Gingrich on parade

posted at 7:03 pm on January 19, 2012 by Tina Korbe

As Marianne Gingrich airs her grievances, Newt Gingrich smiles and waves to his growing crowd of supporters in South Carolina. Like a parade announcer with his mistress of ceremonies beside him, he mocks Barack Obama to the laughs and claps of the sidewalk watchers. He criticizes the critics and implies by his refusal to be daunted by his own past that, just for today, his Palmetto State spectators should revel with him in temporary glory!

His buoyancy appeals; his buoyancy also appalls. For all his compelling ideas, for all his impressive experience, for all his adverbial eloquence, nothing in his campaign suggests that he alone is the candidate to conquer the menace that is Barack Obama. Nothing suggests that he alone can effectively articulate conservative principles. But much in his campaign suggests he thinks he alone is the candidate who should prevail.

On the one hand, that is the nature of a campaign; No one nominates himself for president unless he is convinced that he would be best for the job. On the other hand, Gingrich seems possessed of that conviction more so than any of the other candidates. Indeed, he has always seemed to think he was destined for greatness. With just one year of full-time teaching experience under his belt, for example, Gingrich applied to be college president. A year later, he applied again for a post above his station — to be the chair of the history department. On the political stage, he proved his ambition again and again — often to good effect for the conservative cause. The Contract with America. The Republican Revolution. Are any catch-phrases associated with Gingrich not connotative of grand gestures and great accomplishments? Now, we learn — if we can take Marianne Gingrich at her word — that he clung to Callista in part because she “was going to help him become president.” No, Gingrich has never lacked ambition.

Since his last period of prominence, though, Gingrich has been converted in ways he discusses freely. Much of the evidence of his campaign runs contrary to the idea that Gingrich is still prey to any avarice for power — and suggests instead that he is aware of his own weak tendencies and wants to systematically combat them. The campaign policies he initially implemented — especially the pointed civility to his fellow candidates — seemed aimed to ensure he’d remember that he wasn’t seeking power for himself, but rather that he was seeking power for the Republican Party. As long as he was civil to his fellow candidates, it would be easier for him to convince himself that he cared only that the GOP triumph, not necessarily that he triumph.

Who could ever forget the sincere testimony he delivered at the Thanksgiving Family Forum? For weeks, I was enamored of him because I thought he really understood what so few politicians seem to understand: That the power of the presidency is on loan from the people, that the presidency is a repository of power, but not the source of its own power. It’s evident by what he said at that event that he was very genuinely grappling with that idea and seeking to internalize it. By that grappling, I am still impressed.

It appears, though, that it’s true: Something in the very fact of wanting power seems to disqualify folks from possessing it. For it wasn’t long before Gingrich’s ambition reasserted itself. He began to attack his fellow candidates; he implied his rivals should drop out of the race; and, now, he brushes aside the bitterness of his ex-wife.

When I first read Marianne Gingrich’s attacks upon Gingrich this morning, I was neither shocked nor angry. I was just sad — sad for her and sad for him that his increasingly successful presidential bid brought out a kind of pettiness and vindictiveness in her. Like Ed, I questioned her timing and her insensitivity to Gingrich supporters and the rest of his family. But, gradually, the news reawakened my wariness of Gingrich. No doubt he has accomplished as much for the conservative cause as any contemporary, but he has sacrificed personal integrity along the way.

Beneath the flowery floats and the overinflated balloons, beneath a new theme and new decorations, the Gingrich parade is still driven by the same vehicle — the same old unbridled ambition, ambition that seems to think the ends justify the means.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Tina Korbe, sad because she had the gall not to care about Newt’s supporters and what it meant to them? WHAT?

antisense on January 19, 2012 at 7:42 PM

Well, the political hit-and-run Smear artists figured this would get the womenfolk riled up, and their calculation seems to be correct. You people are so easy to manipulate.

pseudonominus on January 19, 2012 at 7:40 PM

So let’s delve into the Secret Service agent and the angry black woman thing and see what happens.

WryTrvllr on January 19, 2012 at 7:43 PM

Bravo, Tina. Excellent analysis.

I read an article today in which Re. Peter King said “We had…well over 218 Republicans in Congress when Newt was the Speaker, and you can’t find more than a handful who will come to his defense, and it has nothing to do with ideology, nothing to do with philosophy. Its all the erratic, self serving narcissism of Newt.” The Hill, Ballot Box entitled “Gingrich cuts off reporters when asked about ex wife’s open marriage claims”.

thatsafactjack on January 19, 2012 at 7:44 PM

Oh. You mean conservative women?

WryTrvllr on January 19, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Um, no. All women. As in, half the voting population.

KingGold on January 19, 2012 at 7:41 PM

Um No….was enough

WryTrvllr on January 19, 2012 at 7:45 PM

Tina – I like most of your posts, but this one is just pure drivel. Ambition is now a sin? Do you honestly think that the other candidates are possessed of any less ambition? Do you think Romney or Santorum, who have been running for public office since the 90′s are possessed of any less sincere belief that they are best suited for the job? The only difference between the three is Gingrich has actual conservative accomplishments that support his bid.

The fact that Gingrich attacked his fellow candidates offended you? Really? After millions in negative attack ads from Romney and Paul took Gingrich from top to middle of the pack, and yet you selectively find it distasteful only that Gingrich then went on the attack?

