NEWT NOT WORTHY OF THE PRESIDENCY

boblonsberry.com ^ | 04/17/07 | bob Lonsberry

[shortstop]

Forget Newt Gingrich.

Before you can be a good president, you have to be a good man, and Newt Gingrich is not that. In fact, Newt Gingrich is a snake, a man without honor or ability.

And that’s hard for me to say.

For years, I was a big Newt supporter. I had a copy of the Contract With America and a picture of all the folks pledging themselves to it on the steps of the Capitol. The Republican Revolution of 1994 was a great thing.

But at the end of the day, you’ve got to do more than just agree with my philosophy, you have to be a worthy and worthwhile person. And experience has shown that Newt Gingrich, while a brilliant conservative, was fundamentally lacking in the traits necessary to be a political or moral leader.

Let’s start with his girlfriend.

While Bill Clinton was doing the Texas two-step trying to avoid responsibility for playing the flugelhorn with Harmonica Lewinsky, Newt Gingrich was raking him over the coals for having semi-sex with a subordinate. Newt told us over and over again just how morally bankrupt Clinton was.

With Newt it wasn’t just the lying under oath, it was the almost doing of the deed. He vigorously condemned Clinton for the sex.

Which is interesting, because at the exact same time Newt was boffing his own subordinate. Only it wasn’t part way and it wasn’t just once or twice. It was ongoing for months and months, running into years. While she was on the government payroll under him.

Which makes Newt Gingrich the biggest kind of hypocrite. Now, none of us is sin free, and during that episode most of us tried to focus on the lying under oath and leave the sex alone, but Newt was all about the sex – even though he was doing the same thing only 10 times worse.

That’s strike one.

Strike two was Newt’s inability to run the Republican caucus when he was Speaker of the House. Though he was good at articulating a philosophy and enthusing supporters, when push came to shove he didn’t know how to manage the couple hundred Republicans who made him speaker. He really muffed it, and you’ve got to figure that a guy who can’t keep 200 people happy is not going to do well running the administration, much less the free world.

So poorly did he lead the caucus that unrest began almost immediately. New members believed that he blew them off, older members exploited his idiosyncrasies in a back-stabbing effort to curry favor with him and increase their personal power.

Chief among his idiosyncrasies was his arrogance and its twin brother – his insecurity. When he ran the House it was Newt’s way or the highway, and that was very galling to the Republican congressmen whose votes gave Newt his position. Most noteworthy about Newt’s temperament and ability as a leader is the fact that almost all of those who served under him detest him.

And ticking people off is not a good trait for a president.

Neither is disloyalty.

And that’s strike three. Specifically, one spectacular act of disloyalty.

Remember this name: Bill Paxon. Bill Paxon was my congressman. He was the nuts-and-bolts guy behind the Republican Revolution. While Newt gave talks, Bill Paxon ran the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee and funded and directed the various elections around the country that gave the Republicans the House majority.

Bill Paxon was a golden boy. Only he was for real. He was an honest, decent, moral man. A Boy Scout type who did things because they were right and he believed in them. Also, he was young and dynamic and it wasn’t a stretch to see him as speaker himself one day and, in a couple of decades, president of the United States. He was a noble and patriotic man.

And Newt gutted him.

See, upset with Newt’s incompetence as a leader was so great that young Republican House members decided to have a coup. They decided to kick him out of leadership. Among them were J.C. Watts and Steve Largent who, in addition to being former football players, were some of the brightest young lights in the House. But they couldn’t stand Newt and what they saw as his unreliability, so they wanted his scalp.

And Bill Paxon tried to calm them down. Going to a meeting of disgruntled Republicans, Bill Paxon tried to soothe them and encouraged an outreach to Newt Gingrich that would leave him in power but make him aware of the discontent among his colleagues. Bill Paxon, as a member of Newt Gingrich’s leadership team, worked hard to support Newt Gingrich.

And it might have worked.

Except that while Paxon was being a good scout, one of the climbers who knew how to manipulate Newt – aptly named Dick Armey – whispered to Newt that Paxon was a turncoat. Even though just the opposite was true, Armey was able to trigger Newt’s jealousy and turn it to his own benefit. With a little coaxing from Armey, Newt was livid at Paxon.

It was completely unjustified, and showed a fundamental ignorance as well as limitations of character and capability. But Newt was certain the lie he had been told was true, and he savagely waylaid Bill Paxon, making vile accusations against him.

