Newt Gingrich

Out of the Billowing Smoke and Dust of Tweets and Trivia Emerged…Gingrich Rick Perry?


Gingrich falls.

Looks like noted non-expert on libertarian happiness Newt Gingrich is rapidly losing his war against the future. RealClearPolitics reports that the GOP presidential contender's entire senior staff has suddenly quit his campaign:

Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich's campaign manager, senior strategists and key aides in early delegate-selection states all resigned on Thursday, a mass exodus that leaves his hopes of winning the Republican nomination in tatters.

Rick Tyler, Gingrich's spokesman, said he, campaign manager Rob Johnson and senior strategists had resigned, along with aides in the early primary and caucus states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Other officials said Gingrich was informed that his entire high command was quitting in a meeting earlier in the day. They cited differences over the direction of the campaign but were not more specific.

Between this and the kerfuffle over his awkward rejection of Rep. Paul Ryan's budget plan, Gingrich has managed a mildly spectacular early flameout, complete with awesomely weird, quasi-Lovecraftian press statements from departing spox Rick Tyler. The last embers of the Gingrich fire are still burning, though; he claims he'll stay in the race.

But how long can he last with his campaign collapsing around him? Gingrich's campaign has always seemed as much like a vehicle for personal attention-seeking as a serious bid for the presidency. Gingrich has gotten plenty of attention, of course, though not exactly the kind he wanted. But at this point, it seems unlikely that many people will continue to take his campaign seriously even if they did in the first place. 

The finger of doom.

Meanwhile, for much of the media, it's on to the next one already. Texas Gov. Rick Perry, whose senior aides were working for Gingrich, may rise out of the ashes of the Gingrich campaign:

After RealClearPolitics first reported last month that aides to Texas Gov. Rick Perry have been putting out feelers for a presidential bid, many pundits dismissed the prospects of a Perry presidential bid, noting that his top political aides were already working for Newt Gingrich's campaign.

Those aides have now resigned from Gingrich's presidential bid, and Perry has admitted publicly that he is actively considering a White House run.

Adding more fuel to the fire, a source close to Perry's political team told RealClearPolitics on Thursday afternoon that the Texas governor is "leaning toward getting in" to the race.

Out of the billowing smoke and dust of tweets and trivia emerged…Rick Perry? 

NEXT: "Anything Is a Possible Carcinogen" -- More On Cell Phones

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Right.

    Rick Perry.

    I think I’ll pass on another Team Red Governor from Texas.

    1. I have a serious question for you, as our resident control group. Do you, in any way, feel that you should have a vote or any other kind of input in the U.S. presidential election?

      I ask this because this apparently was something suggested in a UK paper (The Guardian, I think) back during the Bush years. Because the president can start wars and stuff and can be icky like Bush, I suppose.

      1. Pro-republican party politicians not named Ron Paul are, by definition, icky.

        1. Or Gary Johnson. Don’t forget his debate snub.

          1. Okay, but he is somewhat cowardly in that he does not stand on principle; too often his message sounds in utilitarianism.

            IOW, he should be shouting from the rooftops that the WoD is an immoral, totalitarian war on liberty being conducted by parasites. He doesn’t express those kinds of thoughts.

            If you are for liberty, you are against the king’s men and you call them cowardly parasites. Period.

            1. Except for Paul, though, he stands miles above the competition.

      2. IIRC, it was The Economist that made the suggestion.

        And I think it is a bad idea, what the people of other countries think your country needs is greatly at variance with both the natives think they need and with the country actually does need.

        As for the wars part, if every country’s leader would just MYOB, it wouldn’t be a problem.

        1. I think it is a great idea and England should test the idea out by letting all citizens of England’s former colonies vote in their next election.

          1. I got a little miffed by that, too. How would they like it if we suggested annexing them? Oh, that’s different? Sovereignty’s a bitch.