“He implied that his rivals should drop out of the race.” Yes, so what exactly is wrong with that? Romney, if he wins this, will do it because the conservative options split the majority of the vote between them. There was nothing wrong with that, nor with Santorum’s response to that suggestion.

“He brushes aside the bitterness of his ex-wife.” One, this is old news. Two, he did not attack his ex-wife, merely restating that he had asked God for forgiveness. And three, what do you expect him to do at this point – go into the fetal position and begin an hour of public self flagellation? How about evaluating the bitterness itself of the ex-wife while you are in the judgmental mode, not to mention the scurrilous acts of an MSM that is glorying in attacking Gingrich’s long ago affair when this same MSM played a game of See Hear and Speak No Evil when it came to John Edwards.

Your conclusion that Gingrich seems to think the ends justify the means is dramatic – but wholly unsupported by any of the facts you site. If you are going to write on this blog, how about upping your game.

Wolf Howling on January 19, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Tina has a crush on Romney and wants to gently run her hands through his wavy hair and look into his eyes while he goes item by item in his 59 point plan

davemason2k on January 19, 2012 at 7:46 PM

When I first read Marianne Gingrich’s attacks upon Gingrich this morning, I was neither shocked nor angry. I was just sad — sad for her and sad for him that his increasingly successful presidential bid brought out a kind of pettiness and vindictiveness in her that there was nothing there for me to use to beat Newt Gingrich up with and help make Romney the king he deserves to be. Like Ed, I questioned her timing and her insensitivity to Gingrich supporters and the rest of his family. But, gradually, the news reawakened my came up with an attack strategy to reawaken everyones wariness of Gingrich. No doubt he has accomplished as much for the conservative cause as any contemporary, but he has to be sacrificed in order to allow the Anointed High Priest of Ultimate Perfection Willard Mitt Romney to reign supreme with his personal integrity along the way.

It is really good that she has the skill to clean it up better than what I think is really rolling around in the back of her mind, otherwise she might be thought to be ambitious!

astonerii on January 19, 2012 at 7:48 PM

When did David Brooks start writing for HA?

King B on January 19, 2012 at 7:51 PM

NewtNuts – Your loverboy is despised outside your 25-30% base of support of angry white southern men. Its laudable that you can forgive him for his poor judgement. The rest of America won’t. Stop blaming Tina.

FlaMurph on January 19, 2012 at 7:51 PM

Tina doesn’t have a crush on Romney. I just don’t understand why she’d be sad the 6th wife of Finneus Newton doesn’t like him.

Question, would Newt ban banks or something should he become president? Since he went occupier and all.

Why no love for Santorum?

antisense on January 19, 2012 at 7:51 PM

Reagan’s family life was a well kept secret when he ran for President. All we knew was that Jane Wyman had left him devastated and Nancy picked up the pieces. I’m not sure he would have been elected if we had known how weird Nancy was and how dysfunctional his whole family was. We forgive him for it now because of what he did for the country and the world.

rockmom on January 19, 2012 at 7:34 PM

Nancy Reagan was no weirder than any woman who buys either an Oprah magazine or one of the tabloids while at the grocery checkout. As for his kids, so some of them turned out Liberal. Imagine that! Kids making a career out of rebelling against their parents. Why it’s never happened before in America until the Reagans, unless, of course, you count most of baby boomers and the generation that followed them. The Reagans are actually quite typical for a California/Hollywood family.

Gladtobehere on January 19, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Jane Wyman left Ronald Reagan because she didn’t love him anymore. He was heartbroken.

Just getting the facts straight.

JPeterman on January 19, 2012 at 7:10 PM

Thanks JP!
I get to some of these threads hours later, sometimes days…but I like to go through and read them all…that’s why I post to some sooooooooooooooo much later. I guess a lot of people just post and don’t read. I’ve been told several times, even in the last few days that Wyman left Reagan.

I read Tina’s articles, and like them…and can decipher what I want.
I did not realize Chester James Carville Jr., Paul Begala, Dick Morris, Ann Coulter and a slew of other 50 and 60 year olds, were posting under other identifications at Hot Air… When Tina writes-the Geritol goons get goofy and gabby, and have to gobble about her…. We look forward to your guest columns!

KOOLAID2 on January 19, 2012 at 7:53 PM

The Contract with America. The Republican Revolution.

The Republican Revolution…

At the time, it seemed like a watchword.

Now, looking back, it was nothing more than a punchline.

JohnGalt23 on January 19, 2012 at 7:54 PM

It is amusing that some people forgive Newt his past transgressions (moral/female flip-flopping) because he asked the Lord for forgiveness but will defy Romeny until hell freezes over because his opinions evolved on abortion from pro-choice to pro-life. Hypocrisy much? For those who think Newt will destroy Obama in a debate: Newt himself said he was intimidated by Clinton’s presence. In the past he has reacted to Democrats in peculiar ways—perculiar at least to conservatives—because he seems to defer to them, seems to covet their approval. So I’m not so sure he would do as well debating the One as others think.

Oracleforhire on January 19, 2012 at 7:55 PM

Bob Ryan of the Boston Globe wrote about Walker and used the memorable phrase, “the full fun-house package that is Antoine Walker.”

