The Romney campaign and its supporters have been pursuing a strategy of crazy ever since Newt surpassed Romney in the polls. The strategy is to use words like reckless, unreliable, and so on as frequently as possible when it comes to Newt.
It has been relentless, and Romney now has come as close as anyone affiliated with the campaign has come to calling Newt crazy:
Mitt Romney is sharpening his warning to Republicans about the consequences of nominating Newt Gingrich as the party’s presidential candidate, declaring in an interview on Wednesday: “Zany is not what we need in a president.”
“Zany is great in a campaign. It’s great on talk radio. It’s great in print, it makes for fun reading,” Mr. Romney told The New York Times. “But in terms of a president, we need a leader and a leader needs to be someone who can bring Americans together.”
Zany only is bad in comparison to something else. And zany isn’t looking that bad right now:
The person at the end of the video making the endorsement is Rocky Anderson, Democratic Mayor at the time of Salt Lake City, now running for President on the Justice Party ticket because Barack Obama is not liberal enough for him.
(Added) Romney had endorsed Rocky previously:
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Words fail.
There’s a lot of buzz about Perry. Seems he didn’t say much, but his back was causeing him a lot of pain. May explain that strange speech in NH. I wonder if a lady from Texas has heard anything? Word is that he out and pressing a lot of flesh in Iowa. Maybe we wrote him off too soon. Ann Coulter today said that he was the most ‘Conservative’. How about Mitt and Newt tear each other down, and he slips in?
Let’s be frank here, is anyone trying to tell me words like “reckless” and “unreliable” are NOT accurate descriptors of Newt? Seriously?
Let’s *do* be frank. There is nothing anyone could say that would disavow your detestation of Gingrich, and so, no one bothers to try.
I try to allow that I may be wrong, so I’ll offer this: please tell us what you would accept as evidence or proof that Newt Gingrich is not reckless or unreliable.
Hey, professor, got some glib, dismissive way to wave off what Newt said in praise of the SEIU’s Andy Stern, which was:
“Andy Stern, the head of the Service Employees International Union, is the union leader who probably best understands the challenge of the world market and the need to make American union members productive in the face of world competition. Sadly, he is a distinct minority among union leaders.”
Rush talked about this today and made a point of saying that Stern is a communist. I don’t know about that, but he sure is one of the most radical, left-wing leaders of any union in American labor history.
And this was no slip of the tongue in the course of bloviating. Newt wrote it in one of his books (which he’s forever crowing about) so that he had time to think it through.
This is the best summary of the Newt worldview I have read to date.
http://www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2011/12/14/taking-newt-gingrichs-ideas-seriously/
It made me more comfortable with him, as it gave me (a) a framework for his thinking, one that I happened to agree with in many parts, and (b) helped me deconstruct the criticisms.
I honestly have been having a very hard time with the Professor’s endorsement. As much as I love the fighting spirit, some of the other stuff – beyond just the Nancy-on-the-Couch moment – but the actual leadership issues in the house, Coburn’s book, etc. was making it just seem very problematic.
Now, I still think those are all fundamental issues still. But at least I see path past “zany” to “there’s a method to his madness”.
I found it a good article … but what do you all think?
Really like to hear some other thoughts, this tends to be a very thoughtful crowd in general.
Thanks for posting this.
Being a gradualist whose conservative principles and tempermenf are grounded by a sensible pragmatism is desirable in a nominee and a President.
But what if that which appears to be pragmatism is more opportunistic than prudent? What if conservative principles are merely a guise worn by a politician seeking votes?
Well, then, you have another Richard Nixon, not another Ronald Reagan — a man concerned overwhelmingly with himself, narcissistic, dishonest, fundamentally unreliable, a little screwy and ultimately bound to self destruct.
[…] Read William Jacobson’s take here. […]
[…] The incredibly “wealthy-all-throughout-his-life-time, thanks to Dad,” Mitt Romney, is zinging “zany Newt” (not so wealthy until he became “Newt”) for having the stuff (some degree of […]
[…] The incredibly “wealthy-all-throughout-his-life-time, thanks to Dad,” Mitt Romney, is zinging “zany Newt” (not so wealthy until he became “Newt”) for having the stuff (some degree of […]
You made such a big deal about the conversion of Paul Ryan as how this some how justified something your boy Newt said or thought about Social Security and then make the false statement that Romney called Newt zany.
Watch the video and show me where Mitt ever called Newt zany.
The reporter brought up the word and Mitt explained that we do not need zany in the presidency.
Whether that applies to Newt or Rand Paul or Barack Obama is one thing , but Mitt never called Newt zany.
What happened? Newt’s not as smart as he thinks he is didn’t work?