-
Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack
May 22, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Curl is Right: Don’t Dismiss Benghazi
May 22, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real
May 19, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Good New Book: ‘Precipice’
May 19, 2013 | 1 comment
-
A Long Record of Obamite Thuggery
May 16, 2013 | 4 comments
The Spectacle Blog
The Washington Examiner, which features one of the nation’s finest, most thoughtful, most conservative editorial pages in the country, today takes on Newt Gingrich.
For instance:
[T]here are substantial reasons why thoughtful conservatives should think very carefully before jumping on this bandwagon. There are, for example, gaping holes in Gingrich’s conservative credentials. As the American Spectator’s David Catron pointed out Monday, Gingrich has long been a fan of Dr. Donald Berwick. Berwick just resigned as President Obama’s director of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which oversees Obamacare. Obama put Berwick there because of his professed love for Britain’s socialized medicine.
And:
More recently, as The Examiner’s Byron York noted yesterday, Gingrich has been seen as an ultimate Washington insider, as exemplified in that $1.6 million he was paid to represent Fannie and Freddie, and his work with Nancy Pelosi on behalf of cap-and-trade. Such facts make it difficult not to view Gingrich as an exemplar of Washington’s professional Republican politicians who talk the talk to get elected, but often don’t walk it once in office.
Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, the Washington Examiner, Tim Carney, Jennifer Rubin, Freedom Works, and lots of other well-known conservatives of various strains have all warned that Gingrich would be a disaster both as nominee and as president. The Wall Street Journal, in various ways, also has made its distaste clear. All of them understand that general election campaigns rarely hinge on debate performances, and that character counts. Many have adjudged Gingrich’s POLITICAL character, not just his personal moral character, to be severel lacking. Not just on policy purity, but on how he treats people, I’ve said that I wouldn’t trust Gingrich in power any farther than I could throw a Mack truck with my pinkie. That’s because I saw him up close while I was a leadership staffer when he was Speaker.
These are the sorts of considerations that lead a thoughtful newspaper such as the Washington Examiner to editorialize against the failed/imploded former Speaker.
View all comments (26) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/11/30/washington-examiner-vs-gingric
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
9thID| 11.30.11 @ 3:29PM
This goes double for the likes of RINO Mitt Romney. If America ever needed a true Conservative in the modern era, it is now -- or never...
JeffC| 11.30.11 @ 4:17PM
except that you don't have one in the fight ... how about fighting with the candidates you have instead of dreaming for a conservative version of "hope and change" ...
What a bunch of pie in the sky whiners hoping to the second coming of RR ... sad really ...
9thID| 11.30.11 @ 10:49PM
I'll take the likes of Bachmann, Santorum, or Cain over your Obama-lite RINOs that helped the Dems get us into this mess. The sad thing is that history is repeating itself and you beg for another McCain redux...
Clint| 11.30.11 @ 3:51PM
Gingrich & Romney Are Serial Traitors To Conservatism.
We Are Being Set Up By The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges.
These Are The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges Who Gave Us The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain Of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy,McCain-Lieberman,Gang Of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003,TARP.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Trinacria| 11.30.11 @ 3:57PM
So what's the alternative?
Who among the current crop of candidates posseses the attributes of (A) executive leadership experience/qualifications, (B) TRUE conservative values (with documented evidence of a consistent commitment to conservative principles), (C) electability, (D) intellect, and (E) character?
By the way, if character matters in a general election, how pray tell does one account for the election of Mssrs Obama (who, by all accounts, has no character) and Clinton (who, though he IS a character, has certainly never been described as having strong character)?
Character in a president is rather like intellect in a star running back - sure, it'd be nice if he had some, but if he runs the forty in 4.3 seconds and benches 400 pounds, I'm not passing him up in the draft. Same with the president - I'd like him to be a man of character, but if his name ain't Obama, oh well. He's not going to date my daughter and he's not baby sitting my kids - as long as he croaks terrorists and keeps the government's hands out of my pockets, he can be the biggest prick in the northern hemisphere...
