-
Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real
May 19, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Good New Book: ‘Precipice’
May 19, 2013 | 1 comment
-
A Long Record of Obamite Thuggery
May 16, 2013 | 4 comments
-
DeMint Supports Defense
May 14, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Update on Tom Perez
May 14, 2013 | 0 comments
The Spectacle Blog
That’s what I wrote about Newt Gingrich several months ago. It refers to their lack of discipline, their amoral ruthlessness in politics, their grandiosity, their verbal dexterity and equal dexterity with the truth, and all sorts of other character traits. It remains true now. Jenny Sanford sees part of it. Fiscal conservative stalwarts Jeff Flake and Jason Chaffetz describe another part of it. Yes, Marianne Gingrich saw lots of it, too, but it wasn’t the sex part that was important, but his turning on conservatives, his”melting” around Clinton, his megalomania and psychological oddnesses, and other policy- and leadership-related things she described to Esquire that are the important factors — and these are issues or themes where it’s not just a he-said/she-said thing, but instead ones amply supported by solid conservatives such as Tom Coburn, Dick Armey multiple times (by the way, Marianne Gingrich reportedly has also told people the same story about Newt being called to the White House one day and then coming back completely changed about Clinton and all chummy with him), William Bennett and George Will, Jim Talent, and many other solid conservatives.
Meanwhile, Gingrich consistently claims far too much credit for conservative successes, especially in the Reagan years. As Mitt Romney noted in the debate last night, Reagan barely knew who Gingrich was. He was a back bencher.
The joke going around in the late 1980s was that the NRCC had a whole room full of file Cabinets, with every drawer in the room labeled “Newt’s ideas.” Well, every drawer but one. The drawer in the bottom corner of the dingiest file Cabinet was labeled “Newt’s good ideas.”
As for his role in gaining the majority for the GOP in 1994, it
was of course significant. I was there; I will always credit him
for that. Alas, he claims TOO much credit. The Contract with
America, for instance, was more the brainchild of Kerry Knott
(Armey’s aide, who came up with the first version of it while on a
weekend clear-his-mind getaway at Morton Blackwell’s country house)
than anybody else. The insistence on passing welfare reform (rather
than giving up on it after two vetoes and using it as a campaign
issue instead) came from the bottom up, with folks like Santorum,
John Kasich, Bill Archer, and Clay Shaw deserving more of the
credit than Gingrich.
As for Appropriations, Bob Livingston went beyond what Newt even
asked in pursuit of a balanced budget, and so did Kasich. But
Gingrich almost ruined the whole thing by agreeing with Bill Thomas
to include an unnecessary Medicare provision into the “shutdown”
battle, thus giving fodder to Clinton and muddying the waters.
Gingrich’s foot-in-mouth-itis clearly helped cost conservatives
both in the PR department and in the 1996 presidential race; his
conduct of the impeachment inquiry turned it, politically, into a
major met minus instead of the net plus it should have been; and
his utter capitulation on spending in the fall of 1998 (in order to
buy off moderates for what turned out to be irrelevant demands for
the actual shape of the impeachment inquiry) blew the
lid off the spending progress made in the previous three years and
set the scene for the Bush spendathon.
But here’s the question: If Gingrich is afforded so much credit for the House takeover in 1994, why shouldn’t John Boehner claim the credit for the House takeover in 2010? After all, the GOP made a much higher net gain of seats in 2010 than in 1994. (I’m not saying Boehner should get the lion’s share of the credit; my point is that there’s no reason for Gingrich to get more of it than Boehner does, for a lesser numerical triumph.) Rick Santorum was absolutely right that the House Bank scandal and other scandals (House Post Office, etc.) did at least as much to help the GOP take over in 1994 as the Contract with America or other semi-Gingrichian plans did (most of the public didn’t hear of the Contract until after the election) — and it was the Gang of Seven, led by Boehner and Santorum, who exposed the Bank scandal. Yes, Gingrich did help with that, but since he himself had effectively kited 22 checks, including to the IRS, his role was diminished. Indeed, it was largely due to that scandal that Gingrich himself came within less than 1,000 votes of losing his own House seat. People forget how potent an issue that was, but it was immense.
The truth was that while the triumph in 1994 was a huge shock to the pundits, it was eminently predictable, because the ground was set via redistricting, the Bank Scandal, and other trends. How can I say it was predictable? Because two weeks after Bill Clinton was elected in 1992, with Republicans also having been shellacked for the House and Senate and collectively stumbling around like a whipped puppy, I wrote a memo (I still have it) explaining why the GOP was more likely than not to finally gain the majority two years from then in 1994, and why Gingrich would be the likely first choice for Speaker — and why he wouldn’t last, because he was too volatile, unreliable, etcetera.
Gingrich was great at rabble rousing. He was awful at actually managing things. That’s why, again, in the single campaign where he was clearly, unambiguously unchallenged as the architect of national GOP campaign strategy, in 1998, he took a lay of the land that virtually every pundit in the land thought would create at least a 15-seat Republican net gain in the House (Gingrich himself predicted as much as a 30-seat gain), and turned it into a five-seat loss that came within a hair’s breadth in about four races of blowing the entire House majority.
Meanwhile, how can people say he has “changed” or “grown” or “matured”? It was less than a year ago that he was trashing Paul Ryan’s budget as “right-wing social engineering.” It was as recently as 2010 that he was still endorsing a version of the individual health-care mandate. It was just last week that he was attacking Bain Capital from an extreme, left-wing position. Sorry, but that ain’t maturation — and it might explain why he took a 20-point lead in Iowa and a tied-for-lead in New Hampshire and, within about three weeks time, turned them into, respectively, fourth- and fifth-place finishes there. Only in his own backyard, in a state (South Carolina) neighboring his longtime Georgia home, could he hope to be competitive. Even if you give him credit for 1994, Gingrich has been involved in just eight heavily contested elections so far (for the House in 1974, 1976, 1978, and 1992, for the national House elections of 1994 and 1998, and for Iowa and New Hampshire this year so far) — and he has won just three of them. He effectively lost in 1974, 1976, 1998, Iowa, and New Hampshire. And this is the standard bearer who supposedly is going to slay Barack Obama via a series of Lincoln-Douglas debates that of course will never happen anyway?!? I think not.
View all comments (130) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/01/20/bill-clinton-of-the-right-minu
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
NotPropagandized| 1.20.12 @ 12:33PM
Yes, Newt has lots of ideas, can be abrasive and lack charm and no, he's not been a governor. So that means that all these people out here with a visceral distrust of Romney (who in fact WILL say ANYTHING to get elected) should roll over and do what the Bushes say we should do? Hmmmnnn, not so sure about that. Or maybe some of those very impressive endorsements that Mitt has politically purchased are enough for us to say, OK, let's let Mitt run with it this year, after all he's the next Republican in line, right? They call it primogeniture or something. I don't think so, American Spectator, not just yet. Let's just give some votes to Newt and make this thing run a little farther like Sarah suggests she might do if she were from SC. Let's get a look at those Romney tax returns that Obama is salivating to see. Maybe we should just keep ol' Newt around a little longer just to be sure, eh?
