creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Mark Shields
Mark Shields
25 Oct 2014
Premature Postmortems

Grantland Rice, a popular American sportswriter of the first half of the 20th century, gave us an often-… Read More.

18 Oct 2014
Recognizing Heroes in Our Midst

That terrifying Tuesday morning, now 14 Septembers ago, when terrorists connected to al-Qaida hijacked … Read More.

11 Oct 2014
Truly Right From the Start

In September 2002, before the Bush administration got its green light from a supine Congress and a full six … Read More.

Newt Rewrites His Reagan Connection

Comment

In 1995, when Newt Gingrich first became speaker of the House, Bob Dole was already on the threshold of becoming the longest-serving Senate Republican leader in U.S. history. Relations between the two GOP leaders, which were never chummy, were not helped by Gingrich's openly disparaging Bob Dole as "the tax collector for the welfare state."

Barely two years later, after having been chosen Time magazine's Man of the Year, Gingrich had plummeted in public esteem to where, in a CBS-New York Times poll, just 14 percent of voters had favorable personal feelings toward the speaker.

This prompted an apocryphal Washington exchange between a perplexed Gingrich and Dole. "Why do people take such an instant dislike to me?" asked a perplexed Gingrich, to whom Dole bluntly explained: "Because it saves them time."

Watching the last televised candidates debate before the Jan. 3 Iowa presidential caucuses, and hearing Newt Gingrich once again invoke the name and record of President Ronald Reagan as well as his own close relationship with Reagan, reminded me that Dole wasn't the only one on the receiving end of Gingrich's barbs.

At the Reagan presidential library this fall, Gingrich boasted of how "I helped Reagan create millions of jobs while he was president." And after modestly acknowledging his own less significant role than Reagan's, added, "We helped defeat the Soviet empire." Unmentioned by Gingrich then, or in any of the 2,414 debates during this campaign, was his 1985 criticism of President Reagan's historic meeting with Mikhail Gorbachev as "the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with (British Prime Minister) Chamberlain at Munich in 1938."

In an interview on CNBC, Gingrich recently emphasized his close identification with the nation's 40th president: "I've done a movie on Ronald Reagan called 'Rendezvous With Destiny.' Callista and I did.

We've done a book on Ronald Reagan. You know I campaigned with Reagan. I first met Reagan in '74. I'm very happy to talk about Ronald Reagan."

Just like when Newt went to the House floor during the Gipper's second White House term and declared the president's Soviet policy a "failure." Here is what Gingrich said: "Measured against the scale and momentum of the Soviet empire's challenge, the Reagan administration has failed, is failing and without a dramatic, fundamental change in strategy will continue to fail. ... The burden of the failure frankly must be placed first upon President Reagan."

This was after Gingrich, as reported in the Congressional Record, had found Reagan responsible for our national "decay": "Beyond the obvious indicators of decay, the fact is that President Reagan has lost control of the national agenda." Students of Newt-speak will recognize that by "decay," Gingrich was generally referring to factors such as crime, illegitimate births and illiteracy.

These blatant contradictions between what Congressman Gingrich actually said at the time about President Reagan and what Candidate Gingrich now offers as fictitious reminiscences of his unwavering allegiance to Reagan remind me of one of the former speaker's own broadsides against Washington, D.C. "In this cold and ruthless city," he once said, "the center of hypocrisy is Capitol Hill." Newt Gingrich is quite obviously an expert on both subjects.

To find out more about Mark Shields and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

COPYRIGHT 2011 MARK SHIELDS



Comments

104 Comments | Post Comment
Gee Mark, how to you really feel about Newt?

On another note, I saw you and David Brooks on the PBS News Hour tonight. I couldn't help noticing how you directly answered the question whether invading Iraq was a mistake, noting the lies that were the predicate of the war, how the war was the product of fantasy thinking on the part of a bunch of nested bureaucrats who themselves had never fought and never will fight in a war (you kindly didn't mention how some deftly did everything they could to avoid their obligation to do so), how it destroyed the balance of power in that part of the middle east, basically paving the way for the problem we now have with Iran, and how many American lives were damaged by that adventure in lies, arrogance, and blood. I was a little disappointed you couldn't manage to say something about the factor of 100, 1000, or whatever is the right one to multiply the number of Americans damaged to calculate the destruction it caused in innocent Iraqi lives, but I guess that's life.

You kind of hit the target, as only someone who has actually fought in combat could. However, your insulated colleague Mr. Brooks, who couldn't and wouldn't fight his way out of a paper bag, spewed out a bunch of utter hooey about how only the future will tell, not confronting any of the points you raised. This is the guy who called the war a "noble cause" and might as well have strutted around in a bikini the way he joined all of the ersatz free press cheerleaders who egged our phony leaders on to destroy a country that is still building its way out of a pile of rubble.

I wish that just once you would call that bastard the phony he is.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Masako
Fri Dec 16, 2011 8:23 PM
I'd believe and trust the likes of Newt Gingrich any day of the week over anything Mark Shields does or says; Mark Shields is the epitome of liberal slime.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Dave
Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:05 PM
"Why do people take such an instant dislike to me?" asked a perplexed Gingrich, to whom Dole bluntly explained: "Because it saves them time."

Call me suspicious but this purported quote is a verbatim quote from a line in M*A*S*H* wherein Frank Burns plays Gingrich and Trapper John plays Dole. Since that season of MASH predated this supposed exchange by more than 20 years, I smell a rat.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Francis Strazzeri
Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:11 PM
look people will see what they want. There will be people out there who will ignore all the facts, all the history, and believe newt no matter what he says. They'll call themselves tea partiers and conservatives but support this "moon base" idea even though the country is completely broke... hahah yeah a prize... how much taxdollars newt? how are we gonna fund it in the future? we can't fund nasa now??

anyway this is all coming out now because people need to be reminded about the real newt and not this "new newt" we have today.

