My point was that you can't dismiss Pitney's arguments as typical liberal ones. He really doesn't like Gingrich -- google his articles, he really, really doesn't like Newt -- but he's not attacking him from the liberal side.
If you support Newt Gingrich, you can't just label all criticism of him as liberal. That's an evasion. People who are a lot more conservative than you or I have problems with Newt.
Listen, I generally respect you're views, but you seem to be missing the major issue at hand: In less than six weeks, this nomination is going to come down to Romney Vs. "not Romney." As of today, there are essentially three viable "not Romney" candidates, with a potential Bachman rally a long-shot possibility. I know, it sucks. Santorum is still my candidate, but it's not going to happen for him in six weeks. That leaves us with Gingrich, Cain and Perry. I'm assuming your not a Romney guy, so pick one and stop violating the 11th Commandment.
If you support Newt Gingrich, you can't just label all criticism of him as liberal. That's an evasion. People who are a lot more conservative than you or I have problems with Newt.
You're missing the point here too. The column was about "dispelling the most prevalent myths about Gingrich." Those would be that he blindsided his first wife with divorce papers while she was on her death bed, that he was removed from his Speakership role for ethics violations, or that he was a hypocrite for criticizing Clinton's affairs while he was engaged in one himself. The newest one is that he lobbied for FHLMC, in which case virtually every former politician is a lobbyist. It's coming from the Romney camp, and I don't think so.