Gingrich’s endorsement and the failings of the conservative media

By Jennifer Rubin
WashPost

The conservative punditocracy is all aflutter today about the Union Leader’s endorsement of Newt Gingrich. Both the newspaper’s publisher, Joseph McQuaid, and those chattering about the endorsement offer the latest evidence to the conservative media being downright daft in this primary — a result, I suspect, of their increasingly self-segregation, which abets tone-deafness.

Let’s start with the endorsement itself. The editorial board’s rationale is based on the conviction that Gingrich is “bold” — I kid you not — and that he should be recognized for “bringing in the first Republican House in 40 years and by forging balanced budgets and even a surplus despite the political challenge of dealing with a Democratic President.” In short, this is another case of selective conservative amnesia.

The endorsement includes no recognition that Gingrich was creamed by Bill Clinton in the budget standoff. No mention of the ethics violations and the penchant to compromise away conservative principles. No mention of the House Republicans’ attempted coup against Gingrich’s leadership. And no mention of his post-speakership, which consisted primarily of feathering his nest by shilling for causes and interests the Union Leader opposed (e.g. ethanol subsidies, Freddie Mac, Medicare Part D, immigration reform).

Even sillier than the ill-reasoned endorsement is the reaction of right-leaning pundits who find this development meaningful — decisive, even! Good grief. While the newspaper is New Hampshire’s largest, it has a lousy track record of picking winners. (It has previously endorsed Steve Forbes and Pat Buchanan.) Moreover, conservative pundits are usually the ones warning Republicans that newspaper endorsements are declining in value in recent years.

(More here.)