Newsweek senior Washington correspondent Howard Fineman isn’t hiding his disdain toward Newt Gingrich in his latest column for the magazine, headlined: "How lost are the Republicans? They're looking to Newt for answers."
Fineman wrote that Republicans have an affinity for "disgraded or discarded" leaders, and Gingrich and his "ruthless" caricaturing of liberals represent the "old-school insult" in stark contrast to the new, somehow nonpartisan cool of Obama:
At the dawn of the Obama era, Gingrich has remade himself as the anti-Obama. He is arguably the GOP's most influential strategist and cheerleader, and a provocative scold of the administration. Where Obama exudes the new Washington equanimity, Gingrich exalts in the old-school insult. He is ruthless in caricaturing anyone who gets in his way as a "pagan" or "statist" or "socialist" or "racist" – all words Newt has hurled in recent days.
This is pretty rich territory for a man who’s a regular guest of Keith Olbermann’s. It continued:
And so, wounded, rudderless and leaderless, GOP members of Congress and others on his voluminous e-mail list have returned to hear the gospel according to Newt. They speak of him with the awe of disciples. In a party without a frontrunner for 2012, admirers talk about him as a presidential candidate. "I do wish that he would run," says Joe McQuaid, publisher of the Union-Leader in Manchester, N.H., still a beacon for the right. "He has a lot to offer conservatives." Yet it is hard to shake the feeling that Gingrich's new prominence is more a sign of the GOP's desperation than faith in its future, and that his reemergence is more likely to hurt the party than help it.
Fineman here may be exaggerating the number and fervor of Gingrich followers. Many conservatives feel he’s a welcome voice to protest the dramatic expansion of government under Obama and to sell the Republicans as a party of a ideas and government reform. But that’s a far cry from a presidential boomlet, especially considering what Fineman diplomatically calls "stories of sordidness in his personal life," namely cheating on his second wife (during the Lewinsky scandal, no less) with the woman who became his third wife.
Fineman’s kind enough to sugarcoat Newt’s sexual foibles, but rude enough to suggest that when Gingrich did him the favor of offering a cover blurb for his book, he probably didn’t read the thing:
What Newt brings now is what he's always brought: a savagely acute sense of how to attack The Powers That Be (as long as they are Democrats); a history professor's sweeping feel for societal trends; and a grifter's gift for claiming expertise about certain things he doesn't really know at all. (That would probably include my book, which he was kind enough to blurb; I admit to a sneaking suspicion that he never read a word of it.)
To Fineman, it’s the talk of a swindler when you suggest that Obama’s policies are advancing statism, or that government-dominated health care ends up rationing services that you thought you had a "right" to expect:
No one can match Newt's talent for advancing the conservative credo of individualism and faith in markets. At times his certitude takes on a cartoonish quality. Last week he unleashed a too-clever critique of the president's goal of a government-backed health plan, saying health care is a human right that cannot be rationed by Washington. He assailed Barack Obama's anodyne declaration that we are all global citizens as a dangerous threat to national security. It is impossible to take him seriously when he says things like this. That is unfortunate, because Gingrich is capable of seriousness.
You can read between the lines of columns like these and find journalists counseling Republicans to go along and get along, that the road to recovery is in being an echo of liberalism, not a conservative alternative. A few weeks ago, Fineman thought the tea parties were too "apocalyptic" to help. I always think of Fineman back in 1995 pining for Colin Powell for President: "a lot of my colleagues are trying to accept the fact that the Republican Party has the upper hand, and they want a Republican Party they can live with, and Powell is a guy they could live with."
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
If you can't stop the message ...
June 15, 2009 - 08:57 ET by KC MulvilleIf you can't stop the message ... Throw mud at the messenger. Once again, an opinion that people who already agree, still agree. Those who didn't agree, still don't. And for those who are undecided, Fineman offers nothing intellectual to persuade them... Just more unfocused hostility tossed against conservatives.
old school insults - like
June 15, 2009 - 09:13 ET by TruthMongerold school insults - like accusing someone of "old school insults?"
