rendered in a medium appropriate for its sobriety:
I’m particularly amused by the sheer chutzpah of Newt Freaking Gingrich wailing about dishonesty and calling other people liars. The ease and vulgarity with which he does it, and the unblinking way in which it does not even seem to occur to him that the measure he uses will be measured to him persuade me that this man is a sociopath.
Sociopaths, just in case you didn’t know, are not good people to put in charge of our nation’s military and nuclear capabilities. They are also, by the way, poor champions for Christians to latch on to if they wish to be taken seriously by a rapidly de-Christianizing culture.
Gingrich’s strength as the tribune of conservative rage at liberal elites trumped his long history of personal failings. He violated the very family values and the sanctity of marriage that social conservatives profess to believe in, but it was much more important that Gingrich was the enemy of their enemy.
However, as the regrettable folk hero Sarah Palin is again demonstrating, a large number of conservative Christians no longer seem to be interested in conserving the Christian tradition. As long as it “annoys a liberal“, Palin and her acolytes are fine with that, even if it’s stupid, corrupt, dangerous, and no more related to conserving actual Christian teaching or morals than Gingrich was when he took millions in graft from Freddie Mac. Indeed, it’s now about the same identity politics the Left was about 30 years ago. Question Palin or Gingrich or one of the other tribal elders and the response is not “What are the merits of the argument?” but “You must be a damn librul or you wouldn’t question Sarah Palin.”
This stuff can’t self-destruct fast enough.
Tom does have one point when he quotes his rendition of “Newt” as saying brains are mere appendages. Doesn’t the last five or so elections back that up? He may be on to something here!!
I recently read a book called “Democracy: the God the Failed”. On election night this year I am going to sit quietly and hope that some Habsburg heir, supported by the Knights of Malta, will take over the country and lead crowds of cheering Americans waving banners that read “Subsidiarity and Solidarity NOW!” into the Capitol while Katherine Sebelius hands out suicide pills to her cohorts….
Yes because reconquista-era Spain was a lovely place to live, especially if you were a Jew or Muslim.
Ohhh, I know! Maybe we should all work to live in that paradise known as colonial Latin America?
Ohh, how ’bout the Holy Roman Empire under Charlemagne? Such a paradise of liberty and equality!
Heh. Nice response.
How ’bout the Empire under Sidious?
The Klingon Empire?
The Dominion?
The ROMULANS (a covert reference to the ROMAN church)?
Hogwarts under Snape?
Okay, ridiculousness over….
Please ‘reality check’, stop before I start singing “I’m a troll woldy woll, “I’m a troll woldy woll, “I’m a troll woldy woll and I’m going to eat you for my supper.
I’m not a fan of the monarchy either but please continue you’re crotch related rants. You’re giving me a perfect excuse to laugh out loud whilst rolling on the floor, clutching my abdomen in hysterics (I believe this is called ROFL in internet slang)
How about the Japanese Americans in 1941-45? Straw man much?
But I could be the first SPACE LAWYER Mark!
WILL NO ONE THINK OF WHAT *I* WANT?!!?
When are you going to stop being so selfish and start thinking about ME?
Reality Check, do you support Obama because of his three wars or because he supports warrantless surveillance? Do prefer his stance on indefinite detainment of US citizens or bailing out poorly managed corporations? Do you like his endorsement of assassinating US and foreign civilians or that he has kept Guantanamo open? What are your feelings on jobs?
Hey, that’s right. Reality Check is questioning things. HE must be a damn libral! I’ll be he’s one of them sissy college boys too…. Get him boys!
Reality Check’s ruling passion is her crotch. All else must give way to that. All other people exist only to threaten or be used as human shields for it. The other matters are off topic. She must return to the attack and make sure to minimize all that might make this anything other than the only thing that matters. So don’t distract her.
Yikes, man. You got the lead-shot knuckle gloves on today! I know nothing of this entity called “Reality Check” but I must admit, I’m now….mildly intrigued. You could wind up becoming a shadchen for us lost souls!
Or not. I’m feeling more political today than anything else….
Kenneth – see Reality Check’s non-sequitur comments in several other threads for the background to Mark’s reply.
Not that the present comment was a non-sequitur, entirely – although blaming the Habsburgs for whatever gender inequities obtained in Frankish social structures in the Carolingian era or for the treatment of Jews and Muslims after the Reconquista might be a stretch.
Perhaps RC was simply trying to put some perspective on the general ‘Any Place is Better than America mantra’ that one hears every now and then.
Was something deleted? I don’t see anything about Reality Check supporting Obama.
Well, true, but if you poke fun at, or question the party line of the ultra-conservative “Real Americans,” it’s inferred that you would go in for supporting Obama or socialism, or child sacrifice on pyramids or burning the flag. It’s what “that sort” does, after all.
My husband and I can’t believe we’re pulling for Mitt vis-a-vis Newt. The Tea Party crowd has truly attached itself to a terrible, flawed messenger. I can’t believe Newt feigns the innocent victim as he assaults Mitt’s largely productive business career and says this is about “character.” Mitt’s not his own.
And Rick Santorum, in spite of the flaws you (Mark Shea) cite, is really the closest thing to consistent conservative in his politics and personal life, a man of good character. He gets no traction . What he has said has been key.
Well, yeah. Paul and Santorum are the two that are remotely acceptable to me (the “remotely” part is for Santorum.)
Of course, the worst candidates are the most popular.
Gingrich means another 4 years of Obama. Romney probably means a slight improvement over Obama, but it’s hard to say what Romney really believes anyway.
To be honest, I think our country is doomed and the only candidates with a CHANCE to alter that are Paul and Santorum.
Romney has NO CORE BELIEFS. Romney is a corporate manager of the variety that broke the world economy. Romney trusts the “wisdom” of corporate elites. His only answer will be less regulation and more hollowing out of the middle & working class. Well as long as GDP is up, its all good.
Ron Paul is the only decent human being running on the Republican side. Santorum could be a good person. He needs a bit of help.
Dave, you are right to also mention Ron Paul and both Paul’s and Santorum’s imperfection. I find myself so puzzled that Southern evangelical voters who want conservatism would go for the repeat philanderer over the other decent family men. I recall an exit poll that showed that voters who cared about religious faith went in big #s for Newt over Mitt. Yet, they bypass Santorum who’s pretty clearly a religious man. One network speculated some anti-Mormon sentiments. But I see they didn’t choose the lifelong Catholic either. Did they think Newt still a Baptist (or whatever he was)? I saw it reported on CNN, here’s a Fox story. Odd, I think…
http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/south-carolina-exit-polls-show-debates-and-religion-playing-key-role-20120121-ncx
The Tea Party didn’t just make an unfortunate choice of messenger. As a movement, it created in itself an ecosystem, an atmosphere, which supported no other forms of life besides Newt and similar men. As all revolutionary movements must, the Tea Party started from anger. Also like most revolutionary movements, it never progressed beyond that. It’s long term vision is anger. It’s policy platform is anger. It’s political “strategy” is anger and so is its vetting process for candidates. Like ALL such revolutionary movements, it will devour itself and implode because it has no power to create, only destroy. It will collapse inward on itself like a black hole, taking with it anyone in its orbit.
Can you say Chicago 1968? Prove to me those agitators are not running the show now.
I’ve met a great many of the 68 agitators. Most of them went on to become clockwork establishment cubicle corporate automatons, as most of us do sooner or later. They mostly now dissipate what’s left of their 401Ks on grandchildren and Burning Man. But what I say about the Tea Party also held true for the angry left. They too imploded into nothing because at the extremes they stood for nothing but anger. Remember the Symbionese Liberation Army or the Weathermen? The all produced a big fat zilch in the way of lasting effect on the political climate, as will the Tea Party.
