Skip to content

Newt Destructa Est!

09 December 2011 @ 10:54

Another episode in TCOTS’s ongoing series that aims to show why Newton Leroy Gingrich must not be allowed to receive the Republican Nomination for President…

ITEM: No, No, It Ain’t Me Babe

Over at Verum Serum, Morgan has done some crackerjack research [tip of the fedora to Stacy McCain]:

I’m a little late with this – it’s been at least a couple of weeks since Bloomberg broke the story that Newt Gingrich received $1.6 million in consulting fees from Freddie Mac over a decade or so. With Gingrich currently rocketing up the polls it’s safe to say he survived the initial controversy over this, but I think questions over this are going to continue to dog his campaign. Gingrich has defended the work he did for Freddie Mac claiming that he was hired only to provide strategic advice as a “historian”, and that he had warned upper management that their lending practices were “insane” in the years leading up to the housing market collapse. But former officials from Freddie Mac described his role quite a bit differently, according to the Bloomberg story….

Please do take the time to click here and read the full report, which exposes Newton as quite the liar in this case.

ITEM: Sad I To Myself Said I!

Over at Classical Values, Eric has done some interesting research too [tip of the fedora to surprise! Stacy McCain]:

Anyway, yesterday I saw a Newt quote that just seemed too fantastic to be true. So I Googled it, and verified that, yes, he actually did say this:

“People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz.”

Are they?

Where was Newt during the last mass slaughter? How about Rwandan Genocide? I don’t remember him doing anything at the time. He was a congressional leader, the Clinton administration was engaged in systematic genocide denial, and if we consider that Gingrich’s doctoral thesis involved Africa (“Belgian education policy in the Congo, 1945-1960“), you’d think this “African expert” might have made more of a stink.

The Narcissism that’s emanating like stink on sh-t from this guy is so strong, you can’t help but laugh at him.

ITEM: Epic Fail Ninja

Quin Hillyer on Newtons’ prowess as ‘The Master Debater’ and his juvenility:

All of those other factors ― TV ads, grassroots organizing, wedge issues, the economy, and especially a candidate’s long-term likeability ― make a much bigger difference in campaigns than do debate performances. Nobody is going to slay Obama face to face: He’s too cool. He may be bested on points, but he won’t show his distress. He may lose at the margins, but nobody ― especially nobody with a history of extravagant and self-defeating utterances, such as Gingrich ― will destroy him in a glorious duel. If he is to be beaten, the defeat will spring from the public’s ultimate wisdom in overcoming an $800 million campaign, not from a manufactured gladiator ring.

The key thing is, can a candidate against Obama, throughout the long course of a campaign, build and carry out the right narrative against him? Experience shows that Newt Gingrich cannot. The truth is that Bob Dole didn’t so much lose the 1996 race to Bill Clinton ― an outcome almost unimaginable even 13 months earlier ― as that Newt Gingrich lost it. From behind the scenes (in terms of public attention ― remember that only a tiny percentage of the public had even heard of Gingrich the day before the 1994 congressional elections) Newt Gingrich could help others in 435 House races frame a narrative against 40 years of Democratic rule; but once he was in charge of things, front and center, all he did was step all over his team’s narrative again and again. Framed by the Gingrich image of Republican meanness, Dole never had a chance.

And then Gingrich did it to Republicans yet again in 1998, so badly that he resigned in embarrassment.

And, as was shown by his recent-year stumbles in dealing with Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Al Sharpton, Scozzafava, ethanol, cap and trade, and the Ryan budget, Gingrich has not matured one bit.

Newt’s main concern is what is best for Newt…and paying Callista’s Tiffany’s bill.

What would you call a debate between Obama and Newton? Answer: An ‘Egogasm’.

ITEM: Let’s Go Crazy, Let’s Get Nuts

Newton Leroy’s former colleagues are speaking up.

From The Washington Times, Seth McLaughlin reporting, we learn:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s political past is starting to haunt him on the campaign trail, where several of his ex-colleagues are saying his surplus of ideas often left political messes that they had to clean up, and that this harmed the conservative cause he championed.

