The Delicacy Of Newt Gingrich’s Ego And So-Called “Negative” Campaigning

He can dish it out but he can’t take it.

Newt Gingrich’s entire career has been filled with unbelievable vitriol against his opponents, yet when he’s hit by Romney’s SuperPAC he wilts.

He stomps his feet.

He calls Mitt a liar.

Yes, Mr. Positive – the one who vowed to run a positive campaign — now has been reduced to calling people names.  Newt, the one who compliments other candidates for running a nicer campaign not like somebody we know.

This petulance is understandable for someone who thought he was going to win Iowa and be crowned President simply by virtue of his own awesomeness.

But reality is a stubborn thing.

After a debilitating showing last night, Newt is left thinking Mitt Romney is the reason he isn’t going to hear Hail to the Chief played for him anytime soon.  His ego cannot comprehend that – possibly – Newt is the reason Newt lost.  After all, he’s simply not a good candidate and negative ads only revealed this fact. Here’s what he did before the 2012 Presidential run:

- He shut down the government partially because he was annoyed at his seating on Air Force One . . . and admitted it to the press.

- He was reprimanded for ethics violations.

- He has been arguably the least-liked politician in the entire country and known as the “nation’s most unpopular politician.”

He was carrying on an affair (and not his first), while trying to impeach Clinton and didn’t publicly admit this until 2007, as he mulled a presidential run.

-He endured revolts against his leadership and finally resigned in disgrace in 1998 even as his nemesis, Bill Clinton, continued to enjoy shockingly high approval ratings.

And here’s (a little) of what he did during his 2012 Presidential run:

He failed to qualify for the Virginia ballot.

He compared his inability to file proper paperwork and collect signatures to a national tragedy that killed over 2,400 Americans.

He criticized the individual mandate, before a video of him praising it emerged.

In other words, Newt gave his opponents a great deal to work with.  And we should be thankful that Republicans revealed this instead of Barack Obama several months later.

Be prepared, however, for the coming onslaught.  Now that Newt understands he can’t win, he has decided to do all it takes to make sure Mitt won’t either.

He’ll whine.

He’ll cry.

He’ll keep stomping his feet.

He’ll remind everyone how smart he is, compared to that Massachusetts guy who only has two degrees from Harvard.

But Mitt said it best:

“Newt’s obviously a very angry person… I’m glad that Newt is no longer relentlessly positive. Now, apparently, he’s going to try the relentlessly negative. Obviously what he said was filled with inaccuracies… You have to understand that politics have been going on a long time and I’m just surprised the speaker is having such a hard time with it.” Speaking on Sean Hannity’s radio show, Romney added this: “Pretending that somehow politics is played like a game of bridge is, I think, unrealistic.”


How Political Correctness Improved My Life
Is God a Monster or a Savior? Examining Job – the Ultimate Rorschach Test
Question for the New York Times: If Gays Are Offended, Do Christians Have Rights?
‘Macho Christianity’ Isn’t the Problem, Gimmick Christianity Is
About Nancy French

Nancy French is a three time New York Times Best Selling Author.

  • Lydia Jones

    Excellent post, Nancy. Newt’s behavior has gone from shocking to laughable in my opionion. Some who served with him in Congress have mentioned how unstable he is, and we are getting a chance to see that in action. He seems to be unravelling. I think he has done irreparable damage to himself with these tantrums of his.

  • Larry

    Nancy, you conveniently ignore not only the deceptive nature of those attack ads … but the transparent slight of hand (read, deceptive) nature of Mitt’s explanation of them.

    Now Newt will take the fight to Mitt. After enduring Mitt’s Iowa sucker punch, he’s about to throw a solid right … and hopefully connect with Mitt’s glass jaw. Wonder how he’ll take to finally having his very questionable record dissected as it has heretofore escaped.

    My guess? We know where Mitt’s ceiling is … now were about to find out how deep his basement is.

    Yesterday Mitt demonstrated, once again and decisively, that he remains entirely unable to break through the ceiling of 25% … despite his signature campaign tactic of misleading attack ads.