            1. We should annex them and call them “Old New England”.

        2. I heard it on an audio course I’m listening to, “The Tiber and the Potomac: Rome, America, and Empires of Trust.”

          Really good stuff, and the lecturer’s talking about how similar the U.S. situation is to the later Roman Republic’s. Very compelling case being made for the U.S. having a proto-empire, particularly in regard to Europe, which is presented as our equivalent to Rome’s Greece.

          Kind of scary to think what this could mean for the future. I’ve usually dismissed claims that the U.S. is really imperial, but what this guy is saying makes sense–we, like the Romans, don’t think we have, nor do we want, an empire, but we may end up with one, anyway.

          The empire of trust concept is based on the idea that our allies are letting us police the world, to the point where they are basically letting their militaries diminish to almost nothing. Despite their very vocal anti-Americanism, they still trust the U.S. with the insane power we have.

          1. I don’t really see how that’s “imperial”, but it is an really bad system.

            1. It’s imperial in that a single political entity is using military power to control and ultimately dominate other political entities within a geographically specific trading area.

            2. That’s been my standard reaction up till now, too. But the military gap is widening, not closing, and countries are expecting us to do all the military work–witness Libya.

              While this particular historian is widening the definition of empire a bit, I think his real point is that there are many curious parallels to our situation and the Roman Republic’s proto-empire. He’s got a book on the topic which I plan to get.

              Obviously, none of this means we’re destined to do anything, but it does make me wonder if a world government formed around a U.S. nucleus isn’t as absurd a possibility as I once thought.

      3. The appropriate response to a sovereign nation acting up repeatedly and in horribly destructive ways is not to pretend at some right to vote for its actions, but instead to turn its capital into glass.

        1. That was actually one of the points he made about why we’re “trusted.” They make a lot of noise about our “cowboy” ways, all while expecting us to take action and reducing, not expanding, their military. In effect, they trust us enough with awesome military power (meaning that they don’t expect us to conquer them; they do expect us to protect them) to defer in practice completely to us. Words are a different matter, of course.

    2. I think I’ll pass on another Team Red Governor from Texas.

      Isn’t Ron Paul from Texas….and a Republican?

      1. It’s only governors that are dangerous. Scary!

  2. Perry = guaranteed to lose the general election. The media would absolutely hammer the Bush connection.

    1. Nixon’s corpse could beat Obama with 9.1% unemployment and underemployment nearing 20%.

      What part of “no president can win reelection with over 8% unemployment” do you not understand?

      1. The FDR part?

        1. Jim|6.9.11 @ 5:34PM|#

          The FDR part?

          Jim Crow
          no internet
          no TV
          no cable news
          massive enrollment in labor unions.
          over 50% of population worked on farms.
          Massive illiteracy.
          Massive economic illiteracy.
          Democrat controlled congress.
          People were actually starving.
          The rumblings of WW2.
          Actual WW2.
          No history of massive government failure.

          Nearly every tool FDR used to win reelection has been dismantled generations ago.

          You may as well have said Hitler was about to be elected.

          1. So your statement was more meant to be, “What part of “no president since the 70s can win reelection with over 8% unemployment” do you not understand?”

            Which is a lot different than a blanket “no president”.

            1. no president can win reelection with over 8% unemployment

              “can” has a time limitation…

              Most people understand that they cannot do something in the past they can only do something now or in the future.

              Maybe you have a time machine that I don’t know about…or more likely you did not read my sentence correctly.

              1. If you’re using “can” strictly in the present-tense, then you have no historical precedent to base the statement on (that he/she cannot win reelection), so I’m interested to know how you can make such an assertion.

                1. then you have no historical precedent to base the statement on

                  I don’t?

                  The fact that I cannot change history does not make it disappear.

                  History determines what can be done now and in the future…now and the future cannot determine what was done in the past.

                  Google “cause and effect” and perhaps “entropy” for further information.

                  1. History determines what can be done now and in the future…

                    Just so. FDR (history) determined that it is possible to be elected with 8% or greater unemployment. You were making a better argument when you stated all the programs FDR used, which aren’t around anymore or no longer useful in generating votes. Now you’re trying to dance around semantics over the word “can”. Bill Clinton would be proud.

