Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

Come on.

Your "this" link is enough to walk away from The Newt holding one's nose.

Do the reseach. Google "Newt wife" and see what comes up.

If we need a depraved, morally indecent, political monster, we already have ... DEMONcRATS.

He sounds good in interviews but he's too much the establishment Republican for me. I was thoroughly disgusted with him for backing that rino from NY too.

He's a loser. Cuda 2012.

The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 almost directly caused "The Housing Bubble" that contributed hugely to the mess we are now in. It effectively gutted the ability of the middle class to pay off a mortgage and live in a home with low real estate taxes during the last third of our lives.

Previously, people could take profit from their residence tax-free one time in their lives, over age 55. That policy promoted stability in naighborhoods and in personal finances, enabling retirees to build a safe next egg in the home they lived in long enough to pay for completely.

Newt Gingrich pulled a fast one and turned the home the middle class lives in into the next gold rush for investors by making real estate profits effectively tax-free. Thus sub-prim mortgages, "flipping", sight-unseen buying and over-paying, and all the rest. Last I heard, as many as 1/3 of all foreclosures were against owners who not only owned more than one property, but had more than one being foreclosed.

I will be saying NO to Newt.

He supports ethanol subsidies.

http://truthandcommonsense.com/2011/05/12/why-newt-shouldnt-run/
Here is my take on the whole deal. In part, this is the reason.

Outside the obvious, we are still recycling oldies while the Dems are sending up new blood, the reason Newt shouldn’t run is that Newt’s history is suspect. Not just the issue with his wife, I don’t judge him on that. People split up, people fall in love, people find their soulmates, yada yada, so I put that into the “he’s human” category.

What bugs me is his moral clarity. God knows he’s smart enough to be President, but where is his center? Not the one he promotes, but the real one, the one that told him this was a good idea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi6n_-wB154&feature=related

Can he do the job? Absolutely. But somebody better define what the job is we want done before letting him or Romney get in. Both have good intelligence are probably good guys at heart, but are they part of that ruling elite we’ve become so afraid of? Would electing him or Romney be more like trading out one color of wolf for another?

Sarah Palin will never be President. She was successfully crippled by both political parties. HRC will never be President for the same reason plus she is part of the old guard. There is a slow but steady shift from the old dogs to the new puppies coming online in national politics. Some puppies are approved to rise up, some are not. Some have played their role and are being pushed out to pasture, like HRC. Some will buck the system until they break through or end up giving in and becoming a part of that same system. Marco Rubio comes to mind. How long before the shine from the big stage lights blinds him?...

My point is this, be careful what you wanted, you might get it and realize it wasn't all that after all.

Not only no, but….

Newt would be the Democrats wet dream Republican presidential candidate, from the moment where he won the primary to the election day, the *entire* thread of conversation from *every* Democrat would be on Newt’s multiple marriages, divorces, and all the nasty little tidbits they could find or create. He could walk on water, have a foolproof way to fix the budget, create a car that ran on air, cure cancer and be able to make Mid-East peace, and none of that would matter. All we would get from the MSM would be slime.

All of the above plus, he got Jim Wright run out of town for writing a book and then having a supporter buyiny tons so that he got rich. What did Mr Newt do, wrote a book,made millions etc. He has so much baggage that he couldn't fly commerical.

He is a wonk; not Presidential material.

There are about 5 or 6 solid reasons to oppose any Gingrich presidency, any one of which is egregious enough on it's own to deep-six his candidacy with any conservatives.

That being said, there is one issue Gingrich has troubles with that doesn't rise to level of blocking his campaign, that being his 'baggage'. We need to get beyond the personal lives of these candidates. These are extreme times, the future of our nation is in serious Jeopardy. We stand on the precipice.

If a qualified candidate comes along with the charisma to challenge Obama and is correct on the big issues and is willing to fight for them, I would'nt care if the guy was out every night, cheating on his two wives and bopping 18 year olds, I WANT HIM IN OFFICE. Times are that desperate.

That being said, I don't believe Gingrich is the man for this job, I can't get over his global-warming campaign and him standing with Hillary in solidarity.

Georgfelis, the MSM will dish their slime on conservatives no matter what, so I don't see that being an issue at all.

The MSM will be the MSM. They're emminently ignorable, you'll never win them over (if you're doing it right), so just do what you know is right.

archer52 "Sarah Palin will never be President. She was successfully crippled by both political parties."

This is flat out wrong. This is the impression the MSM wants you to have and it appears they were successful with you. They wouldn't be launching these attacks on Palin if they didn't fear her the most. They fear her because she is not a creation of theirs, so she is unbeholden to them. She hasn't even begun to campaign yet, and if she does, she'll win people over on her own terms.