Reps. Peter T. King of New York and Steven C. LaTourette of Ohio, as well as Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and former Sen. Jim Talent of Missouri, are among the Republican lawmakers who worked with Mr. Gingrich and now warn that he lacks the leadership skills and discipline needed to be a reliable president.

“We got some things done, but we also reached the conclusion after four years that we also could not go on with him as our leader and continue accomplishing things,” Mr. Talent said during a conference call with reporters Thursday, which was orchestrated by the campaign of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Mr. Gingrich’s presidential-primary rival.

“You were in a situation where you would get up in the morning, and you would have to check the newspaper, the clippings — that was before the Internet — to see what the speaker had said that day that you were going to have to clean up after in your own district,” Mr. Talent said.

Yeah, Newt’s a great one for spreading the manure around. You get the feeling he throws so much crap against the wall just to see what will stick. You also get the feeling he believes his effluvium don’t stink.

ITEM: I’ll See You On The Dark Side Of The Moon

Mark Steyn [worth quoting nearly in full][tip of the fedora to Pundette, who deconstructs Newtspeak here]]:

…a reader from the Cayman Islands reminded me that I’d said pretty much everything I have to say about Newt in November 1998 — in the London Spectator, upon his resignation as speaker. For those Newtroids who huff that I must be in the tank for Mitt (that’s some tank), November 1998 is 13 years ago, when I’m not sure I’d even heard of Mitt Romney. Anyway, back then, after a brisk trot through his collected Brainstorms-of-the-Week — “The Triangle of American Progress,” “The Four Great Truths,” “The Four Pillars of American Civilization,” “The Five Pillars of the 21st Century,” “The Nine Zones of Creativity,” “The Fourteen Steps to Renewing American Civilization,” The Thirty-Nine Steps to the Five Year Plan of the Six Flags of the Seven Brides for Seven Brothers of the Nine-Inch Nails of Renewing Civilizational Progress for 21st Century America, etc, I concluded:

The Democrats demonised Newt as an extreme right-wing crazy. They were right — apart from the ‘extreme’ and ‘right-wing’, that is. Most of the above seem more like the burblings of a frustrated self-help guru than blueprints for conservative government. For example, Pillar No. 5 of the ‘Five Pillars of American Civilisation’ is: ‘Total quality management’. Unfortunately for Newt, the person who most needed a self-help manual was him — How to Win Friends and Influence People for a start. After last week’s election, Republicans have now embarked on the time-honoured ritual, well known to British Tories and Labour before them, of bickering over whether they did badly because they were too extreme or because they were too moderate. In Newt’s case, the answer is both. He spent the last year pre-emptively surrendering on anything of legislative consequence, but then, feeling bad at having abandoned another two or three of his ‘Fourteen Steps to Renewing American Civilisation’, he’d go on television and snarl at everybody in sight. . . . For Republicans it was the worst of all worlds: a lily-livered ninny whom everyone thinks is a ferocious right-wing bastard.

That’s how it would go this time round. We’d wind up with a cross between Teddy Roosevelt and Alvin Tofler who canoodled on the sofa with Nancy Pelosi demanding Big Government climate-change conventional-wisdom punitive liberalism just as the rest of the planet was finally getting off the bandwagon . . . but the media would still insist on dusting off their 1994 “The Gingrich Who Stole Christmas” graphics.

ITEM: Mr. Saturday Nigh Special

The final word goes to Jeff Goldstein who, while looking at Newton’s sorry record on supporting the Second Amendment, offers this brilliant observation on Newt in action:

Gingrich, like Romney, appears to favor government solutions when he believes the popular will supports them — and oftentimes the “pragmatic” solutions that result weaken conservatism itself by restricting freedoms and expanding both the scope (ethanol subsidies, cap and trade) and power of government itself.

ITEM Enough For Now, But They’ll Be Plenty More Ahead

14 Comments
  1. Adobe Walls permalink
    09 December 2011 @ 11:08 11:08

    So Romney it is then.

  2. Tennwriter permalink
    09 December 2011 @ 11:47 11:47

    I like this, except for your point about Dole. Dole dug his own grave.

  3. 09 December 2011 @ 12:15 12:15

    Let’s just make sure everybody shows up in the general even if your guy isn’t the nominee. None of these candidates is remotely the danger to the republic BHO is.

    d(^_^)b
    http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
    “Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”

    • Adobe Walls permalink
      09 December 2011 @ 14:07 14:07

      The problem is, Romney isn’t that much less a danger and many have decided Newt is equally unacceptable. The problem is it’s one of those two, period. Given that we’ll have to hammer either every day for four or eight years default goes to the more radical. If Newt gets the nomination I’ll vote for him with some trepidation but if I have to vote for Romney to get Obama out of office, I’ll never forgive the GOP or Romney for that matter. If I have to vote for the Squish it will be the last vote I ever cast for a Republican in any race at any level.

    • 10 December 2011 @ 22:40 22:40

      “None of these candidates is remotely the danger to the republic BHO is.”

      I sure hope you understand the folly in those words, my friend. Because that statement is demonstrably false. When the two front runners on the R ticket are both Progressives, then an Obama — Newt/Romney choice is still a choice between Lucifer or Satan: one may take you on the scenic route while the other puts you on the express elevator, but either way, the destination is the same place.

  4. 09 December 2011 @ 14:44 14:44

    No, ‘Dobe, it isn’t one or the other, and if it is, screw it, I’m going to concentrate on the downticket and maximizing a House and Senate that can hold Obama off for another for years once the GOP demonstrates it’s still fishing for candidates in the La Brea Tar Pits….

    • Adobe Walls permalink
      09 December 2011 @ 16:24 16:24

      Good luck and God Speed (sincerely).

    • 10 December 2011 @ 22:42 22:42

      As I posted on your blog, Reagan, I hope you’re right and I’m wrong (but I know enough to know I’m not – and yes, I know how that sounds. It still doesn’t make it untrue). 😦

  5. 10 December 2011 @ 22:37 22:37

    From the RNL:

    I concur: voting for a Progressive will give you a Progressive, and Newt is a Progressive. But so is Romney. And the notion that “anyone” but Obama is the solution will just put the frogs back to sleep and the pot back on slow boil – only this time the water is just about to roll. Meaning: put a Progressive Republican in office and they will seal the deal that started with Teddy R and Wilson.

    I have had this fight with Utah on the RNL, and I suspect I may take some arrows here, but I have to keep asking everyone I meet: you do know the operational definition of insanity, don’t you? Bang your head on the wall of the lesser evil once again and just keep telling me that THIS TIME, it won’t give you a headache and you won’t get bloody. As for me, I aint buyin’ it anymore: I’m not crazy.

    Nice job slaying the Newt monster. Now turn your gaze on Romney for us and explain to the folks why the guy who COULDN’T be the man just 3 years ago is suddenly the ONLY man who can beat Obama. 😉

    • Adobe Walls permalink
      11 December 2011 @ 15:01 15:01

      It’s Newt or Romney vs Obama pick your poison or refuse to participate, as ugly as it is those are our choices.

      • 11 December 2011 @ 15:37 15:37

        Oh, I understand you believe that, but I also understand that – with those choices – you likely get Obama again because I am not alone in my understanding. Too many have woke up to the game. We’ve been kept on the Republican reservation through this sort of argument every bit as much as our friends on the left have been kept on the Democrat Party reservation through fear tactics of a different kind (centered around entitlement cuts, usually).

        Look, if we are going to be so focused on Party-politics that we lose sight of what should be our true goal – the preservation of INDIVIDUAL rights and liberty – then we’re done, because the Republican Party LEADERSHIP is NO BETTER than that of the Democrat Party. Hence, you are asking America to chose between Satan and Lucifer, only you are trying to convince us that Lucifer is more evil than Satan, so Satan is our only hope. Sorry, my friend, it’s like I said before: either way, we’re heading in the same direction.

Trackbacks

  1. Visit our friends… « The Rio Norte Line
  2. Hey, Mitt Romney: Bet Me $10,000 I Won’t Post This Vintage Pinup Girl : The Other McCain

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: