Which is worse—Romney’s slanders or Gingrich’s record?

Spencer Warren writes:

What you wrote last week about Romney being a slanderer is fair. But in my view the much more important point is that Gingrich’s colleagues, who owed their newly won power to him, in just a few years forced him out as Speaker because of his terrible flaws as a leader. This alone should disqualify him as a reputable candidate. [LA replies: I don’t think “reputable” is the right word. If someone has failed or been rejected as a leader, that does not make him “disreputable.” There is no moral equivalence between being an incompetent leader and committing vile slanders. This does not mean that I regard Gingrich overall as reputable, but that it was not his service as Speaker or his resignation as Speaker that makes him disreputable.]

Further, I find repellant the sleazy “consulting” payments he took from Freddie Mac—so typical of the stinking influence peddling that is the essence of Washington. Some reformer. At least Romney earned an honest living. Also, last week Jeffrey Kuhner of the Washington Times, speaking as substitute host on the Savage Nation, played audio clips of Gingrich recently suggesting he was an active Goldwater supporter in 1964, despite stating in another audio clip from the late eighties that he supported Rockefeller.

At this point he is much more likely to lose than Romney, despite the latter’s weaknesses (summed up thus: he switched his position on abortion, just like the repugnant GHW Bush).

I now believe Santorum is best. As a conservative he won two Senate terms in a tough swing state, Pennsylvania, while maintaining a principled conservative voting record. (And he had an excellent record on animal humane issues.)

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 30, 2012 12:08 PM | Send