If you really want to get a balanced view of Newt, listen to him being interviewed by someone other than his biggest fan Sean Hannity. It's like Sam Donaldson said a few weeks ago: "Newt wakes up every day with ten new ideas. Three are pretty good, three are so-so and the rest are awful. The problem is that he doesn't know which is which."

Gingrich is about Gingrich. His comments are never uttered out of conviction for a point of view he strongly advocates but instead, they are an attempt to convince you that he is smart. His views are all over the map and depend on who is speaking to. There is no value to electing a guy who gushes with ideas but has no idea which he believes in.

Take my advice, don't watch Hannity whenever Gingrich and/or Rove are the featured guests.

Yeah, she'll never be president, guess I'll have to settle for a RINO or Ron Paul. Right.

This commenter over at JOM says Newt was unfairly beaten up over the divorce situation.
That said, I don't like his position on illegal immigration.
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2011/05/a-very-stray-thought.html?cid=6a00d83451b2aa69e20154323cc32a970c#comment-6a00d83451b2aa69e20154323cc32a970c

News reports have often mentioned that Gingrich visited Battley while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery to discuss the details of their divorce. However, Gingrich has disputed the account[85] as has his daughter, Jackie Gingrich Cushman, who has written that it was her mother who requested the divorce, that it happened prior to the hospital stay (which was for the removal of a benign tumor, not cancer), and that Gingrich’s visit was for the purpose of bringing his children to see their mother, not to discuss the divorce.

Someone please help me understand what's going on here!

Newt Tacks Left, Slams Ryan’s Medicare Plan

“[His] (Gingrich's) problems are so far beyond just his multiple marriages and all that,” (George) Will said. “This is just not a serious candidate.”

"Newt Gingrich’s appearance on “Meet the Press” today could leave some wondering which party’s nomination he is running for. The former speaker had some harsh words for Paul Ryan’s (and by extension, nearly every House Republican’s) plan to reform Medicare, calling it “radical.”

"Either way, I'm sure the Democrats appreciate the campaign ad, "The GOP Medicare Plan Is Too Extreme For Newt Gingrich".
Newt is basically running to the left of Paul Ryan on entitlement reform and Mitt Romney on healthcare.

I once admired Mr. Newt. Then came the commercial with Ms. Nancy. He has tried to explain it, but not to my satisfaction.

No, Mr. Newt. I got nothin' for ya.

From his video with Nancy Pelosi, which just one of several high-profile public forum endorsements of AGW (multiple sources), to his relentlessly positive and intellectually indefensible stance on ethanol (see WSJ takedown) to this weekend's defense of the individual mandate (sort of) and overall attack on Ryan's reform plan - an unconsciousable tack left and completely hypocritical assault on something that the Republican congressman took a courageous stand on regardless of whether it is a perfect plan or not - makes him an absolutely unqualified candidate. These are all recent, and completely out of touch with the grassroots.

Add that to his marriage baggage - which is relevant not just because of the history but because of the hypocrisy of taking on Clinton from his personal position and which is a pattern in his positions over time - and his flaws shown in his leadership of Congress I think reveal deep tempermental flaws - makes him absolutely unreliable.

We need true, steady conservative leadership.

We do not need an unpredictable, self-promoting ego in love with hearing himself make articulate, clever arguments but who has been out of office for years, show himself to be out of touch, and despite his supposed brilliance and ideas, can't steer a staight and honest course without blundering into hypocrisy over and over on the "easy ones".

I don't trust him to defend conservatism reliably nor to govern effectively - not that it matters, as he will get torn apart long before.

Unelectable, uninspiring - if he can focus his attacks on democrats (instead of undermining Paul Ryan) and play a good supporting attack dog in 2012, he can redeem himself for several horrendous years of straying.

No Newt. No way.

He sat on a couch with pelosi and regurgitated the globull warning crap.

We don't need a career politician with more baggage than a 747 can carry.

We need Cain. Or West. Or both.

I didn't like President Clinton, because if he lies to his wife, he'd lie to the country. And, he did, both.
Newt appears to minimally be a serial adulterer.
Which means he lied.
The only difference in my eyes is he hasn't been caught doing it under oath, yet.

We need to save him from himself, if we really care about him (I am ready to do my part): http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/09/newt-gingrich-love-of-country-contributed-to-affair/

I began to lose all respect for him when he caved to Clinton. The collaboration with San Fran Nanny simply sealed it. This latest pandering is just so typical. Newt Gingrich is the exact opposite of what this country needs.

Newt who?