    The race is narrowing among conservative candidates which means Mitt’s meager showing will begin translating into net losses. When at last a single conservative candidate goes head to head with Mitt … no amount of misleading mudslinging will allow slippery Mitt to elude the grasp of defeat.

  • Joy


    What I find interesting is that Newt can’t defend anything about the ads because they are simply pulling from his well documented record. He claims he has the right to tell the truth about Mitt’s record. Well, that was all the PAC did. And by the way, it is illegal for Mitt to become involved in the slightest manner with the PAC even in advice. Look up the laws.

    I blogged on Newt’s vicious attack of Mitt a few days before he said Mitt struck the first blow. Here is part of what Newt said in reference to Romney:
    “I wouldn’t lie to the American people. I wouldn’t switch my positions for political reasons. It’s perfectly reasonable to change your position if facts change. If you see new things you didn’t see – everybody’s done that, Ronald Reagan did that. It’s wrong to go around to adopt radically different positions based on your need of any one election, then people will have to ask themselves, ‘What will you tell me next time?’”

    Two days later Romney defended himself against this attack but the MSM labeled Romney’s response as the first attack, completely ignoring the previous article. Then Newt told his staff not to respond to the vicious attack by Romney because they would run a positive campaign.

    The MSM has been lying to the people about this whole situation and those not keeping up with the facts are swallowing it whole. The MSM are also playing down the fact that Ron Paul has gone after Gingrich far more aggressively than Mitt has. Learn facts not rumors.

  • Larry

    Joy, I don’t know where you follow the news (Romney sites such as this presumably) … Newt did detail their deception, as did other news agencies. Further, to offer an event absent its context is deception of another sort. Mitt especially excels at this … indeed, I feel, when listening to Mitt I feel as if I’m hearing a truth challenged liberal Democrat speaking.

    Here, let me give you an idea of what I’m referring to. “Recently, reports have surfaced that David French, an enthusiastic Romney supporter and fundraiser has a frightening history of actually shooting at people who oppose him … with the intention of wounding or … even killing them! The Romney campaign, when confronted with this information actually congratulated Mr. French for his willingness to take up arms against their opponents”.

    Unless you are aware of the context, namely David’s military duty, you would assume the worse. I wouldn’t be lying technically … just effectively.

    That you’ve accepted Mitt’s insultingly deceptive excuse for not denouncing the efforts of the PAC’s speaks volumes to your willingness … no make that need … to believe a lie (message to Mitt … people feel insulted when you lie in a fashion that underscores your dim view of their intelligence).

    BTW, how do you consider Newt’s expose of Mitt’s serial position alterations (all of which correspond, exactly, to the constituency he’s attempting to appeal to at the time) a negative attack. Perhaps there is little hated as much as the obvious, eh?

  • The anti Newt

    ugh… That was boring and tedious, Larry.

  • Joy


    If you look up the laws, you will see that it is illegal for Mitt to interfere with the PAC. He can do and say nothing so let’s move beyond that.

    Now, give me an example of something the PAC exposed in Newt’s record that was not true!

    I listened to Newt yesterday. He made accusations against Mitt with absolutely not one shred of proof. Please defend that with specific details and facts.

  • Laura

    Iowa Sucker Punch? Do you even know what a sucker punch is, Larry? It’s when you punch someone while they are not looking or expecting it. If newt wasn’t looking, or expecting it, then that is his own fault. Politics is not an endeavor to take lightly. Especially with someone who has so many skeletons in his closet. Secondly, ads that reveal someone’s record are not attack ads. No one is attacking Newt’s character or personal life in these ads (as far as I know.. I don’t live in Iowa)
    Thirdly, why are ads from a super pac considered a “punch” from Mitt anyway (sucker or otherwise)?
    And last but not least, I must ask: Why do you read this blog?

    It’s called “Evangelicals For Mitt”, not “Evangelicals Who Dislike Mormons, especially Mitt Romney”.

    Nancy, beautifully written. Newt might have recovered from all the exposure to his controversial past if not for the way he has reacted to it. He acts like a spoiled toddler who hasn’t gotten his way.

