Patterico's Pontifications

11/10/2016

Newt Gingrich: Never Trumpers Are “Whiny, Sniveling, Negative Cowards”

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:54 pm



Guess who has behaved in a classy fashion since the election of Donald Trump?

Barack Obama.

Guess who has acted like a triumphalist jackass, who incidentally wants to spend a trillion dollars we don’t have?

Newt Gingrich.

HANNITY: There was a part of me today that really wanted to name names of those Republicans, those —

GINGRICH: [laughs]

HANNITY: All right. You’re going to show yourself the bigger man. [Not really. — Ed.] But I resisted the temptation to name names. All those people that sabotaged him, were not helpful, did everything to hurt him, and frankly, if they were successful, would be beating people like you and me over the head with a baseball bat, and saying, “ah, see, they were all wrong the whole time.” But I didn’t do it. Aren’t you proud of me?

GINGRICH: I’m very proud of you. I think it’s a sign of your newfound post-victory maturity. Let me just say this, ’cause we’ve known each other so long. You and I, along with millions of other Americans, are just beginning one of the great adventures of our lifetime. The eight years of Donald Trump are going to be among the most extraordinary, creative, inventive, exciting periods in all of American political history, and will, I think, both move America back to being great again, dramatically drain the swamp in Washington, and move our systems into the 21st century to provide much, much better experiences for every American. My only point is, compared to all that, the little whiny sniveling negative cowards who are Never Trumpers are beneath our paying attention to them. Let them drift away into the ashbin of history while we go ahead and work with Donald Trump, and with the House and Senate Republicans, to create a dramatically new future.

Thanks, Newtie! We’d love to work with you too.

Meanwhile, Obama has met with Trump, shaken hands with Trump, and said: “If you succeed, the country succeeds.” (Trump, for his part, called Obama a “very good man” — which, as my readers might remember, was High Treason for Republicans to say in 2008, even though none of Obama’s atrocities as President had occurred yet.)

A BRIEF HISTORY LESSON ON NEWTIE FOR THE YOUNG FOLKS: Just so we’re clear, as if the above clip were not evidence enough: Newt Gingrich is a wretched excuse for a human being. One of his more famous punk moves was showing up at his wife’s hospital bed as she recovered from cancer surgery, to discuss the terms of their divorce. His wife related the story to the Washington Post in 1985:

“He can say that we had been talking about it for 10 years, but the truth is that it came as a complete surprise,” says Jackie Gingrich, in a telephone interview from Carrollton. “He’s a great wordsmith . . . He walked out in the spring of 1980 and I returned to Georgia. By September, I went into the hospital for my third surgery. The two girls came to see me, and said Daddy is downstairs and could he come up? When he got there, he wanted to discuss the terms of the divorce while I was recovering from the surgery . . . To say I gave up a lot for the marriage is the understatement of the year.”

Gingrich always claimed Jackie asked for the divorce, but court papers uncovered in 2011 showed that he was lying. His reason for wanting the divorce? He didn’t think his first wife was pretty enough to be a First Lady, and Newtie intended to be president:

Leonard H. “Kip” Carter, a former close Gingrich friend, backed the contention that it was Newt Gingrich who wanted the divorce.

“He (Gingrich) said, ‘You know and I know that she’s not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of a president,’ ” Carter, who now lives in South Carolina, told CNN recently, relating the conversation he had with Gingrich the day Gingrich revealed he was filing for divorce. Carter served as treasurer of Gingrich’s first congressional campaigns.

A total jerk, and a perfect attack dog for his soulmate Donald Trump.

[Cross-posted at RedState.]

83 Responses to “Newt Gingrich: Never Trumpers Are “Whiny, Sniveling, Negative Cowards””

  1. Can I just say how vile Newt Gingrich is? He is no friend of classical liberalism, and he’s an awful man on a personal level to boot.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  2. On the positive side, he’s probably managed to reopen the charge account at Tiffany.

    JVW (6e49ce)

  3. Hey, maybe what we can do is set a cutoff date of 20 years ago, November 5, 1996, the date of the Presidential election that year. Anyone who was prominent on the political scene back then is hereby politely — but firmly — asked to depart from public life. So long, Clintons; thanks for everything, Newt; see you, most Bushes; adios, Schumer, Feinstein, Leahey, Durbin, Reid, McConnell, Hatch, McCain, etc. It would be a cathartic cleanse.

    JVW (6e49ce)

  4. Trump will have a lot of jackals like Gingrich around him. Has-beens and never-weres scrounging for scraps from the elephant’s carcass.

    nk (dbc370)

  5. Gingirch is 100% correct in his opinions of the NeverTrump folks…so not able to attack his premise you attack the messenger. As far as your inference – ” Thanks, Newtie! We’d love to work with you too” – that you have any interest in working with the President elect…I believe you referred to him as “a piece of human filth”. Certainly you’d never lower yourself to actually work with such a person in the greater interests of dong what’s right for the country.

