Skip to main content

Newt Presents a Fresh New Virtual Face

Ann Coulter's picture

Before you newly active Republicans commit to Newt Gingrich as your presidential nominee on the basis of the recent debates, here's a bit of Newt history you ought to know. I promise you, it's going to come up if he's the candidate.

The day after the Republicans' historic takeover of the House of Representatives in the 1994 election, Newt was off and running, giving a series of Fidel Castro-style speeches about "the Third Wave information revolution." It had the unmistakable ring of lingo from his new-age gurus, Alvin and Heidi Toffler.


(Newt, who was married at the time, also began dating again.)

A few weeks later, when Newt was elected House speaker by the incoming Republican conference, there was a small elderly couple standing by his side as he gave a one-hour acceptance speech. It soon became clear who they were, when he issued a reading list to the Republican legislators. At the top of the list was a book by the Tofflers.

Hadn't Republicans just won on a platform of smaller government? Instead of a Republican victory, the '94 election seemed to be a victory for the Tofflers' cyber-babble about "social wavefront analysis," "anticipatory democracy," "de-massification," "materialismo," "the Third Wave" and "decision loads."

Then, in his first week as speaker, Gingrich was again promoting the Tofflers around town, introducing them at a technology conference and giving a speech titled "From Virtuality to Reality."

How about a speech on Republican plans to reform entitlement programs?

Gingrich soon announced that all legislation passed by the new Congress would have to pass a test: Will it help move America into the Tofflers' vision of a "Third Wave"?

If this guy ever became president, he could end up foisting EST on the nation.

It was also a Toffler-inspired idea that led Gingrich to propose giving poor families a tax credit to buy computers -- an idea he called "dumb" just one week later.

(Newt's denouncing Paul Ryan's Social Security reform as "right-wing social engineering" and then apologizing a week later -- and then retracting his apology -- was not uncharacteristic.)

The Tofflers were a couple of old folks who couldn't figure out how to program their VCRs, so they began writing about the "shock" of technology and how we needed government planning to deal with technological overload.

Their big idea was that the world was about to change faster than it ever had before, creating a technological explosion that would frighten and baffle the masses -- much like the bewildering VCR clock. The government would have to have advisers and committees in order to ease the transition.

The facts are nearly the exact opposite. In the first half of the 20th century, we got widespread use of the automobile, the airplane, the telephone, electricity, radio and television, indoor plumbing, air conditioning and refrigeration, the computer, nuclear power and rockets.
All we got in the second half of the 20th century were some improvements on one of those inventions -- the computer -- with the personal computer, the Internet and the iPhone. (Boomers were more focused on acid trips than space trips and dropped the ball on the hard work of pushing scientific progress forward.)

Far from needing government agencies to help us "cope" with these advances -- "Scientific Futurists," a "Technology Ombudsman" and a "Council of Social Advisers," as proposed by the Tofflers -- the masses have taken to these improvements like fish to water.

The Tofflers' recommendation that children be eased into the coming technological revolution with adult mentors sounds like the proposal of Clinton's surgeon general, Joycelyn Elders, that schools teach teenagers to masturbate. In both subject areas, the children can teach their elders a few tricks.

Not only was it completely crazy, but Newt's grand schemes didn't quite fit the Republican model of a small, unintrusive federal government.

But Gingrich became a Toffler acolyte when he was an assistant history professor at West Georgia College and attended a Toffler seminar in Chicago. Alvin didn't notice Gingrich at the time, but later remarked: "He kept reminding me of himself in letters."

(Note that the maharishi of the information age and his No. 1 groupie kept in touch by writing each other letters.)

Soon, Gingrich was writing a foreword to a Toffler book -- the same one on the Republicans' reading list –- and spending Christmas with the pro-choice, anti-school prayer, Christian Coalition-hating Tofflers. Yes, there's nothing like having an old-fashioned Christmas with a doddering couple who hate prayer and Christians, love abortion and are afraid of their microwave.