                    1. You were making a better argument

                      I never changed my argument.

                      Now is now and certain things can not happen now, the 1930s was the 1930s and things could happen then that can’t happen now.

                      It really is not hard to understand.

            2. Worded that way, there has only been one election in which unemployment was over 8%, so that’s hardly a solid rule.

              1. Unemployment was over 8% in
                1920, 1932, 1936, 1940 and 1948. And unemployment was a problem in 1944, despite the Keynesian warmongering bullshit.

                1. Threaded jumbled that. I was responding to Jim’s comment:

                  So your statement was more meant to be, “What part of “no president since the 70s can win reelection with over 8% unemployment” do you not understand?”

      2. I must’ve missed that day in physics class.

        1. Obviously I am not making this a physical law.

          but it is fairly obvious that our sour economy will play a major role and that it strongly disfavors Obama.

          Furthermore it has been demonstrated that the state of the economy has a far greater influence over presidential elections then anything at play in the foreseeable election.

          For example a media bias that hypothetically will hammer Perry over his Bush connections would be chump change compared to the influence a shitty economy will have over the 2012 paring of Obama vs Perry.

    2. Perry’s response: “He [Bush, via Rove and Cheney] endorsed my opponent [for governor, Kay Bailey Hutchison].”


    3. Texas probably executed a couple of innocent people under Perry’s watch, but that sadly still makes Perry responsible for the deaths of fewer innocents than Barack Obama.

  3. Newt!

    Hear me!

    Adopt the nomenclature that is your destiny!

    All will be as it should be!

    1. Seconded.

      1. Have they responded to your September 2010 e-mail, yet?

        1. Yes. With spam. Lots and lots of spam.

          I used the email under the orange though. It gets about a thousand spam emails a month, so no biggie.

          I will persevere.

          1. It’s all worthwhile if you accomplish your mission.

  4. Damnit, I emailed this story to Reason earlier today. I demand my hat tip!

    1. Hell, I posted about it in the previous thread! I demand part of the tip as well.

      1. You both have been Tulpa’d

  5. Eye of Newt was a global warming, drug warrior, terror warrior, wife cheating (although?), fat fuck anyway.

  6. On a serious note…Texas didn’t go down until well after the rest of the nation (leading me to believe that we would have been fine if you fucks hadn’t grabbed our ankles and pulled us under while you were drowning).

    Even now, we’ve outperformed in job creation and housing affordability. I can’t really argue with the (relative) success our state has enjoyed over Gov. Goodhair’s tenure.

    1. It helped that oil spiked in 2008 just as everything else was collapsing. Texas is and always will be an oil driven state. If it dried up tomorrow, we’d have a repeat of the late 80’s

      1. There’s some truth to that, but I don’t think it’s the whole story. Outside of the Gulf area (up here in Dallas for example), we don’t have as many oil-related industries. The areas outside Houston diversified after the 80s crash, and I don’t think the loss of oil profits affected us up here as much as it did down around the Gulf.

        1. Dallas has several major oil company headquarters (Exxon, Chesapeake, XTO, etc) and while I wouldn’t expect a general crash as bad as ’87, I imagine Dallas and Houston (and basically Texas in general at that point) would jump past the rest of the nation in unemployment if we had a repeat in oil price collapse.

        2. Ever hear of the Barnet Shale Natural Gas. You know, the rock they’ve been drilling & fracking for the last 4 years?

          Oil, Natural Gas, its all part of the petroleum industry. (FYI: I’m in Fort Worth)

  7. Newt “I hate secularists” Gingrich is out. Huck is out. Thune and Mush-Mouth Hailleeyyy Baarrrrbboouurrr are out.

    The GOP field will find some anti-science, anti-civil liberties, inbred idiot to represent the Redneck South who is not named “Romney”.

    Who will it be?

