RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

How Long Before Gingrich Implodes?

This ain’t a matter of if, but when. Newt Gingrich will metaphorically shoot himself in the head with a 50 caliber sniper rifle. And when it happens it will dirty up the rest of the Republican field. Most Americans despise Newt Gingrich. He mistakes his grandiosity for brilliance. He thinks that talking equals action. But the evidence of the toxicity of Gingrich is clear:

I don’t have a problem with Newt whoring around. Other Presidents have done so. But Newt moralized like an old testament prophet against the sins of Bill Clinton. If you are blasting Bill Clinton for getting his knob polished in the Oval Office while nailing one of your female staffers in your wife’s bed, that’s not just a lapse in judgement. That is not, as Newt claimed, a weakness created by working too hard on behalf of the United States. It is audacity in its purest form.

Newt is an ideological cross-dresser. Right now he is pretending to be a conservative (whatever that is). But instead of a limited, shrinking government, he ends up expanding government. How so? He’s proposing in Florida, out on the space coast, to get government back in the business of spending big bucks on the space program. Now, I’m not against the space program, but in a time of fiscal crisis spending money we don’t have on space is crazy.

This is typical pandering of Newt. Remember Iowa? Newt was insisting the government needed to keep giving Iowa farmers money to produce ethanol and taking money from those who benefited financially from this:

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich counts the world’s largest ethanol producer as a top donor to his presidential campaign, underscoring the Republican’s deep ties to an industry whose government subsidies he has steadfastly defended even while running as a fiscal conservative.

All you conservatives thinking about voting for Newt, is that your idea of a conservative?

How about Newt shitting all over Paul Ryan? Paul Ryan proposes a visionary plan to attack the deficit and Newt savages Ryan for “conservative social engineering.” That was not the reaction of some rookie legislator. That was pure Gingrich. He can’t stand not being the center of attention. He needs it psychologically.

We got a hint of Gingrich’s coming meltdown at tonight’s debate (Monday night) when Romney laid into him for taking money from health care companies while lobbying Congress on Medicare spending. Gingrich sincerely did not even comprehend the concept of “conflict of interest.” That’s part of the reason he got into trouble as Speaker.

  • http://www.theindependentview.com Matthew J. Weaver

    Newt is already imploding and will collapse under the weight of his negatives.  His combativeness against the media is one thing but cannot get him past answering questions.  I absolutely loved his recitation at the end of the debate that outline his lifelong roll as a politician. There is a story at every point, leaving him worse for wear.

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

      I sure hope you are right.

    • Jrterrier

      but the MSM wants newt to win and doesn’t give much credit to mitt.

      • http://uhscuseme.wordpress.com/ Pat Riot

        The far left commentators after the debate were drooling for a Gingrich nomination. They want it more than anything.

      • Anonymous

        They never give much/any credit to Mitt. Which is what makes the constant insistence of him being some kind of media darling all the more amazing.
         
        We hear he’s rich and doesn’t understand all the little people or their pain. He’s stiff. He has no charisma, cause that a real qualification for a president, and we hear endlessly about his hair.
         
        Media painted him as the “inevitable” candidate and then slammed him for acting as if he was.
         
        And all the little anti-Mitt folks can simply say he’s this or he’s that and offer no proof other than their own hate.
         
        After all Mitt once put a dog on top of his car and that’s a whole lot worse than what Newt did to two wives. But Newt says he’s sorry so…

        • Guest

          So where is this leading….do even Mitt supporters have any thing credibly positive to talk him up ?  

          • Anonymous

            Look them up yourself if you’re interested in doing anything except criticizing. I’m not your secretary.

            Who knows, you might even find yourself seeing both sides. Imagine that.

            • Guest

              I don’t have particular enthusiasm, hope or confidence for either of the remaining candidates…or their supporters, frankly, judging from answers like the above. 

              • Mgm

                You say.”I don’t have particular enthusiasm, hope or confidence for either of the remaining candidates…”

                I’d say that’s your problem.  Perhaps if you’d do some objective research you might be a more credible detractor. For example,the facts behind Mitt Romney’s rescue of the Salt Lake Olympics trump anything the lamentable Gingrich has accomplished– except in his own mind. And Romney did it under the glaring spotlight of the world press. 

                How quickly we forget…. 

                • Anonymous

                  Sorry, I trust the upstanding, moral  Huntsman family WAY more than Willard. And Jon Sr/Jr breaking family ties and political support with Romney began after    the underhanded sleazeball way Mitt weasled his way into the role of Organizing Committee CEO. How quickly we didn’t forget but were misled by this guy in the first place…

          • http://uhscuseme.wordpress.com/ Pat Riot

            Yes, he actually understands from actual experience what makes businesses prosper. He didn’t learn about it in some history book or tinker with it using legislation. The dude gets it. And we need jobs. To me it’s a no brainer.

        • beachnan

          I agree KM.  America is letting the MSM decide the election again.  I feel like they’ve been promoting the “anti-Romney” theme for quite a while.

      • http://uhscuseme.wordpress.com/ Pat Riot

        Ogingrich is a media darling. They are salivating at the prospect of being able to smash him like a bug should he win the nomination. The guy who took down Clinton? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this out. An Obot might have trouble tho.

    • Anonymous

      GINGRICH: “When I was speaker, we had four consecutive balanced budgets.”

      THE FACTS: Actually, two.

      The four straight years of budget surpluses were 1998 through 2001.
      Gingrich left Congress in 1999, so he only had a hand in surpluses for
      his last two years. The budget ran deficits for his first two years as
      speaker.

      The highest surplus of that four-year string came in budget year 2000, after Gingrich was out of office

      Overall, the national debt went up during the four years Gingrich was
      speaker. In January 1995, when he assumed the leadership position, the
      gross national debt was $4.8 trillion. When he left four years later, it
      was $5.6 trillion, an increase of $800 billion.

  • http://uhscuseme.wordpress.com/ Pat Riot

    The meltdown will occur Thursday. Romney took Ogingrich down a few notches tonight. That slimy salamander tried to keep his cool and for the most part managed. But he was wounded and it was obvious. Thursday he won’t have much choice but to come out swinging and the knock out blow will come from Santorum. That’s where my money is.

  • Anonymous

    Newt is an ideological cross-dresser

    Thanks a lot Larry. I`ll never get to sleep tonight with that image dancing in my head.

  • Anonymous

    Larry you are right about the GOP party imploding…..But the fault would not be just Newt’s. I think the fault lays with all the GOP elites.
    The whole slate has not really been that great from day one.
    The debates really didn’t do much to help any of the candidates or the party to defeat Obama.
    To tell you the truth Newt is acting no different that Mitt does when he wins. Yet I will say that Mitt has seemed to have this smug look even when he loses. (it’s a look that many others have been staring to notice too.)
    I have a feeling that this is why Obama is really out there full stream anymore campaigning and the Dems don’t seem that worried..
    No matter what I still plan on voting for anyone or anything that is running against Obama.

    • Jrterrier

      i don’t understand why anyone would blame the GOP elite for the slate.  the slate is made up of people who chose to run. some of them dropped out because they didn’t catch fire with the voters.  it had nothing to do with the GOP elite. 

      a number of people didn’t want to run (christie; jeb bush; daniels; paul ryan).  no one kept these guys out; they chose not to.  maybe they have skeletons in the closet or knew they couldn’t win for some other reason or had families that didn’t want them to run.  i haven’t heard of the GOP elite, whomever they may be, keeping anyone out of the primiries.

      • Anonymous

        The “GOP elite” is the latest talking point de jour. Just another way to attack and all the little heads nod like bobble-head dolls.

      • Guest

        I think it is more likely the right wing media environment and Tea Party crowd that has messed this primary up so bad was going to be VERY risky for respectable but unknown candidates to bet on. Huntsman should drop back in, but to his credit was really the only one that tried and look where that ended…

        • http://uhscuseme.wordpress.com/ Pat Riot

          Huntsman never caught fire. It wasn’t anyone’s fault but his own. He snubbed Iowa and then had a poor showing in NH where he had planned a firewall. Didn’t work. Move on. He certainly did.

          • Guest

             Way more conservative and way more electable. Considering the two that are left, it is pretty obvious Republicans need to take something up with themselves. That is just IMO. Why he failed to get traction in the primary, aside from the fact that his campaign was mediocre, I attribute to the right-wing media rewarding abysmal candidates who shouted loudest and most passionately but that doesn’t even begin to square advantageously with winning a general election. 

    • dst

         

           I would suggest Pluff and Co. are sending
      that message out there just to have you saying that, as the MSM concentrated
      reporting the Dem’s are still criticizing Mitt not Newt even after SC.. Axelrod
      is a master at this, educated in IL and later adding the successful
      components of Rove-ism 101. They got the people to instantly accept BO turning
      on the old Reverend. The plan for Mitt goes way back and a refined OWS will be
      there to help attack and make Mitt a evil 1%’er. I’d just play a tape of Mitt,
      4 years ago, stating he has been a hunter all his life followed by his
      admission that he varmint hunted with his father at least twice. Show a scene
      of a mounted squirrel and than ask do you want this man in charge of the nuc’s.
      Newt, I don’t think they know how to deal with him and that scares them Mitt’s
      overall debate performance has been pitiful and a montage of them including
      those petty arguments with Perry and Newt and the moderators would be deadly.
      He seems to have no center, reminding me of GWB. His handlers will try to
      re-program him for Thur. but it does not flow out of any “Zen” center. The way
      he weakly raised his hand to try to get the moderators attention mid way
      through tonight’s debate to make sure everyone knew he agree with a previous
      statement shows it all. If I remember correctly Edwards and HC did the same 4
      years ago. Just watch a replay of HC responding to that ridiculous Driver License question, she gave a good
      answer than looking just like Mitt  (deer
      in headlight) became unglued trying do defend herself from Dodd and Edwards
      while one BO just stayed above it all on the side. I’ve thought over the years
      that this Dem. could never vote for BO (stayed home 3 years ago) but Mitt or
      Santorum could really get me to vote Dem again. I know you people in mass here
      seem to think that SC’ins are atypical southerners but Newt won independents,
      conservatives and those with under 75K income, youth went to Paul and where did
      Mitt shine, those with incomes over 150K, hey that will go over well. Lastly heck out the latest FL polls.

           I would suggest Pluff and Co. are sending
      that message out there just to have you saying that, as the MSM concentrated
      reporting the Dem’s are still criticizing Mitt not Newt even after SC.. Axelrod
      is a master at this, educated in IL and later adding the successful
      components of Rove-ism 101. They got the people to instantly accept BO turning
      on the old Reverend. The plan for Mitt goes way back and a refined OWS will be
      there to help attack and make Mitt a evil 1%’er. I’d just play a tape of Mitt,
      4 years ago, stating he has been a hunter all his life followed by his
      admission that he varmint hunted with his father at least twice. Show a scene
      of a mounted squirrel and than ask do you want this man in charge of the nuc’s.
      Newt, I don’t think they know how to deal with him and that scares them Mitt’s
      overall debate performance has been pitiful and a montage of them including
      those petty arguments with Perry and Newt and the moderators would be deadly.
      He seems to have no center, reminding me of GWB. His handlers will try to
      re-program him for Thur. but it does not flow out of any “Zen” center. The way
      he weakly raised his hand to try to get the moderators attention mid way
      through tonight’s debate to make sure everyone knew he agree with a previous
      statement shows it all. If I remember correctly Edwards and HC did the same 4
      years ago. Just watch a replay of HC responding to that ridiculous Driver License question, she gave a good
      answer than looking just like Mitt  (deer
      in headlight) became unglued trying do defend herself from Dodd and Edwards
      while one BO just stayed above it all on the side. I’ve thought over the years
      that this Dem. could never vote for BO (stayed home 3 years ago) but Mitt or
      Santorum could really get me to vote Dem again. I know you people in mass here
      seem to think that SC’ins are atypical southerners but Newt won independents,
      conservatives and those with under 75K income, youth went to Paul and where did
      Mitt shine, those with incomes over 150K, hey that will go over well. Lastly heck out the latest FL polls.

      • Anonymous

        dst you know there is an edit button…You might want to delete the secon dhalf of you reply since its a repeat of the first half
        You have some good points, but it was hard to read.

        • dst

          Thx kinthenorthwest, ILooked for the old reomve button but could not find it, and will be glad to do what you suggest if I could find the “EDIT Button”, Any hints?

          • Anonymous

            my edit button is right next to the reply button…at the very bottom..
            I noticed that you have the 3 monkies next to your name so it might be that you have not signed in that you dont have an edit button.

        • http://www.dwarfhamster.com/ dst

          kinthenorthwest           Next time I post I will make sure I log in first but dispite being logged in I still have no “edit” option   (Have it now for this post)        Collapse

      • Anonymous

        dst you know there is an edit button…You might want to delete the secon dhalf of you reply since its a repeat of the first half
        You have some good points, but it was hard to read.

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

    I posted this in previous post. 

    The new Glamor couple…

  • Anonymous

    I noticed the NBC panel after had nothing but praise for Newt.

    Very telling.

    • Patience

      They want him to be the nominee.  Obama will then win in a landslide.

  • Patience

    Keep it up Larry, you’ve been doing a great job in holding that hypocrite/panderer-par-exellence/earth-scorching Gingrich accountable.  And thanks for continuing to remind us about his egomaniacal hit on Paul Ryan.  Un-f-ing-believable.  Let’s not forget that he teamed up with Nancy Pelosi in that smarmy “public service” announcement.  His so-called conservative supporters seem to have short memories.  It’s so demoralizing.  Maybe they don’t mind his infidelity because they’ve been so promiscuous in who they support — it’s someone new every six weeks or so. 

  • Teststuff

    I know that you are likely right Larry. Yet Newt is winning at the moment. This debate did not help Mitt. Newt’s numbers will rise even more. I think that Newt is picking up Independents in Florida now. He is just a great debater and manages to come across as more focused and more knowledgeable than Mitt. If elections are won by emotion, Newt is hitting the buttons.

    • Anonymous

      The thing is, we don`t need an historian in the White House. We need a guy who understands the economy.

    • http://uhscuseme.wordpress.com/ Pat Riot

      Newt is a serial panderer. The wise people in the GOP know that a Gingrich candidacy would lead to serious (perhaps devastating) losses in Congress. Newt is a pompous ass that invents history. He’s toast.

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

    Also, no matter what one thinks of Glenn Beck… this is funny.  Too bad so many people don’t understand the sarcasm.  The comments are classic.  http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/01/23/glenn-endorses-newt-gingrich/

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

    Also, no matter what one thinks of Glenn Beck… this is funny.  Too bad so many people don’t understand the sarcasm.  The comments are classic.  http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/01/23/glenn-endorses-newt-gingrich/

  • Anonymous

    Newt does just fine until someone asks him a question that touches a nerve.

    The DNC will touch a lot of nerves.

    • Anonymous

      I just had a really fun daydream…the DNC sics Bill Clinton on Newt. Now that I would pay to see. Teehee.

  • Anonymous

    Newt Gingrich insists everytime he is in front of a camera that he is
    the smartest guy in the room. Why would the smartest guy in the room
    fail to get on the VA ballot on time when it is worth 49 delegates?

    • Anonymous

      “Newt Gingrich insists everytime he is in front of a camera that he is
      the smartest guy in the room.”
      Harp, have you heard his audiences? He IS the smartest guy in those rooms.
      He’s  probably thinking “You suckers.”

    • Fygsmom

      He lives in Friggin VA.  you would think he and his wife could hit the pavement in their own back yard–Seriously?!?! WTF

      • Anonymous

        I believe he lives in Georgia not Virginia.

        • Jancanton

          Although he represented Georgia in Congress, he now lives in Virginia

  • Anonymous

    WHICH IS IT NEWT ?????

    Newt Gingrich: I supported Rockefeller over Goldwater

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJQsLFhuyOY

    “I went to a Goldwater organizing session in 1964. I met with Ronald
    Reagan for the first time in 1974. I worked with Jack Kemp, and Art
    Laffer and others to develop supply side economics in the late ’70s. I
    helped Governor Reagan become President Reagan. I helped pass the Reagan
    economic program and worked with the National Security Council on
    issues including the collapse of the Soviet Empire,” Newt Gingrich said
    at tonight’s debate.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/01/23/gingrich_i_supported_goldwater.html

    • http://uhscuseme.wordpress.com/ Pat Riot

      This should be a Romney ad.

    • Mpa2nd

      You clearly don’t understand the English language.  Does going to an organizing session in 1964 means he supported Goldwater….NO. 

      • Mpa2nd

        As a politically interested 20 year old, he was likely looking at all the candidates who would take on LBJ.  Mentioning going to a Goldwater meeting fits more into his the conservative record that he is well known for, than some youthful dalliance with Rockefeller.

        • Scottymac54

          Nobody has “youthful dalliances” with the Rockefellers.

          You go in, but you don’t come out.

      • http://uhscuseme.wordpress.com/ Pat Riot

        It’s really kinda simple. If you mention Goldwater as a Conservative credential yet neglect to mention that you actually supported the other guy, that’s being dishonest. Perhaps that isn’t a problem for you.

    • Anonymous

      How many times can Newt use the word “I” ?  He’s off the scale with his bloated, pompous self.

      • http://uhscuseme.wordpress.com/ Pat Riot

        Replying only to say that I liked this more than once.

  • just dropping by

    Self-deportation? Romney is clueless.

    • http://www.theindependentview.com Matthew J. Weaver

      Self-deportation is very simple, very cheap, and likely the best answer for a country that appears to have no stomach for mass deportation of 12-30+ MILLION illegal aliens.  Consider this, if you force all employers to check the work eligibility of their current and future employees and temporary workers–everyone–in the already established E-Verify system, you eliminate the job magnet.  No work, no stay.  If people cannot work, they will go home.  As a second benefit, the 16-20+ percent of American’s that are under- or unemployed can then fill those jobs that are currently held by illegal aliens.  Two big wins.

      • http://uhscuseme.wordpress.com/ Pat Riot

        What gets me is that I am an American citizen and I have had to provide proof of that fact for every employer I worked with for the past several years. Yet when we discuss requiring non-citizens to prove their eligibility to work (or vote) it’s painted as racist or something. The libs think it’s perfectly ok for illegals not to have to obey any of our laws.

        • Scottymac54

          “The libs think it’s perfectly ok for illegals not to have to obey any of our laws…”

          This is true, and, for the last decade or so, it’s been for the most cynical of reasons.

          They automatically assume any immigrant will vote monolithically for the Dems and keep the party in power.     

    • http://uhscuseme.wordpress.com/ Pat Riot

      I think it’s a great idea. Like it or not, it’s already occurring.

  • Mpa2nd

    Larry,

    I hope you are wrong.  Mitt Romney is a disastrous candidate and a guaranteed loser against Obama, while I think Gingrich has the political acumen to destroy Barack. 

    • http://noquarterusa.net Larry Johnson

      You are fully entitled to your delusions and fantasies.  Newt is toxic.  Mitt is a decent, honorable man.  You are obviously a very young person who does not remember the disaster that Newt was when he was Speaker.   A leopard can’t change its spots and a festering turn, even covered in chocolate, still stinks.

      • PA

        Both Gingrich and Romney are terrible candidates.

        At least Gingrich brings the enthusiasm back to the GOP base. Romney just sucks all of the enthusiasm out of the GOP base. Romney is killing the Tea Party and a big part of the Evangelical base.

        It is a trade-off between one candidate firing-up the base versus one who may get a few more Independent votes. Whichever will be best for winning the general election is hard to say.

        Both Romney and Gingrich could easily lose the general election.

        • http://uhscuseme.wordpress.com/ Pat Riot

          I don’t see how you think Mitt is killing the Tea Party. He actually balanced his state’s budget and left with a surplus. Isn’t that what they stand for?

          Some people claim to stand for something. Mitt is the only candidate that has done more than posture, he has delivered.

          • Anonymous

            From the forums over at the tea party its looking like the Mitt followers are leaving his fold for others.

          • Anonymous

            From the forums over at the tea party its looking like the Mitt followers are leaving his fold for others.

            • Scottymac54

              Based on what, though?

              His performance in the debate, or that they believe he cannot beat Obama?

          • PA

            Pat, are you sure you are paying attention.

            Romney cannot break through 25% support among Republicans. That means that 75% of Republicans are the not-Romney vote.

            The 25% percent that support Romney at not the Tea Party Republicans. They are the establishment Republicans.

            Romney is as far away as you can image to what the Tea Party has been fighting for for two years. The Tea Party, so they say, are suppose to be against the Establishment and Romney is as Establishment as they come in the GOP.

            • Mgm

              But neither registered Republicans nor Democrats alone will elect the next president.  There are more Independents than members of the specific parties. From what I’ve seen, Independents like Romney who can honestly be labled a Moderate. 

              • Anonymous

                I have heard differently.  Newt has been getting the indies too.  They are realizing that this Country can’t afford any more “Moderates”.

      • Guest

        Romney can defend against the accusation of being a venture capitalist - but fair or not, voters are not sensing decent and honorable and are not going to vote on a candidate’s history that most can barely remember. Mitt still comes across as a cold, heartless, unsympathetic vulture capitalist.

        • Fygsmom

          I think you misinterpret—
          People don’t like Mitt because he works hard, volunteers often, genuinely serves others, has earned a great fortune and they are jealous.

          Instead of drinking away his brain cells in college he took time to go on a mission for his church, and serve. He went to Harvad law and Business schools and worked his buns off.  He didn’t chase skirts, do drugs or any of the stuff so many of those who hate/resent him did.

          What you see is people taking inventory of themselves and coming up short and not liking the example set before them.

          He is the guy your dad wanted you to be and the husband every dad wishes for his daughter.

          • Georgi

            You are exactly right, Fygsmom.  I couldn’t have said it better!

        • Anonymous

          Who flip flops. 

      • Anonymous

        Larry, you’ve been a fighter and I suspect you’ve seen battle first hand.  Battles aren’t pretty nor necessarily fair.  I think, though assuredly, I’ve never been in combat, the goal is to win.  Newt may be toxic and Mitt an honorable man, but who do you think is going to win against the Obama machine? 
        People are just plain tired of not having someone to fight for us and of the two, much as I don’t like to admit to it, I think Newt is the only one who can take Obama’s game to him.
        For me the goal is to get Obama out of office and I think it’s going to take tough and maybe nasty to do it.  I just don’t think Mitt has it in him.
        I hope I’m wrong, but so far, I haven’t seen what I need to see in him.

        • Anonymous

          Then in four years we are back to another horribly divided country and another really nasty general election.  Newt might be able to win the way (meaning down and Chicago-style dirty) that Obama won, but with another narcissistic empty suit flailing in the wind for a President, we’ll have another four years of a Congress that can’t get anywhere.

          I want no more of the horrid party bickering after the election.  I want a person in the WH who can be moderate and who can help people compromise and do some crossing the aisles to work together.

    • http://uhscuseme.wordpress.com/ Pat Riot

      Newt is great at destroying people. He’s made a career out of doing so. We need someone to lift us up. We’ve been torn down enough.

  • waiting to vote

    He can’t stand not being the center of attention. He needs it psychologically.
    Just like Barrack, different but same same.  

