-
Laying Down My Pen
May 24, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Laying Down My Pen
May 23, 2013 | 67 comments
-
Despite the WaPost, Benghazi Is a Major Scandal
May 21, 2013 | 46 comments
-
Putting Heritage in DeMint Condition
May 10, 2013 | 57 comments
-
Military Might, Out of the Wilderness
May 8, 2013 | 115 comments
Streetcar Line
Newtonian Physics
Can what falls so far rise back?
In the early summer of 2007, an over-the-hill John McCain, his campaign in shambles, was given up for dead in his race for the Republican presidential nomination. He wouldn’t give up, though, and by sheer force of will managed to grab his party’s spot on the ticket — and lead it to a crushing defeat.
In the early summer of 2011, an over-the-hill Newt Gingrich, his campaign in shambles, was given up for dead in his race for the Republican presidential nomination. He wouldn’t give up, though, and by sheer force of will has managed to talk himself back into contention for his party’s spot on the ticket. But do Republican voters really want to be led to another crushing defeat?
That, alas, is almost sure to happen if Gingrich is the Republican standard bearer. Like McCain, he’s quite old by any non-Reagan presidential standards (indeed, if inaugurated he would be just four months younger than Reagan was on his Inauguration Day). Like McCain, he has a nasty temper (although, to be fair, it’s nowhere near as nasty as McCain’s). Like McCain, he has a sordid history with, uh, relationships, although his is more well known than McCain’s and does not enjoy the excuse of a “pass” to re-sow wild oats due to brutal years in captivity.
Like McCain, Gingrich seems to erupt most viscerally when he is criticizing conservatives. There’s a special edge to his occasional anti-conservative rumblings, as if his inner Rockefeller keeps yearning to be free. (Gingrich was Rocky’s southern regional director against Nixon and Reagan in 1968.) When he endorsed Dede Scozzafava over conservative Doug Hoffman in a special election for Congress in New York, Gingrich wasn’t content merely to boost the liberal; instead, he repeatedly and emphatically lectured conservatives, indeed insulted conservatives for being stupid and childish and unrealistically “purist.” When he trashed Paul Ryan’s budget plan this past spring, he not only played into the left’s hands by calling conservatism’s centerpiece proposal “radical change” and “right-wing social engineering,” but he again lashed out in harsh terms at conservatives who objected to his statements — and then he tried to deny having said what he actually said and claimed to be speaking in a context that didn’t exist.
Conservatives who served in Congress with him were familiar with this habit: If he disagreed with moderates, he cajoled them and tried to mollify them; but when he disagreed with conservatives, he went ballistic. Now-Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma tells the story in his book Breach of Trust (2003) about how Gingrich wanted conservatives to renege on a unified party pledge to cut internal committee spending by a third. (If they couldn’t discipline their own internal spending, how could they ask for discipline from anybody else?) When a bloc of conservatives nevertheless torpedoed Gingrich’s plans (in other words, held to their pledge despite his pressure), the Speaker went ape. He called a “mandatory” meeting for all GOP congressmen, even threatening to send the sergeant-at-arms to track members down. Once there, he blasted the bloc, demanding that “you conservatives” (note the phraseology) shape up. “Gingrich’s tactic backfired,” wrote Coburn. “He thought he could embarrass and intimidate us, but not one person was intimidated.” And: “Gingrich’s vitriolic response to us bringing down the rule for the bill confirmed to us that he was willing to trade our principles for a short term political advantage over the Democrats.”
Humorously, Coburn noted that Gingrich kept repeating that his motto was “listen, learn, help, and lead,” but that the freshman class of Republicans elected in 1994 soon joked that the Speaker’s actual behavior was more like “fire, ready, aim.”
He did that as Speaker, in spades. He said he wouldn’t politicize the Lewinsky investigation, but later he said he wouldn’t make a single speech without bringing up Lewinsky, then insisted on releasing the entire Clinton deposition to the public, then insisted on unduly punitive rules for the impeachment inquiry while giving moderates a pass to start a spending binge, and then orchestrated a last-minute ad putting Lewinsky front and center when the public needed no reminder about the already all-encompassing case. Result: Not only did he botch the Lewinsky case by making it look like a partisan witch-hunt, but he also botched the 1998 elections.
He botched the 1995 “government shutdown” battle in similar ways, combining the petty and personal (complaining that Clinton made him sit in the back of Air Force One) with the petty in terms of policy (insisting that the otherwise clean Appropriations fight, which the GOP was winning, suddenly include a technical fix to a tiny Medicare problem, which allowed Clinton to begin his successful Mediscare tactics).
He had a habit of pushing junior members to take a stand one day, only to change his own mind several days later, thus leaving them exposed and alone. He belittled those who didn’t agree with him, while exhibiting the self-absorption (to put it nicely) necessary to refer to himself as a “world-historical figure.” And, he might have added, world-historical figures are susceptible to having affairs because of “how passionately [they] felt about this country.”
Gingrich is the only Republican in the field aside from Mitt Romney who can’t make a coherent case against an individual health care mandate, because he supported one himself. He can’t make a coherent case against cap and trade, because he supported it himself. He can’t make a great case against Nancy Pelosi, because he played political footsie with her on TV. He can’t criticize race-baiters at the Justice Department because he has hobnobbed with and even semi-praised the nation’s single most prominent and deadly race-baiter, Al Sharpton.
Sure, Gingrich has sounded good in debates, while playing the role of everybody’s favorite uncle. What’s remarkable is that four months of acting avuncular can make a public with a short attention span forget 35 years of alternating as attack-mongoose and rabid porcupine.
