Saturday, 7 January 2012

Newt Gingrich: one of the two Republican hopefuls who aren't completely insane.

My latest blogpost: Newt Gingrich: one of the two Republican hopefuls who aren't completely insane.Tweet this! Posted by Mark Wadsworth at 10:20

Labels: , , , ,

17 comments:

dearieme said...

He's a convert to Roman Catholicism, so it's odds on that he is insane.

7 January 2012 at 10:27
Mark Wadsworth said...

D, I didn't know that. But so did Graham Greene, who wasn't insane, and Tony Blair who was, so it isn't conclusive.

7 January 2012 at 10:33
Ralph Musgrave said...

I've long been puzzled as to why America turns out so many nutcase politicians. I can't work it out. Ideas please.

7 January 2012 at 10:44
formertory said...

If I may, I'd like to suggest the headline should correctly read:

Newt Gingrich: one of the two Republican hopefuls who isn't completely insane.

Sorry!

Apart from that I agree wholeheatedly with dearieme.

7 January 2012 at 13:56
Mark Wadsworth said...

Rm I'm baffled as well. Maybe it is that with very large countries, there is a complete disconnect between people at the top and real life?

FT, no, because "aren't" refers to "two Republican hopefuls".

There are, say, five Rep hopefuls, and if an unknown number are insane and an unknown number are not, then it would be correct to say

"One (of the Rep hopefuls) who isn't insane"

But I have specified the number who aren't insane, so my headlines means:

"One of (the two Rep hopefuls who aren't insane)".

7 January 2012 at 14:08
diogenes said...

look at it this way, to run for president you have to be:

1 male
2 a millionaire
3 go through a year long process where you have to convince people that you are either the saintliest person in the USA or the most consummate liar in the face of a constant barrage of muck-throwing and rumour

Factors 1 and 2 do not automatically imply insanity but acceptance of factor 3 almost certainly does.

7 January 2012 at 14:26
Bayard said...

Who's the other one then?

7 January 2012 at 16:45
Mark Wadsworth said...

D, yes.

B, Ron Paul, sketch to be posted shortly.

7 January 2012 at 17:01
Tim Almond said...

It would be awesome if Ron Paul won. Don't think it's going to happen, though.

Give it a decade or so of decline, and the US might decide that they're tired of big statism and vote for his son Rand.

7 January 2012 at 22:11
John Pickworth said...

Ron Paul?

Oh, I was thinking Sarah Palin. No, seriously.

7 January 2012 at 22:33
formertory said...

FT, no, because "aren't" refers to "two Republican hopefuls".

There are, say, five Rep hopefuls, and if an unknown number are insane and an unknown number are not, then it would be correct to say........

You may be right; on the other hand, the object of the clause is "Newt Gingrich, one of the Republicans". Which of course would make it singular. The bit about two Republicans is just context.

If I'm wrong, I apologise; I suppose every pedant makes an arse of himself at some point. Occupational hazard.

7 January 2012 at 23:57
Mark Wadsworth said...

JT, yes.

JP, she's not even a candidate to be candidate, she was never in the running.

FT, yes, if the sentence is actually "Newt Gingrich isn't insane" and we just insert "one of the Republicans" to describe who he is, it's singular (query - how does the "who" then fit in to the sentence?).

But the post title is not actually a sentence. It is the chap's name "Newt Gringrich", followed by a description of him "[He is] one of the two Republicans who aren't insane".

i.e.

"There are only two Republicans who aren't insane."

"Oh really? Is Newt Gingrich one of the two Republicans who aren't insane?"

8 January 2012 at 09:04
Mr Ecks said...

I believe Gingrich was the guy who only used to have oral sex with prostitutes so that, if asked, he could truthfully say he had never had intercourse with any woman other than his wife.

Ron Paul (still far from ideal, however...) for President.

WV...COCRO..I kid you not.

8 January 2012 at 10:58
John Pickworth said...

"JP, she's not even a candidate to be candidate, she was never in the running."

Hey! You're stomping on my fantasy fella ;-)

8 January 2012 at 18:15
neil craig said...

He approves of X-Prizes.

A few other Republican politicos have dabbled with the idea - eg McCain's $300 million battery prize. Whereas the only British politician to acknowledge the option of prizes for achievement rather than government grants even exists is, remarkably, Alex Salmond.

To some this might be evidence Westminster MPs are closer to sanity than their's (& Salmond). To me it is evidence they are considerably further away.

8 January 2012 at 18:56
Bayard said...

"To me it is evidence they are considerably further away"

I agree. In the C18th the gov't offered a prize of £10,000 (£15M today) for a way of determining a ship's longitude and got one. In the C19th it gave £17,000 (£12M today) to Charles Babbage to invent and build a mechanical computer and got bugger all.

8 January 2012 at 19:38
Anonymous said...

Agreed about the insanity. But Mr Gingrich is the only one who isn't either dodderingly old or insane. If Paul won he would be 82 by the time he finished his first term!

8 January 2012 at 21:52

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)