Gingrich likes auftragstaktik

Posted By Thomas E. Ricks Tuesday, January 10, 2012 - 11:10 AM Share

Newt Gingrich is into auftragstaktik, Tim Murphy of Mother Jones points out.

That doesn't mean that we should think mission-based orders (and the command philosophy from which that approach is derived) are bad. But it does make me a mite uneasy. Gingrich, someone who had worked alongside him on a defense study panel once told me, is as close as you will find to a modern version of Aaron Burr, by which he meant smart, manipulative, and unethical.

I've only interviewed Newt Gingrich a few times, so I can't say I know him well. That said, this comment, by David Brooks, strikes me as the best analysis I've ever seen of Gingrich:

the two main Republican contenders, we have one man, Romney, who seems to have walked straight out of the 1950s, and another, Gingrich, who seems to have walked straight out of the 1960s. He has every negative character trait that conservatives associate with '60s excess: narcissism, self-righteousness, self-indulgence and intemperance. He just has those traits in Republican form.

As nearly everyone who has ever worked with him knows, he would severely damage conservatism and the Republican Party if nominated. He would severely damage the Hamilton-Theodore Roosevelt strain in American life.

Not persuaded? Here's more. And more. I think President Obama would love to run against Mr. Gingrich.

(HT to Josh K.)

Alex Wong/Getty Images

EXPLORE:2012 ELECTION POSTER 4, NORTH AMERICA, ELECTION 2012, MILITARY, NEWT GINGRICH

(16)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

DILNIR

4:30 PM ET

January 10, 2012

Der Gingrich

I have a choice. Read 'The Art Of Maneuver (Leonhard) Or listen to Newt and his history buddies throwing about German word-phrases.

Hmmm, I think I'll settle for Leonhard.

JPWREL

5:27 PM ET

January 10, 2012

What?

So David Brooks thinks that Gingrich as President would “damage the Hamilton - Theodore Roosevelt strain in American life”? It is hard for me to understand what Brooks was thinking about? T. R. was a big ‘P’rogressive Republican who confronted big business and their combinations with trust busting and not kowtowing to the robber barons in current Republican high fashion.

T. R. also deeply believed in ‘CONSERVATION’ and not the current Republican proclivity to rape and plunder any and all available land and resources in order to make a fast buck. About the only thing that I can find that T.R. shared with contemporary Republicans is a common thread of mindless jingoism. But to T. R.’s credit he was willing to put his own life on the line unlike modern Republicans who are otherwise ‘busy’ and prefer to hire their cannon fodder than put themselves or their kids flesh and blood at risk.

Hamilton believed in a strong Federal authority and a National Bank (what we today call a central bank). Where does that fit in with Republican right wing primitives who rail against the Federal Reserve and anything else that emanates from Washington other than dollars for defense contractors? Hamilton also believed in the broadest definition of the ‘general welfare’ that today would be accosted by Republicans with violence and their customary self-centeredness.

ERIC HAMMEL

6:45 PM ET

January 10, 2012

Well . . .

. . that pretty much sums it up.

CHARLIEFORD

7:07 PM ET

January 10, 2012

Brooks is saying, I think . . .

. . . that that strain (what once was called "national greatness conservatism") would be harmed by becoming associated with Gingrich. It's already on the run inside the GOP. Newt becoming its standard-bearer would taint it for a long time to become, not because of the strain, but because of Newt.

HUCKLEBERRY

11:52 PM ET

January 10, 2012

Herr Brooks

I was confused by this Hamilton-Roosevelt strain, too. I can't help but think that this is some clue to how Brooks justifies (to himself) how he makes his living.

ERIC HAMMEL

6:52 PM ET

January 10, 2012

You Saw It Here First

A Gingrich-Paul ticket would be a NewtRon Bomb. Right?

HUNTER

9:06 PM ET

January 10, 2012

Clever

You, sir, win the internet!

ERIC HAMMEL

9:21 PM ET

January 10, 2012

Other Shoe

And this shoe fits: A NewtRon Bomb protects property but not people.

HUCKLEBERRY

11:53 PM ET

January 10, 2012

Why this site rocks

The war dog thing is ok, but this is the real dope, the true gen, and whathaveyou

VIC LESPERANCE

12:33 PM ET

January 12, 2012

NewtRon Bomb

That ticket would function on the Republican Party the same way as that weapon. There would be structures but no people. That is a dream ticket for the Democrats!

By the way, nice phraseology.

OMPHALOS

11:45 PM ET

January 10, 2012

staying with the Sunday talk show motif....

A couple weeks ago Paul Krugman had this cherry on "This Week" (actually, he was paraphrasing some one else, unnamed): [Gingrich] is a stupid man's idea of what a smart man sounds like." I think that about nails it.

But really, he's got no shot anyway. He'll be bloviating at Fox and on Hannity's Greatest American Heroes summer concert series at your local Six Flags by mid July, while Calista will be hanging the crepe in their McMansion in Stepford.

**eeeegggghhhuuuugggeeehhhh**

OMPHALOS

11:57 PM ET

January 10, 2012

I also hear he's a big fan

of farfegnugen, which I believe is German for last Wednesday's horsemeat.

-HT to the Daily Lederhosen

RIFLE COMPANY COMMANDER

2:17 AM ET

January 11, 2012

Sorry for this, but...

Ron Paul 2012!! He's got a sliver of a chance!

RUBBER DUCKY

2:40 PM ET

January 11, 2012

Tough crowd

Newt's first two wives misunderstood him, the House maliciously persecuted him, and now this! Please. Let him gracelessly slip into oblivion.

KUNINO

3:31 PM ET

January 11, 2012

The oddness of David Brooks

This longterm commenter on conservative politics seems to be taking on, often, the role of GOP kingmaker, which seems outside why the New York Times hired him. His brow Botoxed, his eyebrows plucked, his weekly appearances on the PBS Newshour, all combine to suggest that deep down somewhere in his heart or mind, Mr Brooks would seriously consider any plea from a desperate Republican party to accept its nomination for candidacy as president of the United States -- if not this year, then perhaps in 2016. Or maybe he just wants his own network show.

The Brooks present eminence points to the shortage of first-class minds in the political observing ganm\me. Dana Milbank of the Washington Post and Gail Collins of the New York Times are brilliant on their (frequent) good days, but where's the match for the late Richard Condon? His frequent explanations of how politics and the news media work in The Manchurian Candidate still ring true today. He wrote it 53 years ago. Still a thrilling read, but no curent writer, probably, would dare suggest the existence of a silenced revolver.

REYNARDNILSON

6:54 AM ET

February 9, 2012

Hamilton believed in a strong

Hamilton believed in a strong Federal authority and a National Bank (what we today call a central bank). Where does that fit in with Republican right wing primitives who rail against the Federal Reserve and anything weddingtips else that emanates from Washington other than dollars for defense contractors? Hamilton also believed in the broadest definition of the ‘general welfare’ that today would be accosted by Republicans with violence and their customary self-centeredness.