Explaining Newt
A good portion of the right-wing punditocracy, Beltway sorts especially, appears to harbor a deep dislike of Newt Gingrich. They can’t believe he is currently the frontrunner for the Republican nomination and are doing everything in their power to enlighten the great unwashed about the multiple inadequacies of this man and knock some sense into them (us) before it is too late.
Now I am not a Beltway person. I am something even worse — a Hollywood & Vine person — so everything I say is suspect and should be. But allow me to chime in on why Newt is attractive to some of us at this juncture.
Let’s begin here: America is in a slough of despond. In fact, it’s in close to the worst shape it’s been since the Great Depression. Negativity rules the land. Few people are happy or optimistic. Basically, this once great nation is asleep.
And we have a president who wants us to stay there, who is banal, irritating, humorless, reactionary, self-righteous, and narcissistic all at once. He hasn’t said one interesting thing or proposed one creative idea since being in office.
Unfortunately, the Republican candidates aren’t much better. Romney, Perry, Santorum, Bachmann, Huntsman, even Paul, are no more than critics of a system gone moribund. They do not inspire us. Their ideas, even when worth investigating (flat tax, etc.), are no more than rehashes of proposals we have heard for decades.
Only Newt dances. Only Newt, on occasion, is original. Only Newt — and here is the important part — has the capacity to wake us up.
What attracts me about the man is the very thing that Romney criticized, the part that wants to explore the moon and stars, maybe even mine them.
Sure Gingrich has an idea a minute, many of which are bad, but at least he has ideas. At least he is thinking. And — guess what — he says what he thinks. Politicians aren’t supposed to do that.
But Gingrich reminds me more of a Steve Jobs or a Richard Branson than he does of a politician, and that is a good thing because politicians these days are the kind of people that make me want to bang my forehead against the desk.
And I would like to add — and perhaps this disqualifies me — that I don’t care who is more or less conservative, who is a RINO and who is not, or what kind of libertarian someone may or may not be. I think when your ideology has become rigid, you have checked your brains at the door. If you want proof of that, just look at today’s liberals. Their ideology has been extinct for years and they are walking around like the living dead, trying to preserve the welfare state and the vision of Lord Keynes while the whole world crumbles around them.
But, you’re saying, Gingrich has all these faults.. He’s erratic, arrogant, impatient, smart-alecky, thin- skinned, selfish, with a nasty grin like a roadshow Satan, etc., etc.
Well, yeah.
Right on!
While we have moribund aplenty, we need somebody who is not afraid of speakign their mind.
Mitt Romney’s a nice guy..Santorum’s a good Republican so was Dan Quayle, McCain meant well and so did Bob Dole…I had lunch with all of them and fell asleep after the soup.
Roger has it right, Newt is not a perfect man but he’s the perfect man for the job at hand!
When I heard Newt was entering the presidential sweepstakes my first thought was PUH–LEESE not now, “Newt you’re history.” When I heard him tell the truth about the Middle East all that changed. I thought, finally, some one who will put American interests above political correctness, some one who will stand up to the bullies who openly state their desire to destroy Western Civilization. I think I am not alone when I say that I am very, very weary of politicians apologizing to tyrants and trying to make friends of enemies who do not desire our friendship.
What we are seeing from Newt is as you say, Roger, inspiring.
Yes…funnily enough my wife, who hates politics, said the same thing after he pointed out that “Mediterranean-coastal-plains-Syrian-interior” people were about as real as the Village People are. (or are they they Mamluk Sultanatites?).
I was also slow to warm to him but when I saw the DNC “attack” ad I was sold….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrxkLI0aG_k
They think that is bad???
That video was great. Everything I want. Zero cap gains and 12.5 Corporate rate is exactly what we need. The department of Ed. is just a pork distribution machine like the department of Energy.
Obama cut $500 billion from medicare so what cred do they have?
Bon Jovial – Thank you! I hadn’t seen that either.
Ha! That’s a DNC attack ad? And would they torture Newt by making him sit in the ‘comfy chair’?
Yes, they would torture Newt by making him sit in the comfy chair — up until the moment he got nominated. Then it would be Newt throwing Grandma off the cliff all the way to the election.
I know, Bon Jovial! I agree!
Thanks for the DNC ad you linked to. I ask as I view it, and this is supposed to make me like him less?
I also love his Staten Island Tea Party speech from Dec. 3rd.
I have watched many speeches from Newt and it took months of watching and thinking. They’re on YouTube; and part of what is happening here is people are going and seeing for themselves, watching the actual speeches and interviews, and not just listening to the MSM anymore.
It took months of research, and I now support Newt.
We are the 100%. We are Americans. Everyone. Every one. That’s what I think this is all about.
And his remarks on the invention of the “Palestinian people” started a big discussion on one of my Humanities-Net lists. I wrote about the nation state and its variations here: http://clarespark.com/2011/12/15/gingrich-and-the-socially-constructed-nation-state/.
Oh, dear. You just exiled yourself from the Hugh Hewitt Show…maybe (you can almost hear his teeth grinding when he tries to talk about the current non-Mitt in a fair and balanced way).
Right on. I gave up on Hugh a long time ago…about the time he stopped accepting comments at his blog. Guess he got tired of people not agreeing with him. Yeah the troll problem was an issue for a while, but they were always put in their place by the other commenters.
Hugh may be smart and get all the right guests, but he’s a GOP hack through and through. He’s no conservative.
Oh yes, Newt Gingrich is an exciting candidate. And a debate between him and Obama will be something to behold. I am sure that Obama will be exposed as the little poseur he really is.
I agree, at least Gingrich isn’t a human teleprompter or a programed talking point. Of course, in today’s political world, thinking is outrageous, having an original idea or just telling the truth is unheard of.
Mediocrity is king today, our politicians are at best, mediocre. They have mastered the art of BS – talking a lot but saying nothing.
And, you’re right on in your description of Obama – I’d rather put my head into a vise than listen to him – thank G-d for the mute on my remote.
“Mediocrity is king today.” We can thank the Jeffersonians and Jacksonians for that. See http://clarespark.com/2011/12/10/before-saul-alinsky-rules-for-democratic-politicians/. This fear of intelligence is well-grounded in the Democratic Party as it has existed since the early 20th century. And Jeffersonian-Jacksonian populism can be found in many groups and parties.
It’s not fear of intelligence, it’s the American suspicion of self-labeled “intellectuals” (and Progressives keep on proving that such suspicion has good reason).
America was settled by people who got out from under the European elites, and prospered. Elitists have been feeling threatened ever since, and one expression of that is the contempt they feel for Americans. Anti-Americanism goes back centuries. Our elitists follow the European fashion, so they hold the American common man in contempt. Naturally, the American common man responds with suspicion and distrust.
“And, you’re right on in your description of Obama – I’d rather put my head into a vise than listen to him – thank G-d for the mute on my remote.”
Agreed! My in-laws all think he’s a great orator. They just gush over the guy. I can’t stomach listening to him. He has always reminded me of Mussolini. And you’re right about the mediocrity part.
Newt understands the Islamic threat and Newt supports Israel. For that alone, he deserves support.
[LINK]
I like Newt a lot, except what gives me pause is his connection to Grover Norquist, enabler of the Muslim Brotherhood in the US. Has he ever repudiated Norquist?
Seriously, you think Norquist is our biggest problem? Newt isn’t currently in politics, so I doubt he has signed on to a no taxes pledge.
No, Grover Norquist personally, isn’t our greatest problem — the Mohammedan and Mexican invasion/occupation are. Sharia law and Mexican culture are 100% incompatible with the American Constitution, modern science, or Western Civilization.
Mexican culture is hardly incompatible with the US. They’ve been part of our country since before it was a country and they have a better work ethic than most Americans these days. There are problems with their illegal invasion numbers, lack of assimilation and our weak culture that refuses to demand integration but thats no excuse for you to throw in your irrelevant bigotry.
I agree with you. The majority of Mexicans, at least the first generation, are very hard workers. Putting them in the same category as Muslims is ludicrous. It is true, however, that some elements of the Mexican community could do a better job of integrating.
Picking up on Roger Simon’s words.
“But, you’re saying, Gingrich has all these faults.. He’s erratic, arrogant, impatient, smart-alecky, thin- skinned, selfish, with a nasty grin like a roadshow Satan, etc., etc.”
Roger, with the nation a year away from virtual extinction, you and I cannot in all good conscience care about personality traits used by Odumbo voters, and Republican Neanderthals to describe Newt Gingrich. That discussion is the height of insignificance.
From borders security to second amendment protection, from huge oil spills to giant hurricanes, from terrorist threats to Iran gone as crazy as North Korea, from high unemployment to a dead housing market, from concern about energy independence to needing a cure for ObamaCare, from preserving capitalism to preserving this nation, you need somebody with vision, with ideas. Somebody who has a desire to do what’s healthy and right for the nation as opposed to somebody looking to tear it apart.
Some say Romney knows how to create jobs. What a crock. He worked in the equity industry. He’s a glorified Jim Cramer. He doesn’t make anything like a car or a door knob or head phone or a computer. He knows how to make money. People like Mitt fire a lot more people than they hire. Mitt business knowledge is a spec of dust compared to the CEO of a manufacturing company like 3M.
Still Mitt is 100% better than Obama. Mitt is proud to be an American.
As I see it, this country is at a crossroads. One road is paved with lying promises; huge tolls are everywhere you look. It’s controlled by communists who disguise themselves as progressives. Every sign post says death to capitalism. It leads us to nowhere.
The other road leads to the kind of freedoms Americans have fought to preserve for 240 some years; Down this road you’ll find Americans who believe in the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and the Republic. Not another racist Sotomayor nominated for the Supreme Court. Not another attorney general who lies to congress about selling guns to war lords, who calls American males racist cowards, who lets Black Panther voter intimidators off scot free. Who calls murders at Ft. Hood workplace violence.
America needs to take an exit in the next election.
The one marked freedom.
When I think of Newt Gingrich, I don’t think of a Washington or Lincoln. I think of a Ben Franklin who I think would have made a darn good President.
A darn bad one is B.Hussein. Who’s killing us by stuffing so much debt down our and our children’s throats that eventually we’ll run out of breath. Most Americans still want to breathe free air.
Can Newt do the job? Could Ben Franklin do the job. YES, YES YES. A thousand times yes.
Any Republican who’s joining the Newt-bashing train isn’t a part of the solution.
As sure as Tim Tebow beat a bad Bears team yesterday with its incompetent coach, another Obama administration will in all honesty be the equivalent of the administration of a lethal dose of cyanide; the permanent separation of this nation from the alter of freedom. Pray, Tim Tebow, pray America, pray that Obama’s hopes for a financially enslaved America don’t come to fruition.
Four more years of Obama will achieve Obama’s objective: it’ll destroy us, which has been his intent from day one. Glory Hallelujah, getting the small c communist mole known as B. Hussein out of the White House would be a glorious achievement.
Newt Gingrich, may not be perfect. Heaven knows, John Basilone, Harry Truman and John Kennedy weren’t perfect.
Maybe Newt Gingrich can’t hold a candle to them.
But he has a lot of ideas, many of which just might work. Not only does he know how to think, but I believe with all my heart that he loves his country.
