From a strictly Machiavellian perspective, I suppose you have to admire ABC’s leaking the news of their “ethical” debate. The charade did heighten the public’s curiosity about what Marianne Gingrich might have up her sleeve, if she has any.
As I say, it turns out she had nothing of substance to announce. All the world knows that Newt had a long-term affair with his current wife when he was still married to Marianne. Does that mean, as Marianne said, that Newt is “morally unfit” to be president of the United States? That of course is what ABC, Mitt Romney, and Barack Obama want you to conclude. Maybe they’re right. Or maybe it is irrelevant. One thing is certain: the pose of moral righteousness by entities like ABC News and the political operatives participating in the campaign is as hypocritical as it is nauseating. Sarah Palin — is it OK to quote Sarah Palin? — got it exactly right, I think, when she observed that “the liberal media and some of that GOP holier-than-thou machine overplayed their hand this time.” Newt’s new surge in the polls suggests that Governor Palin might just be right. It’s notable, anyway, that the push-back against the monkeys was nearly instantaneous and seems to be growing. Rush Limbaugh, for example, wondered whether the media attack monkeys were “as clean and pure as the wind-driven snow? This is what has always fascinated me,” Limbaugh said:
These people — the sportswriter guys, the news media guys — they all get to sit in judgment as though they live perfect lives. And then when you try to turn the focus on them, “Oh no, no, no, no, no. I’m just a reporter. It doesn’t matter.” It certainly does because you’re not reporting. You’re passing judgment.
Down in sun-drenched Antigua, the election circus seems far away — but not far enough. The skirling chatter of the monkeys and the sickening thud of their clubs reverberate even here. Somehow, the distance makes the spectacle seem even more tawdry and pathetic than when you are immersed in it back home. My friend Irving Kristol used to say about political campaigns that to beat a horse, you need a horse. The stables seem deplorably empty these days. Nary a horse in sight, only these damned monkeys brandishing clubs.
“Sarah Palin — is it OK to quote Sarah Palin?”
As I remember it, Cassandra got pretty rotten press too.
Monkeys with clubs nails it. As Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz stated, “Sex has always been used for politics.” And when it’s used that way, you can bet that morality and ethics are the farthest thing from the spewer’s mind. The expectation of perfection in our politicians and priests is infantile. People may have a great deal to give, without having overcome that most alluring of human urges. America – you’ve had 250 years. Now it’s time to grow up.
I think your friend’s metaphor is unfair to monkeys.
– microphones equal reporters?
Meanwhile, Obama diddles, and the national debt keeps rising.
Had there been a Golf Course in ancient Rome, I’m quite certain Nero would have played Golf, rather than the Lute.
Let’s see, a 6 year affair with his current wife. Put this up against 20 years with Jeremiah Wright, years of relationship with Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, and friendship with Rashid Khalidi. Which set of circumstances is more likely to reflect in policy decisions and governance?
A 6 year affair which ended with his marrying her and becoming Catholic. That is a wee bit different from Billy Clinton’s affairs. (Clinton did set a higher standard for cheating on one’s wife than John Edwards. The press covered for Edwards.) Clinton was disbarred for perjury and survived a trial in the Senate. Did Newt ever lie under oath? Besides, he came home one day and found the house empty because she had cleaned it out. Was that before or after the affair started? I know loads of people who start sleeping with others after the divorce papers are filed even-though they’re not yet divorced. Heck, some start sleeping around as soon as they are separated. Was Marianne able to find a new partner? Maybe she’s sore about that. Me, I wore my wedding ring until the judge declared us divorced.
Newt’s first wife is a sexual predator who began molesting Newt when he was 16 y.o. and she his high school geometry teacher. Her photo, location, and crimes should be on the sex offender registry for all to see. Even at 75, I’m not sure 16 year olds are safe from her. The molestation continued for years, till Newt was out of high school, and she immediately became pregnant to nail him down. If the media wants a sex story, why aren’t they all over this one, in which Newt is the victim and suffers lifelong psychic damage from not having normal teenage sexual experiences with girls his own age, and being the boy-toy for a 27 year old sexual deviant?
Admitted cocaine and marijuana use. I believe both of those are illegal substances. So where’s the morality supporting that.
Ok, the media are indeed monkeys with clubs. But the issue with Newt and his divorces goes beyond sex. He divorced his first wife when she had a fatal illness. He allegedly sprang a long time affair on his second wife, and definitely divorced her, shortly after her own diagnosis with a devastating illness.
If he doesn’t honor the basics of a commitment in marriage – I’m not talking about the affairs so much as the promise of mutual support, fidelity, care – what on earth makes his supporters think he’s trustworthy in the White House?
If Newt were female, how would y’all feel if (s)he abandoned a husband who, say, was crippled in a work accident and could no longer have sex? After all, at 35 or 40 surely her sexual happiness and ability to climb the career ladder shouldn’t be held back by his inadequcies acquired after the wedding! Why, he’s damaged goods!!!!
Excuse me while I go wash my mouth out because this whole defense of Newt’s marital behavior leaves a bad taste in it. THIS is what the Republican party stands for???
Newt is way too sure he’s special, above the rules for little people that he uses well in his soaring rhetoric. Oh, wait – we ALREADY have a Prez just like that. Switching to another just because he sports a putative (R) behind his name won’t fix this country’s desperate straits.
“He divorced his first wife when she had a fatal illness.” Are you really THAT uninformed, or are you hoping we are?
Beginning with, you have a seriously flawed understanding of “fatal”. I think that for someone to have had a “fatal illness”, she would need to be…..hmmmm, I’m not a medical professional, but …..Oh! I think the word is “DEAD”.
And then since his first wife is the one who initiated the divorce, it would be more correct to say “his first wife divorced him while she was ill”. Or, “he allowed his first wife to divorce him while she was ill”.
Jackie Gingrich’s death from cancer has been very protracted; this is a result of her “cancer” being a benign turmor. In fact, it has been so protracted that she is alive today at 75.
Another lesson is the desirability of not believing everything you read.
What, exactly, was that fatal illness his first wife had? Halitosis? She’s still alive, and I understand promising Not to vote for Newt. (Of course, lots of Dead People vote Democratic, but she isn’t dead yet! Night of the Living Voter!) As for his second wife, my understanding is that she didn’t get that diagnosis until after the breakup was underway. Sounds like they were separated for some time before the actual divorce, which doesn’t excuse adultery, but is mitigating.
The question is, whose flaws do we want? Newt isn’t perfect, but are they less than the other candidates? Are they less than 0bama’s?
Not to minimize the serious flaws in his character, for which there is redemption, but the whole story seems now rather silly since this is old news and should already have been factored in by the voters.
But what I believe is truly damaging for Gingrich is his “embrace of Alvin Toffler’s Third Wave Futurism.” (See amnation.com/vfr/archives/021106.html) The vision of these futurists is that globalism will replace nationalism, i.e. the nation-state will become a thing of the past as people move freely across the globe as citizens of the world to find work wherever they’re needed. And that’s only a summary. We really should be vetting our candidates better and not getting so caught up with these “scandals.”
Why is that people, who are so interested in Newt’s sex-life and marriages, don’t know that his first wife was a sexual predator that, today, would be doing prison time. She was Newt’s high school geometry teacher, and molested Newt from the age of 16 till he was old enough to marry, at which time she immediately became pregnant. Why is it that none of these Marxist media types are grilling her about her criminal behaviors, or asking what effect this had on Newt? These media-types are, as Newt says, as close to despicable as I can imagine.
“But the issue with Newt and his divorces goes beyond sex. He divorced his first wife when she had a fatal illness. He allegedly sprang a long time affair on his second wife, and definitely divorced her, shortly after her own diagnosis with a devastating illness.”
Does it matter to you that the daughter of the two of them, who was actually there, says and has said for over a year that your story is a lie?
Isn’t Newt’s first wife still alive?
“I thought you were dead?” “I was. I got better.”
LOL!!!
I second that LOL. *still snickering*
The thing that matters most out of all this is whether the American voting public has learned anything about media manipulation of politics since 2008. A significant number seem to have realized they made a mistake electing Obama and that he turned out to be something very different than the image that was sold to them. But have they figured out the substantial certainly determinative, role the media/pop culture played in convincing them of what they took to be the facts in the 2008 campaign? Or will they allow the media to lead them by the nose yet again? Unless and until Americans can see through the carefully constructed fictions of the despicable media apparatchiks, they will be slaves to their tactics. In a way, this is the biggest question of 2012. Can America pull its head out and see beyond the media mirage?
Due to the gathering of the jackals, in the world, I want someone with a measured response behind an iron fist! This has been my problem with the current array of candidates.
