Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Gingrich: That Pig Won’t Fly


While GOP voters are in the irrational grips of Newt-mania (he's the least conservative candidate in the race), good columnists are reminding us about Newt Gingrich. You read them and go, “oh, yeah… I forgot all that…”

On Paul Ryan’s budget plans, Rich Lowry explains that many on the right had questions, but Gingrich had to bombastically dismiss the plan as “rightwing social engineering.”  It took a vigorous scolding from conservative elder statesman Bill Bennett to force a Newt climbdown.
Only Gingrich, though, felt compelled to take a rhetorical flamethrower to the document endorsed by almost every House Republican.
He can’t help himself. Gingrich prefers extravagant lambasting when a mere distancing would do, and the over-arching theoretical construct to a mundane pander. He is drawn irresistibly to operatic overstatement — sometimes brilliant, always interesting, and occasionally downright absurd. (Rich Lowry – Newt the Unreliable)
And there’s also the little matter of Gingrich having a long history of his own social engineering experimentation, from Fannie and Freddie to global warming and health care...
Mr. Gingrich’s ability to reach leaders like Mrs. Clinton was a selling point for the Center. A PowerPoint presentation for prospective members advertised its “contacts at the highest levels” of federal and state government. Paying $200,000 a year for the top-tier membership, it said, “increases your channels of input to decision makers” and grants “access to top transformational leadership across industry and government.” (Commentary - Gingrich was an Influence Peddler)
Gingrich needs to come out singing “I Saw the Light” if he wants to remain credible in the face of his substantially statist record. As a warm up, he also needs to face up to his DC power player past and stop the ridiculous “outsider” pose. His Center for Health Transformation, while perfectly legal, was a classic milk-the-taxpayer beltway bonanza.

I understand that people can change, and politicians more than most, since they compete for power under constantly shifting ground. Maybe Newt’s changed, who knows? How would we know? His promiscuous mind has produced flamboyant government plans by the wagonload. Grandiose agendas and melodic musings are his imperial domain. Is there anything he hasn’t thought of?

A Lust for Ideas

My problem with him is that he is an egghead, more enamored of shiny new ideas than with governing from a core set of well thought out principles. We don’t need an intellectual thrill seeker in the White House, and Newt has shown himself to be an edge junky looking for the next cerebral high.

He belongs in the lofty forums of Davos and Aspen, not in the White House, where he would morph into an intellectually aroused Anthony Wiener, taking pictures of his tumescent ideas and flashing them, unwanted, into the homes of unsuspecting citizens. We don’t need that.

We don’t need theoretical experimentation and thought titillation from a president; we need principled conservative leadership, and Gingrich has no track record of that.

Further Reading:
George Will - GOP's Front Runners
Ramesh Ponnuru makes a convincing case for why Mitt’s the One.
Charles Krauthammer sizes it up: Krauthammer – Newt vs Mitt
Bill Bennett Schools Newt Gingrich

32 comments:

Ducky's here said...

My problem with him is that he is a corrupt corporatist.

We need to clean the Augean stables and my Republican brothers offer Newt Gingrich.

Deep sneakers folks and nothing on the horizon to change any of it.

Newt Gingrich, freaking bore me later.

Mark Adams said...

Pointing to the Newts comment, which I wanted an answer to what exactly he meant by "rightwing social engineering" and to clarify it, which he did last week, and that is, when presenting an idea that is widely know and most unpopular with the American citizens, you don't ram it through to law against the will of the people. That explained it to my satisfaction.

Silverfiddle said...

Ducky: You have a talent for being disagreeable even when agreeing.

Mark: You need to listen to the Bennett exchange. Bill really helped him out. And who is Gingrich to accuse others of rightwing social engineering? I think he was jealous.

Jack Camwell said...

If it wasn't for new ideas and experimentation, this country and its principles wouldn't even exist. It never ceases to amaze me that you seem to ignore the fact that the Founding Fathers whom you no doubt venerate were the very "egghead" intellectuals you seem to despise. Or are they not awful just because you agree with them? That's totally objective, right?

Anyway, I'm with you on the Gingrich thing. If we all believe that the Clinton era set us up for failure in the long-run, then it'd be pretty stupid to want to put Gingrich in office, seeing as how he was a party to a lot of the policies that ended up screwing us over.

Ducky's here said...

Well, Silverfiddle, it's a pretty sad state of affairs.

We have a DLC stooge on one hand and on the other we have the right which has cycled through Donald Trump, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Tomcat Cain and now ends up with Newt Gingrich. All this to oppose a venture capitalist who has specialized in stripping companies and eliminating jobs, a leech.