I was a big fan back in my college days, grew less so after he left the House and time moved on. I do give him a world of credit for taking the house in '94. He wasn't just the architect, he was virtually the only true believer.

So far as I can tell, he's somewhat drifted out of the conservative mainstream. He's well known, well spoken, and totally unelectable. We owe him a huge debt for birthing a Republican majority. Sadly for him, his time in history has passed. His personal failings and incendiary image (fair or unfair, that's what it is) render him damn near radioactive. Way too many (wrong and poorly understood)hard feelings among people whose votes we're going to have to carry. His sexual/marital peccadilloes would be wall to wall coverage from the convention right down to election night. He'd have a hard time staying above water responding to the facts of those indiscretions--just wait until the media starts making things up!

If Obama were the the praying type, I mean other than to himself, I can imagine him on his knees every night asking Karl Marx and Gaia to give him Ron Paul or Newt as his 2012 opponents.

Pelosi. Couch.

Newt ended his chances this morning when he attacked the Ryan budget proposal for being too extreme and urging working with with the Dems.

Next time you see Newt on Hannity, keep in mind that Hannity gets a tingling sensation up his leg every time Newt is on his show. Do you think he will confront Newt on today's attack on Republicans? Fat chance!

The global warming nonsense seals the deal for me. But on top of that, he's the definition of a Washington insider. He's McCain on steroids -- he'll deal and backtrack and sell out just to gain something he can call a victory. There's a reason he worked so well with Clinton, both were interested only in padding their resumes, at any cost.
No Newt for me either.

No. Nothing in this world or the next could induce me to vote for him in a primary. The only thing that would cause me to vote for him in the general is the presence of BHO on the other side of the ticket. But with great loathing.

I don't trust him to be in it for anything but himself. I think he likes power, I think he likes Washington, I think he likes the sound of his own voice and ideas, and I don't think he gives a rat's behind about us out here in flyover country. He seems to be just as willing to subvehicularize people as Obama. He seems to have a great deal of moral flexibility. He will lose.

No. No. Just, no.

No way, no how!

Here is the Pelosi - Newt pitch for algore and climate change. Barf. Newt is a chameleon.

Check it Out.

Personally, I wish Newt would stick to what Newt does best now; writting historical books and giving Americans access to little known facts about our history.

Newt's time in politics, as an elected official, have come and gone. It is time for him to simply be a voice for conservative values, although he does seem to have some trouble deciding exactly what they are.

Conservatives are ready for a new face, a West, a Rubio, a Cain (whose greatest asset is that he is not a politican by trade), someone who understands they are swimming against a tide of debt that needs to be checked now. And someone who will finally be honest about the Islamic threat against the western nations.

No Newts, salamanders or lizards.

Tom Roeser quotes henry Hyde as saying Mr. Gingrich is 50% genius and 50% nuts and you never know which your going to get. As a presidential nominotion no way!

But if he would stick to being good ole' Uncle Newt who somtimes appears on FOX and make statemtns that embarass President Obama and the Democrats he can make a good contibuton to getting a good candidate..

Newt not only got comfy on the AGW couch with Pelosi.

He even went public a year ago and said he'd do a commercial on AGW with Al Gore . . . (just wrap your imagination around that one for a moment).

Meanwhile, former AGW alarmist scientists, like Dave Evans are now coming out and claiming that they are becoming skeptics.

Blogger Bruce McQuain posted some of the key points from Evans mea culpa over at HotAir today.

From the opening graf of Evan's piece in the "Financial Post," "Climate models go cold: Carbon warming too minor to be worth worrying about."

"The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic. Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying. This issue is tearing society apart, making fools out of our politicians."

Does Newt fit that last category?

Well, consider this . . .

Just take a close listen to the Gingrich tape made with Elisabeth Meinecke of Human Events posted one year ago. . . in it Gingrich even says that he does "not believe we are faced with a crisis of global warming" and he also says that "the scientific data is very unclear."

If that is so, what the hell is his point in so gladly playing right into the Democrat agenda?!!

Senator Tom Coburn (whom I have much, much more respect for) said THIS about Newt:

Newt is "... the last person I'd vote for for president of the United States" because "[h]is life indicates he does not have a commitment to the character traits necessary to be a great president," according to the Tulsa World.

Coburn said specifically that while Gingrich is "super smart," he "doesn't know anything about commitment to marriage."

Me:
Newt: you're sucking the air out the room for others more worthy and worthwhile. Please exercise some real patriotism and set aside your egotistical yearnings and quit now.

'nuff said.

