Thursday, December 22, 2011

Levin On The Right-Wing Pundits' Insane War On Gingrich

This from Mark Levin, writing at the Right Scoop:

While Mark Levin is on vacation, he’s taken a little time to pen his thoughts on the ongoing disgusting attacks aimed at Newt Gingrich by those on the right, including Ann Coulter, George Will, and the NRO:

Is Newt really Satan?

If you read the comments on some conservative sites you might think so.

Newt Gingrich is not my first choice for the GOP nomination. I have said if I were voting today, I would vote for either Michelle Bachmann or Rick Santorum. But I don’t feel the need to smear Newt, either.

My friend Ann Coulter says she would vote for Ron Paul over Newt Gingrich. Really? Despite his racism, anti-Semiticism, hate-America first pronouncements, 9/11 truther nuttiness, etc., etc.? What about this?

What about this?

What about this?

What about this?

The list goes on and on. Coulter is undoubtedly aware of all of this. How can she or any sensible person, let alone conservative, advocate for or defend this? She backed Chris Christie, telling me that if Mitt Romney is nominated he will lose as John McCain did, and it will be my fault (along with Rush’s and Sean’s). Now, she insists that only Romney can win and the conservatives in the field cannot. Perplexing.

George Will is slamming away at Newt again today, having previously suggested he was a Marxist. A Marxist? Is this the same Will who supported George H. W. Bush and Howard Baker over Ronald Reagan in 1979? Somehow he not only missed the Reagan Revolution, but he initially doubted it and opposed it. Your judgment, George, does not match your conceit, with all due respect.

Over at NR, the hits keep coming. My friend Ramesh Ponnuru is waxing on priest-like about Newt and his Catholic faith. It’s a very odd piece. But Ramesh backs Romney, not Rick Santorum, who is not only Catholic but is clearly a more reliable conservative than Romney. Perplexing.

Most of Newt’s attackers have announced for Romney or are at least fronting for him, overlooking or excusing most of Romney’s deceits — which continue to this day and most recently involve his flip-flopping on the Iraq War. Moreover, Will has not said who he supports, having previously backed Mitch Daniels. No doubt Michelle Bachmann is just too wacky and inexperienced for his tastes, much as Reagan was too old and unsteady back in 1979.

Having consulted a number of friends and colleagues from the Reagan era, they agree with me that we’ve not seen this kind of daily attack on a legitimate Republican primary candidate in modern times, despite Newt’s weaknesses and faults. And most are disgusted by it.

Boy, does Levin have this one right. To call this disgusting is an understatement. In truth, these attacks are more vitriolic than what we saw directed at Sarah Palin by the left. If you haven't seen George Will's column today at WaPo - I am not going to link such trash - it is insanity on steroids. He proclaims that Gingrich is the "anti-conservative" (I assume that is a play on the "anti-Christ") because Gingrich wants to put an end to judicial activism. If Will's name wasn't at the top, I would have thought it written by Paul Krugman or Glen Greenwald.

I e-mailed the following to Will this afternoon:

Your hatred of Gingrich has been palpable from the start of the campaign. It has clearly clouded your judgment.

Conservatives have been shaking their fists impotently at the Courts for their judicial activism - their Politburo like unilateral amendments to the Constitution working fundamental changes to our nation - for the past fifty years. Heretofore, the only solution to the problem was thought to be electing Presidents who will appoint judges grounded in originalism. That has been less than successful. Enter Newt Gingrich, who has completely changed the paradigm on this critical issue. He wants to make a systemic fix that will permanently restore the Constitutional balance between the three branches of our government as such balance was envisioned by the Founders. Andrew McCarthy and Judge Mukasey certainly support that. Yet you would label the effort anti-conservative merely because it comes from Gingrich?

I've lost all respect for you at this point Mr. Will. Your determination to excoriate Gingrich at all cost has descended into farce with your most recent column.

Just out of curiosity, do you have any respect for the 11th Commandment?.

A hat tip to Daily Gator for this post, as well as a congrats for being cited by Levin. Visit the Daily Gator's site for some additional videos detailing the pundit's war on Gingrich.


OBloodyHell said...

>>> Now, she insists that only Romney can win and the conservatives in the field cannot. Perplexing.

Not to disagree with you in any way (nor to agree, either, mind you) but

a) Many do believe that the alternatives to Romney will lose to President Downgrade, esp. if the economy picks up at all, and esp given the endless left-wing smears that will permeate the mediasphere between now and election time. After all, the media is still repeating the "announced he was leaving his wife when she found out she had cancer" meme, despite the fact that it's been disproven a number of times, including a full and detailed denial by their daughter, who was present for it. Side note: I'd really like someone to bring a class-action suit against the media for willful fraud against the American populace in the repeating of long-debunked memes as still being truth.

b) Coulter IS entitled to change her opinion, though it is reasonable to ask for an explanation why.

GW said...

Hello OBH.

Certainly she is entitled to change her opinion. That said, her vitriolic attacks on Gingrich - and by my read, more than a few have been intellectually dishonest - are what I expect to see out of the left. Indeed, Krugman has no need to work now to demonize Gingrich, he can merely plagiarise the work of right wing pundits. I am disgusted beyond all belief. One can criticize Gingrich without resorting to the demonization and demagoguery of Will and Coulter. Krauthammer is a case in point.

Let's face facts - whoever is nominated is going to get the full mistreatment from the press this time around. Obama can't possibly run on his record, even if our moribund economy picks up a little bit. And indeed, the few times I've seen Romney really pressured, he has not done that well.

Romney would make a good President. We would see few major changes to the direction of our country, the systemic problems would largely be left alone, and the long range foreign problems relating to Islam would be ignored to the extent possible. He would bring our economy back to life.

Gingrich is much more high risk, high reward. I think Jonah Goldberg, Andy McCarthy and Thomas Sowell right - that these times present a window of opportunity that Gingrich is made for. He would have the same effect on our economy, but the changes he would try to bring to our ship of state would be deep and systemic. After near a century of progressivism building up in the machinery of our state and after half a century of judicial activism working fundamental change to the character of our country - we desperately need that to be cleaned out. I am quite willing to roll the dice on Gingrich. He is the only person I see with the intelligence and strength of character to accomplish what needs doing.

This will be the world's dirtiest campaign no matter who is nominated. But I think Gingrich can hold his own - better than Romney, actually. We will see.