RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Newt vs Newt

Count me in the anti-Newt camp. I have not forgotten and I don’t forgive him for squandering the historical achievement of capturing the Congress in 1994 in order to service the needs of his pecker and inflated ego. Newt is a great talker, a dandy debater and an organizational disaster. I believe the man is bi-polar. He bears all of the symptoms.

Anyway, there are two pieces out today that are worth your time. One is by neo-con John Podhoretz. It is a negative piece to say the least. Podhoretz writes:

We’ve made the Fitzgerald mistake: Once again, we forgot that the United States is either an uncommonly forgiving or uncommonly forgetful place.

We remember Gingrich well. Too well. We should; we’re paid to. But we failed to take into account that most people who vote aren’t paid to and have other things to think about.

We remember him going through one of the great political flameouts of our time — first helping to engineer the 1994 GOP takeover of Congress, then resigning after the 1998 midterms.

We remember the brilliant political design of the Contract with America — and how little of it actually made it into law. That would prove to be very much the pattern with Gingrich, who loves to think in grand terms but who tends toward not grandeur as a result but grandiosity, instead.

We remember how he tarnished his own “Republican revolution” even before it started between the 1994 election and the swearing-in of the new Congress by getting himself a $4.5 million book deal (that would be $6.5 million today) — a PR blunder and possible ethics violation that backfired so badly that he had to forswear his advance.

It troubles me to find myself agreeing with a neo-con but, right is right. I encourage you to follow the link and read the entire piece.

And if you love Newt? Well, John Hawkins is for you:

Picking a candidate in cases like this for me always starts out with the same question: Who’s the most conservative candidate that can be elected?

I’ve decided that candidate is Newt Gingrich. To begin with, he’s a conservative and Romney’s a right-of-center moderate.

I also believe Newt’s more electable than Romney. That’s not because he polls better than Romney against Obama right now — although he does according to Rasmussen. It’s because Mitt Romney is a weak, bland, moderate candidate who inspires no passion and who seems to have no core convictions whatsoever. These are features, not bugs to establishment Republicans, but conservatives have fought too long and too hard to keep embracing guys like Romney just because a bunch of Republican careerists in D.C. like him or because it’s “his turn.” Is it too much to ask that the conservatives who provide the vast majority of energy, money, and the ideas in the GOP have one of our own as the nominee?

I don’t think it’s too much to ask and, yes, Newt Gingrich is a conservative. I won’t sit here and tell you that he has no flaws or that he hasn’t gone off the reservation a few times. But, I will also tell you that other than Ronald Reagan himself, Newt Gingrich has actually helped push through more conservative legislation than anybody else in the last 30 years. This is the man behind the Contract with America, welfare reform, and a balanced budget in D.C. He has a lifetime ACU rating of 90. This isn’t a man who governed as a centrist and is now telling us how conservative he’ll be this time around. This isn’t a man who simply said “No” to everything that came down the pike because it wasn’t “conservative enough” for him. This is a man who actually moved the ball forward for conservatives on Capitol Hill. When was the last time we got off defense and actually started moving D.C. to the right? Oh, yes, it was when Newt was the Speaker. So, people can criticize his performance as Speaker all they want, but no Republican in D.C. since Newt left has even come close to filling his shoes. Even the best people we have in D.C. right now are doing nothing more than holding the line. There’s a lot to be said for that, but we’ve got to do more than that if we’re ever going to turn the country around.

So, who is right? Podhoretz or Hawkins? What do you think?

  • Pingback: ABC’s GOP Debate Tonight + Open Thread (UPDATE on Gingrich) : NO QUARTER

  • http://usb3gvn.com USB 3G

    Oh nice, thanks for share!

  • Anonymous

    I think if Newt is the nominee, I’ll vote for him. But I’m still voting for Ron Paul in the primary; I know he won’t make it to the nomination but that’s my plan. And, I still wish conservatives had given Jon Huntsman a chance; if they had, he might have made a better candidate, too. Instead, they had to kiss all the frogs in the GOP lineup. I’ll leave out the names, you know who they are. They’re still kissing frogs; but I’m voting for the GOP nominee in 2012, and I don’t care if it is Newt Gingrich. 