The Tea Party, at least its Floridian Branch, pines for the Space Race supported by the government. Every local editorial discusses that on the NE coast. The frequent claim is the binding of one’s desire to see Space Jobs returning and the “ideals” of the Tea Party.
What kind of philosophy is that? Can the Tea Party be taken seriously as anything coherent, or just a group of white Americans of a certain age.
The right wing better educate itself better on moderate (which Obama is) politics and true liberals and even the other flavor on that side of the political spectrum, the left. Continued ignorance on these matters is beginning to look willful, and normally intelligent folks are looking ridiculous.
Such histrionics about people who have a vaguely different viewpoint that isn’t so different from GW Bush.
Such silliness, like calling Obama a radical, or the Anchoress’s apoplexy thinking about Saul Alinsky truly demonstrate that the right wing doesn’t know anything about half of America.
No. The agitators of 1968 are not Geithner, nor the straight-laced and uptight Obama, nor Panetti. Seriously, get a grip.
Kenneth, if by libral you mean Democrat or Republican. Both partys’ establishments are essentially identical in terms of policy. Every charge I leveled at Obama could be applied to Santorum, Romney, Gingrich, or Bush.
“Reality Check, do you support Obama because of his three wars or because he supports warrantless surveillance? Do prefer his stance on indefinite detainment of US citizens or bailing out poorly managed corporations? Do you like his endorsement of assassinating US and foreign civilians or that he has kept Guantanamo open?”
Yes, because as we know Newt and Mitt are so much better on these options. Frankly, my neighbor’s shih tzu would be better as President than anything the GOP or Dems have to offer.
What’s the pooch’s name, and was it born in this country? Let’s start a write-in campaign.
Every election season, I tell myself, “They can’t possibly get any worse than the lost crop of candidates.” And every election season, the parties set the bar even lower. And so the GOP front runners are sociopath with delusions of grandeur and a corporate carpet bagger masquerading as Smilin’ Joe.
Watching the GOP debates and attack ads, I am remind of what Chesterton wrote in HERETICS:
“Our modern politicians claim the colossal license of Caesar and the Superman, claim that they are too practical to be pure and too patriotic to be moral…”
I love the cartoon! Just last week I was in the break room with a buddy of mine and the Newt was on the screen. I turned to my friend and said, “look at his eyes, he looks like a reptile… I’m just expecting a reptilian tongue to flicker out and lick the mic and any point”. I’m glad I’m not the only one.
BTW, Mark, I can’t help getting the feeling that you are baiting Newtists whenever you publish a post on the topic. Because, if I were a Newtist, I’d probably be creating a Mark Shea voodoo doll right now.
Heh! These Gingrich supporters are a danger to our country! Perhaps we could create a Newtist colony!?
I propose Nauru, an 8-square mile island in Micronesia, in the middle of nowhere in the southwestern Pacific. It served as a never-never-land detention center for Australia, and now that that business is gone and the phosphate mines are tapped, they need help, badly. Their GDP of $36 million a year could easily be doubled just by a few of Newt’s speaking engagement fees, and it’s a nice little tax haven. It’s national motto is “God’s Will shall be First.” Now what social conservative wouldn’t love that?
kenneth,
LOL! I like the way you think!
By a weird coincidence I was really interested in Nauru for a period in my teens.
Richard,
“If by libral you mean Democrat or Republican. Both partys’ establishments are essentially identical in terms of policy. Every charge I leveled at Obama could be applied to Santorum, Romney, Gingrich, or Bush.”
But yeah, good point.
To everyone here: don’t expect me to defend Obama. I vote Green Party and could care less about the Democrats. The Democrats and Republicans are the same party, The Corporate Party. Well, really, it’s the Evangelical Nationalist Party vs. the Imperial Centrist Party, but you get my point.
At least we agree on SOMETHING!
