Skip to comments.Gingrich: The phony intellectual
Posted on 11/18/2011 1:32:48 AM PST by federal__reserve
And there is Gingrich the liberal. The liberal revulsion toward him obscured how unorthodox occasionally, how liberal his conservatism was. The books then and now are full of heresy. He showed a willingness to criticize other Republicans, even Reagan at the height of his popularity. He advocated a health tax on alcohol to discourage drinking social engineering, its called and imagined government-issued credit cards that would allow citizens to order goods and services directly from the feds. He thought the government should run nutritional programs at grocery stores and give away some foodstuffs free. He was pushing cuts in the defense budget in 1984 and a prototype of President Obamas cash-for-clunkers program in 1995.What is noteworthy is not only how liberal are his prescriptions, but how mundanely statist they are.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The anecdote was repeated ad nauseam when Gingrich became House speaker in 1995. Then it was repeated ad nauseam
when he filed for divorce with his second wife, Marianne, in 1999.
The story came up again in the mid-2000s when Gingrich was openly mulling a 2008 presidential bid.
In 2007, when Gingrich told James Dobson in a radio interview that he had in the 1990s cheated
on his second wife (with his current wife, Callista), several stories about the admission also noted the 1980 hospital encounter.
If Gingrich is really serious about a 2012 candidacy, expect the hospital story to stay with him throughout the campaign.
Gingrich is too much of a loose cannon to be liked by either side of the aisle.
I can’t forget Gingrich using the phrase, right wing social engineering when discussing Paul Ryans proposal last summer. It was a hideously stupid phrase to use. I was wondering if Gingrich would next be taking Republicans to task for supporting right wing activist judges.
Social engineering is, by its very nature, left wing just as judicial activism is, by its very nature, also left wing. Using the words right wing in conjunction with the word “activism” makes no sense whatsoever and only serves to create the false dichotomy the left has been trying to fabricate (without much success) for years.
Right wing social engineering holds no more meaning than choclate-flavored solar flare.
Yeah, something doesn’t quite smell right about Gingrich.
None are perfect. I’d vote Ron Paul if I could appoint his SecState/Def. Congress must be the key, not which R is in the White House. tagline....
I agree, however don't look for the MSM to report much at this time. They are salivating that he gets the nomination.
Then hide & watch it won't be pretty.
If NEWTIE gets the nomination we are screwed with another 4 years of the Kenyan buffoon.
I’ve had my doubts about Grinch going all the way back to the Government shutdown during the Clinton years. I agreed with the policy at the time, but there were a number of other weird things about him. His off-again, on-again catfight with Clinton — which he always came out of worse for wear..., various other rumors...
As President, no... I just can’t make the picture.
Actually, she isn't. She may not be as conservative as most on this site, but she has done some significant conservative reporting (click here).
As for Newt, he's an interesting combination of political fire-breather, policy wonk, and nerd goofball. Sometimes all three personae are evident at once. He's at his best exchanging well-aimed shots with pompous liberals (like his encounter with Scott Pelley at last weekend's debate) and at his worst regurgitating idiotic management-Newspeak ("lean six-sigma"). He tends to react before he thinks everything through. Christopher Hitchens (of all people) pegged him best when he said that he thought that Newt has about 200 ideas per week, of which about 100 may be good ones.
His current ascendency in the polls is a reflection of the relative weakness of his competitors, not of his own personal political strength. He will fade back into the pack, as many others have before him.
Paid $37 million from health care companies
Still Advocates for a Healthcare Mandate
I wouldn't be so sure. If I could make a guess, the single most important quality that people are looking for in a candidate is leadership, and that is something Gingrich is displaying above all the others. That's why he's rising and others are falling. Newt can handle himself in pretty much any situation. He's intelligent, knowledgeable, and can think quickly on his feet, and people are responding to this because he's deliberately making it known.
I wouldn't make the mistake in dismissing him so quickly.
Welcome to FR. Enjoy your short stay here.
Oh poor obummer supporters, what ya gonna do? Newt has ya as nervous as wh—es in church.
Your boy obummer is gonna be history in 2012 and you know it and you just don’t know how to stop it. Bring on the mud, we got plenty of water.
Gingrich the grinch is a consumate cockblocking whore.