seriously where were all you newt lovers who so staunchly support him now 2 weeks ago? where? the guy says a couple things about the liberal media, blasts them while defending his adultery, and makes a good quip about food stamps over a period of 2 questions in 2 debates and all the sudden all you people love him? WHAT DID I MISS????
Comment: #4
Posted by: johnny
Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:11 PM
In response to Dave:
Seems that you could check the record very easily to see whether Gingrich did in deed make the above noted comments about Reagan. Others have done so. Please keep in mind that Gingrich and his writing partner Bill Forschen love to rewrite history...
Comment: #5
Posted by: Pete
Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:15 PM
In response to Dave:
Seems that you could check the record very easily to see whether Gingrich did in deed make the above noted comments about Reagan. Others have done so. Please keep in mind that Gingrich and his writing partner Bill Forschen love to rewrite history...
Comment: #6
Posted by: Pete
Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:16 PM
In response to Dave:
Seems that you could check the record very easily to see whether Gingrich did in deed make the above noted comments about Reagan. Others have done so. Please keep in mind that Gingrich and his writing partner Bill Forschen love to rewrite history...
Comment: #7
Posted by: Pete
Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:16 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 neocon 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 toward one end: to ensure Romney wins the nomination. Maybe in another week or so, the link to Drudge's website will simply redirect to the Romney Campaign Headquarters site; it's basically functioning like an arm of the Romney campaign now. Attention Matt Drudge: Romney stinks. And guess what, moron? I and other real conservatives won't vote fo 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)..... once 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: #8
Posted by: Bill99
Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:21 PM
He says it is apocryphal. Either way, the Mark's criticism of Newt is weak. Over the course of eight years, he finds three quotes, likely out of context, where Newt mentions Reagan in a negative light. And two of the quotes are about the same subject. It is not a convincing argument. Re: Francis Strazzeri
Comment: #9
Posted by: James
Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:31 PM
It appears that this is nothing more than liberal Mitt Romney propoganda. You know, the architect of Obamacare and the winner of nine out of twenty-five contests that he's been in, or, said another way, the loser of sixteen of the twenty-five contests he's been in with a significantly marked inability to connect to the republican base.
Romney is the twenty-five percenter who can't persuade the republican base to vote for him because they don't like him. Who cares about his business experience that he's constantly touting other than him? My question is, if Romney can't win more than twenty-five percent now, what is it that he thinks will make him more attractive should he become the nominee?
Charlie Sanders
Comment: #10
Posted by: Charlie Sanders
Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:46 PM
One wonders why the left is slinging so much mud at Newt. If he is so vulnerable, why not cheer him on and then unleash the hounds during the general election? The answer is, the left, and the Obama White House, want to run against Romney, Bain Capital, and his $22 Mil adjusted gross income. Romney is the 1% the DNC has designed their OWS campaign around and they need him for their strategy to be successful in Nov.
Political strategy is always the same. Turn out your base. Suppress the other guy's base, while moving as many independents and swing voters from the other guy's camp into yours.
Romney stimulates the OWS crowd to get out and vote and stick it to the 1%. Romney allows Obama to keep the class warfare narrative going. (Amazing how OWS just materialized spontaneously!). At the same time, Romney will not excite the social conservative base (as evidenced by the combined "not Romney" vote around 45%). Thus, turnout could suffer if Romney is the nominee (every little bit counts in this electorate). Independents and swing voters are probably a toss up, but Obama likely believes he can "snow" them between now and election day.
So that brings us to poor old Newt...if he's so easy to pick off in the general election, why so much hate and discontent from the WH and the MSM? Because he screws up their strategy...The OWS crowd is not going vote for Newt, but he's probably not going to galvanize them the way Romney would. The looney left will be less inclined to turnout in Nov. (Again, every little bit helps in a close electorate). But unlike Romney, Newt excites the Republican base, and that is absolutely unacceptable to the WH and MSM...Base turnout is key to victory on both sides, but hyper critical for Obama. Newt will bring the Republican base out in droves...Arguably, Newt will have a hard time with independents, but he will likely make up the difference among Hispanics and blue collar white voters--historically solid democratic voters...
That's why Mark Shields is going fangs out against Newt....Its Romney or bust....
Comment: #11
Posted by: GH
Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:54 PM
Re: Masako
The present antiwar consensus leads to no answers to the issues of that time. I have yet to hear any antiwar critic provide a reasonable solution on the 180,000 troops left vulnerable in Kuwait prewar which were the only reason Saddam allowed weapon inspections to restart. No one addresses the points made in David Kay's report that Saddam still had his WMD infrastructure, was bribing the Iran, was on the verge of removing sanctions due to Oil for Food, and would have been in a chemical/nuclear standoff with the Ayatollah if he was still around. People attribute the destruction to America, without mentioning al-Qaeda deliberately started a civil war which turned the Arab world against al-Qaeda while killing thousands of jihadi terrorists. Saddam degraded infrastructure for his own tyrannical reasons, cutting off water and power to his own citizens who raised any opposition while his son's ran rape rooms and committed some of the most barbaric torture since the Middle Ages, including on children.
Much more horror occurs in Juarez with America's immorality is much more to blame there, where children become torture murderers for druglords, and grandmothers are set on fire, and gladiator fights are held, and resistors are drawn and quartered with pickup trucks. All that because the 99% can't stop shooting junk up their arm or snorting cocaine or smoking crack and meth.
Yes war is immoral by nature and weapons of instrument of ill omen. But in the drug war murderers have no reservation about combat or show no shame.
Comment: #12
Posted by: kongMing
Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:54 PM
I don't hardly ever agree with Mark. However, Newt is an unelectable blowhard who will say anything and everything to get elected. He changes hs positions with the wind. If you want to find out about the REAL Newt the check out Glen Beck's website.... If we really want Obama to serve a second term or want to end up with something that could "possibly" truly be worse then we need to nominate / elect Newt Gingrich .... PLEASE NO !!!!
Comment: #13
Posted by: B
Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:59 PM
the only balenced budget in my life time. no one has to rewrite that bit of history.
Comment: #14
Posted by: gerald bliss
Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:02 PM
So Newt PUSHED Reagan when he needed to be pushed?
Not news.
Move on!
Comment: #15
Posted by: Jefferson Ulmer
Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:06 PM
Laffer endorsed Gingrich.
Comment: #16
Posted by: Nexialist
Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:06 PM
That must be why Nancy Reagan stated that Reagan "passed the torch" to Newt in 1995. This is revisionist history. Newt criticized Reagan from the Right, emphasizing greater toughness. A lot of conservatives at that time were wary of Reagan meeting with Gorbechov as they thought he might cave in. Despite that, Newt was in lockstep with Reagan on the vast majority of matters. To claim Newt wasn't an important and involved figure, or that he was some kind of anti-Reagan, is simply absurd.

On the other hand, there is video of Mitt Romney in a debate stated he was not in favor of Reagan-Bush or of "returning" to Reagan-Bush.

This article is Pro-Romney propaganda from a leftist.
Comment: #17
Posted by: Ricardo Galvan
Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:40 PM
The main thing that Newt and Renaldus Magnus have in common is that both are hated and besmirched by the Country Club type's like the author. Shame on all of you if you succeed in getting this Massachucetts Moderate on the ballot. The results will be the same as history has taught us. Bob Dole, John McCain etc. equals defeat. Its time to be bold. Vote NEWT!!!
Comment: #18
Posted by: David Nobles
Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:49 PM
Re: Bill99
Amen Brother!
Comment: #19
Posted by: iiRIGHTii
Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:53 PM
I thought I knew something about conservative values until Newt got into this race and was embraced by so many so-called conservatives. My observations and life experience tell me this man is a pathological narcissist who will stop at nothing to get elected. Past is often prologue, even for someone who claims to have found religion and repented of his morally reprehensible past. After murder, child molestation, and rape, marital infidelity is the most despicable thing I can imagine. This man thinks we should trust him enough to make him leader of the free world? Short and simple, I wouldn't vote for Newt if you held a gun to my head. We already have a "narcissist in chief," and if conservatives are willing to settle for someone so lacking in integrity like Newt, we deserve 4 more years of Obama.
Comment: #20
Posted by: MAndy
Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:42 PM
Re: Bill99.. Here.. Here! I agree 100%.. Drudge.Coulter..etal..the more you push
For Romney the more we will entrench around
Newt.. I will NOT vote for Romney .. I am Taking a lesson from Nancy Reagan and I
Am just saying No to Romney
Comment: #21
Posted by: apachecav
Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:51 PM
Re: GH You make the case that independents will decide this election, yet you forget to add that in poll after poll Gingrich trails in that deciding category. Newt has a higher negativity rating than nearly any other politician. Yes, the left will get the left, the right will get the right, but the right won't' get the middle with a polarizing candidate like Newt. Romney has the capacity and the history to show that he can unite. The right wants a messiah, but in this climate even Reagan wouldn't satisfy. So they glom on to Newt and his anti-media tirades. But Newt can't win, and won't win, whether Nancy has secret dirt on him or not. And God save us all if Newt were to win.
Comment: #22
Posted by: Paul
Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:52 PM
Re: GH You make the case that independents will decide this election, yet you forget to add that in poll after poll Gingrich trails in that deciding category. Newt has a higher negativity rating than nearly any other politician. Yes, the left will get the left, the right will get the right, but the right won't' get the middle with a polarizing candidate like Newt. Romney has the capacity and the history to show that he can unite. The right wants a messiah, but in this climate even Reagan wouldn't satisfy. So they glom on to Newt and his anti-media tirades. But Newt can't win, and won't win, whether Nancy has secret dirt on him or not. And God save us all if Newt were to win.
Comment: #23
Posted by: Paul
Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:53 PM
Re: Francis Strazzeri - yes, I doubt Bob Dole was that clever....
Comment: #24
Posted by: misterwax
Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:15 PM
There is, also, the matter of the Reagan veto in 1987; a version of the Fairness Doctrine that Reagan opposed. Newt joined others in a failed effort to over-ride that veto. The bill's title was " Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1987" and Newt is listed as one of the co-sponsors. Hardly a Reagan conservative at the time, but a conservative, nonetheless. I think his conservative credentials were established with his Speakership, not his association with Reagan. I was in my late 30's, at the beginning of the Reagan era and Newt was not center stage with Reagan, during that time. I was there.
Comment: #25
Posted by: John Smithson
Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:42 PM
All big thinkers and shakers are grandiose in their ideas, and many don't mind telling you about their grandiose ideas. Ronald Reagan had a grandiose idea of calling the Soviet Union an “Evil Empire.” Now the Establishment Republicans and the Democrats didn't like this idea, but Reagan didn't want to live with this threat, instead, he wanted to ELIMINATE IT! And so he set out to convince as many people as possible of this grandiose idea, and was able to get elected and build up our military — even through the Democrats' nasty campaign against this idea with their name calling and frightening people into thinking Reagan was a “war monger.” But Reagan prevailed because he could communicate to the Public his ideas well enough that they accepted them.
Newt Gingrich had grandiose ideas back before the 1994 elections. He wanted to win the House of Representatives back from the Democrats, who had held it since 1952, forty years. He convinced a great deal of Republicans and voters that his ideas were better than the Democrat's ideas. And what happened? A spectacular, historic victory! His strategy with the content of his 1994 Contract with America propelled the Republicans to a 54-seat gain in 1994 to win control of the House of Representatives. the Republicans only capturing it two out of the previous 62 years. Even the Reagan Revolution failed to achieve that!
Then Newt led the House Republicans in 1996 to their first re-election as a majority since 1928, an astounding almost 70 years!
And once in power, Newt Gingrich actually delivered on his promises, and maintained a solid conservative record. working closely with Conservative Activist Groups on every one of these issues. He carried out the Contract with America in full, holding a vote on every item as promised, with most of the items passing. Newt maintained a RECORD of unswerving loyalty to pro-life, pro-gun and Second Amendment, and anti-tax issues.
Under Newt's leadership, the total federal spending relative to GDP declined from 1995 to 2000 by a whopping 12.5%. This equals about one-eighth of the size of the economy in just five short years!
As a result, those nasty $200 billion annual federal deficits that had prevailed for over 15 years were instead transformed into record-breaking surpluses by 1998. They peaked at $236 billion in 2000.
Mr. Gingrich also led enactment of a capital gains tax rate cut of almost 30% in 1997. It went from 28% down to 20%, the largest capital gains cut in U.S. history! And BECAUSE of that cut, capital gains revenues went up a whopping $84 billion higher for 1997 to 2000 than projected before Newt's rate cut.
RINO Romney ran to the Left of Ted Kennedy, governed like Ted Kennedy, voted like Ted Kennedy and then ran for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination as a Conservative WITHOUT a record of conservatism! Go Newt!
Comment: #26
Posted by: 777denny
Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:02 AM
Re: Bill99