    Bill Saracino (90cba8)

  6. Gingirch is 100% correct in his opinions of the NeverTrump folks…so not able to attack his premise you attack the messenger. As far as your inference – ” Thanks, Newtie! We’d love to work with you too” – that you have any interest in working with the President elect…I believe you referred to him as “a piece of human filth”. Certainly you’d never lower yourself to actually work with such a person in the greater interests of dong what’s right for the country.

    From my post the morning after the election:

    Congratulations to Donald Trump. I think he’s a terrible human being, but I’ll choose to be optimistic about what this means for the country. I was resigned to the idea that conservatives had lost the Court. Now we haven’t. Somewhere, Antonin Scalia is looking down on these results and smiling. I hope this means we can finally take measures to secure our border. I don’t think anyone believes Donald Trump will build a wall and make Mexico pay for it — but hopefully he will do more than Hillary Clinton would have.

    When Trump seeks to do things that promote classical liberal principles — of liberty, the free market, and the Constitution — I’ll be with him. When he seeks to damage those principles, I’ll oppose him. I won’t let partisan bias stand in the way of offering you honest commentary. Hopefully readers have learned that.

    Why WOULDN’T I be willing to work with Donald Trump when he is pursuing the right thing?

    You watch. If he nominates a good replacement for Scalia — and I fully expect he will — I will back that nominee with all my heart and soul.

    You’re being churlish, or you haven’t read all my commentary post-election. I hope this helps you understand that (while I still think he’s a terrible guy) I am willing to work with him for the greater good.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  7. Gingirch is 100% correct in his opinions of the NeverTrump folks

    So YOU’RE the one being churlish, if you actually agree with the nasty stuff said by Gingrich here.

    At least Donald Trump is making noises about working with everyone. I’m not sure I buy it, but it sure as hell beats what Gingrich says.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  8. well it turned out the whole exercise was quixotic, ‘mostly harmless’ perhaps only new mexico was affected, although ayotte and kirk did seem to have captain tupolev’d (torpedoed in the vernacular) as did joe heck,

    narciso (d1f714)

  9. Trump will have a lot of jackals like Gingrich around him. Has-beens and never-weres scrounging for scraps from the elephant’s carcass.

    I hear Steve “Patterico can go fuck himself” Bannon is a prime candidate for Chief of Staff!

    Patterico (115b1f)

  10. Let them drift away into the ashbin of history while we go ahead and work with Donald Trump, and with the House and Senate Republicans, to create a dramatically new future.

    Thanks, Newtie! We’d love to work with you too.

    What do you mean “we”?

    You quit the GOP is the way I understood it.

    Yeah. Here it is. https://patterico.com/2016/05/03/goodbye-republican-party/

    I’ve had these feelings before, but today it’s official. Republicans are now “them” and not “us” to me. I’ll stay registered as a Republican at least through the primary to vote for Ted Cruz in California, even though it’s now clear it will be a futile gesture.

    Did you forget to change the registration?

    papertiger (c8116c)

  11. Have you seen the photos of Obama’s staff watching Trump arrive at the White House?

    They look like they are ready to piss in all the champagne flutes and deface the artwork

    Trump should get out the bust of Churchill and have the kids build a casino in Havana

    steveg (5508fb)

  12. Voting for Trump was like drinking my own vomit. So take your triumphalism
    and shove it, Trumptards.

    I hate myself. Now I really hate myself.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  13. Right you are Patterico – – I had skimmed over that part of your post…my bad. I and many other conservatives fully expect we will have to oppose Trump on numerous things – – as we should have done with W. Bush more forcefully. I think he is boxed into naming the first two SCOTUS appointments from the list that Heritage and Federalist Society put together for him. If he does that – and they get confirmed, which may necessitate “nuclear” activity from Mitch McConnell – I’d consider it an enormous – or maybe even huge…:>) – step in the right direction.

    Bill Saracino (90cba8)

  14. What do you mean “we”?

    You quit the GOP is the way I understood it.

    Sure did.

    The “we” is people who opposed Trump. Use symbolic logic, read it out loud slowly, whatever you have to do to parse it. It’s pretty clear, really.

    Patterico (115b1f)


  15. 21.Can I just say how vile Newt Gingrich is? He is no friend of classical liberalism, and he’s an awful man on a personal level to boot.

    Yes, you can. And please do so as often as possible.

    The melon head wanted to dissolve NASA at one time and likes the smell of zoos all the time.

    Hold the presses. Stop the mail. We agree 10,000%.

    “Newt Gingrich, Moon President.” — ‘Saturday Night Live,’ NBC TV, 2012

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  16. Did you forget to change the registration?

