Taking aim at Newt
It’s open season on Newt Gingrich.
More and more “elite Republicans” (love that phrase) are getting into the act: Bob Dole (remember him? I’ve noticed a lot of ire around the blogosphere towards his 1996 candidacy, one of the times the “establishment” picked a “loser” from their team who then went right ahead and lost), Tom DeLay, the Elliot Abrams National Review piece I already linked to in the post below this one, and Ann Coulter of course.
Why now? I think this is a fairly good statement of the reason:
A top conservative media figure said the flood of attacks reflects a “Holy crap, it could happen” moment in the movement, as Republican leaders began to realize after Gingrich’s South Carolina victory that he could become the nominee, the global face and voice of their party and theology.
I wonder who the “top conservative media figure” was. I bet someone whom the Tea Party wing would consider neither “top” nor “conservative.” But I do know that Gingrich is a man about whom few who ever worked with him have anything good to say. To me, that speaks volumes. As the Dole statement says:
Hardly anyone who served with Newt in Congress has endorsed him and that fact speaks for itself. He was a one-man-band who rarely took advice. It was his way or the highway.”
How you view all of this depends on how you view the Gingrich candidacy and the motives of these players. It’s really similar to the issue we discussed ad nauseum yesterday: do they want to save conservatism and follow William F. Buckley’s rule of nominating “the most conservative candidate who can win?” Or are they just protecting their own sphere of influence against a warrior who would destroy their cozy arrangement?
The two are not mutually exclusive, by the way.
What bothers me most of all is that we have a history of nominating ‘next in line’ candidates. Dole, McCain, and Romney… Another conservative Catholic blogger I enjoy categorized it as the Rs needing a candidate with ‘flavor’ – someone like a Rubio, for example. Someone hip, someone who can fire the imagination, etc. Now Newt isn’t quite that candidate, but he can certainly ignite the imagination, for better or for worse.
But must we keep recycling all the same candidates who didn’t quite make the cut last time around? If they lost to the guy that list the election, what’s the point?
On another note, I perceive Mitt as more of a manager type, whereas I think we need a change agent. Obama has pushed our country off its course, and we need to set things straight again. I just don’t see Mitt doing it.
JuliB: funny thing, that’s exactly what I see Romney doing rather than Gingrich.
how about not letting anything settle on any side, which tells everyone they will be attacked too if they side with any other potential winner. ie, many people (today thanks to happy happy joy joy replacing merit and such), don’t like conflict… and every time they get nutty on someone, whats chasing supporters away is not details and meaningful argument.. but the idea that there is a big mess and could be a bigger one later…
there is no consistency to the rejections…
clinton is ok having asymetrical power sex in the oval office… but Cain its not ok to do something that mught not have happened at all… while newt divorces and cheats, but thats not as much as a problem as maybe was for Cain…
no consistency of values or reasons…
but one consistent thing..
messy and who will be attacked…
any “tall poppy” will get cut down..
when cain was up there, he was the tall poppy
now newt is up there, he is the tall poppy
Tall poppy syndrome (TPS) is a pejorative term primarily used in the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other Anglosphere nations to describe a social phenomenon in which people of genuine merit are resented, attacked, cut down, or criticized because their talents or achievements elevate them above or distinguish them from their peers.
so rather than trounce all potential commers and waste energy, they wait for the new tall poppy to grow, then everyone works to cut it down.
the public remembers how those who sided with the wrong side, got castigated…
the strategy allows them to ration their efforts to only those that may rise… and unlike just war, they dont meet them with attrition forces, they try to remove them from the field…
each time they do, they leave less time for the new poppy to grow… and so by the time elactions come, there isnt a poppy tall enough
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome
Neoneocon,
I’ve been reading the last several topics intently over the last several days. Your support of Romney is noted, as is my support of Gingrich.
In all of those posts, I never got the feeling that you were promoting Romney as an agent of change, but rather as a more acceptable candidate than Gingrich for several reasons.
I see Romney as a manager-type, and in my experience, managers are rarely agents of change. They can establish a protocal to manage the change, but IMO, real change has to come from a vision of what can be, a trait which most managers sorely lack.
I don’t see Romney ennunciating such a vision either in his own promotion, in his own defense or in his attacks on Gingrich. To me Romney seems to inspire a return to what we were, not what we can be in the future; an epigone.
Have I missed something in the last few days in your posts? If I have, can you direct me so I can re-read, or can you speak now to how you see Romney as such an agent of change?
the reverse of this can be seen in this
the point is to show you that THEY know this stuff, even if the ignorati musing about it has no idea and dont research much…
Daily Kos
Hard Targets and Tall Poppies
Why #OWS Should Not Pick A Leader nor Articulate Demands
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/21/1028661/-Hard-Targets-and-Tall-Poppies:-Why-OWS-Should-Not-Pick-A-Leader-nor-Articulate-Demands
while that is not really all that true about OWS and their super genius plans… its certainly true of the more refined tactics and such from history that they know, read and are using.
you can fantasize and muse, but it really wont get you far to manufacture information to make it all seem neat… or you can research and extrapolate and accept the computed results in front of you, its not neat but you dont spend as much time backing up and trying other paths after reality spoils neat
the rest of the article then quotes Alinsky
you have read alinsky, or did you just note that there is a book out there, and then not bother?
do note the projection..
the i know what they are doing (because we are doing it first, but wont mention that)….
this is why the feminist party failed in europe… and why the progressive party ended and took over the democrats.. and why the same others take over other things not actually stand up themselves.
liberalism is 180 degrees than what it was, when it gets slammed, the progressives will move ot another thing..
feminist party failed because the minute they actually had a leader and such, they then had a platform and desires, and then what they talk about and work for was printed up and publically available to the common people who didnt pay attentio before… and voila, they dont like what that list and such was.
same with the democratic socialists, communists, and progressives in america… every time they put a list out of what they were going to do, they lost and were opposed.
