He’s melting. The avalanche has started. Newt Gingrich is setting himself on fire. The list is long and will grow in the coming days.
Remember Newt’s indignant put down of John King for having the audacity to ask about his 2nd ex-wife’s charge that Newt wanted an open marriage. Well, King ain’t letting him get away with his false claim that his campaign offered up bunches of people to rebut poor Marianne:
Gingrich wrong? Gee, how could that be.
Then there is Newt’s crazy effort to dress himself up as a “Reagan Conservative.” Gingrich, channeling his inner Al Gore, takes credit for helping Ronald Reagan bring down the Soviet Union. Seriously, Newt? The Soviets tanked in 1990. You didn’t become Speaker until 1994. But, as I will show below, Newt trashed Reagan for the very policies that helped bring the Soviets down. Here’s a dandy clip of Newt advising George H.W. Bush to steer clear of being a Reagan Republican:
But this was not a one off comment. Newt repeatedly trashed Reagan. It pains me to quote Elliot Abrams, but the facts are the facts:
But the most bitter battleground was often in Congress. Here at home, we faced vicious criticism from leading Democrats — Ted Kennedy, Christopher Dodd, Jim Wright, Tip O’Neill, and many more — who used every trick in the book to stop Reagan by denying authorities and funds to these efforts. On whom did we rely up on Capitol Hill? There were many stalwarts: Henry Hyde, elected in 1974; Dick Cheney, elected in 1978, the same year as Gingrich; Dan Burton and Connie Mack, elected in 1982; and Tom DeLay, elected in 1984, were among the leaders.
But not Newt Gingrich. He voted with the caucus, but his words should be remembered, for at the height of the bitter struggle with the Democratic leadership Gingrich chose to attack . . . Reagan.
The best examples come from a famous floor statement Gingrich made on March 21, 1986. This was right in the middle of the fight over funding for the Nicaraguan contras; the money had been cut off by Congress in 1985, though Reagan got $100 million for this cause in 1986. Here is Gingrich: “Measured against the scale and momentum of the Soviet empire’s challenge, the Reagan administration has failed, is failing, and without a dramatic change in strategy will continue to fail. . . . President Reagan is clearly failing.” Why? This was due partly to “his administration’s weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail”; partly to CIA, State, and Defense, which “have no strategies to defeat the empire.” But of course “the burden of this failure frankly must be placed first on President Reagan.” Our efforts against the Communists in the Third World were “pathetically incompetent,” so those anti-Communist members of Congress who questioned the $100 million Reagan sought for the Nicaraguan “contra” rebels “are fundamentally right.” Such was Gingrich’s faith in President Reagan that in 1985, he called Reagan’s meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev “the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with Neville Chamberlain in 1938 in Munich.”
Newt also has tried to resurrect the ghost of Barry Goldwater and portray himself as a dyed in the wool Goldwater Republican. Except that is not true:
On this point Newt is right. An old friend of mine, who managed the delegate hunt for Rockefeller, told me that Gingrich in his position of working the South for Rockefeller was given a bag of cash and went out to buy votes in black churches.
Last but not least, there is Ann Coulter. Ann and I don’t agree on much, but her take down of Newt tracks much of what I have written previously:
To talk with Gingrich supporters is to enter a world where words have no meaning. They denounce Mitt Romney as a candidate being pushed on them by “the Establishment” — with “the Establishment” defined as anyone who supports Romney or doesn’t support Newt.
Gingrich may have spent his entire life in Washington and be so much of an insider that, as Jon Stewart says, “when Washington gets its prostate checked, it tickles [Newt],” but he is deemed the rebellious outsider challenging “the Establishment” — because, again, “the Establishment” is anyone who opposes Newt.
This is the sort of circular reasoning one normally associates with Democrats, people whom small-town pharmacists refer to as “drug seekers” and Ron Paul supporters.
Newtons claim Romney is a “moderate,” and Gingrich the true conservative — a feat that can be accomplished only by refusing to believe anything Romney says … and also refusing to believe anything Gingrich says.
Go here to read the full piece (it is worth your time).
Newt is bad news for the Republicans and worse news for America. He is grandiose and audacious. Neither are good traits or something we should expect a President to exhibit. Romney may not be the perfect candidate, but he is a decent, honest person. He made is money outside of Washington. Newt? He parlayed his position as Speaker into the millionaire club. Enough of Newt.