Why Gingrich is Not for Me

November 18th, 2011 at 12:01 am | 64 Comments |

| Print

It was November 1994. I was in Greece at the Temple of Delphi. As I walked the grounds of the ancient pagan oracle I saw a news kiosk. Approaching it, I spied the International Herald Tribune. Across its pages was the monumental news that after 50 years the Republicans had taken the House!

I vaulted into the air with a yell. Finding no drachmas on me (in that pre-Euro age) I cajoled my liberal democratic friend to give me the means to buy the paper. He hesitated. “Well, ok if we abide by a 24 hour gloat period and that’s it.”

I then eagerly read the news and the triumphant march of the former back bencher who had made life hell for the go-along-get-along-sing-along Bob Michaels, and Speakers O’Neal and Wright. Only the advent of Reagan and a Republican Senate in 1980 could have matched that. Taking the House, until then the Impenetrable Fortress Democrat, was in many ways a greater achievement.

That moment would not have happened absent Newt Gingrich. He was its instigator, General and true believer. The House fulfilled its promises and voted on all the items in the Contract with America. I obtained a “Friend of Newt Card”, common among young conservatives in Washington. So shell-shocked were the Democrats that a rattled President Clinton had to explain that the “President was still relevant.”

From that Republican take over came the boom years and balanced budgets of the Clinton Presidency. The last budget of the Democratic House posited “deficits as far as the eye could see.” By 1998 it was in virtual balance. Welfare reform-which had to be passed three times by Gingrich and the Republicans before a Dick Morris influenced Clinton to sign it is with us. It is perhaps the greatest conservative reform in 30 years. And that is Newt’s too.

But then there was the rest. Newt always talked apocalyptically. Jennifer Rubin notes Andy Ferguson’s review of Newt’s books and Lord help me if its not always 1860. Moreover, the pollster Frank Luntz did some work shaping the Contract with America and had taught Newt some words that worked well. He has never dropped them. “Extraordinary.” “Frankly” “Transformative.” Even now they pepper the debates and delineate the inimitable Newt style.

He allowed Clinton to blame the Government “shutdown” on Republicans and did not effectively counter that he was passing budgets and the President was vetoing them. He refused to understand that the Speaker of the House is not the Chief Executive and can not command the bully pulpit quite as well. He also seemed to want Clinton to like and respect him. During the shutdown he allowed a dispute on where he sat on a plane to become an issue.

His subalterns, including John Boehner, and the estimable Vin Weber could never know exactly what Newt was up to or what he had promised. Then came impeachment. I do not believe that the impeachment “was about sex” as the liberals love to say. President Clinton was the Chief Magistrate. He was a defendant in a legal case strengthened by a law he had signed. The oath matters or it does not matter. We can not be a nation of laws if the Chief Magistrate can lie under oath to defend his pocket book. The Judge in that case, a Democrat who Clinton had taught at law school, sanctioned him. He is disbarred to this very day. Clinton is the only man of whom it can be said he lacked the honesty and good character to be a lawyer but had enough to be President.

Be that as it may, public perception is public perception. That Gingrich had a wandering eye I knew from direct observation. Moreover, his present wife went to school with the crowd I ran with and the gossip from that small school meant we knew more than was in the papers. The story that he sprung divorce on a surprised and dying cancer stricken wife has been denounced as bunk by his children (and that wife is still alive). But conservatives particularly do not admire incontinence in personal life.

Then there are the wild gyrations of policy. I went to a conference once where the then Republican Arianna Huffington and Newt Gingrich appeared. It was all futurist twaddle that at minimum is in tension with conservatism. Early on he posited heating up farms with mirrors to increase crop yield but then switched to a belief in man made global warming. And yet… he still speaks and fights like no living Republican. I would watch Newt Gingrich talk about positronic farming before I would listen to virtually any other Republican candidate talk about anything.

But it’s not enough. George W. Bush has a famous story of how he stopped drinking and was a changed man after forty. That gave some confidence in him they had not had previously. He demonstrably lived his life differently. Newt converted to Catholicism but it does not seem like it has changed him. The bill at Tiffany is more Imelda Marcos than Mother Theresa. He seems like the same, eloquent, flawed visionary he was when I carried his card in my pocket.