(Incidentally, this was around the same time the purportedly pro-abortion Mitt Romney, as a Mormon elder, was pressuring a woman who wanted to abort her child to continue the pregnancy and give up the baby for adoption -- something he was attacked for in Teddy Kennedy campaign ads a few years later.)

At the end of Gingrich's first year as House speaker, his endless, nutty pronunciamentos -- in addition to his plan to entrust Republicans' legislative agenda to an old couple whose living room VCR continuously flashed "12:00" -- had driven his public approval numbers into the dirt.
In a CNN-Time poll, 66 percent of respondents said Gingrich was "too extreme," 52 percent said he was "out of touch" and 49 percent said he was "scary."

It's true that the liberal media attack Republicans unfairly. But that's a fact to be dealt with, not ignored by nominating a candidate who keeps giving the media so much to work with.
Gingrich has spent his years since then having an affair, divorcing his second wife and making money by being the consummate Washington insider -- trading on access, taking $1.6 million from Freddie Mac, and palling around with Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and Al Sharpton.

Even Chuck Schumer wouldn't be seen doing a joint event with Al Sharpton! But Newt seeks approval from strange places.

Newt Gingrich is the "anti-Establishment" candidate only if "the Establishment" is defined as "anyone who remembers what happened the day before yesterday."

Comments

#1 Yow, Ann!

I enjoy your writing, but I just want to be sure...

You're not just writing this because you like Romney, right?

"Unfortunately, some people use belief-based facts rather than fact-based beliefs." -Par for the Course on Wed, 04/18/2012 - 5:38pm

#2 sigh

It's sad to have to counter Ann.

And yes, the fact is Newt does have a past.  

But Newt brought in a Republican congress after forty years of democrat control.

Romney has a past too.  Romneycare.

 

Not every idea Edison had panned out.  Newt also has had too many ideas.  But that doesn't' mean none of his ideas are sound.

 

Why is Newt rising and Romney falling?  John McCain.  Us little people down at street level are hopping mad that we keep getting candidates who will not fight with any passion for what we want.  McCain would be attacked by the obama camp and then McCain would refer to obama as "my friend".  

#3 The whole tea party

Is so 2008-2010 and now dead, Newt is leading the polls. He has secrets older than most people in congress and all repeat all will be used by the democratic media complex to protect their man god no mater how rotten he is to them. To them he is better than any republican they will prove it many times over.

#4 Ann Coulter, 2008: Whenever

Ann Coulter, 2008: Whenever we run a moderate Republican, we lose.

Earlier this year, she was touting Christie as the only one who could win, which prompted Mark Levin to ask:

When will my dear friend Ann start to address the substantive problems with Christie’s actual positions or are we going to get another year of “only Christie can win” fortune cookie logic?

Does she support his positions on: gun control, amnesty, the appointment of an Islamist to the bench, the green agenda, his campaigning for Mike Castle, his MIA on health care litigation, etc.; and how does she think this would energize the base outside of New Jersey?

And now that Christie's not running she thinks Romney is the only one who can win. so why wasn't she pitching Romney as the anti-McCain in '08?

I am really confused now, wondering if Ann wants a real conservative, someone who can win, or just to keep appearing on TV?  At this point, I'd have to go with the latter.

#5 disheartening

it's sad that any Republican candidate other than Mitt will have to run against the media, the democrats, Conservative pundits and the RNC.

#6 Ann also says Newt Gingrich

Ann also says Newt Gingrich is the "anti-Establishment" candidate only if "the Establishment" is defined as "anyone who remembers what happened the day before yesterday."

I guess that means "except for Romneycare" which, if I'm not mistaken, was a lot more recent than Gingrich's "Toffler" incident, and which Romney still refuses to abandon.

#7 Ann Coulter – What on earth are you thinking???

Please stop acting like the government picking the “winners and losers” for us. You need to go back to exposing the liberals for what they are… confused, angry, and simple-minded drones. As a political fortune-teller you really don’t know what you’re talking about.

