August 11, 2010

"'I can't handle a Jaguar right now.' He said that many times. 'All I want is a Chevrolet.'"

The 2d of 3 of his wives quotes or purports to quote Newt Gingrich as he spoke to the minister who was — allegedly — brought in to counsel the couple through what turned out to be their crack up.
He asked her to just tolerate the affair, an offer she refused. He'd just returned from Erie, Pennsylvania, where he'd given a speech full of high sentiments about compassion and family values. The next night, they sat talking out on their back patio in Georgia. She said, "How do you give that speech and do what you're doing?"

"It doesn't matter what I do," he answered. "People need to hear what I have to say. There's no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn't matter what I live."
I got distracted at this point in writing this post by a little boy arguing passionately toward his mother who was walking away from him out of this café. I didn't catch what the argument was about, but I could tell from his tone and a few of the words that he was making an argument based on the kind of principles that constitutional lawyers use: liberty, equality, fairness. Like grammar, these principles are built into the human brain. Just as toddlers naturally learn to speak, they learn to use these concepts to argue for what they want. The lawyerly human little boy was perhaps 3 years old.

Anyway, you don't have to be much more than 3 to call bullshit on Newt. The things husbands say to their wives! (And wives to their husbands.) Laughably unprincipled assertions that you'd never inflict on anyone other than a spouse — these words will make a fool of you if they are ever quoted to the general public. And God help you if you're caught on audiotape: "I deserve to be blown fast! Before the fucking Jacuzzi!" Ha. That never gets old. Seriously, I think the phrase "Before the Jacuzzi!" should become a witty comeback that you use to mock your spouse when he (or she) makes an argument of the sort that is only used intra-marriage and that one would never even attempt to aim at someone who wasn't maritally bound to you. "Before the Jacuzzi" = You only think you can say something like that to a human being because that human being is your spouse.

111 comments:

Paul Zrimsek said...

"It doesn't matter what I do," he answered. "People need to hear what I have to say. There's no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn't matter what I live."

The Al Gore defense, avant la lettre!

YoungHegelian said...

"Politician revealed to be grade-A Prick in private life".

Stop the Presses!

Are we now hearing this about Newt because there's talk of a presidential run and he needs discrediting?

If the republic survived the sexual antics of JFK and Bill Clinton, Newt won't even register as a blip on the chart.

It's really just that the left sees hypocrisy as the root of all evil (you know, like that evil repression for the Freudians), as opposed to the right, who sees hypocrisy as the tribute vice pays to virtue.

traditionalguy said...

Newt is not a nice person. In my experience he was always talking down to his miserable voters that don't deserve his true greatness. That is what I remember from his 6 terms as my Congressman. IMO he is only a user who games the system well and has shown zero leadership ability. But I would still prefer Newt over a Lawless King.

The Crack Emcee said...

Been there - and I would never vote for Newt.

BTW - my first solo record was called "Newt Hates Me".

c3 said...

"Your a**hole is worse than ours!!"

"Yeah, but his ideas are better than yours!"

Or as FDR once put it;

He may be an SOB but he's OUR SOB

Issob Morocco said...

So Ann, I would take it that you don't have all 836 books Newt has written in his life (and always hawks on his incessant TV appearances), but that you might vote for him for President because he fits the hip-o-crite type you voted for in 2008?

Paul Zrimsek said...

Newt needs a wife who'll accept whatever he does in the interest of the Cause. Is Katha Pollitt available?

paul a'barge said...

Hmmmm, no comment from Meade (yet).

paul a'barge said...

http://www.punkandpissed.com/buttons-10/newt-hates-me-jello-biafra-1-button-941.html

The Crack Emcee said...

Here's a question:

Considering his attitude, was Newt married? Is he married now?

Does Newt's attitude redefine marriage as gay marriage is attempting to do?

The Crack Emcee said...

paul a'barge,

My first band's record was released on Jello's label.

William said...

Anyone with hormones can have one unsuccessful marriage. But more than two shows a certain lack of reflexivity....There are positions that Newt and Rudy can competently manage, but President and husband seems beyond their range.

Rumpletweezer said...

Whenever I see Newt or Bill Clinton on TV, I wonder who they're cheating on their wives with now.

ricpic said...

Bozo The Clown's to do list:

1) Get blown.

2) Burn down the house.

3) Get a zero down mortgage from Fannie Mae for a new house.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Didn't he realize his wife (2nd) was a Jaguar model BEFORE they got married. Was it an arranged marriage?

I think you should always test drive the new model to make sure that the features and options are as described.

You can't complain if you are a careless consumer.

High maintenance people never think that they are high maintenance.

t-man/wurly/henry buck said...

Well, constitutional lawyers are going to have to come up with some other arguments, because principles such as liberty and fairness are nothing but past majority-held morals that can no longer form the basis of law in our purely rational legal world.

Joe said...

Newt Gingrich is an asshole. I barely could bring myself to vote for McCain, but only because I despised Obama. I'd never vote for Newt.