You had me till the Evangelical part. The GOP is playing the Religious Right for stooges. They no more care about them than Democrats really care about the middle class.
It’s about the money, and precious little else. The politicians aren’t even the real problem. It’s the people pulling the pols’ strings.
Yes and no. Evangelicals have defined this form of self-righteous play-to-the-base, inserting itself so that they can be players. The Moral Majority, Ralph Reed, Jerry Falwell all crafted the form of political appeals that have to be made to the Evangelicals. Evangelicals inserted themselves in a deliberative organized fashion in the days of Newt’s ascendancy.
Evangelicals were once players and are now played. Mbutnitnis thengame they devised and are just now being beaten. And its their own fault.
“But its the game they devised.”
What an ugly sentence that was!
“I’m particularly amused by the sheer chutzpah of Newt Freaking Gingrich wailing about dishonesty and calling other people liars. The ease and vulgarity with which he does it, and the unblinking way in which it does not even seem to occur to him that the measure he uses will be measured to him persuade me that this man is a sociopath.”
The conclusion is out of proportion to the evidence. Many people who are clearly not sociopaths are rash in asserting that other people are lying.
I recall a recent blog post in which the argument seemed to evolve into what sever psychological disorder afflicted Newt Gingrich. I tend to lean toward other commentators in that Newt suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder (ICD 9 301.81), or rather he has this personality disorder and the rest of us suffer from it.
They probably all have it – just with different degrees of success at hiding it. It’s probably necessary to even think about running for president of the US.
I get the feeling that Ron Paul isn’t crazy but actually wants to make America a better place. However I do agree that the nature of politics probebly draws Narcisicists in a way that being a taxidriver doesn’t.
Y’know – I think I agree about Ron Paul. But he’s almost running as a conscience vote more than a guy who desperately wants to be president. He obviously has the ego to do it at all; but he’s about what he’s about, rather than being all about winning.
Which is almost a reason to vote for him.
I think his isolationism is nuts, and I’m afraid he would cut my beloved Corps back to the two battalions authorized by the Continental Congress in 1775; but we might need his kind of nuts as a corrective to what we’ve been doing.
Ron Paul definitely wants to be President. I don’t doubt that in the least. But I do think he’s doing it out of a sincere patriotism, rather than a sincere desire for more power, which in itself sets him apart from the rest of the people on that stage.
I STRONGLY disagree with Paul on a whole lot of things. His Libertarianism scares me. But he is by far the least odious person running in this election.
Mark — wow. Sociopath, really. By your definition, what politician isn’t a sociopath? Your blind hatred of Gingrich is astonishing. The reality is it is going to be Obama vs. one of the Republicans (most likely the Mormon Romney — which should fill you with joy if for the simple fact that it is not Gingrich.) God forbid a broken and penitent man who has come to the Church and confessed his sin be allowed to serve in public office. Not for you, Mark — you only support the perfect upright one politicians who haven’t been caught or forced to admit their infidelity and sin or those who have no chance of winning. No forgiveness in the land of Shea — none. The result: You are pro-Obama or pro-Romney which is really pro-Obama — whether you admit it or not. Edsall says Gingrich is angry and then dismisses him and the reason for the anger entirely. What was the point of linking that? Edsall is a liberal flake and hardly Catholic. Why should I listen to him? The article is hardly insightful. You say Gingrich is a liar (ironically, because he has admitted to his infidelity and confessed it to his Church — which is your Church) and a sociopath — what next are you going to label Gingrich? A deviant? A racist (which is what Tom T implies)? To what level will your hatred stoop? And to what end? I am supposed to just take on faith that you have established this elsewhere and previously — and take as truth that Gingrich is a sociopath because you have pronounced him one. Wow. If, as you claim, you are neither Democrat or Republican, why savagely attack one side and one opponent so vociferously. Why not just abstain from commenting with a plague on all their houses? You have a right to your opinion, sure. But, this is so far below what I expect from reading your blogs. You found a cartoon that compares Newt to a brain eating lizard — the joy you must feel in sharing this and further muddying the reputation of a man — you only think you know. Are you not guilty of the sin of calumny here? Shame on you. Really. I am astonished. If this truly represents you as an informed man of faith and morals, then you are no better than Reality Check. She tilts at the pro-abortion windmill. You tilt at the anti-Newt windmill. Come on. This is just lazy thinking, and you probably know it. You have to be more sophisticated than this.