  • Rick Schow

    I have a good chuckle every time I come to EFM and find you still here. Your life is obviously more than a little boring. Are there not exciting things to do in your world such as lawn bowling or bird-watching? Us folks at EFM REALLY do support Mitt. Many of us REALLY do like to hang out and chat (constructively) with other Christians. Some of us are even Mormons and we have tons of common ground to share with Evangelicals. Where did you fall off the bus?

  • Nancy French

    I hope you’re right!!

  • Nancy French

    You think Romney’s record hasn’t been examined yet? After running against Ted Kennedy? After running for PRESIDENT in 2008?


  • Larry

    Oh, now I understand … this party is for the converted … thinking people are not welcome?

  • Larry

    Joy, Nothing, I repeat NOTHING prohibits Mitt from publicly denouncing the PAC and its lies. Honorable men would do precisely that. Mitt does not because it not only serves his purposes to remain silent … but it is part and parcel of his strategy.

    Unable to attract a majority he simply labors to shoot his opponents in the back … leaving no other choices. Not principled, not honorable … and not the stuff leaders are made of.

  • Larry

    No, it has not been. It is now about to enjoy a remarkably thorough airing however. Conservative candidates are at last turning their attention Mitt.

    The exposure should be most enlightening.

  • Larry

    I read the blog in order to respond to its misrepresentations and air them in the sight of those whose minds might be changed. This is an election, yes? This is a public forum, yes?

    Nancy is speaking about other candidates in this public forum, yes? Do you think it is inappropriate for people to respond in public forums?

    Uhm, yes I know what a sucker punch is (wow, are these questions really neccesary?) and Mitt’s attack ads (attack ads because the were deceptive … not factual) qualify as the worst sort.

    Seeing an opponent surging ahead in the polls (and well beyond the 23% – 25% Mitt has been unable to exceed), Mitt the Honorable unleashed his signature campaign tactic … attack ads which offer half truths stripped of context (known otherwise as a lie) and whole lies.

    Gee whiz … more of the thin skinned “you don’t like Mitt so you hate Mormon’s” shtick. That is really growing old.

    I’m an American Laura … this my nation. My children’s nation and my grand children’s nation. I made a decision following the last election to become engaged and vocal … from beginning to end. And I’m not alone.

  • Mark

    Four years ago Huckabee was the one whining about Mitt. It took him four years to get over it. Hopefully Newt will recover in time to endorse Mitt for re-election in 2016!

  • Laura

    I’m not thin skinned. My comments above came after reading many of your responses on this and other articles on this blog.
    And my question as to why you are here was actually an attempt to get you to self reflect. You are more than free to be here. Intelligent discussion among thinking people (yep, we Mormons are thinkers, too) is encouraged around here (I presume).
    I asked that question because I think you are here because I have met people like you before. Actually, I was one of those people. And I’m sorry if I am assuming correctly, I know assuming can be dangerous… but I’m going to risk it here. After reading lots of responses, here is my guess: you have been taught, from third party sources (maybe a Church or Anti Mormon materials?), to distrust Mormons; That we are deceitful. Maybe even that we are the wolves in sheep’s clothing warned about in the New Testament.; That we tell half -truths and lie to deceive people into coming to our Church. And you believe it. I understand because I believed that, too. And so, someone with this type of mindset thinks, If a Mormon will lie about religion, he’ll do it in politics, too. So you are using every stretch of the imagination to suggest that Mitt is unethical or dishonest.
    The problem is that, in order to have a reasonable discussion with Mormons or about Mormons or about Mormons in politics, one is going to have to put down the prejudices and the judgments and the presuppositions. If you would like to reasonably discuss either the doctrines of our Church or the ethical behavior of our people, you’ll have to open your mind enough to believe that we aren’t walking around lying to everyone. We genuinely believe what we say and if you don’t agree…. That’s okay. But we aren’t here to represent the anti Christ, and if we were, our Church would lead to destruction, not the pure acts of charity that you see saturating our communities. We love God, we do good for Him. None of us is perfect, Mitt included. Maybe the most honest and upright thing to do would be to condemn the actions of the Super PAC, I’ll give you that. But the irony here is that you are working so hard to find something unethical about Mitt that you are blaming him for his Super PAC’s negative ads or lies or whatever, as if they came from his own mouth; and you do so in defense of a man who cheated on both of his first two wives (while sending Clinton to the woodshed for similar offenses) and has been slapped with ethics violations in congress.
    So are you here to have an honest discussion about who the best candidate is; about your concerns about Mitt Romney? Or are you here to convince the readers that he is a cult member we can’t trust?
    If I am assuming too much, I apologize in advance,. I am aware that I don’t really know you as a person. But your comments sound so much like the talking points I heard from people in the Bible church and my own family that I just have to wonder…

