Congressman on Gingrich’s marital past: “Jesus is not on the ballot”

posted at 1:05 pm on January 19, 2012 by Tina Korbe

As Rick Perry said when he endorsed Newt Gingrich, the guy is “not perfect,” but whose name are we looking for on the ballot anyway? Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), a Gingrich supporter, reminds us we’re not gonna find that name, anyway, because it’s not there.

“All of us have baggage, but Jesus is not on the ballot. Maybe it would be great if he were, but the point is we have to, in this case, pick the person who can best lead this country into the place that the Founding Fathers dreamed it could be,” Franks, who has endorsed Gingrich, told TheDC at the GOP presidential debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C. on Monday night.

“I think if Barack Obama is re-elected, we will see our economy really diminished into a European socialism that will be hard to ever break free from.”

When asked why he chose to back Gingrich over the rest of the field, Franks said, “He has an almost asymmetric capability, a political casucci I would call it, of being able to take the left’s questions — who are nearly always laced with false premise — and turn them around before they ever know what hit them.”

As Gingrich gains momentum in South Carolina, bolstered by the pseudo-endorsement of Sarah Palin and the outright endorsement of Rick Perry, conservatives must grapple again with the question: Are they comfortable with Newt’s past — or, more accurately, with the way the GOP’s opponents will exploit it? He’s still a longshot to overtake Mitt Romney, but, as fewer and fewer alternatives to Romney exist, the possibility that voters will coalesce around Gingrich (or Santorum) becomes greater. It’s never too soon to question how a candidate would fare in the general election. As we’re learning, the MSM won’t miss a single opportunity to rehash Gingrich’s old mistakes — but Gingrich also won’t miss a single opportunity to, as Franks said, turn reporters’ questions around on them. While Gingrich’s antagonism toward the media hasn’t exactly earned him friends among reporters, it has seemed to resonate with the GOP base. It’s less likely, though, that that antagonism will appeal to independents, who are more like liberals than conservatives in terms of what TV news outlets they trust and don’t trust.

In the meantime, Franks’ message is important not merely for the primary, but also for the general. In 2008, Barack Obama might have had the aura of The One, but, with the exception of Esquire writers, fewer and fewer voters think of Obama as a messiah-like, salvific figure. Between Romney and Gingrich, Gingrich is actually the candidate who is probably most likely to illuminate Obama’s many faults in debates. Then again, Romney is probably most likely to maintain message discipline. The two candidates aren’t interchangeable, but, all polls aside, either could beat Obama with the active support of conservatives and targeted campaign appeals to independents. Neither is Jesus — but Obama’s not, either.


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

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5

This is, of course, if you completely believe the media (which is in the tank to elect Barack Obama, and the hell with the country) and if you believe, without any skepticism, the bitterness of an ex-wife. I’m not saying she wasn’t a wronged wife — just that she might be slanting the truth a little. Ex-wives, and ex-husbands have been known to look for ways to harm their former spouse.

I’m not interested in the he-said, she-said stuff. My daughter has just gone through a very painful divorce and I am well aware of the vitriol that gets flung around from both sides. What I’m focusing on is the fact that the LSM seems awfully eager to get Obama’s rivals out of the way, so he and his merry band of Marxists can waltz back into power and continue their destruction of our way of life. Compared to that, I’d even have to give the devil a second look.

I am not in the tank for Gingrich, and it wouldn’t matter if I was. In California, the whole thing will be decided long before I get a vote. I just don’t want to see Republicans shoot themselves in the foot again over things that shouldn’t matter. We lost to Obama once with John McCain, who rolled over and presented his stomach to Obama long before November of 2008. I want someone who will go for Obama with claws and fangs, who will rip out his liver and feed it to him. I want someone who can throw the Chicago Jesus onto the ash heap of history and save my country.

hachiban on January 19, 2012 at 2:12 PM

I really don’t understand partially basing support on the expectation that Gingrich will tear Obama apart at the debates. That’s far from a guarantee. There’s also the fact that there is plenty for Obama to exploit and attack Newt with, or at least demonstrate his hypocrisy over. Newt knows he’ll need to win over indies and try to flip that unfavorable rating, so I don’t think you’ll see the attack dog you imagine.

changer1701 on January 19, 2012 at 2:32 PM

NO, he called her a “political harlot”, which she is.

Schadenfreude on January 19, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Dude, what happened to you? This kind of slime is beneath you.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 2:32 PM

All Newt has to do is hold a Press Conference and say,

“Yes, I was the ‘BILL CLINTON’ OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY many years ago, but I am a changed man and completely different now.”

:D LOL!

easyt65 on January 19, 2012 at 2:29 PM

“I did not have sex with that woman, Mrs. Gingrich…”

/ROFLMMFAO

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 2:32 PM

NO, he called her a “political harlot”, which she is.

Schadenfreude on January 19, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Dude, what happened to you? This kind of slime is beneath you.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Are there any politicians that aren’t harlots/whores? Or was what happened to get Obamacare passed not really “whoring?”

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 2:33 PM

That is kind of a complicated question. I think you’d have to go back to the days of the Founding Fathers to find a sitting Congressman who became President. Of course many were in Congress before running for POTUS. George HW Bush was a Congressman before he went on to be a diplomat and Director of the CIA. Ford was in Congress before becoming VP. Same holds for Nixon.

Happy Nomad on January 19, 2012 at 2:03 PM

I am just trying to make the point that everyone who has become president has done something outside of the House of Representatives. I am just trying to counteract people including Tina saying that Romney are in the same league with regards to electability.

ArkyDore on January 19, 2012 at 2:33 PM

We need to get over thinking we have it any harder than our fathers did in these choices. We just have the unfortunate luxury of being able to know more private life issues than those voters of the past.

