Newt Gingrich Can't Beat Barack Obama
This web site is dedicated to warning conservatives that if Newt Gingrich is the Republican presidential nominee, that President Obama is virtually guaranteed to be reelected. It will serve as a warehouse for the vast amount of evidence which backs up this stark reality as well as a means of spreading this message to like-minded conservatives.
And in honor of the absurd controversy over Mitt Romney’s offer of a $10,000 bet to Rick Perry, we are putting our money where our facts are and are offering a $10,000 bet (with 2 to 1 odds!) to the first prominent conservative who is willing to risk ten grand that Gingrich will beat Obama if he is the nominee (we are rather confident no one will be gutsy enough to take this bet, which will further prove our point).
This web site (and the bet) is the work of conservative filmmaker/commentator John Ziegler, who is probably best known for his hit documentary film about the 2008 election, “Media Malpractice; How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted.”
Ziegler has an extensive background in political prognostication as a nationally known talk show host and as political polling analyst for a top university. In both 2000 and 2004, he correctly publicly predicted the outcome of the election down to a couple of Electoral College votes.
In 2008, he purchased the domain name www.HowObamaGotElected.com well before Obama had even secured the nomination.
In 2010, against his professional self interest, he became the first “Sarah Palin Supporter” to come out on national television and say that there was no way she could beat President Obama and that she should not run. In 2011, he made a similarly early and prescient prediction about the doomed candidacy of Herman Cain.
Ziegler is not affiliated with any campaign, though he does strongly believe that the only current Republican candidate with a legitimate chance to beat Obama is Mitt Romney. His only agenda here is making sure that conservatives know what they are getting themselves into if they nominate Newt Gringrich.
As for Gingrich and Ziegler, they have only met once, though Gingrich did mention Ziegler and his post-2008 polling data in his book To Save America and they have both produced documentaries through the same conservative “company,” Citizens United.
Why Gingrich Can’t Beat Obama
The primary purpose of the website is to educate people who want to see Obama defeated that nominating Newt Gingrich would make that nearly impossible. So before we deal with why he isn’t close to being the best conservative in the race, we will expose the issues/reasons which should make the second part of this argument irrelevant.
After all, if he can’t win, then it doesn’t really matter (unless you are looking for a redo of the 1964 massacre, but without Barry Goldwater’s ideological consistency) how good a conservative he is, or what kind of president he would actually be.
Make no mistake; the evidence is overwhelming that Gingrich would not only lose to Obama, but that he would likely get crushed.
The primary reason for this is that there is no way for him to win the battle for the wide swath of independent voters who don’t pay much attention to politics and who are most influenced only by the headlines that are easily understood. Unfortunately, these are the same voters who usually decide who wins our modern presidential elections.
There are several layers to this argument with regard to Newt, so we will deal with them in order of how obvious they are.
First off, Newt Gingrich is a fat, old, angry, white male named Newt who is perceived (wrongly) as a far right conservative. Right there he is nearly unelectable, but since Obama is so vulnerable (though not nearly as much a many grassroots conservatives believe) if that was the extent of his baggage he could still pull off a victory.
Unfortunately, this is not nearly the case.
The second layer is equally obvious but seems to have been forgotten by many conservatives. Gingrich was forced to resign as Speaker of the House when it was revealed that he was cheating on his second wife (with his third) while leading the charge to impeach President Clinton for lying about a sexual affair.
While Gingrich rightly counters that Clinton was impeached for acts that had nothing to do with cheating on his wife, as this CBS news article points out, that is a distinction the media will have no interest in giving credibility, and which will be beyond the intellectual grasp of most independent voters who decide presidential elections. For many nonpartisan voters, this issue alone will be “game, set, match” for Obama.