More importantly, I think Newt Gingrich has the ability and the will to save this great nation from something it is so near to I can almost smell it.
Extinction.
Here, Here, Rachel!
Rachel, wow! A Manilla John reference. Oorah!
Franklin, however, did know when to keep his mouth shut. Newt, not so much. Still, I’d love to see a Gingrich/Obama debate. Oh what a joy that would be.
Knowing when to keep your mouth shut is exactly what PC is all about. It’s exactly what liberals want. It’s called shut up and sit down. Some people are okay with that and some people aren’t. Thankfully Newt isn’t.
Here, here Rachel, well said.
Well said.
Your observation that “Still Mitt is 100% better than Obama. Mitt is proud to be an American.” is spot on, and the difference between any republican and Obama.
If people are figgering that the election will be an adult debate about the future of the country, Romney should be your guy. He’s a boy scout who will conduct himself honorably and make a good case for American values and for shrinking the crazy bloated government behemoth. He will defend his record vigorously, and won’t get into the ditch with the occasional Democrat who dares to violate Obama’s stern orders to keep things civil. Butter won’t melt in Mitt’s mouth. He will show the president the ultimate respect.
If, on the other hand, you have a hunch that things could get dirty, then you might consider Newt.
Oh, so he confines his vicious attack ads to Republicans?
“vicious attack ads”
you’re kidding right?
Stay tuned for vicious.
proreason: I love your post. I usually zoom to your response on a subject I am very interested in. I can’t get my arms or heart around Romney and he will be beaten to a pulp by Obama and MSM. We can’t afford 4 more years of Obama.
Newt is the only person who has cut and balanced the budget. He isn’t just talking about it, he has done it! Guess I’ll dance with the devil I know.
We don’t need a Boy Scout in the White House who will be oh-so-careful never to say or do anything that might offend anybody, and who will never take a difficult stand on an important issue.
We need a man who will speak the truth and stand up for the truth whether anybody likes it or not.
Rachel, Rachel
20 years ago I joined four WWII patriots at an early morning session in a venerable breakfast nook at a River Oaks drug store in that fashionable Houston neighborhood. There I learned about Houston, the oil patch, WWII and Texas counties from Deaf Smith and towns like Dime Box. A Marine corporal who’d served with Manila John Basilone was my favorite Texan. He’d fought with Basilone at Guadalcanal in 1942 and was later wounded at Pelelieu in 1944. He told the story of Basilone winning the Medal of Honor on Guadalcanal’s Machine Gun Ridge and going back to the States to raise money on a Bond Drive with movie stars. My breakfast mate in Houston also mentioned Basilone’s New Jersey wife, as well as Basilone’s Manila wife and children. It seems the New Jersey wife had learned about the Manila wife and let it be known that if she caught John in the United States she was going to lower his body temperature to room temperature. Whereupon Sgt Basilone requested the Marine Corps (the P is silent) send him back into the Pacific Theater where he was KIA at Iwo Jima in 1945.
…a cure for ObamaCare, from preserving capitalism to preserving this nation, you need somebody with vision, with ideas.
You must be dumber than a bag of hammers trying to compare Newt Gingrich to Ben Franklin. Newt is FAR closer to Obama than he’ll ever be to Ben Franklin.
You’re aware that Newt if for the individual mandate right? If you want someone with ideas, why would you back someone whose only ideas are gigantic govt progressivism?
Whew! You go Rachel!
You really did hit the bullseye!
Newt wants John Bolton for Secretary of State and that’s when I signed on.
Amen to Rachel P. and Roger L. Amen, amen.
An Préachán
Here is an Excerpt from a comment in the thread; Why Many Republicans Oppose a Gingrich Nomination — and why the Left Favors It by Ron Radosh – that I posted in response to someone…
While Obama is clearly contemptuous of America’s past I think Newt as a Historian embraces the past. I think, for this reason, that Newt has the ability to look to the future with the guiding lessons of the past, that is to say, It is not his intention to move us ‘backwards in time’, but to regain the attitude (and beleifs and traditions) that those in days gone by had for facing what lies ahead.
Gingrich cannot stay focused.The world is full of failures who are smart and full of ideas but are unable to complete anything.
Want Gingrich to stay focused?
Just work on getting majorities in both houses of Congress.
Then all Gingrich has to do is keep his signing-pen in good working order.
President Newt, 250 Republican Congressmen and 62 Republican senators. The counter revolution will begin.
Gingrich is the only person since Calvin Coolidge, who has been able to cut spending in Washington and produce a balanced budget.
The only person out of 500 million people in that period.
How is that not a result?
Think about it! Of all the presidents and Speakers and Senate majority leaders since 1929, he has been the ONLY person who did that.
yes.
purity of purpose without results is…..purity of purpose
Newt appears to be the only candidate who will take the fight to Obama and the democrats. Obama should be the one defending, or attempting to defend, his miserable record, but unless the Republican candidate plays offense he will be endlessly defending himself while Obama again gets a pass. Nobody ever won any contest by taking the field only on defense. Even Tim Tebow has to play five minutes or so of offense.
‘Not accomplish anything?’
What the darn hell are you talking about son? He became Speaker of the House during the administration of arguably the most popular democrat President of our lifetime and called him out on his tax and spend ways and BEAT HIM!
Balanced the budget four years running and reduced welfare. Maybe you and I need to explore the meaning of accomplishment a little more.
The major media, the Democrat Party, and the Republican establishment all oppose Gingrich. Can all those self-serving bastards be wrong?
What could be better than at least four years of Newt’s making piñatas of those groups?
I think Newt is the right man for our times, he has my support. He has won me over with his responses in the debates and for his consistent unwillingness to play the game the MSM-way. Obama is going to need that teleprompter when they debate.
One of the reasons he sound so different from your average national politician is that he is not a freakin’ ivy league lawyer. He is a historian.
That alone makes him worth listening to…
Er, sounds…for all you nit pickers who focus on typos.
And one more thing, since I’m typing again. I’ve contacted all of my national, most of my state and a good number of my county elected officials over concerns that I have this past year. They have all been completely gross to talk to. Condescending, speaking in half truths (lawyer speak) and treating me like I work for THEM.
“a freakin’ ivy league lawyer” = Trained liar.
All I want, (being careful to advise I’m an Aussie and don’t actually get a vote) is the Grinch in the No#1 spot with Ron Paul as No#2
Awesome really; winners not whiners for a change and the EPA the quickest footnote to history in history
“And I would like to add — and perhaps this disqualifies me — that I don’t care who is more or less conservative, who is a RINO and who is not, or what kind of libertarian someone may or may not be.”
Unfortunately, I think you should. Yes the liberals are dangerous and are supporting an economic system that is certain to fail, but if you vote for one at least you know what you’re getting. Obama and his minions successfully pushed the idea in 2008 that he was a “centrist,” which after three years of this idiot he certainly is not. He’s as far left as they come. So for all you people who voted for him in 2008 and now regret it, “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.”
Sure, some of the other conservative Republicans may be boring, but at least they stand for something. But good politicians don’t have to be entertaining, they need to stand for something (just look at Calvin Coolidge, a fine president but a hell of a bore). Maybe it’s because you’re from Hollywood, Mr. Simon, but this isn’t a television show. We don’t need to be entertained for four years. We need to know what a man or woman running for president stands for, NOT what they MAY stand for in the future. That’s the whole point of primaries, to see if the person you’re voting for is serious enough to BE president. Real CONSERVATIVE values may seem trite and boring, but they work, and we are going to need a lot of that in the coming years.
Sure, Newt has some great ideas. But if he really is a RINO, then maybe we’re just getting a more conservative version of Obama, and four years from now we’ll be wondering how the heck this new president fooled us again by simply “saying” he’s a conservative but has really only grown our government some more, created an even bigger bureaucracy, added more debt, and take even more money away from the American people.
But, hey, he may have had some entertaining ideas about global warming. Sure, that’s a reason to vote for the guy.
The entire US political/economic structure is ‘extinct’
and about to be replaced by something completely different,
something which will be built up piece by piece out of the
_successful_ responses to the coming crises.
Gingrich has another ‘flaw’, a consistent self-interest which
I expect is _rational_, as opposed to the opposition’s insanity;
In the coming existential crisis, he will experiment with new ideas
and keep the ones that work, as opposed to doing the same old thing
over and over and expecting to get a different result.
1st, the nation cannot suffer another 4 years of the current Administration. Real unemployment is somewhere between 17-20%(counting people unemployed but no longer on the dole, and underemployed). We are spending more money than ever. Our foreign policy is infantile, naive, and chaotic. And the corruption from the White House and Congress is legendary.
Thus, OMG; Anybody But Obama. ANYBODY but Obama.
2nd, Republicans must take the Senate and maintain the House, just so we can get something done, and as a check on the possibility that Obama somehow manages to hoodwink another electoral majority.
3rd, Gingrich is not perfect. Reagan wasn’t either, nor was Lincoln, or Jefferson, nor Washington (etc.) despite the paeans and hosannas that bloggers and pundits often bestow upon them.
4th, the MSM and the DNC wants Romney. When your enemies want you to foist a candidate of their choosing, guess what? You are a rube getting setup for a take down. That was the truth with McCain.
5th, Gingrich has matured. He has found God, he knows history, he is smart as hell, and he values the traditions that have made her exceptional. Perhaps most importantly he loves America and he has an optimistic vision for her future.
—
Finally, Gingrich was Reagan’s most successful General in the War between the Statists.
Gingrich will fight, he will fight, and he will fight some more to make America proud again.
Romney will merely manage.
Please, please, please….stop using the term MSM when describing the media. You are inherently referring to the Leftist Media in all its formats. The left media is no longer the main stream media—thank Heaven—and does no longer call the shots.
We have, over the past 20 years or so in this country, a new MSM and it is Conservative. It is bigger, in better financial condition, has more readers, viewers, and listeners than the liberal MSM.
Do your homework, research, and math. You will see that the Conservative main stream media is the MSM. Its influence is tremendous. Use it. Millions and millions of people tune in to all of its formats.
To refer to the MSM, the leftist MSM, is to give that media an elevated status it no longer commands. You give it a platform it does not deserve. Day by day, it gets more like Oz behind the curtain, making all sorts of loud noises, sound and fury, signifying not so much.
Oh, and for those of you who disagree, fine. And, no, the NYT does no longer influence the outcome of national elections. Read it sometime, if you have the intestinal fortitude for it; the Wall Street Journal makes sense, has more circulation, and more influence. So sue me already…….
Mr. Bensen, please stay on topic. Your obsession with the media/DNC/socialist nexus has nothing to do with Newt’s qualities or electability, and arguments regrading same.
If you want to bloviate about American Pravda, do it on your own blog, or wait for that to be the topic.
Interesting ideas all. I’m not a Newt supporter, but the comments above have me re-thinking my position. You can judge a man by the friends he keeps, but a better measure is the enemies he makes. The MSM hate Newt and love Romney. Why? Got to be a reason. Perhaps Newt needs a second look…
What you say, Roger, has a certain appeal. There is no doubt Newt has been utterly brilliant in the debates, and his idea about Lincoln/Douglas debates with Obama (and in general) is such a welcome difference to the usual superficial baloney.
