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

Come on Florida. Don’t let the establishment knock us out in the primary again. We can do this! Vote for NewtUSA.

mike_NC9 on January 28, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Mitt will nominate a VP candidate to his right, like Jindal or Rubio.

itsnotaboutme on January 28, 2012 at 9:50 AM

And it won’t matter.

ddrintn on January 28, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Mr. & Mrs. Huckabee your country need YOU!!

mmcnamer1 on January 28, 2012 at 8:57 AM

I lost any shred of respect I had for Huckabee when he endorsed David Dewhirst in Texas. In his commercial that runs incessantly he accuses the “Washington Establishment” of attacking Dewhirst. What a LIE!! Dewhirst, the Lt. Gov. IS the establishement. He is running against real Conservative outsiders.

If Huckabee can lie so shamelessly, I have no use for him.

NOMOBO on January 28, 2012 at 9:56 AM

newt newt! he’s our man! If he can’t do it…someone else will!

Ham Sandwich, Rubio – 2012

DHChron on January 28, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Nasty Newt will get you 4 more years of Obama. Some of those 53% who voted for him are willing to admit they were wrong. Telling them that they voted for a communist pig is counter-productive. Basilsbest on January 28, 2012 at 9:22 AM

LOL…and there you have it, folks. It’s perfectly OK to go nuclear on those in your own party, but you’d better walk on eggshells when going up against Obama. Why Moderates Lose. ddrintn on January 28, 2012 at 9:46 AM

You don’t get the difference between being strong and being stupid. Mitt has been very strong in his criticism of Obama.

Basilsbest on January 28, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Mitt will nominate a VP candidate to his right, like Jindal or Rubio.

itsnotaboutme on January 28, 2012 at 9:50 AM

ROFL….they tried that in 2008. The VP candidate will become the one they attack. and the Mitt people will tell the VP to do as they are told and become less conservative for the good of the ticket.

unseen on January 28, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Mitt will nominate a VP candidate to his right, like Jindal or Rubio.

itsnotaboutme on January 28, 2012 at 9:50 AM

Newt will nominate Jindal or Rubio. I’m not convinced that Newt can’t get the moderate votes. And democrat votes. Conservatism can do great things when someone will try it.

mike_NC9 on January 28, 2012 at 9:58 AM

You don’t get the difference between being strong and being stupid. Mitt has been very strong in his criticism of Obama.

Basilsbest on January 28, 2012 at 9:57 AM

“Obama’s just a nice guy who’s in over his head…meanwhile Newt is SATAN!!!!!”

That’s stupid.

ddrintn on January 28, 2012 at 9:59 AM

You don’t get the difference between being strong and being stupid. Mitt has been very strong in his criticism of Obama.

Basilsbest on January 28, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Mittens keep you safe and warm…me likey safe and warm.

DHChron on January 28, 2012 at 9:59 AM

I said this before on another article but I will say it again. After the recent attacks by the RINO’s I now know which candidate to support.

Go, Newt!

gasmeterguy on January 28, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Come on Florida. Don’t let the establishment knock us out in the primary again. We can do this! Vote for NewtUSA.

mike_NC9 on January 28, 2012 at 9:52 AM

This Floridian and her husband intend to. And since I haven’t seen these 2 stories posted here at HA, I will.

Gingrich announces support from Florida Tea Party folks

Gingrich Maintaining Grip on New Lead – January 27, 2012
Romney slumps to 24%, his lowest level since before Iowa caucuses

Flora Duh on January 28, 2012 at 10:01 AM

I’m ecstatic cause he’s bombastic Newtastic!

call me hallmark

DHChron on January 28, 2012 at 10:03 AM

If our biggest problem were late trains, Newt would not see a problem with singing the praises of Mussolini and Glenn Beck would call him a Fascist. Newt splits split hairs.

Honest Debate on January 28, 2012

Ahhhhhhh Yes …
One faux historian v. a real historian.
Say goodnight, Glenn Beck, Inc.
(i loved your show glenn, especially because i regularly got to correct you)

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 28, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Tell me, Moonies, is my memory failing me?
JohnGalt23 on January 28, 2012 at 9:02 AM

I don’t accept the “Moonie” moniker but: Nope, at least not in retrospect. I was persuaded by Rush that nothing was Newt’s fault but now I see him through a gimlet eye, brought into sharp focus when he began to attack Bain, investing in bond mutual funds, and everything else the OWSers find evil. The more I read about him the clearer it becomes that Newt is a seriously flawed narcissist who resembles the current occupier of the White House.

Clues can be found early on as the first year Professor at West Georgia College applied for the position of College President. He is undoubtedly a brilliant man who utterly lacks the restraint of humility. His hubristic tendencies and willingness to employ tactics which destroy the GOP’s fiscal platforms proves he is at best an unreliable ally, and at worst is on the mission of a political suicide bomber.

It’s astonishing to see the hypocritical Sarah Palininsky egging him on – the very person who claimed to oppose crony capitalism and wanted the candidates “vetted” is now shrieking that the “vetting” is “Stalinism”.

Buy Danish on January 28, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Our current administration has set this country on fire…and Newt is the only one that is going to show up with a hose. Romney barely smells the smoke.

lynncgb on January 28, 2012 at 9:24 AM

Well said, lynncgb!

nicefly on January 28, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Come on Florida. Don’t let the establishment knock us out in the primary again. We can do this! Vote for NewtUSA.

mike_NC9 on January 28, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Who is this “establishment” specifically?

Swerve22 on January 28, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Mitt has been very strong in his criticism of Obama.

