Newt Gingrich on his greatest weakness: “It’s probably that I’m too reasonable”

posted at 2:05 pm on January 2, 2012 by Tina Korbe

At a recent campaign event in Waterloo, Iowa, a reporter asked Newt Gingrich what his greatest weakness is. “It’s probably that I’m too reasonable,” the former Speaker said, apparently unaware of any irony in his answer.

This illustrates why the question “What is your greatest weakness?” (like the question, “What has been your biggest mistake?”) should be retired permanently. Honesty lands a candidate in hot water; who wants to elect a fellow who candidly admits he’s arrogant, prone to grandiosity or power-hungry? But the pseudo-answer makes anyone who gives it seem disingenuous or at least a little pretentious.

But, actually, in context, Gingrich’s remark might have more truth than it appears to at first. Here’s why: He followed up his first preposterous sentence with this: “I should have responded to the negative ads sooner.” If by “I’m too reasonable,” Gingrich meant that he put too much stock in the idea that a civil campaign would win him friends and earn him no enemies, then he absolutely is too reasonable. It was a nice idea — and one I wish would have worked — but politics is a grubby game and Gingrich’s uncharacteristic attempt to keep it all clean does seem to have backfired. After all, he now runs a distant fourth in Iowa.

The primary begins but doesn’t end with the Iowa caucuses, though — and, at another recent campaign stop, the former Speaker said he’ll be nice-guy Gingrich no more, although he intends to keep even his attacks on an elevated plane (that is, no distortions or lies). The Sioux City Journal reports:

“New Hampshire is the perfect state to have a debate over Romneycare and to have a debate about tax-paid abortions, which he signed, and to have a debate about putting Planned Parenthood on a government board, which he signed. And to have a debate about appointing liberal judges, which he did,” Gingrich told reporters at a stop in Marshalltown.

“And so I think New Hampshire is a good place to start the debate for South Carolina.”

Unlike some Republicans who are making a beeline for South Carolina, Gingrich said he would campaign in New Hampshire.

If Iowa has been especially volatile, it seems safe to say that, even after the first-in-the-nation caucus, the GOP presidential race will remain a little uneven. Gingrich might not have the credibility to attack Romney on the individual mandate (which he also has supported) of a Michele Bachmann or a Rick Santorum, but he likely still has enough bite to his bark to weaken Romney.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

“It’s probably that I’m too reasonable,” the former Speaker said, apparently unaware of any irony in his answer.

My guess is he was being sarcastic.

CW on January 2, 2012 at 2:11 PM

No! Newt rolls over too much!

KOOLAID2 on January 2, 2012 at 2:11 PM

To me his biggest weakness is that he sincerely believes politicians should provide “solutions”. That it’s their duty to heal society’s ills. He’s been promoting his vision of “pro-active conservatism” as opposed to “Goldwater conservatism” for 30 years now.

People these days forgot that, but Newt was the creator of that strange concept of “big government conservatism”. Heck, is there a societal problem – from urban segregation to poverty, from healthcare to education – to which Newt hasn’t brought up a “solution”?

Gingrich as the POTUS would have a brilliant solution for everything. He’d make Obama look like a humble adept of limited government.

joana on January 2, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Noooot, you’re just toooo goood for us!

cartooner on January 2, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Newt has more intellectual horsepower and where-with-all than all the other candidates. Newt is right again.

He IS more reasonable and will answer all questions. Compare that to Romney, who has a hissy-fit when he doesn’t like the question.

Sparky5253 on January 2, 2012 at 2:13 PM

I’d say it’s increasingly blonder women who aren’t his wife.

Rational Thought on January 2, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Newt’s greatest weakness is the lack of enough money to answer all of Ron Paul’s attack ads.

SlaveDog on January 2, 2012 at 2:14 PM

The primary begins but doesn’t end with the Iowa caucuses, though…

Thank God for that.

SlaveDog on January 2, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Newt ‘reasonable’??? :-) hahaha, this must be the best joke (as ind ark humor) I’ve ever heard…as for his ‘pledge’ of running a ‘positive’ campaign’, this is all ridiculous bull, the only reason he didn’t run negative ads is that he spent all his campaign’s money on god knows what and he has an empty ‘chest’ at the moment…otherwise, you betcha he’d have flood the wavelengths with ads no different from the other candidates’…so his hypocrisy on the matter is as disgusting as it can geT…but then, coming from Newt, no surprise there….

jimver on January 2, 2012 at 2:21 PM

I don’t get it.
Whats the point of questions like that?

