For that matter, what makes Herb Cain or anyone else who doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of being nominated, even as a Republican, run for president? The standard answer is that the campaign will generate considerable publicity, either for themselves or their pet causes, and this in turn will generate money-making opportunities or furtherance of their causes, or both.
But in Newt’s case, it’s unlikely his quixotic campaign will make his name any more recognizable that it was already. He’s already forged a lucrative post-politician career, making speeches and publishing books and appearing regularly on Fox News. Also, can anyone (including Newt) articulate what his “cause” is? Beside Newt?
It was alleged in the comments to the last post that Newt is running to raise money for himself. It’s illegal for a candidate to use campaign money for personal purposes, even if the campaign has ended. Of course, Newt has a history of playing fast and loose with donations. Allegations of using donations to PACs and other nonprofits for partisan purposes drove him to resign as Speaker of the House way back when.
But the laws have been tightened, and the FEC and other regulatory authorities seem to be investigating and prosecuting possible misuse of campaign funds pretty vigorously; think John Ensign and John Edwards. I don’t think Newt would get away with tapping into campaign donations as a source of income these days, even after considerable laundering.
And the fact is, he isn’t getting donations. Even money to his once-respected American Solutions PAC has dried up. Even if he thought his presidential run would enhance his brand and make him a more valuable commodity, it appears just the opposite is happening. (“It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.” — attributed to Abraham Lincoln)
I think Newt genuinely believes he is a Great Man who deserves to be recognized as such by a fawning public. He may have believed that if he became a candidate, movement conservatism would swoon at his feet the way it did in 1994. Instead, it has passed him by.
See also — more on Callista’s bling.
Narcissism? Politicians are typically types that crave the adulation of a crowd. That’s what drives many of them but there are exceptions. I think we discount this motivating factor way too much and are all too ready to accomodate them.
I think Newt genuinely believes he is a Great Man who deserves to be recognized as such by a fawning public. He may have believed that if he became a candidate, movement conservatism would swoon at his feet the way it did in 1994.
Not really having studied the guy closely, I can’t talk to personal reasons like this, which might well be true. What comes through for me, is that he and the others really believe in their cause. I also think Newt is used to a fawning public – even if it’s just a classroom full of students, semester after semester, and he’s completely used to receiving this kind of attention. I suspect the major missteps this week are a huge shock to him, in much the way that certain older people find themselves making mistakes – and being called on it – that they never would back in their prime.
he and the others really believe in their cause.
But in Newt’s case, exactly what is his cause? He doesn’t seem to be putting out a consistent message of “cause.” Some guys, like Rand Paul, clearly do have a cause that they spell out consistently. It may make no rational sense, but there it is. But for the life of me I can’t tell exactly what Newt would do if he were in office these days.
“It’s illegal for a candidate to use campaign money for personal purposes” That’s true. But, how is that candidates like Christine O’Donnell manage to make a living running for office?
You are aware that O’Donnell is under federal criminal investigation for misuse of campaign funds, are you not?
I’m pretty sure running for president is simply part of Newt’s brand at this point. If he didn’t occasionally make a show of running for high office, people might stop buying his books, and worse (for Newt, not for the public in general) stop booking him on the Sunday morning shows.
Newt’s cause? 1994’s “Contract On America” is a good place to start.
Newt’s cause is, and always has been, The Greater Glory of Newt. And woe to anyone who doesn’t exhibit the proper deference. Years ago, when he was House Speaker, I read a magazine profile that told how he came by his views on abortion. He had no firm opinion on the subject, one way or the other, until one day at some function a strong-minded feminist got up in Newt’s face and insisted that he step up in favor of abortion rights. As faux-Don Draper once said: “I will not be spoken to like that by a woman!” According to the profile I read, henceforth and evermore Newt has been powerfully, superciliously anti-abortion, because a pro-choice woman once pissed him off at a party.
When one is the absolute, permanent center of one’s own universe, the end result is a lifetime of unsupportable glory-seeking. Exhibit B would be a person from Alaska with the initials S.P.
He’s running on the Ego ticket, pure and simple.
What fascinates me is how he thinks he has a chance of winning the nomination. His personal baggage outweighs him; his inhumane treatment of women, his alleged affairs, and even now the kerfluffle with Tiffany’s, where his no-interest account and whispers of his current wife’s ties to their lobbyists are raising questions.
He’s been around the track, so why does he think his terrible past won’t affect him?
Newt worships at the Church of Newt. Period.
When Newt first ran for Congress he ran as a Rockefeller Republican and then, sensing the shift in the wind that the Religious Rightbrought with it when Reagan courted them, he went with the flow. And then, complete sociopath that he was/is and sensing a void, he decided to be a leader of that far right wing of the Republican Party.
I think he might have really thought he could pull the same switcheroo now, and come across as a fairly reasonable choice. He figured he already had the far right bona fides, and might be able to sucker some indepedents, if he was serious about going for it. And if not, well, he was a little bit controvercial, and that might help him in the future.
He, sociopath that he is, thought others would rally around him, like they did in ’94. Yeah, they rallied around him – until they didn’t, and he resigned in disgrace.
That time, it took years. This time, things blew up in his face fast. It seemed like he only put his hat in the ring before he put his foot in his mouth.
The times changed. Newt didn’t.
Maybe now we’ll see less of him on TV. I’m not even FOX will continue to help him fleece the suckers with his contributions to organizations that contribute to Newts bank account.
It couldn’t happen to a bigger piece of sh*t.
Maybe now we’ll see less of him on TV. I’m not even FOX will continue to help him fleece the suckers with his contributions to organizations that contribute to Newts bank account.
Bullshit. There is nothing that Newt can do or say that’s so despicable that the Sunday talk-show hosts won’t be begging him back within a month. All the pundit class cares about is that he’s “controversial” — they either never remember, or simply don’t care, what asshattery made him so controversial in the first place.
