There are plenty of reasons why Newt Gingrich is just NOW surging in the polls, after a roller coaster primary season in which pan-handlers in San Francisco actually raised more money than Newt and his staff left the campaign in droves. To be honest, I actually enjoyed his debate performances and the way he constantly scolded the moderators, the left wing media and even the other candidates for going after each other like democrats. But nobody took him seriously. I thought SNL did a pretty good of portraying him from an early debate. The moderator said "Newt Gingrich. I'm calling your bluff. Do you really want to be president?" Newt paused, then sheepishly shook his head no. The moderator responds "Would you like to leave now and beat the rush out of the parking lot?" Newt says thanks and leaves. Watch the video here. (the Newt questioning is about 5 minutes in)
There are plenty of reasons law-makers aren't rushing to endorse Newt.
And there are plenty of reasons why Obama doesn't seem to care about Newt while he is obsessed with Mitt. I wish I could find an article to say that Obama doesn't care about Newt, but Obama doesn't care about Newt SO MUCH that it's not even IN the news! And it's harder to prove that someone is obsessed than to prove that someone doesn't care. But perhaps the absence of anything at all is itself evidence that proves my point. But the DNC has pretty loudly ignored Newt, which is pretty telling as well. Dick Morris thinks Obama would vote for Newt if he could, and Ann Coulter think that Newt is anything but ideal. And they're pretty conservative right? (Coulters column is particularly thorough)
Please indulge me in an almost Inception or Memento esque thought. Is Newt Gingrich the Mitt Romney of the Anti-Mitt Romney pool? Could it be that Newt is the last front runner because the non-Mitt people wanted to exhaust every other option first, in hopes there could be a better anti-Mitt than Gingrich?
There are plenty of reasons law-makers aren't rushing to endorse Newt.
And there are plenty of reasons why Obama doesn't seem to care about Newt while he is obsessed with Mitt. I wish I could find an article to say that Obama doesn't care about Newt, but Obama doesn't care about Newt SO MUCH that it's not even IN the news! And it's harder to prove that someone is obsessed than to prove that someone doesn't care. But perhaps the absence of anything at all is itself evidence that proves my point. But the DNC has pretty loudly ignored Newt, which is pretty telling as well. Dick Morris thinks Obama would vote for Newt if he could, and Ann Coulter think that Newt is anything but ideal. And they're pretty conservative right? (Coulters column is particularly thorough)
Please indulge me in an almost Inception or Memento esque thought. Is Newt Gingrich the Mitt Romney of the Anti-Mitt Romney pool? Could it be that Newt is the last front runner because the non-Mitt people wanted to exhaust every other option first, in hopes there could be a better anti-Mitt than Gingrich?
Before I get into the reasons why Newt isn't more popular, I will just say that I think we are all grateful by now for the primary process. Especially a debate-heavy primary process. Candidates have been paraded as front-runners and then been exposed as insolent after just a few hours on the debate stage. As a matter of fact the term "front-runners" has lost all meaning because of how often it follows either the word "former" or some sort of political disaster. (oops , Libyan uprising, how do you say delicious in Cuban?, and who can forget Michelle Bachman's "HPV causes retardation" mess) Every candidate has been exposed to some sort of weakness or flaw as a presidential candidate that has dropped them from the 20s and down to the 5 or below category to keep Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum company (two candidates that never reached "front-runner" or even the level of "second tier" candidate).
The truth is that Newt is just not a good candidate. Politically, he is even more of a flip-flopper/inconsistent than Mitt. He shares in equal part Mitt's health care issue that seems to follow him everywhere he goes. His tenure as Speaker of the House of Representatives (which many remember as heroic) was actually quite turbulent, which is why he only has 6 congressional endorsements, and Mitt has over 40. He has appeared in a video with Nancy Pelosi to raise awareness about climate change which he later apologized for. He does look pretty cozy with Princess Nancy though. And who can forget what he said about Paul Ryan's plan to overhaul medicare. He famously called it "Right Wing Social Engineering."To which Paul Ryan responded "with allies like that, who needs the left." Paul Ryan is Chairman of the house committee on the Budget and has been called one of the most influential voices on the economy. In a congress that can't get anything done in fixing the economy, do we REALLY need to be going after our own? Does a REPUBLICAN former Speaker of the House really need to make a point of cutting the legs out from under a current REPUBLICAN house committee chair? By discrediting Ryan, Newt gave ammunition to the obstructionist Senate, the Minority leadership, and the Obama administration ammunition against a Republican house that has enough trouble getting things done as it is. Needless to say, Newt took heat for it. Reagan called it the eleventh commandment, as Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer quoted, "thou shalt not attack fellow republicans." Krauthammer then said he will not recover.
The final nail in the coffin, and the one that you would THINK would make the biggest difference for the party that lauds it's family values is that Newt is a serial adulterer. The Huffington Post published an entire (graphic) timeline of his affairs and failed marriages, and they are bad. Ironically much of it happened while he was leading the charge in the Clinton impeachment case and condemning Clinton for doing exactly what he was doing at the same time. Say what you will about forgiveness and moving forward, but it shows inability to commit, a lack of moral fiber or even a moral compass, and a pattern that could very well continue into the White House if he were to be elected. I personally wasn't too convinced by his "My country made me do it" defense or his convenient conversion to Catholicism right as he began working towards his presidential bid. In that same interview he talked about how "the biggest threat to Judeo-Christian Society"
"On one front, you have a secular, atheist, elitism. And on the other front, you have radical Islamists. And both groups would like to eliminate our civilization if they could. For different reasons, but with equal passion."
