Five myths about Newt Gingrich (the candidate WaPo fears most)

Washington Post ^ | Tuesday, November 22, 2011 | John J. Pitney Jr.,

[presidio9]

Just a few months after his campaign seemed to implode amid staff resignations, Newt Gingrich sits atop the GOP presidential polls. Yet 13 years have passed since Gingrich stepped down as House speaker — plenty of time for older voters to forget him, and for younger voters to not know him at all. So let’s dispel recurring myths about the new frontrunner’s politics, history and ambitions.

1. Gingrich is an academic.

He earned a Ph.D. in history and taught college before winning a seat in Congress. He has often spoken of himself as an historian. In 1995, he told CNN’s Bob Franken: “I am the most seriously professorial politician since Woodrow Wilson.”

A feature from The Post’s Outlook section that dismantles myths, clarifies common misconceptions and makes you think again about what you thought you already knew.

But whereas Wilson spent years publishing scholarly works, Gingrich was more like the professor who wins popularity awards with undergraduates but fails to get tenure because he hasn’t published anything significant. He even told a college paper in 1977 that “I made the decision two or three years ago that I’d rather run for Congress than publish the papers or academic books necessary to get promoted.”

Since then, he has given countless lectures and written more than 20 books but has never produced truly serious scholarship. A typical Gingrich work is full of aphorisms and historical references — and devoid of the hallmarks of academic research: rigor, nuance and consideration of alternative views. Conservative political scientist James Q. Wilson once -SNIP-

2. Gingrich is a hard-core conservative. -SNIP- 3. Gingrich was a Reaganite. -SNIP- 4. Gingrich single-handedly brought hyper-partisanship to Capitol Hill. -SNIP- 5. Gingrich lacks the drive to win the presidency. -SNIP-

[presidio9]

Note to John J. Pitney Jr., (and your cronies at the Post): That feature that dismantles myths, clarifies common misconceptions and makes you think again about what you thought you already knew might seem a bit more credible if you started by correcting the numerous outright lies about Gingrich's first marriage, his departure from the Speaker's office, the false ethics charges filed by political opponents, and the circumstances of Bill Clinton's impeachment, all of which your paper has reported as fact in an attempt to damage Gingrich's character. My advice to you is that its all going to come out anyway, so you might as well get ahead of the story.

[GoldenPup]

Well said. A significant amount of what the WP publishes is distorted, biased BS designed to enhance circulation rather than to report news.

[x]

Pitney's not a Post staffer.

He's a professor at Claremont McKenna College who's written for National Review, Reason, City Journal, and the Claremont Review.

If he's dumping on Newt, it's because Newt is such an easy target and such a lousy candidate.

[presidio9]

If he's dumping on Newt, it's because Newt is such an easy target and such a lousy candidate.

And who is the better choice among the remaining field?

[x]

I don't know. But Newt has more dirty laundry than the other candidates. To the man or woman in the street he is -- or could easily be made to seem -- less appealing than the others.

My point was that you can't dismiss Pitney's arguments as typical liberal ones. He really doesn't like Gingrich -- google his articles, he really, really doesn't like Newt -- but he's not attacking him from the liberal side.

If you support Newt Gingrich, you can't just label all criticism of him as liberal. That's an evasion. People who are a lot more conservative than you or I have problems with Newt.

[Bringbackthedraft]

And who is the better choice among the remaining field? ......................................... The one they fear the most is the one they smear the most! Sarah is gone, who is being smeared the most now? There lies the answer.

[presidio9]

I don't know. But Newt has more dirty laundry than the other candidates. To the man or woman in the street he is -- or could easily be made to seem -- less appealing than the others.

Listen, I generally respect you're views, but you seem to be missing the major issue at hand: In less than six weeks, this nomination is going to come down to Romney Vs. "not Romney." As of today, there are essentially three viable "not Romney" candidates, with a potential Bachman rally a long-shot possibility. I know, it sucks. Santorum is still my candidate, but it's not going to happen for him in six weeks. That leaves us with Gingrich, Cain and Perry. I'm assuming your not a Romney guy, so pick one and stop violating the 11th Commandment.