Sparky| 1.20.12 @ 4:52PM
The "right wing social engineering" remark was the deal-breaker for me. House Repubs bravely put themselves out on a limb by voting for the Ryan Plan, then Gingrich pooped all over them. I'm convinced Newt did it because he detested seeing someone else get credit for a Big Idea.
Mike| 1.20.12 @ 11:33PM
But, this is one of the few true things Gingrich has said. Ryan wants to radically change the existing system. This is not conservatism. This is radicalism.
To abruptly change a major system is not conservative.
Sparky| 1.23.12 @ 11:16AM
Ryan's plan was hardly "abrupt." And it was not radical. It changed nothing for those 55 and older. For those under 55, it adopted a smarter, more market-oriented approach that actually stood a chance of saving the system and reducing costs.
fckewe| 1.22.12 @ 10:07AM
EXACTLY his is a spoiled fat kid who will take his ball home if we don't LET him pitch AND get every call a strike. He is exactly what the rest of the world holds America in contempt for. isn't it about time WE express OUR contempt for a fraud, liar, adultering religious panderer (is there actually FILM ofhim in a church (without a torch in his hand?).
Interested Conservative| 1.20.12 @ 12:40PM
Mr. Hillyer - of all the criticism, and all the history, and all the character issues, and all the slanted reporting in every direction, I can forgive or understand or accept quite a lot, BUT, the teeny one I cannot understand is the "melting".
Without getting into a whole ends and means discussion, any leader of this stature needs lots of the evil qualities - it's simply realpolitik. Duplicity, betrayal, selfishness, surprise sacrifice - in hopefully small degrees and limited instances. But necessary tools.
I don't even mind the "character" flaws, again to limited or compartmentalized or known extents.
With all that, though, what explains the lack of cynicism or skepticism which allowed the "melting"? Respect for the office? Billy's awesome charisma? Sense of power?
Ignorance, stupidity, out-of-touchness, are all dangerous in their way, but understandable and visible.
"Melting" implies a weakness which is a character issue I don't understand in the context of Newt. It seems out of his character. It seems inexplicable.
Quin| 1.20.12 @ 12:45PM
The "melt" line was reported by at least three separate witnesses, who all said Gingrich used that exact word to describe what happens when he is with CLinton: he "melts" around Clinton.
Interested Conservative| 1.20.12 @ 1:04PM
I'm familiar with the reports, I just don't get it in context of his character. Wheeling and dealing, insider-ish-ness, grandiosity, political compromise - all on display. But "melting"? Where does that come from, and is it manifest anywhere else in his history?
It's almost a feminine quality, and if it were used against a women (Palin, Bachmann, Thatcher, Hilary, Boxer etc..) it would rightly be accused of sexism. Even if it were accurate in a given instance. Heck, Mitt seems to capable of this more than any of the other primary candidates.
My point is, I just don't see it in Newt, even accepting the incident as reported. Just mysterious.
Bob Grant| 1.20.12 @ 1:08PM
Quin,
I could definitely see him 'melting' with envy around Clinton; the media adulation, the 21 year olds, etc.
You're right about his 'oddness' and I believe people will sense this as the days weeks ensue.
Santorum cleverly planted the the seeds of doubt about him during the debate last night, using the same arguments as included in your piece.
Rumsfeld's 'knowns and unknown's' come to mind when contemplating Newt's nomination.
Mike| 1.20.12 @ 11:43PM
Are you Bob Grant, the right wing clown on the radio?
Drek| 1.21.12 @ 1:15AM
You're overlooking the power of the Presidency.
But recall too that Gingrich is still the guy who got in Clinton's face and dressed him down, right to him, and in such a way that it shocked the establishment hack Dole.
When Clinton came into government he said "government must do more." That was '93. But when Gingrich got done with him just a few years later, in '95, Clinton said, at the SOTU, that "the era of big government is over."
Gingrich moved Clinton.
Not the other way around.
Mike| 1.21.12 @ 9:19AM
Yep, and then the Republican party moved Gingrich and for good reason.
Margie| 1.20.12 @ 1:57PM
I guess he felt the same way Chris Matthews did when he got that tingle running up his leg.
Mike| 1.21.12 @ 9:20AM
See, it is possible to find common ground even if it only tingles.
Occam's Tool| 1.20.12 @ 6:19PM
Quin:
quite frankly, I see any of the three remaining being able to take it to Obama. The question is whether or not they are willing to go "medieval" on him.
For example: a TV commercial showing a cop blown to pieces trying to dissassemble a bomb, bleeding profusely, cut to pieces by nails. Then showing a Barack look alike having tea with a Dorhn look alike, stating, "Barack Obama started his career in the home of this copkiller. He got his home through the interventions of this felon (picture of Rezko) and had his kids baptized in the church of this racist (picture of Wright).
We have a real unemployment rate of "blank" (over 10%) and Iran's about to get the bomb. Do you trust his judgment?"
Always starting with the cop getting blown to bits and the coffee klatsch at Dorhn's home. Over and over and over again. Tie Obama to the death of innocents. That's "medieval." McCain wouldn't do it. I think Mittens could. I KNOW Santorum and Newt will.
Paul couldn't. But winning this election will mean going negative on Obama in the cruelest way possible, with things he can't defend. For example, if Obama brings up Newt's infidelity, a Newt related PAC brings up Obama's gay bathhouse membership while married.
It's not just time to take off the gloves. It's time for the Wolverine claws to be unsheathed.
Occam's Tool| 1.20.12 @ 6:24PM
By the way, just so everyone knows when I discuss stuff, here's my ranking of acceptable Republican Candidates:
1. Rick.
2.Gingrich.
3. Romney.
There is no 4, unless someone gets in the game late. For example: if Palin late enters, she would become number 1, if Jindal late enters, ditto, if West late enters that would be unbelievably good.
Clint| 1.21.12 @ 12:25AM
Tool Job Is The RINO-CINO Israel Firster Smear Bund Bibi Butt Boy,Who Said He'll Vote For The RINO-CINO Frontman, Mittens Romney.
We Are Being Set Up By The Israel Firster RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges For The Ruling Elites' Frontman Mittens Romney.
These Are The Israel Firster RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges Who Gave Us The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain Of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy,McCain-Lieberman,Gang Of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003,TARP.
Now They Are Trying To Give Us RomneyCare,TARP, Cynical Flip-Flops On Abortion, Gays, Refuses to Sign Pro-Life Pledge, Illegal Immigrants, "Little Chain Saw Al" At Bain, Crony Capitalism Campaign Money Trail.....
The Tea Party Rebellion Is In South Carolina.
Bob Grant| 1.20.12 @ 7:36PM
As the Great One said recently: I'd vote for an orange juice can over obama.
If going 'medieval' makes the difference, then so be it.
...obama a member of a gay bath house? go figure. BUT, the media tries to portray him a "guy's guy". You know, the golf, the BBall, the sports fanaticism, etc. Who knew he likes to put his privates through a hole in the wall. Color me...NOT SHOCKED!
Drek| 1.21.12 @ 1:12AM
Come on Bob, what do you think Obama was doing when he went to Pakistan?