As an older conservative, I have to get over the bitterness of having witnessed Newt, for absurd purposes of ego and selfishness, single-handedly squander the historical conservative victory in 1994. I also have to get over his stunning betrayal in NY-23 more recently.
I will have to reconcile myself to the idea of this flawed man. I will, if I must. But no, I do not want him tweeting from the White House all day long, and I do not want him speaking to me, to us, about a hundred topics whose subtext will be one topic, the glorious importance of a man not quite as glorious or important as he thinks.
Obama was correct once on 60 minutes. The differences in the two parties are stark.
Newt believes in America, loves & teaches history. Newt has proven he can work across the isle, turn the economy around, create jobs, and bring America back.
Compared to Obama who tweeked through his Senate race and has continued to be nothing but smoke and mirrors.
I’ll take the risk of Newt’s baggage for the sake of our future.
The more they bash Gingrich in Washington, the MORE I like him. They are truly afraid of something.
Savage offering Newt a million dollars was truly a joke. Romney would offer him 10 million to get out of the race.
Teaching history is not a qualification for being Chief Executive. It’s a qualification for being a professor at some college somewhere.
But being Speaker of the House DOES:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/12/newts-past-and-future-leadership/
No. Being Speaker of the House is about being enough of a wheeler-dealer to get legislation passed.
Leadership isn’t about wheeling and dealing. It’s about inspiring the people to support you rather than start voting for the opposition.
Gingrich can’t inspire anybody. He’s not even inspiring the GOP base. They would never have given him serious consideration if he were not the last of the non-Romneys. They waited until after Bachmann faltered. They waited until after Perry stumbled. They waited until after Cain quit.
And only THEN they went with Gingrich.
That’s not a ringing endorsement.
You begin with an inane remark about Newt’s education, totally forgetting his public service and then say some more inanae things about his political credentials. Why not just come out and say who you support instead of the pap you have exuded till now.
Well, he inspires me. I learn alot listening to him. And, he is a Proud American!
I assume then that being a professor of constitutional law, followed by a legislative stint with an impressive array of votes “present”, doesn’t qualify you to be presdient
I don’t know which way your comment is intended to “cut,” but for the umpteenth time:
1. Obama was not a “Professor,” he was an adjunct lecturer. The official line, quoted here –http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/obama-a-constitutional-law-professor/ –is that eventually he became a “Senior Lecturer.” Being an adjunct teacher myself, I know the difference (see the quotes from a Phil Singer there).
2. He did not teach “constitutional” law. He taught race-based subjects: (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_subject_did_Barack_Obama_teach_at_University_of_Chicago_Law_School ): Voting Rights, Due Process and Equal Protection, and “‘His most original course, a historical and political seminar as much as a legal one, was on racism and law.’”
Is being a Professor of Constitutional Law a qualification for the Presidency ?
Neither knowledge nor love of History is required to be a Conservative;
What is required is a determination to learn from history, rather than
deconstruct it, and reassemble the parts (and some new fabrications) into
a pedagogical weapon of mass destruction, which is what the Progressives do.
Simon: “Negativity rules the land. Few people are happy or optimistic.”
Because we now have had the longest stretch of 9% unemployment since the 1930s. That means that the vast majority of Americans alive today can’t remember a time when things were this bad.
And so to fix that, what Mr. Simon wants is:
Simon: “What attracts me about the man is the very thing that Romney criticized, the part that wants to explore the moon and stars, maybe even mine them.”
Mining the Moon is Gingrich’s equivalent of Obama’s “millions of green jobs” and high speed rail fantasies.
You and any conservatives who agree with you about this, are making the same mistake that Obama made with his own pie-in-the-sky fantasies: You’re totally ignoring all the polls that show that the issue that Americans care the most about is creating more jobs immediately. Not futuristic pie-in-the-sky projects, whether it’s a “green energy economy” or spaceships to the planets.
It’s amazing to me that after we just spent 3 years asserting that a pseudo-intellectual academic (Obama) can’t lead the nation, so many in the GOP base want to go with their *own* pseudo-intellectual academic (Gingrich).
We don’t need any more Presidents who talk like professors.
We don’t need a Republican equivalent of Adlai Stevenson.
We’ve seen what the Democratic version of that is like.
Those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it. I’ll take the guy who understands history. Preferably American history.
I agree. I prefer Romney’s approach although it’s not likely to inspire an award-winning movie. Gingrich is top down. Perhaps he can inspire with great plans for the future, but these plans won’t be realized without a strong foundation of people who believe that their everyday life is somewhat stable.
I think Romney, more than any candidate, recognizes this. He also recognizes that the federal government diminishes people’s ability to think for themselves and find their own solutions to problems. Would a federal sponsored internet project have planned for the dream of Jeff Bezos? I doubt it. More than likely, project managers would have spent months debating the typeface to be used for web-based supplemental history classes. Didn’t Gingrich support GSE-type support for space projects. The dreamers plan dozens of approaches and projects, and the taxpayers bail out the failures.
I believe that ordinary people have to start coming up with plans for their own communities and states without the lure of matching federal grants with thousands of strings attached. I also believe it will take some time for these people to unwind themselves from the strings that already bind them to unaffordable projects and idiotic federal standards. A solid if rather boring plan to get the economy moving will do the most to give them this time. At some point even the OWS people might realize that the college debt is being used to fund diversity administrators rather that professors and that having climbing walls in the college gym is not going to give them skills to support themselves.
Rachel Peepers’ mention of Ben Franklin is interesting, because to me Franklin represents the ideal of not always needing a government to get things done. We had no Department of Fire Prevention to come up with the lightening rod, nor a Department of Book Availability to start a public library in Philadelphia. I think Franklin should serve as a model for the power and creativity of private individuals, not as a model for president. George Washington gave us the model for a peaceful transition of government. Ben Franklin gave many models for how private citizens can contribute to the country. We need both types.
I have one more concern about Newt. Would he be able to let members of his cabinet or congressional leaders shine or would he always have to be the center of attention? Would his impromptu utterings undermine policies that they had worked on diligently? He might be able to organize a team, but I’m not sure he could handle not being the smartest man on the team and THE expert in all fields.
One of the VERY few things Obama did right, was to begin to transition America’s manned space effort to private entrepreneurs.
Virgin Galactic is betting they can send hundreds of astronauts into space affordably and safely.
They can hardly do worse than NASA’s Space Shuttle, which killed 14 astronauts and never came close to being cost-effective.
sinz,
I have to agree. As much as I would love to see Newt rip apart Obama in the debates, I think it’s time for a grownup in the Whitehouse. Someone that will roll up his sleaves and do the dirty and unattractive work of turning our out-of-control Government into a lean, mean machine. That sounds like Mitt’s specialty.
Your amnesia — induced or otherwise of Newt’s life since 1978 is breathtaking if not juvenile.
Does Savage have a million? Fat chance.
Find the clip of Newt taking Scott Pelley to pieces over the distinctions between civil law and unlawful combatants, and notice the steel in his eyes when he says the proper thing to do with people who are trying to kill you is to kill them. (I am not quoting exactly, but winthefuture, it’s his demeanor not the words.)
Thanks for your tip about this clip. I haven’t enjoyed anything so much in a long while.
As I think back to my grandfather, a joyful man who thanked God every day of his life for being able to live here (and who laughingly recalled being beaten and robbed of every penny he had in steerage on the way over here at the age of 13); of the four doting uncles (2 were POW’s) who considered it an honor to serve in WWII; of a beloved older brother killed on his second tour in VN, about whom one of his men wrote, “We would have followed him into hell if he had asked us to,” the 2012 election is about only one thing for me and that is unbridled love of country. We can hash out everything else out from there with the re-kindled spirit that built this country. Go, Newt!
Thanks, Mayberry Lady — your post brought tears to my eyes.
Hi again Mayberry Lady – I am so grateful to all through the years who have protected our freedoms and made sacrifices for our freedom. Thanks for telling us about your family.
(Apologies if this is a double bubble. Fat fingers and under-caffeinated.)
Thank you for your kind acknowledgement, Hope.
The truly humbling thing is that millions of American families share a legacy like this. It is just one of many things that Zero and the self-proclaimed “elites” simply do not get. I couldn’t hold a candle to the people like these who have gone before me the best day I’ll ever live, but the least I can do is testify for them in some small way, and try to uphold the valor by which they lived.
I am currently reading a biography of Bourke Cochran, the extraordinarily gifted American orator and politician who had a such profound influence on Winston Churchill. I’m at the part that describes the battles over sound money vs free silver during the late 1800’s. What strikes me about then vs now is the passionate involvement of the general populace in these issues of their time. (Apparently speeches could run as long as two hours, and rapt crowds stood all that time, clapping and howling throughout!) I also see some similarities to Newt in Cochran, not only in the giftedness, but because, although Cochran was an affiliate of Tamany, he was an intractably independent thinker who could not be controlled by either party’s machine and crossed party lines over his conviction about sound money. It is my belief that anyone who can awaken that passionate spirit again will rule the day. America belongs to those who love her, and love is stronger than hate. In this way we shall prevail.
Gingrich is a man who speaks his mind. Unfortunately.
Gingrich says that politicians who took money from Freddie Mac should go to jail (himself excepted presumably).
Gingrich says that taking money from Freddie Mac for promoting a socialist housing scheme (and then lying about it)is the same as Romney practising capitalism.
One activity destroyed the housing market, caused the banking industry to nearly crumble and led to the adoption of the banking regulations which are preventing a recovery. The other created jobs.
Those who think Gingrich is smart confuse knowledge with intelligence.
“Gingrich says that politicians who took money from Freddie Mac should go to jail (himself excepted presumably).”
Anybody can twist anything.
Obviously, Newt’s comment referred to politicians who took quid pro quo money to further their own political careers, like Dodd, Franks, Waters, et al.
Gingrich had a business arrangement to provide advice and counsel; he wasn’t an elected official at the time. There isn’t anything illegal or immoral about it. You might legitimately think he shouldn’t have done it, like I do, but to suggest he is being hypocritical about the matter is being willfully ignorant.
Gingrich meets my idea of a hypocrite. And a blowhard. Suggesting that politicians should be put in jail for taking money to support these destructive GSEs – which is exactly what he did.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/11/newt_gingrich_throw_barney_frank_in_jail.html
How is it hypocritical to say the corrupt congress critters who protected the GSE’s should go to jail? The GSE’s destroyed the economy while completely hiding the massive risk that they were unilaterally imposing on the country. Many congressmen blocked audits and regulations while getting personnaly wealthy by insider trading (and other means) in the companies and banks that colluded with the GSE’s, and worse. Notably, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. The officials who did that SHOULD be in jail. It’s a huge scandal that they aren’t serving time.
Gingrich wasn’t a public official when his consulting company was hired by the GSEs. Unless it comes out that he did insider trading on the information he was privy to, his company was one of thousands feeding at the federal trough. If you are claiming that is illegal or unethical, you have just condemned every single person who does business with the government, which is probably more than half the businesses in the country.
Why do you suppose that they hired Gingrich? Just for a history lesson?
They hired him for his NAME. They wanted to get some big-shot Republicans on their team to deflect increasing Republican criticism (from Bush on down).
So?
So by protecting themselves with GOP political cover, Fannie and Freddie and their ilk continued practices which ultimately trashed our economy.
