By FITSNews || If there’s one thing we hate more than hopelessly irretrievable liberal politicians, it’s hopelessly hypocritical “conservative” ones. Like former President George W. Bush, for example. Or former House Speaker Newt Gingrich – who is attempting to position himself for a 2012 presidential bid based on the illusion that he is the keeper of conservative ideology in America.
As we’ve noted previously, Gingrich is no conservative. Plus, he’s already had his chance – and blew it.
Basically, Gingrich proved that elections can be won by promising limited government, but he also proved that Republicans would willingly surrender their ideology to the Washington establishment once they assumed power – which is precisely what happened in the wake of the aborted “Republican Revolution” of 1994.
Anyway, Newt was back in the news earlier this month seeking to legitimize the race-baiting behavior of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) – which recently introduced a resolution implying that the Tea Party movement is racist. Instead of condemning the NAACP for its obvious intellectual bankruptcy and transparent political maneuvering, Gingrich suggested the organization hold town hall meetings on race relations with the Tea Party.
What?
This “policy of appeasement” earned Gingrich a stinking rebuke from one of America’s leading libertarians, Howard Rich, who took to the pages of The Politico on Monday to blast the former Speaker for a “legacy of surrender” that dates back to his early days in the U.S. Congress.
From Rich’s opinion-editorial:
As far back as his second term in Congress, in 1980, Gingrich sided with big labor interests until brought to his knees by a National Right to Work education campaign. Contrary to his image, Gingrich has demonstrated throughout his political career that he possesses no real ideological mooring.
Now, his legitimizing the NAACP’s crass political attempt to play the race card reveals him to be nothing more than a rank political opportunist – a White House-aspiring demagogue who prefers looking good for the liberal legacy media to standing up for our rights as citizens and taxpayers.
Practically-speaking, Gingrich no more subscribes to the tea party ideals of limited government, individual liberty and personal responsibility than President Barack Obama. At least, that’s what one could infer from his endorsement of liberal “stimulus”-supporter Dede Scozzafava in upstate New York last year.
In fact, Gingrich previously dismissed the tea party as nothing more than the “militant wing of the Republican Party” — a crude diminution of a diverse group of freedom-loving Americans.
That’s why, when the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People decided to play the race card against the tea party earlier this month, it wasn’t shocking to see Gingrich immediately raise the white flag and suggest that the Tea Party should give credence to this attack by co-hosting town hall meetings with the NAACP. Rather than rebuking this unfounded attack and exposing its political motivations, Gingrich chose to cave – again – in hopes of giving America a “teachable moment.”
Rich goes on to say that “instead of calling NAACP leaders out as intellectual frauds, Gingrich is seeking to give their race-baiting views a national platform at the tea party’s expense.”
That’s true. Which leads us to the larger point he’s making: This isn’t about advancing one race’s prospects over another, it’s about freedom and free markets for all races. And it’s about protecting everybody‘s bottom line from the growing danger of a wildly overreaching, recklessly overspending federal government.
While his political organizations are best-known for their battles against the Obama administration (most notably its radical government appointments), Rich is once again proving that he’s not afraid to call out hypocrites within the “Republican” ranks.
By No Name July 26, 2010 at 10:36 am
2012
For Newt it is about the “Calista factor”…..ever since this “Beard of stability” showed up and his conversion to Catholisim….. he has been dropping ball after ball…..he used to have some real good hands ….but now he just seems a step slow and incapable of playing in a game that although he may not have started…..could honestly lay claim to having some birth rite too.
Now I think your analysis is dead on…… and he was ….like it or not….one of the great poon hounds of his legislative class….as was the norm for DC….although we only cringe about it now……one thing that I can guanrantee…..he is legitimatly a well read and very smart guy.
Unfortunately for the GOP….as a history Prof……he knows it is about winning not being right….and so he cuts corners to win….which has been the playbook for awhile…..now he is astounded that his gut seems to be wrong on almost every decision since 2008….he never believed in the people enough to see or think a Tea party could come about….and like many GOP old white guys….he under estimates Sarah at every turn.
So Newt……this is South Carolina…this is 2012…show up and join the fray…..you know you hate McCain ….so I assume you have a hard time with Graham……Senators …..fuck em right…….you have a good mind and the Tea party needs some mental heft…….only one problem…..this path does not lead to a candidacy….but it might be more legacy then you could have envisioned.
And stop standing next to Calista ….it does not work in 2010.
Palin\Bachmann\ hell even Nuckie in a good light……good looking women speaking up …….not standing by a man……like a doll.