    • Anonymous

      Mitt is the one smelling desperation for the first time at untold millions over 6 years potentially up in a puff of smoke and not exactly going away gracefully if the crazy sweaty overly rehearsed kitchen sink attacks of last night are any indication…

      • http://uhscuseme.wordpress.com/ Pat Riot

        Are you a comedian? Cause what I saw last night wasn’t desperation, it was a candidate that finally decided to fight back after being sucker punched with left wing talking points delivered by a pompous ass pretending to represent free enterprise.

        • Anonymous

          If that was fighting back, we are in serious trouble.  Romney is so weak.

      • Anonymous

        I had the same reaction to Mitt’s attacks on Newt.  I don’t particularly like either of them and would rather have another candidate to vote for.
        He did, indeed rush his attacks on Newt and was breathless, anxious and came off as artificial each time he did this.  He did himself no service.
        Like all people, he isn’t perfect, but in him, I see no real zeal for the job, no real passion, no fire in the belly. 
        If he’s the candidate, this won’t come to a good end.

        • Anonymous

          What I  see with Romney is a decent person who is not used to being mean and finds it uncomfortable to be underhanded. This is not a problem that Gingrich, the in-your-face liar, would even understand.

          • http://uhscuseme.wordpress.com/ Pat Riot

            That’s what I see too.

            • Scottymac54

              Agreed.  Well stated.

          • Anonymous

            Well then he is not ready to be President is he?

            • Anonymous

              Hard to say. If it weren’t for WW2 who would  have known Eisenhower had executive ability under fire.

              I just know that if your only criteria is buying attack dogs to attack the other guy, don’t be surprised if they turn around and bite you.

        • Anonymous

          I saw that ….I noticed something else during the attack on Newt..his eyes were blinking like there was no tommorrow.
          Someplace I read where that was not a good sign in a speaker.
          Is this his actions or the actions of his handlers.

        • Anonymous

          Right you are elizabeth

    • Hoosier gal

      Exactly right. He also can’t perform well with out an audience to cheer his every word. He attacks the media every time he doesn’t like a question or when the other candidates call him out for his lies.  Headlines on Drudge says he will not do any more debates if the audience can’t participate. I won’t be suprised if he asks for a fake applause soundtrack and some fancy Greek columns. He is an arrogant SOB.

      • http://uhscuseme.wordpress.com/ Pat Riot

        I won’t be suprised if he asks for a fake applause soundtrack and some fancy Greek columns.

        Too funny. And probably true.

  • Anonymous

    Romney is a Democrat without principles.  Newt is far from perfect but an exponentially better Republican candidate than Romney.

  • Anonymous

    It looks to me like implosion may have started as of his first public outing in Florida.  Instead of the usual cheerleading sections, the audience was mostly plain folk.  And they didn’t appear to be very impressed with Newt’s non-substantive rabble rousing.  His jokes bombed, and he was at a loss for words when the crowd didn’t defend him from opponent attacks.  Why did you leave the House again, Newt?  The ethics committee report might make for more interesting ready than Roimeny’s tax returns.

    • Guest

      So it is better not to be authentic and able to connect to ordinary people at all ? Newt got a taste of general election debate crowds and was handicapped no doubt but I thought adjusted fairly well in the second half. He definitely wanted to fight back and, if anything, he was too restrained. 

      • Anonymous

        The idea that Newt, unlike other politicians, is “genuine” is laughably naive.  This is the man that told one of his wives that “they” (meaning the people) “want to hear what I say, they don’t care what I do.” 

        When H. Ross Perot ran for President, he quickly proved that he wasn’t the right man for the job.  However, he did say something during his campaign that I will always remember, to wit: “If your wife can’t trust you, who can?”  Three times, Newt has made a solemn promise, “‘Till death do us part.”  At least two times, he has broken that promise.

        Not to mention leaving Congress in disgrace for unethical behavior.  And you think that he is “genuine?”  Perhaps so, if you mean genuinely untrustworthy.

    • Anonymous

      I didn’t watch the debate, but I hope you are right. I hope with all my heart that Newt implodes in Florida. 

  • Anonymous

    They never give much/any credit to Mitt. Which is what makes the constant insistence of him being some kind of media darling all the more amazing.
     
    We hear he’s rich and doesn’t understand all the little people or their pain. He’s stiff. He has no charisma, cause that a real qualification for a president, and we hear endlessly about his hair.
     
    Media painted him as the “inevitable” candidate and then slammed him for acting as if he was.
     
    And all the little anti-Mitt folks can simply say he’s this or he’s that and offer no proof other than their own hate.
     
    After all Mitt once put a dog on top of his car and that’s a whole lot worse than what Newt did to two wives. But Newt says he’s sorry so…

    • http://uhscuseme.wordpress.com/ Pat Riot

      Media painted him as the “inevitable” candidate and then slammed him for acting as if he was.

      Yep, built him up so they could tear him down. They are doing the same thing to Newt now but they won’t tear him down till the general should that nightmare unfold. It’s a carefully calculated strategy, coordinated with the WH.

      The Dems are afraid of Romney. Not that slimy salamander.

  • Anonymous

    He’s no damn good

    Newt Gingrich is a serial adulterer.  That is a fact.  While he has denied that he asked his second wife for an “open marriage” arrangement, he has not denied that he carried on an affair with his second wife while married to his first and with his third wife while married to the second.When Bill Clinton was discovered to have sullied his office by the indulgence of his appetites, his enablers argued that it was “just sex” and not otherwise important.  After all, they said, everyone lies about sex. 

    Conservatives argued that that was not morally acceptable and condemned Clinton’s moral failures.  They were right.It was not then and is not now about sexual moral failure.  It is not about sex at all, and it is not about adultery.  It is about cheating.  It is about lying.  It is about integrity.

    If we do not demand integrity of our candidates, what does that say about us?  What does it say about us that we now endorse the idea that the end of defeating Barak Obama justifies the means of supporting one whose character falls below our norms of respectability?

    One of the greatest men I have ever known was a rancher in New Mexico named Charlie Lee.  Some years ago, he and I met several times with Gary Johnson, then-governor of New Mexico, on issues of some moment for the state.  Governor Johnson assured us of his support and pledged that he would take the lead in the effort.  He didn’t.Sometime later, Johnson announced his intent to run for re-election.  I called Charlie that night and said that I assumed he would be supporting the re-election effort.”Hell, no!” he said.

    When I asked why not, Charlie said, “Well, he lied to us, John.”
    “He’s a politician,” I snickered. “I guess we kind of expect that.”
    “No,” he said with emphasis.  “That’s not right.  And it isn’t an excuse.”Never forget this, John.  A man who’d lie to you would steal your money.  He’s no damn good.  I won’t support him.

    “That was Charlie.  It did not matter how much he agreed with a candidate on policy.  For him, integrity was the price of admission. 

    Applying a lesser standard now would be the betrayal of a sacred bond.  I would no longer deserve Charlie’s friendship or his trust.And that’s why I can’t support Newt Gingrich, no matter how much I may agree with him.He’s no damn good.

    More: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/hes_no_damn_good.html

    • Anonymous

      That really speaks to me. Integrity and Newt Gingrich are two diametrically opposed things; the one has nothing to do with the other. Newt is a serial LIAR, as well as an adulterer. And, I wont give him my vote, not in a million years, not for a million dollars. Much as I want to see Obama be banished from our government, I WILL NOT vote for Newt Gingrich. 

      I know for a fact that Obama is a narcissist; I have known it since he leapt into the Presidential race the MOMENT he became a Senator. I’ve known it every day, and seen it in every way from this man. Obama is a serial liar and a sociopath. He is a man who has risen to the top of our govenrment through his “charm” and that, my dear friends, is the HALLMARK of a narcissist and a sociopath. They know how to manipulate. 

      LIkewise, I know for a fact that Newt Gingrich is a narcissist. He is a serial liar and he is a sociopath. He knows how to manipulate people.

      And, I am disgusted and appalled that GOP voters are turning out to be every bit as stupid and gullible as the Democrats and independents were in voting for Obama!