However, never put it past the leadership of either the Democrats of Republicans to nominate an asshole against their best interest.

Scott M said...

Newt's damaged goods. I don't know why people keep holding him up as a potential presidential candidate. He seems to have started believing it himself, judging by his comments on the matter lately.

The Crack Emcee said...

Joe,

Newt doesn't stand a chance. He says he's running before every election. He just gets himself in the news before a new book comes out. That's the best he can do with his history.

Paddy O said...

Politicians are our cultural clergy, thinking themselves above the rules because they deliver platitudes in regular speeches. They think they have the right to live as they want because we need them to fight or plead or intervene on our behalf.

It turns out the concepts are much bigger than their role in it, and we can easily and happily choose others to perform our societal rites.

What is interesting is that such politicians, like so many clergy, don't see the effect their actions have on the overall mission. The Republican revolution of the 90s became so quickly the self-satisfying, corrupted pay-to-play, overspending Congress of the 00s. What Newt began with his message and platitudes turned out to follow how Newt lived his life--selfish abandonment of a vow to commitment and principle.

Hypocrisy always leaks out, corrupting the mission of the message. Even if we do not think our sins matter, they always do.

Which is why Newt and Congressional leaders of that time do not have good legacies.

stevenehrbar said...

"It doesn't matter what I do," he answered. "People need to hear what I have to say. There's no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn't matter what I live"

Wait, was this Newt Gingrich talking about sex, Al Gore talking about greenhouse gas emissions, or Barack Obama talking about thermostat settings?

They're all hypocrites . . . as is anyone who calls out one of the three without calling out the other two.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Newt's damaged goods. I don't know why people keep holding him up as a potential presidential candidate.

Agreed. I don't get it either.

The Republican leadership seems to have some sort of suicide Kamikaze compulsion.

I would never vote for him. He may be very smart and have some good ideas, however, he is NOT a leader or someone who inspires.

I can see him in an advisory or ambassadorship type of position.

Freeman Hunt said...

Among polite society his comments would be met with a brisk slap to the face, yes?

Maybe she'd already done that. I suppose you can't just keep doing it over and over. You have to leave.

ricpic said...

That they would even consider Gingrich as a candidate for the presidency proves once again that the Republican leadership can blow anything.

And speaking of blow:

An old Jewish man is walking in the forest. He sees a bottle on the forest floor. He picks the bottle up and rubs it. A genie appears.

Genie: Since you have called me forth I must grant you a wish.

The old Jewish man pulls a crumpled up paper out of his back pocket and unfolds it.

OJM: This is a map of the middle east. There's been nothing but bloodshed and unending war there for thousands of years. I want you to bring peace to the middle east.

Genie: There are some things that are even beyond my powers. Is there another wish I can grant you?

OJM: I've been married to the same old Jewish woman for 50 years. In all that time she hasn't given me a blow job. Make it so she gives me a blow job, just once.

Genie: Can I have another look at that map?

Saint Croix said...

There are only three potential Republican Presidential nominees in 2012: Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich. We know this because these are the people who bothered to endorse candidates in the 2010 elections. This sort of spade work has to be done. If you're not doing it, you're a lightweight, not a leader.

I'm amazed when a Republican voter says they won't vote for Newt, or won't vote for Sarah. As opposed to Obama? You've lost your mind.

The argument for Sarah Palin is easy. The media hates her. She's authentic and down to earth. She's populist and an outsider. She excites the base. She has a sense of humor.

Mitt Romney is socialized medicine, so his candidacy is dead in the water. Newt, to me, is so 20th century. But the main problem with both of these men is inauthenticity. I don't believe what they say.

It's funny to compare the Sullivan reaction to Newt to his reaction to Sarah. He feels superior to Newt. Sarah scares the crap out of him. Sarah unhinges him.

Who is more tea party: Sarah, Newt, or Mitt? Do Republican voters want to ignore the tea party movement, or nominate a candidate who represents those voters? I think that is obvious.

Freeman Hunt said...

Heh. I wonder what the other woman thinks of being characterized as a Chevrolet.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Heh. I wonder what the other woman thinks of being characterized as a Chevrolet.

Could have been worse.

A Tata or Yugo.

Freeman Hunt said...

Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, or Mitch Daniels for President. We have many good choices out there. I see no reason to go the candidate-must-be-a-celebrity-right-now route. Pick the best person, and, as the national candidate, that person will become a celebrity.

Freeman Hunt said...

Interesting that Sullivan would approach this considering. Of course, he's only defending "mild hypocrisy" there. And his post seems to be down the memory hole. Luckily, I think the blogger who quoted him can be trusted.

Joe said...

There are only three potential Republican Presidential nominees in 2012

Tim Pawlenty & Mitch Daniels (I'd rather Christie and Ryan stay where they are for 2012.)

And catering to the political elites by kissing asses during endorsement season makes me like the three you listed even less. But yes, they are trying to win nomination and kissing asses is unfortunately largely how you do it.