so now they speak among themselves
bank on you and everyone not reading that stuff. do not substantiate in a way that gives others a target, and so on..
study soviets… you learn a lot as to this kind of collective tactical advising and strategies for not being the target…
if there is nothing to shoot at, then what?
note that the whole feminist equality thing is about cutring down tall poppies too.. as long as the meritorious men stand alone and there is no leader on the other side, slice dice and cut em down…
below is a kind of interesting read…
Cutting Down The Gifted
http://www.squidoo.com/tallpoppysyndrome
also there follow
Destroying Genius
Below are links to stories about truly gifted people who were damaged or destroyed because of their gifts. Sometimes the killers were rewarded for their crimes: Cyrus, who incited followers to kill the brilliant Hypatia in Alexandria, was made a saint after his death.
http://www.squidoo.com/tallpoppysyndrome#module114428281
ENJOY!
do they want to save conservatism and follow William F. Buckley’s rule of nominating “the most conservative candidate who can win?” Or are they just protecting their own sphere of influence against a warrior who would destroy their cozy arrangement?
What about this possibility: the right person for the job may call for atypical individuals at times rather than checking off routine boxes?
Are we in a unique place currently, and what kind of leader fits best?
Several things I find hilarious. These are all the people who were VILLIFYING Newt for his attacks on Romney a few weeks ago. Now they’ve unleashed the fury of hell on him. Loser Bob Dole, who is quite possible the WORST presidential candidate we’ve EVER fielded is saying Newt would be a bad candidate? Dole was always a RINO, and I really never liked him to begin with. The third thing is that the people who I like, and who’s endorsements MATTER to me, have endorsed Newt. People like JC Watts, who has always been one of my favorite Congressman. I’ve always thought Ann Coulter had a place in the party. We need good attack dogs, but I never really liked her, and felt a lot of what she says is over the top. (Although I agree with her sometimes too.) Tom Delay, we’re talking about the Tom Delay that’s going to prison, right? I find the players in this little drama kind of interesting too. I’ve read that Boehner lead the charge to oust Newt when the Liberals went after him. Is there truth to that? Could he be the one of the people that’s so scared of Newt? In that position *I* would be.
what kind of leader fits best?
dont matter…
we dont get to pick that leader, we get to pick from what they present to us thanks to changes in law due to progressives years ago…
even in judicial areas…
see how they replaced merit, so that they could equalize and have more socially engineered aesthetics…
2011 Year in Review: Merit selection is dead (long live merit selection)
gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/12/29/2011-year-in-review-merit-selection-is-dead-long-live-merit-selection/
and lets see how potus handles this
U.S. outrage as Egypt bars Americans from leaving
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/26/us-egypt-usa-idUSTRE80P1QC20120126
sure looks like they are heating up that one line in the sand and fomenting some form of conflict or a few just in time to secure an election for a friend..
Among those hit by travel bans – one of those targeted called it “de facto detention” – is a son of U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, as well as other foreign staffers of the International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute, officials at the two organizations said on Thursday.
I’m not a fan of Gingrich, but Romney wouldn’t have this problem if he had any respect for the Tea Party and evangelical wings of the party. I’ve read some of the stuff at NRO, listened to some political consultants who worked with Romney on the radio, and read some man on the street comments from Romney supporters. A fair number of them come off as snobs, conscious and otherwise. It is class warfare, but it didn’t have to be. If Romney felt comfortable among a wider class of people the hoi polloi wouldn’t be driven to find someone else to represent them. It was that ability to move among the different classes that let Reagan succeed.
That said, I think Romney would be a more effective president than Gingrich. But watching Gingrich make him sweat doesn’t bother me at all, even makes me happy. It might do Romney good to be reminded that there are other people out there who need a little respect.
@honeyimhome.
re: what kind.
Glad you asked.
Since I can’t have Palin (due to the popularity of metrics I don’t accept) at the top , I would find Gen. David Petraus a perfectly acceptable subsitute.
…and Gen. Petraus might want to consider Gov. Palin as the VP candidate.
I live in Florida and will need to reach a decision in the next five days.
My head favors Mitt.
My heart favors Newt.
And they both agree that it should be anyone except the arrogant arse currently holding the office.
One of Mitt Romney’s most famous quotes comes from his 1994 race for Senate in Massachusetts. Whie debating Ted Kennedy, he openly stated that he did not want to return to “Reagan-Bush,” adding that he was an independent during that time. It’s also come out that he voted in the 1992 Democratic primary. Now, Pundit Press has found that the former Massachusetts Governor not only voted in the Democratic primary, but also gave money to multiple candidates. By searching for Romney, it turns out that his donations helped three Democrats. A 1992 donation went to Democratic Congressman John LaFalce
As for this “agent of change” meme, two thoughts:
1. Either of these guys (or Santorum or Paul, for that matter) would represent a huge change away from the madness that Obama has been unleashing on us for the last three years. It’s like our house is buring down and we’re all arguing over whether we want the tall, thin fireman to go in to save the children or the shorter, stockier fireman.
2. I still haven’t heard anyone give an adequate explanation for why Newt’s ascendancy to the presidency would usher in wholesale change to the “system” or even represent less of an ideological compromise than electing Mitt Romney. “Grandiose” government undertakings are not conservative. Making the moon the 51st state is not conservative. Endorsing Dede Scoffalozza over a Tea Party candidate is not conservative. As Coulter was essentially saying, the perception of Newt Gingrich as a conservative is based on a very tendentious reading of his record.
The anti-Newt piling-on is like a volcanic explosion, sudden, violent, and severe. Orchestrated? It will harm us all. It’s roots are in the remote past; the eruption little addresses the present Newt, his present positions, our present circumstances and our gloomy national prospects. There is more than a tad of resemblance here to the Cain assault. The Left is loving it, and that should give us pause.
If we were anti-Neo, we could think about tearing down her contributions since her 2001 conversion by attacking her lifelong liberal past.