  • Anonymous

    I think I am not a happy kite, Thats what I think.

    There has not been a primary yet and when it does come to my neck of the vineyard, them grapes will have already been picked.

    Then I think about BO for another four years and that is more sickening than being turned into a newt…or a Romulan cursing the Vulcanization of the Republic.
    Certainly is going splendid.
    Still anyone of these candidates on the republican side on their worst day as POTUS would be betterthan Obama on his best days on the links. That’s what I tell myself knowing it is not possible to vote for the current ass clown over at Motel 1600.

  • Pingback: The Messenger Matters (& Open Thread) : NO QUARTER

  • Anonymous

    Romney doesn’t have the fortitude and conviction that Newt has.
    plus that Romneycare thingy

  • Scottymac54

    Now Gingrich claims he wants Bolton as Secretary of State.

    • Anonymous

      well well.

    • Anonymous

      well well.

    • Wbboe

      Oh oh . .  . Chavez would have a shit fit.  His security team is the kind of group Kissinger would pick.  http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2011/11/gingrich-announces-national-security-advisory-team.html

      • Scottymac54

        And Wurmser, back, advising on the Middle East.

        The defense contracters will be thrilled….

        Nuckin’ Fewt…

        • Anonymous

          Unlike a jew hating dirtbag like you, he doesn’t want to be the party to a second holocaust.

          • Scottymac54

            You wouldn’t know a “jew hating dirtbag” if it spit gefilte fish in your face, and your ilk has been whining about a “second holocaust” for the last sixty-five years.

            Forgive me if your mental acuity seems a bit skewed for thinking you can control entire populations with your calamity howling, after the Jewish people have never known a home so kind and generous to them in history, than this one.

            • Anonymous

              Zeig heil moron.

  • Claudybl

    Podhoretz. If Gingrich wins the nom he will be up against Obama and the Clinton’s – right now Clinton gets his digs in on this admin and Obama in particular — if Newt is in the picture, it will unite Dems like never before. He did, after all, take down a popular President – who was doing a good job — and one of the most popular U.S. politicians ever.

  • emm

    Watch this video of Newt at the Iowa Faith Conference.  It is excellent:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB181Lm9shs&feature=youtu.be

    • Anonymous

      good speech

    • Anonymous

      good speech

  • http://twitter.com/ImaLindatoo Im a Linda too

    OK Larry, here goes.  They’re both right and wrong.  Sorry, I’m sure not what you were looking for. lol

     Podhoretz is correct about the things he singled out on Newt.  But of course, he didn’t discuss the successes of Newt.  He also wrote …in regards to Newt, the USA os forgiving and a forgetful.  But that’s not entirelly accurate, becaUse if he believed that, (maybe that’s the problem) then folks would be FORGIVING and be forgetful about MAO Romney, Mr liberal Mass, and just remember him as a Corporate Business Man who happens to have some Governor experience.

    Having said that, OH GOD, brief break for panic WITH THESE CANDIDATES, ok, released.  Having said that, Hawkins is correct to believe that Newt is more electable than RomneyWhine (Mittens having kittens) .  I guess you can call him MORE conservative, but I don’t think it’s much.  And is correct about Mittens problems.  

    Hell, RomneyWhine can’t even ADMIT about his flipped positions, at least Newt did. (GREAT-sarcasm-such an accomplishment)  .

    Who’s baggage is harder to sell?  The problem is Newt has conservative accomplishments.  Does Mittens?  

    However, yesterday just made me want to toss, because now the so called more conservative guy, now leaVing it to him creating his policy, doesn’t seem to be very conservative.  He’s now flipping back over his flip flopped position and reasserting himself on the belief of mandates.  Oh, but “personal ones”.  WTF?  Newt is now campaigning as another BIG gov’t guy.  He sees gov’t intervention in everything.  And my alarm bells went off, when I hear him talk about giving multiple choices on govt programs.  Oh yeah, sure, lets grow govt  like a business, selling your choices of services AT OUR EXPENSE and controling us further.