Bush, to his credit, recognized that things had gotten out of hand at F&F.
But they were protected–by Barney Frank and by Gingrich.
In a lot of places, hiring Newt would be referred to as Top Cover. Cheers -
And when you get done parsing that difference, I have a few angels to dance on the head of your blade.
Come on. You can’t possibly believe what you’re saying. What do you think “consulting” is, when the job skill you have to offer is being a politician? Or was he going to write their history? Oh, wait….
Not being able to draw the distinction is amazing. Is it density or blindness?
I am totally with you on Gingrich being an inspiring intellect, but you have to realize that the qualities that make him attractive to you and me are the same ones that make him anathema to many other people. The problem is that the walking dead still vote, and if the GOP candidate is too polarizing, the zombies will vote their fellow mindless corpses another term in which to finish eating the rest of us.
http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2011/12/13/krauthammer-gingrichs-attack-on-romney-is-what-youd-expect-from-a-socialist/
And I or anyone else should care about Krauthammer’s opinion because ?
CK is a card-carrying member of the Ruling Class, as is George Will.
They are both members of the elitist team whose primary goal in life is to protect their own status. Neither one can abide anybody who isn’t a humble member of the cocktail party circuit.
A smart outsider guy who disagrees with them about anything is their worst enemy.
CK heaped praise on Obama for months after he was elected. Liked his temperment, donchaknow.
For once, Roger Simon has written an article with which I can wholly agree.
Gingrich is at the very least entertaining: he can express novel, even politically-dangeours, ideas and capture our interest. That already puts him above his rivals.
On the other hand, I’m worried about his electability in the general…
Standard response:
In eight months, the economy will be so bad that people will vote for the clichéd arthritic camel over Obama.
The worse, the better.
“I’m worried about his electability in the general…”
I think the anti-Obama sentiment is going to play a significant role in the election next year. I am not so sure Obama could have won in 2008 had it not been for the very strong anti-Bush sentiment that many people simply transferred onto McCain. Not saying that Gingrich will have his work cut out for him should he become the nominee but the fact that he’s pretty much a moderate is a factor that is in his favor.
….will not have his work cut out…..
“But Gingrich reminds me more of a Steve Jobs or a Richard Branson than he does of a politician, and that is a good thing because politicians these days are the kind of people that make me want to bang my forehead against the desk.”
Nonononono! Politicians these days are the kind of people that make me want to bang THEIR heads against the desk, repeatedly.
Tar, Feathers, Rail, Politician, some assembly required.
Until a few months ago, I too regarded Newt Gingrich as another “just hanging in there” GOP candidate who doesn’t have a chance to win..but then I started to listen to him and like him.
I like his directness, intellect, wit and his ability to articulate coherent thoughts, which on most matters coincide with mine. He boldy proclaims to be an America lover and has passion for history and expresses some vision for our country. I do not see Newt chidishly pointing blame at others, I see a grownup able to step forward to accept responsibility and be accountable. I could care less about his earlier personal life confusions and missteps.
For those out there kidding yourselves, these are not ordinary times. America is crying out for a bold, colorful, well seasoned leader. Not a “pale pastel..it’s my turn republican…shove him down your throat” like Mitt Romney, not a “metrosexual messiah or faux american leader” like the current WH occupier……But a politically incorrect, BULLDOG similar to a Churchill-Reagan type with the ability to boldly lead America to positive recovery.
Unfortunately, America is at the brink. Are we willing to weakly watch America go down the drain because we elect weak leaders and after the fact, wonder what happened? Go Bold, Go Bulldog, Go Gingrich!
My husband, who is a huge Churchill fan and has read all his books, also said that Newt reminds him of Winston. We could do A LOT worse…..
Every time someone compares Newt to Churchill, I remember what Lloyd George said about being in a political alliance with Churchill: that it was like being driven by an apparently sane chauffeur, who would drive with great skill for months, then one day without warning would drive off the edge of a precipice.
That is SO uncalled for. It only demeans you to make such a remark. ALL great men… ALL (from Washington to Lincoln to Churchill) — you think they led “perfect” absolutely “sinless” ever-perfect lives? You have no conception of the difference between a MAN (living in what’s called “the human condition” and his “WORK” or his “CONTRIBUTION TO SOCIETY” or his “SPEECHES & ELOQUENCE”).
Puh-lease. I’m not even a Christian but I bet you’d (WHOLLY improperly) find fault in Jesus given your sophomoric remarks. And if so, you should be thoroughly chastised for it! If you’re going to criticize men like Churchill, that leaves you with a paltry 2 or 3 men left in world history(!) to choose from as your heroes!
I don’t know why people continue to give this man a pass. From his inability to translate the Contract with America into real life achievements to his Climate Control ads with Nanny Pelosi, to his amnesty stance on illegal aliens to his casting of Medicade reform as social engineering, this is not someone I want to put in the presidency.
I don’t even want to go into his personal life. Integrity is something that most of Washington DC couldn’t recognize if it reared up and bit them on the nose. Being unfaithful to one’s spouse, forsaking sacred covenants does not show an understanding of integrity, faithfulness and loyalty. If you can’t bother to be faithful to someone you’re supposed to love and have a responsibility to, how can you be trusted to be faithful and loyal to your country and it’s citizens.
All things considered not the best candidate.
I do not give the man a pass, or expect him to change.
I expect him to be the same self-centered self-serving
_effective_ politician he has always been, _and_, in a
completely different situation, to behave in a completely
different way, in his own self-interest, and mine.
I expect the Progressives, whose basic self hatred has
reached its suicidal terminal stage, to self-destruct,
and take me with them; Not voting for that.
Roger, please forgive me if I am too passionate here, but I must speak my mind. Newt’s professorial arrogance and smug attitude are minor in comparison to his stated positions — and actual record — on the war on drugs, which Gingrich wants to ramp up as never before. On that issue alone, I am convinced that the man is a mortal danger to American freedom. It is beyond dispute that wants real war, including executions, SWAT Teams, a total negation of privacy — in short, the worst sort of tyranny imaginable.
Anyone who thinks he is merely spouting rhetoric or floating bad ideas would be wise to read this piece by Radley Balko:
http://www.theagitator.com/2011/11/19/newt-gingrich-drug-warrior-extraordinaire/
While I will never, ever vote for Obama, I am debating whether I will be able hold my nose, take a barf bag to the polls and vote for Gingrich. Even if I possibly can, it would be a moment of personal shame.
Gingrich makes me ashamed to be a Republican.
Newt is nothing like Steve Jobs. Jobs didn’t have an idea a minute, he took an idea then spent several years getting his entire organization to first believe in it and then develop it. Newt just has ideas (or unorganized thoughts), spews them out to show how clever he is and draw attention to himself, then scurries on to other things. Why is it that no one who ever worked closely with Gingrich endorses him? That can not be said of Steve Jobs.
Newt’s character flaws and crony capitalism corruption, if overlooked, will bring havoc on the Republican party and the country should he be elected.
Newt was not my first choice or even my second choice, but I’ve become a Newt supporter.
1. With the recent revelation that Obama’s campaign strategy includes writing off the blue-collar working class, these voters have now assumed strategic importance. Many of them have long clung to the old stereotype of the Democratic party as the party of the working class, the common man, the everyday joe. While they are starting to understand intellectually that this is no longer the case, they haven’t made the jump emotionally yet.
As a result, this election will be won or lost in the 30-second sound bites seen and heard by these blue-collar disaffected ‘almost ready to make the jump’ voters. There is one and only one candidate left standing who can do sufficiently well with those 30-second soundbites to sway them: Newt. If you watched any of the debates you saw how effectively Newt not only cut moderators down to size, he was able to turn the question or accusation around and come out the better for it. In an oral matchup, Newt will take Obama to the cleaners.
2. Some people are worried about Newt’s history of coming up with hairbrained ideas. I’m not. In a recent speech, he said, “I come up with ideas. Not all of them are good. The American people come up with ideas too. Let’s sort through the ideas and find the ones that are good.”
3. “Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it”. I’m old enough to understand the wisdom of that statement. We seem to have fallen into a mode of looking at things through the perspective of the last ten minutes and ignoring the lessons of history (can anyone say ‘OWS’?) We need someone who can put today’s circumstances into the proper perspective offered by history. Newt’s comments about the Palestinians are a perfect example. The talking heads in the MSM don’t have a clue about the history of the middle east and so their reactions to Newts comment were laughable.
4. The last time Newt was in Congress (1994) was just about the last time government actually worked. Contract with America. Welfare reform (remember that Newt worked with Clinton to get that done).
5. We’ve got a guy in the White House who does not understand how Congress works and how to work with it to get things done. I think AMericans are beginning to realize that while an outsider is great, we need someone who understands the complex gears of the government and how to get things done.
6. Newt is an unabashed cheerleader for and advocate of American Exceptionalism. We’ve been here before. Think Jimmy Carter and malaise. Ronald Reagan turned the mood of the country around with that same spirit. Think ‘Morning in America’.
7. Dear Republican Establishment: We took your advice the last time. We went along with you and did it your way, and that’s what got us in this mess. Your advice therefor is – quite frankly – suspect. You didn’t want Ronaldus Magnus either, but our way worked out pretty good then. Let’s do it our way this time too.
The US is in a civil war. The public sector, govt, unions,and NGO’s, are waring against the private sector, and they are winning. I recall a wartime leader that was successful, while being hated by many. Winston Churchill. Could Newt be a reincarnation of Winnie? I’d gamble on it.
Global warming regulations in exchange for a promise to explore space which Gingrich will immediately break. Oh wait he has abandoned the global warming regulations also. Sounds like a true Winston Churchill already.
Newt is us: we know who them are.
I’m not an unregistered lobbyist. I am you.
I take it back Romney is even more depressing. Too the bad the election is too important to just write in ‘Captain Kangaroo’ on your ballot.
Very funny column, Roger, but: What we have in Newt is a guy who ought to be the poster boy for why Washington and its institutions no longer work. Get elected to the Congress, rise to Speaker, and in due course and under pressure from your own Party, resign. Then become rich by joining the private sector (sic) as a highly paid influence peddler insuring that bad policy, which enriches a few at the expense of the many, continues. That more or less represents the man’s public service, and we don’t need to rehearse the details of his private life, which has been a train wreck. Despite the profoundly superficial ideas that he embraces on a daily basis, and which he believes reflect his special genius, there really is no integrity there, and no ‘core’ either, other than narcissistic self interest. So seriously, Roger, entertainment values aside, is this the guy we want in the White House? Really?
Dyspeptic as you might find Newt’s consulting with Freddie Mac (I would share a bit of it), look at all his streams of income and then judge the melange. YOu might come to the same conclusion but please do not be lazy.
The “good Newt” can be truly impressive; the “bad Newt” is a train wreck, as we saw just last summer when he savaged Paul Ryan and his own former Republican colleagues in Congress. Which Newt is likely to show up on any given day? Impossible to say. You could have the “good Newt” do something brilliant in the morning and the “bad Newt,” as if to compensate, self-destruct that afternoon. Is there any way to keep his “good” side to the fore and keep the bad Newt at bay? Maybe a really strong, level-headed VP (like Paul Ryan)?
Maybe we can have Newt sign a pledge to go golfing in the afternoons.
