Newt beats Romney in South Carolina. The Republican race for a nominee just gets funnier and funnier. I’ll ask a simple question: Can anyone tell me why they would actually vote for the lizard-like Newt Gingrich?
I’ll make it a little more difficult. Tea Party reactionaries (who are losing steam daily), and those who just simply hate the Democratic party are excluded. Give me an honest reason why anyone would think the Newtster would be someone for whom to actually vote. As is so often the case in politics, I hear people say they are not voting for someone, but against the competition. How about we try something truly radical, like voting for a candidate we truly believe in?
How many times have we heard someone say, "I voted (blank) because he was the best of the bad choices?" I certainly remember those words being uttered by a lot of people back in 1988, when the Democratic candidate was the moronic Dukakis, against someone whom nobody really liked: the then sitting VP George Bush.
So let’s tear up the usual excuses and talk straight. I’m voting for Obama because even though I agree he has been basically a do-nothing president, he hasn’t done anything that actually angered me either.
Tell me why you would vote for Newt? I think Romney lost SC because he refused to release his tax records. And I think once he does, some noise will be made, and it will all pass. Eventually I do think he will be the Republican nominee. But again, I ask: who, and why, would anyone vote for Newt Gingrich? It’s a simple question, but one I bet nobody will be able to answer without saying that they hate the Dems, and if Gingrich is the only choice, then that is enough.
Partisanship aside then; how is that good enough for any of us? And why should we accept such nonsense? If the United States is truly the greatest experiment in democracy in history then why would we accept such a state of affairs?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - jamminsue
Greg: For this comment,
"Can anyone tell me why they would actually vote for the lizard-like Newt Gingrich"
Thank you!
2 - Baronius
Do you mean vote for him over Romney in the primaries or vote for him in the general election over Obama?
3 - Glenn Contrarian
I'm just waiting for the BC conservatives to speak up and say who they would vote for BEFORE the Republican nomination is locked up! C'mon, guys, show some cojones, say who you will vote for and why! And let's try to see some reasoning besides "Because he's not Obama"....
P.S. - this is one area, at least, where Dave Nalle deserves some credit, because at least he makes no secret of where he stands.
4 - Greg Barbrick
Glenn --
I agree
5 - Greg Barbrick
Baronius -
I mean both.
6 - Clavos
I'm writing myself in.
But if elected, I will not serve.
Seriously, I will not vote for anyone currently running -- either Republican or Dumbocrat.
7 - Glenn Contrarian
Okay - Clavos says he'll vote for himself (though that might be a cover for voting for the yet-to-be-named-GOP-because-he's-not-Obama).
Next? C'mon, guys!
8 - Clavos
(though that might be a cover for voting for the yet-to-be-named-GOP-because-he's-not-Obama).
So now you're implying I'm a liar.
Along with many others, I have nothing but contempt for you and your lack of manners, Glenn.
9 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
I said, "might". May or may not be. That's NOT 'implying', that's stating a FACT that you may or may not be completely serious about it.
10 - Igor
I'd vote for Romney in the primary, but not in the general election. I think the republican party has failed to provide a good candidate.
Incidentally, Newt said he is NOT a lobbyist, which is technically true. But when he left congress in '98 he told his handlers that he would not register as a lobbyist, but still wanted to mine his contacts. So they invented a sort of stealth lobbyist called a "person of interest" who may be called upon by a committee but may not initiate solicitation of business (that would be regulated lobbying).
And so it is: Newt's friends on committees initiate business with a person of interest, who is presumed to be an independent expert, but is, of course, Newt lobbying for his cohorts.
And Newt never has to register as a lobbyist.
11 - Dr Dreadful
"I’m voting for Obama because even though I agree he has been basically a do-nothing president, he hasn’t done anything that actually angered me either."
In theory, a do-nothing president isn't actually all that bad a thing.
George Washington, for example, who's generally considered to be one of your greatest chief executives, considered his role to be basically one of presenting his fledgling nation in as positive a light as possible, and spent most of his time deliberately distancing himself from any temptation to bugger about with things.