By the end of the meeting Paxon was out of the leadership and by the end of the week he was on his way out of the Congress. He was essentially destroyed by Newt Gingrich. The irony of that is that Bill Paxon is a far better and more capable man than Newt Gingrich. It was a clear example of the smaller man destroying the nobler man out of cattiness and jealousy.

And I don’t want that kind of person as my president.

Certainly, there are no conservatives vying for the Republican nomination. Certainly, Newt is a great scholar of how this country should be. Certainly, a man with Newt’s intellect would make a great president.

But not a man with Newt’s character.

So early in this campaign, as some are in and some are toying with the idea of announcing, let’s throw one out.

Newt’s day is done. He asked for the House and we gave it to him. And though his philosophical strength was and is admirable, his moral strength is lacking and unsatisfactory.

Maybe Fred Thompson will get into the race. Or maybe we conservatives will just have to sit this one out.

But I’m not voting for Newt Gingrich.

He’s not man enough for the job.

[Midtowngirl]

I thought Paxon resigned because he was outed as being gay. He was married to Congresswoman Susan Molinari at the time and they subsequently divorced.

[D-Chivas]

I’d rather see Newt as the head of the RNC.

[nctexan]

"We’re not electing a Pope!"

Agreed... but the operative word is "electing"... not "Pope".

And I believe that Newt is "unelectable" for POTUS.

[montag813]

But Newt “repented” to James Dobson! Doesn’t that erase all his past nastiness? /s

[kalee]

Newt wAS my congressman. I met him numerous timesa dn feel he is dynamic in articulating the conservative message. That said I wouldn’t vote for him for president.

[joe fonebone]

and don’t forget....he backs congressman william jefferson, democrat, louisiana, in saying the search of his office in the house was not legal.......this just about says it all about him...

[Liberty Valance]

*ouch*

[Wings-n-Wind]

Well... Just WOW....
Bob L.... way to go....

Thanks so much for taking these burdens from our shoulders...

Now we can just accept your heavily judgmental diatribe, which borders on raw-force character assassination, and disregard the need to use our own brain cells to evaluate the character, philosophy, and political ideas of this candidate... for ourselves...

I am so grateful....

I mean think about it...

You could perform this same rubber-gloved exam for virtually every candidate in the '08 presidential race...
Both sides of the debate....
Both parties...
Male & female judged he them....

If you step up to this high appointment as judge... jury... and official character executioner...

We won't have to think at all...
Better than that....

We won't even have to VOTE!!

Why... you'll just look down from your lofty perch and with a wink or a nod.... appoint your own choice to fill the offices of administration and seats of the legislative branch...

I s'pect you could even dissemble down each sitting member of the sitting SCOTUS... completely disqualify them.... and appoint your own...

WOW.... What a country...!!

I am glad you are "man enough"...
To take on this invaluable task for your countrymen...

I am sure nothing can go wrong...
Nothing can go wrong...

Nothing can go wrong...

Nothing can go wrong...

[nevergore]

I personally know Newt and his ex-wife Marianne....

My kids used to call him Uncle Newt....

What he did to Marianne was incredibly wrong and cruel....

Great intellect, terrible personal morals....

I wouldn’t vote for him

[outinyellowdogcountry]

One could have hoped Newt had really changed. He went forth to speak with Dr. Dobson. But when I read about his performance in the Kerry debate, I remembered how he cozied up to the Clintons in one public forum on health care, I think. No, he likes the limelight and power and I agree that he lacks the moral character to govern again. I didn’t know about the back stabbing before but it also fits with what Dick Armey has been saying. Sickening, because I used to think Armey was a real champion. What really is sad is that Watts, Largent and Paxon don’t seem to be players. They are more the image and I hope the character that we need. What happened, were their knees cut off to get them out?

[MuttTheHoople]

Newt, Bill and Hillary, Algore, and Trent Lott are relics of the 1990’s- what I call “The Gelded Age”, a time of small-minded pettiness and Court-intrigue. With the Cold War won, a budget surplus, low gas prices, and ignoring the looming Islamofascist threat, Washington was full of soft, prissy, effeminate, passive-aggressive backstabbers who spent the decade playing parlor games.

For this decade heroes are needed, not palace courtesans. For all his faults, President Bush has been a REAL man when it has come to terrorism. Newt would be a step back.

[HKMk23]

...is its way way too early to start picking winners, or even candidates.

Yeah, but it's never too early to drop-kick weak character, and Newt's a poster child for it. He just flat ISN'T Presidential material.

