As most of my Conservative, Republican friends are Romney supporters, with a few Ron Paul Republitarians or Liberpublicans, and a smattering of Huntsman fans (actually, I think most of those are my Mormon Dem friends), I think I can pound on Mr. Former Speaker without raising too much controversy.
I hesitate because I don't like calling people bad names, even people already named "Newt." And I certainly don't want to offend any more of my family, friends, etc., just because they disagree with me politically.
But Andrew Sullivan linked to a blog article that seems to explain Gingrich's popularity better than any other I've seen. It's from an admitted Liberal, so take it for what it's worth. He succinctly sums it up well:
he acts exactly like one of those obnoxious elitist intellectual know-it-alls that the right-wing no-nothings think is the hallmark of an intellectual. He is constantly reminding us of his doctorate in history; he routinely claims he understands issues more deeply than anyone else; he has made a career of denouncing or (when he had the authority) eliminating professional expertise that might challenge his own certain pronouncements; and he is a veritable fount of crackpot "big" ideas (mining minerals on the moon, protecting the United States from sci-fi doomsday scenarios, and "fundamentally transforming" everything as a first step to doing anything.Well, as a self-proclaimed non-Intellectual myself, I hope I'm on some firm ground here. At least I'm not mining for fools gold on the moon. Even Romney figured that one out.
Another useful rule of thumb: real geniuses, as opposed to simple egomaniacs, do not generally refer to themselves in the third person.
Read more: http://budiansky.blogspot.com/2011/12/cartoon-professor.html#ixzz1gMx6dg2h
Seriously: what's with the Grand Old Party focusing on electing an elistist snob over a frugal capitalist? What's with that?