Posted on 12/14/2011 5:05:19 AM PST by Kaslin
The media elite and the Republican ruling class are remarkably similar in their political projection for the coming year. Journalists spent the entire year savaging every fast-rising challenger to Mitt Romney. The GOPs power pundits became equally agitated at the sniff of a conservative anywhere near the top of the GOP pack. It's the odor of extremism that both the elites in the media and the GOP have detested -- always.
So here we are, on the cusp of the election year, and both these groups have one primary target: Newt Gingrich. Both are using the same ammo: Newt is too unstable, immature, flawed and arrogant. Or as power pundit Peggy Noonan put it, Newt is "a human hand grenade who walks around with his hand on the pin, saying, 'Watch this!'" The Washington Post's political cartoonist drew him as a suicide bomber.
I think they're stuck in the past. The candidate that people now see is not the self-styled "revolutionary" of the '80s and '90s. He's an older man, a wiser man, but a man that has a vision of both American history and the American future -- and that's what scares the establishment. Pundits like Noonan live to throw beanbags at conservatives on the set of "Morning Joe." Oh, how they delight their liberal chums with a taste for GOP fratricide. Ari Melber of The Nation eagerly quoted Noonan's "human hand grenade" line and mostly favorably compared Noonan to that liberal windbag Maureen Dowd of The New York Times. This is high praise in New York and Washington. The rest of the country could care less about Maureen Dowd.
It brings us back to Angelo Codevilla's piece last summer in The American Spectator titled "America's Ruling Class." What Codevilla called the "country class" -- the party of freedom, as opposed to the "ruling class," which resents the country's input -- has rarely captured the GOP flag. The GOP rulers sabotaged Barry Goldwater and were ultimately stuck with Ronald Reagan. Contrary to quaint historical rewrites, they were not in his camp. Instead, the GOP rulers bogged Reagan down with establishmentarian dealmakers and principle-shredders.
The country class is demanding the GOP choice be independent of the GOP establishment as well as confrontational with the radical left. It is why both camps are now united in their desire to tear this man down. He is a threat.
When Gingrich climbed to the top of the polls, the Newt-hating media were so predictable that they merely recycled all their liberal talking points from the mid-'90s. NBCs Lisa Myers narrated their rerun: "Gingrich shut down the government. ... At the time, Gingrich generated this headline ('Cry Baby'), after suggesting that he shut down the government because the President made him sit in the back on Air Force One. ... He became the first Speaker ever reprimanded by the House for ethics violations and was fined $300,000 for misusing tax exempt funds."
What tired old spin this is:
-- Can you believe NBC ignored crooked Jim Wright's resignation in that "first Speaker reprimanded" summary?
-- Eighty-three of 84 ethics complaints were dismissed. On the final one, Gingrich made the political equivalent of a plea deal, agreeing to a fine over the college course he was teaching while he was Speaker of the House. Big deal.
-- Myers and every other network reporter and outlet ignored the part where the Internal Revenue Service was brought in to investigate Gingrich and in 1999, cleared him unequivocally of everything.
-- Apparently, these reporters will cling to their "Gingrich shut the government down" propaganda as long as they live. That's not true. Technically, it was Clinton who shut it down. -- It's another media myth that the shutdown was some personal tantrum over airplane seating.
That's five massive distortions and falsehoods in one report.
Some attacks on Newt the "Bomb-Thrower" are coming from professional bomb-throwers. Take Chris Matthews, who said, "Ever since he appeared on the national scene, politics has been nastier, more feral (and) too often uglier." He suggested Gingrich's nomination would be a cause for "embarrassment and sadness for our republic."
This, from the man who then described Gingrich as a "political killer, a gun for hire." Republicans, he feared, "may be ready to bow down before this false god of hatred." The ruling class is losing control of its senses. Maybe, just maybe, the country class has found its champion.
I could go into a long description of why Newt is, but you obviously won’t change your mind. Part of what you are confusing are the “Ivy League” elites by way of birthright. That isn’t exclusively the party establishment (and in some cases, such as Chafee of RI, they’re not even in the GOP anymore). There are many ways one can be in the establishment, and that includes serving their interests and pandering to them. Newtie’s own pedigree started out as part of that. You don’t spend 20 years in Congress rising to the top (and in leadership for half that time) without being a part of it.