I AGREE, Drudge hates him some Newt.
Comment: #27
Posted by: Cyrust
Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:27 AM
Bob Dole, another loser RINO, cut from the same cloth as Juan McCainez, Bushie 43, Bushie 41, and MittCare Obamney who will never darken the doorstep of the White House, unless he takes a public tour.
Comment: #28
Posted by: Kevin
Thu Jan 26, 2012 1:35 AM
It's evident Drudge cherry-picked passages of Mark Shield's past columns out of context designed to mislead readers. How about the following Romney's dishonesty:
Romney accuses Newt of resigning as Speaker "in disgrace." Charles Krauthammer belied it on the O'Reilly Factor when he told Bill who asked Romney's accusation fact-checked that Newt stepped down after the GOP lost 5 House seats in the 1998 midterm elections which Newt accepted as repudiation of his leadership. He didn't only step down as Speaker but also gave up his congressional seat he just got reelected.
Romney wittingly or unwittingly mixes up Newt's fine of $300,000 for ethics violation in 1997 as the cause of his above resignation a year later. The ethics violation was a separate case and explicably politically motivated.
Another Romney "below the belt" attack is Gingrich's $1.6 million consulting fee from Freddie Mac as though Newt was part of policy-making that led to this government sponsored enterprise's (GSE) meltdown. I twice heard during the debates Romney was told by Newt the $1.6M was gross income and he got only $35,000 a year from it after paying staff salaries and office expenses. Besides, Newt was a private citizen when he worked for Freddie and what's wrong for him to earn some money?
On the other hand, it looks that Romney at first tried to avoid releasing his tax returns, a tactical mistake in South Carolina, probably thinking the returns would be for 12 years like his father did and include his years with Bain Capital.
He decided to release 2-year returns to diffuse the issue when Obama raises in case Romney's the GOP nominee and his years with Bain would show he made money both ways, i.e., from companies that were turned around to profitability and those Bain couldn't save from bankruptcy.
Comment: #29
Posted by: Frank Wenceslao
Thu Jan 26, 2012 1:55 AM
Gingrich suffers as a volatile genius in need of an applause line.
He won't win the independent vote. Dump him and move on.
Comment: #30
Posted by: Dan Green
Thu Jan 26, 2012 2:10 AM
Gingrich is the RINO, Washington Insider, and was sold on Global Warming by Nancy Pelosi......Also, the one who critcized Tea Party darling Paul Ryan's plan,...Gingrich is this year's McCain,...and we're not having another loss to Obama.
Comment: #31
Posted by: JohnnyRick
Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:26 AM
Newt has been a breath of fresh air. He tells it like he feels and not what a PR team tells him to say. Reagan was far from perfect and Newt was right. Reagan's meeting with Gorbachov was a disaster, and Reagan backed off that meeting and left in a hurry. I didn't like Reagan's Iran Contra fiasco, or the retreat from Lebanon and indiscriminate bombing of Beirut. I didn't like Reagan sending a Koran as a gift to Ayatollah Khomenei.
As great as Reagan was there was ceetainly room for criticism and improvement. Newt always supported his president and party when it came to voting.
Newt was and is an original thinker, and a practical man who can solve our many problems, and overthrow the corrupt system of the oligarch who presently control our government and its purse string.
Comment: #32
Posted by: naro10
Thu Jan 26, 2012 4:02 AM
The rich Republican oligarchy fails to understand that we, the rank and file, hold them partially responsible for the destruction of our economy, and the growth and metastases of the federal government. Romney will be just more of the same-we know that.
Newt is an iconoclast and a pioneer who was the best Speaker of the House in the last century. He broke down the welfare system, gave us balanced budgets, and made life a lot better for Americans. We want to give him a chance to fix government and scale it down. I doubt that Romney is interested in smaller government, and there is a snow ball chance in hell that Southeners of any party (who are absolutely crucial for victory) would ever vote for a Yankee from Taxacusetts. Romney would NEVER lead to a Republican victory, becasue he would NEVER get the Southern votes.
Comment: #33
Posted by: naro10
Thu Jan 26, 2012 4:39 AM
Hey Mark, it is not a surprise that deliberately misguided poets like you, who relish poking 'fun' at people to cause a reaction in others - is the height of your literary accomplishment in life. What you say, by misusing comments and quotes out of context, as we all know by now is one of the liberal 'spits' we all have learned to step over, is much more revealing about what's now going on in the MEDIA, rather than about the subject you profess to know. And to have your only broadcast audience on PBS, a now well-known leftist propaganda machine of mediocre quality at best, only further clarifies the insincerity and insignificance of any message you feel journalistically bent to display. Why don't you go back to reporting about the dog shows and the local hot dog eating contests - it's where you fit best, because the message and style YOU'RE spewing, is a waste of OUR time. Gingrich, unlike any other candidate, has the impetus to create REAL change in this country. He won't back down from weasels like you, liars like Obama and Romney, nor difficult challenges like the mess our country is in. I campaigned for and with Ronald Reagan. His comments, in private, were entirely positive about Newt Gingrich. He, though in disagreement at times, stated he always admired Newt's "spunk" and "virve" for life and that he "always acted on his beliefs instead of just coming to work". So, Mark, get your amateur ass out of the way and let those of us who want to attack THE ISSUES (not the candidates) get on with life. 'Creators' like hell - propagandists is more like it. And be sure to wipe before you leave.
Comment: #34
Posted by: RJohnson
Thu Jan 26, 2012 5:04 AM
Hey Mark, it is not a surprise that deliberately misguided poets like you, who relish poking 'fun' at people to cause a reaction in others - is the height of your literary accomplishment in life. What you say, by misusing comments and quotes out of context, as we all know by now is one of the liberal 'spits' we all have learned to step over, is much more revealing about what's now going on in the MEDIA, rather than about the subject you profess to know. And to have your only broadcast audience on PBS, a now well-known leftist propaganda machine of mediocre quality at best, only further clarifies the insincerity and insignificance of any message you feel journalistically bent to display. Why don't you go back to reporting about the dog shows and the local hot dog eating contests - it's where you fit best, because the message and style YOU'RE spewing, is a waste of OUR time. Gingrich, unlike any other candidate, has the impetus to create REAL change in this country. He won't back down from weasels like you, liars like Obama and Romney, nor difficult challenges like the mess our country is in. I campaigned for and with Ronald Reagan. His comments, in private, were entirely positive about Newt Gingrich. He, though in disagreement at times, stated he always admired Newt's "spunk" and "virve" for life and that he "always acted on his beliefs instead of just coming to work". So, Mark, get your amateur ass out of the way and let those of us who want to attack THE ISSUES (not the candidates) get on with life. ‘Creators', hell, more like propagandists is what this site is all about. And be sure to wipe before you leave.
Comment: #35
Posted by: RJohnson
Thu Jan 26, 2012 5:06 AM
When Ron Paul criticized Reagan as a "failure" everyone jumped on him... now many Newt backers throw off any reports of Newt being critical of Reagan... Hilarious. The fact is that Reagan WASN'T perfect, he was a good president for the time period and we should hope our next president will be even more conservative than him. Newt and Romney are more like George HW Bush establishment Republicans.
Comment: #36
Posted by: Anthony
Thu Jan 26, 2012 5:08 AM
Re: Francis Strazzeri

