opinion web
Liberal Opinion General Opinion
R. Emmett Tyrrell
R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr.
4 Feb 2016
The Clinton Curse Returns

WASHINGTON — In the many decades I have had the pleasure of covering the Clintons, I have developed … Read More.

28 Jan 2016
A Manifesto of My Own

WASHINGTON — In reading Paul Johnson's masterful "Art: A New History," I came across a startling number … Read More.

21 Jan 2016
Hillary's Past Meets the Present

WASHINGTON — Did any of the political cognoscenti consult Real Clear Politics last Thursday? Those who … Read More.

Newt Gingrich: Our Bill Clinton


WASHINGTON — How long have I been saying it? At least for 15 years, but in private, I have been aware of it longer. Newt Gingrich is conservatism's Bill Clinton, but without the charm. He has acquired wit, but he has all the charm of barbed wire.

Newt and Bill are, of course, 1960s-generation narcissists, and they share the same problems: waywardness and deviancy. Newt, like Bill, has a proclivity for girl-hopping. It's not as egregious as Bill's, but then Newt is not as drop-dead beautiful. His public record is already besmeared with tawdry divorces, and there are private encounters with the fair sex that doubtless will come out. If I have heard of some, you can be sure the Democrats have heard of more.

Nancy Pelosi's intimations are timely. Newt up against the Prophet Obama would be a painful thing to watch. He might be deft with one-liners, but it would be futile. There are independent and other uncommitted voters to be cultivated in 2012 — all would be unmoved by Newt's juggling of conservative shibboleths.

Newt and Bill, as 1960s generation self-promoters, share the same duplicity, ostentatious braininess and a propensity for endless scrapes with propriety and the law. They are tireless hustlers. Now Newt is hustling my fellow conservatives in this election. The last time around he successfully hustled conservatives in the House of Representatives and then the conservatives on the House impeachment committee. He blew the impeachment and in fact his role as speaker. He backed out in disgrace.

He now says Republicans in the House were exhausted with his great projects. Nonsense. I knew many of them, and they were exhausted with his atrocious leadership. He is not a leader. He is a huckster. Today Mitt Romney has 72 congressional endorsements. Newt has 11. Possibly the 11 have yet to meet him.

Now he has found his key for hustling the conservative electorate. He is playing the "liberal media" card and saying he embodies conservative values. Like Bill, with his credulous fans, Newt is hoping conservatives suffer amnesia. Possibly some do. Perhaps they cannot recall mere months ago when this insufferable whiz kid was lambasting the great Congressman Paul Ryan for "right-wing social engineering" — more evidence of Newt's not-so-hidden longing for the approval of the liberal media.

After his Ryan moment, Newt's campaign was a death wagon, and it will be so again — hopefully before he gets the nomination.

And conservatives should not climb onto that wagon. He is a huckster, and I for one will not be rendered a contortionist trying to defend him. I did so in his earliest days and learned my lesson.

After Newt's and Bill's disastrous experiences in government, both went on to create empires — Bill in philanthropy and cheap thought, Newt in public policy and cheap thought. As an ex-president, Bill has wrung up an unprecedented $75.6 million since absconding from the White House with White House loot and shameless pardons. I do not know how much Newt has amassed, but he got between $1.6 million to $1.8 million from Freddie Mac, and he lobbied for Medicare Part B while receiving, according to the Washington Examiner's Tim Carney, "Big Bucks Pushing Corporate Welfare." Now, after a lifetime in Washington, he is promoting himself as an outsider.

Contending with Newt for the Republican nomination are Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, and Mitt Romney. All three are truer conservatives than Newt. I like them all. But John Bolton, former ambassador to the United Nations, and John Lehman, Ronald Reagan's secretary of the Navy, are for Mitt, and they are solid conservatives. Governor Chris Christie and the economic pundit Larry Kudlow laud Mitt on taxes, on spending, and on attacking crony capitalism. Kudlow calls Romney "Reaganesque." Ann Coulter seems to loathe Newt. That is good enough for me.

Back in 1992, I appeared with Chris Matthews on some gasbag's television show. Was it Donohue? At any rate, I said candidate Clinton had more skeletons in his closet than a body snatcher. It was a prescient line then, and I always got a laugh. I can apply the same line today to Newt, though he has skeletons both inside and outside his closet. Conservatives should not be surprised by the scandals that lie ahead if they stick with him.

Those of us who raised the question of character in 1992 were confronted by an indignant Bill Clinton, who treated the topic as a low blow. To listen to him, character was the "C-word" of American politics. It was reprehensible to mention it.

By now, we know. Character matters. Paul, Santorum and Romney have it. Newt has Clinton's character.

R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. is founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator and an adjunct scholar at the Hudson Institute. His most recent book is "After the Hangover: The Conservatives' Road to Recovery." To find out more about R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at



147 Comments | Post Comment
How refreshing to read that editorial. It is truly sad to see conservatives flock to Newt. Moral values are the heart and soul of conservatism. No true conservative could support so corrupt a man.
Comment: #1
Posted by: HTSpringer
Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:22 AM
Tyrrell is under the mistaken assumption that the election is going to be a personality contest. All any repub candidate is going to have to do to win is say over and over, "Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?" And if that is not enough add in, "What makes you think 4 more years with Pres. Zero will be any different than his first 4 years?" Nope, Pres. Zero is a one termer.
Comment: #2
Posted by: biffula
Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:24 AM

We will be facing in another year the Presidential election. I agree with Bill Keller's guest editorial in the November 13, New York Times. At the end of the day it will be Obama verses Romney. Assuming other Republican potential nominees drop by the way side the path ahead will cause most of us to make a choice between two men.
I endorsed Mitt Romney last summer since with his business expertise since he is the only sane choice for conservatives, moderates, and independents. His family is a great example to all who need a role model to emulate, his business experience is second to none, and frankly he appears Presidential. Mitt is a winner. Just study Keller's OP-ED. Here is an excerpt from Keller's fine piece in the Times. Read it.
I think Romney will not be easy to tar with the zealot brush, though, precisely because he's so lacking in passion. “Mitt is hard to love,” says a Republican who has worked for him. “But for the same reasons, he's hard to hate.”

Newt is still hanging around with lots of baggage to be dealt with by Barack Obama. Described as an unpredictable Wolverine by Dan Rather I agree he is resolute, intense and unpredictable. Should he get the nomination his baggage will make him a big time loser. Women are smart enough to know he is a sacred oath taker and a quick oath breaker. He will not get their votes. How can he keep a Presidential Oath when he has already broken two marriage vows. He as Speaker of the House closed the government unnecessarily during Clinton's term. He buys the finest jewelry for his third wife a younger staffer who caught his eye. He maybe a debater but he is an easy target for Obama. Romney is a far better candidate.
In the end his speaking tour with Howard Dean on Healthcare will not benefit him. Perhaps the marital seminars he and his present wife conduct will. I agree with his second wife Marianne and her advice to the third younger spouse, Don't get sick.

Alan Phillips, Bloomington, IL
Comment: #3
Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:29 AM
Thank you so, so much for your encouraging words! I've been so downhearted since that awful debate, when John King allowed Newt to walk all over him. Why don't other Republicans see this man for what he is? I'm a Massachusetts Republican and a huge fan of Governor Romney's. Given what he had to work with up here during his term, his governance was masterly. When people criticize Romneycare, they haven't a clue about what he was up against. I was here, and the man came up with an acceptable solution to a near-impossible situation. He certainly has my vote.

Pia Webster
Edgartown, Mass.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Pia Webster
Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:30 AM
The essence of conservatism is limited government and adherence to the original constitution. Romney is a big government centralizer who will expand the warfare-welfare state that threatens the lives, libery, and property of all Americans.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Acadianus
Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:31 AM
What a sanctimonious, slanderous editorial. Should not readers be on alert when they read unsubstantiated words of caution about a fellow human? And even more so when they are from a conservative toward a self-avowed conservative? And even more so when the target has admitted his transgressions and accepted the forgiveness that we are ll offered by the grace of God? And even more so when the accuser does not acknowledge God's grace but sets himself in the role of the accuser, a role which had been reserved for Satan, alone.
Comment: #6
Posted by: jackobrien
Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:31 AM
If Gingrich is the Clinton equivalent, Republicans would undoubtedly promote his candidacy. Clinton is dear to Democrats and still loved as one of the best presidents in all history.

Tyrrell and the other Elites are out of touch. In real business, no one listens to these academic overeducated morons. Okay, maybe 5 minutes then they're tuned out because they have no sense of reality. There's a reason WWF revenue is higher than the Spectators, but I'll let the Elites justify why.
Comment: #7
Posted by: pragmatic
Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:42 AM
The GOP needs to rally around Newt NOW, as the proper opponent to Obama: The conservative split in the primaries shows that Romney would be a weak national candidate, and frankly his preppie-esque performance to date hasn't helped his case. Mitt may be a fine Secretary of the Treasury some day, but his appeal dwindles with every massive financial revelation that only makes him look like another player of the international banking system. Work for big profit is fine, and expected; parking your untaxed treasure (active or passive) predominantly offshore ala Clinton or Soros or Rangel not so much.
Comment: #8
Posted by: Jefferson Ulmer
Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:42 AM
Re: Pia Webster
I guess you loved McCain too. I am not looking for the man I want for my best friend. I am choosing among those seeking the nomination who I think best represents my views and has the best opportunity to beat Obama. That is New Gingrich. Reasonable people can disagree about that. I recognize that but the anti-Newt, pro-Mitt folks can't seem to bring themselves to respect those of us who disagree with them. That makes me all the more convinced that I am on the right side.
Comment: #9
Posted by: Martin Harry
Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:42 AM
I am always surprised to see Newt doing well in the polls, I just don't get it. He makes jokes and lies about other people lying about him. He gets all "offended" at everything but gets applause. He is a pretentious intellect who thinks he impresses everyone. You don't. How 30% of any group could support beyond me. I guess it shows though that his monetary contributions are next to nill, without that one rich family friend he would not even be able to run his campaign.
Comment: #10
Posted by: xCipher
Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:49 AM
One of the reasons Republicans have been beaten up so badly in the past is their insistence on being shown as the ' holier than thou ' party. Most intelligent people know that politics is a dirty business, they may not like it, but it is a fact. Republicans need to understand that ' fighting back ' does not mean they are taking the low road, look where not fighting back has gotten us. O.K you guys who don't want to support Newt, that's fine, do what you can to support your candidate, BUT, at the end of the process if Newt is the nominee and you refuse to get behind him because of some ' holier than thou ' attitude, then you will have helped bring about 4 more years of a man who makes Newt look like a SAINT.
Comment: #11
Posted by: exbobbie
Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:55 AM
Does this mean that folks do nor want to join a NEWT-ist Colony anytime soon? Puts Santorum in a better light for many to see.
Comment: #12
Posted by: misterwax
Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:55 AM
Fake Conservatives like Tyrrelll often fall in line with the liberal talking points. But Mr. Tyrrell goes a step further in this article.