Palin/Prejean 2012
So LIberals Can Bandy About Neo-Con
June 15, 2009 - 09:40 ET by allanfas if its a swear word, and that's fine.
Why is it an insult to accurate portray someone? Revel in what you are Mr. Fineman. Be Proud. Shout it. You are a socialist. Are you afraid people won't follow you if you hide it?
An insult is what David Letterman said about Sarah Palins daughter. But I guess that's a joke to you.
Rules for Radicals
June 15, 2009 - 09:55 ET by Wildcatter1980Fineman is engaging in the ridiculing of someone he cannot debate and win, plain and simple.
Conservatives and Republicans need to press forward on the use of such labels because in our sound byte society, we need to clearly define and contrast ourselves from the Dems and Obama.
--
We already have term limits. They are called elections. We can & should vote out those who do not represent & serve us! - Me
beat me to the punch
June 15, 2009 - 11:40 ET by lotrI immediately thought the same thing, but glad to see you already did the work of formulating the rebuttal.
I have but one question to add, though: Since when did "journalism" adopt partisan mudslinging as a method of communication?
"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann
I watched that same speech,
June 15, 2009 - 08:59 ET by BruzillaI watched that same speech, and I still have reservations about Newt. It's like he wants to be a solid, Reagan, conservative, but he just can't get past his worries about the middle ground. Newt strikes me as a guy who is far more concerned with winning an election than making any kind of a stand on principal, and I think that voters, on both sides, are getting tired of candidates like that.
Agree
June 15, 2009 - 09:31 ET by Red JeepExactly right. One minute he want to like Reagan and the next he's on a bench with Nancy Pelosi warning about global warming.
I think the GOM would just love a Newt run for president. They already have all the ammo they need to sink him, sexual history, distorting his "..wither on the vine..." comment etc. They would have a tremendous time with half truth smears.
I would have to agree with Fineman if the GOP is looking to Newt for answers they are lost.
What Fineman sees as
June 15, 2009 - 09:39 ET by BruzillaWhat Fineman sees as "lost", I see as a group that's waiting and preparing. A wise man once told me that "when you step in crap, you stop. Don't go tracking it around." I think the GOP stepped in a lot of crap over the past eight years, and the absence of any current GOP "leader" being seen as The Leader shows that we realize it, and we're not going to go rushing around making things worse. We're stopped, getting our act together, and when the right person comes forward, the party will start moving again and in the right direction.
That being said, I don't think any of the MSM favorites for The Leader (Newt, Romney, Palin, etc.) are even in the running.
Them's the rules
June 15, 2009 - 09:25 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsThe rule of today's State Run Media is, attack any (R) who could even remotely be the front runner for the 2012 Presidential election. Throw all the usual names at them, attack, attack, attack, denounce them as full of old, worn out ideas and possibly dangerous, go all the way back to grade school to find any flaws or missteps. Top it off with how they foolishly don't see that Obama is the New Shiny Political Reality.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
I think your post shows one
June 15, 2009 - 09:34 ET by BruzillaI think your post shows one of the dangers that Republicans face in furure elections. As we saw in the last election, we had a seriously flawed candidate, McCain, who many decided to wear blinders for when discussions of his failings were brought up. Whenever McCain's lack of Conservative/Republican convictions were brought up, many decried this as just attacks. Same thing with Palin. She's a wonderful woman, and has a lot of potential, but being mayor of a small town in Alaska, and governor for a year or so (at the time), is hardly qualification for VP. And everytime the media showed her flaws, many Republicans chose to ignore them and just chalk it up to attacks.
Republicans need a really solid, Conservative, candidate in 2012, and I think we need to be more willing to see the flaws and not so quick to just write them off as being lies or attacks.
No....
June 15, 2009 - 09:43 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonWhat the Conservative People NEED is a person willing to stand up in front of crowds and declare the United States to be the best place on Earth to live, and praise her virtues instead of pandering to losers that hate our country.
Someone that will be willing to, in his/her inauguration speech, declare the borders closed, 'foreign aid' ended and the Supremacy of the Constitution INCLUDING the Tenth Amendment.
Someone who will stand up to congress and say, "If it's not an enumerated power in the Constitution, it will not be funded in any budget."