    1. Your mother?

    2. Palin…

    3. Could be Perry.

      1. YES YES yes….another republican I don’t have to get out of my chair to cast a ballot for!

        Keep em coming Republican party!

  8. You gotta admire the Machiavellian move that Perry made here.

    He basically got his campaign started completely under the radar, on someone else’s dime. All the legwork these guys have done so far will transfer right over with them.

    And, he destroyed a competitor’s campaign in one fell swoop in the process. Granted, it was only Newk, but on the plus side, it was Newk.

    If I actually thought he was that smart, he probably wouldn’t disgust me as much as he does.

    1. Smart is even more dangerous.

      Though he really does have good hair…

    2. I refuse to believe that Perry is actually this intelligent. Some guy who thinks he gets a great sinecure as the Secretary of the Interior or something if Perry gets the presidency thought of this.

      It’s chillingly brilliant, though.

  9. If Perry becomes president then Josh Brolin can play him in a movie.


    Yup that is about the only advantage to a Perry presidency that I can see.

    1. How about we eliminate the middle man and just elect Brolin?

  10. One interesting aspect of Perry getting into the campaign is that it would be the
    Ultimate Presidential Hair Showdown.

  11. As a native Texan, I would NEVER, EVER, vote for Rick Perry. Not because I think he would morph into a George Bush lite (or heavy), but because I don’t see any sign that he has any fiscal or economic understanding, at all. This year he pushed consideration of several dubious bills (including a sonogram before an abortion requirement) in front of the serious budget negotiations to resolve a $21+ Billion deficit. All that to satisfy his paternalistic deep religious right support base.

    All that said, Texas Governors trying to move into the White House have a problem – Teaxs has one of the weakest, if not the weakest, “head of state” offices in the county. The real power resides with the Lt. Gov. (seperatly elected) who controls the legislative agenda (with limited special exceptions like Perry used this year). When a former Texas Gov. moves into the White House, they can easily get swept up in the power of their new office.

    1. Well, Perry was Lt. Governor before he was Governor.

    2. Maybe we could convince congress to emergency limit the president’s powers if a new Texan gets elected…you he isn’t overwhelmed.

  12. I play Intrade, where only serious votes are in play.

    Perry is in rapid ascension but Huntsman is still #3 behind T-Paw and Romney.

    Huntsman actually has good rap – a good presence thus his appeal to investors but after Dumbya I just can’t buy into the notion that a good speaker/thinker matters to GOP voters.

    I am trying to short Huntsman.

    1. I’ve said this before, but let me say it again: Romney has no chance whatsoever at the nomination.

      Also, barring a divine or superalien endorsement, Obama loses. To virtually any candidate put up by the GOP. So be very careful in those GOP primaries, those of you who can vote in them.

      Anyway you cut it, the odds are heavy that we’re going to have a bad president in office come 2013.

      1. While its been said of the democrats, I think the recent almost permanent split in the republican party has guaranteed that the GOP will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

        1. I don’t agree, but I will say that they are trying very hard to screw things up.

      2. I agree about Romney. His 20% support will stay there after an opponent emerges from the scrum.

        But I see the GOP/TeaParty as demoralized once it is a Pawlenty/Romney showdown, for instance.

        A real nutcase like Bachmann or Palin will never seriously challenge the George Will bowtie choice.

        1. Sometimes I almost think you are sane.

          1. I’m not really insane!

            I’m not really partisan either. For instance I think Scott Brown (R) is a superb Senator. I would vote for him in a second if I lived in MA.

            I hate SoCons. End of story – thats it.

            1. Then why so much hate for Paul?

              1. Then why so much hate for Paul?

                Paul is a SoCon.

                I hate SoCons. End of story – thats it.

                Shrike is a sockpuppet.

            2. I think Scott Brown (R) is a superb Senator.

              I hate SoCons. End of story – thats it.


              That is just what the fucking world needs…

              A moderate left of center Fluffy.