Bill Clinton lied under oath. That's why he was impeached.

Mr. Tyrrell takes it a step further, using "lie" in the title to connect Newt to the same type of lying.

Newt did not lie under oath about his adultery. Cheating on his wife was despicable, but not illegal. Lying under oath is illegal.
Comment: #13
Posted by: Truth
Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:56 AM
What amazes me is how the pro-Mitt folks and anti-Gingrich folks are so quick to resort to personal, ad hominen attacks. I am unpersuaded. I am not voting for a best friend. I am voting for the man I believe would best represent my views and can beat Obama. Nothing in this editorial changes my opinion that Newt is that person. I really don't care that Ann Coulter dislikes Newt. Like many of Mitt's supporters, she has been resorting to half-truths, like saying Gingrich would not build a border fence when he has stated just the opposite. Comparing the number of congressional endorsements is a meaningless measure of "leadership." Terrell acts like he knows Newt intimately, because he just "knows" of personal indiscretions. Frankly, I find anyone who is willing to go public with their own tawdry affairs just to diminish Newt unworthy of consideration. We all have private lives, details we don't share publicly. We don't expect others to share them either. When someone violates that confidence, they are showing their own, worse, flaws.
Comment: #14
Posted by: Martin Harry
Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:57 AM
Re: HTSpringer

Let me're an Ivy-leager wannabe, but settled for Hillsdale.

Newt and Reagan have been demonized for two decades because they took on the establishment. Both are flawed, but they understood freedom to achieve as well as make mistakes.

What Republicans and Independents are really looking for is someone who can stimulate, dream & convey grandiose goals, and set the tone to reduce governments impact to our daily lives. Not a manager -- they cannot turn a declining culture. It's then up to us to aspire to those grandiose goals as in the Kennedy and Reagan eras. But the Dems want to protect their 'slavemaster' right over us, hence Reagan was demonized well beyond any substantive reality and even by Bush Sr. Gingrich and team challenged and knocked off the Dem majority with Contract with America. For that he got the same blowback and wrath of the conniving Dems as Reagan. The Elites seem to prefer Bushies over Reagan/Gingrich, but look at who made more progress toward conservative goals.

For that I'd bet on Newt as our only hope to restore conservative values, warts and all.
Comment: #15
Posted by: pragmatic
Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:58 AM
Re: HTSpringer

Let me're an Ivy-leager wannabe, but settled for Hillsdale.

Newt and Reagan have been demonized for two decades because they took on the establishment. Both are flawed, but they understood freedom to achieve as well as make mistakes.

What Republicans and Independents are really looking for is someone who can stimulate, dream & convey grandiose goals, and set the tone to reduce governments impact to our daily lives. Not a manager -- they cannot turn a declining culture. It's then up to us to aspire to those grandiose goals as in the Kennedy and Reagan eras. But the Dems want to protect their 'slavemaster' right over us, hence Reagan was demonized well beyond any substantive reality and even by Bush Sr. Gingrich and team challenged and knocked off the Dem majority with Contract with America. For that he got the same blowback and wrath of the conniving Dems as Reagan. The Elites seem to prefer Bushies over Reagan/Gingrich, but look at who made more progress toward conservative goals.

For that I'd bet on Newt as our only hope to restore conservative values, warts and all.
Comment: #16
Posted by: pragmatic
Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:58 AM
SC voters picked a man who stands on a stage and belts out zappers to media elites and Obama. Man, who could ask fo ranything more, they must think. The shock value of that may diminish, says Bernie Goldberg. Of course Gingrich is not suited based on his past. What about the future. Has he changed, does he stand by his promises to we the people?
Comment: #17
Posted by: celador2
Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:03 PM
As a retiring Army officer who watched the entire Clinton affair with disgust I can tell you it was the moment that I became the sole Republican out of a family of Democrats. I thought we were the party of family values and not just the party of wanting to win. If you forsake the values that you hold dear just to see someone like Newt elected then you don't even deserve to vote Republican. Stay home.

Parsing what Clinton was accused of is nonsense. The 'lie' was that he lied to a grand jury about his affair and the definition of 'sex'. if Newt and others had not been pushing about the affair in hopes to weaken him then he would have never needed to lie. He was probably more afraid of Hillary finding out than a legal repercussion. Either way it was about Sex, Newt can try to recast the past but it is what is was. he was doing worse than Clinton at the same time as he was deriding the president in public. It was worse even because Newt had cheated on both of his wives after they were diagnosed with major diseases (Cancer and MS). Callista honey, dont get sick around this guy.

He has lied about his association with Reagan, he has lied about his ethics investigation, he has lied about his martial infidelity and he has lied during the debates about what he did at Freddie Mac. We do not need another liar in the White House.

The reason Obama would so easily beat Newt is because regular Americans would stay home or vote for Obama again. It is simply the matter of the 'devil' you know.
Comment: #18
Posted by: Jason
Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:03 PM
pls return my post. thank you.
Comment: #19
Posted by: pragmatic
Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:03 PM
Re: biffula


It is time to take the career RINOs and media hack naysayers head on, in full defense of Newt; lacking his leadership, there would have been no welfare reform, no entitlement reform, no budget reform, no national defense reform in the 80's and 90's. The self-righteous pap from his detractors needs to be called what it IS: Myopic if suddenly naive shilling for Barry Obama.
Comment: #20
Posted by: Jefferson Ulmer
Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:05 PM
Let's face a few facts shall we? Out of the last 4 presidents we have had, Clinton was the best as far as the US economy goes. So this is one conservative that doesn't really give a rip about Newt's past transgressions.
As for you sir, if you want Romney on the ticket, he better grow a set, get better at defending himself and the principles you think he espouses, and come up with some truly conservative ideas to get this country out of the ditch. So far he has offered milque toast ideas that accomplish little as far as truly cleaning up DC.

Just out of curiosity Mr Tyrrell, were you a McCain or Romney supporter in 2008?
What has your philosophy gotten us over the last 30 years? The rotten mess we are in, that's what.
Comment: #21
Posted by: Hawkeye
Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:07 PM
Bill "Drop Dead Beautiful". OK Barney
Comment: #22
Posted by: astatist
Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:07 PM
Re: biffula
It's always a personality contest, at least partly, and you're a fool to think otherwise. It might not be with you and your friends, but with independents and many conservatives as well, personality and character count. Newt has been around a long time and it would be suicidal for us to ignore his well-earned 27% approval rating. Mr. Tyrrell and countless other solid conservatives including nearly every Republican member of congress who served with him and have observed him up close are waving a big red flag. Don't ignore it.
Comment: #23
Posted by: Andrew C
Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:14 PM
The nice thing about Newt is he's a republican. Meaning, his base support will in fact rise or fall in accordane with his performance. With Newt we know what we're getting and it's not middle of the road, watered down conservatism.
I'll be voting my conscience and if things don't work out I predict Newt will go the way of Linden Johnson and refuse a second term. If he doesn't Republicans will make that decision for him.
Comment: #24
Posted by: IGetItAlready
Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:14 PM
It would be so nice if the often pseudo "pundits" and "journalists" would allow the process to advance without their personal judgments coaching the fray. STOP IT! Some of us want a conservative with passion, like Newt. Passion: Some have it . . . and, for those that don't, they can never achieve it. It simply isn't in their makeup. Some of us really don't want another RINO. STOP IT! TRY to speak and write more objectively.
Comment: #25
Posted by: Beverly
Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:16 PM
Romney has completed more flips of position than Olga Korbutt.