Much of this waste of time can be laid at the feet of the Tea Baggers, the cult of Palin. Herman Cain was considered quilified to serve as president.

We are a sorry freaking people and the train is in the tunnel.

Anonymous said...

BULLSHIT!

When Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House, he the best thing the Republicans had going for them -- and for the country -- the only force able to counter and partially neutralize the more hideous aspects of the Clinton Regime -- and I'm NOT talking about sucking cock in the Oral Office. [The Lewinsky Affair was the biggest, smelliest Red Herring ever dragged -- interminably! -- across the path and the noses of the Booboisie.]

So what did the Republican Establishment do?

They got rid of him!

I gave up on the Republican Establishment long ago. So should you.

Newt is the only current candidate with brains. The only one who actually knows something and can articulate it with poise and good humor.

His capacity for vigorous dynamic, enthusiastic debate has attracted favorable attention. He could topple Obama.

So what do the minions of The Stupid Party do?

Why, they join forces with the Enemy and seek to crush him, of course.

Apparently, like Beelzebubba before him, Mr. Gingrich also likes to get his cock sucked -- or so the insidious Merchants of Madness from The Ministry of Truth would have you believe. And for the small-minded mired in orthodoxies that's just enough to disqualify Mr. Gingrich.

You're going to get exactly what you deserve -- a SECOND TERM for OBAMA!

Hail to the Chief!

PHOOEY!

~ FreeThinke

Silverfiddle said...

Jack (and FT):

We've been down this road before. Intellectual theoreticians make bad leaders.

The founders were brilliant men (Washington less so than Jefferson, and a comparison of their presidencies shows that), but they were also practical men, not enamored of knowledge for its own sake, but for it's practical uses.

My problem with Gingrich is that he has demonstrated no core principles.

He's a brilliant political tactician, but he is a pie in the sky dreamer more enamored of new ideas, the more arabesque the better, than he is with governing from core founding principles.

Silverfiddle said...

FT: Debates? Obama will duck them. They will get at the most two, and they will be the usual canned, pablum kabuki, with the rules stating no back and forth, no asking one another questions or challenging one another.

Chakam said...

Yep.

That's why this guy is going with Sen Ron Paul. Gingrich is indeed super-genius smart when it comes to politics. Of this there is no doubt.

However, he is not true Conservative, and I need that in my President. Romney is a RINO. Gingrich is Gingrich.

Ron Paul 2012. Let us return to Constitutional government for a real change. Gingrich can get a job in Paul's cabinet. Maybe as Sec of State. Or Press Secretary. Either one would be great for him.

Z said...

You're right, SF, Obama will not have the guts to debate any one of them...he simply can't.
Funny, I was saying last night to some friends that Obama can't get up there in a debate and use the "You're too liberal" stuff on Newt or Romney!! He can't tell Romney his med plan for Mass is too close to HIS plan and it's BAD :-) That's a real problem for Obama. The primary debates like we're having are rife with attacking Romney for being too liberal...how can Obama do THAT? WHat WILL he attack them with? And,any Republican can tear him apart for his platform failures.
Of course, to be fair, a Republican candidate can't say "And you didn't even close Gitmo!" :-)
hey, this is BRILLIANT:
"He belongs in the lofty forums of Davos and Aspen, not in the White House, where he would morph into an intellectually aroused Anthony Wiener, taking pictures of his tumescent ideas and flashing them, unwanted, into the homes of unsuspecting citizens"
WOW. WOW

Gundey said...

Ducky's here said...

My problem with him is that he is a corrupt corporatist.


You should know about those things being you belong to them most corrupt
going ..Barack Obama comes to mind.
I can remember when Obummer wanted us to believe he was Reagan. Then it was FDR, and today it's Teddy Roosevelt.

This man really needs a psychiatrist's to help him figure out who he really is.

Ducky's here said...

Of course, to be fair, a Republican candidate can't say "And you didn't even close Gitmo!"

----

Like Little Newton would have? Stop now.

Any of you following the foreclosure suits? Obummer is holding out for a settlement of a few cents on the dollar. The usual slap on the wrist to the banksters while homeowners who were illegally foreclosed get virtually nothing.

My point - this is the guy the right calls a "socialist"(LMFAO) and they are now down to a corrupt punk who would do the same thing.

Face it, all the far right wants to do is complete the corporate agenda and eliminate the vigorish they pay to the government middle man. That's all the "tinkle down" economics crap is about and you see it's results all around you and still turtle up in denial.

HOBSON'S CHOICE - A corporatist or nothing.

Now how do we get out of this mess.
If you pick either Obummer or a passenger in the Republican clown car --- well the country is screwed and on its way to a much higher level of repression to keep order.

