Research
Print

Are right-wing bloggers abandoning Gingrich over Scozzafava endorsement?

October 27, 2009 1:08 pm ET — 14 Comments

Right-wing bloggers have recently attacked Newt Gingrich for endorsing Republican Dede Scozzafava over Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman in the special election to fill Army Secretary John McHugh's (R-NY) vacated congressional seat. On her blog, Michelle Malkin said "no thanks" to the possibility of a Gingrich 2012 presidential run, noting that he is the "most prominent GOP endorser of [the] radical leftist NY-23 congressional candidate," while at RedState.com, Erick Erickson reportedly wrote -- before removing the post -- that Gingrich "stands athwart history and pees on the legacy of 1994."

Right-wing bloggers question Gingrich's credibility as a conservative after endorsement

Malkin: Newt in 2012? "Noooooo, thanks." Following Gingrich's endorsement of Scozzafava and "musing" about a possible 2012 presidential run, Malkin blogged that Gingrich "shouldn't bother" considering a bid for the presidency. Malkin wrote: "The conservative base is wising up and pushing back. And constantly invoking Reagan isn't going to erase the damage Gingrich has done to his brand over the years by wavering on core issues and teaming up with some of the Left's biggest clowns."

RedState's Erickson: In endorsement, Gingrich "pees on the legacy of 1994." According to a post on Townhall.com, Erickson's initial reaction to "Newt endorsing Scozzafava" was that it "aligns him with Markos Moulitsas who declared Dede the most liberal candidate in the race." Erickson also complained that Gingrich's endorsement "aligns Newt" with Planned Parenthood, ACORN, NARAL, SEIU, the AFL-CIO, and "the gay marriage lobby." Erickson reportedly added: "Today Newt Gingrich stands athwart history and pees on the legacy of 1994, where it is no longer about principles, ideas, ideals, and integrity, but the raw acquisition of power for the sake of power. He aligns with a candidate to the left of the Democrat." Following complaints that his "original post ... was too rough on former Speaker Gingrich," Erickson modified his statements to say: "It is unhelpful when people like Newt Gingrich break away from the movement to endorse candidates who are also supported by Planned Parenthood, NARAL, ACORN, unions,, etc. and a woman who has several hundred thousands of dollars of tax liens and business failures galore to go with them. Perhaps I said more than I should have in my earlier post as I was rather angry about this turn of events when I wrote it. So let me now say that, at least, along with a great deal of the movement that has felt Newt to be one of us, I am disappointed."

Hot Air: Gingrich spent the "last of his credibility endorsing Scozzafava." An October 25 Hot Air post argued that the "rising star of Sarah Palin passes over the melancholy ruins of Newt Gingrich, who spent the last of his credibility endorsing Scozzafava. The Republican Party of Gingrich dies, unloved and irrelevant." The post added: "For the Republicans, it will never be 1996 or 2006 again. There's no more room for school-lunch debacles, government shutdown miscalculations, Trent Lott, George Allen, Mark Foley... or Newt Gingrich." Palin has announced her support for Hoffman.

RedState: "Gingrich crossed the Rubicon." In an October 25 post, RedState blogger "newsentinel" wrote: "I don't know how the majority of conservatives come down on Gingrich's position on Dede, on Hoffman, and on Palin. But I do know this. I don't know take kindly to being lectured to by a man who has just endorsed a flaming-liberal candidate, precisely the kind of Republican I don't give a damn for and would not give a dime to support. I don't know if Gingrich crossed the Rubicon as far as most conservatives are concerned. But he crossed the Rubicon, cast the die, as far as this Reagan-Conservative Republican is concerned."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by southerngal (October 27, 2009 1:21 pm ET)
         
      MMfA, along with liberals and the Democratic party, have every right to gloat a little over this apparent split in the Republican party. They brought it on themselves. Question is which direction will they go? Towards a fringe lightweight like Palin, or center themselves and grow up, ditch Limbaugh and his ilk, and find a leader who isn't a talk radio host.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by wzwriter (October 27, 2009 5:44 pm ET)
        1 1
        Either direction it goes, the GOP will continue to marginalize itself into obscurity.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by bilbo_dies (October 27, 2009 6:35 pm ET)
        1 1
        Hey, made my day. Right wing lunatics going crazy dissing each other because they "aren't conservative enough".
        Report Abuse
        • Author by riverdog (October 28, 2009 6:41 pm ET)
             
          almost as fun as the left wing dissing because they aren't liberal enough.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by raine315 (October 27, 2009 1:26 pm ET)
      1 1
      Sooooooo I take all of this to mean that Wingnut Newt is not wingnutty enough to play with the other wingnuts. All this wingnuttery division among themselves is funny to watch. HA
      Report Abuse
    • Author by rwmacdonald2091 (October 27, 2009 2:26 pm ET)
      2  
      I always say, "Don't stand in the middle of a circular firing squad"
      Report Abuse
    • Author by beautykilledbeast1515 (October 27, 2009 2:32 pm ET)
         
      I'd pay good money to know if the otherwise unnamed "newsentinel" can explain the historical significance of the phrase, "cross the Rubicon." Then I'd like to know if more than six people on RedState know what he means. Of course, I wouldn't ask anybody to find the Rubicon: it actually doesn't exist anymore.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by RealTruthseeker (October 27, 2009 2:38 pm ET)
      4  
      It never ceases to amuse me when wack jobs like Malkin call someone else "radical".
      Report Abuse
    • Author by nccanuck (October 27, 2009 3:57 pm ET)
         
      Newt lost credibilty with me when he sat on a couch talking about global warming.
      BTW, Limbaugh is and never has been the leader of conservatives, not unless you think Olbermann is your leader.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by political_left-religious_right (October 27, 2009 6:46 pm ET)
        1
      ... where it is no longer about principles, ideas, ideals, and integrity, but the raw acquisition of power for the sake of power.

      This isn't (just) a petty description of Gingrich in 2009. Rather, it sounds like the modus operandi of the Republican party every year, Erickson.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by tenmost (October 27, 2009 9:30 pm ET)
        1
      Get rid of republican subversive leaders like Gingrich, mcCain. They are the problem. They have watered down the conservative Party for 30 + years. I believe they are traitors in the closet working With the Democrat (communist Party). They did nothing to reverse the onslaught of anti family, anti constitution laws that the dem's passed at every opportunity. We gave them senate house and presidency and they did nothing in many years but sat complicit with the Democrat (communists). They compromised all of us into a losing proposition y never allowing a conservative to be voted for. They only allowed us to vote for the lesser of two evils---- "They Picked"
      Report Abuse
      • Author by political_left-religious_right (October 28, 2009 10:54 am ET)
           
        "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."


        Shakespeare's Macbeth; he was talking about life, but he could easily have been describing the typical neocon blather. Well, at least now I know where my thumbs down came from.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by riverdog (October 28, 2009 6:45 pm ET)
           
        you should throw reagan in with newt and mccain, he was a big deficet, pardon the illegals former union guy. that reagan, what a commie.
        Report Abuse