Last Saturday, in a dimly lit ballroom on the Las Vegas strip, Newt Gingrich stood before a row of television cameras, exhausted and showing it.
Hours earlier, Gingrich had lost the Nevada caucuses to Mitt Romney by nearly 30 points. His poor showing was the culmination of a long and disappointing week, coming four days after Romney swept Florida’s primary. Gingrich, who had won South Carolina’s primary in late January, was suddenly deflated, sparring with skeptical Beltway reporters about whether his campaign could survive.
Advertisement
Up on the dais, his hands clenching the lectern, Gingrich could barely muster a smile. “All of you can relax,” he said. “I’m not going to withdraw. I’m actually pretty happy where we are.” He pledged to “go to Tampa,” to compete until the convention. But he sounded grim, grumbling about rumors of his imminent departure, calling them fictitious Boston spin — the “greatest fantasy” of Romney strategists.
Media reports of the late-night presser were sprinkled with related adjectives. Gingrich, depending on the scribe or cable-news pundit, was “defiant,” “snarling,” “nervy,” “passionate,” or “quixotic.” On Fox News, columnist Charles Krauthammer cringed. “When he speaks about America, he’s great,” Krauthammer said. “When he speaks about himself, he’s awful.” Around the GOP-consultant circuit, there was a similar consensus. The lack of a cheering crowd, the meandering invective — it soured many who saw the show. Gingrich’s campaign, it seemed, was breaking down.
Nevertheless, nearly a week later, following discouraging finishes in Tuesday’s caucuses in Minnesota and Colorado, Gingrich continues to fight. The aggressive, combative tone of that Las Vegas press conference lingers. In Washington, however, Republican officials and conservative activists are dubious about Gingrich’s perseverance. His ambitions and intentions seem murky. With Romney leading the delegate count and Rick Santorum surging, Gingrich’s chances of securing the nomination are debatable. His chances of causing trouble? High.
Yet among Gingrich’s close aides, the suggestion that the former speaker is staying in the race out of spite is met with laughs, or, more frequently, disdain. To those who know him best, Gingrich is a man whose ambition is fueled by history, both personal and political. Romney irritates him, to be sure, but it is grander aspirations that inspire him, friends say. His dogged push to remain in contention, they assure me, is not mean-spirited moxie but the grit of a 68-year-old with big dreams.
Jackie Cushman, Gingrich’s daughter, was at the Venetian Hotel that Saturday night in Las Vegas, standing in the back by the Klieg lights. Gingrich’s defense of his candidacy, and, more broadly, his place in the national debate, was a reminder of what has always animated him, she says. She recalls that when she was growing up, Gingrich often told his daughters about his stepfather, a career infantry officer. When he was younger they lived abroad, and on weekends they would often visit historic sites, including the site of the Battle of Verdun in France.
Very perspicacious. Mr Gingrich (ironically) was treated respectfully at the interviews I saw on the MSM, unlike the bumptious articles here and in the comments. Policies and platform and how to solve the problems of the day and the knowledge to get things done is what matters. The old horse knows the way.
With Mitt´s mask falling off his face to reveal a weak and vapid candidate, Gingrich and Santorum will be left along with that imbecile Paul. If Romney became marginalized, the debate would focus between Gingrich and Santorum. The result would be a debate on issues not personal attacks, ultimately creating the strongest chance of defeating Obama by producing the best candidate....on issues....which is what the people really want.
Wouldn´t it be great for Republicans if the plastic Ken Doll went back to his mansion New Hampshire and let the serious folks discuss the leadership of the Nation????
"It’s more political than personal." That's a good theory, and it may even be true. Unfortunately, for Gingrich, I have spoke to too many people who's opinion of Gingrich is the same as their impression of McCain last cycle. It's all about them. In politics, especially elections, perception is reality and it appears that the majority perceive Gingrich differently than he is portrayed in this article. (FWIW I'm in Georgia where you would expect a higher level of Gingrich support. I simply don't see or hear it.)
Newt is the man who excites the base. We have been aching for someone to articulate our Rage Against the Liberal Machine for so long we can taste it. And why should we not want to see Newt rip that hateful grin off Obama after everything he has said and done to us? The time for cautious calculation is long over: it is time for wild recklessness and revolution - it is time for Newt!
Just when the country needs the genius of a John Adams or a James Madison we get this fool running for President of the United States. Not to mention all of the other fools running for President and all the fools we have in Congress. God have Mercy on us!!!
Every time you turn Psychiatrist and claim to know the mental and emotional workings of public figures, and make pronouncements based on your unfounded guesstimates of what goes through their minds, you lose.
Just that simple ... you lose.
This is how the Left argues. To them, everything is emotional, everything is personal, and 'intent' trumps actual results. You can do this at the Huffington Post all day long, and get ignored because everyone is certain that their own personal guesstimates are correct not matter how much each personal guesstimate contradicts the one than preceded it.
This is how we can tell that Old Fan is a plant, not real. He/She/It argues this way all the time. People who have actual Conservative values prize accuracy and objectivity over emoting and what one person thinks someone else's motives are when they have never even met the person .
Do you know what Robert Costa's motive are for writing this article, or any article, for that matter? I don't. I don't know the man, never met him, and have no basis to judge anything except for my own knowledge against whatever he wrote. If I wrote the way Costs wrote this article, I'd have ended the last sentence as " against the things he angrily scribbled in his pathetic attempt to demean a magnificent person."
So when you see the negative subjective characterizations in every paragraph, terms such as, " exhausted and showing it:, " .. poor showing ... deflated... disappointed ... sparring ... hands clutching the lectern ..." and on and on, you don't have an objective accounting. As to what you *do* have, I'll leave to you.