Certainly you are correct. All that stuff in the Congressional Record was really just put there yesterday so this column could be written. Gingrich NEVER was fined $300,000 by the Congress and made to relinquish his seat. That is simply a made-up story since you were not there to see it. Reports in all the "mainstream meida" about it were lies, and the entire Congress was in on the lie. IT NEVER HAPPENED. As for his moral character, which has nothing to do with being President of the United States, of course, a la the Bush's, the most criminal family in America, he has a sterling character, never lied, never cheated, never stole, and is the epitome of Christian values.

Enjoy voting for him, please. By the way, intelligence is something you either have or do not have. How you doin' with that part, friend?
Comment: #37
Posted by: Rich
Thu Jan 26, 2012 5:18 AM
Re: Bill99

Then GET OUT and don't read this site.
Its a great big internet out there and there's plenty of sources to get your information.

Crying about a free site that you are not forced to visit is ridiculous.
The fact that Matt chooses to expose some of the BS about Newt that isnt getting coverage anywhere is a good thing. Dont be upset that the blinders are getting spread open and the light is scorching your retinas.

Comment: #38
Posted by: qu4ttro
Thu Jan 26, 2012 5:28 AM
So here'w my question:

On the day he was elected, every single Republican in America SWORE AN OATH that President Obama would be a ONE TERM president, no matter what.

So, after over 3 years, this is the best team you could come up with? Where's your guy? Where's Jeb or Marco or Grover? Aren't these the Republican golden boys? (No females need apply, of course.) If you hate, and I do mean HATE, the President of the United States so much--his is black, of course, which Republicans are mortified about--then where is the genius Conservative to beat him in this election?

Maybe since good ol' boy draft dodger Bush runined the nation, you guys figure you would give Obama 8 years since NO ONE is going to fix the economic mess you got us into, so why look bad during the recovery? In 5 years, with the recovery well on track, you can jump up with Jeb and take credit for it. After all, Jeb is for giving public tax money for tuition to private CHRISTIAN ONLY schools so that our poor youth in FL can get a good education. If you starve the public schools, they go down, and the CHRISTIAN ONLY schools will improve with all the public tax money the state government takes illegally from the public schools and gives to the religious ones...if they are CHRISTIAN, of course. Religious schools of other faiths do not qualify, of course.

So, we will "suffer" through 4 more years of recovery from your mess, and you will spring the crook, Jeb, "I was on the Board of Directors, but I did not know that my brother Neil was stealing from the Savings and Loan industry and givning me the money, and yes, my rich wife did try to stiff the US Government for a few bucks by hiding her foreign purchases so she would not have to pay duty on them" Bush. Sounds like your kind of guy to me. Good luck with that, pal.
Comment: #39
Posted by: Rich
Thu Jan 26, 2012 5:36 AM
Wow....who knew that Newt could be so likeable. I have a whole new respect for Newt now that I know he has the ability to call the BS as he sees it. Reagan was a disaster for the US both financially and in terms of personal privacy and freedoms. He was such a moron that he let the skull & bones cretins run everything and turn the government fully against the people.
Comment: #40
Posted by: JFWilder
Thu Jan 26, 2012 5:47 AM
Why are we talking about this? Newt is the ultimate fraud... taking credit for Regan's programs... but he has always been an egomaniac. He can't even manage his own waistline. People - Newt is the conservative version of John Edwards. He will never be electable. Stop talking about Newt and start talking about Romney being the nominee and how we get him in office over Obama.
Comment: #41
Posted by: ericnh
Thu Jan 26, 2012 5:58 AM
Re: JFWilder
The biggest problem we had was the cold war and Regan solved that by building a relationship with the soviet leader behnd the scenes. That is why Regan is great... he may have saved the world.
Bush could have solved our energy crisis... he did not.
Obama could have solved our energy crisis.. he did not.
Newt is the ultimate divider and politics is about creating common ground not putting everyone down and thinking you are the smartest man in the world.
Comment: #42
Posted by: ericnh
Thu Jan 26, 2012 6:02 AM
Romney represents the oligarchs who control the purse book-both Democrats and Republicans. He has no chance of winning the South, and therefore no chance of winning the election. Forget about Romney he is the candidate of the corrupt monied class.
Comment: #43
Posted by: naro10
Thu Jan 26, 2012 6:06 AM
Re: Rich
Look at all of Obama's promises... he has failed. He was going to fix the economy.. it is worse, energy prices 84% more, unemployment higher, people that quit even looking for a job... all time high. If you want a smooth talking, deliver nothing type of president.. he is your guy. Liberals are people that like to be hearded like sheep and put all their trust in corrupt leadership... it always ends bad.
Comment: #44
Posted by: ericnh
Thu Jan 26, 2012 6:10 AM
Re: naro10 I guess Obama is going to win the south over Romney in the election? I dont think so.....
Comment: #45
Posted by: ericnh
Thu Jan 26, 2012 6:11 AM
And who are you voting for?
Comment: #46
Posted by: Myron
Thu Jan 26, 2012 6:13 AM
I'm old enough to remember real history and that was Contract with America, with Newt at the helm. Newt is in fact the only true leader who did in fact balance our budget...imagine that for a moment! Today conservatives are mad as hell and right now Newt is their voice. He is pushing back the libearl agenda just like he did in 95 and DC does not like it one bit. They got rid of him then, this time, it remains to be seen.
Comment: #47
Posted by: Rose
Thu Jan 26, 2012 6:25 AM
The ONLY way Romney will be President is if the establishment GOP destroys every other candidate ... because Romney is unable to excite anyone !

The GOP establishment feels it slipping away.

Comment: #48
Posted by: McGruff
Thu Jan 26, 2012 6:34 AM
If Newt criticized Reagan so much how come Michael Reagan endorsed him for president. I'm sure Michael was aware of this.
Comment: #49
Posted by: Dan
Thu Jan 26, 2012 6:39 AM
This crowd of "conservative pundits and politicians" who claim that NEWT is NOT LIKE US are correct.

Newt does NOT buy ANY ideology or political playbook strategy as an absolute....he is much more strategic for the long run than these pretenders. They make their income off conflicted opinions like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson make a living off rabble-rousing black anger.

ALL of the NEWT bashers have a LONG history of getting stepped on during NEWT's career in Congress...as they SHOULD have been stepped on.

THE MANTRA THAT REAGAN WAS PERFECT IS A SHAM...he was a great president....but he made a LOT of BIG mistakes....and NEWT merely called them out for what they were and where they were WRONG..he was trying to get them to obey the law and to not just play partisan politics.....he made a lot of enemies but his CONGRESSIONAL PLEDGE WAS NOT A PARTY LINE, IT WAS TO THE CONSTITUTION.

HAS everyone forgotten REAGAN's Iran-Contra affair that they PINNED on Ollie NORTH as the scapegoat..the Ollie North that NOW has a FOX NEWS gig and following....but was the BIG BAD CHEATER that broke the LAW??.that was REAGAN's administration lying to CONGRESS and breaking the LAW....the GOP circled the wagons to PROTECT Reagan, and THEIR OWN JOBS. Newt was all over pointing out BOTH parties in Washington that were breaking laws and making deals....SO MUCH SO THAT JOHN BOEHNER and members of his OWN party TRIED TO KILL HIM OFF IN A SNEAKY-PETE COUP THAT FAILED UTTERLY....and John NOW hates and fears Newt as President.