Skwor on January 19, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Except that I don’t think this way. The norm, for presidential candidates anyways, is that our choices suck. Vote for whomever you feel is best, but always be skeptical and critical. I voted for Bush twice, but I could spend hours bitching about his bad choices.

NotCoach on January 19, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Right, a person of high moral caliber wouldn’t be on the ballot. Unless it’s Mitt. But… Mitt’s a rino.

anotherJoe on January 19, 2012 at 2:34 PM

All the women I know despise Gingrich. The polls bear out that he does very poorly with female voters. The one thing Obama isn’t vulnerable on is his personal life. In fact, it’s his greatest strength. Even many of the people who don’t like the way he has governed like him personally, like his family, think he is a good example as a family man.

And the Republicans really want to make Newt the Repugnant their candidate? Enjoy those debates, kids. Because there won’t be much of America left to enjoy after four more years of Obama.

Meredith on January 19, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Agreed. An impromptu poll of all the women close to me–girlfriend, young adult daughter, elderly mother, a few associates and friends (none but one of whom follow politics closely, btw)–were overwhelmingly anti-Newt. They may not be political junkies but they know lots about serial philanderer Newt Gingrich, and despise him for it.

And think about this: none of Newt’s Republican primary opponents have gotten personal. Does anyone honestly believe the Chicago Machine will show such gentlemanly restraint during the general election campaign? Imagine the media parading every former mistress, molested intern, and casual girlfriend in front of the cameras for a series of primetime in-depth, exclusive interviews. It will be all people see, hear, and talk about, to the exclusion of every other issue–including the last three years of amazingly awful decision- and policy-making by President Obama.

That’s why we don’t want national candidates with compromising personal baggage. That’s why we look for men and women with character and a measure of self-control. That’s why such flawed candidates are bound to fail.

Looking at the South Carolina numbers, I sometimes think my party has a death wish. Paraphrasing Pogo (again): We have met the enemy and he is us.

We nominate Gingrich, we lose in the general election no matter how badly President Obama performs. It won’t play any other way.

troyriser_gopftw on January 19, 2012 at 2:34 PM

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Indeed

MTLassen on January 19, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Are there any politicians that aren’t harlots/whores? Or was what happened to get Obamacare passed not really “whoring?”

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Those are two different things. All politicians may prostitute themselves BUT all the whoring for Obamacare was on the Dem side. What few RINOS voted in favor did so voluntarily.

Happy Nomad on January 19, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Dude, what happened to you? This kind of slime is beneath you.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Pretty rich, coming from you.

Christien on January 19, 2012 at 2:38 PM

That’s why we don’t want national candidates with compromising personal baggage. That’s why we look for men and women with character and a measure of self-control. That’s why such flawed candidates are bound to fail.

Looking at the South Carolina numbers, I sometimes think my party has a death wish. Paraphrasing Pogo (again): We have met the enemy and he is us.

We nominate Gingrich, we lose in the general election no matter how badly President Obama performs. It won’t play any other way.

troyriser_gopftw on January 19, 2012 at 2:34 PM

PLEASE some how reconcile this then with Bill Clinton winning reelection and a majority of women voters the second time around. Past historical elections would seem to contradict your assertion.

Skwor on January 19, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Are there any politicians that aren’t harlots/whores? Or was what happened to get Obamacare passed not really “whoring?”

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Funny, then, that Haley was not being called a whore by conservatives until she endorsed one of the two dominant Republican presidential candidates.

C’mon, Gryph. This is pretty transparent. I hate Romney, but I’m not going to start throwing principled, fighting conservatives, particularly Tea Party conservatives, under the bus just because they endorse someone I don’t.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Those are two different things. All politicians may prostitute themselves BUT all the whoring for Obamacare was on the Dem side. What few RINOS voted in favor did so voluntarily.

Happy Nomad on January 19, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Be that as it may, Republicans are, if not political prostitutes, irredeemable cowards. Asking me to pick one party over the other is like asking me if I’d rather be stabbed with a red-hot knife through the hand or the foot.

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 2:40 PM

Christien on January 19, 2012 at 2:38 PM

You got anything other than ad hominems, troll?

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 2:40 PM

troyriser_gopftw on January 19, 2012 at 2:34 PM

The “lesser of X evils” argument is one I won’t buy. When I look at the skillsets, Newt is the only one running who moved the needle to the right. In any way.

MTLassen on January 19, 2012 at 2:43 PM

What does it say about American society and conservatives when only a “perfect man” (nay, Jesus himself) is expected to stay faithful and not break his vows?

It’s f’n all pathetic.

haner on January 19, 2012 at 2:44 PM

changer1701 on January 19, 2012 at 2:32 PM

What makes you think there will be any debates? The debate format doesn’t suit his style. If I were Obama, I wouldn’t do any (if I could get away with it). Obama likes town halls and one-on-one interviews while debates require a discipline that hampers Obama’s ability to come off as too cool for the job.

Happy Nomad on January 19, 2012 at 2:44 PM

The people criticizing Gingrich for his multiple infidelities/hypocrisies are not being “holier-than-thou”, in my opinion. It’s simply a visceral reaction to vile behaviour. I felt the same way when the John Edwards story broke; I just think it’s unfortunate that somebody in the Republican party has behaved badly enough to elicit the same gut-revulsion.

And yes, I will vote for Gingrich if he’s the nominee, I just hope like crazy that he’s not the nominee!

captn2fat on January 19, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Funny, then, that Haley was not being called a whore by conservatives until she endorsed one of the two dominant Republican presidential candidates.

“Politicians are whores” is the kind of blanket statement I’ve been making for years. I shouldn’t need to defend it, but I just don’t get all wee weed up over potshots like this. Every Republican presidential candidate is equally worthless to me at this point.

C’mon, Gryph. This is pretty transparent. I hate Romney, but I’m not going to start throwing principled, fighting conservatives, particularly Tea Party conservatives, under the bus just because they endorse someone I don’t.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 2:39 PM

See above.^ I am a voter without a candidate. I have at times defended Romney, I have at times blasted him. Likewise with Newt. Our field sucks and I hold out little hope that things will change in any meaningful way after the elections in November.

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 2:44 PM

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 2:40 PM

The truth hurts. You’ve posted some really vile stuff here over the years, but hey, you survived the ban hammer this long, so it’s all good. Anyhow, it was just a drive-by, call a spade-a-spade comment. Carry on.

Christien on January 19, 2012 at 2:45 PM

It’s true, Jesus is not on the ballot. But it’s also true that Jesus’ most scathing rebukes were for hypocrites.

Alma on January 19, 2012 at 1:10 PM

+1000

haner on January 19, 2012 at 2:46 PM

PLEASE some how reconcile this then with Bill Clinton winning reelection and a majority of women voters the second time around. Past historical elections would seem to contradict your assertion.

The affair with Monica Lewinsky was after his reelection, and the whole time Hillary dutifully stood by Bill’s side saying it was all vicious lies every time some skank came forward. Had Monica not saved that dress, Americans would have by and large believed it.

Oh, and if it hadn’t been for Ross Perot, Clinton would have lost, Clinton never receive a majority of support in this country.

The absolute only reason Al Gore lost in 2000 was because of the Lewinsky scandal, Al Gore himself told Clinton that to his face.

Don’t for a minute think that personal baggage has no electoral consequences.

BradTank on January 19, 2012 at 2:48 PM

It’s true, Jesus is not on the ballot. But it’s also true that Jesus’ most scathing rebukes were for hypocrites.

Alma on January 19, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Yeah. He had a few things to say to the money changers as well. You know, people who sullied the House of God with commercial enterprises. Watch out going to the Good Book for your snark, chief. There’s plenty to be had for everyone in there….

MTLassen on January 19, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the role of bitter ex-spouse.

Happy Nomad on January 19, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Many “bitter” ex-spouses have the opportunity to choose a different path and not remain bitter. It’s not a sealed fate by any means.

lynncgb on January 19, 2012 at 2:50 PM

it was just a drive-by

Christien on January 19, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Thanks for the confirmation, troll.

See above.^ I am a voter without a candidate. I have at times defended Romney, I have at times blasted him. Likewise with Newt. Our field sucks and I hold out little hope that things will change in any meaningful way after the elections in November.

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 2:44 PM

I am the same as you. However, I am not going to condemn people who have demonstrated real conservative leadership because they do what they have to: choose from the crap. I’m certainly not going to engage in the kind of behavior that, just a couple of years ago, we were furious at both the Dems and the SC Republicans for engaging in.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 2:50 PM

The “lesser of X evils” argument is one I won’t buy. When I look at the skillsets, Newt is the only one running who moved the needle to the right. In any way.

MTLassen on January 19, 2012 at 2:43 PM

That wasn’t the argument I was making, but okay. I was saying if X then Y, with x = Gingrich as GOP candidate and Y = We lose the general election. I’m not keen on Romney as a candidate but think he he has a good chance against Obama–in large part because Romney sweeps the women’s vote in every poll, even against Obama. Gingrich doesn’t get the women’s vote, either among Republicans or Independents–or even, if you break it down further, among Republican conservative women. Without that vote, we lose and we cannot afford to lose. The country can’t take another four years of this.

troyriser_gopftw on January 19, 2012 at 2:50 PM

I for one am not willing to erase Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson (not that they were Republicans, of course) from the rolls of the Founding Fathers because they were raging lechers in their private lives.

MTLassen on January 19, 2012 at 2:25 PM

So now Newty Fruity “Dr. Jeckle and Mr. Hyde” Gingbat is like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson? Oh, brother.

VorDaj on January 19, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Right, a person of high moral caliber wouldn’t be on the ballot. Unless it’s Mitt. But… Mitt’s a rino.

anotherJoe on January 19, 2012 at 2:34 PM

That’s an assumption that Mitt is of “high moral caliber”…are you sure that supporting TARP, supporting abortion, supporting gov. takeover of business, is of “high moral caliber”, or being opportunistic and making us pay for his “opportunity”.
Not all “moral” behavior deals with sex…

right2bright on January 19, 2012 at 2:51 PM

I am the same as you. However, I am not going to condemn people who have demonstrated real conservative leadership because they do what they have to: choose from the crap. I’m certainly not going to engage in the kind of behavior that, just a couple of years ago, we were furious at both the Dems and the SC Republicans for engaging in.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Well pardon me if that kind of behavior fails to righteously infuriate me. In fact, I don’t even raise an eyebrow over it.

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 2:52 PM

So now Newty Fruity “Dr. Jeckle and Mr. Hyde” Gingbat is like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson? Oh, brother.

VorDaj on January 19, 2012 at 2:51 PM

So now we have posters so stupid they don’t understand an analogy? Oh, brother.

right2bright on January 19, 2012 at 2:52 PM

NotCoach on January 19, 2012 at 2:29 PM

NotCoach, I’m not sure if you think I was making excuses for anyone. I meant to point out that I don’t trust anyone or much of anything anymore – sad.

MontanaMmmm on January 19, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Funny, then, that Haley was not being called a whore by conservatives until she endorsed one of the two dominant Republican presidential candidates.

C’mon, Gryph. This is pretty transparent. I hate Romney, but I’m not going to start throwing principled, fighting conservatives, particularly Tea Party conservatives, under the bus just because they endorse someone I don’t.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 2:39 PM

MC,

Don’t know whether you know (or whether it would alter your thinking if you did know) but AngryEd’s contention is that Haley endorsed Romney in exchange for money – Romney paid off her campaign debt (I believe $36K) in return for an endorsement. That is where his choice of language is coming from – he is saying she sold herself to Romney for money.

Doomberg on January 19, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Funny, then, that Haley was not being called a whore by conservatives until she endorsed one of the two dominant Republican presidential candidates.
MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Indeed, Palinistas were tripping over themselves to prove that Haley won the Governorship because of Sarah’s endorsement.

Buy Danish on January 19, 2012 at 2:55 PM

There is a reason that Jesus never ran for an office, became a government leader, but told us to follow them.
It’s because to be a gov. leader, you can’t be a religious leader, the two are incompatible. You can’t have two masters, as someone once said.
At times the skill sets, the qualities, are at odds, and you end up making an error…is what Newt allegedly did, worse than releasing murderers by pardon? Is it worse than funding abortions? Is it worse than mandating you buy insurance?
Of course you can’t answer that, because one impacts a family, the other impacts a nation…

right2bright on January 19, 2012 at 2:56 PM

troyriser_gopftw on January 19, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Popularity among women in January of an election year isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement. Sorry. That’s your lesser of X evils argument. Romney is less bad because the chicks dig him better. I don’t buy it.

I’m not voting with the Karl Rove playbook any more. Bob Dole, both Bush’s and McCain are all I can stand. I’m voting for who I believe is the most capable of actually doing what I want done in DC among those who are running. I’m not voting for who I think has a better shot at getting marginally elected in the general.

If Romney wins the nom, I’ll vote for him. In the meantime, the electibilty issue on marginal demographics in January of the cycle is a waste of time.

MTLassen on January 19, 2012 at 2:56 PM

So now we have posters so stupid they don’t understand an analogy? Oh, brother.

right2bright on January 19, 2012 at 2:52 PM

So now we have posters so stupid they make a bad analogy instead of a good one and when making a good one wouldn’t have been much harder?

VorDaj on January 19, 2012 at 2:57 PM

VorDaj on January 19, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Projection, much?

MTLassen on January 19, 2012 at 2:57 PM

MC,

Don’t know whether you know (or whether it would alter your thinking if you did know) but AngryEd’s contention is that Haley endorsed Romney in exchange for money – Romney paid off her campaign debt (I believe $36K) in return for an endorsement. That is where his choice of language is coming from – he is saying she sold herself to Romney for money.

Doomberg on January 19, 2012 at 2:55 PM

I wouldn’t be one bit surprised if that were the case. God knows it doesn’t exactly pass the smell test — hence why calling Haley a “whore” isn’t even a passing blip on my radar.

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Projection, much?

MTLassen on January 19, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Desperation, much?

VorDaj on January 19, 2012 at 2:59 PM

I seem to remember something about “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

CrazyGene on January 19, 2012 at 1:25 PM

I’m so tired of seeing this quote misused like a cliche. Your quote would make more sense if I were also running for president and was planning to attack Gingrich on this issue while also cheating on my wife. But I’m not running for president, and instead of stoning, I’m voting for who I think is best suited for the presidency.

Do you know whom this biblical quote was actually aimed at? Newt Gingrich in 1998.

haner on January 19, 2012 at 2:59 PM

VorDaj on January 19, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Wipe your chin, sweetheart.

MTLassen on January 19, 2012 at 2:59 PM

PLEASE some how reconcile this then with Bill Clinton winning reelection and a majority of women voters the second time around. Past historical elections would seem to contradict your assertion.

Skwor on January 19, 2012 at 2:39 PM

It isn’t difficult to reconcile completely disparate outcomes when talking about Clinton and Gingrich. Clinton is a Democrat, with a fawning, liberal media ready to put him in the best possible light in all circumstances. Gingrich is a Republican. Clinton can be charming and likeable. Gingrich is a thin-skinned, abrasive egomaniac who likes to compare himself to Churchill. Clinton’s sexual peccadillos weren’t widely known until afer he was elected President. Gingrich, obviously, is a known sleazebag running for President.

I could go on. In fact, when it comes to bashing either Clinton or Gingrich, I could go on for pages but that would be self-indulgent.

troyriser_gopftw on January 19, 2012 at 2:59 PM

The absolute only reason Al Gore lost in 2000 was because of the Lewinsky scandal, Al Gore himself told Clinton that to his face.

Don’t for a minute think that personal baggage has no electoral consequences.

BradTank on January 19, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Forgot it was after, However no Gore did not loose because of Lewinsky, GORE ran a totally stupid campaign and was a horrible debater. Also plenty of voters women included still like Clinton in a 2005 Gallup poll Bill had a 56% vs 41% favor-ability rating with WOMEN so I believe my overall point stands.

I never thought baggage was not an issue, I do believe it is no where near the issue most here are making it to be. Unless someone is raping children moral issues are typically not the deciding stance on a vote.

Skwor on January 19, 2012 at 3:01 PM

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Those were some doozy flame wars back in tha day, Mad. Glad you survived and went all respectable. This place wouldn’t be the same without you.

Christien on January 19, 2012 at 3:03 PM

If Clinton had actually dumped Hillary and married one of his mistresses, women would think very differently about him.

People who are not very political do see an inordinate number of sex scandals among Republicans and this adds to the sense that the GOP is full of moral hypocrites. The way our culture has fallen, being a hypocrite is now just about the worst thing you cn be.

rockmom on January 19, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Wow! ABC really has Newt’s best interests at heart, eh? While they’re at it, why not let’s interview some of Romney’s ex-girlfriends/acquaintances? I mean c’mon now, we can’t let the fun of destroying ol’ Herman Cain be such a distant memory, can we??

jfs756 on January 19, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Doomberg on January 19, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Yes, I am aware that Romney donated to her campaign…at least 13 months, if not more, before Haley ever gave him her endorsement.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 3:05 PM

I’m not voting with the Karl Rove playbook any more. Bob Dole, both Bush’s and McCain are all I can stand. I’m voting for who I believe is the most capable of actually doing what I want done in DC among those who are running. I’m not voting for who I think has a better shot at getting marginally elected in the general.

If Romney wins the nom, I’ll vote for him. In the meantime, the electibilty issue on marginal demographics in January of the cycle is a waste of time.

MTLassen on January 19, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Women aren’t a marginal demographic in American politics. They are the demographic.

But yes, by all means vote for the candidate who most agrees with your take on the issues. That’s what it’s about, after all.

troyriser_gopftw on January 19, 2012 at 3:06 PM

There’s always that AMAZING part of God’s Grace !
Newt WAS a cheating scroundrel, but that’s not how God sees him now. So, neither do I.
My candidate? Perhaps not, but I believe he’s clean of the sins in his past. Otherwise, Jesus died for nothing.
ONWARD !

pambi on January 19, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Women aren’t a marginal demographic in American politics. They are the demographic.

troyriser_gopftw on January 19, 2012 at 3:06 PM

All demographics are marginal. That’s how statistics work.

And I intend to vote for who I think has the best ability to actually do what I want done. Until Gingrich is eliminated, it’s him. If he loses, I’ll vote for Romney.

MTLassen on January 19, 2012 at 3:10 PM

troyriser_gopftw on January 19, 2012 at 2:34 PM

I’m a woman, and I support Gingrich. All the other Gingrich supporters in my circle are female. Are you sure the women in your circle aren’t liberals?

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Yes, I am aware that Romney donated to her campaign…at least 13 months, if not more, before Haley ever gave him her endorsement.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 3:05 PM

True, but I believe Gingrich endorsed her opponent.

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 3:15 PM

There’s always that AMAZING part of God’s Grace !
Newt WAS a cheating scroundrel, but that’s not how God sees him now. So, neither do I.
My candidate? Perhaps not, but I believe he’s clean of the sins in his past. Otherwise, Jesus died for nothing.
ONWARD !

pambi on January 19, 2012 at 3:07 PM

God’s Grace is not at issue here. We’re talking about electability. And how, exactly, do you know Gingrich’s change of heart is sincere? To me, old enough to remember, New Newt seems remarkably similiar to Old Newt: his dissembling about the nature of his $1.5 million Freddie Mac ‘history consulting’ gig, the grandiose self-comparisons between himself and Winston Churchill, the dishonesty of his Super Pac’s recent Romney attack ads, his attack on Ryan’s plan as ‘right-wing social engineering’, et al.

Yup, same old Newt I remember.

troyriser_gopftw on January 19, 2012 at 3:15 PM

troyriser_gopftw on January 19, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Yep. As I noted there, Bob Livingston (R – Louisiana) resigned as Speaker of the House when the news broke he’d had an affair.

Buy Danish on January 19, 2012 at 3:15 PM

People who are not very political do see an inordinate number of sex scandals among Republicans and this adds to the sense that the GOP is full of moral hypocrites. The way our culture has fallen, being a hypocrite is now just about the worst thing you cn be.

rockmom on January 19, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Yup.

csdeven on January 19, 2012 at 3:16 PM

There’s always that AMAZING part of God’s Grace !
Newt WAS a cheating scroundrel, but that’s not how God sees him now. So, neither do I.
My candidate? Perhaps not, but I believe he’s clean of the sins in his past. Otherwise, Jesus died for nothing.
ONWARD !

pambi on January 19, 2012 at 3:07 PM

This is a matter we each must judge for ourselves, but your decelerations are ridiculous. Only God knows the sincerity of Gingrich, and you are not God. So until God actually tells us Gingrich has truly redeemed himself in His eyes I will continue to use my own mortal perceptions to judge the character of Newt.

NotCoach on January 19, 2012 at 3:17 PM

troyriser_gopftw on January 19, 2012 at 2:34 PM
I’m a woman, and I support Gingrich. All the other Gingrich supporters in my circle are female. Are you sure the women in your circle aren’t liberals?

Could be. My girlfriend is from Boston. My daughter’s in college. My mother sometimes uncontrollably quotes Alinsky and Marx. I’m starting to get a little suspicious of them all, frankly.

troyriser_gopftw on January 19, 2012 at 3:18 PM

People who are not very political do see an inordinate number of sex scandals among Republicans and this adds to the sense that the GOP is full of moral hypocrites. The way our culture has fallen, being a hypocrite is now just about the worst thing you cn be.

rockmom on January 19, 2012 at 3:04 PM

And they’d be right. So why nominate another one?

changer1701 on January 19, 2012 at 3:21 PM

True, but I believe Gingrich endorsed her opponent.

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 3:15 PM

…and? How does that make that 13+ month gap between Mitt’s donation and Haley’s endorsement disappear?

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Yes, I am aware that Romney donated to her campaign…at least 13 months, if not more, before Haley ever gave him her endorsement.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 3:05 PM

I was not aware that quid pro quo has an expiration date. :P

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 3:22 PM

…and? How does that make that 13+ month gap between Mitt’s donation and Haley’s endorsement disappear?

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 3:21 PM

And how does a 13+ month gap disprove the idea of a quid pro quo?

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 3:23 PM

The American People don’t give two craps about this. they loved (still love) Bill Clinton. Gingrich and Cain committed nowhere near his levels of indiscretion. Yet these sanctimonious Romney supporters now attempt to convince us that yes, marital fidelity is the essential characteristic of a president who can beat Obama? Please. You’re only considering it an important measure because its a measure where your guy wins. It’s just like Obama’s Harvard degree; it became indispensible in a president as soon as one candidate had it and another didn’t. It. Doesn’t. Matter.

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Yep. As I noted there, Bob Livingston (R – Louisiana) resigned as Speaker of the House when the news broke he’d had an affair.