By piepton July 26, 2010 at 10:38 am
How is stating that there are racists in the tea party playing the race card? Is stating the obvious playing the race card now? Oh no, I think I just did it. Oh, there it is again. AAAHHH, infinite race card loop.
By piepton July 26, 2010 at 10:45 am
And I always thought conservatives were just willfully blind to the fact that Republicans use issues important to them to get elected and then don’t accomplish anything. If Howard Rich knows the Republicans are going to screw conservatives after they get elected, why does he keep giving them so much money?
By Lulz July 26, 2010 at 10:51 am
This is a great point about the voters/activists preoccupation with personas, even when the person does not believe/realize/pursue the ideology or goals that admires ascribe to them when singing their praises.
By carl the greenskeeper July 26, 2010 at 11:02 am
“A witch! A witch! She’s a witch!”
“Who accuses this woman of witchery?”
“Well, I do!”
“What proof do you have of this witchery?
“She turned me into a Newt!”
“A Newt? You don’t look like a Newt!”
“Well, I, I … I got better.”
So, you know, Newts change, from time to time, which is nice.
By Rick July 26, 2010 at 11:45 am
I had a neighbor once whose lawn gnome looked exactly like Newt Gingrich.
By eggaday July 26, 2010 at 12:07 pm
open pandora’s box.
add one eye of newt.
cook til boiling.
By @PerezHiltonSays July 26, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Point ON!
By ArtVandelay July 26, 2010 at 12:32 pm
To deny their is a racist element to the tea party is pretty short sighted and ignores images most of america has seen and heard. To deny the same exists in the NAACP is eqaully short sighted. Love or hate the NAACP they merely pointed out something others didn’t want to mention. Mark Williams’ little response to the NAACP not only gave their claim merit but legitamcay. They didn’t condemn the movement, they condemned the tea parties unwillingness to denounce this fringe element of the party.
Let me be clear…I despise Newt Gingrich, but Gingrich actually is providing the tea partiers a path to legitamacy rather than the flag of surrender. No matter how much media coverage the tea party gets, as long as it is viewed as a party of us and not we it won’t amount to much. The quicker tea party leadership realizes this, they quicker they’ll be a major player in american politics. If they don’t… They’ll win a few elections, ruffle a couple of feathers and that’ll be it. Why? The last time I checked our politicians govern all citizens not just those who agree with them. You can’t completely alienate this countries minorities and think you’ll win a large number of elections. Tim Scott be danged…
By south mauldin July 26, 2010 at 1:21 pm
In the race to decide who the bigger asshole is, Newt and Rich are currently tied in first place.
Having said that, I went to college with Newt’s daughter and she was and is a wonderful person. How she was in his gene pool is beyond me.
But Newt does have a point. The tea party idiots and their lack of cognizant ideas are nothing more than anchors around the necks of the Republicans.
And nice post, Vandelay.
By Cooter Brown July 26, 2010 at 2:03 pm
If’n amerika follows dis scalawag, den dey gets whuat dey deserve!
By Cooter Brown July 26, 2010 at 2:08 pm
Anie “path to legitamacy” fer da so-called T-Partie dat includes dat ol’ fig newton iz aniething BUT legit!
Letuce naught forgit, itz da demicraps an’ republicants that iz ILLEGITIMATE!
By Jack July 26, 2010 at 2:13 pm
I’ve disliked the Newt for a long time. I’ve thought he was a hypocrite on a number of levels. Primarily in the same way Sanford was a hypocrite. But you’ve got to be joking here. I’ve been to a couple of Tea Party events, and to say there is no racism there is simply not true.
Racism exists in every organized group, but in SC at least there is a significant racist element present at Tea Party events. I believe that to be true nation wide, but since I have not actually seen an event outside of SC (except on TV), I cannot say that with confidence. The so called Birthers appear to be very prominent in the the Tea Party. In fact I suspect if you could poll active Tea Party participants, you would find more than half would say Obama is a Muslim, and Obama is not an American. I am an Independent, and I consider myself to be an objective observer; but I believe the whole Obama is a Muslim, Obama is not an American, we want our country back element of the Tea Party is based in racism. If Obama were a white person, male or female, this element of the Tea party movement would simply not exist.
While the Tea Party movement does not espouse racists goals; there are racist elements within the movement, and their anger and hate, at least in SC, is not an insignificant part of the energy surrounding the movement. This element reared its head in the unfortunate letter by Mark Williams, and even faintly echos in Rich’s statements. But that said, this discussion does not hurt the Tea Party. Non-racists participants don’t seem to care, and racists get to mingle with plenty of people who believe as they do at the rallies. This battle with the NAACP will increase membership.
