There were rumors flying around the blogosphere on Saturday night as the Nevada caucus returns were being tabulated that Newt Gingrich would use his press conference to adopt a new, more positive strategy going forward. But after watching Gingrich’s bizarre 11 pm presser, it would appear that the new positive Newt bears a strange resemblance to the old nasty Newt. Gingrich spent most of his session with the press venting his bitterness at Mitt Romney. While vowing to continue his presidential campaign, the main focus of his remarks was not his differences with President Obama but the anger he feels toward the GOP frontrunner.
As he did after losing in Florida, Gingrich again failed to congratulate Romney for winning in Nevada. But, if anything, his rage about being beaten in the pre-Florida primary debates has only grown. Calling Romney a liar, Gingrich piled on the abuse, trying to link him to leftist financier George Soros. Listening to Gingrich, it was clear his campaign was being driven as much by his animus for Romney as it was by his own burning ambition for the presidency. But the question for Gingrich’s main financial backers today has to be whether they are interested in continuing to subsidize an effort that seems more focused on damaging the likely Republican standard bearer than on beating the incumbent.
Coming from a man who has spent most of his career demonizing his foes on both sides on the aisle, his whining about Romney’s negativity is, at best, hypocritical. It also undermines his chance of gaining ground in a race where he seems unlikely to have a chance to win a state until Super Tuesday in March. Gingrich has soared at times when he has been able to speak up for conservative values and express the beliefs of grass roots Republicans.
Many Republicans are still unsure about Romney and feel he is not a true conservative. But one of the biggest problems for Gingrich these days is that his hatred for Romney seems to be driving his candidacy more than anything else. Nor is it likely he can continue to raise the money he needs to carry on if he pursues a sore loser scenario whose only real goal seems to be to cripple Romney. In his victory speech in Nevada, Romney ignored his GOP rivals and concentrated his fire on President Obama. If Gingrich’s main financial backer Sheldon Adelson’s priority is to beat Obama in November, this might be the time to pull the plug on a Gingrich kamikaze mission aimed primarily at the all but inevitable nominee.
I did, however, respond to his point that the safety net for the very poor ought to be a trampoline. That kind of message gets to the heart of why Barack Obama should not be reelected. n n
Yes, that's a great analogy – Jack Kemp's old line and it endures today. Newt is so good when he's focused on the right target. But in a matter of seconds he reverts to Ruth Buzzi on the park bench whacking imaginary enemies with his little purse. He keeps threatening to "go positive" but can't seem to stop going negative… 'they tried to get him into rehab but he said No No No…'
Preach it, J.S. Tobin! n nI couldn't even listen… same old same old whining, bloviating, snarling. It's the world's longest operatic death scene in slo-mo.
Gingrich's performance at his presser was, frankly, "unpresidential." I don't know how anyone could see him in the White House as Chief Executive after that. n nWer'e not electing a spokesperson for conservatism, or a chairman of CPAC. We're going to be electing someone whom we believe can run the Executive Branch-with all its Cabinet posts and agencies–for four years. n nAnd Gingrich just hasn't shown he can do that. All he does best is play the rabid partisan and rant.
Somehow I don't think Newt is going to be our next President, he is turing off more and more voters with these churlish and negative displays.
Yes we are selecting a tinkerer with the mechanisms of statism, from MassCare, to the RGGI, we will make the encroachments with liberty that much more confortable.
It continues to amaze me, the Bizarro World standards that are used to evaluate Newt's candidacy. If I tried to run a positive campaign, and I was defeated by 4 to 1 or 5 to 1 of negative ads, some of which were false, I would be angry too. There's no obligation to be "gracious" to an opponent which has been decidedly *ungracious* in the conduct of his campaign. I wish Gingrich would state that definitively. n nAnd it's Santorum who is the candidate who is remaining in the race out of spite – out of spite for Gingrich. It was Santorum who got the most "angry" at the debates. n nThe Fox commentators talked about how "Romney got in his head" – as if Obama and a barrage of negativity (justified negativity) hasn't been in the Republican head the past few years. n nAs for being Presidential, it's Romney that bloviates – and gaffes. I think that viewers, that *voters*, can see Newt answer the press intelligently and challenge them when they ask loaded questions, and this counts for something no matter what the commentariat declares.
Sore LoserNewt
His press conference was an embarrassment. For him. He keeps proving that he is unsuitable to be POTUS. And that he'll take down all around him if he so pleases.
I'm glad to see everybody here had the same reaction as I did. really, what does Newt think he's doing? he helps Obama every time he opens his mouth now. n nbtw, consp, there "no obligation to be gracious"? I suppose that's true. there's also no obligation to be moral, honest, or virtuous–so is it ok if we just don't bother? n ncalling the winner to congratulate him is how it's done. at least, that's how grownups do it. petty Gingrich, by refusing to (several times) reminds us once again why he'll never be president.
Given that Romney's lies and distortions about Newt are the most egregious to be seen in a GOP primary in many decades, I don't blame Newt one bit for not congratulating Romney and for calling out Romney on his sleazy tactics. There's a difference between being a sore loser and being justifiably indignant over gutter-level campaign methods. n nRomney was hardly very "gracious" himself in his SC concession speech. He didn't say a word of congratulations to Newt. Instead, he was downright petty as he whined about Newt raising questions regarding certain Bain dealings. He appealed to the silly argument that questioning any Bain dealings is "an attack on capitalism" and "a weapon of the left," etc., and he even said that anyone who would do so was "unfit" to be the nominee. Gee, can you say "sore loser"? n nIt should raise a red flag that Romney has not gotten 50% of the vote in any of the three states he has won, even though he has heavily outspent his opponents and has had the GOP Old Guard's backing. In FL, Romney outspent Newt 5 to 1 and ran 65 ads for every 1 ad that Newt ran. Romney had to spend over $19 per vote in FL, compared to Newt's $6 per vote there. n nWhat would Romney do in the general election, where he would not be able to outspend Obama by a dime, much less by 2:1, 3:1, or 5:1? n nRomney has already committed the very kinds of gaffes (6 of them so far) that would fit perfectly into the picture that the Dems have made it clear that they would paint of him. But never you mind all these inconvenient facts. Some people just won't let go of the media-backed, Team Romney-driven myth that Romney is the most "electable." Isn't that what the media and the GOP Old Guard told us about McCain in 2008? How'd that work out? n n n n n