Reagan was an outsider, because he had to battle three times for the top jobs — once, against the anointed liberal establishment choice for Governor, SF Mayor George Christopher in 1966; second, against Gerald Ford in 1976; third, against insider choices (such as George H.W. Bush) in 1980. Newt never faced such kinds of challenges. Newt effectively WAS the Georgia Republican Party for half his political career (ask if Reagan was ever “the” CA GOP). He faced no opposition in becoming the GOP pick for Speaker, not exactly what an outsider would face.
These are but few examples. You want to believe he is, like Reagan, an outsider, but that just simply isn’t the case. Newt is a lot of things, but being like Reagan isn’t one of them. Just because some of the “Establishment” goes after Newt doesn’t mean he’s somehow not under their aegis. Some of it is simply personal preference. Most of it is noise to me, since I see Newt for the opportunist that he is and find him thoroughly untrustworthy. He had ample opportunity to demonstrate leadership in Congress as Speaker and flopped in less than a year. Yet one more reason he’s nothing like Reagan. Reagan wasn’t also an arrogant, know-it-all hypocrite.
I understand completely what he is doing and why. He has done this before and has not always followed up on his “stated” conservative agenda nor has he always done or said things that fit a conservative mold. No candidate is perfect and I feel that more conservative and reliably conservative candidates have been pushed out just as the rino/GOP leadership is now trying to push out Newt. He is leaps and bounds above mitt the twit, crazy-ass Ron Paul, and Perry whom I don’t hold in very high regard either, but I will get behind him over any of them and to help defeat der Fuehrer.
See my Post #60.
FMDJ,
I respect the civility of your arguments, and at the same time, you are probably correct that I’ll not change my mind over the kinds of charges I’ve seen leveled at Gingrich to this point.
I know he started as a poor Georgia kid who’s Mom got lucky marrying an Army officer to provide him enough of a life to get a start.
He’ll never be a part of the glitterati, the aristocracy, or the inside circle. He’s not allowed in. Neither are you...
I think he rose in the House wheeling and dealing at a time when the GOP had been out of power in the House for generations. As Dick Cheney, from the same class as Gingrich, said of Gingrich, he just wouldn’t stop.
I think HE created the coalition that won, so there was no establishment concerned about a takeover of the House by the GOP. And we know the establishment GOP at the time had perfected the role of bending over.
I agree with the first two - only.
You forgot to mention his comment that 300 pages of the ObamaCare bill are actually pretty good.
furthermore, I am not opposed to any mis-steps Newt might make...he's not Jesus Christ and no man should be held to perfection..... Newt certainly thinks about his decisions and will even sacrifice the lessor issues to obtain the big issues we so much need now in our country..... There will have to be some sacrifices of what we might want for the larger picture of saving this country from the hands of those who seek it's destruction. I won't like it but I do understand it
Ron Paul is despicable! He is loving his ride, just as before and does not have this country at heart in any way shape or form... He's a piped piper!... Any man who blames this country for 9/11 clearly has his gray matter in the zone and does not have our country foremost in his thoughts. Additionally he's not a republican and I resented from the get go him wearing that mask.
I agree with your comments. One thing that bothers me a lot about Newt is that he has changed his mind a number of times on certain issues. He’s not nearly as well grounded as his supporters think.
Translation: He may look good right now, but who knows what he’ll look like three months, six, twelve, eighteen, or thirty-six months after he is elected.
Like Bush, there is no doubt whatsoever that he will help the Left by implementing part of their agenda. The Left is dying to get the illegals naturalized. Newt has already told us he’s going to implement that for them.
When you are offered Newt, just say no.
People who are not part of the political establishment don't land cushy consulting jobs with FNMA that pay seven figures. People who are part of the political establishment support worthless party candidates such as Dede Scozzafava at the expense of actual conservative candidates who can win. Heck, even Tim Pawlenty went with the Conservative. But Gingrich backed Scozzafava because the GOP establishment wanted him to.
But it's not illegal and until it is your arguement has no weight. And no he was not paid as a lobbyist....call it whatever you will does not change the fact that Newt offered his advice and they refused to change their course as he recommended.