This is what we get with Newt Gingrich. The full fun-house package.

rockmom on January 19, 2012 at 7:11 PM

I was thinking maybe Dennis Rodman.

captn2fat on January 19, 2012 at 7:57 PM

Changer1701: Romney appeals to the middle of the electorate because he understands the private sector, is calm, reassuring, capable across a broad range of issues, has never worked in DC, exceptional family man and not a whiff of scandal.

matthew8787 on January 19, 2012 at 7:57 PM

Soooo, I have to choose between the creator of Romneycare and the skirt chaser who shoved welfare reform down Mr. Cigar’s throat? Wait,….I need a minute…

WryTrvllr on January 19, 2012 at 7:58 PM

There is something I dislike in each of the 4 remaining R candidates. And there are things I like in each of the 4. How those balance out, weigh differently, and affect how I think they’d do the job of president remains the issue.

But on the topic of ambition, I find it odd that Tina singles Newt out of the 4. It seems to me that the case of over ambition can be made just as well for Romney or even Paul. And all of those 3 pale compared to the audacious ambition of a no experience senator named Obama, who I will recall it is our main goal to get rid of. So, either balance your piece with hits on the others, or retract it, or make a much better case why Newt is SO much worse than the others, otherwise your piece comes off as another Hot Air biased article.

AnotherOpinion on January 19, 2012 at 7:59 PM

The Republican Revolution…

At the time, it seemed like a watchword.

Now, looking back, it was nothing more than a punchline.

JohnGalt23 on January 19, 2012 at 7:54 PM

.
If there is any credit to be given at all…give the saving credit to the vaginal cigars for sustaining the “Revolution”. Nothing else.

FlaMurph on January 19, 2012 at 7:59 PM

Tina, surely you are not implying that Mitt has no ambition? Or that you have none? Ambition is a good thing. The article is petty.

tinkerthinker on January 19, 2012 at 8:02 PM

Tina’s intellectual dexterity here is so impressive, she just might be able to sub occasionally in the Meghan McCain slot over at The Daily Beast.

BCrago66 on January 19, 2012 at 8:02 PM

The Contract with America. The Republican Revolution.

The Republican Revolution…

At the time, it seemed like a watchword.

Now, looking back, it was nothing more than a punchline.

JohnGalt23 on January 19, 2012 at 7:54 PM

.
It was indeed the v@ginal cigars, that preserved the revolution. Nothing more than that. No pontification required.

FlaMurph on January 19, 2012 at 8:02 PM

I’m not looking to vote for my pastor to be President. I want a capable, smart, results-oriented CONSERVATIVE leader to vote for the Presidency and one who can expose the naked deficiency of modern liberalism and provide the country a vision for the successful restoration of our founding principles.

What he does between the sheets is none of my damn business. Unless he lies about it in a court of law.

rgrovr on January 19, 2012 at 8:04 PM

Tina, surely you are not implying that Mitt has no ambition? Or that you have none? Ambition is a good thing. The article is petty.

tinkerthinker on January 19, 2012 at 8:02 PM

.
Ambition doesn’t always have to include using women as submissive objects. Does it ?

FlaMurph on January 19, 2012 at 8:05 PM

Tina – I like most of your posts, but this one is just pure drivel. Ambition is now a sin? Do you honestly think that the other candidates are possessed of any less ambition? Do you think Romney or Santorum, who have been running for public office since the 90′s are possessed of any less sincere belief that they are best suited for the job? The only difference between the three is Gingrich has actual conservative accomplishments that support his bid.

The fact that Gingrich attacked his fellow candidates offended you? Really? After millions in negative attack ads from Romney and Paul took Gingrich from top to middle of the pack, and yet you selectively find it distasteful only that Gingrich then went on the attack?

“He implied that his rivals should drop out of the race.” Yes, so what exactly is wrong with that? Romney, if he wins this, will do it because the conservative options split the majority of the vote between them. There was nothing wrong with that, nor with Santorum’s response to that suggestion.

“He brushes aside the bitterness of his ex-wife.” One, this is old news. Two, he did not attack his ex-wife, merely restating that he had asked God for forgiveness. And three, what do you expect him to do at this point – go into the fetal position and begin an hour of public self flagellation? How about evaluating the bitterness itself of the ex-wife while you are in the judgmental mode, not to mention the scurrilous acts of an MSM that is glorying in attacking Gingrich’s long ago affair when this same MSM played a game of See Hear and Speak No Evil when it came to John Edwards.

Your conclusion that Gingrich seems to think the ends justify the means is dramatic – but wholly unsupported by any of the facts you site. If you are going to write on this blog, how about upping your game.

Wolf Howling on January 19, 2012 at 7:46 PM

+1

Thank you for a well thought out analysis and saving me the time and effort of typing my own.

riddick on January 19, 2012 at 8:05 PM

the Gingrich parade is still driven by the same vehicle — the same old unbridled ambition, ambition that seems to think the ends justify the means.

…and you believe something other than unbridled ambition animates Romney’s rigor mortis inflicted puppet?

ElectricPhase on January 19, 2012 at 8:05 PM

inflicted afflicted

sorry

ElectricPhase on January 19, 2012 at 8:06 PM

America is so great. A huge mystery as to why neither side can come up with a person worthy of that greatness. Both side’s candidates suck. But, thankfully, any of ours (except the tin foil hat guy) suck worse than Barry.