Sure, the man is smart. Sure, he knows his stuff. Sure, he is a practiced speaker. And sure, he deserves great credit for leading (with lots of superb lieutenants) the Republican takeover of the House in 1994 and its subsequent successes with the budget, welfare, missile defense and — here’s something he rarely gets credit for — the re-invigoration of Washington, D.C. from an almost Detroit-like hopelessness to a workable, and in some cases shining, nation’s capital. Despite this column, a listing of his achievements would more than match a listing of his flaws.
Yet those flaws are so numerous, so publicly accessible, so well documented, that conservatives have every reason to recoil in despair at the prospect of him in the Oval Office and anti-Obamites have every reason to fear that a Gingrich-led ticket next year would suffer a massive defeat.
All of which is why, from an entirely neutral standpoint, the rehabilitation of Gingrich’s polling numbers in the past few months has been such an astonishing thing to witness. Could Newt Gingrich, despite his faults, make a good, effective president? Maybe. As a risk-reward proposition, though, hitching one’s presidential hopes to this Newt is more like riding a crocodile.
About the Author
Quin Hillyer is a senior editor of The American Spectator and a senior fellow at the Center for Individual Freedom. Follow him on Twitter @QuinHillyer.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (109) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Quin Hillyer
More Articles From Streetcar Line
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/11/03/newtonian-physics
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
DTOM| 11.3.11 @ 6:58AM
The video of Newt and Nancy Pelosi sitting on a couch trying to save the world from global warming shows Newt shark jumping the Grand Canyon won't go away.
The tale of Newt serving divorce papers to his soon-to-be-ex in her hospital bed as she awaits her next round of chemo won't either.
Newt's very smart, but he only finds principles in the dictionary, between primping and prissy.
His history, behavior, and his demeanor add up to perennial also ran status. Don't blame Newt for third place, I'd hazard that Michelle and Rick moving down displaced Newt up.
After all, he just 'sounds' like an adult.
Alan Brooks| 11.3.11 @ 12:32PM
And his spacey 'futurist' predictions:
"honeymoons in space will be common by 2020."
Maybe suicide honeymoons- one way tickets into space so honeymooners can go out with a bang.
GW| 11.3.11 @ 12:53PM
+1
DTOM| 11.3.11 @ 1:56PM
Darn me, anyhow!!
Limbaugh just de-bunked the hospital bed service of divorce papers story. I have done a little independent checking and found that Limbaugh is right. I am wrong. Newt did NOT serve divorce papers on his wife when she was in the hospital. They had discussed divorce before the hospital stay, the hospital stay was for the removal of a benign tumor. So it was not all that bad. And I was flat out wrong about that! Sorry, Newt. Sorry TAS blogosphere.
However, my mistake does not change the AGW couch trip with Mrs. Pelosi, though. Nor the clock cleaning Bill Clinton handed him on the government shut down. Nor his climbing into bed with Al Sharpton and Obama on education.
Sorry I was wrong about the divorce papers, but it doesn't change my opinion an iota about Newt's quality as presidential timber.
Alan Brooks| 11.3.11 @ 2:19PM
Besides, many of you guys don't like divorce. A 75 year old arch-conservative friend of mine (I live in the Midwest) said he didn't like Reagan, but only because he divorced and married Nancy! Now there's a hardline conservative.
LiveFreeOrDie| 11.4.11 @ 4:07PM
Quite the interesting thought process you have AB.
jo blo| 11.5.11 @ 1:26AM
I suppose then we should thrown Tom Coburn out as well, since he defended Pelousy against FOX news and its dupe viewers.
DTOM| 11.8.11 @ 3:27PM
I DO like your spelling of "Pelosi!"
kate| 11.5.11 @ 8:17PM
If I thought we were going to lose the Presidential race, I would prefer Newt to be the one up there debating Obama.
He would clean his clock.
Too bad about the character issues. He is the smartest of the bunch.
Vern Crisler | 11.3.11 @ 7:09AM
Newt's poll numbers are entirely a function of his excellent debating skills. But conservatives do not trust him, so he will probably never go higher than Vice President, if even that.
Conserdude| 11.3.11 @ 7:15AM
Quin's reminder of Newt and all his flaws is critical. Even Romney would be better. Newt has serious leadership and character deficits that are not just things of the past, but very much remain. One thing unmentioned in the article, Newt "Freddie" Gingrich was a big lobbyist for bailing out Freddie Mac as Jeff Lord reminded us on these pages.
Gary B| 11.3.11 @ 7:19AM
Any Republican who can't control the urge to reach across that *#$%1(&6#@ aisle deserves to be dumped. Like that little backstabber, McCain, Gingrich just can't wait to "work with Democrats" on all the wrong issues.
Yes, he's a good speaker, but so are a lot of tyrants. One other thing... apparently, he's in love with himself. We already have one of those. He's sitting in our Oval Office.
TrueBlue| 11.3.11 @ 4:38PM
I'd like to remind everyone that FDR was a good speaker too...
TrueBlue| 11.3.11 @ 4:39PM
At the risk of having all of my arguments on the subject nullified, I'd also like to point out that Hitler was a good speaker as well. He was quite good at telling the German people exactly what they wanted to hear. Actions however speak louder than words.
Felix Sullen, Sad Cat Herder| 11.7.11 @ 5:37AM
Name one of our candidates who isn't in love with himself. Cincinattus isn't running last time I checked.
