Pelosi: I know something about Gingrich that ensures he’ll never be president

posted at 10:40 pm on January 24, 2012 by Allahpundit

Via Greg Hengler. You make the call: An ominous warning that John Sununu was right to fear an “October surprise” if Newt is the nominee or a brilliant bit of bluffing aimed at spooking conservatives into nominating a cold fish like Romney instead of Gingrich? If you’re a Mitt fan, the answer is clear — she knows something from having served on the ethics committee when Newt was reprimanded and it’s only a matter of time before it comes out. If you’re a Newt fan, the answer is also clear — this is a classic case of the left telling you who it really fears by trying to sink him before he can gain any more electoral momentum. And if you’re a febrile political junkie who loves to obsess over political mind games, the answer is equally clear — Pelosi does know something, and she also knows that attacking Gingrich publicly this way will rally conservatives behind him, so she’s happy to do it precisely because it’ll help Newt win, which is just what Democrats want. Hmmmmm.

Is this one of the reasons why so many of the Republicans who served with Gingrich in Congress seem lukewarm about him? According to CNN, if Newt wins Florida, veteran Republican strategists expect Boehner, McConnell, and other GOP leaders to start calling around to top donors and asking them not to donate to Newt. Exit quotation from Gingrich last month: “I want to thank Speaker Pelosi for what I regard an early Christmas gift… If she is suggesting that she is going to use material that she developed while she was on the ethics committee, then that is a fundamental violation of the rules of the House and I hope that members would immediately file charges against her the second she does it.”


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 7 8 9 10 11

What in the world has happened around here? We’ve had an invasion of dKos and HuffPo second-stringers.

kingsjester on January 25, 2012 at 9:21 AM

You mean Romney supporters, right?

ElectricPhase on January 25, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Blackmail – noun – extortion of money by threats to divulge discrediting information
verb – obtain through threats
verb – exert pressure on someone through threats

It is blackmail. This demonrat wench should be prosectuted!

insidiator on January 25, 2012 at 9:11 AM

It diesn’t even come close to blackmail.

Dante on January 25, 2012 at 9:21 AM

Seriously, you need to learn how to read. I sure hope you are not a lawyer, cause you’d suck at it!

insidiator on January 25, 2012 at 9:26 AM

And then, after it was all over and Gingrich was out of office, the IRS concluded that Gingrich did nothing wrong. After all the struggle, Gingrich was exonerated.

But, but, there has to be, they would never investigate someone who is innocent…facts are wrong, he must have lied, connived…I know it, I feel it, it’s a burning in my bosom…after all, the MSM reported it…

right2bright on January 25, 2012 at 9:27 AM

Most of the voters don’t even know who Newt is…he has been around for decades, but they only know what they read…

right2bright on January 25, 2012 at 9:22 AM

A sidesplitting claim.

Dante on January 25, 2012 at 9:29 AM

If she is suggesting that she is going to use material that she developed while she was on the ethics committee, then that is a fundamental violation of the rules of the House and I hope that members would immediately file charges against her the second she does it.”

If newt is hiding and assuming that nanci will not be able to reveal info about the ethics charges he is nuts. Obozzo has done it before in chicago (that great bastion of democracy) when he was running there. From some unknown entity there suddently appeared information about his opponents and they quietly dropped out of the race.
If newt wants to head this off he needs to release all the info as he demanded that Romney do about his taxes, and get a head start on this thing. It is not going to be pretty. They are not really going after newt, right now, because it will be a gift to the dems when he is nominated. His only defense right now, is she wouldn’t dare! Oh really, just wait.
I only wish she would be brought up on charges, but the white house is occupied and after it all comes out, it will be in the same hands for 4 more years. Good luck with that!

Bambi on January 25, 2012 at 9:29 AM

But, Romney has built a political career on BS. That’s Mitt’s core.

TitularHead on January 25, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Has the HA comment section always been dominated by such political naifs? Every politician has a stump speech, and at least 50% is BS. Filter it out, already, and look at the candidates character and accomplishments.

Sure, I now wish that Romney had not “accomplished” Romneycare,but, at the time, most conservatives, including The Heritage Foundation, Jim DeMint and -gasp!- Newt himself, praised the plan and touted Romney as a great example of a conservative governor. And Romney has personal strength and character that I see lacking in Gingrich.

I’ve considered Gingrich as a candidate – early on, I was inclined to support him, based on his very articulate BS. Even voted for Newt in one of the Hot Air surveys. But, character and integrity are important. And the more I learn about Newt, the more I am convinced that he would be a disaster for the GOP in so many ways. No way will I vote for him.

Priscilla on January 25, 2012 at 9:30 AM

I don’t know, Nancy seemed awfully scared that Newt would actually be Pres.

Maybe he has “stuff” on her. Newt does know where the bodies are buried in DC and probably has some scores to settle.

stenwin77 on January 25, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Seriously, you need to learn how to read. I sure hope you are not a lawyer, cause you’d suck at it!

insidiator on January 25, 2012 at 9:26 AM

If nothing else, it’s a illegal threat…
It is illegal for her to disclose the particulars of the investigation…her announcing that she has information and is willing to use it, borders on blackmail, but is certainly a threat to use information, gained illegally for the purpose of influencing a national election.

right2bright on January 25, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Pelosi does know something, and she also knows that attacking Gingrich publicly this way will rally conservatives behind him, so she’s happy to do it precisely because it’ll help Newt win, which is just what Democrats want.