Dingbat63 on January 19, 2012 at 8:07 PM

I disagree with you, Tina…as if that mattered at all. What if Gingrich is motivated by a real desire to restore America to its glory and sees his own vision as a way to accomplish it? Your assertion might be correct. But it may not as well. Personally (as if that mattered to you at all), I think Gingrich truly thinks he’s the person to accomplish those things America needs at this time. Remember – these yahoo congess-people who despised his leadership were the same yahoos who were members of the biggest spending Congress EVAH!

Al-Ozarka on January 19, 2012 at 8:07 PM

NewtNuts ! wouldn’t you say Hitler was ambitious ??

FlaMurph on January 19, 2012 at 8:08 PM

Ambition doesn’t always have to include using women as submissive objects. Does it ?

FlaMurph on January 19, 2012 at 8:05 PM

Or humidors.

WryTrvllr on January 19, 2012 at 8:08 PM

But, thankfully, any of ours (except the tin foil hat guy) suck worse than Barry.

Dingbat63 on January 19, 2012 at 8:07 PM

Typo..perhaps?…

WryTrvllr on January 19, 2012 at 8:13 PM

Tina’s intellectual dexterity here is so impressive, she just might be able to sub occasionally in the Meghan McCain slot over at The Daily Beast.

BCrago66 on January 19, 2012 at 8:02 PM

Even with this article, poor as it is, Tina is nowhere near Meghan McCain. Meghan is the voice of a new generation of fighters for Liberté, égalité, fraternité, like the people who are part of OWS. Tina, even with an occasional flaw, is more consistently conservative than Allahpundit.

Gladtobehere on January 19, 2012 at 8:14 PM

he has accomplished as much for the conservative cause as any contemporary, but he has sacrificed personal integrity along the way.

The two had nothing to do with each other.

The new improved Newt 2.0 looks a lot like the original version after watching him for the last few months.

jnelchef on January 19, 2012 at 8:25 PM

Tina,

One more thing, with Gingrich’s wife now being put on a platter for display, tired as the fair may be, and with integrity being talked up, I still have to say that I want a conservative in the White House and one with as much integrity as they come. One can only have confidence in a politician acting as he campaigned in proportion to his integrity.

Santorum has integrity but not much conservativism; Gingrich has fair to good conservativism and has a bit of integrity; Romney has poor to fair conservativism and no integrity. He, Romney, truly campaigns according to the political expediency: and the result is RomneyCare.

Electability is only a concern insofar as the candidate will do what you want done. Ann Coulter, much as I loved Demonic, was wrong in campaigning against McCain. McCain, as RINO as he was, still wouldn’t have overseen the force-through of ObamaCare.

Romney, of course, defends his signing of RomneyCare as a matter of political compromise and assuredly will bow to political expediency when push comes to shove (as it did originally) in Congress’ attempt to repeal ObamaCare.

Santorum similarly defends some of his positions as judicious compromise. Only Gingrich stands a chance of leading public opinion to overturn this major intrusive, destructive and further-socializing program.

Most importantly, only Gingrich can beat Obama in a debate. Can anyone really envision either Romney or Santorum trouncing Obama in a debate the way Gingrich has done in the primary debates? Come on…!! Moreover, only Gingrich has espoused a means to campaign against Obama – it’s not the argument – it’s not who’s right – it’s who can control the MSM spin machine. And ONLY Gingrich has shown any ability or inclination to dominate the news cycle and make his points.

Respectfully,

flicker on January 19, 2012 at 8:35 PM

When did David Brooks start writing for HA?

King B on January 19, 2012 at 7:51 PM

actually Brooks is a brilliant wirter, am sure you won’t find him writing for HA :-)…

jimver on January 19, 2012 at 8:39 PM

Brooks is a brilliant wirter

Yes he is.

WryTrvllr on January 19, 2012 at 8:43 PM

Most importantly, only Gingrich can beat Obama in a debate. flicker on January 19, 2012 at 8:35 PM

lol :-) and this is what a presidential election is, a college debate sort of thing? goodness, what grade are you in? Then, by all means, the candidates should go through a spelling bee or trivia pursuit type of competition, live, on stage…Gingrich can’t beat Obama in debates or otherwise, just because he can quote from FDR, Lincoln and others, does not mean he will get the votes of the majority of the population of this country, ever! …

jimver on January 19, 2012 at 8:46 PM

Tina – I like most of your posts, but this one is just pure drivel. Ambition is now a sin? Do you honestly think that the other candidates are possessed of any less ambition? Do you think Romney or Santorum, who have been running for public office since the 90′s are possessed of any less sincere belief that they are best suited for the job? The only difference between the three is Gingrich has actual conservative accomplishments that support his bid.

The fact that Gingrich attacked his fellow candidates offended you? Really? After millions in negative attack ads from Romney and Paul took Gingrich from top to middle of the pack, and yet you selectively find it distasteful only that Gingrich then went on the attack?

“He implied that his rivals should drop out of the race.” Yes, so what exactly is wrong with that? Romney, if he wins this, will do it because the conservative options split the majority of the vote between them. There was nothing wrong with that, nor with Santorum’s response to that suggestion.

“He brushes aside the bitterness of his ex-wife.” One, this is old news. Two, he did not attack his ex-wife, merely restating that he had asked God for forgiveness. And three, what do you expect him to do at this point – go into the fetal position and begin an hour of public self flagellation? How about evaluating the bitterness itself of the ex-wife while you are in the judgmental mode, not to mention the scurrilous acts of an MSM that is glorying in attacking Gingrich’s long ago affair when this same MSM played a game of See Hear and Speak No Evil when it came to John Edwards.