How about..”If you were a tree..what kind of tree would you be?”
oops..already did that.

How about…”Can you tell us what we can rub you the wrong way with?”

Mimzey on January 2, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Take Mitt down Newt

workingclass artist on January 2, 2012 at 2:26 PM

this is all ridiculous bull, the only reason he didn’t run negative ads is that he spent all his campaign’s money on god knows what and he has an empty ‘chest’ at the moment…otherwise, you betcha he’d have flood the wavelengths with ads no different from the other candidates’…so his hypocrisy on the matter is as disgusting as it can geT…but then, coming from Newt, no surprise there….

jimver on January 2, 2012 at 2:21 PM

What are you basing that on?

Mimzey on January 2, 2012 at 2:26 PM

His name or his looks.

“Gingrich” doesn’t roll well (“newt” does work better but not as prominent on the ballot) and it’s the age of TV and he’s not a looker.

Maybe I’m too much of a cynic.

It’s a dumb question for a political candidate anyway.

Cloture on January 2, 2012 at 2:26 PM

“It’s probably that I’m too reasonablehumble.”

Ugh.

Kenosha Kid on January 2, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Noooot, you’re just toooo goood for us!

cartooner on January 2, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Not us, just you.

CW on January 2, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Thats right up there with”I cheated on my wife because I was working so hard to save the country”

gerrym51 on January 2, 2012 at 2:31 PM

He IS more reasonable and will answer all questions. Compare that to Romney, who has a hissy-fit when he doesn’t like the question.

Sparky5253 on January 2, 2012 at 2:13 PM

I’m sorry, but Newt’s answer about his involvement with Freddy Mac as an historian, was not an acceptable answer to me.

All I’ve seen from Newt in the past couple of weeks is a lot of whining about everyone picking on him.

JPeterman on January 2, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Thats right up there with”I cheated on my wife because I was working so hard to save the country”

gerrym51 on January 2, 2012 at 2:31 PM

And you’re so sinless I can see your halo from here.

CW on January 2, 2012 at 2:34 PM

reasonable people also tend to compromise and reach out to their opponents

CrazyGene on January 2, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Gingrich is too reasonable because he really thinks judges that disagree with him should probably be lined up on a wall.

csdeven on January 2, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Sorry to break the “P*ss On Newt” fest, but two mantras need to go:

Romney = electable

(Prof. Jacobson has done a decent job of collecting items under a to-date 3-part series on this. SEE: http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/01/what-if-everything-we-have-been-told-about-mitt-romneys-electability-is-wrong-part-3/)

Gingrich = baggage

There is not one other candidate currently in the running who would as clearly and persuasively bring forth to the American populace that it is Obama who is the candidate with the most damaging “baggage.”

Czar of Defenestration on January 2, 2012 at 2:37 PM

After the disappointment of finding out he was just another flavor of the month, Newt will need to rewife and start over.

hanzblinx on January 2, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Take Mitt down Newt

workingclass artist on January 2, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Even if Gingrich out performs Romney, Perry will still be a dumb@ss and he will still be bringing up the rear.

I wonder……do you understand the concept that you are not Perry, Perry is not you, and that criticisms of Perry are not personal insults of you?

csdeven on January 2, 2012 at 2:40 PM

reasonable people also tend to compromise and reach out to their opponents

CrazyGene on January 2, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Pretty much sums it up. Reasonable people can’t be purists, and purists can’t be reasonable.

mike_NC9 on January 2, 2012 at 2:41 PM

His greatest weakness is he has flights of fancy which lead to ideas which pull him away from focusing on the task at hand in a disciplined way, frustrating even those on his side who agree with him.

Paul-Cincy on January 2, 2012 at 2:41 PM

It is a stupid question in any interview for the reasons Miss Korbe highlighted.

CorporatePiggy on January 2, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Czar of Defenestration on January 2, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Note to all of Hot Air:

The person being quoted, Prof. Jacobson, is involved with the Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association. He was selected to that position by and Obama sycophant who is on the board of a group who promotes and defends economic justice.

csdeven on January 2, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Working class
+1000

angrymike on January 2, 2012 at 2:46 PM

If Iowa polls has been especially volatile

Tina Korbe on Jan 2, 2012 2:05 PM

Hey bozo’s vote for my girl Michele Bachmann for the Republican Presidential nominee. Don’t let them convince you there are only certain candidates to choose from. Anything can still happen.

apocalypse on January 2, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Naawww! I think Newt is just too smart and too good-looking.

