America hates Newt Gingrich [Reader Post]

Well, I guess that Todd and Sarah are wrong, Chuck Norris, the majority of Tea Party Patriots in their straw poll,  and the 100 or so TP “leaders” than have endorsed Newt are wrong.  I guess the SC voters are wrong.  And I guess all of us who don’t dutifully fall into line behind another “McCain” moderate candidate are also wrong.  A consistent 66-75% of voters who wanted anyone-but-Romney must also be wrong.

I guess that takes care of the sour grapes headline by Conn Carroll  that “America hates Newt Gingrich”:.  LOL  Of course, I read Carroll’s column yesterday… and it was written two days ago.  Prior to the SC thrashing.  Nor does Carroll provide the dates used for the data he puts in his graph.  But one thing is certain in this topsy turvy primary… nothing is static, and Romney’s coronation has been postponed.

What’s admitted by pretty much everyone is that none of us are thrilled with the political menu of candidates.  But it is what it is, and we’ll have to run with it.  But it’s sure not a time when we go for another milquetoast candidate, as Jarhead says above.

It’s always been apparent that Romney is the Obama heir-apparent preferred choice, by both the Obama campaign and the media. Regardless of the legalities of Bain Capital, having a “fat cat”, as Obama likes to call the wealthy, as his opponent plays perfectly into this strategy.  And even tho hostile takeovers are also legal, and a savvy move for a VC to make money for his investors, you can bet the Dems won’t be parading Staples employees in front of the cameras, but those who lost their livelihood for the other type of deals.

Romney is Obama’s manna from heaven.

Establishment Republicans and pundits?  They must be rolling in their grave.  How dare the voting masses question their McCain replacement.  They are supposed to know best.  They’ve played their best herd mentality cards, building up Mittens as the anointed one who can’t lose.  Funny they don’t want to admit he can’t debate his way out of a corner, even when challenged by his own peers.  Amazing that some say he’s a great debater when what he usually does is not answer the question, and steers it into a realm where he feels comfortable.

Odd that they want to put the quintessential architect of O’healthcare up against the guy who used his plan as the template, just because today he says he wants to repeal it… that only the states should be able to pass a mandate.  Hasn’t anyone figured out that the mandate idea at national or state level is not acceptable to the majority of citizens?  Heritage’s economists made the case for the mandate in the late 80s/early 90s.  Their Constitutionalists have since reversed their official stance… uh oh… someone changed their mind!  How dastardly.

I will still scratch my head in wonderment at those who attempt to distance Newt from the achievements of the Republican Congress in the mid 90s.  I’ve even seen those who are attempting to convince people that Santorum had more to do with the Contract With America than Newt did.  ???

Instead come the anti-Newt talking points… the predictable “run out by his own party” and a “disgrace” portrayal.   Few speak of the Gingrich leadership and accomplishments in the 90s.  Few remember that Newt bucked Bush the elder on his tax increases.  I was listening to Chris Christie trying to push that line today on MTP… saying that Newt has no experience in working to get things done in a volatile climate.

????

Maybe Chris Christie was too busy with his law firm, or ramping up to his lobbyist career, to pay attention to the accomplishments of the House under Newt, and in tandem a slim majority Senate and Democrat POTUS.  But that statement begs “the suspension of disbelief”. Speaking of “lobbyist”, I guess we can be assured that Mittens, condemning any “lobbyist” – supposedly Newt – as a POTUS means that he won’t be picking Christie as a running mate. Unless, of course, it’s just the usual Mittens doublespeak.

There is no doubt that Newt was hated by not only the Dems, but most of his own peers as well.  Some hated his “big ideas”, and what they considered his arrogant personality.  Others hated him because he flea market bargained with Clinton, and actually came out with deals that were at least better for the right than the left.  No one had been able to get the Dems to accept tax cuts.

During the run up to the 1998 midterms, the Dems were assaulting Newt with the ethics charges, and the Republicans were making impeachment of Clinton a public issue on the campaign trail.  With Dems portraying the Republicans as petty and interfering in Clinton’s personal life, PLUS the public trial-by-media perception that the Speaker was corrupt… even tho innocent of the charges… Republicans felt they had to politically lynch Newt to redeem themselves as a party.

All but one charge against Newt was dropped.  For the last, the investigator thought Newt was guilty, the committee disagreed.  What was decided was to reprimand/punish Newt with the fine in exchange for the Republicans hoping that “scandal” would go away.  It was a political “settlement”. A year later, the IRS themselves concluded that that Newt’s organizations did not violate federal tax laws.

Pity that the Republicans wouldn’t back Newt, just as they didn’t back Cain in this primary from his accusers. But then, they are so busy trying to prop up a candidate they think will appease the Dems.

But I find it really hypocritical that those who went to bat for Palin and her false ethics accusations prefer to just dismiss Newt’s similar path over a decade ago.  Palin is very much like Newt in that she also worked across the aisle to get things done in Alaska, and was hated by both parties for the same method.  Hated or not, both have achievements for their leadership.  Perhaps the Palin’s see that parallel themselves.

No one with an ounce of honesty in them can legitimately remove Newt from the achievements of the mid 90s Republican Congress without completely revising history in order to benefit Romney … but I can see they are going to bring up the same tired political lynching arguments to, once again, make Newt a scapegoat.

