Readers know what I think of Newt Gingrich, but right now I am fascinated by what conservatives think. Especially Tea Party conservatives. What I read in in yesterday’s WSJ was enough to make my head spin in two directions:
Consulting work Newt Gingrich performed for Freddie Mac is drawing new scrutiny, now that the Republican presidential candidate has risen in polls on the backs of tea-party supporters and other conservatives skeptical of Washington institutions.
Mr. Gingrich, the former House speaker, was hired by Freddie Mac for two stretches after leaving Congress, beginning in 1999 and again in 2006, during periods when the housing-finance company faced growing threats from policy makers who wanted to clips its wings, people familiar with events said.
Now, I can understand Newt’s recent rise in the polls. But “on the backs” of Tea Party supporters? And conservatives who distrust “Washington institutions?”
Really?
How short are people’s memories? Seriously, if Newt Gingrich is not a big government conservative and Washington insider, then who is?
While I can’t lay claim to being much of a conservative, I certainly understand the argument that “big government conservatives” are the reason the GOP found itself in such a pickle in 2006, and they share the blame for the runaway spending which escalated under Bush, helped trigger the bailout mania, and did much to pave the way for the ruinous spending characterizing the present day Obama era.
But as I say, I’m hardly a conservative. I don’t fit their mold — especially where it comes to individual liberties. Nor am I a shrill red meat style conservative.
But Ann Coulter certainly is, and she has a better political memory than these alleged conservative Tea Partiers who think Newt is suddenly their man.
So now, apparently, we have to go through the cycle of the media pushing Newt Gingrich. This is going to be fantastic.
In addition to having an affair in the middle of Clinton’s impeachment; apologizing to Jesse Jackson on behalf of J.C. Watts — one of two black Republicans then in Congress –- for having criticized “poverty pimps,” and then inviting Jackson to a State of the Union address; cutting a global warming commercial with Nancy Pelosi; supporting George Soros’ candidate Dede Scozzafava in a congressional special election; appearing in public with the Rev. Al Sharpton to promote nonspecific education reform; and calling Paul Ryan’s plan to save Social Security “right-wing social engineering,” we found out this week that Gingrich was a recipient of Freddie Mac political money.
Coulter is hardly enamored with Romney, but she points out that on his most vulnerable issue, he and Newt are indistinguishable:
The Heritage Foundation, a leading conservative think tank, supported Romneycare at the time. The biggest warning sign should have been that Gingrich supported it, too.
No one has called Gingrich on it. Nor has he been called on his past love affair with Hillary, or his “green conservatism” (his term btw).
Or this heartrending Global Warming smoochfest with Nancy Pelosi!
Via Paul Mulshine, who comments,
Zombies are popular these days. But I never thought I’d see Newt Gingrich return from the dead.
This guy is such an obvious fraud that I never expected any Republican to ever again take him seriously.
Watch above as he whores himself for the ethanol interests. If he ever becomes a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination, this video will sink him. There’s a point in there where he looks like he’s going to reach over and squeeze Pelosi’s leg.
Worse is Newt’s blatant sellout to the ethanol lobby.
It’s an unfortunate fact of politics that even dumb people are allowed to vote. And there are many people dumb enough not to see through Newt’s pitch.
As I noted here, there were a whole lot of them in attendance at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington earlier this year. Newt got up on his hind legs and delivered a thinly disguised commercial for the agribusiness interests, yet the knuckleheads in the audience ate it up.
Ouch. But if you’re interested in his ethanol shilling, read it all.
Gingrich, to be sure, will claim that he has changed his positions on these and other issues. His flexible view of “morality” may offer an insight on the way he thinks:
“See, when I smoked pot it was illegal, but not immoral. Now, it is illegal AND immoral. The law didn’t change, only the morality… That’s why you get to go to jail and I don’t.”
Spoken like a man who regards himself as vested with nobility. For whatever reason, the GOP field refuses to criticize the noble Newt.
Now that Gingrich is polling in the top tier, will his seven opponents dare to take him to the woodshed on the national stage of a televised debate?
If they do, it would mark a radical reverse course for a Republican field which, to this point, has treated Gingrich like royalty.
Ah, but are they guilty of enabling his ennoblement? Too early to tell.
