Newt bows out: “Suspending the campaign does not mean suspending citizenship”

posted at 5:25 pm on May 2, 2012 by Allahpundit

He leaves with lots of debt and good humor:

“I’m cheerfully going to take back up the issue of space,” he remarked. “My wife has pointed out to me approximately 219 times, give or take three, that moon colony was probably not my most clever comment in this campaign. I thought frankly in my role as providing material for Saturday Night Live, it was helpful.”

“This is not a trivial area,” Gingrich said of space. “This is a fundamental question about whether we’re still a country that dreams and hat goes out to pursue great adventure and that has the courage to say to young people yes you ought to go into math and science because there’s a wonderful future doing really important things. I happen to think that’s a better future than metamorphine and cocaine and I’m going to argue for a romantic American future of doing things that matter, that get to the human spirit.”

No official endorsement of Romney today, as Ed noted this morning, but this non-endorsement endorsement reflects the sentiments of, oh, I’d guess 85 percent of the conservative base:

“This is not a choice between Mitt Romney and Ronald Reagan,” he pointed out. “This is a choice between Mitt Romney and the most radical, leftist president in American history.” Romney, Gingrich added, was also “60,000 times” more knowledgeable about how to spur job creation in the private sector than Obama.

Romney issued a statement within the last few hours praising Gingrich for bringing “creativity and intellectual vitality to American political life.” The irony of Gingrich’s campaign is that, because his role as a prominent pol ended so long ago, he’s thought of as a Republican dinosaur — and yet his strategy dispensed with old-fashioned conventional wisdom about what it takes to win. Everyone knew Romney was running and everyone knew that Romney would have a formidable organization and financial resources. The attack-ad carpet-bombing strategy that stopped Newt cold before Iowa and then won Florida for Mitt was, in other words, eminently foreseeable. And yet, aside from recruiting Sheldon Adelson to bankroll his Super PAC, Newt never seemed prepared to do much to counter those advantages. His game plan, I think, was to utterly dominate the debates and hope that the grassroots anti-Romney response would be so overwhelming that money and organization wouldn’t much matter. Through sheer force of personality and the favor of destiny, he’d neutralize Romney’s structural advantages and sweep to the nomination. That strategy was good enough to boost him to the top of the national polls not once but twice, but Mitt’s Super PAC ended up able to tamp down those surges almost at will with attack-ad spending. Maybe that’s how it had to be — there just weren’t enough wealthy donors out there willing to take a chance on Gingrich, whether because (a) he’d made enemies of them in the past at some point, (b) they feared giving big money to a candidate who might well implode eventually, and/or (c) they preferred Romney for reasons of inevitability or electability. Still, it’s odd to me even now that an old-school politician like Newt whose intelligence is respected even by his enemies would have had so many organizational problems from the very beginning. Good organization was the only way to have a fighting chance against Romney and yet it was always one of Newt’s problems. Odd.

That said, he seemed to enjoy the process to the very end, which is endearing and a comforting thought given how much he owes. Go read this piece by former Gingrich press secretary Rich Galen insisting that Newt will be fine. Two clips for you here, one of the farewell presser and the other, for Newt critics, via Mediaite of Shep Smith and Ed Rendell wondering how much damage Newt did to his legacy by holding on to the bitter end. As I say, read Galen on that. Answer: Probably not much.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


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

“I’m going to be the nominee. It’s very hard not to look at the recent polls and think the odds are very high I’m going to be the nominee.”

Excuse me, but what candidate DOESN’T say that?

Reggie1971 on May 2, 2012 at 8:29 PM

What a stupid, cynical and egregiously dishonest characterization. Point number is picking winners and losers? Are you freaking high? All regulations are evil and the government has no role in your feeble mind in establishing a fair and efficient market place? A healthy finance system is somehow picking winners and losers? Don’t look down, or you’ll see the shark swimming below you, as you slip the surly bonds of rational thought.