Anyone who's anti-Newt please check the above comment re: even Romney is more Conservative ? Really ? Who believes that ?
Yes, he's played footsie with idiot policies like AGW but he hasn't:
a) made serial basic foreign policy gaffes (Cain; Paul);
b) lacked any coherent foreign policy ideas whatsoever (Cain; Paul);
c) endorsed socialized medicine and publicly-funded abortion before he was against them (Romney) - and that's just for starters;
d) presented the opposition with an opportunity to run against a four-year old straw man (Perry);
e) relied on worse junk science than AGW to discredit an opponent and made pandering fringe religious comments that make Mormons look like Catholics (Bachmann); and lastly, if I must treat him like he is a serious candidate once again:
f)g)h)+ sent Xmas messages to white supremacists in their newletters (guess who - initials would be R.P. the Elder).
None of the above. Vote Newt or get someone else, FFS
Doctor Right| 11.3.11 @ 7:33AM
Newt has many faults, but beyond his age, the comparison with McCain is a bad one.
Newt is sharp-witted and a brilliant speaker. He's also a visionary strategic thinker, and a master tactician. Most importantly, he's not timid, and will speak his mind.
McCain is, with all due respect, a dumb guy with limited imagination and an egomaniac -not a good combination.
Gary B| 11.3.11 @ 9:07AM
Doctor Right,
I agree with your assessment of Newt. He just should not be in a position to sell out the cause, because he will. In other words he'd be a great staffer, but don't give him real power. He's a DC insider.
Felix Sullen, Sad Cat Herder| 11.7.11 @ 5:41AM
All of the DC "Outsiders" sound like they are well outside of reality as well. Unelectable. Romney v. Newt - which one's your more trustworthy Conservative. Faustian choice, perhaps, but a rather obvious one.
Anthony| 11.3.11 @ 9:47AM
I agree with Doctor Right, Quin pushes the McCain anology a bit to far here.
McCain is a nasty, obtuse, angry, self promoting loser, who puts himself first and foremost over his family and his country. It's all about McCain 24/7.
While Newt has many faults, as described by Quin, not the least is his all to quick penchant to be all things to all people as the political winds blow.
If Newt had more moral and intellectual discipline, I would be his biggest supporter. Unfortunately, Newt, like many super talented athletes, wasted his enormous talents in search of the political expedient.
He could have been one of the greatest statesmen and leaders in America history, given all his abilities, if only he was able to control his ego and his appetites.
McCain, as one person whom I can't recall so eloquently put it, is/was a product of a random piece of enemy shrapnel, that propelled this massive empty suited ego into American politics, his war record notwithstanding.
V.P. Cheney in his book has a vignette about McCain that sums the man up completely.
kate| 11.5.11 @ 8:19PM
Anthony
You are right on.
USAF brat| 11.3.11 @ 7:35AM
In 2008, I held my nose, voted for McCain, came home, ran to the crapper, and puked my guts out. I hope like hell I don't go through that again by having to vote for Gingrich.
Mike D.| 11.3.11 @ 8:03AM
A difficult position, having to vote for somebody jail sexed by Ted Kennedy and Feingold. Seems to always end up that way.
PolishKnight| 11.3.11 @ 10:22AM
I didn't puke, but I felt a strange sigh of relief when McCain lost. If McCain was in office, I'd feel a constant sense of having to either apologize for him or explain my decision to take him as the lesser of two evils. I'd be constantly on the defensive.
Say what you like about the left, but they fight an offensive game, don't they? Their agenda is largely always moving forward on most of their chosen fronts.
Mike D.| 11.3.11 @ 11:02AM
The left has no rules and they play to destroy in the long run. Throwing RINO type politicians against revolutionaries is like throwing waterballons at the firing squad.
Felix Sullen, Sad Cat Herder| 11.7.11 @ 5:43AM
The only "revolutionary" we have is Ron Paul. I'll take the firing squad, thx.
Ted Peters| 11.3.11 @ 7:56AM
All True. And, he might just be the most optically repulsive Republican since Nixon. But... he might also be the only truly anti-Romney left standing after Cain's campaign implodes and given that Perry appears to be only semi-intelligent and then only in videos. Plus... if the country is truly in peril next November, we might just be looking for someone mean. Personally, I wish that our process did not scare off the Mitch Daniels and Paul Ryans of the party.
RJ| 11.3.11 @ 8:04AM
GOP voters are in a situation similar to a baseball manager who needs to bring someone in to pitch the ninth inning of the final game of the World Series and the bullpen looks weak. Each candidate has problems: Romney blows with the wind, which he reminded us again last week; Perry hasn't been getting the job done; Cain has no government experience and is uninformed on many issues; and Newt is brilliant but erratic. What to do? Fortunately someone usually emerges before the umpire demands to know "who are you putting in?"
I am looking for the best non-Romney candidate.
VBMax| 11.3.11 @ 8:09AM
It all boils down to who can you trust to do the right things. Even those candidates who seem to have the right principles may not have what it takes to put them into operation. Despite Newt's past screw-ups I believe he's the only one with the knowledge, expertise and guts to turn the country in the right direction. The debates have demonstrated what he's capable of. Cain's a good man but isn't ready for prime time, Romney has indicated that he's the anti-Obama, ditto with Perry. It's really a crap shoot with any of the candidates. I'm putting my chips on Newt unless some other candidate rises to the occasion.