Silverfiddle said...

Thanks for the compliment, Z!

Give a monkey a typewriter and enough time, and he will eventually, accidentally, bang out something good.

Ducky's here said...

@Gundey -- You should know about those things being you belong to them most corrupt
going ..Barack Obama comes to mind.

------

You're new so let me state my position. THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT is corporatist.
Now you can call the party in charge Republican, Democrat or Your Momma, doesn't matter.

I am NOT a liberal. I am a leftist.

Chakam said...

Ducky....oh, no.

You said:
"I am NOT a liberal. I am a leftist."

LOL!

Isn't that the same as saying, "Really Officer, it's not mine. I'm holding it for a friend!"

Or better yet, "Just because I walk like a duck, talk like a duck, and think like a duck, does not make me a duck!"

LOL! Such a nice comedy break on this rainy Tuesday afternoon! Thanks, Ducky!

Trestin said...

What I find strange is that conservatives are turning to him as an alternative to Romney? Romney has taken some pretty fare out progressive positions, but Mitt turned them into legislation. Don't even get me started on his track record when it come to corruption.

Country Thinker said...

Silver, check out Republican Mother's review of Gingrich here:

http://therepublicanmother.blogspot.com/2011/11/newt-gingrichs-reverend-wright.html#comment-form

Nancy Pelosi claims to have "dirt" on him, which she naturally will reserve until he gets the nomination - if he does.

bunkerville said...

Don't you just love the old days of a "dark horse"? A draft at a convention? Just dreaming.

Ducky's here said...

So what do we do Silverfiddle? The system is completely corrupt and despite the protests the rot is universal.

Do we try to take it all down? Guns in the streets? Because it's pretty clear that elections are bullshit.

Leticia said...

I am officially rooting for Santorum and I hope that maybe he will find the funds or help to kick his campaign in gear.

Newt is not an option for me, but unfortunately, I may not have a choice. I'd rather him than the moron in office.

republicanmother said...

So agree Silver.
What I see occurring is "battered conservative syndrome". We've been fooled so many times, we've come to accept that we will be used forever.

Like they tell battered women, get a safety plan and walk away. Fact is, Newt is paid for by the same banksters that pay for Obama's parties, vacations, and teleprompters. He'll just continue the long sell out of America.

Silverfiddle said...

@ Ducky: So what do we do Silverfiddle?

Excellent question, and if I had the answer I wouldn't be blogging.

Elections are not BS. They cause real change. Every president of our age has caused historic changes, from Reagan to Obama.

Leadership and government won't change until voters change. When the economy finally crashes good and hard and there's no one or nowhere left for the power elite to steal from, then things will change. How? Anyone's guess...

98ZJUSMC said...

Leticia said...

Newt is not an option for me, but unfortunately, I may not have a choice. I'd rather him than the moron in office.


Sadly, true. I will vote for him if he's the nom, though. What is of maximum importance is a more firmly Conservative House and retaking the Senate.

Silverfiddle said...

When the economy finally crashes good and hard and there's no one or nowhere left for the power elite to steal from, then things will change. How? Anyone's guess...


I almost feel sorry for the big city dwellers. The ice water tsunami will hit them very, very hard. I don't know either, SF, but
it won't be pretty.

Jersey McJones said...

I like what Bill Maher said about Gingrich, "He's a professor of idiocy."

JMJ

Teresa said...

I agree that Newt has a mixed track record when it comes to conservative principles. He has some great ideas on how to put this country back on track. Plus, he's not afraid of Obama and will take him to task. IMO Newt's better than Romney or Huntsman. He is not my first choice but I think he is pretty good candidate and that he has changed since 1994 and his earlier positions. Plus, I believe that he is a pragmatist since he even said he would institute Ryan's plan for either medicare or social security (not sure which one) - but he would have it voluntary instead of forced on the people.

Finntann said...

Meh... looks like the only thing to mark on the ballet will be "anything but Obama", although "none of the above" would probably be a better choice given how the Republican field seems to be playing out.

Ron Paul would be "and now for something completely different", but perhaps too much so. As a small government libertarian... Ron Paul scares even me.

Newt Gingrich... I could care less who he screwed or how many, but he is dripping with inside the beltway filth. He is the ultimate Washington insider.

Rick Perry... I can only say one thing...

READ MY LIPS NO NEW TEXANS

Jon "I seem to be missing an H" Huntsman is somewhat of a wildcard.

Herman Cain: Who with those skeletons in his closet could possibly think running for President was a good idea?

Mitt Romney... LOL, weasel, that's all I can say.