Buy Danish on January 19, 2012 at 3:15 PM

People who are not very political do see an inordinate number of sex scandals among Republicans and this adds to the sense that the GOP is full of moral hypocrites. The way our culture has fallen, being a hypocrite is now just about the worst thing you cn be.

rockmom on January 19, 2012 at 3:04 PM

I think some edification is in order. Self Righteous and unaware “republican/conservatives” see these scandals and forget all have sinned, this forces our candidates out of office. Ever notice when a Dem does the same, their constituency shrugs their collective shoulders and the candidate TYPICALLY STAYS IN OFFICE. I am not saying lower our standards, I am saying our party is very immature thinking someone who is found to have fault must always walk the plank.

This moral issue is a chain of our own making. Should we have high moral standards.YES. Should we also forgive those willing to repent YES, problem is our party rarely practices forgiveness. We are to eager for vengeance, this alienates many good candidates we could have presented.

People should be allowed to make mistakes, even serious ones. I know I have. From this board apparently many here do not. Who would have guessed?

Skwor on January 19, 2012 at 3:25 PM

There’s always that AMAZING part of God’s Grace !
Newt WAS a cheating scroundrel, but that’s not how God sees him now.

pambi on January 19, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Reading God’s mind now?

God knows whether Newtron is truly repentant, or if he is just faking it.

The rest of us? Not so much.

Gunlock Bill on January 19, 2012 at 3:25 PM

…and? How does that make that 13+ month gap between Mitt’s donation and Haley’s endorsement disappear?

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 3:21 PM

It doesn’t. It just means she has a good memory, and endorsed the guy who endorsed her (and gave her money) over the one who didn’t.

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 3:26 PM

And this is why I bailed on Gingrich a couple weeks ago, and am remaining un-committed in the GOP race:

I dumped Bad Newt when he launched a bunch of leftist attacks on Romney, and I don’t even like Romney. Then Good Newt redeemed himself in the debate Monday night, but I knew Bad Newt would rear his head again.

In this case Bad Newt did what he allegedly did two decades ago, but it comes to the same thing: Gingrich will always be his own worst enemy.

I don’t care about the inner workings of his marriage, or personal life, but some people, i.e. voters, will care. With Newt, you can always count on him self-destructing sooner or later.

MidniteRambler on January 19, 2012 at 3:26 PM

I just want to be assured that Newt would follow the constitution. Seeing as how he was born after 1913, it would take a miracle to assure me of that.

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 3:26 PM

I was not aware that quid pro quo has an expiration date. :P

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Nor was I aware that remembering who endorsed your opponent around the same time you got a donation from another was to be ignored.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 3:28 PM

My opposition to Newt isn’t about Divorce – it’s about Adultery. Having seen my only sister and several friends (men and women) face their spouse’s adulterous behavior – I can’t understand how anyone can support Gingrich. The pain, humiliation and emotional distress this selfish behavior causes the person who wasn’t engaged in adultery and any children in the marriage is horrible. In my opinion it’s domestic violence. Just becuase it’s not physical doesn’t mean it isn’t horrendously painful. And for some people the wounds never completely heal. I would never trust someone who committed adultery. They have been able to lie to and deceive the person in their life that they vowed to honor and respect and love. So what can we expect they will do to anyone else. It’s all about THEM and what they WANT. Their ability to try to justify their affairs is pathetic. Anyone can hire a lawyer and file for a divorce if their marriage isn’t working. Adulterers want to have it all and will take it without any concern over the damage they cause.

IlonaE on January 19, 2012 at 3:28 PM

It doesn’t. It just means she has a good memory, and endorsed the guy who endorsed her (and gave her money) over the one who didn’t.

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Here’s the problem: you’re including the part in parentheses as if it’s important enough to be the primary factor. Romney endorsed her. Gingrich endorsed her opponent. Regardless of money, what is the sensible decision, considering that both suck monkey love juice?

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 3:29 PM

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 3:26 PM

So why are you asking for a miracle?

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Franks you idjit the jebus doesn’t exist its a fictional character from an awful poetry book written by half wits for total morons. Man its embarrassing having this stupe as my representative.

As far the establishment fatso slime bag none of this is surprising we know he’s a sleazy POS and has so many other more damaging issues that disqualify him that this kerfuffle is meaningless.

Your Mamma loves me on January 19, 2012 at 3:29 PM

I just want to be assured that Newt would follow the constitution. Seeing as how he was born after 1913, it would take a miracle to assure me of that.

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Well I was born after 1913 and I would follow the constitution as literally as reason would allow.

Heck I am for removing voting for senators and returning that back to state governors so they can be selected. I am also for returning vote rights back to property owners with possibly an exception for private citizen tax payers. I would guess I am as constructionist as they come.

Skwor on January 19, 2012 at 3:29 PM

NotCoach on January 19, 2012 at 3:17 PM
Gunlock Bill on January 19, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Have heard Newt’s testimony of his humility before God, with resultant changed behavior, believe it, and believe what God has said about what happens thereafter.

pambi on January 19, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Just a reminder:

November 11, 1999
ATLANTA, GEORGIA — The congressional aide linked romantically to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has admitted that their affair began six years ago, while he was still married, Gingrich’s lawyer says.

Attorney Randy Evans said that Callista Bisek, 33, made the admission under oath during a deposition Tuesday.

Bisek told Gingrich’s lawyers the relationship began in November 1993, a year before Gingrich became House speaker, Evans said.

Gingrich, 56, has asserted he and his wife, Marianne, were legally separated at the time, but Evans conceded that the relationship continued even after the Gingriches were reconciled and Gingrich assumed the speakership in 1995.

Buy Danish on January 19, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Well I was born after 1913 and I would follow the constitution as literally as reason would allow.

Heck I am for removing voting for senators and returning that back to state governors so they can be selected. I am also for returning vote rights back to property owners with possibly an exception for private citizen tax payers. I would guess I am as constructionist as they come.

Skwor on January 19, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Run for office and see how long you can remain that idealistic.

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Should we also forgive those willing to repent YES…

Skwor on January 19, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Unfortunately we are not omniscient. We can only guess on whether or not he has actually repented. Each person needs to make that judgement for themselves.

NotCoach on January 19, 2012 at 3:32 PM

So why are you asking for a miracle?

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 3:29 PM

You think I want freedom and constitutional government simply out of selfless love for my fellow man? Time to cash that reality check.

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 3:32 PM

I just want to be assured that Newt would follow the constitution. Seeing as how he was born after 1913, it would take a miracle to assure me of that.

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 3:26 PM

He won’t, strictly. None of them would. Including Paul, the king of pork. The government is too bloated and entrenched for that to be a realistic expectation for the next decade. Looking for assurance of that in any modern candidate is an exercise in frustration.

What I believe he is capable of doing is setting the stage for a strict constructionist executive. All other notions, about him, or any other candidate in the mix, in my mind, lead directly to deep despair.

MTLassen on January 19, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Adulterers want to have it all and will take it without any concern over the damage they cause.

IlonaE on January 19, 2012 at 3:28 PM

…you’re missing the point. I want to know how adultery 15 years ago affects his ability to be president today. The answer is: it doesn’t. Case closed.

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 3:34 PM

Tina Korbe: Still sliding in the Santorum fan-girl comments.

“The possibility that voters will coalesce around Gingrich (or Santorum) becomes greater” … followed by the derogatory Newt comments.

Denial. Its spelled K-O-R-B-E when writing about Rick Santorum.

You may not like the choice of Gingrich vs. Romney, or a protest vote for Paul, but that’s what you have. Smarter analysts were calling the vote for Santorum a waste going back to before Iowa.

Because of that, they are the better analysts. If you want your writing taken more seriously, write better analysis.

PrincetonAl on January 19, 2012 at 3:34 PM

All the women I know despise Gingrich. The polls bear out that he does very poorly with female voters. The one thing Obama isn’t vulnerable on is his personal life. In fact, it’s his greatest strength. Even many of the people who don’t like the way he has governed like him personally, like his family, think he is a good example as a family man.

And the Republicans really want to make Newt the Repugnant their candidate? Enjoy those debates, kids. Because there won’t be much of America left to enjoy after four more years of Obama.

Meredith on January 19, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Agreed. An impromptu poll of all the women close to me–girlfriend, young adult daughter, elderly mother, a few associates and friends (none but one of whom follow politics closely, btw)–were overwhelmingly anti-Newt. They may not be political junkies but they know lots about serial philanderer Newt Gingrich, and despise him for it.

And think about this: none of Newt’s Republican primary opponents have gotten personal. Does anyone honestly believe the Chicago Machine will show such gentlemanly restraint during the general election campaign? Imagine the media parading every former mistress, molested intern, and casual girlfriend in front of the cameras for a series of primetime in-depth, exclusive interviews. It will be all people see, hear, and talk about, to the exclusion of every other issue–including the last three years of amazingly awful decision- and policy-making by President Obama.

That’s why we don’t want national candidates with compromising personal baggage. That’s why we look for men and women with character and a measure of self-control. That’s why such flawed candidates are bound to fail.

Looking at the South Carolina numbers, I sometimes think my party has a death wish. Paraphrasing Pogo (again): We have met the enemy and he is us.

We nominate Gingrich, we lose in the general election no matter how badly President Obama performs. It won’t play any other way.

troyriser_gopftw on January 19, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Then those women deserve another four years of Obama if they can’t separate the personal from the capabilities of doing well in office.

So Obama, who has absolutely no capability, experience or work ethic is placed higher than someone who objectively could be considered accomplished because of some crafted family life?

I’m not saying this in defense of Gingrich, but the idea of style over substance. ALL of our candidates are more accomplished than Obama. Their failing is not having the appropriate plastic family background. Save Romney, which is apparently enough to render him “electable”.

If this is indeed the case – that the “women” noted above would place a pleasing family picture over capability, then perhaps it is time to wave goodbye to the country.

I find it completely mind boggling that anyone could actually post the above quoted comments and think that kind of superficiality is acceptable. If someone had the nerve to make those comments to me face to face, it would take everything in my being not to smack them in the face. They are everything that’s wrong with this country and why it’s circling the drain.

The willful stupidity of the average person never fails to amaze me.

kim roy on January 19, 2012 at 3:34 PM

What I believe he is capable of doing is setting the stage for a strict constructionist executive. All other notions, about him, or any other candidate in the mix, in my mind, lead directly to deep despair.

MTLassen on January 19, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Isn’t that what we said about George W. Bush when we pinned our conservative hopes on him? How many more decades do we have to wait to “set the stage” before this failed “Great American Experiment” blows up in our faces?

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 3:35 PM

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 3:32 PM

No, you said you wanted something to be proven to you that would take a miracle to prove. Why are you asking for a miracle?

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 3:36 PM

LIMBAUGH: I got a great note from a friend of mine. “So Newt wanted an open marriage. BFD. At least he asked his wife for permission instead of cheating on her. That’s a mark of character, in my book. Newt’s a victim.

EVERYBODY RALLY AROUND THE VICTIM NOW OKAY

Dave Rywall on January 19, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Hey Rep. Franks (R-Ariz., Jesus himself may not be on the ballot, but we would be much better off with representatives who represent HIM as well as their constituents a little more.

Nice attempt to sarcastically make fun of a serious issue that brings Newt’s character into issue. Ya know, in 2008 we were told that we don’t have to know anything about a Presidential Candidate’s true nationality, faith, collegiate scores, character, integrity, or morals. We were told to ignore the candidate’s apst, their associations, their self-professed ‘mentors’, and their own actions and comments. Yeah, and we ended up getting Obama in office.