Your conclusion that Gingrich seems to think the ends justify the means is dramatic – but wholly unsupported by any of the facts you site. If you are going to write on this blog, how about upping your game.

Wolf Howling on January 19, 2012 at 7:46 PM

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I agree with Riddick – this great summary saved me having to post the same sentiments as Wolf Howling. Take a sip of 5-hr energy next time before putting pen to paper, Tina. +2

fabrexe on January 19, 2012 at 8:47 PM

Typo..perhaps?…WryTrvllr on January 19, 2012 at 8:13 PM

Errrr. yep, I was trying to say that Barry sucks more than any of “ours”. I don’t count tin foil hat guy as one of “ours”.

Thanks for pointing out my error.

Dingbat63 on January 19, 2012 at 8:53 PM

I think Gingrich truly thinks he’s the person to accomplish those things America needs at this time. Remember – these yahoo congess-people who despised his leadership were the same yahoos who were members of the biggest spending Congress EVAH!

Al-Ozarka on January 19, 2012 at 8:07 PM

yeah, leave it to a megalomaniac with an ego as big as the white house and who thinks that he is The One Person who can save America, to save America :-)…and then mind you, after anybody can lead this country, if O did :-)…can’t be that hard, eh? :-)…

jimver on January 19, 2012 at 8:53 PM

One more thing: King David was a bad man. He was also a great man, a member of God’s elect, justified by God, and a good man. But he was an adulterer and a murderer. And a grudging spiteful egotist. He, after ostensibly granting a pardon to Joab, on his deathbed called Solomon to swear to kill the man anyway; many years of festering resentment later. Talk about integrity. Can you imagine any conservative voters cheating on their wives? Okay, more than a few. But can you imagine any one of us considering – actually considering – killing the husband of the woman we knocked up?

Can you imagine the way King David would be treated if running for office today? How would write about him? If God had called David not to be King of Israel millennia ago but President of the United States today? What would the trickle of unseemly revelation from the MSM be like for a David of today? What could you write in this column now, if it were about a candidate named David?

flicker on January 19, 2012 at 9:06 PM

lol :-) and this is what a presidential election is, a college debate sort of thing? . . . spelling bee or trivia pursuit type of competition, live, on stage… jimver on January 19, 2012 at 8:46 PM

Yeah, a real debate, though. Gingrich can win. I dislike thgese games of Jeopardy (mixed with america’s funniest home vodeos) that most of the debates have been.

But Gingrich says he will speak from every town that Obama campaigns in, every day — until Obama gives in and debates him. While Gingrich may never get Obama to debate him, I think it’s overall a good strategy.

And Gingrich can rephrase any lumpish bullsquattle that comes out of Obama’s mouth and turn it against him — rather than lamely argue the other side, the opposing point of view. This campaign will be won in the MSM. I do believe only Gingrich can do that.

(Personally, I think Obama will win reelection in 2012 and then again in 2016. But that’s another argument.)

flicker on January 19, 2012 at 9:18 PM

Zelsdorf Ragshaft on January 19, 2012 at 7:08 PM

Can you really just make stuff up and expect people to believe it? Nothing of what you wrote about Ronald, Jane and Nancy is correct.

Elizabetty on January 19, 2012 at 9:21 PM

NewtNuts – Your loverboy is despised outside your 25-30% base of support of angry white southern men. Its laudable that you can forgive him for his poor judgement. The rest of America won’t. Stop blaming Tina.

FlaMurph on January 19, 2012 at 7:51 PM

Exactly. Nobody wants that pig outside of the South Carolina “moral majority”.

Swerve22 on January 19, 2012 at 9:21 PM

Tina two things:

1) When an ex-wife says “I Can ruin his reputation by telling everyone (fill in the blank)” try and take it as revenge and not the truth because waiting years to let us all know for our own good and not HERS is not what is going on.

2) Rush explained on the radio that Gingrich (and Axelrod also BTW did this with Obama vs Hillary and McCain) try to portray their candidancy as the inevitable because Marketing research shows people like to jump on a winning bandwagon when making a selction.

I think this is shallow but it is a strategy not always a heart-felt thing by the person. Your previous examples of ambition by Newt could also be table-setting for eventual climbing up a ladder. Once again I refer to Obama who was constantly running for higher office in his first term AT EVERY LEVEL and ended up President of the US.

Conan on January 19, 2012 at 9:29 PM

Why no love for Santorum?

antisense on January 19, 2012 at 7:51 PM

Because he’s a frothy mixture of religious insanity, knuckle dragging fascism, rampant stupidity(as proven by thinking his imaginary sky friend “god” and his flammingly homosexual son are real) He’s part of the American Christan Taliban and so deep in the closet that Tommy boy Cruise looks at him and says “Dude really, WTF?” and he’s a big government loving meat puppet.

Your Mamma loves me on January 19, 2012 at 9:30 PM

Of the greed for power.

Of the greed lust for power.

Better.

Zorro on January 19, 2012 at 9:44 PM

Tina, Tina, Tina … you be fooling yourself. You have left the world of analysis and joined the land of moonbattery with this one.