Basilsbest on January 28, 2012 at 9:57 AM

His best swing was the NLRB ad in SC. Loved that.

Back to you – you didn’t really have an answer to your reference to Reckless Endangerment, did you? Just curious… did you actually read the book, or did you just copy from somebody else’s crappy homework for that?

beatcanvas on January 28, 2012 at 10:08 AM

It’s astonishing to see the hypocritical Sarah Palininsky egging him on – the very person who claimed to oppose crony capitalism and wanted the candidates “vetted” is now shrieking that the “vetting” is “Stalinism”.

Buy Danish on January 28, 2012 at 10:04 AM

There’s “vetting” and there’s “sliming”. Who went negative first, BuyDanish? Let’s see: Newt started to climb in the polls when he went after OBAMA in the debates, not Romney. Then, Romney uses his trademark Alinsky tactics in carpet-bombing Iowa with anti-Gingrich ads. Gingrich replies in kind, and the smear artists in the Romney camp squeal about it. Don’t talk to me about “Sarah Palininsky”. Mittbots have the Alinsky crap down to a tee.

ddrintn on January 28, 2012 at 10:08 AM

I said this before on another article but I will say it again. After the recent attacks by the RINO’s I now know which candidate to support.

Go, Newt!

gasmeterguy on January 28, 2012 at 9:59 AM

This might help explain the all-out Anti-Newt bombardment that Matt Drudge has been practicing lately.

The Drudge-Romney axis . . .

Flora Duh on January 28, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Hey Danish, Sarah Palin says

Boo!

james23 on January 28, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Would someone be able to explain why Newt, who was a Tea Party apostate because of NY-23, is now the supposedly favored choice of Tea Party folks?

Honest question… I just don’t understand the turnaround there.

How did he go from being The Establishment in the eyes of Tea Partiers to being the anti-Establishment choice?

RightWay79 on January 28, 2012 at 10:10 AM

did you actually read the book, or did you just copy from somebody else’s crappy homework for that?

beatcanvas on January 28, 2012 at 10:08 AM

yeah, that was my homework beatcanvas. I was up all night plus I can’t read.

DHChron on January 28, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Would someone be able to explain why Newt, who was a Tea Party apostate because of NY-23, is now the supposedly favored choice of Tea Party folks?

Honest question… I just don’t understand the turnaround there.

How did he go from being The Establishment in the eyes of Tea Partiers to being the anti-Establishment choice?

RightWay79 on January 28, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Good question, although as has been pointed out ad nauseam, it isn’t about being pro-Gingrich. The TP should get fully behind Santorum as the most conservative of those still in the race.

ddrintn on January 28, 2012 at 10:13 AM

How did he go from being The Establishment in the eyes of Tea Partiers to being the anti-Establishment choice?

RightWay79 on January 28, 2012 at 10:10 AM

he’s not Mitt Romney

DHChron on January 28, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Good question, although as has been pointed out ad nauseam, it isn’t about being pro-Gingrich.
ddrintn on January 28, 2012 at 10:13 AM

That’s kind of what I was figuring.

I just hope Newt’s current supporters will be intellectually honest about it.

I’ve nothing against the guy, and I will fight for and vote for him should he be the nominee… but he’s not my first choice.

RightWay79 on January 28, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Mitt will nominate a VP candidate to his right, like Jindal or Rubio.

itsnotaboutme on January 28, 2012 at 9:50 AM
ROFL….they tried that in 2008. The VP candidate will become the one they attack. and the Mitt people will tell the VP to do as they are told and become less conservative for the good of the ticket.

unseen on January 28, 2012 at 9:58 AM

I was out of sorts when Arizona fist pump got the nomination in 08, and once I checked out who he picked for VP…PUMPED!
Then, they put a collar AND a leash on her…and I have been PO’d at the GOP ever since! They send emails and letters all the time…but only candidates get my money now.

KOOLAID2 on January 28, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Mitt has been very strong in his criticism of Obama.

Basilsbest on January 28, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Pretty much a no-brainer, eh?
In other words, we should choose the most competent in delivering said criticism.
That would be Newton, as it sure as hell aint Mittens.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 28, 2012 at 10:16 AM

N to tha E-zzle, tha double u an’ T-zzle

DHChron on January 28, 2012 at 10:20 AM

How did he go from being The Establishment in the eyes of Tea Partiers to being the anti-Establishment choice?

RightWay79 on January 28, 2012 at 10:10 AM

he’s not Mitt Romney

DHChron on January 28, 2012 at 10:14 AM

So, would it be safe to assume that this whole concept of “The Establishment” is fluid? It certainly can’t be a fixed group of people if Gingrich IS “The Establishment” one day… and then a year later he is supposedly not “The Establishment”.

RightWay79 on January 28, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Would someone be able to explain why Newt, who was a Tea Party apostate because of NY-23, is now the supposedly favored choice of Tea Party folks?

Honest question… I just don’t understand the turnaround there.

How did he go from being The Establishment in the eyes of Tea Partiers to being the anti-Establishment choice?

RightWay79 on January 28, 2012 at 10:10 AM

The best I can explain it:

A lot of people had their eyes opened by the tea parties and Glenn Beck’s awakening. A lot of politicians started to get a clue too.

When a candidate starts talking like they get it, I think we’re quick to forgive stupidity. Speaking personally, I actually supported Romney in 2008, so we all have our dumber moments. Newt has said that Dede was a mistake.

Rush said it well: Newt has some conservatism in his heart, but he loves government and sometimes can’t help his mouth from running ahead of his brain. As opposed to Romney, who’s a big progressive by his own admission.

beatcanvas on January 28, 2012 at 10:21 AM

THIS is simply SO INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST, JAZZ.

Those 84 ethics violations were NOT “exonerated” at all; and in fact, the ethics violations occurred as a result of Newt Gingrich LYING TO THE ETHICS COMMITTEE. The Chair of the Committee was a REPUBLICAN. The vote on the Committee was 7-to-1 against Gingrich.

The IRS completed its investigation of the “illegality” of the money issue, and could find no evidence to support the charge that he committed ILLEGAL ACTS.

BUT LYING TO THE ETHICS COMMITTEE stands to this day as a fundamental fact which has never been “exonerated” by anyone. He did lie; Newt Gingrich ADMITTED HE LIED to the Ethics Committee.

You are comparing apples and oranges; intellectually dishonest and LAZY in the extreme!

mountainaires on January 28, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Former State Department official Elliott Abrams wrote in National Review this week that during the Reagan administration, Gingrich “often spewed insulting rhetoric at Reagan, his top aides, and his policies to defeat Communism.” But anyone who covered Gingrich in the 1990s knew he held Reagan in high regard and developed much of his Contract With America agenda along the lines of what he considered Reagan’s unfinished domestic agenda, which could be carried out only with a GOP-led House and Senate. And any student of history knows it was not uncommon during Reagan’s presidency for Hill Republicans to question the day-to-day tactics and strategy of the Reagan White House. Criticism was common and sometimes done as an act of sell-preservation (Reagan had severe popularity ups and downs). Major Garrett

Flora Duh on January 28, 2012 at 10:23 AM

His best swing was the NLRB ad in SC. Loved that.

Back to you – you didn’t really have an answer to your reference to Reckless Endangerment, did you? Just curious… did you actually read the book, or did you just copy from somebody else’s crappy homework for that?

beatcanvas on January 28, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Reckless Endangerment explains how the sub prime socialist mortgage scheme, which Newt Gingrich enthusiastically supported and protected from reform, nearly caused he collapse of the banking system.

It is not an examination of Gingrich’s role in the debacle.

Basilsbest on January 28, 2012 at 10:23 AM

RightWay79 on January 28, 2012 at 10:20 AM

effed if I know…I just call it like I see it. Anti-establishment = not Mitt

DHChron on January 28, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Basilsbest on January 28, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Basil sucks – it’s like the worst herb ever yo.

DHChron on January 28, 2012 at 10:25 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/011897.htm

Ethics Panel Supports Reprimand of Gingrich
By John E. Yang and Helen Dewar
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, January 18 1997; Page A01

The House ethics committee recommended last night that House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) face an unprecedented reprimand from his colleagues and pay $300,000 in additional sanctions after concluding that his use of tax-deductible money for political purposes and inaccurate information supplied to investigators represented “intentional or . . . reckless” disregard of House rules.

The committee’s 7 to 1 vote came after 5 1/2 hours of televised hearings and the release of a toughly worded report on the investigation by special counsel James M. Cole. The recommendation, which followed a week of partisan conflict that has split the House into warring camps, sets the stage for a resolution of this investigation into Gingrich’s actions.

Gingrich earlier admitted he had violated House rules and was prepared to accept the committee’s recommendation for punishment. If the full House votes as expected on Tuesday, Gingrich would become the first speaker to be reprimanded for his conduct and would begin his second term politically weakened and personally diminished.

“This is a tough penalty,” Rep. Nancy L. Johnson (R-Conn.), chairman of the ethics panel, said after the vote. “I believe it is an appropriate penalty. It demonstrates that nobody is above the rules.”

mountainaires on January 28, 2012 at 10:27 AM

BUT LYING TO THE ETHICS COMMITTEE stands to this day as a fundamental fact which has never been “exonerated” by anyone. He did lie; Newt Gingrich ADMITTED HE LIED to the Ethics Committee.

You are comparing apples and oranges; intellectually dishonest and LAZY in the extreme!

mountainaires on January 28, 2012 at 10:21 AM

what, WHAT!! politicians don’t lie, you’re crazy

DHChron on January 28, 2012 at 10:28 AM

The best I can explain it:
beatcanvas on January 28, 2012 at 10:21 AM

That was an excellent answer.

If I am understanding what you are saying, it is that people’s views and beliefs are fluid and can change over time.

Couldn’t the same “forgiveness” be granted to Romney? Clearly he was apolitical for most of his life… and found him self drawn to more moderate positions. But, as he has aged, his beliefs have {quite clearly} become more Conservative [please note his CPAC Straw Poll wins in 2007, 2008, and 2009. You do not win CPAC by being a progressive].

(On a side note, I supported Romney in 2008 [after Fred Thompson flamed out] and I have chosen to support him this year [after Cain flamed out], so I don’t think support for Romney in 2008 was a “dumb moment”) :-)

RightWay79 on January 28, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Reckless Endangerment explains how the sub prime socialist mortgage scheme, which Newt Gingrich enthusiastically supported and protected from reform, nearly caused he collapse of the banking system.

It is not an examination of Gingrich’s role in the debacle.

Basilsbest on January 28, 2012 at 10:23 AM

You made a serious allegation about Newt without providing any supporting evidence, which appears to be your typical style.

Please provide some supporting evidence for your allegation with respect to Newt. Thank you.

JonBGood on January 28, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Newt always reminds me of what Robert Bork said that got him into so much trouble when Senator Simpson asked him why he wants to sit on the Supreme Court: “I think it would be an intellectual feast just to be there…”

The Big Thinker, the Big Idea in government does not excite me. We don’t need more ideas…we need execution. And given that the country will continue to be split pretty much 50-50, Gingrich seems least likely among the major candidates to deliver it.

bobs1196 on January 28, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Romney To Santorum On Health Care: “Not Worth Getting Angry About”

What? What?! The country is being destroyed and good old Mitt doesn’t want to get angry. Oh yeah, he’ll tear Obama a new one.

Go Newt!

Kaffa on January 28, 2012 at 10:31 AM

The Newt I remember is the unpopular, polarizing, hypocritical adulterer who gave up his seat in Congress. That’s who most are going to remember, too.

I can’t believe he’s being seriously considered. He’s the quintessential Washington establishment guy, and his Occupy attacks on Romney reveal much. Nothing to like there at all, regardless of what Governor Half-Term may say to the contrary.

changer1701 on January 28, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Former State Department official Elliott Abrams wrote in National Review this week that during the Reagan administration, Gingrich “often spewed insulting rhetoric at Reagan, his top aides, and his policies to defeat Communism.” But anyone who covered Gingrich in the 1990s knew he held Reagan in high regard and developed much of his Contract With America agenda along the lines of what he considered Reagan’s unfinished domestic agenda, which could be carried out only with a GOP-led House and Senate. And any student of history knows it was not uncommon during Reagan’s presidency for Hill Republicans to question the day-to-day tactics and strategy of the Reagan White House. Criticism was common and sometimes done as an act of sell-preservation (Reagan had severe popularity ups and downs). Major Garrett

Flora Duh on January 28, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Thank you! And Good Morning!

JonBGood on January 28, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Its pretty easy to see the politics of destruction suicide at play here.

Some cannibals want us to think of Newt as worse than what we have now.

Speakup on January 28, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Romney To Santorum On Health Care: “Not Worth Getting Angry About”

What? What?! The country is being destroyed and good old Mitt doesn’t want to get angry.
Kaffa on January 28, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Getting angry doesn’t solve anything. Mitt seems to know that. Getting angry may make you feel better, but it does little else.

Mitt would rather fix things than get hopelessly and irrationally angry. If you fault him for that, that is your perogative.

RightWay79 on January 28, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Reckless Endangerment explains how the sub prime socialist mortgage scheme, which Newt Gingrich enthusiastically supported and protected from reform, nearly caused he collapse of the banking system.

It is not an examination of Gingrich’s role in the debacle.

Basilsbest on January 28, 2012 at 10:23 AM

You urged people to read about “Freddie Mac Gingrich” in Reckless Endangerment and “get a clue.”

Look, I’m gonna ask you to do something unusual and employ some intellectual honesty. During the 1990′s – the same period during which Gingrich is mentioned in Reckless Endangerment – please direct me to the speech/paper/whatever where Mitt Romney soundly comes out against Fannie and Freddie and the dangers of big government.

Here’s the answer: it doesn’t exist. He never came out against Fannie, Freddie, or big government spending in the 1990′s. (I’m not even sure that he did until he started running for president in 2008.)

So if Mitt was a big nothing burger about this during the same period, and you pillory Gingrich, who also never spoke out against Fannie and Freddie during the same period, your point is completely irrelevant. Utterly irrelevant. And you have zero credibility for it.

beatcanvas on January 28, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Some cannibals want us to think of Newt Romney as worse than what we have now.

Speakup on January 28, 2012 at 10:32 AM

FIFY

RightWay79 on January 28, 2012 at 10:35 AM

The best I can explain it:

A lot of people had their eyes opened by the tea parties and Glenn Beck’s awakening. A lot of politicians started to get a clue too.

When a candidate starts talking like they get it, I think we’re quick to forgive stupidity. Speaking personally, I actually supported Romney in 2008, so we all have our dumber moments. Newt has said that Dede was a mistake.

Rush said it well: Newt has some conservatism in his heart, but he loves government and sometimes can’t help his mouth from running ahead of his brain. As opposed to Romney, who’s a big progressive by his own admission.
beatcanvas on January 28, 2012 at 10:21
AM

You are very dishonest. Romney described himself as a progressive – once, while pandering for votes in Massachusets. Gingrich described himself as a Wilsonian progressive who thinks FDR was the greatest president of the 20th century.

You can listen to him here, if you have the courage.

Romney is a capitalist who runs tight ships, both in business and in his personal life. If he has majorities in the House and Senate he wil govern very conservatively. He is a detail man and a problem solver. He is exactly what America needs now.

Basilsbest on January 28, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Supporters say what they love is the bombastic, take-no-prisoners candidate…

I don’t think that word means what the writer thinks it means.
(Nothing to do with bombs!)

Tzetzes on January 28, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Its pretty easy to see the politics of destruction suicide at play here.

Some cannibals want us to think of Newt as worse than what we have now.

Speakup on January 28, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Sarah Palin voter here – happily selling his morals and values down the river because Sarah did first to support the guy that floated her as Veep. Nothing to see here.

Swerve22 on January 28, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Thank you! And Good Morning!

JonBGood on January 28, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Good morning Jon. It is unbelievable to me that Romney’s spokeswoman, Andrea Saul, was still pushing this claim last evening, even though it has been debunked numerous times in the past few days.

“It is laughable to see lectures on honesty coming from a paid influence peddler who suffered an unprecedented ethics reprimand, was forced to pay a $300,000 penalty and resigned in disgrace at the hands of his own party,” Saul said. Source

Flora Duh on January 28, 2012 at 10:38 AM

So if Mitt was a big nothing burger about this during the same period, and you pillory Gingrich, who also never spoke out against Fannie and Freddie during the same period, your point is completely irrelevant. Utterly irrelevant. And you have zero credibility for it.beatcanvas on January 28, 2012 at 10:34 AM

You really have no clue. Gingrich spoke out in favor of Freddie Mac [if NASA was run as well as Freddie Mac we would have a man on Mars] and was paid to help Freddie Mac avoid reform.

Basilsbest on January 28, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Basilsbest on January 28, 2012 at 10:37 AM

basil flavored kool-aid. yuck

DHChron on January 28, 2012 at 10:42 AM

I don’t want to wonder which President Newt we will get at any given moment – good president, nasty president, consdescending president, moon goon president or otherwise. Newt is not disciplined aznd unstable in his demeanor. Too many of his ideas are kooky and far-fetched. He’s too thin-skinned.

We have a moody, thin-skinned, arrogant former college lecturer in office now. I don’t want another one, regardless of party affiliation.

Philly on January 28, 2012 at 10:43 AM

I’ll post again this tweet from Buddy Roemer, who can be pretty entertaining:

Newt scoffing at “the establishment” is like me poking fun at southern drawls. #falsesenseofself

I agree with that, and I am not a Mitt supporter.

I loved it when Newt attacked the debate moderator who played the race card on him. The presstitutes are ready to play the race card on all of us, and we need to stand up to that. I did NOT it like when Newt went off on the moderator who asked him about the second wife he dumped. His excuse for wife dumping is that he loves his country too darn much, and that is a filthy disgusting thing to say.

I also worry about what Coburn and others who’ve served in congress say about him.

juliesa on January 28, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Newt’s favorite book- “The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress“.

profitsbeard on January 28, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Former State Department official Elliott Abrams wrote in National Review this week that during the Reagan administration, Gingrich “often spewed insulting rhetoric at Reagan, his top aides, and his policies to defeat Communism.”

JonBGood on January 28, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Elliot Abrams Caught Misleading on Newt (Lying about Newt for Romney)

RUSH: Was Elliott Abrams Deceived on Newt?

Mark Levin: “Newt Gingrich, if he does nothing else, did more for the conservative movement and to stop the liberal Democrats in the House of Representatives than virtually everybody today who’s criticizing him.”

Go Newt!

Kaffa on January 28, 2012 at 10:46 AM

I like Newt the Newt.

I like his grasp of history, as those who fail to learn the lessons of history are bound to repeat them.
I like his nuclear side, because some times it is just the right way to respond. It is the only way to be sure.
I like his grasp of what made America great, hint, it was not social security and other welfare programs.
I like his stance on the food stamp presidency and his never back down strategy, Americans are tired of the Republican party backing down time after time after time because a small vocal minority make hay about an issue.

Is Newt the best person for the job of President January 2013-Jan 2017? Probably not, but he is the only person qualified that showed up for the interview.

astonerii on January 28, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Who is this “establishment” specifically?

Swerve22 on January 28, 2012 at 10:08 AM

The Permanent Political Plass in Washington/New York. Both Political parties along with Media/Hollywood and Industry leaders. Romney may not even be one, but they have chosen him because he is the one that won’t embarrass the GOP by calling out one of theirs. Newt is simply standing in for the American people who are hated by the PPC as much as Newt is.

mike_NC9 on January 28, 2012 at 10:47 AM

We have a moody, thin-skinned, arrogant former college lecturer in office now. I don’t want another one, regardless of party affiliation.

Philly on January 28, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Sorry to keep quoting tweets, but I’ll paraphrase another one I read, that pitting two thin-skinned academics against each other would result in the loudest, nastiest faculty lounge spat in history.

Also, that a debate between them would be between two guys who both look down on you.

juliesa on January 28, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Permanent Political Class not plass. Sorry.

mike_NC9 on January 28, 2012 at 10:48 AM

If I am understanding what you are saying, it is that people’s views and beliefs are fluid and can change over time.

Couldn’t the same “forgiveness” be granted to Romney? Clearly he was apolitical for most of his life… and found him self drawn to more moderate positions. But, as he has aged, his beliefs have {quite clearly} become more Conservative [please note his CPAC Straw Poll wins in 2007, 2008, and 2009. You do not win CPAC by being a progressive].

(On a side note, I supported Romney in 2008 [after Fred Thompson flamed out] and I have chosen to support him this year [after Cain flamed out], so I don’t think support for Romney in 2008 was a “dumb moment”) :-)

RightWay79 on January 28, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Excellent question.

I’m all for Romney having changed and become conservative. I desperately want that to be true. I really do because he’s a man of heft and talent, and if conservatism were in his bones, we could use a man like that espousing our beliefs.

But he’s not. He talks fancy, meaning that he can use some of the same words we use, but his end result is not greater individual freedom, but instead “better” government solutions. The problem is that government is really lousy at solving problems and shouldn’t be employed to do so. The free market is much better suited for that. Crappy solutions die in the market until a great solution takes root. Government can employ a crappy solution and force everyone into it, which happens all of the time.

Example: Individual mandate? Not conservative. But he’ll argue that it is until his jaw falls off. But every conservative knows that it’s not conservative.

Not one of us example: he said he wanted to be president of the 99%. Attend a tea party? Not on your life, would he.

I respect your desire to support him if you do, but for all of the goofs in here who can’t see one flaw he has, it’s silly. I don’t think you’re one of them.

beatcanvas on January 28, 2012 at 10:48 AM

I didn’t subscribe to all of the Newt anti-Reagan nonsense. However, I stand by the notion he is a closet Progressive. He generally plays the music of a Conservative but if you listen closely you can hear his Progressive tendencies slip out in his “Big Ideas” policies.

Taco Bob on January 28, 2012 at 10:49 AM

There’s “vetting” and there’s “sliming”. Who went negative first, BuyDanish? Let’s see: Newt started to climb in the polls when he went after OBAMA in the debates, not Romney. Then, Romney uses his trademark Alinsky tactics in carpet-bombing Iowa with anti-Gingrich ads. Gingrich replies in kind, and the smear artists in the Romney camp squeal about it. Don’t talk to me about “Sarah Palininsky”. Mittbots have the Alinsky crap down to a tee.
ddrintn on January 28, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Listen up Palinsky- There has never been a political campaign in history where opponents didn’t use negative advertising. That is not my gripe with Newton OWS Gingrich. I am disgusted by his attacks on free market capitalism, his disparagement of owning bonds, of private equity firms, and so forth. It’s despicable and unforgivable to use the words of the Left to form your arguments.

But hey, if you and your Palinsky pals want to join Obama, the SEIU, and their allies go right ahead. Just don’t make the fraudulent claim you’re “true conservatives” carrying the banner of the Tea Party.

Buy Danish on January 28, 2012 at 10:50 AM

geez, I just love Mitt so much, he’s what we need in the here…he’s perfect for the now and stuff. I’m smitten for Mittens and I don’t care what you’re thinkin’! vote Mitt!

Basilsbest on January 28, 2012 at 10:53 AM

DHChron on January 28, 2012 at 10:53 AM

You really have no clue. Gingrich spoke out in favor of Freddie Mac [if NASA was run as well as Freddie Mac we would have a man on Mars] and was paid to help Freddie Mac avoid reform.

Basilsbest on January 28, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Name three conservative politicians who never speak out in favor of Freddie and Fannie during the 1990′s. Belly up to the bar there, Josh.

beatcanvas on January 28, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Both Newt and Santorum are members of DC permanent political class. They both live in DC and work there as “consultants”, and have for decades. They are DC creatures. This is one reason I have always preferred a governor for president, in addition to the fact that governors have exec experience.

juliesa on January 28, 2012 at 10:54 AM

The Freddie Mac case against Gingrich.

I’ve posted this Gingrich-Freddie Mac link several times but you Newtnuts refuse to read it (apparently).

Here’s an excerpt.

None of the former Freddie Mac officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said Gingrich raised the issue of the housing bubble or was critical of Freddie Mac’s business model.
“We dispute your sources’ account,” said R.C. Hammond, a Gingrich campaign spokesman.
A Freddie Mac spokesman declined to comment on the Gingrich contracts.

Former Freddie Mac officials familiar with his work in 2006 say Gingrich was asked to build bridges to Capitol Hill Republicans and develop an argument on behalf of the company’s public-private structure that would resonate with conservatives seeking to dismantle it.

He was expected to provide written material that could be circulated among free-market conservatives in Congress and in outside organizations, said two former company executives familiar with Gingrich’s role at the firm. He didn’t produce a white paper or any other document the firm could use on its behalf, they said.

Basilsbest on January 28, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Been there, done that. I supported Newt in the 90s. For whatever reason, he resigned on us.

rhombus on January 28, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Excellent question.

I’m all for Romney having changed and become conservative. I desperately want that to be true. I really do because he’s a man of heft and talent, and if conservatism were in his bones, we could use a man like that espousing our beliefs.

But he’s not. He talks fancy, meaning that he can use some of the same words we use, but his end result is not greater individual freedom,

Very good answer.

I respect your desire to support him if you do, but for all of the goofs in here who can’t see one flaw he has, it’s silly. I don’t think you’re one of them.

beatcanvas on January 28, 2012 at 10:48 AM

As I have mentioned on another thread, I don’t believe Romney is a Big (Federal) Government guy… BUT, neither is he some kind of Conservative Super Hero.

My support for him is based on my perception of him as a Fixer. He is a calm, rational manager, and I truly believe he can get the job done and govern in a Center-Right fashion while slowly (but surely) edging the Center even more Right.

I appreciate your friendly discussion on this.

Since I began posting comments here recently, I have been trying to do my part in edging the HA community towards a more civil discourse. Sometimes I fail spectacularly and spout off silliness… but the way we are calmly and rationally discussing this gives me hope.

:-)

RightWay79 on January 28, 2012 at 11:00 AM

“Obama’s just a nice guy who’s in over his head…meanwhile Newt is SATAN!!!!!”

That’s stupid.

As has been pointed out many times here, Newt has sky-high negatives with the average voter. If he manages to hand a second term to President 8.5% Unemployment, which he may well do, it will be fair to describe him as Satan.

From the story:

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.

The man sounds like a bipolar. Bipolars can accomplish amazing things — painting the Sistine Chapel ceiling, inventing the incandescent light bulb — but when they go bad, they they go REAL bad. After his brilliant Contract with America, and kicking out a corrupt and incompetent Democratic House that had been in power for 40 years(!), Newt had the legislative branch in the palm of his hand. And proceeded, through repeated acts of terrible judgment, to spiral downward, lose everything, and bring the Republican congress into public contempt. Clinton was re-elected, Gore was almost elected.

I don’t want this brilliant but unstable man as my president. I don’t think most other voters do, either.

I am puzzled by this sudden love of conservatives for Newt. All he has in his favor is his declaration that he is now born-again, and is now a good person instead of a bad person, and his saying conservative things. Conservatives seem to be perfectly happy to take Newt’s words at face value, and completely ignore his history.