       

      • Anonymous

        I know how you feel. I too will never vote for Gingrich. He’s just Obama with an “R” behind his name. Or perhaps an even bigger ego, if that’s at all possible. He’s certainly as big a liar as the POS currently occupying the White House.

        I didn’t think that voters could get any stupider than the ones that voted for a president because of the color of his skin instead of the content of his character. Now we are faced with people who care more about an attack dog who snaps at media types than any character at all. A sad commentary on voters.

        Perhaps those that said we get the government we deserve were right. Or at least they were right about those who don’t care about character getting what they deserve.The rest of us are just along for the ride and must pay for the fact that they don’t care.

      • http://uhscuseme.wordpress.com/ Pat Riot

        Perhaps I am disgusted as well. But not surprised.

    • Anonymous

      “That’s not right.  And it isn’t an excuse.”Never forget this, John.  A
      man who’d lie to you would steal your money.  He’s no damn good.  I
      won’t support him.”

      Marge, Charlie was dead on right and what we need more of in this country. And thanks for the story on Johnson.
      From a practical – not ethical or moral point of view – you can’t deal with a liar. It’s like trying to build a house on quicksand.
      If I have an employee (and I have had a number) who is a serial liar like Gingrich I have to fire them. They can bring down the company.
      In Gingrich’s case we are talking about our country.

  • Anonymous

    Gingrich always shoots himself in the head. If he can harass Obama and fire up Romney he has done a service to the nation. If Romney can develop a hard edge while campaigning it will only aid him in running against Obama. Running against the press is already showing promise with the reluctant news pieces about Obama’s nasty campaigning http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9032170/Barack-Obama-attacked-Hillary-Clinton-in-negative-campaign-leaked-memos-show.html and his economic and stimulus fraud http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/01/30/120130fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all

  • Lupe

    I watched my first Republican debate tonight. The result…Newt Gingrich permanently and without redemption lost my vote. The reason… his answer to the Florida reporter’s question about why Bush tax cuts didn’t work was just dumb and sleazy. He said they didn’t work because they came “after the destruction of the WTC by Jihadists” and without Bush’s tax cuts the resulting economic downturn would have been much worse. First, a thoughtful, open-minded person who is aware of the mountain of very creditable evidence related to the controlled demolition of the WTC by very reputable independent researchers would have said “in the aftermath of 9/11″. Secondly, it’s clear even to a dummy like me that tax cuts were a pay-off to Bush’s rich supporters. What kept the economy going after 9/11 and paid for Bush’s insane wars was the housing bubble. Both political parties and Bush can take credit for that. I hope that Florida goes for Ron Paul, if for no other reason than to send the estblishment politicians into a dither.

    • http://uhscuseme.wordpress.com/ Pat Riot

      Paul taking Florida would shake things up considerably. Even if he came in 2nd it would really be incredible. I thought Paul did a great job last night. And he may have won some folks over who have considered him a polite joke before.

      • Anonymous

        Paul does interest me the most of those on the slate.
        I think it would take a miracle for him to end up in the lead. 

        I did notice that the moderators were trying to pair up Newt and Paul on some of their issues. I’m not sure what was going on there.

        However, Paul going 3rd party would only guarantee a 2nd term for Obama.

  • PA

    Since when were any in the GOP actually “conservatives”. They certainly have never been fiscally conservative and when any of them get into power all they do is increase the size of government. Romney’s track record with Romneycare amongst a million other issues is far less conservative than what we have gotten from Gingrich over the years.

    ****

    “Paul Ryan proposes a visionary plan to attack the deficit…”

    His plan is so revolutionary that it actually INCREASES the deficit.

     http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12128/04-05-ryan_letter.pdf

    In addition, according to the CBO the Ryan plan will result in a significant increase in Medicare beneficiary’s costs.

    From the CBO:

    “the gradually increasing number of Medicare beneficiaries participating in the new premium support program [the GOP’s Medicare privatization plan] would bear a much larger share of their health care costs than they would under the current program.”

    Basically Ryan wants to put fixing the deficit on the backs of retired people. No higher taxes on the rich and no actually fixing the underlying medical cost inflation, but just shifting medicare costs and deficit reduction on to our retired citizens.

    “Ryan says his plan would not increase the debt. In fact, under his plan the public debt would increase from $10 trillion in 2011 to $16 trillion in 2021, by his own figures. That’s a slower increase than under President Barack Obama’s budget…”

    http://www.factcheck.org/2011/05/ryans-budget-spin/

    Ryan’s plan just cuts medicare cost, but then offsets those cost savings by almost the same amount of tax cuts, with most of those tax cuts going to the wealthy, so net-net his plan does very little actual deficit reduction.

    “Ryan Budget Plan Produces Far Less Real Deficit Cutting than Reported – Plan’s $4.3 Trillion in Program Cuts, Offset by $4.2 Trillion in Tax Cuts, Yield Just $155 Billion in Deficit Reduction ”

    http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3458

    Ryan’s plan is visionary alright. Just not so sure it is a good or fair plan for America. If the GOP wants to run on Ryan’s plan, then expect a few more NY-27s.

    • Anonymous

      PA’s information is incorrect. Here are the facts about Paul Ryan’s plan and why he advanced the debate with it. We cannot afford to allow liberal organizations like cbpp and factcheck to frame the facts. Medicare will be bankrupt soon; and when it is bankrupt, no one will be able to benefit. So I propose that it is better to look at the big picture and see where we are headed, than to listen to partisan propaganda advocating that we do NOTHING to save it. 

      http://budget.house.gov/fy2012budget/medicare.htm

      • PA

        My facts and analysis are from objective sources, principally the CBO. You quote Ryan himself. Of course Ryan is going to say “his” plan is great, but it is more relevant, useful and meaningful to look at what objective sources are saying about his plan. What does his plan really mean for America?

        Do you dispute the FACT that Ryan’s plan:

        > adds to the deficit in th first 10 years (his own numbers show that)
        > that he does nothing to tackle actual healthcare costs (he only pushes significant Medicare costs on to seniors); show me anywhere in his plan where he tackles healthcare cost inflation.
        > that his tax cuts offset most of the cuts in Medicare.

        What actual facts are you disputing?

        Anyone that disputes a GOP argument is some crazy liberal, even Republicans themselves become crazy liberals (like Perry and Gingrich have now become liberals). Same old bullshit by people who have supported a party that has destroy this economy and fiscal position.

        • Anonymous

          PolitiFact Calls Democrats Claim That Ryan Plan Would End Medicare “Pants On Fire” Wrong

          Yesterday the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee came out with a web ad
          that claimed that the House budget plan drafted by Paul Ryan would end
          Medicare and force seniors to pay as much as $12,000 a year for health
          insurance. Politifact took a look at the claim, and utterly destroyed it:

          http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/politifact-calls-democrats-claim-that-ryan-plan-would-end-medicare-pants-on-fire-wrong/

          • PA

            Another strawman by you HARP2.

            Democrats have been saying that the Ryan Plan would end Medicare as we know it, whish is 100% correct. It would put Seniors on a Medicare voucher programs leaving them holding the bag on any healthcare costs inflation. If this plan is so great then why not immediately put all Seniors on it and why grandfather those over 55 years old into the current Medicare program?

            • Anonymous

              WELL…….If the Democrats say it then it must be true.

              What a maroon.

              • PA

                Again, you need to read a little better. You are claiming by quoting an article that the Dems are saying the Ryan plan would end Medicare. They  have never said that. They have said it will end Medicare as we know it. Very different and 100% correct.  

                • Anonymous

                  Medicare needs to change as we know it or nobody will have anything.

                  • PA

                    We need to contain the costs. The Ryan plan says nothing on actual healthcare costs. All it does is change the payment mechanism, which put the cost burdern directly on Seniors.

        • Anonymous

          Do not come here and try and bullshit us.

          You use CBO for proof, when the Head of the CBO has said many times that they can only use the numbers that the Government give them.

          You put the right numbers in to an equation you will get the answer you are looking for.

          Thanks for playing though.

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

          You are one smug person.