I’ll say this for Gingrich. He has inspired many a blog post over the years.
So I guess I treat him him like royalty too.
A royal something, at least.
His highness makes me not want to be a conservative.
AFTERTHOUGHT: It strikes me that sooner or later, a skilled analyst will take the time to carefully sift through all the data and do a side-by-side comparison of Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. I suspect that policy-wise, there isn’t much difference between them. So why is it that so many of the people who pile on Romney for being a RINO are silent where it comes to Gingrich?
I suspect the driving reason may not involve policy, but they don’t want to admit it.
MORE: I am not alone in my concerns. David Swindle is asking the question that must be asked:
…how is the Tea Party critique of Mitt Romney (he’s allegedly the Washington Republican Establishment’s flip flopping RINO narcissist who will say anything and assume any position to get elected) not more or less equally applicable to Gingrich? Katrina Trinko hits each of the Newt-Is-Not-The-Anti-Romney notes in this neat article at NRO.
And Katrina Trinko lays it out, point by point.
Again, my question is a simple one. Why are the same things that are unforgivable in Romney forgivable in Gingrich?
What’s sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the Gingrich.
Comments
24 responses to “Royalty is as royalty does”
So on the one hand we have the Soros candidate Obama and on the other hand the Soros candidate Newtie.
It sure looks to me like the game is rigged.
OK. I’m not a conservative. But neither is Newt.
Gingrich is up in the polls because of his demeanor in the debates. He speaks in an authoritative manner on issue after issue and it is impressive. The Repubs are looking for someone with polish to match the slickness of Obama and some think Newt has it.
As for Romney, some Repubs don’t like him because he’s a little too moderate in their minds. Of course, to get elected the governor of Mass., a Repub has to be a little more moderate. And then there are other Repubs who don’t like Romney because of his religion. They are religious bigots.
The one unforgivable thing that Gingrich did, and it wasn’t directly related to politics, is have his wife sign divorce papers in the hospital while undergoing treatment for cancer.
So it shouldn’t surprise anyone that he would advocate the death penalty for drug use and sales. The man is as cold as ice, a fascist at heart. And I mean fascist as in Franco Spain, Hitler Germany, & Mussolini Italy. A quote from Il Duce probably describes Gingrich, the would-be history professor, pretty well:
It is humiliating to remain with our hands folded while others write history.
He strikes me as a man lusting for power, and as the most dangerous of the Republican candidates.
The reason I’d take Gingrich over Romney is Gingrich knows how to reject an inane premise thrown at him by the leftist media. How entertaining all the interviews will be! As opposed to the robotic Romney. I think that alone is worth something.
Is there any way we can FORCE Mitch Daniels to get in the race? He’d skyrocket to the top of the heap in no time.
Appreciate the linkage, as always. I’m working on something now about Newt’s horrific positions on medicinal marijuana.
Newt is a marvelous teacher and speaker. He is a Grandmaster of the Rules, especially Roberts and he can be trusted to discern and exploit the most popular views 90% of the time. None of which makes him trustworthy. However I should point out that his daughter and ex wife have denied many elements of the divorce story.
I have a soft-spot for Newt from the Contract With America days.
He, at least, can be counted on to understand his base and in these days, his base is saying “go back to those days.”
Romney can’t be counted on for much except to be a smoother, more elitist John McCain.
However I should point out that his daughter and ex wife have denied many elements of the divorce story.
Of course they did. He may not have actually badgered his wife as the early accounts allege. The fact that he was carrying on a adulteress affair at the time and chose to have his wife served with papers while undergoing cancer treatment is enough, isn’t it? This is the woman who put him through college, but was older by this time, and he wanted a younger replacement.
Sorry, but he’s a despicable piece of shit.
She claims she had him served, but she did have very understandable cause.
Here is a small sample of what the Democrats have in store for Gingrich if is nominated by the Stupid Party:
by Joan Walsh, Salon.com
NEWT GRINGICH: HIS BAGGAGE HAS BAGGAGE
Gingrich is probably best known for serving his wife with divorce papers while she was recovering from cancer surgery, so he could marry his mistress, whom he later divorced to marry a staffer. But he’s also probably the only politician, who when you’re asked “What’s the worst thing he’s done?” has done a lot of things that rival leaving his cancer-stricken wife for his mistress. For most people in the world, in fact, that would be the hands-down worst act ever; for Gingrich, it’s just not that clear-cut (h/t Jamie Kilstein).
