Image 01 Image 03

“They fear him with a great fear, and with extremely good reason”

“They fear him with a great fear, and with extremely good reason”

Great analysis of Nancy Pelosi’s threatened blackmail of Newt Gingrich, from Bill Quick of Daily Pundit (via The Other McCain).  It sure does feel good to read and imagine:

You know what, though?  She’s got bupkus that will make any difference.  The Dems are absolutely terrified of Newt Gingrich in the White House.  He’s got their numbers, knows where all their bodies, living and dead, are buried, and has a history of doing more damage to their power than any single man since the advent of the FDR era.  Remember, it was Newt who broke their half-century stranglehold on the House of Representatives, the wellspring of legislation, a stranglehold they’ve never since really regained.  They fear him with a great fear, and with extremely good reason.

The last time a master legislator like Newt was in the White House, his name was Lyndon Baines Johnson, and he rammed through Congress the enabling legislation of the Great Society, a morass that continues to drown us to this day.  It’s going to take somebody of Newt’s caliber and understanding of the inner workings of the legislature to kill Obamacare once and for all, and to begin to unravel the wounds the Dems have inflicted on the republic and on liberty over the past eighty years.

Yes, Joan, you can have another cigarette.

Update:  Thanks to Joan for the h/t on this, which kinda proves the point made above:


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Ooh, yeah, that IS good. SOOOOO good….

Pelosi is a distraction, and not a smart one at that. This distraction is based on accusation without evidence. This is the old, “its the seriousness of the accusation, not the nature of the evidence” attack. It is an old and tired attack but the Dems have little else.

Yet, the observations of Bill Quick do not refute the distraction. Instead, he creates an illusion to the reason for the distraction. Newt is primarily an idea man. He is not a warrior. Newt can take credit for a lot of the good that came from the GOP revolution in the 1990’s but the yeoman’s work was done by folks whose names were Delay, Paxon, Armey, Livingston and many others. I don’t think many of that crowd, if any, have endorsed Newt but their silence is deafening. I think it is too early to light up the victory cigar.

    JayDick in reply to spartan. | December 7, 2011 at 11:10 am

    Not a warrior? Who engineered the “contract with America” campaign that resulted in a Republican congress?

      spartan in reply to JayDick. | December 7, 2011 at 12:32 pm

      Newt Gingrich …….

      along with Robert Walker, Dick Armey, Bill Paxon, Tom DeLay, John Boehner and Jim Nussle.

      That being said, does that prove Newt is a warrior? No, it shows he is good idea guy and recognized a good idea. It would be a grievous mistake to portray Newt as a one man warrior.
      For your reading pleasure, perhaps you might want to read the book, “Tell Newt To Shutup” by David Mariness and Michael Wiesskopf. Review
      A blow-by-blow account of the “Republican Revolution” in Congress, which collapsed after little more than a year, this feast for political insiders includes moments both absurd (Newt Gingrich confessing to White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta that “I melt when I am around” President Clinton) and critical. (Gingrich’s realization, at the start of 1996, that “He had grievously miscalculated his opposition and strategically botched the most important political battle of his speakership.”) As an insider’s analysis of what went wrong with the largest rightward tilt in the U.S. Congress in this century, Maraniss and Weisskopf’s book is indispensable.

      Next thing you’ll be telling us is George McClellan was a great General.

Yes, Newt can be formidable but . . . feared? Really? As I recall Newt squandered a winning hand on Clinton’s shutdown of the government and literally cried “uncle.” I don’t recall Newt ever being able to get Clinton or any dem in the graybar hotel. The Kool-aid these guys are drinking is causing them to talk out of their nether orifice.

    ThomasD in reply to Mark30339. | December 7, 2011 at 10:16 am

    Was that Newt himself deciding to surrender?

    Or was that Newt surveying the Republicans in Congress, and recognizing what is all too present even today – a deep unwillingness to directly confront their political opposition lest they lose the ‘moderate’ vote?

    If it is the former then you appraisal is correct. If it is the latter he can hardly be faulted for the inherent weakness of an entire caucus.

    The only thing that has certainly changed over the intervening years is the rise of new media. Republicans, and the right in general, have less to fear from being misrepresented or demonized in the lame stream media, unlike back then.

      Estragon in reply to ThomasD. | December 7, 2011 at 11:35 am

      Are you saying Newt resigned the seat he had just won reelection to because the rest of the caucus was weak?

      Have some more Kool Aid, by all means. But he quit because he had completely lost the confidence of the GOP House members.

Feeling a glimmer of hope.

By the way, Chris Matthews brother, Jim Matthews serves on the Board of Commissioners of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. Well yesterday, the Philly TV stations showed him being arrested for lying to a grand jury investigating corruption.

Joan Of Argghh | December 7, 2011 at 10:25 am

Bill Quick is always good, but this is (in my best Monty Burns voice) ehhxcellent!

bob aka either orr | December 7, 2011 at 11:17 am

Remember, LBJ had a solidly Democrat Congress, plus the hangover from the JFK assassination, working for him.
Newt had neither of those things in the 1990s.
If we can focus on making sure whichever Republican we select (and I’m still undecided, but leaning Newt right now) has Congressional majorities, then we have a chance to undo some of the damage that LBJ’s policies have inflicted.

Pelosi walked back her outrageous threat quickly enough, but there is no need to open sealed records to find out more about Newt’s ethics investigation. The Ethics Committee’s lead counsel was incensed that the Speaker was getting a sweetheart deal of a slap on the wrist, and gave his own report at the hearing.

