No need to shut up, but can someone put up?
Nancy Pelosi said that she knows something and that Newt Gingrich will never be president. Gingrich called her out, saying put up or shut up, and now Pelsoi's spokesman says that she didn't really mean that she has any secret dirt. She just knows that Newt won't be president.
Pelosi's rhetoric put two sentences together (I know something) and (Newt won't be president), and then left it to the imagination of the audience to connect them with some cause - which she then had to admit that she didn't have.
I've been hearing a lot of that lately.
- It frequently takes the form of "All the people who know Newt well don't want him to be president." OK ... why? That's the part that rarely gets explained.
- Then I hear that Newt has a colossal ego. Well, so do a lot of successful people. Still waiting for the big problem.
- Then I hear that Newt can't focus. David Frum has an article today that takes a Gingrich memo from 2004 where Newt was advising the GOP, and Frum chides Gingrich for focusing on issues that (now years later) seem irrelevant. Fairly selective editing, of course (I'm sure the whole of Gingrich's agenda wasn't limited to this one memo), but so what? Newt addresses a lot of issues. His pattern is classic extroversion ... he provokes an issue, runs all sorts of solutions up a flagpole ... and then waits to see who salutes what. Newt isn't an introvert. (Neither am I - that's why I recognize the pattern.)
- Then I hear that his divorces will defeat him. OK, but Reagan was divorced, and as we've seen, pretty much everything that could be said about him has already been said.
- And so on ...
I fully recognize that Newt's detractors may have very specific reasons why Gingrich is a leadership disaster. But at the moment, I'm hearing a lot of assurances that he's a disaster, but very few specific reasons. What few reasons I've heard don't justify the certainty of the assurances. Like the kid who sees a naked emperor, I have a lot of people running with assurances, but I don't see the clothes.
Now I may actually vote for this guy. At the very shaky moment, he's probably my number one out of the four GOP candidates. Of course, any GOP candidate will be better than Obama. If the election was held tomorrow, I'd probably vote for Gingrich.
So, to my fellow Ricochet members ... I'd never tell anyone to shut up, but I'd appreciate a little put up. Why is this guy so bad? Specifically. I don't need to hear how others don't like him ... I already know that they don't. My question is whether their antipathy is justified. Many people are certain that Gingrich will be a disaster, and that he'll turn people off, especially the independents. Why? Is it just because that's the Narrative? Has Clinton and the media tarred him so badly, fairly or unfairly, from the 1990s that he can't get rid of the feathers? Has the book been closed, even if he's not the same Newt?
It's not just a political task. In philosophy, the question is usually not what you know, but how do you know it? What's the basis for the assurance that he'll be a disaster? Or is it just an assurance that gets passed along, and its certainty comes from the frequency of its repetition rather than the quality of its reason?
If there are good reasons not to vote for this guy - tell me now.
- Comment (36)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Jul '11
Re: No need to shut up, but can someone put up?
He's no Bob Dole. Actually KC Mulville, I think the monied GOP backers want Romney for a variety of reasons, not all of them good reasons. Gingrich is clearly more conservative but also clearly less stable and far less malleable.
Edited on January 26, 2012 at 5:36amAug '10
Re: No need to shut up, but can someone put up?
Every journalist in the country will believe what La Pelosi says. So ...there's 300-400 people in the MSM and another 1000 second stringers around the country who buy it. Add about 1/3 of the people who read the papers, say ten million. We're at 10,001,400 people ,or 2.9% of the population believing what the rest of us know is a lie. I don't see a problem.
May '11
Re: No need to shut up, but can someone put up?
KC, my son was working as a paid aide for a conservative congressman in 1996 who was part of the group who tried to oust him from the speakership at that time. I don't have any inside information other than what was publicly known that the conservatives felt that he let his ambition to be a grand strategist get in the way of representing his fellow legislators. As I understand it, he would tell his caucus that he would do one thing and then he would meet with Clinton and agree to something entirely different. Does that make him totally unacceptable as President? No, but it is a major part of the reason conservatives like Tom Coburn have said he is the last person they would want to be President.
Edited on January 26, 2012 at 3:27amOct '11
Re: No need to shut up, but can someone put up?
Jim Geraghty.gave specifics on this today, in fact. He has a blog post up that quotes extensively from Coburn's book.
And because I know it's coming, Geraghty is not in the tank for Romney.
Nov '11
Re: No need to shut up, but can someone put up?
The thing is, these non-supporters include people who backed him on policy when he was Speaker and who presumably do on central ideas now. I'm not convinced that they're all afraid to support him because he's too conservative, so much farther right than Romney -- because he isn't.
One theory, though (and I've read something somewhere supporting this): If I'd supported Gingrich through impeachment, and learned afterwards that he'd been having an affair himself the whole time, I'd feel horribly betrayed. Yes, I know the issue was technically perjury, but if Newt's affair had come out at the time no one would have made the distinction. It undermined everything they supposedly stood for and indicates to me a breathtaking lack of respect for his responsibilities and moral leadership.
