Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Cal  Thomas :: Townhall.com Columnist
Fixing our broken politics
by Cal Thomas
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Admit it, you hate politics: the gotcha games in which a quote can be taken out of context and used as a pretext for bashing one's opponent; the sound bites replacing reasoned argument; the focus groups and pollsters who tell candidates what to say instead of encouraging them to believe in something; the concentration on gaining and then maintaining power for its own sake; the enormous cost of elections, which transforms politicians into servants of those who give the most money.

Is it possible to have cleaner and more engaging politics that challenge the mind and offer real solutions to our problems, instead of crass appeals to our lower nature, the flip-flopping in order to garner favor with a particular interest group and the insincerity that seems to be behind it all?

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich believes it is and he has developed a compelling approach to new and better politics not seen since the days of Abraham Lincoln.

Last week, Gingrich and former New York Democratic Governor Mario Cuomo returned to the site of Lincoln's speech on Feb. 27, 1860 at Cooper Union in New York City. It was a speech many scholars believe made him president. The speech was substantive (Lincoln had researched it for three months at the library in Springfield, Ill.), it was more than 7,000 words and "dispelled doubts about Lincoln's suitability for the presidency and reassured conservatives of his moderation while reaffirming his opposition to slavery to Republican progressives," in the words of Harold Holzer's book, "Lincoln at Cooper Union."

The point of the Gingrich-Cuomo "discussion" was to bring serious people together for a lengthy conversation about things that matter. I watched it on the Web (you can see it at www.americansolutions.com). It is the polar opposite of the insult to our intelligence that passes for contemporary politics.

Gingrich, especially, was brilliant as he laid out his vision and agenda for the future. He did not indulge in overstatement when he said, "This country today faces more parallel challenges simultaneously than at any time since the 1850s. And I believe there is a grave danger that our political system will not be capable of solving these problems before they take our society apart in ways that are very destructive."

Gingrich lamented the disappearance of what he called "the principle of seriousness," noting, "The (political) process is decaying at a level that is bizarre and it's a mutual synergistic decay between candidates, consultants and the news media. It's fundamentally wrong for the survival of this country."

Gingrich believes "We are in two different worlds: a world of stunningly rapid evolution in the private sector; and a world of stunning decay in bureaucracy." He pointed to New Orleans after Katrina as one glaring example of the failure of government at all levels, while also noting the dependent culture and expectations by many that government, alone, would help them escape a natural disaster.

To find the best leaders available, Gingrich says we must discard the current model of "cattle calls of 10 people offering 30-second solutions to Iraq (which) Š makes an absurdity of running for office." Instead, Gingrich proposes nine 90-minute dialogues between Labor Day and Election Day 2008 -one per week - in the spirit of the Lincoln-Douglas Debates, with only two candidates and a timekeeper/moderator. It would be broadcast, or carried on C-Span and the Web so that "people can decide who has the maturity, knowledge and values (that can) get us out of this mess."

In an e-mail exchange, Gingrich tells me he also plans to host nationwide workshops Sept. 27 and 29 on ways to transform all 511,000 elected offices in the country. And after that, he says, "I'll consider other possibilities," which I take to mean a decision on whether to run for president.

Watch the video of the Cooper Union conversation. Though Cuomo indulges in a lot of standard Democratic boilerplate rhetoric, even he rises to the occasion near the end, impressed by Gingrich's desire for real change, regardless of who gets the credit.

I don't know if Gingrich would make the best president, but after watching his "conversation" with Mario Cuomo, I doubt there is anyone who has thought more about the problems that confront us, or who has better ideas about how to fix them.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Cal Thomas is co-author (with Bob Beckel) of the book, "Common Ground: How to Stop the Partisan War That is Destroying America".
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Cal Thomas' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Gingrich, The Great Manipulator
Gingrich doesn't believe in discrediting a political opponent by clever manipulation of his words and acts? No kidding. I wonder how Newt explains his 1994 GOPAC memo "Language: A Key Element of Control" (qv online). It's a primer on how to make the guys on your own side look brilliant and strong, while making the guys on the other side look stupid and weak. Gingrich distributed this memo widely and can probably is due a fair amount of credit for helping to establish the present climate of throw-the-mud-and-see-what-sticks GOP philosophy. And now he says he doesn't believe in that? As the old (pre-Vatican II) Irish saying goes, "He will say anything---if he knew the Latin, he'd say Mass".

