Ex-Newsweek's Fineman Sees 'Megalomania' in Gingrich
Appearing as a guest on Monday's Today show on NBC, the Huffington Post's Howard Fineman - also of MSNBC and formerly of Newsweek - hyperbolically referred to "megalomania" in GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich in response to Gingrich's over the top comparison of Virginia's restrictive ballot access laws being like a Pearl Harbor attack on his campaign.
The show did not delve into whether the GOP candidate had a legitimate complaint about Virginia's ballot access laws which will only include the names of two Republican presidential candidates on the ballot for the state's March 6 primary. (Video below)
- Brad Wilmouth's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Can't blame Fineman
Submitted by Agnostic on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 11:52am.
It seems most of the GOP agrees with this assessment
Perfect.
Submitted by NeoKong on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 12:13pm.
Who does NBC choose to discuss the GOP race...?
Some left-wing political hack, sycophantic suck up who was so left wing that he ran a left leaning magazine into the ground because even the lefties couldn't stand him.
But he has his finger on the pulse of the GOP and the Tea Party electorate.
I would not quite go as far as Fineman
Submitted by zenman1661 on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 12:18pm.
But apparently revealed in a previous comment the only change in Virginia's primary ballot access laws is now they are now required to check the signatures on the petitions. Gingrich and Perry did not have enough valid signatures. Gingrich instead of taking responsibility for his campaigns error, he lashed out at Virginia using the same kind of attacks the Left is using against voter registration laws. I really wonder how much Gingrich thinks the rules apply to himself.
A closer look needed....
Submitted by ThePickle on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 1:44pm.
While I would have to take a closer look at the wording of the Virginia Law AND the manner in which it is being applied to make a truly informed statement, I would like to point out that there still exists quite a bit of controversy here in Oregon, not over the fact that signatures are being checked, but over the manner in which they are being checked and the criteria being used to invalidate them.
The procedure in question involved sheet after sheet, containing valid and verified signatures, being disqualified by the Office of the Secretary of State for Oregon, due to perceived issues with the circulator's signature or corrections to the date.
I also believe that they, they being the last two Oregon Secretaries of State, engaged in discriminatory procedures, strictly applying the law when validating voter initiatives they disagreed with and loosely applying it when they agreed with the voter initiative.
I would say that until these issues are completely reviewed that its a bit early to be making they types of statements about who believes, or doesn't believe, that the rules apply to them.
I don't recall Gingrich
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 12:31pm.
I don't recall Gingrich rating himself in the the top 4 Speakers of the House in the history of the country.....
Do you really think that if you asked him...
Submitted by zenman1661 on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 12:37pm.
he wouldn't place himself as one of the top three Speakers of the House.
zenman,
Submitted by Agnostic on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 12:41pm.
openly - no, I don't think he would say he was in the top three. However, he may think so.
What percentage of voters do you think can name three Speakers?
I certainly believe he thinks so...
Submitted by zenman1661 on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 12:51pm.
It would depend on his mood at the time whether he would say so in public if asked. And that in a nutshell is the basic problem with Gingrich.
zen,
Submitted by Agnostic on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 1:06pm.
Not disagreeing with you but I do find it amazing that when attacking Newt that the "we want facts" Conservatives always attack his emotions.
He has a long record of big government actions and support. He has ethical issues which are proven. He has had closed door negotiations on issues concerning US trade. The small print of the Contract with America contains some questionable big government items. All this can hung on Newt but we are talking about his emotions.
And I half agree with you.
Submitted by zenman1661 on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 1:27pm.
Plenty of the criticisms leveled at Gringrich by both sides have to do with his actions. Strong support of ethanol, Ryan Medicare plan attack and his work with Freddie and Fannie just for example. And if by emotion you mean his demeanor or how he presents himself, I think it is very unwise not to consider that in selecting a candidate. All it took was a little sweat on Nixon's face in the first televised presidential debate for him to lose by one of the closest vote margins ever. Media coverage of the candidates presentation has only magnified since then. Is that for the best? Who know. But it is human nature, therefore it is reality.
half agree
Submitted by Agnostic on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 1:41pm.
It isn't that I don't think it is important to look at a persons demeanor but in this case I don't understand why it is at the top of the list.