But it appears that’s not going to fly this time.  Because America doesn’t have to adore Newt.  What they have to do is trust him to figure out a way to reverse the direction Obama, Pelosi and Reid have set, and not cave in to enormous pressure he will face from both the Democrats AND the Republicans in doing so.  Newt has demonstrated he has not only done that, but he takes all the expected punches standing up.  He’s risen  from the political dead three times now, and been labeled a “pariah” by some.

But it appears that America doesn’t “hate” Newt at all… and they just may like the fact that he’s willing to be assailed, but will still stand his ground. Even the SC Christian voters were willing to put the nation’s economy ahead of their traditional “family values”, throwing their weight behind Newt instead of Santorum.  That revelation is huge for any acquainted with traditional SC politics.

Any GOP nominee is guaranteed to be Obama’s punching bag.  Personally, I think street fighter Gingrich can not only hold his own, but expose Obama’s weak campaign strategy as the redressed hope/change BS that it is.  As they’ve learned, debates matter… and I’m quite sure that Newt  – the walking encyclopedia – will make Obama and his TOTUS look like the whining, inept school boy.

John Cooper, actually when Curt followed up my Dec 6th post on the bipartisan hatred of Newt with his own, I had laughingly suggested that if you really wanted to see the heads-that-be whirl, Newt should pick Palin as his Veep.  I figure a Newt/Sarah ticket would push many over the edge…. and that might be worth the price of admission.

But to answer your question, no… I don’t think Newt would offer Palin the Veep slot, but I’m darned sure that Palin would have a spot in his administration.  While she’d be good as Energy Sec’y, I’d say she’d wield more power as the head of the EPA.

And I’d still pay money to see Ron Paul appointed as Treasury Secretary.

Funny that Christie volunteered himself.  I heard him say the “if called” bit, but also stressed he was likely to stay as NJ Gov.  Had he listened to Mittens, stating that no lobbyist is fit to be POTUS, he’d know that Mittens can’t offer him the Veep slot without looking like the hypocrite he is.

Oh, another falsehood, new talking point for Mittens.. that Newt has never owned a business or had employees.  Surely Mittens can’t be this stupid.  Even the Washington Post has had a couple of articles on how Newt went from political flame out to private sector successful entrepreneur.

Newt has had five for profit holdings, and four nonprofits.  Surely health care think tanks, booking agencies, a company that handles royalties, a book and publishing company and his communications company aren’t all one man endeavors with no employees. If so, how did his non profit, American Solutions, continue on without him? Robots in the building?

The non profits also require employees. 

Such a claim is so easily dismissed that it’s embarrassing that Romney would even attempt that direction.  In fact, another WaPo article notes that Gingrich earned $2.5 million in 2009

Among Gingrich’s moneymaking ventures: a health-care think tank financed by six-figure dues from corporations; a consulting business; a communications firm that handled his speeches of up to $60,000 a pop, media appearances and books; a historical documentary production company; a separate operation to administer the royalties for the historical fiction that Gingrich writes with two co-authors; even an in-house literary agency that has counted among its clients a presidential campaign rival, former senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.).

Separate from all of that was his nonprofit political operation, American Solutions for Winning the Future. Before it disintegrated this summer in Gingrich’s absence, American Solutions generated another $52 million and provided some of the money that allowed the former speaker to travel by private jet and hired limousine.

Along the way, Gingrich has become a wealthy man, earning $2.5 million in personal income last year, according to his financial disclosure form.
 

drj:  His winning a deeply red state all hyped on Newt pistol whipping a CNN anchor is no indication of the general electorate.

Don’t you think that’s trivializing Newt’s consistent debate performances not only in the past,  but especially on Monday and Thursday, drj?  You assume it was only the responses to Juan Williams and John King that did it? Yes, they got standing ovations – a historic first for primary debates – but  you’re insulting the SC voters if you suggest that two quips, emptying the verbal magazine back at the moderators, was their big reason for supporting Newt.  I’m not guessing that the SC voters are that shallow.  In fact, only 42% of Newt’s supporters said that the debates were a factor in their decision.

In fact, over all, only 13% said debates were the “most important” and 51% saying “important”.  34% said it was either minor, or not a factor at all.

The SC exit poll reveals that electability and the right experience were high in their decisions.  For electability, Newt had 51% to Romney’s 37%.  The right experience for the job had Newt at 49% to Romney’s 34%.  97% of them cited they were worried about the ecomony.

Somehow I’m not seeing taking it to the media as high on their list…

And here’s something that’s going to interfere with the Ron Paul talking points…21% of all those in the exit poll (2381 responders total , or 920 of them) were veterans.  They went 39% for Gingrich, and 32% for Romney.  

Ron “the military supports me more than other candidates” Paul?  14%.  Santorum got more support than Paul did.  Perry was last with 1%, but he dropped out of the primary prior to the vote.

ooops… that’s gonna leave a mark…. LOL Especially in a huge military base state with over 104,000 military personnel.

Here’s another inconvenient fact.  To the question, “Would you support Romney if he were the nominee?”  Just a little over half – 57% –  of Romney supporters said yes, enthusiastically. Seems just a little less than half of them are settling for chopped liver, and don’t mind admitting so. Of the Newt supporters, only 30% would support him enthusiastically.  Another 30% said nope… no way.

38% of Ron Pauls supporters *also* said no way, Jose.  Santorum’s supporters weren’t too thrilled either.

Needless to say, when it comes to SC, Romney is in big trouble.

And it’s become very obvious that Carroll’s little blog ditty is out of date, and that “America” does not hate Newt.