However, super-duper intelligence and great personal beauty can only carry you so far among the corn and nose pickers in the cow states.

Seen the Tiffany’s Spring catalog, Newt? Momma’s shoppin’ demons are gonna be hoppin’!

Horace on January 2, 2012 at 2:47 PM

I’m sorry, but Newt’s answer about his involvement with Freddy Mac as an historian, was not an acceptable answer to me.

JPeterman on January 2, 2012 at 2:33 PM

What was his involvement then and what are you basing that on?

Mimzey on January 2, 2012 at 2:47 PM

csdeven on January 2, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Have you ever VISITED much less read “Legal Insurrection”?!?
Do you have the slightest idea how ridiculous your remark is?!

Czar of Defenestration on January 2, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Let’s see
Mittens = baggage, healthcare, hissy fits when he feels above the question

Newt = electable , smart, great debater, balanced budget, welfare reform

angrymike on January 2, 2012 at 2:52 PM

What was his involvement then and what are you basing that on?

Mimzey on January 2, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Who is Freddies history consultant now? How about before Gingrich? What other entity hires historians that have ties to congress and have been Washington insiders for 30 years?

csdeven on January 2, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Newt = electable , smart, great debater, balanced budget, welfare reform

angrymike on January 2, 2012 at 2:52 PM

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Thank you, thank you thank you!!! I’ve been waiting for one of your Gingrich worshipers to call Romney a whiner after Gingrich has been throwing a hissy fit like a 10 year old girl for a week!!!!

Romney is mean!
Romney is spending too much money!
Romney is buying the election!
Romney wont give me press exposure!
Romney wont stop his PAC!
ROMNEY IS NOT PLAYING FAIR!!!!

csdeven on January 2, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Have you ever VISITED much less read “Legal Insurrection”?!?
Do you have the slightest idea how ridiculous your remark is?!

Czar of Defenestration on January 2, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Yes I did. That is how I tracked down who that progressive dirt bag is associated with.

csdeven on January 2, 2012 at 2:58 PM

And my biggest fault is that I’m just too darned perfect.

csdeven on January 2, 2012 at 2:57 PM

But the word I got is that Mitt is too nice to run for President. He doesn’t know how to pick an opponent apart or to play hardball.

MJBrutus on January 2, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Newt also said Sunday that he had been “Romney-boated.”

Nice going, Newt. Again, you have accepted a liberal premise, this one about there being something wrong with telling the whole truth about, aka “swift-boating,” Kerry’s brief time in Nam even though the MSM was doing its dead-level best to keep it under wraps.

Deep-down, Newt believes in big government. I’ll vote for him if he’s the nominee, but not in the primaries.

Doug Piranha on January 2, 2012 at 3:03 PM

His greatest weakness is he has flights of fancy which lead to ideas which pull him away from focusing on the task at hand in a disciplined way, frustrating even those on his side who agree with him.

Paul-Cincy on January 2, 2012 at 2:41 PM

That’s true, I think. A lot of Gingrich supporters would agree with that.

BCrago66 on January 2, 2012 at 3:04 PM

But, actually, in context, Gingrich’s remark might have more truth than it appears to at first. Here’s why: He followed up his first preposterous sentence with this: “I should have responded to the negative ads sooner.” If by “I’m too reasonable,” Gingrich meant that he put too much stock in the idea that a civil campaign would win him friends and earn him no enemies, then he absolutely is too reasonable.

That’s not being reasonable; that’s being stupid. It’s also disingenuous. Newt has stated that he would vote for Obama over Paul; that Romney should return his ill-gotten gains from Bain Capital; and that Romney would buy the election if he could. Not only is Newt willing to go negative when the opportunity presents itself, he goes negative from the left. That’s not exactly a recipe for success in this Republican primary, and gives a much better insight into Newt’s true weakness than his purported “reasonableness”.