    Nope. I even posted a picture of the form.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  17. Right you are Patterico – – I had skimmed over that part of your post…my bad. I and many other conservatives fully expect we will have to oppose Trump on numerous things – – as we should have done with W. Bush more forcefully. I think he is boxed into naming the first two SCOTUS appointments from the list that Heritage and Federalist Society put together for him. If he does that – and they get confirmed, which may necessitate “nuclear” activity from Mitch McConnell – I’d consider it an enormous – or maybe even huge…:>) – step in the right direction.

    You and I are on the same page here, Bill.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  18. I’m not sanguine about mcturtle, remember he sold out cruz over a bridge,

    http://www.city-journal.org/html/examining-scorecard-14841.html

    narciso (d1f714)

  19. now, newt (who blows hot and cold,) yet pulled off a herculean feat, or wresting the congress away from the dems in 40 years, and then tupolev’d himself,

    http://www.weaselzippers.us/306720-desperate-leftists-pushing-the-one-scenario-that-could-still-get-hillary-into-the-white-house/

    narciso (d1f714)

  20. I’ve got a funny joke for you guys:

    What’s more despicable than a career politician?

    Nothing!!

    (Do you get it?)

    Leviticus (467e24)

  21. a politician is an arse upon
    which everyone has sat except a man

    – e.e. cummings

    Leviticus (467e24)

  22. Newt Gingrich did a great deal to advance conservatism at a time when it was sorely needed. That being acknowledged, he ought to go home now.

    Gabriel Hanna (c791b9)

  23. I’m not trying a beat up over this but in the same link you disavowed the nevertrump.
    Better than Hillary sums up your position I think.

    So why take Gingrich personal?

    papertiger (c8116c)

  24. @papertiger:Better than Hillary sums up your position I think.

    Are you referring to me? Yeah, I was #NeverHillary. A quick visual check confirms that Trump is not Hillary, so that extent I approve. I approve of little else about him, though he certainly has a chance to change my mind and I outlined a few things over the last few days.

    So why take Gingrich personal?

    Nothing personal at all, I just don’t think he’s doing anyone any good. He was pretty good in his time, when he was needed, and but he undid himself and his time is now over. Wish he’d go home and set on the porch. More 90’s retreads need to do that. Hillary’s about to.

    Gabriel Hanna (c791b9)

  25. wait what’s the rest of the story, newt’s flaws were exploited, so consequently, denny hastert took the reings and proceeded to betray the hopes of those who put the majority in power, it’s unclear if the democrats discovered his horrible secret before the time relayed in some of the accounts,

    narciso (d1f714)

  26. Even though I’d really like to feel hopeful, this interview is a perfect example of why it is so difficult to get behind the “president-elect”. All the vile, vindictiveness hurled at those who stood on principle. Newt, dinesh, even mark levin was telling us we’d better get on board. I didn’t like hearing the smug insults when Obama was elected, I don’t like hearing it from those I used to respect, just because I choose to believe morals, principles and character count, and I’d like to wait and see before I bow down to someone who’s given me very little reason to trust his word.

    Moviemommy (06e612)

  27. gosh, that was overwrought, now obama humiliated red queen, early on his administration, stripping her of negotiating authority in three critical regions, and forcing disclosure of her funding list, which should have been a clue,

    narciso (d1f714)

  28. I voted for McMullin. But I’m not sorry that Hillary lost. As I’ve said before, our host claomed he didn’t care who won, but he sure does seem to care after all.

    Trump won, and that’s just the way the world is. Accept it and move on.

    If this blog is going to be full tilt anti-Trump derangement, well, it will cease to be interesting.

    I’ll check back in a few.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  29. What will you say next year about Obama, Pat. We all, ALL OF US YOU IDIOT!!, know that Obama is a liar. What Obama is saying now has an expiry date. But you keep talking, you ingfuck tunc. Remember this moment.

    If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.

    That only worked for people like Patterico, who have govt jobs. I want Patterico to have the same health plan that I do. Until that happens, Patterico is a govt employee who thinks that he, his wife, his children are ENTITLED. Go To Hell. Seriously.

    Jack (e5af45)

  30. All of these Trump cheerleaders need to start acting like winners and show some humility and grace. Rush’s whole “make the left surrender like the Japanese in WW2” nonsense is just going to drive the wedge further. No one is asking Trump or the victors from Tuesday to compromise on their plans for the country (not yet at least, most have adopted a wait and see attitude) but this conqueror attitude isn’t helpful. We “The People” elected Trump as a representative, he did not take to the battlefield and slay his enemies to take the Iron Throne as King. So, perhaps tap the brakes a bit and start treating others as people again. Sure, some of these people need better morals and education on policy, but they’re still people, and giving the 50% of the country that didn’t support your guy the middle finger isn’t going to help.

    Remember, your anger helped bring about this immediate change, but it will only be through grace that you can make it a lasting change.

