Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
“I Think Grandiose Thoughts”
The more I see Newt Gingrich out there on the stump, the more I like him. The more I think, “Okay, this could actually happen.“
He’s clearly won not just the debate, but the contest of ideas, and the exhibition of passion. He can think on his feet, he’s fearless, and does anyone doubt that he would clean Barack Obama’s clock in the debates this autumn?
Still: he makes me nervous. I’m just being honest, here, Gingrich supporters.
So, reposted here, without comment, is this morning’s press release from Romney World, in which Speaker Gingrich compares himself to, among others, Moses, Pericles, Charles De Gaulle, and a viking:
Speaker Gingrich Has Compared Himself to a Litany of Historical Leaders: Ronald Reagan And Margaret Thatcher: “Gingrich said he learned a lot about himself in the political wilderness. … In the same breath, he compares himself to two conservative giants. With Gingrich, humility has its limits. ‘Because I am much like Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, I’m such an unconventional political figure that you really need to design a unique campaign that fits the way I operate and what I’m trying to do.’” (Jim Acosta, “Newt Gingrich Back From The Brink,” CNN.com, 11/16/11)
Abraham Lincoln: “Gingrich began his speech with remarks in which he predicted an economic recovery ‘literally’ the night Republicans would send Barack Obama home, and then announced, ‘I begin as Lincoln did.’ He argued that, like Lincoln, all his ideas came out of the Declaration of Independence.” (Jason Horowitz, “Newt Gingrich Draws Contrast With Romney,” The Washington Post, 12/1/11)
Woodrow Wilson: “He earned a PhD in history and taught college before winning a seat in Congress. He has often spoken of himself as a historian. In 1995, he told CNN’s Bob Franken: ‘I am the most seriously professorial politician since Woodrow Wilson.’” (John Pitney, “Five Myths About Newt Gingrich,” The Washington Post, 11/22/11)
Henry Clay: “Putting his tumultuous four years in the speaker’s chair into historical perspective, the former history professor compared himself to 19th century statesman Henry Clay, ‘the great compromiser’ who lost three bids for the presidency and served as speaker and secretary of State. Gingrich said that like Clay, he did more than just preside over the House. ‘I was not a presider, I was the leader,’ Gingrich said in the interview. ‘I think Henry Clay’s probably the only other speaker to have been a national leader and a speaker of the House simultaneously.’” (William Welch, “Gingrich: I’ll Go Down As Leader, Clinton As Tragedy,” USA Today, 8/30/99)
Charles De Gaulle: “‘At one point, I asked Gingrich, now a healthful-looking 65, about his sudden exit from Congress in 1998. ‘First of all, in the Toynbeean sense, I believe in departure and return,’ he told me. ‘In the what sense?’ I asked. ‘Arnold Toynbee,’ he replied matter-of-factly, referring to the English writer Arnold J. Toynbee, who wrote ‘A Study of History.’ ‘I believe in the sense that, you know, De Gaulle had to go to Colombey-les-Deux-Églises for 11 years.’ ‘I’m sorry?’ ‘Departure and return. And someone once said to me, if you don’t leave, you can’t come back, because you’ve never left.’” (Matt Bai, “Newt. Again.” New York Times Magazine, 2/25/09)
William Wallace: “‘If you go out and see what’s happening in the Tea Party, the last thing you want is a passionless election,’ Gingrich says, then refers to the epic movie about the battle for Scottish independence in the 13th century. ‘Remember Braveheart? These people want somebody who plants a flag in the ground, gives a speech and yells “Charge!” That is, someone like him.” (Susan Page, “Rising From The Pack, Gingrich Invites Scrutiny,” USA Today, 11/21/11)