Bachmann, Santorum... thanks for the effort, please come back in eight or twelve years.

Gary Johnson is Ron Paul Lite.

If it were up to me?

I'd run a Johnson-Huntsman ticket.

Gary Johnson was governer of New Mexico the entire time I lived there. Got nothing bad to say about him, and he did do some good.

Cheers!

Anonymous said...

Gingrich was the only legislator who was able to pass legislation that balanced the budget, gave us a surplus, and produced meaningful welfare reform at the same time. His Contract with America was brilliant.

If we'd stuck with Mr. Gingrich, we'd very likely be in much better shape than we are in today.

His Republican colleagues were so glad the D'Rats produced a "scandal" that enabled them to finesse Gingrich it made my head spin at the time.

Newt is a maverick -- my kind of guy. That he has his own best interests at heart -- along with ours -- doesn't faze me in the least. Why should he be a loser in order to stake a claim on virtue?

Mr. Gingrich is SMART. Haven't you had enough of STOOPID, yet?

Compared to Bonnie Fwank and Chris Dodd, Newt Gingrich is a SAINT carved in marble by Michelangelo.

Intellectual theoreticians like Newt Gingrich -- with a proven track record of positive accomplishment in implementing conservative goals during a notably smelly D'Rat administration -- certainly make better leaders than pushy, crafty, slimy, disingenuous, fatuous, immorally self-indulgent, purely self-serving creeps like Fwank and Dodd -- or blatantly moronic blowhards like The Grinster, Joe Biden -- to say nothing of the chilly, mysterious, Black Knight now holding the White House hostage.

Newt Gingrich is the only one who has anything POSITIVE, HEARTENING, ENCOURAGING and INTELLIGENT to say -- and he has the background and maturity that will enable him to fight fire with fire among that collection of arsonists in Washington, DC, better known as The Federal Government.

I say we should all get behind him and push hard -- all the way to the top of the hill, because surely the 2012 election will be an uphill battle every step of the way.

We can't afford to dither or quibble among ourselves any longer. OBAMA MUST BE DEFEATED.

GO, NEWT!!!

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

Lest you think me mindlessly partisan and completely uncritical of Newton Gingrich, I published the following about him in wake of the ginned up scandal that ousted him from the speakership:

Notoriety and fame are not
Equal in the realm of the ideal.
Winning at all costs may serve to rot
The underpinnings from the good and real.
Opening ourselves to crude attacks --
Nettlesome hypocrisy and rant -- when
Gamecocks primed to kill with chosen facts,
Invidious advantages we grant, when
Nobility's ideals we compromise.
Gambling on justifying means
Results too often in a rude surprise --
Inverting our intent -- attaching liens --
Clutching at the profits we devise --
Hiding Good with Scandals' rank disguise.


~ FreeThinke - The Sandpiper - Spring 1997

Ducky's here said...

Finntann, Gingrich could still implode and allow Huntsman to come up in New Hampshire.

Johnson is a nonentity.

Anonymous said...

Of, Ducky, I'm sure the Republican Establishment will find a way to make sure the Newt Gingrich "implodes."

Didn't you know? They don't want "us" to win.

They're on "your" side, but not for the same reasons you are. It's the HIDDEN agenda that counts with them.

How do I know? Why, a little birdie told me several years ago, and I've seen no reason to doubt his testimony since.

I happen not to have been very favorably impressed with Mr. Johnson, myself. One of those feelings you get from superficialities.

HOWEVER, don't you think, since Finntann has had experience with the guy, and obviously likes him, that it would have been better to voice your opinion a little more diplomatically?

Instead of being so combative, why don't you try asking a question like, "Why do you like, Mr. Johnson, Finntann? What are his recommendations?

You know stuff like that, instead of perpetually snapping shut the doors on any possibility of having a fruitful dialogue?

Have yourself a Merry Little Christmas, Ducky!

Sincerely,

~ FreeThinke

Kid said...

Newts a major liberal that the democratic media love as much as romney. Did anyone notice the negative story, courtesy of his lesbian sister, make about 5 minutes of air time today? All you gotta know.

Anonymous said...

Kid, either you are very very young, or you have a very short memory.

Mr. Gingrich is the only legislator who was able -- for a short time only, Alas! -- to stem the rising tide of liberalism, hold spending in check, reform Welfare, and give us both a balanced budget and a surplus.

"Major liberal?"

Perhaps in that case we need to redefine terms.

It's the Republican ESTABLISHMENT who rolls over and plays dead for the devil. The Establishment couldn't wait to get rid of Mr. Gingrich.

Don't you ever wonder why?

~ FreeThinke