The Washington Post has a fascinating story based on an examination of papers collected over nearly three decades, documents compiled by a former Newt Gingrich aide and archived at the University of West Georgia, where Gingrich was an assistant professor in the 1970s. What they reveal, according to the Post, is “a politician of moderate-to-liberal beginnings, a product of the civil rights era who moved to the right with an eye on political expediency — and privately savaged Republicans he was praising in public. Even as he gained a reputation as a conservative firebrand, the documents show Gingrich was viewed by his staff primarily as a tactician — the ‘tent evangelist’ of the conservative movement, one staffer said — with little ideological core.”
There’s a lot to sort through, but two things in particular stood out to me. One is that Gingrich’s chief of staff in 1983, Frank Gregorsky, said (according to a transcript of a staff meeting) that Gingrich “assumed that he’s the whole Republican Party. He knows more than the president [Ronald Reagan], the president’s people, [Robert H.] Michel, [James] Baker. He calls them stupid all the time, and I think that’s going to get him into big trouble someday.”
And then there’s what Gingrich said in a 1979 address to his congressional staff: “When I say save the West, I mean that. That is my job. . . . It is not my job to win reelection. It is not my job to take care of passport problems. It is not my job to get a bill through Congress. My job description as I have defined it is to save Western civilization.”
None of this is surprising to many of those who have watched Gingrich during the years, especially those who have worked with him and for him. A man of transcendent self-regard, Gingrich views himself as a world-historical figure, our Horatius at the bridge, one of the few people standing between (in Gingrich’s words) “us and Auschwitz.”
The former House speaker possesses some considerable talents. But there is such a thing as presidential temperament. Gingrich doesn’t have it–not by a country mile–and therefore, he will never be president of the United States.
The same was said of Obama, his constant use of the personal pronoun "I", the explicit stated desire to transform America…and yet he is president. Obama is and was a smooth talker, so if that is what you mean by "presidential temperament", then I suppose you might be right, but I think G.W. Bush with his Texan drawl and his malapropism's sort of disproves the smooth talker requirement. n nOr is it simply arrogance? No, Obama is certainly an arrogant president, so that's not it. n nYou'll have to do better than a vague reference to "presidential temperament". Without it, your just saying you don't like Gingrich. That's fine, but you've made that clear a dozen times. No need to beat that horse…it's already dead.
Did you watch the recent documentary on Bill Clinton. If so did you notice throughout the compelling vanity of Bill Clinton and his certitude about his destiny as USA President? And if you did notice this, did you at any time question your own certitude about presidential temperament?
Churchill has Gingrich beat in this regard. Didn't make him a bad national leader.
Too bad that Newt doesn't stand for the things of integrity that Churchill stands for. Too bad that Newt is more of a Chamberlain than people want to acknowledge.
2 comments by staffers from 1979 and 1983 … that's the good stuff ? well that settles it …
Yes, Mr. Wehner, and I'd like to see the same regard and consideration you and the so-called journalists in the mainstream media gave in this article to Barry Soetaro AKA Barack Hussein Obama. At least, the potential Republican nominees (every one of them) is being given the anal exam you should have completed on the current Oval Office Occupant. Where are the Bamster's official college transcripts? You do realize Barry will be the focus of the American people's attention come November 2012 and he will be found wanting in the extreme. He can't run on a record he doesn't have and the media's continuing efforts to ignore him only focuses the spotlight further on his inadequacies. Bang up job Mr. Wehner..
Not sure who I'm voting for yet, but…..here is food for thought. n nThis does sound like the correct job description: save Western civilization. The author apparently thought this would be to Newt's detriment to "expose" this, but it elevates my respect for Newt. He knows what his job is supposed to be. Just wish all the other politicians knew this as well. And perhaps this IS the presidential temperament. n nBut, of course, it doesn't follows the Judeo-Christian rules for proper humility, and that''s the problem here, correct? See this reference and countless others: n n2 Corinthians 12:5-12 ESV: "On behalf of this man I will boast, but on my own behalf I will not boast, except of my weaknesses. Though if I should wish to boast, I would not be a fool, for I would be speaking the truth. But I refrain from it, so that no one may think more of me than he sees in me or hears from me." n nWe just like our leaders humble, and consider it a character flaw if humility isn't practiced. Humility is attractive; conceit is not. You want to see humility, watch Mitt Romney. Perhaps this is why Mitt is so boring. On the other hand, Ron Paul is humble and NOT boring. True integrity from the gut is absolutely electrifying. n nGuess you can see where I'm leaning….