Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
Tweet
When Bill Clinton was involved in the Lewinsky affair, it was bad, reprehensible conduct for a husband and a father. Certainly it showed a lack of morals and judgement. That said, it was not a high crime or misdemeanor by any stretch of the imagination. He had done wrong, but it didn’t warrant a crisis of the constitution. Republicans didn’t share that sentiment. Republicans thought the affair was reason enough to remove the president from his office.
They were led in this charge by Newt Gingrich. Gingrich vowed in 1998 to bring up the affair as much as possible. Gingrich decided to create ads about the affair, and thought it would be a good issue to run on in 1998. It didn’t work, and Democrats gained 5 seats in the House that year.
As we now know, while Newt Gingrich was on this moral crusade, he was cheating on his wife and eventually divorcing her.
So now, years later, after his moral crusade built on a platform hypocrisy, Gingrich has the nerve to berate CNN for bringing up this story? Excrement, indeed.
58 Responses to “Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician”
Journalist Marie Colvin Killed In Syria
Obama To Congress: Drop Corporate Tax Rate By 7%
Meet Rebecca Williams, The FBI’s Stripper Turned “Trailer Park Mata Hari”
VA Gov. McDonnell Backs Off Support Of Forced Vaginal Probe Law
Santorum A Birther? Got Briefing From Conspiracy Sheriff Arpaio
Billionaire Sheldon Adelson Adds $26 Billion To Fortune Under Obama, Complains Of Socialism
Kardashian – Endorsed QuickTrim Diet Pill May Face Class Action Lawsuit
Virginia Still Within Reach For Obama
Porn Displayed On Best Buy TVs Via Wifi
Latest Entries
VIDEO: Who Doesn’t Need A Gun That Can Take Out A Helicopter?
The Tea Party Loves Socialism, Fakes Otherwise
Conservatives Dead Set On Repeating 2004
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
“So now, years later, after his moral crusade built on a platform hypocrisy, Gingrich has the nerve to berate CNN for bringing up this story?”
It will work with Republicans, but it won’t work with independents.
Don’tcha know videotape is the devil’s (leftists) tool to turn this country into a communist-socialist-marxist mecca?
“So now, years later, after his moral crusade built on a platform hypocrisy, Gingrich has the nerve to berate CNN for bringing up this story?”
- Right on! After all, it was CNN that all was over Democrat presidential candidate John Edwards affair back in ’08 on his cancer-stricken wife and the campaign money he used to pay for his mistress’ future love child…Oops!
“Ghostie”,
You’re claiming that CNN didn’t cover the story?
It’s okay if you are a Republican, no matter the circumstance. Wingnuts are the biggest hypocrites alive. I guess that’s the luxury of having Jesus on your side, eh?
I love this shit. I am so glad the GOP nomination isn’t all wrapped up just yet. I hope this goes on as long as possible. Can you say brokered convention?
Imagine the spectacle…Paultards in one corner, Talibangelicals on the other side, and the tiny minority of Bloomberg style republicans who hold their noses trying to support Mittens.
Somewhere in DC, Democratic consultants are laughing their asses off.
But wait, the Enquirer- which broke that story- has also reported that both Sarah and Todd Palin have had affairs- but the lamestream media hasn’t picked up on that, either.
Conservative bias!
And just search through the CNN archives- there’s an absolute shit-ton of articles and opinion pieces on Edwards’ affair, from ’08 on, after the Enquirer story was confirmed and Edwards admitted to the affair.
Gingrich admitted to his affair in 2007. So it’s on the table.
Also, Edwards’ conduct destroyed his public standing and political career. Yet Gingrich is still a very viable GOP candidate. What a fuckin’ shock.
“And just search through the CNN archives- there’s an absolute shit-ton of articles and opinion pieces on Edwards’ affair, from ’08 on, after the Enquirer story was confirmed and Edwards admitted to the affair.”
Yes! And because CNN was so on top of Edwards then-affair with his mistress while married to a cancer-stricken wife they made it a priority to ask the presidential candidate about it during the debate they hosted back in ’08!…damn, wrong again.
What liberal media?!?
“Ghostie”,
I’m still not seeing where you’re headed.
You first cite an article showing that the National Enquirer broke the Edwards story. But your comment was about CNN not covering the story. I don’t understand the connection.
Your second comment cites an article from a remarkably neutral news source (not) about the digression the first question to (then) Sen. Clinton took. This is relevant to CNN’s news coverage of John Edwards?
For the record, I do not think that Newt’s serial adultery, his rank hypocrisy in leading the prosecution of President Clinton at the same time he’s nailing an aide, or his alcohol problems eliminate his viability as a candidate for President of the US. The policies he espouses eliminate any possibility of obtaining my vote.
The debate was January 1st, 2008. As of December 12, 2007, it was still an Enquirer story with all of the primary parties denying everything.
Granted, this detail is he-said/she-said, but Gingrich has already admitted to cheating on her for years.
So Ghost, as I’ve pointed out, the Enquirer ran stories on Sarah Palin’s supposed affair in September 2008. Yet she was never asked about it during the Vice Presidential debate that October. And this was after the Enquirer broke the story of Edwards’ infidelity, so you’d think they’d have a bit more credibility. But no media outlets- including CNN- followed up on it.
Must be Conservative bias.
When John Edwards comes out of retirement and is considered a leading candidate for the Democratic nomination, there will be moral equivalence. Not until.
When John Edwards comes out of retirement and is considered a leading candidate for the Democratic nomination, there will be moral equivalence. Not until.
Which is precisely the point that this idiot will keep tap-dancing around. Edwards is disgraced; Gingrich still has a puncher’s chance at grabbing the GOP’s most illustrious nomination.
Their sense of morality is so superior that at times it’s completely incomprehensible.
Edwards is facing criminal charges, too.
“I’m still not seeing where you’re headed.”
Of course you don’t. Libtards never see anything from outside the narrow prism they live in.
The National Enquirer, until then a joke of tabloid rag, broke the story of a leading Democrat presidential candidate having an affair on his cancer-stricken wife and no reputable media outlet, including CNN, bothered to investigate the validity of the story until after the fact, much less confront Edwards about it anywhere on the campaign trail. Yet, CNN can lead its own 2012 presidential debate with a question towards a GOP Pres. candidate about an alleged affair that took place more than a decade ago based solely on the words of his ex-wife.
“So Ghost, as I’ve pointed out, the Enquirer ran stories on Sarah Palin’s supposed affair”
You lemmings continued fascination with anything Palin is funny to me. But then it was the Left that banded together and told the world that Bubba’s affairs while in office had nothing to do with his ability to lead the country…funny how Gingrich doesn’t garner the same respect, excrement indeed!
“an alleged affair that took place more than a decade ago based solely on the words of his ex-wife.”
What? Gingrich admits the affair happened.
CNN never covered the Lewinsky story either, right? Lord.
Yet, CNN can lead its own 2012 presidential debate with a question towards a GOP Pres. candidate about an alleged affair that took place more than a decade ago based solely on the words of his ex-wife.
“Alleged”? This word does not mean what you think it does, contard.
(Just wait for about thirty seconds in, to hear Newt admit to the affair)
That’s what we call “confirmed”. Not “alleged”. Good Lord, you’re not even capable of doing rudimentary research.
You lemmings continued fascination with anything Palin is funny to me. But then it was the Left that banded together and told the world that Bubba’s affairs while in office had nothing to do with his ability to lead the country…funny how Gingrich doesn’t garner the same respect, excrement indeed!
No, you whined “liberal bias” based on the fact that the mainstream media initially ignored the Edwards allegations in the Enquirer (defined here, since I know you have trouble with that word). I countered with a similar example where the media silence was in Sarah Palin’s favor. When you’re making a case that this is a simple function of media bias, evidence where a prominent member of the GOP was treated the exact same way as a Democratic candidate- even, and especially after the tabloid account was legitimized- would weaken your case.
Additionally, the sudden shake-and-bake comparison to Clinton is less apt than the one to Edwards- we’re not talking about a simple case of infidelity; we’re talking about men who cheated on- and abandoned- sick wives (sometimes serially).
And as has been mentioned- for his crime, Edwards was more or less excommunicated from politics. Newt’s still goin’ strong. Wonderful party you have there, Ghost.
The National Enquirer, until then a joke of tabloid rag, broke the story of a leading Democrat presidential candidate having an affair on his cancer-stricken wife and no reputable media outlet, including CNN, bothered to investigate the validity of the story until after the fact, much less confront Edwards about it anywhere on the campaign trail.
So you want all news media outlets to report on every claim as though they were fact?* You want the MSM to turn into celebrity gossip (more than it already is, I mean)?
Tell me, did the National Enquirer do anything to show that this story was different from all their other affair “stories”? If not, why do you condemn CNN for not accepting the word of known liars as fact?
Finally, why do you choose to be so stupid?
*Nope, you certainly wouldn’t have any ulterior motives in having news outlets print every lie as fact. No sir.
Newt Gingrich is a glass-jawed little bitch.
“evidence where a prominent member of the GOP”
Prominent?!? Until McCain picked her as VP candidate, no one outside of Alaska ever heard of Palin. And since then with all the vetting, pesonaal attacks, Tripgate and the like the lib media has thrown at her, any alleged affairs between her and Todd has gotten little steam much less press from anyone. And only a libtard like yourself would compare scrutiny towards a VP candidate to a presidential (ala Edwards).
Bottom line personal scandals involving Repubs get a 100 times more scrutiny and press than do Democrats as is the case here with Newt compared to 4 years ago with Edwards while they both running for Prez.
Bottom line personal scandals involving Repubs get a 100 times more scrutiny and press than do Democrats
Joe Scarborough & Gary Condit, anyone?
Bottom line personal scandals involving Repubs get a 100 times more scrutiny and press than do Democrats as is the case here with Newt compared to 4 years ago with Edwards while they both running for Prez.
Ghost, you cannot possibly be this dumb. When a tabloid broke the Edwards story, you complain that it didn’t get immediate traction from legitimate news sources, then claim its somehow different when the media didn’t go after Palin’s alleged affair because of “all the vetting” while admitting that she was unknown outside of Alaska. Didja think there wasn’t “vetting” involved with Edwards, a former US Senator and Vice-presidential candidate? Its like you’re saying well known politicians should be under a microscope, and obscure politicians should get a pass.
Prominent?!? Until McCain picked her as VP candidate, no one outside of Alaska ever heard of Palin
She was THE VP candidate, vs. one of many presidential candidates, running a comically distant third to the actual contenders. Yeah, I’d say that’s “prominent”.
little steam much less press from anyone.
If by “little” you mean, “none”. And what an utterly retarded statement- the liberal media didn’t personally attack Sarah Palin about her alleged affair because… because… they were too occupied trying to… er… dig up stuff so they could personally attack her!!
Bravo. It’s like watching an orchestra of ignorance.
Bottom line personal scandals involving Repubs get a 100 times more scrutiny and press than do Democrats
And yet you weren’t even aware that Newt had admitted to the affair. You’d think that a media as biased as you claim it to be would have pounded that somewhat significant fact- that the Republican Speaker of the House was an admitted adulterer- into our nation’s skulls… even one as thick as yours!
Although, you’ve truly shown a talent for blundering your way into a discussion, guns and insults blazing, without bothering to arm yourself with the barest, most easily google-able facts (when was Tim Tebow’s rookie year, again?). So I guess we can’t really use your impressive ignorance as a benchmark for anything.
Why don’t you sit a couple plays out there, champ?
@MrGreyGhost
Yeah, and when she became VP candidate she was… oh… what’s that word…? Oh yeah. Prominent.
Speaking of the inability to grasp basic facts, what the fuck is “Tripgate“? Did you mean “Troopergate“?
Oh, the insidious scrutiny of the liberal media- forcing people to be become sorta aware of Republican scandals in a really vague way…
“Ghostie”,
“Bottom line personal scandals involving Repubs get a 100 times more scrutiny and press than do Democrats” haven’t you been paying attention? (Sorry Ol, I see you’ve been here an hour & a half before me)
Is “Libtard” your word-du-jour? Does it have a meaning? Or is it just a random insult word?
Awkward,
I think “Trip-gate” was the rumor that Trip was really Bristol’s child. But I have to admit that generally ignored the issue as it seemed totally irrelevant to the issue of Sarah’s qualifications. Claiming paternity of a child to save your unmarried daughter embarrassment/shame actually is a positive for me. “Trooper-gate” was much more relevant as it showed Sarah’s (mis)use of political power.
Its really funny that Gingrich finds the question outrageous. This the man that absolutely proved that the infidelities of a president could be used against him by his political opposition to handcuff and question his every move.
Also, you guys don’t seem to be catching the implied reason MrGreyGhost is upset: his longstanding grudge that CNN refused to cover the Jennifer Lopez – Amazing Batboy wedding. MrGreyGhost, even J-Lo has moved on.
I think “Trip-gate” was the rumor that Trip was really Bristol’s child.
Ah, good catch DB- however, you forget that this is Ghost we’re dealing with, so of course, the most basic facts he brings to the table are incorrect, and the child’s name is actually “Trig”. “Tripgate” made me think it was some bullshit travel scandal; I forgot that Ghost doesn’t know his ass from his elbow, much less the most mind-numbingly simple things about the issues he’s trying to debate.
Got that, Ghost? “Trig”, not “Trip”. Gingrich “admitted” to the affair; it was not “alleged”.
Also, please provide three links of mainstream outlets pushing the “Trig isn’t Sarah’s baby” theory, since you seem to think it, you know, all the rage. And no, Andrew Sullivan does NOT count as mainstream. I want CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, or a major paper like the NYT. And not them covering it from a “can you believe this shit?!” perspective- we need people actually passing it off as plausible fact.
Let’s face it, Ghost- you’re either going to ignore this, or slink out of the thread entirely, as usual.
Catch you on the next one, simpleton.
*In Ghost’s limited defense, I’ll remind everyone that “Tripp” is Bristol’s son, so the name isn’t entirely fabricated in the context of the Palins. However, Trig is the one Ghost meant in his bullshit “fringe conspiracy that I’m trying to pass off as mainstream” nonsense.
I find that Ghost is so fucking sloppy and clueless that you can actually play quite fair and he still comes out looking like a fucking moron.
Well played, Ghost!
“When John Edwards comes out of retirement and is considered a leading candidate for the Democratic nomination, there will be moral equivalence. Not until.”
Bingo. Edwards was drummed out of the party in disgrace. Newt is seen as a hero.
This is because Republicans are a) stupid b) gullible and c) hypocritical.
Still, I’m rooting for him to win the nom. If he does, Dems take back the House.
What’s clear is that Republicans care more about feeling good about themselves than they do about actually winning.
S’beautiful.
Thank you Awkward,
You catch my confusion as well. Clearly I am not ready for “Sarah Palin Trivial Pursuit”, confusing Trip & Trig. I stand abashed.
MrGreyGhost is the perfect example of a Republican trying to use logic when trying to compare two stories, and failing. As long as there is one connection, an affair, any differences in how the media treats it is proof of bias. It doesn’t matter that at the time of the first debate the Edwards affair was only a rumor, one brought up by a notorious tabloid, while the Gingrich affair is one Gingrich himself admitted to.
“evidence where a prominent member of the GOP”
MrGreyGhost says: “Prominent?!? Until McCain picked her as VP candidate, no one outside of Alaska ever heard of Palin.”
Not true. I knew who she was. I had dismissed her as a possible VP choice because I knew about troopergate. I figured that scandal would be too damaging for McCain’s campaign and so he wouldn’t pick her. I was wrong on that last point, but I knew who she was.
By the way, I knew who she was, not because I was doing independent research on possible VP candidates, but because she was mentioned a number of times in the media, albeit mostly in the deep political blogosphere.
I find that Ghost is so fucking sloppy and clueless that you can actually play quite fair and he still comes out looking like a fucking moron.
This is the result of watching too much Fox News and believing those idiotic chain wingnut emails. These people truly live in their own la-la land, detached from reality. Wingnuts are the type of people who already have their blinders on. They think they can impose their vision of what the world should be on reality. They cannot see anything for what it really is; everything goes through their wingnut filter first, then they fit the facts around their own biases.
It’s a fucking cult of idiots.
Republicans thought the affair was reason enough to remove the president from his office.
That’s a lie and you know it.
You can’t just yadda-yadda perjury.
This, of course explains why Karl Rove is walking free today.
Perjury about a consensual blowjob.
Nobody here has defended Clinton — he was an idiot and marred what would have been one of the strongest presidential legacies in American history.
But not only were impeachment hearings over a consensual blowjob, we know now that Newtie was getting his own pale, shriveled member sucked off by a staffer as well.
Say what you will about a serial liar and flip-flopper like Romney, but his marital life has been as squeaky-clean as Obama’s.
But for all their talk about “family values,” Republicans couldn’t care less about a thrice-married serial philanderer. And they don’t care about winning, either (otherwise Mitt would have locked up the nomination already).
No, all they care about is being bitter, vindictive, and affirming their 19th century racist values.
And if this keeps up, as mentioned, Obama will have the Senate and House for his second term.
“I find that Ghost is so fucking sloppy and clueless…”
Ok, you win. Not only do you clearly know more about Palin than me, but your ability to bring up Palin on a post that has absolutely nothing to do with her takes “look over there!!!” syndrome to another level.
“Ghost, you cannot possibly be this dumb. When a tabloid broke the Edwards story, you complain that it didn’t get immediate traction from legitimate news sources, then claim its somehow different when the media didn’t go after Palin’s alleged affair…”
Except there was no traction to any Palin affair. No reliable sources or legitimate quotes from anyone close to either Todd or Palin to confirm any allegations of an affair, much less a smoking gun. Unlike Edwards where there was missing campaign funds, rumors of trouble within the marriage, quotes from campaign staff and of course the name of the alleged mistress–plenty of stuff for the national media to pick up on, but they didn’t because he was a Democrat.
“Except there was no traction to any Palin affair.”
Nobody cares about Palin because she’s utterly irrelevant.
You, however, act all butthurt over the fact that once the Edwards affair become known, the Dems dropped him like a hot potato.
Newtie, the thrice-married guy who left _two_ wives while they were seriously ill? The guy who took millions from Fannie and Freddie? The man who insisted “only oral” so he could deny sex took place? (_Exactly_ the same thing Clinton claimed when he said “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”?) The man who had to resign his speakership in shame? The man who runs up multi-million dollar bills at Tiffany’s?
My money is still on Mittens to win the nom, but if he does win he’ll be damaged goods. We’ll probably see a third party challenge that does nothing but drain 15-30 percent of the vote away from him.
But if Gingrich wins the nom? Oh dear God Obama is going to be laughing his ass of to one of the greatest landslide electoral victories in all of American history.
And America wins either way.
a ship of fools, a rudderless ship and captain coward at the helm
Ghostie,
You started off comparing Gingrich’s serial adultery with Edwards’. You’ve morphed into comparing Edwards’ affair with an un-admitted Sarah Palin affair with her Husband’s former business partner.
So I’m a “libtard” for not understanding what makes you so fixated? The fact that Sarah may not have had a fling with her husband’s business partner (unlike a fling with a certain basketball player) makes Gingrich more? less? likely to dump the US for a younger, more active, nation?
SaveFarris:
“That’s a lie and you know it.
You can’t just yadda-yadda perjury.”
Unless you’re talking about Scooter Libby, apparently.
On a more serious note, looking at the final vote tally for both the perjury and obstruction of justice charges makes it clear that the best logical explanation is that the whole thing was a Republican witch hunt. Ultimately, cooler heads prevailed and decided that perjury about an affair, as great a violation of the public (and personal) trust as it might have been, did not quite rise to the level of “impeachable offense”.
For that matter, the perjury charge has 10 of the Republicans and all of the Democrats voting against conviction, and 5 of the Republicans and all of the Democrats voting against. They didn’t even get a simple majority in either case. Did those defectors decide to put country above party, or did they simply not want to tie their wagons to the freefalling impeachment proceedings?
“Nobody cares about Palin because she’s utterly irrelevant…”
Wow, we agree. But of course it seems to be lost on you that I didn’t bring Palin up first in this post, one of your fellow lemmings did.
“You started off comparing Gingrich’s serial adultery with Edwards’….”
Right, (read slowly now) in keeping with the theme of OW’s post I compared how GOP presidential candidate Gingrich’s affair was treated at a debate to Democrat presidential candidate Edwards was 4 years ago and saw that as yet another example of liberal media bias. Because you lemmings cant stick to facts (much less OW’s post) you gotta bring Palin (scroll up and look who brought up Citizen Sarah first here, idiot) into the convo and somehow make the equivalency of her alleged affair which proved to be a non-starter and now of course I’m the one “obsessed” with Palin.
Dumbass.
MrGreyGhost says: “Unlike Edwards where there was missing campaign funds, rumors of trouble within the marriage, quotes from campaign staff and of course the name of the alleged mistress–plenty of stuff for the national media to pick up on, but they didn’t because he was a Democrat.”
The media did pick up on this, all of this. Your are complaining that they didn’t do this less than a week after it was first mentioned by a tabloid. On the other hand, Gingrich admitted to his affairs years ago. They are established fact. We know he asked for a divorce from his first wife while she was recovering from cancer. We know he was cheating on his second wife while crusading against Clinton.
I know you are stupid, but try not to be this stupid.
MrGreyGhost says: “Right, (read slowly now) in keeping with the theme of OW’s post I compared how GOP presidential candidate Gingrich’s affair was treated at a debate to Democrat presidential candidate Edwards was 4 years ago and saw that as yet another example of liberal media bias.”
You see this as media bias, because you are stupid.
The differences are clear to anyone with half a brain, but that eliminates you and most of the Republican base.
The National Enquirer, until then a joke of tabloid rag
Hey, I’m going to stand up for the National Enquirer, here– it’s actually a very reliable tabloid. It’s just that its stories tend to focus on gossip and the relationship goings on of celebrities and politicians which mainstream newspapers consider too tawdry/unimportant for them to be bothered with.
Funny that Ghostie is the only right winger to chime in here. THe others have too much of a sense of shame to defend Gingrich.
Tryo: “Funny that Ghostie is the only right winger to chime in here. THe others have too much of a sense of shame to defend Gingrich.”
Even most Republicans hate him. I think his main base of support are the Troll Republicans. Those that don’t care about policy, but only care about pissing off liberals. There the ones that will reject any Republican idea if the Democrats agree with it.
Ok, you win. Not only do you clearly know more about Palin than me, but your ability to bring up Palin on a post that has absolutely nothing to do with her takes “look over there!!!” syndrome to another level.
You’re accusing me of “look over there”? The guy whose first reply to the thread on Newt Gingrich was 100% about… John Edwards in 2008. Take a bow, Ghost.
I also like how you’re trying to imply that knowing about the topic you’re arguing is somehow a bad thing. Probably a decent tack for you, since you have a knack for getting really simple things wrong.
Because you lemmings cant stick to facts
Facts? Like, say:
Yet, CNN can lead its own 2012 presidential debate with a question towards a GOP Pres. candidate about an alleged [factually incorrect] affair that took place more than a decade ago based solely on the words of his ex-wife[also factually incorrect].
Seriously- You didn’t know the most basic fact required to have an intelligent, informed discussion on this topic- namely, that Newt himself confirmed the affair just about a decade ago.
That’s “Contents of this post” 101. And you fucking failed it.
And then there’s this trainwreck:
Unlike Edwards where there was missing campaign funds, rumors of trouble within the marriage, quotes from campaign staff and of course the name of the alleged mistress [Note: Palin's alleged lover's name was also known... so did that make it true?]
Dipshit. You have no idea what a fucking “timeline” is, and can’t even keep your accusation straight.
Your claim is that Edwards was coddled by the CNN during the January debate because he was a Democrat. Yet, at that time, all the Enquirer had was an anonymous source, and a picture of the pregnant Hunter- who was actually rumored to be sleeping with another staffer (not Edwards). The hard evidence (mostly photos) was released starting in June, through August. Specifically, the campaign funds weren’t investigated until AUGUST. I know you’re pretty fucking stupid, so at this point I actually have to ask: do you understand how time works? And the concepts of “before” and “after”?
You’re getting your panties in a bunch because CNN didn’t grill Edwards over evidence that didn’t emerge until at least six months later.
Now do you see why you’re stupid? Probably not. But everyone else here does.
Let’s face it, we’re never going to change your mind, or get you to stop thinking that “lemmings” is some sort of biting bon mot. However, I think we all generally enjoy the threads you’re in, because your utter cluelessness, and complete lack of intellect and factual awareness, makes us feel like scouts at a combine for stupidity. And we’re just putting you through the paces, letting you shine, and giving you more than enough rope to make a complete ass out of yourself.
And you never fail to deliver. Bravo, dumbass. Bravo.
Gingrich means Dem win the House back.
Good for America.
Jaim says: “Gingrich means Dem win the House back.”
Have you seen his latest approval ratings? His net approval rating is close to -30 in some polls. Even the more generous ones have him well into negative territory.
Jaim, Mr. Strowbridge,
Gingrich is a passionate speaker, he’s eloquent, and a excellent campaigner. He’ll also have the entire weight of NewsCorp behind him & a near infinite amount of money.
So I’ll repeat Han Solo’s earlier advice.
Mr. Strowbridge,
Nice pick-up on Sarah Palin earlier in the thread, & you’re Canadian to boot, right? I couldn’t name you three Canadian Politicians of the 21st Century. Again you put us to shame.
Gingrich is a passionate speaker, he’s eloquent,
Sure, when he’s not spouting off racist dog whistles or idiotic personal attacks. He cannot open his fat mouth without being exceptionally vile and nasty and boy, he sure acts like a 6 year old brat when called on his lies and bullshit. Speaking to an audience of inbreds in South Carolina, harping about teleprompters will do jack shit for independents and moderates on the national level, but they don’t give a damn about that. They’re not really trying to run a candidate who will defeat Obama, they just want their guy on stage to ‘put Obama in his place’.
Yep, & President Obama’s place is in the woodpile or chicken coop.
But ignore or underestimate Gingrich at your peril. Gingrich can win. It won’t take much. It’s our job to ensure he doesn’t win. Let’s not blow it.
I’m hardly saying we don’t have work to do, but a Gingrich nomination would be a huge gift to Obama. It would motivate those who lost faith in him.
I mean, Gingrich is a lard-butted fascist monster. If there’s a Dem out there who _still_ stays home in November, well, fuck ‘em.
Guess I’m just trying to say what I can’t understand — with Romney you’ve got a 50-50 shot, with Gingrich you’re basically launching the kamikaze flights.
Go Gingrich!
Jaim,
I hardly know where to start. But since fools rush in…
A significant number of Americans do not see Newt as, “a lard-butted fascist monster”. They see him as a cridible candidate for President. So my first suggestion is to look beyond your own world view. Not everyone thinks as you.
Then my second suggestion is not to spit on your potential friends, “a Dem out there who _still_ stays home in November, well, fuck ‘em.” Republicans control the House of Representatives & we see whewre that leads, what’s the “investigation” today? Did the White House encourage the “Occupy” Movement as an election trick? The Republicans need only 4 Senate seats to control that body & given the seats up for election it’s not unreasonable to see then gaining those seats. You want to take bets on ANY Obama Supreme Court appointment going through a Republican Senate?
I suggest to you that you count up exactly how many guys died in kamikazi attacks. Disparage all you like, ships sank & guys died.
I’ve said before that the next election is going to be like nothing we’ve seen before, in intensity, in cost, in saturation. And right now I see the Democrats behind in each category. And you & others seem to blow it off by dismissing the potential opposition candidate with personal insults.
“So my first suggestion is to look beyond your own world view. Not everyone thinks as you.”
Actually, most people (especially women) think as I do:
http://polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com/contest/us-favorability-gingrich
Over half of the American public actively dislikes him. He has not chance in the general, and he puts the House in play.
Romney makes me worried, Newt makes me howl with laughter. Simple as that.
Jaim,
We’re going in circles. You assert the polling status of a Gingrich candidacy.
I assert the mutability of polls & the danger of a Gingrich (or any Republican) control of the Government.
You laugh.
I hope you’re right & we don’t wake up Nov.7th with the same dumbfounded look we had in 2010 when we lost so many Congressional seats.
“the same dumbfounded look we had in 2010 when we lost so many Congressional seats.”
I wasn’t dumbfounded. The polling suggested as much.
Oh Good Lord Jaim,
Now you’re playing word games with me. See “spit on friends” above.
If you don’t like dumbfounded use stricken, appalled, frightened, worried, constrnanted (if that’s a word, past tense of consternation), distraught, distressed, or confounded. & those are just what I can come up with before 6 in the morning.
But have the last word. This is my last post on this thread.