I was for Pawlenty because this election has to be about Obama and his policies. If Newt is the nominee, it wont’ be. So I am still without a candidate.

Recent Posts by John Vecchione



64 Comments so far ↓

  • TJ Parker

    Oh, you forgot something: Knut Gingrich is a scoundrel. The only speaker of the House ever sanctioned for ethics violations, forced to resign because of the unpopular and sad spectacle of the impeachment, and in his personal life, a cad and hypocrite.

    • Bohemian_Idol_Smasher

      Everything you write above is correct, or at least largely reflective of the truth, but it should be pointed out, in fairness to Lord Gingrich, that had Jim Wright not resigned before an ethics investigation into Gingrich’s allegations against him, he probably would’ve been sanctioned. Wright’s alleged violations were almost identical to Gingrich’s.

      (Good Christ! Is there a more contemptible hypocrite than Newt Gingrich!?!?!?! Writing the paragraph above nearly gave me a cerebral thrombosis. Simply way too much paradox for one small post. My head seriously hurts from writing this stuff.)

      • ottovbvs

        “Wright’s alleged violations were almost identical to Gingrich’s.”

        I may be remembering wrong but I don’t think so. As best I recall they were fairly trivial by comparison with Newt’s transgressions and revolved around some book deal he’d made. One of the reasons for the intense animosity to Gingrich by Democrats at the time was a perception he’d hounded Wright over small potatoes stuff that had been standard operating practice on both sides for years.

  • Graychin

    Is JV incapable of intellectual honesty? It seems so. He is so tribal that he leaps into the air in a magnificent place at the news that his tribe won an election.

    Pawlenty is bland enough to have served as that “generic Republican” who polls so well. Too bad that Republican primary voters don’t much like Generic Republicans.

    You should feel fortunate that your ultimate candidate will draw attention away from “Obama and his policies.” Why? Have you left your bubble and read a poll recently? Obama’s policies are quite popular.

  • Ray_Harwick

    So, the Obama-says-we’re-lazy explosion didn’t endear you to Mittens?

    See, what Obama *actually* said was pretty much exactly what T-Paw would say about how state and federal government (not American business) had been a little lazy with finding ways to attract new foreign investment. How *conservative* of Obama! Sounds like a sound bit stolen from Ronald Reagan, Karl Rove and Grover Norquist along with the entire starting lineup of Fox News.

    There’s your candidate. He’s already sitting the Whitehouse.

    • Kevin B

      Finding ways to attract foreign investment is socialist.

    • Ray_Harwick

      “…his present wife went to school with the crowd I ran with and the gossip…”

      …prior to the revelation that Gingrich wasn’t merely $1 million in he addiction for selling influence, but $37 Million, well the gossip on that hit you pretty hard but gave you just enough time to slip onto Frum to file your “Newt Disclaimer” before that darned MSM did. Understandable. You wanted be on record for dumping Newt, even if mere hours before the Newtron Bombshell blew up on your face.

      I think this is going to cost you some skin with your oddly linked school buddies. When you come sniffing around for more insider information, don’t be surprised at how the cold weather has set in. You probably has all the charm of Deepthroat with them today. Your insider trading probably isn’t going to be as lucrative any more.

  • zephae

    “The bill at Tiffany is more Imelda Marcos than Mother Theresa.”

    Of course not. If it were Mother Theresa it would include money stolen from the poor and retirees.

    • Bohemian_Idol_Smasher

      Too true, although you forgot to mention that if Gingrich’s grafting were done in the spirit of Mother Theresa it would also include generous infusions of cash from Papa Doc Duvalier and his equally appalling son.

  • Bohemian_Idol_Smasher

    Amid all this sound and fury concerning the supposed resurrection of Newt Gingrich, has anyone noticed that (1) Ron Paul has nearly doubled his poll numbers in Iowa, and that (2) Jon Hunstman has nearly quadrupled his in New Hampshire?