Witless ?
Thank God Lilly and Kimberly are here to put Cal in his place !

I wonder how such vitriolic hate as displayed by these eloquent spokesmen (sorry, spokepeople) affects their day to day relationships?

Sorry,
That was mean-spirited of me.

Allow me to apologize to you in the same spirit as you have written your posts.

Newt's the one
that stands for core conservative principles far and above any and all out there today (with the exception of Ron Paul) He only needs to lash a strong piece of lumber to his spine to shore up his toughness

Newt
Just sit back and listen to Newt. It is often said, and I do believe, that when one opens their mouth, their ears shut. The next 4 - 8 yrs will be trying times. Our next leaders must recognize the issues facing each and every one of us and act accordingly. It's time we had honest debate that is not full of hate.

It will take a special person to lead this nation. Who will that person be? I'm in the listen mold and keeping my mouth shut. We'll see who the PEOPLE choose in the next election.


Special Person
There is a special person available, the best since President Reagan. Duncan Hunter has a record, positions on the issues (never a flip-flop, either), and a background of experience which make him that good man we need for these bad times. Check him out. I have followed the Speaker's career since he first entered Congress, and cannot think him anything but a bad choice. I have also followed Duncan Hunter's career since he entered Congress. He is the best choice since the Gipper, as I said. Unlike others in, and intending to be in the race; he talks sense' while they try to baffle us with baloney. I have also followed Cal Thomas' columns for years, and cannot believe he could fall for the Professor's magictalk tricks. Please review, Gingrich's record. To even mention him and Honest Abe as parallel in understanding of their times is wild. Loadmaster, please check Duncan Hunter. By the way, he, McCain and Giuliani tied for first in the Spartanburg Straw Poll, a harbinger of Hunter emergence.

Why is it?
When Newt is mentioned the word "baggage" comes up (3 marriages, divorce papers to a sick wife, book deal etc) This man was the LEADER responsible for the Republican Party gaining control of Congress. Right or wrong, his Contract with America worked. The fact the Republican Party squandered their opportunity does not make him a villian.

He should be considered a viable candidate for the Republican nomination---he is a doer as well as a creator of new ideas.

Kimberly
Is it possible for you to be any more stupid about politics? Granted you are a far left idiot, but that should not be an excuse for posting plain lies and changing of facts.

We do not need any socialist/communist traitorcrats in this country. It would greatly help this country if you and Hanoi John Kerry, Grandma Pelosi, Drunk Teddy Kennedy and the other leaders of the traitorcrats would just go to France and see how well you like it there.

POLITICS WITH OUR WOUNDED
THE ABSOLUTE SHAMFULNESS OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE TO ACT AS THOUGH THEY HAD NO IDEA OF THE CONDITIONS IN WALTER REED HOSPITAL IS INDICTATIVE OF JUST HOW OUT OF CONTROL OUR ROYALTY, OUR CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS, HAS BECOME. I DO NOT THINK I AM OUT OF LINE OR WRONG ON THIS PREPOSTEROUS GROUP OF IRRESPONSIBLE, OVER PAID FAT CATS.

WHEN THE HELL ARE WE GOING TO STOP THESE POSTURING CLOWNS FROM SITTING ON THEIR HANDS AND MAKE THEM PERFORM? THEY ARE SUSPOSED TO BE LEADERS, THEIR JOB IS NOT GRATUS, IT WAS NOT BESTOWED, IT IS NOT APPOINTMENT ONLY. IT IS A VERY RESPONSIBLE JOB FOR WHICH THEY ARE TOO ACT ACCORDINGLY. THE SOLDIERS AND MILITARY PEOPLE DESERVE SO MUCH BETTER FOR THE SERVICE THEY VOLUNTEERED TO GIVE THIS COUNTRY BUT THEY ARE NOT GETTING IT FROM THE ARMED SERVICES AN OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE.