Pericles: “In a long interview on May 4, 1992, devoted almost exclusively to the topic of Gingrich, [former White House aide Richard] Darman concluded that Gingrich was ‘an unstable personality’ who talks about four or five great people in history, including Pericles and himself.” (Bob Woodward, “In His Debut In Washington’s Power Struggles, Gingrich Threw A Bomb,” The Washington Post, 12/24/11)
The Duke Of Wellington: “Obsessed recently with Arthur Wellesley, the Duke of Wellington, [Gingrich] likened the appropriations triumph to the way the British expeditionary force maneuvered against the French during the Peninsular War, a campaign in Portugal and Spain in the early 1800s that eventually led to Wellington’s ascendance and Napoleon’s abdication.” (Michael Weisskopf and David Maraniss, “In A Moment Of Crisis, The Speaker Persuades,” The Washington Post, 8/13/95)
A Viking: “With his machine-gun staccato delivery, [Gingrich] is the center of attention. He terms himself a ‘Viking.’” (“Gingrich Delivers For GOP Faithful,” South Bend Tribune, 7/28/95)
Thomas Edison: “Once he took over GOPAC in 1986, the organization became what he called the creative thinking and research group of the Republican Party. ‘We are on the way to becoming the Bell Labs of politics,’ Mr. Gingrich proclaimed. ‘That’s the closest model you can find to what we do, and nobody else is in that business. The first thing you need at Bell Labs is a Thomas Edison, and the second thing you need is a real understanding of how you go from scientific theory to a marketable product.’” (Katharine Q. Seelye, “Birth Of A Vision,” The New York Times, 12/3/95)
Vince Lombardi: “By four in the morning, [Gingrich] had moved on to football metaphors. What the Republicans had accomplished, Gingrich said, was like the old Green Bay Packers sweep during the days of Coach Vince Lombardi: The opposition knows you are going to run at them, but they cannot stop you. Lombardi, Gingrich said, believed that the team that doesn’t break in the fourth quarter wins.” (Michael Weisskopf and David Maraniss, “In A Moment Of Crisis, The Speaker Persuades,” The Washington Post, 8/13/95)
The Wright Brothers: “At that dinner, held in a convention center in Johnston, Gingrich sought to add more emotional lift into his stump speech. ‘I am asking you to embark with me on a voyage of invention and discovery,’ he said, ‘to be as bold and as brave as the Wright brothers.’” (Jason Horowitz, “Newt Gingrich Draws Contrast With Romney,” The Washington Post, 12/1/11)
Moses: “On this night, Gingrich congratulated his troops on standing united and inspired them with stories about Charles de Gaulle’s heroism and George Washington at Valley Forge … At one point, he likened himself, lightheartedly, to Moses. He’d help them cross the Red Sea once again, Gingrich vowed, but only if they promised, this time, to stay on the other side.” (Matt Bai, “Newt. Again.” New York Times Magazine, 2/25/09)
I want a president who thinks big. But I also want a president who doesn’t think he’s a viking. Or am I being too choosy?
Published in General
Or great law enforcers: Eliot Ness, Joe Friday, Barney Fife. ·4 minutes ago
Buford Pusser.
Spear and magic helmet!
Lotta talk everywhere about how Newt would destroy Obama in debate. While I don’t disagree, in a vacuum, I’m wondering should he be the nominee whether the MSM will have figured out, come debate time, how to newtralize Gingrich’s advantage in that regard.
I doubt the John Kings of the world will continue to play to his strengths. Hell, maybe The One will simply choose not to do debates. I mean, why would he? Why should he? He could skip them, and the MSM would cover for him.
Spear and magic helmet! ·2 minutes ago
I guess John King’s opening question was the analog to the charge of the Carthaginian elephants.
Worked about as well, too.
I’m not saying Newt’s “I’m an American Churchill” thing is true, but face it…. guys like Churchill didn’t lack in the ego department. Very few great leaders do. To think “I’m the best man to be President of the United States” takes a soaring ego no matter who it is.