“Like Ed, I questioned her timing …” … but fell for it anyway. Despite having no idea of what really happened over the past 10 years of their marriage, of all the problems, of her own culpability as a former mistress … you drink in her bitterness hook, line and sinker.

Or not. Anything to justify your emotional attachment to Santorum. Its call “confirmation bias”. Look it up.

” .. he has sacrificed personal integrity along the way.”. Santorum, lobbyist, big government statist, earmarks are good, lied about where his real residence was, etc. etc. etc. Romney, flip-flopper extraordinaire. I got news. There are no saints on the presidential stage these days. G-E-T R-E-A-L.

“He began to attack his fellow candidates; he implied his rivals should drop out of the race; and, now, he brushes aside the bitterness of his ex-wife”

He got mauled and fought back. GOOD! If he didn’t, he wouldn’t merit consideration. Where is your criticism for the rest for attacking candidates? Sadly lacking. Does that make you a hypocrite? G-E-T R-E-A-L.

Implied his rivals should drop out? Why not? Everyone, including Romney and Obama, play the “inevitable” card. If your candidate can’t do it, then he can’t or isn’t selling himself. And this is the greatest sales pitch in American politics. Like, don’t like it … it is what it is. G-E-T R-E-A-L.

He brushes aside the bitterness of his ex-wife and former mistress? I have, unfortunately several divorced friends and acquaintances. From all of them, those who are doing best … move on. Those who don’t, are bitter. And it doesn’t align, in any case, with “who was right and who was wronged”. One of them, the woman was a serial cheater and bitter after the divorce. Moving on was the best thing her husband did, a stand-up guy to the best of my knowledge. Any number of therapists will tell you the best thing to do is … move on. Bitterness is not a healthy emotion.

Speaking of which, the same is true of not being bitter when your candidate doesn’t win. Newt and Mitten are not my first choices. But I will choose, and I will not be bitter that my favorites didn’t enter, or did enter and didn’t advance. I will make the best of what is left, and I will approach it analytically and coolly.

My advice is you do the same, or else you will be just another screeching blogger instead of someone whose analysis will be valued.

I do think the “Icarus” concerns with Newt are valid, I think even his fans do. I do hope, whether his nominee or not, that he has licked those personal demons. A serious article about that would be worthwhile.

PrincetonAl on January 19, 2012 at 9:54 PM

All politicians have big egos Tina. lol

kg598301 on January 19, 2012 at 9:56 PM

Ronald Reagan was divorced. He had 2 adopted children, 2 children from his second marriage. His 2 biological children were rotten, ungrateful spoiled brats, one of his adopted children was molested at summer camp, his second wife was holding astrological seances while in the White House, and was a somewhat failed actor whose biggest claim to fame on screen was a movie he made with a live monkey.

He was the best conservative Republican President since Lincoln.

portlandon on January 19, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Actually that astrology thing is a myth, per Reagan’s diaries.

kg598301 on January 19, 2012 at 10:02 PM

Tina, even with an occasional flaw, is more consistently conservative than Allahpundit.

Gladtobehere on January 19, 2012 at 8:14 PM

I’m gonna go out on a limb and assume she’s a good Christian woman, too.

……not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course.

Wolfmoon on January 19, 2012 at 10:02 PM

Oh the horror! Newt dared to apply to positions well “above his pay grade.” Well call me abashed.

Speakeasy on January 19, 2012 at 10:09 PM

Tina has a crush on Romney and wants to gently run her hands through his wavy hair and look into his eyes while he goes item by item in his 59 point plan

davemason2k on January 19, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Why is it whenever a woman supports (or in this case, is perceived to support) a candidate whom someone dislikes, it has to be cast in romantic terms? This is disgusting and belittling to her intelligence. I’m a guy btw.

almosthandsome on January 19, 2012 at 10:21 PM

Wow, it’s been awhile since I have seen a thread become secondary to the views/writings of the author.

The post should provoke discussion of the subject matter more than criticism of the author. When this happens it indicates failure of the author to properly frame the subject matter.

IMHO

PS. Anyone notice the little smiley face in the lower left hand corner of the browser for this post?

mechkiller_k on January 19, 2012 at 10:23 PM

Filthy Newt with his catchy punchlines in a debate makes me nauseous. I cannot believe the Republican base–of whom there are so many evangelicals–think he is a great choice and are buying in to his on stage performance. As I recall we already have a president who is great onstage! As his ex wife pointed out–he thinks the country needs him, so matter that he has no character himself. He will just say what the lumpin proletariat need to hear and they will be satisfied. He thinks he is some Diety’s gift to women. How disgusting.

AnnaS on January 19, 2012 at 10:31 PM

Conservatives apparently would vote for a duck if it had a conservative sign around its neck. How do evangelicals (whatever that is) justify voting for a person with as little integrity as Newtie and a horrible personal background (oh, I forgot his new church forgave him)?? but then they object to a guy with a clean background who made a success of himself, because of his religion. Sounds like the word hypocrites is appropriate here. Oh Sean Hannity says Newtie has said he is sorry and has turned his life around. Awwww … You can all just wait for Sarah to tell you who to vote for. All of this has just re-elected Obama and guess who will be blamed. PS What’s the difference between ultra libs and ultra conservatives? Nothing.

AReadyRepub on January 19, 2012 at 10:59 PM

AReadyRepub on January 19, 2012 at 10:59 PM

Bitter much?

