-
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
Sometimes it actually pays to consider the assessments of people who do politics or write about it for a living and who have seen first-hand the people they deal with/write about. Anti-insiderism should not give way to a false elevation of all outside impressions over all expertise, experience, and professional knowledge.
In that light, it is worth collecting some measured, sober, thoughtful analyses of people, conservatives all, who worked with, closely tracked, wrote about, and otherwise professionally dealt with Newt Gingrich over his many, many decades as Washington maestro, player, manipulator, and wealth accumulator, during which he got too much credit AND blame for supposedly being the single driving force behind the mid-90s GOP resurgence, yet not enough appreciation for other, quieter accomplishments — a number of which, by the way, I have repeatedly credited him for, when few others have done so.
Peggy Noonan’s column today is superb, and this is a key section:
Those who know him fear-or hope-that he will be true to form in one respect: He will continue to lose to his No. 1 longtime foe, Newt Gingrich. He is a human hand grenade who walks around with his hand on the pin, saying, “Watch this!” What they fear is that he will show just enough discipline over the next few months, just enough focus, to win the nomination. And then, in the fall of 2012, once party leaders have come around and the GOP is fully behind him, he will begin baying at the moon.
Major Garrett at National Journal talks to lots of Newt’s former colleagues:
Gingrich, credited with helping to produce the first GOP House majority in four decades, initially lorded over the “Republican revolution” as something like a sun king. But just two years into his reign, by January 1997, enough discontent had developed over his leadership that it wasn’t clear that the rank and file would give him a second term as speaker. Galen remembers walking to the House from the Capitol Hill Club with fellow aides Joe Gaylord and Sam Dawson on Jan. 7, 1997, the day Gingrich was seeking reelection as speaker. “None of us were sure he had the votes,” Galen said. Five Republicans voted “present,” and four voted for others (including two members no longer in Congress). In the end, Gingrich beat Democrat Dick Gephardt with just three votes to spare. Only months later, the speaker faced an abortive coup from a renegade group of about 20 conservatives. Eventually, House Republicans forced him out as speaker after a backlash over President Clinton’s impeachment unexpectedly cost the party seats in the 1998 elections. Republicans lost five seats after Gingrich predicted they might win as many as 40, and he resigned from Congress. As it turned out, Gingrich was better suited at plotting the Republican revolution than at implementing it.
Oddly enough, while it is the solid conservatives like Sen. Tom Coburn and like former Majority Leader Dick Armey who have been most critical of Gingrich (Coburn was even more critical when he was MORE of an outsider, back when he wrote his book about the lost promise of the Gingrich era), it is only the most liberal (i.e., on the overall political spectrum, centrist) former GOPers who, by and large, have come to his defense. People like Chris Shays and Mike Castle have been praising Gingrich; the only real conservatives who served with him who have said good things about him are a few of his personal friends like Bob Walker.
The always fair-minded, and wise, Brit Hume understands the politics of it all, with this little note being part of a longer interview where he elaborated on why the Dems are salivating over the idea of facing Gingrich.
Mark Steyn, always witty as can be, has other thoughts. In the post linked to just there, he re-posts back to something he wrote at the time, in 1998:
After last week’s election, Republicans have now embarked on the time-honoured ritual, well known to British Tories and Labour before them, of bickering over whether they did badly because they were too extreme or because they were too moderate. In Newt’s case, the answer is both. He spent the last year pre-emptively surrendering on anything of legislative consequence, but then, feeling bad at having abandoned another two or three of his ‘Fourteen Steps to Renewing American Civilisation’, he’d go on television and snarl at everybody in sight… . For Republicans it was the worst of all worlds: a lily-livered ninny whom everyone thinks is a ferocious right-wing bastard.
Part of the “lily-livered ninny” rap came because he openly told people that Clinton made him “melt” and that he wasn’t good at out-arguing him in person — so much so that Dick Armey tok to insisting that he, Armey, accompany Gingrich on every trip to the White House to make sure Gingrich didn’t capitulate too easily.
Finally, Yuval Levin, who actually worked for Gingrich, and who is perhaps today’s leading intellectual proponent of serious conservative entitlement reform, has this to say, in measured tones:
What stands out about Romney and Gingrich, to me, is that they have in common a very unusual profile for a Republican politician. Both of them are fundamentally moderates: Very wonky Rockefeller Republicans who moved to the right over time as their party moved right and maybe as events persuaded them to move right, and they both still very much exhibit the technocratic countenance of the Rockefeller Republican-a program for every problem. Conservative humility about human nature and about the potential of technical solutions is not readily discernible in either one.