Mr. Arkadin on January 2, 2012 at 3:04 PM

I can not tell you how fracking disappointed progressives are that Gingrich imploded so quickly. The idea of Obama v. Gingrich in the general as a means of negatively impacting conservatism writ-large was too delicious for words. Sadly, Romney, the hardest opponent by far, is going to be the nominee.

libfreeordie on January 2, 2012 at 3:04 PM

I do NOT worship ANYONE! I like Newt but not to obsession, unlike mittbots who will be on suicide watch if he doesnt win the nomination!

angrymike on January 2, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Who is Freddies history consultant now? How about before Gingrich? What other entity hires historians that have ties to congress and have been Washington insiders for 30 years?

csdeven on January 2, 2012 at 2:53 PM

So..you got no answer?
Maybe you missed the question?
Here it is again:
You implied that Gingrich or more accurately Gingrich’s firm..earned their money in ways other than the services stated.

What do you believe those services were?

Mimzey on January 2, 2012 at 3:05 PM

But the word I got is that Mitt is too nice to run for President. He doesn’t know how to pick an opponent apart or to play hardball.

MJBrutus on January 2, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Maybe Romney should throw some “real” Christians to the lions?

csdeven on January 2, 2012 at 3:07 PM

What was his involvement then and what are you basing that on?

Mimzey on January 2, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Link.

The Bush administration and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan were sounding the alarm about the potential threat to the nation’s financial health if the fortunes of the two mammoth companies turned sour. They did eventually, when they took on $1 trillion worth of subprime mortgages and when their traditional guarantee business deteriorated. Commercial banks regarded Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as competitors and were anxious to pick up business that would result from scaling back the two companies.

Pushing back, Freddie Mac enlisted prominent conservatives, including Gingrich and former Justice Department official Viet Dinh, paying each $300,000 in 2006, according to internal records.

Gingrich talked and wrote about what he saw as the benefits of the Freddie Mac business model.

That sounds like Newt was pushing the policies of Freddy and their great “business model” when the Bush administration was sounding the alarm that trouble was brewing.

JPeterman on January 2, 2012 at 3:07 PM

So..you got no answer?
Maybe you missed the question?
Here it is again:
You implied that Gingrich or more accurately Gingrich’s firm..earned their money in ways other than the services stated.

What do you believe those services were?

Mimzey on January 2, 2012 at 3:05 PM

The answer is that firms like Freddie don’t hire historians and pay them 1.6 million dollars. They hire influence peddlers and pay them 1.6 million dollars.

The more likely job Gingrich had was that of the latter. Not the former. Of course, YMMV.

csdeven on January 2, 2012 at 3:10 PM

csdeven on January 2, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Jacobson “progressive”?!?
You’re nuts. I won’t even wager from what corner of the nuthouse.

Czar of Defenestration on January 2, 2012 at 3:11 PM

libfreeordie on January 2, 2012 at 3:04 PM

If not delusional or just personal opinion, what data points did you use to arrive at that conclusion?
Just curious.

Mimzey on January 2, 2012 at 3:11 PM

I do NOT worship ANYONE! I like Newt but not to obsession, unlike mittbots who will be on suicide watch if he doesnt win the nomination!

angrymike on January 2, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Find me a Romney supporter who is supporting him basically because he can beat Obama and I’ll help you man the phones. They don’t exist. Every Romney supporter knows exactly what he is. And every one that I have read are going to vote for him even as they are vomiting.

csdeven on January 2, 2012 at 3:12 PM

The answer is that firms like Freddie don’t hire historians and pay them 1.6 million dollars. They hire influence peddlers and pay them 1.6 million dollars.

The more likely job Gingrich had was that of the latter. Not the former. Of course, YMMV.

csdeven on January 2, 2012 at 3:10 PM

You’re playing with words.
What do you believe the payment to Gingrich’s firm were for?

Are analysts “influence peddlers”?

If you’re claiming that the Gingrich firm was paid 1.6 million dollars for “influence peddling”, what was peddled? What changes were connected to the firm that benefited Freddy Mac?

Are other analysts s who provide information..possibly based in historical precedent also “influence peddlers” in your opinion?

Mimzey on January 2, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Jacobson “progressive”?!?
You’re nuts. I won’t even wager from what corner of the nuthouse.

Czar of Defenestration on January 2, 2012 at 3:11 PM

He supports Gingrich yet claims to be TEA Party supporter.

