If you are looking for open signs of panic among the Republican Establishment, look no further than Jennifer Rubin, who last night penned an open letter to many of the foremost elected officials in the party begging them to intervene to stop Gingrich. Here’s a sample of her plea:
…The voters in their infinite wisdom have just given a huge boost to perhaps the only GOP candidate who could shift the spotlight from President Obama to himself, alienate virtually all independent voters, lose more than 40 states and put the House majority in jeopardy.
We’d be looking at four more years of Obama’s economic policies, four more years of strained relations with allies, several new Supreme Court justices and an unprecedented power shift to the executive branch.
It seems, gentlemen, it’s time to get off your . . . er . . . time to get off the bench and into the game.
What’s interesting is that Ms. Rubin and Newt’s biggest benefactor, Sheldon Adelson, are two of the staunchest advocates for Israel imaginable, and, yet, they totally disagree about the merits of Gingrich as a candidate.
The way casino magnate Sheldon Adelson remembers it, he and his wife, Miriam, met then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich in 1995 in the majestic Capitol Rotunda as they made their way through the building while lobbying for a bill to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
Nearly two decades later, Gingrich, on the campaign trail, has promised that his first executive order as president would be the embassy move, long a priority of ardent Israel supporters such as the Adelsons.
It would also be a sweet jackpot for the Adelsons, who are the biggest patrons of Gingrich’s political career.
Perhaps no other major presidential candidate in recent times has had his fortunes based so squarely on the contributions of a single donor, as Gingrich has on Adelson, who has spent millions in support of Gingrich and his causes over the past five years.
I guess it’s obvious that Ms. Rubin does not fear how a President Gingrich would treat Israel. Her concern is that Gingrich will get slaughtered in the general election because he’s “an egomaniac whose personal advancement takes precedence over any principle.” She says he will burn the party to the ground.
Is she a more savvy political observer than Mr. Adelson?
That’s why only a fool would underestimate Newt winning the nomination. It all depends on how much Adelson is willing to spend. Adelson obviously doesn’t care about the GOP as a whole. In fact, he’s no different then the guy that used to be, and maybe still is, one of Bill and Hillary’s backers(and is also a big money man of the Brookings Institute). Yes, Haim Saban. Both are Israel-firsters.
Exactly. Combine a several hundred million in PAC money going negative against President Obama along with manufactured scandals and quips from Newt coming day and night that the media gobble up happily, and you’ve got a tough general election.
I guess I have less faith in swing independents who decide our elections than others do. As someone put it, an appealing demagogue in hard times is something to be worried about.
I read in the LA times that Gingrich has been largely absent in Florida, while Romney has been flooding the airwaves there and currently enjoys a commanding lead in the polls. Gingrich has his work cut out to come from behind in only 9 days. Does he have any campaign organization there at all?
Wow…I’m more torn than ever.
As a radical right-winger desperate to defeat Barack Obama…
Will debates play as significant role in the General Election as they have in the Republican primary…
If Yes, go with Gingrich…
Or is it really about winning the middle, organization, money…
If Yes, go with Romney…
Do you win the middle by taking positions closer to the middle (Romney), or do you win the middle through cogent arguments that moves the entire electorate to the right (Gingrich)
When is the Georgia primary…I still do not know for whom to vote.
Progressives…for whom should I vote?
Go with Ron Paul.
Well, I don’t know that you’d trust me to give you advice, but…
If I were you, I’d be asking myself why Romney is so unappealing to so many Republicans and why he can’t do better when he so many advantages. What does he really bring to the table against Obama? That he’s a businessman?
I’d argue his greatest asset against Obama is that he is the least threatening candidate. He inspires no one, but he doesn’t scare too many people either. Is that enough?
Could be.
Gingrich brings an enormous array of problems, the least of which is his martial conduct. Very few people who have ever worked with Newt have good things to say about the experience. He’s not too stable. He’s unfocused. He has delusions of grandeur.
And he has all kinds of baggage, from his ethics violations to his flip-flops to some truly outrageous and indefensible comments he’s made on a wide array of topics.
His negatives are through the roof.
But if you don’t pick one of these two, you’re stuck with the sanctimonious frothy mix, who is one of the most unpleasant and alienating characters in all of American politics. Or you have to go with Ron Paul, who probably doesn’t believe 50% of what you think is essential in a Republican candidate.
So, basically, you’re screwed and should consider that the president is a very decent man who has run this country quite well under some of the most difficult conditions we’ve seen in our lifetimes.
Boo…
Thanks for the advice.
Regarding Newt’s delusions of grandeur, instability, personal baggage, etc…some of the greatest leaders in history have had these traits…I don’t know that that disqualifies him.