    So, yesterday, I FREAKED and said, “THIS IS OUR CHOICES?  GREAT, I’ll go back to Rick Santorum.  I don’t care he very conservative on sociaL issues, he’s right on the other issues and keeps his pecker in his pants”..  OH and, he’s from Pennsylvania.  Just north of Pittsburgh, and they grow good people, hard working and reliable.  

    God help me, this is what we’re left with.

    oh and………………..SSSSSSAAAARRRRRRRAAAAAAAAHHHHHH, SAVE US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Done.
     

    • http://twitter.com/ImaLindatoo Im a Linda too

      Forgot to post the TELLING interview Newt did with…uh oh, Larry, your head is REALLY going to explode now, :) …..Glenn Beck.

      http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/12/06/transcript-of-newt-gingrich-interview/

      • Anonymous

        thanks

    • Anonymous

      I don’t think the “keeps his pecker in his pants” proviso is a valid qualification for the presidency…..

      • Anonymous

        lol

    • Anonymous

      Santorum lost his re-election bid to the Senate by about 18 points, I believe. I don’t want him in my life raft.

      • http://twitter.com/ImaLindatoo Im a Linda too

        Yep, he did.  And Mitt lost every election since winning Gov in 2002.  He lost his Senate run in 2004 as SITTING GOVERNOR…and then again for presidennt in 2008.

  • emm

    Republicans like Newt because he is competent, knowledgeable, and will not be easily intimidated by Obama.  All of his ideas aren’t valid, but he is a font of information and ideas for successful solutions.  We conservatives are willing to overlook his personal life because we want someone who will be fearless in the battle against Obama.  Romney doesn’t have the fortitude and conviction that Newt has.

    • Anonymous

      Newt has ideas and can hammer Obama but what good is it if you are famously immoral, undisciplined, both verbally and emotionally, with a leadership style that many who served under you would rather not have back. 

      • Anonymous

        To cite another rather controversial figure, lately deceased (Al Davis): “Just win, baby….” 

        Can he do that?

  • Anonymous

    This “one of us” theme of conservatives gripes my lumbago!
    It is as unreasonable as 95% of blacks voting for Obama. If this country was cruising at 40,000 feet with no turbulence…fine. Hell-o, we are not, and where are all the prima-donna conservatives who did not enter the fray?
    I have been surrounded by republicans since 1965, and they work polls, vote, and try to win elections instead of whining “woe is we.”
    Gingrich’s recollections of history and politics are interesting and may be his stongest attribute. Romney has the potential to be a successful president, for I believe he will bring discipline and committment to the office. A little dignity would not be amiss either!
    The nominee will be decided long before my primary, but I will vote for either Romney or Gingrich without difficulty.

    • Anonymous

      Hooray, Sassy!

    • Anonymous

      me too.ABO!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Dave L.

    Another thing that scares me, is the fact that the next president may get to appoint up to 3 Supreme Court Justices !!  Do you want Obama to be the one to pick candidates for the SCOTUS  !! I sure as hell don’t …

    • Anonymous

      NO!!!!!!!

  • Wbboe

    Today, as I survey the landscape, what I see is an irreconcilable conflict between the east coast establishment and the rest of the country made infinitely worse by our moribund economy.  Instead of helping the country, the elites as epitomized by Obama are hell bent on stealing everything they can.  This attitude is prevalent in both political parties, therefore it would be a mistake to assume that it is simply a democrat problem–although in their case the betrayal is greater because they pretend to stand for the middle class, yet under Obama they are driving the middle class into extinction. 

    Those of us who supported Hillary in the 2008 primary will remember a time when the radicals who took over the party said they would rather win the party than win the general election.  They said this in response to the Clinton argument that Obama could not win the general election.

    Today, the shoe is on the other foot.  If the elite interests in the Republican Party shove a candidate down our throats who is good for them but no good for us, do not be surprised if millions of Republicans just stay home.  Unlike the democrats who remained in the party, they have the guts to tell the leadership to go to hell when it  behaves in a manner that is contrary to their interests.  This reality may dawn upon them after South Carolina. Or maybe not.