This combined with the fact that Newt is now on his third wife will give the media and the comedians more than enough fodder to turn Newt into a complete joke. The fact that his third wife has a bad case of “crazy eyes,” talks like a Stepford wife, and controls him to the point where he had a huge line of credit to Tiffany’s (a story which also has a damaging lobbying element to it) already has the same lefty comedians who destroyed Palin practicing for Newt. (Note the reference in that comedy bit to his fake Twitter follower “scandal,” which will also help cement the “this guy is a joke” narrative.)
Callista may be a great person for all I know, and if Newt was a Democrat none of these things would fair game for the media, but, sadly, this is not the case and the reality is that she would be a significant liability.
At Citizens United productions (run by Gingrich sycophant Dave Bossie, who was fired by Republicans on the Whitewater investigation for manipulating tapes to make the Clintons look bad) it was well known when I worked for them that Callista Gingrich was a complete nut who controlled Newt to the point where she forced him to put her in his movies despite the fact that she was horrible on camera. (Interestingly, Newt’s tendency to switch positions based on who is paying him is illustrated through his evolving stance on the issues related to the much misunderstood and largely bogus Citizens United Supreme Court case.)
Then, of course, there is the issue of his first two wives. Yes, the story of him serving his second wife divorce papers on her death bed is a myth but as we have learned from the assassination of Palin, media created myths still have lots of power to destroy a candidacy.
But the media won’t even need to dredge up that old storyline because, unfortunately for Newt, his second wife is still very much alive and has been VERY outspoken about exactly why there is “no way” Newt will ever be president.
When you have ex-wives, they better at least still endorse you, especially when you are a Republican running against a media darling like Obama. Should Newt be nominated, the media will make sure that every American will know what his second wife thinks of him.
Which leads to one of the biggest problems Newt would have in a general election: the gender gap would be massive.
Newt would have more than three strikes against him with women. First, a majority of women already vote for Democrats on a good day and they still tend to like Obama personally. Second, at least one of his multiple ex-wives doesn’t think he should be president. Third, his appearance and demeanor obviously don’t exactly appeal to the majority of women.
But the capper to this issue, which most voters don’t seem to know or remember, is that he has made at least one statement (for which there is video) which will offend virtually every non Republican woman to the point where I can’t see how they would vote for him over Obama.
In 1995, he told a class he taught that he questioned whether women were fit for military combat because they get “infections” once a month. Once again, unlike the many statements Obama made in his career which could have haunted him in 2008, the news media will make sure that every voter is familiar with that baffling episode (which will also open the door to the narrative of Newt saying lots of crazy stuff, which we will further address later) .
Then there is the corruption issue. The best/worst example of the many problems Gingrich would have in this area comes in the realm of Freddie Mac.
You may recall that at one of the debates he called for Barney Frank and Chris Dodd to be put in jail for their role in the scandal that played a large role in the 2008 financial collapse. Then it was revealed that Newt himself was paid at least $1.6 million by Freddie Mac, which he laughably claimed, while initially allowing people to be significantly misled about the dollar figure, was for his services as a “historian.” Even disgraced lobbyist/felon Jack Abramoff has called Gingrich’s role here scandalous.
Unbelievably, when Romney called him out on this, Gingrich inexplicably didn’t attempt to defend his actions (perhaps because he couldn’t), but instead he lashed out at Romney for engaging in actual capitalism. Both Brit Hume and Charles Krauthammer, each highly respected in conservative/moderate circles, took Newt to the woodshed on Fox News over Gingrich’s apparent knee-jerk leftist/socialist attack
Once again, while this story has gotten some play in the Republican primary, it will be talked about in a far more comprehensive manner in the general election when the really sharp knives come out. This is especially the case because it fits a pattern/narrative of corruption already set by Gingrich during the rest of his political career.
Not only did Gingrich resign from congress in disgrace, but his was also the first Speaker of the House to ever be “convicted” (overwhelmingly) of congressional ethic charges.
Nancy Pelosi has already threatened to reveal more of what she knows from that investigation, before seemingly backing off over confidentiality concerns. Regardless of what Pelosi does, there is already more enough in the public record for the media to use this investigation to completely discredit Gingrich.