He only occupies debates and is a paper gangster.
OWS is the true mirror trashy alter ego of Congress.
They occupy and they play with their own minds,
in pseudo-optimism, getting way ahead of themselves
in “super-programs” and spendings, very college like seupid ego know it all.
Gingrich liberalness is typical of those who cannot
fathom they are not needed for 99.99% of the
jobs being done out there. They are irrelevant and cry for it without
even trying a real job, too cowardly, arrogant and corrupt.
A head of state should worry more about the morality
and discipline of his government workers and calm their
I defer to Gingrich as a terrific historian and his grasp on foreign affairs but I don’t see him at the top of a ticket. Ron Paul has a better grasp of the markets and Federal reserve but his defense posture is lunacy. I haven’t heard him address corruption. In fact, I’ve not heard any of the candidates address market corruption or the market/Wall Street cronyism. Maybe Michelle Bachman did and I missed it.
2012 is going to be much more than who is President. I’ll be doing my part to elect a new Senator in my state (Pa.) and see that Congressmen and women in my district are those that are willing to change the status quo.
Jennifer Rubin is, I think, the one they had on Fox News all- stars. And who attempted to debate Charles K on Iran. She is as dumb as a rock, actually used the word “gazillion” in her debate. You should have seen the expression on K’s face - priceless. She is your typical lib journolist, all chutzpah and no brain.
The WAPO Romney advocate stiles again.
This is all crazy. Gingrich has made it fairly clear that he was a “futurist conservative.” What futurists do is spout ideas of what “could” be.
Just because I have an idea does not mean I am advocating it. It means I’m throwing it out there for discussion.
It’s almost like brainstorming. The neat thing about throwing every idea out for discussion is that the process of analysis might actually lead to a derivative idea that will really work.
I don’t know if its apocryphal, but I think I remember that Edison had over a 1000 iterations of the light bulb before he hit the right combination.
What if he’d stopped on idea #1 and said that it doesn’t work?
Here’s an idea about abortion: classify all abortions as homicides. Then allow the facts of the case to determine if it was justifiable, accidental, negligent, intentional, etc. Then charge accordingly.
What will actually happen in the future? I think the forces of life are beginning to turn the corner with more Americans rejecting abortion except for extremity. With the liberal party using abortion as a type of population/race control, they will push hard to head off this turn in American public sentiment. Additionally, our population is not keeping pace due to a low birth rate.
What if we incentivize birth rates by giving college credits to each new live birth born to a married couple?
It promotes life, education, and marriage.
Is it liberal or conservative?
And have I just advocated it, or have I done no more than toss an idea into the ring?
I’m prepared to vote for Newt Gingrich. He is the smartest guy in the room and is a true visionary like Churchill. Yes I know his negatives. . . Even Churchill was turned out of power shortly after he saved Britain in WWII. As an evangelical Christian, I am much more comfortable with Rick Perry. But I don’t want to listen to 4 years of the leftist media shred him Like they did W. My niece worked for Newt at the Enterprise Institute and says that Newt is the best choice to alter the course of this socialist ship of state.
Au contraire. He’s dismissed. Believing Gingrich will prevail as Pubbie pres. candidate requires pretending most of the man is something other than he is.
Gingrich is a loose cannon, but he is very much a big government elitist politician. This is the only conclusion one can come to after examining what the man actually done over the years. Words are cheap. But that Pelosi/Gingrich pic is worth a thousand words.
His “inexplicable” explanation for sharing a love seat with Pelosi should have been the man’s death knell. Yet there are people here on FR who have no problem with that. Well I have a problem with it.
I will not vote for Gingrich under any circumstance. Might as well vote for a demrat and be done with it. Ditto for Perry and Romney. All differtent sides of the same RINO coin.
Why should his stay here be short? Am I missing something?
As for Newt’s consulting enterprises: Advising a third party is not advocating! Big difference.
If health care providers and insurance carriers were asking for his advice - it was very likely related to onerous Federal regulations and the potential for Obamacare.
You don’t hire an electrician to design slip covers or an interior designer to fix your plumbing. Newt’s clients got their money’s worth and Newt got an education in private enterprise.
If it replaces guaranteed limitless student loans and federal grants just because your skin is a certain color, then yeah...well, you got me thinking.