Who goes to Pakistan, other than investigative journalists and mountain climbers? Obama didn't get around the world much, not much at all. But the one place where ordinary tourists avoid, Pakistan, is the one place Obama chose to frequent.
AND frequent with some of his Paki pals!
Now what was he doing in Pakistan?
What do men do in Pakistan?
What do men do in Pakistan for entertainment?
Is there a nightclub scene?
Are there beaches with hot chicks?
No, that's not what men in Pakistan do, what they do is:
Drugs, each other and livestock............
On this planet, you don't get much more pathological than Pakistan, and that's where he went........
Cato the Younger| 1.21.12 @ 9:48AM
Man, that's quite an insinuation! The president goes to Pakistan to do livestock! Baaa-a-a-a-a-a!
fckewe| 1.22.12 @ 10:13AM
hahahahaaa If we were gonna be honest, how about Good Ol' Newt, standing at his wife hospital bedside with arm around his Congressional Aide Callista (a hand on her ass under her slit skirt), as the Doctor explains the crippling details of MS to them all. As he departs, Callista opens newt's coat, pulls out the divorce papers and hands them to Marianne.
"Oh Honey, I know the strain ofthe campaign will be so hardon your with you illness and all...." and Newt hands her a pen, "I love you hon, let Me help you sign here... and here... and ...."
AND Newt wants to help the Republican's help YOU sign away your healthcare reform. Run it 24/7 the day before the election.
Indiana Alex| 1.22.12 @ 10:26AM
That might work for you and "The 30%" that support Obamacare.
Yes Moe, in this battle it is The 70% versus the 30%.
America First| 1.22.12 @ 10:26PM
You are not in touch with reality. Exactly what network or cable stations do you believe would run such ads?
Drek| 1.21.12 @ 1:24AM
Rich Lowry's own book, LEGACY, has in it the quote of Clinton, when he came into power in '93, that government "must do more."
Yet after Gingrich, after '94, after the tectonic shift that Gingrich caused, it was Clinton who in '95 said, in his own SOTU, "the era of big government is over."
What conclusion should we draw from that observation?
Sure, Clinton won politically during the drama of the government shut down. BUT SUBSTANTIVELY, and to the advantage of teh country as a whole, Gingrich won.
Just think about what happened, Gingrich FORCED A DEMOCRAT to sign off on REPEATED balanced budgets.
Now who here thinks that's what Clinton intended upon doing while in office.
From the get go of the Clinton tenure, Gingrich thwarted him, from Clinton's failed stimulas package to Hillarycare, ----------- both of which Gingrich used to segue to the Speakership.
Hillyer's problems with Gingrich are really rooted in personal quirks of Hillyer's, his own idiosyncratic problems, not Gingrich's.
Grandiosity? Good!
Imaginative, capable of thinking outside the box? All the better!
Tendency to dismiss establishment advice? Just what the doctor ordered!
Ability to see things in historic sweep, {related to aforementioned grandiosity}? OUTSTANDING!
Gingrich is the guy.
Hillyer's guy the other night came off about as effective as establishment hack Bob Dole, when he whined: "Where's the outrage?"
I don't have time for Santorum getting in touch with his inner Fredo: "I'm smart, I won Iowa, and I WANT RESPECT!" Or his channeling of Bob Dole's pathetic lament.
We need a fighter!
Oldefarte| 1.20.12 @ 12:50PM
Ginguich would possiby be beneficial as president in his congressional leadership knowledge of knowing who/what/whem/where the bodies should be burined and therefore how to managerially maneuver legisation foavorable to conservatives through congress and passed [but agian, he would be devisive and controversial as president no doubt]. His brilliance would be overshadowed by his baggage, and therein lies his liability as a candidate. Romney appears to be the only viable candidate overall against Obama and the Democrats, and the sooner the better this selection process concludes so that the political war can begin towards taking back the presidency and congress in November!!!!
Ken (Old Texican) | 1.20.12 @ 12:55PM
Yeah, yeah, yeah, Quin.
We get it. you are a "Santorumite", plain and simple.
In your mind, every other candidate just sucks.
mjs_pa| 1.20.12 @ 1:50PM
Well on this point Quin is right!
Santorum rocks...the rest suck, and they will suck the entire conservative movement down the drain with them.
Margie| 1.20.12 @ 1:59PM
So, liar, you compared your man Perry to Christ on the cross. After all, poor Perry was crucified by "we the people" who demanded Barrabas, according to you!!
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Margie| 1.20.12 @ 2:03PM
Oh, you also said he was the only "clean" candidate.
You would know... right??
Goldwater Girl| 1.20.12 @ 4:38PM
Ken,
Looks like you have a cyber stalker. She doesn't miss an opportunity to bite at your ankles. My condolences.
Margie| 1.20.12 @ 6:27PM
Screw you, Troll.
Con Chef (NB) | 1.20.12 @ 6:45PM
Yap, yap, yap!
DevilDog| 1.20.12 @ 7:54PM
such CHRISTIAN behaviour!
wow margie! did Jesus tell you to say that?
Margie| 1.20.12 @ 8:11PM
Oh, I dunno Troll, ask Ken.. he told someone the same thing in the other thread.
DevilDog| 1.20.12 @ 8:26PM
so Ken is Jesus?
bwahahahahahaha
DevilDog| 1.20.12 @ 8:01PM
ps margie,
thought you were a Christian? if so, then doesnt hitting on another female sexually go against your beliefs?
Margie| 1.20.12 @ 8:16PM
You, Ken, Con Artist Chef ought to get yourselves a room.
Assholes.
DevilDog| 1.20.12 @ 8:26PM
margie,
who is ken? is that who Homer dumped you for!
DevilDog| 1.20.12 @ 8:29PM
AH! so now margie wants to get assholes to bellybuttons. does margie come equiped for the job?
or was that an offer to do all three of us at once.
wonder what Jesus would say?
Con Chef (NB) | 1.20.12 @ 9:07PM
I'm married. And even if I wasn't, I'd dig 30 somethings like myself or a "cougar." Not an old housecat. Speak "fo yoself" man.
Margie| 1.21.12 @ 3:35PM
Con Artist Chef is a an anti-Christ Troll. He isn't even Jewish, his Mother isn't Jewish, so when he says he's a Jew, he's a converted Jew.
We looked him up. He has also posted elsewhere that he only converted because Jews don't believe in Christ.
So.. he's a flaming Troll posing as someone who supposedly cares about Catholicism, in which he doesn't even believe.
He's a filthy scumbag and rebel against God.
"But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of stress.
For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, fierce, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding the form of religion but denying the power of it. Avoid such people." 2 Tim. 3:1-5.
Con Chef (NB) | 1.21.12 @ 4:44PM
Hey Charlatan, my parents left the choice to ME. When I was 12 years old. You chose to believe what YOU wanted to believe, DID YOU NOT?! Go stick your bigoted, Catholic bashing bullshit up your ass. You're not arbiter of who's a "real" Jew anymore than you are who's a "real "Christian." And for someone who claims to be "Christian" you sure as shit don't act it. You cloak your bigtory in His word & claim you're doing His work. How very Hezbollah like of you.