What I don’t want is someone who will pop off at the wrong time and who doesn’t listen well.
I am curious. Has any old girlfriend of Barack ever been interviewed? Never seen or heard such. Were there any? His past is a black hole. Um. No pun intended.
You mean “boyfriend”.
Everyone is dancing around Obama’s problems and no one will speak of them.
Below is a story from 09 that no paid attention to. It is about time.
The allegations Larry Sinclair makes in this book about our current president should be sending shock-waves through our national media. Consider that on November 6 & 7, 1999 Sinclair claims that he engaged in homosexual acts with then-Illinois Senator Barack Obama, who during these trysts not only procured cocaine for the author, but also smoked crack cocaine while being fellated. Although relatively unknown outside his home state at the time, Obama hit the national stage in 2004 by delivering a keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention. Sinclair realized only then that he’d engaged in sex with an up-and-coming political superstar. After hearing what he perceived to be blatant lies about Obama’s sexuality and drug use, Sinclair uploaded an infamous YouTube video, made a television appearance in Puerto Rico, and addressed the National Press Club in Washington, DC. As a result, he describes how Senior Advisor David Axelrod spearheaded a vindictive smear campaign against him, while Senator Joe Biden and his son Beau arranged for his arrest after the NPC speech. Even more incriminating, Sinclair writes about his concerns that Obama and Reverend Jeremiah Wright were involved in the murder of Obama’s former lover, choirmaster Donald Young. Whether you agree with him or not, Larry Sinclair’s book is an authentic page-turner, one that I completed in a single sitting. In an age where political correctness reigns supreme, it’s refreshing to read an expose that lays all its chips on the table, regardless of the ramifications. –Victor Thorn, Author Hillary (and Bill): The Sex Volume November 30, 2009 “A shocking expose of an American President that makes Bill Clinton, and/or the rumors about John F. Kennedy seem minor by comparison.” –K Kenny, October 4, 2009 Virtually everyone has heard about Larry Sinclair and his allegations regarding a couple of days he spent with Barack Obama in Chicago in 1999. After a highly orchestrated whitewashing by the mainstream media of the story, and after being blackballed by every single book publisher he contacted regarding the publication of his story, Larry Sinclair decided to start his own publishing company, and this is the first book from Sinclair Publishing. Obama’s silence on Sinclair’s allegations is deafening. It speaks volumes about what likely happened in Chicago back on November 6 and 7, 1999. And although I was not there to witness the events, it sounds like, judging from the consistency of Sinclair’s story over a year and a half, and the fine details he provides in the book, that Sinclair is in fact telling the truth. It appears that indeed Obama was leading a life as a closeted bisexual at least through 1999. Oh, and of course, he also seemed to have been fudging the truth regarding his drug use since, especially since college… –Chirpy Rumblings, October 24, 2009
I can’t believe you are such a racist! We don’t use the phrase “black hole” any more because it sounds too much like “black ho”*. I hope you weren’t suggesting 0bama’s past girlfriends were African-American prostitutes. Or turned into one? Or did you mean his past in all aspects is shrouded in secrecy and deceit?
*The folks at Hallmark can fill you in on that one.
Well, she hasn’t exactly surfaced, but there is the girlfried little lenin wrote about extensively in “Dreams”. By some weird alignment of the stars, she was the spitting image in every particular of a Bill Ayers’ girlfriend who Ayers had written about extensively in one of his own books.
Sadly, Mr Ayers’ girlfriend lived only a short life.
Nobody has ever heard from the girl that obama wrote about so lovingly.
Other than that, it appears that the 6’1″, lean, athletic and charming Harvard Law School graduate with the devastating smile and sexy baritone voice had remained a chaste virgin until he succombed to Michell’s charms at the age of 31. Like so many irrestible heterosexual men, he was saving himself for true love.
It continues to amaze me that nobody wants the 15 minutes of fame that would come from a kiss and tell about Comrade Obama. Surely some sinking rag out there would pony up at least six figures for a credible tale from a former lover, roomate, passenger in the next seat, study group member – SOMETHING. The man simply has no past.
You might want to check out the following book: http://www.amazon.com/Barack-Obama-Larry-Sinclair-Cocaine/dp/0578013878
Also, Huffpo has an article on Larry Sinclair which included a video I just watched two days ago; the video is now not available. Here’s the link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/18/obama-accuser-larry-sincl_n_107900.html
This will be the last presidential campaign with the old line media. Whoever wins, their credibility is shot, their audience/readership falling, and their days of mass infulence are nearly done. Like TIME, NEWSWEEK and MSNBC, they’ll just be niche players for certain demographics. You’ll wonder why anyone used to care about what “ABC NEWS” thought about anything.
You give the young and the general population far too much credit!
Yeah. They think Jon Stewart gives you the news on “the Daily Show”. Idiots.
We are doomed!
That’s not new. A huge percentage of the electorate thought Dana Garvey of SNL was GHWB, and Garvey had at least as much to do with Clinton’s beating GHWB as Ross Peeerow’s third party run.
I believe Dana’s last name was Carvey.
If your thesis was true I would think 2008 and following would be the period where they lost their credibility (the vast gulf between their candidate Obama and anyone can see now) and this year we’d see them having much less influence.
I find Marianne Gingrich’s moralism suspect, since at one time, she herself was the “Other Woman”.
I believe the relevant saying is: “If he’ll cheat for you, he’ll cheat on you”.
Right, wrong or indifferent this is the nail in his coffin, if not now inthe general. Newt would lose to Obama by 10 points, and I’m being generous in that prediction. Republicans are eating themselves alive, these primaries can work for Democrats, most of the time, because at the end of the day their base is totally dependent on government largesse, one kind or another such as killing Keystone in favor of the Nebraska aquifer (it’s too rich really) but not to worry, Gingrich will seek to destroy Romney and Santorum so the history books mention his name one more time, along with the fella who ran in 24, whatsisname Davis, made a fortune as a lawyer. The real history will be that good ole Newt gave 2012 to Obama and the extreme left on a great big silver platter.
Correct!! Can somebody please scream this from the rooftops!!! The purpose here is to defeat Obama not the media. You are watching a play. The media knows how much conservatives hate them. They attack a candidate and their numbers go up. From Bachman to Cain and all the way back to Sarah Palin. They don’t want Romney to be the nominee so they don’t attack him, they let Newt attack him.They attack Newt because they want him to win. Why? because they know he CANNOT defeat their beloved Obama. Wake up!! You are being played and falling for it.
Is the sky really falling? I know, a chunk of it hit you on the head!
If Newt is the Republican nominee you will be the one with the headache. You will have four more years of the current President. Then you can cry and shout all you want about the media being mean to your candidate,and how they didn’t ever go after Obama; Newt will still loose and and Obama will have still won. Life is not fair, the media is not fair, you have to play the hand you were dealt and be smarter than they other guy. The loudest one, the most sarcastic, the one that is willing to throw the punch is not the one that is going to win this. Newt can win every debate against Obama and still loose the election because people don’t like him. He can have the highest IQ and still loose the election. I know that doesn’t seem fair, but it is true.
So go buy some aspirin. You will need it, when the sky falls on you.
Indeed. With the ‘latest’ revelations – which were anything but – Newt is
sinkingsoaring in the polls. The more Newt lambastes the MSM and the clubbing monkeys the more he’s going tosinksoar. He’ll make mincemeat of the Teleprompter President in a debate – even if he has the use of a teleprompter during said debate. Something Newt says he’d let Obama use. Can you imagine the image? The teleprompter king going toe to toe with a man who doesn’t need a teleprompter. Great optics!!!Bring it on — if nothing else the Republicans will have the majority in both houses – and a lame-duck teleprompter president. The guy couldn’t even address kindergarten kids without one.
Now why on Earth would The Annointed One, cruising to an easy victory over the Grinch that stole Christmas and shut down the government, condescend to debate The Grinch? You will NEVER see a Presidential Debate if Gingrich is the nominee and the media will play out the above meme. Third party advocacy groups will trash Gingrich on the affairs and divorces, question his Christianity and the sincerity of his conversion, they’ll even whisper stuff about his association with mysterious and extremist Papist sects. That should get enough SoCons to stay home or vote Third Party to do real damage to the Republican coalition. Other third party advocacy groups will harp on how Gingrich is a big spending, big government, statist and that should get a goodly number of the FisCons and libertarians to stay home or vote third party, further damaging the coalition and offsetting Obama’s losses in independents and yutes. Somewhere in there they’ll start up a narrative about how impulsive and volatile Gingrich is an how he’s just too unpredictable to be the leader of the free world, unlike the cool dude with ice water in his veins. That ought to get a goodly number of suburban mommies and their castrati to become fearful and vote again for the ‘safe” Obama. That strategy either elects Comrade Obama or makes a Republican victory so narrow and contentious that the Leftists claim it is an illegitimate government and hamstring the government’s ability to govern.