GENERALS WERE FIRED AND OTHERS SOON WILL BE, BUT THIS DID NOT HAVE TO BE HAD THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE BEEN DOING IT'S JOB. THIS SHOULD NEVER HAVE OCCURRED AND PREVENTION MEASURES SHOULD HAVE BEEN USED BUT NEVER WERE. NEVER WERE BECAUSE THSE OVERPAID POMPOUS POLITICIANS DID NOT DO THEIR JOBS.......FIRE'EM ALL!!!!

Newt in '08
The efficacy of a Republican politician is directly proportional to the level of villification directed at him/her by the Democrats. (DavidMac's Law of Political Efficacy)

Newt in 08
I think some of the poster's above are jumping the gun. The article was not really about Newt running, he will make that decision later. It was really about the sorry excuse we have for presidential debates today and a challange to change it. Nine 90 minute debates sounds refreshing and exciting to me. Based on what I read, only Rudy has accepted. Regardless of your leanings, who could possibly be against open, honest, non-canned, best man (or woman) win, debating on what everyone knows are HUGE problems in our future?

What does Newt have to do with the topic
The subject of Cal's article was on fixing a polital system where he, or she, who spends the most money on their campaign wins, not who has the best ideas or ability to lead.

As for the attacks on Newt, why do liberals hold Republicans to a different and higher light than themselves. Divorce, a woman's right to have an abortion, freedom from religion, the oxymoronic gay "marraige", are all OK on the left because they have no morality that challenges those ideas, having abandoned morality in order to feel comfortable in supporting those notions.

For example, how is an adolescent male being molested by a gay priest (its called pederasty, not pedophilia BTW) somehow worse than a gay NAMBLA member having sex with the same teen? Perhaps the reason conservatives are attacked for leading perfectly normal liberal lifestyles is because even those on the left hold them to a higher standard. Too bad liberals somehow feel that those who manage to uphold those higher standards are therefore unsuitable for elected office.

The best way to reform politics and get candidates to abandon the polls and popularity contests, is to set a cap on spending on their campaigns, based on the number of registered voters in their respective districts.

They can say, do, spend or purchase whatever they want with it, but any additional money spent by a candidate will result in penalties, such as taxing the donators and the candidate at 200% of amount of any excess spending.

Publically sponsored and televised debates would then be attractive venues, and like the Lincoln-Douglas debates, expose the fraudulent and reward the sincere.

A more serious politics
I noted that on the day Schlesinger died they said he dumped Stevenson in favor of Kennedy because Stevenson was too intellectual for practical politics. And in this era of 30 seconds sound bites it is very hard to tackle a serious issue not just because of the attention span of the average voter but also because of their ability to understand deeper more complicated issues. As long as campaigns are run by spin doctors there will be no change in the tried and true but very boring formula for anyone looking to see the sparks of intellect flying in a political debate. Both sides will stick to tried and true emotional issues so the Conservatives will talk about family values and defense spending and the Liberals will warn that we will lose Social Security and the right to choice, and political campaigns will continue to be boring. And as long as they continue to produce winners negative ads will abound. I remember with nostalgia the balloting in the Republican convention when Ike beat Taft which actually went three or four ballots or the surprising surge of Kennedy who came within a whisker of becoming the Vice Presidential candidate in the days when Political Conventions were really used to choose candidates. Now after super Tuesday or whatever they will come up with next it is all over but the shouting.

Newt in 08:
Genius! Please nominate Gingrich! Do us all the favor of making it easy to vote for about any Democrat in 08.

For Lily
Regarding your post, did Gingrich's memo give hints on how to totally, personally distroy others? It is one thing to try to best an opponent but another to destroy them. That is best done by the democrats.

Too early to start a campaign?
Starting this early just gives the MSM & Hollywood more time to concoct something.
Remember Micheal Moore's Propaganda hit piece against Bush?