Pelosi is nowhere near that smart. I think she just tipped her hand in her typical impulsive and stupid manner.

Sowell Disciple on January 25, 2012 at 9:31 AM

Seriously, you need to learn how to read. I sure hope you are not a lawyer, cause you’d suck at it!

insidiator on January 25, 2012 at 9:26 AM

It’s one thing to read, but it’s another to be able to apply concepts and definitions correctly. This isn’t even close to blackmail.

Dante on January 25, 2012 at 9:31 AM

And the more I learn about Newt, the more I am convinced that he would be a disaster for the GOP in so many ways. No way will I vote for him.

Priscilla on January 25, 2012 at 9:30 AM

And you are learning it from? The MSM, gee, the ones who attacked him, tried to destroy him, but when he was found not guilty of any offense, ignored the findings…and you are relying on them to give you information…sweet.

right2bright on January 25, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Democrats are as predictable as children and old people, which is essentially the two contingencies that make up the Democratic Party. Pelosi, like all Dems is motivated by two things: 1. Hatred of Republicans, 2. What’s in it for me?

She holds on to the delusion that she will once again be Speaker of the House. Her threat of revealing info on Gingrich (whether true or not–and I don’t believe it) is her way of wielding power and getting her caucus in line for what she sees as the critical vote to get her speakership back. Look, people who crave power sometimes aren’t that bright.

Does she care if Obama is reelected? Maybe, if it gets her back in power, but who doesn’t believe that she would be fine with President Gingrich, so long as the Dems got the House back?

Anyone who thinks that Pelosi is out to help Obama probably also believes that Obama wants her back as Speaker of the House.

Hatred and self-interest: The Democratic calling card. It explains so much of what they do.

Think Gingrich is losing sleep over Pelosi’s threat?

EMD on January 25, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Maybe Newt was, in the words of Jeramiah Wright…”ridn it dirty”.

LtT26 on January 25, 2012 at 9:34 AM

Doomberg on January 25, 2012 at 9:05 AM

So after forcing Newt from office, the threat from IRS investigation was lifted during the administration of an impeached perjurer.

In January 1997, Gingrich said “I did not manage the effort intensely enough to thoroughly direct or review information being submitted to the committee on my behalf. In my name and over my signature, inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable statements were given to the committee, but I did not intend to mislead the committee.” But he also apologized, saying “I brought down on the people’s house a controversy which could weaken the faith people have in their government.”

Aside from flip flops on major issues depending on which way the favorable winds blow, Newt speaks out of both sides of his mouth at once. That talent expressing deceit engenders disgust from taxpayers whom Newt molests as willfully as he changes sex partners. If you think Newt has been faithful to his latest wife, YOU personally pay for his next fraud without access to public funds. If it was Cain’s ongoing sexual illicit activity that abruptly ended his campaign, don’t doubt that Pelosi has plenty on Newt. Exposing recent “Open Marital Relationships” would doom Newt’s latest political aspirations, unless socons don’t give aff. Sure, that’s projection, but based factually on Newt’s established lifetime record. Regardless of how far it goes, the grace of Jesus Christ has nothing to do with the right of any person to “require” public trust, particularly given a specific person’s penchant to deceive.

“It was not my intent to mislead” is as pathetic an “excuse” as Attorney General Holder would espouse. Voters who enable more linguistic revisionism are suckers, not players.

maverick muse on January 25, 2012 at 9:34 AM

Bambi on January 25, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Newt already released his taxes, that is what was demanded of Mitt, and that is what he had already done…there is no other “information”…he was found innocent on all charges. You don’t need anything else but that…he was charged with a foolish amount of 83, and all 83 were dismissed…end of debate.
Unless you are a desperate Mitt-wit.

right2bright on January 25, 2012 at 9:35 AM

I can’t believe some on here would take this womans word on anything. The other thing is it’s highly insulting this woman-well I think she is – would insert herself into a republicain primary and try to affect the outcome. I thought ourside was smarter than that I guess I was wrong in my belief what a shame.

CodaUPB on January 25, 2012 at 9:35 AM

saw mitt and newt this morning un this subject. once again newt hit the right tone. pelosi is nut. desperate mitt wrong again. plays into pelosi. on the other side of the fence from from this horrid gossip. mormons must not play poker. you bet the ranch when you have

rik on January 25, 2012 at 9:36 AM

maverick muse on January 25, 2012 at 9:34 AM

It was as convoluted and complex investigation as ever created…apparently you have not been grilled for months on end, with every statement being parsed…and of course this was 20 years ago, and is now nothing but gossip.
People who are attacking him now for being found innocent, should be writing for US magazine.

right2bright on January 25, 2012 at 9:38 AM

somehow got cut off. you don’t open the betting by betting the ranch if you have the nut hand

rik on January 25, 2012 at 9:38 AM

Allah Pundit @allahpundit

Gingrich on Pelosi’s alleged secret about him: Let’s hear it http://t.co/11q9nbkG

On Tuesday, Pelosi had ominously warned that a Gingrich presidency “will never happen” because of something that she knows.

“He’s not going to be president of the United States. That’s not going to happen. Let me just make my prediction and stand by it; it isn’t going to happen,” she said on CNN.

“There is something I know,” she warned, with saying anything more.

My guess is that what she knows, is the same thing Andrea Mitchell supposedly knows…

“I talked to a top Romney adviser tonight who said, ‘Look, if Mitt Romney cannot win in Florida then we’re going to have to try to reinvent the smoke-filled room which has been democratized by all these primaries. And we’re going to have try to come with someone as an alternative to Newt Gingrich who could be Jeb Bush, Mitch Daniels, someone.’ Because there is such a desperation by the so-called party elites, but that’s exactly what Gingrich is playing against,” Andrea Mitchell said on NBC tonight after the debate.

Flora Duh on January 25, 2012 at 9:39 AM

but of course

…as if Newt can bully Pelosi any more effectively than the entire Democrat machine can bully Newt — good ratings rule.

maverick muse on January 25, 2012 at 9:39 AM

I got it… the thing Pelosi knows about Gingrich… after they did the global warming couch PSA, they had sex.

Dasher on January 25, 2012 at 9:39 AM

If it could have been developed into an ethics charge then that is what would have happened at the time.

If it is something personal, not relating to politics or legislation then Nancy is playing with fire at this point and doing so in a combustible environment as that will scorch the earth around her and leave Newt untouched.

That is the problem with such a threat – if it was actionable it would have been thrown in with all the rest of the charges AT THE TIME. It wasn’t, therefore it isn’t actionable which means it is personal… and the R base has made it pretty much clear its gotten tired of the moralizing by those without morals or ethics from the D side of things.

And if it was actionable at the time then just how incompetent IS Nancy Pelosi?

Nancy Pelosi is blowing smoke to get attention and put a lot of doubt out there. That will backfire on her no matter what she says… expect her to back off just like she did the last time she squawked about this and said, basically, nevermind.

ajacksonian on January 25, 2012 at 9:39 AM

And you are learning it from? The MSM, gee, the ones who attacked him, tried to destroy him, but when he was found not guilty of any offense, ignored the findings…and you are relying on them to give you information…sweet.

right2bright on January 25, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Yeah, sure. It’s all just lies spread from the MSM.

Look, my father was friends with the recently passed Tony Blankley, who was once an aide to Gingrich. Tony once confided to my father that Gingrich was difficult to work for, because for all of his smarts, Newt – personally – was a raging @sshole.

So why is it so hard to believe that some of the dirt that is out there on Newt isn’t legit? I’m willing to bet that it is.

Vyce on January 25, 2012 at 9:39 AM

Sure, I now wish that Romney had not “accomplished” Romneycare,but, at the time, most conservatives, including The Heritage Foundation, Jim DeMint and -gasp!- Newt himself, praised the plan and touted Romney as a great example of a conservative governor. And Romney has personal strength and character that I see lacking in Gingrich.

Priscilla on January 25, 2012 at 9:30 AM

That doesn’t say much for them, now does it? You’re being played.

Dante on January 25, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Priscilla on January 25, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Priscilla, can you articulate what Romney’s core beliefs are? One any issue?

Look, I concluded in 2008 he was the best of that sorry bunch. At least then he ran as “the conservative.”

Since then, he’s had four years to enter into the national debate as this country heads toward the cliff. Where has he been on any of the important issues?

When I look at Romney today, I see John Kerry going back and forth on one of those surfboard thingies that has a sail on it. He’ll go any way the wind blows.

Yeah, Newt it flawed. But, at least he’s not Romney. That may be the best thing going for him. Yeah, Romney is that bad.

TitularHead on January 25, 2012 at 9:40 AM

CodaUPB on January 25, 2012 at 9:35 AM

exactly

rik on January 25, 2012 at 9:41 AM

It’s one thing to read, but it’s another to be able to apply concepts and definitions correctly. This isn’t even close to blackmail.

Dante on January 25, 2012 at 9:31 AM

In common usage, blackmail is a crime involving threats to reveal substantially true or false information about a person to the public, a family member, or associates unless a demand is met.

Blackmail

I do believe this particular piece of California garbage has pretty much said that if Newt is the nominee, the information comes out.

Blackmail it is.

MNHawk on January 25, 2012 at 9:41 AM

I imagine that the Democrats have their dossiers of October surprises for all the candidates.

I also think that Pelosi popping up now with her announcement of an unrevealed October surprise, instead of just keeping her mouth shut until October, means that she’s either bluffing or simply trying to stir us quarreling primary voters with a stick. So I think this is meaningless.

Aitch748 on January 25, 2012 at 9:41 AM

And you are learning it from? The MSM,right2bright on January 25, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Says you? I think it’s pretty obvious that most people who take the time to read Hot Air and other non MSM outlets, and who have taken the time to research their candidates and their plans – all of which I have done – are not slavish followers of the MSM, and, shockingly, may have different opinions than you.

Priscilla on January 25, 2012 at 9:41 AM

Exit question. Why are Ron Paul kookballs so intent on defending Nancy Pelosi from criminal blackmail?

MNHawk on January 25, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Romney is supported and endorsed by the Republican establishment, including most of the top network and cable “conservative” pundits.
Now Pelosi is throwing her support his way. What does that tell you?

Norky on January 25, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Seriously, you need to learn how to read. I sure hope you are not a lawyer, cause you’d suck at it!

insidiator on January 25, 2012 at 9:26 AM

It’s one thing to read, but it’s another to be able to apply concepts and definitions correctly. This isn’t even close to blackmail.

Dante on January 25, 2012 at 9:31 AM

“This isn’t even close to blackmail.”

That says…nothing!

Can’t wait to see what other sweet nothings youn have to offer!

LOL!

insidiator on January 25, 2012 at 9:43 AM

right2bright on January 25, 2012 at 9:38 AM

I quoted Newt, not one of his critics or opponents. Go figure the distinction between having charges dropped and being found “innocent” as the two are not interchangeable.

maverick muse on January 25, 2012 at 9:44 AM

I know something that ensures Romney will never be President!

; )

insidiator on January 25, 2012 at 9:44 AM

I do believe this particular piece of California garbage has pretty much said that if Newt is the nominee, the information comes out.

Blackmail it is.

MNHawk on January 25, 2012 at 9:41 AM

What demand is Pelosi making?

This isn’t even close to blackmail, no matter how desperately many here wish it to be.

Dante on January 25, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Demanding he step aside and let who Obama and the left want to be the Repub nominee so they can destroy him in the election – the unelectable Willard “Mitt” Romney!

But Romney will never be President, if he gets the nomination, I will release my information, and he will never be President!

Bwuuuhaahaaaa!

insidiator on January 25, 2012 at 9:50 AM

Look, my father was friends with the recently passed Tony Blankley, who was once an aide to Gingrich. Tony once confided to my father that Gingrich was difficult to work for, because for all of his smarts, Newt – personally – was a raging @sshole.

So why is it so hard to believe that some of the dirt that is out there on Newt isn’t legit? I’m willing to bet that it is.

Vyce on January 25, 2012 at 9:39 AM

Well I know someone that knows someone that was a father of someone (who also happens to be dead now) who says Newt is a big cuddly bear…good grief.

right2bright on January 25, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Pelosi: I know something about Gingrich that ensures he’ll never be president

If and When Gingrich becomes President would it be possible to get in writing that Pelosi will resign?

That would be so sweet.

This woman has issues, and that’s putting it mildly.

Dr Evil on January 25, 2012 at 9:52 AM

What demand is Pelosi making?

This isn’t even close to blackmail, no matter how desperately many here wish it to be.

Dante on January 25, 2012 at 9:45 AM

That Republicans not nominate Newt.

Unless you know of another reason that this particular piece of trash, that it does take to represent today’s Californian, doesn’t just say what she knows, and dispenses with the threats to say.

Blackmail it is, despite what Paultards, in bed with this trash, claim.

MNHawk on January 25, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Another Romneybot moderate willing to watch the party burn if they don’t get their way, you can bet though if Ronmey was nominated this person would be screaming and hurling insults at us about how we must support the party and their choice.

Moderates, is their no hypocrisy beneath them?

Skwor on January 25, 2012 at 8:51 AM

‘Moderates’? Please. As Republican primary voters, we’ve been given two realistic choices: Romney and Gingrich. Based on their records and performance, both candidates occupy roughly the same frequency on the political spectrum. Romney is (more or less) a traditional Northeastern Rockefeller Republican while Gingrich is something of a gadfly, embracing some conservative causes while simultaneously jumping across the aisle to do Global Warming Armageddon TV spots with Nancy Pelosi and accuse other Republicans of ‘right-wing social engineering’. While both Romney and Gingrich are right-of-center, neither can be considered core conservatives. The claim that Gingrich is a paragon of conservatism while Romney is a quasi-liberal squish is not based on wishful thinking, not real-world fact. I’m conservative and I support Romney because there are no traditional conservative candidates currently running for president: they chose not to run, imploded, or dropped out.

Between the two, Romney and Gingrich, I think Romney has a better chance of beating Obama. Romney is not the ideal candidate, to be sure: there’s the RomneyCare albatross, of course, but there’s also the problem of Romney himself: his hesitant, vaguely apologetic manner and nice guy demeanor when we what we need is a fighter. McCain was a nice guy, too, a gentleman who played by the Marquis de Queensbury rules. Meanwhile, the Chicago Machine was taking the Marquis to an alley out back, beating him with lead pipes, and stuffing him in a trunk.

Gingrich, on the other hand, is an obnoxious public figure, peevish and shrill and habitually dishonest, the nerdy, red-faced fat kid two seats ahead in Biology class who dreams about Barbie cheerleaders and showing up the prom king. Based on the optics alone, Gingrich would lose, and badly. Finally and most importantly, Gingrich’s tawdry personal life matters. To beat Obama, the focus must be on the President’s miserable record, particularly emphasizing the failure of Keynesian economics and the euro-socialist approch. That can’t happen if the public’s attention is focused solely on which woman not his wife Gingrich was sleeping with in 1994.

troyriser_gopftw on January 25, 2012 at 9:54 AM

Yup. And I’m very sure she lives in one of David Axelrod’s buildings.

Nancy hated–and I mean with a vengeance–Newt. The Dems tried everything to get the goods on him and the news media helped. If the woman who got millions from stimulous funds had a BIG secret, she would have used it 15 years ago. If there were ANYTHING in the ethics committee report, it would have been used.

The actual charges against Gingrich were so outrageous, he was “charged” with failing to consult a lawyer and the charge on his college course amounts to an attempt to jail conservative, non-liberal/lefty speech.

Mitt Romney has apparently joined the left in an attack against free speech, a waaaay worse crime than asking about Romney’s investments in, say, Iran.

Portia46 on January 25, 2012 at 9:54 AM

Priscilla, can you articulate what Romney’s core beliefs are? One any issue?

Let me start by saying that I agree totally with those who say that Mitt comes across as someone who lacks core beliefs in the way that, say, Ron Paul, stands for them consistently. But Ron Paul will never be president, he knows it, and he can afford to be consistent.