Now if I can see that, so can the people on the other side and they’ll never give Newt Gringrich the opportunity to go one on one with Comrade Obama. And they really don’t have to do all that stuff to damage Gingrich themselves; the “true conservatives” will happily do it for them.
I am not so sure the MSM is going to be able to get much traction this time around with the Grinch schtick. It’s a proverbial boy-who-cried-wolf that people are not going to pay as much attention to. These are desperate times that are quite palpable to a lot of people; there is an intense hunger out there for someone to reach in & snatch this country out from the evil clutches of the small c’s (albeit most don’t think of them that way). All people know right now is the country is on the wrong path & many will see, upon hearing Gingrich speak, that he knows how to get the country back on the right track.
I could be wrong of course, but I am cautiously optimistic that, with the pattern set forth by Gingrich of putting these MSM leftist hacks in their place, people are not going to be so easily swayed by their biased questions, reports etc. & will vote to send Obama packing.
In the end it is Gingrich, not ABC, who is running for President, and the media hase an obligation not to withhold relevant information from voters prior to an election, even if it is only a primary. Just because the media has a double standard and fails in its role when it comes to favored Democrats, such as Obama and Edwards, doesn’t mean we should insist they fail in their role when it comes to Republicans, too.
I await with baited breath, ABC’s 2008 reporting on:
Obama’s college transcripts
Obama’s old girlfriends
Obama’s drug dealer
Obama’s drug customers
I’ll be happy to see their 2012 reporting on it too.
…and you’ll turn blue waiting…
He’s on his third marriage, second religion and fourth campaign staff. The only thing certain about a Gingrich relationship, is that eventually somebody is going to walk out on it.
The American people are in the seduction phase. Well, some of them are. He beats up the propaganda machine for us and that makes quite a few swoon. Some others…not so much.
“Fox News, 1/12-1/14:
Obama, fav/unfav, 51%/46%, +5
Romney, fav/unfav, 45%/38%, +7
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 27%/56%, -29
“CBS/NYT, 1/12-1/17:
Obama, fav/unfav, 38%/45%, -7
Romney, fav/unfav, 21%/35%, -14
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 17%/49%, -32
“PPP, 1/13-1/17:
Obama, app/dis, 47%/50%, -3
Romney, fav/unfav, 35%/53%, -18
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 26%/60%, -34”
His negatives poll off the charts. For anyone not in the “let’s kick Nancy off the couch and take her place” mode…just wondering how those negatives will play out in the general election might keep their knickers on a bit longer.
For Ann Coulter, John Bolton, Nikki Haley, …an ACROSS THE ENTIRE CONSERVATIVE SPECTRUM (don’t believe the BS about it being just a “ruling class faction”), there is a great hesitancy at throwing their legs up in the air just yet because of a Newtonian explosion at the the enemies of truth. Love him for it, but don’t marry him yet.
Quin Hilyer doesn’t love Newt…and he was there first hand.
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/01/20/bill-clinton-of-the-right-minu
Bill Clinton of the Right With Half the Charm and Twice the Abrasiveness
“Gingrich was great at rabble rousing. He was awful at actually managing things. That’s why, again, in the single campaign where he was clearly, unambiguously unchallenged as the architect of national GOP campaign strategy, in 1998, he took a lay of the land that virtually every pundit in the land thought would create at least a 15-seat Republican net gain in the House (Gingrich himself predicted as much as a 30-seat gain), and turned it into a five-seat loss that came within a hair’s breadth in about four races of blowing the entire House majority.”
The ABC interview didn’t expose the problem with Gingrich being the nominee, it camouflaged it. We continue to send out “B” teamers in a clown car and no matter how far away are to view it, it still smells like a circus.
Not quite the ENTIRE CONSERVATIVE SPECTRUM! What about Art Laffer, Thomas Sowell, JC Watts, Michael Reagan, what are they, chopped liver?
Perhaps the point was unclear.
There are people ACROSS THE ENTIRE CONSERVATIVE SPECTRUM voicing concern about Gingrich…not merely “a ruling class” or some other pigeon-holed “class” of Republican.
The fact that some also support Gingrich is not the point. Nobody is making the claim that his support only comes from “one class” of Republican…but a number of confused people are making the unsupportable and destructive case that his detractors do come from a “less than pure” form of Republican.
As each new detractor arises …one has to fire off the “dismissives” against a broader and broader range of people.
Ann Coulter, Charles Krauthammer, the National Review Online, Quin Hillyer, Chris Christie, Nikki Haley, John Bolton…eventually, the breadth and depth of those who are “ruling class” or some other epithet cast out on the waters, there will not enough “pure base” to elect an alderman, much less a President.
If one enjoys watching “Republicans” defend cap and trade, attacks on “vulture capitalism”, trashing Wall Street and the free market, telling people you “have no heart” if you want to defend the borders…then the general election will give them a real thrill as BOTH sides will apparently do precisely that…the Marxists…and their water carriers.
Throw in Ron Paul and you get to trash the military, blame America for its enemies’ actions, say that 9/11 was an inside job.
Again, there are some “Republicans” who apparently are all in …and doubled down on these pro-marxist positions.
Those who aren’t…apparently aren’t “pure enough” to make it into the tent.
Good luck with that strategy in turning back the overthrow of capitalism and free market democracy.
Michael Reagan has always struck me as chopped liver, or maybe cotton candy, but then, I only know him from his appearances on Fox.
Well, not necessarily chopped liver, but only one has any real experience in government and he only as a non-leadership member of the HoR. And if Michael Reagan was Michael Smith, nobody would ever have heard of him.
I like Gingrich as an ideas guy, I’ve read most of his books and a lot of his position stuff. That said, he has no executive branch experience and frankly got played like a cheap fiddle by Bill Clinton on both the government shutdown and the foolish impeachment attempt. Frankly, having worked for and with quite a few of them, I have grave misgivings about anyone running for President who has only legislative experience. The skills of the legislator, especially leadership legislative skills, do not transfer to the executive branch and are in fact detrimental there. Also, I don’t see Gingrich being the kind of guy who can surround himself with smart staff and let them do their jobs; to him all the World’s a stage and he wants the best lighting. And, having led the counter-revolution of ’94, probably only VP Cheney is a greater bete noir for the Left. They’ve already put him on magazine covers as the Grinch when he was only Speaker, only God knows what sort of monster they’ll make him into as a Presidential candidate. As I said, I like him, I’ll vote for him, but he’s going to scare Hell out of the “women and children,” crystalize Leftist opposition, and, frankly, not win the support of a lot of the self-styled “true conservatives,” who’ll either stay home or vote third party rather than vote for a sinner or a statist. We don’t have a Party right now but rather a loose coalition of interests whose only unifying factor is not liking modern Democrats, but, unfortunately, often dislikeing other factions of the coalition almost as much, sometimes seemingly more, as we dislike Democrats. Thus, we can’t put up a candidate that really pulls all the Republican leaning interests together.
Being well-read on Gingrich, you probably know him better than most in here. Do you not think that he most likely learned valuable lessons while Speaker & won’t likely make such stupid mistakes again? I do agree with you that his level of megalomania may serve to hamper his effectiveness in delegating. Not sure though that he lacks the capacity to surround himself with sharp people, albeit I am concerned that the sharp knives don’t want to be in the same room with him.
Bottom line: Obama has got to go or it’s going to be a really rough road to hoe for the next four years. I just hope the damage won’t be permanent but I can imagine many years going by before they can undo it all.
Sure, he’s most certainly learned some practical lessons along the way and won’t likely make the same mistakes, but he can’t change who and what he is; nobody can, or at least nobody I’ve ever known, including myself. I think he unlike most leadership Republicans understands what nasty SOBs the Democrats really are and isn’t going to be calling them “my friends” like that idiot McCain and he isn’t going to be afraid of controversy or confrontation the way most of the Rotary Club Republicans are. Unfortunately, controversy and confrontation just scares Hell out of people. If I were running against Gingrich, I’d do my best to provoke him publicly and scare Hell out of the women, children, and castrati with endless video of his repartees.
“I think he unlike most leadership Republicans understands what nasty SOBs the Democrats really are and isn’t going to be calling them “my friends” like that idiot McCain and he isn’t going to be afraid of controversy or confrontation the way most of the Rotary Club Republicans are.”