Freeman Hunt said...

My mistake. Not down the memory hole, just moved.

edutcher said...

This topic is why any talk of Newt as nominee, either by troll or serious Republican/Conservative/Libertarian, is absolute nonsense.

Saint Croix said...

There are only three potential Republican Presidential nominees in 2012: Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich.

Wrong on all three counts. Newt (above), Mitt for RomneyCare, and Miss Sarah because she needs a full term at elective or appointive office to season her. Maybe Coburn, DeMint, Bachmann, or Boehner; more likely a governor, Brewer or Christie, perhaps, but likelier somebody with more time in grade.

Freeman Hunt said...

DeMint is wonderful. I wonder if he would do it. Love Coburn too.

See? Lots of choices. Enough of this, "Well, who do the Republicans have?" silliness.

garage mahal said...

Bachmann, DeMint, or Coburn?

LOLZ

Scott said...

You go into marriage counseling expecting privacy. Without that privacy, it's impossible to be honest. And without honesty, nothing can be accomplished.

So now ex-wife is blabbing about private affairs to a publication intent on scandalizing Gingrich. There's an icky, nasty amorality about what his ex-wife and the magazine are doing.

But is discussing these private conversations in a blog post any less icky, nasty, or amoral?

(To those tempted to draw JournoList analogies: Talking about marriage problems to a pastor is different from making nasty comments on a listserv with a restricted membership. Certainly a court would consider the former privileged and the latter not.)

pm317 said...

Read the original Esquire article (long). There is so much damning info there that Obama will eat Newt for lunch. I am saying this as an independent observer with no dog in this fight.

Newt Gingrich: The Indispensable Republican

Paul Zrimsek said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Republican said...

His infidelity is no more of an issue than Obama's choice in friends has been, or is.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Scott may finally have come up with that long-awaited Perry-safe argument against polygamy: the more spouses in marriage counseling, the more likely that someone will break confidentiality.

The Crack Emcee said...

"There's an icky, nasty amorality about what his ex-wife and the magazine are doing."

I always enjoy how some people think, after one spouse has screwed the other over, the betrayed spouse owes them something. It's an amazing bit of cognitive dissonance.

Hal Duston said...

Freeman Hunt said...
Heh. I wonder what the other woman thinks of being characterized as a Chevrolet.
Dust Bunny Queen said...
Could have been worse.
A Tata or Yugo.

True fact: Tata owns Jaguar.

Saint Croix said...

Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, or Mitch Daniels for President. We have many good choices out there.

Yeah, okay. Peel that Condi bumper sticker off you car and get serious. This is politics. You have to build an organization. You have to raise money. You endorse people because they will help you in 2012. If you're not endorsing people in 2010, you're not a serious candidate in 2012.

Google your favorite candidate and "endorsements" to say if they are a player or not. Christie is not. Daniels is not. Bobby Jindal is not. Colin Powell is not. Rudy is not. Condi is not.

Paul Ryan endorsed Rubio and some Wisconsin people. Pawlenty has made several endorsements, and so has Mike Huckabee. So add those names.

Kirk Parker said...

YoungHegelian,

Sorry but isn't this just the kind of delusional stuff we've come to know and love with Obama?

"It doesn't matter what I do," he answered. "People need to hear what I have to say. There's no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn't matter what I live."

Gag me, Newt! I'm certainly with all those who would have a very hard time voting for Gingrich, and it's not because of the infidelity per se, but because of the sort of attitude on display here. It's worthy of Mayor Daley, and I'm supposed to overlook it???

That, and also the fact (contra DBQ, sorry) Newt is not smart. What he is, is a guy who is interested in ideas but doesn't really have the mental chops to do much with them. Think of him like you do the guys who love basketball, are obsessed with the NBA in and out of season, but can barely sink a basket when they're all by themselves on the court.

Think I'm wrong? Then explain his long-lasting fascination with The Tofflers™. Ewwwww.

Scott said...

I care a little more about the integrity of counseling as a social institution than I do about the fate of these two people.

@Paul Z.: LOL.

@Hal Duston: Touche -- although the Tata marque has been known more for its heavy trucks than its passenger vehicles.

Dumb Indian Car Fact: Did you know that the Morris Oxford, which ended production in the UK in 1971, is still in production in India as the Hindustan Ambassador? I think that would be a hell of a fun car to own, if it could ever be brought up to USA safety and emission standards.

ricpic said...

Hey garage, you better pray that Michelle Bachmann isn't the Republican candidate. I can just see Hussein trying to paint her as a threat to ordinary Americans. All she'll have to do is be herself to draw a contrast with that vicious lizard king.

Sixty Grit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
garage mahal said...

I'll have whatever you're having ricpic.

Scott said...

I like what Gingrich has to say generally, but he's not a fit candidate for President. Like Obama, Gingrich hasn't run anything but his mouth.

Saint Croix said...