    Sean (41ed1e)

  31. Trump will never take away Obama’s biggest accomplishment: Riots.

    AZ Bob (f7a491)

  32. Dr Evil’s henchmen on being informed Austin Powers is taking over.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cw6yFpKW8AAHCeP.jpg

    papertiger (c8116c)

  33. Hows that for some whynee nega cowards?
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cw6yFpKW8AAHCeP.jpg
    Look close enough and you can actually hear the snivelling, just like hearing the ocean in a conch shell.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  34. Would you trust any of them with your burger order?

    Be honest.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  35. The daughters, who were there in the hospital room, tell it differently.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  36. Loretta Lynch is still in charge at the Dept. of Injustice, until Jan.

    The Mayors of Portland Oakland and Philadelphia, along with MomJeans, still support and suborn riots.

    There’s a correlation in there somewhere

    papertiger (c8116c)

  37. If you tap the brakes in Cali a student driver will clip your fender making an illegal attempt to pass you on the inside lane.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  38. yes yes it’s just the way the whirl is

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  39. there is so many excitement in the air!

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  40. just because I choose to believe morals, principles and character count, and I’d like to wait and see before I bow down to someone who’s given me very little reason to trust his word.

    Not bowing down to anybody, especially a politician, until the return of the King of Kings
    I have said before, and again now, I have no more reason to Trust Trump than any other politician’s campaign promises
    I believe morals, principles, and character count as well, I just thought Clinton was lacking them in more dangerous ways
    I find it very hard to understand how a believing Christian could enthusiastically support either Trump or Obama (or Clinton, for that matter)

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  41. Not overjoyed with the “NeverTrump” folks. Found my posts here subject to, if not censorship, at least something like it. I stopped posting for a while.But it’s your site, and you can do what you want.

    It’s my hope Trump surprise us all in good ways. Know that like every politician forever, he will make mistakes and disappoint us. There are no perfect presidents because there are no perfect people. This was making the best of it. Still preferable to the other option.

    Gingrich is very good in 5 minute “Hannity” segments. Long form governance, not so much. Also has the habit of making it about Himself rather than policy. And that involves Gingrich going off on grandiose and pointless tangents. He would invariably wind up embarrassing Trump.

    Much the same is true of Chris Christie. Christie has all the arrogance and bluster of Rudy Giuliani, but nowhere near the competence nor smarts. He also is facing a NJ governor’s race in which he will certainly lose. Though NJ Dems might nominate some leftist loon and foul that up.

    Bugg (820f2c)

  42. Not overjoyed with the “NeverTrump” folks. Found my posts here subject to, if not censorship, at least something like it.

    Can you please provide some evidence of that? Because I don’t remember moderating you, ever, and the filter acts up. And I don’t even remember HEARING from you about any of your comments not showing up, although I could be remembering things wrong.

    What you describe does not remotely fit what I do here, and I take the accusation seriously. Please provide evidence.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  43. What will you say next year about Obama, Pat. We all, ALL OF US YOU IDIOT!!, know that Obama is a liar. What Obama is saying now has an expiry date. But you keep talking, you ingfuck tunc. Remember this moment.

    If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.

    That only worked for people like Patterico, who have govt jobs. I want Patterico to have the same health plan that I do. Until that happens, Patterico is a govt employee who thinks that he, his wife, his children are ENTITLED. Go To Hell. Seriously.

    See, Bugg, the comment by Jack that I just finished quoting is a good example of the sort of comment that WILL earn you a ban. Someone who comes on here and curses at me (even if it is authentic frontier gibberish . . . “ingfuck tunc”) and tells me to “go to hell” is someone I might not have banned in the past, but increasingly I have zero desire to interact with such people. So yeah. Jack just got his rear end banned.

    But not for criticizing me or supporting Trump. He’s not being “censored.” He’s just getting tossed out for being a jackass.

    You, I don’t remember acting like a jackass. So again: what are you even talking about?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  44. I voted for McMullin. But I’m not sorry that Hillary lost. As I’ve said before, our host claomed he didn’t care who won, but he sure does seem to care after all.

    Trump won, and that’s just the way the world is. Accept it and move on.

    If this blog is going to be full tilt anti-Trump derangement, well, it will cease to be interesting.

    I’ll check back in a few.

    Kevin M,

    You have been commenting here a long time, and I respect you and almost always agree with you. I’m about to push back against your comment, pretty hard, because I think your comment deserves a forceful pushback. But please don’t take what I am about to say as an attack on you, personally. (It will be a fairly forceful attack on what you just SAID, though.)

    I ask you to scroll up and look at the post you are commenting on. I am, in this post, grabbing a sledgehammer and applying it to the idiotic words of Newt Gingrich, who, rather than reaching across the aisle (is it “reaching across the aisle” for a Trumper to speak kindly to a Trump opponent? Increasingly it feels that way) and talking about working together. As we should be doing.