Maddox| 11.3.11 @ 9:25AM
Newt knows his stuff. Too bad the debates only prove Newt knows how to talk about doing the right thing. Past actions prove he will make deals with the devil and pander to the press.
LiveFreeOrDie| 11.4.11 @ 4:15PM
"...I believe he's the only one with the knowledge, expertise and guts to turn the country in the right direction."
He might be but will he? For too long he's been a professional liar and is simply not trustworthy.
Mimi| 11.3.11 @ 8:10AM
WOW...75% are cool on Romney... Herman, Mr.Nice Guy, swimming against the tide. Perry the possible CULPRIT....Brings us to 3rd place Newt...the sure grown-up with a fantastic PLAN.
The only thing we can be sure of it looks like all are flawed to some extent, and we have to get the present disaster, Obama.
This alone has to be TOP PRIORITY ....this we can all agree on.
Ho hum get on with the sorting out what imperfections we can all live with. Eventually we will all get on the same PAGE....Lets see Rick Santorum, and Michele Bachmann a little closer,
sooner or later as My son the coach says.....CREAM WILL RISE TOO THE TOP !
Mimi| 11.3.11 @ 8:12AM
correction...Get Obama OUT OF OFFICE!
USAF brat| 11.3.11 @ 8:36AM
Is is just me, or has anyone else shat a turd that was a floater?
DTOM| 11.3.11 @ 1:58PM
You're eating too much fat. Really.
Sorry. Just the facts, ma'am.
USAF brat| 11.3.11 @ 5:25PM
Wow. I didn't know that. Thanks, DTOM.
So, if I'm clear on the concept, then as much French fries as she eats, it's probably right to reckon that FLOTUS has never extruded a sinker.
David | 11.3.11 @ 8:39AM
Gingrich is plainly the sharpest apple on the tree, so as the wormy ones fall off, there he hangs. But he is too unconventional and erratic for the electorate to-which he panders. If his innate lack of discipline hasn't irritated too many people already, it surely will. He'll be gone by March and endorsing Mitt.
Ouch| 11.3.11 @ 9:20AM
Newt is Bill Clinton's older brother, as such he comes with all the quirks, etc. However, my choice will come down to "anybody but Obama" as I feel many others will also. Maybe at the Republican convention a "draft candidate" will show up...say someone from Alaska. Only problem there is what could be a kernel of truth about a business partner in snow machines doing a tango with his partner's wife...
Bob K.| 11.3.11 @ 9:23AM
Quin,
Forget Newtonian Physics here. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle applies.
The more precisely Newt is measured the less precisely he can be controlled.
David T| 11.3.11 @ 10:31AM
You get the prize today for most clever retort.
Quin| 11.3.11 @ 10:51AM
This is the comment of the year! Great stuff!
DTOM| 11.3.11 @ 2:00PM
Bob K!
Sweet! I'm with you. You got my vote.
Michael Tomlinson| 11.3.11 @ 9:24AM
There are two candidates that fit the premise “Can what falls so far rise back” – Newt and Rick Perry (Perry is where McCain was four years ago). The former is bright, but readily bought into aspects of the liberal agenda (manmade global warming, mandated health care and Hillary). The latter is not a polished debater, but has consistently governed along the lines laid down by Reagan with a record of consistently conservative leadership success that makes all his competitors look like the piker’s they are.
If anyone stages a comeback and takes the nomination away from Romney it will be Rick Perry a 21st century TR and Calvin Coolidge wrapped up into one anomalous candidate versus a neo-Nixon -- Newt Gingrich.
(While I don’t believe Herman Cain’s paranoid delusion anymore than he misspoke about China’s nuclear arsenal if Rick Perry did leak Herman’s nightmare then he’s the one candidate ruthless, badass and tough enough to take on and defeat the meanest and dirtiest president since Nixon and Carter combined – Barack Obama.)
Maddox| 11.3.11 @ 9:38AM
I would not approve of Perry IF it was proven he was responsible for the leaks on Cain's past. BUT I strongly agree that we need someone with ruthless courage to stand up to the lying leftists.
David T| 11.3.11 @ 10:34AM
Perry simply doesn't have the intellectual wherewithal to be president.
Mike 3/505| 11.3.11 @ 1:59PM
Demonstrably false. He was a C130 pilot in the Air Force. You can't do that and be stupid. Now NAVIGATORS, especially the ones who put me out the door over the trees...that's a different story.
Regards,
Mike
David T| 11.3.11 @ 2:17PM
I didn't say he was stupid. And the ability to fly a plane doesn't ipso facto lead to the conclusion that one has the intellectual firepower to be president.
Mike 3/505| 11.3.11 @ 2:25PM
Dave,
He was the Pilot in Command of a multi-engined troop transport required to make hard decisions each and every day....pretty much the job description of POTUS.
Give me an Aggie or a West Pointer over a Haaahvaaad grad any day of the week. It's not really about intellect anyhow...it's about character and the ability to really understand...the buck stops here.
That is why I will prefer a governor or General over a congressman or senator any day.
Regards,
Mike
David T| 11.4.11 @ 9:32AM
Got to agree with you about the executive experience. And character does trump innate intelligence. But Perry seems to lack what I'll call the "geo-political" skills.
kate| 11.5.11 @ 8:32PM
David T.
I agree with you on Perry.
This isn't going to be fun or easy.
Romney- intelligent, but wishy -washy (staw man?)
Cain- smart, but lacking international experience (poor judgement?)
Gringrich- the brightest, but character issues.
Perry- not smart
Bachmann- smart, but weird
Paul- weird
Can't we magically make Rubio 50?