Paul Ryan says he's not running, so cross him off. I see five Republican candidates who are serious about running:

Palin
Romney
Gingrich
Huckabee
Pawlenty

I think it's a Palin-Romney horse race myself. But I would vote for any of these people--any Republican--over Obama. Wouldn't you?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Saint Croix. You must work for the Democrats if you think this list represents Republican winners.

Palin
Romney
Gingrich
Huckabee
Pawlenty

Losers....every one of them.

We went through this the last time when we let the MSM and the Dems cram McCain down our throats as a candidate.

Won't get fooled again.

Scott M said...

Palin - Too divisive, not ready

Romney - Possibly, but has potential electoral problems with both MA-care and, unfortunately, the Morman thing. If I had to pick from this list, it would be Romney

Gingrich - damaged good/never gonna happen. Plus, I got a very loaded/Gobbelesque survey call from his apparatus in MO...very distasteful

Huckabee - the very last thing we need this next cycle is someone who's primarily a social conservative

Pawlenty - not enough info yet to form a cogent opinion

I will agree with the previous statements, though. Cristie needs to stay were he is and build on early success.

Freeman Hunt said...

Yeah, okay. Peel that Condi bumper sticker off you car and get serious.

/sniff

It's like he's been to my driveway.

There really is a Condi bumper sticker on one of our cars.

Freeman Hunt said...

Huckabee-no
Palin-no
Romney-sure
Pawlenty-don't know

Somebody twist Ryan's arm.

Another thing that matters is whether or not people are excited about your candidacy. I put in many hours helping the Bush campaign in the race for his second term. Helped to provide them space and phone lines for a call center. Not so much with McCain.

Sixty Grit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
walter said...

Not sticking up for HIM, but do we know enough about HER to take her word on these things?

Seerak said...

"It doesn't matter what I do," he answered. "People need to hear what I have to say. There's no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn't matter what I live."

"The sign that points to Boston doesn't have to go there."

That downplaying of hypocrisy is a recurring theme among conservatives, in my experience.

Seerak said...

Wow. I made that comment before spotting YoungHegelian's comment doing exactly what I meant.

somefeller said...

Two words - John Thune. Very much of a dark horse, but a good candidate in many ways.

Milwaukee said...

Wasn't Newt's second wife the other woman when he was still married to the first wife? Or was that the third wife was the other woman to the second wife? I forget. Does he remember?
"Oh what fools these mortals be."

Some political figures are better off not running for President. Palin might be a more effective influence on the body politic by not being a presidential candidate. In the same way, I believe that Hilary could have stayed in the Senate forever, and been very influential in that position. She could have been there for 30 years or more. Newt may well be one of those, who if he aspires to moving the conversation in the right direction would do the country more good than having his hands on the reins.

Marriage counseling is supposed to be confidential: blabbing it now hardly makes it credible. Newt needs to live a little longer as a new and improved person before we let his opinions hold sway.

traditionalguy said...

If electing the candidate has any importance here, then watching how popular the candidate is, as measured by commited crowds that they draw, is all that matters. Using that standard, Palin is significantly ahead of all of the old white guys on the list. The young white guys still have a shot if they can get name recognition in a big hurry. What is the name of that Indiana Governor? But these days name recognition comes from being unfairly attacked over and over and coming out more than a winner at the end of a two year period. Pawlenty and Ryan will need some media attacks made upon them real soon to test them in America's eyes. The media introduction will define them negatively or not. We will see.

Tom DeGisi said...

> That they would even consider Gingrich as a candidate for the presidency proves once again that the Republican leadership can blow anything.

I think the only member of the Republican leadership who considers Gingrich as a candidate for the presidency is Newt.

Yours,
Tom

Matthew said...

And like the ex-wife --or wives-- don't have an axe to grind?

Even if she were being completely honest, I'd still vote for Newt Gingrich over any hypocritical Buchannanite-Family-Values-One-percenter who is never photographed without his Bible, spends other people's money like a democrat, and chases the choir boys around the sacristywhen Pastor Bill (his biggest political ally) isn't looking.

Methadras said...

Newt is not presidential material. That's what this is all about anyway. Let's just cut to the heart of it. The guy is a miserable person, he treats his wives like shit and he'd make a horrible president. He really would.

Pastafarian said...

Saint Croix said: "There are only three potential Republican Presidential nominees in 2012..."

If you don't know this name yet, you will:

Thune.

I'm calling it here, motherfuckers. I'm calling it before any of you sons of bitches:

President Thune in Jan 2013.

Now, bear in mind, I'm also picking the Kansas City Chiefs to win the next superbowl. So...grain of salt, yada yada yada.

Pogo said...

Newt is someone who thinks that he's smarter than most people, so he really should be in charge. Like Obama.

He needs to be kept very far from Oz, and nowhere near behind the curtain.

Pastafarian said...

somefeller, I just read your comment. Goddammit, you stole my thunder.

You're such an asshole, somefeller.

