Sticking Up For Newt

Yesterday, my colleague Rick posted a piece about how a lot of people are giving Newt Gingrich a second look, and that’s showing in the polls — he’s currently pretty much at the top. And in the comments, regular left-leaning commenter “Jay” (no relation/connection, I swear!) put up a list of reasons why people shouldn’t support Gingrich.

 

I don’t mean to single out Jay for abuse — honest! — but his list was just too damned convenient to not use as a springboard to clear up some things about the former Speaker.

 

- Served wife divorce papers while she was in the hospital dying from cancer

For years, Newt has said nothing about this rumor. But now he’s officially denied it, as has his daughter and the “dying” ex-wife — who, apparently, is still fighting off her imminent death 29 years later. Oh, and she wanted the divorce — Gingrich brought their children to visit her in the hospital, and she wanted to discuss the ongoing divorce proceedings at the time.

- $300K fine for ethics violation by misusing tax exempt foundations for political gain

No, he wasn’t. It was more complicated than that. Gingrich was charged with 84 violations. 83 were dismissed; the last one was for “providing the commitee with information which he knew or should have known was inaccurate.” He was reprimanded the $300K was not a fine, but the cost of the investigation; and the IRS later ruled no tax laws were violated.

- “Children of welfare should be taken away to orphanages”

Gingrich said that during the fight over welfare reform in the 1990′s. He specified “Boys’ Town” style institutions at the time. Anyone who knows anything about Gingrich knows he loves to toss out his little verbal bombs, and here this was part of his rhetorical war against those who wanted to preserve the status quo. The resulting changes are now recognized by most everyone as a pretty good move — you can tell this because the liberals attribute it to Bill Clinton, while the conservatives insist on crediting Gingrich and the Republican congress. When both sides fight over the credit, you know it was a good idea.

- Wanted to impeach Clinton but cheated on his wife with a staffer (his third wife now)

Gingrich didn’t “want to impeach” Clinton; he actually did it. And Clinton wasn’t impeached over a blowjob, as his defenders like to say; he was impeached for lying under oath about said blowjob, during a deposition over a sexual harassment case. And the question about said blowjob (among other sex acts) was admissible in the case because of a sexual-harassment law that Clinton himself signed. Clinton later surrendered his license to practice law over the matter. Gingrich did cheat on his 2nd wife, but never lied under oath about it.

- Alleges class warfare against Obama but can ring up a $500K tab at Tiffany’s

Gingrich has been off the public payroll for over a decade; he can spend his money any goddamned way he wants. Let him sink a couple million into Dutch tulip bulb futures, for all I care. And it occurs to me — might jewelry be a good investment, like gold and other precious metals, as a hedge against inflation? I honestly don’t know for sure, but it seems a logical idea.

 

And as far as “class warfare” — I’d have to say that bitching about how a private citizen spends his own money is a pretty good example.

- Monthly retainer with Freddie Mac was $25K to $50K (1999 – 2002)
- Claimed not to be a lobbyist for Freddie, but on a 2 year retainer for a total of $600K
- Criticizes Chris Dodd for his Countrywide deal, saying “we should go after the politicians who have been at the heart of this sickness which is weakening the country”
- Hired by Freddie to “build bridges with Capital Hill conservatives to sell the mortgage company’s public-private structure to conservatives”

These all tie in together. OK, he was a consultant (not an employee) to Freddie Mac well before the housing bubble collapsed, shortly after he left public office. Let’s look at the specifics:

 

- The term “lobbyist” has a very specific, legal definition — one who directly attempts to influence legislators or other public officials on behalf of clients. Gingrich says he did not lobby any individuals, only offered advice to Freddie Mac officials on how to best work with Republicans in Congress. That’s not lobbying, that’s consulting.

 

- Chris Dodd was one of the infamous “Friends Of Angelo,” key lawmakers who got incredibly sweetheart deals from Countrywide. That particular scandal should have led to a LOT of federal officials losing their jobs, but it somehow got lost in the shuffle of the banking crisis. And Dodd, in the wake of the exposure, announced he would not seek re-election — an odd decision for someone who so recently had run for president.

 

- That last part is pretty much what I said in the “lobbyist” bit — that describes what they wanted Gingrich to do. Not personally sway conservative lawmakers, but help Freddie Mac understand how to reach out and sway them on their own. In sports terms, he wasn’t a player, he was a coach.

 

Now, what’s even more interesting about Other Jay’s list is that there are some very potent reasons why conservatives might not want to support Gingrich, but he doesn’t mention them. In recent years, he’s made a couple of moves that have really, really pissed off conservatives. He made a pro-global-warming commercial with Nancy Pelosi, and that has a lot of right-wingers leery of him. Further, in a special House election in upstate New York, he actively took the side of the state GOP’s choice against the conservative favorite — and backed her to the hilt, despite warnings that she was far too close to the Democrats for comfort. He ignored that and championed her — and when she lost in the primary, she endorsed the Democrat and campaigned for him, and he won. Quite a few folks still nurse a grudge over what they see as a betrayal. My theory? Liberals see those as good moves by Gingrich; if they were inclined to praise him, they’d cite them as examples of his willingness to “reach across the aisle” and work with the other side. But they aren’t interested in saying nothing nice, so they don’t bring it up — even though it would do far, far more harm to Gingrich among conservatives than any of that silly little list.

 

I stand by my earlier statement: I think Gingrich could be a truly great vice president. And if it were to come down to him versus Obama, I’d vote for Newt in a heartbeat.

 

But as of right now, when I cast my ballot in New Hampshire’s primary next January, Newt will be about my fourth choice.

 

Shortlink:

Posted by on November 17, 2011.
Filed under 2012 Presidential Race, Newt Gingrich.


You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • http://www.brutallyhonest.org Rick Rice

    Good stuff Jay Tea…

    • Anonymous

      Couldn’t have spiked it if you and (Other) Jay hadn’t fed me the ball, Rick…

      J.

  • herddog505

    An excellent analysis (may I use the term “apologia”?) for Newt.  It rebuts some of the more scurrilous tales about him.

    I still don’t support him, however, for the reasons that you list toward the bottom of your piece.  As I have written elsewhere, I also suspect that Newt’s intellectual heft is offset by what I see as a very flexible set of principles.  Or perhaps it would be better to say that he’s simply too prone to go for the “flavor of the month”.

    That being said, it would be a hoot to see him debate Barry or poor, brain-damaged Plugs.

  • Anonymous

    Good job Jay Tea.

    Regarding the pro-global-warming commercial with Nancy Pelosi…. Newt was on Fox recently, think it was Brett Baier’s show, and he was asked about this. He replied that that was the dumbest thing he’s ever done. Seems a good enough answer to me.

    As to Jay’s anti-Newt list, these are the talking points we can expect if Newt continues to do well and, god forbid, wins the nomination. The people who will use this list to slam Newt will conveniently ignore the much longer disqualifying list that is Obama’s.

    • http://otisthehand.blogspot.com/ OTIS the hand

      ” Newt was on Fox recently, think it was Brett Baier’s show, and he was
      asked about this. He replied that that was the dumbest thing he’s ever
      done. Seems a good enough answer to me.”

      That’s not good enough for me. However, I expressed my anger to someone regarding the Newt AGW endorsement earlier and he pointed me to this video of Newt “post-Pelosi ad” testifying before congress back in 2009. This IS good enough for me and goes a long way toward allaying my reservations. Seeing this video is really the event that started my shift in opinion about Newt.

  • http://www.rustedsky.net Anonymous

    Ever notice how once a story is set by the media, the actual facts don’t seem to matter?

    • Anonymous

      Good point.

      Repeat a lie often enough…….

      • Anonymous

        I asked on the other Newt thread… why would you need to divorce a dying woman?

        • Anonymous

          Jwb, Newts daughter wrote an article recently debunking this rumor.

          http://www.creators.com/conservative/jackie-gingrich-cushman/setting-the-record-straight.html

          • Anonymous

            Yes I know it’s all crap, it just always amazes me that people will believe this junk without even thinking.

        • http://www.rustedsky.net Anonymous

          And I relied on the other thread – after 29 years, she ain’t dead yet.

          But you heard the story, you internalized it, and you aren’t questioning it AT ALL.

          If there’s one thing I’d love to see on line, it’d be for people to actually start looking at ‘what everyone knows’ and fact check their assumptions.

