To Newt, Or Not To Newt

CM commented  today that the lack of Republican contenders that have declared so far has made the incumbent the prohibitive favorite. Tomorrow the heaviest of heavy weights (yes, he could lose a few pounds) will make it official:

In the 13 years since he suffered a string of political setbacks and quit the third most powerful job in Washington, Newt Gingrich has been busily laying the foundation for a comeback to an even grander perch.

Now, as Mr. Gingrich prepares to launch a run for president as early as this week, this network of advocacy and for-profit groups is providing a publicity and policy machine without parallel among his likely Republican rivals, few of whom have stirred excitement among donors and activists.

His network has amassed more than 1.7 million voter and donor contacts and raised $32 million between 2009 and 2010—more than all his potential 2012 rivals combined

Newt Gingrich at the New Hampshire Republican Party's 'Live Free or Die Speaker Series'

You knew it was coming, the 800lb gorilla (again with the weight, quit it) is going for the brass ring. And if you read further in the article you can see that this guy has been everywhere, hitting up everyone for money. And Newt. Inc. has it’s hand in many pies.

But here is the question, does the smartest guy in the room have the goods? Can he sweet talk his way out of the ethics violations he was forced to resign over:

During Gingrich’s term as Speaker, eighty-four ethics charges were filed against him, most of which were leveled by House Democratic Whip David Bonior. Eighty-three of the eighty-four allegations were dropped.[59]

The remaining charge consisted of two counts “of failure to seek legal advice” and one count of “providing the committee with information which he knew or should have known was inaccurate” concerning the use of a tax exempt college course for political purposes. To avoid a full hearing, Gingrich and the House Ethics Subcommittee negotiated a sanctions agreement, which Democrats accused Gingrich of immediately violating. Nonetheless, the agreement was forwarded to the House for approval.[60][61] On January 21, 1997, the House voted 395 to 28 to reprimand Gingrich, including a $300,000 “cost assessment” to recoup money spent on the investigation.[62][63] This was the first time in the House’s history that the Speaker had been disciplined for ethics violations.[64]

Or the abysmal way he treated his current wives, cheating on them all the while waving his finger at Clinton, scolding him for his marriage infidelities with that chubby intern.

Even a cursory glance at his wiki page illustrates an illustrious political career, jammed packed with more political feathers in cap then 99% of most political candidates. As a Foxnews contributor who is on more than any other candidate, even Palin (more on her in a minute), I am always impressed with his expertise. Even when I think he is wrong, I admire the methods in which he crafts his arguments.

In January the WSJ literally ripped Newt a new one for his ethanol lobbying (rare that the official paper of conservative thought would rip into the then leading GOP contender, but there you are) and it was at that point that I realized Newt was fish bait. But money talks, so there goes his hat into the ring.

For my own two cents, Newt has entered Palin territory, or vice verse, his negatives are too great. He would cut up Obama in any legitimate debate, but he would be marginalized to a caricature by  both the MSM and the take no prisoners political machine of the DNC. Palin as well, I hope she is makes a boat load of cash with all her public appearances and book signings, but if both really want to help the GOP, they should accept their limitations and back someone who can actually win.

So are there any Newt supporters out there? Am I missing the forest for the trees? I made a comment last week that it appears the GOP might as well concede the 2012 presidential race and focus on some legislative opposition, am I wrong?

Comments are closed.

  1. Technomad

    For the record: Clinton wasn’t impeached for cheating on his wife, or having extramarital sex. He was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice, two things that you’d think an Ivy-League-trained lawyer would know were illegal.

    Thumb up 0

  2. richtaylor365 *

    For the record: Clinton wasn’t impeached for cheating on his wife, or having extramarital sex. He was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice

    I think everyone knows this, but that never stopped the sanctimonious Gingrich from piling on even during the initial stages of the investigation, the hypocrisy was glaring. Kinda like Larry Craig passing or voting for anti gay legislation, that whole “Log in the eye” thingy.

    Thumb up 0

  3. AlexInCT

    Oh he knew that they were illegal. It’s why he did the whole song and dance and made it worse. I am certain that if he had come forward and said he had an issue of zipper control and that the women were now being vindictive, that nobody would have cared much. We all knew he was a sleazebag. The lying however, under oath, pissed many, like me, off.

    Thumb up 0

  4. AlexInCT

    Gingrich is a dick. Having to vote for him over Obama will suck even more than having to vote for that pussy McCain. At this point the republican field leaves me feeling like a guy that goes to a whore house but all they had are 350 lbs, 5′ 2”, bald ugly skanks with nasty VD when his balls are blue and aching.

    Thumb up 0

  5. JimK

    Would I get a visit from the Secret Service or the FBI if I started organizing an actual revolution to stop this crop of politicians from resurrecting their careers every two to ten years to take another run at ruining the fucking country?

    Because if so, then I’m not suggesting that at all.

    Thumb up 2

  6. West Virginia Rebel

    PS I should add that as far as 2016 goes, the Republicans might still have a difficult time as Obama and most likely Biden will not be running; the next Democratic nominee may be a fiscal moderate after eight years of Obama, and the Tea Party, which helped the GOP win so big in 2010, may have run its course by then.

    Thumb up 1

  7. CM

    I agree Jim, I’m not sure Newt can overcome his past. It was pretty clear to me that he was absolutely going to run when he came out the other month and tried to argue that he was unfaithful to his wife becaue of his strong commitment to America. Extremely creative and very obviously trying to get out in front and start dealing with his most prominent skeletons. That’s the kind of argument that surely only works on those that love and support him anyway.

    The downside for the Republican candidates is that they’re going to spend a long while tearing each other down. And if we look at the likely list, they’re all going to be exposed. The Dems won’t have to do much by the time the primaries are over. So they’ll benefit immediately from a perceived lack of negative politics (even though we all know they’d dive right in from the start if they had to).

    Intrade, a political futures market, gives the Democrats a 60.4 percent chance of winning next year’s presidential election. I think that’s about right at the moment.

    Interesting piece here by Nate Silver on Obama’s ‘Bin Laden bounce’ in relation to the election next year.

    Thumb up 0

  8. CM

    I think Palin is going to be pretty much irrelevant. I think the Republicans will have a much stronger chance in 2016 after 8 years of a Democrat in the White House simply because sufficient numbers of moderates will most likely want a change in Party. It’s hard to overcome that, no matter who the candidates are.
    BTW, Intrade has the chances of Newt being selected as Republican candidate at 3.9%. Romney leads with 23.9%, with Pawlenty next at 15.3%. Even Palin and Trump are ahead of Gingrich.

    Thumb up 0


    ha! I just got a FBI background check done a few weeks ago, my 1st cousin is getting a intern job at Boeing..
    I guess I am not a threat to national security, as much as i thought, given some of the things i have said.

    Thumb up 0

  10. HARLEY

    Newt, is a twat,but dammit he could beat the socks off of Obama in any debate, that would be worth seeing.
    There are a number of aspects i do like about newt, but they are outweighed by his dam opportunism, and personal history. I do not see him being able to beat Obama in a general election do to his failings.
    Of the other dark horses, maybe Herman Cain, hell at least he has had experience running a business.

    Thumb up 1

  11. Rann

    Some jobs are like that. I have a friend who got a job with a bank. They required every single address she’d stayed at for more than a certain length of time for the last ten years, or something like that.

    Heck, if you’re looking for overboard job restrictions, I was once chatting with a woman who was an undertaker. It was actually illegal for her to drink… ever… because in the event that she got drunk and killed somebody, she’d have all the resources she needed to just make the body disappear.

    Thumb up 0

  12. Mississippi Yankee

    This is only a theory mind you but…

    the GOP has been somewhat savvy in not putting up a frontrunner this early in the cycle. But, putting up dummy candidates, or straw men perhaps, can have the effect of keeping the media attack dogs on their back foot/paw.

    The MSM know folks like Trump and Newt aren’t going to be the ultimate nominee. Yet they can’t just stand around and not snap a bit. It may even be like watching a dog chase its own tail.
    Eighteen months is a lifetime in politics tho, let’s see which side steps on their own dick the hardest this go round.

    At this stage in life I probably should be able to articulate this theory better but, meh…

    Oh and WVR. Palin may not be presidential material but “an opportunist”?

    Thumb up 1

  13. Kimpost

    The undertaker story is insane. :) However it’s still a contract.between two parties, so it makes sense in spite of all its stupidity.

    In this instance, however, they are checking the family out, prior to a contract. What are they going to do with that information? If someones brother is an alcoholic, or even if he’s a murderer, should that have an affect on his chances of getting an employment?

    I’m thinking if these kind of broad check-ups are all legal, or if they sometimes thread – or even cross – some lines.

    Thumb up 0

  14. HARLEY

    I use to date/fornicate with a undertaker, oh she never claimed that it was illegal for her to drink, but she did have many disturbing stories.