No, thanks.
Comment: #26
Posted by: Jefferson Ulmer
Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:18 PM
To: R. Emmet Terrell Jr. When you run for President and offer us an alternative to Newt that has a better chance of beating the elite that is running this country into the ground, let us know. Until then, keep your complaints to yourself. We voters are trying to end Obama's Presidency in January, 2013.
Comment: #27
Posted by: Reality Check
Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:19 PM
Re: jackobrien
You'd be smart to listen. Gingrich's personal spiritual redemption is between him and G-d, but since I can't see his heart as G-d does, I'm going to judge his fitness to be president on his past record, the character he's demonstrated and his electabiilty.
Comment: #28
Posted by: Andrew C
Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:20 PM
Brother, if some ones got a penis, they've got something down the line that caused them trouble . . . Romney was into the money scene in the 80's . . . are you kidding me? You think he is clean? Grow up.
Comment: #29
Posted by: Joe Doakes
Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:21 PM
Not buying your argument, Mr. Tyrrell. Romney has his own set of weaknesses; Newt is not alone. Romney's religion, Mormonism, has historically held to a belief in polygamy (and before someone accuses me of religious bigotry, please let the facts of my statement stand without psychoanalyzing me). Since it is true that Romney's religion has taught polygamy, how does Romney come off looking like the more "family" friendly candidate? Yes, yes, I understand that Mitt has been married to only one women his entire life. But does he believe that it is acceptable for Mormons to have more than one wife. If he believes polygamy is morally wrong, he should say so forthrightly. Until then, Romney does not have the higher ground in my view.
Comment: #30
Posted by: FirstPrinciples
Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:36 PM
Romney- Couldn't possibly understand the plight of the average American. This proven with million dollar mansions and lines such as "I didn't make a lot off of speeches ($350,000)". That's a helluva lot to the average joe.
Newt- Past transgressions aside, he is going to have to do better than "historian" to explain his work with Fannie and Freddie. Also he was working that close with them and still couldn't see the housing collapse coming. Shouldn't that lack of forsight in economics disqualify you given the global economic problems?!
Santorum- Still open to listening to him but I doubt he could beat Obama.
Paul- The only veteran running. The only candidate to predict the housing collapse and the reason behind it. Predicted how the war in Iraq would progress as well as some of the events of the arab spring way back in 2002. And we all know he gets the most support from active military by far, very far. To top it off he is humble and obviously isn't tempted by special interest money.
Am I missing something? How is this even a contest? For those scared of Paul's foreign policy, do your research and you will find he is backed by intelligence agencies from the US and abroad.
Comment: #31
Posted by: Just don't get it
Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:37 PM
I don't agree...Newt is an ex-adulterer not a current adulterer. Clinton never repented, if you will.
Have you ever known a true ex-smoker, ex-drinker, ex-gambler etc. to do anything but preach against the very thing they once practiced.
Comment: #32
Posted by: MLynC
Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:39 PM
Re: biffula

The point is that Newt Gingrich is not really qualified to be president, based on his work experience. He was only ever elected to one small Georgia district years ago. He is bad at management, and takes credit for things he really didn't do, such as Reagan's successful handling of the USSR or the budget balancing (credit lies more with John Kasich). He is highly flawed in his personal life, has that account with Tiffany's, and an arrogant and biting personality. He sat on that sofa with Pelosi, did work for Freddie Mac (I would like to see the missing early contracts and the records that state exactly what he did do beyond what is in the contract. Are there records of meetings with senators and congressmen?), has a vested financial interest in a health care program (and has supported an individual mandate - especially for those making over $50,000 per year - for decades). Supposedly, unlike Romney, there is a problem in Gingrich's tax return that the IRS is interested in checking out. No executive experience, bad at managing his own family's finances... Gingrich is not the person to fix what ails our economy and renew the American spirit.
Comment: #33
Posted by: Verity
Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:40 PM
Re: MLynC

For all we know... Pretty easy to give up adultery when you are fat and old.
Comment: #34
Posted by: Verity
Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:42 PM
Back to the actual news...

Eric NATION OF COWARDS Holder was in PBS microphone range of the South Carolina state house the other day, yapping about the un-fairness of requiring voters to provide valid ID. You have to have valid ID to drive, drink, marry, apply for union membership, apply for college loans, apply for a government job, apply for ANY job - but not to prove you didn't already vote two precincts away? The DNC needs to get a reality grip, and finally fess up: Chicago, south Texas, West Virginia, Boston, Oakland, and similar lib-left Kennedy hack enclaves are notorious for the illegal acts that the ID laws are designed to discourage if not prevent. There is no racism or discrimination here, just plain old American common sense - which Holder lacks, and on more than one topic of national importance. He makes John Mitchell look like Edmund Burke.
Comment: #35
Posted by: Jefferson Ulmer
Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:45 PM
Some men chase skirts. Some men want to pretend they can balance the budget out of Social Security funds.
Newt was right. Congressman Ryan played right into Obama's hand with his plans for social security.
The Republican elite is clueless as to where the working people in this country want the budget cut.
Looting the Social Security fund for purposes other than fixing Social Security is a non starter.
Comment: #36
Posted by: Reality Check
Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:46 PM
Ok OK, Newt can bring his harem, just get the commie b@stard out of the White House.
Comment: #37
Posted by: Noel Pautsky
Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:49 PM
Thank you. One voice of reason in a sea of confusion.
Comment: #38
Posted by: BillNM
Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:54 PM
The Republican elite is indeed clueless, or worse.

R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. claims to be for small business, but then he claims that a small businesses gross receipts are the same as the owners income.

R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., is either totally ignorant of the most basic facts regarding small businesses and free enterprise, or R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. is one of those people willing to tell flat out lies to get what he wants.

Pick one.
Comment: #39
Posted by: Reality Check
Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:56 PM
Good comments. Lets not forget the greatest risk of going with Newt: if elected, he will leave a legacy of corruption, moral depravity, and a lack of leadership that will be difficult for the party to ever overcome.
Comment: #40
Posted by: Greg
Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:59 PM
Ok, Newt is not a conservative. Pushed for more Medicare, supported mandate for health care for 20 years, came up with reasons why Freddie Mac's business model was perfect and convinced other Republicans to not defund it, denounced Paul Ryan's Medicare/SS plan even though Ryan is twice the conservative Gingrich will ever be, and he is poor on immigration. Add into that the morality of a serpent and the face of a toad and you don't have a candidate with a chance to win against anyone, even Obama.

Meanwhile, Romney took a state with a $3 billion deficit and turned it into a $2 billion surplus, and he turned around many failed corporations by eliminating fraud, waste, and union thievery. Newt hasn't worked an actual job since the mid-70's. Despite Gingrich's front-runner status, Obama and his allies are still running all their ads vs. Romney. If Newt isn't the establishment candidate, I don't know who is.
Comment: #41
Posted by: aaron
Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:00 PM
It's going to be amazing when Obama gets re-elected because the Republican caucus can't figure out which platform to support: financial conservatism or moral conservatism. Get ready to be angry for at least another four years everyone!
Comment: #42
Posted by: JB
Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:05 PM
Obama won simply for the fact that he promised the moon to everyone-- The middle of the roaders and liberal repubs helped him win-- The next election is going to be much different, he failed at every level to deliver the goods,so he lost the middle ground -So after failing for 3 years, he is out of there in 2012!!!!
Comment: #43
Posted by: Ralph J Sugar
Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:05 PM
Another media elitist telling us what to do...
Comment: #44
Posted by: Ken
Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:06 PM
Another media elitist telling us what to do...
Comment: #45
Posted by: Ken
Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:06 PM
Yea, he has passion alright. So does the devil. Isn't character important. Apparently not. I thought the Republican party was about the 'high road'. Apparently not. When Obama was elected the American electorate revealed an ignorance that was shocking. And now we have the proof. Why are the Republicans doing the same thing. Stop calling everyone who dissagrees with you a Rhino. What a tragic mistake it would be to ignore what this man has done. Any man that would dishonor his responsibility to a wife as this man has done twice is worthless, I don't care how smart he is nor how good a debater. Why can't you people see this.
Comment: #46
Posted by: Carl Ashlock
Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:15 PM
Re: Martin Harry
Newt will make the rest of the world hate conservatives because the guy confirms wronghead stereotypes of conservatives. He has a silver tonge but incredibly poor leadership skills. On top of that the guy is not a conservative it was just months ago that he was blasting Paul Ryan for and I quote "right wing social engineering" the guy is a loon and waffles too and frow more than bill clinton or john kerry. You will regret your vote come novemeber if he is the nominee, gauranteed.
Comment: #47
Posted by: HAMMER
Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:16 PM
Re: pragmatic
Why is education such a bad thing to some conservatives? Can one be "over-educated"?
Comment: #48
Posted by: Bo Didley
Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:16 PM
Romney has character? He says what he needs to say to maximize votes....where is the character in that? Santorum and Paul have character. But don't try to sell me a bag of rocks with Romney. Please.
Comment: #49
Posted by: amd
Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:26 PM
I'm sure this article will be ridiculed by Newt zombies who are so desperate to pick someone other than Romney that they will ignore anything about any other candidate. I am not a Romney fan at all but the article is right that many Newt supporters have severe amnesia.

There is plenty to dislike about Romney but why would you then turn to Newt. Santorum is mostly consistent and principled, as is Paul. Newt is an embarrassment to the party. Many of his supporters willfully ignore anything bad that is said about him, no matter how well documented it is. I'm not just getting caught up in the details here, he has been wrong and basically insane on many of the most important issues of today (as well as self-contradictory and narcissistic.) He has criticized many of the most important conservative views and positions and that can't be ignored.

If you like Newt that's fine. But don't pretend that his marital infidelities have been his only baggage. If someone correctly points out one of his major problems don't accuse them of lying, being insincere or being liberal. But let your support be in spite of his flaws with full acknowledgement of them. Don't hide your heads in the sand pretending he is a consistent conservative with a strong record.
Comment: #50
Posted by: Zack
Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:27 PM
Re: biffula
Sometimes real character requires that we lose an election. We do we gain if we nominate Newt Gingrich thinking to beat Obama? What would we have gained? Nothing at all. We would lose more than the Democrats. We would lose any moral credibilty.

It is better to lose an election than lose our honor.

Newt Gingrich is one of the most corrupt of men ever to enter Washington and Washington is full of corruption.

I personally cannot remain in a Party for whom corruption is the rule rather than the exception.
Comment: #51
Posted by: Shauna
Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:34 PM
Re: Jefferson Ulmer
Newt has flip flopped on much more than Romney: Man Made Global Warming with Nancy Pelosi, Government Health care mandate, Attacked Paul Ryan Financial reform plan, Amnesty for illegals, 2 wives.....No Integrity at all Newt!
Comment: #52
Posted by: Susanne
Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:42 PM
Re: Jefferson Ulmer
No. I will not remain in a completely corrupt Party. You hypocrites keep the Party if that is your choice. But the honest people of America will never ever support a completely corrupt man like Newt Gingrich.