  • Gordon Hill

    I’m a Mormon and against Mitt. Mitt is just a little less distastful that Newt. Politics does that to you! I dislike Mitt’s arrogance and hypocracy. Mitt is pro war…yet his five healthy, and vigorous sons have never served their country.
    Mitt thinks only the working people should fight the rich mans wars.
    Newt just stepped into the abyss…good….he belongs there. Mitt will be stepping in soon….maybe they’ll have something to talk about…they’re both made of the same fabric……

  • Larry

    You remember your concern about assumptions? You were dead on … they are dangerous as you have now amply proven.

    I’m not “trying” to find something unethcial about Mitt … I began with the presumption that I would like him. I then began my due diligence … that’s when the real Mitt emerged from beyond the fog of his narrative.

    I was unhappy to discover that he was not what I first imagined him to be. Observing him since has only fueled my distrust and now disrespect for him.

    Newt on the other hand enjoys an extraordinary conservative record. His “baggage” was dreadful and left me very doubtful of his fitness for office. But as I did earlier with Romney, I began to conduct a more thorough review of Newt … I concluded that he is our best candidate for this unique moment.

    I can enthusiastically support Santorum or even Perry. If Mitt wins the nomination (I doubt and earnestly hope he will not) I will vote for him (holding my nose all the while).

    I will then do what I never imagined possible. Begin to hope and work for the formation of an authentic conservative party where the likes a Romney, McCain or Bush would simply not qualify for the nomination.

    Honest and authentic Burkean conservatism shouldn’t be so difficult to actually find in a Party which offers itself as conservative … but in the GOP it is increasingly rare and almost always suppressed.

    I, along with millions of others have simply grown weary of the highhandness and dishonesty of those for whom power is itself the aim … rather than service within the constraints of the Constitution.

    As to your continued insistence regarding Mormonism and the conspiracy of hatred you seem so certain of. Rest easy … I really spend little time regarding it unless I encounter someone with honest questions, someone with ears to hear … or have it thrust upon me with the insistence that my convictions regarding its error are bigotry.

  • Laura

    You have yet to give proof of any unethical behavior, or anything to dissuade you from supporting him other than your antagonistic comments toward his religion. (I am gleaning that information from your posts on other articles. ) All this leads me to believe that I hit a little too close to home. Hope you have a good night, Larry.

  • Nancy French

    Ha! Larry, my heart sank when I read that thing about David shooting at people. Then, I read the rest. :)

    Thanks for making my pulse stop for a moment.

  • Mark in Cali

    Excellent article, thank you!

  • Larry

    Laura, why answer your questions then. You apparently enjoy an omniscience that renders dialogue unnecessary … or, are you simply beyond the reach of argument?

  • Larry

    LOL … sorry for the start. You know, I’ve read David’s stuff for years on NRO … very, very good. Though I’m clearly not enamored of the Mitt stuff, I HAVE enjoyed your offerings on “The Home Front” as well.

    I look forward to the end of the primary season … and the end internecine squabbling. Till then …

  • Nancy French

    Thanks, Larry.

    (I literally read that part aloud to David, horrified! Then, he said, “Read the rest.”)


  • Laura

    What? That doesn’t even make sense. Or relate to anything we were discussing, for that matter.

  • Larry

    “All this leads me to believe that I hit a little too close to home. Hope you have a good night, Larry”

    That despite my remarks otherwise. I did like the “Have a good night Larry” part though … that was nice. You have a good night too, Laura