But seriously: I listened to this guy in an NFIB conference call, and got to ask him a question. He's sharp, he's young-ish, he's a conservative conservative, he'll be difficult for SNL to parody (which seems to be a pretty big factor for some voters....Althouse, cough, cough...); and he probably doesn't have any ex-wives itching to reveal boorish behavior.

Frankly, as long as he has fewer than 15 cadavers in his crawl space, I'd vote for him over Obama.

peter hoh said...

DBQ asked: Didn't he realize his wife (2nd) was a Jaguar model BEFORE they got married. Was it an arranged marriage?

I think you should always test drive the new model to make sure that the features and options are as described.


Yes, Newt was test-driving the new model before they got married. He even proposed before he traded in the old model.

cf said...

Snore. Leave old Newt alone, he did good work back last century, and helped us all. (Besides, did I miss something or did his actions in any way compare to the threatening, whining Gibson or toxic Gore? I say no, and not a fair connection.)

But, on the juicier subject: So, we're throwing out matchsticks on who will run for President in 2012, aye?

I'll say it's gonna be a rollercoaster surprise ride to the finish, and we cannot imagine the person that will emerge in this explosive moment, maybe someone outta the blue.

It's an exciting time, and most importantly whoever it is will have been drafted by a tapestry of intelligent folks that are suddenly paying a lot of attention, have the immediacy of a matured internet, and want their country to thrive and prosper and be free.

Organization and money and all of that? Yeah, sure, but it might just ignite faster than a Russian forest fire, overtake the country and consume the rot of this administration in its wake(rhetorically speaking, of course).

Leaving our future President to the Nation's Highest Good for now, my fantasy Administration does include some names already: Darrell Issa for Secretary of Congressional Reform, and Any Cheney as part of the task group that replaces the Don't Ask Don't Tell Contract. I'll stop there for now...

Because at this moment we must concentrate on November, friends. There's only one way to restrain these power-drunks and their machinery and begin to reshape an America for the 21st Century: Vote every Democrat Out.

Cheers!

The Crack Emcee said...

I'd take Palin over everyone mentioned so far. (If Chris Christie is really out of the running.) She's been a mayor and a governor, she's for closing the border, no amnesty, repealing ObamaCare, lowering taxes, and shrinking government, amongst other things. She's young, unafraid, and knows, both, right from wrong and which way is up.

Obviously (to me before the election) this idea that the president has to be some kind of a fucking genius is bogus: he/she only has to have the power of accurate observation and the willingness to act.

So far, Palin has impressed me on both counts.

M. Report said...

Your rating of potential POTUSes
is about to be overtaken by a
change in Job Requirements, from
political to economic expertise,
coming directly from the people,
and overriding the kingmakers,
when Taxes and Inflation start up
in January.

Somewhere in America, a modern
Cinncinnatus is waiting to take
the stage, make the Play, and
afterwards, exit stage right,
just like Geo. Washington.

Darin said...

We're all hypocrites. It's part of being human.

Do you think that lying is wrong?

Ever lied?

Hypocrite!

Ever cheated on a test? Stole something? We know it's wrong and we do it anyways. That doesn't mean we should stay silent ourselves about what's right and wrong. Again, we're all hypocrites. Politicians, priests, doctors, lawyers, teachers are all human, all with the same sins as the rest of us.

That said, I'm not voting for Newt 2012 (I think he's smart enough to not run, but as said above, he'll let it hang out there to sell more books).

bagoh20 said...

""It doesn't matter what I do," he answered. "People need to hear what I have to say. There's no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn't matter what I live."

If a crack addict told you not to do crack, because it's a bad idea. Do you call bullshit just because he doesn't follow his own advice?

Newt is right that it doesn't matter what he does in determining if what he says is true. It only means that he agrees that he's an ass for doing it. Of course he could have said: "don't be a fornicator like me", but that takes some balls. But if he did, you know damn well Ann would call him cruel, but it would just be "cruel neutrality".

Eric said...

We're all hypocrites. It's part of being human.

It's a question of degree. I don't expect him do avoid swearing or strong drink. But if he's purporting to represent traditional values the least he can do is avoid the major transgressions, like murder and adultery.

Peter said...

There is an important difference between Gore and Gingrich. Gore lives large while telling all of us to live small, and trying to get the government to make us live small.

Gingrich? Can't control what is behind his zipper while telling the government to leave us alone as much as possible.

Seems an important difference. To me anyway but I'm just a pore dumb redneck. Newt is not my choice for President. Still, in the next couple of elections I'll low crawl naked through a mix of busted bottles and hot coals to vote against every stinkin' Democrat. And I say this as the son of not just union workers but railroad union workers. I was perhaps seventeen years old before I ever heard that political party as anything other than "those God damned Republicans".

PatCA said...

Okay, Sully, what famous neocon said "I have a gift"?

James said...

He is a massive hypocrite. Sort of related, is the story about how he left the comments open to his statements on the Prop 8 decision. The highest rated comment on his site was "Which one of your multiple marriages was the most sacred to you?”

