Reich writes: "The future of America is too important to accept even a small risk of a Gingrich presidency."
Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)
No Democrat Should Want Gingrich Nominated
26 January 12
epublicans are worried sick about Newt Gingrich's ascendance, while Democrats are tickled pink.
Yet no responsible Democrat should be pleased at the prospect that Gingrich could get the GOP nomination. The future of America is too important to accept even a small risk of a Gingrich presidency.
The Republican worry is understandable. "The possibility of Newt Gingrich being our nominee against Barack Obama I think is essentially handling the election over to Obama," says former Minnesota Governor Tom Pawlenty, a leading GOP conservative. "I think that's shared by a lot of folks in the Republican party."
Pawlenty's views are indeed widely shared in Republican circles. "He's not a conservative - he's an opportunist," says pundit Joe Scarborough, a member of the Republican Class of 1994 who came to Washington under Gingrich's banner. Gingrich doesn't "have the temperament, intellectual discipline or ego control to be either a successful nominee or president,"says New York Republican representative Peter King, who hasn't endorsed any candidate. "Basically, Newt can't control himself."
Gingrich is "an embarrassment to the party," says New Jersey Republican Governor Chris Christie, and "was run out of the speakership" on ethics violations. Republican strategist Mike Murphy says "Newt Cingrich could not carry a swing state in the general election if it was made of feathers."
"Weird" is the word I hear most from Republicans who have worked with him. Scott Klug, a former Republican House member from Wisconsin, who hasn't endorsed anyone yet, says "Newt has ten ideas a day - two of them are good, six are weird and two are very weird."
Newt's latest idea, for example - to colonize the moon - is typically whacky.
The Republican establishment also points to polls showing Gingrich's supporters to be enthusiastic but his detractors even more fired up. In the latest ABC News/ Washington Post poll, 29 percent view Gingrich favorably while 51 percent have an unfavorable view of him. (Obama, by contrast, draws a 53 percent favorable and 43 percent unfavorable.)
Independents, who will be key to the general election, are especially alarmed by Gingrich.
As they should be. It's not just Newt's weirdness. It's also the stunning hypocrisy. His personal life makes a mockery of his moralistic bromides. He condemns Washington insiders but had a forty-year Washington career that ended with ethic violations. He fulminates against finance yet drew fat checks from Freddie Mac. He poses as a populist but has had a $500,000 revolving charge at Tiffany's.
And it's the flagrant irresponsibility of many of his propositions - for example, that presidents are not bound by Supreme Court rulings, that the liberal Ninth Circuit court of appeals should be abolished, that capital gains should not be taxed, that the First Amendment guarantees freedom "of" religion but not "from" religion.
It's also Gingrich's eagerness to channel the public's frustrations into resentments against immigrants, blacks, the poor, Muslims, "liberal elites," the mainstream media, and any other group that's an easy target of white middle-class and working-class anger.
These are all the hallmarks of a demagogue.
Yet Democratic pundits, political advisers, officials and former officials are salivating over the possibility of a Gingrich candidacy. They agree with key Republicans that Newt would dramatically increase the odds of Obama's reelection and would also improve the chances of Democrats taking control over the House and retaining control over the Senate.
I warn you. It's not worth the risk.
Even if the odds that Gingrich as GOP presidential candidate would win the general election are 10 percent, that's too much of a risk to the nation. No responsible American should accept a 10 percent risk of a President Gingrich.
I'd take a 49 percent odds of a Mitt Romney win - who in my view would make a terrible president - over a 10 percent possibility that Newt Gingrich would become the next president - who would be an unmitigated disaster for America and the world.
Robert Reich is Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He has written thirteen books, including "The Work of Nations," "Locked in the Cabinet," "Supercapitalism" and his latest book, "AFTERSHOCK: The Next Economy and America's Future." His 'Marketplace' commentaries can be found on publicradio.com and iTunes.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |













Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
It may be some change, but there surely won't be any hope.
The reason the Dems, and ALL Americans, need to be afraid of a Gingrich GOP nomination is that he will pull out ALL stops to get elected and there are enough really nutty people like him who lack real knowledge...oka y...who are dumber than mud...who would get on board and somehow get this narcissistic, hateful person elected!
Be afraid...be really afraid if the Newt wins the GOP nomination.
As for getting things done in a very dysfunctional D.C., Newt couldn't even get it together to get his name on the GOP primary ballot of his home state, Virginia. He's totally in this for HIMSELF...the massive ego of being president. He could give a flying fig about anyone, or anything...oh, except "colonizing the moon."
I'm going with Professor Reich's odds and pray that NO Republican gets near the White House EVER AGAIN!!
Well, that is a little bit better then running the entire country into the ground. And when did Gingrich create anything other than horrible policies. The man is a self-centered crack-pot.
You conveniently left out Bush's borrowing $12 billion a month from the Chinese and the UAE for 7 years. How is that for a debt increase?
All you need to see about the supposed Obama debt...
That's AMAZING even for you! Keep up the good work. You say and do more for the non-repuglican cause than any of us could.
In that sense, he's like the American public: delighted surprise and disbelief at the possibilities of life, settling into work for those possibilities, and then depression and the chain and the whip and the couch.
I agree. I also think that assessment applies to the United States.
With Sanitorum we could have a nutty empty suit that would scare anybody.
My worst fear is that he WILL get the nomination and then the GOP election theft machine will go to work and install him as Der Fuhrer.
The reult being, the grand experiment of Democracy, OVER.