By countryboy July 26, 2010 at 3:47 pm
If the people who are blasting the Tea Party for having racist elements don’t think there are racists in every sizeable political group, especially the democrat party, they are f’ing blind, deaf and dumb.
By OhNoNotAgain July 26, 2010 at 4:38 pm
You know, other than what Howard Rich does here in support of school vouchers, he’s a nothing to me, so I probably shouldn’t care.
And guess what? Don’t care what he thinks. But I do think it is funny he’s calling out Newt on his support of “Dede Scozzafava.”
That was support against the supposed darling of the Tea Party movement. The winner of that race turned out to be the first Democrat elected in decades. Maybe since the Civil War. Despite endorsements from Fred Thompson’s wife and Sarah Palin.
How could such a powerhouse candidate lose? Well, he did have those crazy eyes? Unlike Alvin Greene, where you look in the eyes and think there isn’t much going on, this guy’s eyes said there was probably too much going on, not all of it good. The kind of eyes that suggest perhaps he thought the sky was plaid colored and the color of the sun was raspberry parfait.
Crazy eyes.
Anyway, it still makes me wonder what the tally sheet of Palin-endorsements looks like in terms of wins-losses.
By EB July 26, 2010 at 5:35 pm
By OhNoNotAgain on July 26th, 2010 at 4:38 pm
“….what the tally sheet of Palin-endorsements looks like in terms of wins-losses.”
As for Ms. Palin, you lose a few, you win a few.
And in the case of Obama, you lose a few, and the you lose a few more.
You really don’t want to keep that tally sheet in November.
By Whippersnapper July 26, 2010 at 5:36 pm
Newt has long since sold out his principles and the American people for his place at the table of America’s ruling class. His strong support (and the RNC’s) of radical leftist RINOs (such as in New York and in Maryland’s 1st Congressional district) against true conservatives will long be remembered. Just as we remember how these same RINOs immediately upon losing the Republican primaries promptly endorsed the DIMMocrat candidates — who went on to win. These DIMMs will of course be swept out of office come November 2nd. However, the memory of Newt’s endorsements as well as the memories of him sitting on a couch with Nancy Pelosi trying to sell the lies of Anthropomorphic Global Warming will be long with us. He’s going no where in 2012 because he just can not be trusted to not sell out and betray the people.
By Tom Stickler July 26, 2010 at 8:58 pm
Hey, Whippersnapper! That’s “Anthropogenic Global Warming.” It’s about causation, not shape.
And, if it is not caused by human activity, how do you explain the incontrovertible fact of rising global average temperatures over the last fifty years or more?
By Red July 27, 2010 at 4:34 pm
Why anyone listens to Newt is beyond me. I couldn’t agree more Fits- he had his chance and flat out blew it. Partisan sniping is what helped get us in this mess, and it won’t get us out of it either.
And there is no “Tea Party”. Most of the mainstream media is intent on vilifying anyone who faults both the Republicans and Democrats for jointly creating our country’s current fiscal mess.
And to Tom Stickler- care to share with us a link of a simple verified chart of global temperatures over the last 50 years?
By Whippersnapper July 27, 2010 at 8:50 pm
******************************************************
By Tom Stickler on July 26th, 2010 at 8:58 pm
Hey, Whippersnapper! That’s “Anthropogenic Global Warming.” It’s about causation, not shape.
And, if it is not caused by human activity, how do you explain the incontrovertible fact of rising global average temperatures over the last fifty years or more?
***************************************************
Tom, lol … you’re correctamundo … it’s anthropomorphic …my flying fingers have betrayed me once again. While my spelling was off, the facts really aren’t. I invite you to do some more research. Be sure to go to sites such as http://www.climatedepot.com/ in addition to sites that are trying to sell AGW. Zero in on the underlying facts … including facts and data that someone may be leaving out to buttress his/her argument. I’ve done that quite a bit over the past few years to arrive where I am today. As I’ve learned more about this subject I’ve reached an understanding of the techniques that proponents of AGW have used to manipulate the data they choose to present.
By the way, isn’t it interesting that the great Al Gore (Mr. The Ice Caps And Glaciers Are Melting And The Rising Oceans Will Submerge Our Coasts) has just purchased a very expensive OCEAN FRONT estate. Just sayin’!!