MJBrutus on May 2, 2012 at 8:16 PM

Always comes down to the past is a good measure of what someone will do in the future…
Yes, picking winners and losers. He will change laws to make certain specific activities benefit, at the expense of others that will have to pick up the cost of that government subsidization. I think we all can agree that government helping education has increased the cost of a higher education tremendously while at the same time destroying the valued of that education… I saw first hand who benefited from uncle sam incentivizing getting an education… Hint, it was not someone like me… Picking winners and losers.
Not all regulations are evil. Like the regulation that punishes people who might otherwise kill me is a good one in general. Then again, we all know what we are talking about here, and we all know how well the government regulations have worked in the past… Seems every time the government comes up with new regulations, the choices that the private sector have left to make become fewer and fewer. For a hint, the government regulated the banking sector to the point that there there two choices for making the most profit. Either invest in government bonds, or mortgage backed securities. Worked out great, didn’t it? He is talking about increased regulations, not decreased!
A healthy finance system is great thing. The problem here is that he is talking about the government insuring a healthy financial system. We did that in 2008 by handing out $700b. A healthy financial system is one that is very wide open where the choices for the institutions and banks are barely limited in any way, and that the way to get paid at the end of the day for a banker is to make sound investments. Romney has not shown any thing that resembles a free market bone in his body. Not in healthcare, not in businesses, not in global warming scam RGGIs. No where in fact. By saying a healthy finance system, he is talking about healthy by government decree. That will never create a healthy financial system, as the regulations limit the opportunities that banks can avail themselves, forcing them all to compete in a small ecosystem which will inevitably create bubbles and busts.

astonerii on May 2, 2012 at 8:31 PM

Yeah, and who didn’t think of this gem before Newt even uttered it?

MJBrutus on May 2, 2012 at 8:32 PM

Then again, we all know what we are talking about here,

astonerii on May 2, 2012 at 8:31 PM

If by “we” you mean everyone but you, then I suppose so. Should banks not be required to maintain collateral sufficient to meet their obligations should loans not be repaid? Is it “picking winners and losers” to say that they should? Is it “giving special benefits” to put pro-growth policies in place?

You are Nucking Futs and supremely dishonest. Just crawl on home and sit in your little troll pen until the election is over.

MJBrutus on May 2, 2012 at 8:37 PM

For all those 87 pages, there is quite a few statements of what Romney wants the outcome to be, very few actual statements about how he plans to get to those outcomes.

We all want a healthy economy, where the market is free, everyone treated fairly, the cost of government low enough to not be a burden and anyone who wants jobs gets a job. Now, tell me what the precise policies will be. There are a few in there. 25% corporate tax, why any tax at all? We all know who pays that tax in the end, cut out the middleman and the extra work required to minimize the tax by getting rid of it, like you plan to do with the death tax! Free trade is all great and wonderful, but then again, what is this talk about sanctioning China, for subsidizing our imports for us? I do not think Romney knows what the word free means. He talks about free markets and how regulations are there to make it better. He talks about free trade and wants to attack a country that goes beyond free trade and actually subsidizes our imports for us while at the same time saying he plans to subsidize in some form or fashion economic activities here in the United States. He does not understand the word responsibility, he thinks it is something imposed on a person from outside themselves.

astonerii on May 2, 2012 at 8:42 PM

astonerii on May 2, 2012 at 8:42 PM

Here’s a starter list:

- Tax simplification.
- Corporate tax rate cut to 25%.
- Territorial tax system for global corporations.
- Repeal of ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank.
- Opening up domestic fossil fuel production.
- Across the board 20% income tax cut with elimination of most exemptions, deductions and credits.
- Gradually raising benefit age for SS and Medicare, with indexing on inflation instead of wage growth.
- Premium support option instead of Medicare (Ryan-Wyden).

MJBrutus on May 2, 2012 at 8:47 PM

There are a few in there. 25% corporate tax, why any tax at all?

astonerii on May 2, 2012 at 8:42 PM

Brilliant. Let’s just eliminate all taxes and put a for rent sign on capital hill. Oh, you’re a deep thinker, you are.

MJBrutus on May 2, 2012 at 8:49 PM

If by “we” you mean everyone but you, then I suppose so. Should banks not be required to maintain collateral sufficient to meet their obligations should loans not be repaid? Is it “picking winners and losers” to say that they should? Is it “giving special benefits” to put pro-growth policies in place?

You are Nucking Futs and supremely dishonest. Just crawl on home and sit in your little troll pen until the election is over.

MJBrutus on May 2, 2012 at 8:37 PM

They do not do that today with the government regulations. They are allowed to loan out multiples of the amount of assets in their vaults, it is called fractional banking. Now, where the government picks winners and losers, and forces the economy to create bubbles and eventual bursts is when they dictate what level of risk each type of activity is. You only need to cover your government bonds and mortgage backed securities with 2% in your vault. 50:1, if you chose to make direct home loans then you need to have 8% or 12.5:1 and if you loan money to a business you need to have 12% or 8.33:1.

Now, if you are a bank, where are you going to put your money? Pretty much every bank is going to be scrambling to increase their government bond holdings and mortgage backed securities. Why? The government limited their choices for making profits. Remember what Romney said, it is all about the money, ONLY MAKING MONEY MATTERS!

astonerii on May 2, 2012 at 8:49 PM

Brilliant. Let’s just eliminate all taxes and put a for rent sign on capital hill. Oh, you’re a deep thinker, you are.