If this Party has become such a cesspool of corruption that Newt Gingrich is even considered I have my doubts about being numbered with you.

You hypocrites keep the Party. We will form a new party of the honest and real Americans. The Democrats will rule... but I will never be a part of the kind of party you envision. It is worse than communism. My moral life can survive communism... it cannot bear hypocrisy.

Besides... Newt will be forced to resign in failure and disgrace long before 4 years are up. It is better to be far away from that criminal.
Comment: #53
Posted by: Shauna
Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:42 PM
Re: HTSpringer
This is a different election. Conservatives main concern is to get Obama out of office...> Mitt Romney and Santuckabee are nice guys, but they have no idea whats coming in the general election and Obama would rip them to shreds.

Newt is a junkyard bulldog and ready for whatever Obama can throw at him.... This election is about saving the country, not preaching moral values... which is a good thing, I've been sick and tired of the social values in your face of the republican party... as a libertarian I get engaged when republicans talk about fiscal issues, and thats what this election will be about: Obama's absymal record as president, and the bold solutions Newt is offereing will give the American public two choices... stick with Obama and continue to have next to no economic growth, no job growth, absolute economic stagnation, or try the challenger who is offering bold solutions that had worked in the past.
Comment: #54
Posted by: Corey
Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:44 PM
"In this world of sin and sorrow there is always
something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice
that I am not a Republican." -- H. L. Mencken
Comment: #55
Posted by: SenoritaBonita
Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:50 PM
Re: FirstPrinciples

Seriously, you can't be serious. Christians have burned others at the stake, should Newt have to come out and say that he is opposed to that. Maybe Santorum supports should be called out to state that he was opposed to sacrificing goats like they did in the old testament. I will agree that Mormon's have some pretty different customs, but the same could be said of all other religions. Do we not have other things to be more concerned about then thinking that Romney is going to have Sister-first-ladies running around in the rose garden? Look around you, which means going to the window of your double-wide and seeing the problems america faces.
Comment: #56
Posted by: Garin
Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:52 PM
Who IS this babbling idiot? I came across this article on Drudge Report. Never heard of this website or this writer. Did he actually say he supports Mitt Romney because Larry Kudlow calls Romney "Reaganesque"?!?! Because Ann freaking Coulter despises Newt?!?

Be wary, fellow conservatives. Even people on "our side" are trying to tell us who to vote for. Do your research. Do your homework. Listen to your heart. Listen to your gut. But MAKE UP YOUR OWN, FREE MIND. That's what America used to be about, anyway.
Comment: #57
Posted by: EnjoyTheParadox
Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:55 PM
Re: HTSpringer
Absolutely agree 100% with this article.
Do Conservatives not know that a man who cannot run his own household, cannot run a nation, or have they forgotten Gods wisdom...
As they have forsaken ALL Gods ways, do not be surprised when it ALL comes down.
If it was good enough for God to do it to Israel when they lived OPPOSITE to his way, he can easily do it for American.. REPENT
Comment: #58
Posted by: Paula W
Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:09 PM
Paul blames US policy on what happened on 9/11. Apparently our international skirt was too short and we were asking for it.
Comment: #59
Posted by: Gaius Matewa
Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:15 PM
Re: Paula W Newt did repent. GRACE. Was it true or not? Only God knows - no you and not me. There are perfectly legitimate criticisms to level at Newt like any politician, but be careful lest you are judged by the same measure you judge others. Before Him, even our righteousness is a filthy rags.
Comment: #60
Posted by: Gaius Matewa
Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:24 PM
Re: pragmatic
" In real business, no one listens to these academic overeducated morons." You are absolutely correct in your words, but not in your context. In proper context, it is Mitt who is "in real business" and Newt, the "perfessor" who is the "academic overeducated moron". I won't vote for Newt because I don't think I could stand 4 years of him pontificating. He'd beat us to death with the bully pulpit 24/7. Uggh. We don't need a Speaker-in-Chief, we need a leader, a CEO.
Comment: #61
Posted by: Harry
Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:24 PM
There is not a living member of the LDS church who ever practiced polygamy with the permission of the church or its leaders. If it's a religion's historical record you want to talk about, you can eliminate any and all religious practioners from your list - including atheists...
Comment: #62
Posted by: Jim
Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:25 PM
Gingrich is not losing traction on the character issue because no one believes politicians have high character; many believe they are all crooks. Gingrichnwill make the race a street fight. Romney can't win, and Paul is not getting traction, so give them Hell, Newt.
Comment: #63
Posted by: Nexialist
Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:38 PM
So you're saying you'd let a "repentant" pedophile babysit your kids, right? It's not you position to judge, right? How about the more logical question - Who are you NOT to judge?
I suggest you use the intellect that God gave you to look at all candidates' past actions and make an informed decision about who is most fit to lead. You're right that you can't judge a man's heart or whether he's truly repented or not. But you certainly can and should judge his past actions.
Go read the proverb about the dog that returns to its own vomit...
Comment: #64
Posted by: Jim
Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:43 PM
I'm a Democrat but I truly appreciate the lucidity of this story. Thanks.
Comment: #65
Posted by: Mark McBride
Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:44 PM
Nice scare-monger commentary. Nice propaganda try - but, not good enough!

Attempting to create a Newt Gingrich / Bill Clinton analogy, is not only comparing an apple to an orange, but totally illogical!

This "journalistic" news piece fails to mention all the ignored skeletons in putative president Obama's closet. And, even if there would be more skeletons discovered in Newt Gingrich's past historical closet, those skeletons would be non comparable to Obama's. Newt has acknowledge his past sins. Obama continues on, without a clue.

Newt is a repentant Catholic Christian. He has moved on. Obama, continues with his many lurid deceptions, continually being propped up by a non scrutinizing news media........
Comment: #66
Posted by: Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel
Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:44 PM
Re: Mormons do not practice Polygomy. You will be excommunicated if you practice it as a matter of fact. It was a practice back in the 1800's but was renounced by the church and if you visit you will find our religious principles and doctrines for all the world to see. Please get your facts right and Romney would and has denounced this practice like all modern day members of the church. Quit spewing mis-information it just makes you look ignorant and petty. Our church teaches family conservative values maybe like no other church in the world. If you truly knew a Mormon you would know this. Take your religious Bigotry elsewhere mt friend it won't work here.
Comment: #67
Posted by: Glenn Davis
Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:46 PM
Maybe some of you should look at who you put in the white house.
Comment: #68
Posted by: Bill Billings
Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:46 PM
You are so wrong. Newt Gingrich is a phony hypocrite and all you people who defend him are very gullible. Remember how we got this wonderful slick, incompetent President Obama? He was a former professor who had a way with words, just like Newt. I want someone who can run the country and get us out of this mess, someone who hasn't had three wives and is hated by all his former co-workers. Mitt Romney is smart, successful in all phases of his life. I don't care that he isn't blustery and confrontational like Newt. Lord preserve us all if Newt should be the nominee, but he will implode before then. That is the story of his undiscplined life.
Comment: #69
Posted by: CarolR
Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:51 PM
One thing that has changed and it's obvious in the evaluation of Clinton, people don't really care any more. It's in a very bipartisan way. There will be large hypocrisy from the left (nothing new there) but I don't think most people in the middle really care.
Instead of blaming Newt, flaws and all, the greater reality is most people can't stand Mitt. We would do much better with "Generic Republican" than any of this field. Aside from reviewing all of Ron Pauls odd foreign policy views, like surrendering to global terror, the rest are all BIG GOVERNMENT CONSERVATIVES at best. Even when you look at all the others commonly known to have considered running all had issues or were light in skills; Palin quickly comes to mind. Chris Christy? Sucking up to Global Warming fanatics.....on and on it goes with each one.
Despite the worst President in living history the GOP can't field a winner. They remained trapped by their pro-status quo votes, such as supporting TARP but whining about spending all of which is half baked. There has to be a transitional growth plan if all the pain of reforming a Keynesian culture is to fall on workers and the poor. It's all back to the anti-FDR poltical death trap of 1932-1980 whining about "less" and "frugal" all the time and really why the GOP was the "Stupid Party" before Reagan changed all of that. Face it, even the 12 Bush years combined were pandering and weak declines as well. Romney and Mitt will be similar to Bush declinism.
Scapegoating Newt is a symptom and misses the point.
Comment: #70
Posted by: cwon14
Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:54 PM
I love this article. I can remember back when Bill Clinton was being vetted while running for the democratic primary. Everyone who had half a brain knew the guy would have fidelity issues and was an immoral person. I remember thinking how low our country has sunk that this was the best we could come up with for our President. Character matters people! Good luck finding skeletons in Mitt Romneys closet. He doesn't have any! He was vetted last time don't you think any skeletons would have risen to the top? Now we have Newt who has admitted character flaws but we want to forgive and give him a pass because he has "repented". Give me a freakin break! How about we nominate a true person of character that may not be perfect and may not be 100% conservative but to be quite honest you will NEVER get a 100% tea party candidate elected. It wont happen in our lifetime because the current system lets the independants decide our President. Vote for character and see what happens folks. You may be surprised....
Comment: #71
Posted by: Glenn Davis
Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:56 PM
I am deeply concerned that Speaker Gingrich will deny us the opportunity to take back the White House in 2012. The Speaker's moral relevancy concerning affairs, accepting enormous sums of money as a "historian" working on K street not lobbying, and the circling liberal sharks with more to come, make this conservative very concerned should the Speaker become our nominee. Liberals are hypocrites, tolerating the scandalous behavior of Clinton, Obama's admitted cocaine forays, etc. as they are "one of their own", while professing outrage with equivalent womanizing behavior by The Speaker. AND What does Pelosi know? Certainly whatever it is will be known by everyone should Newt become the nominee, even though it is likely privileged info from the ethics investigation. But the left will see this as another Watergate that must be told and Pelosi will certainly be given "deepthroat" status. Too much baggage for a MUST WIN election. I certainly appreciate Newt's "Big Ideas" and transformative plans. However, in the words of a great Green Bay football coach: Winning isn't everything, its the ONLY thing. This pathertic excuse of a President cannot be allowed to finish his calculated destruction of our way of life with a second term. Any president following that won't matter. Now or mistakes!
Comment: #72
Posted by: Chris R
Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:56 PM
Romney stammers too much and he is much too timid. Even when he tries to be assertive it doesn't seem to work.
I want a bulldog on our side in the next presidential election.....I want Newt!
Comment: #73
Posted by: Elizabeth Vann
Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:59 PM
Re: CarolR

Carol, I can understand anti-Newt feelings. What I don't get is how you can't understand anti-Mitt reality? He is a hack, weak dollar, status quo big government RINO. Certainly better than what is in the Whitehouse currently but really, is that the standard we now have to accept?

"None of the Above" should be added to primary ballots. It would be a landslide.

Comment: #74
Posted by: cwon14
Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:00 PM
I'm so sick of the garbage going on between Newt and Romney, I'm about ready to vote for Obama. At least, I know he's a lousy corrupt politician. At this point nobody knows what kind of prez Newt or Romney will be... they are so ate up with each other, nobody has a clue what their plans are for putting this country back on the right track. If they are so obsessed with each other, how do we know they're even mentally capable of giving the job of running this country the full attention it requires. They both need to get their noses out of each other's rear ends and start talking about plans for fixing the mess Obama has made. I'm sick of all the peripheral b.s. At least Ron Paul and Rick Santorum have remained out of the Newt/Romney fiasco.
Comment: #75
Posted by: 2BFree2B
Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:02 PM
Romney's only scandal appears to be that he is a self made, successful man with a nice wife and family..
Comment: #76
Posted by: AliVonGoldberg
Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:02 PM
Re: misterwax

Santorum who gave us No-Child, Medicare Free Drug benefit, piles of special interest earmarks? No small "g" with this party either.
Comment: #77
Posted by: cwon14
Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:03 PM
And fewer than Newt...
Comment: #78
Posted by: Jim
Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:03 PM
I totally agree. The elitist pundits think they have a finger on the pulse of the American psyche yet their constant yammering merely proves they are merely ideologically constipated.
Comment: #79
Posted by: carol
Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:05 PM
Re: Hawkeye

An economy built on fiat excess, inflated assets, overvalued currency and spending excess. It wasn't all the executives fault but he certainly sybolized our age of irresponsible results.
Comment: #80
Posted by: cwon14
Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:09 PM
You miss the point. Remember when Bob Dole asked " where's the outrage"? Mitt is Dole. Newt is the only one who is both willing and able to fight fire with fire.
Comment: #81
Posted by: Wally
Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:12 PM
Re: Corey - Amazing for anyone to believe that Gingrich can 'save' the country just because he is a good debater. A dirty fountain can't give clean water. If he is elected his administration will be a disgrace because he is a disgrace and can only lead to that. Winning at any cost isn't winning.
Comment: #82
Posted by: Craig Morris
Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:14 PM
How do you know he's an "ex-adulterer"

And to answer your question - I know WAY more 'ex-smokers' ( those who at one time or another have quit) who happen to also be current smokers than I know of 'ex-smokers' who are actually 'ex-smokers.'. The same can be said of just about any 'ex-anything.'.

We can't know the intents of our candidates hearts. We can only judge them by their known past actions. Based on that info, Newt is not someone I would invite into my house, let alone the White House.
Comment: #83
Posted by: Jim
Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:14 PM
Re: HTSpringeryou need help for your blindness,We conservatives are a forgiving bunch, as we are asked to be by our God.So we move forward with face value .what matters now that God has forgiven Newt ,is for you to find a little faith.
Comment: #84
Posted by: cotton
Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:14 PM
I love this article. I can remember back when Bill Clinton was being vetted while running for the democratic primary. Everyone who had half a brain knew the guy would have fidelity issues and was an immoral person. I remember thinking how low our country has sunk that this was the best we could come up with for our President. Character matters people! Good luck finding skeletons in Mitt Romneys closet. He doesn't have any! He was vetted last time don't you think any skeletons would have risen to the top? Now we have Newt who has admitted character flaws but we want to forgive and give him a pass because he has "repented". Give me a freakin break! How about we nominate a true person of character that may not be perfect and may not be 100% conservative but to be quite honest you will NEVER get a 100% tea party candidate elected. It wont happen in our lifetime because the current system lets the independants decide our President. Vote for character and see what happens folks. You may be surprised....
Comment: #85
Posted by: Glenn Davis
Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:15 PM
Mitt Romney is being compromise candidate between the left and right elite. Control of the United States federal government is a source of tremendous power. The president appoints thousands of people that have tremendous power as well, and hire many workers as well as outside contractors. So no thanks, I'll go for the insurgent, intellectual, rebel Newt, who doesn't seem like he's having to be this nice guy to make the little guy feel good.
Comment: #86
Posted by: ltw
Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:16 PM
Re: Pia Webster #4 - The fact that a "Massachsetts Republican" says that Mitt did the best that could be done when he enacted Romneycare either don't understand what Republicans stand for, or they are liberals but don't want to admit it to themselves.

Romney did not have to sign Romneycare into law, furthermore, he did not have to sign Romneycare into law under the smiling eyes of Senator Ted Kennedy.

The last thing America needs is to elected the architect of Obamacare President. We have had enough of big government politicians. The liberal northeast Republican establishment, by trying to force Mitt down are throats our throats, is committing Hari Kari.

The baloney and holier than though BS being thrown out Newt is making me sick, and it is leading me to hate Mitt Romney and his dumb hump supporters who don't know what liberals are because they are one.
Comment: #87
Posted by: Bronx Native
Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:20 PM
Romney needs to emphasize his management credentials vis-a-vis Gingrich. Newt may be a master strategist, at least in 94 he was, but as an operator of an administration and a tactician skilled in the arts of politics and leading people, he is easily shown to be weak. Mitt can lead a Congress, Newt can't. Mitt can run an administration, pick great people, drive them, and lead them and get great outcomes. Newt is a dysfunctional independent contributor with good analysis and good historical perspective, but his demeanor is more of a fit for the Senate or a think tank. We thank him for taking the house in 94, but the world has changed so much since then and Newt is yesterday's candidate.
Comment: #88
Posted by: medicineman
Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:22 PM
I really hate the way tea party conservatives (and the conservative media) jump from candidate to candidate looking for the perfect conservative to throw their support behind. By the time conservatives cherry pick a candidate who is a perfect match to their own ideology...they end up with a "fake" conservative like Gingrich. The perfect conservative candidate isn't out there...and the conservative favorites are totally not electable. Just like Sarah Palin, Sharon Engle, Christine O'Donnell, and now Newt Gingrich aren't electable.
They rail against the republican establishment nonstop, and that includes Mr. Conservative--Rush Limbaugh. Today I notice that the Tea Party has a web site THAT IS PART OF THE LIBERTARIAN party. If they're teaming up with the libertarians, get the heck out of my party so we can elect Mitt Romney. After all Tea wouldn't want to use the money of the EVIL Republican establishment. Why would the Republicans back your candidates when you hate them so much?
Thanks to the "Romney isn't conservative" crowd, the republicans have lost any chance to win. Even if Romney is the nominee, the republican brand is tarnished. And we have the far right wing of the party to thank for that. All the tea party conservatives are out blogging every day, ripping the establishment and pushing failed candidates left and right. It is amazingly ironic that the one man who could have helped accomplish economic stability and a streamlined the one that isn't "conservative enough"...his name is Mitt Romney.
Comment: #89
Posted by: Kate S
Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:32 PM
Re: Beverly
"Passion" as in he can't control himself when it comes to women or "Passion" as in can't control himself in areas of governance? I am passionate about my conservatism but I am more passionate about beating Obama.
Romeny/???? 2012
Comment: #90
Posted by: BS
Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:35 PM
How about someone telling me why to vote for Romney instead of trying to scare me away from Newt? Romneycare put in motion the the wheels for Obamacare! Yet Romney still sings it's praises. The pro Obamacare commercials that sighted romneycare as proof government healthcare works still sicken me. Romney advisors helping the whitehouse with Obamacare ...pleeez! After bush and his endless spending I refuse to go with someone just because they are the safe choice. I am not huge for newt but I do remember he stood up and stopped hillarycare. I wll not let the GOP elites take my vote for granted any longer.
Comment: #91
Posted by: Ian
Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:36 PM
To all the people supporting the "NEWT"

Being a "master-debater" doesn't mean he is a good leader/president!! For crying out loud, Newt isn't even a good debater unless he has someone applauding whatever he a stand-up comedian!! That won't fly in the presidential debates!! Then what??

Listen to those who worked with Newt....THEY don't support him either!! They know him better than you OR the media having worked with Newt in the past!!

There.....I spelled it out for you......
Comment: #92
Posted by: brdatwork2
Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:37 PM
Re: Acadianus - if you think Newt Gingrich is a conservative who supports smaller need to have your head examined. Mitt Romney's profession was taking bankrupt organizations and making them profitable again through elimination of fraud, waste and abuse. Newt is a philandering history professor from West Georgia College. Doesn't exactly compare to Romney's JD/MBA from Harvard and the hundreds of companies he restored to fiscal health...Staples, Brookstone, Domino's Pizza, Sealy...and many others. The problem is...people don't know what it takes to be an executive of his caliber. Gingrich is a faux conservative and a big government guy.
Comment: #93
Posted by: Kate S
Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:40 PM

Newt continues to mention Reagan in all his speaches and debates as if we will pretend to link him to the greatest president ever.


