There are so many misstatements, distortions, exaggerations, flip-flops, falsehoods and flat out lies in politics, and particularly in political campaigns, that when a politician displays a rare moment of unquestioned honesty and authenticity, it becomes a major news story. (Remember the obsession with Hillary's near tears on the campaign trail in '08?)
After months of the GOP presidential candidates accusing each other of lying about their own records and about the records of one another, we finally experienced one moment of unimpeachable, unadulterated honesty from a candidate. I'm not talking about the moment Newt Gingrich choked up while recalling his mother, or even the moment he let slip his real feelings about black people and food stamps. In fact I'm not talking about what Newt Gingrich said at all, but what he didn't say. When Newt Gingrich refused to call Mitt Romney for the customary congratulatory call following Romney's razor thin victory in Iowa, he said much more about what he thinks of Mitt Romney than he ever has in any debate. For that I applaud him.
Being gracious in defeat is one of those idealized character traits that we all aspire to (you know, like how we're supposed to say something nice or not saying anything at all) but few truly succeed at. We may say the right thing when our co-worker beats us in that pickup basketball game, or when our boss beats us in that "friendly" game of tennis, but how many actually mean the words, "You played a really great game" or "the better man won today" deep down inside?
And if your coworker won with help from a questionable call or two, or your boss called a certain ball out on match point that looked very in to you (and everybody else), you may want to say a lot of things to them once the game is over, but "good game" probably isn't on that list.
Political campaigns are often filled with one bad call, one cheap shot, one sharp elbow and one foul after another. Yet despite often being more bruising than any contact sport (after all, even football players don't go after each others' families on the field), at the end of play, regardless of what happened on the court you are still supposed to pick up the phone, and call the guy who beat you, possibly by lying about you or criticizing your spouse, to say "Congratulations. I wish you the best." Even though we all know you probably wish he would get hit by a bus.
Though they may have little in common politically, former George McGovern and Gingrich do have something in common. According to the New York Times, after being trounced by Richard Nixon in the 1972 presidential election the former Senator also declined to pick up the phone for the standard concession call to his adversary. He sent a telegram instead. (Click here to see a list of some famous sore losers -- from politics, to sports and entertainment.)
(In light of the Watergate break-in, I might have opted for a singing telegram--delivered in the least favorite musical genre of the intended recipient.)
Don't get me wrong. I realize kids need to be taught the value of good sportsmanship. Frankly, that's a lesson we could all use. But another lesson we can use? Learning to play fair. You can say a lot of things about Newt Gingrich (for instance my 90 year-old grandmother who can't always remember his name calls him the one with "all the wives") but one thing you can't say about him is that he lost in Iowa fair and square. The loss may have been legal thanks to Citizens United, but I wouldn't call it fair. He -- and most of the other candidates -- ultimately lost to Mitt Romney because Romney, and those supporting him, massively out spent the others.
Whether or not the ads unleashed by the Romney campaign, and the super PACs supporting him, were inaccurate (a longstanding Gingrich complaint) is really secondary. If someone is flooding the airways with one message, and that message is drowning out all others, that message will get mistaken for fact -- regardless of whether it is or not.
Gingrich may have lost in Iowa, but he could perhaps take some small consolation in coming close to winning an unexpected new role by default: spokesperson for the movement to get rid of super PACs. Of course, then his opponents would have another example for their attack ads already going after him for his brief love fest with Nancy Pelosi over climate change, which supposedly proves that he's occasionally too nice to liberals to be a true conservative. (Yes I laughed just as hard while typing that as you did when reading it.) But it appears that before embracing his new cause with both arms, he used one arm to signal, "Well if you can't beat 'em, join 'em." A super PAC supporting Gingrich will be spending millions of dollars on attack ads aimed at--you guessed it--Mitt Romney in South Carolina.
Since Romney didn't play fair, I must say that I don't have a lot of sympathy for him regarding what's about to come his way. That doesn't mean I applaud Gingrich's super PAC. I don't applaud anyone, or any entity, that uses obscene amounts of money to hijack our political system. But I do find it refreshing that Gingrich actually took a stand in Iowa and essentially told Romney just what he could do with his win.
And he did it without saying anything at all.
Of course, a singing telegram might have worked too. Maybe a certain song by Cee-Lo Green?
Keli Goff is the author of "The GQ Candidate" and a Contributing Editor for Loop21.com, where an earlier version of this post originally appeared.
Follow Keli Goff on Twitter: www.twitter.com/keligoff
-it is what they do not say that indicts these guys.
In your dreams, Mr. Goff. If Newt had had enough money to go blow for blow against Romney's super PAC, He wouldn't be pretending to be against them. Newt is as dishonest and duplicitous as Romney. and he hates losing. When his 5 m Super Pac is used up he'll be back to crying out against super PACs.
So when Obama spends an estimated Billion Dollars on this election please think hard about that statement. Mr. Gingrich never mentioned any color associated with his statement about people and food stamps. There is no need to be so sensitive.
With these guys, it's just quote them verbatim to an appreciative audience and let the laughter fly. Jon Stewart understands this perfectly; just quote 'em, take a long pause, maybe show some video and the message is sent: Willfully Ignorant, greedy, lying and hypocritical politicians such as these are very funny people.
She did many of her Sarah Palin skits simply reciting the words the woman had already uttered, indeed verbatim. Hysterical.
Must be a great time to be a comedy writer.
Newt Gingrich is without a doubt the best candidate with the Superior knowledge of American Politics, and Main Street needs along with vast amounts of dealings with Foreign Policies. If the American Voters will open their minds, and weigh what Gingrich says, one will discover just how much he is aware of what is taking place in our Nation. Listen to him, when he speaks, his words have meaning and he has what many of the candidates don't have, and that advantage is he was the Speaker of the House, which gave him experience and knowledge that he didn't have to read about but actually took part of the process. His abilities and desires to improve conditions in America will be to address the critical issues that are destroying our Economy, and the ability to place our nations needs first and foremost above all others. America must be maintained by a Leader who is dedicated and has the determination to work for the people is Newt Gingrich.
What if Newt became a conscientious steward truly protecting democracy and citizens wellbeing.
Newt could eloquently teach citizens how our country was sold out by unscrupulous legislators and regulators because he led the parade.
Gingrich has delivered relentlessly for the pay to play crowd, he delivered the repeal of Glass-Steagel that allowed Citi Bank and the rest of the banks to pillage and plunder without restraint.
At the same time he delivered the Gramm-Leach-Bliley financial weapons of mass destructions for the Wall Street crowd to use to bankrupt the world.
Newt could be a real leader to show the 99% how to exert withering public pressure on President Obama and on all sitting Democrats and Republican legislators to demand that they enact real legislation to fix our problems starting with corruption clean up, congressional, tax, healthcare, energy and environmental reforms all Before the 2012 elections.
Real actions +real results= real election victories in November for repentant backsliders.
Newt's the poster child for why we don't like politics and politicians; reviewing his time as the Speaker and moral failings before and after in abundance. He may be the King of influence peddlers, making Jack Abramoff’s post-prison media contrition blitz look like teaching a kindergarten kid to play fairly in the school yard.
Was "I enjoying firing people" taken out of context? Uh, huh! It rose from within his psyche like a cat grinning upon bagging a canary or me, as a prosecutor, when the jury’s verdict was “guilty” for a hard-fought case! Mitt got something out of flipping those companies and yes, putting people out of work. He worked for a bigger principle -- self-interest via the hardball approach -- more so any political or spiritual values he may be able to quote or abide by periodically.
Let’s examine Mitt's other executioners, Texas cronyism king, Rick Perry or throwback to the days of the Inquisition running roughshod over people's private lives, Rick Santorum? There isn't sufficient word count for the inventory of phony-baloney in the GOP campaign; but for Ron Paul's consistency on several points -- some of which he's spot-on and others, make him more a throwback to an uncivilized age than a Flintstone’s episode.