    Thumb up 0

  15. balthazar

    It totally depends on the security lvl of the job you are applying for. Most of the time the “checking out” of the family of an applicant is very cursory, they mainly interview the family to get more information on the applicant, not so much the other family members.

    Some security lvls are just an electronic backround check. Some are what youve detailed above.

    Thumb up 0

  16. Seattle Outcast

    A guy I knew 30 years ago ran the furnace at an undertaker on the graveyard shift – he flat out told me “if you ever need to make someone disappear….”

    He wasn’t kidding…

    Thumb up 0

  17. Rann

    They’re probably looking more for “Does his brother work for a rival company, or has his brother given copious donations to companies that are assumed to have ties to Al Qaeda” than for drinking problems.

    Since Boeing does government work, that means making sure they can trust, at least some extent, their employees and anyone that employee might interact regularly with, a matter of national security as well as corporate security.

    Thumb up 0

  18. JimK

    Republicans and how they treat scientists/science always brings that to mind for me!

    Really? Sure it’s amusing, but keeping in mind that people often speak what they think is truth in jest, you are now directly stating that all Republicans all feel the exact same way about science and scientists. Given how nit-picky you get with language (albeit only with the language of who you perceive to be “right wingers”), one would think you wouldn’t do that. Because it gives the direct impression that either you’re a hypocrite, or that you don’t mean the things that you say.

    Thumb up 1

  19. CM

    Good point, I should have been more careful. There are many at the top of the party who have made it pretty clear that they are anti-science*. I certainly acknowledge that there are plenty of conservatives (who are likely to vote republican) that don’t treat scientists or science that way. However it’s pretty clear that the vast majority that do hold those opinions are conservatives (and, as I say, they seem to have the support of many at the upper reaches of the Republican Party).

    In terms of being nit-picky with language – if I incorrectly interpret what someone here posts, please let me know and I will acknowledge it and apologise. I certainly don’t intend to apply different standards.

    * E.g.

    Thumb up 0

  20. Rann

    Because it gives the direct impression that either you’re a hypocrite, or that you don’t mean the things that you say.

    Oh, I don’t know, he can’t be doing both?

    Thumb up 0

  21. CM

    You’re going to spend most of your time here trolling or engaged in lame personal attacks? Really?

    On topic, here is a possible campaign slogan for Newt:


    Thumb up 0

  22. balthazar

    What you have to understand is (those of us that frequested Moorewatch know this already) that EVERYTHING eventually ends up in a discussion of GW and/or AGW with CM. With a side of how all conservatives/republicans are blatenetly “anti-science”, or “homophbic” or both, you learn to filter it out eventually.

    On the topic, Newt can talk a good game, but with his history, you cant trust him as far as you can thow his hefty ass.

    Thumb up 1

  23. Kimpost

    Why jump in at all if the bulk of your message is to attack CM? I mean, you weren’t even part of the discussion. Also, I frequented Moorewatch and couldn’t disagree with you more on CM. He was one of the better posters on there.

    That’s my opinion, but it’s based on substance and delivery, not view. There were great conservative posters there too.

    Thumb up 0

  24. balthazar

    Because hes a disengenious hypocrite, thats why Kimpost. He constantly accuses people of attacking him when they are not, or its retaliation for his transparently vailed attacks on them or thier views.

    After such and exchange he uses the time old, “well i dont understand why your so mad, but since your attcking me. I WIN!” When its plainly obvious to anyone reading that what he said is exactly what did not happen.

    Thumb up 1

  25. sahrab

    Hmm weird, either the formatting (on IE) isnt allowing me, or there is an interface limitation. I cannot reply to a threaded reply once it gets to a certain thread level.

    The reply link is missing for:

    Rann says: May 11, 2011 at 10:02 am (UTC -4)

    CM says: May 11, 2011 at 8:22 pm (UTC -4)

    loserlame says: May 13, 2011 at 11:10 am (UTC -4)

    Kimpost says: May 13, 2011 at 11:29 am (UTC -4)

    balthazar says: May 13, 2011 at 11:45 am (UTC -4)

    Thumb up 0

  26. JimK

    It’s a limitation. the max you can ever have is 10, but I set it to 7 because ten crams comments into this LEETLE TEENY TINY column that is basically unreadable.

    Thumb up 0

  27. loserlame

    Giving up on cars is anti-science, too, as is what we label “radical Islam”. But Juan Cole recently informed us that, say, Muslim “honor killings” are simply hallmarks of deep, rich and ancient cultures, not murder, as we feebly attempt paint it, pseudo-intellectually.

    Thumb up 0