Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    “Savagely lashing news goalie”

    “Savagely lashing news goalie”

    I guess I’m upsetting some people with my vigorous posts regarding Newt.

    Robert Stacy McCain says I’ve “hopped aboard the Gingrich bandwagon and [am] savagely lashing Newt’s critics.”  Actually, the bandwagon jumped on me, because my endorsement predated Newt’s surge, if only by a few days.

    John Sexton of Verum Serum says I’ve been “playing news goalie for Newt,” because I did not accept  his analysis of Newt and Freddie, and criticized the failure of numerous critics of Newt for  downplaying Newt’s call for the “need to improve the regulation of GSE’s.”

    So am I a “savagely slashing lashing news goalie”?

    I have made the case, and people can judge what I say on the merits.  I fully disclosed my support position, so no hidden agenda.  If only the MSM would do that.

    I have pointed out the Newt pile on, and I think people are coming around to my view, not about Newt necessarily but about the almost bizarre treatment of Newt by the conservative media.

    If calling out National Review about it’s martian cover, calling out Ann Coulter about her flip-flop and birther card play, calling out Michele Bachmann for her unfounded “money is changing hands” accusation, and standing up against the Romney strategy of crazy makes me a savagely lashing news goalie, then maybe that is a compliment.

    If Newt is not the nominee, I’ll apply those principles to whomever the nominee is, just like I have done in the past in defending Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and many others who unfairly are targeted.  That’s my territory, and I’m sticking with it.

    (And for the record, I take no offense at the criticism.  Both bloggers do good work and I’ll continue to link to them.)


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    Hope Change | December 18, 2011 at 5:05 pm

    Professor Jacobson, I am so glad you endorsed Newt early. I’ve been watching his speeches and interviews for months. I support Newt whole-heartedly. I know others who have studied his speeches and also enthusiastically support him.

    I think many people are getting their information from the media, which of course is distorted shards and fragments of what Newt is actually talking about.

    You actually LEARN something from a Newt Gingrich speech or interview.

    The Staten Island Tea Party speech; “The Future of American Education”; “2012: Victory or Death; “Michigan Must Change or Die”; “Strong America Now.” A search on YouTube for speeches longer than 20 minutes or by title finds them.

    This is a new day. People can find out for themselves. No one can stop a person from finding out the score, as long as the internet is available.

    Thank you, Professor Jacobson, for endorsing Newt early. I agree. He is proposing some amazing solutions.

    This is an opportunity for the American people to use the new technology to make sure we are free and have opportunity. AND to make government responsive to the American people. The government is NOT the boss of the people in the USA. The people are sovereign here.

    Henry Hawkins | December 18, 2011 at 5:27 pm

    RE: Gingrich’s ‘right wing social engineering’ May 2011 comments in reference to the Paul Ryan plan…

    Anyone curious about it might take another listen to it and catch the nuance:

    It is very clear that what Gingrich was objecting to was the *imposition* of radical new changes to long-running federal programs on the American people without their consent or participation in the planning or without a transparent process. He was directly criticizing the imposition of Obamacare, and was saying Republicans shouldn’t *impose* such radical reformations either. His objection was to the *imposition*, not the plan per se, though he and now Ryan agree it was flawed.

    The defining ‘money’ quote was:

    “I don’t think right wing social engineering is any better than left wing social engineering. I don’t think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate…”

    The term engineering implies an engineer manipulating parts, energy, and processes to create a product. The parts, energy, and processes aren’t asked if they’d like to be thus manipulated. That is *imposed* on them, if you’ll pardon a clumsy analogy. Ryan’s plan, if enacted, would have been imposed by Congress on a populace that had no part or voice in its design – Ryan wrote it and must take it or leave it, basically.

    I do think the comment is misconstrued and misreported, and that it was the imposition aspect Gingrich found objectionable rather than the plan itself; his objection was more about the process than the product. Ryan wrote it without public discourse and presented it as complete, whereas Gingrich favors open and public discourse by legislators whenever writing such a momentous reform. Of course, Gingrich objected to parts of the plan itself and articulated those objections elsewhere, and Ryan has himself admitted problems with it.

    Newt Gingrich has been savaged by nearly every pundit alive, but he still remains at the top of the polls in Iowa, South Carolina and especially Florida. I’m surprised no one mentioned the advantage he has with the South and Mitt Romney’s weakness with the region.

    In hindsight, maybe the attacks helps Gingrich. He weathers the criticisms, shows he doesn’t have a glass jaw or the “odd temperament” he’s supposed to have and remains steady. Better the skeletons come out the closet now than later. And the polls show people don’t care, there are more pressing issues at hand.

    If Gingrich keeps his cheerful, thoughtful grandpa persona intact, he could possibly win the Nomination and the Presidency. Interesting times we live in. I don’t expect any miracles, just someone who leads with a belief that the US is an exceptional country that can and will do better. I’m almost convinced Newt Gingrich could be that person.

      andcar in reply to GoldenAh. | December 18, 2011 at 9:02 pm

      “In hindsight, maybe the attacks helps Gingrich.”

      I think there’s something to this. The MSM has been reliably sliming GOP pols for decades. Consequently, conservative/toss-up voters have learned to take media reports with a grain or three of salt. The conservative punditacracy shouldn’t really be that surprised that these voters are now skeptical of their reports as well.

      In some cases it goes beyond skepticism. When the MSM and GOP establishment set their attack dogs on Sarah Palin, it only made her more popular. There might be a bit of the same thing going on with Gingrich.

    Windy City Commentary | December 18, 2011 at 9:38 pm

    Before the Newt is Marvin the Martian Cover from National Review, there was Paul Ryan as FDR. Meanwhile, Newt is taking a bunch of flack for once saying that FDR was a great president. National Review clearly does not practice what they preach.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend