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

csdeven on January 28, 2012 at 11:14 AM

“A certain group suffers from Romney Derangement Syndrome…”

Their names are Robert Bork! Paul Ryan! Heritage Foundation! And so many more:

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

mountainaires on January 28, 2012 at 11:22 AM

*raises hand*

DHChron on January 28, 2012 at 11:16 AM

lol….look up the word “recusant”. I think you’ll get a kick out of it. :-)

csdeven on January 28, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Some right wingers are like some church choirs, praising, amening and glorifying their preacher and their choir but they don’t give a rat’s pitoot about the unconverted.

aloysiusmiller on January 28, 2012 at 11:24 AM

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

Yeah, Rush and Levin know who to keep folks tuned in. And they count on them to not remember what they said earlier. And if it does happn to become an issue, they suddenly have a more nuanced recall of their statements.

csdeven on January 28, 2012 at 11:30 AM

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

Hear, hear!

Passion about the important things is essential in a free society.
I think my beef is with the folks who haven chosen to disparage others simply for their choice of preferred candidate.

There seems to be some of these “disparagers” in each candidate’s camp.

For me, the trick is knowing when righteous and justified Passion becomes irrational and self-defeating emotion.

I probably err too much on the side of caution by being too detatched from any emotion. So, I tend to look a bit too critically at Passion.

But, whatever my personal disposition, I will proudly give my life to make sure my family does not lose their liberty.

RightWay79 on January 28, 2012 at 11:31 AM

csdeven on January 28, 2012 at 11:23 AM

indeed :) love expanding my vocabulary

DHChron on January 28, 2012 at 11:31 AM

But which Newt do you know?

The unprincipled vindictive little man!

dmann on January 28, 2012 at 11:33 AM

But, whatever my personal disposition, I will proudly give my life to make sure my family does not lose their liberty.

RightWay79 on January 28, 2012 at 11:31 AM

right on RightWay

DHChron on January 28, 2012 at 11:33 AM

The unprincipled vindictive little man!

dmann on January 28, 2012 at 11:33 AM

amphibian bigotry! go burn a cross or something

DHChron on January 28, 2012 at 11:34 AM

I think Newt did tell the companies things they did not want to hear.
astonerii on January 28, 2012 at 11:22 AM

I don’t need you to tell me what happened with the housing fiasco. We put 20% down on our house only to see numerous houses all around us go into foreclosure because they were able to get loans with no money down.

What evidence do you have other than your speculation? If Newt did what you said surely he has something to back it up despite not doing the job he was contracted to do.

Buy Danish on January 28, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Confirmed: Romneycare = Obamacare

The 2010 Tea Party uprising that gave the Republicans the house was about the repeal of Obamacare. Romney wants to repeal and replace. “Keep the best parts.”

IMO If a canidate is for socialized medicine, then he is a socialist by definition. It doesn’t matter what level of government is involved. Nominating Romney is spitting on the 2010 election and all the hard work of the Tea Party.

Even if Romney wins the election, we will simply be replacing a communist with a socialist and declaring victory.

Kaffa on January 28, 2012 at 11:38 AM

But, whatever my personal disposition, I will proudly give my life to make sure my family does not lose their liberty.

RightWay79 on January 28, 2012 at 11:31 AM

right on RightWay

DHChron on January 28, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Always better to make them give up their life!

astonerii on January 28, 2012 at 11:38 AM

“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.”

In other words, Red Meat Republicans, so-called. People who want to match or overpower Obama’s obnoxiousness with obnoxiousness from some “personality” hoisted by the GOP.

And therein lies Gingrich’s appeal. And what makes him unreliable to the rest of us.

I used to think he could debate well or better than most, like some others, until I saw him slink away and wither when his bombast was confronted last election by both Wolf Blitzer (Wolf Bliter, of all people) and Romney.

And without his special crowd, like Ron Paul, they also wither. So Gingrich is performing an act that is largely dependent on a cheering audience to rally his sneers, and not upon substance, among other liabilities.

We all (most of us, anyway) on the Right want to see Obama shown the door this November. Me, especially, I’d like to see such quite heartily. The election is more than debate-theatrics. Debate-theatrics are entertaining and reward the lust for Red Meat, but they don’t win the election, and, they don’t replace an utter boob in the Presidency with someone better.

Lourdes on January 28, 2012 at 11:40 AM

But, whatever my personal disposition, I will proudly give my life to make sure my family does not lose their liberty.

RightWay79 on January 28, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Well done. And if I may, and if you’re not already, I encourage you to find a candidate – whether local, state, or federal – and give at least one hour a week to help that candidate get elected.

It’s time for hands-on patriotism.

beatcanvas on January 28, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Paul Ryan’s road map was not Right wing social engineering.
It was and always will be left wing light social engineering. Arguing that keeping social security and medicaid solvent for eternity is not conservative in any way shape or form. So I take complete umbrage in Newt picking up the speaking point of the left on this.

I fully support reducing the SS tax by the 2% they have already and fully want them to increase that reduction to 12.3%.

astonerii on January 28, 2012 at 11:41 AM

astonerii on January 28, 2012 at 11:38 AM

posted by a Stoner :)

DHChron on January 28, 2012 at 11:41 AM

But, whatever my personal disposition, I will proudly give my life to make sure my family does not lose their liberty.

