THAT RICK Perry dropped out of the Republican primary race last week is widely known. With the field of candidates narrowing, people are beginning to pick their favorites, and with each passing day it becomes clearer who the frontrunners really are. Among them is Newt Gingrich, who Perry endorsed upon dropping out of the race. This I see as somewhat ironic, considering the contrast which has recently developed between the two men.
The two aforementioned presidential candidates are generally seen as traditional conservatives, with Gingrich perhaps wielding more bipartisan appeal. But, next to the isolationist Ron Paul and the moderate Mitt Romney, Gingrich and Perry do not seem all that different. The real contrast exists in how the media has treated these two men, and how it has affected their respective presidential bids.
Rick Perry's departure came much earlier than many conservative Republicans envisioned, and it came about in a rather anticlimactic fashion. With Perry, there was no horrific scandal or massive flip-flopping. What pushed Perry from the race was a collection of gaffes which appeared by themselves not overly detrimental, but nonetheless eventually doomed his campaign.
These speaking errors were coupled with a campaign ad titled "Strong" which compared allowing gays to serve openly in the military to preventing children from praying and celebrating Christmas in school. Perhaps most damaging, though, was the now infamous, prime-time debate "Oops" moment, when Perry stated he would do away with three government agencies, only two of which he could name.
An innocent enough mistake, right? Despite attempts by Perry and his campaign to laugh the moment off, his bid for the presidency was already crumbling. In the eyes of the media at least, he made one too many innocent mistakes and nothing could revitalize his campaign.
Gingrich, on the other hand, has been plowing ahead with increasing success, despite more than one confirmed extramarital relationship. In fact, he may even be gaining momentum with the help of these faults.
When asked at last Thursday's CNN debate about reports that he asked his wife to enter into an "open marriage," Gingrich responded with an attack of his own, calling the question "close to despicable" and firmly rebuking the television network for opening a presidential debate with "trash like that." Gingrich was met with numerous standing ovations.
In summation, Perry is made into a laughing stock by the media and the electorate for his speaking errors, while Gingrich, a man of dubious character, is celebrated. What is wrong with this picture? I would say that maybe the media has its priorities skewed, as Gingrich asserts.
That raises the question of Herman Cain, however. Why was Cain, who was also plagued by stories of sexual misconduct, forced to call it a day on the campaign trail? Perhaps it was the aggressive, rather than defensive, stance taken by Gingrich, which coaxed the crowd to its feet in celebration of a media smackdown.
This analysis still has its problems. Maybe Gingrich did take the most crowd-pleasing stance when it came to covering his faults, but is it not true that his faults are far more grievous than those of Rick Perry? And are they not verified, unlike the allegations made against Cain?
Here is where I think the answer lies, at least in part: Debates are perhaps more important today than at any time since the days of Nixon and Kennedy. People want good television. Watching Perry bumble along is amusing for a bit, but Gingrich taking the offensive against the media has created an almost rebellious atmosphere that is fresh and exciting. People can get behind that.
But this is a mistake. Barack Obama was exciting, too, with his promises of hope and change. Exciting, though, is not what should be looked for in the next president. A president needs to have values - values that he can live by every day. We need a strong, reliable leader, not just an exciting one.
The modern election cycle is not conducive to selecting the best man or woman for the job, but that does not mean we have to pick the wrong person. If the other candidates want a bite at the apple, though, they need to start now; they need to make it clear that there is more to being a leader than making good television.
Sam Novack's column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at s.novack@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PARTING SHOT: No man is an island
By Ava MacBlane | YesterdayRetirement, as you can tell, has been treating me well. When people ask me now if I miss it, I laugh and tell them some things I definitely don't miss. But I don't always get to tell them about the things I really do miss.
PARTING SHOT: You never know unless you try
By Lexi Baker | 2 days agoMy time at the University was shaped by the people who showed me grace and kindness and by those who had confidence in me, even when I struggled to have it in myself.
PARTING SHOT: A love letter to Cav Daily and Connection
By Ava Proehl | 2 days agoMy time here taught me to look for the genuine, human connection in every moment.