I remember President Reagan presidency and Newt was NOTHING like him....don't even pretend that he was. Newt doesn't hold a candle to Reagan.
Comment: #94
Posted by: brdatwork2
Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:41 PM
Re: Ian -Why I like Mitt Romney:

1- He is a supporter of states rights. That is exactly the issue with Romneycare. What is right for the state of Massachusetts may not be right for Alabama. When people have a far right conservative view of everything, their view won't mesh with every other state in the country. That is what the founding fathers envisioned...let the states have things the way they want them and don't mandate from the federal government.

2- He has business and leadership accomplishments that no other candidate can touch. Romney's JD/MBA from Harvard and experience with BCG, Bain, and the Olympics is light years above that of any other candidate in the Republican or Democrat parties. This is why Obama (via Axelrod) is fixated on Romney. BTW, he can apply his knowledge to fixing the government. Can you imagine...lean and mean government entities. What happened to industry in the 1980's (i.e., get lean or die) applies to the US and foreign governments today.

3-He doesn't make rash decisions in anger like Newt Gingrich. What Newt is conveniently forgetting to tell everyone is that he presided over the largest loss in the House of Representatives in 64 years for a party that didn't hold the presidency. Why the huge loss? People didn't like Newt. Then to add insult to injury, he resigned from the House the VERY DAY he was elected to an 11th term. Is that what we want in the presidency...someone who makes impulsive decisions designed to "punish?" Gee, that sounds very much like Obama. That was exactly Newt's thinking...he would punish the republicans for what they did to him, when it was actually his fault. Many people backing him now (like Dick Armey of the tea party) know exactly how much people hated him then, and unfortunately they are still willing to push him on the American people.

4 - Romney's family lived the American dream, and his success is based on getting an education and working hard to achieve greatness. He got his money the "old fashioned way...he earned it." Greatness won't ever be achieved through class warfare. I want a president who is ivy league, smart, and won't steal furniture from the WH like Hillary and Bill. He can champion capitalism over socialism in a way that no one else can.

5 - He's been married to the same wife all these years (and I'm sure he didn't cheat on her) and he loved her years before they were married and while he was out of the country completing a mission for his church....she waited for him while he was gone. It is a compelling story, unlike Newt's cheating on two wives. If conservatives stand for moral values, how in the heck do they explain Newt? It wasn't just cheating on wives...there were ethical issues (not all were dismissed) in the House of Representatives. Newt was sanctioned $300,000 by a 395-28 House vote. It was the first time a speaker was disciplined for ethical wrongdoing.

6 - He is a moral man, faithful to God and his church. There is a great amount of misinformation about Mormons floating around on the internet. It isn't our place to judge, so don't be a Pharisee. Many of our founding fathers were associated with a religion called Deism which believed in God but not Christianity as we know it today.

Be aware that the AFL-CIO is spending 800k in Florida on attack ads against Romney. He is the ultimate enemy of labor unions and crony capitalism. Don't believe what you read on conservative blogs...the DNC/unions/ are POSING DAILY as conservative voters to confound the issues and drive away votes for Romney. Finally, the last thing I'll suggest is this:

If you owned a failing company that was about to go under, would you hire

-a doctor (Ron Paul)
-a history teacher (Newt Gingrich)
-a politician (Rick Santorum)
-a business executive who knows how to turn things around with hundreds of references where he saved companies and jobs (Mitt Romney)

Don't believe the hype. Unite behind someone who can win.
Comment: #95
Posted by: Kate S
Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:42 PM
The only man to vote for is Ron Paul. All these other clowns are liars and thieves owned by one special interest or another. America might just surprise us in 2012 and wake up and get Ron Paul in there to set us right again.
Comment: #96
Posted by: Levendi
Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:43 PM
Re: FirstPrinciples
First of all a candidate's religion should not be a cause of voting for or against someone otherwise you are a simple bigot. Not that it would matter to you but it is import to understand some simple facts:
The Mormon church disavowed polygamy 120 years ago. Anyone claiming to be a "Mormon" and practices polygamy is not a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Mitt Romney has had only one wife (unlike Newt). You're embarrassing yourself with your uneducated comments.
Comment: #97
Posted by: Kenny121
Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:43 PM
If I didn't know any better, I'd say modern day republicans would nominate the devil himself as long as a win over Obama was assured. Suckers, all of you. Shame those of us who can see clearly may have to live with your poorly thought-out and immature choice. You spend more brain energy deciding who should win American Idol. Thus you will have the president you choose, a stuffed suit full of lies and contempt for those they claim to represent ... and you will have deserved it fully.
Comment: #98
Posted by: Ratt
Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:47 PM
Re: Kate S
Kate, what about Romneycare? He needs to admit he messed up
Comment: #99
Posted by: Ian
Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:49 PM
Re: Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel - newt is a serial adulterer. It is a deep character flaw...

Why not elect a very moral man who has been married to the same wonderful woman since 1969. He loved her before he went on a 60 month mission trip...she waited for him. They are a beautiful couple.

Good people take their marriage vows seriously. I can see the excuse of marrying the wrong woman the first time...but doing the same thing again? By the way, how did Gingrich spin his two failed marriages to gain forgiveness from the Catholic Church? Oh, I forgot, this is the church of Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi.

Be careful how you hold up immoral people because it fits your political agenda. God may not like that you're condoning Newt's actions by your support.
Comment: #100
Posted by: Kate S
Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:50 PM
Great article, but I have come to the conclusion that most members of the GOP do no longer want to win the presidency. Newt is a liar. First he supported Rockefeller and then he supported Goldwater. He cannot keep his lies straight, just like Bill Clinton. I find it amazing that the GOP, who, on issues, is more in line with the thinking of the American people than the socialist Democrat party, cannot support and nominate a candidate that can win. The GOP presidential nominee has lost the majority vote to the Democrat nominee four of the last five presidential elections. Only screwed up Florida saved us in 2000. Will we ever learn? If we nominate Newt, we will go five out of six losses. Harry Reid will stay in control of the Senate and Nancy Pelosi will regain the Speaker-ship of the House. I truly believe many GOPers would rather revel in defeat than toast victory.
Comment: #101
Posted by: Mike Gilmer
Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:58 PM
Newt is a sanctimonious, arrogant, hypocritical, pandering egotist, and it will be disaster for the republican party if he becomes the nominee. He'll drag down republican candidates across the country. Unfortunately, many GOP-ers are either too young to remember the real Newt, or were not interested in the political process and players until the situation the country is in became so dire they could no longer ignore it.
Comment: #102
Posted by: Clark R.
Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:59 PM
Re: Ian- Romney supports states rights...exactly the way the founding fathers designed our government. What is needed or wanted in Mass might not be right for let the states decide. He didn't try to push Romneycare on the rest of the country. He has said he would repeal Obamacare....he would anyway because it is too inefficient. When Romney left Mass, there was a $3B surplus, so they were handling it okay at the time. New England has been hard hit since Obama took office.

Knowing Romney's skill in cleaning up waste and abuse, perhaps he could do enough cleanup in the government to allow for us to provide health insurance to the poor. I know it isn't a popular subject with conservatives, but I think we need a system to take better care of people. I have family members who have had cancer as self employed citizens, and after the year of the diagnosis, the company cancels on them. If it were not for the VA, I have two brothers who would have died even more horrible deaths...
Comment: #103
Posted by: Kate S
Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:01 PM
Re: Mike Gilmer - Jeff Kuhner said a couple of weeks ago that Newt Gingrich is perfectly willing to bring down the Republican Party at this critical point in history...

Republicans running for Congress certainly don't want him. The democrats are now confident that they can take back the House.

Newt's ego is as big as Obama's...maybe bigger.
Comment: #104
Posted by: Kate S
Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:05 PM
Re: Kenny121
I did a study of the religion of the founding fathers. Several were "deists" who believed in God but were not necessarily Christian. These included Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson. Religious bigotry is on the rise.
Comment: #105
Posted by: Kate S
Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:08 PM
Great! Open the muck gates!
With a full contact election, the President's 'Springtime for Hitler' romping
through Chicago and beyond will become common knowledge.
Comment: #106
Posted by: vic
Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:27 PM
I believe in forgiveness. The thief on the cross was forgiven and I accept that. But the fact that Newt should be forgiven doesn't in any way alter the fact of long-standing character issues and unstableness in leadership. Why would all of his former associates abandon him if there were not something credible about it. I remember when Colin Powell endorsed Obama and said he believed that he would be a 'transformational' and great president. What did he base this on. It certainly wasn't his record. It was his ability to dazzle people with his gift of speech. I too, was impressed with Newt's debating skills and actually found myself wishing that the man had some character and a record that would give me the confidence that he would also be a great leader. It's difficult for me to imagine that any real man could hear the report of this man leaving two wives after they are diagnosed with serious diseases and find yourself admiring him or feeling like he is decent material for the county dog catcher, much less president of the United States. Character does matter . And electorate that is dumb enough to elect an Obama will also be dumb enough, I'm beginning to believe to elect a Newt Gingrich base on such groundless enmotional reasons.
Comment: #107
Posted by: Bub
Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:27 PM
"It doesn't matter what I do. People have to hear what I have to say." This is just one famous Gingrich quote that defines who he really is. I don't want to give anyone who is so grandiose, or so erratic in his behavior the power of the office that can push the button. This is a man who could start WWIII because the public turned on him and his numbers went down. From all my research this is indeed the man who would be king. Newt is a bigger threat to the future of this nation, and our republic than our ultimate foe Obama. His love of the 'one world order' concept, and his need to be the center of attention is frightening, and should be carefully scrutinized by all voters. Anyone can yell at a news reporter. A great orator can stir up a crowd to riot, but a good leader is consistent, trustworthy, and reliable. These are the characteristics that build a free nation. Newt is sadly lacking in all of them.
Comment: #108
Posted by: Canda
Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:29 PM
Greg Mankiw, Harvard advisor is the NYTImes today talking about taxes to fight global warming (brain dead on many levels).

Romney being Romney, you can't fix stupid you just can't elect it.
Comment: #109
Posted by: cwon14
Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:29 PM
Do you have some evidence to support your prognostication? I don't know what I will do two years from now. How you presume to know what Romney will be doing?
Comment: #110
Posted by: Bozo
Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:35 PM

You are projecting your own faults and failings onto Romney as he certainly ISN'T stupid....just look at his record of successes in the private AND public arenas.

Stupid is what cwon14 says...
Comment: #111
Posted by: brdatwork2
Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:40 PM
pray that hopefully ron paul will get all or most of these delegates:
6 at-large delegates from American Samoa.
16 at-large delegates from the District of Columbia.
6 at-large delegates from Guam.
6 at-large delegates from the Northern Mariana Islands.
20 at-large delegates from Puerto Rico. + 3 more because the island has a republican leaning governor and senate
6 at-large delegates from Virgin Islands.
that will add up to 63 delegates
Comment: #112
Posted by: namor
Wed Jan 25, 2012 5:06 PM
Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton are of the same cloth. Both are serial adultery addicts.
Comment: #113
Posted by: Uomo Del Ghiaccio
Wed Jan 25, 2012 5:10 PM
Re: Kate S
thanks Kate, but it sounds like you and Romeny truly believe in government run heatlhcare. To me it does not matter it is on the state level or the federal level. I lived in Canada and stories like your family members is very very common and it is straight from the government. My fear is Romeny will only tweak Obanacare and take out what he does not like. His actions in Mass prove that he believes in Government healthcare and that scares the heck out of me.
Comment: #114
Posted by: Ian
Wed Jan 25, 2012 5:22 PM
Mr Tyrrell is pegged Newt exactly and the term 'huckster' cannot be improved on. Any one but Newt and any one but obama.
Comment: #115
Posted by: Ron CROCKER
Wed Jan 25, 2012 5:24 PM
To me, it boils down to one question: Do we want a successful manager who has many proven accomplishments to lead our country, or do we want a has-been, lifelong politician with great oratorical skills who has accomplished nothing but feed off the government?? We already have one of those! I spoke to my conservative Congressmanat an event recently. I asked him who he was voting for, and he said Romney. He told me that no one who has ever worked with or knows Newt is endorsing him. He also said his Dad (former Congressman) had plenty of offers after he retired from Congress to work as a lobbyist and make big money, but he turned them all down because he would not commit to lobbying for some causes he might not believe in. That's ethical!!!
Comment: #116
Posted by: Bonnie Webb
Wed Jan 25, 2012 5:25 PM
Re: Kate S
To me, it boils down to one question: Do we want a successful manager who has many proven accomplishments to lead our country, or do we want a has-been, lifelong politician with great oratorical skills who has accomplished nothing but feed off the government?? We already have one of those! I spoke to my conservative Congressmanat an event recently. I asked him who he was voting for, and he said Romney. He told me that no one who has ever worked with or knows Newt is endorsing him. He also said his Dad (former Congressman) had plenty of offers after he retired from Congress to work as a lobbyist and make big money, but he turned them all down because he would not commit to lobbying for some causes he might not believe in. That's ethical!!!
Comment: #117
Posted by: Bonnie Webb
Wed Jan 25, 2012 5:29 PM
Romneycare = Obamacare....big goverenment on the state level or the federal level is the same smelly shoe! Until Romney admits to his huge mistake in Mass he will not get my vote. Tweaking Obamacare does not interest me. I voted for Bush 1, Dole, Bush 2 and McCain. They all took my vote for granted because they new I had no where to go. Those days are over I will not vote for someone because they are against someone else. Obama has taken the mess created by many people I voted for and compounded it 1000x. I often regret supporting these canadates, I belived in them and they expanded government on huge scales.
Comment: #118
Posted by: Ian
Wed Jan 25, 2012 5:53 PM
Re: Jefferson Ulmer

Mitt's "treasure" in the Cayman's (part of a blind trust holding) WAS taxed at the same rate he paid for any capital gain investment. No difference. He's a private citizen, earning his money in the private sector...unlike Gingrich, who has made ALL his "treasure" in Washington as a congressman and political lobbyist/insider. A BIG difference.

But I do disagree with this article. Gingrich is NOT the Republican's Bill Clinton...he's our George McGovern...

IF we nominate him! (Why do you think Team Obama is working so hard right now in Florida against Romney and FOR
Gingrich? You'd think that fact alone would be telling...)
Comment: #119
Posted by: Dave2
Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:03 PM
Don't underestimate a woman!!! Pelosi let the cat out of the bag... for the OCTOBER SURPRISE! She mentioned something about "wait to hear more about Newt Gingrich" - but immediately retracted it. She made a blunder which the Democrats do not want to tip their hand TOO SOON--should Gingerich get the Republican Nomination.
Comment: #120
Posted by: Marlene Saad
Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:30 PM
Don't underestimate a woman!!! Pelosi let the cat out of the bag... for the OCTOBER SURPRISE! She mentioned something about "wait to hear more about Newt Gingrich" - but immediately retracted it. She made a blunder which the Democrats do not want to tip their hand TOO SOON--should Gingerich get the Republican Nomination.
Comment: #121
Posted by: Marlene Saad
Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:30 PM
Mr. Tyrrell, or lets just just call you as you were called on the school yard, Jr....

Bugs bunny had a quote that fits you and your ilk perfectly... "What a Marooon"
Comment: #122
Posted by: Patrick
Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:37 PM
Here's a special message for Matt Drudge: SHUT UP!!! I have absolutely had it with article after article on the Drudge Report slamming Newt Gingrich again, and again, and again. I am not a big Gingrich fan, but I simply cannot take anymore of neocons like Matt Drudge pulling out all the stops to win the Republican nomination for Mitt Romney. It's not that I want Gingrich as the nominee; it's that all of Drudge's links to articles like this one are aimed to get us Romney as the nominee, and Romney is awful. Day after day, week after week, Matt Drudge continues to highlight articles like this one with bells and whistles (he may as well take out a Superbowl ad), and it is all geared to one end: to ensure Romney wins the nomination. Attention Matt Drudge: Romney stinks. And guess what, moron? I and other real conservatives won't vote for him. We don't need the Republican party to give the nomination to John McCain again... errr, I mean Romney. We don't need yet another typical establishment Republican, status-quo, big-government, RINO, loser neocon like Romney as the Republican candidate. The Repubs do this again and again thanks to morons like Drudge. We are currently sitting on one of the worst presidents in U.S. history, and he will likely win re-election no thanks to folks like Matt Drudge who will put up a losing candidate like Romney. The Democrats just got perhaps the most liberal president in American history elected into the White House, and the only thing the Republican establishment does in response is look to put up yet another neocon (Romney)..... AGAIN. I, and a great deal of other REAL conservatives, will not vote for Romney and will vote third party for a candidate who actually deserves our votes. I have had it with the Republican establishment and their worthless RINO candidates, and I have had it with morons like Matt Drudge going all out to ensure it happens again by getting Romney the nomination. People like Drudge can get lost and go start their own neocon kingdom.
Comment: #123
Posted by: Bill99
Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:38 PM
What is the difference between Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton. Newt marries all of his affairs and Bill punches them out and dumps them.

What is the difference between obama and Gingrich. obama is a Kenyan. The other difference is obama lies about everything (refer to SOTU and other speeches) and Gingrich changes his position (FLIP FLOPS) on everything.

