Why Newt Gingrich Is Beyond Satire

RightWatch: No jokes here -- the candidate and his GOP opponents are silly enough on their own.

Some of you may be wondering why it’s been so long since I wrote a satirical piece using my favorite character, Buckwheat, to make fun of the Republican presidential candidates. The answer is simple. As I’ve observed before, these candidates are more ridiculous than anything I could make up. They’re beyond satire, even for Buckwheat.

Take the rise of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who now stands atop the opinion polls for the looming Iowa caucuses. Gingrich exemplifies every quality that the right-wing hard-liners dominating the GOP nominating process claim to detest — from profiting as a Washington insider to a history of philandering to an inconstancy on issues that makes Mitt Romney look like an exemplar of unshakable political conviction. If Buckwheat had had the nerve a few weeks ago to suggest that a self-regarding blowhard like him would rise to the top of the heap, my editors at The Root would have rejected the idea as preposterous.

But that was before the GOP faithful learned that Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann was such a wild-eyed flake, that Texas Gov. Rick Perry was such a well-financed dunce and that Herman Cain was, well, Herman Cain. As each of these political meteorites crashed and burned, Gingrich’s star burned a little brighter. And now, with the Iowa caucuses less than a month away, it could be on the verge of going nova.  

It’s not hard to figure out why. From a right-wing point of view, Gingrich possesses the most important of political assets: He is neither Romney nor Barack Obama. Second, and nearly as crucial, his long and well-documented history of ethical lapses makes him, in a curious way, invulnerable to future personal attacks. Gingrich is already covered in so much grime that no more can adhere to him.

So much is already known about Gingrich’s womanizing that it would take a revelation on the scale of the Penn State sex scandal to shock us any further. Ditto for sleaziness.

The disclosures about the millions he raked in as an adviser to Freddie Mac are already old news, and nobody remembers that, way back in 1997, he became the first speaker to be reprimanded by the House and fined $300,000 for ethical misconduct. How do you effectively criticize the character of a man already established as a cheat and a crook?