They’re also essentially in the same place politically-I can’t think of a single major issue on which Gingrich is more conservative than Romney, and with the possible exception of immigration (and perhaps Medicare reform, as I mention here, though it’s hard to be sure) I can’t think of one where Romney is more conservative.
All of which is to say that there is good reason for sober reflection here.
As for me, it still bothers me that Gingrich does NOT get credit for his signal contributions, along with Daniel Patrick Moynihan, to getting control over, reform of, and the livability quotient up, of Washington DC, the capital of the greatest nation in the world. He and the GOP Congress never earned appreciation for their highly successful efforts in that regard (i.e., helping DC as a municipality recover after the Marion Barry era), which was a subject into which Gingrich actually put a fair amount of thought. Why mention this right now? Just because it occurred to me now and, as part of filling out the record, I wanted to write it somewhere while I was still thinking of it.
Fair is fair.
View all comments (25) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/12/09/thoughtful-non-emotional-asses
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
The #FreeKate Narrative Melts Down: Lies Exposed in Florida Teen Sex Case
Robert Stacy McCain | 5.25.13
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
Clint| 12.9.11 @ 10:18AM
Gingrich And 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.
Oldefarte| 12.9.11 @ 10:40AM
Ah yes, the serial illiteracy of copy & pasteism continues thanks to the absuridity of free speech rights, no doubt. Additionally, Newt may be perhaps the Lyndon Johnson of the Republican Party, in that his extensive legislative knowledge/professional abilities may allow him to do for the conservative movement [once elected to office] what Johnson alternatively did for the liberal movement [not an endorsement, only a opinion]!!!!!
Jack | 12.9.11 @ 3:23PM
Old Timer: Lyndon Johnson was a tremendous leader of his side who got what he wanted acomplished. Gingrich was a flop who was kicked out by his colleages because he was an awful wind bag who got rolled and blackmailed by Clinton on numerous occasions. He was fined 300,000 for his many ethics violations. He has a mountain of baggage and is both unelectable and unexceptable to most Americans. He would get near zero votes from the young, independents, and disaffected Democrats. He would lose the libertarian and small goverment base of the party.
I really doubt if he could get 20% of the national vote. A 3rd party would get more votes, in my opinion.
Oldefarte| 12.13.11 @ 11:30AM
Shazam A TREMENDOUS LEADER ".....Lyndon Johnson was a tremendous leader of his side who got what he wanted acomplished..." ????? Gadzooks, he rammed up America's anus the Great Society, the War on Poverty, the Vietnam War; and you opine him to be a 'TREMENDOUS LEADER' Well EXCREMENT BE DAMNED. No doubt you bought into the historical Kennedy BS as well no doubt [ie ISH BIN EIN BERLIN, tales of Camelot etc]. Thanks for being part of the collective stupidity that has historically destroyed our country, and be sure to continue the P.S. mental incompetence that has brounght us to this current deplorable state of affairs in this country!!!!!!
Clint| 12.9.11 @ 10:53AM
" 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.
crazy| 12.9.11 @ 11:57AM
Newt just seems like a more wonky version of McCain and thus likely to follow a similar path.
teflon93| 12.9.11 @ 12:18PM
You lost me at Peggy Noonan, Quin.
Noonan voted for Obama.
Margie| 12.9.11 @ 2:13PM
She did?
If this is true that would explain my never liking her while everyone around me sang her praises.
She always struck me as a flowery speaking lady with something missing in what she was trying to say.
If she actually voted for Obama, she's lost her mind.
Frisbee| 12.9.11 @ 2:59PM
Voting for O doesn't necessarily mean that one is insane. It could also be explained by stupidity, ignorance, or evil will.
Oldefarte| 12.13.11 @ 11:33AM
Let's see now, did you perhaps enter the voting booth with Noonan at the time of her vote for Obama [or did she perhaps verbally admit to so voting, and you can supply us with domcumented proof of same]?????????
Cuffs| 12.9.11 @ 12:32PM
I think all journalists should beat the Republican field to shreds. Don't leave a
good thread on them. Then the Democrats
can start their "personal destruction" campaigns
against all of them. This will ultimately result
in Obama running for president unopposed.