You square that circle.

csdeven on January 2, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Csdevin
But I’ve noticed that’s one of the mittbots biggest claims, he’s the most electable.

angrymike on January 2, 2012 at 3:20 PM

And every one that I have read are going to vote for him even as they are vomiting.

csdeven on January 2, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Well..thats encouraging. Loyalty to the point of vomiting is very respectable imo.

At least Rahmney isn’t accused of “influence peddling”….only of being a weak willed squish and a finger-in-the-air flip flopping plasticine politician.

Mimzey on January 2, 2012 at 3:24 PM

He supports Gingrich yet claims to be TEA Party supporter.

You square that circle.

csdeven on January 2, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Thats a non sequitur.
One doesn’t have anything to do with the other.

Mimzey on January 2, 2012 at 3:26 PM

You’re playing with words.

Mimzey on January 2, 2012 at 3:18 PM

You are trying to convince me that Gingrich was simply a historian (his word). Considering firms don’t hire historians (his word) and pay them 1.6 million, but rather they do hire influence peddlers and pay them 1.6 million, I’m going to need more than the word of Gingrich before you will convince me. In the end though, he was way to close to the firm that caused the collapse of our economy. The nature of his “analysis” to Freddie is suspect.

But, maybe you’re right and Gingrich got them to pay him 1.6 million to tell them they should not have done what they already did, that put them in the untenable position they were already in, and that it was too late to change the past. And if that is the case, maybe Gingrich should be POTUS.

csdeven on January 2, 2012 at 3:29 PM

One doesn’t have anything to do with the other.

Mimzey on January 2, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Go read his ramblings.

csdeven on January 2, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Jacobson “progressive”?!?
You’re nuts. I won’t even wager from what corner of the nuthouse.

Czar of Defenestration on January 2, 2012 at 3:11 PM

He supports Gingrich yet claims to be TEA Party supporter.

You square that circle.

csdeven on January 2, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Gingrich was the brains behind the Republican takeover of the House in the 1990s, when almost no one thought it could be done. He got most of the Contract With America implemented. In my mind, that was the most comprehensive shake-up-the-establishment set of policies to be adopted in Washington in decades. That was followed by a balanced budget because Newt kept pushing for one when Clinton wanted to wait 5 years, and by welfare reform because Newt kept pushing for it.

So that’s a fair amount for a Tea Partier to like. Probably more than any of the others running.

On the other hand . . . Gingrich has a lot of flaws and baggage.

DakotaBoy on January 2, 2012 at 3:31 PM

But I’ve noticed that’s one of the mittbots biggest claims, he’s the most electable.

angrymike on January 2, 2012 at 3:20 PM

It is the GOP base saying that mike. Polling bears it out too.

csdeven on January 2, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Newt’s Greatest Weakness: “I’m too reasonable”
Mitt’s Greatest Weakness: “I’m too Goshdarn handsome”
Paul’s Greatest Weakness: “I can’t make those voter kids get off my lawn”
Michele’s Greatest Weakness: “I am too nice to bring brass knuckles to debates”
Perry’s Greatest Weakness: “There are three…oops”
Santorum’s Greatest Weakness: “I am and will always be more pure than you”
Huntsman’s Greatest Weakness: “Hello? Is this mic on? What are you–an audience or an oil painting–Hello?

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on January 2, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Newt also said Sunday that he had been “Romney-boated.”

Nice going, Newt. Again, you have accepted a liberal premise, this one about there being something wrong with telling the whole truth about, aka “swift-boating,” Kerry’s brief time in Nam even though the MSM was doing its dead-level best to keep it under wraps.

Deep-down, Newt believes in big government. I’ll vote for him if he’s the nominee, but not in the primaries.

Doug Piranha on January 2, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Do you know the context? He was asked if he felt like he had been swift-boated. He said, “No.” And he added he felt like he had been Romney-boated, a word play on the question.

He said it the way he said it because he did not accept the premise behind the question. If he accepted the premise, he would have just said, “Yes.”

fadetogray on January 2, 2012 at 3:31 PM

DakotaBoy on January 2, 2012 at 3:31 PM

All true. Gingrich is an academic. And like all academics, he is in obsessed with finding solutions to very complex problems. Sometimes he finds conservative ways to solve problems, sometimes progressive ways, and sometimes just batty ways. The problem is that no one, not even Gingrich, knows when he will go off the conservative reservation.