P.S. AS for AGW here's a bit from Hot Air from a previously advocate of AGW and now a skeptic:

"The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic."
More at : The Financial Post

Newt's confusion over AGW and Medicare Reform pretty much indicates he was attempting to play for what he thought was the center of the debate. In other words, a self serving act to be liked by most people. This country does not need another toadying pol, it needs a leader who isn't interested in being liked or loved by the intelligensia. Times up, liberals had their chance and blew it big time after big time. Obama's self serving crowing over Bin Laden's death because you got nothing else to crow about is far more gauche than all the people who celebrated in the streets combined.

Tell you about Newt? He endorsed Dede Scozzafava. Need I say more?

Previous commenters have cited specifics, so I am content to repeat that the words of John Belushi qua Menachem Begin come to mind: The Jewish people have a term for such a person.

I'm with Richard although I will add that not only did he endorse Dede Scozzafava, he did so OVER Doug Hoffman, a TRUE conservative. One only had to glance at Dede's resume to get that she is about as conservative as Obama is.

And this was Newt's pick.

Connect the dots folks.

Check out Bruce McQuain over at Q&O. Newt likes Obamacare.

Pelosi + Couch = Bench for Newt.

To the best of my knowledge, Americans have not yet knowingly elected an adulterer president. By 1996, Clinton was still vigorously denying the accusations by Flowers, Jones, et al, and many of his supporters believed him. There were rumours about Warren Harding, but to this day we don't know for sure whether they were true; his letters will be unsealed in the next decade, and then we'll know. I can't think of another president who was even accused of adultery. McCain would have been the first, and he lost. Gingrich has no chance.

PS: Just in case anyone mentions Grover Cleveland, no, he was not accused of adultery. He had accepted responsibility for an illegitimate child, who may or may not have actually been his, and that became an issue in the campaign against him, but nobody even suspected him of having committed adultery.

The man left not one, but TWO wives when they were sick to take up with other women.

A candidate can say all of the right things on the campaign trail, be on the right side on all of the issues, but at the end of the day, it is what he/she does in their personal life that gives you the true "measure of the man".

This country is already in "ill health" - who is he going to leave US for?

I can’t remember the last time a politician has committed political suicide so completely in the first weekend of his/her campaign.
It took Sharon Angle a few weeks to go nuts. Newt does it a few days.

The only possible logic to his position is that he is taking the most extreme Left positions in order to conflict moderate GOP members, who have always disliked him, into not voting at all.

In my blog, The Voice of Reason, I give my reasons for being a "Good-Bye, Newt" kind of guy. http://govtricks.blogspot.com/2011/05/good-bye-newt-gingerich.html

@gs at May 16, 2011 10:04 AM . . . Heh! A great cultural peek into an earlier era, demonstrating how willing the SNL crowd once were to openly poke fun at a Democrat President, as well as skewering Republicans.

But it seems a bit unfair -- at least I think so -- to characterize Newt as an utter fool (or, as the other more literal meaning).

An unabashed opportunist? Certainly. Even a politician who does some foolish things, or occasionally takes foolish positions? No question.

But he is no fool in any generic sense. He's a smart guy, at least when he takes the time to think things through.

However, I've always seen Newt as one of the breed of politicians who can occasionally be goaded into appearing just a little too smart by half.

Maybe the professor in him is always tempted to delve into some esoteric nuance, thinking that he will somehow elevate his position on an issue to yet another, and loftier level that everyone will see.

Whatever it is, Newt is clearly capable of trapping himself. And that he did, for example, on Meet the Press yesterday.

Trochilus @ May 16, 2011 1:51 PM,

1. Having acquired the word in question by osmosis from Jewish friends and coworkers, I understand it to be a very strong way of calling someone a jerk. Googling reveals support for my interpretation and for yours. Presumably usage varies by time, place, and circumstance. Nolo contendere.

2. Given that Gingrich's handling of the Lewinsky scandal would have assured the election in 2000 of a politically competent sitting Vice President, IMHO the word also applies in the sense you use it.

That's just my take. Others will disagree. I decline to rehash the Clinton impeachment.

3. As an alternative characterization, I submit 'loose cannon'.

@gs at May 16, 2011 4:54 PM . . . it truly is a wonderful thing about words that they can come to have, shall we say, overlapping (if not multiple) meanings, depending, as you noted on the "time, place, and circumstances" of the particular application in question.

So, I suppose if we agree that there are at least three possible meanings, I'll just have to plead multifariousness in equity in response.

Heh.

Anyway, it looks like (as linked by Allahpundit at HotAir) Charles Krauthammer has, in the interim, pumped up the volume and pronounced sentence on Newt for a "capital" violation of the 11th Commandment!

Oh, man . . . poor Newt is getting it from all angles, isn't he?

Looks like you and I are the least of his troubles!