Newt Gingrich: Why He Scares the Republican Establishment
Published in Le Figaro
(France) on 29 January 2012
by Pierre-Yves Dugua (link to original)
(France) on 29 January 2012
by Pierre-Yves Dugua (link to original)
Translated from
by Rachel Towers.
Edited by Anita Dixon.
Newt Gingrich is an exceptional case. The Republican leader, who doesn’t want to yield the nomination to Mitt Romney, inspires the most worry within the ranks of the Republican “establishment” and among moderates. Contrary to what I often read, it’s not because of his extreme conservatism. Other Republican contenders have also been as far right as him, even more so. They didn’t scare people like Newt Gingrich.
This 68-year-old man from Georgia entered into the history of the Republican Party in 1994 in taking back the House of Representatives from the Democrats who had controlled it for over 40 years. He’s an idealist, egocentric, aggressive, unpredictable and incapable of discipline. He is also ethically dubious. Personally, I also find him mean — quite simply.
For the “independents” who will participate in the 2012 election, meaning the average American who is not particularly partisan, Newt Gingrich is an ogre. Unless the American economy completely falls apart again, I see no way Newt Gingrich could beat Barack Obama.
Imagine the clash: on one side, an elegant, thin, rather sporty, smiling, calm, nice man even though he’s a bit too in love with himself and missing political courage, who tries to pass himself off as a centrist and defender of the middle class: Barack Obama. This exiting president avoids talking about what ruffles feathers: the degradation of the United States, ridden with debt; the urgency of reforming social systems; the failure of its public spending re-launch program. At the moment, he’s concentrating his discourse on a priority: raise taxes for the rich in the name of fairness. Just like we see with European candidates, he’s affirming that the government has a solution to all the country’s problems.
Up against him, we have a fat slob, with terrible hair, permanently angry, who only smiles when he’s fired up, and who talks about a revolution. He wants to start from square one: fiscal policy, health, justice, education, immigration. He wants to break the Federal Government that he judges to be failing. Gingrich incarnated the tea party before the tea party even existed. His “Contract with America” with which he won in 1994 is largely the program of the tea party nowadays.
I remind you all that the revolutionaries are right-wing this year in America. Not leftist, where you fight to preserve the heritage of Roosevelt’s “New Deal” and Johnson’s “Great Society.”
Gingrich has an important asset: he is intellectually brilliant. That’s often the case with crazy people. He can speak without any notes. He gives the impression that he has the material down cold. He’s an excellent leader. He can see the big picture, and he has a sense of formula and provocation. He’s a communicator, very cultured, probably closer to a politician from the 19th century than one from the 21st. When “Newt” is on TV, you’re not bored. Anything can happen, for better or worse.
Gingrich doesn’t look at polls before speaking. He doesn’t analyze representative samples from potential voters before giving his opinion. With Gingrich, it’s “if you like me, follow me.” Gingrich is a man of instincts. He throws punches. He takes risks. That’s what led to his resignation from Congress in 1998. He lost his political bet.
For financiers of the Republican campaigns, who play a very important role, giving money to Newt Gingrich would be making an enormous bet. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is a rational businessman, who we can count on. Or maybe it’s more “who we can bank on.”
Let’s also add to that the fact that Mitt Romney, the Mormon, is not the kind of guy to run after secretaries and have mistresses…while Newt Gingrich has a rather “complicated” personal life…
What the Republican establishment wishes this week is simple: a beautiful victory for Romney in Florida which forces Gingrich to raise the necessary funds to continue the race in a competitive manner. You need a lot of money to maintain an electoral organization in the primaries: airplanes and conference rooms to rent, advertisements to pay for…what ends up killing a campaign is rarely the discouragement of a candidate, but rather the drying up of his finances.
This 68-year-old man from Georgia entered into the history of the Republican Party in 1994 in taking back the House of Representatives from the Democrats who had controlled it for over 40 years. He’s an idealist, egocentric, aggressive, unpredictable and incapable of discipline. He is also ethically dubious. Personally, I also find him mean — quite simply.
For the “independents” who will participate in the 2012 election, meaning the average American who is not particularly partisan, Newt Gingrich is an ogre. Unless the American economy completely falls apart again, I see no way Newt Gingrich could beat Barack Obama.
Imagine the clash: on one side, an elegant, thin, rather sporty, smiling, calm, nice man even though he’s a bit too in love with himself and missing political courage, who tries to pass himself off as a centrist and defender of the middle class: Barack Obama. This exiting president avoids talking about what ruffles feathers: the degradation of the United States, ridden with debt; the urgency of reforming social systems; the failure of its public spending re-launch program. At the moment, he’s concentrating his discourse on a priority: raise taxes for the rich in the name of fairness. Just like we see with European candidates, he’s affirming that the government has a solution to all the country’s problems.
Up against him, we have a fat slob, with terrible hair, permanently angry, who only smiles when he’s fired up, and who talks about a revolution. He wants to start from square one: fiscal policy, health, justice, education, immigration. He wants to break the Federal Government that he judges to be failing. Gingrich incarnated the tea party before the tea party even existed. His “Contract with America” with which he won in 1994 is largely the program of the tea party nowadays.
I remind you all that the revolutionaries are right-wing this year in America. Not leftist, where you fight to preserve the heritage of Roosevelt’s “New Deal” and Johnson’s “Great Society.”
Gingrich has an important asset: he is intellectually brilliant. That’s often the case with crazy people. He can speak without any notes. He gives the impression that he has the material down cold. He’s an excellent leader. He can see the big picture, and he has a sense of formula and provocation. He’s a communicator, very cultured, probably closer to a politician from the 19th century than one from the 21st. When “Newt” is on TV, you’re not bored. Anything can happen, for better or worse.
Gingrich doesn’t look at polls before speaking. He doesn’t analyze representative samples from potential voters before giving his opinion. With Gingrich, it’s “if you like me, follow me.” Gingrich is a man of instincts. He throws punches. He takes risks. That’s what led to his resignation from Congress in 1998. He lost his political bet.
For financiers of the Republican campaigns, who play a very important role, giving money to Newt Gingrich would be making an enormous bet. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is a rational businessman, who we can count on. Or maybe it’s more “who we can bank on.”
Let’s also add to that the fact that Mitt Romney, the Mormon, is not the kind of guy to run after secretaries and have mistresses…while Newt Gingrich has a rather “complicated” personal life…
What the Republican establishment wishes this week is simple: a beautiful victory for Romney in Florida which forces Gingrich to raise the necessary funds to continue the race in a competitive manner. You need a lot of money to maintain an electoral organization in the primaries: airplanes and conference rooms to rent, advertisements to pay for…what ends up killing a campaign is rarely the discouragement of a candidate, but rather the drying up of his finances.
Next article![]( "Can Obama Avert War with Iran?")