The above along with his ideas for turning things around, as laid out in his energetic, uplifting speeches, make a fine recipe for a dish this country very badly needs. I don’t want a POTUS who likes the Left. More power to him; I really do hope he succeeds in his quest for the WH.
Can’t see why we even discuss governing styles, because you can’t govern if you can’t win.
The issue is who has the best chance to win. Now that’s worth discussing.
We can discount Sntorum and Paul. The two with a chance are Romney and Newt.
It boils down to the poison you prefer; Wall Street, flip-flops and Moromonism…or an adulterer, an ethics conviction and the unmitigated hatred of the ruling class on both sides of the aisle.
I’m with the guy the Ruling Class hates. That’s enough for me and I’ve got a really strong hunch it will be enough for the country.
Rubes for Newt!!
There’s a tide that if taken at the flood … and all that. I remember Reagan in ’80, and I remember him as someone who had never voted for, even conceived of voting for, a Republican in my life; I was 31 at the time and I worked for the AFL-CIO’s Committee on Political Education, so my Democrat bona fides were pretty good. I just couldn’t accept all that malaise crap, era of lowered expectations, sweater-wearing crap, and I actually liked Carter when he was Governor of Georgia. Reagan was a revolutionary leader and he got people to storm the barricades for him, even a lot of people who’d never even thought of voting for a Republican before in their lives.
This may be that tide, and Newt Gingrich may have it in him to take it at its flood, but he will only be able to do that if he can capture the hopes of Americans and convince them to follow him to the barricades. We’re not talking an election, we’re talking a counter-revolution; he’s led one, maybe he has another one in him.
Ann Coulter was among the first to jump on the Chris Christy train – when that train failed to leave the station she whole-heartedly jumped on the Mitt choo-choo train. Citing Ann as a bastion of conservatism is like calling Obama a moderate.
Nikki Haley is another – more RINO than Republican. John Bolton? He’s another of the elite Republicans. Irrelevant.
cf has become quite the apologist for the Ruling Class, hasn’t he?
Newt’s mistake is that he hasn’t done things the Ruling class way. If he had he would still be married to his first wife and be enjoying the pleasures of an unending string of 20 year old concubines. The first wife might be an alcoholic or a spendaholic, or be dead by now, but if she were alive, she would damn well know how to smile and shut up on the campaign trail.
And even more importantly, he would have had the training to back off the nutty budget and spending stuff before he ruffled the feathers of the patricians who were perfectly fine using it to rough up Bubba Clinton, but certainly weren’t fine when it began to threaten THEIR fiefdoms.
Yup – Newt should have shut up and, after Congress, then begun a real lobbyist career, just like Susan Molinari did. All of K Street wants Mittens. Why it that?
I am a defender of the free market democracy that is being attempted to be torn down by marxist ploys of class warfare, disguised intent and socialist engineering such as cap and trade (on Pelosi’s couch and off), strangulation by entitlement (the cure of which was called “RIGHT WING social engineering”) and the collapse of real estate/finance…which was caused by leftists and Freddi Mac….among others…and those who tried to blame that on Wall Street and “vulture capitalists”.
Frankly, one can’t tell the Marxists these days from their water carrying lackeys.
The assault on being successful in the free market is a real stain on these primaries…and some sociopathic types can’t let up on it, snarling their way to yet another foam fest of rage against “Wall Street” and “the ruling class”. (read, anti-Marxists)
Me?
I don’t like this whole slate. I see the damage now that Perry and Gingrich were willing to bring to bear for their own self-aggrandizement. In order to win the battle, they were willing to merely sacrifice the free market. Turn the fanatical into their beasts of burden for bloated egos and trampled hopes of saving this nation.
Well done boys. Well done.
The Socialist Scholars convention thanks you for your contributions. Traitor on! On to the destruction of Europe! The collapse of the world economy! Let’s let Gingrich sloganeer our way out of that…until our disease advances to the point where his boredom kicks in and the opportunities on the other side catch his eye…yet again.
“I don’t like this whole slate. I see the damage now that Perry and Gingrich were willing to bring to bear for their own self-aggrandizement. In order to win the battle, they were willing to merely sacrifice the free market. Turn the fanatical into their beasts of burden for bloated egos and trampled hopes of saving this nation.”
I think this is more of a case of a pair of pols playing politics than that of sacrificing principles. Gingrich did regret his “right-wing social engineering” comment. Sometimes his alligator mouth overtakes his canary ass.
CFB, you keep going on about what we cannot have: That proverbial first-string slate of candidates. They are not there. Forget about them. AFA I am concerned, they are real toads for not stepping up to the plate. Perhaps they think they are doing more good staying right where they are. It’s time for our side to make up our minds & rally around the best one of the pack that stands before us now. This is no time to lament what should have been. Gingrich is looking better all the time with more exposure (albeit he will take a few steps back every now & then with his big mouth…that’s just too bad). He’ll make a good POTUS. Have a little faith…..
bobbcat
I look out at this field (and have for some time) and see a loss to Obama. I consider that an unthinkable outcome.
It’s a suicide watch…or march…as Charles Krauthammer suggests.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/288604/gop-s-suicide-march-charles-krauthammer
I know, I know…he’s part of some bullshit “ruling class” that doesn’t exist.
When Mark Steyn, Charles Krauthammer, Ann Coulter, Quin Hillyer…people that worked with Gingrich and know him personally…suggest something is seriously wrong…I’m sorry…I give that more credence than those who don’t know him and have not worked with him.
I never once put any stock in this ex-wife smear job. Nor have I ever once advocated for Romney. (or Santorum…although I said I would vote for any of them over Obama….not including Paul in that sentiment)
But, this class warfare charge is despicable and traitorous. Tearing down the free market from those who should be defending it against the small c communists is abhorrent to all that I stand for and against.
When two candidates decided that they would throw away the country for their own self-glory, they became beneath contempt.
I don’t like any of these clowns. They have made a mockery of the Republican Party and anyone churning up class warfare now on their behalf is doing Obama’s bidding.
Get rid of all of them. Erase the slate. They suck. I’m disgusted by the spectacle of the suicide march and the destruction of this land of ours. No loyal person trying to save the free market would feel less. And certainly not join or applaud the cheap and sniveling attacks for votes on capitalism. Soros couldn’t have organized this any better. I’m ashamed to be associated with such traitorism and won’t support it. Ever.
Well, CFB, based on what you are saying, here is what I suggest you do: Write to all those who you think should be running. Tell them what you are telling us in here. If you hear of any of them coming anywhere near you, go see them if you can & tell them in person what you are telling us here. Without putting the words you speak so well in action, well, they are just words.
Add Larry Kudlow and Senator Jon Kyl to the hated “ruling class”.
Pretty soon we’ll run out of people to throw away from the New Republican base…that hates Chris Christie, Nikki Haley, Ann Coulter, Mark Stein, Charles Krauthammer, …quite a lovely scenario for helping Obama trash the free market and complete the overthrow of capitalism.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/21/larry-kudlow-newt-gingrich-is-not-a-free-market-capitalist/
Every day we get to throw out of the tent another strong voice for saving the country. Rush Limbaugh hated this ploy. So does everybody who is actually in favor of beating back the revolution.
But…not those who believe that a candidate’s ego is more important than the salvation of the country…a last gasping chance to save Europe.
Nope…it’s is MUCH better to rage on about the evils of “that class” and the despicable free market.
Brilliant strategy.
Good luck with that…Soros has some openings and so does MSNBC…for those seeking a permanent job trashing the free market and helping Obama win the “transformation”.
Let’s throw away the guys at Powerline as well…you know…more “ruling class” guys.
Throw away every thinking man…because this isn’t a thinking man’s primary.
“Barack Obama is a terrible president and an unpopular one. He is ripe for defeat in November, but not by Newt Gingrich. It is painful to contemplate the extent of the GOP wipeout that would follow a Gingrich nomination. Would Newt carry a state? Wyoming, maybe? South Carolina? The Republican Party could kiss its hopes of retaking the Senate goodbye, and likely would lose control over the House, giving Obama carte blanche to devastate the country for another four years.
The Newt mania is driven by his high-temperature stage persona and the ongoing “anyone but Romney” sentiment among some conservatives. I find the latter perspective mystifying. It would make much more sense to say “anyone but Gingrich,” or “anyone but Santorum,” or “anyone but Paul.” Out of this group, if there is anyone who ought to be broadly acceptable to conservatives, it is Romney. Certainly not Gingrich, with his earmarks, his disfavor with the conservatives he led in the House in the 1990s, his career as a lobbyist, his support for Medicare Part D, his embrace of global warming dogma, and his attacks on private equity and even free enterprise itself. Republicans have flirted with a number of potentially bad choices this election season, but voting for Gingrich would be the worst of them.”