Newt was a young squirt while Reagan was President, dubious of most capital-L Leaders as is our wont at that age.
Artfldgr’s Tall Poppy meme is a most appropriate caution.
PS: To heck with Dole, and to heck with the Buckley doctrine (since we are none of us electoral savants). I should listen to Eliot Abrams instead of the actual candidate? Nope.
@ Tom:
People weren’t villifying Newt for simply for attacking Romney, they were villifying him for attacking him from the left, using the language and logic of the OWS crowd to characterize private investors and entrepreneurs as economic plunderers.
I have to say I’m glad I don’t live in Florida…. no change that since I do live in New England and hoep to get to warner climes. I’m glad I don’t have to vote in the next few days.
I keep flip flopping. The two of them are so bad I don’t know what to do. Just today it looks like Newt has endorsed BHO’s plan on illegal immigrants. “Holy borders, Batman!!!”
/OT: on
Perigee
Free sci-fi at Amazon (Kindle).
Interesting factoids:
Author is Citadel grad, and Marine vet.
Book choice keeps with my latest hopeless meme of the day: select David Petraeus at the brokered convention (a natural evolution from my previous motd “they’re both hopelessly compromised”)
He’s from SC (so you can blame him for the Second Coming of Newt while you’re reading …and if you hate the book, get back at SC by leaving him bad FB on Amazon).
…haven’t read it. Will later today.
/OT: off
“”I still haven’t heard anyone give an adequate explanation for why Newt’s ascendancy to the presidency would usher in wholesale change to the “system”
Conrad
I’d have to say it’s his refreshing lack of fear in pointing out the obvious. These are attacks on political correctness, the cultural marxism at the core of so many ideologically screwed up people. Romney is afraid to go there.
Artfldgr: he was an independent during that time (as he has explained; I don’t have time to find the link but it’s there) because in Massachusetts that allows you to vote in either primary, and he said he voted in that 1992 primary in order to vote for the weaker Democratic candidate, then vote for the Republican in the general.
I have registered independent in the past for similar reasons, as have many people. At the time Romney was a private citizen who’d never run for office.
About LaFalce [emphasis mine]:
I can think of many reasons why a conservative would want to support LaFalce, especially if that conservative were active in the business world, and pro-life. It also depends on whether LaFalce was being challenged from the left at the time. I’m not privy to what was going on in 1992 with him, but it could have been something like that.
As for Romney’s remark about Reagan in the 1994 debate with Kennedy, it is notable that it was the only time on record that he said anything even remotely negative about Reagan, and it was in the context of Kennedy’s efforts to paint him as too conservative for Massachusetts. You will find that the vast majority of the quotes from Romney that are used to supposedly prove his liberalness or non-conservativeness are from that same debate of 1994, his first political effort. He has said publicly that he has become more conservative since then—a claim I take as the truth, having noted that process in many people.
Gingrich, in contrast, was from a solidly conservative district and never had to do anything other than portray himself as very conservative in order to get elected. And his criticisms of Reagan on foreign policy were far more pointed (and insulting, actually) than anything negative Romney ever said about the man—which as far as I know (and I’ve researched this) was limited to that one remark, which merely says that Romney, if elected as Massachusetts’ senator, would not be planning to go back to Reagan-Bush.
.
Addendum: I just found some information on that 1992 vote of Romney’s. It was for my very favorite politician of all time, Paul Tsongas! That only makes my estimation of Romney go higher.
Actually, I think I’ll write a post about this. It’s a complex and rather interesting story.
@ SteveH
Thanks for an answer, but let me push a little harder on this. First, what examples of political incorrectness and striking back against “cultural marxism” on Newt’s part are you referring to? The only thing that comes to mind for me is his telling Juan Williams it should be considered insulting for kids to be school janitors. Is there a great deal more to it than that?
Second, I guess you have more faith than I that Newt’s political incorrect remark(s) means that we’d see a wholesale transformation of the “system” in Washington under his administration. For one thing, Newt’s own 32-year, rags-to-riches career in Washington practically DEFINES what’s wrong with the “system. “
Don Carlos: funny how your words could just as well apply to the attacks on Romney. Except for the more recent Romneycare (which I submit is little understood and widely misrepresented, as is Romney’s role in it), almost all the quotes from Romney and attacks on Romney feature things he said in the 1994 debates against Ted Kennedy while running for the Senate. It provides a goldmine of clips, since he was trying to counter Kennedy’s attacking him as being too conservative for the very liberal state of Massachusetts.
By the way, in 1986, when Newt was speaking in the House against Reagan and his foreign policy (the quotes Abrams uses in his article), Gingrich was 43 years old. In 1994, when the Romney-Kennedy debates were held, Romney was 47 years old. More or less the same age.
Note the commentary on the hit piece that claimed Newt betrayed Reagan
Wow. I wish some Republican Party Bigwigs would attack Obama as forcefully.
They are certainly working harder to defeat Gingrich than defeating Obama. Just as Limbaugh says….
If Romney was smart he would have done something like “Newt played a pivotal role in reducing spending in Clinton’s term, I respect him for that, but I think I can do better in the current situation due to my experience” and “The candidate’s marriage is not an appropriate topic when there are so many more important things we need to deal with.” He wouldn’t even have to believe those things, just say them. If your girl friend asks if the dress makes her look fat, you don’t say yes. Even better, you don’t volunteer the opinion without being asked.
Just dropping in to inject a little humor into the situation. Here’s comedian Steve Bridges doing a pretty funny satirical impression of Obama giving a speech:
http://www.stevebridges.com/obamavideos-promo-Aug-2011.html
If the Republican elite and MSM can neuter Newt, the road will be clear for Obama and the MSM to demolish Romney, but perhaps with Romney we can still hold the House and Senate.
Neo:
Some of my words, maybe, at a stretch. Which stretching you may be doing, as a hardly-abashed Mitt advocate. I intended my earlier comment as an observation of process, not as a pro-Newt note.
