Newton Leroy McPherson Gingrich has always stood in stark repudiation of every action he has ever taken. He had been in the House of Representatives for fifteen years when he wrote the "Contract
The man who served his first wife divorce papers while she was in the hospital for cancer surgery is now trumpeting the importance of "traditional marriage"; the man who was just quoted as saying "If you don't start with values, the rest of it doesn't matter," was the first Speaker of the House ever disciplined for ethics violations (for which he was fined $300,000).
But more recently, on February 22, he went on Fox & Friends to say:
I wish the administration — the Obama administration was as enthusiastic about democracy in ... as it was in Egypt, which was our ally.When asked by Greta van Susteren on March 7, “what would you do about Libya?” he said:
Qadhafi’s been our enemy for years. This is an opportunity to replace that dictatorship, and I think the United States ought to be firmly on the side of the Libyan people in replacing this administration.“
Exercise a no-fly zone this evening... We don’t need to have NATO, who frankly, won’t bring much to the fight. We don’t need to have the United Nations. All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we’re intervening. And we don’t have to send troops. All we have to do is suppress his air force, which we could do in minutes.But when Obama did exactly that, on March 23, Newt went on the Today Show to say:
I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi. I think there are a lot of other allies in the region we could have worked with. I would not have used American and European forces.So, not a complete reversal. He still wouldn’t have used the Europeans.
He’s offered several explanations for this, and they all contradict each other, too. On Twitter, for example:
So maybe he would use the Europeans, after all.
And then he went on Facebook to explain:
On March 3rd, President Obama said publicly that “it’s time for Gadaffi to go.”So, no Europeans again, but now no Americans either. And now the president shouldn’t have opposed Qaddaffi.
Prior to this statement, there were options to be indirect and subtle to achieve this result without United States military forces. I made this point on The Today Show this morning, saying “I would not have intervened…there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi…I would not have used American and European forces.”
The president, however, took those options off the table with his public statement.
At first, I thought that it was possible that there were no contradiction: Newt has always had one primary, overriding concern in all this. He is firmly opposed to whatever Obama does.
But now, it turns out that this is some kind of mental aberration in Gingrich’s brain: he has to contradict himself on every subject, and those contradictions are coming closer and closer together. On Sunday, this twice-divorced Catholic went to an evangelical Protestant church to explain that:
"I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they're my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American."He didn’t bother to explain where we would find these radical atheist Islamists, but I’m sure it made sense to him at the time.
Newtie needs a doctor before it’s too late. Before he accidentally says that he's happy to be alive, and his brain simply shuts down in stolid opposition to this idea.
I used to think that Newt is using the WODIW Theory - "Whatever Obama Does Is Wrong!" but you make a convincing case that Newt is merely an embodiment of what the great Bil Keane used to call "Not Me".
ReplyDelete"Who wanted to bomb Libya?" "Not Me!"
"...a poor player
ReplyDeletethat struts and frets his hour upon the stage
and then is heard no more: it is a tale
told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
signifying nothing.
Gingrich is a living, breathing embarrassment. He will never be president.
ReplyDeleteI read PZ Myers at Pharyngula often, and in one of his posts he observed that he is a nonbeliever who has been married and faithful to the same woman for 31 years, and yet because of his atheism he could never run for the presidency.
Then we have a bloated, walking contradiction of a hypocrite, Newt Gingrich, who's been a serial adulterer, who was disciplined for ethics violations, and is an unapologetic flip-flopper. This sorry excuse for a politician is taken seriously by media and pundits as a brilliant guy who may not only run for the presidency, but who millions of people will encourage and see nothing incongruous about the embarrassing spectacle that his candidacy will would be.
I've pointed out so many times this GOP "values" dichotomy. Imagine if Mr. and Mrs. Obama had trotted out their high-school dropout, teenage pregnant daughter as an introduction to their family? Imagine if they had also had a son who didn't finish high school, had gotten into trouble with the law, and chose to join the military?
The Gingriches and the Palins all are considered "family values" GOPers, and their followers are fiercely loyal to both of those galloping hypocrites.
IOKIYAR!
NC and Shaw,
ReplyDeleteGreat rants from the two of you. And let me add this, A Letter to My Brother Newt Gingrich by Candace Gingrich who wrote this open letter to her brother:
“You give a pass to a religious group -- one that looks down upon minorities and women -- when they use their money and membership roles to roll back the rights of others, and then you label us "fascists" when we fight back. You belittle the relationships of gay and lesbian couples, and yet somehow neglect to explain who anointed you the protector of "traditional" marriage. And, of course, you've also mastered taking the foolish actions of a few people and then indicting an entire population based on those mistakes.
(…)
What really worries me is that you are always willing to use LGBT Americans as political weapons to further your ambitions. That's really so '90s, Newt. In this day and age, it's embarrassing to watch you talk like that. You should be more afraid of the new political climate in America, because, there is no place for you in it. In other words, stop being a hater, big bro.”
And here is what the GREAT BIG MAN thinks of his little sister:
_Newt Gingrich thinks his gay sister is a fascist. But I'm sure she thinks the same of her brother, and she'd be right.
I wish this arch crumb-bum would simply go away and disappear.
Nameless, thank you for this analysis of Newt's thought processes or lack thereof. Perhaps his mother dropped him on his head frequently as an infant. It is unfathomable why anyone has any respect for this man.
ReplyDeleteShaw, his candidacy would indeed be an embarrassing spectacle.
Sir O, thank you for sharing the letter from Newt's brilliant sister. Clearly she received all of the brains in the family; the only thing that Newt got was a big head. btw, I'm feeling queenly so I decided to knight you.
BB, you quoted one of my favorite passages from Macbeth; however, Macbeth had enough character to be tragic, Newt is just pathetic.
Newt Gingrich is a prototypical conservative Republican politician of this era. He should serve as a living logo for the GOP and the whole right-wing establishment.
ReplyDeleteWomen, except perhaps for a few radical-right Republican stalwarts, loathe and despise the sight and sound of Gingrich. One commented seeing or hearing him made her feel the need to take a bath.
Gingrich and Bachmann — a dream ticket, from the Democratic point of view. If only . . .