    Why, oh why can’t MSM DC-insiders ever do any reporting that transcends the superficial and the obvious? Are they simply too lazy and stupid to do the research necessary to scoop the more interesting and seemingly obscure stories? (Research which, in this case, merely requires them to read a couple of public polls. Heavy lifting, no?) If so, pity for them, because in American politics the obscure– in this case the presidential candidacies of Paul and Hunstman– have a tendency to explode abruptly into the foreground, and the bloggers who harken such developments– while their MSM counterparts doze and dither– come off looking like polished and seasoned professionals, in contrast to the latter, who simply look like a bunch of amateurs, and even morons.

    • Fart Carbuncle

      Interesting. The MSM is hell bent on saving their progressive Messiah and are trying to preempt the (hopefully) inevitable.

      • sweatyb

        I do not think that word means what you think it means.

        inevitable (n): that which is unavoidable

        http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inevitable

      • more5600

        I am a progressive liberal and have never heard anyone but right wing talk show listeners refer to the President as a messiah, and the left would never mistake Obama for a progressive.
        He is actually a pragmatic centrist, no objective observer could say otherwise.

        • baw1064

          I’m not a progressive liberal, and I agree that you are 100% right in characterizing Obama. After reading his posts for a while, I’d say that FC is indeed a right wing talk show listener.

    • Solo4114

      Well, you’ve got to look at the media for the beast it is — it needs food, and it needs it constantly. Newt provides the kind of candy-coated morsel that just BEGS you to click on the headline (hey, look, we’re all here in this thread, right?), buy that paper, etc. Either to support him and hope he wins, or to watch gleefully as he flames out and crashes to earth. That’s also why there was such a flirtation with the Trump “candidacy” early on. EVERYONE knew he was a clown, and anyone with a modicum of political savvy knew he’d never take the nomination, let alone the White House. He’s a reality TV personality.

      But at least until the primaries actually start, that’s what we’ve got to entertain us — reality TV personalities. The media will focus on the loudest, flashiest, noisiest figure it can, and will elevate it for….eh…two weeks or so, give or take. That’s about the length of a news cycle, right? If new developments happen, you get another 3-days to 1-week.

      The news media is also focused on national polls, so while a candidate may be doing well locally — even in an important locale like Iowa or New Hampshire — they’ve got to show real movement in national polls before the media will start touting them. incidentally, I’ve seen media coverage of Paul’s surge, and Huntsman is STARTING to crack headlines, but isn’t quite there yet.

      Lastly, it could be that Paul and Huntsman represent “dark horse” candidates who must be kept as dark horse candidates until they really surge ahead in a meaningful way (topping a poll is nice — winning a primary is what counts, though). The media may be saving them as “come from behind” candidates, which represents a compelling story. But that’ll only work if they actually are coming from behind, so…there they stay.

      What gets me is how transparent the process is. Bachman sputters, so enter Perry. Perry sputters, so let’s boost Cain — he’ll be good for ratings, right? Cain fizzles (as we all knew he would), so…um….Newt? Eh, why not. He had no campaign staff, a list of negatives a mile long, and zero chance at ever becoming president but….what the hell? We can’t just report “Romney still in the lead…film at 11″ for the next 9 months….

      • Bingham

        “What gets me is how transparent the process is.….what the hell? We can’t just report “Romney still in the lead…film at 11″ for the next 9 months….”

        Brilliant, mate.

  • Watusie

    900 words to tiptoe around the simple concept that Gingrich is a really, really crap candidate.

    • Fart Carbuncle

      As was Obama but the MSM got on his side early.

      • Watusie

        You know, I just laugh every time you write that the media made Obama president. Have you forgotten that his opponent was visibly terrified by the financial crisis swirling around him, and he was also very old and had picked a shallow lying nitwit as his running mate?

        • Fart Carbuncle

          Old, yes. Crotchety like Dole in 1996? Yes. Could there have been a better alternative? Yes. But, we had had to choose from what we had.

          And here’s what Politico said about the pro-Obama media bias:

          “…Media bias was more intense in the 2008 election than in any other national campaign in recent history, Time magazine’s Mark Halperin said Friday at the Politico/USC conference on the 2008 election.

          “It’s the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war,” Halperin said at a panel of media analysts. “It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage.”