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/01/delusional.php
Is it just me, or has cf actually taken a dislike to my fellow anti-capitalist, Newt.
But he’s right that an awful lot of people who make their living sucking up to the Ruling Class seem to dislike Newt quite a bit.
Same thing happened to Reagan you know. Until he won. Then they sucked up to him.
Sucking up to people in power is a good way to make a good living.
“cfbleachers says– “blah, blah, blah, blah, blah…”
Nothing that matters. Gingrich wants the opposite for America that Obama does. He wants a free, strong, prosperous country.
That will carry the day despite his negatives.
In this portion of the presidential campaign, the left-aligned media’s focus is on winnowing out any Republican contender who has a plausible chance of defeating their anointed one, Barack Hussein Obama, to whose star they’ve hitched their wagons. Their machinations — assisted by those of establishment Republican power-brokers — gave us Bob Dole in 1996 and John McCain in 2008. With Obama on the ropes for many reasons, the urgency of their efforts greatly exceeds those of previous campaigns.
At this time, only Newt Gingrich, of the remaining Republican aspirants, would make a formidable challenger to Obama in the general election. So it’s his turn in the shredder. Unfortunately for the media, Gingrich, a veteran of this sort of political warfare, is unafraid of them and quite willing to respond at the nuclear level. Juan Williams and John King have now had a taste of his backhand — and conservative-minded Americans have responded with wild applause. And of course, the other candidates have noticed.
Media luminaries now face a terrible choice: Should they refrain from further smears posed as “probing questions,” to avoid further devastating ripostes from Gingrich and the others? That would expose them to harsh scrutiny from the Obamunists, who are capable of taking painful revenge on them and their employers for daring to defy the Democrat Party’s directives. But with each return of serve a Republican candidate has dealt them, they’ve looked worse and the tide of conservative opinion has swelled higher. Worst of all, neither course of action appears healthful for their general stature or market share. What on Earth can they do?
Perhaps it’s unseemly to cackle gleefully at this hour of the day, but I find it hard to refrain. We’re on a roll, and the Teleprompter-Reader-In-Chief must know it.
No mistakes, now, gentlemen. Keep your spines stiff and the pressure up!
Excellent post Francis.
I take great glee in seeing Newt take it to the likes of Juan “I’m scared of Muslims” Williams and John King. Williams seems incapable of understanding how his questions are phrased wrongly. Typical liberal that cannot understand that his ‘facts’ aren’t the real ‘facts’. Clue to Juan: Quit asking a question with a presupposition fact or three couched inside. Maybe they’ve got the intellect of a monkey with a club?
I was especially chagrined at PBS firing Williams and the subsequent hiring by Fox. That move by Fox was the last straw – Fox is seldom watched by me any longer other than the occasional election coverage. Slightly better than watching CNN – and much less painful than watching ‘the thrill’ at MSNBC.
Don’t worry, sir.
The conservative pundits currently attahed to Romney’s teat will have no problem whatsoever reengaging with Newt’s teat as soon as it’s clear that the public is behind the only honey badger in the race.
They’ll keep their obama option open, of course. It’s the ruling class way.
You summed it up perfectly Mr.Porretto. I look forward to every back -hand Newt delivers. The expression on John King’s face was priceless when Newt gave him that slap. I’d love to see him put a shot like that into Obama’s face. But my question is where are the dirt digging intrepid reporters of old ? The ones on the right side of the aisle, the issues, the country’s future.
We are on a roll, so let’s up the RPM’s.
Don’t bother with looking for dirt on The One, you won’t find anything. I think it’s buried too deep and protected by an impenetrable wall of MSM acolytes. Let’s attack the attackers. Attack the source of their intelligence. Why doesn’t somebody dig up the dirt on all the lefty reporters? Not the pols, but the reporters, both print, radio and TV. There has to be some dirt somewhere. Infidelity has no political side to it. Did deep. Dig up aspects of their personal lives that are embarrassing and damaging and plaster any sordid stories uncovered all over the internet….You Tube…anywhere but get their dirt out there in front of the fan. Make it public! They all have something to hide.
Maybe a dose of their own medicine will sober them up enough to concentrate on the issues and not on who did what to whom and when.
On yesterday’s Hannity Sean didn’t name names but did say he’s seen these same ‘reporters’ using pot – sitting with women that weren’t their wives – and using profane and abusive language when talking about anyone they disagree with – namely Republicans.
Seems like a little leg work could be quite fruitful info against these ‘useful idiots’. Not as blackmail but as stories on talk radio. Rush would have a field day.
To Honor Newt’s endorsement by Chuck Norris;
All insurance agreements come with a hidden clause. ‘Will not pay out if attacked by Chuck Norris’. That includes buildings, ships and satellites.
Chuck Norris can arrive anywhere without actually leaving.
When Alexander Bell invented the telephone he had 3 missed calls from Chuck Norris
Chuck Norris can skip a sound track on the radio if he doesn’t like it
Fear of spiders is aracnaphobia, fear of tight spaces is chlaustraphobia, fear of Chuck Norris is called Logic
Chuck Norris can speak 20 languages, with only his fists. His feet can speak 40.
Chuck Norris can type a sentence on a calculator.
Chuck Norris once planted a box of Cheerios in his yard, the result was a donut tree.
Chuck Norris doesn’t call the wrong number. You answer the wrong phone.
Ghosts sit around the campfire and tell Chuck Norris stories.
Chuck Norris won American Idol using only sign language
Chuck Norris punched water… and left a dent
Chuck Norris has a grizzly bear carpet in his room. The bear isn’t dead it is just afraid to move.
Chuck Norris won the World Series of Poker using Pokemon cards
There used to be a street named after Chuck Norris, but it was changed because nobody crosses Chuck Norris and lives.
Chuck Norris died 20 years ago, Death just hasn’t built up the courage to tell him yet.
Chuck Norris has already been to Mars; that’s why there are no signs of life.
Once the cop pulled over Chuck Norris….the cop was lucky to leave with a warning.
Chuck Norris once urinated in a semi truck’s gas tank as a joke….that truck is now known as Optimus Prime.
Chuck Norris is the reason Waldo is hiding.
Chuck Norris counted to infinity – twice.
Death once had a near-Chuck Norris experience
Chuck Norris makes onions cry.
Chuck Norris can do a wheelie on a unicycle
Chuck Norris can slam a revolving door.
Chuck Norris can leave a message before the beep.
When the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night, he checks his closet for Chuck Norris.
Chuck Norris once kicked the Earth, it hasn’t stopped spinning.
Chuck Norris can literally kill time.
Everybody tries to be perfect…..Perfection tries to be Chuck Norris
Chuck Norris once got bit by a rattle snake…….. After three days of pain and agony ………………the rattle snake died
OK! So you HATE Chuck Norris! Other than that what’s your point? Please keep your hat on.
Psst, Robert, I realize how exciting it must be to have just gotten on-line yesterday, but alex was re-posting a bunch of Chuck Norris jokes from a few years ago.
IIRC, Chuck Norris said a couple of years ago, as a compliment to the now Congressman, that all “Chuck Norris” jokes are now “Allen West” jokes.
Spot on !! Mr. Parretto !! I cackle with you.
God Bless The U S A !!!!
Newt has won over SC Republicans by serving up red meat that bashes the liberal media.
But that won’t work in the general election.
Independents don’t hate the media and they don’t even hate Obama. Polls show that they regard Obama as a basically decent man (with two fewer wives than Newt), who just hasn’t been successful at reviving the economy.
Female Independents won’t vote for Newt with his disastrous marital history.
Young people won’t vote for Newt, an aging pudgy man who’s a retread from the 20th century.
Besides loyal Republicans, who would vote for Newt? Anybody?
Newt is this year’s Barry Goldwater. He’ll speak to the hearts of the conservative base of the GOP–and go on to lose in a landslide to Obama. Probably dragging down Republican candidates for the House and Senate as well.
The GOP base didn’t learn its lesson from Sharron Angle or Christine O’Donnell. THEY are to blame for Harry Reid getting re-elected. Sue Lowden could have clobbered Reid, but instead they offered up Angle whom Reid could paint as fringe.
And now some of them want to do the same thing with Newt.
Funny thing.
Replace Newt with Reagan and you have every argument I heard in 1980.
People forget that it was two Reagan Quotes that won over people and had them siding with Ronnie over the MSM.