We have got to win this or it could be the end of our great country.
Can't find the perfect candidate, but we need to make this work.
We need Rubio to step up and take a VP spot with whoever wins the nomination.
scotchieguy| 11.4.11 @ 11:58AM
I think Perry did a nice job with the Texas economy, but I just don't see him as presidential. I don't see him as being very smart. I don't see the leadership. Just because someone has been a successful governor of a large state does not make him presidential.
I was rooting for Newt, buy you guys have all reminded me that he really is a RINO, and will just suck up to the MSM and the libs.
Cain is the real deal, but he has some really bad people. He just doesn't have the organization. Maybe you really do need some political experience...even just a little. He hasn't really been tested. It is quite the leap to go from successful businessman to prez. Kind of like the star player going right up to being head coach. Don't you want a little experience in coaching, say, coaching the linebackers, or offensive coordinater?
Romney. I know he is RINO. I just don't trust him. He is way too slick. He must admire Clinton.
I think we are screwed.
scotchieguy| 11.4.11 @ 12:04PM
I almost forgot. McCain really is dumb as dogsh-t. I never saw it when he was running. I guess I was blinded by him. I think Perry is probably just as dumb. Someone on the radio described Perry as a 45 (record) being played at 33 1/3 speed.
kate| 11.5.11 @ 8:41PM
Scotchieguy
Hang in there.
At least Romney doesn't have a sordid past and he is very intelligent (We are aloud to see his grades because he graduated at the top of his class)
If he can talk Rubio into running with him we have a chance.
Rubio is smart, patriotic, supporter of the tea party, charismatic, a dynamic speaker and hispanic.
He will bring a good portion of the vital hispanic vote.
He is aware that he is a conservative darling and waiting to run for president, but he needs to put his ego aside and run now as VP for his country's sake.
This election is too important.
kate| 11.5.11 @ 8:57PM
Worst case senario.
Obama/Clinton ticket.
We lose, but win the Senate.
Obama will have to co-operate, because people are hurting.
At least further damage will stop.
Then we run Rubio/Ryan.
If there is anything left of the country that is.
Felix Sullen, Sad Cat Herder| 11.7.11 @ 5:48AM
You give Barry far too much credit.
Desire and ability are vastly different qualities, even referring to venality.
Bill Clinton's cigar could teach Barry Putts volumes regarding governance.
Derek Leaberry| 11.3.11 @ 9:50AM
Gingrich's two biggest problems are that he is a narcissist and that he is a moral leper. What do we know about Gingrich the man? The initiator of his two divorces, we know that his vows before God mean nothing to him. We also know that Gingrich was an adulterer when married to his second wife and that his current wife knew that Gingrich was an adulterer which makes her a dishonorable woman and he a dishonorable man.
A further sign of Gingrich's narcissistic personality disorder is in the manner in which he converted to Roman Catholicism a few years back. Instead of humbly learning his new faith, Gingrich has bolted to the front of the Catholic line and has adopted an attitude as a leader in his new faith, a man fit to meet bishops, archbishops and popes. You see, Gingrich's conversion is important to him only to the extent that it revolves around him. If Gingrich was sincere about his new faith he would largely shut up about it and go on a pilgrimage or two. He should be going to Lourdes rather than run for president.
Certainly two of our last three presidents have been narcissists. We don't need another right now.
Pat Leath| 11.3.11 @ 9:14PM
Pray tell, what President in the history of the USA was not, conceited, egotistic, self-centered, self-involved, self-loving, stuck-up, vain, vainglorious?
scotchieguy| 11.4.11 @ 12:06PM
Ike.
LiveFreeOrDie| 11.4.11 @ 4:18PM
Reagan
Felix Sullen, Sad Cat Herder| 11.7.11 @ 5:49AM
Which of our candidates are you convinced outshines this allegedly shoddy moral coil ?
nathan| 11.3.11 @ 10:19AM
Last year at in New Jersey at one of Sean's freedom concerts Newt said that no new mosques should be built in this country until Christians are allowed to openly worship in Saudi Arabia. On that one thing alone he showed he is unfit to be president since he clearly doesn't understand the Constitution and would not enforce the Bill of Rights. Since when are the rights of law abiding American citizens dependent on the actions of people outside the United States?
Newt clearly has a dictatorial frame of mind and would be all too willing to continue policies of the Bush/Cheney regime that were quickly leading us down the path to a police state. The last thing this country and the world needs is four more years of Bush/Cheney. A Newt presidency would be likely to give that to us.
PolishKnight| 11.3.11 @ 10:33AM
In Newt's defense, this may have been simple political rhetoric or philosophical observation. The word "should" implies a lot of leeway.
When a religion is based upon intolerance of other religions as it's practiced in nearly every country where it's the majority religion, it can be argued that prohibiting it PROTECTS freedom of religion for other religions. You have a point: it sets a bad precedent to create a legislative trigger for an internal policy based upon a foreign government's decision BUT at the same time, consider, the Islamic religion is largely based in Saudi Arabia. They literally pray in that direction.
So yes, it's not a valid constitutional policy but it does raise interesting questions and problems for society moving forward: If Islam ever achieves a majority in this nation, it's highly likely that's the end of religious freedom.
DTOM| 11.3.11 @ 2:14PM
Which raises the fundamental question of whether Islam is an actual religion or a political system pretending to be a religion so as to operate below governments' radars.
