The Newt you know

posted at 8:35 am on January 28, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

There are a couple of different looks this weekend at Newt Gingrich, who is turning out to be a mystery wrapped in a riddle as far as his popularity – or lack thereof – goes. One contradiction is the fact that Newt seems to be solidifying, or at least hanging on to, a lead in the polls nationally, even as he sinks into second place in Florida. But he clearly holds serious appeal for a lot of voters, while seeming to horrify some of the party heavyweights.

One possible explanation for his popularity is offered by Trip Gabriel at the Paper of Record, who finds that voters are hungry for somebody who will take on Barack Obama in a confrontational manner, and they just can’t get enough of Nuclear Newt.

“I think it’s about time the Republican Party put somebody up not because it’s their turn,” said Carroll Jaskulski, 63, who works in real estate, “but somebody who will get in the opposition’s face.”

For better or worse, Mr. Gingrich’s candidacy revolves around his personality, as evidenced by the disappointed reviews after a debate on Thursday in which his fires were uncharacteristically banked.

Supporters say what they love is the bombastic, take-no-prisoners candidate, the man whose signature moments were debates last week in South Carolina when he turned his cold fury on the news media.

“I got up out of my couch when he did what he did in South Carolina,” said Stephanie Garlin, 49, a real estate agent in Fort Lauderdale, recalling a standing ovation for Mr. Gingrich. “There’s something I feel about that man — that he has the strength and the ability and the forcefulness to win this election.”

Offering some personal observations from the perspective of somebody who worked closely with the former Speaker in Congress, Joe Scarborough writes an op-ed at Politico talking about The Newt I Know.

Yeah, yeah. I know. Newt Gingrich had a lousy week and will probably lose the Florida primary on Tuesday. But for those tempted to once again predict the speedy collapse of his campaign, consider yourselves forewarned. I’ve known this guy long enough to realize that the only three species destined to survive a nuclear holocaust will be cockroaches, Cher and Newton Leroy Gingrich.

I first met Gingrich 17 years ago at a Destin, Fla., fundraiser held in my honor a few weeks after Newt declared that I was too conservative to win the general election. But after I won the primary against the moderate woman he anointed, there he was in Florida looking supremely bored and a little put out that he was having to sit through another politician’s speech.

In the ensuing years, I found the mercurial maverick to be inspiring and maddening, disciplined and self-indulgent, forward thinking and short-sighted, gifted and dumb — sometimes all within the same hour.

Joe relates some fascinating stories from his time in Congress, some of which jibe with Newt’s own claims on the campaign trail, while others are in stark contrast. Of particular interest is a series of encounters Gingrich had with a class of freshmen lawmakers who felt that he was bargaining away all the tax cuts and fiscal restraint they had achieved in the Contract With America during his final days as Speaker. It’s a rather startling set of contrasting portraits.

But which Newt do you know? If you weren’t around (or paying attention to politics) during the mid-90s, you might only be aware of references to the “scandals” surrounding 84 ethics charges brought against Gingrich. If you were around, you might already know that much of that came from the bloody minded hatred which Cooter from The Dukes of Hazard harbored for Newt. (What all too often goes unmentioned is that each and every one of those charges were eventually dropped, including the IRS investigation into improper use of taxpayer funds which led in large part to his departure from Washington.)

Do you like Newt the fighter or Newt the historian? Do you prefer the bull in the china shop or the spokesman who can call on four decades or more of studying all aspects of government policy? It seems like they’re all there for you, wrapped up in one big old bundle of Newtness. Or maybe you just think he has the best chance to beat Obama in the fall. The polls today would argue otherwise, but November is a long way off and polls change. Either way, it would absolutely be a more boring race without Newt Gingrich.


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

With that picture of an angry ugly Newt placed so prominantly up top on HOTAIR, I’m beginning to smell what could reasonably be called anti-Newt bias. Perhaps Ann Coulter or the NYT send it in? Karl Rove, John McCain, the RNC?

Is Politico right?Is this the Drudge Report?

Don L on January 28, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Yes, where did they ‘drudge’ up that horrible picture of Newt? Definitely anti-Newt bias.

IndeCon on January 28, 2012 at 4:03 PM

Just the fact that Newt has the establishment GOP going after him is good enough reason for me to vote for him. They fear the changes he will bring to their little playhouse. Isn’t that what we are looking for? Someone who will change the status quo? Mitt won’t do that even if he were to get elected. Which he won’t.

silvernana on January 28, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Yes, where did they ‘drudge’ up that horrible picture of Newt? Definitely anti-Newt bias.

IndeCon on January 28, 2012 at 4:03 PM

Ann Coulter has a hold on Drudge’s tiny cojones.

Schadenfreude on January 28, 2012 at 4:08 PM

He wasn’t a politician in Washington either. But keep trying.

beatcanvas on January 28, 2012 at 3:51 PM

If he wasn’t a politician, why did you criticize him for not speaking out against Fannie and Freddie? Your are moving the goalposts so fast I’m getting dizzy.

Gelsomina on January 28, 2012 at 4:46 PM

FL poll today:

An exclusive statewide Florida Decides poll finds Mitt Romney with a solid lead. The poll, conducted by Mason-Dixing Polling and Research for Bay News 9, News 13 and the Tampa Bay Times, shows if the election were today, 42 percent of GOP voters would vote for Romney. Newt Gingrich trailed by 11 points with 31 percent of the vote. Behind him was Santorum with 14 percent and Ron Paul with just 6 percent of the vote.

A look at a Romney/Obama match up shows Romney taking Florida 48 percent to Obama’s 44 percent. He seems to be the only candidate with that strength. A Gingrich/Obama race has Obama leading by 9 points, and against Rick Santorum Obama leads by 11 percent.

haner on January 28, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Newt is a catalyst for an explosion within the GOP. This has been a long time percolating–the Southern evangelical religious and populist intransiency vs. Northern fiscal pragmatism and social moderation. We saw it with Giuliani’s put-down–ferocious on conservative websites like redstate and freerepublic. Rudy’s high positives and strong polling numbers meant absolutely nothing to the purists from the South. The animosity is just as nasty against Romney–and has been from the beginning. On the one hand there is the Southern tolerance for populists like Huckabee and Newt who are every bit as compromised in their way as Rudy and Romney are in theirs–and at the same time there’s complete indifference to the kind of expertise and fiscal conservatism brought to the process by candidates from less homogeneous–and less socially intolerant–blue states. It’s a regional struggle fueled by deep-rooted prejudices.

One example of all this is the lie told from the beginning–that “Romney would be another McCain.” In fact he’d be another Rudy, strong in the polls and in the central swing states. McCain was from the sunbelt, was weak in the central swing states, and was still another legislator with no executive experience and a poor grasp of economic issues–not unlike Newt. This was never true of Rudy and is not now true of Romney. It’s the South, on the other hand, that keeps filtering out our strongest candidates while giving a pass to fiscal moderates like Bush and Dole and McCain–and now Newt who attacks Romney from the left. Southern intolerance and bias is the problem, not Rudy and Romney who more perfectly reflect national preferences.

writeblock on January 28, 2012 at 5:14 PM

If he wasn’t a politician, why did you criticize him for not speaking out against Fannie and Freddie? Your are moving the goalposts so fast I’m getting dizzy.

Gelsomina on January 28, 2012 at 4:46 PM

You likely don’t have the benefit of the entire thread, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt here…

This started by some Mitt floozie urging everybody to read Reckless Endangerment as a means of getting acquainted with Newt’s dalliance with Freddie Mac. To which I responded that Newt gets a single mention in the book for attending an event.

So he started posting a bunch of stuff that he’s posted before and that everybody already knows. Yes, Newt supported Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae – as did every other Washington politician in the 1990′s. A lot of people at that time were gaining financial independence by investing in homes. There wasn’t a politician in Washington that didn’t publicly say positive things about the two entities.

To chastise Newt for saying something positive about the two GSE’s in the 1990′s or for attending an event is to criticize literally every other politician for their silence.

But if someone is going to criticize Newt for praising the agencies and for not waving big warning flags, okay, but nobody, including Romney, waved warning flags.

Newt has a lot for which he can be chastised, but for attending an event in Atlanta in 1996 and for saying nice things about Freddie Mac in the 1990′s, it’s undeserved.

Should he be taken to task for assisting the agency in the past 10 years when the housing bubble was obviously present? Fair cop, no doubt about it, and he should take his appropriate lumps. But Newt is only mentioned in a passing way in Reckless Endangerment because he’s not to blame for the housing bubble or for the out-of-control growth of Fannie and Freddie. That blame rests on the shoulders of others.

beatcanvas on January 28, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Yes, where did they ‘drudge’ up that horrible picture of Newt? Definitely anti-Newt bias.

IndeCon on January 28, 2012 at 4:03 PM

From now on I want to see only trim, handsome, happy pics of Newton.

borntoraisehogs on January 28, 2012 at 5:37 PM

So he started posting a bunch of stuff that he’s posted before and that everybody already knows. Yes, Newt supported Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae – as did every other Washington politician in the 1990′s. A lot of people at that time were gaining financial independence by investing in homes. There wasn’t a politician in Washington that didn’t publicly say positive things about the two entities.

But it was Newt’s job–to the tune of 1.6 million dollars to be a consultant and give good advice. And there is zero indication he disagreed in any way with the program. Instead he helped do what you admit happened–he helped make such lousy loans acceptable to Washington insiders and undermined doubts about the programs. That’s why it became acceptable–because nobody spoke up against the bubble being created before it was too late. In that very real sense, Newt helped bring about the housing disaster. So much for Newt’s vaunted futurist insight. He was paid over a million dollars to give bad advice and precipitate a housing crisis. People’s homes lost real value–and there’s no end in sight.

writeblock on January 28, 2012 at 5:50 PM

Yes, where did they ‘drudge’ up that horrible picture of Newt? Definitely anti-Newt bias.
IndeCon on January 28, 2012 at 4:03 PM

From now on I want to see only trim, handsome, happy pics of Newton.
borntoraisehogs on January 28, 2012 at 5:37 PM

It’s a pretty good sign that Newt just isn’t doing so well when a pic of him has to involve a vast Illuminati conspiracy or something.

whatcat on January 28, 2012 at 5:51 PM

In that very real sense, Newt helped bring about the housing disaster. So much for Newt’s vaunted futurist insight. He was paid over a million dollars to give bad advice and precipitate a housing crisis. People’s homes lost real value–and there’s no end in sight.

writeblock on January 28, 2012 at 5:50 PM

I’m hardly an apologist for Newt, but I do try to look at it honestly.

All politicians in Washington – even the vaunted Dr. Paul and that George Washington-conservative, Rick Santorum – helped bring about the current fiscal crisis. Totally fair to lay that at Newt’s feet, but let’s lay it at the feet of everyone else in Washington as well.

Likewise, it’s also fair to lay ObamaCare at the feet of all those who voted for it, and Mitt certainly helped to bring it about. Just once I’d like to see a Mittbot say, “Yeah, RomneyCare is a big mistake, no doubt about it.” But it ain’t gonna happen. Instead we get “No, really, the individual mandate is conservative!”

The pom poms are wearisome.

beatcanvas on January 28, 2012 at 6:03 PM

beatcanvas on January 28, 2012 at 5:23 PM

I’ve followed the entire thread. Of course, Gingrich isn’t to blame for the housing bubble, but as you said, his involvement shouldn’t be ignored.

But there’s something else. You say,

So he started posting a bunch of stuff that he’s posted before and that everybody already knows.

This “that everybody already knows” really bothers me. When the Cain scandal broke loose he was viciously attacked here at HotAir, especially by the Perry and Gingrich supporters.

Whenever a Cain supporter mentioned Gingrich’s past, his followers just said that it doesn’t matter because we know that already.

You are doing the same here. It doesn’t matter that Gingrich spoke out in favor of Fannie and Freddie, because we know that already.

Gingrich supporters are the most pragmatic conservatives I know. I’ve started to call them the “Gingrich Conservatives”. Conservative principles go up in smoke whenever Gingrich touches them, but his supporters don’t care.

Gelsomina on January 28, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Gelsomina on January 28, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Out conservative ideals do matter. It is why Romney is about 12 bridges too far for us. Newt just happens to be right about where we have drawn the line in concrete and filled it with titanium as far as conservative ideals go. We will not drive another 12 bridges to accept Romney, so if he is your love, feel free to support him, but hell no, we are not going to. Take you Romney money and enjoy spending it, you add nothing of value, so it is finding its rightful pocket.

astonerii on January 28, 2012 at 6:21 PM

You are doing the same here. It doesn’t matter that Gingrich spoke out in favor of Fannie and Freddie, because we know that already.

Gelsomina on January 28, 2012 at 6:09 PM

I’m not trying to be cavalier about it. My kids’ future is at stake, and like you, I’m mad about it.

Am I mad at Newt? You bet. The big “government solutions” guy doesn’t really seem to grasp that we can’t afford Washington’s solutions. The frickin’ moon? Really?

In this thread though, that floozie posted no less than 3 times the same quote from anonymous Freddie Mac sources. The “everybody already knows” was in reference to that. Got it, thanks.

Now, how about holding Mitt’s feet to the fire for the overreaching government stupidity that led to ObamaCare? Fair game?

beatcanvas on January 28, 2012 at 6:31 PM

I’m hardly an apologist for Newt, but I do try to look at it honestly.

All politicians in Washington – even the vaunted Dr. Paul and that George Washington-conservative, Rick Santorum – helped bring about the current fiscal crisis. Totally fair to lay that at Newt’s feet, but let’s lay it at the feet of everyone else in Washington as well.

I don’t want to belabor the danger was inherent in the ideology behind the loan program–the utopian desire to help the poor without equal regard for the fiscal dislocations such altruism might precipitate. Even if Newt had the best of intentions he still lacked the caution and judgment to rein-in Freddie Mac but instead used his influence to make the programs widely acceptable. How was he any different than Barney Frank? Both men should have known better but were blind to the dangers. In the end the little guy got stuck. Newt got his million six, people like you and me lost tens of thousands–some, hundreds of thousands–in home equity.

writeblock on January 28, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Out conservative ideals do matter. It is why Romney is about 12 bridges too far for us. Newt just happens to be right about where we have drawn the line in concrete and filled it with titanium as far as conservative ideals go.

This kind of thinking drives me nuts. How is Romney a bridge too far but Newt is somehow “just right”? It’s just the opposite. Newt’s not just for individual mandates, he’s for federal mandates, a far greater threat to our freedom than Romney’s state program. Romney’s against illegal immigration, period. Newt was for amnesty. Romney’s against Cap and Trade, Newt was for it. Romney worked in the private sector and supports free enterprise; Newt attacks free enterprise. Freddie Mac was not just a bit of bad judgment, it was a revelation about where Newt stands–and it’s to the left of Romney on most issues. Heck, he’s even to the left of Romney in the way he conducts his personal life. Conservative ideals? Newt? Don’t make me laugh.

writeblock on January 28, 2012 at 6:48 PM

Out conservative ideals do matter. It is why Romney is about 12 bridges too far for us. Newt just happens to be right about where we have drawn the line in concrete and filled it with titanium as far as conservative ideals go. We will not drive another 12 bridges to accept Romney, so if he is your love, feel free to support him, but hell no, we are not going to. Take you Romney money and enjoy spending it, you add nothing of value, so it is finding its rightful pocket.

astonerii on January 28, 2012 at 6:21 PM

You accuse me of being a paid Romney supporter? That’s too funny.

I was a Cain supporter and I especially remember your attacks on him. You behaved like the Grand Inquisitor in your self-righteous moral outrage.

Reading your comments now one could conclude that family values are elitist and out of touch and that cheating on one’s wife is what a real conservative should do.

Where do you draw your “titanium” line? Since when is shilling for Fannie and Freddie a conservative value ? Since Gingrich was shilling for them, of course. You are a typical Gingrich Conservative.

Gelsomina on January 28, 2012 at 6:48 PM

the Newt you know vs. who? here is the thing, like Sarah Palin we might have collective Myth about Newt, was the news at the time correct about him? did he, didn’t he? was he was he not? but the thing that was the cherry on top was the adulterous affair after he had seemed to persecute Clinton for that very thing.

We know the charge was perjury about the affair, under oath. But it was lying about an affair, and Newt didn’t go under oath, but he was hypocritical about it. And at THAT time social conservatives were shocked.

Post partum Sarah Palin’s campaign with an unwed pregnant daughter, maybe folks are more tolerant? I still don’t want my teens pregnant without a husband. It still isn’t good, and serial adultery in a leader tells us you don’t have to live by the same rules everyone else does.

So, ethics charges, shmethics charges, so, he was exonerate, and the media WAS unfair, but the affair happened.

And Newt lied in last weeks debate, saying he offered ABC witnesses who could say Mary Ann was telling lies…then he said, no he really didn’t have any witnesses, what, to him and Callista in bed talking on the phone to Mary Ann. What?

I like the old standard. I want a good person of upright character, who doesn’t cheat on their husband or wife. Someone like I am expected to be.

Fleuries on January 28, 2012 at 6:56 PM

Out conservative ideals do matter. It is why Romney is about 12 bridges too far for us. Newt just happens to be right about where we have drawn the line in concrete and filled it with titanium as far as conservative ideals go.

Nice poetry but wrong wrong wrong. I’ve listed some of the areas where Newt is to the left of Romney–on illegal immigration, on free enterprise, on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, on Cap and Trade, on family values. But did I mention he was for embryonic stem cell research whereas Romney vetoed a bill for such research when governor? How much proof do people like you need to illustrate he’s to the left of Romney on a host of issues?

writeblock on January 28, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Conservative ideals? Newt? Don’t make me laugh.

writeblock on January 28, 2012 at 6:48 PM

It’s the style that matters.

Jay Nordlinger wrote today,“If you slash and shout, many people think of you as “conservative” or “right-wing.” If you say right-wing things in a calm, polite way, you may be seen as a moderate.”

That some conservatives prefer Newt, because he says that he won’t only bloody Obama’s nose but knock him out is a self-fulfilling prejudice, so to speak.

Gelsomina on January 28, 2012 at 7:25 PM

Even if Newt had the best of intentions he still lacked the caution and judgment to rein-in Freddie Mac but instead used his influence to make the programs widely acceptable. How was he any different than Barney Frank? Both men should have known better but were blind to the dangers. In the end the little guy got stuck. Newt got his million six, people like you and me lost tens of thousands–some, hundreds of thousands–in home equity.

writeblock on January 28, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Great, but do you agree that everyone in Washington is guilty as Newt is charged?

And if so, who, then, is worthy of being president?

Or, are you arguing that Romney, not being in Washington and therefore not a co-conspirator in the housing mess, is exactly the outsider needed?

Two points on that:

1) RomneyCare leads to ObamaCare? Not a concern for you?
2) You really think that Romney, given his cheerful embrace of leftist positions throughout time, wouldn’t have similarly embraced Fannie and Freddie as every other politician had?

beatcanvas on January 28, 2012 at 7:29 PM

Great, but do you agree that everyone in Washington is guilty as Newt is charged?

No, I don’t. Newt was far closer to the source of the disaster than anybody we know except maybe Barney Frank. He was responsible for “advising” Freddie Mac and was actually hired by Freddie Mac’s lobbyist. He himself had an office on K Street just like any other lobbyist. Newt was an old-fashioned influence-peddler whose job it was to influence other Washington pols on behalf of Freddie Mac. His own left-leaning ignorance about the dangers involved may have played a part–but isn’t this precisely our gripe about liberals like Barney Frank and Obama–that they do more harm than good because they don’t understand how government interference in the free market economy can lead to disaster?

writeblock on January 28, 2012 at 9:17 PM

1) RomneyCare leads to ObamaCare? Not a concern for you?
2) You really think that Romney, given his cheerful embrace of leftist positions throughout time, wouldn’t have similarly embraced Fannie and Freddie as every other politician had?

beatcanvas on January 28, 2012 at 7:29 PM

Romneycare was a hundred-page state program, perfectly proper under the 10th Amendment–far different from the several thousand page behemoth that takes over the entire national health industry. If a liberal legislature and a liberal electorate so choose to devise a health program, there’s nothing in the Constitution that prevents it. The people can always repeal the program. But Obamacare is a federal mandate–a completely different animal–that sets up death panels (yes, a bureacratic committee that supercedes doctors and patients to make determinations about life-and-death treatments) and otherwise interferes massively in our personal lives.

And no, I see no “cheerful embrace” of liberal positions. I see a governor who balanced a budget, cut spending, cut taxes, vetoed embryonic stem cell research (which Newt supported), opposed illegal immigration (Newt supported amnesty), and opposed Cap and Trade (which Newt supported). Newt even now uses leftwing arguments to attack Mitt Romney–and you have the gall to suggest it’s Romney who would embrace Freddie Mac, a businessman who spent his life cautiously observing the free market and the dangers inherent to investors? Just the opposite is true. Only somebody like Obama and Newt who never worked within the free enterprise system would so casually plunge ahead with a program headed for disaster.

writeblock on January 28, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Newt was far closer to the source of the disaster than anybody we know except maybe Barney Frank. He was responsible for “advising” Freddie Mac and was actually hired by Freddie Mac’s lobbyist.

writeblock on January 28, 2012 at 9:17 PM

You ever heard of the Community Reinvestment Act? That’s the legislation responsible for the housing crisis. It went through a series of revisions over the years. You can read its history here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

You know what you won’t find in that history? Gingrich’s name.

Specifically, look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#Relation_to_2008_financial_crisis

Or, you could buy Reckless Endangerment to get a lot more in depth. But you don’t know your facts on this. Newt was not a big player in this, despite your wish that he was.

beatcanvas on January 28, 2012 at 9:35 PM

Romneycare was a hundred-page state program, perfectly proper under the 10th Amendment–far different from the several thousand page behemoth that takes over the entire national health industry.

Yeah, okay. Someday, you might read what the founding fathers thought of liberty, as endowed by our Creator. It’s fascinating how little they thought any government had power over us. But hey – they were probably dumb old guys. Because if the state says that they want to take your liberty from you, that’s all 10th Amendment, right? Mandates for everyone – but at the state level, of course.

beatcanvas on January 28, 2012 at 9:40 PM

Yeah, okay. Someday, you might read what the founding fathers thought of liberty, as endowed by our Creator. It’s fascinating how little they thought any government had power over us. But hey – they were probably dumb old guys. Because if the state says that they want to take your liberty from you, that’s all 10th Amendment, right? Mandates for everyone – but at the state level, of course.

As they say, you’re entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. It is a fact that states have rights the federal government doesn’t have. One of these is the right to impose individual mandates. That said, I fail to understand how you can continue to support someone like Newt in the face of the evidence. He was for federal imposition of individual mandates–something that denies freedom to every American. That puts him to the left of Romney on health care, doesn’t it?

So what’s your rationale for defending him? Or for defending his work for Freddie Mac? Or for attacking Romney from the left on Bain Capital? Or for supporting embryonic stem cell research? Or for supporting Cap and Trade? Or for supporting amnesty? I don’t get it. You keep bringing up these side issues–but ignore the most glaring and outrageous inconsistencies in the Gingrich record. It’s not just tactical politics that pushed Gingrich leftward–it’s his own thinking about issues. And that thinking is too often identical to a run-of-the-mill lefty’s.

writeblock on January 28, 2012 at 10:20 PM

astonerii on January 28, 2012 at 6:21 PM

You accuse me of being a paid Romney supporter? That’s too funny.

I was a Cain supporter and I especially remember your attacks on him. You behaved like the Grand Inquisitor in your self-righteous moral outrage.

Reading your comments now one could conclude that family values are elitist and out of touch and that cheating on one’s wife is what a real conservative should do.

Where do you draw your “titanium” line? Since when is shilling for Fannie and Freddie a conservative value ? Since Gingrich was shilling for them, of course. You are a typical Gingrich Conservative.

Gelsomina on January 28, 2012 at 6:48 PM

Funniest thing is that Cain was every bit the man I said he was in the end. It was not the cheating that got him, well it was, but the continued lies. The man spent way too much time seeking to spend time with the lovely ladies, never repented from those less than christian actions, and expected those sorts of details to not be reported upon to the American people.

That being said, glad to have his endorsement for my guy. Guess you must not really like Cain much, since you certainly are not following his lead on who to support.

astonerii on January 28, 2012 at 10:21 PM

1) RomneyCare leads to ObamaCare? Not a concern for you?
2) You really think that Romney, given his cheerful embrace of leftist positions throughout time, wouldn’t have similarly embraced Fannie and Freddie as every other politician had?

beatcanvas on January 28, 2012 at 7:29 PM

He invests in them, I would guess he supports their mission.

astonerii on January 28, 2012 at 10:23 PM

He invests in them, I would guess he supports their mission.

astonerii on January 28, 2012 at 10:23 PM

People who argue as you do seem to lack all integrity. Did you not know that Newt’s accusation was in fact bizarre, that the charge that Romney “invested” in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae was really based on his investment in mutual funds–which in turn invest in literally thousands of companies–so many, in fact, that few of us ever know the particulars? Did you appreciate the irony that Newt himself invested in those same companies? He was called on this in the last debate just after he professed “shock” about Romney’s so-called “investments” and was left with egg on his face after Romney clued him in. It’s one of the reasons Newt lost the exchange–and the debate. And now you repeat the same ridiculous charge. You obviously don’t care about truth, just so long as you can smear Romney.

writeblock on January 28, 2012 at 10:53 PM

The man spent way too much time seeking to spend time with the lovely ladies, never repented from those less than christian actions, and expected those sorts of details to not be reported upon to the American people.

How do you square this with Newt’s pursuit of Clinton’s impeachment for dallying with an intern while he himself was dallying with a young staffer half his age? Talk about hypocrisy. Yet this doesn’t seem to trouble you.

writeblock on January 28, 2012 at 11:00 PM

People who argue as you do seem to lack all integrity. Did you not know that Newt’s accusation was in fact bizarre, that the charge that Romney “invested” in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae was really based on his investment in mutual funds–which in turn invest in literally thousands of companies–so many, in fact, (1) that few of us ever know the particulars? Did you appreciate the (2) irony that Newt himself invested in those same companies? He was called on this in the last debate just after he professed “shock” about Romney’s so-called “investments” and was left with egg on his face after Romney clued him in. It’s one of the reasons Newt lost the exchange–and the debate. And now you repeat the same ridiculous charge. You obviously don’t care about truth, just so long as you can smear Romney.

writeblock on January 28, 2012 at 10:53 PM

(1) Romney has the resources and the skill to KNOW exactly how his investments are handled. So to argue ignorance is a bit lame on your part. Is he or is he not a great executive?
(2) Irony? I do not see Newt running away from them, so who cares that he invested in them. Romney is arguing Newt should give back his pay because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are bad evil and so forth, yet Romney is supporting them with his vast fortune. Makes one wonder about the IRONY that is factual coming out of Romney.

Maybe someday you will have applied your mind to learning something, until then, figure yourself spanked by an amateur!

astonerii on January 28, 2012 at 11:00 PM

How do you square this with Newt’s pursuit of Clinton’s impeachment for dallying with an intern while he himself was dallying with a young staffer half his age? Talk about hypocrisy. Yet this doesn’t seem to trouble you.

writeblock on January 28, 2012 at 11:00 PM

I dunno, Newt was physically and emotionally separated from his wife for many years when that started. Newt did not lie under oath. Newt was not the single highest law enforcement person at the time like Clinton was. Having the president be above the law makes this a nation of men and not laws. It makes sense to enforce those laws against the President if we want to keep a republic and not do what has happened since, becoming a monarchy as Obama proves we are today.

astonerii on January 28, 2012 at 11:04 PM

The Newt I know is a complete picture of the man. Back in the early 90′s, I was the biggest Newt fan alive. Before his time as speaker, I would watch late night C-Span to catch Newt’s floor speeches – I was in complete awe over this new creature, Newt Gingrich – a REAL CONSERVATIVE. I cheered him on thruout his Speakership until sadly, little by little, I saw him start to self-implode with his battles with Clinton. When he resigned, I took it personally. Thruout the next 15 years I kept track of Newt and his work on K Street. Partnering up with Hillary Clinton? Then Nancy Pelosi? Then John Kerry? Then Al Sharpton? I thought to myself, this was not the same man I admired so many years back. I was deflated, embarrassed by my previous love of this man. But recently, his attacks from the left, on private sector free enterprise was the last straw.
I can no longer consider Newt anything but a phony and someone for sale to the highest bidder or someone who will support anything to keep his face in public view. Sure, following my ABO line, Newt would get my vote if he ended up the GOP nominee but otherwise I will speak my mind about him and hope that his latest venture is unsuccessful. I consider myself a poltical junkie and I see only the worst outcome of Newt vs Obama – a 2nd Obama term.

BabysCatz on January 28, 2012 at 11:07 PM

(1) Romney has the resources and the skill to KNOW exactly how his investments are handled. So to argue ignorance is a bit lame on your part. Is he or is he not a great executive?

When Newt professed “shock” that Newt was “investing” in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the implication was that Romney had directly invested in stocks of those companies. But the charge turned out to be ridiculous since Romney had only invested in mutual funds. In fact if Romney even bothered to use the resources and skills you mention just to check out the thousands of firms involved, we’d think he was unwise in the use of his resources. What’s really lame is your attempt to justify Newt’s cheap shot.

writeblock on January 28, 2012 at 11:42 PM

(2) Irony? I do not see Newt running away from them, so who cares that he invested in them. Romney is arguing Newt should give back his pay because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are bad evil and so forth, yet Romney is supporting them with his vast fortune. Makes one wonder about the IRONY that is factual coming out of Romney.

Do you know the difference between investing in mutual funds and holding stocks in a company? The charge by Newt was as phony as a three dollar bill–since he knew investing in mutual funds is a common, every day experience of millions of Americans and was no more culpable than investing in a children’s hospital. Few are motivated to look into what companies those funds invest in. Why should Romney have done so–especially since his investment portfolio was in a blind trust.

But what interests me more than this issue is why you should cling to it after it has been so thoroughly dismissed in the name of common sense? Are you out of arguments? You can’t seem to justify your support for Newt as a conservative–yet you continue to support him. It’s irrational–unless you don’t care about ideology or even the Christian values you talk about. The man himself behaved abominably to two wives and now lacks all credibility as a defender of family values. Yet you support him–while knocking Cain no less. It makes no sense at all.

writeblock on January 28, 2012 at 11:50 PM

BabysCatz on January 28, 2012 at 11:07 PM

Amen.

writeblock on January 28, 2012 at 11:56 PM

Do you know the difference between investing in mutual funds and holding stocks in a company? The charge by Newt was as phony as a three dollar bill–since he knew investing in mutual funds is a common, every day experience of millions of Americans and was no more culpable than investing in a children’s hospital. Few are motivated to look into what companies those funds invest in. Why should Romney have done so–especially since his investment portfolio was in a blind trust.

But what interests me more than this issue is why you should cling to it after it has been so thoroughly dismissed in the name of common sense? Are you out of arguments? You can’t seem to justify your support for Newt as a conservative–yet you continue to support him. It’s irrational–unless you don’t care about ideology or even the Christian values you talk about. The man himself behaved abominably to two wives and now lacks all credibility as a defender of family values. Yet you support him–while knocking Cain no less. It makes no sense at all.

writeblock on January 28, 2012 at 11:50 PM

It was not in a blind trust. Your so blinded by the god glow on romney you cannot think for yourself. It was not in a blind trust. He lied about that, he even lied about it in 2007, which technically is a crime by the way, things I would go to jail for. He lied about it in 2011, another crime by the way, things I would go to jail over. Pretty bad ETHICS HE HAS THERE PAL. When a newspaper finally got the goods on him he had to fix both of his reports. He is the great special executive and he cannot even get these simple forms filled out correctly? Closer to the point, he was trying to hide his investments, which were not in a blind trust, and feign ignorance of what they were investing in as the most competent capitalist? LOL

As far as how he treated his two ex wives, feel free to give me the dirty details about who started the fights, what the fights were about, who denied sex to who, for how long, who made threats of ruining whose career, who was talking to some arms dealer or was it a drug dealer or what not. When you have a really good grasp of every little detail, then I will be willing to listen and determine how wrong Newt was. Men are not always the reason a relationship fails, men are not always the ones that start sleeping around on the other. Last but not least, as a christian I can forgive him, I can give him credit for repentance.

The thing that I do get though is how what Romney does has no bearing on anything, but what Romney says is LAW as if spoken by God himself for you. This total disconnect from reality does not cause massive levels of cognitive dissonance that rattles your few remaining braincells to death? Does it require drugs to prevent that from happening?

astonerii on January 29, 2012 at 12:46 AM

When Newt professed “shock” that Newt was “investing” in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the implication was that Romney had directly invested in stocks of those companies. But the charge turned out to be ridiculous since Romney had only invested in mutual funds. In fact if Romney even bothered to use the resources and skills you mention just to check out the thousands of firms involved, we’d think he was unwise in the use of his resources. What’s really lame is your attempt to justify Newt’s cheap shot.

writeblock on January 28, 2012 at 11:42 PM

WOW, checking out your investments in advance is unwise. Just trust the wizards of wall street. They list their investments right on the product retard. You can go to exchanges and see what they are invested in.

astonerii on January 29, 2012 at 1:06 AM

WOW, checking out your investments in advance is unwise. Just trust the wizards of wall street. They list their investments right on the product retard.

First you talk about “checking out your investments” and then you say “they list their investments.” So which is it? Clearly an individual invests in mutual funds, but they[the fund managers] invest in various companies, not you. Ergo, Mitt was never responsible for investing in Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae. The audience on Thursday saw immediately how silly Newt’s accusation was. Newt himself looked embarrassed–as well he should have been. I’m surprised you still don’t get it.

As for the Romney’s blind trust “lie”–where’s the evidence for what you say? Why hasn’t Newt called him out on this? Could it be because it’s not true? If it is, would you show me a link to some proof of this?

writeblock on January 29, 2012 at 1:56 AM

The thing that I do get though is how what Romney does has no bearing on anything, but what Romney says is LAW as if spoken by God himself for you. This total disconnect from reality does not cause massive levels of cognitive dissonance that rattles your few remaining braincells to death? Does it require drugs to prevent that from happening?

astonerii on January 29, 2012 at 12:46 AM

You seem to be the one suffering from cognitive dissonance, scolding Cain on the one hand for his lack of Christian virtue while passing over Newt’s history with women, castigating Romney for his conservative deficiencies, but swallowing the camel whole when it comes to Newt’s even more glaring deficiencies.

That said, I’m open to being convinced what I’ve argued is wrong–unlike you it would seem. I said Newt was for individual federal mandates which are far more threatening to our freedom than a state mandate. Am I wrong on this? If so explain why.

I said Newt supported embryonic stem cell research but Romney vetoed a bill for such research. Am I wrong on this? If so explain why.

I said Newt was for amnesty whereas Romney has a far more conservative perspective on illegal immigration. Am I wrong on this? If so explain why.

I said Newt used leftwing arguments attacking free enterprise to undermine Romney’s business experience. Am I wrong on this? If so explain why.

I said Newt set a poor example for family values, unlike Romney. Am I wrong on this? If so explain why.

I may have only a few braincells left but they’d be more than enough to handle the amount of evidence you’d summon up in his defense.

writeblock on January 29, 2012 at 2:14 AM

You seem to be the one suffering from cognitive dissonance, scolding Cain on the one hand for his lack of Christian virtue while passing over Newt’s history with women, castigating Romney for his conservative deficiencies, but swallowing the camel whole when it comes to Newt’s even more glaring deficiencies.

That said, I’m open to being convinced what I’ve argued is wrong–unlike you it would seem. I said Newt was for individual federal mandates which are far more threatening to our freedom than a state mandate. Am I wrong on this? If so explain why.

I said Newt supported embryonic stem cell research but Romney vetoed a bill for such research. Am I wrong on this? If so explain why.

I said Newt was for amnesty whereas Romney has a far more conservative perspective on illegal immigration. Am I wrong on this? If so explain why.

I said Newt used leftwing arguments attacking free enterprise to undermine Romney’s business experience. Am I wrong on this? If so explain why.

I said Newt set a poor example for family values, unlike Romney. Am I wrong on this? If so explain why.

I may have only a few braincells left but they’d be more than enough to handle the amount of evidence you’d summon up in his defense.

writeblock on January 29, 2012 at 2:14 AM

astonerii isn’t interested in evidence, he’s only in having a tantrum.

V7_Sport on January 29, 2012 at 6:39 AM

astonerii, when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging. You have no idea what mutual funds are all about.

Bartrams Garden on January 29, 2012 at 6:55 AM

The Newt you know, is the Newt you remember now why you didn’t used to like him, and the one that you were glad went away.

Yesterday he was bragging to Greta about being a populist. Then this morning on Fox ‘n Friends you see he is using ads that reinforce liberal thinking, the news said they resembled ads put out by AFL-Cio.

Does Gingrich just go to the Boston Globe and ask them what to say? Do you know what people here actually THINK of the Boston Globe? Is he going to have Lizzy Warren come and make an anti-Romney ad? maybe he can give her some tips on how to bring down Scott Brown.

Mitts investments show that he knows how to keep, count, and control large piles of money. Mitts work in MA, and the ire it inspired with liberals, tells you he was EFFECTIVE at cutting government, government workers and laying out a plan that has taken us thru 5 more years with less unemployment than some other states have. (He advised Duval Patrick, to Do Nothing, not touch a thing. Duval bought himself new curtains for the state house, and a brand new cadillac, and restored a few of Romney’s cuts. But there was not money for anything else)

Gingrich is out of line, and makes me sick. Herman Cain endorsing him, is just fine, because Herman Cain has outworn his welcome with all his own problems with the ladies. Mrs. Cain is going to be asking for a mediteranean cruise, and a charge card at Tiffanies.

Fleuries on January 29, 2012 at 7:59 AM

It’s the South, on the other hand, that keeps filtering out our strongest candidates while giving a pass to fiscal moderates like Bush and Dole and McCain–and now Newt who attacks Romney from the left. Southern intolerance and bias is the problem, not Rudy and Romney who more perfectly reflect national preferences.
writeblock on January 28, 2012 at 5:14 PM

So? Feel free to vote for the wolf in sheep’s clothing: Mittens.
Denigrating the South as Democrats always do is a losing proposition. The War of Northern Aggression is still fresh in their minds and Mittens is part of the opposition.
Personally, pert’neer every man I’ve ever known from the South was a stand-up guy – you know, a man with a spine.

Am I mad at Newt? You bet. The big “government solutions” guy doesn’t really seem to grasp that we can’t afford Washington’s solutions. The frickin’ moon? Really?
(snip)
beatcanvas on January 28, 2012 at 6:31 PM

Yes, the moon. We must continue the NASA’s manned space program instead of turning it all over to the Яooskees and ChiComs. We’re at their mercy in more ways than one already. President SmartPower pretty much eliminated America’s space pioneers. Launching from the moon is the next logical step in the progression of scientific exploration.
Just think of all the Federal “programs” and Cabinet Depts. that could, nee should, be eliminated and then put that in perspective.
“Big ideas”? You betcha. This country was founded and defended on “big ideas”.
(psssssst … it’s also a smart negotiating tactic)

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 29, 2012 at 9:11 AM

astonerii, when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging. You have no idea what mutual funds are all about.

Bartrams Garden on January 29, 2012 at 6:55 AM

Of course not, because it does not support your contention that Romney could not have known what was in his mutual fund investments, even though when you go to an exchange and look up the mutual fund, it tells you exactly what companies are invested in and the percentage weight by value the mutual fund is invested in it.

But hey, I do not know nothing man. Romney is the superstar executive businessman economic guru that cannot find out what his investments are in? Everyone else knew what he was invested in.

Romney is a LIAR

astonerii on January 29, 2012 at 10:32 AM

I agree with everything said above.

rogaineguy on January 29, 2012 at 11:33 AM

“Naughty or nice?”

Both of these traits make Newt the fighter who gets my vote. I don’t want an “either, or.”

TheClearRiver on January 29, 2012 at 11:47 AM

It’s the South, on the other hand, that keeps filtering out our strongest candidates . . . Southern intolerance and bias is the problem . . .

writeblock on January 28, 2012 at 5:14 PM

writewriter’sblock

FIFY

Signed,
Biased, intolerant Southerner. Heh.

TheClearRiver on January 29, 2012 at 12:06 PM

My point was that the South, a region more religiously homogeneous than the Northeast, fiercely screens for social conservatism but not for fiscal conservatism. It’s the major reason we’ve had few fiscal conservatives as nominees going back to Eisenhower. In fact Goldwater and Reagan are the sole exceptions–and it took Reagan three tries before he scored.

writeblock on January 29, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Of course not, because it does not support your contention that Romney could not have known what was in his mutual fund investments, even though when you go to an exchange and look up the mutual fund, it tells you exactly what companies are invested in and the percentage weight by value the mutual fund is invested in it.

Nobody’s denying Romney could have looked into what companies his mutual funds were supporting. The point is why would he bother? Most Americans wouldn’t–why should he? There’s nothing at all culpable about investing in mutual funds.

The reason the charge backfired was because Newt pretended to be “shocked” that Romney “invested” in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The intimation was that Romney held stocks in both those enterprises. When Romney said he only held mutual funds and bonds, Newt looked foolish. He was on the receiving end of a double whammy when Romney pointed out Newt himself unknowingly had the same setup of so-called investments.

Gingrich lost the debate right there. The public saw through his sham charge. His plan was to throw Romney off his stride and count on the public’s not being able to sort out the truth on the spot. But Romney was prepared to expose the fakery and did so effectively.

writeblock on January 29, 2012 at 7:06 PM

For me, I am tired of the self-absorbed, and truth be told, mentally disturbed, Newt Gingrich. He is to political leadership, as Dennis Kucinich is to political satire. If he were only to serve as Romney’s sparring partner, that would be one thing, but as long as this world class windbag makes this primary all about him, a worthier candidate than Romney et al, namely Rick Santorum, will get lost in the shuffle. Everything Newt touches turns to manure. Other than that, there’s not a single thing wrong with him.

TheStatistQuo on January 29, 2012 at 11:15 PM

I am terribly discouraged that we have to choose between a copperhead or a rattler in hopes of replacing the cobra we now have to live with.

I fault the open and backroom manipulations of the GOP and its corrupt marriage with despicable ans manipulative right-wing pundits and its entrenched celebrities, as well as its mistresses on the left that they adore and seek to follow off a ledge.

I can no longer support the ruling class GOP and after many years (since Reagan) I will return to being an independent.

Don L on January 30, 2012 at 10:00 AM

cockroaches, Cher and Newton Leroy Gingrich.

Now there’s a trio.

EconomicNeocon on January 30, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4