LOOK HERE....THE WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT IS BROKE...BOTH PARTIES...AND BOTH ARE TRYING TO FIND SOME PRESIDENT TO KEEP THE STATUS QUO.....THEY ARE TERRIFIED OF "CHANGE" BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT SOME WILL LOSE THEIR CUSHY JOBS...AND THE LOBBY GUYS KNOW THAT THEIR CAREERS ARE IN TROUBLE IF NEWT THE FIREBALL GETS INTO POWER.

Obama promised CHANGE...but when he got to the Presidency...he has FAILED because the Washington folks WILL NOT let CHANGE happen....he thought his PERSONALITY and the POWER of the SOROS and CHICAGO backers with the Union Folks and Wall Street would HELP HIM with his PLAN....and they screwed his plan and made him into a failure....not because he is stupid, but because he was NAIVE.

Romney, the Bain Capital "TURNAROUND GUY" is great for troubled business ventures....put some money and a new management team in place, borrow a bunch of new money, and give it a run...if it fails, you just tank it, take a loss, and move on to the next one...no big deal...that is what BUSINESS turnaround guys do....BUT THE US GOVERNMENT IS NOT A BUSINESS, AND A FAILURE AND WALK AWAY WILL NOT WORK...THERE ARE 300 MILLION PEOPLE HERE....NOT A LITTLE BUNCH OF EMPLOYEES.



NEWT THE TURNAROUND GUY PISSED EVERYONE IN THE GOP AND THE DEMS WHEN HE STARTED TAKING ON THE ESTABLISHED POLITICIANS AND THEIR OLD BOY NETWORK....what he HAD to do to make the CONTRACT WITH AMERICA WORK...but they never intended to ACTUALLY DO THAT DEAL...JUST TO USE IT FOR GETTING ELECTED.

Newt was serious, and they came after him with the long knives....and WHOEVER GETS ELECTED IN 2012 IS EITHER GOING TO KEEP THE WASHINGTON AS USUAL....OR MAKE EVERYONE THERE HATE HIM AND COME AFTER HIM......AND A BUNCH OF BUSINESSMEN AND UNIONS AND CITIZENS ARE GOING TO GET MAD AS HELL AT THE NEW PRESIDENT IF HE IS REALLY GOING TO CHANGE THE DIRECTION OF THIS COUNTRY.

OBAMA HAS FAILED, AND CANNOT RECOVER...HE IS TOO WEAK AND THIN SKINNED.

ROMNEY DOES NOT HAVE THE CONVICTION NOR GUTS TO STAY THE COURSE IN THE FACE OF VICIOUS ATTACKS....HE WILL JUST BAIL OUT WHEN THE GOING GETS TOUGH. He is a soft rich guy with comfortable options that do not require a successful presidency for his family to be just fine forever.

SANTORUM HAS NO CLUE WHAT IS AHEAD TO MAKE ANYTHING OTHER THAN STATUS QUO RESULT...NICE GUY, TOO IDEOLOGICAL AND "CLEAN CUT".

NEWT HAS ESTABLISHED ALREADY THAT HE IS WILLING TO DO NASTY WORK, TAKE THE HEAT, AND NOT FOLD. ALL THE ATTACKS ARE PETTY, AND DOING WHAT EVERYONE CAN TO HIDE THE FACT THAT NEWT CAN ACTUALLY TAKE ON BOTH PARTIES AND NOT HIDE BEHIND OLD PAST IDEOLOGICAL HEROS LIKE CLINTON, FDR, JFK, REAGAN, ETC.

RIGHT NOW....THE CITIZENS SHOULD STOP AND PAUSE.

WHY IS NEWT GETTING ATTACKED FROM THE RIGHT...FROM THE GOP?. From Rove, Krauthammer, the NEOcons at the Standard, from the Bush machine, from Boehner and the Old Washington crowd...even the Teaparty members that Dick Armey has bamboozled (Armey was part of the House Coup that Failed in 1996 to take down Newt) do not see why the FAKE TEAPARTY members are against NEWT...even Marco Rubio the smart kid that the GOP folks are calling a rising star in the PARTY has come in to bust on NEWT as his polls take off....THEY MUST TAKE NEWT DOWN....AND THE PUBLIC ARE SEEING WHAT IS HAPPENING...AND FOX AND THE NEOCONS ARE TRYING TO PLAY IT SAFE....LIKE O'REILLY PLAYS "FAIR AND BALANCED" IF IT SUITS HIS MOOD.

BECAUSE THEY SEE THAT HIS RISE IN THE POLLS IS THE WORSE THREAT THAT THEY CAN HAVE.

ANN COULTER REQUIRES CONFLICT AND SARCASTIC BOMB THROWING IN THE POLITICAL WORLD TO MAKE HER LIVING....IF STUFF GETS FIXED, SHE AND FOX NEWS AND ETC ARE GOING TO LOSE THE IDEOLOGY REAGAN AS PERFECT BATTLE.

NEWT WILL TAKE DOWN THE COVER THEY HAVE ERECTED OVER THE WASHINGTON OLD BOY NETWORK AND LOBBY REVOLVING DOORS..AND THAT IS WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE DEMANDING AND WANT.



BUT RIGHT NOW, THE MEDIA AND BOTH PARTIES ARE SCREAMING "NOT NEWT"....LOOK BEHIND THEIR SCREAMS TO "WHY ARE THEY PROTESTING AND TRYING TO FIND PETTY CHARACTER FLAWS TO TAKE THIS GUY DOWN?"
Reply
Comment: #50
Posted by: Rufus
Thu Jan 26, 2012 6:52 AM
Re: GH
Hello,
can I just tell you that these attacks on Newt's record are NOT coming from Liberals. They are coming from CONSERVATIVES. Newt is NOT a conservative. The Liberal establishment and the White House have their guns set on Romney. He is a threat to them. Newt, on the other hand, is NO threat to President Obama.
Comment: #51
Posted by: sam
Thu Jan 26, 2012 6:55 AM
Those who support Gingrich do so for the same reason as those who support Obama. Both men exude supreme confidence even when expounding total nonsense, and even when contradicting things they've said in the past.
Comment: #52
Posted by: Ted Peters
Thu Jan 26, 2012 7:14 AM
RJohnson, RUFUS!!!, et al...

Newt's power is in his ability to be decisive, and as a narcissist relies on you as his minions.

I don't see change and progress in Newt, just same old decisiveness and decay.
Comment: #53
Posted by: Reason Rules
Thu Jan 26, 2012 7:22 AM
When Bill Clinton bombed Serbia in the 90's, most of Congress was screaming for him to stop.

But John McCain took the other side, demanding that Clinton stop half-arsed measures and go into Yugoslavia with ground troops.

This criticism from McCain blunted the dove's criticisms from the left, even Clinton stopped to admire McCain for standing on the courage of his convictions.

This is the kind of "criticism" Gingrich gave Reagan during the 80's. He was pushing from Reagan's right, blunting the criticisms of the left.

Gingrich's warnings about the Reagan-Gorbachev meeting gave Reagan cover when Reagan himself STORMED OUT OF it.

To Matt Drudge, your site was my homepage.