Really Newt? The biggest threat to Judeo-Christian society is Atheism and elitism and radical Islam? While those are certainly threats to our livelihood, I think a majority of Christians would agree that the biggest threat to Judeo-Christian society and the fabric of it is the assault on morality. When family values and morality go out the door, so does Judeo-Christian society. A party that is host to evangelicals, family interest groups, and social conservatism CANNOT support a man with the immoral stature of Newt Gingrich. I understand that he claims it was all in the past, that he's moved on and hopes his voters will as well. But I will be shocked if evangelical and other religious leaders that shiver at the very thought of gay marriage get behind a candidate that has made such a mockery of the institution of marriage itself. Lets hope that we, as a party, can avoid that hypocritical mire.
For some foaming hypocrisy out of Newts own mouth though, watch this ridiculous interview. (Warning: Newt refers to himself in the first person in this interview, which may cause sudden vomiting) He says he talks about Mitt's inconsistencies and says that voters wonder which position he will take next on an issue. The most public and latest hypocrisy is the 1.6 million he took from Fannie May and co. to act as some sort of "historian" or something along those lines. He has been accused of lobbying for health care and other things, and the evidence is pretty damning. This is ALL hypocritical because the way he has spoken about Fannie and Freddie AND lobbyists in the debates. For a more comprehensive list of the Former Speakers serial hypocrisy, see Ron Paul's latest campaign ad.
In conclusion, some keywords
The truth is that Newt is just not a good candidate. Politically, he is even more of a flip-flopper/inconsistent than Mitt. He shares in equal part Mitt's health care issue that seems to follow him everywhere he goes. His tenure as Speaker of the House of Representatives (which many remember as heroic) was actually quite turbulent, which is why he only has 6 congressional endorsements, and Mitt has over 40. He has appeared in a video with Nancy Pelosi to raise awareness about climate change which he later apologized for. He does look pretty cozy with Princess Nancy though. And who can forget what he said about Paul Ryan's plan to overhaul medicare. He famously called it "Right Wing Social Engineering."To which Paul Ryan responded "with allies like that, who needs the left." Paul Ryan is Chairman of the house committee on the Budget and has been called one of the most influential voices on the economy. In a congress that can't get anything done in fixing the economy, do we REALLY need to be going after our own? Does a REPUBLICAN former Speaker of the House really need to make a point of cutting the legs out from under a current REPUBLICAN house committee chair? By discrediting Ryan, Newt gave ammunition to the obstructionist Senate, the Minority leadership, and the Obama administration ammunition against a Republican house that has enough trouble getting things done as it is. Needless to say, Newt took heat for it. Reagan called it the eleventh commandment, as Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer quoted, "thou shalt not attack fellow republicans." Krauthammer then said he will not recover.
The final nail in the coffin, and the one that you would THINK would make the biggest difference for the party that lauds it's family values is that Newt is a serial adulterer. The Huffington Post published an entire (graphic) timeline of his affairs and failed marriages, and they are bad. Ironically much of it happened while he was leading the charge in the Clinton impeachment case and condemning Clinton for doing exactly what he was doing at the same time. Say what you will about forgiveness and moving forward, but it shows inability to commit, a lack of moral fiber or even a moral compass, and a pattern that could very well continue into the White House if he were to be elected. I personally wasn't too convinced by his "My country made me do it" defense or his convenient conversion to Catholicism right as he began working towards his presidential bid. In that same interview he talked about how "the biggest threat to Judeo-Christian Society"
"On one front, you have a secular, atheist, elitism. And on the other front, you have radical Islamists. And both groups would like to eliminate our civilization if they could. For different reasons, but with equal passion."
Really Newt? The biggest threat to Judeo-Christian society is Atheism and elitism and radical Islam? While those are certainly threats to our livelihood, I think a majority of Christians would agree that the biggest threat to Judeo-Christian society and the fabric of it is the assault on morality. When family values and morality go out the door, so does Judeo-Christian society. A party that is host to evangelicals, family interest groups, and social conservatism CANNOT support a man with the immoral stature of Newt Gingrich. I understand that he claims it was all in the past, that he's moved on and hopes his voters will as well. But I will be shocked if evangelical and other religious leaders that shiver at the very thought of gay marriage get behind a candidate that has made such a mockery of the institution of marriage itself. Lets hope that we, as a party, can avoid that hypocritical mire.
For some foaming hypocrisy out of Newts own mouth though, watch this ridiculous interview. (Warning: Newt refers to himself in the first person in this interview, which may cause sudden vomiting) He says he talks about Mitt's inconsistencies and says that voters wonder which position he will take next on an issue. The most public and latest hypocrisy is the 1.6 million he took from Fannie May and co. to act as some sort of "historian" or something along those lines. He has been accused of lobbying for health care and other things, and the evidence is pretty damning. This is ALL hypocritical because the way he has spoken about Fannie and Freddie AND lobbyists in the debates. For a more comprehensive list of the Former Speakers serial hypocrisy, see Ron Paul's latest campaign ad.
In conclusion, some keywords
- health care
- poor leadership history
- climate change with Princess Nancy
- "with allies like that who needs the left"
- serial adultery
- Fanny May
- Lobbying
- Amnesty (something I didn't mention because this got SO long)
Ignore the polls and ignore anything that says Newt is far ahead of Mitt. Intrade has Mitt at 16 ahead of Newt, and has Obama at a 50.1 percent chance of being reelected. I like that.
No comments:
Post a Comment