More “Savage” un-history

For whatever reason, Michael “Savage” Weiner started off his show today trying to lump Barney Frank and Newt Gingrich as being just bookends on the opposite ends of the same shelf…  Newt being a person who has “spent his entire life” in Washington feeding at the trough of Washington.

Anyone who spents more than 30 seconds or has paid attention over the last 20 years should know that Newt was a history and environmental studies professor at West Georgia College for 8 years after getting his PhD.   Newt has a Doctorate in European History from Tulane University (Tulane is in New Orleans, which is nowhere near New York or Washington DC).   Unlike Savage, he doesn’t demand that people grovel at his feet and call him Dr. Gingrich.

Newt was born in 1943 in Pennsylvania- his first win as a Congressman from Georgia was in 1978, which means he was 35 years old.    In 1994 (after 16 years in the House and at the age of 51), he led the “Contract with America” revolution that took control of the US House away from the Democrats.   After being reelected to his House seat in 1998, but losing control of the House – he resigned and left Congress to write books and return to being a college professor and occasional “pundit” on TV.

Now square that with Savage’s characterization.

There are 435 voting members of the House.   I would bet you that you can’t name more than 10 of them without looking it up.    You don’t become natioanlly visible until you’ve been in the House for a while – at the time, becoming Speakeer after only 16 years made him an upstart – overturning the seniority cart and ruffling feathers within the Republican leadership.

Tom Foley (who preceded him in the job as Speaker) had been in the House for 24 years and was 60 years old.    Jim Wright was 65 and had been in Congress for 32 years and in Texas policics for 7 years before that.   Tip O’Neil was 65 years old and had been in the House for 24 years.

I spent many a night watching Newt on C-Span talking to the three people who were watching at 2 AM.   I am very confortable with the idea of a President Gingrich.

This entry was posted in American Politics, Radio Biz. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to More “Savage” un-history

  1. Piquerist says:

    Again, I’m pretty much in synch with your comments, Art. Gingrich also as the dubious luxury of having had all his dirty laundry hung out for the world to see years ago. It’s been vetted thoroughly. It’s been cussed and discussed for years. That makes his recent surge and chances for persistence pretty interesting.

    Now, if someone could find a way to short-circuit the Paulistinians who already are grousing about third party and independent runs for the presidency. The only difference they can make bodes ill, aiding and abetting the naif bolloxing up the country from a desk way too big for him at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

  2. TheChairman says:

    Frankly, I’m surprised you still tune-in to his show… 😉

    Savage (not without his own ‘issues’) based his opinion on one word: PERCEPTION

    I happen to agree: since ‘resigning’ from Congress, Gingrich has been milking the cow for $60,000 per speech; and from 1999-2008 he received $1.6 million for ‘strategic advice’ to Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac (i.e. an insider). Those are just two examples.

    I guess nobody recalls how Gingrich appeared alongside Pelosi in a bizarre ‘help stop global-warming’ PSA?

    And let’s skip past his 2007 book “A Contract With the Earth”… naked political pandering at its worst.

    IMO, any ‘Contract With America’ must contain two critical words: TERM LIMITS

    Congressional Careers

    Gingrich = 20 years
    Foley = 24 years
    O’Neil = 24 years
    Wright = 32 years
    Frank = 30 years
    (etc.)

    Obama = 3 years

    Therein lies another issue of electability in ‘multicultural’ America.

    The first 5 fit the stereotype of “entrenched stale old pasty white males with silver hair and a silver spoon”.

    Unless middle class whites vote along racial lines, Gingrich will lose. And that’s the crux; people have an innate desire to appear consistent in their opinions, decisions, and behavioral patterns (marketers exploit this). Thus, many white females and college students/grads will be inclined to vote the same way as they did in 2008.

    The MSM will use their full arsenal of propaganda, NLP, and subliminal methods to activate that programming… while simultaneously denigrating the RNC candidate.

    In Arizona, the current (hypothetical contest) poll percentages are as follows:

    Romney vs Obama = 48 to 41
    Gingrich vs Obama = 45 to 45

    Twenty years ago, Arizona would have been decidedly for Gingrich over Obama, but Arizona has had an influx of liberals and Californians; that’s how Janet ‘Reno’ Napolitano got elected as governor.

    BTW, I DO NOT trust most ‘pollsters’ nowadays; they often use poorly (cleverly) worded questions and/or biased demographics to skew the results, which mislead The People and misdirect moderate conservative voters.