  • Wbboe

    Well . . . . let him who hath not sinned cast the first stone.  Newt’s mistakes are a matter of record. We can take them as deep character flaws which invalidate his candidacy–or we can assume that maybe . . just maybe he has learned something along the way. 

    You may be a Churchill expert–I do not pretend to be.  But he had his  problems–disasters along the way during world war I.  And that led to a decade when he was out of power–the so called Wilderness Years.  During that period of time he read, wrote and reflected.  Meanwhile, England in general and his party in particular went through cloud cuckoo land and pretended the problems were not problems, they could be papered over and a single scrap of paper guaranteed peace in our time.  The author of those words–a Romnesque sort of fellow did take the precaution of carrying around an umbrella in the event of rain.  But it was only in that sense that he was prepared.

    I am not saying Gingrich is Churchill.  All I am suggesting is there is such a thing as the man, the moment and the message.  And that the threats we are facing on all fronts have an eerie resemblance to what we faced in World War II in terms of their existential ramifications.  I am referring to a broader range of threats than just military, and to a nation which is ill prepared for the dark days that lie ahead.  Your own analysis of our economic situation should lead you to the same conclusion.  That being the case, we need a turn aound artist, rather than a tender of the flock.

    I had dinner Monday night with someone whose views I respect.  He is a student of history, a former floor trader a former Vice President with one of the largest Wall Street investment banks and he knows the left like few people I know.  He lived through a communist revolution and as Dr Johnson observed nothing so fixates the mind as the imminent prospect of being hanged.  He gave me his unvarnished assessment of the three candidates–Obama, Romney and Gingrich. He regards Obama as a clear and present danger to every American, so we did not dwell long on that subject.  We could easily stipulate to the fact that Obama is a deadly cancer that has menastasized through the body politic so we moved on quickly to the remaining two.

    His view of Romney was somewhat jaded.  He said the very thing that the establishment Republicans like about the man he dislikes.  He sees him as both weak and easily pushed around.  He will look out for the elite interests and labor in their vinyard not ours.  He also worries about the Mormon thing.  He has studied their religion, and calls it bad science fiction–the notion that every Mormon has his own personal planet, that Judas (or Satan) was the brother of Christ etc. The church exerts great control over its followers and in certain venues those who are not of the faith are at a great disadvantage. The irony is that this has also produced a model citizenry at the very time when the social software of our country is debased by Hollywood and the denizons of big media.  On a personal level he believes Romney is a decent guy, but worries about the impact of the Church elders etc.  In sum, he believes Romney would be a good leader in more stable times, but not not now–not when everything is falling apart.  He is General McClellan when what we need is General Grant.

    His view of Gingrich is different.  He prefers Gingrich but not without some reservations.  He sees Gingrich as a great man who is capable of real leadership, and he believes that is what we will need.  Contrary to Morris’s assessment, he believes we will not achieve the 60 votes which the next president will need in the Senate, and whatever margin of victory we do achieve will be imperilled by the presence of RINOS like the senators from Maine, Massachusetts and Alaska.  Therefore we will need a strong leader like Gingrich to get the job done.  He worries that Newt has a taste for the purple, more so than other leaders at that level.  Also, he can be tough on people, but that is not necessarily a flaw when people stand in the way of what needs to be done for their own self serving reasons.  Thus, in the balance he things he is the best man for the job—the right man at the right moment with the right message.  A message which eschews the platitudes you get form Obama and Romney and talks about solutions.  Finally his ability to shut down Pelosi on her recent threat and hold big media in check in the debates could be outcome determinative.

    There is another point to be mentioned here too.  The Washington establishment had pretty much settled on Romney as the candidate. He is a status quo guy–not a reformer.  He will not upset the cozy lucrative relationships that exist today in elite circles. He is good for them in that respect. But the country itself is not of that view.  Their lives have become increasingly at risk. There has been a significant shift of white professionals away from Obama–and they were a core constituency for him in 2008–due to the dire state of the economy. There has been some shift in the Hispanics as well.  Romney is a status quo guy.  He cannot tap into that.  Gingrich can.