Is it true that Gingrich's new LOGO is going to be a pair of beach FLIP FLOPS?
Comment: #124
Posted by: circle8
Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:41 PM
Re: Bill99
Way to go Bill!!! We already voted for Romney in 96' (Dole) and 2008, 2000 (Bush who barley won) and 2008 (McCain) Milk toast all the way. Sounds like so many establishment GOPers are so vested in Romeny with $ and support they will do or say anything to have their way.
Comment: #125
Posted by: Ian
Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:50 PM
You endorsed McCain too in 2008 not a good sign
Comment: #126
Posted by: ann
Wed Jan 25, 2012 7:02 PM
For what it's worth .... I wish that the Republicans and/or conservatives would get their acts together because at the rate they are going (attacking each other rather than Obama) tells me that none of the candidates are serious about unseating the present occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania. All that will be accomplished when this bloodletting is done, is that there will be lots of bad feelings and another 4 years of Obama's programs, none of which will work well, and more corruption to accompany it. I've often thought that Republicans and conservatives are not really interested in unseating any Democratic incumbent. Instead they are content to sit on the sidelines and gripe and bitch and moan about the current situation. That way, they aren't really accountable and will if they follow this path will spend another 40 years out of power until another Ronald Reagan shows up. BTW, I'm neither Republican nor Democratic, Liberal or Conservative. I'm someone who is an Independent and politically in the middle of the road somewhere. Have a great year!
Comment: #127
Posted by: Steve Brown
Wed Jan 25, 2012 7:45 PM
Of course Newt is a slime ball. Agree about the hopeful, but let's take a good long look at Ron Paul. He has the track record to prove his integrity. Don't trust a rich man. Matter of fact don't trust men at all. They will soon have you booing the golden rule (AKA dissing Jesus)
Comment: #128
Posted by: GoodNews
Wed Jan 25, 2012 7:46 PM
Who are you? A cheap norm Macdonald impersonator?
Comment: #129
Posted by: m
Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:04 PM
If "character matters" so much to you then why are you settling for "good enough" Massachusetts moderate Mitt Romney? Considering our leaders have compromised us into this $15 trillion mess, I don't covet congressional endorsements let alone the total count as you do. However, Rick Santorum has solid conservative endorsements: The Family Leader, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, 150 national evangelical leaders gathering in Texas, South Carolina pro-life legislator of the year -- business acumen endorsements: Rupert Murdoch and Foster Friess -- and President Reagan connection, too: Mark Levin. Since the establishment wont take Newt and the grassroots wont take Mitt, why can't we meet on The Conservatives' Road to Recovery with Rick Santorum?
Comment: #130
Posted by: FeFe
Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:21 PM
This conservative Republican mom WILL STAY HOME (as will my husband and three young adult children) in November if Newt is the nominee. My principles do not change and I will not vote for a candidate who has shown no moral or ethical compass whatsoever in his life. I am officially on the "anyone but Newt Gingirch" bandwagon.
Comment: #131
Posted by: Kris
Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:37 PM
I apply only 3 criteria to my presidential selection, in this order: Principles, Character, Judgment. Gingrich has none of these. But he does have one defining characteristic: "If it gets me some attention, I'm for it."
Comment: #132
Posted by: DeanCRodgers
Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:42 PM
Re: Jefferson Ulmer: Check your info. Romney's holdings in the Caymens ARE taxed!
Comment: #133
Posted by: Dolly
Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:59 PM
Well a new information portal has just come online. Has more information than drudge and most media outlets. the new information portal hub
Comment: #134
Posted by: Don
Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:39 PM
Love it! Especially "the 11 that have yet to meet him" part.
Comment: #135
Posted by: Yenelli
Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:55 PM
seems everyone has a secret and no one has the guts to tell them. Mr. tyrrell or nancy I mean democrate or usefull idiot for the dems.
Comment: #136
Posted by: gerald bliss
Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:59 PM
the big difference between Bill and Newt is that Bill delivered 8 years of prosperity despite being continually harrassed by Republicans, and Newt, when given political leadership, failed to deliver and was ousted by his own party. It is pretty much accepted that if Clinton could run again, America would elect him overwhelmingly. Why would we want to replace President Obama, who has no executive experience prior to being President, with a school teacher/lobbyist who also has no executive experience?
Comment: #137
Posted by: dodger
Thu Jan 26, 2012 7:56 AM
I was sorely depressed a few days ago because I was convinced Newt Gingrich would be nominated as the Republican presidential candidate and that as a consequence Obama would achieve a near landslide victory next November which would decimate the ranks of conservative Senators and Congressmen in its wake. Now I am seeing that this will not happen. There must be an unbelievable amount of negative information on Newt of both a personal and professional nature and it does not appear to all be in the open in the least, despite all Newt's claims to the contrary.
I actually feel that his former colleagues have tried to go easy on him up to now but in the end they will reveal whatever it takes to stop Newt.

I am left with several conclusions:

1. Romney will still win the nomination but the battle with Newt has weakened him.
2. The November general election is now too close to call - I tend to think that Mitt will still pull it out but that depends now on a lot of factors that cannot be projected.
3. Newt must have always known that he could never be elected President which leads me to conclude that either he is an egomaniac who just needs the attention or that he knows that the mere fact of running will renew his brand so to speak and allow him to earn more money as a lobbyist and author in the future. Maybe it is a little of both.
Comment: #138
Posted by: Michael
Thu Jan 26, 2012 8:31 AM
Re: Mike Gilmer

You are absolutely right on this point - there are those conservatives who would rather nominate a firebrand conservative (or in Newt's case a fraud masquerading as a firebrand conservative) who has zero chance of winning over a candidate likely to win but not conservative enough to suit the emotional needs of the conservative base. If this does not change and change fast then everyone should get ready for many years if not decades of increasingly socialistic Big Government. Obama will take his re-election as validation of his program of change and then aggressively push his agenda. And I wager he will succeed if he is re-elected.

It 's a decision - do you vote with your brain or according to your emotions.
Comment: #139
Posted by: Michael
Thu Jan 26, 2012 8:46 AM
The purpose for an election is for the PEOPLE to have someone who represent THEM. I am a conservative. I am a Christian. I am aware that Newt has many flaws. But the other GOP contenders don't stand a chance against BHO. As a party, we need to get behind the person who can defeat BHO and the socialist, liberals who are now in power! I really don't care that Mr Gingrich has been divorced. What percentage of the population of this country hasn't? I care that he wants to get less government in my personal life! I care that instead of deporting the millions of immigrants (who by the way, perform jobs that many if not most average American citizens won't) hurting the economy and costing the country more, Mr Gingrich wants to work with them to get a legal status. Not necessarily citizenship, but guest worker status. As such they would continue to contribute to our society, help keep the economy going and pay taxes. I care that he understands how disastrous the concept of government run healthcare is (we're already paying for a program that won't even be implemented for another year)! I care that he is not promoting class warfare or racial divisiveness. I care that he is open about his past mistakes. The GOP and ultraconservatives need to get their collective heads out of the sand. Sadly, the country is not greatly concerned about whether or not a candidate can "keep it in his pants". (The country loved Clinton, by the way!) They need someone with the political savy to beat Obama at his own game. The United States will not resemble anything close to what our founding fathers imagined they were creating if we are forced down the path our current POTUS and his supporters in power are leading us. If Obama is re-elected and achieves his goal of absolute power, we will no longer be a republic. We will be a dictatorship. We will be like Cuba, like Venezuela, and we might eve see Shariah law instituted in our court systems.
Comment: #140
Posted by: Linda
Thu Jan 26, 2012 9:18 AM
Gingrich is on Video admitting that he is a "Wilsonian Progressive." After doing a little research, I find Newt Gingrich to be a Charlatan who has been planning on a Presidential run as soon as he completed his efforts to re-write his history as a 20+ year Washington parasite. He lies with such ease. No way will I vote for this huckster. I am not thrilled with Mitt Romney but at this point he looks like the only ADULT in the room.
Once again I will have to hold my nose to cast my vote for the most important job on the planet. This is so wrong. When is the Republican Party going to get its act together and start producing some good, solid, conservative candidates instead of a steady stream of RINO'S, Progressives and Nutwads?
Comment: #141
Posted by: SunnyR
Thu Jan 26, 2012 11:06 AM
Re: Hawkeye
You make the point that the economy did better under the philanderer Clinton than other recent presidents. It would have done even better had he not been continuously attacked for his philandering.
Republicans rely on the religious right for a sizeable hunk of their vote and selecting Newt Gingrich would probably alienate many of them.
Comment: #142
Posted by: Auntie Mavis
Thu Jan 26, 2012 11:10 AM
Re: Corey

You say that "Newt is a junkyard bulldog" .... sorry, he is a junkyard mongrel.

You want a conservative vote Ron Paul.
Comment: #143
Posted by: Auntie Mavis
Thu Jan 26, 2012 11:31 AM
Thank you for writing this courageous commentary, risking all the slings and errors contained in the foregoing posts and, no doubt, in posts nationwide where this piece is published. (As a fellow writer, I know how nasty the slings and arrows can sometimes be. But, as my great grandmother always said, "Consider the source.") Twelve months from now, God-willing, the nation will finally be breathing a sigh of relief with Barack Obama retired from the presidency and a solid leader named Mitt Romney ensconced in the White House, thanks to courageous writers like yourself.
Comment: #144
Posted by: Mary Claire
Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:10 PM
I watch the news that I consider fare and truthful most of the time, I read and try to learn the facts, I trust my intuition, I trust what my heart tells me is right, I trust my choice for a conservative , smart and dedicated man and that man is Mitt Romney!! I feel if you can't see that, you're not really looking honestly nor wisely. Look again.
Comment: #145
Posted by: Meredith Finerty
Thu Jan 26, 2012 1:46 PM
I have read these comments about Newt from a bunch of people who don't know his real background. He was never a history professor--he was an asst. or associate professor. The President of West Georgia College once inquired as to 'just who is this fella, he is never around ?' He was advised that Newt spent most of his time "advising politicans, since he was a 'wanna be politician'. When Newt applied for tenure, he was refused and he resigned. Oh, by the way, at some time he applied for the President's position. He ran for congress twice against Jack Flynt, a very conservative, well liked Democrat and was soundly defeated. He came along just as Georgia was ready to become a Republican state. Bo Callaway was the first congressman with (R) after his name and would have been our Gov. had not the Demos. had a campaign to write in the outgoing Gov's name, who could not run because of term limits, no one got a majority plus one, the Demo Legislature elected the Demo Candidate, Lester Maddox, the segregationist, who was a disaster. Our election laaws have now changed.Our Gov & all State wide officers are (Rs) I am a life long(R) who voted against FDR the last time he ran. Ga was the 1st. State to let 18's vote and I voted absentee, I landed in England , Nov 1st a few days prior to election. I have never voted for a (D). I will not vote if Newt is nominated, he would be a disaster and could not repeal any of Obama' socialistic policies, so why change and be responsible for the decline of the U. S.? I cannot recall the name of our 1st (R) U.S.Senator, but he defeated Herman Talmadge, the (D) Senator with the overcoat with pockets stuffed with $100 bills
Comment: #146
Posted by: R. B. Buttram
Thu Jan 26, 2012 2:28 PM
Re: jackobrien Wow, aren't you living in the religious clouds. Wake up to reality. You are trying to jam your religious zealotry down others throats.
Comment: #147
Posted by: chad attwood
Fri Jan 27, 2012 4:49 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right: comments policy
R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr.
Feb. `16
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 1 2 3 4 5
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Lawrence Kudlow
Lawrence KudlowUpdated 6 Feb 2016
Suzanne Fields
Suzanne FieldsUpdated 5 Feb 2016
Patrick Buchanan
Pat BuchananUpdated 5 Feb 2016

2 May 2012 Osama bin Laden A Year Later

11 Jan 2012 Tebow!

29 Oct 2009 Where the Girls Are