I doubt the John Kings of the world will continue to play to his strengths. Hell, maybe The One will simply choose not to do debates. I mean, why would he? Why should he? He could skip them, and the MSM would cover for him. ·6 minutes ago
Oh, I misread your post and thought that you were saying that Newt was calling himself “King of the World” . . .
You don’t think Speaker of the House is a leadership position comparable to an executive?
It seems to me that Newt wishes to be anyone but Newt Gingerich.
I’m betting there is a a psychiatrist out there somewhere willing to diagnose him with the self-loathing.
DrewInWisconsin: T
Weaksauce, as the kids say. Romney is reaching. In fact, it tells me quite a bit about Mitt Romney that he can’t separate a historical allusion from a boastful comparison. ·21 minutes ago
Edited 10 minutes ago
Uh, most of them? I’ve got a 16 year old. He and his friends say it from time to time.
I think this list could backfire on Romney. I read through it and I’m laughing and delighting in Newt’s intellectual/historical showboating. By the time I get to the end, I’m thinking, “More. More!” Somehow, I doubt this is the reaction Romney was going for.
As an homage to Newt’s gift for allusion and analogy: Newt makes me think of a kid who recently took his training wheels off his banana bike and is teaching himself stunts. As a parent, I find this endearing right up until he tries a handstand on the handlebars.
Churchill reflected in a speech to Congress in December of 1941, “If my father had been American and my mother British, instead of the other way ’round, I might have got here on my own!”
I’m betting there is a a psychiatrist out there somewhere willing to diagnose him with the self-loathing. ·13 minutes ago
There’s that language of the left again. Newt disagrees with me; he must be crazy.
Given the focus on debates, rather than records, I am not sure if this helps or hurts Newt. This cycle seems to be much more of an entertainment event, and love him or hate him, Newt is entertaining.
Yes, one can do everything you describe and do it for ones own personal esteem. I am not making an attack on Romney, I am merely pointing out that your generalization is not entirely true, and even if entirely true group properties do not inherantly transfer to any individual component of the group.
I suppose there are people who, while running a company (with all of those demands) also give up 20-30 unpaid, largely anonymous hours serving others so they can feel better about themselves (as opposed to doing it because they wish to serve others). Yes, I know that Mitt didn’t need to be paid–but 20-30 hours a week serving others, on balance, indicates someone with good rather than selfish motives. You’re right–some might do that for selfish reasons. They are rare.
As to Newt, this whole thread is about his delusions of grandeur, and if you don’t know anything about whether he ever does anything that isn’t motivated by “what’s in it for Newt,” so be it. I’ve never heard of anything.
I don’t think that Newt is the “American Churchill” either. But what I want to know is: is the only thing that separates them dumb luck–Winston had Hitler and Newt only has a ‘Saul Alinsky Radical’–or is there something else that separates them?
Correction, that was #33. I’d edit my post, but that option doesn’t exist in my browser right now…..
Yep – I’d prefer a Viking over King Canute.
(Yes, I know KC was really demonstrating his inability to change the sea level, unlike our dear, grandiose President).
As an homage to Newt’s gift for allusion and analogy: Newt makes me think of a kid who recently took his training wheels off his banana bike and is teaching himself stunts. As a parent, I find this endearing right up until he tries a handstand on the handlebars. ·11 minutes ago
WC: I hate to disagree. We have a president who delights in showboating. Sadly, Newt has taken it to a new level. It’s pretentious, narcissistic to the extreme, and not the characteristic I look for in a president (I don’t remember Reagan making self-comparisons like Newt does). Perhaps a hint of humility: is that too much to ask?
Newt’s gone way beyond the hand-stand stage–we’re into serious delusion. Like jumping off the house because he thinks he really is Superman.
(Yes, I know KC was really demonstrating his inability to change the sea level, unlike our dear, grandiose President). ·6 minutes ago
I agree. But I’d really prefer someone who neither wishes to plunder and pillage nor thinks he can control the tides. How about one with some humble conservative principles? I would take Romney and Santorum from that perspective over Newt and over the One.