No doubt, there are tons of Dem hypocrites, Gore among them. But there is just something particularly galling, to me at least, when a politician will rant about family values, sanctity of marriage, etc., while being one of the biggest scumbags imaginable in his personal life.

He deserves to be even lower than John Edwards on the scumbag scale, yet he is actually still polling well in terms of potential 2012 candidates. Though I agree with some of the other posters here, that he'll just use it to build interest in him for the sake of more money for his next book deal, and more donations to his 527 group. Because there's no way that anyone, and especially not a Republican, is going to get nominated with that much baggage.

As a moderate lefty, right wingers probably don't care about my opinion too much as it pertains to possible Repub candidates. But based on the current "frontrunners" I'd have to say that Romney, a man I despised because of his phoniness the last go around, would be the one that I would fear the most in the general election. I don't think he'll make it there, not with RomneyCare, Mormonism, and the aforementioned phoniness, but he would be the one current name out there that could drag away moderates.

Obviously, if the vote were held today, just about any Repub would win. But a lot can happen in two years, and I don't think someone who doesn't appeal to the moderates (and not just in a "anyone but Obama" way) will have what it takes.

peter hoh said...

James, any Republican who might appeal to moderate voters is going to have a hard time appealing to the GOP base.

Pastafarian said...

I hope that there are about 20 serious Republican candidates, and that they don't know the nominee until deep into the process.

That way, Tina Fey and SNL won't have time to convince people like Althouse that the nominee is stupid.

Crack, I agree. If I could miracle someone into the White House, Palin would probably be my first choice. IQ is not critical to the job; judgment is, and those two things are not the same thing. Case in point: Obama. Clearly more intelligent than W. And clearly a worse president in just about every possible way. He's just smart enough to be dangerous.

But Palin is done. SNL finished her. To quote our hostess (paraphrasing, perhaps): "Oh noes! Teh Palin is teh stoooopid!"

richard mcenroe said...

Newt Gingrich served his cancer-stricken wife with divorce papers ON HER HOSPITAL BED. How can we ask people to support him with a straight face?

And if Gingrich, Delay, Lott and the rest of the pre-Dubya GOP had HONORED the Contract with America they made such a much of proposing, Barack Obama would still be teaching Constitutional Law in a Madrassa in Kenya or something, not in the White House...

James said...

Peter hoh

I agree. Personally, I think that could be the downfall of what should be a winning year for them. If there is any meaningful recovery in the economy in the next two years, the moderates' distaste for Obama will certainly shrink (yeah, I know, Obama likely won't have much to do with that recovery, but that's just the way it is.)

It's a lot easier to play to the base and still pick up moderates when everything is in the crapper with the opposing party in the driver's seat. If the situation improves, running someone like Palin who thrills the Republicans but scares away just about everyone else, would not get the job done.

Of course, if the situation stays the same or gets even worse, the Republicans could run someone as crazy as Ron Paul and still probably win.

Jeremy said...

99% of the idiots on this site support newt.

Jeremy said...

Speaking of moronic tea baggers:


GOP Congressman To Sarah Palin: Get Out Of The Endorsement Business


U.S. Congressman Jack Kingston (R-Georgia) says Sarah Palin should mind her own business and keep out of Peach State politics -- and politics in other states too.

The harsh criticism comes on the heels of the ex-Alaska Governor's decision to actively campaign for unsuccessful Georgia gubernatorial candidate Karen Handel who lost to Nathan Deal in the state's GOP primary runoff on Tuesday.

"Why Sarah Palin decided to get in the race is beyond me," explained Kingston in an appearance on "America's Morning News" with John McCaslin and Amy Holmes. "I don't know why she feels compelled to get into primaries all over the country, but fortunately Georgia voters are doing their own thinking on things like this."

When asked if he thought Palin should refrain from wading into primary election match-ups in general, the Georgia congressman responded, "I wish she will."

And the conservative congressman isn't the only member of the Georgia GOP community to express dissatisfaction with Palin's involvement in the state's political scene.

Prior to Tuesday's runoff, Georgia State House Speaker David Ralston (R) said, "I would want to know how long Governor Palin has known Secretary Handel and how long she's known Congressman Deal." (He added that his own endorsement of Deal was based on decades of friendship.)

"I don't do these things lightly," he said of the process that leads him to support a particular candidate. "I don't do them to write a book or get on a talk show."

M. Simon said...

And the tribute virtue pays to vice?

Indulgence.

VW: reate The dog reate my homework.

Jeremy said...

James - You're a fucking idiot.

Jeremy said...

Crack - The local token tea bagger.

You're a fucking idiot.

Stop sucking up to these fools.

They all actually want you...GONE.

James said...

Good lord Jeremy, what a pathetic little troll you are. Let's see, in this thread I have a) said Newt is a massive scumbag who is likely using this "potential Presidential run" to get more money in his grubby little hands, and b) that, as a moderate lefty, someone like Romney would be the one I would least like to face as a liberal, but that wouldn't happen because the base will reject him.