I too have started warming to Gingrich. But I’d want to see him repudiate his “global warming” work with Pelosi, his association with Sharpton, and the pro-Muslim activities of Norquist before I could more fully embrace him. But whether it’s his calling out of MTV long ago for their mindless “boxers or brief” question or pointing out the “invented” nature of Palestinian peoplehood, this kind of forthrightness is refreshing.
He has repudiated the couch with Pelosi ad. He says it was a dumb thing to so. He says he thinks we don’t know was is the deal with global warming because the earth has been much warmer centuries ago. He says he would not ever support government expenditures based on global warming theory, and that he testified against cap and trade on the very same day that Al Gore testified for it.
He says that he was supporting the idea that ALL of our students need to be able to get a good education, and that was why he traveled around with Al Sharpton, and that he still considers that an important issue and he gives Al Sharpton credit for caring about our kids and their education.
I don’t know anything about Norquist and Muslims, so I can’t respond to that.
The power to find out about what Newt is proposing is entirely in your hands. His speeches are on YouTube and can be found if you have the title or if you “refine” for “more than 20 minutes.” Try “MICHIGAN MUST CHANGE OR DIE”; “2012: VICTORY OR DEATH”; “STRONG AMERICA NOW”; the Staten Island Tea Party speech of Dec. 3, 2011. Or “The Future of American Education,” which can be found not on YouTube.
The more I know, the happier I am to support Newt.
We’re the 100%. I look forward to hearing someone in the White House who understands that. All Americans are on the same team.
Sharpton is a racist who traffics financially in racism and thus ought to be far beyond the pale in civil discussions. Getting into bed with him betrays essential willingness to condone racism and profiting from racism. I don’t use these words lightly.
I see what you mean. But when Newt talks about it, he is very clear that the topic was our kids, all our kids, getting a good education. Al Sharpton, as far as I can tell, was addressing the fact that the schools as they are currently structured are failing our African American kids. I think that Newt considered it courageous of Al Sharpton to be taking on the union-based education establishment.
Newt has said in recent speeches that he is deeply committed to the idea that every American have an opportunity to pursue happiness. Some of our kids are being sacrificed to schools that are designed to give the adults what they want, and not the education to the kids. The film “THE CARTEL” is a good glimpse into how that works, and the money-laundering scheme of tax-payer money to teachers and other public employees unions – to unions through dues, and then to Leftist politicians whom the unions help elect, and virtually own.
To reach out to someone about the education of our children, all of our children from every background, in every neighborhood, in the cities big and small, and to challenge the scandal that is our public school system, is courageous. Especially because, as I said, I can see why you say that about Al Sharpton, and Newt probably realized he would get criticism for that very reason.
Yes, Al Sharpton has much to criticize. But I got the impression from some interview, somewhere, of Newt, that Newt thought Al Sharpton was sincere about wanting the improve education. And so he went on the public speaking circuit with him. I think Arnie Duncan was there for some of it, too.
I still support Newt. I am very interested to see if the American people take him up on his ideas. It will be an exciting and hopeful time if they do.
Newt’s space exploration ideas come from the same place as the Far Left’s utopian ideas. That mind set is similar to John Lennon’s in the song Imagine. Newt will use Roman Catholicism the way Obama used Rev. Wright. He will be used by Roman Catholicism with his amnesty for illegal Roman Catholics at the same time. When political expediency makes it necessary, Newt will throw anything or anyone under the bus, just like President Obama. The Republicans in this election are not much different than the Democrats in 2008. Hope and Change is a Godless dream of the spiritually naive.
Newt has long proposed using prizes (e.g. the X Prize) to spur private development of space instead of having a socialistic government space program like we have with NASA. It seems conservatives only believe free enterprise works within the Earth’s atmosphere. In the “broken clock is right twice a day” category, contracting for more private companies to provide access to space is one of the very few things Obama has done right and that’s probably because he doesn’t care about space.
What does that have to do with my comment? Utopianism, capitalistic or communistic, is still utopianism. Did John Lennon care about putting a man on Mars? That was not my point. Space is only of value to moral and religious human beings if it is for the betterment of mankind or the defense of liberty. Pie in the sky capitalism is no different than pie in the sky communism. Both are atheistic and Godless. John Adams, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
What does that have to do with my comment? Utopianism, capitalistic or communistic, is still utopianism. Did John Lennon care about putting a man on Mars? That was not my point. Space is only of value to moral and religious human beings if it is for the betterment of mankind or the defense of liberty. Pie in the sky capitalism is no different than pie in the sky communism. Both are atheistic and Godless. John Adams, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Space is a place, not a program. Removing barriers to private enterprise has the potential for new resources that can improve life here or one day to prevent another mass extinction event when another big rock comes our way. Space also features very prominently in our defense. GPS satellites weren’t launched so you can find your car in a parking lot – they’re essential military systems. Likewise, the military operates communications satellites, weather satellites, reconnaissance satellites and launch detection satellites every day to strengthen America. Increasing commercial operations in space can reduce our costs and reduce our dependence on the Russians for crew transport to the ISS.
Mr. Simon–
Judging by these comments, I think you hit a nerve with what a lot of us were thinking in our slumber.
BTW: No need to be self-deprecating–in fact stop being so self-deprecating. It does not become a wiseacre to be self-deprecating.
A very good analysis Roger. I too am a supporter of Newt and I have my reservations. I do see a man that has ideas and solutions to many of the problems facing us today. Look at the idea free president we have today. He offers us nothing and does not encourage anyone on his team to offer any ideas except to take away more of our freedoms. Am I paranoid or has Fox news gone completely against Newt? I watched Brett Baier’s show the other night and he as well as ALL of his guest blasted Newt for many different reasons and then the “Funny” at the end of the show was a blast against Newt. Krauthammer blasts him daily as does O’reilly. Britt Hume was on this morning with a snarky remark about “Ask Paul Ryan” concerning Newts comment about social engineering from the right. That is so out of context. Newt said to force Ryan’s plan on the public is no better than than the left forcing Obamacare on the people and that it should be the public that determines which plan they want. I’m starting to see a lot of “I can see Russia from my front porch” kind of crap from people that know better but can’t help themselves and say things that are not true anyway.
One word: envy.
Inspector Rudy – yes!!!
On the subject of Newt, I’ve fallen out with people I’ve appreciated over the years. I wouldn’t call them Beltway people, Mark Steyn, Mark Levin, Ann Coulter…
America is in a slough of despond…And we have a president who wants us to stay there, who is banal, irritating, humorless, reactionary, self-righteous, and narcissistic all at once.
Your forgot delusional, on parade during Steve Kroft’s lengthy interview of Obama Sunday night.
Only Newt…has the capacity to wake us up.
Yes.
“I don’t care who is more or less conservative, who is a RINO and who is not, or what kind of libertarian someone may or may not be. I think when your ideology has become rigid, you have checked your brains at the door.”
My political philosophy in a nutshell. Thank You.
And I lean toward a candidate who can, and does, look at the current situation and laugh. And can get US to look and chuckle along with him. So far that’s only Newt.
ROMNEY’S ATTACK ON NEWT’S EXTRATERRESTIAL CAPITALISM
Click my name for the article.
No, Mr. Simon, you are Wrong.
We do not need a President to “inspire” us. Or, if we do, then America deserves to slide as quickly as possible into the forgotten garbage midden of failed history.
America has always been inspired by (i) God and (ii) individual ingenuity. We have never and should never need any type of political leader to “inspire” us. That is not the proper role of our Public Servants in this country.
Newt Gingrich is a deal-maker. He has made deals with Clinton, he has made deals with Pelosi, he has made deals with the GSEs, he has made deals with Big Labor. He agrees with Kerry, he agreed with Ted Kennedy, he agrees with Barack Obama. If President he will continue to agree with all of these people and he will continue to make deals with them because Gingrich is a Big Government Socialist. He just happens to favor Republican progressive causes over Democrat. At the end of the work-day they all have cocktails at the same club.
We don’t need a President to inspire us, Mr. Simon. We need a President who believes that each individual American answers first to God, and that the U.S. Constitution is the best means of establishing a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, under God. Newt Gingrich is not that President.
I, for one do not need to be inspired by a president. I just want a president to do his damned job and let freedom be the mark of the office. I want to go about my business and not fear that GovCo. is going to stick its fingers in my life and limit my choices.
Given to my own devices, I’ll inspire myself, thankyouverymuch.
Thank you for getting it.
Your conclusion is not supported by the expanse of the words of your post. So try to illuminate us with your take on why Newt is not the man given your criteria.
If I was choosing an ideal president from scratch, would I choose Newt? No.
Would Newt make a good dictator? Hell, no.
Of the candidates remaining in the field, do I think Newt would be the best choice to serve as President with a Republican Congress? Yes, I think so. But Romney would be a perfectly good second choice.
Oh Roger, say it ain’t so. Newt’s an idea man but not a leader. He can throw intellectual grenades but doesn’t know how to stick around to pick up the pieces. Krauthammer is right. When Newt brought out the Ted Kennedy talking points against Romney and capitalism, he couldn’t help but show his hand. He’s just another version of OWS. Lots of ideas but no grasp reality or the way to harness that intellect for anything more than a fight. He’ll certainly devastate Obama in a debate; but this country needs leadership not a shopping list of exciting ideas. Hopefully, Newt’s full implosion will occur before he gets the nomination–and before he should God forbid win the presidency. He’s like a dog chasing a car: lots of excitement, noise and braggadocio; but he has no idea what to do if he ever caught it.
Right on Alma!
You hit the nail on the head about Newt Gingrich.
Roger,
There’s a reason you are on Hollywood and Vine and that’s because you tap into the zeitgeist!
Thank you for a refereshingly visceral article!
One other thing though, (perhaps 2 or more?!) Newt has the ability to think on his feet and skewer the teleprompter led golden boy and deflate the false aura of his intellectual accomplishment. When it comes to the debates and these will be oh so important, Newt will lay him waste. Romney simply does not have the ability to throw an elbow or a knee and mix it up. This is serious failing.
Another problem with Romney is that he has not disowned Romney care and as a result it takes away his ability to attack Obamacare….another very serious failing. This is one of Obama’s biggest weaknesses and NOT being able to exploit it, leaves you with a Republican candidate who will be handicapped in the race for POTUS.
Newt’s baggage? sure it’s there but he will address it and the public will give him a pass on a lot of it, just like they did with Slick Willie. the American public is not primarily interested in electing a Boy Scout and yes Newt’s belief in American exceptionalism will come shining through!
Newt won’t get a chance to “lay Obama waste.”
Half the questions in the debates will be about Newt’s own history, both in Congress (including being ousted from the Speakership for ethics violations) and working for Freddie Mac and also about his marital history.
Remember, Newt has a much longer track record to defend than Obama does. And he’ll be dogged by questions about all of it, keeping him on the defensive for much of any debate.
Newt will give Obama ample opportunities to make Newt and Newt’s track record the issue, rather than his own.
ethics violation not violations. Or alleged ethics violations. Take your pick boith are factually correct. But please do not put a personal stamp on facts, leave that for your opinions.
My problem with Newt is he acted like Prime Minister as Speaker. As President he will be Prime Minister and head of state so that would be a good fit.
Yes!!!!!!!