Don't believe me? Ask your "educated" friends five basic questions on government:
1. Can the president of the U.S. declare war on an enemy?
2. Which was the first nation to recognize the U.S.?
3. What did the U.S. Catholic bishops say about slavery in 1852?
4. Which U.S. president instituted Jim Crow in the nation's capital?
5. Which nation besides the U.S. saved Europe from a despotic aggressor nation/empire?
William Maxwell in Tirana, Albania
I. No
2. Probably France
3. They probably were opposed to it, but I wouldn't bet anything on that answer.
4. ?
5. USSR and GB
I remember being amused when George W. Bush was nominated by that disgusting party twelve years ago. I knew he couldn't possibly win the general election in November. Turns out I was right. I never even dreamed he would be able to steal it. Who among us is to say that Newt Gingrich won't be able to do the same thing? All of the pieces are still in place that will allow him to do so.
Be careful what you wish for. That is a lesson we learned the hard way in 2000.
http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com
Tom Degan
But after reading this, I realize that yes, Robert Reich is correct. I do want the wayward Repukniks to mount their very best candidate not their very worst, in the (unlikely) event that they win.
In fact, if there is even the most remote possibility that the Grand Old Pricks take the presidency, it would be horrific to have it be with the Newt.
(their best person was Huntsman, but he was way too sane and thoughtful for the Toilet Paper Party and the zenophobic racists that follow the Salamander (Newt) and Rick Sanitarium.
thank you, Mr. Reich, for reminding us what an "unmitigated disaster" it would be to have the bombastic, opportunistic narcissist named Newt sworn in next January.
I did consider it, and I must disagree, for one reason: Democracy is not for the faint of heart. And it's not for the feeble of mind or character.
So enough is enough. It's time we learned if we're worthy of democracy.
I looked at the quotes about Newt, and couldn't help but feel that they all applied equally well to his supporters. I'll take just one: "Gingrich doesn't have the temperament, intellectual discipline or ego control to be either a successful [nominee or president],...B asically, Newt can't control himself."
We need to come face to face with that element of our national character straight up, all the cards on the table. None of this hoping for the lesser-of-two-e vils candidate. We don't have that luxury.
And either we face that evil down, tell those people to get on board or get out of the way, or we don't deserve democracy. We deserve Newt.
Nobody said this was going to be easy.
It seems too many variables would have to be perfectly aligned for Newt to win.
Oops...I forgot many state legislatures are busy at work trying to stack the odds in any Republican's favor-reduced early voting days and hours and verifying addresses at polling places( difficult for those,such as college students, who move frequently.)
Requiring ID(sometimes difficult for the poor, minorities, and especially poor minorities.)
Maybe the odds are stacked against Obama already-Reich might know "the house" odds and that the "house" almost always wins.Perhaps these odds were stacked already in 2000 and 2004.
Democrats are not for the people and neither are Republicans...w ith a two party system all we get is corruption anyway!
Until we have a legitimate third party the continuance of the American people losing their rights will continue!
"A young man who is not a liberal, has no heart... ...but an old man who is not a conservative, has no mind!" Winston Churchill
I wouldn't stretch that word "conservative" to include today's right wing, but rather true conservatives in the tradition of Churchill himself. Conservatives in their time always exasperate me, but later some look better than others. George Bush Sr. is a good example.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/no-one-left-to-lie-to/252123/
It pretty much describes what makes him tick.
(ayn) (kruger) RAND Paul??
it's pure winner take all social darwinism he favors and the weak, poor and infirm....or just those that don't do well in capitalism....G O HANG. There is nothing in the constitution that says anything about CAPITALISM. AND, contrary to what paul says. the Federal Government is not delimited from making other than gold and silver legal tender. Only the States are.
http://stpeteforpeace.org/obama.html
www.alternet.org/world/144449/obama_far_outdoes_bush_in_e...
www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/04/11/bagram
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/04/AR2010030405209.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/11/target-of-obama-era-rendi_n_256499.html
www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,650324,00.html
www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/51564
www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/Economy/story?id=6626721&page=1
www.detroitnaacp.org/civilrights/predatory.asp
www.helium.com/items/1813307-goldman-sachs-ties-to-the-ob...
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/02/obama-defends-clean-coal.php
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-16/politics/obama.nuclear.power_1_nuclear-waste-nuclear-power-tons-of-radioactive-waste?_s=PM%3APOLITICS.
www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/science/earth/01energy.html
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/304897
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/17/wikileaks_whistleblowers
-Gingrich is a "moe" (a stooge - Some on line definitions of “stooge” include: “ an actor who assists a comedian by feeding him lines” and “One who allows oneself to be used for another's profit or advantage” HAS THERE EVER BEEN A MORE PERFECT STOOGE?!?)
WHEREAS:
-Romney's only an "eenie" (Eenie’s the first one you think of, just like Romney. Besides, eenie rhymes with weenie.)
-Paul's just a "meanie" (Let’s face it, he'd sell your grandmother for dog meat.)
-Santorum's nothing but a "miney" (He's hates the idea of environmental regulation of the coal industry.)
My prediction is that the repug party WILL pick newt, because Moe's are always the one you pick in the end. Too bad there wasn't a "Curly" or a "Shemp". It could have been interesting.
In my opinion, we can draw the following conclusions from the above facts: (1) Republicans were largely if not entirely responsible for the soaring deficits; and (2) Government CAN create jobs, but not when Republicans are in charge or are able to mount a record number of filibusters.
Electing Newt Gingrich to any office than the Georgia district he represented for 20 years would promptly change the American Dream into the American Nightmare.
Newt must be returned to obscurity for the good of the Republic.
RSS feed for comments to this post