If you haven’t read it, you should – because if you don’t, Obama will read it to you next fall.

“Update: Thanks to Joan for the h/t on this, which kinda proves the point made above”

Ed Lasky’s point at American Thinker kinda proves the opposite; see

There is no way a flabby, grey-haired, slick politician is going to compare favorably with Obama for swing voters in a general election. Swing voters will fear him as a re-incarnated Nixon. With a Newt nomination, the GOP will foolishly squander an election to win a debate.

    Darkstar58 in reply to Mark30339. | December 7, 2011 at 2:07 pm

    “With a Newt nomination, the GOP will foolishly squander an election to win a debate.”

    Mitt has been campaigning for 6 years straight and cant seem to get more then a 50% favorable opinion with even Conservatives, let alone Independents.

    Then think about his 2002 Gov election. It is one of the greatest midterm elections ever for a sitting President – with Republicans picking up 10 seats for Bush, despite already having strong majorities. It marks only the third time a sitting president gained seats, and its the second most to FDR’s first term. In MA, Romney was also given an ideal situation of a nasty, dirt-slinging, 5-way race in the Democrat Primaries and a 3rd Party option on the Dem-castaway “Green” ticket.

    How did he do? Less then 50% of the vote…

    By the time 2006 came along, it was so apparent that he would not be able to win reelection that he didn’t even run – instead turning full-time “Presidential Hopeful” which has brought him from 25% of the primary votes in Iowa in 2008, to now 15% support in the polls there today.

    A Primary endorsement for Romney is a cross your finger and pray somehow Democrats vote for him because Republicans and Independents will not have much of any enthusiasm to do so. And since (unlike the Establishment Republicans) we know Dems will not vote Mitt over Obama, it will be a cakewalk for the Campaigner in Chief over the Wannabe Campaigner in Chief.

    Like it or not, Newt is our best chance to win the top spot. The fact that Romney is the absolutely only one the Liberal Media has ever deemed electable, while simultaneously continuing to stress they have this re-election in the bag, should be evidence enough of that. Mittens is the one they have (openly) always wanted while, out of the other side of the mouth, saying he is the one “Obama least wants to run against”…

      Mark30339 in reply to Darkstar58. | December 7, 2011 at 5:18 pm

      You make valid points but 2008 was going to be a hard election to win for the GOP regardless of the candidate. 2012 is going to be a referendum on Obama’s performance UNLESS we give them Newt, then the MSM will turn it into a referendum on Gingrich’s record (and not Obama’s).

      The math is never about the 40% who vote conservative and the 40% who vote liberal — its about winning the 20% of swing voters. Perry and Romney look strong and attractive and have fine records to run on. They look very appealing as improvements over Obama, people will be ready to believe they are an improvement to Obama. If one of them are nominated, the left will have to defend Obama’s miserable record. If Newt is in, the left will gleefully attack and distort Newt’s voluminous record and never have to get around to defending Obama.

      Swing voters will just look at Newt and find Obama more appealing. They will be positioned to pick Obama because the media blitz to fear the evil Newt will be overwhelming. Newt will be the demon who will cut medicare, cut school lunches, cut social security, shut down government, and line the pockets of big corporations. The right will never get around to attacking Obama, they’ll be too bogged down in correcting and defending the Gingrich smears.

      For 2012 we don’t need a perfect candidate, just a sound, credible alternative to voting for 4 more years of misery with Obama.

        Darkstar58 in reply to Mark30339. | December 7, 2011 at 6:23 pm

        I actually dont see it that way at all really.

        2008 wasn’t as difficult of an election as you make it out to be in my eyes. Shoot, McCain was leading in the polls until the market collapsed. Had he acted like he had any idea what was going on around him, he probably could have held on and won. In the end, Conservatives* and Independents actually voted for Obama in high numbers though.

        (*CNN had 9% of Republicans voting for Obama, where 22% of Conservatives did the same according to the exit polls.)

        As far as 2012 – Obama will win if he is able to keep his base, get a big turnout of minorities and have an opposition candidate that Conservatives as not enthusiastic about themselves. That’s Mitt! When even his own base cant get excited about anything he says but instead is proclaiming “well, he’s probably better then Obama”, how can Independents really be enthusiastic about voting for him? I have yet to see anyone really excited about the possibility of Mitt.

        Besides, Obama has been setting up a fight against Romney for the last 3 years with this class-warfare nonsense. See, Romney personifies the “1%” that Obama is constantly wailing against, and his Wall-Street background is the thing that Obama will attack the most. TheWon is licking his chops at that opportunity; as you would be if in the same situation…

        janitor in reply to Mark30339. | December 7, 2011 at 6:25 pm

        Swing voters will just look at Newt and find Obama more appealing.

        I see this sentiment repeated constantly in the media. I have met many Democrats and independents who declare that they will vote ABO. Those on the fence say that they reluctantly would vote for Obama if the nominated Republican candidate were too far over on the religious right. Here in Florida, the GOP insiders still favor Romney of course, but the people on the street aren’t choosing based on political obligations and alliances.

        So we should dip Obama in Clorox first instead? Because that’s what ORomney is.

DINORightMarie | December 7, 2011 at 12:26 pm

If you listen to Matthews, he is revealing that they know that Newt can destroy Obama, in a debate and on the issues. When you combine that with San Fran Nan’s tipping of the hand that she would leak “dirt” on Newt……oh, yeah.

Fear. Raw, unvarnished, fear.

Newt is the one they fear most in this lineup.

That was a fun video.

I think I got spit on from here.