    • Wbboe

      P.S. I think Podhoretz–like his father before him is not to be trusted.  In addition to founding the Weekly Standard, I suspect he or his dad were co architects of the Project for a New American Century.  My advice to Scottymac would be–sic em—they are fucking neocons.

    • Anonymous

      Hooray

  • Ptab01

    The good the bad and the ugly

    The Good- we have had the most substantial look at potential GOP nominees in recent memory. We have revealed the warts and wreckage of most of them. Few surprises r gonna cause us to run away outright.

    The Bad – we are so focused on the notion that we can’t afford another term of Obama We are seeking a Champion of Olympian status.This is not nessecarily gonna help. we r way short on men of the character of George Washington or Andrew Jackson.

    The Ugly- Let us remember one defining thought Not too many people can muster the utter dismal performance that the POTUS has. We are staring into a lost decade and likely multiple decades at that givn the entrenchment of the political appointees and bureaucracy POTUS silently put into place.

    It is apparent here among our diverse idealogical positions POTUS must go The GOP will in the end select one to lead the charge and we must muster the vigor, regardless of the candidate, to defeat OHB . And that is ONLY the start of the mission. We will need to take the same steps as the grass roots of the Tea Party and the passion of the OWS denizens.

    There is no guarantee any of these persons will do their job as it is required to be done. It is electorates job to hold them in account THROUGHOUT their days in office NOT just at election time.

  • Anonymous

    They are both right and that’s the problem with Newt… The question is? Do we want someone so conflicted as the new resident of Pennsylvania Avenue?

    I surely do not….

    • Anonymous

      The current resident of the Oval Office is not “conflicted” at all. He is “constricted” and only by the fact that he needs to maintain an appearance of moderation in order to be re-elected and have the opportunity to  inflict the damage he will do in a second term as a 100% socialist.

      • Anonymous

        One day We The People have to stand up for what is truly right..Not the lesser of two evils! I for one an sick of that! Huntsman or Paul are much better candidates for the presidency. The baggage they carry does not have to be transported by AMTRAK!

      • Anonymous

        I was not talking about Obama. Newt is the one with the conflicts of personal and public interests… Obama is well…constrictflicted….

    • Anonymous

      What we need in the White House is someone who puts America first, and thinks it’s a great place to live, work and raise kids. We don’t have that now. What we need to take out Obama is a fighter, a fighter who can get down and dirty and come up smiling. Newt can do that. When Newt starts hammering on Obama and Obama gets petulant and huffy, and Newt laughs and hammers some more, then we will see some fun. And a new president.

      • Anonymous

        So what are you saying? Put someone who washes his feet with the US Constitution and lies to federal investigators is an acceptable office holder for the US Presidency?

        • Anonymous

          You mean like the one we have now? I would prefer Newt to Obama any day.

          • Anonymous

            That is too bad… especially when there are others candidates who can beat Obama who’s morals and ethics are not in question.

            If  Newt gets the nod and Obama gets four more… Here is a complete guide to your next few dinners…

            http://www.crowbusters.com/

            • Anonymous

              But based on prior comments you’ve made none of them would be good either. Clearly you believe in Obama.

          • Anonymous

            for sure

  • Lupe

    While I don’t like either one of them, if I had to choose between Gingrich and Romney, I would choose Gingrich. I recently came across the title of a book entitled “The Pact”. I haven’t read it, but the blurb says that it is about a pact that Clinton and Gingrich forged to “revolutionize” US government. I tend to believe that such a “pact” would be sufficient reason for the corporate masters of the universe to scandalize the two of them out of office. After all, are there any US Congressmen or Senators who couldn’t be scandalized similarly if someone put his mind to it? Romney, on the other hand, is about as establishment as you can get. I don’t have much respect for very many persons in the political, corporate, or media establishment. I think they tend to be deceitful, arrogant, greedy, and deluded. Gingrich, at the very least, is literate (i wonder if he really wrote all those books that pop up on Amazon.com…at least he lists co-authors), he knows how government and bureacracy functions, and I don’t think he is deluded…which means he knows how to compromise.