    For MSM strategists, Gingrich is ‘McCain’ circa 2012.

    Yes, Gingrich is ‘better’ than Obama. However, the two party system is a false dichotomy… insofar as The People (i.e. those outside the Beltway) are concerned, it’s a monopoly.

    e.g. The so-called ‘Supercommittee’ was otherwise known as the Politburo (CCCP) in the old USSR.

    I believe it was intended to fail in order to clear the way for ’emergency powers’ (Directive 10-289).

    BTW, why are all these ‘victims’ of Cain suddenly appearing? DNC smear, RNC smear, or MSM smear?

    Frankly, with electronic voting, it won’t matter anyway. The ‘fix’ is in…

    It’s not an election, it’s a selection.

    • Art Stone says:

      Since I do still do testing, I pretty much don’t have the option of not listening. My main option is to listen for as short a time as possible. If more people were setting the show topics, I would also be less likely to listen.

      I was mainly disputing Savage characterizing him as spending “all his life” in Washington. I don’t seem to have the wealth envy you are expressing about him making money from his knowledge of how government works.

      Unlike Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, George HW Bush, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama – Newt is not a lawyer – he’s a history geek, which is going to become increasingly important as the world careens toward another global war. Lawyers have this world view that right and wrong are defined by legal and not legal – having sex with a 19 year old intern in the Oval Office wasn’t “wrong” because it wasn’t illegal. Conversely, lawyers feel an obligation to rush out and create new laws making things illegal because they decide that something is “wrong”.

      All the time I’ve been aware of him, he has been consistent that the Federal government is too big, too powerful and makes too many laws. He is not on the religious right – I’m confident he knows the world is not only 10,000 years old and doesn’t think the purpose of the US Government is to protect Christianity. That is probably the kiss of death from the “far right”, but I’m not part of the Christian Right.

      Newt doesn’t need a teleprompter. He knows all of the parts of the Federal Government in significant detail – he would not forget the departments of the government he wants to remove. He can speak for hours coherently on topics without any notes. That’s what you can do when you actually know what you’re talking about.

      The only part of his background that concerns me is having taught environmental science and signing onto the global warming bandwagon. Maybe he knows more than I do and might convince me it is a real problem – but that’s a tall order.

      There is no such thing as an experienced virgin in politics. Newt knows the system from the inside and has an actual track record of trying to reign it in – much of the Contract with America was about making the laws apply to Congress, making it harder to pass new taxes, eliminating baseline budgeting, etc…

      • TheChairman says:

        I don’t seem to have the wealth envy you are expressing about him making money from his knowledge of how government works.

        It’s not ‘envy’… others charge more than Gingrinch.

        It IS disgust. Absolute disgust with all the so-called ‘public servants’ who enter & leave Congress to enrich themselves.

        Gingrich boasted that he “didn’t need to become a lobbyist because he was getting $60,000 a speech” after resigning.

        I would like to see ALL of them prohibited from becoming lobbyists, taking money for speeches, etc. for 5 years after leaving office. These guys only have to serve one term and they get lifetime Congressional benefits. Pigs at the trough.

      • TheChairman says:

        I almost forgot about their ‘legislation’ which enables members to conduct insider trading… for which you or I would go to prison.

  3. JayMar says:

    Savage is absolutely worthless, a true legend in his own mind. I cannot stand two seconds of him, expounding on his PhD and treating callers like trash.

    Regarding Newt I have my concerns. I believe Newt, Huntsman, and Romney are McCain’s breed, the designated loser of 2008. I dislike what Comrade (Sheik) Obama has done to our nation and four more years of him will make us a Banana Republic, but…I don’t see a true electable conservative in the pack. I fear the worst is coming, and I hope I am wrong.

  4. Parrott says:

    Newt will expose Obama for what he is, more than any of the other candidates running.
    I don’t think Glenn likes Newt. Pundits on Bill Bennetts radio show this morning says he(Newt) is not electable. Blah Blah “Romney attracts more centrist and independents” same ol’ argument, nothing new there.
    I plan to for ANY candidate to be named at a later date ! I would vote for a Gecko before I would vote for “Big O” !
    So I could vote for a “Newt” : )
    Parrott

  5. Piquerist says:

    I got as far with him today as your first paragraph covers. I switched the blowhard off. Spot on this time, Art.

Leave a Reply