So far, nobody has what it takes. Except for me, but I'm not running.
http://gjresult.com
What I would like is
June 15, 2009 - 09:58 ET by BruzillaWhat I would like is candidate who cand up and clearly and plainly explain the difference between "Free" and "Freedom". More and more voters are getting blinded to reality by the concept of "free" stuff from the government, and thinking that government can solve all their ills, without realing the cure is always worse than the ill.
Like with healthcare, I would love to hear a Republican respond to calls for "free" healthcare with an explanation of how no healthcare is ever free. Somebody is paying for it, either through taxes or a provider donating their time. That free healthcare means that you are turning over control of your health to the public, for better or for worse, and that you will lose the "freedom" of chosing your doctor, choosing a procedure, choosing a date/time, or simply choosing what's best for you. The cost of "free" healthcare is the total loss of freedom to choose what's best for you. That needs to be explained, and no one is doing that right now.
Good points, Bruzilla. I
June 15, 2009 - 10:07 ET by QueenMumGood points, Bruzilla. I agree that we've heard very few Beltway voices pointing these things out.
"All people are born alike - except Republicans and Democrats." - Groucho Marx
Yes...
June 15, 2009 - 10:44 ET by retroconGood point Bruzilla... free and freedom are not the same thing. We also need the clear voices to tell the public what healthcare cannot be a "right" as extolled by the left today.
A product or service, abundant or in limited supply cannot be a "right."
Just as you have the right to keep and bear arms... you do not have the right to get free arms. (now wait, maybe they have a point, "As President, I will put a full automatic, suppressed M4 in every home!")
All that rubbish from
June 15, 2009 - 09:35 ET by RD Kingsomeone who apparently has faith in maobama who exudes nothing but radical muslim.
I find it entertaining that
June 15, 2009 - 09:40 ET by dvdaughtryI find it entertaining that Libs don't like to be called libs. Socialists don't like to be called Socialist, etc.
I have never heard a Conservative get upset that some called them Conservative.
You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?
Howie's lament.
June 15, 2009 - 09:41 ET by CTPoor Howie, a high profile respected person has expressed an opinion that differs from Howie's adulation for his Dear Leader, Chairman Zero. Just whose 'desperation' are we seeing here?
Old school words for old school despotism
June 15, 2009 - 09:45 ET by pockets64"Progressivism" is a really old-school term (older than "racism" they pin on Newt) for "Communism" from around 100 years ago.
The "P" word was used to mask the speaker's affinity for communism. Actually, it still is.
Unless you switch to "New Speak" you are going to be using old terms to describe old concepts
The more things change, they more they stay the same.
School Daze
June 15, 2009 - 10:08 ET by Pilgrim1949Out -- "old school" insults (e.g., anything with which the current Royal Ruling Class[less] disagrees.)
Totally and enthusiastically In -- "new school" and extracurricular (for extra street-props credit, perhaps?) insults of any and all kinds, the more personal and vulgar the better, to appeal to the sophomoric level of emotional and intellectual maturity usually found in the ad homonym attacks that characteristically emanate from the murky penumbra inhabited by the vapid, spittle-sputtering Leftist ersatz journalists (e.g., Obamabot propagandists).
The Left's debating style usually reeks of elementary school playground debates/arguments, wherein the kid whose arguments are being logically shredded to bits finally plays the trump card designed to once and for all silence the opposition -- the declaration that the opposing person is "just a poopy-head" and, thusly, their opinions are beneath comtempt and not to be listenened to. Ergo, the debate is settled (hmm... where have we heard that declaration before?).
More of the form over
June 15, 2009 - 09:53 ET by G. MayMore of the form over substance nonsense. If you're actively engaging in government control of the means of production and services - you're a socialist. If you judge other people by the color of their skin - you're a racist.
Just because these terms may have existed for awhile doesn't mean they no longer apply. The word 'stupid' is quite "old school" and still perfectly describes Fineman's point.
Howard Lyinman can't get his lyin' straight
June 15, 2009 - 10:02 ET by Jack BauerReally? Why only a while back Howie Lyinman was claiming that:
I'm thinking the Howie has a little list. On that list are the names of some folks lefists love to demonize.