For a preview of coming attractions, just watch MSNBC do a rather effective job of destroying him simply using old news clips. In the general election, this stuff wouldn’t just be on MSNBC, but on nearly every TV channel.
Yet another problem for Gingrich in a general election is that far too many conservatives or Republicans, both real and perceived, have made extremely negative statements about him both personally and professionally which will provide a treasure trove for numerous effective Obama campaign ads and news media stories (will there be much of a difference between the two?).
There is an unwritten rule of modern politics which (as proven by Joe Lieberman’s largely ignored support of John McCain) only really applies to Republicans which says that if too many prominent people from your side say you shouldn’t be elected, then you shouldn’t be elected. This rule was in full effect with regard to Sarah Palin and the many “conservative” sell outs who helped destroy her candidacy in exchange for some liberal media love.
It isn’t even 2012 yet and already there are more than enough commentators in this category with regard to Newt Gingrich. When you read these examples just imagine yourself as an Obama campaign consultant and try to keep from drooling.
George Will on video
Conservative congressman Peter King
Former conservative congressman turned MSNBC sell out Joe Scarborough
Conservative bomb thrower Ann Coulter
Reason magazine's version of "The Case Against Newt"
Former Reagan speech writer turned perpetual sell out Peggy Noonan
Tea Party U.S. Senator Rand Paul
A former GOP House staffer says that his leadership as Speaker was “a disaster.”
The conservative National Review blisters Newt's history
In short, a general election campaign with Newt as the nominee would play right into Obama’s hands. Conservatives need this election to be a referendum on Obama. Newt as the nominee makes it instead all about Newt and provides the media with more ammunition than they will know what to do with.
This is why campaign experts from BOTH sides overwhelmingly believe that Newt would be the weakest Republican candidate and why team Obama can barely contain their glee at the prospect of running against him. Brit Hume of Fox News has articulated the causes for this reality as well as anyone.
There is a very good reason why a “generic Republican” does better in polls against Obama than any actual Republican. It is because, thanks to the corrupt media climate, a Republican starts at a certain threshold based on the political environment at the time and then goes down based on how much the media is able to destroy them.
The evidence is overwhelming that Mitt Romney gets damaged far less than any other candidate in this process. The current polls showing Newt doing almost as well against Obama as Romney are irrelevant. Most nonpartisans presently have no idea about Newt’s history.
The only reason the difference between Mitt and Newt on this front isn’t currently statically greater is that people (especially the seniors who temporarily comprise Newt’s base) have simply forgotten the facts about Gingrich and the media is in no hurry to remind them… yet.
This New York Post column does a good job taking readers down memory lane. And the New York Times’ Maureen Dowd previews what the general election coverage of Newt would be like once the gloves come off for real.
But wait, some conservatives claim loudly that Newt is such a good debater that he will be able to expose to the public the fraud that Obama really is and will win the election with a knock out blow to Obama’s Kenyan, anti-colonial solar plexus.
Really? Have any of the people making this claim ever watched a presidential debate?
They are hardly substantive affairs and most importantly the unofficial rules created by the media make it impossible for anyone to really attack Obama without enormous backlash. Even if Newt hit a grand slam (he wouldn’t), the media would simply make the issue Newt’s “temperament” and whether he was being “unpresidential,” if not downright “racist.”
Take Newt’s defense of his “Palestinians are an invented people” statement at the ABC debate. Conservatives probably loved his feisty rebuttal, but the very same episode in a general election debate would be used as evidence that Gingrich simply doesn’t have the disposition or discipline to be president, especially in comparison to “Mr. Cool,” Barack Obama.
There is also the issue of the Electoral College map which should make every Republican primary voter take a long pause before casted a vote for Newt. Look at what happens in the key state of Colorado if Gingrich is the nominee (long before the media even goes into their inevitable full court press against him). This is a state Obama must win and even though he is very beatable there, he already easily defeats Newt.