[Badeye]

Hmmmm. I disagree. Gingrich, like him or not, will raise issues in the debates in a way that will be worthy of serious consideration.

Don’t confuse this as ‘supporting’ Newt, btw. I’m not. I just know he’s good in a debate, no matter if you agree or disagree with him.

Personally, I’d like to see all the divergent points of view within the GOP on full display during the primaries.

[HKMk23]

The 1990's -- “The Gelded Age”

A fine title for a very incisive analysis. Very well put.

[A. Pole]

The two top Republican leaders in Congress ridiculed the UN peacekeeping effort in Bosnia on Sunday and called for a major bombing campaign against the Serbian military.

[...]

Using their most explicit language to date and outlining virtually identical policies, Senator Bob Dole of Kansas and Representative Newt Gingrich of Georgia said in broadcast interviews that NATO and the United Nations had been embarrassingly ineffective in Bosnia.

[...]

The two officials, who will take over as leaders of the Senate and House of Representatives in January, called for a sharply toughened U.S. policy against the Serbs combined with an effort to arm and train Bosnian Muslims. . Mr. Gingrich suggested sending General Colin L. Powell, the retired chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to Belgrade to issue an unmistakable threat of massive air strikes to "paralyze" Serbian society unless ground fighting ceased.

[...]

The Republicans' position signals a possible effort by Congress, when control shifts from Democrats to Republicans in early January, to put greater pressure on President Bill Clinton to lead an unequivocal campaign against the Serbs.

[...]

Both Republican leaders were highly critical of Mr. Clinton's handling of Bosnia policy. After initially outlining a more aggressive policy in Bosnia than NATO allies in Europe, the White House recently approved a shift aimed at aligning with Europe in pressing for a diplomatic solution.[...]

White House officials said Sunday that diplomatic efforts had not been exhausted and that bombing would only worsen the situation.

[...]

Mr. Gingrich joined Mr. Dole in a broad attack on the United Nations and what they see as a tendency by Mr. Clinton to seek multilateral solutions to problems that require stronger U.S. leadership.

[...]

The two top Republican leaders in Congress ridiculed the UN peacekeeping effort in Bosnia on Sunday and called for a major bombing campaign against the Serbian military.

Secretary of State Warren M. Christopher, responding to the harshest domestic attack yet on the Clinton administration's Bosnia policy, immediately challenged the Republican strategy as a prescription for a major ground war that would require thousands of American troops.

He labeled it "a war strategy" doomed to failure and contrary to U.S. national interests.

(Dole and Gingrich Blast UN, IHT, December 5, 1994, Paul F. Horvitz )

[HKMk23]

I can see your position about him being a good catalyst in debate, he’s got a decent history on that score, but not so stellar, here, recently. We thought he’d be great on global warming v. Jf’nK, and we ALL know how THAT turned out.

In an odd way, though, that incident sort of encapsulates who Newt is, He’s the big talker with the trick knee that seems to always buckle in the clutch.

I was looking for Newt to take the gloves of and mop the walls with Kerry, instead I got capitualtion on the seminal point followed by paper tiger fencing over whether solutions should be driven by government or the private sector.

I guess you could call THAT a “divergent point.” LOL!!

[Badeye]

In an odd way, though, that incident sort of encapsulates who Newt is, He’s the big talker with the trick knee that seems to always buckle in the clutch.

I was looking for Newt to take the gloves of and mop the walls with Kerry, instead I got capitualtion on the seminal point followed by paper tiger fencing over whether solutions should be driven by government or the private sector.

I guess you could call THAT a “divergent point.” LOL!!

All fair points, I’ll just note I didn’t pay the faux debate with Kerry any attention.

[Oshkalaboomboom]

We’re not electing a Pope! We need somebody in there with the leadership and vision to achieve conservative objectives and ensure that we do not suffer under the terror of Hillary. How’s SHE stack up against the author’s standards?

Newt would be just as ineffective a Pope as he would be a President, so I wouldn't vote for him in either case. I wouldn't vote for Hillary for anything unless it was a contest to see who should leave the country permanently.

[Della Street]

I agree with the assessment of Newt but I’m puzzled about the mischaracterizing and minimizing of Clinton’s relationship with Monica and others. Why does Lonsberry take pains to say Clinton had half sex and only once or twice? No need to misrepresent Clinton to make Newt look worse. Just the facts, please, and Lonsberry missed some here.

[beeber]

Newt: president of the North Pole. Future global warming paradise.