The fit’s hitting the GOP shan, but it ain’t flying toward Obama.
Boehner denied it recently, but this article appears to support it. It also implicates Delay in the attempted coup. So basically all of Gingrich’s old enemies have come out of the woodwork to go after him. I remember that at the time I felt Newt was being thrown to the wolves, because the Republicans in congress were a bunch of cowards who couldn’t stand the heat. I always felt the ethics violations were a bunch of BS, and they were trumped up to try to bring Newt down. A LOT of the reading I’ve done in the last couple of days kind of confirms that.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/07/21/time/gingrich.html
Gray: I’m curious: who are these bigwigs you’re talking about? I assume you don’t mean Bob Dole! And of course, Ann Coulter has been attacking Obama for years. Elliott Abrams has also criticized him about foreign policy (his specialty) and especially Israel, but I’m assuming he’s not the bigwig you mean, either. Do you mean Boehner? McCain???
From what I’ve heard and read of the debates and recent speeches (and I certainly have not watched or read them all), the actual candidates have gone at Obama pretty hard—that is, until recently, when they assembled the circular firing squad and began to shoot.
You know you are over the target when you really start to take the flak.
I’d say Newt was about to bomb a whole bunch of sacred cows andheavily entrenched positions.
I also think that commenters make a very good point, when they point out that these waves of savage attacks against Newt, from seemingly all quarters, were not mirrored by similarly savage attacks at these levels –all these last several years –against Obama, but rather it has almost been as though these savage critics of Newt, seemingly popping up out of “spider holes” to attack him, al la the Vietcong, werein comparison, practically playing kissy-face with Obama.
It seems to me as the details are examined, that Romney is explained and vindicated while Newt only partially so. However, attacks on Newt’s conservatism are wish fulfillment attempts. It’s clear what Newt’s core and base has been and are. That there are exceptions, grant to Newt’s character, both to his need for acceptance and rejection at the same time, and his racing mind which tosses off ideas more than pints of beer by the rugby team at an Irish pub. Pelosi, moon colony, and how many others from a man secure in his insecurities.
But nothing explains Romney’s lack of appeal to the conservative base in the Republican primary other than ineptitude or insouciance. Either one is not reassuring. But, give him a break on being able to gravitate towards more conservative positions. Oh wait, there’s the whole “You have to take me because he’s the only one who can win” argument. But then, it’s not really clear that Romney is anything more than just a good candidate who it makes natural sense to support–if he can survive the primary.
So, we’ve basically got a choice between rats tails or monkey eyeballs. Take your pick. And then, later, we’ll perhaps see they we’re after all, just two men.
Wolla Dalbo: see my comment here.
I certainly have seen and read plenty of attacks on Obama over the years. Were they not vociferous enough for you? Or not from the right people—who would the right people have been? Are you talking about Boehner? I somewhat agree with you there, by the way—I’ve been disappointed that I think the Republicans haven’t criticized Obama more effectively.
As for someone like Dole, I have no idea what he said about Obama, and can’t find anything (and if he had, it probably wouldn’t have even been reported because it wouldn’t have been considered news, except of the “dog bites man” variety; attacking Gingrich on the part of fellow-Republicans is a “man bites dog” thing). Perhaps Dole said nothing at all; he was retired, after all.
Gingrich was something up close and personal for Dole and for some others—they seem to hate his guts. We all can draw our own conclusions as to why. Was it envy? The revenge of the “establishment” types vs. a rebel? Or that they know what a hypocritical power-mad two-faced SOB Gingrich is? And why so many of them?
I don’t know the answers—could be a bit of both, actually. But I don’t think it’s a good sign about Gingrich that there’s that kind of personal animosity towards him from so very many people who worked with him, and so very few defending him. I think that’s somewhat unusual in politics. You may think it’s a feature; I consider it a bug.
Good last point, Wolla Dalbo. Hopefully, the spider hole dwellers will save some of their venom and not be to spent to come out and play during the general.
I took Wolla Dalbo’s time frame to be the last election when everybody, conservative commentators included, gave Obama the free ride.
But even recently, few, very few, call the man and his dummies what they are: traitors, socialists, hypocrites, lazy, wicked, immoral, rebellious, liars . . .
The GOPers keep doing this and they’ll cement the image of Gingrich as the outsider insurgent candidate. So much all at once is probably a tactical error.
Better–if the goal is to take down Newt–to keep a steady stream of doubt and troubles about him in the headlines.
If this doesn’t kill his campaign, he will seize this as evidence he is ready for all the nasty Axelrod attacks everyone expects in the general election.
As to the substance of all the attacks, if there is any, it probably doesn’t matter. Unless someone finds a way to claim Newt is a pedophile…
Obama is the big cipher, about whom we still know little. Gingrich is the big scatterplot, with a cluster of datapoints near every policy idea and personality fault in the past two decades. Either man can be whatever one’s selective perception needs him to be.
Beware the third-party candidate. George Wallace wasn’t going to win outright, but throw the matter to the House. Since there is allegedly a TEA faction there, and since nobody really like the two top GOP contenders, maybe such wouldn’t be so bad for conservatives?
Who are the Bigwigs? Please give us a break. Do not ask us what goes on inside the doors of the RNC, the Repub. Senate Campaign Committee, the GOP caucuses, Boehner-Cantor meetings, etc., etc., etc. Do not ask us for evidence re smoke-filled rooms from which we are barred. Those are the Bigwigs.
My own GOP congressman, whom I know well, is an aspiring Bigwig. He makes no waves.
We only get the sausage after it’s made and it’s not good. It is complacent, compliant, bland sausage, lacking even a hit of hot pepper, made with bad meat. We question the commitment of the makers thereof by the quality of the products.
This does seem like a coordinated attack, a human wave attack by everyone who has a very vested interest in seeing Newt shot down like a dog (and I do think that level of hate is there) –the MSM, the Romney folks, and the Republican establishment–I mean–from his picture today–they have even brought Dole back from the dead for this attack.
Correct me if I am wrong about my understanding of psychological motivations, but when people have put forth this amount of venom, directed this seemingly irrational, over the top level of hate against one person, than a great fear of that individual is behind this attack.
Is Newt a monster, is he insane, is he totally incompetent, or a would be dictator. I think the answer to each one of these questions is a resounding–and fact based–nol But, you wouldn’t know it from the frothing at the mouth, Berserker attacks of today, that have been building in fury over the last few weeks.
Something other that just ordinary criticism and disagreement is in play here.
Don Carlos,
The attacks on Newt may be routed in the past, but I think they are based on character traits that many feel haven’t changed. I personally don’t feel that one in his late thirties and forties is a young squirt. That’s just about the age when one should be acquiring wisdom and a bit of humility. But Newt always seems to think that he is above the rules because he is so smart.
We’re all just racist idiots, anyway. Please see the following and adjust your ideology:
http://news.yahoo.com/low-iq-conservative-beliefs-linked-prejudice-180403506.html
Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice
Wolla Dalbo: I don’t see that high a level of venom, considering that this is politics. A lot of it seems to be of the “if you vote for Newt, Obama will win” variety, which I believe is actually what many of these people think, since I happen to share that opinion.
Abrams is mainly quoting Gingrich’s own words and behavior. I just reread Abrams’ article, and there is nothing venomous in it that I can see. In Abrams’ article, he writes (after quoting Gingrich):
I believe that that’s what’s motivating Abrams—you really don’t have to look much further—as a member of that foreign policy team of Reagan’s. My guess is that he was stunned at the attacks coming from Gingrich and considered them a betrayal of Reagan and his policies. That’s a valid thing to bring up; it’s not venomous, and considering how angry he probably was, the tone of his article is relatively mild. It’s Gingrich’s own words criticizing Reagan that are not mild, and Abrams certainly can’t be blamed for those.
Coulter, of course, is always fairly venomous, so there’s not much special there in her attacks on Gingrich. She’s one person you can safely say has been at least as hard or harder on Obama.
Bob Dole’s remarks are somewhat more interesting, because they are more personal. For example, he writes that Gingrich was unpopular, that his ideas were often “off the wall,” and that Gingrich “was a one-man-band who rarely took advice.” I don’t know about your idea of “venomous,” but these don’t quality, although they do seem sharper and more pointed than, for example, Abrams’ piece. But Dole focuses on possible Republican losses as a result of Gingrich as nominee, which I believe he sincerely thinks is the danger. Dole also writes:
That, I think, is key. Dole holds a grudge at Gingrich’s betrayal, and his previous (in Dole’s opinion) harm to the Republican Party and their seats in the House. He doesn’t want history to repeat itself and have Democrats make gains in Congress as a result of Newt’s candidacy! And in fact, having done some research on why Gingrich was pressured to step down in 1998 (which he did), it was because the Republicans had suffered under his leadership the worst midterm loss of any party that did not also hold the presidency.
I am actually quite curious as to what you consider “venom,” though, in what the Newt-naysayers have said or written about him. Ditto “frothing at the mouth” and “berserker.” That’s a respectful and real question, not a rhetorical one.
But to answer your other question—I think there is some fear of Gingrich, but it’s neither over-the-top nor unjustified, nor does it reach anything I’d describe as venomous or beserker or frothing at the mouth. The fear is twofold: the first fear is based, exactly as they say, on Gingrich’s historical unpopularity and a fear that, as in 1998, Republicans will have big losses in Congress as a result. The second fear is based on his personality traits: his habit of self-aggrandizement, his extraordinary ability to antagonize people he works with, his heavy dose of egotism (even for a politician), and the erratic nature of many of his ideas.
Something other that just ordinary criticism and disagreement is in play here.
Oh, definitely. Just goes to show the smart people aren’t. And Romney would have profited by spending some time around folks who would have goaded him mercilessly just to see how tough he was. Then maybe he would have learned to handle himself like a real Pol. He seems to have lived a sheltered life. Along with the ‘elite’, who at this point I think we can identify as people with more money and education than sense.
Neo–my point about the relative mildness of Republican attacks against Obama and his policies rests on the quite ordinary news coming out of Congress, and the news media.
Have Congressional Republicans strongly and incessantly criticized and highlighted Obama’s complete lack of “transparency” with regard to his entire paper trail–birth records (for I think quite a good technical case–based on a knowledge of Photoshop, typography, and questioned documents analysis– can be made that the so called “birth certificate” he released to the press was a pretty clumsily and obviously manufactured fake, but , of course, the MSM immediately accepted its authenticity and said, “case closed,” and no more attention was allowed to be paid to this issue), challenged Obama to release his grade school, high school, college, and law school transcripts, any student loan/aid application documents, his passport, and his record in the Illinois State Senate (which Obama said he just didn’t have time to compile), have they talked about his time as a child in Indonesia in the Muslim household of his step-father Lolo Soetoro and its implications for his view of the world, Islam, and of the U.S.? How about pressing him on his relationship to the mentor of his teenage years, very dodgy character and active member of the Communist Party, Frank Marshal Davis, Obama’s 20 years at the Rev Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright’s racist, anti-Semitic, white-hating Black Liberation Theology church, Bill Ayers, Obama’s years as the Director of the failed Annenberg Challenge in Chicago, his meteoric rise through the extraordinarily corrupt Chicago political machine?
More recently, have they really done more that just feebly object to Obama Czars? How about ACORN still getting federal funds, how about anything more that just calling Holder to testify about Fast and Furious and getting stiffed each time?
From my perspective, they have been totally toothless and ineffective against Obama, yet they turn a flame thrower against Newt.
Why?
Exactly what is “savage” about any of these attacks? Just glancing at Drudge, I see these anti-Newt stories:
1. Tom DeLay says Newt isn’t really conservative. (Seems fair enough to question a candidate’s ideological orientation, no?)
