Another day…
…another Gingrich lesson in capitalism.
More news here. Note that, in the last Florida senatorial contest, Mitt Romney supported Rubio (and was one of the first to throw his weight behind him). That surprised me, actually.
And let me see if I can get this straight: Gingrich says that the fact that he has sinned and repented makes him more “normal” than “someone wandering around seeming [emphasis mine] perfect.” Gingrich goes for the sinner vote, and leaves the implication that a person who seems squeaky clean may just be a hypocrite whose secret sins haven’t been exposed yet, or is just plain weirdly out of touch with the common run of humanity. Wonder who that “someone” might be? (Bill Clinton must be kicking himself. He never had to lie in the first place! All he had to do was say, “Yeah, I did it and I’m normal. Wanna make something of it?”)
Quote of the day (from—you guessed it—my new buddy, Ann Coulter. Politics does make strange bedfellows.):
Newtons claim Romney is a “moderate,” and Gingrich the true conservative — a feat that can be accomplished only by refusing to believe anything Romney says … and also refusing to believe anything Gingrich says.
While we’re at it, read what Newt said during the late 80s about Reagan’s foreign policy.
I understand that none of this may matter to you if you’re a Newt supporter, because he offers qualities that you think are more important than any of this stuff. As I see it, the major plus Newt brings to the table is his feistiness. That’s not nothing, either; there’s something to be said for it. But in the service of egotism, and in the absence of wisdom and integrity, it’s not a plus.
Tonight’s another debate, if you can believe that. And if we feel weary at the prospect (which I certainly do), imagine how the candidates feel—although, of course, they’re fired up by by other things, including the thrill of battle (and I include all of them in that equation; remember Santorum and Paul?).
And speaking of battle—you can use this thread to discuss the debate tonight.
From the NRO article, it sounds like Gingrich was more hawkish on USSR than Reagan:
“He called Reagan’s meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev “the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with Neville Chamberlain in 1938 in Munich.”
While many were attacking Reagan from the left, Gingrich was attacking Reagan from the right and probably keeping him from drifting left like George W.
When it comes to neo and Ann Coulter we can do without the “strange bedfellows” metaphor, thank you very much.
Or… on the other hand…
It might be good for traffic.
Actually, it does matter what Newt says and does, and what Romney says and does.
(As for Coulter – whom I adore – it don’t matter quite so much LOL.)
There are tipping points.
And I thought it a big plus to have Rubio’s endorsement, and find that Mitt had worked for him. That’s the kind of impressive stuff that matters in politics.
I have huge amounts of respect for Rubio, and expect a presidential run someday.
They are going nuclear on Newt and much of it is dishonest. This clip is supposed to show Newt dissing Reagan but the full clip shows just the opposite.
H/T Dan Riehl
Pat: yes, I saw that clip, and I agree it’s used in a deceptive way.
However, the rest of what I’ve found doesn’t seem dishonest as far as I can see. See this as well.
The whole mess is really a sad and perhaps tragic case of “the chickens have come home to roost.”
Looking for explanations as to why conservatives, evangelicals, and fundamentalist support Newt can’t be found in current events. The reasons are 1) Newt understands their bitterness. 2) Newt is being “maligned” like they feel they are and have been for some time now. 3) They have been maligned and, having some taste of influence and victory, will take that over doctrinal purity.
Call Newt a hypocrite. There’s probably not one person who voiced a norm that aligns with social conservatism and was not labeled a hypocrite and then a bigot and then probably threatened with some sort of punishment or boycott. And hated. Hate on someone and see what that inspires. Chickens come home to roost, I say.
And although this population might only be, say, 20% of the total, it has at least 10% in silent agreement. 30% right there. That’s a tempting bloc of votes. But it cuts off rather abruptly. That 30% lives in their separate world much like the 20% connected to the progressive sphere.
The conservative media has too much involvement with the rest of society which prevents their fervent belief in social conservatism, and, I believe, they secretly fear the ridicule and lack of a job that would result if they professed any actual support for the social conservatives. Thus, their recent understanding that Newt may actually win has been met with a virtual onslaught of words and even venom.
Newt is an exception to the conservative media types. He voices his objections freely and seemingly without fear of rejection. And, knowing the psyche of social conservatives well, his “I am normal because I am a sinner,” argument is not hard to understand. It is brilliant in it’s simplicity and knowledge.
I really, really think this could be taken wrong, but much like Hitler understood the German fear and hatred of modernity, so does Gingrich understand social conservatism’s bitterness.
However, I cannot trust the politics of bitterness, in the end, and the politics of bitterness will not lead to a good result. Gingrich is a user, here, a pied piper, and just like Hitler went on to betray every supporter he ever had, so I wouldn’t trust Gingrich. And this is despite Gingrich has voiced strong support for Israel and strong opposition to sharia law. But, I believe Gingrich would inflame, not quell, those fires that will lead to excess because it is in his interest to do so and the one great constant in his long and storied career is self-promotion and self-interest.