Roger — No matter what he thinks (and that changes year-to-year, day-to-day),Newt does not have the ability to inspire. He is certain to be demolished by President Obama. Let’s hope for a clean slate of electable candidates in 2016 (Christie, Rubio, Daniels), because Newt is a certain loser.
(Newt)is certain to be demolished by President Obama.
I can’t imagine that.
On the heels of his effort to self-identify with Teddy Roosevelt (following a long line of other attempts at self-identification) a contributor to PJM wrote of Obama as a completely fictionalized human being.
Any debate topic shouldn’t focus on substance (where there is none) but on the completely fictionalized version of America being propagated by Obama, his underlings (aka thugs and sycophants) and his stable of morons, like democrat chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. (yesterday DSW claimed that unemployment hasn’t increased under her guy Barack)
“Let’s hope for a clean slate of electable candidates in 2016 (Christie, Rubio, Daniels)…”
This of course would be based on the assumption that in the wake of a second Obama term, there will be a subsequent election in 2016.
No amount of explaining will get me to like or vote for Gingrich. Nominee or not, that goes double for Romney and anyone else who is not Rick Perry.
Buy the t-shirt that says “Loser” now.
Lincoln said about the hard-drinking General Grant:
“I can’t spare this man; he fights.”
Gingrich, Perry, and Paul are fully aware of what was found on the moon and elsewhere in our solar system. Romney and the others probably have no idea.
Let’s end this taboo now, not in 2012.
moon dust?
We are indeed in the Slough of Despond which is right off the River D’Nile and the only escape is for us to flee up the Slough’s tributary Sh*t Creek. We’ll need spare paddles.
Bravo!
Roger – Your article on Newt reminds me why I go out of my way to read your byline; really well thought out. I have come to look at Newt in a much more favorable light of late. I think he has the (by far) highest upside of all the candidates. As to Obama and Newt both being effete intellectuals, I have neverthought of BHO as being extremely smart. He has great shtick; the upturned chin, the slight tilt of the neck, the clipped words with long pauses are all actor’s gimicks to allow the viewer to use his/her imagination to ascribe attributes to BHO that he doesn’t really have. Don’t fall into the trap of “I can’t vote for newt because he’s just another intellectual like Obama.” Newt is geniune smart and obama is only “Hollywood” smart.
…actor’s gimicks to allow the viewer to use his/her imagination to ascribe attributes to BHO that he doesn’t really have.
Don’t forget the breathless dropping of g’s when addressing certain audiences, tryin’ to paint the “down home” picture.
(over and out, before my head explodes
)
I understand, Roger. I really do.
There are things about Newt that make me want to watch. There are things about Newt that make me want to turn away.
I suspect that Ron Paul supporters could take virtually every word of yours (that are not about Paul himself) and apply them to their favorite insane crank. And, if Ron Paul became the selected candidate (he won’t), I would not vote. Our demise would simply be swifter, not agonizingly slow as it is under the Fabian in the White House.
Having “different” ideas from the average is indeed interesting. Having thousands of different ideas and trying them out is a bit of a circus act. There is no denying the entertainment value, there could be some debate over the chaos method of governing.
Someone this distracted is usually a horrific manager, an impossible boss, a spectacularly disorganized leader and an unreliable partner. Hyper-creativity necessarily involves a personality that is very comfortable with ambiguity, has an off the charts risk-taking tolerance, and can seem mercurial, not grounded, and generally speaking…is not very good at “the detail stuff”.
At a time when it seems that our other options are stale vs. stale, such a person could appear attractive simply and merely because they are different.
Nobody can downgrade Newt’s ability to assemble the facts, sort them, recall information and present an articulate and often persuasive argument for his position. This alone beats the “typical” Republican…who can’t string two sentences together without having a near stroke. Non-leftists desperately need someone to carry the message against the superior “messaging” advantage of the leftists.
I only have three areas of concern with Newt:
1)It is NOT “just the regal Republican guard” that throw up red flags about his leadership. That’s a canard. He is taking flak from all corners from the INSIDE. That cannot be as easily dismissed as some would like. There is obviously an issue here. We would do well to not try to eliminate it with a wave of the hand. Let’s explore it more fully…that is the only sane reaction to it. Assaulting EVERY person who raises this…as if THEY are the problem…is rather inane.
2)He is brand damaged. That is not an insurmountable problem, but in an election we MUST win, in my opinion, I will not ignore this and merely hope that it goes away. I don’t give a Tinker’s Dam who anybody’s “favorite” is…I only care that we don’t throw away and squander an opportunity to reverse the horrific damage being done to my country. I’m not going to be a “fan” before I am a patriot. The candidate or ticket that has the best chance of winning this election and solving the key issues…is, in the final analysis, the ONLY thing I am looking for…certainly above being entertained.
We need the non-political junkies…every non-leftist vote we can muster. The middle can’t be ignored. It is asinine to do so.
3)Our most pressing problems require a certain skill set. The economy is collapsing, here and around the world. The Middle East is a nightmare. If our most pressing problems were based upon a lack of desire, ingenuity, drive…as Obama suggests…then Obama would want Gingrich more than anyone, including himself. I don’t believe this for a moment. I believe our problems stem from trying to stick Marxist gunk in a free market engine. And, our solutions will come from a disciplined sort who can have an adult conversation on economics, can work through the details and is laser focused.
That lead me to Paul Ryan and Mitch Daniels.
All this “RINO” crap is a distraction and silly grade school nonsense. We are on the brink of catastrophe and we need to stop treating the election of the leader of the free world as if it is some damn prom king vote.
Romney is someone who is too timid and lacks boldness, conviction and flair. He is a go along to get along type…and we need someone who will aggressively remove the Marxist traps, pits, and landmines planted all throughout our self-governing system.
Newt does not suffer from lack of boldness. But he has shown a reckless, erratic and “loose cannon” side. Entire staffs have walked out, tried to have him removed, revolted against him. That is NOT something one can turn around and make a “positive” without a complete disingenuous approach.
In the final analysis…I don’t believe EITHER of these candidates fits the bill.
We should get this right…but, we won’t.
I would vote for either Romney or Gingrich. We must remove the threat now installed by all the Marxist tricks, travesties and totalitarianisms planted within…which candidate gives us the best chance to win…and do THAT…is all I care about now.
“I would vote for either Romney or Gingrich.”
I am glad to hear that, CFB.
“All this “RINO” crap is a distraction and silly grade school nonsense. We are on the brink of catastrophe and we need to stop treating the election of the leader of the free world as if it is some damn prom king vote.”
Playing the RINO card is getting real old. I use the 80/20 formula to
help my decision of who I support and vote for.
Yes, a good argument for Newt. But you have to admit that whether one contemplates Newt, Mitt, Rick, etc… one always gets the sensation of a small bit of vomit , a brief eructation, for a small moment in the back of the throat. Not a lot. Just a little taste.
But just think of what one gets contemplating Obama: Not keeping anything down for weeks on end.
OMG its the right version of chris matthews getting a tingle up his leg. God spare us. Roger L Simon don’t be a shmendrik. See this http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radley-balko/police-militarization-use-of-force-swat-raids_b_1123848.html and this http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/22-signs-that-the-thin-veneer-of-civilization-that-we-all-take-for-granted-is-starting-to-disappear and this http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/economic-collapse-we%E2%80%99re-soaking-in-it_11142011 cheers
Dear Roger,
It has always seemed odd to me that after the inspirational and transformational Reagan presidency the GOP has put forward as their presidential nominee a succession of Nixon Republicans. Now I am getting the picture.
I don’t know if Newt is going to be a transformational President because I don’t know if he is going to be President, but he has surely become a transformational candidate. How is it possible that this careerist pol has got so many other careerist pols and their cronies sh*tting bricks? And I thought Barack Obama did a commendable job of getting ostensibly conservative opinion-makers to show their true stripes.
The increasingly desperate political/media establishment (you have to give credit to Gingrich for putting the old ‘60s term “The Establishment,” back into general circulation) is grasping at straws. This morning I see the conservative punditocracy wants us to believe that Newt’s clever, Alinsky-like criticism of Romney’s “bankrupting companies and laying off employees” reveals Gingrich’s true “socialist” nature. Amazing.
The other day the always credulous Peggy Noonan wrote that, much to her surprise, this onslaught was having “zero effect.” Wrong again, Peggy. The good news is that such criticism is having a profound galvanizing effect on the Republican grassroots. It is serving as confirmation that Gingrich is just what he appears to be: a potentially transformational conservative President – another Reagan.
I’m pleased to see that you are with us, Roger.
Yours truly,
ThOR
I’ve been pulling for Newt for some time now. Secretly of course since nobody wants to back a loser and last summer I thought all was lost for him after listening to Rove carry on about what a lousy campaign Newt was running. Shows you what I know. I know not to listen to the likes of Rove and Krauthammer any longer. Looks like there are many others that have discovered the same truth. The so-called ‘conservative’ pundits are no better than the MSM.
If Mitt gets the nomination I’ll vote for him – reluctantly. The lesson has been learned after not voting for POTUS in 2008. My reasoning was ‘how bad can it get’? Well who knew? I just hope it doesn’t get any worse before we can remove this POS from office in 2013.
I agree, K.T. I used to listen to Charles Krauthammer and so many others, for example, George Will… (Karl Rove, who I now understand was the architect of telling W Bush not to defend himself and by extension, free markets and freedom, has lost my attention except as a curiosity). I don’t take these erstwhile “pundits” seriously anymore. It’s clear to me that I KNOW MORE about what Newt it proposing than they do.
This is why the Left wants to destroy the internet. Because the information is there for anyone who want to go look and listen.
So I now all about what Newt is proposing, and every single “pundit” who shows me their ignorance when they talk, is discredited. It’s a new day. The technology has created a new day. Newt wants us, the American people, the 100%, to use the new technology to protect freedom and prosperity and opportunity FOR ALL.
this is a very well-reasoned introduction to Mr Gingrich. Your daily bread is words, so you know when they are used well, with care.
Thank you.
I was not much of a fan of Jon Huntsman until yesterday’s debate. I came away with a much better impression of a man I had considered until then a RINO. And since I believe we have taken our eye of the Chinese, as big mistake as underestimating the uprising in the Middle East IMO, Huntsman became far more appealing to me.
I will take Mitt Romney as President and support him completely, if nominated. Same with Rick Perry or Rick Santorum.
But I have become convinced, if we really are serious about tackling our problems, both domestic and foreign, we need a radical change of thought in this country and the best Republican ticket to facilitate that change would be:
Newt Gingrich and Jon Huntsman as V.P.
I believe that ticket would absolutely destroy Obama and Biden in a race and provide a sense of balance to the ticket.
And the main objective, above all else next year, should be to get rid of Obama and his toad Biden.
Either Newt or Mitt will do. I’m leaning toward Newt but will vote for the Republican nominee no matter who. ABO!! Anyone but Obama. If the liar in chief fools enough idiots to be re-elected I will work my azz off to push for secession. Y’all can come to Texas when we succeed.