That's Newt's way. Get people thinking about and discussing something.
Whats disputable about this? Why would conservatives want to nominate a loose cannon with no fixed principles who is also a serial adulterer ? Why in the world why?
Face it everyone...Mitt is the choice of the RINO and Dem Establishment. He is the ONE they want to face Obama. Every other candidate that even gets close to getting the nomination will be vetted in a way that neither Mitt or President Obama will ever be vetted. They were able to smear Cain with accusations, but enough that he has lost a significan part of women.
If we want an alternative candidate we have work cut out for us. The mud will be coming thick and heavy for any other candidate. Huntsman would be another “darling” of the establishment but he has no way of getting any traction at this point.
I think Gingrich is obviously a conservative, and obviously an intellectual. However, he is not a consummate conservative, and he is not, as of yet, in complete control of his intellect or his zipper. He wouldn’t be my first choice, but as a replacement for the country killer Obama, he would be a blessing.
Newt got his education on the taxpayers dime and a hefty retirement plan to boot.
His consulting firm only exists because he spent a lifetime in the halls of Congress and was Speaker of the House.
I have a problem with selling governmental insider intellectual information to advance the goal of how to get my tax dollar. From what I can discern, most of his clients are Lobbyist.
Newt’s claim not to be a Lobbyist, reminds me of Bill Clinton tell us “I didn’t have sex with that woman” fame.
Then, that’s just my opinion.
I will vote for Newt if he is the nominee (NEVER ROMNEY), but he is a big-government guy, make no mistake.
There is no question in my mind that money is important to this guy. He's a rabid fundraiser and he gets people to open up those wallets. Fish gotta swim. Birds gotta fly. Politicians raise money.
Full disclosure: As a registered Independant, I can't vote for anyone in the PA primary. If I could and had to vote today, it would be for Newt.
They each personally killed a cow to sit on that couch but Gingrich might as well have eaten it live, figuratively speaking.
The big picture is that all private companies; big and small, need advice - because the government controls every move they make with punative taxes and regulations.
From NLRB, FDA, HIPPA, EPA, HHs, SSec and Medicare - the government takes the money in one form or another.
Newt pursued a ‘career’ in politics and decided to ‘get out’ following specious ethics complaints (all but one charge dismissed) and having made enemies on both sides of the aisle.
He could have continued to earn a living with his consulting entities - but chooses instead to run for election again.
Can you fault him for wanting to stop socialism? He has seen the future and believes he can make a difference.
Have you done as much? Put yourself in the media’s meat grinder?
The stench of hypocrisy wafting off the Newt team is getting too potent to ignore.
LOVE the way they all race around here posting fraudulent childish personal attacks at all the other candidates then whine like pitiful children the second anything factual that is critical of Newt is pointed out.
I’m hoping after we’ve destroyed all our candidates we’ll be able to hold out for the white knight...yeah, that’s the plan..the white knight will destroy Romney, right?
What if hed stopped on idea #1 and said that it doesnt work?
Conservative futurists are not arrogant enough to say what “will” be...unless of course you consider Isaiah to be a conservative futurist. :>)
Bullseye! Awesome post CincyRR.
From another Cincy area conservative.
What if we just stop trying to "incentivize" anything, ESPECIALLY with government?
Any time you appeal to the collective to "fix" problems that are properly the domain of individual responsibility, you are going down the path of the "progressives" who created the mess we are in today.
That ain't conservative.
In a world where each man is responsible for his own house, and government existed to protect the citizens rather than to harvest their substance as if they were livestock (no matter how "enlightened" and "noble" the purpose supposedly served), you wouldn't have any trouble with, say, demographic collapse -- or with material scarcity.
Fat chance of it happening, though. That's the America that the Founding Fathers gave us, but it's long gone.
But it supports life, marriage, and education: all of them conservative values.
Besides, you just shot down that idea without offering a replacement or an adaptation that would make it more “conservative.”
It is called the vetting process, also sometimes called the primaries. We have a habit of doing that in GOP unlike the Kenyan socialist who received almost none of that.
I hope you are right and the conservative side of Newt will take over the other side if he moves into the WH.
Your comment is way to much generality. Some specifics are always a good cement to build a solid brick house.