    Gingrich called people who didn’t support Trump in this election — and that includes you and me — “little whiny sniveling negative cowards.” Do you AGREE with that? How in the world is it “anti-Trump derangement” to criticize Gingrich harshly for this?

    Is it because of the line at the end of the post, calling Gingrich a perfect attack dog for his soulmate Trump? So wait: do we suddenly believe that Donald Trump is NOT a vindictive attack dog who will try to punish his opponents? Just because he has managed to be Mr. Temporarily Gracious in victory? Really? Do you remember his phony graciousness after winning the primary? Did that last?

    I’m not sorry Hillary lost either. No matter how this election shook out, I was going to be criticizing the winner and joyful at the loss of the loser. The fact that I am doing exactly that with a Trump win does not mean I would have preferred a Hillary win. You have no basis to say that I “sure do seem to care after all.” Do you think I would have applauded a Hillary win? Seriously? Where does that even come from?

    In comments to this post, I received a pile-on from a commenter who claimed I would never lower myself to work with Trump. I told that commenter that I believed he had not paid attention to my post-election output in its entirety, and quoted him two paragraphs that, even though I quoted them once in this thread, I am going to quote again as a direct response to your comment:

    Congratulations to Donald Trump. I think he’s a terrible human being, but I’ll choose to be optimistic about what this means for the country. I was resigned to the idea that conservatives had lost the Court. Now we haven’t. Somewhere, Antonin Scalia is looking down on these results and smiling. I hope this means we can finally take measures to secure our border. I don’t think anyone believes Donald Trump will build a wall and make Mexico pay for it — but hopefully he will do more than Hillary Clinton would have.

    When Trump seeks to do things that promote classical liberal principles — of liberty, the free market, and the Constitution — I’ll be with him. When he seeks to damage those principles, I’ll oppose him. I won’t let partisan bias stand in the way of offering you honest commentary. Hopefully readers have learned that.

    What this means is that this site is not going to be a full-on 100% daily repudiation of Donald Trump and what he does . . . unless he behaves in a way that merits that, in which case it most assuredly will be.

    I have had people tell me, in effect, Trump won, get over it, stop criticizing him. To these people I have a consistent message, and it’s the same message in the blockquote above from my post-election post: I understand he won, I have congratulated him, and I am not going to stop criticizing him when he deserves it just because he got elected President.

    If you stop and think about it for a second, I think you’ll see this is the only possible way to move forward for an honest commentator.

    But if, for whatever reason, you or anyone else here cannot abide the thought of this blog criticizing Donald Trump now that he is the duly elected Republican President, I’m here to tell you: you might as well leave now. Make a clean break now, because guess what? It’s going to happen.

    But I don’t think I’m describing you or any other valued member of this community. Everybody here can handle reading deserved criticism of Donald Trump. Even the most avowed Trumpers here can handle it! If they couldn’t, they would have been gone long ago.

    I’ll do my best to stick with my articulated plan. If you think at any point my criticism is unfair, that’s why we have this comments section. Let me have it. I don’t censor people for their opinions. (I’ll repeat that for Bugg: I don’t censor people for their opinions.)

    Thus endeth the pushback. I still like you, Kevin. You’re one of my favorite people here.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  45. Posts were moderated, or “awaiting moderation” and then never posted. Can recall on one occasion using mild profanity.; if that means everything after that triggers a filter, that’s on me. At some point during the campaign, simply stopped posting here because nothing got posted. Will never be a crybaby and demand you post my thoughts; it’s your site. My preference is to disagree without being disagreeable. And that should be a 2 way street going forward. But again if you think otherwise, fine. This is your playground, and I will respect your wishes and abide by your decisions. And if I am wrong about this, that the “awaiting moderation” timed out or due to volume simply did not happen for some other reason, please accept my apology.

    Bugg (820f2c)

  46. I’ll just say that I expect Trump to constantly saying and doing things that at least disappoint me,
    if not much worse

    But I don’t want life to become the top 3 things to criticize Trump about today.

    There was a feeling voiced previously that we were looking forward to the election being over…

    I guess one could look on the bright side
    more people will probably be thinking:
    Come Lord Jesus, please come.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  47. We’ll see soon enough. Some of us have more patience than others.

    Colonel Haiku (3bf827)

  48. It could turn into Patterico’s Phuktrumpification’s if you’re not careful.

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  49. It could turn into Patterico’s Phuktrumpification’s if you’re not careful.

    That’s pretty much up to Trump. If he governs the way y’all seem to think he will, it will be Patterico’s ManwasiwrongaboutTrumpifications.

    I’ve never wanted to be wrong this badly.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  50. But the trillion-dollar infrastructure plan is NOT a good start. Post on that is already up.