  • run_dmc

    sorry – don’t know who i despise more – Gingrich or Podhoretz.  I do know I wouldn’t want Podhoretz either as President or picking one.

  • ExiledByTSA

    I really really don’t want to vote for Romney but after all the other flameouts, I’m down to the conclusion that he is the only choice left. I think Newt can in fact rattle Obama at all debates and put Obama on the defensive. Newt can do very well in debates, and this is the best thing about Newt, he can really make people take a second look at all of the failures of the Obama administration and force exposure of Obama for the empty suit that he really is. But at the same time, people don’t vote on debate winners, for all good that these debates supposedly do. They vote for who they like. It seems that Newt has gotten the base to take a second look at him because Romney is just the absolute last resort.

    Because of my upcoming relocation I’m not sure I’ll get to vote during the primaries so I might be stuck with whoever ends up with the nomination. But in the end I’m just going to vote ABO. Even it Newt sucks, he will be beholden to his own constituency and that might put some restraint on whatever he does, whereas Obama will just continue to ignore us who oppose him anyway and continue on the course of failure.

    I can’t believe that with Obama being so weak now, that the GOP wasn’t able at all to provide better choices of candidates.

    • Anonymous

      “the GOP wasn’t able at all to provide better choices of candidates”
      -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  - 
      The GOP is never satisfied because there is no magic bullet of a candidate and never was – not even Reagan when he first ran.

      All of these candidates are a far superior choice to the current occupant.

      • Anonymous

        Hooray

  • Scottymac54

    “It troubles me to find myself agreeing with a neo-con but, right is right…”

    Definitely agree with you here.

    Okay, my main beef with Gingrich is that he is just another example of an evilian whose main lust is for power.  I admit to my own arrogance as a personality flaw, but I’m not running for leader of the free world.

    Arrogance is what many are confusing as strength, in this case, but that’s not a good call for a successor to a string of past presidents who’ve also struggled with ego problems and have done a piss-poor problem of hiding it.

    I also reject this whole partisan media portrayal of Gingrich as an “idea man”, because, what if those ideas are batshit insane?

    I heard the latest ‘idea”, about the “students as janitors”, LOL, and was transported back to the early nineties, when I was firmly in the Democratic camp.  I immediately remember other times he shot from the hip, like sending seniors to the moon, wiring Appalachia for internet service, etc., which we gobbled up at the time as evidence of yet another wacky intellectual type, who’d collapse of his own weight, unfit for governance, doomed to disappear into the midst of academia.

    That didn’t happen, and he continued to remain an authoritative figure who somehow gained prominence in conservative circles, largely based on perceptions of his past successes as Speaker, and partly because he’d weigh in on politically incorrect issues other Republicans wouldn’t. 

    He has an impulse control problem, which dovetails with your bipolar diagnosis.

    Barky has elements of this in his psychological profile.  Does it inspire any more confidence in Gingrich’s leadership skills, then it does in Obama’s, just because the ideological script has been flipped?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002509315863 Kata Kimbe

    Funny… Newt is as moderate and has changed his mind as much as Mitt, but the conservatives still love him.  I, for one, could never support that cheater.  Just like I would not support Clinton if he ran today.  This will be one crappy election season.

    • BINKY

      But, mostly cheaters have the ego to run for political office.  Not many of them are pure as the driven snow or they wouldn’t be running.  It’s a sad state of affairs I know.

  • Anonymous

    I think the Republican elites want Mittens, knowing full well he will lose to Obama, thereby setting the stage for Jeb Bush in 2016.
    I think I`m going to throw up now.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002509315863 Kata Kimbe

      The Democrats want Newt to run against… because they can win.  It would be harder against Mitt according to them.

      • Ptab01

        I can’t trust the DNC to say honestly who they fear and who don’t
        I will have to chose based upon the reality on the ground
        & be committed to keeping very watchful eyes all the DC Sharks

    • Anonymous

      I agree with you here.Harp.