People get the government they deserve.
Frisbee| 12.9.11 @ 3:01PM
So you enjoy the normal modus operandi of journalists? What you describe as a "should" is actually the status quo.
Paul McGrath| 12.9.11 @ 12:46PM
He stole ten million dollars from an orphanage, raped his sister, beat his mother and killed his father.
But, in sixth grade, he did share a baloney sandwich with another student.
Fair is fair.
kingsmill| 12.9.11 @ 1:00PM
"Thoughtful assessments" , Newt Gingrich & Quinn Hillyer cannot co-exist in the same byline.
Lesser Weevil| 12.9.11 @ 2:45PM
Quin, I am with you all the way on Newt's undesirability, but don't you think you are overdoing it? So much negativity starts to grate after a while. Why keep piling on? And quoting Peggy Noonan, whose judgment of political personalities is so poor that she actually fell for 0bama, really doesn't add weight to your argument.
Frisbee| 12.9.11 @ 2:53PM
America cannot survive Mitt or Newt. Obama shot the country dead. Mitt and Newt are nails in the coffin.
Ron Paul or Michelle Bachman or Rick Santorum (or even Cain, though he's out now) would ALL be better presidents than Newt or Mitt.
OryGun| 12.9.11 @ 4:23PM
Rick Santorum is really starting to look good. Of the group that is left he seems like a real person with some ethics. I guess I better send him a check.
Elias| 12.9.11 @ 8:29PM
I just did, yesterday.
Santorum seems to be the only conservative in the field that the msm hasn't been able to dig up dirt about and spin negatively: he hasn't flip-flopped (Mitt and Newt); he's never even been accused of being unfaithful to his wife (the only wife he's had); he's never flubbed a debate question (Perry); he's never made any gaffe's the msm could run with (Bachmann); he's always taken strong foreign policy positions (gosh, where do I begin with Paul?); and along with Bachmann(did I mention gaffe-prone?), he has been the most consistently conservative of all the candidates.
I think I'll send him some more money.
Paul McGrath| 12.9.11 @ 6:27PM
All a yez: Go to Wikipedia. Look up "Mitt Romney." Tell me: why would he not be an appealing Republican candidate?
teflon93| 12.9.11 @ 8:06PM
Because he's a liberal?
Oldefarte| 12.13.11 @ 11:36AM
Yes, shazam, he's a liberal Republican '''''CAPITALIST''''', as opposed to the alternative of a liberal Democrat '''''''SOCIALIST""""" [and Chicago OCCUPY WALL STREET-Community Orginizing thug as well]; and anyone not being mentally aware of the difference needs serious psychological assistance!!!!!
Pat Leath| 12.9.11 @ 8:55PM
Paul, the reason that Mitt Romney should not be the Republican candidate is quite simple. He is duplicitous. He has been sheltered and coddled from birth. He has never been laid off, his daddy set him up in business. He made millions buying and selling companies and dumped loads of working people to show a PROFIT for the stock holders. Come on Paul, look beyond Wikipedia and find out how phony this guy really happens to be. Think about what this guy is. Mitt avoided the draft during Vietnam by bicycling through France to promote the Mormon faith. Shows real character doesn't it Paul? Cafe with a bottle of vino, while poor suckers were dying in Vietnam.
teflon93| 12.9.11 @ 9:38PM
Mitt Romney has never fought for ANYTHING. Even in political campaigns he uses hirelings to do the unpleasant stuff.
Such men must never hold high office because their lodestar is power.
Oldefarte| 12.13.11 @ 11:38AM
What about Community Organizing lodestaring power hungry domestic terroristic qualities????????
Larry| 12.10.11 @ 4:17AM
Newt Gingrich is a lot farther away from being the Rockefeller Republican he was in 1964 than Mitt Romney is. Newt Gingrich also has a lot more fight than Mitt Romney, and he will attack Obama in ways that Romney refuses to, just like McCain in 2008. People think the Democrats are salivating at running against Gingrich. There is evidence the contrary is true, as Rush Limbaugh noted last week. The class warfare/anti-Wall Street themes that Obama is trotting out there are specifically geared towards Romney.
The war of ideas continues. Romney has no visi0n; Gingrich at least has a sense of American history and some basic principles that he will put to use in the existential crisis that is going to hit soon. The crisis will be real - especially if Obama is re-elected President. Thus, we must choose carefully next year.