    It’s not an “I HATE TRUMP” rant but a “let’s learn some economics and why this is bad for the economy” post.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  51. == “It’s a let’s learn some economics and why this is bad for the economy post.”==

    Continuing to treat your readers as ignorant unschooled, uneducated rubes– students who must learn from the master is not an attractive posture. You honestly have no idea how sanctimonious you sound, do you?

    elissa (c7f82f)

  52. Continuing to treat your readers as ignorant unschooled, uneducated rubes– students who must learn from the master is not an attractive posture. You honestly have no idea how sanctimonious you sound, do you?

    Didn’t read the post, huh?

    If you have not heard of this before, that’s cool. I hadn’t either, three years ago. . . . A Donald Trump presidency is going to required fans of the free market to do a lot of learning, and a lot of educating others on economics. It’s a topic I have learned a lot about in the last three years, and I don’t hold people in contempt if they haven’t questioned these assumptions. I didn’t myself.

    I’m glad you already knew everything I wrote in the post, elissa. I feel certain that not all my readers do, though — because, as I said in the post, I didn’t know this stuff myself three years ago, at the age of 45.

    Having learned some very valuable things in those last three years, I’m eager to share them with others, since they made such a different in my own outlook on life.

    I’m sorry that upsets you so much. But I can’t control your reactions, and I won’t try to.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  53. I don’t come around these parts much anymore and won’t be. Patterico’s place used to be an indispensable right- of- center every day stop for me for over a decade–until I gradually realized that my affinity for the site had waned. I guess I started to realize that many of the posts seemed sort of petty and just were not of great interest to me. And the comments seemed to have gradually morphed– from a place where intelligent people sought to share and gain insights from other intelligent people who came from different walks of life, different occupations, different educational backgrounds and different regions of the country– to a place that resembled a newspaper comment section free for all. Ethical advocacy seems to have given way to insults and hysterical and dishonest shilling from all sides

    — elissa, from March 2016.

    Here I write a several-thousand-word post, looking to do an in-depth analysis that debunks a core assumption so many hold these days: that a giant federal spending program will help create jobs. I do so in a manner that is respectful of those who haven’t heard these concepts before, and explicitly say these are concepts that I didn’t know myself just three years ago, having made it through 45 years of life without having heard them.

    And elissa comes along and tells me I’m “sanctimonious” and treat my readers as “ignorant unschooled, uneducated rubes.”

    Well, at least my giant post isn’t “petty.” You’ll at least give me that, won’t you, elissa?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  54. I’d love to have elissa, the old elissa who debated and offered fun and informative opinions, commenting here again.

    But if she has decided that she just doesn’t like me and just doesn’t like my blog, and is going to level unfair criticisms that don’t match what I actually write, I have to ask: why is she here? I’m cool with people debating me, telling me they disagree, and so forth — but I don’t understand people who lurk around seemingly for the sole purpose of telling me that you don’t like me and don’t like what I write.

    I mean, you can, if it’s important to you. But all it does is make everyone unhappy, and I don’t understand the motivation behind it.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  55. That’s not a request for a flounce, by the way. It’s a request that you maybe take a deep breath and consider whether your very harsh criticisms of me were entirely fair.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  56. Breathe, Patterico. Please. “Let’s learn some economics” has the same aura as a second grade teacher who says “let’s learn some fractions today”. Except your readers are not second graders. You being able to share your passions, insights and acquired learning is why you have a blog. I respect that without reservation. But the way those things are introduced and presented does matter with respect to how the messages you hope to send are received by the intended recipients. That’s where I think you’ve been missing the boat (at least with me and it appears with some others as well) for a while. You being preachy is not the same as you sharing valuable information–in fact it detracts significantly from the valuable information. I expect you think I’m preachy, too. Maybe. But I assure you I am not upset.

    elissa (c7f82f)

  57. Patterico isn’t the breathless one here. It’s the hyper-sensitive, overly offended one who is throwing false charges at him.

    John Hitchcock (84ed39)

  58. Most people know fractions, so “let’s learn fractions!” sounds condescending.

    But Elissa, even if you yourself are fully familiar with Bastiat and the broken windows parable, and had already applied the logic of the seen and unseen to the arguments for the infrastructure bill, I feel certain that does not describe everybody.

    So it’s not quite “let’s learn fractions!”

    Not to mention that I gave it that shorthand description as a way to explain that it’s not a post focused on Trump.

    I think you’re being uncharitable.

    Patterico (54006a)

  59. Leonard H. “Kip” Carter, a former close Gingrich friend, backed the contention that it was Newt Gingrich who wanted the divorce.

    “He (Gingrich) said, ‘You know and I know that she’s not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of a president,’ ” Carter, who now lives in South Carolina, told CNN recently, relating the conversation he had with Gingrich the day Gingrich revealed he was filing for divorce. Carter served as treasurer of Gingrich’s first congressional campaigns.

    Heh. Didn’t stop George H.W. Bush, did it? What a slimeball.

    L.N. Smithee (b84cf6)

  60. The daughters, who were there in the hospital room, tell it differently.

    Did you look at the links I offered to support what I said?