          • Anonymous

            Exactly. There is a huge segment of people who still believe the “Clinton was impeached for a blow job” cannard.

  • Anonymous

    I agreed with Newt on the orphanages idea, having seen some of the crack and booze-filled homes with kids from multiple fathers that welfare was funding in the 70s and 80s.  He deserves credit (with Clinton) on the welfare reform thing.

    On Freddie Mac, he was just another pig feeding at the trough, like Dodd.

    • Anonymous

      No, NOT like Dodd. Dodd accepted financial incentives for legislative favors. The “Friends of Angelo” were taking bribes, plain and simple. There is no moral equivalence.

      J.

      • jim_m

        Give it up JT.  As we have seen in the past, you can catch a dem with $90k in bribery cash in their freezer and the left still won’t admit that they have done anything even unethical much less illegal.

        They will over look tens of millions of “salary” for a political hack that knows nothing about the financial industry but will pitch a fit over a fraction of that sum if it is given to a conservative.

        The left has no interest what-so-ever in holding their own accountable for their actions.

      • Anonymous

        Agreed that it was worse with Dodd, as he was in office, but Newt was still hogging at the trough.  Both Dodd and Newt were selling influence, as were Gorelick and Ford.

        Culture of corruption is bipartisan.

        • Anonymous

          Nice of you to decide that Newt’s chosen work after public service is corrupt as you’re fond of saying who made you king of the world?

          • Anonymous

            I’m not King of the World, but who would be a better judge of corruption than Jack Abramoff?

            “I know he says they paid him as a historian to give a historic
            lesson, but I’m unaware of any history professor being paid that much
            money to give someone a history lesson,” Abramoff told NBC’s David
            Gregory.

            “This is exactly what I’m talking about: people who came to
            Washington, who had public service, and they cash in on it. They use
            their public service and access to make money, and unfortunately Newt
            Gingrich is one of those who’s done it,” Abramoff said.

            “I don’t know if he’ll survive this, to be honest with you,” Abramoff
            continued. “This is a very big thing. He is doing, he’s engaged in the
            exact kind of corruption that America disdains. The very things that
            anger the Tea Party movement and the Occupy Wall Street movement and everybody who is not in a movement
            and watches Washington and says why are these guys getting all this money, why do they go become so rich,
            why do they have these advantages? Unfortunately Newt seems to play
            right into it.”

            http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/abramoff-on-gingrichs-freddie-payments-come-on-historians-dont-make-that-much.php?ref=fpblg

          • Anonymous

            Gee thanks Chico another fact filled post, you realize that Abramoff does nothing here but speculate about what he thinks Newt was doing with out a single fact to back it up. If Fannie and Freddie wanted to hire a consultant and they chose Newt why is it corrupt of Newt to take the consulting gig? If it was a bad gig isn’t that on Freddie and Fannie? I still don’t see how this measures up to corruption he took no bribe to infulence the government from a government position so please where’s the corruption?

          • herddog505

            Perception is reality.  Even if Newt did nothing actually corrupt or even questionable, it still doesn’t look well for him to have any connection with Fannie / Freddie, which are (rightly, IMO) regarded by many on the right as pits of inefficiency and corruption.

        • Anonymous

          Yeah, just Billl Clinton and Monica Lewinsky was just the same as that Penn State assistant coach and the little boys. Hardly any real difference at all.

          J.

          • Anonymous

            Oh, come on, I know you’re a highly partisan Republican, but that’s going too far. ;)

          • Anonymous

            Anyways, this is the bubble of the week, who will Rick and Jeff (Otis) and y’all fall in love with next week?  Newt won’t get 10% in NH, probably not 5%

            Maybe Huntsman or Gary Johnson have a shot.  Or maybe Bachmann won’t seem like a complete kook.

            Truest thing I’ve seen written recently was the guy that wrote that Pawlenty quit too early.  He might be rolling high now.

          • Anonymous

            Considering that Cowhampshire is decidedley liberal it’s hardly a shocker that a conservative would garner a minority of the votes when a blueblood libtard like Mittens is running.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ryan-Murphy/100001624276605 Ryan Murphy

      With clinton who was only dragged along on the welfare reform once it was a foregone conclusion jumping in front of the parade(As he did with many of ‘his’ accomplishments, once it had already been organized and left?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

    For years, Newt has said nothing about this rumor. But now he’s officially denied it, as has his daughter and the “dying” ex-wife — who, apparently, is still fighting off her imminent death 29 years later. Oh, and she wanted the divorce — Gingrich brought their children to visit her in the hospital, and she wanted to discuss the ongoing divorce proceedings at the time.

    As I noted, it’s not a huge issue with me, it’s a problem when we’re getting into the ethics of the man for President.

    He was reprimanded the $300K was not a fine, but the cost of the investigation; and the IRS later ruled no tax laws were violated

    This is the same IRS that bullied people in the 90s?  I doubt they would want to go after the House Speaker that could change the tax code against them.  Also, the IRS has needed a lot of upgrading because of the tax loopholes.

    When both sides fight over the credit, you know it was a good idea.

    Not that I’m wholly against him on the welfare issue.  By all standards, I think welfare should be abolished.  It creates an incentive for people to be lazy and find ways to get money for nothing.  I personally think the entire system should be abolished. 

    Gingrich did cheat on his 2nd wife, but never lied under oath about it

    But note the hypocrisy of his stance against Clinton.  Clinton cheated on Hillary with multiple women over the years.  Newt is criticizing someone else for something he’s done.  The perjury is irrelevant to the behavior that Newt is supposed to exemplify.

    That last part is pretty much what I said in the “lobbyist” bit — that describes what they wanted Gingrich to do. Not personally sway conservative lawmakers, but help Freddie Mac understand how to reach out and sway them on their own. In sports terms, he wasn’t a player, he was a coach.

    By the links I’ve given in the other thread:

    “I offered advice. My advice as an historian when they walked in and said we are now making loans to people that have no credit history and have no record of paying back anything but that’s what the government wants us to do. I said at the time, this is a bubble. This is insane. This is impossible.”

    However, one source reportedly told Bloomberg that Gingrich  gave positive feedback on Freddie Mac’s plans to publicly pledge to issue subordinated debt, manage liquidity, undergo capital stress tests and expand various types of risk disclosures. Gingrich also said these moves would enable Freddie Mac to demonstrate benefits to the taxpayer, the source claimed.

     Now, what’s even more interesting about Other Jay’s list is that there are some very potent reasons why conservatives might not want to support Gingrich, but he doesn’t mention them.

    Not a fan of the two party system nor our electorate where you can win the Presidential campaign with 22% of the vote with a failure rate of 5%.  I like to support people based on their policies, not their politics.  I can’t knowingly support Newt for being a hypocrit who’s also supporting torture and war mongering.  I don’t support Cain for his 999 plan.  Why not just support the much simpler fair tax policy and be done with it?  And Bachmann?  HAHAHAHA!  

    Oh, and I should mention Chris Dodd.  He works for the MPAA now in a total push for power over the internet with his endorsement of the “Stop Online Piracy Act”.  He “advises” them with a $1 million dollar annual salary.  Since I follow copyright issues, even here, Newt has more baggage to carry than the TSA.

    • Anonymous

      I don’t recall Gingrich criticizing Clinton for his infidelity. I recall him being extremely vocal about the “lying under oath” part of it.

      Ever heard the line “it’s not the crime, it’s the coverup?”

      The similar conduct is utterly irrelevant. It’s the LYING UNDER OATH that was the issue, and and that was the specific charge of the impeachment.

      J.

    • Oysteria

      “This is the same IRS that bullied people in the 90s?  I doubt they would want to go after the House Speaker that could change the tax code against them.  Also, the IRS has needed a lot of upgrading because of the tax loopholes.”

      Do you really want to use that line of reasoning?  Why wouldn’t the IRS go after him when all they needed was a thumbs up from the Clintons?  The Clintons kept them busier than a mid day in April.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

        There’s really only been two major changes to the IRS that I can recall.  One was the requirement of a SSN when filing taxes.  The other was the elimination of IRS bully methods in the 90s.  I’ve heard of the IRS going after egregious tax evaders such as Wesley Snipes or the SWAT team for a student loan, but honestly…  He’s the House Speaker in the 90s and for all intents and purposes, their boss.  Why would anyone go after him from within the IRS when there’s a chance he’ll champion reform or an ouster of the agents that scrutinize him?

        • Anonymous

          Let’s see… the IRS has to balance the pressure from an embattled and weakened Speaker of the House, or the President who appointed the Secretary of the Treasury who oversees the IRS?

          Not helping your side, Other Jay…

          J.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            I was referring to less scrutiny while he was House Speaker.  I doubt the IRS really pay attention to Senators or Congress when they’re the ones that can raise a fuss about improper tactics.  And Newt really isn’t a quiet man.

    • Anonymous

      The perjury is irrelevant to the behavior that Newt is supposed to exemplify.

      ?????????

      The perjury IS the behavior. Perjury is a crime. Clinton perjured himself in front of a federal judge. Because of this: 1) the judge held Clinton in contempt, 2) the Arkansas Bar suspended Clinton’s license to practice law, 3) the SCOTUS began disciplinary proceedings against Clinton (which ended when Clinton surrendered his license, 4) the SCOTUS boycotted Clinton’s State of the Union address, and 5) Clinton was impeached.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

        The point is beginning to be lost.  Clinton and Newt did the same thing  (cheating).  Newt impeached Clinton for the same behavior that he did.  In everything that I’ve seen, he was rather mute about this saying “humans are flawed” among a number of other iffy statements where he kind of admits it, but keeps mum about it. Fine, whatever.  The statements are his admission and Clinton was misleading based on the 90s WASP definition of “sexual relations”.  Admitted.  The point is they both did the same behavior and Newt looks far more like a hypocrite by criticizing others for behavior that he’s done on numerous occasions. Getting mad at Clinton and the impeachment may have been for the perjury, but to most people it seems like he did this based on impropriety, not the lie. The Dodd thing of Coutrywide is just as bad as the “advising” angle for Freddie.

         That’s the key thing that is going to hurt him in the pres. campaign.

        • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

          Jay announces:

          The point is beginning to be lost.  Clinton and Newt did the same thing
           (cheating).  Newt impeached Clinton for the same behavior that he did.

          No, you refuse to grasp the actual point.

          Clinton’s philandering came to the attention of Paula Jones’ legal team, who deposed him under oath on the issue as part of demonstrating a pattern of behavior on Clinton’s part.  He perjured himself in that sworn deposition, and he was impeached (by the House) but not convicted (by the Senate) of that perjury charge.

          So, unless you can demonstrate that Gingrich perjured himself by denying under oath his philandering…

        • Anonymous

          “Clinton and Newt did the same thing  (cheating).  Newt impeached Clinton for the same behavior that he did.”

          Oh, sheesh… I’m gonna have to whomp you upside the head with a hard dose of reality, aren’t I?

          The two articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton were “Perjury To A Grand Jury” and “Obstruction Of Justice.” Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich cheated on their wives. Bill Clinton attempted to cover it up, lied under oath, and tried to get others to lie for him under oath. THAT were the impeachable offenses.

          Gingrich never lied to a grand jury about his infidelities. Gingrich never tried to get others to commit perjury about his infidelities.

          If Bill Clinton had told the truth, he would have been embarrassed. Instead, he lied, and was both embarrassed and impeached.

          Now, either cite some facts that Clinton’s impeachment was purely about a blowjob, and NOT about him lying under oath, or drop the subject.

          J.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            Now, either cite some facts that Clinton’s impeachment was purely about a blowjob, and NOT about him lying under oath, or drop the subject.

            Of all that I’m seeing, the definition of “sexual relations” is as follows:

            For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in sexual relations when the person knowingly engages in or causes: 1. Contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; 2. Contact between any part of the person’s body or an object and the genitals or anus of another person; or 3. Contact between the genitals or anus of the person and any part of another person’s body. Contact means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing.

            Where 2 and 3 are too broad.  The problem of the impeachment is that “Slick Willy” played word games with the law.  Again, I’m not here to support Clinton’s behavior, but notice how Newt’s and Clinton’s have a similar background at the time (along with a few other Republicans who impeached the President) and it seems to have come back to work against Newt as baggage.  It’s an attack point.  It’s a character flaw.  A liability.  Do I personally want Newt as the Republican Nominee?  No, I don’t.  He’s more a cartoon character than what I believe to be a serious contender.  There are good candidates, I just don’t see it with the current top runners.

          • Anonymous

            Sorry, the issue about whether or not Clinton committed perjury is settled–Judge Wright decided that he did when she found him in contempt and sanctioned him. The Arkansas Supreme Court decided that he had when it suspended his license, and the SCOTUS decided that he had when it brought disbarment proceedings. Hell’s Bells, even Clinton admitted that he lied.

            http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/19/clinton.lewinsky/

            How this goofy idea that he did not lie has been kept alive is beyond me.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Indeed!

            They not only have their own opinions (or at least the opinions that the LSM’s tells them to have), they have their own alternative reality!

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            You might want to check your polls.  Your favorite candidate just won the Iowa primary along with a number of small victories including the CBS News viewer survey.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            At this point in 2007 Hillary! was ahead in the polls.

            There hasn’t been a delegate selected yet and you’re trying to call the nomination…

            Brilliant!

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            Who’s calling anything?  I’m just watching and telling you that there’s been one person that’s been quite consistent though everyone ignores him.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            What you are doing, in point of fact, is distracting from the fact that we have now established you were pushing the baseless “It was just sex” meme which you know to be false.

            Seems like there’s a word for that…

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            You’re free to come to whatever interpretation you feel, bucko.  I’ve stated plainly my view, and this conversation is no longer relevant.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            It stopped being relevant when you tried to make Clinton’s Impeachment “all about the sex.”

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            Nope.  That wasn’t my intention, but it’s yours, bucko.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            I’ve admitted that in two threads and it’s not what I’m concerned about.  You might want to read what I’ve written and look at the points raised about Newt, rather than this false notion of support for Clinton.

          • Anonymous

            Here’s what I’ve read about what you’ve written:

            But note the hypocrisy of his stance against Clinton.  Clinton cheated on Hillary with multiple women over the years.  Newt is criticizing someone else for something he’s done. . . . 
             
            Clinton and Newt did the same thing  (cheating).  Newt impeached Clinton for the same behavior that he did. . . .
             
            . . . notice how Newt’s and Clinton’s have a similar background at the time.

            The point is that Clinton and Newt did not do the same thing. Clinton’s problems are based on his perjury. Clinton was impeached based on perjury (a crime). Either you believe that “Newt impeached Clinton for the same behavior that he did,” or you misspoke.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            … A lie about the legal definition of sexual relations.  I’m not going to repeat myself.  Everything that I’ve stated about this is up above along with links to where I got the information.  Both men committed adultery, Bill Clinton earned his “Slick Willy” nickname, Newt banged his Congressional Aide and declined to run for House Speaker when found out (along with keeping mum about it), and Newt’s problems are how this appears hypocritical in hindsight along with his other problems of excess baggage to the Presidency.  

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            You most certainly will repeat this calumny the next time Clinton’s impeachment for Perjury and Obstruction of Justice is raised or alluded to.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            Do you just enjoy bulldogging people Rodney?  Do you need a hug?  

            If that’s what you think, you’re free to do so.  The point is going to be lost on you who believes one way about Clinton’s actions and another about Newt’s.  I still don’t believe in Newt’s policies and he’s still marked as a hypocrite.  Feel free to believe what you want to believe.  Do what you want to do.  I have my own reasons for believing Newt won’t make a good president.  If you feel differently, state why.  If not, then you have no argument.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Q6DL245AVVGQXIOZ3CLCINRIWY Brian

            He does.  I have officially anointed him “Jesus Bully”.  

            The only thing he’s done over three thread is point out a single gaffe I made on a movie title (which was a doozy…don’t get me wrong) while in the same post compared my gaffe to gang rape.  

            It’s like arguing with my 16 year old.  He’s convinced he’s right, no matter what.  You can’t argue logic with an illogical person.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

            Sorry, but that is not a charge of perjury.

            No matter how much you might wish it were otherwise, only a charge of perjury is actually a charge of perjury.

            Thank you for playing.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Q6DL245AVVGQXIOZ3CLCINRIWY Brian

    Can we piece this together?