It’s not that I “like” Newt, I simply dislike the rest of who’s left even MORE. Romney does hold pole position in that dislike list though. Paul comes in second, believe it or not, with Santorum last.

Wolfmoon on January 19, 2012 at 11:07 PM

Tina, I really want to like you… and yet ……… you irritate me…. oddly.

Socmodfiscon on January 19, 2012 at 11:17 PM

AReadyRepub on January 19, 2012 at 10:59 PM

… because he staked his ground on what was good for “Romney” and not because he had core principles.

Socmodfiscon on January 19, 2012 at 11:20 PM

It’s not that I “like” Newt, I simply dislike the rest of who’s left even MORE.</strong> Romney does hold pole position in that dislike list though. Paul comes in second, believe it or not, with Santorum last.

Wolfmoon on January 19, 2012 at 11:07 PM

Awrooooooooooo….. Wolfmoon.

Socmodfiscon on January 19, 2012 at 11:21 PM

NewtNuts ! wouldn’t you say Hitler was ambitious ??

FlaMurph on January 19, 2012 at 8:08 PM

No I was say Hitler was a fascist, murderer, psychopath and above all….faithful to Eva Braun and vegan.

Churchill smoked, drank, nailed women from all corners when he could.

Hard to pick between the two though I admit, your post made me discount double check that…..

Cheers.

JP1986UM on January 19, 2012 at 11:23 PM

AnnaS on January 19, 2012 at 10:31 PM

Oh Anna, anna anna, sooooo Romney’s argument is he so lacks individual core beliefs that whatever he thinks the electorate thinks is how he will get elected and how he will vote/veto/legislate… ermmmmm execute………. errrrm sign into law. Yeah maybe you are right…. Romney is soo f’in malleable we can press him on a page of the New York Times and by gawd if that is the populous view it’ll be “like” tatooed on his skin. Barf!

Socmodfiscon on January 19, 2012 at 11:30 PM

Open enrollment and second-string blogging suck. Hot Air is not the site it one was.

29Victor on January 19, 2012 at 11:36 PM

Tina Korbe, you sound like Megan McCain!

Considering that you are in your mid-twenties, what the hell do you know about life, marriage, divorce, politics, and for that matter, anything.

At your age, your experience base is woefully thin. Marianne’s interview is nothing but verbal diarrhea from a spiteful, mean, jealous hag who cannot get on with her life.

You honestly think that women will be put off by this?

Being female, I do not care what the hell Newt or any candidate does in the privacy of their bedroom.

What I do care about, is which candidate is best suited to take down Obama and turn around the fiscal nightmare that the US is in.

Sparky5253 on January 19, 2012 at 11:38 PM

Your Mamma loves me on January 19, 2012 at 9:30 PM

Bigot.

theotherone on January 20, 2012 at 12:02 AM

matthew8787 on January 19, 2012 at 7:57 PM

Great…except for the fact he is a gutless leftist who will get his *ss kicked in the general.

KirknBurker on January 20, 2012 at 12:13 AM

But, gradually, the news reawakened my wariness of Gingrich.

Really? It took this? The guy is a whack job without even beginning to look at the private character of the man. Historian to the highest bidder!!!

lexhamfox on January 20, 2012 at 12:13 AM

Tina, I really want to like you… and yet ……… you irritate me…. oddly.

Socmodfiscon on January 19, 2012 at 11:17 PM

Maybe because she likes Romney and is part of the Blog Establishment.

KirknBurker on January 20, 2012 at 12:15 AM

AReadyRepub on January 19, 2012 at 10:59 PM

Have you thought that maybe they don’t like Romney because he is a leftist?

Maybe they just don’t believe lies from this primary’s used car salesman.

It’s that simple.

They know Newt balanced the budget, reformed welfare, etc. etc. etc. while Romney governed as a leftist.

The Romney trolls on this site are getting thick. This used to be a conservative/libertarian site and now it is so lost.

KirknBurker on January 20, 2012 at 12:18 AM

this primary’s used car salesman. . .

This used to be a conservative/libertarian site and now it is so lost.

KirknBurker on January 20, 2012 at 12:18 AM

I strongly agree with you. I particularly like your ‘used car salesman” metaphor. Essentially, that’s what Romney was. Used cars do need to be sold, but didn’t Romney take old corporate clunkers and make a good living painting them and then either selling them or sending to the scrap yard?

And I’m sure Tina is very nice and knowledgeable, but she’s still a newbie to life and has yet to become sufficiently jaded.

And Hotair does seem nowadays to follow the MSM and is losing its lead and edginess. (Or maybe I’m becoming more jaded.)

This next election will be the Republican against the MSM. Period. Can anyone imagine Romney beating the MSM when a Vietnam war hero can’t? (And Romney fits the script for Kerry perfectly: Harvard-educated, exceptionally rich, speaks French, and has the charisma of a Ken-doll.)

I don’t know that anyone can beat Obama, but if anyone can, then he has to lead the reversal of US policy. Does Romney have the b*lls? No.

But more importantly, imagine this: that this is the last election before America irrevocably devolves into fascism. Civil liberties will be taken away, companies will lose their autonomy, elections will be only for show.