Get this straight, crone. I don't despise you for your beliefs. I despise you for your bigotry, in the same way I despise Clint, Jack, the Klan & the Black Panthers for THEIRS. Rev. Wright cloaks HIS blatant bigotry under the shroud of G*d's word as well. You are the same breed of bigot as all of them.
Margie| 1.21.12 @ 9:24PM
You despise Christ, Troll.
I reject the man who PRETENDS to be Christ on Earth The "Pope".)
You REJECT the CHRIST Himself.
You're a FRAUD and a little twerp Troll.
Get lost.
Con Chef (NB) | 1.22.12 @ 8:16AM
I think I'll stay here & call you out for you bigotry whenever the hell I see fit, charlatan.
Margaret| 1.20.12 @ 8:59PM
Still trolling for action, Margie dear.
Con Chef (NB) | 1.20.12 @ 9:04PM
She's lonely & on unemployment (for 2 years). Cut her some slack, would ya?!
Margie| 1.21.12 @ 3:38PM
Con Artist Chef is a two-bit punk Troll and a liar.
And you already know where liars go:
"But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death." Rev. 21:8.
steve| 1.21.12 @ 4:35PM
who is on enemployment?
Margie| 1.20.12 @ 6:43PM
Oh, and by the way, you'd best save your "condolences" for Ken the Reprobate. He's the cyber stalker who began falsely accusing me here to try and get rid of me because he didn't like my strong stand on Scripture.
He claimed he had e mails as "proof" of his accusations, and when I repeatedly asked him to post them he wouldn't.
Then, he changed his lying story and claimed oops! he didn't have them anymore, because I "asked him to delete them."
THEN: yesterday, he changed his story yet again!!
He is becoming more of a joke every week that goes by.
He refuses to repent of his obvious lies, and continues trying to trash me here.
Sorry, Troll, but he made it a public issue. Not me!!
What would YOU do, Troll??
He says he "burned them" when "I got desperate!"
So.. according to God's Word, he's going to Hell because he's a lying cyber TROLL:
"But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death." Rev. 21:8.
Too bad most people don't give a damn about the TRUTH, such as your (highness) self.
Con Chef (NB) | 1.20.12 @ 6:47PM
Yeah. Just like you didn't post your unemloyment info.
Blah, blah, blah. St. Margie of the Cross. Pitiful in the extreme. Yet I feel no pity for you. Only derision & amusement.
Bob Grant| 1.20.12 @ 7:43PM
Can we all just get along and focus on getting rid of this dictator?
Focus people, focus!
steve| 1.20.12 @ 8:55PM
Bob, do you think she can get along with anyone?
Margie| 1.20.12 @ 8:12PM
Go screw the Pope, asshole.
DevilDog| 1.20.12 @ 8:18PM
such Christian behaviour margie!
whats a matter? Homer dump you AGAIN!
steve| 1.20.12 @ 8:48PM
"screw" "screw" "get a room"
Gee Margie, what is on your mind. Horndog.
Con Chef (NB) | 1.20.12 @ 9:01PM
Ah, Margie. So pious & pure as the driven SLUSH. You're no better than those you denigrate, you pompous harpy. Believe it or not, I was always amazed at your restraint for not cursing. I don't have such restraint when dealing with people such as yourself (bigots). But that was always your "one up" on me. Not so much anymore now, huh charlatan?
Thanks for the win. I always like defeating bigots. In ANY aspect.
Cue "liar," "scumbag" & maybe even "asshole" tag lines.
Margie| 1.21.12 @ 3:42PM
Actually, I take that back. The Pope is already screwed. He is posing as Jesus' "Vicar on Earth". That makes him a FRAUD and a LIAR.
There is NO SUCH THING in the Bible as this. He is nothing more than an unrepentant sinner.
But he is worse, for he is leading millions of sheep astray by his pretending.
He is leading them as a fraud and by a false gospel, and not that of Jesus' Gospel of Grace.
Rev. 21:8
Margaret| 1.21.12 @ 4:09PM
Margie, dear, you keep saying screw,screw, maybe if you did it instead of saying it you would be a nicer person,not much nicer, but at least a little nicer, if you got a little, dear.
Oldefarte| 1.21.12 @ 5:31PM
'.....By pinning private judgment to the Bible the Reformers started a book religion, i.e. a religion of which, theoretically, law of faith and conduct is contained in a written document without method, without authority, without an authorized interpreter. The collection of books called "the Bible" is not a methodical code of faith and morals; if it be separated from the stream of tradition which asserts its Divine inspiration, it has no special authority, and, in the hands of private interpreters, its meaning is easily twisted to suit every private mind. Our modern laws, elaborated by modern minds for modern requirements, are daily obscured and diverted from their object by interested pleaders: judges are an absolute necessity for their right interpretation and application, and unless we say that religion is but a personal concern, that coherent religious bodies or churches are superfluous, we must admit that judges of faith and morals are as necessary to them as judges of civil law are to States. And that is another reason why private judgment, though upheld in theory, has not been carried out in practice. As a matter of fact, all Protestant denominations are under constituted authorities, be they called priest or presbyters, elders or ministers, pastors or presidents. Notwithstanding the contradiction between the freedom they proclaim and the obedience they exact, their rule has often been tyrannical to a degree, especially in Calvinistic communities. Thus in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries there was no more priest-ridden country in the world than Presbyterian Scotland. A book-religion has, moreover, another drawback. Its devotees can draw devotion from it only as fetish worshippers draw it from their idol, viz. by firmly believing in its hidden spirit. Remove belief in Divine inspiration from the sacred books, and what remains may be regarded as simply a human document of religious illusion or even of fraud. Now, in the course of centuries, private judgment has partly succeeded in taking the spirit out of the Bible, leaving little else than the letter, for critics, high and low, to discuss without any spiritual advantage....'
Margie| 1.21.12 @ 9:31PM
Oldefarte:
What you are quoting is Catholic drivel.
Jesus says:
"..the Words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and life." Jn. 6:63.
You read it for yourself, Oldefarte.
To reject His Words, which are contained in the Bible~ you have to reject Christ.
The Catholic Satanic Murderous Popes DESPISE Scripture, that's why they say that those who cling to it are "Bible Idolators'.
But those who LOVE His Words are known as CHRISTIAN.
"I bow down toward thy Holy Temple and give thanks to Thy Name for Thy steadfast love and Thy faithfulness; for Thou hast exalted above everything Thy Name and Thy Word." Ps. 138:2.
Margie| 1.21.12 @ 3:50PM
You are an asshole. You're a liar and SCUM and will burn in Hell for it.. unless you repent.
Filthy liar. If you think I am angry for your repeated attacks.. just wait till you get a taste of the Lake of Fire to which you are going, and indeed are already in.
Con Chef (NB) | 1.21.12 @ 4:46PM
Pious Margie of the Cross. Calling people "assholes." G*d HATES hypocrites, I'm sure.
Stupid shikse.
Margie| 1.21.12 @ 3:59PM
"Believe it or not, I was always amazed at your restraint for not cursing. I don't have such restraint when dealing with people such as yourself (bigots). But that was always your "one up" on me. Not so much anymore now, huh charlatan?"