But I will be reading Daily Caller from now on, you have lost my trust. God knows what the price to buy the top half of your page will be a week before the November elections.
Comment: #54
Posted by: David B
Thu Jan 26, 2012 7:25 AM
Re: Bill99 baloney. Drudge links to legitimate pieces that come his way, regardless of party or candidate. There has been and will continue to be plenty of negative pieces on Romney on DrudgeReport. But the fact of the matter is that while Romney has some "baggage", Newt has a TON. This is one of the reasons so many of us are so opposed to Newt being the nomineee. He's got tons of baggage to air with no end in sight, especially if the LIBs put their machine into overdrive against him. This is who he is. A drama queen and a man with quite an ugly past. That's why he talks about being a "grandfather" so often. It's because he wants us to forget about the rest of his life. He really grew up when he turned 50, he wants us to believe.
I don't know how you, as a supposed "real conservative", can back Newt over any of the other guys. Shall I make the list?
- pleaded guilty to 2 offenses and was fined $300k, run out of Congress
- sat on the couch with Nancy Pelosi lecturing us about global warming
- worked for Freddie Mac during the boom/bust, making $1.6 mil (what do YOU think he did for them?)
- denounced Paul Ryan's entitlement reform package as "right-wing social engineering"
- used Obama's class warfare talking points against Bain Capital/Romney
- slimed the SwiftBoaters in another class warfare attack on Romney
- cheated on multiple wives, showing a lack of moral character, as he denounced BJClinton as lacking in moral character.
Let's see, what else?
- supported Cap and Trade before opposing it
- supported Individual Mandate before opposing it
- said Reagan "has failed", "is failing" in 1986, showing what a self-centered narcissist he was then, too.
Look, if Newt becomes the nominee, I will consider voting for him because the alternative is much worse. Unlike Glenn Beck, I still consider Newt a "conservative", especially in comparison to Obama. But he's a LOUSY conservative, as evidenced by his recent Occupy Wall Street talking points against Romney. Yes, Newt has one or two major feathers in his cap as a conservative, but those were 15-18 years ago. It's been downhill for him as a "conservative" ever since. He has stuck a finger in the eye of conservatism again and again and again.
If he's the nominee, we lose. Honestly. It's the truth.
Comment: #55
Posted by: DaveintheD
Thu Jan 26, 2012 7:26 AM
Re: johnny
Real Conservatives DO NOT support Newt! He knows what we want to hear, but his actions are everything we stand against! It's mostly the progressives who want him to win, because he is Obama's fall guy. Newt is Obama's landslide mandate!
Comment: #56
Posted by: Joe
Thu Jan 26, 2012 7:27 AM
Re: Paul and MAndy

Couldn't agree more...

So many Newt fans... so much denial... so much for looking at the bigger picture and rebuilding America. Waiting for "the One" who is going to inspire and unit the every conservative? Want smaller government but don't want people to lose jobs? Want to be a millionare and successful but don't want anyone else to be? Want a christian in office but only if your preacher/pastor says they are one? Want someone with family values, but not really if it means you have to have them also?

Do you folks really, honestly think Newt is interested in bringing a nation together so we can succeed or that he's going to get past his tendancy for self-destruction?

That was a rhetorical question...
Comment: #57
Posted by: Reason Rules
Thu Jan 26, 2012 7:29 AM
Re: GH YES! DNC preparing the battlefield for Romney with OWS. Newt screws it all up.
Comment: #58
Posted by: Curry
Thu Jan 26, 2012 8:07 AM
Florida needs to give Newt his walking papers right now. He has more baggage than Pan American and a bigger mouth than a hippopotamus.
Comment: #59
Posted by: erboothe1
Thu Jan 26, 2012 8:24 AM
Re: Bill99
"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)..... once 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."

Nope Bill, it's "REAL conservatives" who will allow Obama to be re-elected by voting for a third party candidate. Grow up, it's not a three party system now and the most important thing is to defeat the incumbent president not salve your conservative conscience.
Comment: #60
Posted by: Jack
Thu Jan 26, 2012 8:30 AM
I am an outsider. Keenly interested in the US politics. I would not suggest to select on over the others for the job of President of the USa. However, if you want to re-elect the present administration - the surest way is to
vote for Gingrich. While the GOP establishment does not have the guts to show the dark side of Gingrich, The Obama administration will do the job for them.
Comment: #61
Posted by: WB
Thu Jan 26, 2012 8:33 AM
Re: GH
"One wonders why the left is slinging so much mud at Newt"
Right. Its the left that's maligning Newt. Pay no attention to the endless series of anti-Newt Banner headlines on Drudge -with at least one linking to an article written by a Reagan staffer. I'll tell you this, while I'm pretty sure you guys can't win this year, I'm absolutely positive that there is no way on God's green earth that Newt Gingrich will ever be president of this country. Never. It will not happen.
So from one sincere "socialist", (or whatever pejorative you prefer to refer to Democrats), please get Newt the nomination, it would be awesome.
Comment: #62
Posted by: Richard
Thu Jan 26, 2012 9:08 AM
Tax evasion on one hand and family values on the other. Republicans have become laughable...
Comment: #63
Posted by: Noneya
Thu Jan 26, 2012 9:15 AM
Re: Rich
Only a moron would try and re-run that "Republicans are racist" nonsense...again. Guess what that makes YOU, Rich. We all KNOW that the Democrats, MSM and RINO Republicans want desparately to "help" the GOP nominate the best possible candidate to defeat Obama. That's why they all attack Gingrich so vehemently and give Romney a virtual pass, with only a few snide comments about his wealth to assuage their OWS minions.
Comment: #64
Posted by: Pappadave
Thu Jan 26, 2012 9:35 AM
Re: Bill99

Truth hurts eh? I know lets make it impossible for people to fact check via the internet. [read SOPA/PIPA/ACTA]

