“… Can your heart stand the SHOCKING FACTS, about Grave Robbers from Newt Gingrich’s past!!! …” OK, I was told by a writer — more esteemed than myself — that no one has grabbed “Plan Newt From Outer Space” yet, so I couldn’t resist. It’s getting weird now. Apparently Newt argued to a Christian broadcaster that his lifetime of serial marital infidelity makes him a more normal person than monogamous Mitt (read) (Pretty cool for a Mormon to be dissed for only wanting one wife!)
But, to draw another movie analogy, “There Will Be Blood” now that the conservative knives are sharpened for Mitt (read). There is a heavy onslaught against Newt, from topics ranging to past scandals to his frequent disses of Ronald Reagan 20 to 26 years ago. They’re all true, of course. Gingrich is finally reaping what a vanity and mouth that won’t shut up for generations sows. Romney’s ahead now in Florida (read). If Newt doesn’t do very well in tonight’s CNN debate, his latest surge will probably die rather than weaken. Future contests are in Colorado, Nevada, Michigan, Maine, Virginia, all areas where Romney is way ahead. Also, there’s only one debate scheduled in February.
A glance at the last 30 years of presidential politics provide a strong clue to why the Tea Party Republicans have had a tough time warming to Romney and have seriously flirted with Gingrich. Following the two elections of Ronald Reagan to the presidency, the Republican Party has nominated only the “establishment choices” for president. The two successful candidates were the Bush father/son political dynasty, who are moderate conservatives. The two other nominations were bloodless, aging moderates Bob Dole (1996) and John McCain (2008), who more or less bested the field because it was “their turn” to be the GOP nominee.
Movement conservatives are worried, and in some cases, terrified, that Mitt Romney, if nominated, will either 1) win and be like the Bushes, or 2) prove to be a flawed, “it’s-my-turn candidate” who loses after putting up an uninspired race against President Barack Obama.
That’s why Newt’s resurrected himself from the dead a couple of times this political season. However, like the resurrected dead in “Plan 9 From Outer Space,” I think it’s not too long before he’s reduced to bones.
Ahead of the Game
Behind the Zion Curtain
Bishop’s Counsel
Blogging the Rambler
Boxing, MMA News
Economics, etc.
Eye of Faith
In-A-Gadda-Da-Vegan
Inside the Ropes
Orrin’s Musings
Prep Sports Spotlight
Standard.Net Development
Standing Out
The Baseball Report
The Political Surf
Through My Lens
Why are you crying?
WSU Sports Blog
I think you are being a bit unfair, here Doug. As I read what Newt is saying, I think he means that his experience makes him more typical of most Americans than someone who has not made similiar mistakes (he does not mention anyone by name), but certainly necessarily better, other than perhaps he might better understand and empathise with typical Americans.
In one way, he’s indirectly paying Romney a large compliment. Newt has freely admitted that he is far from perfect, either personally or politically. Hopefully he has learned from his mistakes, and perhaps by learning from his mistakes, it is entirely possible that Gingrich has a perspective that Romney lacks. Romney certainly has a better personal record, but I’m not sure that policy wise, that is all that important.
I think that either Romney or Gingrich would certainly be a better chief executive than Obama. That is all that is important to me at this time.
As far as Gingrich’s personal life goes, I know I am certainly not in any position to be casting the first stone. If you feel you are in such a position, you are the first man in 2000 years to be so qualified.
You mean casting stones like Newt did at Clinton?
And the hypocrisy goes on…
Clinton was guilty of his misbehavior, and lied about it. Newt freely admits to his foibles. How is that hypocrisy?.
If you don’t know the answer to that question, I can’t do nothing for you pal.
Let me help.
hypocrisy: 1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
Gingrich has freely admitted to his marital shortcomings, while Clinton is a serial liar about his, so where is the hypocricy?
Regardless, Gingrich impeached Clinton in the House for perjury and obstruction of justice, not infidelity, so there is no hypocricy there, either.
Clinton was disbarred by both the U.S. Supreme Court and the State of Arkansas, not for infidelity, but for giving misleading testimony in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case.
Does that help clear that up?
I meant to say “certainly NOT necessarily better…”
Where is that edit function?
Bob Dole puts Gingrich under the bus:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/26/dole-assails-gingrich-in-plea-to-conservatives/
…. for an interesting take on obama, try this andrew sullivan piece …
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/01/15/andrew-sullivan-how-obama-s-long-game-will-outsmart-his-critics.html
For an interesting take on Gingrich, try this Andrew Sullivan piece:
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/01/red-rage.html
People still read Andrew Sullivan, ‘gynocologist to the stars’?
Gingrich must not have wanted it that bad or he would be on Virginia’s Super Tuesday ballot.
Pingback: Gingrich’s infidelity and the GOP primary race – The Seattle Times | What is Infidelity
Speaking of Plan 9, on Chris Matthews’ show Hardball on MSNBC yesterday, Chuck Todd mentioned that the guys at Mystery Science Theatre 3000 should do a spoof commentary of John Buehner and Joe Biden in the background behind the President during his State of The Union Address. Their expressions and demeanor was priceless during the address. Good fodder for MSTK3000.
Pingback: Gingrich’s infidelity and the GOP primary race – The Seattle Times | What is Infidelity
Follow the money. Obama and Mitt are backed by the same wall street firms. They know if you vote for either one is a vote for them, so nothing will change for them, and all the bad dept will be dumped on the people with Rick and Newt. They claim they did everything until you check the facts and they did nothing. Newt lied so much he got the pants on fire award from CNN
You have a link to the pants on fire award from CNN? I suspect you are you thinking of Politifact, an outfit with a notoriously liberal bias? Forgive me if I remain unconvinced.
Pingback: Gingrich’s infidelity wasn’t appropriate for GOP debate – Kearney Hub | What is Infidelity
Pingback: Gingrich’s infidelity and the GOP primary race – The Seattle Times | What is Infidelity
Pingback: Gingrich’s infidelity wasn’t appropriate for GOP debate – Kearney Hub | What is Infidelity