    I put the following in the post:

    Gingrich always claimed Jackie asked for the divorce, but court papers uncovered in 2011 showed that he was lying. His reason for wanting the divorce? He didn’t think his first wife was pretty enough to be a First Lady, and Newtie intended to be president:

    If you had clicked the link in that paragraph (and given your comment, which disputes my statement in the post but does not grapple with the evidence at the link, I’m guessing you didn’t) you would have seen the following. Apologies for the long quote, but if people aren’t going to click links, my only alternative is to copy the evidence and put it right here:

    Newt Gingrich claims that it was his first wife, not Gingrich himself, who wanted their divorce in 1980, but court documents obtained by CNN appear to show otherwise.

    The Republican presidential candidate, now in his third marriage, has been peppered with attacks and questions about his divorce from Jackie Gingrich for the past three decades.

    Questions about his past — and what that past tells voters about his personal behavior — have re-emerged as he has returned to the political scene 13 years after he resigned as speaker of the House.

    A new defense that has arisen as Gingrich entered the presidential race this year is the insistence that she, not he, wanted the divorce.

    On the “Answering the attacks” page of his campaign website, Newt.org, which “(Sets) the Record Straight: Newt’s Positions on the Issues and His Record,” the campaign discusses Gingrich’s first divorce.

    “It was (Jackie Gingrich) that requested the divorce, not Newt,” the campaign website said, referring readers to an online column written by Gingrich’s youngest daughter, Jackie Gingrich Cushman, last May.

    Cushman, 13 when her parents separated in 1980, was rebutting persistent rumors that her father served divorce papers on her mother the day after cancer surgery. In the column, Cushman writes that papers were never served in the hospital, and that her mother did not actually have cancer.

    “My mother and father were already in the process of getting a divorce, which she requested,” Cushman wrote.

    After initially being told that the divorce documents were sealed, CNN on Thursday obtained the folder containing the filings in the divorce, which had been stashed away for years in a Carroll County, Georgia, court clerk’s drawer. Retired clerk Kenneth Skinner told CNN his deputy took Gingrich’s file out of the public records room around 1994, “when he (Gingrich) became the center of attention,” because Skinner feared tampering and theft.

    “During these years, you had to make sure those papers were there,” Skinner said. “People could go in those files and get things out. We didn’t have enough security to control it.”

    Current Carroll County Clerk of Court Alan Lee said he called the retired deputy clerk, who told him where to find the papers, after CNN began looking for them last week.

    The documents, and interviews with people close to the couple at the time, contradict the Gingrich claim about who wanted the divorce.

    Jackie Battley Gingrich, the congressman’s wife and the mother of Jackie Gingrich Cushman, responded by asking the judge to reject her husband’s filing.

    “Defendant shows that she has adequate and ample grounds for divorce, but that she does not desire one at this time,” her petition said.

    “Although defendant does not admit that this marriage is irretrievably broken, defendant has been hopeful that an arrangement for temporary support of defendant and the two minor daughters of the parties could be mutually agreed upon without the intervention of this court,” her petition said. “All efforts to date have been unsuccessful.”

    So, yeah. The daughters said something different. But evidence that I already provided in the post shows they are wrong.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  61. elissa is a good pickle who else are good pickle are include Anna Kendrick, whio has a book out

    NEW PUPPY UPDATE: new puppy update

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  62. it wouldnt have stopped Petraus had his side piece not been found out nor Sanders (he’d have that going for him, a Patricia Richardson-type as a wife).

    urbanleftbehind (847a06)

  63. *who* has a book out i mean

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  64. Posts were moderated, or “awaiting moderation” and then never posted. Can recall on one occasion using mild profanity.; if that means everything after that triggers a filter, that’s on me. At some point during the campaign, simply stopped posting here because nothing got posted. Will never be a crybaby and demand you post my thoughts; it’s your site. My preference is to disagree without being disagreeable. And that should be a 2 way street going forward. But again if you think otherwise, fine. This is your playground, and I will respect your wishes and abide by your decisions. And if I am wrong about this, that the “awaiting moderation” timed out or due to volume simply did not happen for some other reason, please accept my apology.

    That’s weird. I just had to rescue THIS comment from moderation.

    I had that problem with Ed from SFV for a while. He emailed me about it. I think he had to email me twice. It turned out there was something in the moderation filter that was catching his email. In other words (I am making this example up) it could be that I moderate the word “whore” and someone named Aldous Weldon Hore has an email address that reads aldouswhore@whatever.com. That would get caught.