If you support Newt Gingrich, you can't just label all criticism of him as liberal. That's an evasion. People who are a lot more conservative than you or I have problems with Newt.

You're missing the point here too. The column was about "dispelling the most prevalent myths about Gingrich." Those would be that he blindsided his first wife with divorce papers while she was on her death bed, that he was removed from his Speakership role for ethics violations, or that he was a hypocrite for criticizing Clinton's affairs while he was engaged in one himself. The newest one is that he lobbied for FHLMC, in which case virtually every former politician is a lobbyist. It's coming from the Romney camp, and I don't think so.

[presidio9]

The one they fear the most is the one they smear the most! Sarah is gone, who is being smeared the most now? There lies the answer.

If you think that man is Herman Cain, guess again. The accusations may themselves be baseless, but at least the media isn't making stuff up about the man.

[MestaMachine]

“Five myths about Newt Gingrich (the candidate WaPo fears most)”

This is ridiculous. EVERY GOP candidate has been the one WaPo fears most...except for wormney. It’s just Newt’s turn.

[presidio9]

EVERY GOP candidate has been the one WaPo fears most

Operational term: "has been." The media hasn't feared Gingrich until now, because they felt that they had succeeded in destroying his character to such an extent that he never had the slighted chance of winning. Until now.

[Kackikat]

Newt Gingrich’s gay sister has had a blog in the past criticizing Newt; and listing all his sins over the years, and now she has been interviewed for Huffinton Post here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/13/newt-gingrich-lesbian-sister_n_873981.html

Like it or not, the family secrets are already making the rounds, as well as some new info on Newt....

[presidio9]

Like it or not, the family secrets are already making the rounds, as well as some new info on Newt....

From what I can see, this article came out in the summer, there is nothing "new" here, and nothing particularly damaging. The questions you have to ask yourself are: Is there anything here that would hurt his chances in the general election (answer: no)? Is there anything here that would hurt his chances against Romney (answer: NO!!!)? Is there anything here that makes one of the remaining viable "not Romney" contenders a stronger candidate (Answer: I say no, you'll have to decide for yourself)? Want to go after Newt for having a gay half-sister? How'd that work out for John Edwards?

[SunkenCiv]

Uh, no.

thanks presidio9.

[SaraJohnson]

They fearing him for his progressive amnesty plans or his progressive algore global warming agenda? Yeah. They are real scared!

[skinkinthegrass]

If you think that man is Herman Cain, guess again.
[The accusations may themselves be baseless],
but at least the media isn't making stuff up about the man.
c'mon...Isn't this "doublespeak"?....
or did you forget, the sarcasm tags? ...your opinion?

[x]

You make some good points, but if you trusted somebody and they fell short in some way and disappointed you, you might not be inclined to put your faith in them again.

When it's a question of policy differences, maybe a politician can explain his or her position and win you back, but if it's about character or just personality, it's harder for them to do that. They may not know just what it is about themselves that irritates people or how to win hostile voters over.

But say Newt convinces me -- if he's the nominee, I'd vote for him -- there's a lot of other people out there who have similar negative impressions about the man.

[presidio9]

I think you are misinformed. I am aware of neither, and I've been paying a lot of attention. Please tell me what you think you know about “his progressive amnesty plans or his progressive algore global warming agenda.” Not much, I bet.

[presidio9]

Your response is eloquent, but I'm really not getting what you're trying to say. Are you saying that people won't vote for Gingrich because of his character flaws? I say those things are most important to those with conservative values. If he gets the nomination, a lot of this stuff will be fussed over endlessly in the spring, and be forgotten sometime after that. Plus, he will go after the stuff McCain played nice on: Bill Ayres, Rev Wright, etc. The man says he's made his peace with God. His daughter has forgiven him.