Pelosi: Gingrich Unelectable Because “There Is Something I Know.”

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

66 thoughts on “Pelosi: Gingrich Unelectable Because “There Is Something I Know.””

  1. The Grinch is merely a red-herring!

    He deflects the slings and arrows aimed at our Constitution-Scholar-In-Chief.

    It would not be ‘reducio ad absurdum’ to assume that enlightened-Democrate PACs (sp?) are supporting him…

  2. I think she knows she’s encouraging the right to nominate him for an easy win for Obama. She has witnessed his psychotic behavior. The guy’s talking about a moon station and a second term today! Mice with computer chips tomorrow….

  3. There was no secret she was referring to the house ethics commission report and all the other unfortunately public things we already know about Newt.

  4. We know Noot loves America. But He thinks America is ill
    .
    .
    .
    I’m surprised he hasn’t left us for a younger, healthier nation.

  5. I don’t know why she keeps harping on this issue if she isn’t going to say it. GOP radio stations are loving it because it gives them a way to demonize her and label these as democratic party tactics, avoiding addressing the issue of the real facts behind the state of the Union Address, and the misinformation Daniels spread following. Or the fact that a 3rd of republican voters are hoping a new candidate enters the race for them because they’re unsatisfied with the current field.

    Then again, maybe she knows that and is using herself as a sacrificial lamb to make sure Newt is the Nominee. That way if he is, the GOP will have to stick to their hard line issues, as opposed to Mitt changing positions more than a chameleon changes colors in a week, and not only will the ideology lose out badly in the national debates, but it could go so bad that they lose the House and the Dems get a 60 seat senate majority again (without Lieberman wearing an elephant tie or their most respected senator passing)

  6. Politics (not the kind that worries if your local water supply will hold up but the rhetorical wing of that branch) is a full contact sport that relies heavily upon timing. I completely understand Prof. Turley’s view on this regarding special knowledge Pelosi would have that may appear to breach ethical rules for investigations. I also understand though that in this political environment, you let that cat out of the bag now and it isn’t nearly as damaging as a September surprise. Nominee now has to scramble to explain something and it will not only remain fresh but fresh near election day. Do that today and by November, it will be forgotten.

    Is it fair?
    hmmm…I find it hard to hold something “unfair” if that is a skeleton you should know about while pandering to be president.

    Lets say for example: Candidate G has 3 dead hookers in his closet. Candidate G knows he has 3 dead hookers in his closet and knows that he used his local church money to pay for it but decided…’well, maybe they just won’t know’.

    But the Church investigation committee knows he did it and had given him a slap on the wrist for taking the money but kept the 3 dead hookers secret too because it looked bad on the Church at the time. While other non-church members missed their 3 loved ones, to the body that sought to protect the image of their now former leader for the purpose of protecting the body of the church, they were simply easy to ignore. But time passes and guess what, you think everyone forgot the 3 dead hookers.

    The vanity of Gingrich to run after his gross hypocrisy as a leader is really the issue here but I do totally want Prof Turley to remind us of the ethical issue regarding Congressional investigation materials being used in political fights.

    Sorry, but tactically, holding the card is very powerful and that is an old technique. In my own past, I found certain people who wanted to run for a board of a non-prof when they knew that I was aware of bad deeds. While I never covered for their bad deeds, now that they wanted responsibility, I had to come forward and challenge them, “not so quick, you have some dead hookers in your closet buddy”

    Newt Gingrich is a very corrupt individual. I don’t know how best to make sure people know what he really was doing in Congress outside of some great SunShine.

    Thanks again Prof Turley for a wonderful blog and opportunity to share on these topics.

  7. If Tex were more normal and had lied to me as Newt has done, then Tex would be looking very normal in a satin-lined box.

  8. rafflaw,

    It doesn’t show that you’re exceptional–it just shows that you’re not as “normal” as Newt. Maybe you should get a half-million-dollar line of credit at Tiffany’s. That would prove that you’re supernormal!

  9. Elaine,
    If lying to your wife at least two times is normal, then I guess those of us who have been married to the same person for years must be
    exceptional!

Comments are closed.