But I see no evidence that Romney is a liberal, or that he does not believe in the free market, or the Constitution, or strong national security , or American exceptionalism. Yes, he has been a successful GOP politician in a very blue state, which has required him to compromise in ways that may have gone against his beliefs. Reagan did the same…every successful politician does the same at some point, or else they cease being successful.

I agree with John Bolton that Romney is conservative enough. He’s promised to govern as a conservative, and I take him at his word, knowing full well that I might be getting “played” as some other commenter said. The difference is, with Newt, I KNOW
I’m getting played.

Priscilla on January 25, 2012 at 9:55 AM

are not slavish followers of the MSM, and, shockingly, may have different opinions than you.

Priscilla on January 25, 2012 at 9:41 AM

I understand different opinions…and I recognize when someone has some original thoughts, and when some are just regurgitating what they have been told. You can tell by the ones who use the same words as the most recent MSM stories…they all pick up on the same “gotcha lines”.

I’ve considered Gingrich as a candidate

This is the old “I have always vote Republican, but I just can’t anymore” line…or the “I have supported blah, blah, but now I just can’t…”
Yeah, you were for him before you were against him…he is not different now, than he was six months ago…you have either been taken in, or you have “always voted Republican, but if Newt is selected I just can’t find myself supporting him”…looks like Obama is your man, what a surprise.

right2bright on January 25, 2012 at 9:57 AM

is not based on wishful thinking

Corrected.

troyriser_gopftw on January 25, 2012 at 9:57 AM

That Republicans not nominate Newt.

Unless you know of another reason that this particular piece of trash, that it does take to represent today’s Californian, doesn’t just say what she knows, and dispenses with the threats to say.

Blackmail it is, despite what Paultards, in bed with this trash, claim.

MNHawk on January 25, 2012 at 9:53 AM

She isn’t demanding anything of value from Newt or of anyone else. She says she has information. Releasing information is not a crime.

Instead of resorting to name calling, how about you cite the federal law and relevant provisions, and show what Pelosi is saying meets the burden for blackmail. Wikipedia doesn’t cut it.

Dante on January 25, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Queen Nancy probably wants something from him….another commercial?

Belle on January 25, 2012 at 9:58 AM

MNHawk
Blackmail (your link malfunctioned)

use of secrets to compel: the act of forcing somebody to pay money or do something by threatening to reveal shameful or incriminating facts about him or her.
coercion: unfair threatening or incriminating of somebody, as a way of achieving a result

Pelosi is threatening to expose what Newt claims he has “no idea”. Her public threat does not ask Newt for a financial pay-off to keep silent.

All’s fair in love and war? In politics as usual?

As far as being “unfair” think twice about how far precedence to either “fair play” or even “rule of law” is given by the recent neoconservative definition being bandied, that during any time of conflict (war on poverty, crime, terror) no rule of law apply, the Constitution is “legally” suspended and the Executive is “authorized” to order Martial Law (if only for the political expedience of an unconstitutional agenda).

maverick muse on January 25, 2012 at 9:58 AM

The difference is, with Newt, I KNOW
I’m getting played.

Priscilla on January 25, 2012 at 9:55 AM

pleeeeeaaaaaaase :) everyone’s playing us – they’re politicians for God’s sake.

DHChron on January 25, 2012 at 9:59 AM

I’m on the edge of my chair waiting for Newt to strike back. The Gingrich-Pelosi fight should be epic.

petefrt on January 25, 2012 at 9:59 AM

DHChron on January 25, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Tbnt. I’ll stay on the Constitutional platform.

maverick muse on January 25, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Gingrich, on the other hand, is an obnoxious public figure, peevish and shrill and habitually dishonest, the nerdy, red-faced fat kid two seats ahead in Biology class who dreams about Barbie cheerleaders and showing up the prom king. Based on the optics alone, Gingrich would lose, and badly. Finally and most importantly, Gingrich’s tawdry personal life matters. To beat Obama, the focus must be on the President’s miserable record, particularly emphasizing the failure of Keynesian economics and the euro-socialist approch. That can’t happen if the public’s attention is focused solely on which woman not his wife Gingrich was sleeping with in 1994.

troyriser_gopftw on January 25, 2012 at 9:54 AM

Well said. I keep hearing about how well he’d do in a debate against Obama, but he won’t compare favorably when they’re on the same stage together.

changer1701 on January 25, 2012 at 10:01 AM

But I see no evidence that Romney is a liberal,

Priscilla on January 25, 2012 at 9:55 AM

ummmm….have you seen RomneyCare? Did you listen he the vids of him supporting abortion? You do know that he appointed a Planned Parenthood advocate, and didn’t counter with a anti-abortion activist.
Did you see the vid on gun control? Did you see how many liberal appointees, and how few (if any, and I don’t think there was one) conservatives…now you tell me.
What conservative movement has he been a part of, what group has he supported outwardly?
His “conservative” business practice was a group of his supporters that he also supported…ever hear of Bechtel? Ever hear of Bechtel and the Big Dig, and all the other programs they were involved in, in Mass? No? I guess your research is pretty limited.

right2bright on January 25, 2012 at 10:02 AM

I can’t believe this thread is still going. If Pelosi really had something it would have been leaked long ago.
she just hates Newt(as opposed to being against him for actual reasons).

i say to her “put up or shut up”

gerrym51 on January 25, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Her public threat does not ask Newt for a financial pay-off to keep silent.

Good, then we’re agreed that it’s not extortion, but blackmail. The threat being to drop out or else.

Again, why the defense of Pelosi?

MNHawk on January 25, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Why would Nancy, and Nancy alone have this information?

Kjeil on January 25, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Finally and most importantly, Gingrich’s tawdry personal life matters. To beat Obama, the focus must be on the President’s miserable record, particularly emphasizing the failure of Keynesian economics and the euro-socialist approch. That can’t happen if the public’s attention is focused solely on which woman not his wife Gingrich was sleeping with in 1994.

Exactly.

Priscilla on January 25, 2012 at 10:03 AM

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/what-really-happened-gingrich-ethics-case/336051

Newt was exonerated why is the Establishment candidate and Ron Paul still pushing this.

Mittens is a despicable Liar whose desire to buy the Presiduncy should disqualify him for holding that office.
We have a despicable liar there now we don’t need another!

ConcealedKerry on January 25, 2012 at 10:04 AM

That can’t happen if the public’s attention is focused solely on which woman not his wife Gingrich was sleeping with in 1994.

troyriser_gopftw on January 25, 2012 at 9:54 AM

I see, easily swayed by gossip…I guess that is the mentality of you guys, gossip from 1994 drives the campaign for you…

right2bright on January 25, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Don’t call my bluff, Newt.

Kissmygrits on January 25, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Exactly.

Priscilla on January 25, 2012 at 10:03 AM

That’s the problem, you girls love the gossip…from 1994, so your research is from US magazine?

right2bright on January 25, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Again, why the defense of Pelosi?

MNHawk on January 25, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Why the straw man argument?

Dante on January 25, 2012 at 10:05 AM

“Whoever, under a threat of informing, or as a consideration for not informing, against any violation of any law of the United States, demands or receives any money or other valuable thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”

Last I checked, the Presidency is a pretty valuable thing.

Why the defense of Pelosi, again?

MNHawk on January 25, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Bechtel and the Big Dig, and all the other programs they were involved in, in Mass? No? I guess your research is pretty limited.

I won’t go into other issues but the “Big Dig” started long before Romney and was mostly finished by the time he becamme governor.

gerrym51 on January 25, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Does anyone believe anything that comes out of Nancy-poos mouth?

GarandFan on January 25, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Why the straw man argument?

Dante on January 25, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Um, Paultard, she is subject of this story. Small detail for those in over their heads.

MNHawk on January 25, 2012 at 10:06 AM

I know the secret and i will not tell.Yes i will tell.About 10 years ago while in a drunken stubbier Newt said this to Pelosi .Nancy i am having hot flashes about you.I dream every night about you in a sexy outfit.

logman1 on January 25, 2012 at 10:06 AM

And extortion involves the threat of an illegal, forceful act, such as physical harm, (eg. I’ll break your legs if you don’t…).

Dante on January 25, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Maybe Newt and Nancy did more than just sit on a couch together… if you know what I mean.

faraway on January 25, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Gingrich, on the other hand, is an obnoxious public figure, peevish and shrill and habitually dishonest, the nerdy, red-faced fat kid two seats ahead in Biology class who dreams about Barbie cheerleaders and showing up the prom king. Based on the optics alone, Gingrich would lose, and badly. Finally and most importantly, Gingrich’s tawdry personal life matters. To beat Obama, the focus must be on the President’s miserable record, particularly emphasizing the failure of Keynesian economics and the euro-socialist approch. That can’t happen if the public’s attention is focused solely on which woman not his wife Gingrich was sleeping with in 1994.

troyriser_gopftw on January 25, 2012 at 9:54 AM

Were you also one of the folks who pushed the “fact” of Trig Palin’s “real” birth mother and father? This is beyond sick and you holier than thou types who have no problem hitting as low below the belt as possible with absolute filthy accusations of something you could never know and be none of your business IF you did know, had best be prepared for a serious examination of what future delights Mitt’s 10% is buying him. Makes the Muslim promise of 62 virgins look paltry by comparison.

The ONLY people who are continuously revealing their perverted preoccupation with things salacious are going to have to submit to an examination of their own strange practices and beliefs.

Portia46 on January 25, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Um, Paultard, she is subject of this story. Small detail for those in over their heads.

MNHawk on January 25, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Look, I already know I’m dealing with a disadvantaged person, so I understand your predilection for name calling, but it isn’t helping your case any.

You are arguing a straw man: no one is defending what Pelosi is doing. The argument is about blackmail, and if this meets the criteria for blackmail (it doesn’t).

Dante on January 25, 2012 at 10:08 AM

I guess your research is pretty limited.

right2bright on January 25, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Unfortunately, it is you and the rest of you True Conservatives, who don’t really understand who Newt is or what he stands for, because the truth is, while you run around like so many Chicken Littles, screeching “Mitt has no core! Mitt has no core!”, your guy is showing that his core is self-aggrandizement, saying whatever a crowd wants to hear and selling out on any principles that have not scored him a lucrative contract.

Priscilla on January 25, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Priscilla on January 25, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Fair enough. Like troyriser, before you, I think we can at least agree on the basic premise. I don’t really fault either of your logic, although I’ve come to a different conclusion.

I don’t buy any of the electability stuff that’s being peddled now. I think Romney is a full-blooded, dyed-in-the-wool, squish.

On the other hand, I think Newt is a loose canon and a real crap shoot. I don’t really trust either one of them.

I think America desperately needs to return to it’s founding principles. (i.e. conservatism) I think conservatism means smaller government. Not just slowing the growth, but actual cuts.

I’m confident we won’t get that with Mitt, any more than we got it with W. If elected, he’ll not rock the boat. And worse, the party will take the hit for America’s continued decline.

Again, Newt’s a crap shoot for me at this point. But, even a long shot is better the assurance we stay on the current path.

TitularHead on January 25, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Maybe Newt and Nancy did more than just sit on a couch together… if you know what I mean.

Is it possible that she and Newt were in a compr0mising position and he forced himself onto her.I know it’s far fetched but why would she keep bringing this up.

gerrym51 on January 25, 2012 at 10:12 AM

TitularHead on January 25, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Why not support the sure thing instead of quibbling over a difference of millimeters between status quo candidates?

Dante on January 25, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Well said. I keep hearing about how well he’d do in a debate against Obama, but he won’t compare favorably when they’re on the same stage together.

changer1701 on January 25, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Neither would Abraham Lincoln.

Portia46 on January 25, 2012 at 10:12 AM

I won’t go into other issues but the “Big Dig” started long before Romney and was mostly finished by the time he becamme governor.

gerrym51 on January 25, 2012 at 10:05 AM

And Bechtel became the major bidder on the Big Dig, they were found liable for the death of a woman.
Mitt sat on the judgement, until a judge made him take action…he took action with the smallest fine legally, than he awarded Bechtel a multi-million dollar contract the next year…you do know that Bechtel is one of his largest donors the last decade? You didn’t know that, you didn’t know about the death of a woman? I guess your research is limited to Newt and US magazine.

right2bright on January 25, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Tbnt. I’ll stay on the Constitutional platform.

maverick muse on January 25, 2012 at 10:00 AM

educate me – tbnt? I’m slightly internet retarded sometimes.

Romney sucks!

DHChron on January 25, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Unfortunately, it is you and the rest of you True Conservatives, who don’t really understand who Newt is or what he stands for, because the truth is, while you run around like so many Chicken Littles, screeching “Mitt has no core! Mitt has no core!”, your guy is showing that his core is self-aggrandizement, saying whatever a crowd wants to hear and selling out on any principles that have not scored him a lucrative contract.

Priscilla on January 25, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Let me get this straight. Yesterday, you were joining the Democrat party because of THEIR moral superiority. And today, we conservatives need to take your advise? Why would we do that?

Portia46 on January 25, 2012 at 10:16 AM

TitularHead on January 25, 2012 at 10:11 AM

I totally get it. Ultimately, we are on the same side.

Priscilla on January 25, 2012 at 10:19 AM

your guy is showing that his core is self-aggrandizement, saying whatever a crowd wants to hear and selling out on any principles that have not scored him a lucrative contract.

Priscilla on January 25, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Your post shows how far off your analysis is…we know of Newt’s faults, we get it, he is a “scallywag”, but in a war you don’t choose the “gentleman”, you choose the guy who can win the war.
Right now, in this election, it is a war, a war of policies that will affect the Nation for decades, and we need a fighter, not an idealist who “get’s along with everyone”.
That’s the difference between Newt supporters and Mitt’s…we know and understand and we don’t fool ourselves about our candidate…you Mitt-wits are fooled by yours.
We take ours with our flaws…you see none in yours.
And if this was the 1940′s England, you would choose the gentleman Chamberlain, a great and honorable man, but not the drunkard, over weight, obnoxious, arrogant, cigar smoking, loud mouthed Churchill…after all it’s England and they have to have a gentleman leading them…and that is the situation we are faced.
In another time, another election Mitt would be great…but in 2012, we need a pitbull not a poodle…

right2bright on January 25, 2012 at 10:19 AM

And Bechtel became the major bidder on the Big Dig, they were found liable for the death of a woman.

Mitt sat on the judgement, until a judge made him take action…he took action with the smallest fine legally, than he awarded Bechtel a multi-million dollar contract the next year…you do know that Bechtel is one of his largest donors the last decade? You didn’t know that, you didn’t know about the death of a woman? I guess your research is limited to Newt and US magazine.

actually i live in mass and know all about the panel falling on the womans car as she and her husband were driving thru. It was a problem with the secondary contractor that Bechtel hired.

gerrym51 on January 25, 2012 at 10:19 AM

I find the whole premise of this issue very insulting to my intelligence. The American people should too.

long_cat on January 25, 2012 at 10:19 AM

By all means, I’m open to Paultards explaining how the threat of information releasing, unless a demand is met (Newt not being nominated) doesn’t qualify as blackmail.

Just saying that I’m a poopyhead for calling someone a Paultard, doesn’t cut it. Reading that extremist website with, regard to The Joooooos and how evil they are, I can think of a lot better than Paultard.

MNHawk on January 25, 2012 at 10:20 AM

why the hard on for the Newt master Priscilla? You keep describing politicians in general – self aggrandizement? Ya think?

DHChron on January 25, 2012 at 10:20 AM

And Bechtel became the major bidder on the Big Dig, they were found liable for the death of a woman.
Mitt sat on the judgement, until a judge made him take action…he took action with the smallest fine legally, than he awarded Bechtel a multi-million dollar contract the next year…you do know that Bechtel is one of his largest donors the last decade? You didn’t know that, you didn’t know about the death of a woman? I guess your research is limited to Newt and US magazine.

right2bright on January 25, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Ahhhhh. Interesting since we’re enjoined in a great who’s the most pure debate…and Romney led us there.

“Whomsoever is without sin, throw the first stone…”

Portia46 on January 25, 2012 at 10:20 AM

But I see no evidence that Romney is a liberal

I agree with John Bolton that Romney is conservative enough.

Priscilla on January 25, 2012 at 9:55 AM

He’s on video saying “I’m someone who’s moderate and my views are progressive”.

That’s not someone I consider “conservative enough”.

Flora Duh on January 25, 2012 at 10:22 AM

your guy is showing that his core is self-aggrandizement, saying whatever a crowd wants to hear and selling out on any principles that have not scored him a lucrative contract.

Priscilla on January 25, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Insert any politician’s name for “your guy” and you will be more accurate.
That is politics…it’s sorting it out that is difficult…

right2bright on January 25, 2012 at 10:22 AM

“Whomsoever is without sin, throw the first stone…”

Portia46 on January 25, 2012 at 10:20 AM

One of the most misused quotes in the bible…

right2bright on January 25, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Why not support the sure thing instead of quibbling over a difference of millimeters between status quo candidates?

Dante on January 25, 2012 at 10:12 AM

If by “sure thing” you mean: Why don’t I support RINO squishes?

It is because I don’t consider them the answer. I believe they are the problem.

TitularHead on January 25, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Neither would Abraham Lincoln.

Portia46 on January 25, 2012 at 10:12 AM

What does that mean?

changer1701 on January 25, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Ahhhhh. Interesting since we’re enjoined in a great who’s the most pure debate…and Romney led us there.

“Whomsoever is without sin, throw the first stone…”

Portia46 on January 25, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Let me be clear, this doesn’t disqualify him, as it would with Newt, it just shows that he is as political as the next guy…and I think that is what you are pointing towards.
With Mitt it’s okay that he does these things…with Newt is a disaster, at least that is the selling point of all this gossip about him.

right2bright on January 25, 2012 at 10:26 AM

If by “sure thing” you mean: Why don’t I support RINO squishes?

It is because I don’t consider them the answer. I believe they are the problem.

TitularHead on January 25, 2012 at 10:24 AM

No, I mean the sure thing as in the sure Constitutionalist; the one candidate who upholds the Constitution: Ron Paul.

Dante on January 25, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Ah, Nancy Piglosi takes me back to the days of my yute in Junior High when one of those really gross girls would be going around singing, “I know a secret. I know I secret.”

Also, there seems to quite a number of ill-informed people who have bought into the teaching of the Legal Eagles in the government media:

1. There is always a presumption of innocence when one is charged with a crime or wrongdoing.

2. Ah, but where there’s smoke there’s fire.

I hope they don’t complain when Obama’s Thought Police haul them off to the re-education camps. “But, Comrade Officer, you arresting me just on smoke.”

Horace on January 25, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Were you also one of the folks who pushed the “fact” of Trig Palin’s “real” birth mother and father? This is beyond sick and you holier than thou types who have no problem hitting as low below the belt as possible with absolute filthy accusations of something you could never know and be none of your business IF you did know, had best be prepared for a serious examination of what future delights Mitt’s 10% is buying him. Makes the Muslim promise of 62 virgins look paltry by comparison.

The ONLY people who are continuously revealing their perverted preoccupation with things salacious are going to have to submit to an examination of their own strange practices and beliefs.

Portia46 on January 25, 2012 at 10:08 AM

‘Holier than thou?’ ‘Trig Trutherism’? And then you play the Mormon card?

Look, lady, going ad hominem gets you nowhere–and certainly doesn’t make your guy more electable. I’m not throwing stones from some moral high ground. I’m looking at it from a purely political, pragmatic perspective. For one thing, the seedier aspects of Gingrich’s personal life are not rumors or gossip; all of the details of Gingrich’s sexual escapades have been documented and corroborated. So far, Gingrich’s opponents have refrained from going after him overtly regarding his trainwreck of a personal life. Do you (or Right2Bright) honestly believe the Democrats will show such gentlemenly forebearance and restraint? If Gingrich wins the nomination, all we will hear and see for the months leading up to election day will be even more details, and a primetime parade of every casual fling and former mistress and girlfriend Gingrich has ever dallied with. It’ll be the Jerry Springer Show with a billion-dollar budget.

It doesn’t help, of course, that Gingrich is a habitual liar, as well as an influence peddler for Freddie Mac, one of the primary causes of the Great Recession, but maybe you think those aspects of the man’s record won’t get any play, either.

troyriser_gopftw on January 25, 2012 at 10:28 AM

One of the most misused quotes in the bible…

right2bright on January 25, 2012 at 10:24 AM

I wonder what the Qu’ran says – let she who is without sin get stoned anyway, stupid woman.

DHChron on January 25, 2012 at 10:29 AM

I don’t trust a single word that comes out this woman’s mouth.

rjcylon on January 25, 2012 at 10:29 AM

…with Newt is a disaster, at least that is the selling point of all this gossip about him.

right2bright on January 25, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Are you dense, or what? That embarrassing, campaign-killing and election-losing stuff about Newt Gingrich? Not rumor, not gossip: corroborated, documented fact–with much of it publicly admitted by Gingrich himself. Where have you been?

troyriser_gopftw on January 25, 2012 at 10:31 AM

I don’t trust a single word that comes out this woman’s mouth.

rjcylon on January 25, 2012 at 10:29 AM

.
She must have something- the media can’t that brazen- Can they?

FlaMurph on January 25, 2012 at 10:32 AM

troyriser_gopftw on January 25, 2012 at 10:28 AM

The Newt hate runs strong in this one. We don’t have anyone who’s electable! You’re asking too much if you’re asking for that.

DHChron on January 25, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Comment pages: 1 7 8 9 10 11