Words vs deeds? Deeds win every time, IMO. We should judge Newt by his deeds, not his words.

Bartrams Garden on January 28, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Been there, done that. I supported Newt in the 90s. For whatever reason, he resigned on us.

rhombus on January 28, 2012 at 10:58 AM

he does have that whole quitter thing going on :( ah well!

go NewtMittPaulPerryBachmann!

DHChron on January 28, 2012 at 11:02 AM

He was expected to provide written material that could be circulated among free-market conservatives in Congress and in outside organizations, said two former company executives familiar with Gingrich’s role at the firm. He didn’t produce a white paper or any other document the firm could use on its behalf, they said.

Basilsbest on January 28, 2012 at 10:54 AM

So the best that can be said about him is he was paid $1.6 million to do a job he didn’t complete in its entirety as part of his contract?

Buy Danish on January 28, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Hey BasilBeast, I accidently forgot to read it the first 2 times can you post it again?

bigmike on January 28, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Basilsbest on January 28, 2012 at 10:54 AM

I don’t know of anybody who believes that Newt wasn’t trying to help Freddie. That’s what he was hired to do. That’s like trying to get us to read “The Sky is Blue!” We already know that.

Newt’s flawed. Romney’s flawed. You constantly harp on the former and completely ignore the latter. Honesty would be both, because both are true. And both have strengths, because both do.

beatcanvas on January 28, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Sure is a lot of BS on Hot Gas anymore….

I think Mitt’s dishonesty is slowly being revealed in spite of all the powers that be, AND it’s going to get worse and worse for him and all you “I am not a Mitt supporter, BUT”…. people.

How many flat out lies did Mitt tell in the last debate 10? He’s not very good at it is he.

It’s taken on the level of amusement, really.

golfmann on January 28, 2012 at 11:07 AM

Hey BasilBeast, I accidently forgot to read it the first 2 times can you post it again?

bigmike on January 28, 2012 at 11:05 AM

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

DHChron on January 28, 2012 at 11:07 AM

WHAT DID BILL CLINTON HAVE ON NEWT GINGRICH?

“Whatever else happened at that meeting, Newt Gingrich was muzzled in the critical run-up to the ’98 midterms. Three weeks before the election, Gingrich got a visit from Kenneth Duberstein, a senior Republican who had served as chief of staff to Ronald Reagan. “He says, ‘What’s going on? We’re gonna lose seats if something doesn’t change.’ “

Read more: http://www.esquire.com/features/newt-gingrich-0910-8#ixzz1klkdUQIB

mountainaires on January 28, 2012 at 11:07 AM

Hey BasilBeast, I accidently forgot to read it the first 2 times can you post it again? bigmike on January 28, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Don’t waste your time. You wouldn’t understand it. Too many big words.

Basilsbest on January 28, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Is it really necessary for us to be bashing each other?

Let’s not forget, we are all on the same team.

RightWay79 on January 28, 2012 at 11:09 AM

Words vs deeds? Deeds win every time, IMO. We should judge Newt by his deeds, not his words.

Bartrams Garden on January 28, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Agreed:
Thomas Sowell:”Mitt Romney, whose record as governor of Massachusetts produced nothing that would be regarded as a serious conservative achievement.”

Mark Levin: “Newt Gingrich, if he does nothing else, did more for the conservative movement and to stop the liberal Democrats in the House of Representatives than virtually everybody today who’s criticizing him.”

Go Newt!

Kaffa on January 28, 2012 at 11:09 AM

The establishment are in-place-people-who-benefit-from-a-large-intrusive-government. Whether they are congressional staffers, congressmen, executive branch permanent employees, presidential appointed czars, lobbyists who earn their money courting any and all of the above, companies who already have their fingers in the tax payer till, the lawyers that enjoy their immunity while convincing the government to make every American guilty of at least 20 crimes by the time they get to work in the morning.
It is not a conspiracy, although some people that are part of it conspire. It is just people who are invested in and benefit from the status quo or the expansion of the government.

astonerii on January 28, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Newt probably is bi-polar [formerly called “manic-depressive.” This isn’t the first time the suggestion has come up:

In the history books Gingrich loves, exile is a defining moment when a leader’s true strength of character is revealed. But his own behavior just became more erratic in the months after his fall. Some days he was full of bravado, conspiring with Duberstein and Marianne on a five-year plan to restore his reputation and rebuild his power base so he could run for president someday. He even turned down an American Express commercial that would have paid $500,000, Marianne says, because acting in a commercial didn’t have sufficient gravitas for a man of his once and future stature. And he got some good news from the IRS, which said his college course didn’t violate the tax laws after all.

But other days, Gingrich was bleak and hopeless. He was like a “dead weight” at times like that, Marianne says. You just couldn’t get him to move. The contrast reminded her of his mother and her manic depression, and she told him he needed help.”

Read more: http://www.esquire.com/features/newt-gingrich-0910-8#ixzz1klkdUQIB

mountainaires on January 28, 2012 at 11:10 AM

We’re down to splitting hairs over Gingrich’s ethics charges, giving the Whoopi Goldberg argument that it wasn’t really a fine-fine, and the Freddie Mac stuff wasn’t really lobbying-lobbying. Come on. Really?! It’s absurd.

Rational Thought on January 28, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Let’s not forget, we are all on the same team.

RightWay79 on January 28, 2012 at 11:09 AM

Basil’s firmly on Mitten’s team – in what fairy tale world is that everyone’s team?

plus basil sucks…it’s a solid runner up to dill.

DHChron on January 28, 2012 at 11:13 AM

How did he go from being The Establishment in the eyes of Tea Partiers to being the anti-Establishment choice?

RightWay79 on January 28, 2012 at 10:10 AM

That’s easy. A certain group suffers from Romney Derangement Syndrome.

The group is composed of bitter former supporters of all the previously failed candidates, religious bigots, those fearful of Romneycare, those who think a school yard fight with Obama is presidential behavior (replete with name calling and triple dog dares), and some who are contrary for the sake of being contrary.

csdeven on January 28, 2012 at 11:14 AM

and some who are contrary for the sake of being contrary.

csdeven on January 28, 2012 at 11:14 AM

*raises hand*

DHChron on January 28, 2012 at 11:16 AM

RightWay79 on January 28, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Nicely said. I would be happy to have the nation led by a bright, successful businessman with a history of competence, emotional stability, and the ability to fix a broken enterprise and get things done.

Bartrams Garden on January 28, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Kaffa on January 28, 2012 at 11:09 AM

Conservatives Speak Out on Romney:

http://www.whyromney.com/praise_new.php

Flip-Floppers on Romney:

February 2008 Rush Limbaugh:

“I think now, based on the way the campaign has shaken out, that there probably is a candidate on our side who does embody all three legs of the conservative stool, and that’s Romney.”

For those unfamiliar with the stool analogy, the three legs of conservatism are generally defined as “social”, “economic”, and “foreign policy”.

January 2008 Mark Levin:

National Review Online article titled “Rally for Romney”: “The only one left standing who can honestly be said to share most of our conservative principles is Mitt Romney.”

mountainaires on January 28, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Wouldn’t we still be better off even with the Newt we know, as opposed to the Borerack that we still don’t know?

stukinIL4now on January 28, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Kaffa on January 28, 2012 at 11:09 AM

Yeah, lets look at his entire record of erratic, corrupt, lying, and progressive behavior.

Ya know, just to be fair and all.

csdeven on January 28, 2012 at 11:20 AM

For it before he wer agin it http://conservativesamizdat.blogspot.com/2012/01/fact-check-newt-gingrich-and-rick.html?spref=tw

aloysiusmiller on January 28, 2012 at 11:21 AM

Our current administration has set this country on fire…and Newt is the only one that is going to show up with a hose. Romney barely smells the smoke.

lynncgb on January 28, 2012 at 9:24 AM

See, I would have thought the moon colony was more like pouring gasoline on the fire. I’ve yet to see anything that looks like him bringing a hose. What’s his plan for budget cuts? Entitlement cuts? Social Security cuts? Medicare cuts? He didn’t like Ryan’s.

talkingpoints on January 28, 2012 at 11:21 AM

I appreciate your friendly discussion on this.

Since I began posting comments here recently, I have been trying to do my part in edging the HA community towards a more civil discourse. Sometimes I fail spectacularly and spout off silliness… but the way we are calmly and rationally discussing this gives me hope.

:-)

RightWay79 on January 28, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Back at ya. I prefer honest dialogue, and if at the end of the discussion we disagree, so be it. We’re still on the same team.

Keep in mind, this is politics, and we’re discussing how others have control and influence over our lives, so it’s gonna get heavy. Speaking for myself, I have no problem going there if it means fighting for my freedom and the freedom of my children on an influential blog like this.

beatcanvas on January 28, 2012 at 11:21 AM

Wouldn’t we still be better off even with the Newt we know, as opposed to the Borerack that we still don’t know?

stukinIL4now on January 28, 2012 at 11:19 AM

stop making all that sense and stuff

DHChron on January 28, 2012 at 11:22 AM

So the best that can be said about him is he was paid $1.6 million to do a job he didn’t complete in its entirety as part of his contract?

Buy Danish on January 28, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Something along those lines. He wrote the paper, but they were not interested in what he had to say. Could well be that he did what he said he did. “Historically, your model of doing business is going to end very badly for you. No company has ever succeeded in lending large amounts of money to the people you loan money to. Housing prices are not always going to rise, and what are you going to do when prices fall and people stop making payments?” What I think he told them. It is what I likely would have told them.

I started looking for a house in 2000 in California. The lowest priced house I saw at the time was around $120,000 and I did not have 20% to put down. I did not need 20% to put down, I wanted to have that to put down. A year later I had about $25,000 saved and went to look at houses again. This time the lowest priced house i could find was $140,000 and that 20% was just out of reach, and 3 months later when I had the $28,000 saved the prices had gone to $160,000… Last time I looked for a house, having $36,0000 saved, the lowest priced house I could find $240,000 and that particular house factually sold for $263,280 and probably also had some money changing hands outside the legal process.

I also watched as the houses in those neighborhoods moved large tvs in, had boats popping up in their back yards, brand new luxury cars and SUVs showing up in their driveways. Talked to about a dozen neighbor couples that took vacations on their equity loans to Hawaii and Europe fully expecting to be able to refinance when they got back 8 weeks later to have even more money to spend.

I felt pretty stupid for telling one of my coworkers that paying $140,000 for a 603 square foot condo was insane in 2001 when he sold it for $320,000 plus money on the side in 2005 when we both lost our job. Yeah, good times those were. I think Newt did tell the companies things they did not want to hear.

astonerii on January 28, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Obama vs. Newt: a narcissist with a great deal of self control vs. a narcissist with no self control.

I get all the Reagan stuff, too many years ago to have any real relevance.

What about calling Paul Ryan’s tax plan “right wing social engineering?” Who was jumping out of their seats and cheering that comment?

If the choices are Romney or Newt, Ron Paul looks better all the time.

Jurassic P on January 28, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4