Victory Envy

[chuckster]

Thursday, April 17, 2003 7:55 p.m. EDT
Gingrich: Clinton Suffers From 'Victory Envy'

Ex-President Bill Clinton can't resist criticizing President Bush almost every chance he gets because he's suffering from an acute case of "victory envy."

So says former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who discussed the phenomenon of the continually carping ex-president Wednesday with nationally syndicated radio host Sean Hannity.

"President Clinton suffers from a very bad case of victory envy," the one-time top Republican contended, before defining the term.

"Victory envy is when you're a loser and you didn't have any victories and now you see a guy who did it for real. And you realize that after all your puny Tomahawk missiles and your puny midnight or 2 a.m. attacks on the information building - I mean, all the different pathetic things that President Clinton did in foreign policy - suddenly you see what a real commander in chief and a real president is like."

"I think President Clinton can't take it," Gingrich explained. "I think he's being so critical and so harsh because it drives him a little nutty to see what a real commander in chief who really understands the presidency and who's really prepared to stand up and defend America is doing."

The architect of the GOP's 1994 congressional takeover differentiated between recent criticism of Bush leveled by ex-President Carter and Clinton's running commentary from the sidelines.

"Carter has consistently been for weakness and ineffectiveness in foreign policy his whole career," he told Hannity. "But there is some integrity there."

For Clinton, the former speaker contended, "it's personal."

"He failed. He didn't get the job done. He didn't get rid of Saddam. He didn't get rid of bin Laden," Gingrich noted. "George W. Bush is doing the job and I think that it drives Bill Clinton nuts to see the difference between his performance and President Bush."

 

[Tonio]

Legitimate criticisms, but why did they have to come from that weenie Gingrich? Like he has any more credibility than Clinton. He helped turn party politics into a stupid holy war when he was Speaker. Both Clinton and Gingrich should just go back to their private lives and stop spouting off to reporters.

 

[Frank]

It's possibly because part of his private life is to appear as a political consultant on Fox News. He gets paid to say things like that.

Why do you say, "holy war"? I don't recall anyone making Washington so partisan as Clinton did, when he was in office. Every failing of his first term was put upon "the previous 12 years of Republican administrations" (god how I got so tired of hearing that phrase). He never missed a chance to blame the Republicans for something not happening. I don't recall any Republican president doing that, and you'll notice that George W doesn't do it either.

I do have to hand one thing to him - aside from Tip O'Neill, I don't think at any time, people could name the House Speaker. I'm willing to bet there's STILL a sizable number of voters who STILL think he is Speaker.

 

[Tonio]

Originally posted by Frank
Every failing of his first term was put upon "the previous 12 years of Republican administrations" (god how I got so tired of hearing that phrase). He never missed a chance to blame the Republicans for something not happening.

Excellent point, Frank. You're right that Clinton blamed any government inaction on the GOP. But he swaddled a lot of that talk in touchy-feely language, partly, I believe, to win allies among moderate Republicans. The whole "Let's all work together" rhetoric. Gingrich didn't give a damn about moderate Democrats or trying to make deals or working together. He said the GOP was on a crusade and to hell with anyone who stood in the party's way. Gingrich didn't just blame the Democrats, he accused them of openly plotting to bring down American democracy.

 

[Kyle]

Originally posted by Tonio
... Gingrich didn't just blame the Democrats, he accused them of openly plotting to bring down American democracy.

You mean they're not???

 

[Tonio]

Originally posted by Kyle
You mean they're not???

Maybe both parties are enemies of the American people!

 

[Frank]

Originally posted by Tonio
Gingrich didn't just blame the Democrats, he accused them of openly plotting to bring down American democracy.

I initially didn't like him, because like many politicians, he was full of this kind of rhetoric. But then I got to see his Rembrandt College lectures, and read a couple of his books. A very different, and likable man. I even got a few other people who didn't like him to change their mind about him, after watching him, in his lectures.

That's the part about politics that I never liked - that you have to wear a "game face" and distill your thoughts into hyperbolic nine-second sound bites, because your opponent WILL do it, if you don't. You CAN'T get on the mike and begin carefully explaining your position, because the press will make you look like an idiot if you do. (He described this in "Lessons Learned the Hard Way").

 

[Tonio]

Originally posted by Frank
I initially didn't like him, because like many politicians, he was full of this kind of rhetoric. But then I got to see his Rembrandt College lectures, and read a couple of his books. A very different, and likable man. I even got a few other people who didn't like him to change their mind about him, after watching him, in his lectures.

That's the part about politics that I never liked - that you have to wear a "game face" and distill your thoughts into hyperbolic nine-second sound bites, because your opponent WILL do it, if you don't. You CAN'T get on the mike and begin carefully explaining your position, because the press will make you look like an idiot if you do. (He described this in "Lessons Learned the Hard Way").

I'm glad you got to see that other side of Gingrich. Like you, I blame the electronic media for the "game face" attitude. When I first began following politics in the 1970s, the print media still dominated the coverage.

Politics shouldn't be an us-versus-them thing. Most people get involved in politics because they want to make a difference in their communities. It's sad to see those people lose that spirit after they've been in office for a while.

 

[vraiblonde]

I love Newt and think his Contract With America was a stroke of brilliance. Former officials and military brass always do the talk show circuit after they retire, especially if they've done a good job and have something to offer. Why Jimmy Carter trots out, I have no idea, since he was one of the biggest Presidential failures we've had in modern times. Anyone that would listen to that buffoon has rocks in their head.

Politics shouldn't be an us-versus-them thing.

Okay, but it is. We want one thing, they want the exact opposite. Whoever can get the most people on their side wins. I get tired of people saying that we should all "work together" - maybe join hands and sing a few rounds of "I'd Like To Teach The World to Sing".

I never EVER want Republicans to start "cooperating" with the extreme Left. They're wrong, they're subversive, they're nothing more than little kids running around seeing how big of a stink they can make before someone spanks their a$$. Democrats, for some reason, have taken up this mantra of "feel-good" politics that's so out of touch with what's going on in our country and what's best for people. I am totally and completely against them, and this is a recent phenomenon - I used to think they had a point, now I think they're secretly working with the KGB to destroy America and everything we've worked so hard to build since 1776 when we chased the British out of our country.

 

[smcdem]

You are correct vrai comrade...Ha ha Hey guys I'm back!

 

[Tonio]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Okay, but it is. We want one thing, they want the exact opposite. Whoever can get the most people on their side wins. I get tired of people saying that we should all "work together" - maybe join hands and sing a few rounds of "I'd Like To Teach The World to Sing".

Oh, wonderful, Vrai. Now I have that old Pepsi commercial running through my head!

Seriously, what you said about the extreme Left also applies to the extreme Right. Extremists don't care about compromise or debate--that's why we call them extremists.

Sure, the Republicans and Democrats have different agendas. But the mainstreams in both parties want the same basic things for America--justice, domestic tranquility, common defense and so forth. They just disagree on how to make those things happen. A Democrat who favors universal health care and a Republican who favors a completely privatized health care system both want good health care for Americans.

Our system works best when both sides make compromises. I wouldn't call it "working together," because the work that goes into making those compromises can be very brutal. I wouldn't want a system where one side gets everything it wants--that's totalitarianism, not democracy.

And that's why I don't like it when the more extreme elements in the parties label their opponents as the devil's spawn. Rational, intelligent people can have differences of opinions on issues. As I've said before, the extremists tend to be the most vocal elements in the parties, especially during election years. They are the ones who poison the debate with their idiotic ideas.

 

[Christy]

Originally posted by Tonio

Our system works best when both sides make compromises. I wouldn't call it "working together," because the work that goes into making those compromises can be very brutal. I wouldn't want a system where one side gets everything it wants--that's totalitarianism, not democracy.

I have to respectfully disagree with you on that one Tonio. EVERY "compromised" program that's been put forth is so watered down it serves neither side.

 

[demsformd]

What the hell has Gingrich won? He was effectively kicked out of the Speaker's office by his own party, he later resigned from Congress, and he (with Bob Dole as his "leader") lost the 1996 Election by an electoral college landslide (remember how certain the GOP was that they would win that election?)

Yes, vrai, the radical left is trying to take America down. They oppose the American way of life. The radical right feels that way too. When Pat Robertson or Pat Buchannan gets in front of a crowd and says that the official language of America should be English that government must dictate Christian morals, they are fighting against America. They fight against the freedom of religion, the freedom of speech, and the federal government's role in this nation. Both extremes are contrary to American themes and they do not represent what is the best for America.

Compromise is the way to go, especially if there is divided government. The essence of politics is compromise, without it nothing would ever change. I would rather have half of something than all of nothing.