| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Gingrich and Romney both too Risky |
| 2011-12-03 |
| Republicans are more conservative than at any time since their 1980 dismay about another floundering president. They are more ideologically homogenous than ever in 156 years of competing for the presidency. They anticipated choosing between Mitt Romney, a conservative of convenience, and a conviction politician to his right. The choice, however, could be between Romney and the least conservative candidate, Newt Gingrich. But I liked Newt the two or three times I've heard him speak on U-Tube! Romney's main objection to contemporary Washington seems to be that he is not administering it. God has 10 commandments, Woodrow Wilson had 14 points, Heinz had 57 varieties, but Romney's economic platform has 59 planks -- 56 more than necessary if you have low taxes, free trade and fewer regulatory burdens. Still, his conservatism-as-managerialism would be a marked improvement upon today's bewildered liberalism. How about "bewildering progressive/socialist/Marxist-liberalism"? Gingrich, however, embodies the vanity and rapacity that make modern Washington repulsive. And there is his anti-conservative confidence that he has a comprehensive explanation of, and plan to perfect, everything. So he'd make a great conservative dictator, is that what you're saying, George? Obama is running as Harry Truman did in 1948, against Congress, but Republicans need not supply the real key to Truman's success -- Tom Dewey. Confident that Truman was unelectable, Republicans nominated New York's chilly governor, whose virtues of experience and steadiness were vitiated by one fact: Voters disliked him. Before settling for Romney, conservatives should reconsider two candidates who stumbled early on. Rick Perry (disclosure: my wife, Mari Will, advises him) has been disappointing in debates. They test nothing pertinent to presidential duties but have become absurdly important. Perry's political assets remain his Texas record and Southwestern zest for disliking Washington and Wall Street simultaneously and equally. Jon Huntsman ...American professional politician and diplomat. He worked as a White House staff assistant for Ronald Reagan, and he was appointed by George Bush the Elder as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce and later as United States Ambassador to Singapore. He was Deputy U.S. Trade Representative under Bush the Younger. Huntsman has also served as CEO of his family's Huntsman Corporation and was elected Governor of Utah in 2004, winning re-election in 2008 with nearly 78% of the vote. On August 11, 2009, he resigned as governor to accept an appointment as Ambassador to China in the Obama administration.... inexplicably chose to debut as the Republican for people who rather dislike Republicans, but his program is the most conservative. He endorses Paul Ryan's budget and entitlement reforms. (Gingrich denounced Ryan's Medicare reform as "right-wing social engineering.") Huntsman would privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (Gingrich's benefactor). Huntsman would end double taxation on investment by eliminating taxes on capital gains and dividends. (Romney would eliminate them only for people earning less than $200,000, who currently pay just 9.3 percent of them.) Huntsman's thorough opposition to corporate welfare includes farm subsidies. (Romney has justified them as national security measures -- food security, somehow threatened. Gingrich says opponents of ethanol subsidies are "big-city" people hostile to farmers.) Huntsman considers No Child Left Behind, the semi-nationalization of primary and secondary education, "an unmitigated disaster." (Romney and Gingrich support it. Gingrich has endorsed a national curriculum.) Who IS this Huntsman guy, and where has he been hiding? Between Ron Paul's isolationism and the faintly variant bellicosities of the other six candidates stands Huntsman's conservative foreign policy, skeptically nuanced about America's need or ability to control many distant developments. Romney might not be a Dewey. Gingrich might stop being (as Churchill said of John Foster Dulles) a bull who carries his own china shop around with him. But both are too risky to anoint today. A bull who carries his own china shop! I'm going to remember that one! |
| Posted by:Bobby |
| #13 I gotta agree with the original article here, I think Perry's probably the best choice, poor debate performance and all. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2011-12-03 21:01 |
| #12 Gingrich was Speaker, I'd think that would count. Obama's team would have a tricky time I think using a lack of experience as a campaign point seeing how his executive experience had to do with 9 holes and short fairways. To be fair Obama has formed opinions - police act stupidly by default, he says he bowls like a retard, and most importantly does not feel he has to explain his actions or opinions to the public. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2011-12-03 20:38 |
| #11 We have not fared well with such presidents in the past. Especially if they haven't formed one coherent opinion. |
| Posted by: gorb 2011-12-03 19:17 |
| #10 Gingrich has zero executive experience. We have not fared well with such presidents in the past. |
| Posted by: lotp 2011-12-03 19:03 |
| #9 Will was good debating liberals on tv once upon a time. Now he is best when he writes about baseball. |
| Posted by: Rjschwarz 2011-12-03 17:38 |
| #8 But both are too risky to anoint today. Too risky to anoint? We are electing a president not anointing a saint. There are often times, I find Will bristly, cranky, and full of his own opinions. Perry has been up and now down. Huntsman, never got up. However, both have had good executive experience. Any of the four would be better than the Vacationer-in-Chief. Will did not mention Bachman or Santorum. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2011-12-03 16:39 |
| #7 Those dimwits make Obama look like Abe Lincoln... |
| Posted by: Van Der Graf 2011-12-03 14:48 |
| #6 Yes, Gingrich and Romney are both too risky: either could beat Obama in November. That was the first thing I thought when I first saw the headline. Perry-Gingrich or Gingrich-Perry. Either way it's gotta be better than what we have now. |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque 2011-12-03 13:43 |
| #5 Who gives a, er, hoot, what George Will thinks? He's a cranky old man who hasn't written a good column in years. Yes, Gingrich and Romney are both too risky: either could beat Obama in November. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2011-12-03 12:53 |
| #4 (disclosure: my wife, Mari Will, advises Rick Perry) That is all you need to know. Al |
| Posted by: Frozen Al 2011-12-03 12:10 |
| #3 Keep in mind that this is George Will AND the Washington Post. Consider the source... |
| Posted by: tipover 2011-12-03 11:58 |
| #2 Second for Perry. Romney is a train wreck. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2011-12-03 11:01 |
| #1 IMO, the only qualified candidate (successful governor) is Rick Perry. Too bad he's a doer not a talker. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2011-12-03 09:22 |