          Halperin, who maintains Time’s political site “The Page,” cited two New York Times articles as examples of the divergent coverage of the two candidates.

          “The example that I use, at the end of the campaign, was the two profiles that The New York Times ran of the potential first ladies,” Halperin said. “The story about Cindy McCain was vicious. It looked for every negative thing they could find about her and it case her in an extraordinarily negative light. It didn’t talk about her work, for instance, as a mother for her children, and they cherry-picked every negative thing that’s ever been written about her.”

          The story about Michelle Obama, by contrast, was “like a front-page endorsement of what a great person Michelle Obama is,” according to Halperin.

          The former ABC News political director acknowledged that some of the press coverage was simply reflecting the reality of Obama’s presidential campaign.

          “You do have to take into account the fact that this was a remarkable candidacy,” Halperin said. “There were a lot of good stories. He was new.”

          New York magazine’s John Heilemann, one of Halperin’s co-panelists, offered another reason for all the positive press coverage Obama received.

          “The biggest bias in the press is towards effectiveness,” said Heilemann, who is authoring a book on the 2008 race along with Halperin.

          “We love things that are smart.”

          Because Obama’s campaign was generally so well run, he argued, the press tended to applaud even his negative tactics.

          “We’ll scold you for being negative,” Heilemann said, “but if it seems to be working, the tone of your coverage becomes more positive.”

          Another of Halperin’s fellow participants, Los Angeles Times writer Mark Barabak, disagreed more strongly with the Time writer’s comments. Still, Halperin’s general point met with little resistance

          “I think it’s incumbent upon people in our business to make sure that we’re being fair,” he said. “The daily output was the most disparate of any campaign I’ve ever covered, by far.”"

        • Watusie

          Do you usually accept the opinion of Mark Halperin as the gospel truth when his only evidence is two articles in the NYT? No, I didn’t think so.

          “But, we had had to choose from what we had.”
          Yes, just like the voters. So please stop saying the media made Obama president. Because the voters made Obama president, because the thought of President McCain was awful and President Palin even worse.

        • sweatyb

          “I think it’s incumbent upon people in our business to make sure that we’re being fair”

          This statement embodies all that is is wrong with today’s news media.

          The news media’s job is not to be “fair” or “balanced” or “neutral”. Their job is to find out what’s happening and report on it. The “truth” is what you’re after. But the MSM, following the Fox News example, is obsessed with “balance” which just promotes craziness.

          Obama got good press because he was/is terrific on the campaign trail and his campaign was the most professional we’ve seen in a generation. McCain got bad press because he was a terrible candidate and his campaign was completely dysfunctional (e.g. the Palin staffers sniped at McCain and vice-verse).

        • Ray_Harwick

          That’s the big bumper sticker on Fart/Fairy/snarg’s car. The MSM did it.

      • LFC

        And of course no MSM source played one video snippet of Obama’s pastor over and over and over and over again while studiously ignoring that McCain sought out the endorsement of a pastor who called the entire Catholic religion “The Great Whore”. Yeah, they sure were all in the bag for Obama … not.

  • armstp

    I am not sure why Gingrich garders any support from anyone.

    1) he has no ideas that make any sense.
    2) he lies constantly about everything.
    3) he is just a lobbyist, that has spent the majority of his public life just enriching himself; Gingrich Inc.
    4) he has no moral compass, which you can see in both his public and private life.

    What exactly is there to like about Gingrich? Anyone?

    • Watusie

      He is happy to throw red meat to the base by slinging not-to-subtly-coded racial insults at our president. I believe that is his primary appeal. There is also this fantasy that he’s the one clown in the car who will be able to go toe-to-toe with Obama in debates, but I really don’t get where that idea comes from. My primary recollection of all his debate performances thus far is (a) his big fat belly bumps into the podium; and (b) he’s more interested in hectoring the person asking the questions than he is in answering those questions. Whining about the media – no matter how forcefully it is done – is not a winning campaign message.

      • armstp

        Those are hardly reasons to like this guy and vote for him for President.

        In my mind Gingrich represents all the absolute worse characteristics found in politicians.