1) “There You Go Again.”
and
2) “I paid for this microphone.” (said to the ‘moderator’ at a debate.)
Also remember that Reagan didn’t stand a Chance against Carter;
January 10, 1980 Gallup Poll
Carter 63%
Reagan 32%
October 24 – 26 1980 Registered Voters
Carter 45%
Reagan 42%
October 24 – 26 1980 Likely Voters
Carter 47%
Reagain 39%
“Replace Newt with Reagan and you have every argument I heard in 1980.”
The same things will be said by establishment GOP types about ANY conservative who actually might change DC out from under them.
They deserve to be knocked down.
They not less than the Dims played a part in creating the mess we’re in.
Oh Yes, the lesson of Christine O’Donnell…
Base Conservatives, if you have the audacity to nominate a candidate that actually represents your views and values; WE, the Republican Establishment, will swiftly and surely pull the rug right out from under any such candidate and insure that the general public is impressed that said candidate is a Fringe Wacko and not deserving of public office. Then, knowing that first impressions are lasting, we will go through the motions of supporting this candidate only After the Damage has been done.
You must mean that lesson.
Of course, it may not occur to you that maybe, just maybe the lesson that those voters were remembering when they voted for Christine O’Donnell was the lessons of Arlin Spectre and Jim Jeffords.
Perhaps they would prefer a Democrat in Democrat Clothing to be elected rather than a Republican in Democrat Clothing.
[Correction]
“Perhaps they would prefer a Democrat in Democrat Clothing to be elected rather than a Republican in Democrat Clothing.”
Should Read;
Perhaps they would prefer a Democrat in Democrat Clothing to be elected rather than a Democrat in Republican Clothing.
How about ‘a progressive in democrat clothing’? Seems more accurate.
How about the GOP in secret negotiations with Hillory Clinton to switch parties and take on Obama in revenge for 08′?
We’d win for sure then!!!! Her favorability ratings are through the roof!!!!
Independents love her!!!!
Just one problem (ok, maybe several problems) like Mark Steyn said on Friday “we may not be doomed quite yet, there is still time, but this election must produce a strong, ideological conservative, brave enough to set about fixing this mess or we are doomed. If it’s a moderate, someone just keeping the seat warm until the next democrat president….then we may not survive…”
If you accept Mr. Steyn’s analysis, you may begin presenting the facts that support your contention that Mitt Romney IS that bold, brave and articulate candidate and leave aside your reservations about Mr. Gingrich, your fantasies about Mr Christie and your dreams of young Rubio and Ryan.
You Angle haters are living in serious denial. Angle did quite a bit better than I expected. What state wants to send a freshman Senator to Washington when they have the President pro tempore bringing home the bacon? Not Nevada, I can assure you. Even Arizona wasn’t willing to kick McShamnesty to the curb in favor of a Senator with zero seniority.
No, the Tea Party geniuses managed to pick the one person that the gaming industry, which happens to run NV, couldn’t abide; they’d have supported almost anybody else against Reid.
“Does that mean, as Marianne said, that Newt is “morally unfit” to be president of the United States?”
According to the collective wisdom of our media overlords the two greatest Presidents of the last 50 years were John F. Kennedy and William Jefferson Clinton – both serial adulterers. Now if the serial adulterers Kennedy and Clinton were such great Presidents, and the serial adulterer Bill Clinton is still such a highly regarded political figure, then don’t we owe it to ourselves to consider the upside of electing our own serial adulterer? By all accounts neither George H.W. Bush nor George W. Bush were serial adulterers and look how their Presidencies turned out. Perhaps we’re focused on the wrong qualifications or disqualifying the wrong candidates? Maybe we should start understanding that the media is trying to kill off our candidates and quit playing along with the “Serial adulterer for me but not for thee” punchline.
Now if the serial adulterers Kennedy and Clinton were such great Presidents, and the serial adulterer Bill Clinton is still such a highly regarded political figure, then don’t we owe it to ourselves to consider the upside of electing our own serial adulterer?
We do
And never forget the wise words of our current secretary of state (aka “the most cheated on woman on the planet”) as those tales of her husband’s…adventures…were leaking out.
She called it a “vast right wing conspiracy”.
Newt Gingrich is unelectable in the general election. He is no Reagan or Clinton or even Bush. He may be a great debater or historian, but what about after the debate? People who work around him can’t stand his arrogance and bullying. Even though Obama is an arrogant elitist and hypocrite, this old, white arrogant elitist and hypocrite will not win over the phony charms of Obama in Novmber.
Romney is the only GOP who can beat Obama, and that’s why the mainstream media is after Romney. Romney is the true GOP frontrunner. Gingrich has yet to win a primary state. Gingrich’s angry, lecturing, big mouth during a debate with Obama will make blacks, Hispanics and young people vote for Obama.
“Newt Gingrich is unelectable in the general election.”
I suspect it is Obama who is not electable in 2012..
“He is no Reagan or Clinton or even Bush.”
With respect to Reagan, if he’s half the man Reagan was in his day, Gingrich will be good enough, and in light of Reagan’s experience, he’ll know when not to compromise with the Dims. Clinton was driven to the reforms he accepted by Gingrich’s success. RE Bush and the problems we face today, we should thank God he won’t be a Bush fiscally. I have no reason to think he won’t do at least as well geo-strategically.
“He may be a great debater or historian, but what about after the debate?”
He throws bombs into the establishment that got us into this, and a fine thing too. Time to cut off mouldered branches.
“People who work around him can’t stand his arrogance and bullying. Even though Obama is an arrogant elitist and hypocrite, this old, white arrogant elitist and hypocrite will not win over the phony charms of Obama in Novmber.”
Sure he will, his honest disdain for the left will resonate with what people see and remember happened to “hope and change”.
“Romney is the only GOP who can beat Obama, and that’s why the mainstream media is after Romney.”
What?
“Romney is the true GOP frontrunner.”
A majority can’t stand the man, that’s your idea of a front-runner?
“Gingrich has yet to win a primary state.”
So Romney and Santorum are even to count by states, then. If Gingrich wins SC, he’s even. And unlike Santorum, his more moderate social conservative stance will alienate fewer “moderates” most of them will vote their pocketbook anyway.
“Gingrich’s angry, lecturing, big mouth during a debate with Obama will make blacks, Hispanics and young people vote for Obama.”
What blacks and young people vote are already mostly in the tank for Obama–but fewer will vote for him this time–some of them can learn. Gingrich is taking a conciliatory enough stance on immigration that most Hispanics will vote their wallet, and for Gingrich if he is the candidate.
By contrast, Romney is a liberal who will get some of what he wants.
Why do you want that?
Let me see if I got this straight – ABC airs already known details of an old relationship of Newt’s in order to bash Mitt?
Why didn’t I see that? (sarcastically rolls eyes)
Which, given that there has been a grand total of one Republican primary in 2012, is perhaps not the irrefutable indictment that you drool it is.
Whereas these groups would have voted 95% for Mittens Romneycare, a/k/a “The White Obama”?
95% LOL.
That patent vacuity of the excuses Romney’s supporters make can only stagger the mind.
I am told that the Royal Special Air Service motto is “Who Dares Wins”, and that common special forces mottos in the Commonwelath are variations on “we dare” and “we win”.
Can anyone make a case that Romney will dare more than to pick light grey as opposed to black socks?
Gingrich will dare, Gingrich will win.
We’ll win with him.
I am pretty disgusted with the field. Out of 300 million Americans this is the best we can do, a crackpot, a no name, a bloviating guy with a ton of baggage and the Stepford candidate. Romney is the perfect foil for Obama’s strategy of rallying the rabble against the rich. A white guy with off shore bank accounts, a history of rightfully or wrongfully closing little companies and a silver spoon in his mouth. Every lapdog Obama fellating media jackal probably already has a file cabinet full of hot stories and sob sister human interest stories about the little people he’s stepped on on the way up. Brokered convention anyone?
One of your assumptions is that Obama is re-electable. There are considerable reservations about that.
“Down in sun-drenched Antigua, the election circus seems far away — but not far enough.” This may be inconsiderate, however, it was ET that phoned home!!! Your post states the obvious, yet, because of the average American’s lack of an attention span can not be stated too often.
Nonsense. Gingrich is very electable; he’s the only candidate tuned into the zeitgeist. That standing ovation has been three decades in the making. Americans want someone–anyone who loves the country–to take a sledge hammer to the Leftist edifice of lies. In his role as an historian, Gingrich is in a unique position to accomplish this. Also, he likes a good fight. He may just be the man for the job. It’s not enough for a candidate to mouth the usual platitudes. Daniel Greenberg at Sultan Knish has an insightful article about the need for Republican revolution. I’d recommend everyone read it.