Obama likes ChiCom top-down oligarchies, vilifies Congress as obstructionist, is now ruling by executive fiat, and once reelected, Obama is likely to engage in another stimulus which will include further nationalization of health care, business and banking, but as the economy worsens, he will also include such an increase in social entitlements that he will forever have his 51% control of the electorate. (I know — crazy. Nobody believed Jeremiah, either.)

OBAMA 2016!

flicker on January 20, 2012 at 1:54 AM

Every word in this piece is BS, including “the” and “is”. Any candidate who doesn’t believe he or she ISN’T the best choice is undoubtedly right. We may pine for the humility of George Washington, but politics today requires a rhino’s hide and a mongoose’s quickness, and Newt has them both. He didn’t kowtow to his ex wife, nor did he denigrate her – not at all. Rather, he turned the attack on the attackers; the best defense, and perfectly legitimate. Why, indeed, is the media willing to troll for anyone willing to destroy whatever Republican frontrunner may emerge, in the service of protecting Obama? That is a much bigger and more important point to make than refuting the claims of a bitter ex. Why the hell shouldn’t he enjoy his time in the sun? He’s fought for it every step of the way, and only a tough and dogged combatant could have stuck this crazy season out and moved steadily ahead. I respect his sand, as Margaret Thatcher said.

datripp on January 20, 2012 at 6:16 AM

Or, rather, doensn’t believe that he or she IS the best choice. More coffee, please.

datripp on January 20, 2012 at 6:17 AM

Ambition doesn’t always have to include using women as submissive objects. Does it ?

FlaMurph on January 19, 2012 at 8:05 PM
</blockquote

Huh? I suppose you have no ambition either?

tinkerthinker on January 20, 2012 at 7:08 AM

Of the greed for power.

Tina Korbe, you’re a two-bit hack (and not just a condescending prude).

Further, your two-preferred candidates sucked derrière: Rick Perry of the 0.7% of the New Hampshire vote/5th place in Iowa, and Rick Santorum of the it’s the government’s role to make sure people don’t have too much fun in the bedroom—you must be so down with him.

Random on January 20, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Tina Now that The ABRs have filled their mouths with the red meat Newt is so adept at hurling to draw attention from the fact that he is a despicable untrustworthy corrupt discredited selfserving meglomanic, they will turn on every principled conservative like a pack of wolves who dares say the obvious truth.
They have done so to a plethera of good conservative conservative leaders andpundits, so you are in good compay. Keep speaking the truth inspite of their igrorance and blind hatred of the reality that this man is a walking disaster who will lead this party to ruin on his march to self agrandmisment.

jibjab75 on January 20, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Ambition doesn’t always have to include using women as submissive objects. Does it ?

FlaMurph on January 19, 2012 at 8:05 PM

Sexist much? Takes two to tango, etc, etc…

You need to give these women a bit more credit than that.

Any women worth her salt who gets personally involved with Newt, given his history, knows exactly what she is buying into.

My problem with candidate Newt, as Tina’s post amply demonstrates, is that he has mega-huge negatives with all types of women voters on both sides of the aisle, and for this reason alone he will not win the general. And I say that as an admirer of his debating skill.

With nearly half the country on the government teat, none of the other candidates will fare much better in the general either. At this point it might be that we need to plan to hold the House take back the Senate, and let BHO twist in the wind for 4 more years.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on January 20, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Tina, all along you knew that Newt had been unfaithful to his first wife. They were divorced. Terrible things were said about Newt when this was first revealed. Terrible, untrue things.

No excuse. The truth was bad enough, but no worse than what I expected given an affair and a messy divorce. Especially when the affair led to a successful relationship, and the wife, not surprisingly, is bitter.

But now, in your mind, a mere reminder of that divorce is evidence that Newt has “sacrificed personal integrity”? Not that he had an affair or the divorce, mind you. But that you were reminded of it?

Politicians better remember to walk on eggshells from now on, huh?

applebutter on January 20, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Wolf Howling on January 19, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Excellent! The Romney supporters always try to make it seem like they are being objective. They say something kind of nice about Newt but eventually they lower the boom. You get the same kind of stuff from Hugh Hewitt and John Hinderaker every time.

BTW, I care very much about a person’s integrity, but I also believe in redemption and the fact that a person can change. So I think we have to make a decision on Newt’s integrity, but not based solely on what he did so many years ago, but what do we think about him now. Do we believe he is the same person and will act the same way or do we believe he is different in both word and deed about his family life. I see nothing in his current life to make me doubt he has changed and therefore I am not overlooking his past failings, but he is not the same person.

This is very different from Bill Clinton who was in the middle of his scandals and lying left and right to hide and continue them. If Newt was in the middle of cheating on his wife and lying or this had recently happened then I would not have much reason to believe he had changed. However, Newt has confessed his failures, has asked for forgiveness, and from all appearances is now living a life consistent with his new outlook on family.

I’m sure we have all done things many years ago that if we were judged on those things alone how many of us could stand, but the beauty of life is that we can be redeemed from our past.

RonDelDon on January 20, 2012 at 11:25 AM

And another thing, when has being a person of grandiose ideas become a bad thing? The state that we are in as a country and world for that matter we need someone with big ideas that is thinking out of the box to solve some of our problems. It doesn’t matter to me that 8 out of 10 of those ideas go nowhere, but the 2 that do cause major changes in our country and world. Any person who has come up with a great idea can probably tell you how many of their ideas went nowhere.

RonDelDon on January 20, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Comment pages: 1 2