The notion of the President of the United States as some sort of general purpose superhero, problem-solver and world-saver is of fairly recent vintage.
That said, if a president promises the earth and doesn't deliver, he lays himself open to a lot of legitimate criticism.
(Obama's Politifact "Promises Kept" score, three-quarters of the way through his term of office, is 162 out of 528, or a little over 30% - a bit wanky on the face of it but which, it might be argued, is actually quite respectable considering the hostile and resistant Congress he's had to work with most of the time. But that's for the individual to decide.)
12 - Dan(Miller)
Glen, re #3 -- you ask some conservatives to speak up and say who they would vote for BEFORE the Republican nomination is locked up!
Dear me, Glen, it's a difficult choice but I may vote for President Obama because I became convinced by reading my own article that it would be cool. Besides, he has so much to offer.
13 - Costello
I don't understand what's appealing about these Repub candidates to party members. Newt is the epitome of a DC Insider but isn't considered an elist standing next to Romney, who is Kerryesque in his stiffness and how out of touch he is with regular folks, as that ridiculous photo of him doing laundry reveals. Unless there's some scandal or economy heads south, I don't see either beating Obama
14 - Costello
I made the mistake of checking out Dan's article. Unless you want yet another example that humor is tough and many people fail at it, not worth your time
15 - Clavos
Just finished Miller's amusing article.
Whatever your day job is, Costello, don't quit it; you'll starve to death as a critic.
16 - zingzing
most critics would starve to death, clavos. but the article... well, there's a reason that right-wing comedy doesn't do too well... so smug.
17 - Arch Conservative
I voted for Ron Paul in the NH primary.
I would not vote for Newt in the general because he's a scumbag, very intelligent but a scumbag nonetheless.
As for Romney, he is no more out of touch with the average American than out current community organizer in chief. I don't particularly care for Romney but will vote for him in the general out of spite for Barry Sotero.
18 - roger nowosielski
Romney is as phony, Arch. For all of Newt's faults, and there are many, at least he'd shit disturb, and perhaps we've reached the kind of impasse in American politics that that's precisely what the doctor ordered.
With Romney, you'd just get another lukewarm version of Obama.
Are you ready for some action, guy?
19 - Clavos
well, there's a reason that right-wing comedy doesn't do too well... so smug.
Humility is a liberal trait -- because you have to be.
20 - Glenn Contrarian
Too much humility, Clavos, is not quite as bad as too much pride...because men with too much pride get other men killed, and all too often many, many people killed, as can be seen in too many wars.
It's best to have a mixture of the two - the Goldilocks thing again - but if I have to have one of the two, I'll pick humility every time.
21 - Zingzing
you should have a little humility.
beyond that, however, name me a funny right winger. avoid pundits... and someone who was right wing at the time, not some old curmudgeon who became a right winger in his waning days.
22 - Dr Dreadful
Does P.J. O'Rourke count as a pundit?
23 - Zingzing
Nah, and he is pretty funny. Good way with words. But I want to see some humor from a right winger whose humor doesn't rest upon the fact that he's right wing. Just a person who is right wing, but is still funny. I know it's hard to tell...
I know this argument's been had before, but most of the creative people I know of seem to be left to some degree or another. Right wing comedy maybe wouldn't be all that funny to me... But I don't see it as all that creative either. And dan's spiteful bit of sarcasm didn't seem to go beyond just that. There wasn't any depth, just ridicule. and he doesn't seem to understand that the left finds many of the same things he finds funny funny as well. He just thinks we're stupid. And that's stupid.
24 - Christopher Rose
Roger, I can't see Gingrich as someone who would, to use your fun little phrase, shit disturb.
He is nothing more than an establishment tool, as his record proves, and would be a very backward step for the USA.
Guys, left wing, right wing? Man, who cares? Just like down on the Animal Farm, I can't tell the pigs and the humans apart any more.
Glenn, we'll let you know should you manifest humility...
25 - Glenn Contrarian
Chris -
I'm not surprised you can't tell the left from the right anymore, because it's obvious you can't tell pride from humility either.