For instance, he’s the only House speaker in American history to be disciplined by Congress for ethics violations. In 1998, he paid a $300,000 fine after he was found to have been misusing his tax-exempt foundations for political gain.
OK, those have to be the two worst things, dumping his wife who had cancer for his mistress, and congressional ethics sanctions, right?
But wait, but there’s more:
* Shutting down the government in 1995 at least partly because President Clinton allegedly snubbed him by seating him in the rear of Air Force One on a flight home from Yitzhak Rabin’s funeral. No, really, he told reporters the “snub” was “part of why you ended up with us sending down a tougher continuing resolution.”
* Advocating that the children of welfare recipients be taken away from their parents and raised in orphanages.
* Leading the drive to impeach Clinton over lying about adultery when he was himself lying about adultery, cheating on his wife with a staffer, Callista Bisek, who became his third wife.
* Insisting President Obama suffers from “a Kenyan anti-colonial mindset” like his Kenyan father, even though he barely knew his Kenyan father.
* Denouncing Paul Ryan’s radical budget (that was actually smart) as “right-wing social engineering,” then flip-flopping and warning that “any ad which quotes what I said Sunday is a falsehood.”
* Railing against Obama’s alleged “class warfare” when he’s run up a $500,000 tab at Tiffany’s.
http://www.salon.com/topic/newt_gingrich/
Gingrich had his wife served, but not at the hospital. Here is an article that goes into in an objective way:
http://www.salon.com/2011/03/08/gingrich_divorce_hospital_cancer/
He’s still scum.
Peter Schiff today nails Gingrich on the Freddi Mac scandal. Here’s the podcast:
http://peterschiffchannel.blogspot.com/
My apologies ,the original Washington Post story reproduced there appears to have a valid primary source quote. (Ex wife Jackie)
The daughter’s recollection is here. http://www.conservativecommune.com/2011/11/gingrichs-daughter-that-story-about-my-parents-divorce-is-hogwash-by-the-way/
Will, I had it wrong also. She wasn’t served divorce papers, just a demand to accept the divorce terms written out by Newt’s attorney.
Gingrich can change positions on substantive policy issues as easily as Romney. Little difference there. But they are worlds apart on personal morality. For this reason alone, I would not vote for him. He is untrustworthy.
After 30 years when my spouse got cancer, it never occurred to me to cut chase and run. Only cowards and lowlifes would do that – people like John Edwards and Newt Gingrich. When we put a man in a position of such responsibility, we deserve better than such venal behavior.
Venal, adj.
a.Open to bribery $1.8 Freddie Mac “consulting” fee.
b.Capable of betraying honor, duty, or scruples The pattern of adultery, and especially dumping his first wife during cancer treatment. Absolutely inexcusable.
The daughters version says “My mother and father were already in the process of getting a divorce, which she requested.”
The 1984 article states, Gingrich responded: “All I can say is when you’ve been talking about divorce for 11 years and you’ve gone to a marriage counselor, and the other person doesn’t want the divorce, I’m not sure there is any sensitive way to handle it.”
The daughters version, while it may be technically correct (her mother may have eventually agreed to take the role of plaintiff) is reasonably suspect. I share your belief that Newt has earned public distrust but I will not waste any emotional energy on his account.