              1. Fluffy? Fluffer perhaps?

                1. Fluffy? Fluffer perhaps?

                  No Fluffy is a militant atheist libertarian who comments here.

                  His militancy, unlike shrike’s, i find more tolerable because he is a libertarian.

                  Shrike is the worse of all worlds.

        2. I swear that the media keeps harping on him as a serious candidate because they think he looks presidential. That’s it. And maybe a little because they think he’d lose in the general, but mostly for the other reason.

          1. Oh come on!

            Huntsman is erudite and has serious communication skills!

            Thus – as you note – he is doomed in the GOP.

            1. ….and like all the others he’ll talk a great game right up until the time he gets elected and reverts to straight DC pol.

      3. I can only hope that you are right, PL, and that the Tea Party buzzsaw can take down the anointed candidate of the establishment Republicans. Right now, I would say its probably 60/40, and that assumes the Tea Party doesn’t lose its mojo.

        1. You know, I’m nominally a Republican (for primary and entertainment purposes only), so y’all feel free to write me in. I’ll refuse to actually go to DC and will continue to comment during my presidency. In fact, I also refuse to campaign or do anything beyond maybe filling out the paperwork. If I feel like it. And no, fuck you, no birth certificate.

          1. THE URKOBOLD is not of this world. Hence, no certification of live birth

            1. Sure, vote for Him. I’m not sure how good He is with economics, but His foreign policy would be game-changing. And his appointees would be self-confirming.

      4. Also, barring a divine or superalien endorsement, Obama loses.

        Well Obama could win if the economy get better….




    2. Intrade always struck me as barely this side of legal. While there is not actual money involved, I imagine there’s probably a beltway betting pool based on it on the side.

      1. No “actual money”?

        You are seriously misinformed.

        1. Apparently, so how is this not blatant gambling? One would assume if its internet based then the feds will be knocking on their doors soon.

          1. It’s based out of Ireland (I believe) and therefore away from the clutches of the Feds.

            It’s also not really gambling in that you’re placing bets based off information similar to the stock market. It’s not just merely rolling a dice.

            Shrike could probably edumacate us more, but I believe it’s extremely reliable in terms of providing information, particularly when it comes to political elections.

            1. educated or not, I’m surprised the feds haven’t clamped down on it. It seems like the sort of thing they would be very much against. And reliability in predicting the obvious is something for softcore journalism.

            2. Its reliability with elections only applies near the time the elections occur. Right now, it’s mostly useless.

  13. Threadjack: Am I missing something? I haven’t seen H&R unload all over the latest Tom Friedman column yet. It’s a fun Malthusian turn about how people have too much stuff, written by a guy with a zillion square foot house.…..slfriedman

    1. I haven’t seen H&R unload all over the latest Tom Friedman column yet. It’s a fun Malthusian turn about how people have too much stuff, written by a guy with a zillion square foot house.

      Well to his credit he has stopped adding shareholder value to the NY times…..

    2. Puke. Of course the increase in food and gas prices is because of environmental collapse, and not idiotic public policy by numerous governments worldwide, of course! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

    3. There is too much stuff but not enough food. Does not compute.

    4. He should change his NYT profile pic to one of him wearing a hairshirt.

  14. What’s worse: Romneycare or Perry endorsing Giuliani in 2008?

  15. Trans-Texas Corridors for everyone!

    Rick Perry makes Bush II look like a genius.

  16. I get a sneaking suspicion that our next chief executive is going to be HILLARY!

    I’m looking for an unexpected ‘policy difference’ or ‘I’m done, time to move on’ departure for the old battle ax from where she’s been licking her wounds from 08. She actually elevated her resume by ditching being Chuckie Shumer’s AMTRAK adult ride along partner from New York and moving to State – a place that keeps her in the spotlight, she gets to deflect blame or controversy, and accumulates ‘elder stateswoman’ cred by the pantsuit load with the crowd that don’t know no better and don’t want to, they just know she been done wrong by the Skipster.