It is not too early to organize a Grassroots program to dull MSM and big money interests.
We could do that right here at TH.

Something like a Grassroots network to relay e-mail to friends & relatives all over the Nation.
People who feel strongly about individual liberty would print out the e-mail, take it to OfficeMax or Kinkos, etc., and print about $5 worth of copies each and distribute them in mailboxes when the family went for a walk.
That would reach more people that MSM or any newspaper.

It would draw more people to TH.
TH might give someone a thread to use for uniting the people,choosing leaders, choosing candidates, (BOTH PARTIES), picking issues we can unite behind, (LIKE OUR BORDER!), etc.

Both Parties should try to pick candidates who can unite THE PEOPLE! That is Bush's greatest failure.

from kinglear
kinglear writes: Tuesday, March, 06, 2007 2:28 PM
Newt in 08:
Genius! Please nominate Gingrich! Do us all the favor of making it easy to vote for about any Democrat in 08.

(WHO ARE YOU CALLING GENIUS? NEWT OR this writer, cal thomas? Why bother reading someone with some sense, like cal thomas, or newt, since you have no sense. It's embeciles like you that keep politics the garbage it is!! When you and other embeciles succeed in causing the ruin of this country, may you personally get all the ruin you so much deserve!)

EXCELLENT, PHONEMAN!!
Phoneman writes: Tuesday, March, 06, 2007 12:10 PM
Kimberly
Is it possible for you to be any more stupid about politics? (OR EVERYTHING ELSE, AND SO FULL OF LIES AND ABSURDITIES, TYPICAL OF LEFTIST IDIOTS) Granted you are a far left idiot, but that should not be an excuse for posting plain lies and changing of facts.

We do not need any socialist/communist traitorcrats in this country. It would greatly help this country if you and Hanoi John Kerry, Grandma Pelosi, Drunk Teddy Kennedy and the other leaders of the traitorcrats would just go to France and see how well you like it there.

(MAYBE MORE APPROPRIATE WOULD BE IRAN, WHERE AN ALL TIME DESTRUCTIVE, MURDEROUS LIAR IS LEADER: AMADINEJAD.)

Newt Now
According to Kimberly (12:54AM) the Contract with America was a contract against Clinton. This leftist interpretation means that the public was against Clinton in 1994 based on the fact that the Contract With America swept Republicans into office.
That being said, I remember the excitement surrounding the Contract With America. It was filled with good ideas to move forward in this country. Unfortunately the left went with the politics of personal destruction and derailed much of the Contract as Republicans lost their collective spine. They were also distracted with the meaningless impeachment of Bill Clinton. (I say meaningless, not because there was no legal basis, but rather that no harm was done to Clinton based on where he is today.) This loss of conviction led to the disaster of 2006 that put Pelosi and Company in charge of Congress.
The left will smear whichever Republican is nominated. They will magnify every misstep (see Kimberly at 12:54 AM).
Bottom line, Newt is the best choice at this time. He has Ideas, He is articulate, and he is biding his time. Candidates already in the race are taking a beating by the press, and this will continue right up to November of 2008. Newt's moment will come.

Tony and Third Eye
I agree with the both of you about Newt. I would love to see him run. I did see the Cooper Union debate and he is good. I have also seen him on the television talking about the different things that could be and should be done. That man has IDEAS. None of the other's running even come close to having suggestions and solutions like Newt.

Who are you calling an embecile?
To truthwanted: Who are you calling an embecile(sic), imbecile? Two suggestions: Have a dictionary next time you try to use an unfamiliar, multi-syllable word; and don't expose yourself as a fool by criticizing those who try to get a wide variety of editorial opinions (however deluded) before they mouth off. Just go suck your thumb and watch some FOX "news" and I will go back to living in the ruination which (I guess) I deserve but which has been foisted on all of us by Republican ineptitude, cronyism and demogoguery (look it up). Oh, and regarding Newt and his chances in a general election in 08, BRING IT ON! (What genius Republican was it who came up with that line?
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.