You're a filthy piece of work, punk. SCUM like you follows me around and spews the filthiest of language and lies about and to my person, and then gets off on it and accuses some more when I get angry and react.
This is the mark of a truly perverted soul. You join yourself to the other liars and Reprobate false accusers, as they are as much anti-Christ as you are.
And THAT'S the REAL bottom line with you, Con Artist Chef: You HATE Christ.
You gave us your real name and my husband did a little research on you, PUNK.
You aren't a real Jew. You said you became one in order to reject Jesus!
You're a sick PERVERT who hates Bible believing Christians.
Of course, you behave like the scumbag Catholic lying Trolls here, because they hate me just the same.
They also REJECT the Scriptures in order to serve their own, personally MADE UP JESUS.
NOT the Jesus of the Bible!
"For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths." 2 Tim. 4:3 & 4.
"If you want to make a Conservative angry, tell him a lie. If you want to make a Liberal angry, tell him the truth.” - Rush Limbaugh.
Con Chef (NB) | 1.21.12 @ 5:00PM
Hey haint? My parents left the choice to me when I was 12. Coming from a mixed marriage, they did what good parents do. I made my choice & stuck with it. So you & your husband can Google all of my posts you want. I could care less. I'm not the bigot who infests this board with her Catholic bashing, holier than thou bullshit.
Since you unemployed societal leeches have all this free time, find the post where I said I "hated" Jesus. I DEFY you to do so. I told you I velieved more about what my Dad's religion, & my Mom's FATHER'S religion taught. And since my parents left ME the choice, THAT'S what I cose. Who the F**K are YOU to question a decision I made, with my parent's blessing?
Go cash your unemployment check, bitch.
Oldefarte| 1.21.12 @ 5:36PM
'...By pinning private judgment to the Bible the Reformers started a book religion, i.e. a religion of which, theoretically, law of faith and conduct is contained in a written document without method, without authority, without an authorized interpreter. The collection of books called "the Bible" is not a methodical code of faith and morals; if it be separated from the stream of tradition which asserts its Divine inspiration, it has no special authority, and, in the hands of private interpreters, its meaning is easily twisted to suit every private mind. Our modern laws, elaborated by modern minds for modern requirements, are daily obscured and diverted from their object by interested pleaders: judges are an absolute necessity for their right interpretation and application, and unless we say that religion is but a personal concern, that coherent religious bodies or churches are superfluous, we must admit that judges of faith and morals are as necessary to them as judges of civil law are to States. And that is another reason why private judgment, though upheld in theory, has not been carried out in practice. As a matter of fact, all Protestant denominations are under constituted authorities, be they called priest or presbyters, elders or ministers, pastors or presidents. Notwithstanding the contradiction between the freedom they proclaim and the obedience they exact, their rule has often been tyrannical to a degree, especially in Calvinistic communities. Thus in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries there was no more priest-ridden country in the world than Presbyterian Scotland. A book-religion has, moreover, another drawback. Its devotees can draw devotion from it only as fetish worshippers draw it from their idol, viz. by firmly believing in its hidden spirit. Remove belief in Divine inspiration from the sacred books, and what remains may be regarded as simply a human document of religious illusion or even of fraud. Now, in the course of centuries, private judgment has partly succeeded in taking the spirit out of the Bible, leaving little else than the letter, for critics, high and low, to discuss without any spiritual advantage....'
Margie| 1.21.12 @ 9:42PM
Oldefarte:
What you are quoting is Catholic drivel.
Jesus says:
"..the Words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and life." Jn. 6:63.
You read it for yourself, Oldefarte.
To reject His Words, which are contained in the Bible~ you have to reject Christ.
The Catholic Satanic Murderous Popes DESPISE Scripture, that's why they say that those who cling to it are "Bible Idolators'.
But those who LOVE His Words are known as CHRISTIAN.
"I bow down toward thy Holy Temple and give thanks to Thy Name for Thy steadfast love and Thy faithfulness; for Thou hast exalted above everything Thy Name and Thy Word." Ps. 138:2.
Margie| 1.21.12 @ 4:02PM
Also~ you filthy scumbag: The address you gave here isn't your real address.
You live upstairs in a rental, above an old man.
So, you're a renter punk who poses here as some big guy, huh?
You're nothing but a little coward, and little twit who gets off on hurling insults and filth at websites like this. Posing as a conservative but really~ you have a thing against Bible believing Christians.
You love Catholics, but HATE Christians.
FRAUD.
Con Chef (NB) | 1.21.12 @ 4:51PM
I actually live downstairs & my sister in law lives upstairs. And I have a job, unlike you. And I drive a $40,000 automobile, take vacations whenever the hell I want & between my wife & I, work harder & make more dough in our 30's than YOU certainly do now. Tell hubby to look up some more current records. Since you're unemployed, I'm sure you have time, leech.
Margie| 1.21.12 @ 9:40PM
You're a two-bit Christ hater, that means anti-Christ, punk.
That means it matters not how much money you make.
God doesn't judge you by that. He judges for for REJECTING His Beloved Son, which you are PROUD of doing.
And, you see fit to repeatedly LIE about me and my person, which makes you a liar, and, kiddo~ God HATES liars.
I do NOT collect unemployment, you FREAK.
Nor do I or would I ever take WELFARE you tyeo-bit twit.
NOW: Here are the Holy Scriptures that apply to you, PUNK:
"The one not honoring the Son does not honor the Father who has sent Him." Jn. 6:23.
"But for the cowardly and faithless ones,
and disgusting ones, and murderers, and
fornicators, and users of magic, and idolaters,
and all liars, their part will be in the
Lake burning with fire and brimstone,
which is the second death." Rev. 21:8.
Take heed and repent, liar and anti-Christ.
Con Chef (NB) | 1.22.12 @ 8:20AM
I like my religion JUST fine, thank you. Charlatan. Societal leech. Bigoted bitch.
Who's unemployment info, including SSN was posted last week, idiot (got a nice screen shot of it)?
Con Chef (NB) | 1.22.12 @ 8:26AM
Oh, & those scriptures don't apply to me, crone. I'm not a Christian. Worry about your own putrid, fetid & bigoted soul. I'm square with G*d. With all the hatred for those who don't share your particular beliefs that you carry in YOUR heart, you might wanna get square as well.
Con Chef (NB) | 1.22.12 @ 12:51PM
I don't repent to you, charlatan. I repent to G*d. You are not He. You are a bigot who cloaks herself in His word. And if anyone's gonna burn, its gonna be someone like YOU, BIGOT.
DevilDog| 1.20.12 @ 7:42PM
let me speak to margie in her own language.
woof woof, bow wow, arf arf, ruf ruf, yip yip
Con Chef (NB) | 1.20.12 @ 7:46PM
Snicker!
DevilDog| 1.20.12 @ 7:53PM
and yet Jesus and the Apostles all sought out the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars.
guess homer never told margie that it is NOT her who can forgive sins, But Jesus
one man died for your sins Jesus
many men have died for your freedom, soldiers
and all margie can do is blather that SHE and SHE alone can forgive.
Margie| 1.20.12 @ 8:13PM
Jesus doesn't forgive anyone unless they repent, SCUMBAG.