MJBrutus on May 2, 2012 at 8:49 PM

I pay the corporate taxes. Every item I buy is higher priced due to it. Part of that is the direct tax paid by the company, part of it, probably the bigger part of it is paying for lawyers to work feverishly to reduce the companies taxes to 0.

For all the crap companies go through to meet the tax code, they pay a grand total of $80B in 2010, $30b in 2006.

There you go again with the argument to absurdity. Don’t you have any other logical fallacies you know about? Companies do not pay corporate taxes, unless they make a profit, which requires someone to buy their product, they are not taxed. Guess who is paying that profit tax? Guess what the company does to offset that tax cost? Yup, increases the price to make up for it… Another way for the government to take money out of yours and mine pocket and play the blame on the big evil corporation! Quite a conservative you are showing yourself to be.

astonerii on May 2, 2012 at 8:57 PM

astonerii on May 2, 2012 at 8:49 PM

The amount of collateral required to permit a loan is the subject of … wait for it … REGULATION! That is one example of a myriad that are needed to allow our system of finance to operate. It isn’t always a matter of picking winners and losers and Romney, more than anyone knows what regulations are necessary to ensure that our way of life does not crumble.

But you tell us that any and all regulations are evil. You tell us that all taxes should just be eliminated. Welcome to Thunderdome. Clearly your preferred candidate is Mad Max. Good luck with that.

MJBrutus on May 2, 2012 at 8:59 PM

The amount of collateral required to permit a loan is the subject of … wait for it … REGULATION! That is one example of a myriad that are needed to allow our system of finance to operate. It isn’t always a matter of picking winners and losers and Romney, more than anyone knows what regulations are necessary to ensure that our way of life does not crumble.

But you tell us that any and all regulations are evil. You tell us that all taxes should just be eliminated. Welcome to Thunderdome. Clearly your preferred candidate is Mad Max. Good luck with that.

MJBrutus on May 2, 2012 at 8:59 PM

Our system of finance worked pretty well before regulations. Sure, there was the depression here and there, now known as recessions since the great depression made the word depression which was used until it too harsh. Now, those regulations, they put a fence around the bank and give them limited options, and because the options are severely limited, all the banks vie for the same current big money makers, DRIVING BUBBLES! That is why we had a housing bubble, because banks needed Mortgage backed securities to make money on. So they demanded those and other banks were perfectly happy to write loans for houses as fast as they could, and wrap them into a security pronto, and sell them!

By the way, “It isn’t always a matter of picking winners and losers and Romney, more than anyone knows what regulations are necessary to ensure that our way of life does not crumble.” Spoken like the perfect useful idiot of a culture of persona. The Obamanization of you at least is complete.

I never once said or even indicated all regulations are evil, or at least not necessary evils. The kinds Romney has shown a desire for, Regional Greenhouse Gas initiative, Cap and Trade, forcing coal plants to sequester CO2, Romneycare complete with the forcing of Church Hospitals to perform abortions as well as provide birth control are not necessary, but egregious impositions of the state over the private. Color me intelligent, but those seem to be beyond what is needed for a healthy and thriving society.

astonerii on May 2, 2012 at 9:10 PM

I don’t know (or care) when Newt will meet up with Romney, but the Rick-Mitt pow-wow is scheduled for Friday in Pittsburgh.

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/news/politics-national/romney-santorum-to-meet-in-pittsburgh-634065/

Philly on May 2, 2012 at 9:17 PM

Lets just be clear on the banking system regulations as Romney and sycophant MJBrutus sees them.
Romney as a businessman has unlimited ability to invest his money in limitless level of risk ventures and because of this he is allowed to make extraordinary profits even when his overall actions produced no calculable wealth creation. This is what keeps the economy healthy. Banks on the other hand must be limited to extremely limited types of investments with very limited levels of profits because the government has decreed that these investments are safe.

I know why there are regulations, some have benefits that outweigh the negatives. Then again, having the government arbitrarily dictate which assets have value means that a limited number of outside the field of expertise morons are telling an entire aspect of our economy precisely what to invest in.

astonerii on May 2, 2012 at 9:23 PM

“It was a truly wild ride.”

Yeah, for a few days. The rest of it was not so fun.

minnesoter on May 2, 2012 at 11:30 PM

HANG IN THERE, RON! :)

Decoski on May 3, 2012 at 2:33 AM

Comment pages: 1 2