  • Anonymous

    I also heard Debbie Wasserman Shultz on the radio today taking shots at Gingrich which I think only further supports him. In listening (rather than watching) to her I thought who she reminded me of.
     
    Listen to Debbie Downer
     
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=9vFAT4WXW-A#t=20s

    And then listen to  .  .  .  .  .  .

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=qZeqL0CUvjY#t=7s
     
     

    • Anonymous

      Sorry Hokma, not even for you will I listen to Debbie Downer. Her head is so far up her lying ass it’s a wonder that any words are audible at all. Those that are, aren’t worth spit.

      • Anonymous

        Okay. The answer is she sounds like Elmer Fudd.

        • Anonymous

          Only not as bright.

      • Anonymous

        Somewhere in Vegas a stage show is missing it’s Carrot Top impersonator….

      • Anonymous

        LOL Marge.true dat.

        • Anonymous

          She reminds me that we should be careful what we wish for. I have always “wished” to see more women in office. However if they are lying POS just like so many of the male lying POS we haven’t made much progress. And Debbie Downer is definitely a lying, POS. She spreads her little cloud of lies and hate wherever she goes. Not my idea of progress.

          My grandfather once told me that women had more “range” than men. Thus, according to Grandpa Will, the good ones were better and the bad ones were worse. That explains Debbie and Pelosi for me.

  • Anonymous

    Hawkins seems to ignore one small factor when considering electability: Likeability.

    Since ascending in the polls Newt has reverted back to his old egotistical self and has zero likeability.

    Would he beat Obama? Yes. But I truly do not see Newt getting the nomination.

    It is possible that Gingrich might win Iowa, but I believe he will implode as did Howard Dean who was considered the poll leader going into Iowa in 2004 for the Democrats.

    Gingrich is brilliant and is a reservoir of ideas, but he is undisciplined. He also believes he is the smartest guy in the room and will make sure he tells everyone in the room that fact – even if it means treating someone like the village idiot. 

    I still believe that Romney will be the nominee.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002509315863 Kata Kimbe

      Am I the only one who thinks that hell will freeze over before America votes for Newt before Obama?

      • Anonymous

        yes.

      • Scottymac54

        No.  Absolutely not.  We’ll stay home, or support Dr. Paul.

        • Anonymous

          You do that, scotty.  Nothing like making sure that Obama is re-elected because your jew-hating Ron Paul doesn’t have a chance in hell!
          Rock on, you isolationists!  Woo hoo!

          • Scottymac54

            Sure, Dr. Paul would spell the end of your government military welfare check.

            Better get used to asking “Paper, or plastic?” again…

      • Anonymous

        Yes.

        Newt will make Obama appear to look like a feckless moron who can’t utter a coherent thought without his trust Obamaprompter.

        Then there will be the super-pacs that will “inform” the public of who Obama is and what he has done – something that John McCain took a pass on and the media have chosen to ignore.

      • Anonymous

        Yes.

        Newt will make Obama appear to look like a feckless moron who can’t utter a coherent thought without his trust Obamaprompter.

        Then there will be the super-pacs that will “inform” the public of who Obama is and what he has done – something that John McCain took a pass on and the media have chosen to ignore.

    • BINKY

      But perhaps Newt will hire a disciplined staff.

    • Anonymous

      it,s his turn.lol

  • Anonymous

    Newt–never liked him, but I sure will support him if he goes against Obama.

    I remember how he went after Speaker Jim Wright (whom I liked) until Wright was forced to resign.  I don’t like Newt, but I would love to see him go after Obama with equal single-minded malice….
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Wright

    • Propertius

      If only it were “mutually assured destruction”. ;-)

    • Anonymous

      It will take that kind of guts/spine to go up against the Chicago Machine.

      Pelosi opened her big mouth threatening to exposed sealed docs from an investigation Re: Newt. He fired back immediately, and the next day her comments were “walked back.”

      The GOP nominee is going to have to hit Obama hard on his failed policies. I the plan is to be a gentile McCain-like candidate and be too intimated to utter his middle name, they’ve lost.

      They need to study Obama’s Chicago campaign history and see how low Axelrod is willing to go. It will not be two “statemen” running for office.

      ABO.

      • Anonymous

        Just had a thought., Romney/Gingrich ticket.. Newt as VP would be ok, Romney is healthy. And it would give Mitt a good attack dog for the campaign, Newt is good at that and can get down and dirty. And he knows people in DC who will give him more dirt on Obama. And the VP is president of the Senate which will come in handy for chatting up Congress, which Newt is also good at. He can work across the aisle, with everyone coming out looking not so bad, if not ok. And he can counter Obama’s claim of the Republicans blocking everything with lists of the legislation the Republican House has sent to the Democratic Senate and then explaining what happened to the legislation, and that it wasn’t the Republicans that buried it. Then we can watch Obama  toss the US Senate under the bus. That should be fun.

    • http://twitter.com/ImaLindatoo Im a Linda too

      Newt is much better than a can of frozen orange juice.  The orange juice will melt and leak all over the place, not before going bad.  And do we know what oranges are used in that can of orange juice?  Are they even American grown?  And don’t get me started on the pesticides used.
      :)

  • FrenchNail

    I read the transcript of Glen Beck interview of Newt this morning. And there is noway I can vote for him after that. His elitism came through so bad! Another of these Washington Insiders who believes his job is to think for us.

    He wants to have indivudual mandate for healthcare. We just need to be provided with better choices… And he is the one to come up with those so attractive choices that we simple minded peasans will fall all over ourselves to have elected such a bright mind taking so well care of us!

    But what if my choice is not to choose, or better not to have to choose.

    FU Newt. You lost me today. I have a mind of my own and I do vote and I won’t vote for you.

    • http://twitter.com/Juliezzz Juliezzz

      yeah after reading that transcript it was clear that Newt sells himself as a conservative but he is way to the left of every republican running.  He really doesn’t disagree all that much with Obama when it comes right down to it.  Both he and Obama wish to govern heavy handed like Teddy Roosevelt and increase the size of government rather than decrease it.  However,  He has flip flopped so much it really is hard to tell where he stands.  I can only assume his recent shift to the right was calculated move because of the Tea party surge and influence in the last midterm election.  Seems to me Newt has figured out the science of telling people what they want to hear and has decided most people wont check to see if he is actually telling the truth.

      • BINKY

        Tell me a politician that hasn’t figured out the science of telling people what they want to hear…and truthfully, most people don’t check to see if they are telling the truth.  It becomes a crap shoot.  Just ABO for the next four years, I pray!

    • Anonymous

      He has, unsurprisingly, supported a mandate of one kind or another going back at least to Hillarycare. Newt is at heart a big crony capitalist lobbyist insider with numerous ethical violations under his belt,  both political and personal, with a consistent pattern and history of standing in favor of big government progressive ways.  I certainly can’t look myself in the mirror and support this man. 

      But it is always good to be reminded how far conservatives will sell out their core values for the sake of a competent Washington insider.
       
       
       

  • Anonymous

    Honestly looking on at all of this I use to feel Obama did not have a snowball chance in hell of winning another term in office, unfortunately  as of today I don’t feel that sure as I use to. It seem the USA has quietly gotten rid of all of Obama’s competition, no Cain, no Palin, just Newt and Rom what a choice, seems as if it was a well played plan, to just leave these two, with Obama and in the end Obama will be returned to office, I sure as hell hope am very wrong.

    • Docelder

      The thing is both Palin and Cain invoked a fear from both sides really… both Palin and Cain had that outsider common people element that the Washington entitled people don’t want America to get a taste for. They had to be destroyed. There just aren’t any democrats right now coming out in the spotlight that matched this description… else they would have had to be destroyed as well. So our choice… if we can call it a choice is Obama or Romney. Is Obamacare or Masshealth better? Who gives a damn right? We need jobs and an economy… but we won’t get that. What we will get is war with Iran instead. We need that like we need another war with another backward ass nation of medieval sand nomads. Been there done that  already.

    • Anonymous

      I fear you are right