I think he was paid as a consultant because he was an expert on the subjects involved.
So far as Scozzafava, I think he was wrong on that one. He was supporting the team for a team victory, but one doesn’t have to be an insider to do that. Santorum did the same thing.
Gingrich had it backwards; the team would have been better helped by his backing the other guy.
It’s a weird world: Now I hear Christine O’Donnell is backing Mitt Romney.
The first primary vote hasn't even been cast yet. Let's concentrate on getting a conservative candidate first, then worry about Obama later.
“As for “amnesty,” I have seen NO amnesty policy from him in the last 2 months...let alone the last 2 weeks.”
Uh. If you close your eyes, see no evil then you are hopeless. His supporters here have proudly applauded his specific amnesty plan (local boards decide who will be legalized etc). If you actually spend 5 mins to think about this, you can see the problems (e.g. liberal area can legalize 100M illegals based on some shady evidence that they have been illegally here over X years).
He is not mormon, that is a big plus for many, but when you get to actual issues, he is no better than Romney. He has adopted every liberal policy issue in the last 5 years.
“As for “amnesty,” I have seen NO amnesty policy from him in the last 2 months...let alone the last 2 weeks.”
Uh. If you close your eyes, see no evil then you are hopeless. His supporters here have proudly applauded his specific amnesty plan (local boards decide who will be legalized etc). If you actually spend 5 mins to think about this, you can see the problems (e.g. liberal area can legalize 100M illegals based on some shady evidence that they have been illegally here over X years).
He is not mormon, that is a big plus for many, but when you get to actual issues, he is no better than Romney. He has adopted every liberal policy issue in the last 5 years.
He seems to have re-invented himself as much as Mitt Romney. The only difference is that Romney reinvented his political ideology completely (from being an “independent” during the Reagan years to a devout Reaganite), and Newt reinvented his personal background completely. The philandering Georgia Baptist is now being marketed by his supporters as a virtuous Catholic from “Virginiaâ€. And I don’t buy it one bit because I met the “new Newt†after he had been married to dear Callista for 7 years and was doing on a book signing about how he found Jesus and we need God in our lives. In person, he was just as much a condescending arrogant p***k as he always been.
Uh... My eyes are open and I listen closely and read thoroughly. I’m also praying for this election.
I like his plan.
Overall, he is a LOT better than Romney.
And NO, ha has NOT adopted EVERY LIBERAL POLICY issue in the last 5 years.
Thanks BillyBoy. I sure find that hard to believe, but if you say so. /s LOL
This guy is as phony as a three dollar bill IMO.
I think it is basically relatively easy to discern between insiders and outsiders. Let’s say for your argument’s sake that he is an outsider... the fact that he has been so covetous of the “insiders”/”establishment”/”elites” and so pandering to their interests disqualifies him. Outsiders are people that willfully work against the insiders, and that simply isn’t Newt.
There may have been a calcified GOP establishment hierarchy by the ‘90s (embodied by Bob Michel), but even those don’t want outsiders at all (look at places like MA where the GOP is nearly dead, they still keep putting up people to protect their interests of a moribund regime).
Speaking of Cheney, as much as I respected him, he was part of the establishment, too, going back to the Ford Administration (no paragon of Conservatism). It doesn’t particularly matter if they are attacked by the media or elites, because when you get right down to it, no matter how much you try to brown-nose them, once primary time is over, you become the #1 threat.
If Newt had established a long-record of being an outsider and literally thumbing his nose at the elites, I’d be for him in a heartbeat. He just simply hasn’t. Ultimately, if he has to choose, he’d rather be loved by the left than have die-hard support and respect from the right. That’s why he’s a deal breaker for me.
Do you honestly believe that getting rid of Obama is not foremost? There is no later, as you stated,... it's now today that we have this opportunity.
Based on Newt's history I have no problem whatsoever that he is a conservative...denying that to others is pure distration to consider you're candidate in mind...of which I don't buy can stand at all against the Obama machine.
Newt is hardly a has-been as his poll numbers have concluded and remains in the running as a likely winner....you deny the obvious...and his record of achievements for conservative issues.
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.