    The spirit of Newt
    The hair of Perry
    The craziness of Paul
    The speech of Cain

    Call it NewPeriPaulCain.  Does anyone know a good geneticist we can get working on this problem?

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      Gone from telling God how to behave to creating a Frankenstein’s monster…

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Q6DL245AVVGQXIOZ3CLCINRIWY Brian

        Interesting…different thread, same Rodney crap.  

        It’s like a bad bar fight carrying over into another bar….

        • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

          That’s what happens when you shoot your credibility in the head.

          Then again you’ve been adopted by chicka, which is really quite enough in and of itself to warn folks hereabouts that something crazy this way comes when they see you post.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Q6DL245AVVGQXIOZ3CLCINRIWY Brian

            You mean when I make non-God based sense?

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            No, when you make chicka sense.

          • Anonymous

            I love it, that last thread was epic, I’m in tears! 

            I never saw you write more than two insulting ejaculations in a comment until then, Rodney, and there you were, writing paragraphs for Brian.

            Keep it up.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            There’s hope for Brian…

          • Anonymous

            Touching, that you would work for his redemption.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Shocking that you would school and encourage him in his obduracy.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Q6DL245AVVGQXIOZ3CLCINRIWY Brian

            Surprising that everyone here is more interested in insulting each other as opposed to having a dialogue.  

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Q6DL245AVVGQXIOZ3CLCINRIWY Brian

            I’m just trying to figure out what I did to raise his ire.  I probably would have stopped replying yesterday afternoon but “nope, there’s Rodney barfing out the ridiculous without any counterpoints”.  

            I think I nailed it with Jesus Bully.  Nailed it.  Love the double entendre of that sentence.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

        An ideal monster for the GOP.

        “Taxes…..BAD!”

  • Anonymous

    I saw that weezil Jim McDermott D WA on MSNBC harping how he was hoping Newt would be the nominee so he could trot out what he(McDermott) got his ass handed to him for back in 97. I was a sold Newt supporter back in the 90′s having lived in Doraville when Newt was conducting classes at Kennesaw State
     
    He dropped from my approved list in the mid 2000′s after his general stupidity of agreeing with that noted broom rider San Fran Nan about AGW and making ignoranus statements about Paul Ryan’s proposals. If he’d learn when to shut up and when to speak he might have a shot at the top slot, screw VP status. Newt has the experience, contacts and wherewithall to drive the country whereas the ignorant bastard there now has driven the country off the ciff towards financial oblivion.
     
    I’d really like to see Newt power up on the SCOAMF in a debate, he’d be reduced to a stuttering fool that the MSM would never be able to provide cover for.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

    When you have to sound like a teenager trying to talk his way out of punishment to defend a candidate, that candidate has little chance in a general election.

    Newt misled everyone on his Freddie dealings.  He said he only made $300,000 – without mentioning that was for ONE year, not the total. 

    If you believe they spent nearly two million dollars for Newt to “advise them on how to reach out to Republicans,” then there is nothing which will convince you.

    IF you were a conservative, you might remember what he’s said about conservatives from time to time over the years, too.  Or his continuing support for ethanol subsidies and social engineering tax credits and subsidies associated with leftist policy goals, while he described Ryan’s budget plan, passed by the House and the only plan yet detailed which might have avoided the credit downgrade and begun us on the road to fiscal sanity, as “right-wing social engineering.”

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Q6DL245AVVGQXIOZ3CLCINRIWY Brian

      Again, Newt lets his conservative flag fly when it suits him.  The original post about “book tour” was spot on.  

      • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

        And now he’s drunk the chicka coolaid.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Q6DL245AVVGQXIOZ3CLCINRIWY Brian

          So 20 years of watching Newt, seeing what he’s done…yeah, it’s just Kool-Aid and wishful thinking.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            This from the man who can’t keep the Miracle in Philadelphia separate from The Birth of a Nation

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Q6DL245AVVGQXIOZ3CLCINRIWY Brian

            Again…wow.  For someone who claims to be an expert, you really are pretty shallow on counterpoints, polite conversation, or even basic niceties.  

            I was hoping we could actually discuss the topics at hand.  It’s clear that is NOT what you want.  from what I have seen so far, you basically bully people on a wide range of issues and then claim the moral high ground when they walk away from you.

            Enjoy the view from your anthill.