JeffC| 11.30.11 @ 4:20PM
as long as he's our prick, and both Romney and Newt are, I agree that this idea of Mr. Smith goes to Washington is nonsense on stilts ... DC is nothing but an inside game no matter how much we wish it were not ... better to have a guy with sharp elbows and a roadmap of when/where to use them ...
Trinacria| 11.30.11 @ 4:31PM
Amen, brother! You don't send a boy scout to a gang fight...
W| 11.30.11 @ 5:23PM
Unless Santorum pulls an upset, I have no problem with either Newt or Mitt. They are not perfect but head and shoulders above Obama/Biden.
MyGirlFriday| 11.30.11 @ 4:07PM
This is a timely article by our conservative Washington Examiner and I appreciate your posting it on AMS. I fear conservatives are running scared. They think the only way to conquer Obama and his political machine is with a good debater. As such, I would like to bring to the attention of our AS readers another timely and important post made by Eric Erickson on his blog today. I urge everyone to go there and read his post regarding Newt Gingrich. I will highlight here:
Robert Novak, in his autobiography the Prince of Darkness, wrote about Gingrich. Which refers back to a 1995 Readers Digest profile of the newly elected Speaker of the House Gingrich.
"What would you say Mr. Novak if I were to tell you that half the Democratic professional staffers on the House Appropriations Committee are being retained by the Republicans? Novak replied , I would say it was an outrage." Erickson also let's us know, in addition to 35 appropriations staff mentors allocated to the DEMOCRATIC MINORITY, 50 out of the 119 staff slots were only allocated to the Republican were just holdovers!
We need to ask ourselves and Newt why he did this to the Republican party when we were a majority. And if he would do this to us in the House would he do the same in assigning Democrats to his administration in a Gingrich Presidency?
There is more disturbing information regarding Newt's past at the Red State post. I would urge those who are truly interested in vetting Newt, you should read the entire post. We have heard over and over again, that President Obama was not properly vetted and that had the public known of his past they would not had voted for him. It is in our power to vet our candidates rather we like to know the facts or not. We cannot nor should not ignore all of Newt's past.
JeffC| 11.30.11 @ 4:22PM
God ... 17 years ago ... move on ...
Oldefarte| 11.30.11 @ 4:34PM
I agree....something is off about Newt. Granted he's intelligent and would be a competitive debator against El Chosen One [and would not require a teleprompter either]; but that's not enough. Based upon pure conservatism, probably Michelle Bachmann would be the best selection, but sadly she's not getting enough traction!!!!!
Marco2| 12.1.11 @ 1:03AM
If Bachmann needs more traction, I'm sure ol' 999 is ready to get right down to it. He's always helping damsels in distress out of the goodness of his heart, don't you know.
CharlesS| 11.30.11 @ 4:43PM
Just out of curiosity:
The second paragraph from the WE makes reference to (paraphrasing) "not walking the walk once in office"...
So, can someone illuminate me on all of the crazy, left-wing things Newt did when he was speaker?
teflon93| 11.30.11 @ 7:37PM
Well, he implemented socialized medicine and gay marriage and supported abortion---oh wait, that was the OTHER guy...
Dai Alanye | 11.30.11 @ 4:43PM
But Gingrich isn't Romney - that's the key. Until Rick Santorum learns how to present himself and his ideas, what other choice is there?
Cain has the right instincts but has failed to educate himself sufficiently on matters outside finance, nor seems likely to.
Bachmann has many good qualities but remains too much of a cheerleader with no background of leadership in the Congress.
Perry failed to prepare himself, and strikes me as intellectually slow.
Paul shows more promise as a cult leader than President.
Huntsman, impossible as it seems, is more arrogant than Obama. I see him getting a regular gig on the Rachel Maddow show, matching her sneer for sneer.
The only hope is for Quin to educate Santorum - I'm ready to help - or draft Palin. Otherwise it's Gingrich, and we hope against hope he has matured.
Clint| 11.30.11 @ 5:32PM
" With the intense search for a conservative alternative to Mitt Romney producing popularity “bubbles” for Rick Perry and Herman Cain, “Who’s next?” has been the recurring question. In an ironic twist, the consensus answer seems to be: Newt Gingrich.