        • jorae

          I have to agree. Nothing tells me more about the ‘indifference’ of Newt, than his speeh that the Constitution did not promise ‘happness’…and so, the citizens, should not expect this from any law or regulations. Seems that “no happness” only applies to the people living from paycheck to paycheck…about 75% of the nation.

          But his 3rd wife and Tiffany’s are certainly happy. That ‘indifference’ is the mark of all republicans.

    • HighCountry

      Well, for starters, a lot of Repub’s think he’s brilliant because he sometimes uses words that have more than two syllables.

    • Drosz

      He hasn’t killed anyone…

      • armstp

        Are you sure that is a positive for some in the GOP..?

        • Drosz

          Hmmm…maybe you’re right. How about this: he hasn’t killed anyone, but he would like to. It ends in a preposition, but that might actually be more endearing!

    • LFC

      He hasn’t had a single sex scandal come up that involves men, children, or payment for sex. That practically makes him a moral icon in today’s GOP.

  • ottovbvs

    Whatever Vecchione says now (and it’s the usual melange of anti Democrat smears and pro Republican rationalisations) we can be absolutely sure that in the past he’s been a solid supporter of Gingrich. Now Gingrich looks as if he’s emerging as the Not Romney choice Vecchione along with the rest of the in beltway Republican crowd is starting to get nervous. Understandably so since the bulk of the GOP are so obviously antipathetic to Romney and might just go for the wild man with disastrous consequences in the general. I wish Newt well since if he is the nominee he will at least have the virtue of representing the basic mindset of the Republican party.

    • Demosthenes

      RedState really, really, really wants Perry. Their sense is that a brokered convention yields Romney, but a series of primary wins by Newt or Perry yields their candidate the nomination. There are even questions of a Gingrich-Perry (or Perry-Gingrich) ticket. Mitt must be sweating bullets under that perfect hair.

      • Watusie

        Have you seen this?

        The Republicans of Iowa seem to be as insane as the RedStaters, just in a different direction.

        How embarrassing is this for Mitt?

        • dante

          Whoa, when was this poll taken? Because if that holds true, I could *easily* see a Ron Paul nomination………

          If polls hold true, it would be Cain #1, Ron Paul #2 in Iowa with Mitt a distant 3rd. The media will be talking about how unexpectedly well Paul is doing before the NH contest. Well, everyone expects Mitt to do well since his state borders it and he’s spent more time there than anyone, but look, a surprise showing of Ron Paul as #2 again (the “better than expected” story). The question is whether he’d be able to take the momentum into SC, where’s he’s only polling 3% right now….

          Interesting storyline, anyway.

        • Watusie

          It was released yesterday; the poll was conducted between Nov 1 -13.
          http://www.news.iastate.edu/news/2011/nov/ISUpoll

          Reminder: Politico broke the story about the sexual harassment settlements on October 31.

        • medinnus

          These polls pain me, as a Huntsman supporter…

          *listens to everyone chorus “Who?”*

        • Probabilistic

          Funny, how for every other candidate except Huntsman, the poll could establish a precision of one digit after the decimal. For Huntsman it’s noted as 0.00%. Not even 1 person out of 1256 voted for him. (1/1256) * 100 ~= 0.08%. Says a lot about the party. (I have no reason to believe sampling was biased just to eliminate Huntsman supporters.)

          This is what happens when one “believes” in the science of evolution and global climate change. Mr. Huntsman, sir, you are “crazy” in their alternate universe.

        • Drosz

          Iowa has always been strange like that for the GOP. Don’t some candidates even skip the caucuses and still get the nomination? McCain basically skipped it and went on to win the nomination.

    • indy

      Whatever Vecchione says now…he will support Newt when Newt becomes the nominee.

      • ottovbvs

        Correct. And the Newtster has an outside shot basically because of the collapse of Perry and Cain.

        “The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Iowa Republican caucus-goers shows Gingrich with 32% followed by former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney at 19%. Georgia businessman Herman Cain, who led in Iowa last month, drops to third with 13% of the vote. Texas Congressman Ron Paul draws 10% of the vote in Iowa, while Texas Governor Rick Perry and Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann each grab six percent (6%).”