The first part, about being wary of psychoanalysis from a distance, is spot on. It should always be done with caution, and also read with caution.
But you lose your way when you equate that with words like "exhausted and showing it:, " .. poor showing ... deflated... disappointed ... sparring ... hands clutching the lectern."
That's not psychoanalysis, that's descriptive of what has happened to the candidate, and what is being shown on the outside.
I'll add that in a Presidential contest, "what makes candidate x tick" is pretty much inevitable, as it's something the public is trying to figure out themselves. It becomes even more relevant in a primary like this, which looks like it was designed by the roller-coaster specialists at Six Flags. We've seen some candidates fold, and some not, and having any remaining candidate fold would be really consequential. So, I expect articles like this, which try to guess whether candidate X will fold, and why.
I just don't assign those "best attempt" articles credibility beyond a certain percentage point - and despite their best efforts, neither should their authors.
What a thoughtful, insightful article! Far, far better than some of the recent, pro-Romney pieces.
What a lost opportunity, that NRO did not do an article like this for each of the GOP candidates, including Romney and Ron Paul, for some of last month's attack screeds were truly unworthy of your fine magazine. I particularly liked this:
"But an ego trip? No, no. That’s thinking too small about what he’s up to. It’s much more than that,” he says. “He’s out in the wilderness, where he is very comfortable. He was there for years, hitting the establishment. For him, it’s a noble thing.”
Gingrich fights on for the same reason that Natty Bumppo fought on. Or perhaps Chingachgo*k. They had noble goals, and the wilderness was their friend.
(BTW, I see that the Filter Fairy has not read Last of the Mohicans; it did not like Natty Bumppo's other name, either).
Where does the narrative explain Newt quitting his post as Congressman for Georgia's 6th District so he could be DC hack and TV bloviator for the past 10+years? Yeah yeah, the job he was ELECTED TO DO. Not Speaker of the House. Not fundamental transformative Lunar station planner.
I missed that part.
You want evidence of Newt the outsider fighting the mainstream? You got it: in the 1970's Newt fought the Atlanta "media establishment". That's great, because Atlanta's media market is about as aggressive as the editorial staff at Tiger Beat.
I happened to catch Newt's speech after the Nevada polls closed and my reaction was to be thrilled!
Newt was confident and steady, not dispirited; certainly not mean-spirited.
Next morning... the anti-Gingrich media were in full spin mode. Their descriptions of Newt's speech and bearing... totally disengaged from the reality I had seen with my own two eyes and heard via my own two ears the night before!
Listen... I back Gingrich. I detest Romney. I'm uncertain and frankly a bit distrustful of the Arlen Specter supporting Santorum who seems to relish the coming of expanded war in the middle east against Iran.
That said... I call 'em as I see 'em and to give you an example... I certainly concur with those who tagged my guy Gingrich the loser of the pre-Florida debate and tagged Romney the winner against Gingrich and Santorum the winner against Romney.
Perhaps it's time for Gingrich and Santorum to do a series of one-on-one debates so as to lay the groundwork for a clear conservative anti-Romney/Obama candidate to emerge and unify the "sane" elements within our great nation.
Whatever one might say about Newt, there is no denying the fact that he is the only candidate who had demonstrated with actual past accomplishments the attributes that our country gravely needs now.
And that is my main consideration in choosing our leader, not some nebulous idea like electability which implies voting according to how we think others will vote, which is ridiculous.
Some had pointed to the fact that Newt didn’t get on the ballot of some states as evidence he was ill-prepared to be president. But one can also argue that it shows his superior motive of wanting to do something only after seeing the dangerous course the nation is on, by jumping into the race even without a lot of resources. Compare that to Romney who for years wants to be president but who does not even see the problems the country is facing.
I hope Newt will do well in the rest of the primaries and become our nominee. If not, I can take great solace in my long-held belief that for better or worse (from our perspective), the outcomes of the primaries, as well as the general election, are not going to be decided by man. And until that final outcome is revealed, all man could/should do is work steadfastly toward his goal.
God bless you Newt and thank you for the courage in stepping up to the challenge when others aren’t.
Verdun? Really? *That's* the secret to why Newt won't recognize reality and drop out of the race for the good of the country?
The siege of Verdun was fought in France between Germans and Frenchmen in 1916, before America was even at war. The ossuaries -- giant crypts of human bones, which can be viewed through glass -- at Verdun are indeed grim, as are the giant ruined fortifications. But Newt isn't a military veteran. Every siege he's ever been in was entirely metaphorical, which is another word for "imaginary."
If this is the caliber of his thinking -- if in his mind Verdun somehow translates to what he's trying to do now -- he's vastly more silly than I ever suspected him of. Surely this piece does him an injustice as an inadequate explanation for why he's now wreaking havoc on his own party.
Newt's daughters will say anything to get their father into the White House despite the fact that he abandoned them and refused child support for them when they were children...Newt's determination to remain in the race is to get Romney...he said so himself,that he would, in effect, destroy Romney...gingrich is a mean-spirited spiteful man and if he can't have something, no one should have it. He explained why he didn't call romney to congratulate him on winning...did he call Santorum? Gingrich is a vicious, unbalanced, seriously disturbed man...I wonder if that gambing mogul in Las Vegas is going to give him another $11 million???? I hope not...then gingrich will have to go away...one can only hope.
Newt is clear choice for nominee, only the sheep cannot recognize that. Newt is the guy who has previously solved the same problems we face today (deficit, growth, unemployment, entitlements, gridlock in Washington). He is by far the most articulate in defending and advocating for conservatism, and is the only one who has a proven record as leader of being a small government conservative. You notice how his detractors all sound like hysterical Ann Coulter clones, attacking his PRIVATELY funded space exploration idea or his personal life?
Follow