Look Ann, here’s the reality...We know Newt has made some mistakes in the past – and some of those blunders were big ones, no doubt about it. Yet let’s go back to one a 80’s concept, you know the one called “The Whole Man or Woman Concept.” That’s the one where we are asked to take the sum total of an individuals experience, knowledge, and work into consideration before rendering a judgment (Note: Please do not chime-in with that “Don’t be judgmental” crap unless you have a positive alternative to substitute for judgment.)

Newt (as Speaker) gave us a balanced budget, a republican controlled House and Senate, a conservative “Contract with America,” and legislative proposals such as:
1. The Personal Responsibility Act – (An act to discourage illegitimacy and teen pregnancy by reforming and cutting cash welfare and related programs.) and proposed other Acts & Constitutional Amendments (CA) such as:
2. The Fiscal Responsibility Act (CA) - requiring a balanced budget unless sanctioned by a three-fifths vote in both houses of Congress. – (Hmmm… where have we heard that lately?)
3. The Taking Back Our Streets Act - An anti-crime package including stronger truth in sentencing.
4. The American Dream Restoration Act - An act to create a $500-per-child tax credit, begin repeal of the marriage tax penalty, and creation of American Dream Savings Accounts to provide middle-class tax relief.
5. The National Security Restoration Act - An act to prevent U.S. troops from serving under United Nations command unless the president determines it is necessary for the purposes of national security, to cut U.S. payments for UN peacekeeping operations, and to help establish guidelines for the voluntary integration of former Warsaw Pact nations into NATO.
6, Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ( enacted in 1995) A tort reform bill.
7. The Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act - A package of measures to act as small-business incentives: capital-gains cuts and indexation, neutral cost recovery, risk assessment/cost-benefit analysis, strengthening the Regulatory Flexibility Act and unfunded mandate reform to create jobs and raise worker wages.
8. The Citizen Legislature Act (CA) – Would have imposed 12-year term limits on members of the US Congress (i.e. six terms for Representatives, two terms for Senators).

It appears to me that Newts string of successes, and some grand failures in the conservative cause, far outweigh any personal or public missteps he may have made or ideas he might have mistakenly embraced.

On the other hand we have your beloved “Mittens” whose achievements include: “Romney-care,” Higher Taxes, and “Homosexual Marriage” (listed because it was an issue he was not willing to take “a bullet for the state” but wimped-out and went for the personally safe/politically correct option) ever proposed except vague promises and marshmallow solutions?

Like I said Ann – Go back to attacking the foibles and nonsense of the liberals and stop with using the negative sales/fear mongering pitch that RINO Romney is the best choice!

- Grump :o)

"I wish I had an answer to that because I'm tired of answering that question." - Yogi Berra, (Baseball Great and Philosopher)

#8 I think most of the

I think most of the Republicans running for the nomination could easily beat Obama. This Republicans attacking Republicans is a little disheartening though. I've had a hard time choosing a candidate, because I could easily vote for almost any of them, but for the most part I like Michele Bachmann. However, if the polls are to be believed, it doesn't look like she has a chance of getting the nomination, short of a sudden rise in the next couple of weeks. Not that it really matters who I like, I'm in Alaska, by the time we have the primary here, it's pretty much already over.

I heartily accept the motto "That government is best which governs least" . . . Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe -- "That government is best which governs not at all" -Henry David Thoreau

#9 Perhaps you're right Ann but...

your guy -- the spokesperson for Vidal Sassoon -- ROMNEY -- isn't a choir boy either, yet on most programs I've watched you on you're lauding him as second only to Chris Christie.

Mitt Romney's Deception
http://massresistance.org/romney/

So, unless you have a plan to get the only two TRUE Conservatives in the race elected -- Bachmann and Santorum -- I find that Gingrich is the only likely candidate that can stand on a stage with Barack Obama and take him down.

"If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner." — Malcolm Muggeridge

#10 Roosevelt Supporter

On a number of occassions, Newt Gingrich has stated that Franklin Roosevelt was the greatest president of modern times. Wow, we have a pro-fascist as the frontrunner of the Republican Party. Reminds me of John McCain who idolized the eugenicist, progressive Theodore Roosevelt. Could we stop supporting fans of either of the fascist Roosevelts?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.