DevilDog| 1.20.12 @ 8:20PM
really? and YOU and ONLY you know who repenbts and who doesnt?
repent! isnt that Catholic originally and your psuedo Christian cult is trying to steal it!
scumbag?
lets see, Chrsit called how many people scumbag?
Mike| 1.21.12 @ 10:06AM
This is why I love AmSpec. Brilliant analysis and sparkling repartee.
Margie| 1.21.12 @ 3:44PM
"I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish." Lk. 13:3.
Margie| 1.21.12 @ 3:48PM
You know nothing, two-bit punk.
Catholicism wasn't in existence immediately after Christ's death.
It came along later, with it's FRAUDULENT MURDEROUS Popes and their minions.
Read some history, Troll:
OF THE UNGODLY AND FALSE CHURCH, WHICH IS THE OPPOSITE OF THE CHURCH OF GOD, AND THE ORIGIN, PROGRESS AND SUCCESSION OF THE SAME THROUGH ALL TIMES
http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/martyrs007
And, you ARE a scumbag.
Oldefarte| 1.21.12 @ 5:37PM
'....By pinning private judgment to the Bible the Reformers started a book religion, i.e. a religion of which, theoretically, law of faith and conduct is contained in a written document without method, without authority, without an authorized interpreter. The collection of books called "the Bible" is not a methodical code of faith and morals; if it be separated from the stream of tradition which asserts its Divine inspiration, it has no special authority, and, in the hands of private interpreters, its meaning is easily twisted to suit every private mind. Our modern laws, elaborated by modern minds for modern requirements, are daily obscured and diverted from their object by interested pleaders: judges are an absolute necessity for their right interpretation and application, and unless we say that religion is but a personal concern, that coherent religious bodies or churches are superfluous, we must admit that judges of faith and morals are as necessary to them as judges of civil law are to States. And that is another reason why private judgment, though upheld in theory, has not been carried out in practice. As a matter of fact, all Protestant denominations are under constituted authorities, be they called priest or presbyters, elders or ministers, pastors or presidents. Notwithstanding the contradiction between the freedom they proclaim and the obedience they exact, their rule has often been tyrannical to a degree, especially in Calvinistic communities. Thus in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries there was no more priest-ridden country in the world than Presbyterian Scotland. A book-religion has, moreover, another drawback. Its devotees can draw devotion from it only as fetish worshippers draw it from their idol, viz. by firmly believing in its hidden spirit. Remove belief in Divine inspiration from the sacred books, and what remains may be regarded as simply a human document of religious illusion or even of fraud. Now, in the course of centuries, private judgment has partly succeeded in taking the spirit out of the Bible, leaving little else than the letter, for critics, high and low, to discuss without any spiritual advantage....'
Margie| 1.21.12 @ 9:42PM
Oldefarte:
What you are quoting is Catholic drivel.
Jesus says:
"..the Words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and life." Jn. 6:63.
You read it for yourself, Oldefarte.
To reject His Words, which are contained in the Bible~ you have to reject Christ.
The Catholic Satanic Murderous Popes DESPISE Scripture, that's why they say that those who cling to it are "Bible Idolators'.
But those who LOVE His Words are known as CHRISTIAN.
"I bow down toward thy Holy Temple and give thanks to Thy Name for Thy steadfast love and Thy faithfulness; for Thou hast exalted above everything Thy Name and Thy Word." Ps. 138:2.
Con Chef (NB) | 1.22.12 @ 11:44AM
YOU calling ANYTHING "drivel" is one of the most STAGGERING examples of irony I can think of.
Margie| 1.21.12 @ 9:46PM
"Lets see, Chrsit called how many people scumbag?"
No, but He called them the children of their FATHER:
"You are of the devil as father, and the
lusts of your father you desire to do. That
one was a murderer from the beginning, and he has not stood in the truth, because
there is no truth in him. When he speaks a
lie, he speaks from his own things, because
he is a liar, and the father of it." Jn. 8:44.
Take heed to yourself, liar.
W| 1.22.12 @ 10:16AM
The crazy MullahMargie of Muenster is off her meds again. Now she is the judge of who is a Jew and who is a Christian. So if you convert to Judaism you are not a Jew. This from a bigoted anabaptist, whose religious ancestors practiced polygamy in Muenster, and who does not believe in the Trinity or that Jesus is God. She created her own cult of two members, her and her husband.
Tell us Mullah , who is cashing those UC checks since August 2009 at $549 per week? If it is not you explain how it was posted under your name. Is it Victor your husband receives the checks?
You pretend to be a Christian so tell the truth. If it is your H then we are still supporting you with our taxes.
We don't need lectures from a pretend christian and a pretend conservative.
Fess up, Mullah, you have no credibility. This is your chance to tell the truth, don't pull a Clinton and say "it is not me" if you know it is your husband, or someone else there in your house? Set the record straight. How was that UC info posted under your name? Did you post it, yes or no? Whose claim is it?
Con Chef (NB) | 1.22.12 @ 12:07PM
What're WE thinking, though. Only MARGIE & VIC know who's going to Heaven & who's NOT. Only THEY know who honors G*d & who doesn't. After all, when all you do is sit at home on unemployment, you tend to just KNOW these things.
Look out, though, W. Remember, you too are a "Papist," "reprobate," "liar," "punk," "troll," & possibly even an "asshole," depending on how St. Margie feels today. You'd better show more respect, otherwise Margie will take out an anabaptist fatwah out on you...
"REPENT, punk!"
See, now Margie doesn't have to say it.
W| 1.22.12 @ 1:37PM
Thanks, Chef, I feel better with the daily dose of the MulllahMargieOmar.
Hey Mullah, did you see Newt won. Newt is a convert to the one billion member cult of Catholicism. A papist won and will be president. That must bother you, a papist, walking around the white house, carrying rosary beads, and praying to Jesus who is God. Really burns you right Mullah. Newt was going to join your cult of TWO, but the membership was full.
Con Chef (NB) | 1.22.12 @ 3:17PM
She's got a hard on for "Papists," yet says she'll vote for Santorum. Hypocrite much?
Con Chef (NB) | 1.22.12 @ 3:23PM
Hopefully, the Cult of Two got Jim Jones' Kool Aid recipe. Then they can do the world a favor.
Hey, Margie, the "Papists" are coming! "White Light. I repeat, White Light!"
Resist We Much! | 1.20.12 @ 12:56PM
"[I'm] the most serious, systematic revolutionary of modern times."
- Newt Gingrich
"It's not altruism! It's not altruism! I have an enormous personal ambition. I want to shift the entire planet. And I'm doing it. Oh, this is just the beginning of a 20-or-30-year movement. I'll get credit for it. As a historian, I understand how histories are written. My enemies will write histories that dismiss me and prove I was unimportant. My friends will write histories that glorify me and prove I was more important than I was. And two generations or three from now, some serious, sober historian will write a history that sort of implies I was whoever I was."
- Newt Gingrich, Washington Post, 1985
"I think you can write a psychological profile of me that says I found a way to immerse my insecurities in a cause large enough to justify whatever I wanted it to."
- Newt Gingrich, Vanity Fair, September 1995
"You have to understand that I am a think tank, I can save the West, and when I come up with a new idea, we need to move on it immediately."
- Newt Gingrich
Read more here:
Newt: If You Don't Know Me By Now... (Mo Will Tell You Everything That I Don't Want You To Know)
http://predicthistunpredictpas.....-will.html
Resist We Much! | 1.20.12 @ 12:58PM
"I am more in the Alexander Hamilton-Teddy Roosevelt tradition of conservatism."
"I am Teddy Roosevelt."
"I am a "Realpolitick Wilsonian."
"It makes me, in some ways, like the two Roosevelts.”
"I’m An Eisenhower Republican."
"I am a Rockefeller Republican."
“I am much like [Ronald] Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.”
- So sayeth the "Georgia Reagan Republican," who will soon be fighting with Obama over who gets to be Millard Filmore
Interested Conservative| 1.20.12 @ 1:05PM
Just so long as they don't fight to be the next James Buchanan.
Resist We Much! | 1.20.12 @ 1:14PM
LOL! They are both running out of Presidents.
Con Chef (NB) | 1.20.12 @ 1:24PM
GREAT work once again, Dear Barrister! I'm as suspicious of Newt Salamander (my Dad gave him that nickname when he became Speaker, as my Dad had nicknames for EVERYONE) as I am Mittens.
Santorum may have his faults, but I don't think consistency on issues or lauding of progressives would be on the list. I'm also a realist & understand that there's probably no way in Hell that Santorum will be the nominee, but I will fight for the man in the primary. And in the end, I remain an "anyone but Obama & Paul" voter.
You are also correct that WHOEVER the Republican is, if they win, will certainly be presiding over a complete & total clusterf***. The measures needed to un "f" all that has been f-ed up will NOT be popular when they're implemented. However, if that nameless Republican President is an effective leader & a true conservative, then we wil be able to see the benefits of "new management" rather quickly.
We know this because its happened recently in Wisconsin. Even though the union pukes are trying to recall him, Walker has put that state's books back in the black with some room to spare.
PS. Wouldn't you agree that the MILLION SIGNATURES that were received to institute the recall smells like something rotten in the State of Wisconsin?
Occam's Tool| 1.20.12 @ 6:28PM
Considering the Wisconsin recall ballots contain thousands of "Mike Hunt," "Adolph Hitler," "Ignatious Perry Dailee," "Albert Innacan," "Robert Surunkle," and other suspicious signatures, Con, yeah, I think you may be on to something.
Con Chef (NB) | 1.20.12 @ 6:50PM
The left involved in voeter fraud? PERISH THE THOUGHT!
Mike| 1.21.12 @ 10:03AM
Yeah, the left needs to go to Iowa to learn how to do voter fraud right.
Con Chef (NB) | 1.21.12 @ 2:28PM
Snicker!
Oldefarte| 1.21.12 @ 11:46AM
Absolutely, agree! Are there one million registered voters [or Democrats] in Wisc.? Think this community organizing Acorn H&C has spread to Ohio and Indiana possibly also, but if not, will do so shortly. The OWS crowd is highly mobile, no doubt!!!!!!!!
Con Chef (NB) | 1.21.12 @ 2:26PM
Oldfarte:
I think it was a couple of years ago that here in Allegheny County (Pittsburgh) even our Democrat county DA filed suit against ACORN for fraud. I think it was one of the only prosecutions that was actually successful.
When it happened, it was actually refreshing to see that there are Dems out there who'll do tge right thing, regardless of party politics & "loyalty."
I'll tell ya ONE thing though: She ain't the county DA anymore....
Casey Abell| 1.20.12 @ 1:22PM
Got a feeling that Saturday night will be a real downer for Quin.
SpiralArchitect| 1.20.12 @ 4:54PM
+1
Claudia | 1.20.12 @ 1:54PM
Yes, Quin, you are right about Speaker Gingrich. But....so what?! Watching these debates has been the most fun I've had in a long time. Having Gingrich in the race has added spice, humor and unpredictability! Plus, and I love this the most, he's taken on the elite media and people tune in to see it! Do you think any one of the others would have had the guts to do this? Maybe Santorum.
I watched Marianne Gingrich last night on Nightline. She came off as bitter, resentful and downright unstable. And what is all this stuff about meeting with some arms dealer? This isn't going to hurt Gingrich I'm betting.
I say hats off to Gingrich. I don't know what's going to happen here, but I'm loving the ride
Randy | 1.20.12 @ 2:35PM
Claudia, this is not about FUN. It's about saving our country.
Claudia | 1.20.12 @ 8:55PM
Randy - Oh, get over yourself. Of course it's about saving the country you pompous, sanctimonious bore.
Margie| 1.20.12 @ 2:02PM
For what it's worth~ and I know it ain't worth much around here but I'll say it anyway.
I think Santorum is going to be moving up in rank.. the credibility rank.
MikeG| 1.20.12 @ 2:29PM
You said you don't like Santorum because he is a "haughty Catholic" and "lied about Cain's abortion position."
Margie| 1.20.12 @ 2:36PM
That is correct, I said that.
But as to credibility concerning his marital fidelity, I think a lot of people will choose him over the Newster.
That's my opinion.
And I'll still vote for a haughty Papist or a repentant Adulterer over an unrepentant Marxist (Obama) anyday.
Santorum isn't running for Pope, he's running for President.
There's things we all don't like about each candidate.. but none of them are worse than Obama.
That's the reality that we all need to face.
Either we elect a Republican or we get the harsh TaskMaster for a second term.
Randy | 1.20.12 @ 2:21PM
Exactly right!! Newt is a hypocrite and would lose the general election BIGTIME.
Karen| 1.20.12 @ 2:31PM
I am republican woman from Alabama. Newt is not worthy of my vote. Divorce is honorable; having a 6 year affair, humiliating your WIVES, cheating with a staffer, is really disgusting, but taking $1.3 million from FANNIE MAE for being a historian makes you unelectable. I wish all these social conservatives who are planning to vote for Gingrich can look themselves in the mirror. There is nothing sociallly conservative about Gingrich. We don't need another blowhard college professor in the White House lecturing us.
Being a social conservative and voting for Newt is like being slightly pregnant. Please South Carolina, vote for Romney or Santorum.
Doug| 1.20.12 @ 2:47PM
A vote for Romney is a vote for abortion. If you have qualms about Newt then Mitt should send shivers down your spine.
As a social conservative your only choice in this primary is Santorum.
Oldefarte| 1.20.12 @ 4:45PM
If people kept it in their pants and kept their legs together, there would be no need for abortion!!!!!
David T| 1.20.12 @ 2:48PM
I think people take the "melt"comment much too seriously. It was probably just a throw-away line--a passing nod to Clinton's vaunted personal charm and charisma. The fact is, Gingrich held firm in his positions. It was Clinton who tacked to the right in no small measure because of Newt's leadership.
Gingrich/Jindal 2012
Papa Whiskey| 1.20.12 @ 2:52PM
The truth was that while the triumph in 1994 was a huge shock to the pundits, it was eminently predictable, because the ground was set via redistricting, the Bank Scandal, and other trends.