Strange days indeed when a man of the cloth suggests that there might be a case for arrogance over humility under some circumstances. Nevertheless, I think you have a point here.
Although, I might have observed that in other men than Gingrich and Mitt [“My sons are serving their country by serving my campaign”] Romney, what you call “arrogance” may initially look like that to the untrained eye, but is something else entirely.
Beggars cannot be choosers.
Crow’s Nest: I’m just trying to say, They’re all arrogant. So, it’s a silly thing to say of one against the other, especially with this rather weak collection that, in my view, displays an impressive grasp of the arc of history.
Newt doesn’t have a chance in the general election. He has horrible polling numbers when it comes to women voters, and though they aren’t represented terribly well on Ricochet, they do vote. I know the zingers he throws out at the debates are red meat for the already converted, but they won’t win over independents. And where are all of his former colleagues in Congress? Are they endorsing him, praising him for his leadership as Speaker? And plenty of people still remember how he torpedoed Bush 41. There’s a difference between having a big ego and being a megalomaniac. Newt is the latter.
Perfectly put.
Another good reason to think that Newt’s “unelectability” isn’t so “un” after all.
Western Chauvinist: …I read through it and I’m laughing and delighting in Newt’s intellectual/historical showboating. …
Newt’s gone way beyond the hand-stand stage–we’re into serious delusion. Like jumping off the house because he thinks he really is Superman.
I’m a third-way gal, TR. I’m supporting Santorum, so I don’t think we really disagree. I’m just making observations about the flaws of both Mitt and Newt, and giving a sincere response to Newt’s intellectual flourishes.
“Showboating” is probably a term better applied to Obama, because he really hasn’t any achievements of excellence as the basis for his self regard; his electoral and legislative victories stem from his talent for bamboozling people into believing the stale Leftist tropes of redistributive “fairness” and government as god.
Truer words….
Pastor Esget (please let me know if you prefer another title): I was being playfully provocative (as I often am; the internet is so terribly bad at conveying that tone. Conversation is more suited to it.). I completely agree with you as to the charge (Newt and Romney are arrogant), and as to your assessment of the field (weak). I shan’t charge you unjustly, merely provoke.
I am perhaps more skeptical about whether or not there is an ‘arc’ to history–in this sense, (strangely?) I prefer what some have called the ‘monumentalist’ approach favored only in temperament by Mr. Gingrich (though I am not ignorant of the insights of Tocqueville’s approach to historical forces).
Even still and nevertheless, I am also more sympathetic to a thing which as yet has no name, but which is often mistaken for arrogance. At this point, you might be comfortable. What is commonly mistaken as arrogance, as I said previously, in the genuine case (which is not Newt), is something else entirely which ought to be distinguished from this vice.
tabula rasa
WC: I hate to disagree. We have a president who delights in showboating. Sadly, Newt has taken it to a new level. It’s pretentious, narcissistic to the extreme, and not the characteristic I look for in a president (I don’t remember Reagan making self-comparisons like Newt does). Perhaps a hint of humility: is that too much to ask?
Newt’s gone way beyond the hand-stand stage–we’re into serious delusion. Like jumping off the house because he thinks he really is Superman.
“Showboating” is probably a term better applied to Obama, because he really hasn’t any achievements of excellence as the basis for his self regard; his electoral and legislative victories stem from his talent for bamboozling people into believing the stale Leftist tropes of redistributive “fairness” and government as god.
I agree. Truce.
I’m perfectly happy to be simply “Christopher” if I’m not your pastor or a pastor in your church body (I’m Lutheran [Missouri Synod], by the way). I happily answer to “Pastor” or “Father.” In my first parish I was affectionately (I think!) called “Preacher man” by some. I despise “reverend.” If there’s anything that doesn’t fit, that’s it!
If a person wants to honor the office by giving me a title, that’s great. But I don’t think it’s something to be demanded.
To everyone else: Sorry for the sidebar!