The selection of Newt Gingrich is an epic decision, a big question. He is obvious bright and ambitious, but he also carries the highest negatives of any one in politics. I found answers in today’s article in the Washington Times by Mr. Blankley, Newt’s long time direct Congressional subordinate,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/12/newts-past-and-future-leadership/
The GOP is not one party but two, and Newt contended with both, as Speaker, to hold voting majorities in the Congress. This will leave a twisted record, baggage to some critics. Blankley points to key conservative positions, unchanged, and some times defeated, which defines the gut level Gingrich. I know the Clinton war room targeted Gingrich, and spent fortunes, with a cooperative media, to demonize him. And Gingrich became his own worst enemy, destroying his marriages, and coalitions in brutal power politics. He is hard, and sometimes stupid.
The key question is his leadership vision, does he know how to stop an American suicide? Blankley correctly points to a bewildered, shocked and disoriented nation which doubts its future. We will not survive the quality of leaders who have held power for the last generation. Elections have consequences, and we have made bone head decisions. The fact that both parties and the media hate Newt Gingrich is a plus for him in my book.
His, and our problem, is that the margin of error is now a razor. If Iran gets the bomb, and Tel Aviv melts……. if North Korea launches against Hawaii, …. if the US dollar becomes worthless,….. if trained Americans can not find work for a lifetime…… if our fifty year old grid dies, who do we want to answer the 3 AM phone call? I have little hope but see a need for fundamental change.
All American voters should consider that the United States of America is not eternal; we earn our survival, or give it away.
Roger, what you seem to be saying is “Newt’s such and interesting thinker and speaker and would be such a refreshing change from the dull fellow presently in the White House, why don’t we take a chance on him.”
The Democrats took a chance on their 2008 candidate and won by persuading the swing voters to take a chance along with them. Honestly, I think 2008 gave chance taking a bad rep that will last for another couple of election cycles.
a couple of election cycles?
once more with Obama is the last cycle ever.
Very interesting column, thank you.
Fresh air in a room in which the smoke of stiff ideologies is choking everybody.
PS
Just say no to Obama.
A win for Newt over Obama would be like jumping off a sinking ship into quicksand! I’m sure that Newt could get in a good zinger so we’d be laughing on our way down.
Winston Churchill was a misogynist and a drunk.
Anyone unhappy that he was picked to beat back the Nazi?
Romney would have compromised by giving them Central and South America.
And then Texas.
We’re on the verge of marxist revolution, financial collapse and (I believe) facing WWIII and the best the people can come up with on this thread is the largest govt progressive out of the entire lot. Because he can throw zingers at people.
This country is soo over. 6 months into a noot presidency, the dolts on this thread will be whining about what a Fascist noot is. …and he is a fascist.
Roger said: “Now of all times we need a president to inspire us.” That is precisely wrong. What we need is a guy who will roll up his sleeves and set the country on the right course through actions, not words. And remember that “inspiration” was exactly what got Obama elected in 2008.
Excellent piece.
I have always liked Newt, since his “Contract” in the 90′s. I was amazed that someone would stand up and challange the normal way of things in Washington. Apparently, however, Newt ran into stronger than expected opposition from the Republican establishment back then, and little support from voterland.
And, now that he is standing up again, the Liberal media, the Liberal Democrats, and the Establishment are enraged. But, this time there are voters who have reason to stand as well–those who think that another Obama term will disastrous for the US.
As to who is more electable, why would the moderate voters see a lot of difference in Obama and Romney? Remember, they don’t see things the same as Conservatives–45% of them still see Obama “favorably”(Rasmussen). And he is the encumbent and the favorite of the same people who bring them their favorite TV shows.
Selection of the Republican challanger to Obama is upon us–time to stop looking for dark horses and perfect candidates–it is either Gingrich or Romney (sorry, Paul fans). And, looking beyond the November election, I want a president who will take on the entrenched Democrats (Reid and Pelosi, et al), and the Establishment Republicans, and have experience in doing so.
If Newt, as president, leave debris scattered around Washington, I will cheer and be happy about it. And, if he takes an angry approach to what Obama has left behind, I will tolerate the lack of composure and tolerance. If he does nothing more than send Obama home, then, even that will be a magnificent improvement for the US.
We know for sure that Newt is a patriot and that the bad guys don’t like him–that is enough for me, given the fast rising water inside our American boat.
The issue is not solely the requirement of a leader to “inspire us” as Roger writes, but, rather a leader to “inspire us” to do something. Without the latter you get an Obama clone in a different suit. Obama, remember, “inspired” lots of us, but to what end? So the end is as important, if not more so, than the “inspiration.”
The end, I would suggest, is not conservative or liberal, or what brand of which we would be inspired to. The place to start as an aim of the inspiration sought is to reestablish the adherence to, importance of, and primacy of our Constitution. Without strict adherence to the Constitution, as a first principle, we are a nation without adherence to the rule of law. Without that we are little different than any banana republic. To reestablish the rule of law we must first reestablish the Constitution.
If that is conservative, then so be it. But that must be the immediate goal of any “inspiration.”
Entertaining article. One still wonders how Newt managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory the 1st time around.
Put Simon’s way, one almost has to say ‘maybe’. Certainly Bachmann, Santorum, or Perry don’t seem well poised to convey or defend conservatism in the realm of ideas, although they probably would represent me, personally, better by their actions.
Let’s deconstruct this a little. Is Newt an idea guy, an inspired individual? Definitely.
Can Gingrich sell and argue? Oh, yes. The problem there is that Newt has an opinion on everything – whether he knows anything or not. Fortunately for him he knows a lot. But he is a bit of a flibbertigibbet and prone to fads like Toffler, internet for the ghetto, global warming, etc.
Can Newt win? Yeah. It really depends on how much he has learned over the past 15 or so years and whether he will insist on repeatedly treading on his johnson.
As a candidate, he has a better shot than the aforementioned candidates merely because he has a better command of the language, the issues, plus more than his share of self-confidence. It is simple soothsaying to predict that, after one or two debates, Obama will engage no more and move waay back to bombard him (Newt) with lies at a distance.
Will Newt get anything done if elected? Meh, sure. He will fix the economy and remove Obamacare, both are worth the price of admission. The real question is whether he will have coattails because that will determine what gets done. His fad ideas will be mocked by the press and discarded by Congress. The real work will be done by the GOP/TEA members if he has them to back him.
We already know this campaign won’t be run on issues. 2010 is on record and the few races the Dems won, they ran on vitriol, lies, and distortion. Since they do own most of the media, it would be convenient to have a candidate who’s telegenic with a good sense of humor. Unfortunately, Reagan’s dead.
Newt is part RINO, yes. But that may be OK, so long as he isn’t George Bush.
Prediction: RP will run 3rd party and Obama will still lose.
Much rather have Sarah Palin though. Can you imagine Obama trying to debate her? :^)
I’ve been vacillating, trying to firm up an opinion about who would be my choice for the eventual nominee. It was Herman Cain for awhile until his campaign exploded and the so called front runners briefly jumped to the front of the pack only, like shooting stars, to fizzle in the firmament, leaving Romney, the “default candidate,” in the perpetual lead.
Newt shot himself in the foot early on and was declared politically “dead,” an interesting diversion but no contest for the presumed eventual nominee, Mitt Romney who, we were assured would eventually be the guy chosen to defeat “the one.” The assumption being he would be best able to appeal to a broader political base, the most acceptable to the Independents if not so with those “extreme right wing, Tea Party conservatives who don’t, in any case, represent a majority.”
But here came Newt, coming from the back of the pack with his stellar performances in the debates. All agreed he was most impressive until he became the front runner. Of a sudden he was hauling a huge load of baggage and from an erudite, intelligent, glib, articulate spokesman of conservative principles he becomes a dangerous interloper, a fat, old member of the Washington establishment who might clean Obama’s clock in a debate but would suffer an ignominious defeat against the cool, extremely likable, super intelligent black guy, a Harvard graduate whose school records are sealed to protect us from the glare of his brilliance and who is now President of the 57 states, commander in chief over the Army, Air Force and Marine corpse.
So which is it? Perfection is a lofty but unreachable goal. Newt does have much in his past which will be problematic if he should be the nominee and much can and is being made of it. The remaining Republican nominees are in attack mode as they scramble to defame and defeat this interloper whose statements and comments to date have been noticeably devoid of attacks against any of them. And can the Democrats be trusted to express their true choice of the candidate they’d most like to run against since he’ll undoubtedly be resoundingly defeated by Obama or is there a little reverse psychology at play here? And should the selection be based on the basis of old and fat vs Joe cool? We’ve got “Joe cool”; how’s that workin out?
I read somewhere that Reagan said
“It’s amazing what you can accomplish if you don’t insist on taking credit for it.”
Newt has been irreversibly deformed by academia — first as an A plus student and then, later, as a wannabe great professor and intellectual — so he will always and forever be about “taking credit for it.” For that reason he will always and forever underperform in office.
Facebook friends please read – Roger L Simon’s ‘Explaining Newt’ in PJMedia for December12th
“Make mine a Newt!”
And switch off Fox when you go past the Television.
Something happened on the way to the Newsroom – my favorite group of ‘fair and balanced’ news reporters and event presenters have turned on the one person that I think could save this country from the destruction being strewn across our nation by our current Communist inspired president – Barrack Mohammed or Hussein (or whatever )Obama.
And to highlight my thoughts about the current leader – here is a great line borrowed from comments made on PJMedia by Geppetto –
“a Harvard graduate whose school records are sealed to protect us from the glare of his brilliance and who is now President of the 57 states, commander in chief over the Army, Air Force and Marine corpse.”
Now that I think about it – Fox backed John McCain – that was definitely a clue!
i like newt because he isn’t a lawyer, and space must be our destiny.
that being said up front, i do know a bit about the space program. having worked in the late 80′s and 90′s for Lockheed Space for several years at KSC/CC. when i quit to come home (family needs) nasa didn’t have the same glow to me it had when i went south. it was a lot of governmental politics, and nasa worked hard to keep private industry from entering the space race alone, for good reason. private industry doesn’t work in the red, at least not for long. government is hindered by being government. people think the government launched the space shuttle. it really didn’t. in truth, contractors launched the ss. nasa always hired some of the best engineers out of college; however, the ones i knew were immediately covered up in paperwork and management of government assets, not working to make it work. that was the aerospace contractor’s job. there were many nasa engineers and scientists that actually did engineering and science and such, such as working on payloads, but they were not in the majority. there is a lot more that could (and probably will) be said about that topic.
imho, what can it hurt to turn our industry loose on space, unhindered by government? gov probably has a role to play, but it isn’t to lead. there are unlimited riches out there. you think only our planet got all the good stuff/minerals? yeah, we are that special. we already have robots bringing back samples on a regular basis from mars. new ways of getting into space are being developed as we comment in these blogs. space x has already done some remarkable stuff, w/o much help from gov. we are sitting stagnated here listening to marxist idiots wanting everything handed out to everybody. those days need to be gone. i think kennedy would be ashamed how far we have not gone into space. if we are to continue to prosper as a species, we must step forward, not backwards. in this world you either improve your situation and move forward, or you perish. hey, that’s who and what we are, or were, before the handout bunch got in charge.
Well, I’ve just read through the article and all 76 comments. Once upon a time I referred to Newt as “George Bertram McGingrich” and wished that he would just please shut up and go away. However, now . . .
