Newt Gingrich, Matt Salmon, Principles and Pragmatism

Townhall.com ^ | November 29, 2011 | Rachel Alexander

[Parmy]

Please stop trying to guess or imply that I think in this way or that way. That is the kinds of arguments that liberals/progressives segway their opponents into.

I haven't endorsed anything. I am just saying that all, and I mean all, politicians have to be narcissistic in order to subject themselves to the rigors of applying for a public office.

Then, repeating myself, they enrich themselves at the public's expense, they dress in fine clothes, eat the best of foods, travel at the public's expense, etc. And, all the while telling the public how much they are doing for them.

I repeat, this is at all levels of government. This is what politicians do, no exceptions.

[Fantasywriter]

I didn’t guess or imply anything. I said I hoped a certain thing. If even that gets your prickly, then it’s impossible to have a calm, rational discussion w you.

To suggest that all politicians are equally narcissistic is to render the word meaningless. Just as Obama saying all countries consider themselves exceptional nullified the concept of American exceptionalism, ‘all of them’ being narcissists means that narcissism is meaningless. Either it is a clinically defined Personality Disorder or it isn’t. It happens to be. Some politicians are afflicted w it and others aren’t.

Newt has compared himself to Reagan and Thatcher. He has displayed a stunning lack of empathy, even toward his children’s mother. And how about this:

‘Newt’s supersize ego led him astray. Course notes extolled the then-GOP whip’s role in creating an “American movement” with a GOP majority as an “advocate of civilization,” a “definer of civilization,” a “teacher of the rules of civilization” and — prepare to feel a thrill up your leg — an “arouser of those who form civilization.”’

He is a clinical narcissist. He is that in ways most pols aren’t. Disagree if you want, but please stop telling me they’re all equally narcissistic. It’s insulting. You believe it if that’s what you want to believe. Just stop trying to convince me of it, because it’s uninformed at best.

[presidio9]

Everything anyone had suggested prior to that is moot. Some honorable people were operating on trust in some falsified data.

Excelllent point.

[xzins]

Newt’s ad with Nancy Pelosi was over a year before the fraudulent data at East Anglia was exposed.

Believe it or not, Newt had been interested in the environment from a young age. He wasn’t a tree hugger, but he was in line with the “responsible stewardship” understanding of taking care of nature.

The fraudulent data was believed by a lot of people because it was supposedly the best data out there. I could see someone saying, “I can’t just ignore this.” and being an honorable person. (Personally, I always had suspicions and sided with the minority scientists.) However, that doesn’t mean that those who went with the majority data were dishonest or lacking in integrity. They simply chose differently.

The real issue is what they did when the fraudulent data was exposed. Did they dishonorably continue spouting what they now knew to be lies? Or, did they change their views?

Newt changed his views. Initially, he became an agnostic on the issue. As the fraud became more apparent he totally left behind any ideas regarding cap and trade. That seems honorable to me.

I think he is again in the camp of “responsible stewardship”. So am I.

We cannot abuse nature. Nor can we ignore that God gave it to us, in large part, so we could sustain ourselves and our loved ones.