Hannity: Voice of Reason »« Best War on Christmas Post Ever

GOP Insiders Know Newt is Trouble

There’s a reason why Obama’s advisers would much, much rather face Newt Gingrich in the general election than Mitt Romney. And the Republican insiders surveyed routinely by the National Journal recognize it too. 83% of them think Romney has a better chance of beating Obama than Gingrich. And the reasons they offer are right on target:

However, the overwhelming refrain from the majority of Insiders on both sides focused on Gingrich’s temperament and the unpredictable risks it would create in a general election.

“Winning the presidency is all about discipline, focus, and organization,” said one Republican Insider, “none of which are strong suits for Gingrich.”

“With Newt, we go to bed every night thinking that tomorrow might be the day he implodes,” said another Republican. “Not good for our confidence – or fundraising.” A third Republican stated plainly, “Gingrich is not stable enough emotionally to be the nominee – let alone, the president.”

“Newt can’t take the scrutiny,” agreed a Democrat, “and he has the personality of an angry badger.”

Some Insiders argued that a Gingrich nomination would be a gift to the Obama campaign.

“Shhhhhhhhh – don’t tell them!” begged a Democrat, tongue firmly in cheek. “They seem hell-bent on finding anybody but Mitt. Grandpa Newt and all his quirks and quacks would be just fine, thank you.”

“Bigfoot dressed as a circus clown would have a better chance of beating President Obama than Newt Gingrich, a similarly farcical character,” quipped a Republican.

“Come on,” sighed another GOP Insider, “the White House is probably giving money to Gingrich as we speak.”

I wouldn’t be surprised if that was true.

Comments

  1. carlsonjok says

    Someone needs to get Randall to do a “Newt the Angry Badger” video.

    “Angry Badger don’t care. Angry badger don’t give a shit. It just takes what it wants.”

  2. MikeMa says

    If the ‘insiders’ see Newt as a loose cannon or as a big of an ass as do progressives, why don’t they publicly announce it? Wouldn’t these same insiders control the RNC and therefore be in a position to, again publicly, make their worries known? Cowards.

    Mitt may be more of a practical worry for Obama but all the double digit contenders for the GOP nomination (and most of the rest) have been total washouts. They will not inspire a huge turnout of the looney base, they will drive independents away screaming and will the give the election to Obama almost by default.

    That outcome is, of course, predicated on no economic crash. In the case of economic disaster, the short list of non-insane choices for GOP candidate does not in any way include Newt.

  3. Michael Heath says

    Bigfoot dressed as a circus clown would have a better chance of beating President Obama than Newt Gingrich, a similarly farcical character,” quipped a Republican.

    The clown descriptor seems to be spreading where it’s applied to all the candidates. I’ve only watched a handful of minutes of Chris Matthews recently where he used the same word in reference to The Donald and Newt Gingrich. I’ve also seen it used in relation to Mitt Romney accusing others of being flip-floppers and Rick Perry’s ad where he hates on gays and lies about prayer in schools and Obama’s treatment of religion as president. We must also now include Jon Huntsman into this group of clowns since he’s recently begun to misinform people regarding what the climate science community confidently understands about climate change. The merest whiff of having a chance has him selling-out.

  4. joncurry says

    Republican strategists are right to be more concerned with personality than policy because that’s what the media focuses on so that’s all that matters in our fake elections. If we’re focused on whether or not Obama is well organized, good at speaking, calm, etc we forget that he just took for himself the right to kill any US citizen anywhere in the world, including non war zones, without a shred of due process.

    There’s a reason the media follows Sarah Palin’s bus around even though she hasn’t even said she’d run. Or they spend so much time talking about clueless Cain. By focusing on such distractions we forget that at the end of the day we’re all going to get fleeced in the same way by the .01%.

  5. says

    I am not paying much attention to Newt. The one to watch is that man in the shadows, laughing as the three-wheel GOP clown car bumps along with red noses big feet and ooga horns. I am speaking of Jeb Bush, who is going to take the nomination. Mark my words.

  6. Jordan Genso says

    @5 MikeMa

    I don’t think the “insiders” have all that much power anymore, relative to Fox News. And Fox News wants Gingrinch to be the nominee, possibly because they suspect he’ll lose to President Obama, and that will give them another 4 years of not having to change their strategy. If Fox News is selfish (and there’s no reason to believe they are not), they’re going to do what is best for them, and that means intentionally trying to give President Obama another term.

  7. says

    If the Republican’s want to get the Oval Office back, they need to change the voting age to 6 and nominate Sponge Bob.

    Hell, Sponge Bob makes more sense than the current crop of nominees for the GOP.

  8. MikeMa says

    @Jordan Genso
    You may be right in thinking Faux News has more influence than ‘insiders’ and wants a ready target in the WH. That would truly be a wag the dog scenario though and very scary.

    Makes those insiders look even more cowardly or maybe they realize they have already lost and it won’t matter until 2016.

  9. arakasi says

    The thought crossed my mind after Newt’s child labor speech that maybe the Koch brothers were paying him several million dollars to say the most inane things in order to make Romney look reasonable. Then I came to my senses – the more outlandish stuff Newt says, the more likely it is that he will walk away with the nomination

  10. chilidog99 says

    On the other hand, there is always Mitt’s short temper.