The media is missing this thing by a mile: they see few obvious signs of rebellion and assume that the Tea Party is on its last legs. They fail to realize that most Americans are easy-going and believe in the rule of law; if they finally get pissed they will rouse themselves when the time is right. Election day 2012 is going to be more interesting than you may imagine.
From Greenburg (emphases, mine):
The media is missing this thing by a mile: they see few obvious signs of rebellion and assume that the Tea Party is on its last legs.
Exactly right. The MSM hacks seem to have forgotten that the TP activists have jobs – families to tend to – in other words – a life. When the time is right the TP will gather and support a likely candidate – and it most likely won’t be Romney. Any TP ‘official’ that throws their support behind one candidate or another is in fact giving personal support. Not many TP members have thrown in with Santorum – including myself. I’m for Newt – have given him money – and will continue to do so if only because I wish to see the teleprompter prez go toe to toe with Newt. And because he’d do a damn site better job than the current CIC – ‘Clown In Chief’.
“Hank, what do you think, should we broadcast this bucketful of sewage from the guy’s angry ex now when it can do some serious harm to his candidacy, or do you think it would cause more damage if we held it until later in the campaign?”
Ethics, indeed.
I was (somewhat) surprised to hear Chris Wallace side with John King and support the Marianne thing as a legitimate topic. Wallace took on that wounded dog look.
In his response to King, I appreciated Newt’s broader remarks about the longstanding bias in “élite media”.
I had a feeling and a hope that ABC’s endeavors would backfire. Republicans/conservatives despise the MSM, we know they are the enablers of the democrat party. Any ambush attack on a republican is understood for the motives that lie behind it.
We already know that Newt was a scumbag when it came to marital fidelity. Hearing a disgruntled Ex really doesn’t have much shock value. We’ve heard him address it, we’ve heard him voice his own condemnation for that part of his life, his turning to God, his repentance and asking for forgiveness.
Plus, we know there’s always two sides to every story. Newt has had the class not to tell his side. Generally, if one is in a good marriage, the temptation to graze on the other side of the fence is reduced.
“Does that mean, as Marianne said, that Newt is “morally unfit” to be president of the United States?”
Although not a Gingrich supporter, I have to respond: Yes, just as morally unfit as Eisenhower, JFK, and Clinton, to name just the ones we found out about…
Very telling that, while Gingrich’s first wife is deathly ill, Gingrich is fooling around with Marianne ala John Edwards, then leaves the 1st wife for Marianne. History repeats itself when he fools around with Calista while still married to Marianne, while at the same time, hypocritically demonizing Clinton for Lewinsky and Paula Gates. (You can bet Obama’s operatives and the liberal establishment will bring that up, along with all of Gingrich’s ethics violations if Gingrich is the GOP nominee.) Contrast that with Romney who said when his wife, Ann, got deathly ill with multiple sclerosis, he publicly stated that that was the worse period in his life and he stayed and comforted his wife through the ordeal. Contrast also Romney donating his multi-million dollar salary when he was the CEO of the Salt Lake City Olympics Committee and successfully turning that financially-marred event around – contrast that with Gingrich taking a million for ‘consulting’ the failing, and continuing to fail, Fannie Mae.
Also, contrast Gingrich who uses his conversion to Catholicism and his asking for forgiveness from those he’s hurt as proof that he’s a Christian, but no one says anything about the humble Romney who was teaching Sunday School before, during and even AFTER he was the CEO of Bain.
Romney has both a law degree and an MBA from Harvard. With those 2 degrees in hand, he created and saved thousands of jobs at great American companies, such as Sports Authority, Sealy, Domino’s Pizza, Brookstone and Staples. Obama, who also has a law degree from Harvard, became a community organizer and state senator of the region known as the Southside of Chicago, but he did not do a thing to help improve the lives of the thousands of poor and disadvantaged living in that cesspool of crime, drugs, poverty and misery during his time as community organizer and state senator there and AFTER Obama became the most powerful man on earth with trillions to spend and lose. That is why Romney will beat Obama handily in November. With Romney and his proven knack for business success and job creation and turning around failing entities, people are optimistic; with Obama and his failed policies of the last 3 years, the American people are fed up and want him out of the People’s House, and not soon enough.
Her own daughters, who were there at the time, do not back her up. You are giving great credit to a probable liar. You also give a pass to Clinton, whose problems lay not in his affair, but in his lying about it to a court of law–he should have been removed from office for it.
So Gingrich “uses” his Catholicism, but Romney doesn’t “use” is faith, what bullshit! You’re using it for him, here! It doesn’t mean Romney should be President.
“Romney has both a law degree and an MBA from Harvard.”
That’s excellent evidence he is credentialed by the wrong sort of people, and has no clue as to how to solve today’s problems–it is excellent evidence he is part of the problem.
“That is why Romney will beat Obama handily in November”
If Gingrich is the last non-Romney candidate, he will be the next President–because for excellent reasons a majority of the party can not stand Romney.
Out of Gingrich and Romney, only Romney can rival Obama in a long history of liberal Progressive accomplishments, policies, and opinions. What Romeny has not wavered on, among other things, is that he thinks the governemnt can run people’s healthcare, it can ignore the 2nd amendment, and that human released CO2 should be restricted to save the climate from warming change. Is that true or not, that Romney has never flip flopped on those view opinions?
Be publicly honest just once, you mealy mouthed shill.
Gingrich, by contrast, brought Clinton Clinton kicking and screaming to reform welfare and get as balanced a budget as we’ve had for 40 or 50 years.
I hate the fact Gingrich blew the call on Scozzafava, but unlike Romney, I think he can avoid repeating the mistake.
Romney is the establishment’s man, the establishment lead us to this trouble, and he is stuck on stupid. He will not make change for the better.
Why do you get personal and resort to name-calling? No wonder you like Gingrich – you’re just like him. If you don’t agree with me, that’s fine. Everyone’s entitled to their opinion. That’s what makes Pajamas Media so great because it’s a forum for different and differing opinions. But your name-calling is childish and disrespectful.
Why resort to calling you a shill? What else are you, besides anonymous?
Why aren’t you able to explain why Romney’s long list of Progressive and liberal accomplishments and opinions don’t disqualify him from consideration?
You’re entitled to an opinion, respect needs to be earned.
Romney and his supporters have my contempt for good reason.
Both are exemplars of the goals and means which brought us to our current distress.
Try reading his post again; I did & saw no evidence that he called you anything. He did, however, lob a moniker at Romney (“mealy mouthed shill”).
“Why resort to calling you a shill? What else are you, besides anonymous?”
Oops. Guess I was mistaken. Carry on……
Very telling that, while Gingrich’s first wife is deathly ill, Gingrich is fooling around with Marianne
Your own words in that first post paints you as either ignorant of the real facts or a shill – as Tom Perkins described you.
So…which is it?
Newt’s wife was anything but ‘deathly ill’ – this is legend as only the left can tell it. Repeat a lie often enough… I think it was Joseph Goebbels that said that. She was in the hospital for exploratory surgery for a suspected tumor that turned out to be benign. She’s still alive at 75. Hardly ‘deathly ill’ even when the ‘event’ occurred. She was quite healthy at the time.
Why not take the time today to educate yourself and eradicate the ignorance that seems to be plaguing your life?
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/correcting-the-record-newt-gingrich-didnt-divorce-his-first-wife-while-she-had-cancer/
You’re mistaken – Gingrich’s 2 daughters are from the FIRST wife — not from Marianne. He didn’t have any kids with Marianne, so, of course, the 2 daughters will not support Marianne since Gingrich left their mother for Marianne.
What step-daughters aren’t daughters?
You have yet to make a substantive counterpoint.
What excuses Romney in having, and his supporters in supporting, his long list of Progressive, liberal accomplishments? His belief in gun control, AGW global warming, and government run healthcare?
You are correct – and the ‘deathly ill’ wife is also the mother of those 2 daughters.
Like I said – why not start today and get some education? Read the article I linked to.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/correcting-the-record-newt-gingrich-didnt-divorce-his-first-wife-while-she-had-cancer/
Newt should have just done it the Ruling Class way. Stay married, payoff the wife you’ve grown apart from (pills and booze are as effective as money), and buy all the 20 year-olds that your pacemaker can tolerate. Of course, it can become even more expensive when it comes time to pay off the reporters…unless you were wise enough to align with them politically in the first place.
The MSM is trying to clear the field for Romney, so that Obama can win easily.
Why Mitt Romney is Barack Obama’s dream candidate!
