I previously criticized Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi for suggesting that she has dirt on Newt Gingrich but would disclose it later. She has returned to that ignoble theme in an interview with CNN, saying that Gingrich will not be elected because “There is something I know.” I have been a vocal critic of Gingrich on this blog, but once again I view this low-grade form of politicking to be grossly unfair to Gingrich and a further degrading of our political system. If you want to attack Gingrich, then do it. Do not constantly suggest that you have severed heads in a duffel bag or some other evidence against the man.
Here is the exchange:
John King, CNN: “You make your case there passionately for President Obama. But also understand that this is a tough reelection climate for any president, Democrat or Republican in this economy. Because of your history with Speaker Gingrich, what goes through your mind when you think of the possibility, which is more real today than it was a week or a month ago, that he would be the Republican nominee and that you could come back here next January or next February with a President Gingrich?”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi: “Let me just say this. That will never happen.”
King: “Why?”
Pelosi: “He’s not going to be President of the United States. That’s not going to happen. Let me just make my prediction and stand by it, it isn’t going to happen.”
King: “Why are you so sure?”
Pelosi: “There is something I know. The Republicans, if they choose to nominate him that’s their prerogative. I don’t even think that’s going to happen.”
Once again, it should be Democrats who denounce this type of politics. It should not fall to either Gingrich or Republicans. What is really astonishing is that I would think that the Democrats would be dying to have Gingrich nominated and offering Obama a target-rich environment. Regardless of the political wisdom, it is wrong to constantly claim to have dirt on a politician . . . while promising to reveal it later.
Update: As on the earlier occasion, Pelosi has sent out aides to say that she was merely referring to things in the public record. After the prior incident, I was contacted by Pelosi aides who wanted to make the same point. Yet, here again, Pelosi comes forth and makes the same type sinister suggestion. She is not a stupid person and she knows how such comments will be interpreted — particularly after being criticized on the earlier occasion. This is precisely why Congress is now as unpopular as ebola.
Source: RealClearPolitics
Another indication of how “American knowledge” is actually McKnowledge.
Frankly,
Don’t go giving amphibians a bad name! The man should be newtered.
From the mouth of the serial adulterer:
Gingrich: My Affairs Make Me ‘More Normal,’ More Electable
By Zack Ford on Jan 25, 2012
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/01/25/411545/gingrich-my-affairs-make-me-more-normal-more-electable/
Excerpt:
In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network this afternoon, Newt Gingrich picked up Rick Perry’s torch in the so-called “war on religion,” promising that he would fight back against judges who are “trying to drive God out of life.” The thrice-married Speaker then defended his personal marital history, claiming his multiple affairs “make me more normal than somebody who wanders around seeming perfect” because he can understand “the human condition and challenges of life for normal people.”
Its a trick! She knows just her saying this drives the wingnuts right to the slimy amphibian. She is actually trying to help him get the Republican nomination. And why not? After what they have done to this once proud nation over the last 40 years they deserve the sort of royal butt kicking they would receive with him as their standard bearer.
The Onion had a great headline today for the SOTU: “Obama asks nation to imagine Newt standing here”
SwM,
People forget her background and her training in politics. It works for her.
What is known about Newt and Nancy should keep either of them from being elected for any office! She probably has pictures of them in the airport bathroom, wide stancing with Larry Craig!
Blouise, Pelosi is the daughter of a Baltimore politician. That is where she learned to campaign not San Fran.
Swarthmore mom
Blouise, Pelosi is so hated by the tea party that her criticism will draw them to him.
=================================
Exactly and at no cost to democrats.
I understand that, Gene, but in Texas it is a good bet that they are. They put up anti Pelosi lawn signs in 2010. The same people put up Palin signs in 2008.
That’s an interesting angle, Smom. I think it’s overkill as Romney has enough weaknesses of his own, but that’s an interesting take on it. Even if so, not all people who find Pelosi revolting are teabaggers. What she did in enabling Bush and Cheney to get away with their war crimes earned her permanent animosity in my book.
Ever consider that Rep. Pelosi is doing it to help Newt win the nomination?
Clearly the teabaggers are greatly motivated by anything anti Pelosi.
I think Nancy Pelosi was just being provocative. Not important.
More interesting was Gingrich saying the difference between him and Clinton was that he hadn’t lied under oath. He also said he had done depositions in his 2 divorces. Is that normal and what might he have been deposed about? Is it likely that he told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in his divorce depositions?
I remember when they were impeaching Clinton (who has the same, exactly the same, character as Gingrich: very angry at being held to account for bad personal behavior; no contrition or humility) some of the Republicans who had practiced law voted against the count that Clinton had lied in the Paula Jones deposition because he had handled divorces and it was so common for people to lie in divorce depositons.
Blouise, Pelosi is so hated by the tea party that her criticism will draw them to him.
“What is really astonishing is that I would think that the Democrats would be dying to have Gingrich nominated and offering Obama a target-rich environment. ”
They are. That is what she is doing. If she outed him now, Romney would win the nomination. If she waits until a Gingrich nomination is secured (if that happens), then she can out him and make him lose the general election.
Like you said, Newt is a target-rich environment… And that is why she won’t ruin his chances of becoming the nominee.
I don’t mind what she’s doing. She is playing it smart with her knowledge. Outing him now will just lead to a different nominee. She is definitely playing politics, but I don’t really mind that. The system is ugly, and both sides use all sorts of nasty things to their advantage these days.
Sorry, my flow was bad. Obviously atheism is not a form of moral turpitude in my eyes—–but maybe in some RWAs minds.
Timing is an essential part of both strategy and tactics. That being said, so is deception and surprise. If Pelosi has something, she should either 1) use it or 2) have kept her trap shut until she uses. This game of “nanny nanny boo boo” she’s playing isn’t sound strategy and a childish tactic that is more about assuaging her ego than about hindering a Gingrich run for President. Gingrich is a foul and despicable creature to be sure, but Mrs. “Impeachment is off the table” isn’t much better.
Unless it involves the cannibalism of an infant (and she has the pictures) it’s not going to make much difference to Newt’s fans. They don’t care where he gets his pay or how he treats his wives/mistress’ or that he is a rank hypocrite. That doesn’t leave much out there that would cause him to lose his base.
True enough, Blouise. If they do go with Gingrich, Pelosi has shot at becoming speaker again. I was polled last night by an outfit hired by Jim DeMint to see if there is any interest in a presidential candidacy for him. The powers that be are not happy with Newt or Romney.
Maybe the RNC has made a strawpoll around the state delegation chiefs, and have found Gignrich is unelectable in their eyes.
I mean what moral turpitude could capsize him at this point?
That he’s a secret atheist??