I think it’s pretty clear–barring some spectacular twist of fate–that Newt Gingrich is not going to be the Republican nominee. However I’ll admit that his shameless pandering and deluded sense of self-importance–both at epic levels even for an American politician–have made him a fascinating villain to watch in this otherwise sad little saga. So as a service to the future Shakespeare who will find him a perfect subject for a withering tragedy–one which might rival Richard III–I thought it would be worthwhile to document his inexorable, kicking-and-screaming slouch to oblivion in a single thread.
My thought is that posters can simply document Mr. Gingrich’s own words and actions, with no commentary beyond a little context or noting a stark contrast with his previous statements or with core Republican/conservative principles.
Gingrich’s February 4th speech on the night of his loss in the Nevada caucus is perhaps a late place to start, but we gotta start somewhere. Here he’s talking about Mitt Romney’s performance at the Florida debates:
[QUOTE=Newt Gingrich]
I’ve never had a person stand next to me in a civil engagement and be as substantially dishonest as he was… I didn’t have any good mechanisms to turn to somebody who was being blatantly dishonest to the entire country as a candidate for president! If you can’t tell the truth as a candidate for president… how can the country possibly expect you to lead as president? And I frankly was stunned. I make no bones about it. In the second Florida debate, I had nothing to say, because I had never before seen a person I regarded as a serious candidate for president be that fundamentally dishonest. And it was blatant. And it was deliberate. And he knew he was doing it.
…It hadn’t occurred to me that you would have the level of ruthlessness and the level of dishonesty you saw last week.
[/quote]
Reading that excerpt in the OP makes me want to say “cite”; not to CJJ*, but to Gingrich. Okay, Newt, you’ve had some time now to prepare a response to Romney’s lies. What did he lie about, what’s the truth, and where are you getting your information? I see no reason to accept Gingrich’s assertions over Romney’s without something to back them up.
That sentiment could be extended to everything Gingrich says. Do we know if he really thinks he’s as self-important as the OP claims? It’s hard to tell what’s true, what he believes to be true, and what is said just to prompt some favorable reaction. When McCain lost the general election in 2008, Romney (as runner-up) seemed to inherit the front-runner spot for 2012. Gingrich might be hoping Romney loses to Obama; and he’s dialing his rhetoric up to eleven in the hope that in four years people will remember his name but not exactly what he said.
Nah. If you feel that badly about your prospects, you don’t let your campaign go down in flames. You quit early or stay out of the race. If Gingrich were running 2016, we’d hear all the same stuff we’re hearing now - but earlier in the race, and with an added dose of “are you kidding, he couldn’t beat Romney and he’s too old.” He’ll be 73 on election day 2016. Romney is the frontrunner this year because he really bombed in 2012 (like several other candidates), but had the time, money, and connections to learn from his mistakes. He has been running for president since January 2007 (and he was surely getting ready before that), only taking a break - I assume - between February and November 2008. I don’t think Gingrich is going to have the backing or the stomach for that kind of thing.
Newt wasn’t running for President, he was running for the spotlight, like a cat chasing a laser pointer. Then the impossible happened, and suddenly he was a “serious contender”. If he had done the “ground work”, like Romney, spent his time and money getting an organization of massive scale in place, he might, just maybe, have had an opportunity for spectacular failure.
But then he probably would have said something totally batshit, like colonies on the Moon. What? He did!? No shit?
Not necessarily. He could spin this in four years as “I’m dedicated and fought to the bitter end in 2012. But Romney was the nominee and lost. I told you so. I would have won that election. Pick me now.”
Or maybe 'luci’s right and he was never serious about this campaign. Or maybe he’s trying to sell books. Or angling for a cabinet post. Who the hell knows? It just doesn’t seem like the old rules of campaigning apply anymore. (Or maybe they never applied (How many times was Richard Nixon washed up in politics?) and I’m just now figuring it out.)
He could do all kinds of things. The odds of a significant number of voters buying it are near zero. He’s losing right now in large part because of his long and checkered career, and that’s not going to go away. I agree that Gingrich didn’t start taking this seriously until relatively recently, much like Cain didn’t, and for a while he was able to capitalize on conservative indifference to Romney because he’s great at attacking people. But his history isn’t going to change and he’ll be 72 at this point in the next electoral cycle.
In the 2008 campaign Romney quit on February 7, and people are saying that his finish that year made him the frontrunner this time out. He realized he hadn’t managed the campaign well, had wasted a bunch of money, and wasn’t going to win. I don’t know who is going to run in 2016 if Romney loses, but I doubt the field is going to be this bad. If there were some better candidates out there, guys like Gingrich and Cain wouldn’t have gotten a real look in the first place.
Compare Gingrich now to Sarah Palin in 2008. She fought the good fight[sup]1[/sup] right up until election day. Then quit as governor of Alaska. And still there was a vocal movement[sup]2[/sup] calling for her to run this time. There’s no guarantee that such a movement would stay together, but successful campaigns have started with less.
I’m really starting to believe that old saying that there’s no such thing as bad publicity. All you have to do is come up with some post facto explanation that makes you look good. There’s nothing too preposterous to be believed anymore (or at least repeated on the news as if other people believed it). Sarah Palin is admired for making liberals angry or afraid of her. The more people vote against her, the more correct she must be.
As her supporters would see it.
The size of that movement is somewhat undetermined.
She wasn’t a candidate in the primaries. She was a national unknown who was nominated for VP and lost. Gingrich has had a long career and he’s going to lose in the primaries, and he’s losing in very bitter fashion by putting most of his effort into trashing Romney. Their situations are too different. We’re talking about failed primary candidates positioning themselves for the next election cycle. Gingrich didn’t do the groundwork this time because he didn’t expect to make it this far, and I think his performance would make a lot of people hesitant to cast their lot with him around 2015 in preparation for the 2016 elections.
So in 2016, what number wife will Newt be on? Four/Five? Has anyone calculated his “YPW” (years per wife)? Is it steady state or trending downward over time?
Seriously, this is his last shot at the national spotlight, speech fees, FOX show, book deal, etc… It was wildly wrong of him to expect his record in professional/personal life not to be picked apart. His “smartest man in the room”, though possible accurate, idea driven candidacy was predicated on the voters accepting his [del]version[/del] vision of history. “I am an historian”
Romney had more money as was able to sell a bigger lie. End of Newt.
I’d appreciate this thread more if people would please have their excerpts read by John Lithgow or a similarly accomplished actor instead of just posting the text.
Married to Jackie 1962-1981
Married to Marianne 1981-2000
Married to Callista 2000 - ?
If he were to follow pattern, and if he were to actually get elected in 2016, he’d leave Callista 3/4 of the way through his term. How’s that for scandal?
When Gingrich became the final anti-Romney as opposed to Bachmann, Cain, or Perry I was glad that at the least the Tea Party was rallying behind a fairly intelligent and experienced candidate. Instead Gingrich has become a demagogue not too dissimilar in rhetoric actually from Gringo-hating Latin American leftists like Evo Morales or Hugo Chavez.
Gingrich has always been a demagogue. Before he rose to speaker, in the early days of CSPAN, he used to make speeches where he would point his finger and denounce members of Congress for corruption and misdeeds. The catch was he was speaking to a mostly empty room and pointing to empty seats, a fact not apparent to the TV viewer. Outraged, the Democrat who held the gavel arranged for the camera to pan over the empty chamber. It became a short news story: Newt took it in stride, figuring that there was no such thing as bad publicity.
At any rate, I agree that Gingrich is a more plausible candidate than Cain, Bachmann or Perry.
But this is really a Newt compilation thread and not so much about a balanced assessment of Newt.
Blast from the past: Language: A Key Mechanism of Control, A 1996 GOPAC memo by Newt Gingrich
I haven’t written off Newt yet. The base still hates Romney, and while Santorum is surging, I suspect Newt’s got plenty of bombs yet to throw. I think News still has a better shot at the nomination than Santorum.
Unless of course, Newt comes to the convention with a seeming majority of delegates, and the Republican establishment tries some shenanigans to force him out. That would be highly entertaining.
Campaign appearance at the Jergens metal manufacturing plant in NE Ohio, Feb 8, 2012. On the threat of a nuclear Iran:
[QUOTE=Newt Gingrich]
You think about the dangers, to Cleveland, or to Columbus, or to Cincinnati, or to New York. Remember what it felt like on 9/11 when 3,100 Americans were killed. Now imagine an attack where you add two zeros. And it’s 300,000 dead. Maybe a half million wounded. This is a real danger. This is not science fiction. That’s why I think it’s important that we have the strongest possible national security.
[/quote]
According to the Washington Post, the 38-point favorable/unfavorable spread tie the worst numbers from 1997 (when he faced the ethics probe) and are worse than any recent national political figure.