      • PA

        I think you and HARP2 need to try a little harder.

        FactCheck.org is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. Walter Annenberg was a big Republican and a major supporter of Reagan. It is as objective a fact checking organziation as you will find anywhere.

        You can discredit the CBO all you want because it does not tell you what you want to hear, but why is it for the past 30-40 years both sides of Congress have used it as the arbiter and it is only now that only the Republicans or conservatives seem to have a problem with the CBO.

        Again typical bullshit from supporters of the GOP. You don’t like the analyis/outcomes so you shoot the messengers. Grow-up.

        I challenge you to find me an objective source that tell us that the Ryan plan does whatever you say it will do. The Heritage Foundation, which basically wrote the Ryan plan, even had to take their numbers down off their own website when it painted a bullshit picture of the Ryan plan and its bullshit assumptions.

        Google “Ryan Plan” and “assumptions” if you dare and then pick your own source of analysis and read.

        • Anonymous

          Richard L. Kaplan, a professor of law and expert on retirement
          issues, says the Ryan proposal would scrap Medicare’s current
          defined-benefit program in favor of a defined-contribution arrangement
          in which the government would provide seniors with a stipulated amount
          of money to purchase health insurance from private insurers.

          “The Ryan proposal would eliminate the package of benefits that
          everyone receives but would allow seniors to choose from a variety of
          plans with different benefits, different premiums and different
          co-payment obligations,” Kaplan said.

          Kaplan, the Peer and Sarah Pedersen Professor of Law at Illinois,
          says that what Rep. Ryan is proposing isn’t a radically new idea, as a
          broadly similar plan was first considered at length during the Clinton
          administration.

          “It was proposed under the title of ‘premium support,’ though
          occasionally it has been described as vouchers,” he said. “Essentially,
          it’s the same concept — provide seniors with a designated amount of
          money and let them shop for the plan that best meets their needs.”

          While there may be nothing new under the sun in Washington, that
          doesn’t mean that some seniors won’t come out ahead under the Ryan
          proposal.

          “Some seniors will benefit, because they will be able to use their
          Medicare dollars for benefits that they prefer,” Kaplan said. “For
          example, Medicare currently pays for individual hospital stays of 60 to
          90 days in length. But the average hospital stay for someone 65 years
          and older is less than six days. So a prospective Medicare enrollee
          might choose a plan in the proposed system that provides shorter
          hospital stay coverage but more extensive home health care coverage than
          Medicare currently includes.”

          The chief motivator of the Ryan plan is to, plain and simple, save the government money, Kaplan said.

          “As medical costs increase, Medicare’s costs rise accordingly,” he
          said. “Under the Ryan plan, Medicare’s costs would be fixed and known in
          advance. Increases in medical costs over whatever cost-of-living
          increase the government dictates for Medicare will not be borne by
          Medicare, but by those seniors who choose more comprehensive benefit
          plans.”

          Although last year’s health care reform law left the basic structure
          of Medicare intact, the Ryan proposal would transform Medicare to make
          it resemble the types of health insurance plans that many employers
          offer to their employees. Although this would represent a dramatic
          change, Kaplan said, such changes to Medicare are not wholly
          unprecedented.

          “Actually, Medicare Part D, which provides coverage for prescription
          drugs, operates on a very similar basis — private insurers receive
          government subsidies to provide various drug plans, and seniors select
          among the options that are available, paying more for greater coverage,”
          Kaplan said.

          But in a different health insurance paradigm, the downside is that seniors will almost certainly face more complexity.

          “If our experience with Medicare Part D’s drug plans is any
          indication, older Americans will confront a new array of insurance plans
          under Medicare, some of which may change their components annually,”
          Kaplan said.

          But Kaplan is quick to note that the present system is no walk in the park either.

          “Presently, most seniors sign up for hospital coverage under Medicare
          Part A, then decide whether they want to purchase Medicare Part B
          coverage for physicians’ charges, and then decide whether to add a
          Medicare Part D plan to cover their prescription medication needs,” he
          said. ” Then they must consider whether to buy a private Medigap
          insurance plan to pay for the deductibles and co-payment or co-insurance
          obligations of Medicare Parts A and B. So, in many ways, the new system
          of integrated benefit plans will be simpler and more intuitive. But the
          transition to this new environment will certainly be challenging.”

          Not all seniors will be affected by the change; adults 55 years and
          older would be largely unaffected by Ryan’s proposal, Kaplan said.

          “Unless an option is provided to let them switch, which may or may
          not be incorporated into the final plan, anyone who is in Medicare
          presently will not be affected by his proposal,” Kaplan said. “Those
          seniors who are already familiar with Medicare’s component parts need
          not bother with this

          http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110407171732.htm
          legislation.”

          • PA

            Not sure what your point is or what you are trying to say from your quote above. Kaplan makes some good points.
             
            From your own quote above:
             
            ” the Ryan proposal would scrap Medicare’s current defined-benefit program in favor of a defined contribution arrangement in which the government would provide seniors with a stipulated amount of money to purchase health insurance from private insurers.”

            ” Increases in medical costs over whatever cost-of-living increase the government dictates for Medicare will not be borne by Medicare, but by those seniors who choose more comprehensive benefit plans.”

            Do you understand what the means? You will get a voucher to buy private insurance? That means that the cost burden will now fall on you. The CBO and many other say that this will result in a significant increased healthcare cost burden on Senior, while at the same time Ryan will give more tax cuts to the risch.

            There is nothing in the Ryan plan or in your quote above that shows Ryan acutally attempting to tackle healthcare cost inflation. Your quote above also does not say the Ryan plan will not add significantly to the deficit, particularly in the first 10 years, as the CBO and many others have said.

            On healthcare the Ryan plan does not even answer the most basic question: which private insurance companies will actually want to insure expensive seniors for reasonable or affordable premiums or for the voucher amount? The answer is none. That is why we have Medicare in the first place.

            “Not all seniors will be affected by the change; adults 55 years and older would be largely unaffected by Ryan’s proposal, Kaplan said?

            Again I ask, if this Ryan plan is so good, then why not immediately add all Seniors to it and not just those under 55 years old? Maybe the GOP does not want to lose all those Senior votes because the plan sucks and they only want to put deficit reduction at the sacrifice of senior healthcare on the backs of those under 55.

            • Anonymous

              “Destroy Medicare as we know it” with the Ryan Plan, my hind foot.
              Medicare is destroying itself, as presently configured and at least Ryan
              is trying to do something about it. Now what bills along such lines
              have Dems put forth???

              • PA

                You need to read up on the issues more.

                Medicare is not destroying itself. In fact, its cost containment is better than the private sector healthcare plans. There is much analysis on this.
                What is destroying medicare, private healthcare plans and America is the healthcare cost inflation. The Ryan plan does absolutely nothing to tackle ever increasing actual healthcare costs. All it does is move the burden of healthcare cost inflation from the government to Seniors. It essentially gets rid of the reason we created Medicare in the first place. Now you may want to get rid of Medicare then fine, but say that.

                What bills have the Democrats put forward? Many. In terms of healthcare there are the two ACA bills which do actually attempt to tackle healthcare costs and they have proposed a $4 trillion balance grand bargin. The Budget bill also includes long term deficit reductionm etc.

                The GOP is running very fast away from the Ryan Plan as they know it is a loser. 

                • Anonymous

                  Wrong again

                  • PA

                    Sorry if the facts get in the way of the narratives they feed you at your Tea Party parties.

        • Anonymous

          Didn’t Obaby’s best friend and supporter and ghost writer Billy Ayers get him that job as head of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a job at which he failed miserably and wasted truckloads of money.

          Not everything that comes out of the Anneberg organization is worth paying attention to.

  • Anonymous

    I hope by February 1st we can put this nightmare to rest and move on with Romney building support for his nomination. Newt Gingrich is OBAMA on steroids. We will humiliate ourselves forever if he is our nominee, and Obama will get a gift of another 4 years without even having to break a sweat. 

    • Anonymous

      Romney is an empty suit. . .(and a Democrat) and a milquetoast with not an ounce of conservatism or fight in him . . .anyone but Romney please!

      Go Newt!

      • Anonymous

        Newt is a liar.

        In April 2007, while he was an adviser (or whatever), to the company, Gingrich was quoted on Freddie’s website about the organisation’s status as a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE). Here’s what he had to say:

        Certainly there is a lot of debate today about the housing GSEs, but I
        think it is telling that there is strong bipartisan support for
        maintaining the GSE model in housing. There is not much support for the
        idea of removing the GSE charters from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
        And I think it’s clear why. The housing GSEs have made an important
        contribution to homeownership and the housing finance system. We have a
        much more liquid and stable housing finance system than we would have
        without the GSEs. And making homeownership more accessible and
        affordable is a policy goal I believe conservatives should embrace.
        Millions of people have entered the middle class through building wealth
        in their homes, and there is a lot of evidence that homeownership
        contributes to stable families and communities. These are results I
        think conservatives should embrace and want to extend as widely as
        possible. So while we need to improve the regulation of the GSEs, I
        would be very cautious about fundamentally changing their role or the
        model itself.

        Q: This is not a point of view one normally associates with conservatives.
        Gingrich: Well, it’s not a point of view libertarians
        would embrace. But I am more in the Alexander Hamilton-Teddy Roosevelt
        tradition of conservatism. I recognize that there are times when you
        need government to help spur private enterprise and economic
        development. Look at our own history. The government provided railroad
        land grants to encourage widespread adoption of what was then the most
        modern form of transportation to help develop our country. The Homestead
        Act essentially gave land away to those willing to live on it and
        develop it. We used what were in effect public-private partnerships to
        bring telephone service and electricity to every community in our
        nation. All of these are examples of government bringing about desired
        public purposes without creating massive, taxpayer-funded bureaucracies.
        To me that is a pragmatic and effective conservative approach.

        • Anonymous

          “Newt is a liar. ”
          Yep – there is nothing worse than an aggressive liar and this one pretending he is doing it as a historian! I’d hate to be a student of his.
          This today:
          Newt said GSEs included credit unions. Nope.
          Newt said that when he was Speaker there were 4 balanced budgets. That only happened after he left in disgrace.
          I always remember him on Jon Stewart forcefully telling Jon Stewart that Reid, the shoe bomber,  was an American citizen. Stewart was taken  aback and said “I didn’t know that.” Later at the end of the program Stewart had to tell the audience that wasn’t true.
          I had a high school English teacher who used to be a Sergeant in the British army read an  article which he said was non-fiction. I respectfully told him it was fiction according to all the books I had on the subject written by Jacques Cousteau. I got sent to the Principal’s office. You have to be prepared to stand up to these kinds of statements. Let’s hope this makes Romney grow a spine.

      • http://uhscuseme.wordpress.com/ Pat Riot

        not an ounce of conservatism or fight in him

        He sure did a pretty good job of fighting last night. No real knock out blows but Gingrich was stunned a few times and looked awkwardly for the ropes. At one point it was evident that he was about to explode but thought better of it since then his true character would be on display for all to see.

        Something you fail to realize is that Romney appeals to Independents like me. Gingrich… nada!

        • Anonymous

          What is Romney’s appeal?

          • Anonymous

            The fact that there was a time when he had a chance to defeat Obama. The fact that in spite of all the insults he’s a moderate Republican who could have appealed to Independents. That’s done now. The Newt Nuts have destroyed Romney and can now wait until the Obamacrats, Obamamedia and Oblahblah himself destroy Newt. And this time they won’t need to break a sweat or tell a lie.

            But not to fear, this despicable man, that would be Newt, can debate, that should take about 4 hours out of the campaign and he can attack the news media just before he schmoozes with them.

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

        I guess that is why all the conservatives were behind him four years ago?

      • just dropping by

        Amen!

    • Anonymous

      Did you notice when Mitt told him we have Congress men that say you tried to lobby them, Newt never asked for their names?

      That`s what I would do if innocent.

    • http://uhscuseme.wordpress.com/ Pat Riot

      Yep, he’s Ogingrich.

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

      Won’t happen, because only 20 % of delegates have been rewarded by the end of February.  The liddle pudgy pink guy would never give up that easy.  If he wins FLA… he may win the nomination.

      • Anonymous

        Gingrich is quite willing to bring down the GOP. He care about nothing except himself.

        Those who have railed against the same narcissism in Obama and now support the despicable POS Gingrich are the same kind of hypocrites they called Dems for support Oblahblah. Pot and kettle.

  • Anonymous

    Serial Liar: GINGRICH NOW: I SUPPORTED GOLDWATER…GINGRICH FLASHBACK: I SUPPORTED ROCKEFELLER OVER GOLDWATER…

  • yttik

    “He mistakes his grandiosity for brilliance. He thinks that talking equals action.”

    I don’t think most people really care. We already have an arrogant, hypocritical candidate in office. If we try to run “a decent honorable man” as Larry calls Romney, we’ll lose. Decent and honorable can’t take down the Chicago machine. Part of Newt’s appeal is that he has no scruples and he knows how to fight.

    • Anonymous

      Gov. Romney used his business expertise to help companies, Gingrich used his legislative expertise to help companies.

    • Anonymous

      for sure

    • Anonymous

      Yttik, that’s only if you believe an unscrupulous person is going to act for OUR benefit and not his own if given the Presidency. Why would he do that? He never has before.
      And I  sure hope people care.

      • http://uhscuseme.wordpress.com/ Pat Riot

        Exactly. He used his power as Speaker to develop his own agenda for his own profit. The man had to resign in disgrace and that was one of my favorite days to be an American.

        We already have an unscrupulous president that is willing to tear down anyone he can to get his way. And gee, he sure talks pretty.

        We don’t just need a principled person in the White House, we deserve one.

  • Anonymous

    The Republican elites/establishment are already imploding!

  • Lisa

    Romney decent and honorable? Give me a break.  Did you know that Romney invested money in Fanny May and Freddy Mac? Also, when Clinton and Obama ran in the primary they escaped scrutiny. People elected them anyway. 

    • Guest

      No kidding. If Gingrich wallows in filth and moral depravity, Romney is just as slick a fast talker that must prove he’s not a rampant liar about everything he has ever said or promised. At the very least he is an unscrupulous businessman who has a history of running businesses into the ground for personal gain while destroying his employees’ lives.

    • Dorinda

      You can’t be serious by saying Bill Clinton escaped scrutiny.  Do you not recall the Troopergate investigation, the Rose Law Firm investigation, the Whitewater investigation,  the Paula Jones and Gennifer Flowers investigations?  If you are claiming that Obama escaped scrutiny, you’d be right but Bill Clinton didn’t escape anything the media  had to throw at him.

    • Hoosier gal

      Lisa did you also know that money invested was in a blind trust. Blind meaning Romney does not control or manage where the money is invested. And if you think Newt will escape scrutiny you are in for a rude awakening.

      • Anonymous

        Must be the water in Indiana….

        Blind Trusts eh? Romney is no financial dope while he does not manage the trust, he negotiated the package and the folk at ….Bain….. manage it…

        So he can read the financial papers and hence he can basically see through the trust….

        Newt is like a suicide bomber. He does not care about the flack or any collateral damage it causes….

      • Lisa

        Hoosier gal,

        No, I don’t think that New will escape scrutiny.  I miss wrote.

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

      Do you know where your investments are?  Do you have an IRA or any kind of mutual fund?  Do you invest in tobacco or oil or anything else that is despised? 

    • Lisa

      Hoosier gal,

      I miss wrote.  I meant to say that the did not escape scrutiny and people voted for them anyway.

  • Anonymous

    The Republican heads  are already exploding!

  • Wisconsin

    I am checking the box, “done of the above,” for president. 

    Are we sure that Gingrich is not being voted in by the dems, like what happened in 2008 with the repubs voting against Hillary?