I say “ironic” because the opposition to Romney has been led by conservative grassroots writers and activists, as well as groups like FreedomWorks. Gingrich isn’t much more popular among that contingent than Romney. In May, when Gingrich sharply criticized Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform plan, FreedomWorks Chairman Dick Armey reminded National Review that Gingrich had been a serial offender:
Citing Gingrich’s support of Dede Scozzafava in the 2009 congressional election in New York’s 23rd district, his backing of Medicare Part D and TARP, and his commercial with Nancy Pelosi about climate change, Armey observes that “Newt entered the race with serious ground to make up with these 2 million Tea Party activists.”…
Brendan Steinhauser, director of Federal and State Campaigns for FreedomWorks, reports that the Tea Partiers he’s talked to are “irate” at Gingrich… “I never met a single Tea Party activist that supported Newt Gingrich for president,” he adds."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Clint| 11.30.11 @ 5:35PM
" Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) is going after former House Speaker Newt Gingrich in a new web ad running on conservative sites in Iowa and across the country. The hard-hitting spot highlights Gingrich’s profits from Freddie Mac and the health-care industry, his support for an individual health-care mandate, and his general shifts in positions over the years."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Paul McGrath| 11.30.11 @ 6:01PM
Jesus. I think I'm going to lose my mind.
Conservatives: Is Gingrich perfect? No. Is Romney perfect? No. Are both of them a million times better than Obama and a thousand times better than Bush?
YES!
Let us not go down this road. Vote for who you believe is best, then support who wins. But please, let's not tear each other apart. None of them, none of the Republican candidates, are bad people or bad choices.
It seems like too many journalists, in an effort to make themselves stand out, are pecking at the little blood spot.
Oldefarte| 12.1.11 @ 10:51AM
Excellent point, PM, and pure truth. The POINT is to elect as many conservative Republicans as possible [and conversely to defeat as many socialistic, domestic terroristic Democrats] in November of next year!!!!!!!
Stu| 11.30.11 @ 7:22PM
Ok, so these are the problems with Newt. And then there are the equivalent problems with Mitt. Now, conservatives...want a candidate who has none of these problems?
WHAT ABOUT SANTORUM????
There is no answer except polls say he stays at 3% positive. Well of course he stays at 3% as long as the conservative majority doesn't get off the others and tell the pollsters they will vote for Santorum. How bout it?
teflon93| 11.30.11 @ 7:35PM
Quin often wonders why so many of us take him to task for being pure GOP Establishment in his thinking.
Case in point: he launches post after post of invective against Gingrich, who has done an enormous amount for the conservative movement with the Contract with America and the end of Bob Michel Republicanism that followed, while saying not much at all about Willard "Mittens" Romney, who hasn't done a thing for conservatives.
If you're going to critize Gingrich for apostasy, you'd better be burning Romney at the stake for heresy.
If you're a conservative, that is.
Paul McGrath| 11.30.11 @ 10:48PM
Nice, Teflon. Nice. You nailed it.
Oldefarte| 12.1.11 @ 10:55AM
True, but again PM's point above is the bottom line. We all have ideas/opinions on R-candidates, but the ultimate selection will become whatever R-candidate wins the R-nomination and thereafter goes against the current Democrat Dictator-in-Charge, right??????????
Quin| 12.1.11 @ 1:55PM
Total BS, dude. I have written again and again in criticism of Romney. For five full years. Get a clue.
Oldefarte| 12.1.11 @ 2:53PM
I think that a case -in-point can possibly be made from the current congressional disagreement over the funding for the proposed extension of the payroll [ie SS] tax reduction next year. The Republicans propose to freeze federal pay raises for three years plus; whereas the Democrats propose to surtax income earners making over $1mil/year. ITS'S THE DEMOCRATS STUPIDS [so whichever Republican wins the nomination will be preferable to the socialists now in charge, right?]!!!!!!!!!!!
Sue Taylor| 12.2.11 @ 2:11AM
THIS HAS GOT TO BE ONE OF THE BEST, MOST COMPREHENSIVE ARTICLES I'VE SEEN ON GINGRICH YET!.... Anyone even remotely considering him needs to read this....
http://emergingcorruption.com/.....hy-or-not/