The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : A Question for Quin

Text Size

In the space of less than a month, Quin Hillyer has written ten items about Newt Gingrich. To be precise, Quin has written nine blog posts and today has written a feature article about the former House Speaker.

Quin begins the aforementioned article by likening Gingrich's rise in the polls to that of David Duke in Louisiana twenty years ago. When a writer begins an article about Newt Gingrich by referencing a one time Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan then one can reasonably conclude that said writer possesses a palpable dislike for him. In Quin's case, I suspect that he would sooner accept an invitation from the organizers of the Mobile Gay Pride Parade to be their grand marshal than be in the same room with Newt.

All of which leads me to this question for Quin. Should Republicans nominate Newt Gingrich to face President Obama in 2012, will he cast his ballot for President Obama?

View all comments (16) | Leave a comment

Brendan| 12.7.11 @ 9:41AM

Yes, because he also voted for Perot.

He's a man unable to learn from his mistakes...

Bob K.| 12.7.11 @ 9:42AM

It is supposed to be a secret ballot. Right? He can say anything. Or nothing if he wants.

Loadmaster| 12.7.11 @ 9:47AM

Aaron - that's been my thoughts all along. Those who are pitching Mitt and bad mouthing Newt are they going to vote for Obama if Newt get's nomination? I think not. But, Quin and all the other bad mouth'ers better understand the PEOPLE will pick their candidates and you better damn well like it. If it's Mitt OK and if it's Newt OK. I'm not a Mitt fan but we need to keep Obama out of the WH. Failure is not an option. Quin can have his opinions and so can we. I just don't a have a big enough forum to put mind out there.

teflon93| 12.7.11 @ 9:55AM

He could also refrain from voting for President and vote the down-ticket, which is what I will likely do if either Gingrich or Romney wins the nomination.

I am a conservative---I vote for conservatives. If none is available, I sit it out.

After 2008, I am never voting for a RINO again . They are 25% of the party, tops. I don't think they should get to decide who is fit to lead or not.

As long as conservatives blindly pull a GOP ballot, conservative votes will be taken for granted by the RINOs in the leadership. I intend to make them earn my vote.

JohnD| 12.7.11 @ 9:56AM

Aaron, I think the title is "Grand Dragon" not "Grand Wizard." The "Grand Wizard" was a wrestling promoter/agent.

Sean| 12.7.11 @ 10:00AM

What a choice to make. One is for cap and trade and individual mandates. The other is for... the same thing.

Brendan| 12.7.11 @ 10:15AM

Its not 1992 people. Those who sit it out will be to blame for the next four years of Obama - if this country survives that. You want to show you are making a difference? Get more conservatives into congress.

Quin is wrong, and so are the rest of you.

teflon93| 12.7.11 @ 10:24AM

Those who sit out will not be blame for Obama---those who vote for Obama and those who decided to run a RINO at the top of the ticket will be.

Why are conservatives the only people in America never entitled to vote FOR a candidate?

And what good does getting rid of Barack Obama do if his replacement agrees with him on the issues destroying the country and we can thereby not count on Republican Congressional majorities to undo the damage Obama's done?

If the time to nominate a conservative is not now, when will it ever be?

Warrior| 12.7.11 @ 11:59AM

More to your point. What has the current cast of Republicans accomplished since the mid-term elections. Has spending decreased? Has any actions been taken to limit presidential abuse of the military in undeclared wars? Has even one minor step been taken to limit the out of control entitlements? Has one federal agency acting outside the constraints of the Constitution lost one nickel in funding or even faced the threat of having any duplicated efforts reduced? Did the Tea Party getting Scott Brown elected stop an unConstitutional entitlement like Obamacare from getting passed?

Keep telling me I have to vote for the Republicans because they will change things and I will keep asking for someone to advise me how anything has changed by electing Republicans based solely on their party affiliation.

Robbie| 12.7.11 @ 10:30AM

Speaking for myself, I would simply leave the spot blank on the ballot. Under no circumstances would I ever vote for Newt. He is an ethically challenged fraud flits from one poorly thought out issue to the next.

I can at least stomach Romney because he seems plausible. Don't take that as an endorsement though. The rest of the field is composed of nothing more than circus clowns and and vanity candidacies. It's as if Alan Keyes and Steve Forbes became the model choices.

I hope a darkhorse jumps into the race. If not that, I hope we get a brokered convention.

Quin| 12.7.11 @ 10:31AM

Aaron,
Get real, man. Can you even read? I used the Duke example to explain, at length, how VOTERS can process information in a way that makes them akin to jury nullifiers. What they see themselves becomes more important than older evidence to the contrary. That's it. In no way did I compare Gingrich to Duke. And of course I would personally vote for Gingrich over Obama.
As for Duke, I have every good reason to use his example to make a political point, seeing as how I was a leader in the effort to block him. I spent three solid years fighting against him, and thus had plenty of opportunity to study, and learn from, what made him so sickeningly successful.

David T| 12.7.11 @ 1:02PM

Quin--As Mitt Romney might say, "Nice try."

Dan| 12.7.11 @ 4:13PM

What you did, so to speak, was speak of Newt Gingrich in the same breath as David Duke.

You knew it would be incendiary, and you did it anyway.

It's appalling.

Utterly appalling.

This what you learned from the Jesuits at Georgetown?

Ed| 12.7.11 @ 11:09AM

Sorry, but if you use David Duke as the point of comparison and not a non-KKK politician, you are making the comparison. These after the fact bleatings about how dare one think you are making any such comparison simply make you all the less credible.

Casey Abell| 12.7.11 @ 12:41PM

Of course, Hillyer compared Gingrich to Duke. His silly whining after the fact won't convince anybody who can read. Yeah, Hillyer, we CAN read. So you get real, man.

Hillyer can't stand Gingrich. It must go back to their days in the House together. Now Hillyer gets, let's say, excited over a lot of subjects. Any Spectator reader - and we CAN read, man - knows that.

But with Gingrich, Hillyer goes ballistic even by his own standards, which are pretty forgiving of ballistics. It's nice to know Hillyer would vote for the Devil Incarnate over Obama. But that's how Hillyer sees a Gingrich-Obama race.

Jake| 12.7.11 @ 1:40PM

Whether we on the right would vote for Newt is not the critical point.
Would enough independents and unhappy Democrats vote for Newt in a general ?
I doubt it .
Once you have become a national punchline , as Newt
was in the 90s , it's hard to remake yourself
into a serious statesman in the eyes
of the larger electorate.
The hair trigger religious fervor and mythology that enveloped Palin was transferred to Cain
and now St Newt is the recipient.
Newt is probably our least electable candidate because of his own history.