It'll be Sarah Palin in a few weeks.
On point: In which bizarro universe does Howie live where Gingrich is leading the GOP?
Maybe it's all down to this, as noted by Hot Air
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/05/21/rnc-rush-newt-cheney-dont-make-me-laugh/
The shoe fits!
June 15, 2009 - 10:05 ET by slickwillie2001We use old-school labels like 'socialist' and 'statist' (and fascist) because the Bamster is and old-school socialist. He was mentored by a raft of socialist radicals brought up in the fifties and sixties, and spent part of his life as a 'community organizer' modeled after Alinsky. If the shoe fits...
Re Newt, he's not Presidential material any longer, but I have respect for his ideas and his organizational abilities. The Republican bench is wide and deep, with folks like Sanford, Pawlenty, Palin and others of a new generation of leaders, and Newt is not one of them. He fits better into an elder-statesman role like that of Vice-President Cheney.
whenever a consevative speaks his peace of mind
June 15, 2009 - 10:17 ET by larry on LIthe fellow travelers pounce on every word or statement. we are wrong for tagging people like fineman,as a socalist,call him what he is a progressive or more accurately in my book ,a communist. the general public accepts the term socialist[they think european], they are in the dark with the progressive discription and many insist that there is a difference by saying progressives don't believe in taking of our property[B.S.] therefore their not communists ,well we saw that happen in connecticut, gm and crysler. so if we revisit a qoute from Vladimir Lenin: " the goal of socialism is communism" why do we insist on using the incorrect terminology. their goal is clear.
Howard
June 15, 2009 - 10:27 ET by east tennessee john"Old school" insults. Wow that Fineman is really hip with his terminology, "old school". Must have got that hangin' with his editor's god. Where are you going to work when Newsweek, or what's left of it folds, Howard? Get your shots in when you can. You're almost history, I mean "old school" yourself.
Newtering Fineman
June 15, 2009 - 10:50 ET by greggyHoward Fineman jumps into the logical abyss from his opening line - history is replete with examples of second acts in American lives. Even the Democratic presidents he cites as examples of "banishment" are off the mark - did Jimmy Carter not enjoy a renaissance of respect and notoriety through his efforts with Habitat For Humanity? Was he not dispatched to foreign hotspots by Bill Clinton, and highly visible in monitoring foreign elections?
And what of Bill Clinton - until Barack Obama emerged as a white-hot phenom, hadn't Bill been largely forgiven by Democrats for his egregious transgressions - wasn't Clinton being greeted enthusiastically everywhere he went? Wasn't Bill still a sought after speaker at fundraisers, etc., weren't Democrats downright nostalgic for the Clinton years - and wasn't Hillary looked at as being virtually unstoppable with him campaigning for her? These facts certainly don't support the idea of the ritual banishment of Democrats as advanced by Fineman, and for Fineman to say "Bill who..?" is the height of disingenuousness.
Just as disingenuous, if not moreso, is Fineman's fantasy that Republicans are the only party that allows comebacks after setbacks- is he kidding? Bill Clinton was literally called "The Comeback Kid", and known for and even defined by his ability to rebound from his political disasters.
It is practically unconscionably hypocritical for Fineman to complain that "Gingrich exalts in the old-school insult. He is ruthless in caricaturing anyone who gets in his way as a "pagan" or "statist" or "socialist" or "racist"—all words Newt has hurled in recent days". Really, Howard? Really? We didn't realize that you were so delicate when it came to political invective, and we wonder why if you're so sensitive when it comes to hyperbolic language and insults and demogoguery, it is that you have appeared a number of times to lend support to the most hyperbolic, vitriolic, and dishonest shill of our time - one Keith Olbermann? Somehow I think that Mr. Fineman's problem isn't so much with people with "acid tongues", but rather just with conservatives with acid tongues.
It seems that the strongest motivation for your attack piece, Mr. Fineman, can actually be found in the one most telltale sentence in your entire article: "No one can match Newt's talent for advancing the conservative credo of individualism and faith in markets". That alone, would be cause sufficient for Mr Fineman and Newsweek to do everything possible to marginalize the man and anything he has to say.