I’m hoping that SC will put the final nail in Mitt’s coffin. Flip-flops belong on feet, and RINOs belong in the zoo.
From the assorted commentary, one would think that the chief reason that Gingrich is enjoying a comeback in South Carolina is that he has swatted down the despised media, thus winning the hearts of many. Hoorah, say we all! Hoorah! But what in heaven’s name does this have to do with leading the country? I suppose as President Newt could hold a daily press conference and savage any reporter who asked a question he didn’t like. This would be great entertainment–the reality show of reality shows. He might even arrange to have Limbaugh and Hannity co-host. Imagine the fun! But on the more serious issue of character, whether in his private or public life, the record is so troublesome that it is impossible not to conclude that Gingrich would be a huge risk as a candidate and an unacceptable risk as President.
“…Gingrich would be a huge risk as a candidate and an unacceptable risk as President.”
Based on his record as Speaker of overseeing a balanced budget, welfare reform & a House full of Republicans in leadership positions for the first time in 40 YEARS, your assessment falls a bit short of the mark. Further, with his past experiences in Washington, he is in a position to understand behind-the-Beltway politics better than the other candidates. Of this current field, Gingrich has the most capacity to do a better job as POTUS.
Yeah, Gingrich was so successful as Speaker of the House, that he resigned that position in disgrace because of his ethics problems and after his own Republican Congress members pressured him to step down since he was causing one embarrassing scandal after another.
The issue for the GOP electorate to consider is who between Romney and Gingrich can get this country back to economic and financial health and international prominence. That person is Romney. Gingrich’s loud, patronizing and angry rhetoric and his battle with the media so that he can evade questions about his past, will not get him elected by the populace or gain him electoral votes in November. Romney has created jobs and saved large American employers from going under. Romney is a businessman who has turned failing companies around.
Gingrich is all over the place — he criticizes Obama for being a socialist, and he also criticizes Romney for being a capitalist and doing what free market, capitalists do with failing companies — which is either to revive them or to let them file for bankruptcy when there’s absolutely no hope for their survival. We don’t need, and can’t afford, another candidate for POTUS, like Gingrich, who has no executive experience, has never ran a business, has a shady past and verbally attacks and lectures people asking him legitimate questions about his past and character.
It’s you and Mr. Perkins who need to get alittle more educated.
Yes he was successful.
It was his more or less balanced budet which Clinton signed. The items on the Contract with america were all brought to a vote as promised, and half were passed, things that were unthinkable politically before Gingrich.
His “ethics” violations? Stabbed in the back by his own party for nothing I can see to be objectionable in the first place? It’s your hand on a hilt now, why are you proud of it?
“The issue for the GOP electorate to consider is who between Romney and Gingrich can get this country back to economic and financial health and international prominence. That person is Romney.”
It certainly is not. If you think so, then you can explain away Romney care, right? You can explain away Romey’s steadfast (and what little is he steadfast about?) support for AGW?
As for the rest of your prattling, see my response to Publius, below.
You keep on attacking Gingrich, pointing out splinters. Address Romney’s planks, if you can.
Romneycare.
AGW.
Gun control.
I am simply amazed that so many self-styled “true conservatives” can get their panties in a wad over Newt Gingrich’s ethics law problems but they could easily dismiss the ethics law issues that She Who Was Once a Half-term Governor had as a vast left-wing conspiracy. I will guarantee you that I could put anybody who has ever cast a vote in a Legislature, signed a bill, or spent a public dollar in jail if you give me the usual jury of twelve morons with drivers licenses. Whenever anyone who’s been around government more than a day or two hears that Ethics Act charges have been filed against someone, their first question is, “Who did they piss off?” The Democrats and some Republicans have criminalized political disagreement and people are buying into it. I can think of reasons to have grave misgivings about Newt Gingrich and I’ve articulated some of them here, but ethics charges, or even an ethics conviction, aren’t among them. Just as Mel Laird told Richard Nixon about impeachment, with ethics charges, you don’t need evidence, you just need votes.
Ethics violation story on Gingrich as Speaker: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/011897.htm
More here: http://www.rightgrrl.com/carolyn/newt.html
After reading the above, you might be a little bit more up to speed (as in “educated”), triple8.
I’m not “against Romney.” Nor do I think that any of the candidates represents me, exactly.
But I would disagree with you about the “serious issue of character.”
Because character is many things, not just marriage, lust, and so forth.
I consider it a far worse character defect to be a leftist, for instance, with all the horrible freedom-killing things they believe in, than just a human who can’t keep it in his pants.
Just a thought.
“From the assorted commentary, one would think that the chief reason that Gingrich is enjoying a comeback in South Carolina is that he has swatted down the despised media, thus winning the hearts of many. Hoorah, say we all! Hoorah! But what in heaven’s name does this have to do with leading the country?”
Attacking instead of accomodating the MSM shows he understands what the problem is, and therefore he is more likely to lead the country in the right direction. He has the better view of the big picture, which is that the status quo must be changed.
It’s that simple.
The great leaders of The Bible were living breathing human beings capable of serious moral faults.
David and Bathsheba ring a bell?
Gingrich has made mistakes. Those mistakes do not disqualify him as a potential President.
Your friendly, neighborhood Liberal says, conservatives should not be afraid to support a conservative problem-solver. They should also make an effort to find out the source of the unfavorables for their candidates.
It would be very interesting, for example, to get a copy of that video where Gingrich first made the remark about having schoolchildren get paid for doing light janitorial work in school, and juxtaposing that with the gross, wholesale mischaracterizations of those remarks by, for example, Rachel Maddow. Also instructive would be a glance at the numbers of references to the mischaracterizations versus the source remarks.
Repubs, that man’s activities with respect to education in the US demonstrate that you have a jewel. That’s why there’s been so much paint dumped on him. I’d recommend some soap, water and sunshine.
Maybe Gingrich should join United Trinity Church in Chicago and start worshiping James Cone’s white-friendly Black Liberation Theology while quoting all of Cone’s and Wright’s most racist diatribes.
Love to see how the MSM would take to that. Maybe they’d finally get it and you’d hear “Oohs” and “Aahs” from the Beltway.
I remember Newt well when he came on the scene and used his wife’s name all the time, Marryianne this and Marryianne that. Apparently, she was a convenient prop. OK, that’s not that bad. But it is a politician’s trade and that’s what Newt is. Someone who has spent most of his adult life in Washington probably has Ptomaic fever. Do you think Newt doesn’t have it?
Is that what the country needs? I don’t think his attack on Bain Capital suggests he is a conservative at heart, someone who understands the inns and outs of creative destruction. Economically, the private sector is the creative force in economy and government isn’t. The private sector has the incentive to get it right and when it does it can reap the rewards. Government doesn’t have nearly as powerful incentive: witness Solyndra. Speaking of solar, Newt is no doubt smart but his willingness to support AGW is very troubling to me. It casts some doubt on his understanding of how science really works.
Newt made noises about AGW prior to the realization of the impact of the Climate gate emails. He has since abjectly and credibly apologized for his misapprehension, and said it was such.
Romney, by contrast–AGW is still one of the few things he has said he believes in which he has not flip flopped on.
It’s one of the the things he really believes.
What of that to you, Publius?
Or Moira?
Or Myra?
What is your excuse for excusing Romney for his multitudinous deficiencies?
Publius strains at a gnat and hoovers a camel.
Gingrich is casting about to prevent the disaster which Romney’s accession represents, and he fumbles in attacking the common practices of PE/venture capital firms. This is in contrast to his long history of shrinking government, taxes, and supporting genuinely free markets.
He doesn’t blink an eye at Romney’s raising taxes, growing government, supporting government taxing carbon, and taking over the healthcare industry in his state–which he still swears is the best thing he could do.
I predict pigs will fly with their own wings before Publius makes an on point refutation.
Is that what the country needs?
Well, it sure as hell doesn’t need a communist.
@ 22 Tom Perkins – You forgot to mention Romneys support for endless Wall Street Bailouts – Yes we can!, at least until the country runs out of money and becomes Iceland.
I think a lot of people underestimate the extent of anger on the right. Anger at constantly being called dumb, racists, troglodytes, evil, “not caring about people,” stupidly religious, and so forth.
This has been building up for at least the past three years. Before that, there were six years of battering Bush, but that didn’t seem quite so directed toward us. Now we’ve had three years of being called stupid and bad, just for being conservative! And that tone has been abetted again and again by none other than the President.
I think many people simply don’t realize how deeply satisfying it is to have Gingrich finally stand up against it; acting as a voice for all the bitterness and helpless anger the left has begot in us via their very open, loud, and continuous contempt for us.