        • indy

          Still think Romney will be the nominee. Never really thought he would win Iowa regardless. The fact that the ‘not Romney’ crowd so quickly flocked to the ethically challenged Gingrich in spite of clearly disliking him really highlights the depth of the Romney enthusiasm issue. I always thought it was big but now I think it is huge.

        • ottovbvs

          “Still think Romney will be the nominee.”

          Very probably that’s why I said Newt was a longshot. The Romney enthusiasm gap is amazing. I really can’t remember a previous Republican nominee who was struggling to break 25% at this stage in the campaign. One blog in poll of polls has him at 20%. The fact that a slimeball like Newt is even a longshot says it all. And as someone said the other day “In politics the inconceivable has a way of rapidly becoming the inevitable.” If Romney wins out most of them will vote for him but it’s a potential huge albatross for him with the base since Romney is going to have to tack back to the center in the general and this is going to create mayhem on the right.

    • dmnolan

      I think you’ve put your finger on it: Gingrich is “the bulk of the GOP.”

  • icarusr

    “go-along-get-along-sing-along Bob Michaels”

    I think it was Robert Michel; and it’s Tip O’Neill. (The correct spelling comes up as you type – so literally 1.5 seconds on Bing.) Can’t take anything this clown says seriously.

  • anniemargret

    This is easy. 1) He is a verifiable Liar.
    2) He is morally corrupt and corruptible.
    3) He has about the same emotional appeal of a slimy salamander, a ‘newt.’
    4) He speaks in tongues.

  • think4yourself

    @ JV “From that Republican take over came the boom years and balanced budgets of the Clinton Presidency”

    Nice revisionist history. In fact both Clinton (a true deficit hawk) and the GOP had some claim to a balanced budget. Equally a boom economy generated by huge technology and productivity leaps were responsible (something Gingrich, Clinton and Gore were happy to take credit for – none of whom should). As far as welfare reform, both Clinton and the GOP (led by Newt) get credit – although we have some continuing problems from that legislation.

    • LFC

      Let’s not forget that Newt and the GOP fought (unanimously?) the Dem tax increases and then were calling for massive tax cuts during the rest of the Clinton years. If they had gotten their way, we would have seen massive perpetual deficits … just like we saw when they DID get their way under GW. Any loud champion of the single largest budget busting policy, like Newt, gets zero credit for the balanced budget since it’s obvious that this was never really their goal in the first place.

      The Republicans won when it came to getting their economic policies enacted. Glass-Steagall was repealed. Derivatives couldn’t be regulated. Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act is named after 3 Republicans. Failure to veto that abomination was Clinton’s biggest mistake in office. Under Bush massive tax cuts were passed that favored the wealthiest. Regulatory agencies like the SEC, OTS, and OCC stopped regulating and investigating. Yep, when it comes to economic policy, the Republicans won. Unfortunately America lost.

  • hisgirlfriday

    This piece has been up 12 hours and the Bob Michaels (BOB MICHEL!!!!) reference still isn’t fixed?

    There’s a reason that Michel was a “go-along-get-along-sing-along” politician. He had seen REAL WAR and realized that his fellow Americans, even of different political orientations, were not the enemy and so he never treated them as such the way the GOP chicken hawks that came of age during the Vietnam War like Newt did.

    “When the Second World War broke out, he joined the United States Army and served with the 39th Infantry regiment as an infantryman in England, France, Belgium, and Germany from February 10, 1943, to January 26, 1946. He was wounded by machine gun fire and awarded two Bronze Stars, the Purple Heart, and four battle stars.”

    Yet Michel deserves conservative scorn while Gingrich is praised (even if he’s still not quite good enough to be the nominee for Vecchione)?

  • redpetunia

    There is a huge story behind the Primary that is just not getting told. Why won’t anyone touch this:

    http://apcheck.blogspot.com/2011/10/hotaircoms-co-owned-sites-urge.html

    That is just a place to start.

    The whole “not Romney” campaign is being coordinated by Salem Communications, an anti-Mormon communications outfit.

    But they are so powerful in Republican politics that no one will report it or even touch it!