I am not saying Newt is anything like Obama – I am just saying all these things are important, are indictors of a measure of a man, a leader, and a President. They can not, must not be ignored. In the end, Newt has said he has changed, asked God to forgive him, and that we have to make up our minds. I agree – we do. But I have been burned way too many times by Washington Insiders / Politicians, which Newt is, fedding me the BS that they are ‘changed people’, that they are now moral, ethical, blah, blah, blah.

I/You don’t have to forgive Newt – that’s God’s Job. WE just have to decide how sincere he is, whether or not his past actions still reflect who he is in part, or if he is indeed a changed man. I know Newt if probably the smartest man on stage when he debates the other GOP candidates…or if he ever got to debate Obama…but that doesn’t mean he would be the best Candidate to be President. That is still to be seen / for us to decide.

easyt65 on January 19, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Forgiving a pedophile does not mean you let him babysit your kids.

Forgiving an arsonist does not mean you make him fire chief.

Forgiving a rapist does not mean you put him in charge of a halfway house for women.

Forgiving a tax cheat does not mean you make him Secretary of the Treasury.

Forgiving a moral reprobate does not mean we make him President.

Gunlock Bill on January 19, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Isn’t that what we said about George W. Bush when we pinned our conservative hopes on him? How many more decades do we have to wait to “set the stage” before this failed “Great American Experiment” blows up in our faces?

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 3:35 PM

No. We voted for him because he was the most electable, according to Rove and the rest of the DC d-bags and took the establishment’s word they would take care of it as long as they had control of the whole show.

Never again.

MTLassen on January 19, 2012 at 3:38 PM

easyt65 on January 19, 2012 at 3:37 PM

You no longer have an infinite choice of viable candidates for president in 2012. You have Romney and you have Gingrich. Make your choice.

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Why are Mittbots so terrified of Newt winning just a single primary?

If your candidate is so superior and is such an obvious choice, he should run the table the rest of the way, right? So why worry?

tkyang99 on January 19, 2012 at 3:39 PM

The American People don’t give two craps about this. they loved (still love) Bill Clinton.

Here’s why you are wrong

1. Clinton was likable Gingrich isn’t.
2. Clinton wasn’t a douche canoe hypocrite moralizer inbred retarded bible thumping scum bag.
3. times were good
4. even though Clinton(then) and Newt now were big fat shambling messes in their personal lives Billy Clinton seemed like a guy you know, hung out with and liked. Newt seems like the turd in high school you gave swirles to in the locker room. Newt is a completely unlikable self involved, pontificating A hole.

Your Mamma loves me on January 19, 2012 at 3:39 PM

No, you said you wanted something to be proven to you that would take a miracle to prove. Why are you asking for a miracle?

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Okay, since you need it spelled out, let me explain it to you and I’ll even type real slow to make sure you understand:

Newt Gingrich will not convince me that he is for constitutional government. The only things he could do would be so unlikely as to be practical miracles, and render him so unpopular as to make him utterly unelectable. I am hoping for something that I literally believe will not happen. Please bear in mind, I find every last candidate wanting in that same respect and for the same reasons.

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Forgiving a pedophile does not mean you let him babysit your kids.

Forgiving an arsonist does not mean you make him fire chief.

Forgiving a rapist does not mean you put him in charge of a halfway house for women.

Forgiving a tax cheat does not mean you make him Secretary of the Treasury.

Forgiving a moral reprobate does not mean we make him President.

Gunlock Bill on January 19, 2012 at 3:37 PM

This. Mellifluously said.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Clinton wasn’t a douche canoe hypocrite moralizer inbred retarded bible thumping scum bag.

Your Mamma loves me on January 19, 2012 at 3:39 PM

So clearly you have no idea what the man was like when he was governor of Arkansas. Heh!

MTLassen on January 19, 2012 at 3:41 PM

WOW or should I say, “Hmmmmmm”. Check this out. Gosh, no wonder members of the House of Representatives forced him out. It wasn’t just his shifting agenda and poor managerial skills.

Here’s a snippet:

In the course of a long interview last fall, [Armey] told me that President Bill Clinton “found out about the Gingrich affair and called Newt over to the White House for a private meeting between the two of them.” Armey argued that Clinton pressured Gingrich to go easy on that year’s impeachment drive “or I’ll start telling your story.”

Buy Danish on January 19, 2012 at 3:43 PM

conservatives must grapple again with the question: Are they comfortable with Newt’s past — or, more accurately, with the way the GOP’s opponents will exploit it?

His serial cheating is a problem, but not nearly as much as his distinguished record of public malfeasance, anti-capitalist rants, environmentalist voodoo, “third wave” techno-mysticism, crony capitalism, support for the individual mandate, support for expanding entitlements, endorsement of Dede Scozzafava, and his blatant “family values” hypocrisy.

EddieC on January 19, 2012 at 3:43 PM

No. We voted for him because he was the most electable, according to Rove and the rest of the DC d-bags and took the establishment’s word they would take care of it as long as they had control of the whole show.

Never again.

MTLassen on January 19, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Speak for yourself. 2012 will be my first presidential primary and I turned 18 in 1996. I don’t give a flying f**k who’s a “social conservative” and who’s a “fiscal conservative.” Those morons that fly under those flags don’t even know what it is they’re trying to “conserve.” I want a “constitutional conservative,” and as God as my witness, it’s going to take something a bit more earth shattering than an election to make that happen. I think we’re just too far gone, that even those of us who know what’s really wrong with this country still get sucked into debating all the wrong issues.

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Newt forgot to take Maryanne on a mediteranean cruise and open the charge at Tiffany’s for her. All she had to do was ask. Like Callista obviously.

Hermain Cain all over again?

Fleuries on January 19, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Dave Rywall on January 19, 2012 at 3:36 PM

I don’t know what is funnier; the Rush quote or your ignorance.

Trolling doesn’t work when everyone else gets the joke and you don’t.

NotCoach on January 19, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5