Can you imagine the field day the Democrats will have with Republican "hypocrisy" if he's the nominee?
He admits wrong and says he's repented. Apparently he hasn't done so in a way that convinced many of his former caucus. I have no way of knowing if that's fair or not, but I can't dismiss it in evaluating him.
Aug '10
Re: No need to shut up, but can someone put up?
Embittered Redleg: Jim Geraghty.gave specifics on this today, in fact. He has a blog post up that quotes extensively from Coburn's book.
And because I know it's coming, Geraghty is not in the tank for Romney. · 13 minutes ago
He was sounding like it back in November. All the NR staff was, well all but one or two, as a couple of us shared in it at their semiannual party/convernention (new word?) .
Jul '10
Re: No need to shut up, but can someone put up?
I am speaking as someone who would likely vote for Newt given the opportunity in the primary, I cheered the Contract With America at the time, bought the book, kept score on the promises, and watched the fire fizzle even before the Clinton impeachment battle. Santorum says that life with Newt is an endless fount of new ideas with no editing and no follow through. The same GOP club that still accused Reaganism of voodoo economics and warmongering as they cashed the dividends of a bull economy and Cold War victory.
Newt is erratic, has every bit the knack for reaching across the aisle to undermine his own side as McCain, and has the kind of vanity that is easily played. He never smelled the hoax on AWG while every scientist I knew outside the government laughed at the IPCC's work. Newt shared a couch with Pelosi. His egotism is Patton-level reincarnationist delusional without the discipline.
The Clinton Impeachment was thought by many to be over the top. Newt's public whining about the long list of calculated slights that Clinton dealt him was petulant and egotistical. Political opponents are political opponents. The best revenge is winning.
Apr '11
Re: No need to shut up, but can someone put up?
I remember the 90's very well. What happened was that New Gingrich was very popular with the people who were happy that Bill Clinton was being drug kicking and screaming to the center. (We never believed that Dick Morris was solely responsible for Clinton's move to the center, in spite of Morris' claims of late)
But there was another Dick who was jealous of Newt's popularity. This Dick was a smart guy, but had zero charisma and a MUCH larger ego than Newt had.
You may not even remember Armey's Axioms. I do, and they weren't great and certainly weren't canonized at the time written (although I understand there will be an attempt at a canonization of them among the current RINOs).
I sure remember Amery's attacks on Newt, even joining with Nancy Pelosi to try to sanction and oust Newt Gingrich. Dick Armey was a traitor to his own party. (2 Sam 16:23 and look what happened to Ahithophel)
Yes, Newt Gingrich has been attacked before, and hard, by his own party. And in hind-sight it seems to made him a even better man for it.
Nov '11
Re: No need to shut up, but can someone put up?
I think Gingrich comes across as more conservative, and more inspiring, because he talks (and, I believe, thinks) in philosophical and historical terms, whereas Romney talks and thinks like a businessman. But Newt's philosophy isn't consistent either, and he's manifested that during the campaign. They're both similarly flawed on the individual mandate.
For what it's worth, things that hurt him with me --
1) The "right-wing social engineering" comment and weakness on Medicare reform. The Ryan plan is the one big, bold transformational idea actually on the table. I don't have deep confidence in Romney, but he has frankly been better here. If we're going to take the debt and Ryan's argument about entitlement spending seriously, that's a big deal.
2) The campaign in SC and FL. I'm fine with attack ads, and unfair ones happen in politics. (Romney's people have done their share). But Newt has been using attacks that conservatives don't use. When you are saying things that are drawing criticism by non-endorsers Rubio and DeMint, that's a problem.
3) I simply don't find the idea that he's more electable convincing.
Oct '11
Re: No need to shut up, but can someone put up?
Well, KC, y'see, it's just that Newt is so... and that time he... and that's why we can't have him. Just can't, OK? Now stop it, go away, and be a good little party drone.
The top reasons Newt ticks establishment people off are 1) he's smarter than they are, and 2) they fear he's going to upset their comfortable little apple cart. Yeah, I know that there is some honorable opposition, like Paul Rahe who actually cites specific causes, but he's the rare exception. Further, the causes even he mentions are practically ancient history.
Newt has held some positions I seriously disagree with. My negative reaction to those is tempered by a clear memory of the environment of those times. Anybody holding then what we now consider truly conservative views would have consigned themselves to the powerless fringe. I understand he's not as conservative as me. Heck, even I wouldn't vote for me.
Those of us who do measurable work, as opposed to people who live on persuasion, care about where the candidates are now. Who peeved who years ago is inside baseball, and I don't watch baseball.
Nov '11
Re: No need to shut up, but can someone put up?
Embittered Redleg: Jim Geraghty.gave specifics on this today, in fact. He has a blog post up that quotes extensively from Coburn's book.