You know like Newt Gingrich supported (2006) before he was against it (2012).
Comment: #65
Posted by: Allison
Thu Jan 26, 2012 9:35 AM
Mark this article indicates you are but a tool of the opposition to Gingrich. This meme is part of a very coordinated attack on Gingrich and you are just a willing tool. With all of the millions of words Newt has spoken over the years you have managed to find a few where Newt thought Reagan wasn't bold enough. You use this to paint the impression that Newt wasn't a supporter of Reagan. You are being fundamentally dishonest and should be ashamed. Anyone of adult age during the Reagan years who was the least bit politically aware knows full well that Newt Gingrich was a key player and very strong supporter of Reagan. Nancy Reagan, the most staunch supporter of her husband, recognizes this. You do too. You just have no integrity.
Comment: #66
Posted by: BullPasture
Thu Jan 26, 2012 9:39 AM
Re: John Smithson a Fairness doctrine in 1987 is a lot different than today. No Fox News balancing out 3 liberal networks, no internet social media boom, no 500 channels on TV, etc. It was slanted waaaay left. So "fairness" back then was a Conservative push...not needed now, since so many alternative programming.
Comment: #67
Posted by: KCVet78
Thu Jan 26, 2012 9:44 AM
Last night Newt says Romney is for abortion. He explained that during the debates, yet Newt misrepresents his current position. We already have a LIAR IN CHIEF we can't listen too, because he lies all the time. We don't need another one. Crawl back under your rock Newt.
Comment: #68
Posted by: Richard
Thu Jan 26, 2012 9:49 AM
Re: Pete Please.. If I had a nickel for every time someone called someone an SOB and talked crap about him on one piece of legislation and then glad handed/bromanced the person on the next piece of legislation I would be retired. It's called politics.... You may even refer to this behavior by said name in your own work place.
Comment: #69
Posted by: J Torode
Thu Jan 26, 2012 9:51 AM
Every time I hear Newt speak I am reminded of one of the songs from the musical Chicago: "Give em the old razzle dazzle." He loves to tap dance and put on a big show and the audience, as is very often the case, would rather have the entertainment, not the truth!
Comment: #70
Posted by: Ronnie
Thu Jan 26, 2012 9:51 AM
Re: David B Your probably one of the smartest guys in here. great point
Comment: #71
Posted by: J Torode
Thu Jan 26, 2012 9:56 AM
Re: MAndy - Several things:
(1)I would count TREASON as one of the most detestable things a man can do, since not just one person is damaged -- everyone is. The "man" (and I use that term loosely) in the WH now is most certainly guilty of betraying his entire country.
(2) I personally believe that God is able to forgive a truly repentent person and to indeed change his heart. I think a person should think hard before rejecting someone for past sins who openly admits those sins and talks about confessing them and receiving forgiveness from God.
(3) As to your last statement: NOBODY deserves four more years of Obama, no matter what we are offered as an alternative!!
Comment: #72
Posted by: CitizenK
Thu Jan 26, 2012 10:16 AM
Newt said that when Tim Geitner was nominated to be Obama's Treasury that Geitner fialed to know how to file his own taxes and that he should diqulify himself fr the nomination.
Well, under Newt's own logic he should disqualify himself from the Republican nomination for failing to know how to py his own taxes. While Newt was a Congressman he wrote a check for over $9,000 to the IRS that BOUNCED (insufficent funds) along with 20+ over bounced checks. All while secrectly voting himself a $35,000 pay raise.
How does he expalain the diffference and how do you Newt fans defend him? You and I wpould be in much more trouble with the IRS and the law for bouncing checks. And how many of us have the ability to secrectly raise our salaries.....much less a salary paid by the taxpayers.
Newt is just a Republican version of Obama blame others and he doesn't practice what he preaches.
He has you Newt fans drinking the Kool Aid just like Obama had his fans drinking the Kool Aid.
Use your brain and think if Newt or anyone as President change really the things he says he can just based on emotions.
Newt is playing the Obama game of playing emotions on thing people want to hear but as President he really would have no ability to follow throught with those promises. Newt is ignoring his own history and because if he can intelligently change the facts of history for his purpose then people think he is the "smartest person in the room."
How much have we heard that Obama has the highest IQ (and ego of any Presdent). Is that what you really want....a President with a high IQ and ego to match.
And Micheal Reagan (Reagan's adopted son) endorsement of Newt means nothing. He has made a career of living off his Dad's name. If from what is here on the Drudge Report is true.....Reagan would have despise what Newt saif about his policies about ending the Cols War.
One other thing.....you Newt fans who got a thrill up your leg when Newt opened the debate in SC about being disgusted that his affairs were being spoken about in a Presidential debate. Were was his disgust and why did he keep quiet when in the debate in Iowa Hercaim was being asked about his affairs. Newt is all about Newt and he has you guys drinking his Kool AID.
Newt says he didn't lobby for Freedie Mac but reported to Freedie's top lobbyist. Whatever happened to " if it looks like a duck, acts like a duck and sounds like a duck…it's a duck! Well, Newt can say what ever he wants to but everbody know he was lobbying for money from Freddie Mac. You Newt fans can continue to enable him just lioke the Democrats continue to enable Obama or you can wake up and base your descion on facts more than on emotions!
Comment: #73
Posted by: chris
Thu Jan 26, 2012 10:16 AM
Re: GH Couldn't have said it better myself!! In fact I did .. just the other day to my husband! All of your points are spot on .. interesting we don't hear many others linking this Occupy Wall Street stuff to the strategy of the White House .. and how Romney fits perfectly to be the enemy of the OW and hence the WH . . . hmm .. do I think the WH has their fingerprints all over this stuff?? You bet! A Gingrich win would foil their perfectly laid plans!!
Comment: #74
Posted by: Laura
Thu Jan 26, 2012 10:33 AM
Gingrinch is on video admitting that he is a "Wilsonian Progressive." Oy!
Glad to find all this stuff out before I voted for him. After much research, I find him to be a Charlatan who has spent the past few years re-writing his history. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him!
Not particularly happy with Mitt but it looks like he is the only ADULT in the game.
Bub-bye, Newt.
Comment: #75
Posted by: SunnyR
Thu Jan 26, 2012 10:41 AM
Latest polling suggests a tight race between Gingrich and Romney. However, for either one of them to beat President Obama in the general election, they will have to attract the votes of the overwhelming bulk of Ron Paul supporters and frankly, the chances of that happening are way south of zero.
Consider the the CNN interview of Gingrich with Wolf Blitzer in "The Situation Room" about a month ago when Gingrich was asked about Paul views on Israel and Iran. Gingrich said, "I think Ron Paul's views are totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American." When asked if he would be able to vote for Paul if his rival won the 2012 GOP nomination, Gingrich said unequivocally "No."
It will be fun to watch how Gingrich tries to backtrack from those statements in order to woo Paul's supporters to his camp. I think I will grab a big bag of popcorn and sit back and watch the show.
Comment: #76
Posted by: Ed Rombach
Thu Jan 26, 2012 10:42 AM
Presidents don't have absolute power.
They are strongly reliant on their Congress.
Gingrich will not only lose,...he'll lose the majority in the House for Republicans and Democrats will gain in the Senate.
Already Gingrich has been caught in a multitude of lies and inaccuracies.
The man has tons of baggage. He will set the Republican cause back significantly.
Look at the polls vs Obama. Romney is the best hope to avoid 4 more years of Obama where we will see the worst of him.
Time to step back and be reasonable. Gingrich is Obama's greatest gift.
Comment: #77
Posted by: john m sain
Thu Jan 26, 2012 11:04 AM
Skip to comments.
Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction
davidstuff ^ | 1/4/03 | davidstuff
Posted on 5 January, 2004 2:28:26 AM EST by freedom44
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Comment: #78
Posted by: Jbh
Thu Jan 26, 2012 11:10 AM
Newt is having an affair right now and Callista told me that she is okay with it!

Callista said, "One of the things I admire most about Newt is his ability to lie to all the various women that he is sleeping with to the American public and still get people to support him."

I know this first hand and am willing to come out with proof once the stupid republicans give him the nomination.

Go Newt!
Comment: #79
Posted by: NewtsLover
Thu Jan 26, 2012 11:20 AM
While liberals continue to bash Republican candidates for their past deeds, doesn't it ever occur to them how much they missed such an opportunity with Obama, the man without a past, without history, without a single person remembering him from anywhere from the time of birth to his eventual "relocation" to Chicago???
One has to wonder why libs care so much about GOP pasts but haven't got a care in teh world for their leader?
Comment: #80
Posted by: AmericanBelle
Thu Jan 26, 2012 11:20 AM
Re: johnny: "There will be people out there who will ignore all the facts, all the history, and believe newt no matter what he says..."
You mean like blindly accepting a mantra of "hope and change" without asking for a shred of experience, proof, or a plan on either how to achieve this "change" or exactly what kind of change Obama was talking about? Every person who votes for Obama in November must ignore all the facts and the recent history just how much his presidency has further damaged this country's future and the constitution upon which it was established. The principles of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence lie at the core of what has made America great, unique from every other country in the world, and rich and powerful. Yet it has been, and continues to be, dismantled piece by piece by progressives, leftists and Marxist. That make many of us angry. So when we see a candidate finally show some real emotion - yes, even anger - when the liberal press repeatedly attempts to distract us from this central issue with unsubstantiated personal attacks - guess what...we applaud and support him!
Comment: #81
Posted by: SoCalDad
Thu Jan 26, 2012 11:40 AM
@AmericanBelle are you saying that it is impossible for people to not lie and cheat on their spouse over a period of years?

everyone does it?

the fact is we all make mistakes but not everyone sleeps around.
asking someone to vote for a person that cheats on their spouse is shameful but when that person is yourself it is even worse.

Newt's only chance at true repentance is to never say another thing again as long as he lives besides, "I'm sorry"
Comment: #82
Posted by: NewtsLover
Thu Jan 26, 2012 11:48 AM
WOW!!!

The political elite on both the right and left are going after Newt with reckless abandon.......


Hence, is there a better reason to support him ?

Comment: #83
Posted by: Eddie the Man
Thu Jan 26, 2012 11:52 AM
WOW!!!

The political elite on both the right and left are going after Newt with reckless abandon.......


Hence, is there a better reason to support him ?

Comment: #84
Posted by: Eddie the Man
Thu Jan 26, 2012 11:52 AM
What is all of this "more-conservative-than-thou" baloney?

In what ways is Romney NOT more conservative than Gingrich, or even Santorum?

Speaking fiscally, he has balanced more budgets, private commercial, institutional (Olympics), and government, than anyone who has ever run for the presidency.

Morally, he is one of the few candidates in recent years to have not divorced or cheated on his wife. He fought against abortion as governor.

Did he have to pander and position himself in liberal Massachusetts to get elected? Yes. But I suspect most political candidates who get elected these days do.

Ron Paul would be an exception. But I don't think going on the gold standard, or many of the other things he proposes would be supported by Congress. And I am a Republican, myself, not a libertarian, which in many cases, means one usually close to being a libertine.

The constant positioning in presidential elections, though, 'I did this before you did (conservative-wise), or I was more that way, and you were less so" is just another version of being 'holier than thou'. Prove your fellow contenders are certified humanly fallible, and make yourself to be a demi-god, and WIN!!!
Comment: #85
Posted by: DiligentDave
Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:09 PM
Shut up Mark!!! We want this guy at the top of the GOP ticket!
Comment: #86
Posted by: BrooklynMike
Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:10 PM
Shut up Mark!!! We want this guy at the top of the GOP ticket!
Comment: #87
Posted by: BrooklynMike
Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:11 PM
Re: Dave
Stop drinking the Kool-Aid Dave.
Comment: #88
Posted by: John
Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:12 PM
Re: Dave
Stop drinking the Kool-Aid Dave.
Comment: #89
Posted by: John
Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:16 PM
Dear America,

I'm sorry that I cheated on my spouse.

