The Newt Presidency
Jan 21, 2012 - OPINION
I don't like the current media. They are flawed, biased, and arrogant. They ignore stories, issues, and even candidates that they disagree with politically, and they seem to believe that the superiority of their views justifies these actions. To put it bluntly, there hasn't been objective journalism in the US for decades now, and it's time someone took "the media" to the woodshed. I think that most conservatives would agree with this sentiment. However, I was not happy to see Speaker Gingrich lambast John King for asking him about his affairs in the CNN South Carolina debate.
For years, conservatives have been looking for someone to lead the charge against the media. We've been looking for a man or woman to call them on their hypocrisy, to force them to cover things fairly, and to berate them when they refuse to do so.
In the case of Newt Gingrich, conservatives should be careful what they wish for, because they just might get it.
Judging by his actions in the debates, Speaker Gingirch has a pattern of feigning insult when easily proven facts are stated, and then making over the top accusations against his competition. For example, in the December 15 debate Congresswoman Bachmann brought up the fact that while speaker of the House, Gingrich made no effort to defund Planned Parenthood. Congressman Gingrich responded to this accusation by claiming that Congresswoman Bachmann often gets her facts wrong. He completely discounts the actual accusation that he didn't defund Planned Parenthood, inserts a straw man accusation that he doesn't have a pro-life voting record, and then refutes this accusation.
BACHMANN: The Republican Party should not get the issue of life wrong. Speaker Gingrich chose not to defund Planned Parenthood. Partial birth abortion is barbaric. George Will once asked if it was a virtue to tolerate infanticide. This is a seminal issue we cannot get wrong. I am 100% pro life from conception until natural death.GINGRICH: Sometimes Bachmann does not get facts accurate. I have a pro life voting record. Some people did not like the welfare reform bill but that had nothing to do with conception. I think there is a challenge to what happens to embryos, which are a life. I am against embryo experimentation because they are life.
In the January 6th debate, Speaker Gingrich was asked about accusations that he recieved a deferment from the Vietnam war. He again attacked the accuser and not the accusation by claiming that Congressman Paul had a long history of lying.
Congressman Paul: I don’t like it when we send our kids off to fight these wars and when those individuals didn’t go themselves, and then come up and when they’re asked, they say, oh, I don’t think one person could have made a difference!” Paul exclaimed. “I have a pet peeve that annoys me to a great deal, because when I see these young men coming back, my heart weeps for them.Speaker Gingrich: Dr. Paul has a long history of saying things that are inaccurate and false. The fact is, I never asked for a deferment… I personally resent the kind of comments and aspersions he routinely makes without accurate information and then just slurs people with.
There are two problems here. First, both of these accusations are true. Speaker Gingrich received a deferment from the Vietnam war and did not defund Planned Parenthood as Speaker. Second, if Speaker Gingrich is to be believed, then the best candidates that the Republican party can offer up to be President are nothing more than incompetent liers with long histories of inaccurate facts and blatant sluring. Of course, Congressman Gingrich offers up no proof of the accusations against either candidate.
The Gingrich pattern to date has been simple: deny everything, admit nothing, and make harsh counter-accusations. When questioned about supporting wars amidst deferments, Speaker Gingrich denies the facts and accuses a fellow Congressman of lying. When questioned on lacking actions as Speaker, he diverts the fact while denigrating a second sitting Republican Congresswoman.
This same pattern carried over to the debate. When faced with an accusation that is not only believable, but relevant to the issue of a man's character, Speaker Gingrich made the calculated decision to attack the moderator and his ex-wife instead of simply deny the accusation and asking to move on. Would it have not been more admirable for a powerful and wealthy man to simply admit that he wronged his ex-wife, and then deny that he asked for an open marriage? He could have easily followed up this denial by pointing out that it wasn't the time or place for such a question.
Conservatives are looking for a pit bull. We want to throw someone into the ring against President Obama that will attack him on all fronts and many are viewing this attack against the media as evidence that Newt Gingrich is that Pit Bull. Make not mistake Newt Gingrich is that man. The problem with Gingrich is that he won't be attacking President Obama because he disagrees with his policies, he'll be attacking him because he believes that it will get him elected.
The tactic has played well in the elections to date. The media isn't exactly defending Congresswoman Bachmann or Congressman Paul, and Speaker Gingrich attacked John King largely because he knew King would hold his tongue. This won't work in the general election against President Obama. President Obama would have responded to Speaker Gingrich's remarks by stating that he indeed could think of something more despicable than airing an interview with an ex-wife days before the election - cheating on two wives, leaving them when they are sick, doing this while giving speeches on family values, and then remaining indignant to questions on the issue. The debate and most likely the election would have been over.
Assuming that Gingrich ascends to the Presidency, conservatives will quickly realize that this tactic wasn't reserved for just the elections. When Gingrich moves for amnesty, he'll attack any conservative that opposes him. When he expands the military into Iran and expands spending to new levels, he'll do the same. When a President Gingrich moves to implement his social security plan to force the next generation to pay for current benefits and their future retirements separately, he'll return once again to this tactic.
Conservatives should be careful not to get too enthralled at finding a fighter to put up against Obama. Newt Gingirch isn't fighting the media, he isn't fighting against liberalism, and he isn't fighting for conservatism. He's fighting for himself.