And because I know it's coming, Geraghty is not in the tank for Romney. · 2 hours ago
Thanks for this. Tom Coburn is someone to be taken seriously, unlike Ann Coulter or Jen Rubin.
Sep '10
Re: No need to shut up, but can someone put up?
I have a dim memory of the 90s. Newt was one of the main forces behind the "Republican Revolution" and good did come of that. But Newt liked--and still likes--charging straight at 'em. This worked a few times but Clinton and the Dems outmaneuvered him eventually.
Rob Long has frequently spoken of how tired we are of the high-wire act: the politician who can't express himself clearly and is outmaneuvered in debates. Newt doesn't have that problem, but he's a high-wire act in his actions. That's what bothers me most about Newt.
Oct '11
Re: No need to shut up, but can someone put up?
Ricochet comment links are almost always worth following, and Redleg's link to Geraghty is no exception. Is that a parody? If not, I rest my case.
May '10
Re: No need to shut up, but can someone put up?
Elliot Abrams had this to say about Newt's public rhetoric while serving in Congress under President Reagan.
I'd like to hear a counter-argument. More than anything, this relates to Newt's judgement as Commander-in-Chief.
Jan '11
Re: No need to shut up, but can someone put up?
Well, I like Jim Geraghty and Tom Coburn a lot. The excerpt from Coburn's book is the kind of thing that does, indeed, make me pause. The reason is that it paints Newt as a craven, bare knuckled politician, who will protect himself first and last.
The thing is, a conservative has to be judged (a) on theory and (b) on the "game" of politics. The debates bring out the theory, and so far, Newt scores pretty well there. But if you're a regular citizen and not a fellow politician, it's hard to get a handle on how these guys play the game. So much of what I've been hearing is that Newt plays to win ... which I like, actually. I want my political leader to be a tough opponent. But there's a difference between a tough player and a selfish player, and I'm not entirely sure which Newt is.
Then again, against Obama, Newt's selfishness would just be a wash, wouldn't it? Oh well ...
Apr '11
Re: No need to shut up, but can someone put up?
KC Mulville
But there's a difference between a tough player and a selfish player, and I'm not entirely sure which Newt is.
This is one of the biggest issues to me. It comes up in many Kaus/ Morris/ Coburn criticisms, and in the criticisms of my friends who worked on the hill, all in the form of "Newt always wanted to be the guy making the deal. The rest of his team couldn't trust him, because he didn't want to be loyal, he wanted to be the world historical figure who reached across the aisle." Hence his Contract with the Earth book and Pelosi stuff (for which he apologized, and "repented", but still promises to implement the policies he's apologized and repented for.)
It's there in the Right Wing Social Engineering. It's there in the anti-capitalism attacks. It's there in the "anti-immigrant" attacks. It's there in the class warfare attacks on those who oppose ethanol subsidies. If you're a Republican congressman who is to Newt's left on some issue, or on his right, you can be sure he will provide quotes for your opponent's ads.
Nov '11
Re: No need to shut up, but can someone put up?
Who exactly is Romney appealing to with this ad? Talk about attacking from the left. Blech.
Dec '10
Re: No need to shut up, but can someone put up?
DocJay: He's no Bob Dole. Actually KC Mulville, I think the monied GOP backers want Romney for a variety of reasons, not all of them good reasons. Gingrich is clearly more conservative but also clearly less stable and far less malleable. · 20 hours ago
Edited 17 hours ago
And Bob Dole himself is warning against Newt:
Not only is this a very weak hit against Newt, but coming from someone who ran one of the weakest Presidential campaigns ever, it's almost an endorsement of Newt.
I suggest that what we are seeing is a whole troop of people who've been waiting fifteen or twenty or even thirty years to take revenge on Newt for personal slights.
Apr '11
Re: No need to shut up, but can someone put up?
We will soon see what the people of Florida have to say about it.
The people of South Carolina had their say:
"If turnout and vote distribution in South Carolina had been consistent with the 2000 and 2008 contests, Gingrich would certainly have fared worse and quite possibly would have lost. Mitt Romney performed well in the wealthier, more moderate counties on the southern seacoast and showed well in the populous counties of the Midlands around the state capital....
But there were 30,000 more votes cast than in 2000 and 157,000 more than in 2008. And they mostly came in the northern part of the state, in the Appalachian foothills and along the North Carolina border.
To put that in perspective, the total increase in Republican turnout in South Carolina from 2008 was greater than the entire turnout in Iowa this year. While both Iowa and New Hampshire saw only modest increases in Republican participation, South Carolina shattered old records and added a whole extra Iowa's worth of new voters and gave Gingrich the most votes of any candidate in the state's history.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/23/newts-jacksonian-revolution/#ixzz1kbPAGB10
Sep '10
Re: No need to shut up, but can someone put up?
Awful.
And how pathetic is this? I'm going to post it in the meber feed and fisk.