But please know that if he is the nominee, I will support him 100%.

csdeven on January 2, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Newt was exactly correct. He is too reasonable. An essential part of being reasonable is expecting others to be reasonable, too.

This is actually a serious flaw in a President. All Presidents have flaws, and this doesn’t make him a terrible choice, but it is a flaw.

fadetogray on January 2, 2012 at 3:35 PM

csdeven on January 2, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Easy. Start by reading “A Nation Like No Other” and “To Save America.” Then consider which candidate possesses the experience, strength and determination needed to promote Tea Party values.

By the way, the way you wildly throw around/misuse the term “progressive” discredits you more than any “guilt by association” you attempt to establish. I’ll wager you think Ron Paul’s misinterpretation of libertarianism has anything to do with the Tea Party…other than convenient references to the US Constitution. Sticking one’s head in the sand (Paul Foreign Policy) is not “consistency” but rather suicide. Paul has more in common with Stormfront.

Czar of Defenestration on January 2, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on January 2, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Now that is some funny $hit right there!

csdeven on January 2, 2012 at 3:35 PM

I’m too reasonable.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.. Thunk!

I fell out of my chair

tbrickert on January 2, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Csdevin
I mean here at H.A.
I’ll believe the poles the day after voting. I don’t get why the poles even interview ppl who might not vote or vote demorat any other time.

angrymike on January 2, 2012 at 3:39 PM

I disagree with Newt Gingrich, but he’s scratching on something that’s true. Sometimes the GOP wants chest thumping on the red meat issues but there is absolutely no substance. See Rick Perry. Or even look to some of Mitt Romney’s economic “policies.”

aryeung on January 2, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Czar of Defenestration on January 2, 2012 at 3:35 PM

The problem is that you guys out think yourselves. Gingrich is just as likely to follow a progressive path to solve a problem than he is a conservative or loony path. This is because it is very important for him to put his considerable intelligence to use. He has an ego, which is a must for any successful person, but it is so big, he doesn’t know when to allow that there are other ideas to solve problems that are better than his. Hence, he follows his ideas down the wrong path much of the time.

csdeven on January 2, 2012 at 3:42 PM

I mean here at H.A.
I’ll believe the poles the day after voting. I don’t get why the poles even interview ppl who might not vote or vote demorat any other time.

angrymike on January 2, 2012 at 3:39 PM

I don’t see many Mittbots here. I do see a lot of folks like myself who are so desperate to get rid of Obama that they will support a Romney over a Palin.

csdeven on January 2, 2012 at 3:44 PM

joana on January 2, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Well said. That is my problem with Newt exactly. And that’s what led him to support an individual mandate and sit on a couch next to Pelosi in support of government policies on “global warming”.

GeorgiaBuckeye on January 2, 2012 at 3:44 PM

csdeven on January 2, 2012 at 3:44 PM

From what I’ve seen you shamelessly tear down anyone that doesn’t support Mitt Romney. Is it too much to ask you be honest?

aryeung on January 2, 2012 at 3:49 PM

CSdevin
Oh believe me when all said and done 98% here will pinch there noses and vote for whoever is the republican nominee. This is all witty banter, I think no one wants 4 more years of this incompetent fool!

angrymike on January 2, 2012 at 3:51 PM

Is it too much to ask you be honest?

aryeung on January 2, 2012 at 3:49 PM

Do me a favor…..pay attention to the type of people who I tweak.

csdeven on January 2, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Gingrich talked and wrote about what he saw as the benefits of the Freddie Mac business model.

That sounds like Newt was pushing the policies of Freddy and their great “business model” when the Bush administration was sounding the alarm that trouble was brewing.

JPeterman on January 2, 2012 at 3:07 PM

What influence did that have? Gingrich was a private citizen at the time and his firm was contracted.

There is not enough information in what you linked. What was actually written? Every report of analysis has two or more sides presented. Thats the nature of analysis. To focus on one without the other is disingenuous at best.

That said….do I support any advocacy of Freddie Mac..not really. Is that some kind of “smoking gun” to somehow smear the integrity and motivations of the man? No. Not at all. A business arrangement 8-10 years ago is moot imo.

It all boils down to preferences of candidate.
I find Mitt a squish and a weak choice for reasons not 8-10yrs in the past, but qualities I see in him today. I simply don’t trust him.

