Posted on 01/20/2012 5:18:41 PM PST by Shery
That's what I wrote about Newt Gingrich several months ago. It refers to their lack of discipline, their amoral ruthlessness in politics, their grandiosity, their verbal dexterity and equal dexterity with the truth, and all sorts of other character traits. It remains true now. Jenny Sanford sees part of it. Fiscal conservative stalwarts Jeff Flake and Jason Chaffetz describe another part of it. Yes, Marianne Gingrich saw lots of it, too, but it wasn't the sex part that was important, but his turning on conservatives, his"melting" around Clinton, his megalomania and psychological oddnesses, and other policy- and leadership-related things she described to Esquire that are the important factors -- and these are issues or themes where it's not just a he-said/she-said thing, but instead ones amply supported by solid conservatives such as Tom Coburn, Dick Armey multiple times (by the way, Marianne Gingrich reportedly has also told people the same story about Newt being called to the White House one day and then coming back completely changed about Clinton and all chummy with him), William Bennett and George Will, Jim Talent, and many other solid conservatives. Meanwhile, Gingrich consistently claims far too much credit for conservative successes, especially in the Reagan years. As Mitt Romney...
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
“Bill Clinton of the Right with Half the Charm and Twice the Abrasiveness”
And since there is no one else running that can beat Romney AND Obama, he’s certainly got my vote.
Just excerpt the part where they tell us how wonderful Mitt is...it is the American Spectator after all.
Guess we know now that American Spectator is in the bag for RINO Romney!
GO NEWT!
I guess you did not read beyond the Mitt Romney words, to know that it was not about him, but about Gingrich’s record. I’m 63, and I do remember those days. Gingrich kited checks along with a lot of democrats, among other things, so read the article before you think I’m promoting Romney. I’m not, nor is the article about Romney. I just have a very bad feeling about what is going to happen and people are reacting to Newt’s ability to shed an anchor or two, or steal everybody’s thunder in a debate. They should be more interested in his actual record and why so many of his former colleagues are concerned about him. I see a disaster on the horizon and this feeling I have in my gut has been accurate every time. People are falling for a false hope. That’s all I’ll say. Read the whole article, though, PLEASE!
I know some believe that is a bad thing but I don't.
Most of us would rather lose with someone that is with us most of the time than “win” with someone that has NEVER been with us on anything.
Personally, I kind of like the angry little attack muffin. What this country needs is a good dose of fiber.
I don’t hate Clinton because he boinked an intern. I hate Clinton because he lied in front of a judge over a sexual experience.
When has Gingrich been found guilty of perjury for anything ever.
Name one and educate me please.
What’s with these freepers insistent on attacking Newt NOW?
Either bitter Santorum supporters or Mittens.
Heard it all before. And still will vote Newt over LibRomney, Whinyricky or Crackpot Paul
Shery, I read the whole article through, and I think you need to read Quinn Hilyer’s hitpiece on Speaker Gingrich with a more critical eye.
You don’t see this as a hitpiece?
Hilyer finishes with this : “And this is the standard bearer who supposedly is going to slay Barack Obama via a series of Lincoln-Douglas debates that of course will never happen anyway?!? I think not.”
That, Shery, is a hitpiece.
Then you say:
“BTW...I will only vote Romney IF he wins the nomination. I am no fan of his, nor was this posted for that reason. Why would I?”
So, you tell us you would vote for Romney? I don’t trust anyone who would vote for the speed-talking snake-oil salesman. And c’mon, you do nothing for your credibility when you try to pull this one “I see a disaster on the horizon and this feeling I have in my gut has been accurate every time.” Please elaborate on the disasters you have foreseen and why we voters should rely on your “gut feelings”.
You’ve got me curious about something...
How exactly is this evidence of a hit piece in and of itself?
“And this is the standard bearer who supposedly is going to slay Barack Obama via a series of Lincoln-Douglas debates that of course will never happen anyway?!? I think not.”
Are you taking it to mean that Gingrich can’t win a debate?
Or is the alternative reading of the line just so outlandish? That being that Obama would never agree to a lincoln douglas style debate in the first place. It’s not written in stone that Obama has to even agree to debate at all.
Just seemed an odd line to pick out as evidence of a hit. I’d have opted for a few items earlier in the piece.
Romney tried to use that attack line in the debate. It was clearly rehearsed and not extemporaneous. It wasn't even accurate because in the very debate Newt had already specifically given the likes of Reagan, Kemp and the American People the credit for the millions of jobs and successes.
Even when talking about the jobs created during his tenure as speaker, Newt once again credited the American People with doing it.
People aren’t attacking the words of the article, they are (rightly) questioning the motive of the article and this post. Both seem to be calculated to tear down Newt, and in so doing, enhance the prospect of someone running against Newt. Who might that be?
“Just seemed an odd line to pick out as evidence of a hit. I’d have opted for a few items earlier in the piece.”
I just picked the concluding sentence as illustrative of a hitpiece; I agree there were several things earlier in the long piece that were inaccurate or strained or slightly out-of-context designed to convince the casual voter not to vote for Gingrich, but I certainly did not mean to imply Gingrich can’t win in a debate with Obama. I do think Obama will agree to the minimum number of debates he can get away with, but I also do not think it will be a slam dunk for Gingrich because Gingrich will need to appeal to undecideds and younger voters and pick off independents and folks who have really been hurt by this recession, rather than throw red meat to the conservative base like he has been doing in the primary debates.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.