2. Bob Dole says Gingrich’s extreme unpopularity was used against him in the ’96 prez election. (Savage? It’s true!)
3. Newt admits he lied about offering ABC corroborating witnesses. (Obviously a fair thing to point out.)
4. Elliott Abrams’ pointing out Newt’s harsh attacks against Reagan. (Based on Newt’s own words.)
Good examples of a savage attack would be going after John Huntsman because of his adopted daughter, or going after Bob Dole for not being a good parent. This volley of attacks against Newt, even if they are coordinated, are all based on aspects of Gingrich’s record in public life and aren’t “savage” according to any reasonable definition of that term.
Wolla,
Please see the remarks in my most recent response above.
But also—again, I’m curious which current Republican leaders who have failed to effectively criticize Obama (and I agree with you on that, they haven’t done so effectively) are now “turning a flame thrower” against Newt? I haven’t heard a word from Boehner or others of that sort. I’ve noticed Dole, Abrams, and Coulter, whom I discussed in my last comment—and not a flamethrower among them (with the exception of Coulter, who throws flames at almost everyone including Obama, so that hardly counts), and no current Republican leaders.
In addition, as I state in another comment, Republicans attacking Obama is ho-hum as news (dog bites man) whereas Republicans attacking a Republican is more newsworthy. But I repeat: which current Republican leaders are shooting flamethrowers at Gingrich? Perhaps I missed it, but I just haven’t seen it. It’s the old guard, long out of power, and a few people like Rubio who’s correcting him for some misrepresentations—but hardly flamethrowers.
Usually there is a reason when there appears to be a heavy imbalance among supporters who actually KNOW a candidate (vs. the general electorate is privvy to only that which the candidates choose, in addition to the personal attacks made by the candidates. To me, Gingrich has reminded me of late — specifically in debates (no rhyme intended) – as a hopping mad little Rumpleskiltskin (read “little” as figurative — I don’t have a clue as to the size of the physical man).
But what is most revealing is the support, or lack thereof from people who have worked with him — most being just as conservative as he claims to be if not more. Endorsements from Congress are one real big clue:
“Not surprisingly, given Mr. Romney’s position as the front-runner and the fear that many Republican officeholders have of sharing a ballot with Mr. Gingrich or Ron Paul, the former Massachusetts governor has a long lead in endorsements from elected officials. According to the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call, Mr. Romney has the backing of 72 members of Congress, versus a combined 17 for the other candidates.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203806504577178882416637926.html?KEYWORDS=sabato
Endorsments — whether they be true endorsements or instead more motivated by the goal of scoring negatives to the endorsee’s opponent — derive from many different sources: petty disagreements, jealousy, resentments, personal dislike, real ideological disagreement, or in attempt to thwart to some degree an opponent’s success. The above numbers suggest there is quite a bit more going on than a few nursed petty jealousies. Such a weigted advocacy for Romney indicates, by many people who have worked with Gingrich, and/or served in the same capacity. One might interpret this as a warning….or one might, well, interpret this as a warning. What it definitely says is that hardly ANYone who has worked with Gingrich is supporting Gingrich.
There’s no doubt in my mind that if Gingrich implodes again, in his mind it will be everybody else’s fault just as it was Romney’s fault in Iowa, and Romney’s fault in New Hampshire. Oh, and all those negative ads. The problem is, throughout Gingrich’s campaigning on the road, I’ve heard few, if any, of those brilliant ideas he purports to have an endless supply of, but instead a bitter endless supply of words discounting Romney’s honesty, Conservativism (yet historian that he is, just the briefest review of either his or Romney’s life history, lifestyle and accomplishments reveals Romney to be the one who has lived a true Conservative life). Romney is not a career politician and though hardly tounge-tied, he is at best, uncomfortable going on the attack, let alone being in attack mode 24/7 which is where Gingrich seems most at ease.
If one has listened to Gingrich on the stump lately, he is not making any case why he would be a good President, not has he talked about all his wondrous ideas. He’s been rather parsimonious, even with Obama critiques. Instead he uses nearly all his mic time to tell everyone who will listen what is wrong with Romney, and then remind them again.
I wonder if the virtual or vicarious satisfaction that many viewers felt when Gingrich has been onstage in debates and trounces the media or a specific member thereof, is going to get old….or will it have enough gas to keep him up for the next 3/4 of a year. Maybe a more important question is, will that be enough not just to entertain independents and disenchanted Democrats whose votes will be needed for a Republican victory, but to win their favor? I don’t see it as being enough to stay potent throughout the Republican primaries, and a disaster in the general election should he be the nominee.
One addition: Last night I was surprised as I was watching a news show on Fox where one of the panelists was a long-time Democrat who was a strong Obama supporter. When asked if she still supported Obama, her instant answer was “No!” followed with a stammering of “Well, uh, well, ummm…there are some things I agree with.” and finally a sheepish final answer of no. When asked could she choose anybody who is currently running now, she readily admitted that she could defintiely see herself voting for Mitt Romney.
That may say to some that Romney may not be the perfect CONSERVATIVE (deliberately in capital letters) and/or Republican, but it tells me that is exactly why Romney would be a great Republican nominee. It doesn’t make him any less Conservative, in person or in practice, but it makes all the difference in his appeal and how Republicans have a real shot at putting a Republican back in the White House.
P.S. as for the frenzied over the top nature of the attack, I just happened to tune in Rush –perhaps for the 4th or 5th time in my life–as I was driving around today, and heard thatas part of this human wave attack, the Romney camp was floating the idea today that Newt was somehow “unstable,” and ” irrational” i.e. crazy, bringing up memories of the raw deal that was given to Eagleton, when they released the fact tha the had psychiatric problems when he was in the military (hey, if they can do that to him they can do that to anybody). So. far this is just talk.