One thing about demeanor though - you really don't know how someone will react until they are in a pressure situation. I've been in enough 'emergencies' to know that even the best drilled person can panic while someone who has never been in real danger before will stoically continue their job. Still you have to judge on something.
Media more involved - definitely bad!
First televised debate and then the first televised Presidency where the American media took their cue from the British and tried to create an American Royalty - they still are.
Just a minor correction, Zen.
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 10:52pm.
"Media coverage of the candidates presentation has only magnified".
Only certain candidates, not all of them, certainly not anyone on the "progressive" side.
2% could name 3 Speakers
Submitted by Avitar on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 11:50pm.
As someone who played political trivia in the '70s I can't identify two Speakers who were better. If he shows good judgement Gingrich should claim first or second best. If Lincoln had him as Speaker the Civil War would have ended by 1863.;-)
Nonsense...Most of the Gingrich glory preceded his
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 12/27/2011 - 12:13am.
speakership and extended for maybe a couple of years after being elected to the position. But, for a variety of reasons, he flamed out fairly quickly, losing the confidence of many in his own party. It's a mixed record.
Lincoln won the war as rapidly as it could possibly be won. He thoroughly immersed himself in every aspect of the conflict and eventually became the greatest CIC in the nation's history.
Jer
He was certainly one of the
Submitted by redfish on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 2:02pm.
He was certainly one of the most historic speakers. Whether he was among the "top" is subjective, although he did have accomplishments.
mb,
Submitted by Agnostic on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 12:39pm.
While technically Obama didn't say that it doesn't change the fact that he comes off as very arrogant. That is why I nearly feel over when I read Ramirez's Christmas cartoon. Quite the gift.
OK, I was paraphrasing...
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 12:58pm.
Here's what he actually said:
I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president with the possible exceptions of Johnson, FDR and Lincoln,
That doesn't mean he's rating himself as fourth best, at least for his first two years?
Technically, I mean.
I guess he just meant he wouldn't put his accomplishments up against theirs....for no particular reason.
mb,
Submitted by Agnostic on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 1:01pm.
To take nothing from his arrogant demeanor but think of it from his point of view - there isn't another president that has come close to pushing the progressive/socialist agenda as those four.
The technically part is that accomplishments aren't necessarily successes and in this case I would say that all of the accomplishments will lead to eventual proof of his lack of success though there will always be many who will rank President Obama among the great Presidents because of the 'Historical' nature of his presidency.
Witch reminds me
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 1:23pm.
What were Lincoln's big foreign policy accomplishments? I thought he was a little busy saving the Union. Also, what were Johnson's?
Gulf of Tonkin!!!!!!!!!!!!
Submitted by ricklail on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 1:25pm.
Gulf of Tonkin!!!!!!!!!!!! Build up in Nam.
Yeah, I think that's one LBJ
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 2:04pm.
would just as soon omit from his resume`.
Jer
Lincoln Half The Country Fled and FDR had 25% unemployment
Submitted by Avitar on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 11:46pm.
If you just take the first two years of their administrations neither had terms that anyone in their right minds would want to repeat.
foreign policy
Submitted by Agnostic on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 1:34pm.
President Johnson's were well known.
President Lincoln, I'm not sure he can be given significant credit but there was significant support for the south in foreign countries that never manifested itself in a meaningful way and some of that could have been attributed to the resolve of Lincoln and the understanding of the capabilities of a truly United States as he envisioned.
Hmm, I used the word
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 2:10pm.
Accomplishment for a reason. Lincoln's were probably helpful, but Johnson's, were I guess, on par with Obama's.
But lets not compare Obama, to Washington, Jefferson, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Reagan, or even GW Bush. Who had actual issues to resolve, not ones they created.
A more appropriate comparison would had been, Carter, Wilson, Hoover, and Truman.
Absolutely not, motherbelt...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 1:59pm.
Obama, himself, tacitly admits to a lack of success in managing the economy.
But there are other factors which must be considered in rating presidents besides foreign policy and legislative accomplishments.
What better example of this reality than Richard Nixon. By any standard of measurement, he achieved much in both the international and domestic arena. But, ultimately, his was a disastrous presidency.
Even if what Obama claimed were true--and that is highly debatable--those factors aren't the sole determinants of his current standing among all, or just the modern era, presidents. He simply has not excelled as a leader, and that is a failing which cannot be ignored in any enumeration of the 'great' chief executives.