Two other key states are New Hampshire and Nevada. If Obama wins all the “Kerry” states from 2004 plus Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa and Nevada, then New Hampshire would essentially provide him the margin of victory.
There is zero doubt that Romney, thanks to his ties to New Hampshire and the high Mormon population of Nevada, would be in a FAR better position to pick up at least one of those states against the president, which would likely mean Obama would be packing his bags. Thanks to his father being a former governor there, Mitt can also make a far stronger play for Michigan than Newt ever could.
So, by any rational or objective measure, it is rather clear that Newt Gingrich would be very likely to lose to Obama in a general election, especially in comparison to Romney.
This is a reality that even "Youtube Adolf Hitler" realizes in hilarious fashion.
But for many conservatives who understandably want to stand on principle, there is the even bigger issue of why they would even want Newt Gingrich to be president.
Why Conservatives Should Not Want Newt to be President
One of the many reasons that Mitt Romney has received so little support so far from the conservative base is that he is perceived as a moderate who could not be trusted to follow through with a conservative agenda if elected. Feeling burned by the Bush and McCain disasters and emboldened by the apparent (though vastly overrated) successes of the Tea Party, many want someone who they know will fight for the conservative ideology.
While totally understandable, this sentiment is ironic and wrongheaded to a bizarre degree.
First of all, one could make the argument that Romney has so boxed himself in that he, more than any other candidate, would be forced to govern as a conservative. For instance, given his history with healthcare, if he didn’t manage to kill Obamacare, then there is almost no doubt that he would be successfully challenged in the 2016 primaries.
But more to the point, based on his record, Newt Gingrich may be the very last prominent Republican in existence who deserves to benefit from this totally justified high degree of skepticism from conservatives.
Since healthcare is the issue that seems to be dragging Romney down the most, let’s start there.
Based on the treatment Romney has understandably gotten from conservatives in this realm, this issue alone should totally disqualify Newt Gingrich from being the Republican presidential nominee. For, in reality, considering that he never had to deal with the mostly socialist Massachusetts legislature, Newt’s record here is far worse than Mitt’s.
Most of the healthcare debate has focused on whether the government should have the right to force people to buy health insurance. On this issue, until he actually thought he had a chance to win the presidential nomination, Newt Gingrich has been relatively consistent and FAR to the LEFT of any candidate in the GOP field (including Romney, who at least has been against the mandate on the federal level).
Here is Newt on his support for healthcare mandates in 1994
Here is Newt on his support for healthcare mandates in 2003.
Here is Newt on his support for healthcare mandates in 2005
Here is Newt on his support for healthcare mandates in 2007
Here is President Obama quoting Newt during the healthcare debate of 2009
Perhaps even worse than his consistent support for a healthcare mandate is the fact his pro-mandate think tank received $37 million from the healthcare industry. Gee, I wonder why. (Newt’s willingness to do/say whatever someone pays him to, makes the most interesting aspect of the $1 million offer for him to get out of the race by talk show host Michael Savage, for whom I have filled in, the fact that Newt would likely consider the deal if it was just a little more lucrative, or at least came in the form of a Tiffany's gift certificate.)
Then there is the matter of his strong support for the massive Medicare prescription drug give away (just a few years after saying he was hoping/expecting Medicare to “wither on the vine”), which marked the end of the Bush administration pretending to be fiscally conservative. This act caused congresswomen Michele Bachmann to, rightly, refer to Newt as a “frugal socialist” on the Glenn Beck show.
Directly related to this of course is Newt’s infamous (though somehow now largely forgotten) statement on “Meet the Press” that Paul Ryan’s proposed reform of Medicare was “right wing social engineering” and no better than the “left wing” variety, and the outrage that ensued immediately afterwards.
Mitt Romney has even released an effective ad on this topic.
