediately labeling his insult to U.S. troops in Iraq as nothing more than a botched joke, did not offer similar protective coverage to Ann Coulter in this incident. There were no headlines in the Post softening Coulter’s image with blind acceptance of her Kerry-esque “it was a joke” explanation. On the contrary, she was universally condemned by the liberal media, and also by the leading Republican 2008 presidential candidates.

The following are the reactions of each candidate to Coulter’s remark as reported by the New York Times and Fox News, respectively:

Rudy Giuliani- “The comments were completely inappropriate and there should be no place for such name-calling in political debate.”

Mitt Romney- (via a spokesperson) “It was an offensive remark. Governor Romney believes all people should be treated with dignity and respect.”

Senator McCain- “Wildly inappropriate.”

The larger question raised by the Coulter flap is: what is the appropriate long-term response when someone who supports you does or says something controversial? Should Mitt Romney follow the advice of the liberal critics who demand that he refuse Coulter’s campaign support? The difficulty with this situation is that Coulter, though acerbic in delivery, happens to wield the most sarcastic pen in political punditry, and often provides valuable insight and political analysis couched in phrases no candidate or current office holder would dare to utter. Her remark about Edwards was inappropriate, particularly in a forum of candidates carrying the banner of the Republican Party. Yet as ill-advised as her attempt at humor was, it does not necessarily invalidate all of her past and future political analyses.

By nature politics is a controversial business. One cannot take a position without being excoriated by those holding opposing ideas, even if those opponents are in one’s own party. Should all Republican candidates shun Coulter for one sentence in one speech? The Clintons were wise to remain loyal to James Carville and others within their party who spoke bluntly and controversially in much the same fashion as Coulter. Much of the Clintons’ electoral success can be directly attributed to Carville’s strategies, demonstrating that even “flame throwers” have value beyond their publicity stunts.

Politics as a profession leaves little room for repentance, rehabilitation, or forgiveness, and the media appears determined to punish any candidate who gives any appearance of friendship with Coulter. Attempts by the media to link the candidates personally to Coulter began almost immediately, as the New York Times placed the following sentence directly beneath Coulter’s sarcastic explanation of her intended joke: “At the conference, she said she was likely to support Mr. Romney.”

Apparently the liberal media took notice that Romney won the CPAC straw poll and may be emerging as the preferred candidate among conservative Republicans. Liberal bloggers adopted the strategy of creating the impression that since Coulter officially endorsed Romney, he should be smeared with the stain of her allegedly anti-gay comment. The most egregious misrepresentation of Romney’s Coulter connection can be found on the highly popular liberal blog The Daily Kos in the post titled “Coulter and the Candidates.” Daily Kos contributor MissLaura portrayed the incident as follows:

One of the conservatives whose support Romney drew, of course, was Ann Coulter. The two spent some quality time together before she went onstage to call John Edwards a "faggot."

Can we therefore expect him to refuse to be further associated with someone like Ann Coulter, whose entire career as a prominent conservative is based on the notion that people who disagree with her should be treated with contempt, disrespect, and vituperation?

I'll be looking for him to refuse her support of his candidacy just any minute now.

Thus, according to “tolerant” liberals and Republicans infected with political correctness, if one makes a controversial comment, regardless of intent, that person should be jettisoned permanently. The comments submitted to this Daily Kos post were likewise illustrative of the true nature of liberal tolerance. Readers were outraged by the above photo of Romney backstage PRIOR to Coulter’s speech. Romney was vilified by one reader for “flashing his most cordial smile” at Coulter, as if civility and personal kindness should never be directed toward those with whom one disagrees.

To the right you will see a photo of Nancy Pelosi “flashing her most cordial smile” at President Bush despite having said this of him in 2004: “Bush is an incompetent leader. In fact, he's not a leader. He's a person who has no judgment, no experience and no knowledge of the subjects that he has to decide upon.” Hillary Clinton, in another flashed a very cordial smile to Vice President Cheney prior to taking her oath of office in the U.S. Senate, all while the very friendly Bill Clinton had his hand on the Vice President’s shoulder. These types of photos indicate nothing about the beliefs and policy views of the persons in the photos, they merely demonstrate that snubbing people and burning bridges win few friends and minimal influence in politics. I suppose the tolerant liberal approach to standing next to someone backstage in a green room must consist of glares, the silent treatment, or refusals to stand next to someone with differing views. Romney was obviously being gracious with a well known media figure, and there is nothing substantive to indicate any more or less than this, especially from one photograph.

For liberals, tolerance appears to be a precious commodity only extended to those who agree with them. The comparison between the media treatment of John Kerry and Ann Coulter does not excuse or defend Coulter’s remark, which was truly juvenile, but it does expand on what Hugh Hewitt wrote about this incident. Hugh rightly pointed out that both the Democratic and Republican parties have individuals who embarrass them and Republicans should use caution in using past liberal behavior to justify present conservative missteps like Coulter’s. Hugh stops there, but the difference is that Republicans tend to shun or officially censure those within their ranks who embarrass the party through their behavior or words, as Coulter did at CPAC. Democrats, as in the case of John Kerry’s repeated insults to troops recently and in 1971, or Speaker Pelosi’s personal attacks of the President’s intellect and competence, seem to reward controversial behavior with high office and unwavering support. Hugh Hewitt makes an excellent point by reminding Republicans that they should seek to rise above the standard set by the other party and expect more dignity from its members.

The Republican reaction to Coulter should be sincere and hopefully will send a message that John Edwards’ political views provide sufficient fodder for reasoned, analytical refutation without resorting to personal attacks. While Republican candidates should make it clear that epithets are discouraged, they should likewise not close the door completely on Coulter’s other, more civilized contributions to political discourse. If every public figure, whether in politics, entertainment, sports, or the media, were to be permanently shunned for one lapse of judgment or poor choice of words, few in these fields today would survive the scrutiny. Forgiveness is perhaps the rarest of all human gifts, but is the one commodity that should be meted out, no pun intended, liberally.