Wouldn’t Newt make an exceptional Vice-President? He is perfect for the part if you remember that one of the VP’s most important (unofficial) funtions is to be the uninhibited voice of the Presidency – he can speak with the authority of the office whithout having to be too concerned with decorum. Of course, a debate between Newt and Ole Dopey Joe might be considered cruel and unusual punishment.
Ron Paul does not deserve to be lumped with the other Republican contenders. Newt has some ideas, but Paul has more good ones.
First — I agree — we DO need something — someone to wake things up! It’s true.
But we do have to ask — At what price? Just how woken up? Would — with eyes bulging in fear or embarrassment — be okay? Sometimes, I do have to wonder what Newt might do or say next.
Frankly, if it’s after the election, it wouldn’t bother me that much. Whatever he says or does, it’ll be handled and whoever is insulted will get over it — or not.
I just pray — if he’s the nominee — that he minds himself enough not to say whatever the one thing is that could lose him the election. He’s so capable of flubbing that way.
But which one — Newt or Romney — I don’t know. Newt would be more fun and might even come up with something that saves us. But will the independents vote for him?
Romney will be more boring — probably a lot boring — but can he get more votes to defeat the B.O? Do the majority of voters trust him more? And — although I worry about him debating Obama well — I don’t think he’ll do or say the bombshell thing that would lose all.
That IS the question.
We need to be woken up — (No doubt, Newt will do THAT!) — but more than that — more than anything — we need a “Not Obama.” Even at the price of more boredom.
In spite of the disasterous results of his 4 years so far, it will not be easy to defeat him … his campaign managers are very clever, he has ACORN and such other fraudsters, and almost half the country (in spite of what they see in front of their eyes) remains in a dream world — and will vote for him if elections were today.
Romney and Gingrich. I don’t believe either will actually (whether they believe in it or not) do the amount of cutting back of so many agencies, programs and employees — that is what will begin to bring this country back to life. But either one will do … stuff … and some cutting back. I believe they will (I’m a believer!). Perfect or not. They’ll both bend to the opposition, and do the politically expedient. But perhaps just not to have Obama — will be our salvation.
With Romney, it won’t be as exciting. He won’t have, as you, Roger, say, so many ideas. He’ll pretty much watch what he says.
I must admit — when I hear a newscaster say … “Today, New Gingrich said …” my heart skips a beat. I say to myself, “OMG, what’s he said NOW? — Has he thrown the election again?” And, I do have to admit — it’s kind of fun. It’s fun until I realize he could lose the election because of foolish words.
Then I think of him debating Obama and leaving him in the dust — and winning!!!
What to do? I don’t know.
Roger I agree, with all his faults he has intellectual substance.
I am with Newt already when he made this speech.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZiw3qVdFzw
Great piece! Animated and fun to read!
I’m becoming increasingly concerned about (1) Glenn Beck’s relentless Newt bashing combined with his Ron Paul support, and (2) about Ron Paul running as a third party candidate.
All of our hand-wringing about who our candidate will be (I’d vote for ANYONE except Paul) will matter little if we can’t garner enough support to beat Obama.
And for folks zeroing in on very specific issues and points of contention, I would say this: We’re in the Emergency Room trying to triage right now. Bit picture, it’s about saving our country. Literally. Iran is a game changer. The Middle East is an every more hostile, volitile, and dangerous place. This is not the time to decide not to vote or to vote third party because our nominee is not the ideal candidate, or even close to ideal. When you’re in the ER with a loved one, you just want to save their life, first and foremost. After that, you can start to focus in on other things.
I just cannot imagine Paul becoming the nominee; he has too many fringe ideas. Beck jumped the proverbial shark shortly after his August 2010 rally; he should be ignored.
It’s always this time of year that instead of feeling joyful or celebratory, I sink into a deep, deep depression.
This December is no exception.
I feel utterly bound by impossible physical laws that keep me tethered to this earth and it pains me to be here to the point where I want to remove my mortal soul from this reality.
There is nothing I would hate more than to have the ‘perfect’ candidate who could be all things to all people… That is the biggest shtick of ‘em all. The ol’ shell game has been played.
I want to see some dirty politics played from OUR side for once. I want to see some down dirty, nitty gritty tit for tats because I know Newt will eat Barack’s rhetoric for lunch and puke it back on him with FIRE.
My husband told me that Newt is a ‘RINO’ today. He wants Bachman. Well, what about a Newt Bachman team (says I). He says, well, THAT I would consider.
LET’s make NEWT Bachman happen!
I love this country and I’m depressed as hell at how low we have sunk.
Delia
Newt may choose Huntsman. We need to eat Newt Romney’s lunch. How about we push for Bachman/Perry or Perry/Bachman. Perry is flawed, but not like Newt Romney.
It may also be the short days. Try a growing light/UV lamp and think positive…. because soon we’ll all be dead anyway. You are bad enough when you are NOT depressed
Please, Delia!! You musn’t give up!! You are what I’ve always thought of as a sparkler and I’ve enjoyed your comments on these threads so much. Winter can be ghastly for so many.
It has always helped me to remember how one man stood entirely alone in the 1940’s between a seductive madman and the entire world, and that man battled the agonies of depression his entire life. He pulled that Herculean strength out of his own raw guts. Surely, if we remind ourselves of examples like Churchill’s, we can all summon up the comparatively minimal amount of energy it takes get out of the house and simply vote?
The way we think and feel is at the heart of it all, or as one survivor of multiple NDE’s, Renee Pasarow, has so eloquently put it, “The tone of our hearts permeates the Universe.” If you think that’s all a load of bull, perhaps you might begin to be persuaded by the data being shared by the scientists at the Heart Math project. (There is also some intriguing evidence coming out about the correlation between depression and low levels of vitamin `D.’ And please forgive what might feel like utter presumption here. The “black dog” has been on the loose in my family for a couple of generations and the topic is desperately close to home.)
For your mood, take 2,000 to 5,000 IU of vitamin D3 daily. It makes up for the dimished sun exposure we get this time of year.
And Churchill and I would prescribe brandy, but beware; every up has its down.
The (re)emergence of Newt is fascinating. We have a new Nixon rising from the ashes, with the equivalent of many of Nixon’s strengths and weaknesses, even though their respective affects, (with an a) are quite different. One hopes that he has learned (as one hoped that Nixon would have learned) to get his act together to avoid disgracing himself at a key moment. One would have hoped that Clinton would have also known. Nixon, Clinton, and Gingrich were/are all very smart and had/have virtually no moral center, although each would use God/religion to save them from selves, but not in a transformative way as happened with GWB.
Romney is safer and I trust his stability. Newt is more exciting, but the past indicates that when he has POWER, watch out!
This is going to be a brutal election; Obama already tipped his hand in 2008 that he is willing to say or do anything to get elected. And by anything, I take into account his familiarity with the Alinsky playbook. Whichever candidate the GOP runs will be in for a firestorm. In Newt, at least we have someone who can defend himself and give as good as he gets.
The future of Creator-endowed individual liberty in the world may depend on the outcome of the 2012 election in America. Two competing, and opposite, visions of the role of government in a society battle for the minds and hearts of citizens.
One relies on a coercive government-over-people idea which assumes that a political class of individuals, if allowed to prevail, can and will make better and more just decisions for indivduals than those individuals will make for themselves and their families. That idea has failed in every country where it has prevailed.
The other idea was articulated by America’s founders in their Declaration of Independence. That idea asserts Creator-endowed life, liberty, rights and laws to protect them. The 1787 Constitution of the United States was one of “We, the People,” and it strictly divided, separated, checked and balanced the powers which “We, the People” would grant to any who represented us in government. That Constitution designated within itself the only way the “People’s” chains on government could be amended or changed, and it required the action of the whole people. There was and is no provision for either the judicial, congressional, or executive branch to change or alter its protections without the assent of “the People”.
The principles of the Declaration and Constitution, if rediscovered, understood and insisted upon by “the People,” refute and rebuke the so-called “progressive” agenda as advocated by the current Administration. America’s founding ideas have provided more freedom, more opportunity, brought more prosperity and plenty to more people than has any other government arrangement in the world.
The candidate who has studied and deeply understands that idea and can enable the youth of this nation to understand their inheritance of freedom should debate the President. That candidate will be able to penetrate the false argument of the “redistributionists,” whose idea produces slavery to government, lack of opportunity, mediocrity, and want in every society which has been foolish enough to allow it to prevail.
Which candidate can stand against the counterfeit ideas of the “progressives,” hold the debate to one of principles, not just issues of the day, and enlighten “the People” so that they make make decisions which make it more likely that this nation remains “the land of the free”?
Beautifully written. Principled. Insightful. Well done!
Here, Here!
Dwight, I share some of your concern about Newt. I am ambivalent about him. He does indeed have some personality problems that could become worse if he gains enough power. He also has a liking for both gov solutions, and the repub establishment, that could lead to trouble. But he is also the only one in the field with the chance to become a Reaganesque transformational figure. I also think he would destroy Obama in future debates. I also remember that many repubs had concerns about Reagan, before he became president.
The analogy with Steve Jobs is a good one. Both are capable of coming up with innovative ideas, and inspiring people, but both also had big personal flaws. Remember that before Jobs revived Apple back to greatness, he also had a period where his personal flaws almost bankrupted both Apple and himself.
Romney reminds me of Bill Gates, competant and steady, but not that inspiring, or innovative. Both know how to run an enterprise effectively and make it work, but neither is very inspiring or transformative. Gates does not have hordes of admiring devotees, but he also never took his company to near bankruptcy.
I think both are better than the rest of the repub field, who appear neither competant nor inspiring, and do not look like they have a wide enough appeal to win aganst Obama. (Actually Paul can also be inspiring, and has some very good ideas on fiscal policy, but I think his foreign policy is dangerous, and his libertarian ideas, while very good, may be too far out for the country to accept. I think the best libertarian candidate for the future is Rand Paul, who is also a solid libertarian, but with a much wider appeal.)
Of course any of the repub field is better than Obama, who is uninspiring, incompetant, dishonest, and has dangerous ideas. Obama was inspiring in 2008, but only by promissing the moon to everybody. That inspiration turned to dust when it became clear he either could not, or would not, deliver on any of his rosy promisses. Anybody who beleives his promisses again is a complete fool, unfortunately the US has plenty of fools.
I could live with either Newt or Romney winning. I think Romney would be a good president. Newt could be a great president, but could also flame our spectacularly like Cain did. It depends on how much we want to gamble. In the end, I think if Newt can survive the primaries without falling prey to hubris, and doing something stupid, he will probably win
Nice! One fewer writer to follow in PJMedia allows for better focus on the remaining ones.
On the other hand:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/285787/winnowing-field-editors?pg=1
MITT ROMNEY’S ANTI-CAPITALIST MOMENT
In defending his job as a consultant with Freddie Mac Newt Gingrich sounded like an anti-corporate leftist in attacking Mitt Romeny’s irreproachable career in private equity investing, and the idea of creative destruction so vital to progress in an evolving free market economy. But what practically went unnoticed by the media was that Romney had his own anti-capitalist moment when attacking Newt.
Click my name and read my piece, Romney’s Attack On Newt’s Extraterrestrial Capitalism
Turns out lunar mining colonies is an economically sound idea.
Ron Paul’s ideas may have been around a long time, but that does not dismiss them from correctness. They have proven to work when put in place.