Don't forget Bill Clinton's gun-control laws, the passage of which brought gun owners to the polls in a black mass in 1994. The memory of that is why the rabidly anti-gun Barry Hussein has made no such moves in his first term. If he gets a second, watch out.
PattyMor| 1.20.12 @ 3:28PM
What person running for the Presidency doesn't have visions of grandure? One minute Obummer is Lincoln, then its Reagan (really?), next JFK, or Roosevelt. And who had the reverb, the fake columns and the fake prez. seal?
Do you think that Romney, who can't seem to defend his positions, his wealth, and his business background despite running for the office for five years will beat Obummer? He can't even decide if he wants to release his tax returns. He looks weak and pathetic.
Ron Paul's foreign policy is too extreme. And his "letters" will be spewed all over if he were nominated. They're radioactive.
And Santorum can not win on only social issues. He needs to have more. And, I don't want felons voting--ever.
Ok, Newt would not be my first choice for president, but my first choices are now gone. Maybe he could implant a spine in Bonehead and McMumbles. And we all know Newt's faults. They aren't state secrets. He's the best of the lot.
PattyMor| 1.20.12 @ 3:28PM
What person running for the Presidency doesn't have visions of grandure? One minute Obummer is Lincoln, then its Reagan (really?), next JFK, or Roosevelt. And who had the reverb, the fake columns and the fake prez. seal?
Do you think that Romney, who can't seem to defend his positions, his wealth, and his business background despite running for the office for five years will beat Obummer? He can't even decide if he wants to release his tax returns. He looks weak and pathetic.
Ron Paul's foreign policy is too extreme. And his "letters" will be spewed all over if he were nominated. They're radioactive.
And Santorum can not win on only social issues. He needs to have more. And, I don't want felons voting--ever.
Ok, Newt would not be my first choice for president, but my first choices are now gone. Maybe he could implant a spine in Bonehead and McMumbles. And we all know Newt's faults. They aren't state secrets. He's the best of the lot.
George S| 1.20.12 @ 3:46PM
Both Santorum and Romney were present at the last few debates where Newt either put the moderators in their place or got standing ovations. Both Santorum and Romney must obviously have seen the Tea Party hand the Democrats a huge loss over their policies in 2010. Yet both continue to campaign as if it were 1992. Don't offend, answer in riddles, make platitudes and -- no matter what -- appear civil towards the undecideds and moderates.
Is it any wonder why Trump got an early lead and Newt is getting standing O's? The tone deafness is astounding. Sure, we wish there was someone else besides Newt telling it the way we are thinking but, alas, they are not running. And no matter how much we wish, the delegates are not going to Palin or Rubio or Ryan or whoever. They are either going to Romney or Gingrich -- unless Santorum shakes off his senatorial protective instincts and also goes ideological.
Minuteman78| 1.20.12 @ 3:57PM
Wish Newt would have offered Santorum the VP slot in exchange for getting out of the race. This thing would be over tomorrow. I've heard a LOT of people on talk radio saying they know Newt's got some big flams but they know where he stands and has passion. Mitt Squishy's a phony and down-home folks like the SC-ers see right through him.
Minuteman78| 1.20.12 @ 3:57PM
"big flaws"...typo...
David T| 1.20.12 @ 4:09PM
I thought Gingrich-Santorum sounded like a big winner until Rick blew it with his "Newt is prone to pop off" comment. Obama would have too much fun with that one.
Diane Jay| 1.20.12 @ 4:28PM
Kudos to Quin for laying on the line what the GOP ought to be considering. Gingrich is an accident waiting to happen. There are red flags waving everywhere, but at the moment, at least, it appears that red meat is trumping them in the minds of too many conservative Republicans. Newt successfully played the attack-the-media strategy at Thursday night's debate. That obscures one key issue. When what one says and what one does frequently diverge--like carrying along a long-term affair while chastising then-president Clinton for his pecadillos--it paints a portrait of a person who believes there is one set of rules for everyone else to live by, and a completely different set for himself. I thought the tea party was supposed to be about ending those types of behaviors in Washington. Newt is a good talker, but presidents do more than that. Our nation is already suffering the results of a good talker with no executive experience. The sooner the tempestuous, thin-skinned, erratic former Georgia congressman gets out of the race, the better we all are.
rightasrain| 1.20.12 @ 4:46PM
I love Mark Steyn's take on Newt Gingrich as the worst of both worlds: a pushover for progressivism who folded on every major conservative issue when he was speaker but who is still thought of as a hard-line, right-wing bastard.
Occam's Tool| 1.20.12 @ 6:30PM
I wish Steyn could run.
WL| 1.20.12 @ 9:43PM
HILLYER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You know what happens when Newt gets enough of his lead siphoned off by Ricky Santorum don't you??????
Your boy Romney wins....
I am starting to wonder about your motives again....as mostly everyone else is too...(or alot anyway)....
Yep....I knew it...
You are at it again....
Bill Blazejowski| 1.21.12 @ 7:29AM
Well in addition to his personal problems and lack of character Newt also has a problem with history. When was the last time a member of the House was elected President? Garfield maybe?
Ohiolad| 1.21.12 @ 11:25AM
The best thing that could happen at this point is to have a brokered convention. Gingrich might be the current ant-Romney favorite because of his theatrical debate performances and aggressiveness toward liberal moderators, but when looked at in the context of what he has actually done over the years as opposed to what he says now, he doesn't fare so well. While he has an obvious talent for verbal fluencey and rabble-rousing, he is flighty and emotionally unstable. Supporting the only conservative in the NY-23 special election was a no-brainer for the likes of Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and Jim DeMint, as it should have been for any real conservative. But it wasn't for Newt who supported the liberal Scozzafava, someone who favored Obamacare and card check. For me this was the last straw and clearly demonstrated that Newt was not a true conservative and lacked a grounding in principle, no matter what he is currently saying, and I have never trusted him since. If elected, Gingrich could transform into a big government progressive just as easily as not.
Ted R.| 1.22.12 @ 12:50PM
A brokered convention - ?? Man, the Democrats can only DREAM. Wasn't it this point last election cycle that Limbaugh was agitating hard for "Operation Chaos" to bring down Obama - ? Well, it looks like the Republicans have been hoist on their own petard, with the chaos this time in their primary. Ain't Karma a bitch??
Brian Birdnow| 1.21.12 @ 11:25AM
In 1992 the GOP actually won nine seats in the House of Representatives. They did lose the Presidency and lost a couple of Senate seats, but they won nine seats in the House. It was largely an anti-incumbent feeling in the land that brought down Bush, and a bunch of the other "in" crowd.
Leveut| 1.23.12 @ 10:38AM
"...his"melting" around Clinton...reportedly has also told people the same story about Newt being called to the White House one day and then coming back completely changed about Clinton and all chummy with him)..."
Slick showed Newt his FBI file.
Pete| 1.23.12 @ 1:24PM
Sorry Quin, too late. Newt is resonating because he is a warrior and thats what we want going after Obama. Run these hit pieces if you want and sit out the election if you want, but we are going to relish his attacks on the left.
And remember the Clinton - Newt era. I was a far happier time when we actually balanced the budget and reduced welfare.