[…] 2. Newt Gingrich (wiki) (campaign) Presidential Age: 69-73 Cred: Congress House (’79-’99) including Speaker (’95-’99) Pros: Lots of experience running the GOP establishment back in the 90′s. Cons: Lots of experience running the GOP establishment back in the 90′s. Has a sketchy history of having affairs and leaving one wife to marry another in the same year (twice!). Despite recent claims, he also has a sketchy history of wanting to use government to engineer conservative behavior over liberal behavior – rather than opposing government engineering fundamentally. Politifact Statement Score: 6 True / Mostly True vs 8 False / Pants on Fire Abortion: Seems to think it “should not be legal.” Sum: The Newt led the Republican takeover of Congress in the 90′s and has a mostly decent record of both opposing and working with Clinton to balance things and get things done. Then his star faded (perhaps due to the whole having-an-affair-while-impeaching-Clinton thing) and he left to write books and fund conservative organizations. Now he’s back. He patiently waited while the other 3 fiery non-Roms crashed and burned, projecting himself as the reasonable, experienced alternative, and now it’s his turn in the spotlight – up to 21% now – and just in time for the media to tell us that he earned $1 million “advising” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac back in the day. Oh, Newt… he’s trying to say all the right things now, but will voters believe he hasn’t been corrupted by his three decades of sketchy government involvement? […]
Glenn Reynolds linked a story in the Washington Post today rewriting again the story of Gingrich’s divorce.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/aspects-of-gingrich-divorce-story-distorted/2011/11/17/gIQA8iY4YN_story.html
It’s obvious the daughter has changed her story if you read the original quotes attributed to her shortly after the divorce. It is also clear that whatever else may have happened at the hospital, there was a confrontation. The earlier accounts coming from one of Newt’s former aids paint a picture of a crass and ugly Gingrich confronting his wife just after surgery, with children present, and insisting on getting her signature of approval on his attorney’s divorce terms.
Reynolds comment: Interesting that the press is moving to clear this up now.
The original story from 1984 by David Osborne in Mother Jones is probably accurate. Nothing much has changed since then but the daughter trying to cover for her dad, and the ex-wife trying to forget the whole damn thing.
I’m sick of everyone from Reynolds to Roger Simon making excuses for just plain rotten Republican candidates. Simon wrote a glowing piece about Rick Perry, and Reynolds snipes at ANY attack on almost any of the wannabes. It is partisanship at its worst. And now, well Gingrich isn’t so bad. Better than Obama anyway. He’s OUR guy. Go Newt.
Better they should all have a kidney stone and wait 10 hours in the ER for pain meds.
Frank you are not, IMO, being fair to Glenn Reynolds. He DID link the story, and I congratulate him for doing so. His questioning of the MSM timing is absolutely right, and it is not a defense of Gingrich.
You might also want to keep in mind that Glenn Reynolds has been outspoken in his support of the Pain Relief Network, the raids on doctors, etc.
I understand your dislike of Gingrich, but think your comment that Glenn should have to wait 10 hours for pain meds is inappropriate.
Big misunderstanding. I didn’t make it clear, the reference was to Gingrich and Perry, certainly not Glenn Reynolds or Roger Simon. Heaven forbid. My only very slight disgust is with the fact that every one is so determined to get Obama out that anyone, including a pig like Gingrich gets a pass. Of sorts anyway.
Sorry for the lack of clarity.
Like you, I have absolute disgust for Gingrich. And I hate that you were so right about his chances.
Mea culpa.
“all of them” was meant to refer to the unqualified field of Republican candidates, all of whom support the drug war, except for Gary Johnson and Ron Paul. And they haven’t much of a chance.
I’m on meds now & maybe need to take a small break from posting, until I can think and write clearly.
I think you’re missing the point, and missing the appeal Gingrich has.
Some of the comments touched on it, but here’s the nub: There are a lot of us out here who want to see the Wall of Narrative breached, and don’t see anybody even attacking it other than Newt Gingrich. That translates into approval, and the “negatives” are almost beside the point. I don’t want Gingrich as President, for a lot of the reasons pointed out here, but a person prepared to call the media-based leftoid “moderators” out on their bulls* has me cheering — and would if he, she, or it were an axe murderer. Ms. Palin’s appeal is to a large degree based on the same effect.
Regards,
Ric
We’ve all been had. The GOP and Democrat politicians have more in common with each other than with any of us. The idea of electing someone who thinks that the government should do less with less is anathema to our would be overlords and this attitude is prevalent during the primary campaigns, which inevitably gives us (a) going to Hell fast or (b) going to Hell at a jog.
The odds of an actual conservative and/or libertarian getting nominated and elected are pretty much zero and will remain so until this economy really and truly tanks, at which point people will be ready for the nasty medicine they’ve be forced to swallow. Sadly, we have not yet reached that point.
I remember Newt fondly up until he became Speaker of the House. The Newt after that is the Newt of today: a power hungry politician whose sole purpose is self-aggrandizement. And he’s our alternative to Romney who. Awesome. Maybe I can rub some lemon juice into a paper cut next.