RightWay79 on January 28, 2012 at 11:31 AM

That is true passion, and well said. Dulce et decorum est…

de rigueur on January 28, 2012 at 11:43 AM

DHChron on January 28, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Yep, keep playing games skippy

dmann on January 28, 2012 at 11:43 AM

From the Newt I Know:

“Turning to the Speaker, who a year earlier had been named Time Magazine’s person of the year, Largent said, ‘Newt, you were the one who drafted the contract and then told us to sign it. Now, you’re the one pressuring us to break it. But Newt, if I wasn’t intimidated by the thought of 250 pound linebackers who wanted to kill me every time I crossed the field, why would I be intimidated by you?‘”

Gingrich sold out the Republican freshmen on the Contract With America when he thought it suited his intrests, just like he sold out his multiple wives. What makes people think he won’t sell out conservatives again this time in the interests of his own bloated ego and political expediency?

captn2fat on January 28, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Always better to make them give up their life!

astonerii on January 28, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Original draft of that:

But, whatever my personal disposition, I will proudly give my life to make sure my family does not lose their lives or liberty.

But I figured their “lives” were understood to already be protected by me.

:-)

RightWay79 on January 28, 2012 at 11:48 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.

Pure fantasy.

The people at Freddie Mac say otherwise.

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.

Basilsbest on January 28, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Basilsbest on January 28, 2012 at 11:50 AM

I’m sorry – could you post in bold and italics this time? We’ve had the bold version, and I didn’t quite care. Then you did the italicized version, and I dunno… still hard for me to care. But I’m thinking that posting it yet again, as you often do, but with more flair and bravado – that there, sir, is the punch we desire so.

Have at it please, as only you can do for us.

beatcanvas on January 28, 2012 at 11:54 AM

As best I can recall, Bob Dole actually did use the words “it’s my turn”.

slickwillie2001 on January 28, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Yep, keep playing games skippy

dmann on January 28, 2012 at 11:43 AM

I plan on it skipper. go cut eye holes in your sheet chief.

DHChron on January 28, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Have at it please, as only you can do for us.

beatcanvas on January 28, 2012 at 11:54 AM

basil, basil, basil!

DHChron on January 28, 2012 at 11:58 AM

basil, basil, basil!

DHChron on January 28, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Given the limited material he uses, I think he posts from a magic 8-ball.

beatcanvas on January 28, 2012 at 12:00 PM

beatcanvas on January 28, 2012 at 12:00 PM

● Outlook not so good
● Very doubtful

DHChron on January 28, 2012 at 12:02 PM

mountainaires on January 28, 2012 at 11:19 AM

2008? Well hell yea, I was for him then too considering the other alternatives were Hillary, Obama, and McCain. This isn’t 2008, and I no longer will cast a vote for him.

noneoftheabove on January 28, 2012 at 12:03 PM

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.

Basilsbest on January 28, 2012 at 11:50 AM

You keep saying this stuff, for some reason I am trying to figure out what part of it you do not understand.

If you want to convince free market conservatives to support your company, you should act as if you are a free market entity. In a free market, you weigh risk to reward and work to provide a service people are willing to pay you for. What I wrote that Gingrich may have stated fits this argument perfectly well.

“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?”

See, it is quite simple, if they wanted to avoid conflict with free market conservatives, they would run their business as businesses have in the past that were in the free market.

If you need some help getting yourself released from your perpetual stuck on stupid situation, I suggest finding a body of water that is near freezing and jumping in.

astonerii on January 28, 2012 at 12:04 PM

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?

No.

DrMagnolias on January 28, 2012 at 12:05 PM

If you need some help getting yourself released from your perpetual stuck on stupid situation, I suggest finding a body of water that is near freezing and jumping in.

astonerii on January 28, 2012 at 12:04 PM

I hear that does wonders for Viagra overdose

DHChron on January 28, 2012 at 12:06 PM

I’ll take Newt…Mickey Mouse is also high on my list. ABO folks, ABO.

DHChron on January 28, 2012 at 12:08 PM

What I wrote that Gingrich may have stated fits this argument perfectly well.

I prefer what the Freddie Mac employees say, as to why he was paid $1.6 million, to your fantasies, stoner.

Basilsbest on January 28, 2012 at 12:10 PM

● Outlook not so good
● Very doubtful

DHChron on January 28, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Here’s his magic 8-ball:

http://www.beatcanvas.com/pics/basils_magic_eight_ball.jpg

beatcanvas on January 28, 2012 at 12:11 PM

I prefer what the Freddie Mac employees say, as to why he was paid $1.6 million, to your fantasies, stoner.

Basilsbest on January 28, 2012 at 12:10 PM

There’s good herb you know…the non basil kind.

DHChron on January 28, 2012 at 12:12 PM

beatcanvas on January 28, 2012 at 12:11 PM

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I just busted a gut

DHChron on January 28, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Whatever Newt’s company did for Fannie Mae at least it was legal. On the other hand Forbes reports:

Romney Supervised Medical Testing Company Guilty Of Massive Medicare Fraud

FTA:During the time that Bain held its ownership of the company, Mitt Romney personally sat on the Board of Directors. And during that same period, Damon Corp. was busy submitting fraudulent reimbursement claims to Medicare to the tune of millions of dollars charged for unnecessary blood tests.

Kaffa on January 28, 2012 at 12:17 PM

I’m outta here, gonna do some good ol’ American work. Latah Basil, keep hatin’

DHChron on January 28, 2012 at 12:18 PM

What evidence do you have other than your speculation? If Newt did what you said surely he has something to back it up despite not doing the job he was contracted to do.

Buy Danish on January 28, 2012 at 11:38 AM

It is sealed in a confidentiality agreement. So we have Newt’s word. Good enough for me. I trust Newt. The only thing Freddie Mac said was that they could not use what he provided. That fits into the idea that he said things they were unwilling to confront in my opinion.

It might be a secret to you, so I will whisper it to you… w/ There are many, a very large many of republican house members and senators who like big government, enjoy the power it gives them over other people, and they wanted to be told day in and day out how great they were for having helped bring in the largest home ownership society America had ever seen. Their egos growing by the home sale at the time. So, Freddie Mac would have had to chosen between the big government republicans and the fiscally sane conservatives to woo into supporting them. Thus, they could not use Newts white paper, as it had writ large fiscal responsibility for Freddie Mac and that just was not what they wanted to pursue.

astonerii on January 28, 2012 at 12:19 PM

I prefer what the Freddie Mac employees say, as to why he was paid $1.6 million, to your fantasies, stoner.

Basilsbest on January 28, 2012 at 12:10 PM

What did they say?

astonerii on January 28, 2012 at 12:20 PM

All you Newt fans……….explain this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJDgEPzHII4

MORE video of his statements praising Wilson and FDR.

PappyD61 on January 28, 2012 at 12:22 PM

I prefer what the Freddie Mac employees say, as to why he was paid $1.6 million, to your fantasies, stoner.

Basilsbest on January 28, 2012 at 12:10 PM

You can’t even get that right.

From your own oft-repeated quote, an estimable example of sound journalism:

former Freddie Mac officials who spoke on condition of anonymity

Yep. That’s worthy of notice. Nothing quite says “irrefutable truth” like the phrase “condition of anonymity.”

beatcanvas on January 28, 2012 at 12:24 PM

Sorry – I forgot the associated picture:

http://www.beatcanvas.com/pics/basils_freddie_mac_quote.jpg

But shake it again, and may be you’ll come up with something original.

beatcanvas on January 28, 2012 at 12:28 PM

There is no greater trait required for leadership than consistency. Newt doesn’t have it.

ray on January 28, 2012 at 12:35 PM

All you need to know is here:

http://www.politijim.com/2012/01/stats-on-what-newt-and-mitt-did-not.html

Talk is cheap, actions speak…

RockyJ. on January 28, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Yep. That’s worthy of notice. Nothing quite says “irrefutable truth” like the phrase “condition of anonymity.”

I wish someone would pay me 30,000 dollars a month for “history lessons”. whre can i sign up

lol

gerry-moderate republican-mittbot-brushing up on teaching skills

gerrym51 on January 28, 2012 at 12:46 PM

Long, but excellent read, whether you think you know, or know not at all.

Schadenfreude on January 28, 2012 at 12:53 PM

No Newt is good Newt.

Snake307 on January 28, 2012 at 12:55 PM

You’re all crazy.

Reason and principled agendas don’t cut it anymore. There is a small percentage of swing voters that will decide this election.

This election will be Goebels against the conservative. Newt is the closest thing we have to a Churchill.

Anyone who thinks Romney can beat a red tide of yellow journalism is naiive. Anyone who thinks Romney cares to take on the entrenched Washington powers, if elected, is naiive.

Some do have to put their lives, honor and fortunes on the line. But it sure as hell won’t be Mitt. Win or lose, he’ll walk way with nearly a quarter billion dollars still in the bank (some foreign). If he wins, he and his descendants won’t be personally hurt by any bill the Democrats pass, and he’ll sign them to get reelected. Either way, he’ll never be hurting.

Even if Gingrich is a liar and doesn’t care if the US is swallowed up in a swam of entitlements, backruptcy and financial and social chaos, at least there is a chance that he can win, and a chance that he will fight for the right thing.

Newt may not be perfect. He may not even be good. But at least he can DO something if he puts his mind to it. And turning back the US will take a hell of a fight.

flicker on January 28, 2012 at 12:58 PM

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

Except for the fact that he called his own views progressive.

JellyToast on January 28, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Here’s the thing with Newt.

Yes he’s taken a lot of conservative positions, lots of very conservative positions. He’s also taken some very liberal positions. Even last year he seemed to be okay with the idea of a mandate, for example. This alone wouldn’t disqualify him entirely, though I will once again reassert that his various positions seem to put him slightly to the left of Romney.

Other issues however, in my view, SHOULD disqualify him outright.

First is the electability issue. The man has demonstrated that he does not have the mental discipline necessary to go one week without giving him opposition a glaring soundbite, or some sort of talking point. His past ethics issues, and his tendencies to mislead people about his past would not sit well with many voters. Finally, despite having a real gift for throwing out Republican red-meat, I think this week has demonstrated that he isn’t that strong a debater. Not only is attacking the media in the debate unlikely to earn him many points, but he languishes if he doesn’t have a crowd to cheer him on, and cheering typically isn’t allowed during General Election debates.

Then there is his avarice. I have never seen an individual that wanted to be President as badly as this man. Of course all the candidates want it, but Gingrich seems to believe it is his destiny, and becomes furious whenever he is derailed. Not only is this a horrible trait for winning an election, I’m not sure I would trust somebody with such an ego with the office of the presidency.

Then, finally, there is his willingness to use class warfare, and other liberal tactics, to attack his opponents. I know this isn’t a big deal for a lot of people, but it is a big deal for me. I’ve spent years trying to convince people that class warfare is a self destructive waste of time and effort, and although this attack wasn’t effective I find it deplorable, DEPLORABLE, that a Republican candidate would use such tactics on a fellow Republican during a Republican primary. We do NOT want to legitimize class warfare, nor should we reward a guy for attacking economic freedom, which is one of the cornerstones of our country!

Any one of these issues alone would give me pause, a few of these issues alone would disqualify Gingrich from my consideration altogether. Taken altogether, and it still floors me that the man has as much support as he does!

WolvenOne on January 28, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Talk is cheap, actions speak…

RockyJ. on January 28, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Thank you for that link. Excellent summation.

Schadenfreude on January 28, 2012 at 1:00 PM

There is no greater trait required for leadership than consistency. Newt doesn’t have it.

ray on January 28, 2012 at 12:35 PM

And Romney does, I guess.
Now if we can just get rid of all those nasty youtube videos out there where he was proclaiming the exact opposite of everything he is proclaiming today.

JellyToast on January 28, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Short of unrelenting impertinence NO one will beat Obama and his capos.

Schadenfreude on January 28, 2012 at 1:02 PM

George Soros says there ‘isn’t all that much difference’ between Romney and Obama

Soros thinks this will be a boring election if Romney is the nominee because Obama’s base is not excited and with Romney as the nominee the republican base will not be excited either.

Kaffa on January 28, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Is that Joe Scarborough of msnbc morning crap show? If so, why would anyone middle of the road to the right care what this liberal/RINO has to say about anything?

oldernslower on January 28, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Blast from the past: Romney uses vintage video to hit Gingrich

Mitt attacks Newt on charges that he was cleared of. Newt has a lot of things to attack, why make stuff up? Sounds like desperation to me. I wonder what Romney’s internal polling is showing about the FL race?

Kaffa on January 28, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Joe Scarborough was on a lot of talk shows last Sunday.

He has Newt derangement syndrome big time.

Of late, my rule of thumb is that when the GOP Rino/Blue Bloods/Establishment/MSNBC hosts hate someone, I’m going to give them every benefit of the doubt.

patfish on January 28, 2012 at 1:16 PM

RockyJ. on January 28, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Thanks for posting that link. Romney is a pure lib/RINO…. but gosh, he looks so good up there. He dresses so nice and has a tan. He’d be a lot better than Newt. I mean, Newt is a conservative, but, that pale skin and… you know, that gut… he just doesn’t look the part.

JellyToast on January 28, 2012 at 1:16 PM

The Newt I know is not nice.

He kicks lib *ss.

KirknBurker on January 28, 2012 at 1:18 PM

George Soros says there ‘isn’t all that much difference’ between Romney and Obama

Soros thinks this will be a boring election if Romney is the nominee because Obama’s base is not excited and with Romney as the nominee the republican base will not be excited either.

Kaffa on January 28, 2012 at 1:08 PM

I agree with….Satan.

KirknBurker on January 28, 2012 at 1:19 PM

WolvenOne on January 28, 2012 at 1:00 PM

OK. And you can agree with me that Romney is a leftist because he is.

Then we both vote Santorum.

How’s that sound?

KirknBurker on January 28, 2012 at 1:20 PM

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.
Politico, there’s the first problem. Scarborough, there’s the second problem
The tribes are lining up. I can’t find a decent character reference for any candidate, but a passle of mud slingers, slinging verifiable mud.

However, when gangs start turning on Rush, I know the fat lady has sung her song. Rush takes the hit when he strikes a nerve. He has a really good record on credibility, more so since the Club told him to ‘Get Over It’. He got over it and he isn’t playing second fiddle in anyone’s band

Since the gangs have lost interest in Obama, or the Obama crowd offenses against the nation, they have managed to trash all GOP hopefuls. IMHO this is now the time to look beyond the mud into who will look best when standing next to Obama, as obama drones on about hope and change

Americans are willing to overlook mud if they find a need for the person under the mud. It is no longer a question if the swing vote will ignore the mud on the lapel. It is only a question will the swing vote see a way out of the quicksand by dumping Obama in favor of the mud coated opponent

entagor on January 28, 2012 at 1:21 PM

I agree with….Satan.

KirknBurker on January 28, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Obama, his capos, and the leftie/rightie establishment fear Newt more than the devil himself.

Schadenfreude on January 28, 2012 at 1:22 PM

Today’s latest Gallup Poll has Newt up nationally 32% to 26% over Romney.

Today’s FL Dixie Strategies/The News-Press/First Coast’s poll has Newt up by .38%. In other words, they are tied in FL.

The elites eyes are going to pop out if Newt can pull out FL after they have thrown everything they’ve got at him :)

Go Newt!

Kaffa on January 28, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Newt will fight back – “I don’t want to bloody his nose. I want to knock him out!”. Give me the nasty Newt in this campaign. I don’t want to hear that “Obama is nice guy. He’s just in over his head.”. I want to hear that Obama is communist pig who is destroying our country. Yeah, nasty-Newt is what I want.

Kaffa on January 28, 2012 at 9:03 AM

The problem is that you don’t know which Newt you will get. I think he doesn’t know it himself.

Gelsomina on January 28, 2012 at 1:30 PM

“But this whole thing isn’t really about Newt Gingrich vs. Mitt Romney. It is about the GOP establishment vs. the Tea Party grassroots and independent Americans who are sick of the politics of personal destruction used now by both parties’ operatives with a complicit media egging it on.”

Czar of Defenestration on January 28, 2012 at 9:04 AM

As if Gingrich hadn’t used the politics of personal destruction.

Gelsomina on January 28, 2012 at 1:35 PM

So which candidate is the most likely to reduce the size, scope and power of the US federal government?

Taking money from Freddie? Which one will disband the thing? And Fannie and all the FHA that backs this stuff up…

We have candidates who love them some agricultural subsidies, but that has created a large monocrop problem and helped to liquidate small and medium sized farms to the benefit of Big Agriculture. Which one of the candidates will finally say that enough is enough on the US government subsidizing agriculture and payong out tens of billions that help to support a brittle system of agriculture? Brittle? The average age of farmers is in the 50′s today, and there are fewer farms and larger acreages of monocrops that would be susceptible to a single bacteria, virus or bug that suddenly decided it loved the monocrop and had the ability to spread faster than it could be contained. That happened in ’72 with corn and there is a wheat rust going through Africa, M.E. and now Central Asia that is just like that. These are warnings about this system of agriculture.

How about the EPA? Which candidate isn’t going to just tinker with it, but remove it?

These things take a Congressional majority to move ON, so how about getting that in the cross-hairs so that no matter WHO is the President, Congress can at least cripple these agencies by reducing their funding to tiny amounts. I would prefer a full up-rooting and making sure the roots are all removed, unlike welfare reform which left lots of roots in place to regrow… but starting to kill the plant at the roots is a great start. It would be damned handy to have a President who would be more than willing to roll back the federal government… and not cause a world war at the same time, although that may be OBE by 2013.

Then there is the SCOTUS ruling on O-care. If they rule for it, then it is time to get serious about holding the candidates feet to the fire and making sure that their willingness to repeal it completely is stated, backed and that they understand this will be a first month priority. If the SCOTUS rules against it, suddenly there is a broken playingfield and the serious nature of the REST of the entitlements comes to the forefront, along with the size, scope and power of government and its massive debt. Got a candidate who will put in a path to ending the goodies and handouts? A phase-out path over a decade, perhaps, that lets people know that if they currently have the goodies they will be able to keep them, but they will be rewarded if they go back to work and care for themselves by, perhaps, a lower tax rate? You know, shut of the demographics of doom and then let the programs die through attrition? Whoever is elected better have a clue about this… so should some Congresscritters, too.

So far its lots of smoke, heat and no light coming from the campaigns. No one is taking the state of the Nation seriously save for those trying to tear it down. They know EXACTLY what they are doing… you had best figure out what YOU have to do to survive this as our politicians are clueless on the topic. Yeah Rome wasn’t built in a day, but it was sacked in 3… and we are closer to the 3 than the building part, in case this has been missed.

ajacksonian on January 28, 2012 at 1:38 PM

I can’t believe that the stupid party is gonna nominate McCain 2.0 again. What a bunch of losers. Once Romney loses to Obama, you can cry about another 4 years. And next time around, hope you don’t nominate another McCain 3.0.

tommy71 on January 28, 2012 at 1:39 PM

For me, the deciding factor is that the people who know Newt the best, who worked closely with him for a long time in Congress, are nearly universally against him. He is an expert at destruction, but the man can’t lead worth a damn.

AngusMc on January 28, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Can we call that photo of Newt his Mussolini pose. He will make sure the trains run on time, everything else time will tell.

tjexcite on January 28, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Today’s latest Gallup Poll has Newt up nationally 32% to 26% over Romney.

Today’s FL Dixie Strategies/The News-Press/First Coast’s poll has Newt up by .38%. In other words, they are tied in FL.

The elites eyes are going to pop out if Newt can pull out FL after they have thrown everything they’ve got at him :)

Go Newt!

Kaffa on January 28, 2012 at 1:29 PM

After being in Florida for the last ten days, Newt will Win Florida. He has more ground support.

Anybody but Romney in the primary. Anybody but Obama in the General.

jjnco73 on January 28, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Four years ago as many of you on this site were giving it to MITT and we nominated McCain? (what) Now four years later your telling me MITT has moved to the front over NEWT? What does that really say about us looking back? We made a mistake?

I want someone to take it to Obama…if your afraid of bi-polar Newt – take the safe route (Mitt) and we will get hammered again in 12.

My bet he won’t carry Michigan, his own back yard.

not-ur-avragejoe on January 28, 2012 at 1:49 PM

After being in Florida for the last ten days, Newt will Win Florida. He has more ground support.

Anybody but Romney in the primary. Anybody but Obama in the General.

jjnco73 on January 28, 2012 at 1:42 PM

I understand that Ann Coulter is on suicide watch :)

Kaffa on January 28, 2012 at 1:49 PM

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’m not fluent in keyboard, so I’ve attached a link for you here, and (at the bottom of that page) there is another link for you to follow regarding entitlement reforms. As for his moon colony thoughts, he is speaking about a long range goal and wanting (approx.) 80% of private investment money.
http://www.newt.org/solutions/jobs-economy

lynncgb on January 28, 2012 at 1:51 PM

(I am a firm believer in actions speak LOUDER than words.)

Source:

What are their biggest accomplishments ACTUALLY governing?

Mitt Romney as MA Governor:

* 4 years as governor – 220 days absent his last year.
* Scored a 55 on CATO scorecard of Governors.
* Had a Democrat Controlled Congress.
* Promised no new taxes and raised them the excessively.

In 2003, Romney actually set the record for the most fee increases enacted by a state, according to the National Conference of State Legislators. In addition, he raised over $300 million dollars from businesses by “closing loopholes” on subchapter S corporations but this loophole closing actually resulted in doubling the tax rates. Indeed, as Peter Nicholas, chairman of Boston Scientific stated, “when Mitt Romney became governor in 2003, subchapter S corporations that were owned by Massachusetts business trusts were taxed at 5.3 percent…..By the time Romney left office, the tax rate on these corporations had climbed to 9.8 percent.” *

*Was 47th out of 50 in job creation of all Governors. If Katrina had not hit he would have been lower.
*State spending ended $5.2 billion dollars higher when he began office.
*He left a $3 billion deficit.
*He spent millions on pork projects such as buying new cars for welfare recipients.
*Initiated most liberal progressive socialized health care of any state in history. 50% (2010 poll) dislike it, and costs are higher than other states.
*Allowed Planned Parenthood to be incorporated into MA law by name as part of the oversight of parts of the program.
*Used executive orders to implement gay marriage
*Romney spent millions of state money pursuing Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) and although they dumped it, then created the Massachusetts Climate Protection Plan
*Romney dramatically limited emissions on six power plants, even going so far as to claim – with radical environmentalists at his side – that one power plant had killed 59 people.
*He continued to grant state aid to four “sanctuary cities” in Massachusetts with no effort made to restrict this assistance. Contrary to his campaign propaganda there was no bill or effort to give drivers licenses to illegals that he “fought.”
*One of his own endorsers (Powerline) admit, “…there is no question that Governor Romney’s initial fiscal discipline slacked off in the second half of his term…” Note: Said another way, he couldn’t even be fiscally responsible for more than 2 years.

Conservative initiatives?
*He consolidated the social service and public health bureaucracy and restructured the Metropolitan District Commission.
*Romney even eliminated half of the executive branch’s press positions, saving $1.2 million. (yes million).
*In May of 2004, he proposed cutting the state’s income tax rate from 5.3% to 5.0%. He failed. Three times.
*He pushed for legislation that increased the number of hours each week recipients must work and establishing a five-year limit for receiving benefits.
*He forced Medicaid recipients to make co-payments for some services and for new state workers to increase contributions from 15% to 25%.
*He changed the state pension system by moving it from a defined benefit system to a defined contribution system.
*He vetoed a “card check” system for unions.
*He vetoed a minimum wage law.

Romney left office without running for a second term with approval ratings under 35%.

Newt Gingrich as GA Congressman and Speaker of the House:

*33 years as Congressman including 4 as Speaker of the House
*Lifetime American Conservative Union rating of 90%
(most recent year was for 1998 at 100%)* **
*He had a Democrat controlled Congress up until 1994, a Democrat President and Senate from 1992 until 1998
*Helped Reagan pass biggest tax cut in 50 years as Minority Whip, called out George Bush on breaking his promise and led (as a legislator) a Democrat President to do the same.
*Art Laffer confirms Gingrich helped on a team that designed “Supply Side Economics.”
*Supported/Championed policies that created 11 Million jobs.
*National Taxpayers Union’s Annual Scorecard on reduced spending and taxes gave Gingrich an “A”, for his last four years in office, ranking him #1, #4, #2 and #11 and as one of the most conservative members in Congress.
*Led a Balanced Budget initiative with a Democrat President. AS A SPEAKER not an Executive Branch Leader and not in control of the Senate or Executive Branch. He balanced the budget 4 times creating the first SURPLUS in decades.
*$400 billion in debt was paid off during time as Speaker, although Gingrich agreed with Reagan on deal that ended up running deficits until 1988.
*Fought and defeated HillaryCare both in strategy, as well as political and legislative maneuvering.
*On third try got a Democratic President and Senate to initiate Welfare Reform that put 60% of recipients to work.
*Gingrich’s pro-life voting record is 98.6%, 70 out of 71 votes.
*Brought two partial birth abortion bills to Clinton that served as the model for what was passed under George W. Bush.
*He helped Reagan’s initiative to eliminate 12 of 94 programs and cut budgets of many others like the SBA more than 50%.
*He identified, recruited, campaigned for and helped organize over the biggest minority opposition swing getting 367 Congressional candidates to sign the Contract With America. This resulted in a NET GOP pickup of 52 seats in the House, 8 in the Senate and 11 Governorships.
*Multiple conservatives congressmen got their political start including:

Jon Kyl
Mike DeWine
Jim Inhofe
Fred Thompson
Bill Frist
Rick Santorum
Contract With America – (1995 Description): “…represented the culmination of 30 years of creative conservative thinking dealing with the basic social and economic problems of modern America. The ideas provided the background for the widest range of legislative initiatives, certainly since the 1930s, and possibly at any time in American political history.”

The ten items in the Contract were all acted upon in the first 100 days of the new Congress, which is what the signatories had pledged. Nine of the ten items in the Contract passed the House: Only the constitutional amendment on term limits (which required a two-thirds vote) was defeated. Out of a total of 302 roll call votes on issues related to the Contract With America, the conservatives prevailed on 299 of them. A balanced budget amendment passed in the House by a 300-123 margin but was subsequently defeated as it fell one vote short of the two-thirds needed for passage in the U.S. Senate. The overall margin by which the items in the Contract were passed averaged about 70 percent despite the fact that the Republicans only held a 12-seat margin over the Democrats (52-48 percent, the smallest House majority margin in 40 years). Given the notorious lack of party discipline in the American Congress, the passage by a large majority of nearly all of the items in the Contract was a remarkable achievement.

I can’t adequately cover all 10 initiatives and their profundity but they include:
*Congressional Reform including Congress being subject to the law they pass
*Balanced Budget with Line Item Veto (failed Senate, passed Veto but declared unconstitutional)
*Anti-crime package (truth in sentencing, more law enforcement help)
*Personal Responsibility (ultimately became Welfare Reform)
*Tax Package Including Child Tax Credit, Elimination of Marriage Penalty, Savings Account, Middle Class Tax Relief
*Disallow US Troops from serving under foreign authorites like the UN
*Frivolous Litigation vetoed by Clinton but tort reform override veto.
*Job Creation act included apital-gains cuts and indexation, neutral cost recovery, risk assessment/cost-benefit analysis, strengthening the Regulatory Flexibility Act and unfunded mandate reform to create jobs and raise worker wages.

Other sections of the Contract include a proposed Family Reinforcement Act (tax incentives for adoption, strengthening the powers of parents in their children’s education, stronger child pornography laws, and elderly dependent care tax credit) and the Senior Citizens Fairness Act (raise the Social Security earnings limit, repeal the 1993 tax hikes on Social Security benefits and provide tax incentives for private long-term care insurance).

*The only bill that failed was Term Limits.
*He is the longest-serving teacher of the Joint War Fighting course for Major Generals at Air University and taught officers from all five services as an honorary Distinguished Visiting Scholar and Professor at the National Defense University.

His “Liberal” Legislation?
*Supported Reagan in Simpson-Mazzoli Amnesty Bill
*Voted to raise taxes twice with Reagan.
*Would vote for earmarks in exchange for conservative legislative votes.

When Newt became Speaker in 1995 congressional approval was about 20%. When he resigned the Speakership four years later, it was about 60%. Now it’s 11%.

Newt Gingrich gave the “keynote” rebuttal AGAINST Al Gore on Cap and Trade legislation.

OBSERVATIONS

It is interesting how Romney is mostly lauded for conservative positions he actually never implemented or was able to pass when he was a governing leader and Gingrich is chastised for supposed liberal positions for which there is no voting record. When it comes down to what they accomplished when in power to govern – Gingrich acted more like a Conservative President, and Romney more like a Compromising Legislator.

Similarly, why there is no evidence that Gingrich ever voted against something he campaigned on, Romney broke numerous pledges to both liberals and conservatives in his state.

So I leave it up to you to conclude who is more likely to do what they say.

Thanks go to Trust1TG @ TRS for sharing this link.

RockyJ. on January 28, 2012 at 1:52 PM

source for the above is:

POLITIJIM’S RANTS For Reasonable People..

thanks.

RockyJ. on January 28, 2012 at 1:55 PM

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

You’re such a putz. Out of the book, Gingrich gets a single mention for attending an event in 1996. Big whoop.

beatcanvas on January 28, 2012 at 9:23 AM

Look at this quote:
“The housing GSEs have made an important contribution to homeownership and the housing finance system. We have a much more liquid and stable housing finance system than we would have without the GSEs. And making homeownership more accessible and affordable is a policy goal I believe conservatives should embrace.”

There’s more about it here.

Gelsomina on January 28, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Is Politico right?Is this the Drudge Report?

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

A few weeks ago Ann Coulter grabbed Matt’s tiny gonads and he can’t cut her hand off.

Schadenfreude on January 28, 2012 at 2:21 PM

So, in other words, Newt Gingrich is the Sybil of politicians. Perfect. /sarc

Murf76 on January 28, 2012 at 2:29 PM

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

That’s how it works. You attack, you get attacked. The difference is that neither Romney nor his supporters claim that he is dying on the cross for them. “Crucified by the Establishment.” That’s really annoying.

Gelsomina on January 28, 2012 at 2:31 PM

We have a Chinese buffet near home that if your go there between 12 -1 or 5-6pm, the food is immpecable, but if you go between mealtimes you’ll have to settle for second rate dried/left over food.

That’s where principled conservatives are now in this primary season – having to pick between some kind of second rate food-so I’ll pick Newt, but I’ll starve before I pick another Obama-thid time, with pretty hair and a silver tongue.A business messiah, so to speak. At least with Newt I’ll get egg rolls

Don L on January 28, 2012 at 2:42 PM

It’s Jeckle and Hyde, not “naughty or nice”.

VorDaj on January 28, 2012 at 2:44 PM

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

As you yourself just said a few minutes ago, Romney never spoke out in favor of Fannie and Freddie.

Gelsomina on January 28, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Mitt Romney delivered a new zinger against Newt Gingrich in an event in Orlando just now, mocking him over his complaints about this week’s debates. “I had fun last night, I gotta tell you,” Romney said. “Now Speaker Gingrich said after the debate before last night that the crowd wasnt allowed to cheer so he couldn’t do so well because the crowd was too quiet.

“Then last night he said the crowd was too loud, he couldn’t deal with it. It’s like Goldilocks, you know – the porridge is too hot, the porridge is too cold. Look, I’m looking forward to debating Barack Obama. I don’t worry too much about the crowd. I’ve got to make sure we tell the truth to Barack Obama and get him out of the White House.”

haner on January 28, 2012 at 2:52 PM

“Crucified by the Establishment.” That’s really annoying.
Gelsomina on January 28, 2012 at 2:31 PM

No kidding. They are masters at martyrdom.

Oh well, putting aside his remarks about Reagan, this speech of Newt really is superb. There’s a certain, er, cognitive dissonance between the man who wrote this speech and his Machiavellian embrace of Leftist economic principles followed by the ridiculous spectacle of Sarah Palinsky claiming that first person witnesses to Newt Gingrich’s Speakership, presenting their recollections in a free press, is equivalent to “Stalinism”.

Buy Danish on January 28, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Our Savior Newt of Galilee is being crucified by Romulian cannibals in the Florida swamps! Oh lord, oh lord!! Will someone not help this nice and humble man who never hurt anyone in his entire life? Oh lord, oh lord!! Somebody has got to save him!

Cheshire Cat on January 28, 2012 at 3:02 PM

s equivalent to “Stalinism”.

Buy Danish on January 28, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Oh no! Oh no! The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming! They are launching a Sputnik at Newt’s Moon Colony!

Cheshire Cat on January 28, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Save Newt first and then the grandmothers!

Cheshire Cat on January 28, 2012 at 3:07 PM

For me, the deciding factor is that the people who know Newt the best, who worked closely with him for a long time in Congress, are nearly universally against him. He is an expert at destruction, but the man can’t lead worth a damn.

AngusMc on January 28, 2012 at 1:39 PM

This is what’s been nagging at me as well. It’s so easy to brand as the dreaded establishment every former colleague of Newt’s who believes he’s unsuitable for the Presidency. The mass confluence of all these different pols can’t simply be a product of the “it’s not his turn motif.” They can’t all be elitist cult-like zombies with an ax to grind. Most of them worked closely with Newt and they know far better than we do who he really is and how he operates.

Slainte on January 28, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Slainte on January 28, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Well-said.

Buy Danish on January 28, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Naughty or nice?

Unstable or insane?

ray on January 28, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Some right wingers Most leftists are like some church choirs, praising, amening and glorifying their preacher messiah and their choir his minions but they don’t give a rat’s pitoot about the unconverted. America or the suffering poor today.

aloysiusmiller on January 28, 2012 at 11:24 AM

FIFY

DannoJyd on January 28, 2012 at 3:30 PM

(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.)

Charlie Rangel says the same thing. They’re innocent, I tell ya!

MJBrutus on January 28, 2012 at 3:37 PM

There is a group of republicans that would like to have a candidate that will say about Obama what they say when they’re drunk on the internet. At least a socialist. Ideally an anti-patriotic communist. Those folks are the ones who overwhelmingly support Newt.

That faction of the GOP believes has Levin, Limbaugh, Palin and the likes as their source for “conservative thinking” and never read a line of Burke, Oakeshott, Kirk or even Buckley.

Romney’s ethos is eminently “conservative” – being naturally reserved, the work ethic, the reluctance in displaying strong emotions publicly – but those over-emotional know-nothings are the typical product of Oprah’s age. Newt’s long list of litanies against conservatism and the GOP is irrelevant because he’s nasty and loud. He’s a blowhard. So, that faction of the GOP likes him for that. For the same reason, he’s despised for 3/4s of the country. That hasn’t changed in the last 15 years and won’t change in the next 15.

joana on January 28, 2012 at 3:50 PM

As you yourself just said a few minutes ago, Romney never spoke out in favor of Fannie and Freddie.

Gelsomina on January 28, 2012 at 2:52 PM

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

beatcanvas on January 28, 2012 at 3:51 PM

joana on January 28, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Sorry, sweetie. I think for myself. I don’t have anybody that I count on to tell me what to think. Just because I don’t necessarily agree with you that Romney is so much better than Newt, it doesn’t make me an “emotional know-nothing.”

Better get off your high horse before you fall off and get a boo-boo.

JannyMae on January 28, 2012 at 3:55 PM

JannyMae on January 28, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Chill out. I was talking about a faction of the GOP. I have no idea who you are. No need to get all emotional.

joana on January 28, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4