Anyone want to point out which of these statements it is that this troll supposedly thinks makes me an idiot? Or is it the fact that I can see the obvious and know that, as it stands right now, Obama doesn't have a good chance of getting re-elected? No wonder you are seen by everyone here as the pathetic little man you are, when you even shit on the people who would likely agree with you on the vast majority of the issues.

Fuck off, and get a life.

Jeremy said...

James - "(yeah, I know, Obama likely won't have much to do with that recovery, but that's just the way it is.)"

Like I said: you're a fucking idiot.

Matthew said...

"Newt Gingrich served his cancer-stricken wife with divorce papers ON HER HOSPITAL BED. How can we ask people to support him with a straight face?"

And ObamaCare just handed everyone over 65 their death certificate, pre-signed, and arranged by an illegal act (passing it via reconcilliation) of Congress.

Newt's behavior was certainly questionable and tasteless, but at least he took the time and made the effort to make certain it was at least technically LEGAL.

I wonder how many of the "Newt is a scumbag" brigade on here voted for Clinton...twice??

James said...

Ah I get it now, I'm an idiot for thinking that blaming/crediting one man, even one as powerful as the President, for the short-term losses/gains in something as complex and volatile as the country's (and world's) economy is foolish.

Must be a fun world some of you people live in, where your side is responsible for everything good, and the other side is to blame for everything bad in the world. Don't mind me, go back to your one-man rage fest.

Eric said...

Gingrich? Can't control what is behind his zipper while telling the government to leave us alone as much as possible.

Gingrich is no libertarian. He may not be out there advocating the stoning of adulteresses, but he definitely spent a lot of time talking up the family values thing when he was in Congress.

JAL said...

99% of the idiots on this site support newt.

The commenter above should learn to at least skim the post and the comments before he/she comments.

If there was any doubt about his/her role on this blog the above comment crystallized it for all to see.

JAL said...

Petreaus?

peter hoh said...

James, I like it when the resident liberal trolls go after me for not being sufficiently liberal. Or something.

Anyway, to go back to your 10:31 comment: This should be the time for the GOP to offer up a moderate who can secure all the voters in the middle, but instead the leading contenders for the nomination are busy trying to out-conservative each other.

The base is still convinced that they lost to the Socialist because McCain was not sufficiently conservative.

Yeah, whatever. And Mondale was going to beat Reagan.

Parties licking their wounds can delude themselves.

Matthew, end-of-life planning was taken out of the health bill. It was penned by a Republican Senator, but you wouldn't know it from the outrage it generated. And Newt was for such planning, before he was against it.

peter hoh said...

Picking up on Richard's 10:21 --

Newt regarded the Contract with America like he regarded his wedding vows. He made a lot of noise about their importance, but he never followed through when it mattered.

peter hoh said...

JAL, I realize that Petraeus may seem like the perfect candidate, but I think it's a crapshoot. We have no idea how he'd come across on the campaign trail.

Yeah, I know Ike worked out, but you remember how Wesley Clark was going to be the bee's knees?

bagoh20 said...

"99% of the idiots on this site support newt."

So you must be part of that remaining 1% of the idiots that doesn't.

bagoh20 said...

The only thing Patreaus and Wesely Clark have in common is the haircut.

Seven Machos said...

What do Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, and Tiger Woods have in common?

They are three dudes who need to admit they have a good deal of money and don't really want to pinned down to one woman.

Seven Machos said...

The base is still convinced that they lost to the Socialist because McCain was not sufficiently conservative.

This is true, in a sense. Ultimately, McCain was a Beltway lifer who excited absolutely no one. His positions weren't sufficiently conservative. It's not that they were particularly liberal, though. They were just meh.

Anthony said...

Before the 2008 GOP primaries, when the race was thought to be between McCain, Guiliani, Thompson, Romney and Gingrich, the joke was that the only one with only one wife was the Mormon.

Anthony said...

Seven Machos -- I think the reason I supported McCain in 2000 and 2008 was that he seemed a nice dull Cinncinatius. I still think he has the judgement and temperment to be president and that the country (and the world) should be sorry he was not elected in 2000 or 2008.

He is no libertarian and I admit he is a mild statist, but frankly, that I fear is the best we can ask of a politician -- mild statism.

As for Palin, I thought she would have a future (she was my first choice for VP in 2008), I figured she would run for Senate after finishing up as governor and then run again in 2016 or 2020. I think for now though she is finished and I will not vote for her in 2012.

NotYourTypicalNewYorker said...

Petraeus may prove to be a fine pick but Colin Powell taught me a hard lesson in falling for a guy in uniform.

I will gladly consider Petraeus when I actually know where he stands, on anything.

Saint Croix said...

And the conservative congressman isn't the only member of the Georgia GOP community to express dissatisfaction with Palin's involvement in the state's political scene.

I love that Palin is willing to piss off Republican insiders. She did the same thing in Alaska. I frickin' love her independence.

