The unreality of Gingrich: a reminder
day, I said
that a straw poll at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in which Mitt Romney defeated the “useless motor mouth Newt Gingrich” (along with Ron Paul and Sarah Palin, of whom I also spoke dismissively) was not a significant sign of political strength for Romney. Afterward it occurred to me that my put-down of Gingrich might not make sense to some readers. After all, didn’t Gingrich say
at the SRLC that Obama is “the most radical president in American history,” who oversees a “secular, socialist machine”? Doesn’t such strong criticism of Obama show Gingrich to be an incisive, exciting, hard-line conservative, just the sort of leader conservatives are looking for?
That entirely misses the point. Gingrich says things—indeed, he never stops saying things—that sound impressively intelligent and forceful and conservative, but in reality there’s nothing there, there’s nobody home, there are no stable convictions or beliefs inside Gingrich to which his often turbo-charged verbiage corresponds. He’s an empty shell with flapping lips and a higher than average IQ. Furthermore, to the extent that he does have any reliable political tropisms, they are decidedly liberal, not conservative.
I’m glad to see that Michelle Malkin has the same view of Gingrich that I have. At her site today she writes:
A “Gingrich surge?” Gag.
Where’s my migraine headache medicine?
Matthew Continetti at the Weekly Standard sifts through CNN poll numbers and finds that Newt Gingrich has “surge[d] into the top tier of presidential prospects.”
I was amused to hear Gingrich ripping Barack Obama’s “secular, socialist machine” at the SRLC last week and condemning the “most radical administration in history.”
This from a man who had no qualms going on the road with the most radical administration in history’s Education Secretary and one of the nation’s most poisonous race-hustling demagogues, Al Sharpton, a few months ago to promote the illusion of school reform.
How many radical left-wingers does Newt Gingrich have to sit on a couch with before Republicans realize he is the past, not the future? [LA replies: It’s not a matter about the “past” versus the “future,” but of conservatism versus liberalism. Malkin is displaying a progressivist mindset in which whatever is of the “future” is good, and whatever of the “past” is bad.]
I’ll repeat what I said when the Newt for 2012 bandwagon started rolling last fall:
The conservative base is wising up and pushing back. And constantly invoking Reagan isn’t going to erase the damage Gingrich has done to his brand over the years by wavering on core issues and teaming up with some of the Left’s biggest clowns.
Picture the cabinet:
Al Sharpton as education secretary.
Scozzafava as labor secretary.
Al Gore as global warming czar.
[end of Malkin excerpt]
Any conservative who falls for Newt Gingrich at this point is a person who could be sold the Brooklyn Bridge.
- end of initial entry -
No one excels Gingrich in finding a real bandwagon, jumping in front, and leading it to a cliff, at which point he steps aside saying, “this way, please!” The 30 pieces of silver jangling in his pockets fund him until the next opportunity comes along.
Newt Gingrich has always seemed to me a person who enjoys using his intellect to sway people in his direction, without a direction of his own. The swaying is the game.
He also likes his wives healthy. My best wishes for the continued good health of the current Mrs. Gingrich.
That’s funny, but was the second Mrs. N. unhealthy when he began cheating on her?
I’ll never forget: during Gingrich’s congressional career, in his speches he always said “Marianne this,” “Marianne that,” bringing in his (second) wife, which I thought was inappropriate, but that’s what many politicians do today. Then after all those years of hearing him say “Marianne this,” “Marianne that,” I suddenly began hearing him say, “Callista this,” and “Callista that.” The second wife had been dumped, and now there was a third. It was obscene. If he hadn’t constantly referenced Marianne during all those years, it wouldn’t have been so bad, but given that he did, it was this in your face reminder that he had had one wife whom he constantly promoted and referenced, and then, suddenly, he had this other wife whom he constantly promoted and referenced. He’s a gross individual, without a soul. What I mean is, in addition to the infidelities and divorces, which were bad enough, it didn’t occur to him that, having spent 20 years constantly reminding the public of “Marianne,” he should turn around and start constantly talking about “Callista.” Couldn’t he just stay silent about his marriages and divorces? No, he had to shove it in our faces.
Irwin Graulich writes:
I read your comments along with Michelle Malkin’s about Newt Gingrich. I love Michelle Malkin. However, the both of you are dead wrong about Newt. If she thinks that Al Gore would be Newt’s Energy Czar, as she indicated, she is a fool on that issue. I know you both dislike Newt because of the Al Sharpton thing (and some other reasons as well), but there were important political reasons that he tolerated Sharpton.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 14, 2010 10:15 PM | Send
There are many Republicans who dislike Gingrich and I know why. Perhaps I will write an article about that topic as 2012 gets closer. As far as I can see right now, the ONLY person who can truly make Obama look like a fool in a debate and win for the Republicans in 2012 is Gingrich. Ron Paul is an embarrassment and the Republican Party should do whatever it takes to get rid of him. He is a distraction for Republicans, just like Dennis Kucinich was for Democrats. I like Mitt Romney, but I do not think he could defeat Obama—short of Obama making some really stupid decisions.
Therefore, if you want to have another 4 years of disastrous socialism (and it will be even worse in Obama’s second term because he will see another victory as a mandate), you can push Romney—just like the McCain supporters pushed him. McCain was guaranteed to lose from the start. The Republicans have a bad habit of nominating the most “politically deserving candidate”—like Bob Dole and McCain—both of whom had no chance of winning. That is a terrible strategy and a recipe for failure in 2012.
Your pal and favorite political analyst,