I'm sorry that I cheated on my next spouse.

Finally I found Callista that is okay with us having an open marriage.

I can't wait until the woman I slept with for 6 years in Washington D.C. becomes the First Whore of the USA.

Thanks again all your Newt fans for standing up and supporting our family values.

Passionately Yours,
Newt, Callista (and all of the other people we are sharing our marriage with currently)
Comment: #90
Posted by: NewtsLover
Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:36 PM
Re: NewtsLover

you are a democrat so nobody cares what you say or how many people Newt sleeps with.

cheating on your wife has nothing to do with lying to the country like all the other candidates are doing.

newt is the only one that can beat obama in the debaters
Comment: #91
Posted by: NewtsLover
Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:46 PM
Re: NewtsLover

I thought you knew that Newt is a good honest and OPEN person.

He is very OPEN about cheating on his various spouses.

It's actually really important to be able to sleep around and lie under oath in order to get our economy back on track just look at Bill Clinton.
Comment: #92
Posted by: NewtsLover
Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:50 PM
I remember this well. And your point is? Bob Dole was the tax collector for the welfare state. Typical establishment Republican going along to get along. Mitt fits right into this mold. Bush 1, Bob Dole, Bush 2, McCain and now MItt. It's a perfect fit. Same old SH _ _ different day!!!
Comment: #93
Posted by: 44Guyton
Thu Jan 26, 2012 1:03 PM
Re: Francis Strazzeri - Would explain where Dole borrowed it from. I don't see anything saying Dole came up with the saying all on his own. People sometimes use sayings they read or heard before. Didn't Newt say before he supported an insurance puplic mandate, action on global warming, and now how capitalism is bad? The whole Democrat party must have got it from him.
Comment: #94
Posted by: K Crawford
Thu Jan 26, 2012 1:12 PM
Online Dirt about Newt
[1] as speaker he bad mouths regan and bush
[2] as speaker he was voted out of congress by his own party for ethics violations and had to pay a penalty of $300,000 for trying to cover it up
[3] he slept with Callista (an adulterer who could potentially become First Whore of the USA) for 6 years in his Washington DC apartment while his wife of over a decade (Marianne) cried herself to sleep each night alone
[4] he asked his 2nd wife for an open marriage but she declined and went public with the info that Newt obviously denies (Marianne had nothing to gain while Newt has everything to lose when this story is shown to be true)
[5] he directly reported to the Cheif Lobbyist of Fannie Mae earning 1.6 million dollars while Americans lost all their home value
[6] he supports attacks on venture capitalism where it is somehow evil to buy up failed companies (where 100% of the jobs are lost) in hopes of saving some of them
[7] he sat on the couch with Nancy Pelosi to lobby for Al Gore's global warming carbon credit company
[8] Nancy Pelosi is hiding a secret bombshell sure to sink Newt if he gets the nomination (did i mention they sat smiling on a couch together for an Al Gore ad?)
Online Dirt about Romney
[1] he is Mormon
the choice is clear for evangelical christians everywhere - either vote for the most evil and corrupt man alive or vote for Newt
obama will win without having to crack open his billion dollar war chest because evangelicals will never vote for romney and mormons will never vote for newt.
keep up the great work silly republicans.
Comment: #95
Posted by: WhiningOurFutureAway
Thu Jan 26, 2012 1:22 PM
My assignment in SC was to knock doors to speak with voters who had previously identified as undecided or leaning toward Mitt Romney. Most of those I spoke to who flipped away from Romney in favor of Gingrich agreed they thought Romney was more electable. Almost every single person who would share with me her reason for voting for Gingrich cited Mitt Romney's faith as the principle factor. South Carolina shifted the momentum--no question. But Newt has not magically transformed himself from unelectable to electable. He is still an adulterer, he is still unethical, and the Democrats would still prefer to run against him rather than Romney. Mitt lost because South Carolinians were searching hard for an alternative, not based on legitimate policy differences, but based on a deep-seated and generational bias against Mormons. Unfortunately, few are willing to be candid about this bias with the media, and the media is therefore not accurately reporting about what I believe actually happened. Maybe Romney's faith really is an insurmountable obstacle. (I tend to believe that evangelicals will vote against Obama regardless.) But Gingrich's victory in South Carolina absolutely does not speak to his electabilty in a general election. Rather, it shows that evangelicals will vote for almost anyone (other than President Obama) to avoid voting for a Mormon.
Comment: #96
Posted by: Bill Drury
Thu Jan 26, 2012 1:48 PM
Re: Bill99
Newt is a Nut and will crack under the pressure. Not a Romney fan but he is the only plausible option,
Comment: #97
Posted by: mishter
Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:10 PM
Attn: qu4ttro and DaveintheD:

qu4ttro, it's not the fact that Drudge has posted negative info about Gingrich that concerns me; its that his site has pretty much become nothing but a Gingrich-lynching palooza, and that the entire aim is for one purpose: to get Romney the nomination. Romney is awful.

DaveintheD, yes, Drudge links to news pieces. But unfortunately, when it comes to his anti-Gingrich / pro-Romney links, his linking to "legitimate" news pieces is about as selective as what we could expect to find on a Romney campaign website. Give me a break. As far as your claim that I "back" Gingrich, go back and re-read my previous post. I have not been a big fan of Newt. And as far as your negative points about Gingrich, so be it. But what about Romney? We don't need yet another pathetic, big-government, moderate RINO neocon. We don't need Romney. He is absolutely awful and is yet another horrendous establishment Republican candidate just like all the John McCains before him. People like Drudge are the ones shoveling these garbage candidates down the throats of Republican voters, and I've had it.
Comment: #98
Posted by: Bill99
Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:28 PM
As a Conservative, who has many times wanted to smack Mark Shields, he is right.
Comment: #99
Posted by: Rachel Wells
Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:28 PM
Re: MAndy Bravo!!! Signed a fellow Conservative.
Comment: #100
Posted by: Rachel Wells
Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:35 PM
Re: Jack

It's a sad day when the Democrats can get one of the most liberal presidents in history elected into the White House but the Republicans can never even nominate anyone who more than slightly right-of-center, if that. The Republican party is weak and pathetic. And the attitude that every conservative has no choice but to swallow the garbage the establishment continues to shovel us, and that we cannot vote third-party (an attitude you apparently share), is elitist, arrogant, and appalling. Two types of people adopt (or surrender to) such an attitude: elitist snobs and mindless lemmings. Enjoy wasting your vote on another worthless candidate.
Comment: #101
Posted by: Bill99
Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:40 PM
Re: Allison

"Truth hurts eh?"

What truth? The fact you can't read? Look at my post again; I have not been a fan of Gingrich. So negative info about him in and of itself isn't that concerning. What is concerning is idiots who going out of their way to pull out all the stops to help Romney get the nomination. How many times does the Republican party have no nominate pathetic neocons like this? If the Republican establishment ran a funeral home, no one would die.
Comment: #102
Posted by: Bill99
Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:51 PM
Newt is a big-spending progressive without an ounce of moral fiber. He will not win the nomination, and if he did, I would fear for both the fate of this nation and the fate of the GOP.
Comment: #103
Posted by: john21
Thu Jan 26, 2012 4:12 PM
Re: Bill Drury
thanks for sharing your experience going door to door
the fact that Newt won the married women vote in SC tells me that evangelicals fear Mormons so much that they would vote for Obama over a Mormon. (while denying it vehemently)
similarly i think Mormons would vote for Obama over Newt ( the slimy, unrepentant, serial adulterer )
Rick Santorum or Ron Paul is really the only hope GOP or America has
Comment: #104
Posted by: WhiningOurFutureAway
Thu Jan 26, 2012 5:10 PM
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:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Mark Shields
Oct. `14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
28 29 30 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 30 31 1
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
Ray Hanania
Ray HananiaUpdated 30 Oct 2014
R. Emmett Tyrrell
R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr.Updated 30 Oct 2014
Judge Napolitano
Judge Andrew P. NapolitanoUpdated 30 Oct 2014

22 Mar 2008 In Sixth Year, Iraq War Longer for America Than Both World Wars Combined

17 Oct 2009 Outrage at Socialism for the Rich

9 Aug 2008 The Robert Novak I Know