    I’m going to check the filter because I suspect there is a glitch with your email. I’ll get back to you.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  65. OK, Bugg, I found the, um, Bugg and fixed it. My sincere apologies for the problem. I don’t want to give away your email, but I can email you to explain what happened. You should be good to go now.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  66. Sent you an email to explain. This happened to Ed from SFV and it was an email issue then too. Something in the filter overlapped with a part of your email address.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  67. #59 John Hitchcock, elissa interprets the tone of the author toward his audience differently than you do, and differently than the author has since explained is his intended tone toward his audience — but that’s not the same as making a “false charge,” as you accused her of doing.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  68. elissa,

    I understand your “patronizing” comment, but I wasn’t put off by it. I much preferred arguing about von Mises than the latest fascination with Trump. However, your example:

    has the same aura as a second grade teacher who says “let’s learn some fractions today”.

    reminded me that one study of American elementary school teachers found that only 40% of them (maybe 44%, my reference is not available) could correctly answer “what is 7/4 divided by 1/2”, and only 6% could explain this problem in a way that would help elementary school students understand the problem.

    It would not be inappropriate to spend some time discussing American education, or the lack of it. Even division by fractions would likely be a revelation to a majority of millennials.

    On the one hand, Lincoln did very well with a very rudimentary education, but on the other, most of us appreciate that we little we (I) know took many years to penetrate into the brain, and a few hard knocks were usually required.

    BobStewartatHome (b2bab4)

  69. but the evidence for the more damning criticism don’t seem to be in the piece,

    lincoln had a working knowledge of mathematics, was well read despite self educated, and was focused in his speech, that’s a rare thing nowadays, and as robin has pointed out all the templates for education, including those proposed by robinson and mcnitt, are increasingly less fact based,

    narciso (d1f714)

  70. Thus endeth the pushback. I still like you, Kevin. You’re one of my favorite people here.

    And this is my favorite blog, especially since the professors blog became infested with Trumpist fanbois. I understand the pushback, as I hope you understand mine. What you posted seemed personal, and delved into ad hominum which is generally unlike what you write.

    As for Gingrich’s divorce, 1) who cares? 2) the person who files first is not always the person who asked for the divorce and 3) people lie in divorce proceedings, and afterwards.

    ==

    I expect to be more upset with Trump than I was with W, who strayed rather a lot himself.

    But I also recognize that Trump saw something, and acted on it, that we all missed or were blind to. Both parties had donned ideological straight-jackets that were unresponsive to the people’s needs. He intends to break that down, first with the GOP and by osmosis with the Dems.

    I see Trump as a Nixonian figure, attempting to govern from the middle while hated by both sides. This itself does not bother me as much as the likelihood that he’ll be Nixonian in other ways, too.

    But I need to accept that Trump got something right: large segments of the population were utterly tired of our ideological squabbles and they wanted a President who would approach problems pragmatically. And in our system, the voters are ALWAYS right.

    Kevin M (c133f6)

  71. I think some of the new people, came because of the insistence to steer toward scylla and charybdis here,

    narciso (d1f714)

  72. The “He dumped me when I had cancer” thing could be true, or it could be the attack she and her lawyer dreamed up. Maximal victim status is often useful.

    Kevin M (c133f6)

  73. this is why divorce records, are supposed to be sealed, did we forget hull and ryan already.

    narciso (d1f714)

  74. Oh, and yes, I think that Trump BADLY misled, even conned, many of his supporters. The wall will get built. Someday. Some people will be deported, but not all, and not right away. Etc. I wonder when the disillusionment will begin.

    Do I feel he lied to me? Of course. Do I feel betrayed. No. I knew better.

    Kevin M (c133f6)

  75. The big tell was when the Ag community met with Team Trump for nearly an entire day a few days before election day and gave him the “we aint hiring no _______” speech.

    urbanleftbehind (847a06)

  76. Divorce records are NOT sealed. A divorce is as much a public affair as a wedding. Some parts may be sealed for good cause.

    nk (dbc370)

  77. perhaps, but you have to consider the bureaucracy is honeycombed with ‘bitter enders’ almost as resolute as in fallujah or ramadi, a small example was the mutiny in the cia’s top ranks under porter goss,

    narciso (d1f714)

  78. how did the notion about ‘no wmds’ get crafted, and the torture narrative, as well as the innocent shepherds at gitmo, through the cooperation of high and middle level agency officials,

    narciso (d1f714)

  79. If you want to see me get upset about Trump ignoring principles, it would be him putting Huckabees on the Court. But he’s a politician, worse a REFORM politician, so I’m not going to expect strong principles in the normal stuff. It’s not his nature.

    Kevin M (c133f6)

  80. yes, he’s the other gag inducing element in the mix,

    narciso (d1f714)

  81. conduction blemish,Zapatos Converse Hombre. Simple f Zapatos Converse Hombre act is that source of abnormalities on the DNA of mitoch Zapatos Reebok Mujer ondria – small rod-like structures employed in every cell of your body that produce the capability that drives cellular functions,Zapatos Reebok Mujer.  When you put the chances to talk Nike Air Jordan to som

    Gafas Gucci Baratos (4fd7b3)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1134 secs.