    Reportedly it’s as bad as Grampy McCain’s

  11. Michael Heath says

    joncurry writes:

    Republican strategists are right to be more concerned with personality than policy because that’s what the media focuses on so that’s all that matters in our fake elections. If we’re focused on whether or not Obama is well organized, good at speaking, calm, etc we forget that he just took for himself the right to kill any US citizen anywhere in the world, including non war zones, without a shred of due process.

    Man that’s weasly, slipping in a strawman with a list of indefensible positions. What do you hope to achieve? Get people to unconsciously come to concede your point without have the balls to make an argument?

    My default position is that if you rely on rhetorical or logical fallacies there might not be an argument to made, you’ve earned our distrust for you and possibly your position if one is uninformed on the subject. Fortunately I happen to know a good argument does exist against the executive killing citizens as an act of war. That results in my concluding your effort has you shooting your own team in the foot since there are many people who use the same approach I do when expected to swallow that which is lamely served-up.

  12. says

    Alareth @ 11:
    I second the idea of lowering the voting age to 6. Hell, if kids are old enough to clean toilets and do other janitor work, they’re old enough to vote!

  13. Paul Neubauer says

    @Michael Heath, #16:

    I understand that this is a blog comment, not a publication where we would expect more careful editing, but I’m afraid I can’t figure out what you are saying here. I am confused and quite probably wrong in my interpretation of what you said, and I would appreciate a chance to get unconfused. Perhaps a slightly higher level of abstraction would help.

    I’m going to assign letters to propositions so that we can hopefully be a bit clearer by mostly avoiding pronouns referring to these statements.

    Let A = “The President has the right to order killing of anyone, including American citizens, anywhere in the world.”

    Let B = “President Obama has asserted A.”

    Let C = “joncurry believes B.”

    Let D = “We [American voters] forget that B.”

    Let E = “joncurry has asserted D.”

    It appears to me that E is true and that D implies (or presupposes) C.

    Your statement:

    My default position is that if you rely on rhetorical or logical fallacies…

    appears to imply that you think joncurry has committed a logical fallacy in asserting D (or something else?).

    Let F = “Executive killing of citizens is an act of war.”

    Let G = “Michael Heath knows an argument against F.”

    It appears to me that you said G in the following:

    Fortunately I happen to know a good argument does exist against the executive killing citizens as an act of war.

    Let H = “The truth or falsity of F has some bearing on the validity of B or D.”

    Let I = “Michael Heath believes H.”

    By saying G in conjunction with saying that D is a logical fallacy, I can only infer I, but H looks like a logical fallacy to me, since I see no clear connection between F and B.

    I don’t want to put words in anyone’s mouth, but I don’t think very many people here (at least among the regular commenters) believes A. I think a number of people do believe B. It is possible that B is, in fact, false, but President Obama does seem to have asserted at least some limited version of A without any clear statement of what limitations might apply, so B appears to have some prima facie plausibility. Were you attempting to say that B is false?

    I’m sure you had something more sensible in mind than I have attributed to you in I, but I am failing to see it. I hope the above clarifies the source of (my) confusion. Perhaps you could clarify about which, if any, of the above statements or combination of statements constitutes the logical fallacy you are accusing joncurry of having committed.

    Paul

  14. rozzer says

    Why all this confidence in Newt never being able to win? The people of our country have proven time and time again that they simply cannot see through frauds of his variety. Mencken must be laughing hysterically in his grave. Anyone with a reasonably deep familiarity with our history knows that the only way Newt will go down is if all (and I do mean ALL) the big money Republicans keep their wallets closed.

    And unfortunately “big money Republicans” are no longer the tight circle that they were a hundred years ago. We now have, as you must admit, very numerous right-wing loonies with (literally) billions of dollars to hand out. (I did love today’s story that six Walton offspring are worth more than the lower 30% of the entire population of our country.)

    No. Newt is now and will continue to be a threat and must be treated seriously. This is not paranoia. This is based on a firmly realistic understanding of the voting population of the United States. Wish it weren’t so, but there you are.

  15. Michael Heath says

    Paul Neubauer,

    My point is there are good arguments to be had on both sides of the debate on the legitimacy of the president ordering the killing of an American citizen actively engaged killing American citizens and our allies. I’ve encountered zero convincing arguments for either side. Specifically within the framework of dealing with actors where our criminal and military laws are arguably insufficient to deal with the rise of terrorism and how we lawfully and ethically respond. I was criticizing slipping in an assertion such presidential acts are reprehensible as if no good argument existed for taking this sort of action – that’s an obvious implication since it was contained within a list of other actions which are indefensibile where this issue also isn’t even relevant to the topic at hand. It’s weasly.

    We don’t like it when conservatives deploy this type of argument and we should condemn it when we see it amongst ourselves. I think one of the competitive advantages the left has over conservatives is many of its adherents’ ability to make coherent compelling arguments. We shouldn’t reduce ourselves to their level on this matter if we hope to win debates. Especially since conservatives haven’t merely lost the desire to make honest compelling arguments, they’ve also almost universally lost the ability to do so as well. In fact those conservatives who can make great arguments and do so publically can confidently be described as outliers where they also wield almost no power within their own movement or in any large institution, e.g., only Daniel Larison, Bruce Bartlett, Conor Freidersdorf come to mind where David Frum can make such arguments but also consistently makes standard-issue dishonest arguments as well though he appears to be maturing beyond such tripe.

    Some people would argue the right just lost one of those rare outliers when Jon Huntsman recently started lying about the reality of what we factually understand about climate change and its threat to life on this planet. However his long-held positions on economic matters already had him categorized as another standard-issue conservative liar and illiterate.

Leave a Reply