Can there be a "second act" in American political discourse - can there be a successful reinvention, a redemption - for Newsweek? Or will Newsweek continue to be a laughably partisan publication with a dramatically shrinking circulation? Perhaps it's time Newsweek abandoned it's central theology, namely that "Obama's sort of God" - and regain some semblance of objectivity. Otherwise, as Newsweek often advises the Republican party - "How will they ever broaden their base"?
Who cares what Olbermann's little b*tch thinks?
June 15, 2009 - 10:51 ET by SickofLibs"Great thanks to our own Howard Fineman."
How does it feel to be identified as one of Olbermann's staff every time you're on there, Mr. Bigtime Journalist?
Gotta say it again...
June 15, 2009 - 11:01 ET by retroconHitler had Goebbels...
Stalin had Socialist Realism...
Mao had the Little Red Book...
Obama has the MSM...
Coming From a Newsweek Communist, Pretty Meaningless
June 15, 2009 - 11:13 ET by farstar99Better to take advice from Newt than Fineman any day.
The party leadership may still fall for that, but the rest of us get it.
Whatever the Left says is a lie, especially the Leftist press. Any advice they give you is sabotage.
No matter what the GOP does, they will always hate them, so why is the GOP still sucking up to them?
jessieH I think
June 15, 2009 - 11:18 ET by jessieHjessieH I think that sorry, I gotta go. My favorite commedian is on t.v. It's Obama time!
My theory on this is that
June 15, 2009 - 11:20 ET by fitzfongMy theory on this is that Howard Fineman is well aware that he has no credibility on the right and that by taking a few policy-light, substance-free stabs at pseudo-Conservative Newt Gingrich, actual Conservatives will be inclined to support Gingrich as he would be seen to oppose Fineman. This way, the worst that could happen would be that an eco-parasite apologist, "new tone", Beltway "Conservative" would defeat That One in 2012. Two problems with Fineman's strategy: 1) Conservatives are on to Newt and 2) Nobody knows or cares who Howard Fineman is.
Speaking of bizarre, vacuous, inside Washington "analysis", check out this piece of elitist crap from Tina Brown, where she compares self-made executive Sarah Palin unfavorably to Hillary Clinton, the world's most expensive trailer. Unreal.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
Once again, if we were to
June 15, 2009 - 11:43 ET by Tom PaineOnce again, if we were to accept these liberal critiques at face value we are still left with a major nagging question. If Newt and the other conservatives who are speaking out are doing so much damage to the Republican Party, why to these liberal commentators feel compelled to tell them what they are doing wrong? Do they think we are really as stupid as they imagine us to be?
Notice how the Communists
June 15, 2009 - 12:28 ET by RR GOPNotice how the Communists don't like to be called Communists?
Not good for their image. Even "Liberal" gets their goat.
They prefer 'progressive' or some other euphemism that makes them think they really are loyal Americans who cherish our history and our heritage...when in fact they hate it all and want to start America all over from scratch-the way they'd like it to be...rather than the way it has been-you know, the system that gave them their wealth, their educations, their careers, their safety, their long life expectancy...
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).
if the shoe fits
June 15, 2009 - 12:44 ET by konoFineman claims the GOP is lost if it looks to Newt for answers. No, Newt is usually a pretty astute analyst. The GOP is only lost if it looks to Newt as a candidate for office anymore.
I'll be elated to retire the terms "socialist" and "statist", just the instant the Liberals shake off their pathological urges in those directions. Liberty and free enterprise are supposed to be the universal guarantees in this country; but Liberals keep wanting to establish centralized authorities to provide everyone with their needs (and, inherently, to decide what each person's needs will be). That is statist and Socialist, Mr. Fineman. So as long as the shoe fits...
Succinct analysis.
June 15, 2009 - 12:47 ET by Jack BauerSuccinct analysis. Excellent.
I quit listening to this
June 15, 2009 - 12:56 ET by bigtimerI quit listening to this useless idiot years ago.
The only place he is useful anymore is on the loser network msnbc.