Jer
While you are being open, Jer,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 7:14pm.
about Obama's lack of accomplishments in managing the economy, I would question "Obama, himself, tacitly admits to a lack of success in managing the economy."
While I would be inclined to say that Obama would never, ever, agree to anything that showed him in a bad light, I don't know that 'tacitly admits' is a definitive phrase; unless it is code for "It's 43's fault". :o)
MD
Matthew, I understand you disagree
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 10:42pm.
"But, you know, but when it comes to the economy, we've got a lot more work to do. And we're gonna keep on at it."
[my italics]
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gladnick/2011/12/16/60-minutes-broadcast...
In my book, however, that clearly qualifies as a tacit admission that, with respect to the economy, the administration has thus far not achieved what it had hoped. In fact, I can hardly imagine a more appropriate example.
Jer
Nowhere, Jer, in the phrase---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 12/27/2011 - 12:32am.
"---but when it comes to the economy, we've got a lot more work to do. And we're gonna keep on at it." ,
do I see any indication whatsoever that Obama is admitting to either failing to lead or that he has failed to accomplish anything reference the economy getting better.
An amorphous statement, at best; wherein he speaks as a professional platitudinarian. That is all he is, and that is all he ever will be.
That you could "hardly imagine a more appropriate example" means that you definitely remain a member of the group that still expects Obama to fart rainbows and skittles.
Liberal La-La land, indeed,
The hoser is a poser, period.
MD
I''m open to more appropriate examples of tacit admissions..
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 12/27/2011 - 12:38am.
or just one will do. I'll give it a fair hearing.
Jer
Check out "tacit', Jeringo---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 12/27/2011 - 12:55am.
'implied or indicated but not actually expressed'.
The very definition makes it a weasel word; that is how politicians survive.
How would you know for sure what Obama was implying or indicating if it wasn't spoken aloud.
It is open to your interpretation - which is, naturally, favorable to Obama.
My interpretation is based on the fact that he has done nothing constructive that did not entail riding Bush's coattails.
MD
I requested a more appropriate example of a tacit admisssion,
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 12/27/2011 - 1:03am.
Deanstein. You instead gave me yet another example of weaseling--your own. You've furnished more than ample evidence of the latter.
Jer
Back again, I see, Jeringo, with nothing more than ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 12/27/2011 - 4:11am.
your opinion.
Obama admits nothing; why do you keep asking me for an example of a tacit admission by the fool - admitting something without actually admitting it?
He is your hero; not mine - you provide one of those multitudinous examples of his equivocal brilliance. 'Equivocal brilliance' is what regular people call lying by omission.
You might have been hot stuff as a lawyer, but that kind legal parsing don't cut it with honest people.
Oh, wait.
Clinton, and "It depends on what the meaning of "is", is." I momentarily forgot about your idol.
No wonder you are so enamored of Barack; he and Slick Willie are birds of a feather.
You said Obama made a tacit admission - I disagreed with your interpretation of what he said - and you then request that I provide a better example of a tacit admission.
Nice try, but it is on you.
Tacit admission. What a joke.
MD
I think he went to the Little
Submitted by ricklail on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 1:02pm.
I think he went to the Little Debs of the Wasserman crime family school of logic. He said that being shut out of the VA primary was like Pearl Harbor. Can't understand that one.
Fineman
Submitted by Tatfreak79 on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 1:24pm.
The man is a TV pundit whore. He'll do any show to spout off his disdain for any & all things Republican. So one wonders if it doesn't "take 1 to know 1". He certainly seems to love being on TV. I would think going into politics takes a certain degree of inflated ego anyways...
Megalomania is indeed a mental affliction.
Submitted by KyWriter on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 2:02pm.
Since you're offering free diagnoses, what is the medical term for your delusion, Howard?
Total...
Submitted by BBallleaper on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 2:02pm.
has-been.
But he doesn't see it in the
Submitted by mattm on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 4:57pm.
But he doesn't see it in the Arrogant One????
This is what irks me about the media, and liberals (with rare exceptions) in general: they bash the hell out of conservatives/republicans for faults and failings that pale in comparison to the faults and failings of their liberal/democrat counterparts, then they ignore or suppress these faults and failings (and even crimes) as they praise, adore and worship their political saviors.