    Someone must expose this group before it is too late to save our country!

    Who is giving the orders? All the big radio voices are serving this master! It has ties to Fox and to most of the right side of the Internet. It is a cancer on free elections.

    Forget the Koch Brothers! Salem Communications is the real George Soros on the right.

    Some one must know a reporter that is brave enough to go after this people who are hiding in the darkest corners of the right media, manipulating people with lies. It is doubtful most right wingers even realize who they are or where the Mitt hate is coming from!

    Please help.

    • ottovbvs

      It’s not exactly news that evangelical christians regard mormonism as a rather strange non christian religious cult. For once they are right.

  • Nanotek

    he fed from Freddie Mac’s trough for nearly $2 million …

  • grimbleGrumble

    This article is full of misleading information, beginning with the title. It seems JV is still swooning for Newt, a laughably incompetent, ill-humored trainwreck of a “candidate.”

  • Kenneth Silber

    Positronic farming?

  • ottovbvs

    Apparently the Newster is level with Romney in his stronghold of NH.

    http://nhjournal.com/2011/11/18/poll-romney-gingrich-in-statistical-dead-heat-in-n-h/

    No one expects him to win but a respectable second would give him some mojo

  • TerryF98

    $30,000 an hour!! Nice work if you can get it.

    “Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich is stepping up his defense of his lucrative consulting career, in part by arguing that he didn’t do very much to earn all that money.
    In an interview late Thursday on Fox News, Gingrich said that he only worked about an hour a month giving advice to Freddie Mac, the quasi-public mortage company that paid him up to $1.8 million in fees.

    Given previous reports on the size of the payments, that would suggest that Gingrich earned up to $30,000 an hour giving Freddie Mac strategic advice.

    “I think less than maybe once a month, they would drop by,” Gingrich said. “We’d spend an hour. It would always start with me listening. I’d always say, ‘What are you trying to solve? What are your concerns? What are you trying to get done?’ And I’ve done this with many, many clients.”

  • Himajin

    Dear Mr. Vecchione,

    I just don’t understand why you needed so many words to come to this conclusion. I would have thought a line or two would have sufficed saving everyone the trouble of going through several paragraphs.

  • baw1064

    Mr. Vecchione,

    I do think this election is about Obama and his policies. That’s why I plan to vote for his re-election. FYI, in the four elections preceeding 2008, I voted for Perot, Dole, GWB, and whoever the Libertarian candidate was in 2004 (the 1992 and 2004 votes were protests because I didn’t find either party’s nominee acceptable). I now consider myself a Democrat, because your party’s base has gone completely insane.

    If you must pick a candidate from Team Red, Huntsman seems like a pretty decent guy (Obama thought so too!). Romney seemed like a decent guy before he started pandering to the completely insane party base–he might turn out to still be one once elected, but his policy gymnastics are pretty disconcerting. The only other one who might be up to the job is Santorum (way too socially conservative for my taste, but I think at least has an idea of what the job entails and wouldn’t utterly destroy the country).

    You’d have to be crazy to seriously want any of the others to be President.

    Your choice.

  • ottovbvs

    One thought that occurs to me is that if the Newtster is so smart how come he can’t tell the difference between $300,000 and $1.6 million…doesn’t exactly support his claims to economic expertise…does it?

    “Romney seemed like a decent guy before he started pandering to the completely insane party base”

    Romney’s main selling point as a candidate to some Republicans is that he doesn’t actually believe most of his political platform. Frum who is one of his supporters actually said as much a couple of weeks back.

    • redpetunia

      At least Romney didn’t pander to the group that forced all the others to sign a pledge saying Blacks were better off under slavery than today…. That’s the group in Iowa this week. Mitt won’t touch that group with a ten foot pole… Mitt let the others pander to them. Hopefully, that gets a few thinking people to notice that Mitt is the real deal.

      Mitt can fix this country. He can stand up to the haters on both sides.

  • The Strange Hit on Newt | The Pink Flamingo

    [...] they fear.  Evidently the left wants Mitt Romney to be the nominee.  Why?  Then there is the right leaning punditry who is in the tank for Mitt.  [...]