    • Mgm

      Interesting question, Wisconsin.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mary.cusack Mary Cusack

    wah wah wah…..Newt won’t have any more debates where the audience reaction is supressed.  wah wah wah.  no one can stroke my eeeeegooooo.  oh please explode monty python style and do it soon!!!!

    • http://twitter.com/Juliezzz Juliezzz

       Newt is just angry because without his applause track he cant make an artificail impact when he delivers his cheap trite one liners.

      Poor Newt.  Substance is so hard for him

  • Anonymous

    Newt certainly has huge ego problems.
    He keeps stepping on it like a flawed appendage.(I am being tactful, its not easy for me to do)————–While I am here, I have to say Callista’s appearance is rather Stepford like (the original movie of course)I now picture Newt sitting in a dark room with isbuddies plotting to reinvent The Woman.————–BTW – Mitt’s wife is fabulous, First Lady Material. 

    • Anonymous

      First Lady Material.for sure.

  • Anonymous
    • http://twitter.com/Juliezzz Juliezzz

      I’m not worried.  Ron Paul is safe inside an underground bunker built of steel-reinforced concrete. The rest are exposed and twisting in the wind

  • yttik

    I’d prefer to sit back and watch Newt implode rather than watching the entire country implode under Obama.

  • hg

      Newt consulted for Fredie and Fannie and Mitt has investments in Freddie and Fannie. Seems as if Mitt has the same habit of the Kettle that calls the Pot black. People who live in glass houses should be careful of throwing stones. If Mitt does not know of those investments then Mitt is just like Obama who does not know about Fast and Furious. Do people really want leaders that are that disconnected from reality for the CIC?

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

      That is just a stupid statement.  How many people against tobacco and oil etc… still make money on it with their IRA mutual funds and investing.? 

  • Guest

    How long before Gingrich implodes?
    As long as it takes to close a Swiss bank account?

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

      What is wrong with a Swiss bank account?  At least the money you have there will remain when the economy goes bust.  There is nothing illegal being smart and plan for bad days.

      • Guest

        It’s the perception.  And in marketing, perception is all. There are no — I repeat no — positive connotations associated with having a Swiss bank account.  He realized that in 2010 when he closed it. But he’s been running for Pres much longer than that.   Really not too bright for a highly successful businessman.  The run for POTUS is the greatest marketing marathon on the planet for an individual.  Being the candidate with a Swiss bank account (closed as late as 2010!) and offshore accounts in the Caymans just makes him even more of a target. And he knows it.  That’s why he dragged his feet on releasing the tax returns.  What else is waiting to be found?  Maybe it’s of no consequence to life-long Republicans or Conservatives, but it’s important if you’re marketing to independents. This year, the votes of the independents will be crucial.  Because there are many, many more voters who perceive themselves as independents.  Many people have walked away from the Republican and Democratic parties in disgust and call themselves independents.  

        • Anonymous

          Foreign bank accounts are OK as long as they are after-tax dollars and not used to evade taxes. 

  • hg

    I suppose when JC returns with his 50cal sniper rifle and shoots all the adulterers and fornicaters and the vulture capitalists money changers we will all then have the perfect nominee for CIC. Until then I guesse we are stuck with plain ol dumb-asses that makes mistakes just like the people who vote for them.

  • Anonymous

    The implosion continues, now Newt won’t debate without his cheering section in the audience.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/gingrich-wont-debate-without-his-cheering-section/2012/01/24/gIQARPufNQ_blog.html

    • http://www.facebook.com/mary.cusack Mary Cusack

      wahh wahh wahhh i want my adoration. wahh wahh

  • AnnE

    Newt has NPD; it is all Newt, all the time.   

    He is the errant husband–don’t believe your eyes–believe what I tell you.  He makes it up as he goes along–he is a Republican John Edwards. 

  • Fygsmom

    Larry you called it right in a earlier column where you said Newt is the GOP version of Obama an ego driven turd.

    I am DISGUSTED that any one who claims to follow Christ would have any support for this creep.  The evangelical movement is without a conscience if this is their man.

    And the nation deserves Obama if the GOP put forth this immoral dweeb.

    • ProudConservative

      Christ forgives all sinners who repent.

      Newt did that.

  • http://www.theindependentview.com Matthew J. Weaver

    Pelosi is out again saying that she has info that once released will end Newt’s campaign.  I don’t imaging many of us really need Pelosi to tell me that Newt is bad news. Sadly, anyone choosing to support him deserves to lose. Think about it, Newt got booted from leadership in the House, paid a $300,000 “fine” or “fee” or whatever, and resigned. Sorry, someone as egotistical and ambitious as Newt doesn’t agree to all that unless there was something rather serious hanging over his head. At this point, it is simply a matter of time until it comes out–hopefully sooner than later so the Republican party and any ABO effort isn’t destroyed by Newt’s second fall from political grace.

    • Scottymac54

      She might also release any damaging info on Newt, AFTER the primary, to take out his bid against Obama, while weakening a more fragmented and diminished GOP.

      If they actually have anything real on him, we’d know, because that would effectively end any future bids for office.

      • Anonymous

        Scotty, does anyone know the details of his being kicked out as Speaker? Wouldn’t seem to be a trivial thing for this gang of cutthroats to do to one of their own.

  • Anonymous

    Look down in Florida today, up to 4000 people came out to see Newt ( this on a work day) but only hundreds came out to see Mitt or Rick and Gingrich seems to be gaining momentum at every stop. Say what you will, he has managed to energize voters and galvanize the party base more in a week than Romney has been able to do in seven years.

    • Anonymous

      Demagogues always attract crowds -  their stock in trade or they wouldn’t be demagogues.
      Triumph of the Will according to Larry.

      • Guest

        Gingrich is too ground up and populist… Romney offers the opposite extreme of an out of touch, top-down campaign style solution that voters continue to reject in greater and greater numbers. I am sympathetic, but not blindly so, to the segment of the electorate that feels aggrieved by Washington and are looking beyond a competent executive and family man that almost certainly will not represent their interests. They need to take a chance on a fighter, a warrior, a guy who can take it to them. No one knows if either strategy is more or less effective when it comes to the general election. 

  • Anonymous

    Even if he does implode will the “energized” voters give a damn? If you can delude yourself enough to think that a scummy thing like Gingrich belongs in the White House, or that his floozy should be first lady, why would a little thing like an implosion bother you?

  • Anonymous

    I suspect he will begin to “implode” when the media keep asking those damn inconvenient questions and ignore his hyperbolic attack responses. Sooner or later even his supporters might actually want to hear him answer as question instead of deflect it. And there are a whole lot of questions for the noxious Newt to answer. If people actually want to know.


    Details Unfold About Gingrich’s Freddie Mac Role

    link: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/01/24/details-gingrich-freddie-mac-role/#more-781864 

    • Anonymous

      Marge, I love your posts where you use the word “floozy”.

  • Ptab01

    Just to clarify I am not supporting anyone as of yet for GOP and if there a real chance for third party candidate I present a vigorous case for it

    That said I have long held that one can blast Newt Gingrich on his host of character flaws ( yet again a look into history shows a great many leaders of civilizations shows the most notable ones had some very acute cases of them) No I just wanted to point a key article regarding Mr. Gingrichs alleged House violations written by Bryon York as backed up Mr. Mark R. Levin ESQ.
    Link http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/what-really-happened-gingrich-ethics-case/336051

    Feel free to defame the former Speaker on anything under the sun just recognize there are facts that may not support your opinion

    • PTAb01

      One other thing would someone provide me the Quote from Grinchy
      Where he states President Clinton should be Impeached for having an affair w/ Ms. Lewinksky?

      The fact was that President Clinton was impeached for lieing under oath and not for having an affair but the cover up regarding it. Facts are suppose to be the point of the spear in the rational mind

      • Anonymous

        And Gingrich was thrown out as Speaker for lying to Congress.
        And your point is???