Newt Gingrich’s new website: I’m no Bill Clinton

Politico ^ | JONATHAN MARTIN

[TBBT]

Newt Gingrich’s campaign sought Friday to differentiate the former House speaker’s extramarital affair in the 1990s with that of Bill Clinton by noting that the former president committed perjury.

“Opponents often try to delegitimize Newt Gingrich by pointing out that he had admitted to having an extramarital affair during the impeachment of President Bill Clinton,” notes a new page on Gingrich’s campaign website that is devoted to explaining past controversies involving the Republican White House hopeful.

“What these accusers are ignoring is that the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton were due to the fact that the president committed perjury in front of a sitting federal judge, which is a felony. As the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Newt felt that he had a duty to uphold the rule of law by pursuing impeachment. He stands by that decision today.”

[dirtboy]

Would Newt be a better president than Obama? Would he be a better president than Romney?

I am getting SO tired of people making these kind of lame-assed posts. They carry the stench of political bankruptcy.

The Perry people say Perry is the only alternative to Obama and Romney. Now the Newt people are pulling the same tack. Both are full of crap.

I am looking at all candidates now, before any vote in a caucus and primary. I am looking at what the candidates are saying and comparing it to their past records. And I am making the simply point that Newt has amassed a long history of proposing new federal 'solutions' and wanting to work with Democrats. So 'scuse me if him simply saying he will stop doing that isn't convincing enough.

[IL1949]

Great. Hang with Perry. He’s gone down the tubes all by himself and even has Pelosi dissing him. Wonderful.

[dirtboy]

Newt is in the polls where Perry was not that long ago. You act like Newt is now inevitable, when the history of this campaign shows he can fade as quickly as he rose.

And lame-ass posts like yours sure don't do anything to sway skeptics.

[IL1949]

Uh, Perry has been operating at the national level for a few months. Dittos for Cain and Bachmann. Gingrich has been operating at this level for the better part of 35 years and was 2 heartbeats away from the presidency.

While Perry, Bachmann and Cain have essentially destroyed themselves, Gingrich’s numbers are going up in spite of his negatives. Doesn’t that tell you something? It should. For the 12 years or so Gingrich did consulting in the private sector don’t you think he knew he’d would be running for PTOUS when the time was right? Don’t you think he was smart enough to know that he’d be vetted HARD? A hell of a lot harder than Perry or Bachmann.... or Obama! And why? Because Gingrich actually accomplished a few things.

Do you actually think the Dems fear Perry or Bachman? They do fear Cain but only because he’s a black conservative. After last week I hardly think they fear his intellectualism.

But they are sacred to death of Gingrich from every POV! This guy’s a very serious player and can destroy their house of cards in any number of ways, INSTANTLY, and using logic most Americans can understand and agree with. That’s precisely why his numbers are rising in spite of his history. They’re prioritizing his ideas and leadership over the other stuff.

If you think the RATS and MSM are going to do to Newt what they’ve done to the others you’re mistaken. He’s much smarter than they are and they’re only playing into his hand. For Newt, this is child’s play. Watch!

Having said that, if something does happen I will support anyone who does get the nod, yes, even Romney.

But Newt’s been my guy from DAY 1 and I like the way things are going right now.

Is he inevitable? Of course not. But you can hardly argue that what’s happened so far in this cycle means Newt is destined to come and go as well. To say that is to say that Bachmann, Perry and Cain are Gingrich’s equal and that is hardly the case. And you know it.

[dirtboy]

To say that is to say that Bachmann, Perry and Cain are Gingrich’s equal and that is hardly the case. And you know it.

Equal in what regard? Sitting on a loveseat with Pelosi? Standing with Hillary to propose a new federal initiative? Being a consummate DC insider?

What I see from Newt is simply more of the same DC crapola. Do I believe what he says now? Or what he has done over the last 15 years?

[Colonel_Flagg]

and WE, as usual, will pick the nominee on Jan 21st 2012. Then perhaps you'd care to explain picking John McCain. Evidently you DO trust RINOs.

You'll have your chance to rectify that if you support Cain.

[dirtboy]

I've made about 70,000 posts on FR and have been here since 1998. From your posting history, you look like you might have made 200.

And you are accusing ME of being of DNC plant?

Any other stupid comments you wish to make, dipweed? Stupid comments that you are reduced to since you cannot refute what I said about Newt, from a conservative perspective?

I swear, primary season brings out all the sleeper accounts who think they are doing something for a candidate by posting rank stupidity in their name.

[IL1949]

No, I’m not accusing you of being a plant.

I’m saying that what the country seems to be saying, at least at this point, and what you’re saying, aren’t the same thing. That is a fact whether you want to admit it or not.

In addition, some of the things you’re saying have been DEM talking points against Gingrich for over a decade. You wanna try and deny that?

Gingrich got on mandates in an effort to stall Hillary Care. Over time he realized its failings. But for PURISTS like you nobody is allowed to evolve a belief system.

You conservative purists may have your picks but they’ve been blowing themselves up. Forget the sex stuff with Cain. I thought he handled that pretty well, but he’s still blown himself up on foreign policy. Dittos for Bachmann and Perry. Great Americans, each of them, but hardly presidential timber. PURE doesn’t really matter if you can’t get to first base, now does it.

So go ahead and back your 100% PURE candidate whoever it is.

I’m willing to let the “collective” American mindset establish who our best pick is. Are you? Obviously not.

Finally, you’re 70,000 posts must mean a lot to you, but they mean ZERO to me. Do 70K posts make you some kind of expert? ROTF.

Start talking up whoever YOU’RE behind and I’ll start listening to your logic. And I’ll judge you on your logic, not by how many posts you’ve put up since 1998. Who cares!

[dirtboy]

Look, MORON, everything I said about Newt is documented history. And instead of being Dem talking points, these are CONSERVATIVE critiques of actions Newt has taken in the psat. If you see that as a Dem talking point, well, I think you need to post somewhere other than a conservative website.

And I also am well aware that I will not get a pure conservative. However, I would like to vote for someone where what is conservative about them will stay conservative when they enter the White House. Given all of Newt's pushing of new government programs over the last 15 years, and his long-time immersion in Beltway culture, I just don't see his new-found embrace of conservative values to be anything but pandering for the conservative vote.

[dirtboy]

I’m willing to let the “collective” American mindset establish who our best pick is. Are you?

The 'collective' American mindset gave us Barack Obama in 2008. You're too stupid to be a conservative.

[4woodenboats]

Did you pick McCain?

[Happy Rain]

I voted for Fred Thompson—but McCain got the military vote—a big bloc in our state—and the conservative vote was split.

We just pick ‘em we don't guarantee they is worth a dang.