Say Newt has a history, battle scars, enemies and ex lovers? He’s almost like a real person.
You’re wquoting Elliott Abrams? From Wikipedia….
“While serving for Reagan and in the State Department, Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz, and retired U.S. Marine Corps officer Oliver North were integral players in the Iran-Contra affair. Abrams held many roles within the affair, some official and unofficial. This included working with CIA operations that got the U.S. onboard with the illegal shipment of arms and supplies.”
“His appointment by Bush was controversial due to his conviction in 1991 on two misdemeanor counts of unlawfully withholding information from Congress during the Iran-Contra Affair investigation.”
“Abrams worked as an assistant counsel on the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations in 1975, then worked as a staffer on Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson’s brief campaign for the 1976 Democratic Party presidential nomination. From 1977 through 1979, he served as special counsel and ultimately as chief of staff for the then-new senator Daniel Moynihan.” Moynihan was a Democrat, for the record.
My dear Neo-neocon,
You underestimate the open-mindedness of your readers and your own persuasiveness when you say “I understand that none of this may matter to you if you’re a Newt supporter”.
Although my head has been for Romney, my heart has been for Gingrich; and I have responded with hope as I have watched Gingrich’s surges. However, recently my heart has been beating less fervently, influenced by persons like you and Rubio.
And so I follow my head and turn toward Romney–but with a headache as I regret that my first, second, third . . . choices are not even running.
Don’t give up on your writing.We pay attention and may even be persuaded.
Best wishes
When did Rubio endorse Romney? I heard on FNC this morning that he had chosen not to endorse, which to my way of thinking says some really bad stuff about Romney, because logically he SHOULD, but chooses not to.
Rubio hasn’t endorsed anyone, so far as I know.
Also: Romney has picked up Charlie “The Orange” Crist’s election team. That doesn’t speak well of Mitt.
They’re probably sharp guys, but they also followed Charlie down the path to independent status when Charlie got torpedoed by the rank-and-file Republican Party of Florida members who backed Rubio. I wouldn’t have touched them with a 10′ pole, no matter how smart.
Jim Nicholas: no, I don’t underestimate them. That’s exactly and precisely why I used the word “may” there. If I’d meant that Newt supporters could not be persuaded, I would have written “will.”
But it is certainly very often true that—across the board—“a mind is a difficult thing to change.”
And I think that I, and a lot of people, share your heartache. For very few people would either Romney or Gingrich have been their first (or even second or third) choice at the start of the season, before any candidates had yet declared.
Tom: let’s see, now why would that be? My strong hunch is that Rubio doesn’t want to become the next target of the pro-Gingrich crowd, who have a tendency to question the motives of anyone who would endorse Romney. Until now, Rubio has been a Tea Party favorite, and that could cause them to turn on him. I think Rubio’s a smart guy.
Let me run another reason by you: if Rubio wants to be VP, why would he endorse either candidate and burn his bridges with the other?
Rubio has plenty of reasons not to endorse anyone, and they need not have anything to do with which candidate he actually prefers, and we can conclude nothing about the candidates from his failure to endorse.
Tom and IRA Darth Aggie,
You are right, Rubio has not endorsed anyone. However, I was influenced by his two statements that Gingrich had twice misrepresented Romney, leading Gingrich to pull one of his ads attacking Romney.
Newtie just may be Flaming Out. Baa-Daa-Bing.
As I’ve stated endlessly: Temperamentally WRONG.
“(Bill Clinton must be kicking himself. He never had to lie in the first place! All he had to do was say, “Yeah, I did it and I’m normal. Wanna make something of it?”)”
Newt aside for the moment (because I do NOT support him), this is very true. It was never about sex, it was about the perjury. I couldn’t care less if he was screwing other women, other men or goats. I just don’t want him lying about it in front of the Feds or any other law enforcement or judiciary folks.
Okay, if he was screwing goats, I might actually care about that.
neoneocon: Re-Rubio, you are exactly right on the smartness of non-endorsement, for now. Our young Florida star may very well come out for Mitt once he wins here in our state. I don’t think Marco would accept a VP spot from Newt. He’d see a shipwreck coming, constant ‘outs’ surfacing, having to spend time on the campaign trail justifying “Newtisms”, would know–being a man who plays well with others–that Newt doesn’t share EVER. Oh, and two other points Marco knows: Newt will lose and nothing is to be gained by tying himself to that ship AND he doesn’t like Gingrich. He’d be an absolute, no-downside running mate for Mitt and he’d be a true, muscular, brilliant addition to the ticket.
Tea Party Folks: Would not, I think, see Marco as a ‘sell out’ if he’s offered running mate for Mitt. They, like I, would see it as a Strong Conservative Force being added and an excellent infuence in bringing Mitt more rightward.