I'm in Georgia. Palin endorsed Karen Handel for governer. She was a nobody. Had no chance. She went from sixth place to first, just like that. Without any money, it was Palin's endorsement that vaulted her to the top.

In the primary nobody had 50% of the vote, so there's a runoff between the top two. This is when Mitt Romney endorses Handel, too, jumping on the bandwagon.

It's a nailbiter election, Handel is outspent. She loses by something like 1200 votes.

Are the insiders bitching about Romney's endorsement? No. They don't even mention it. Palin used her clout to completely shake up Georgia politics, and scared the crap out of the machine.

You win some and you lose some. But her power is obvious.

Palin's negatives are almost all generated by an incredibly hostile media. Do you seriously want the media to pick your Republican candidate for you?

Who do liberals hate? Who do they fear? That's our candidate. Screw the middle. Excite the base.

Semper said...

"There are only three potential Republican Presidential nominees in 2012: Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich. We know this because these are the people who bothered to endorse candidates in the 2010 elections. This sort of spade work has to be done. If you're not doing it, you're a lightweight, not a leader. " -- Saint Croix

I've been looking for the candidates that Senator Obama endorsed in 2006. Can you help me find them?

Saint Croix said...

Saint Croix. You must work for the Democrats if you think this list represents Republican winners.

My list represents Republicans who are showing a commitment to run. I'm a Palin man but I'll vote for any Republican over Obama.

Sarah Palin - tea party candidate, took on Republican corruption in Alaska, hawk on foreign affairs, pro-Israel, libertarian, pro-life woman. More Reagan than Reagan. Only "cowboy" in race, only woman in race.

Mitt Romney - He ran to the right of McCain. But McCain is an authentic moderate, Romney is a fraudulent right-winger. His health plan in Mass is hardly any different from Obamacare. He's toast. Lot of money to spend, though. Mormon.

Newt Gingrich - Big idea guy, often interesting ideas. Has very low emotional intelligence, no connection with people. Hypocritical and dishonest. Seems like an insider politician. Maybe the least tea party candidate in the field.

Mike Huckabee - Baptist minister, social conservative, pro-life, sense of humor. Seems weak on economics. Mocked Palin for supporting legalization of marijuana. Used his pardon power to free a lot of criminals.

Tim Pawlenty - Right-winger from a blue state. Suffers from lack of name recognition. Blue state background suggests RINOism. Pro-life. Hasn't said or done anything interesting.

Mitch Daniels - Made a stir by suggesting Republicans should forget about abortion and focus on economic issues. Raised taxes as a governor. Like Palin, he's smoked pot. (Was arrested for it). Moderate, squishy, failed to endorse anybody in 2010. Interesting family life: his wife divorced him in '94, leaving him with four daughters. She married another man, then divorced him and remarried Daniels in '97. He's 5'5, balding, and a boring speaker.

John Thune - Anonymous right-winger. Ideologically indistinguishable from Palin. Evangelical Christian, defeated Tom Daschle. Good speaker, unknown candidate. National network in place from run against Daschle. Endorsed Carly in Cali but other than that has been quiet.

Saint Croix said...

I've been looking for the candidates that Senator Obama endorsed in 2006. Can you help me find them?

I've found a few: Lieberman in Connecticut, Blagojevich in Illinois, Tammy Duckworth in Illinois, and Daniel Akaka in Hawaii.

DADvocate said...

Like grammar, these principles are built into the human brain.

What I consider one of the more interesting tidbits I learned in studying psychology. Indeed, there seems to be a strong disposition for the human brain to use certain grammatical constructs.

Oh, and I wouldn't vote for Newt either, whether whatever this stuff you're talking about happened or not. He has too much political baggage and would be best behind the scenes in a support role.

JAL said...

re Petraeus NYTNY --

We know he can use the words "Islamic terrorism" accurately. That's the critical point right there.

We knows he is truly smart (a PhD in international relations or something like that, a fellowship at Georgetown.)

(Take a look at his wiki entry. Most of Obama's is presidential stuff. Petraeus actually has a list of published works which doesn't include two autobiogrpahies! He does stuff.)

I think he is smart enough to get the really smart people working for him. And to listen to them.

I'd get Paul Ryan on my side (SecTreasury?) And some good energy person (heck, Palin might take a swing at seeing if we could get the EPA to cooperate with some nuclear power plants, and while they are building do some shorter term stuff like shale oil extraction, ANWAR, offshore wells etc.)

True -- we don't know where he stands onmany things becasue good officers are publically apolitical but pro-America. That would have to be examined.

There is talent and smarts out there, but unfortunately most of DC is stained by - DC.

How about letting some of us outside the swamp try our hands. You know, the common sense folks who look at the bottom line instead of their Sugar Daddy Christmas lists?

Seven Machos said...

Dumb presidents > smart presidents.

This can be empirically demonstrated.

Jack said...

This article is so good like reading something related to xl pharmacy, I'd like to get more information related to.

Mark Steban said...

Everyone has a right to express what he/she want to say.. Vancouver mortgages for self employed