Don't you worry your little head about us Fineman, you better worry about your own party...they are not all in line with O here lately, you better pay attention to that pal.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
J. CARTER OBAMA LIVES
June 15, 2009 - 13:43 ET by reelman46J. CARTER OBAMA LIVES
“Conservatives” Are Single-Largest Ideological Group
Percentage of “liberals” higher this decade than in early ’90s…by Lydia Saad
PRINCETON, NJ — Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in
national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as
conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents a
slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it
to a level last seen in 2004.
CRAWFISH NOTE: Am not a fan of polls but we are
force fed them daily. Watching the biased media, you would think
conservatives (smaller gov-meant, lower taxes and morality) are all but
extinct. They are mocked, smeared, joked about, attacked in cartoons ,
stereotyped in movies and plain trashed by the secular socialists
(modern national democrat) and their agents. The exception of course is
islam because liberals are the ultimate cowards. Morality is hammered
as radical or bizarre. Gov-meant is worshiped as the answer to all
human problems. Victim-worship runs rampant.
Now we see what a strident secular socialist can do in under 6
months with a like-minded congressional majority. The socialists run
the same old plays…promising heaven while delivering pain…promising
foreign problems will go away with talk and apologies…promising
somebody else will pay for more freebies for their voter base…promising
an eco-paradise (we have thousands of eco-laws-standards
already)…promising business reform by new laws and taxes…promising
higher moral ground with unrestricted you-name-it…blah blah blah.
Time to sit down and ask yourself what they have delivered besides
apologies and huge debt while your retirement account remains down a
third.
Wasn’t Jimmah Carter enough proof for voters? Will J. Carter Obama
continue to break all of Carter’s records for distortion and failures?
The smart money says YES. Did I mention the democrat tax phase is next?
Its how they roll. Have a great summer…suckas.
Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish)
reelman, Love, love, love
June 15, 2009 - 13:54 ET by bigtimerreelman,
Love, love, love your post!
Saw that poll this morning on Drudge myself, but your words here make me smile...I do think O will break all of Carter's records, and lord knows he's off to a great start!
Btw...I am sick of seeing his face 24/7 on the msm daily, but I do hope he can't get over that spot-light the rest of his term, because it will be a one-termer for sure, when you have lefties like Maher sick of seeing him too and saying so on television, the better it is for us.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
See, The U.S. is not a county split 50/50...
June 15, 2009 - 14:19 ET by Red Jeep...conservative/liberal and it never was. It is just that the liberal media makes it seem that way.
but whose claimed identity is legit?
June 15, 2009 - 14:41 ET by konoPosting a new story in another thread seems out of place, but it merits a response...
If a poll asks what policies and positions people favor or oppose, it's worth paying some attention. Just asking people whether they're conservative, moderate, or liberal is of little use, though, when many respondents will disagree on what the labels mean. Plus, it's been shown countless times that many dedicated liberals will start calling you ugly names if you try to get them to admit the term 'liberal' applies to them.
Polls show the vast majority of convicted felons call themselves innocent, too.
You missed the money
June 15, 2009 - 14:47 ET byYou missed the money quote!
"Sure, F. Scott Fitzgerald, our patron saint of self-pitying oblivion, declared, "There are no second acts in American lives." But only because he didn't live long enough to study the modern Republican Party. Unlike the Democrats, who promptly banish their own former presidents (Bill Who? Jimmy Who?),"
Whaaaa? Huh? Are you friggin' kiddin' me? Leggo my leg?! Once you saw this sentence, this bald faced lie at the top of the article, you know all you need to know about Howard Fineman. He needs to go back to dying his hair.
no kidding
June 15, 2009 - 16:27 ET by konoYeah, like "Franklin Delano who?" and "John Fitzgerald who?"
But if it sounds good and helps your article, what the heck, just make it up.
howie
June 15, 2009 - 15:21 ET by tomolson3Is it just me or does Howie look like that other guy on pmsnbc , Rachel....... in drag of course!!!
Fineman--Old-School Idiot
June 15, 2009 - 17:44 ET by the strugglerFineman--Old-School Idiot