I note, too, how Obama won his first couple of political races by somehow getting the supposedly “sealed” divorce records of his opponents leaked to the press.
All in all a very cut throat and dirty business, is politics.
Wolla, But saying someone is “irrational” and “unstable” is hardly what I’d call venomous—plus, more importantly, it’s not coming from those “Republican leaders” we’ve been talking about for days, at least not so far. Who is actually saying it? The Romney camp’s supposedly “floating an idea” according to Rush Limbaugh is hardly what we’re talking about, is it? And neither is the Obama campaign’s dirty fights against his early opponents (which I wrote about already at some length, here). Of course politics is cut throat and dirty; no disagreement there. But I just don’t see flamethrowing and beserker attacks coming from those Republican leaders.
I’m still waiting for someone to point them out, with quotes.
By the way, I just looked up what I think you were referring to from Limbaugh. From the transcript of his show:
Boy, that’s quite an assertion! Greg Sargent of the blog at the WaPo, via the NY Times, via something or someone that is labeled as “unclear sourcing.”
@neo it was because the Republicans had suffered under his leadership the worst midterm loss of any party that did not also hold the presidency
Yeah. True enough. 5 seats. In the ’98 midterms.
But perhaps a little perspective is in order?
…because that loss, described in those particular terms, isn’t fair to the Speaker.
The Republicans had also picked up 54 seats in the previous mid-terms, in 1994.
Five. Four.
Newt’ should also be remembered for that pickup, wouldn’t he? – By the terms of the importance assigned in the discussion?
…I dunno, but a 49 seat net increase seems equally significant if we’re counting marbles.
Oh. And that 54 seat pickup put the Republicans in power in the House for the first time in 40 years, didn’t it?
…y’know, I was barely paying attention, but I remember thinking back then, that House were a bunch of ingrateful little snots for what they’d done to the Speaker. Including, and importantly, Bob Dole.
“No love lost”. Indeed.
I rarely trust what someone’s ex’ has to say about them post the bad-divorce, either, btw.
…perspective.
davisbr: no question that Gingrich had been a large element in the very historic Republican victory in 94. When I cited what happened in ’98, I was attempting to explain some of the animosity on the part of those “Republican leaders” who were there, and who felt that Gingrich was responsible for their woes at that point.
Whether he was or wasn’t I really don’t know. But I was trying to explain one of the many reasons they were mad at him. But to gain some perspective, although five seats sounds like just a little, it was more than it seems because in mid-term elections, a party without the presidency usually gains significantly rather than loses. That’s why the 1998 House Republican loss was also historic.
See this: “over the past 21 midterm elections, the president’s party has lost an average 30 seats in the House, and an average 4 seats in the Senate.” That’s certainly not what happened in 1998, and the other Congressional leaders blamed Gingrich at the time, rightly or wrongly.
Savagery can be construed from timing and quality. What I and others see is an orchestration whose salient quality is better described “hysterical” rather than venomous. Okay. Big deal. Make a huge case on a phrase. You win, but only proves a less than rational animus operating here, an irrationality, hatred, closing in for the kill, bloodlust, revenge . . . well. . . seem to be back to venomous. There’s a wish here, and it ain’t leading to leaving flowers on Newt’s grave.
You see, all you true Newt haters are anxious to see him taken out and don’t have any remorse about the loss of the person who best articulates the corruption, depravity, intent and callousness of Obama. And you’re blind to your own hatred and can’t perceive yourselves as anything other than rational and reasonable. It’s useless arguing about, cause I says you is and you is.
Words matter. Criticism of a candidate is neither venomous, flamethrowing, nor berserker unless it actually is venomous, flamethrowing, or berserker. I would hope that people here would want to back up their claims.
And the following statement of yours is, by the way, over the top. Unless you define “true Newt-haters” in some more clear and focused way I consider that you are referring to me and to some commenters on this blog who happen to disagree with you:
I suggest you take a good look at this.
Oh broooooother.
It’s provocative, and said over the top, yes, and with tongue in cheek as hopefully the last overly outrageous phrase “I says you is and you is” should have suggested.
You know what the worst venom is: That which comes concealed. The knife in the back from a supposed friend. But, this does show a principle: payback, karma, what goes around comes around. You can’t say Newt, with his ever attacking and pretentious mouth, doesn’t deserve it.
But there is venom here, and merely because it is cloaked doesn’t mean it is not there. What we see is the same tactics the left is using: a campaign meant to destroy a candidate. And it is disconcerting to see our conservative pundits doing so. It provides a minute of deja vu disorientation. Ich. And I contend that spending nearly a week now on Newt shows a preoccupation that is straying from pure rationality. And that’s okay, but being high and mighty about it aint.
Curtis: well, I’m glad to hear it was tongue in cheek. I didn’t get that at all.
But you continue to use words like “destroy.” So, would you say that Gingrich tried to “destroy” Romney? I wouldn’t—and that’s because it’s incorrect. And what you say is incorrect as well.
Politicians try to defeat each other. In the process, they criticize and even sometimes verbally attack each other. But from that I don’t immediately infer venom or destruction, or hatred, and I don’t think it’s helpful to say that when it isn’t so. Those are perfectly good words, and they have their uses, but I prefer to save them for the description of what they actually mean.
I remember a long time ago, when I was in college and a liberal, a roommate of mine said that the US’s policies in Vietnam had the goal of genocide. I wasn’t in favor of the war back then, but I was so shocked at her comment that I still remember it. I spent a lot of time arguing with her, showing her where she was wrong to use the word that way, and why it mattered. She didn’t care; I didn’t convince her. But I still have the same attitude—that words are precious things, and we should be as precise as possible when we use them. The rest is exaggeration and demagoguery, and I don’t think we need more of that.
Wow. This whole thread is quite something and indicative of the the primary fight as a whole.
Everyone knows where I stand, so I shall not repeat it.
I just have two questions for the Newt supporters out there:
1. What evidence, exactly, would dislodge your support for him? Or, more modestly, what would at least give you pause?
2. How many of you were supporting him in July, August or September of 2011?
Ruminate a little about those questions before you answer. Virtually all of the arguments for Gingrich I have seen are mostly reactions against the “evil Mitt” and the big bad chimera of “elite” Republicans who are behind him. Gingrich is serving as a vessel for all of the anger and frustration against the DC establishment. And Mitt Romney, rightly or wrongly, embodies this establishment in the minds of Newt supporters.
Very well. But even if I accepted this rationale (which I don’t), giving a black eye to the “establishment” is not sufficient to justify nominating Newt Gingrich for President.
Have the Newt devotees ever considered, even briefly, that the almost unanimous criticism of Gingrich from all those Washington “insiders” may have some validity to it? Maybe they all are not part of some nefarious conspiracy to save their own butts against the populist crusader Newt? Maybe there is something of substance to what they are shouting emphatically (Please, DON’T do this!!). Maybe they are just as concerned about Obama’s “fundamental transformation” as you; just as eager to stop it, but realize that, Romney’s palpable flaws aside, Gingrich would be an atrocious nominee. Have you considered this possibility?
If you have not, then there’s not much more I can say. Except that: Recall in the (not at all) distant past when a political party embraced a supposed “Great Man” against the protests of its establishment because he just seemed to speak to them, seemed to be so brilliant and transformative; and besides, they desperately wanted to stick it to the establishment candidate.
That man is in the White House right now.
I was hoping Palin would run. She made a great campaign speech in Indianola in September 2011 and then bailed in October. I don’t know what spooked her, but I was disappointed. Newt Gingrich was very impressed by that speech. It hit themes that her Foreign Policy adviser, Peter Schweizer wrote about in his bookThrow Them All Out.
I think I see some similarities between the Newt boosters and Ron Paul’s true believers.
I hit “enter” too soon. While Newt is far from the Palinista’s ideal candidate, he has been the best at expressing our ideals. He is the default “Tea Party” candidate. We don’t like it much, but that’s where we are.
@BurkeanBadger: Do you know how much pork is lost when you balance the budget? Of course the pigs hated him.
I just wanna see the guys fairly smacking Newt smack Obama with the same vigor. They sure didn’t the first time!
Bastards….
Well, I’ve already said that I don’t think that either Gingrich or Romney can beat Obama. Apart from that, I just plain don’t like either one of them. At the moment, I am strongly leaning towards voting for the Libertarian Party candidate, especially if it is Bill Still. (Karl Denninger is his economic adviser.)
But Gingrich made a major speech on space policy yesterday. It is clear that he is the only candidate who has given it a moment’s thought, and in fact he has given it a lot of thought.
I read a few weeks ago that Romney mocked some of Gingrich’s space statements from years ago. Sorry, I don’t have a link. But apparently Romney only regards space policy as a means to get cheap laughs from his audience. Therefore I cannot take him seriously as a candidate. That was the last straw. I’ve said it before, and I really mean it now: I will not vote for Romney under ANY circumstances.
Although I pay little attention to the MSM, I gather that Gingrich has gotten some ridicule for his speech, from people who are uninformed on the issues. Take this article from National Review Online last night: Gingrich: Let’s Make the Moon a State
The title is unconscionable, but the comments are even worse. Most of them range from abjectly ignorant to utterly moronic.
I’ve also seen several threads and comments at Ace of Spades from people who seem to believe that he is proposing a massive government spending program to put a base on the moon. Anyone who has actually read his statements knows that that is not the case.
If you want to read serious commentary, see here and here.
See also Rand Simberg’s article in the current issue of Reason magazine, which was written before Gingrich’s speech.
I did like Romney’s strong response on Israel. Gives me faint hope. Jeezus, I sure hope Mormons hate radical Muslims much more than Obama does.
But, to give Obama credit, he seems to be approving covert special operations against Muslim terrorists. Seals, drones, no problemo.
You were?
…maybe we all need to come up for a breath of fresh air around here.
I need to dance. Need. To. Dance. Hmm.
…so I’m planning on a glass of ’07 Edna Valley Merlot tomorrow night, and Singing in the Rain on bluray. Turned up real loud, I think.
Need to shake all this off …you’re all invited to join me. Leave your politics behind …kick off your shoes …just chill.
I just read a Wes Pruden eMail on Newt as our Clinton. There was no real news, but the last paragraph had a real zinger. Newt once asked Dole why people took an immediate dislike to him. Dole replied, “It saves them time.”
This is the Pres we have:
“On Tuesday at the State of the Union, I laid out my vision for how we move forward. I laid out a blueprint for an economy that’s built to last, that has a firm foundation. Where we’re making stuff and selling stuff and moving it around and UPS drivers are dropping things off everywhere.”
Let’s not lose perspective.
Do see this for some clarity on Newt’s history: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/01/newt-vs-reagan-the-sequel.php
…some more clarity (and justice), and probably history (that some have either forgotten, or didn’t know), via the Morning Jolt newsletter (Jim Geraghty, NRO) from Erikson:
I still remembered that little factoid as “fresh” when Dole ran. I scratched my head at the time, and sighed.
…that’s one anecdotal illustration why using attack ads that focus on personal attributes turn me cold btw.
…as they’re often repeated ad nauseum, until – true or not, and always-always-always lacking in the context necessary to see if there’s anything “there” (beyond grade-school level name-calling) – they take on a life and truth of their own.
It’s based on one of my cardinal rules: always take with a grain of salt what someone’s ex- says about them (and for gawd’s sake don’t repeat it); it may not be an outright lie, but the bitter past is often seen through a lens of hardened anger.
…and bitterness has a half-life all its own.
——-
FWIW, I’m nearing my personal level of the “McCain Despicability Index” of how I judge a politician, almost based upon election tactics alone (odd that, since with McCain it was based more upon his legislative blunders). Not good.