Can anyone name a religion whose laws impose physical punishments here in this world for breaking the religion's rules and laws? Especially punishments that involve taking the miscreant's rights, life, and limb? It authorizes the killing of those who do not accept it as their one and only faith.
I can thing of none. Except Islam. Islam is about ruling this world, not the next. Just like Communism, just like capitalism, just like democracy, just like despotism. Except none of these do not demand the killing of those who disagree.
Yes, it addresses matters of faith, but it does not stop there. It's a political system. And our Constitution cannot be entirely dismissed by its expressed respect for different religions. Look at it this way, just because I tolerate your existence does not give you the right to end mine! Which is exactly what Islam with its shariah law demands.
CalMark| 11.4.11 @ 12:39AM
Exactly.
"The Constitution is not a suicide pact."
VBMax| 11.3.11 @ 10:36AM
Rhetoric and policy are not the same thing. I wouldn't have said it the way Newt did but I get the point. Actually, I wouldn't allow any new mosques to be built here unless Islam had been reformed. (although, deep-down I don't think it's possible) I believe the last survey I read noted that 85% of U.S. mosques promoted violent anti-Americanism.
GW| 11.3.11 @ 12:57PM
If only he actually meant it. While it is unconstitutional for the federal (or state) government to outlaw religious belief or practice, it isn't illegal for the federal government to end all immigration of Muslims. If we are serious about preserving America as our fathers knew it, we would do away with all non-Western (white) immigration. The people we import are collectivist, low-IQ, big-government leeches. Muslims happen to be the worse due to the extreme nature of Islam.
Felix Sullen, Sad Cat Herder| 11.7.11 @ 5:51AM
Paulbot alert. Bush/Cheney police state ? Really now ?
David T| 11.3.11 @ 10:29AM
Look on the bright side: Newt comes with no surprises. He's been a national figure for 30 years. There's nothing we don't know about the man.
Who Knows?| 11.3.11 @ 10:52AM
What is a “newt”?
Well, his “All hat and no cattle” manifests as
“All talk and no (coherent) action”.
Writing as one who’s old enough to have lived, through and completely enjoyed, Newt’s rise from the backbenches, as well as his riveting talks seen on C-SPAN over the years, I’m in total agreement with Quin.
Of course, the “All talk and no action” putdown is just a template, because there was certainly quite a bit of action that comported with his talk. But, the seeming fact that at this stage of the weeding out process of the GOP contenders for president, Gingrich is even being mentioned as a serious possibility to even compete for the anti-Romney vote is simply evidence of desperation.
I think the serious anti-Romney Republicans, who are paying close attention to the primary fight, are in an “Oh my God!” mood. Can it really be true, they think---or feel—that we’re experiencing our own “seven dwarves” moment?
Ah, it seems like only yesterday that all the serious contenders eschewed running against the Gulf War hero president, GHW Bush, in 1992. For me, I remember believing from the get go that the weird Bruce Babbitt had no chance---and, then we got Bill Clinton, courtesy of Ross Perot.
If the contenders left in Slick Willy’s dust were dwarves, it sure looks to me like all the Republicans against Romney, each in their own unique way, lack stature as well.
Given lemons, one is told to make lemonade.
Given (IMHO) that Cain and Perry, and especially Gingrich, are toast---and that all the remaining single-digit contenders are also---what are we to make of them?
I love toast!
So, I toast them, for being willing to enter the ring, a la Teddy Roosevelt’s aphorism, and do their part to SCHOOL the woefully ignorant bulk of Americans.
Bless.
vtwin| 11.3.11 @ 11:01AM
With the campaign of Herman Cain following Perry, Bachmann, Trump the call goes out to Republicondom. Do we have anybody that’s NOT Mitt Romney!!!!!!
Roscoe| 11.3.11 @ 1:07PM
His name is Jim DeMint.
Mike 3/505| 11.3.11 @ 2:02PM
Okay, okay...I'll run.
Occam's Tool| 11.3.11 @ 4:16PM
Thanks, Mike: fill out your position on the issues: here.
Chef Schnauzer| 11.3.11 @ 11:17AM
Thank you for a great article and filling in some blank spots. Sadly - the party hacks and useless staffers will allow the MSM to narrow republican choices.
Al Adab| 11.3.11 @ 11:21AM
No one denies that Newt is one of the better idea men and strategists in the party today. Whether he should head the ticket is another matter. There is no doubt a role for him to play and an important one at that. We should be pleased that the depth of the field is such that many of these folks will find roles with the new administration. As to the final candidate we are still waiting for that defining moment, that electric event, which will decide the matter. It will come.
Felix Sullen, Sad Cat Herder| 11.7.11 @ 5:57AM
The Electric Event is sadly looking like four more years. I support Newt because no one else seems to be able to portray a professional politician for more than one week straight without crashing into a wall of their own incompetence.
Non-political types sound wonderful until they enter a general election in which they are measured only by how good they are at politics.
Future administrative appointments be damned - the only way we get to make them is to win the White House.
CrackerHound| 11.3.11 @ 11:36AM
Shame on you Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio....especially Ryan.
My dream ticket at this point would be Paul Ryan/Rand Paul.
Both are principled conservatives and excellent public speakers.
Interested Conservative| 11.3.11 @ 11:37AM
He's not Mitt Romney.
Al Adab| 11.3.11 @ 4:58PM
Ha, Ha, neither is Mitt Romney.
CalMark| 11.4.11 @ 12:40AM
Awesome line! What a fabulous observation!
