Mona Charen objects to being called a RINO:
Getting lots of mail accusing me of RINOism. Why is it that people who support Newt believe they are backing the more conservative candidate? Where is the evidence that Gingrich is more conservative than Romney? Gingrich has supported embryonic stem cell research, Medicare Part D, global warming legislation, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, an industrial policy, amnesty for some illegal immigrants, and ethanol subsidies, among many other apostasies.
Yeah, so he's a lying, flip-flopping, say-anything scumbag. He is a politician, so what part of this is news?
* * *
People believe Gingrich is a conservative because he talks a good game, saying what they most want to hear never minding his actual history. Four years ago, despite his rampant RINOism on most issues, Mike Huckabee had a strong conservative constituency because he was a ‘pro-life’ ordained Baptist minister. There was no explaining to his supporters that he was ‘conservative’ only on that issue. They just couldn't — and wouldn't — believe it. Facts are stubborn, but they're no match for desperate human passion.
Update 2:19pm: Jay Nordlinger chimes in:
Mona, I get some of the same mail you do, from people who think that Newt is the Last Word in Conservatism. I’m learning, more and more, that political perceptions have a great deal to do with style. If you slash and shout, many people think of you as ‘conservative’ or ‘right-wing’. If you say right-wing things in a calm, polite way, you may be seen as a moderate. ...
I used to say that Richard Armitage seemed right-wing, looked right-wing. He was built like a brick you-know-what. I think William Safire once referred to him as ‘a State Department source, with no neck’. But Armitage was at one, philosophically, with Colin Powell.
But it's not as if the GOP is producing a good alternative to the talented Mr. Gingrich. Against Gingrich we have the Three Stooges: Romney is at best a flip-flopper with RINO tendencies, Paul is bat-shit nuts and at least tolerant of racism in his own newsletter, and Santorum is a social statist, so what's a voter to do? For all that, though, I think Romney would win pretty easily (barring a third-party run from, say, Paul, in which case Obama wins), Santorum might win (depending on how ‘disaffected’ Obama's base is), Gingrich is unlikely to win, and Paul is relying on his base of UFO-logists and High Times subscribers. I'm left hoping for a February surprise.
By the way, I don't credit anything Pelosi is saying — or carefully not saying — about former-Speaker Gingrich. She's lying, baldly (and badly), about having any ‘dirt’ on him from her time on the House ethics committee. The only thing the committee could get on Gingrich was his refiling with the committee of an unintentionally erroneous financial document (related to a PAC, as memory serves) which had been correct the first time. The incorrect document actually cast him in a worse light than the correct document did, but committee rules are (or were, in the late 1990s) obtusely strict on this point; inaccurate filings are an ‘offense’ no matter the intent. After great (and unnecessary) expense to the taxpayer, all the original charges were dismissed by the committee and the IRS, leaving only the meta-offense, and Newt was duly embarrassed. It was, to put a fine point on the matter, a political hit by a political low-life. The low-life's name is David Bonior (D-Mich.), if you care to remember. Your guess is as good as mine as to why the committee didn't sanction Bonior for slander and the egregious waste of time and money.
Comments