The sad reality is that this was not some sort of gaffe by Newt, but rather a natural manifestation of a long history of supporting big government “solutions.” How many conservatives know that Newt has strongly praised both FDR and the New Deal in two different books? How many know that Newt has called FDR the greatest president of the 20th century? How many small government conservatives would still support him for president if they did?
Unfortunately, Newt’s left wing tendencies don’t appear to be simply a desire to forge “bipartisan compromise” (meaning Republicans surrender), but rather as a far more troubling pattern of wanting/needing to be accepted/respected/loved by the liberal elite. This is by far the most dangerous variety of Republican as they will sell out the cause far faster then any other species.
While Mitt wants to be liked by conservatives, Newt wants to be loved by liberals. Which of those impulses would you trust less? The choice should be clear.
There may be no better/worse example of what happens when Newt’s never ending desire to be accepted by the Washington elite inevitably gets out of control than his actions with regard to the “global climate change” debate.
I have always felt that Newt’s “Help! I have been taken hostage!” commercial with Nancy Pelosi backing Al Gore’s campaign for government action against Global Warming (or whatever the liberals are calling it these days) was the one piece of evidence which would make his nomination politically impossible.
Newt has since, rightly, said this was the dumbest thing he has ever done, but that doesn’t come close to getting him off the hook (the Romney campaign has smartly devoted an entire web site to the topic, though it doesn’t go far enough). Once again, this was not a momentary “lapse” (how one lapses into taping a global warming commercial with Nancy Pelosi seems as inexplicable as how someone “falls into” an affair) , but rather a strong indication of what makes Newt tick both psychologically and politically.
Despite his absurd claims to the contrary in the debates, he has been unambiguously in favor of the dreaded “cap and trade” concept, better known to conservatives as “tax and trade.” He flat out embarrassed himself by doing a “debate” with John Kerry in 2007 on the issue of climate change and shocking Kerry by actually being to the left of the Massachusetts Democrat on certain proposals.
That same year he spoke passionately in favor of government support for ethanol to fight global warming, which almost no one still thinks makes any sense. And he once came up with one of his celebrated “ideas” to “fix” the problem using giant mirrors, which now would easily be used to further the narrative that he is just plain weird.
But Newt’s flirtations with the far left hardly end with Pelosi and Kerry. How many conservatives are aware of this video that Newt did with Al Sharpton, openly praising the man found responsible by a court for falsely claiming rape in the infamous Tawana Brawley case?
This is your conservative presidential savior?!
One of the problems with educating people about the real Newt is that there is just simply too much damning evidence to sift through (thus, the need for this web site). The best videos to watch which expose Newt as the fraud he is from the right, come from, of all people, Glenn Beck and Ron Paul.
Paul’s “Serial Hypocrisy” ad should be mandatory viewing for every Republican primary voter and his follow up ad “Selling Access” may be even better.
Beck’s rather gentle (but effective) radio interview with Newt details many of the issues about him which should cause conservatives alarm. Please note that in his lame defense of his global warming position, Newt claims here that he has never believed in the “fantasies” of Al Gore, but fails to mention that the Nancy Pelosi commercial was sponsored by Gore’s own foundation!
Since Beck is credited with much of the rise of the Tea Party, it should also be noted that the idea that the ultimate anti-establishment, anti-government movement should play a pivotal role in nominating the quintessential corrupt, big government, Washington insider is a cosmic joke of epic proportions. Beck himself has said that it is so ridiculous that it almost has to be motivated by racism.
If you have gotten this far into the website then you certainly have been fully warned about what awaits us if Newt Gingrich is the Republican presidential nominee. Both conservatives and liberals have been unified in their predictions that it is just a matter of time before his personal and political implosion begins. Regardless of when it ends, it will not end well. Therefore, for the sake of the country, it must end now, before it is too late.
At least now you know the facts and have been shown the path ahead. The rest is up to you.
Newt Gingrich…
Unreliable, Undisciplined, Unprincipled, Unpresidential, Unelectable.