Great post--thanks!
post*tenebras*lux| 11.3.11 @ 11:40AM
Mr. Gingrich is the most experienced and could na, na, na, na them back, especially bammy, as far as I can tell his best interest is America, and if he could remain committed, I would vote for him in a heartbeat. Reservations are made for the fact that when he gets in "power", he loses it.
Bob Foster| 11.3.11 @ 12:10PM
OK, now I understand why Ann Coulter has endorsed Romney. (God help us all.)
conservative bob| 11.3.11 @ 1:25PM
At this point Mr' Foster I think you have hit our best hope... Prayer... God Save the United States.
idalily| 11.4.11 @ 11:11PM
The thing is, if Romney won, he might surprise us all and actually be a good POTUS. Stranger things have happened, and it is possible he could rise above the expectations we have. It wouldn't be that hard; my expectations of Mitt are so low, he could rise above them by spearheading ONE truly conservative principle.
kate| 11.5.11 @ 9:06PM
It has been evident to me for some time that all we have is Romney.
He has got to have Rubio run with him for us to have a chance!!!
Write Rubio!
And I wish Rushbo would get off of Romney.
(what does he want, another Perot debacle?)
I wish the conservative bloggers would stop saying the Rubio isn't "natural born".
Now Rubio's father could have never run because he was an immigrant. (albeit a LEGAL immigrant.)
Conservatives need to get smart and strategic or they will contribute to our downfall.
Celestine| 11.3.11 @ 12:43PM
I'm old enough to remember when political party conventions consisted of smoke filled rooms with political pros trading cabinet offices for votes for this or that candidate. Why is it that I am starting to wistfully look back to those bad old days? Perhaps it is because our current system has produced candidates spectacularly unfit for the highest office. Can the Republican party do no better that this current crew? At a time when the country is in dire straits, we are offered Romney, a man who changes his position three times on the way to the speaker’s podium; Perry, who if not a moron surely plays one on TV; Cain, a nice guy who has made a minor harassment molehill into a seemingly impassible mountain; Ron “Fortress America” Paul; and Gingrich, the embodiment of “quirky”. Hell, let’s go back to the smoke filled rooms.
Occam's Tool| 11.3.11 @ 4:17PM
Celestine: Ron supports harsh defense budget cuts. More like Ron "childhood play castle" Paul.
C Smith| 11.3.11 @ 1:49PM
Newt? The guy who visited his wife in the hospital as she was recovering from cancer surgery to discuss divorce? Wanted to marry the woman he was currently "bedding." This lasted until Newt and Bill found something in common, interns and staffers decades their junior. May America's deliverance arise from another place!
For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife. For John said unto him, It is not lawful for thee to have her. And when he would have put him to death, he feared the multitude, because they counted him as a prophet. But when Herod's birthday was kept, the daughter of Herodias danced before them, and pleased Herod. Whereupon he promised with an oath to give her whatsoever she would ask. And she, being before instructed of her mother, said,Give me here John Baptist's head in a charger (Matthew 14:3-8).
http://popularapostasy.blogspo.....erica.html
DTOM| 11.3.11 @ 2:18PM
C Smith;
Like me, you swallowed some malarkey. You all better check this out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich
Look under the "Personal Life" section, first paragraph. Apologies are good for you, if they don't kill you...mine is way up on the top of these postings...
Felix Sullen, Sad Cat Herder| 11.7.11 @ 6:15AM
Exposed as a myth re: hospital story.
BTW, if I want Bible study, there are other websites. Until then, kindly render unto Caesar and all that...
joe mccowan| 11.3.11 @ 3:03PM
dear quin, you're just another liberal faigel box
kisser like barney f. Go back to Dupont Circle and practice your bought and paid for rhetoric
for the Demoncrack Socialistic Party.
sirbourbon| 11.3.11 @ 3:58PM
Newt's nuts for internationalism. Newt's policy positions and views in foreign affairs are nuttier than a fruitcake as are his love affairs with all things that attack the sovereign independence of the United States (NAFTA, WTO).
Newt enjoys watching America the Beautiful manhandled and told what to do, when and where and how to use her American boys in uniform troops by the equally goolish freaks and international lawyers and war pimps from NATO and the Peeping Toms and loafers that occupy seats at the anti-American UN. This bizarre moral defect in Gingrich's political S&M debauchery is evident by his support of funding for every foreign aid bill and every handout paid to the sadists that run the IMF, UN connected banks and other international banking interests. Boy, howdy, Newt does like to hang around with the internationalist and interventionistic leeches and cowards!
The man is a LOSER but just for the record check his record here>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02HX5v5Thpk
Felix Sullen, Sad Cat Herder| 11.7.11 @ 6:13AM
Anti-globalist/banking/internationalist....
Hmm, Paulbot perhaps ?
After all, those global interests are really just fronts for those joo-boys in AIPAC, right ?
Mike Smith | 11.3.11 @ 6:01PM
Doesn't the photo of Newt look like Teddy Kennedy?
Oldefarte| 11.3.11 @ 8:10PM
Newt's election would be a tremendous boon to the sales of jewelry stores in DC!!!!!
gary siebel| 11.3.11 @ 10:22PM
My predictions are holding up, at least so far. Only one still hanging is Obama moving against the pirates, but Kenya may steal that thunder.
I am truly enjoying the discomfiture of the Repubs this year, especially of the more conservative types. Their hypocrisy, after supporting the deficits of Reagan, and 8 years of deficits by Cheney/Bush, borders on the absurd. Then they compound the problem by insisting on a religious test for their political candidates. Ain't that a hoot! But it fits right in with their desire to eliminate all public schools and force children into madrassas.