In my view, the left’s argument is more emotioally appealing to those who do not think at more than a superficial level…every society in human history gradually progresses from an emphais on liberty and individual responsibility to an emphasis on “fairness” and collective responsibility…
Newt is more able to put forth the intellectual argument for individual responsiblity and limited government…without a leader to articulate these positions, we will continue the inexorable road to collectivism…
For us, the gamble is whether Newt’s ability to do so, and thus influence the electorate, outweighs his considerable negatives.
By the way…Obama is a decent man…but fundamentally misundertands the key to wealth and job creation…
You cannot simultaneously want to combat poverty, while despising those who create wealth…
The notion of “creating wealth” is a fallacy of modern (mostly conservative) economic dogma.
Not to get into the weeds on this, but a good way of dividing up the economic system to understand where fundamental wealth comes from is to consider the primary, secondary, and tertiary economies: that of natural resources, good and services, and financialization of those goods and services. Each segment depends upon wealth created in the lower more fundamental segment.
Much of the so-called wealth over the last few decades has been in the tertiary economy: money chasing its tail on Wall Street. While on paper that looks good, and when you don’t break it down the GDP numbers might look good, it hasn’t felt good to the average American. By breaking it down, it’s easier to see where things went wrong. We’ve seen a shrinking primary and secondary economy over the last thirty years (decrease in available natural resources per capita, decrease in manufacturing, etc.) while the tertiary economy has boomed into the quadrillions of dollars. And eventually you end up with an inverted pyramid, teetering upon a inadequate foundation. (That’s a simple way of understanding what went wrong in the financial crisis that started in 2008.)
While the talking point is that the mavens of the tertiary economy are “wealth creators”, they’re neither creating wealth we want or need.
barath,
In reality, it is only the production of goods and services that create wealth–all else is illusory.
“Natural Resources”, for example, are of no value without someone providing the service to obtain them…
5 million years ago, the GDP of America was 0. Now it is fourteen trillion dollars…where did it come from?
If wealth is not created by someone, how did it get here?
Money is worth nothing without goods and services to purchase–why are those goods and services available? There is no other value.
To talk about “wealth creation” as being a myth is to express the most fundamental ignorance possible.
Just because you don’t put a number on it, doesn’t mean it wasn’t wealth. You’ve just defined away farmers in your definition, for example. Food produced naturally from a landbase—say fisheries—provide wealth. But until you had a financial system to monetize it, it didn’t contribute to the GDP.
My point is that human beings aren’t creating primary wealth: it comes from natural resources. At best we produce secondary wealth. And lately we’ve been producing far too much tertiary wealth—the kind that Romney is good at making.
As a Ron Paul supporter, I concur with the earlier comenter’s suggestion. Gingrich is a walking disaster. It is always possible he could win a general election (That’s not how I would bet) but that is the problem. There is nothing really small government conservative about him. Economically, he will be little different than Obama. Talking about the benefits of free enterprise doesn’t make you a conservative.
In terms of foreign policy, he is marginally more likely than Obama to start another war, probably against Iran. I guess one could hope a second term Obama would feel less pressure to do something that stupid.
Gingrich is the only GOP candidate bad enough to make me consider holding my nose and voting for Obama. I certainly wont be voting for Romney, but I’ll be more inclined to stay home or vote for Gary Johnson.
Looking at the map though, I wouldn’t worry too much about Newt winning the nomination. Let’s just assume he wins Florida and sweeps the south (minus Virginia) on Super Tuesday. Then what? New York? Not a Chance. California? Same deal. The other western states? Nada. Texas maybe??? He’s the Only GOP candidate polling behind Obama in Texas. In all those states, he will likely finish behind Ron Paul. And in the event of a brokered convention, Paul sure as hell isn’t giving any delegates to Newt.
But this will be one hell of a book tour for him, though.
P.S. Newt is also not on the ballot in Missouri.
LFA, you’ve been snookered by the propaganda. “…despising those who create wealth…”? What a bizarre trope you’ve swallowed. Neither Obama’s policies nor his rhetoric display this hatred you claim.
“In reality”, sustainable wealth in our capitalist economy is most commonly created by a wide swath of people who can afford to purchase goods and services. Without consumers, how would the people who produce those goods and services make money?
You place the term natural resources in quotes, as if it’s a fanciful fiction. Water has no value outside its monetary value? Food found in the wild? I disagree.
How does one end up this confused? Newt – great ideas but considerable negatives. Can you cannot connect that most have his ideas have been incredibly stupid hence considerable negatives? aggh…brain hurts.
Obama misunderstands the key to wealth and job creation? Check the Dow, Detroit and GM and this
http://www.seeingtheforest.com/archives/2011/08/three_charts_to.htm
“great ideas”? name one.