    I think she’ll resign, then re-arise more energized for the prize than ever, with an Army of ‘won’t get fooled again’ leftists backing her up, as she fools the fuck out of them, and blow Skippy’s chances of the Dem nomination out of the water. Then she’ll walk over whoever survives the Klown Kar experience for Team Red to the finals in the general election.

    And it will be publicly and politically acceptable, at that point, for them to treat Skippy like the party treated Uncle Joe, when he could no longer literally or figuratively ‘send them to the Gulag’.

    1. You have a healthy imagination!

      Untethered to reality – but healthy anyway!

    2. You’re so close. Right person, wrong party.

      1. Never happen….thick ankles have no place in the White House.

        1. Besides…rumor has it she wants to be a banker….and just when she was improving her image.

      2. You forgot to mention that Rush supported her during the 2008 primaries.

  17. I guess there is some justice in the world. I don’t know much about Perry but what I’m reading here makes me sad.

    I still demand that John make a rum for the GOP nom and that H&R support him.

    1. Sigh…even with preview, I fuck up. RUN

      1. I still demand that John make a rum for the GOP nom and that H&R support him.

        Oh I don’t know….I’d be much more inclined to vote for any candidate who made me a Mojito.

        1. Given the fucking terrible GOP nom list (aside from Gary), we’re going to need all the hooch we can consume to survive the process, result, and actual election even if it kills us.

      2. Actually, knowing John’s penchant for horrible spelling, I think that was appropriate.

    2. John/Minge in ohtwelve!

      Endless petty bickering = not having enough time to further fuck up the country.

      1. We can sell it to the masses as a vote for bipartisanship, and working together for the future or whatever. The clueless like that sort of thing, right?

  18. All this talk of Rick Perry, and not one person mentioned the event that Perry is hosting on August 6th, dubbed “The Response: A Call to Prayer for a Nation in Crisis”

    Fellow Americans,

    Right now, America is in crisis: we have been besieged by financial debt, terrorism, and a multitude of natural disasters. As a nation, we must come together and call upon Jesus to guide us through unprecedented struggles, and thank Him for the blessings of freedom we so richly enjoy.

    Some problems are beyond our power to solve, and according to the Book of Joel, Chapter 2, this historic hour demands a historic response. Therefore, on August 6, thousands will gather to pray for a historic breakthrough for our country and a renewed sense of moral purpose.

    I sincerely hope you’ll join me in Houston on August 6th and take your place in Reliant Stadium with praying people asking God’s forgiveness, wisdom and provision for our state and nation. There is hope for America. It lies in heaven, and we will find it on our knees.

    Rick Perry

    1. Whew, that’s on a Saturday. I won’t be anywhere near downtown Houston.

    2. I’m impressed with his courage to come out and tell people he finds heaven on his knees. How cosmopolitan of him.

      See there shrike, not all socons are cavemen.

    3. Dear God

      All I ask for is a 50 meter asteroid travelling 50 kps to hit Reliant stadium during Perry’s prayer meeting on August 6th.

      That would go a long way to making a believer out of this atheist.


    4. That is powerful dumb, and I basically feel the same was as Arasen, but his stupid prayer bit is STILL a better plan than what the president and most politicos are floating.

      1. i know, rite?

    5. Hey, every hour our leaders spend praying is time they’re not actually governing. I say, more of this.

  19. Rick Perry is a SoCon nutjob, but it’s hard to argue that Texas isn’t in relatively good shape.

  20. So Perry’s solution to our economic problems is prayer?

    1. The sad thing is if congress and Obama had done this instead of what they did from Jan 1 2008 until present the economy would be better off then it is now.

  21. Can’t he just secede and run for president of Texas? Wouldn’t that make a lot of people happier, on both sides of the new border?

  22. Hey, if Rick Perry runs, any chance we can get Kinky Friedman to run as an independent?

  23. While we’re at it, why don’t we draft Bernie Madoff? “At last, an HONEST crook!” If he wins, he pardons himself.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.