So what's the next assault on the Constitution? Pope for President?
CalMark| 11.4.11 @ 12:44AM
"8 years of deficits by Cheney/Bush, "
'Scuse me. Your man Barack is responsible for $4 trillion in deficits. Record annual deficits (10 times bigger than the BIGGEST Bush + GOP Congress deficits). And counting. In less than 3 years in office.
"eliminate all public schools and force children into madrassas."
What are you smoking, friend? The public schools are already madrassas for liberalism. Dewey's famous "agents of socialization." I guess you didn't notice the schoolkids marching on "Strike Day" in Oakland.
kate| 11.5.11 @ 9:14PM
Hey Gary/mr smarty-pants
So did you predict what a tyrant your president would be? 10% unemployment? Nukes for Iran? Leaving the pro-dem protesters in Iran to die?
Communists and youth gangs roaming the street?
Acorn scandals?
Trillions more in debt?
No shovel ready jobs?
Green industry scandals?
A health care bill nobody read?
I did.
I am too much of a lady to tell you what I think of your type.
kate| 11.5.11 @ 9:29PM
forgot to add the parties, vacations, golf and endless campaigning..
I didn't predict those things, because I didn't know there was a person on Earth who could be so flippant about such an important position.
Felix Sullen, Sad Cat Herder| 11.7.11 @ 6:02AM
An Obama supporter criticizing an "assault on the Constitution" is about as credible as Bill Clinton critizing sexual assault.
How long has Gitmo been closed ? Who's killed more American citizens abroad with Predators ? How about renditions ? Deportations ? Denials of FOIA requests ?
Helen Thomas, the Nonegenarian Useful Idiot Fellow Traveler Grand-Dam(ned) herself said this administration was worse than Nixon's.
Yes You Can !!! Mmm-Mmmm-Mmmm.
Bob| 11.3.11 @ 10:46PM
Quin. This is the best short indictment of the Newt candidacy that I've seen. Thank you. Please don't attack Herman Cain for not knowing some things, because he is a voice for freedom. We can't have enough of those and they are not to be attacked and discouraged.
POST American| 11.3.11 @ 11:19PM
---------------------FINAL WORD-----------------------
Gingrich made his name fronting for
the Soviet--ization age-enda way back
in the 80's and 90's. He wrote forwards
to the 'Third Wave' books by Globalist
EUGENIST 'FEW--t--your--ists' Alvin
and Heidi Toffler.
In addition ,he was a prime presiding
figure during the KEY decade for
America's handover and sellout.
Perhaps more ominous, he opens the
Loyola seminars promoting full-spectrum
cyber police state surveillance and
mandatory micro-chipping of the population.
--------------------STEER CLEAR-----------------------
Felix Sullen, Sad Cat Herder| 11.7.11 @ 6:05AM
Ron Paul & Alex Jones in 2012 !!!!
Felix Sullen, Sad Cat Herder| 11.7.11 @ 6:07AM
Down with Zog !!!! Eleventy !!! The Truth Is Out There, Brother POST !!!!
Felix Sullen, Sad Cat Herder| 11.7.11 @ 6:08AM
Please send pliers to help me get this chip out of my head, Brother Post. My tin hat doesn't fit right no moar !!!
Bill Evans | 11.4.11 @ 5:33PM
I'm surprised and disappointed that Mark Levin would have this link on his web site. We need to back conservatives and not trash them, thereby helping Obama's cause. I would love to see a Gingrich - Cain ticket.
John Collignon | 11.6.11 @ 5:06AM
I will simply say that those running in this election next year,are just not what being a leader is all about.Anyone is better than Obama and I believe we need a leader figure with the right amount of issue orientation to lead.Gingrich,to me ,has this leadership presence,having led the House. surely the man has flaws with some of his decisions,but I believe once in office he would bring about a plan to reinvigorate the country.I see Cain with cojones and Bachmann with her Conservatism,but still a bit inexperienced in my opinion.Romney and Perry seem like plastic people and far from an outraged Conservative public.Newt is as close to Presidential status that I believe we have to offer.A leader is what we need for rallying the right side;I feel Newt,as Hillyer said,has more than enough good decisions to make up for the bad.
Mike McBride| 11.9.11 @ 11:32AM
The article entitled, "Newtonian Physics- Can what falls so far rise back" details Gingrich’s irascible personality, his false assumptions about power and his over-estimation of self. And, like Isaac Newton’s attitude, the article correctly assumes that an apple, once fallen, will never of its own volition suddenly zoom up and reattach itself to the tree.
Isaac Newton and the article's author assume a 3-dimensional universe. Apples always fall to earth, moons always orbit planets and objects remain in motion in a straight line unless acted on by an external force.
The author, seeking to sway his audience, employs a rhetorical device which Herman Cain calls, “comparing apples and oranges.” A man is not an apple which having fallen, cannot, of its own volition, rise. A man is not an “object,” whose motion and direction are immutable unless there is an “external” force. Simply put, a man is not entirely ruled by the forces that rule objects which do not have consciousness.
So, it is an article with a silly premise (Men are like apples) which, while attempting to smear a man with his own history, actually accomplishes the opposite. The article shows that Gingrich has true experience with both successful strategies and strategies which have failed. Gingrich is the Man. 2012 is the season.
T H Huxley| 12.4.11 @ 9:35PM
Gingrich is on a book and DVD tour. He's probably as surprised as anyone that he's in first place.