None of Gingrich’s former House colleagues supports him

It’s a rare day when Kathleen Parker is quoted approvingly at this site, but here goes:

[W]hen a man who intends to lead the country cannot marshal the loyalty of those he has attempted to lead before, voters might pay heed.

- end of initial entry -

December 11

Jim C. writes:

Should be “None of Gingrich’s former House colleagues support[s] him.”

LA replies:

My understanding from style books is that that’s optional. “None” generally means “not one” and thus is treated as singular, as in “None of his colleagues supports him.” But “none” can also have the meaning of “not any,” in which case it is treated as plural.

However, on second thought (or rather fourth thought, since I went through this in my head yesterday when I posted it), I will treat this one as singular.

But that creates a further problem. Is it literally (to use Gingrich’s favorite adverb) true that not one of his former House colleagues supports him?

December 12

Jim C. replies:

Look at context—want to emphasize that EACH member was against him

LA replies:

But I don’t know that every single one of the then-GOP House members is now against his presidential candidacy. Do you?

Mark Jaws writes:

I could not care less whether some of the more timid of the Republican “leadership” like Newt or not. The important thing to note is that under his leadership he brought results. We need brash and brilliant leaders to tell it like it is. I watched Newt last night and the more I watched the more I liked.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 10, 2011 04:28 PM | Send