Also, can anyone (including Newt) articulate what his “cause†is?
I can… 🙂 Just as rape is not primarily about sex, but more about control, power, and the insatiable need to dominate another human being — so it is with Newt. Newt has never reached that point of emotional development where he can find security within himself, and his presentations of himself clearly bears witness to that fact. Looking at his track record,it’s obvious, at least to me, that Newt is driven by a demon* that manifests itself in behaviors that point directly to Newt’s “cause”.
* Pan?
Swami,
I don’t know if it’s Pan, or the gravy…
Bading bang boom!
When your greatest skill is blowing your own horn..it’s only natural you’d seek the greatest stage possible to perform on.
Off-topic: Saw the HBO movie “Too Big to Fail”. It was fascinating. All the actors were great in their rolls. It really showed the incompetence of the Bush appointees. It also quietly implied that Henry Paulson didn’t get much sleep during that time period. Because he is a Christian Scientist, he wouldn’t use any prescription drugs. He was offered some sleeping pills by another character and told that he needed to get some sleep not only for himself but for the country. He threw the drugs away; so, the whole banking crisis may possibly have been caused by an important person in the White House not getting enough sleep. I recommend if you get a chance to see it, to do so.
@Bonnie – I saw (and recommend) Inside Job, and Paulson in that movie sure looked like a pretty wired up, stressed out guy. But then, if the whole financial world is falling down around you, I suppose that would stress anyone out in that job.
Must-see video of Anthony Weiner from NY, sticking it to the Republicans on their backpedaling from the Ryan plan. It’s not about Newt, but he tosses out the remark that “even a blind squirrel can find a nut sometimes”. Enjoy!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/26/sarah-palin-bus-tour-hist_n_867472.html
Ah, what a circus it will be! I haven’t felt this much mounting excitement since the question of Britney’s virginity was at the fore front of our national media circus.
The question ‘What Makes Newt Run?’ goes to a fundamental human drive I haven’t seen discussed. I want to give two examples and connect them, because it suggests to me how a conservatives brain is wired. See if it makes sense.
If you have read ‘Common Sense’ by Thomas Paine, a lot of his arguments for the American Revolution are directed at those who had moral issues with rebelling against the King. The notion was sacrilege. Thomas Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence addressed this same issue with the statement ‘We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain rights…” He wasn’t endorsing religion, he was saying that people were given rights by God, and the violation of those rights by the king justified the colonies breaking away from England. I’m pointing out that 240 years ago, a considerable segment of the colonial population wanted and needed an aristocratic class to parcel out things of value. There was then and is now something comforting to conservatives in the ‘Divine Right of Kings’.
In the 1950s Ayn Rand became popular for a series of books which defined to a great degree, contemporary conservatism. The protagonist was the capitalist, the entrepreneur, the persecuted man of genius, dragged down by the masses. Ayn Rand defined the new aristocrat whose authority came not from God, but from MONEY.
In the time of Thomas Jefferson, the king or aristocrat was appointed by God to control men. In the philosophy of Ayn Rand (who was an atheist), money is in and of itself PROOF that the wealthy man had mastered an ethical system superior to any law. The wealthy man is an aristocrat who must be revered – because he is the SOURCE of wealth for the nation. Taxing these people is blasphemous.
In the time of Jefferson and now, conservatives BELIEVE with all their hearts that there is a class of people whose authority comes either from God or from Money who are superior and have a natural right to rule. The royalist and the Randian conservative are not as interested in exercising power as they are preventing the rabble from exercising power.
Once upon a time there was such a thing as a moderate republican. There still are a few among voters. However, among this crop of GOP presidential candidates, all are working to ensure that a nation of the rich, by the rich and for the rich shall not be administered for the benefit of those who are NOT rich. It’s not that they are trying to enrich themselves only, or seeking the spotlight. For these people there is a basic ethical principle at stake – who this country being run for?
@Doug, your answer is the most satisfying to me. Others have discussed Newt’s ego, his need for adulation, etc etc. But there is something much deeper, and it’s what you discuss, the Conservative Cause, that there is a group of people naturally entitled to rule over others. This can manifest itself in different ways at different times – in ’94 it appeared as Newt championing the Contract on America. Today, Newt’s message may be muddled or incoherent, but he is still a True Believer in Conservativism 101. People vote for him not because of what he says, but because he is an icon for what they believe in.
Doug…Your comment does make a lot of sense as applied conservatives in general who have reached that economic stratum where they might be deluded into believing that God has anointed them with wisdom and knowledge far above that of the common man.
Although Newt has managed to accumulate enough of a fortune to where the delusion of divine appointment could very well be a factor in why Newt believes he is suited for a Presidential run. My thoughts in understanding Newt’s ambitions and actions goes to analyzing the things we know about Newt’s childhood and development. We know that he was starved for love and acceptance and deprived of validation in his childhood in spite of his abundant creativity. And those three factors are paramount in understanding who Newt is today and why he does what he does. He’s looking to be validated, and only reaching for the top can accomplish it.
Doug,
I think you struck right at the heart of darkness.
Excellent analysis.
Also, too:
“What Makes Newt Run?
Well, if you were that full of sh*t, you’d have to run, too.
Because if you were to walk, you’d leave a pile of poo.
Doug – yes of course, the divine right of kings. To oppose what divinity hath wrought is to oppose the divinity.
Other than that, I read once that people are loathe to impose regulations, rules or anything that might seriously cut into the wealth of the very rich because less than rich people believe that some day they might also be rich – sort of like don’t shit in the nest you might one day occupy? Whoever said that hope springs eternal in the human breast might just have hit on a truth. (Somebody else said that without that built in hope, we would never have left the caves.)