The Daily Caller

The Daily Caller
DC Exclusives

How to talk like Newt (in 7 easy steps)

2:48 PM 05/18/2011
Matt K. Lewis

So you want to be a compelling talker like former Speaker Newt Gingrich?

You may not be a powerful political leader, but you can still incorporate Newtonian language into your workday.

Based on my many years of study, here are the 7 techniques to master…

1. Use lots of adverbs: Things are never bad they are “shockingly” bad. Actions are never outrageous, they are “stunningly” outrageous. People aren’t just demoralized, they are “dramatically” demoralized. You are never worried — you are “deeply” worried …

2. Establish credibility: Frequently mention the time you wrote the “Contract with America” or balanced the budget four consecutive years. (Note: If your background is slightly less impressive than Newt’s, simply substitute “landing that big deal with that paper company” in place of balancing the budget.

3. Reference history. Know your great leaders: Lincoln, Churchill, Thatcher, Reagan. Memorize a few quotes, too.

4. Stress how historic or important something is. When talking about a routine project at your office, always refer to it as “the most important reorganization of our company since 1965 …”

5. Go “all in” rhetorically. Constantly stress that this new deal poses an “existential threat to the very survival of your company.” (Note: Showing 100 percent confidence and strong body language are key here).

6. Describe opposition as insane. Memorize this phrase: “No rational person could believe ____.”

7. Begin sentences with the words “Look” or “Frankly.” (Also, try to throw in the word, “fundamentally” as much as possible.)

  • Pingback: Newt Gingrich, defined « JimEltringham.com

  • Jess81

    Parentheses are used in written English for four reasons. (1) Enclose umbers and letters in a list (2)Enclose clarifications (2) Introduce emphasizations (3)Enclose asides and additional information. There are no special rules for using them in titles UNLESS you are using them in bookmarks, references and lexicons.* The example you cite simply doesn’t apply here. “In Seven Easy Steps” isn’t a well-known lyric, is it?

    I don’t believe I said parentheses are used in the place of commas. Commas are a lesser alert in written text to signal a compound or complex modifier, and thus, intended a bit of sarcasm. Please note that I overlooked Matt’s more agregious error: the use of the word “like” as a conjunction. It’s not.

    Thank you for the definition of the esoteric term “all in”, so you’re right about the quotation marks. I appreciate the clarification.

    I’ve heard Gingrich as a guest of numerous programs and while I have heard him pepper his commentary with historical references, I’ve never heard this as a large portion of his commentary. I confess I’ve never heard him give a formal speech except for his announcement. You might furnish some evidence of this claim.

    I agree with your fourth point. Completely. IF Matt’s article were a thoughtful and even passionate critique of Gingrich’s blind-siding Congressional Republicans, I’d have agreed. If the piece discussed why a man of “brilliance” would have to be figuratively thrown against the wall by Bennett to have explained to him how he betrayed Republicans, I’d believe it was a legitimate discussion.

    If Matt’s hit piece on Bachmann were researched with information that backed up his claim that she is somehow unqualified because of corruption, then so be it. As it was, it presented “facts” that left the reader with the impression that she and her husband were ripping off the state and taking federal dollars in farm subsidies (which, BTW, they might HAVE to take to remain legally defined as a farm).

    There are numerous very real issues to discuss about Gingrich, but Matt’s purpose was to draw blood through mockery by setting himself up as some sort of authority on prose and speech. If you’re going to be a writing/speaking critic don’t make your critique one long shibbolith of English usage.

    I don’t think this aricle was intellectual or honest and it wasn’t witty. It was just nasty. Using Alinsky tactics against your own team isn’t helpful, particularly when the goal is literally to save the last bastion of freedom on this earth.

    *Can’t find the grammar site where I copied the four rules…sorry. But I did copy them from somewhere in the internet ether.

  • Jess81

    “The line between the fancy and the plain, between the atrocious and the felicitous, is sometimes alarmingly fine.” –The Elements of Style.

    Try that sentence without the modifying adverb. Not nearly as memorable, is it? I’ve always believed that the neophyte ought to tip-toe gently when when walking through the master’s field. For example, why did you put parentheses around “in seven easy steps”. You don’t even need a comma there. Also, why the quotation marks around “all in”? And what exactly does that mean? “All out” makes sense as in the use of superlatives or hyperbol. All in? As in “ally, ally in free”?

    And God forfend that our conversation include historical reference and meaningful quotes from great leaders. That would certainly be an existential threat to the 140 character Twitter generation.

    I really can’t figure the writer out. He says he’s a “conservative” but attacks like the left and is apparently on a project to take out a Republican a day. Like the President’s birth certificate, something does not add up.

    • tommiec

      Hey, I can do it in two steps…

      Step 1. Insert foot in mouth.

      Step 2. Start talking.

      Btw Jess81, do you wear your tin foil hat when you type your comments here? (don’t be upset with me cuz I think they’re really cool!)

    • callenlaw

      1) Parentheses are not determined by where you place a comma — in titles it indicates circumstances in which a work is known by additional words or lyrics than used in the proper title (e.g., “I’m All Out of Love (and So Lost Without You”).

      2) “All-in” is a poker term meaning to bet everything in one’s bank. By custom, specialized terms are set-off by quotation marks unless they have entered the general vernacular.

      3) Using famous quotes from great leaders is acceptable — having them comprise a large portion of your public comments is not. To paraphrase Wilde (irony intended), quotation is a serviceable substitute for wit, not wisdom.

      4) Demanding more of Republican leaders should be a defining characteristic of a conservative, not an indication that he/she is not a true conservative. Lambasting someone for criticizing his own party is criticizing a demand for intellectual honesty.

      And I think I did that without a single adverb.