Apply the same standard to Romney and google around a bit and see what you can find to interpret how you will.
We’ll have to agree to disagree

Mimzey on January 2, 2012 at 4:07 PM

angrymike on January 2, 2012 at 3:51 PM

I’m with you on that Mike. I just hope that we take the senate and keep the house. They will keep an errant Romney, or whom ever our nominee is, under control if need be. That is why a Ron Paul presidency doesn’t scare me too much.

csdeven on January 2, 2012 at 4:08 PM

The problem is that you guys out think yourselves. Gingrich is just as likely to follow a progressive path to solve a problem than he is a conservative or loony path. This is because it is very important for him to put his considerable intelligence to use. He has an ego, which is a must for any successful person, but it is so big, he doesn’t know when to allow that there are other ideas to solve problems that are better than his. Hence, he follows his ideas down the wrong path much of the time.

csdeven on January 2, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Thats odd imo.
In the first sentence you claim of others “over thinking”….and then go on to piece specious things together and arrive at the conclusion you started with in the first place… the product of over thinking imo.

There is no need for this.
You don’t like Gingrich.
No other reason is needed for your choice.
The only important thing is to get rid of this administration. and most people here will vote that way when it comes down to it.

Mimzey on January 2, 2012 at 4:12 PM

If “reasonable” is a synonym for fat hideous unlikeable statist RINO hog, then Gingrich is right.

TexasJew on January 2, 2012 at 4:18 PM

CSdevin @ 4:08
+ 1000

angrymike on January 2, 2012 at 4:29 PM

Apply the same standard to Romney and google around a bit and see what you can find to interpret how you will.
We’ll have to agree to disagree

Mimzey on January 2, 2012 at 4:07 PM

In other words, anyone who points out the many flaws of Newt is automatically a Mittens supporter?

JPeterman on January 2, 2012 at 4:35 PM

In other words, anyone who points out the many flaws of Newt is automatically a Mittens supporter?

JPeterman on January 2, 2012 at 4:35 PM

No. Just a Gingrich basher.

All nominees are included. Romney is just the only other one running with a chance, so i suppose I just went to him as an example.

Mimzey on January 2, 2012 at 5:15 PM

TAKE NEWT DOWN MITT

Ruiner on January 2, 2012 at 5:44 PM

At a recent campaign event in Waterloo, Iowa, a reporter asked Newt Gingrich what his greatest weakness is. “It’s probably that I’m too reasonable,”

Preach it, brother Newt. My only weakness is that I’m just too damn awesome. Looking at me is like looking at the sun. The winner of a Batman-Superman battle would be me. The only reason why there is 7B people on the Earth is because I allow them to live. If at first you don’t succeed, you aren’t me.

ZGMF_Freedom on January 2, 2012 at 5:50 PM

If “reasonable” is a synonym for fat hideous unlikeable statist RINO hog, then Gingrich is right.

TexasJew on January 2, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Does Mitt registering as a democrat in order to vote for Paul Tsongus put him in the “RINO” category?

Mimzey on January 2, 2012 at 6:25 PM

Mimzey on January 2, 2012 at 6:25 PM

Mitt was a registered Independent..switched to dem for the vote…now he’s a confirmed conservative?

“But Newt got divorced..Freddy Mac..sat on a bench..Derp! Derp!”

Mimzey on January 2, 2012 at 6:30 PM

A Congressman makes 174k plus perhaps another 100k in benefits. Thus getting 300k out of Congress when you are former Speaker of the House is not all that great really. But did he even get it or did the firm he worked for get it. Most likely his firm. Sorry but if you think a world class historian works cheap you are very wrong.

Remember if you can when Newt was forced out of Congress by the Main Stream Media with hundreds of false allegations. Eventually he was cleared by the ethics committee of all of them just like Palin. A man hated that much by the MSM means to me that he must have done something right and he did. Welfare Reform and a balanced budget. Clinton fought him tooth and nail but Newt kept up the fight till he eventually won on both issues. It was those that followed him that destroyed the Republican Party with GWB being the biggest idiot in being lead by the MSM to make all the wrong decisions.

Don’t know if Newt is the absolute best but he is far far better than Romney. Romney lied about the 1.6 mil Newts employer got for his and many other Lawyers work Newt said he saw only 35k of it.

Steveangell on January 2, 2012 at 11:51 PM