According to Representative Nancy Pelosi, who served on the ethics committee that investigated Newt Gingrich for tax cheating and campaign finance violations in the late 1990s, “One of these days we’ll have a conversation about Newt Gingrich. When the time is right. … I know a lot about him. I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff.”
Set aside the fact that (as Gingrich said) Pelosi would be violating House rules and abusing the ethics process if she disclosed anything from the ethics investigation. My question is whether this kind of politics is what Barack Obama had in mind when, in 2008, he preached against “a politics that breeds division and conflict and cynicism.” Or when he told us, “I want us to rediscover our bonds to each other and to get out of the constant petty bickering that’s come to characterize our politics… the tit-for-tat, ‘gotcha’ game that passes for politics right now doesn’t solve problems. I want to get beyond that.” Or when he announced on a stage in Grant Park, on the night of his election, “Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long.”
I ask because top strategists aligned with President Obama’s campaign have already said that they would “kill” Mitt Romney if he were the nominee and that Obama would engage in what Politico called a “ferocious personal assault” and a “slashing, personal campaign aimed at disqualifying his likeliest opponent.” And now Nancy Pelosi, who obviously has very close ties to Obama, is hinting that she’s willing to violate House rules in order to smear Gingrich.
I rather doubt Obama will rebuke Pelosi.
I’m not naïve enough to believe that a presidential campaign will focus solely on the issues. Nor should it. Character, including personal character, matters when it comes to political leadership. But the thuggish tactics that Democrats are clearly willing (and even eager) to resort to in an effort to win in 2012 is discouraging, if wholly predictable, given the terrible record they have amassed over the last three years. They believe their only choice is destroying the opposition; treating them as enemies rather than opponents. But they should be careful, because playing with TNT can be dangerous not only for the targets, but also for the attackers.
These are serious times; the public is, I think, in an unusually serious mood. And I rather doubt that they’ll have much patience for a political party whose tactics resemble the Corleone family.
Obama has nothing but a negative campaign to run. He can't run on his record, and having had 3 years to prove himself, he can't run on his big ideas and ability to get them done. He basically ran last time saying, "You don't really know who I am yet, but boy! just give me a chance, and I'll prove what a superhero I am!" – with the media cheering him on, building him up, and protecting him. Now, however, we've had 3 years to watch him work, and polls show people aren't in a position to buy what they sold us last time. nThen there is the media. They will help Obama just as much as they did last time – and that was a breathe-taking effort!! But instead of focusing most of their effort at building Obama up to be a demi-god – since he was an unknown and they refused to present his past showing him to be a real human – this time around, they will have to focus on the negative. They will have to demonize his opponent far beyond the normal demonization of Republicans they have done in the past. It will be something like what they initially did to Palin, that massive onslaught of vile press they used to try to knock her off the ticket right away, but they will be more consistent in the volume of attacks over the length of the campaign once the conventions are underway and it is clear who the Republican nominee will be.
Jeez, you're naive if you think the public is going to object. n nThe key bloc in the 'public' is the so-called independent/moderate. Almost by definition they don't pay as much attention to politics as you (or I) do, In particular, what attention they do pay is limited to soundbites (proof: how else could Obama ever have captured their votes?) and headlines. Thus, they'll pay attention to the allegations against Gingrich, and not a bit to the issue of whether Obama is playing fair or whether somebody broke a House rule by releasing material from the ethics committee. The Democrats know this.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Democrats got someone else. There is no way that Obama can run on his record. The Democrats foolishly stood Carter for a second term when they should have told him it's time to go. It's probably difficult to force Obama out but they can make it plain that he is a loser and he has had a fair go. It's time for a dignified retirement. Obama's record is patently appalling. The only thing going for him is that he got Osama Bin Laden but probably McCain would have got him a lot sooner. It's been obvious for a long time that Pakistan has been playing a double game with the US. It would not have taken much pressure to force the Pakistanis to hand him over.
IMO Gingrich would be an unmitigated (pun unintended) disaster as the GOP nominee, so I won¨t complain if the Dems unloose several salvos before the nominating process is well underway.
Unfortunately, the truth about Gingrich is not pretty, as it was with Mr. Cain. Hiding it is not to the benefit of the Republican party. It is unethical of Ms. Pelosi to threaten it but it is there to be found and it will come out one way or another. The country's new found conservatives never knew, don't care, or just have amnesia about this man. There is no new Newt just the same old pompous egoist we all remember. Romney 2012.
"given the terrible record they have amassed over the last three years." n nA minor correction. They've been doing that for at least three generations.
Valid points, every one. The sad fact is, though, that – unless Perry rises considerably in the polls and soon, which is very unlikely – it's Romney or Gingrich. Given that choice, I prefer someone who at least talks like a limited government guy. There is a chance his feet can be held to the fire by a limited government Congress (if we could get even close to that in 2012). With Romney, there is no such chance.
It's called "hardball." After the swiftboating of Kerry (remember the purple heart band-aids?), and calling Obama (and liberals in general) un-American, Republicans have some nerve complaining about "smears." You guys can dish it out, but you sure start whining when it comes back to you.