Classical Values :: There are traditional values, and then there are Gingrich values...

August 12, 2010

There are traditional values, and then there are Gingrich values...

I don't know exactly why, but of all the potential Republican presidential candidates, it is Newt Gingrich who most makes me see red. There's more to it than disagreement on issues; if I sat down and went through their various platforms and statements I'm pretty sure I would disagree with Huckabee more than Gingrich. Yet contemplating Huckabee -- or even a Huckabee presidency -- does not drive me into a rage the way Gingrich does. Perhaps it's a personality thing; Huckabee seems more reasonable and self-effacing. More human. Less calculating.

And what could be more inhumanly calculating than cornering his wife in her hospital room where she was recovering from uterine cancer surgery, insisting on discussing the terms of the divorce he was seeking, and then refusing to pay alimony and child-support? As Frank pointed out in the comments, the local church took up a collection for the family:

"The First Baptist Church in his hometown had to take up a collection to support the family Gingrich had deserted. Six months after divorcing Jackie, Gingrich married a younger woman, Marianne, with whom he had been having an affair."

To which I replied sarcastically,

Well, at least he won't be lecturing us about sexual immorality or family values!

Will he?

If anything, my sarcasm was understated. For Gingrich isn't just one of those guys who merely falls short of the standards he preaches; he apparently doesn't think they apply to him (which of course is very different).

Ann Althouse quotes from another former wife (I don't know which one, as I haven't kept track) who confronted him about the admitted cheating he had asked her to tolerate -- right while he was shamelessly giving a "speech full of high sentiments about compassion and family values":

She said, "How do you give that speech and do what you're doing?"

"It doesn't matter what I do," he answered. "People need to hear what I have to say. There's no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn't matter what I live."

If he said that, it is not the same thing as if he fell short of standards in which he believed.

People who believe in their standards do not say "it does not matter" when they violate them. The word "hypocrisy" is bandied about too much and is often misused, but in Gingrich's case, I think it applies in spades. Arrogant hypocrisy. And what he did to his wife when she was in the hospital is worse than hypocrisy; it is downright cruel. I realize that's not a nice thing to say, but in all seriousness, I don't think Newt Gingrich is a nice person. Not that being nice is what it's all about, but do we really want a cruel Machiavellian who doesn't even believe in his own rhetoric as president?

Glenn Reynolds was right to call him "the Al Gore of the 'traditional values' world," and while I would think that's funny (because Al Gore is the Newt Gingrich of the ~~climax~~ climate change world), it's sobering to remember that Al Gore did nearly win the presidency.

I'd be more depressed about the whole thing had Ann Althouse not said this:

you don't have to be much more than 3 to call bullshit on Newt.

Leave it to Ann Althouse to cheer me up and make me feel young again!

MORE: It occurs to me that I may have been a bit harsh on Gingrich. So let me add that I do think he is a very intelligent man, a shrewd rhetorician, and a gifted speaker.

However, if those things made a great president, we'd already have one, wouldn't we?

posted by Eric on 08.12.10 at 04:31 PM

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/9940

Comments

Gingrich as an idea generator is an occasionally interesting guy, but the concept of him as President just kinda makes my skin crawl . . .

filbert · August 12, 2010 04:52 PM

I don't agree with Althouse about "you don't have to be much more than 3 to call bullshit on Newt."
I would have said the same thing about Obama, but Althouse fell for his bullshit, surely other Americans are as dim and easily led as she is?

I am surprised he's even trying to be president for an entirely different reason.

He was far too damaged in the 90s to have any chance with anybody who was an adult in the 90s who wasn't a Republican.

The NYTimesWashPostCNNABCCBSNBCetc. went after him so viciously that his image will never recover. All anybody remembers about him is that he shut down gov't, he was all mean to Clinton and spent $millions investigating Clinton's blowjobs.

The funniest part, for me, is that they went after him in their usual lying way, they didn't bother to use true dirt (like the deal with his dying wife or some other stuff that I've heard).
They were too busy hiding Clinton's dealings by blaming Newt for everything.

He's damaged for conservatives too by his embrace of Nancy Pelosi and global warmmongering.

He's just another elitist prick who's better than we.
This is a bad time for people like that.

Veeshir · August 12, 2010 04:57 PM

Veeshir - I was an adult and Republican in the 90's, and I can't stand Gingrich. If he ends up being the Republican nominee for President, then it will be shown that America is dead, and I'll vote for Obama just to get it over with.

brian · August 12, 2010 07:24 PM

I agree with you brian, but for different reasons.
Although I won't vote for Obama.

I'll write in Gus Hall.

That'll be my protest vote.

Veeshir · August 12, 2010 07:45 PM

Gingrich sure comes across as the ultimate cynic. If you listen to his keynote speech at Horowitz Restoration Weekend last year, he lays out his plan to get elected. He positions himself as the man of ideas and accomplishment (as opposed to Palin) waiting in the wings to rescue the party.
I believe he thinks Obama will not run, or if he does, will be defeated in the primary by Hillary. His argument will be that the inexperienced Palin would not stand a chance against a former Senator and Secretary of State.
Wouldn't that be a great choice? We could pick the lessor of the two cynics!

Frank · August 13, 2010 02:34 AM

I'm like brian, except I'd prefer to arrogant and hypocritical Gingrich to the arrogant and hypocritical Obama, since the former would at least push for poicies that are, overall, better for the country. The lesser of two /recta/, for lack of a better term.

CBI · August 13, 2010 03:14 PM

It really depresses me that the smartest guy in the room is almost always the least moral. I think it is that being really smart tends to make you think, "I don't need to follow rules. Those are for ordinary people."

If Gingrich weren't so loudly an evangelical Christian, I would just be very disappointed. But Gingrich has been too loudly a Christian--and so obviously thinks that rules are for little people--to take him seriously for anything.

Would Huckabee be as effective a President as Gingrich? Probably not. I hate to turn this into one of those dilemmas: "Do you want a smart president? Or a moral one?" I wish we could have both. But it seems the smarter they are, the less moral.

Clayton E. Cramer · August 15, 2010 03:22 AM

Could we please find one family values conservative who can keep his pants zipped?

Craig · August 15, 2010 12:58 PM