I’m still wondering where he got his psych degree.
This isn’t an insult specific to him though. I really get tired of psychological or neurological terms being thrown at willy-nilly. “Sociopath”, “Passive Aggressive”, and “Asperger’s” in particular are overused/misused. Not every person one finds obnoxious, smarmy, and immoral is a “sociopath.” In fact from what I recall sociopaths, rather than being the clever villains you see on TV, are more often losers. Likewise simply being annoying doesn’t make one “passive aggressive.” And Asperger’s isn’t usually just “being a nerd, only moreso.
Going through the DSM checklist I find online maybe Gingrich displays enough to fit, but I’m not a psychologists so who knows.
Tom:
There’s plenty of forgiveness in the land of Shea. I have no problem with him approaching the altar–which is where forgiveness is found. I have plenty of problems with him being anywhere near the levers of power, because he gives no evidence at all of being a “broken and penitent man”. He exudes hubris, arrogance, dishonesty, and corruption. We are to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. Wisdom says that Newt does not give much in the way of the fruits we require in a good leader, even after his baptism. If his bishop welcomes him at the altar, that’s good enough for me. Not my job to judge his worthiness for communion. But it is my job to judge his worthiness for office and I think one has to be crazy to think him worthy of it. Doesn’t mean I will rejoice at the nomination of the Plastic Android. I think the whole field is terrible with Ron Paul the least objectionable one. But my view of voting is not primarily “How will your vote change the outcome of the election?” (Answer: it won’t). Rather it is “How will your vote change you?”: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/a-reader-asks-about-the-act-of-voting/ The popularity of a man like Newt Gingrich with Christian conservatives is further evidence for my conviction that the main effect of endless compromise of Christians faith for the sake of political expediency has been to conform Christians to the world rather than change the world for Christ.
Mark, I have no problem with anything you just wrote. I might even agree with parts of it. We have no real choices. I guess my objection is that your initial post wasn’t this level headed and sane. It came across as hateful, mean, and low brow. Perhaps Gingrich deserves such approbation, but I personally don’t know him enough to say such intentionally demeaning things about him. Is that fair enough? When you add in the cartoon — it really does cause the validity of your point to disappear in what appears to be nothing more than a personal attack. I still like and respect you — but, I hold you to a higher standard than those who comment in your combox. You’re supposed to be the level headed guy — not the guy kicking over the waste baskets and causing chaos. Thanks for your response.
Yes, but at times you deal in personal-sounding attacks on people you think are politically troubling. Or you believe the worst things of their personal life. I think that’s what Tom, and I, are probably displeased by.
That you think Gingrich would be a terrible President is not anything I mind much despite how it may have sounded to you at times. That you say’s he’s a promiscuous sociopath, and his supporters insane, is what I find ad-hominem and demeaning of others. It really shouldn’t be that hard to separate the two things. And it really shouldn’t be hard to limit to politically relevant, and proven, things to disparage Gingrich.
Now I do notice in the comboxes you’re sometimes more reasonable than in the post itself. Possibly you’re just being more strident in the post for affect, or for excitement, but still I think it’s negatively effective. Your posts on Gingrich often end up sounding like “I personally dislike this guy and believe the worst of him in all cases” which weakens any point you make in my opinion by making it a personality issue rather than something political or ideological.
Am I the only one who thinks the Romney picture at the end looks so very much like FDR?