That’s the thing that amuses me most about newt and his supporters. They keep pointing to him and saying “he’s an idea man”, as if simply having ideas is a good thing in and of itself.
None of newt’s ideas are what we call “good ideas” like “the lightbulb” or “the washing machine” or “keynesian economics”.
they are all bad ideas. Or absurd. Or half-baked. Only 4th graders and below get credit for trying.
space mirrors so we never have to deal with darkness again.
It’s also interesting that Jennifer Rubin apparently thinks the Republican Establishment can get off their asses and do something. Hilarious!
.
Cross-posted from my diary – Assassinate Barack Obama to Save Israel
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."So does Ron Paul, I imagine. Let these two stupid behemoths slug it out with Santorum as the idiot-boy sidekick. Continue on in a steady march, each foolish misstep by the other three driving inquisitive people to look into what Ron Paul is really saying and who he really is instead of believing the claptrap that passes for “
disinformation” in the mass media.Watch.
It ain’t over by a long shot.
Not until the fat boy, the frat boy and the altar boy sing “No mas.”
Watch.
They will destroy each other.
At worst, they will allow Obama another term. Better him than any of them, for sure.
At best their idiocy and/or imbalance…remember, Gingrich is no fool, he’s just batshit nuts.. will provide Ron Paul with more and more of a platform from which to preach his common sense.
We shall see.
Bet on that as well.
AG
P.S. Someone is going to have to prove to me that Gingrich’s wife…What’s her name, Vampirella or something like that?…is human.
I mean…really.
Whaddayou…kiddin’ me or what!!!???
She could lose the election for him just by standing there. Mars? Another galaxy altogether? The Sony robot factory? The local blowup doll joint? And that’s not an “awkward” photo, either. She always looks that way. My own theory about all the jewelry he went into hock to buy for her? That’s what she eats as food.
Twilight Zone time. Wait’ll her feeding time hits YouTube. Viral.
Can’tcha just see it?
Yup.
Like dat.
Bet on it.
Deep.
Ron Paul is done. People just held their noses on him when they had ran out of every single other Not Mitt candidate, and even then the majority of people went to Santorum. Now that they have a “viable” Not Mitt candidate again they will drop Paul like a bad rash. He finished a distant fourth in SC and that’s where he is going to stray. He will get enough delegates to cause trouble at the convention but that’s it as far as his campaign goes.
Bet on it.
And then hopefully the paulites will stop incessantly spamming in every available hole in the internet…
Don’t hold your breath.
AG
Paul was never in contention for the “Not-Mitt” spot. He stands distinctly outside the modern Republican party. He appeals to that small subset of Republicans who actually believe in all the libertarian “small government” rhetoric, and not at all to those who simply pretend to.
That’s why Paul’s support has been small, but solid, throughout the campaign. His voters don’t switch, but for the same reasons, other voters don’t move towards him. He’ll do best in the caucus states and in the West. He’ll do poorly in the South. We knew all these things in 2008.
And he’ll cause much less trouble at the convention than a rebuffed Newt or Mitt will, no matter how many delegates he has in the end.
True, which is why his bounce in his “Not Mitt” stage was shared with Santorum. People voted for him who disliked Santorum but had no other viable candidate at the time.
And I think Paul has plans to cause trouble at the convention. There are reports that his supporters were ordered to hang around at the Iowa caucus till the end that they would be chosen as candidates in a greater number than his vote would indicate. That indicates that he has some plan for the convention
“but for the same reasons, other voters don’t move towards him.”
They don’t? He’s doubled, tripled and quadrupled his support in the first 3 states compared to 2008 respectively. I agree a lot of GOPers talk small government when what they want is all encompassing government controlled by the MIC. I don’t agree that it will always be that way.
P.S. Paul did as well or better in South Carolina than Newt did in either Iowa or NH. It ain’t over by a long shot. Newt is not on the ballot in two substantial states (Virginia and Missouri) He may own the south, but he is not very competitive in California or the west, or in New York and the north east. That’s where most of the delegates are and in those places he will finish behind Ron Paul. Even in Texas, I don’t think he can win.
Newt will probably win Florida. There are 7 more states after that before Super Tuesday. Look them up and I think you’ll agree Newt isn’t winning in any of them. If he manages to survive that month, he’ll get the south on ST.
And that will be all he gets.
personally, I’d like to see raw footage of newt and callista making love.
N.A.
Bet on it.
Not in any form that we would recognize, anyway.
Bet on that as well.
Tentacles, odd-shaped protuberances…the works.
AG
i gotta say, that column by rubin was a delight to read. I love the smell of panic in the morning.