"You're a bad man. You're a very bad man ... and you keep thinking bad thoughts about me."
Posted on 12/16/2011 6:12:39 AM PST by shortstop
No Newt, no thanks.
He's fun to listen to in a debate, but he doesn't belong on the ballot or in the Oval Office.
Because a brilliant bad man is still a bad man, and Newt Gingrich is a bad man.
He is not good for the Republican Party, and he is not good for the United States. And his popularity in the polls is both troublesome and inexplicable. A big-government career politician, an only sporadic conservative, he has somehow caught the attention and affection of just enough Republicans to be the top contender for the party's presidential nomination.
That is insane. It is time for the infatution to end.
Newt Gingrich is not worthy to be either the nominee of his party nor the the president of his country. He fails the basic test of integrity and temperament.
Yes, anybody would be better than Barack Obama, but in a country of 310 million people, we can do better than Newt Gingrich.
Let's go down the list of reasons why.
First, he is not a nice man. He is shrill, ego-centric, spiteful and vindictive. That is not my observation, it is the report of dozens and dozens who have worked with him. He doesn't have a Napolean complex, he has a God complex. He is a bitter man who, in private dealings with his supposed friends and allies, has no regard for others and their interests.
The Contract with America, which was largely penned by Newt Gingrich in 1994, was a strong document and agenda and it led in large part to the Republican revolution of that year. The anti-liberal backlash of those days made Newt speaker of the House. The agenda was successful, but the man ended up a failure. He was ripped over ethics, and he was turned on by his own as he treated Republicans in the House in a domineering and condescending fashion.
I witnessed a small piece of this personally while walking through the corridors of the Capitol after a State of the Union address one year. To the oohs and aahs of the crowds, Speaker Gingrich hustled through. He was the focus of a crowd of hangers on, lackeys and other ne'er do wells, all attending to him like he was a queen bee. He just swaggered past us, imperious, the chips on his shoulders making it almost impossible for him to walk.
But you don't dump a guy for a passing impression.
You dump Newt Gingrich for the way he treated the members of Congress he supervised and for the hypocrisy he demonstrated as speaker of the House. Newt Gingrich was vicious to his most loyal lieutenants, and dealt with subordinates in an unfair and capricious fashion. I personally knew an exceptional member of Congress, a true Boy Scout, who Gingrich destroyed as a pure act of spite. It was just plain mean.
And that's who he is.
I also was around when Bill Clinton was getting the heat for his relationship with Harmonica Lewinsky, a true national scandal. Not to dredge through yesterday's ugliness, but there were two aspects of that case: The relationship itself, and the subsequent lying under oath. Some felt comfortable commenting on one, but not the other, or vice versa. Newt Gingrich focused on the affair. He repeatedly and resoundingly denounced the married Clinton for having sexual contact with Lewinsky, who -- as an intern -- was a subordinate. Gingrich repeatedly pointed out how wrong that was.
Which is fine.
What wasn't fine was the subsequent revelation that at exactly the same time, Newt Gingrich was himself having a long-running extra-marital affair with a subordinate government employee. He was sleeping with the help -- all the way -- and did so for an extended period of time, at the same time he was ripping Clinton for a marginally less-significant transgression.
That's incredible. He could have shut his mouth, he could have focused on the lie, he could have done any number of things. But what he chose to do is to condemn a guy who was doing the same thing he was. Amazing.
That is Newt Gingrich.
Yes, he is a genius. Yes, it is fun listening to him in the debates. He has a great mind and often speaks powerfully for conservative issues. He is, in some ways, an appealing candidate.
But he is a bad man. And Republicans would be wise to remember that.
Because if they don't, general election voters will.
America’s economy and security have become one big junkyard. It will take a “junkyard dawg” to clear the place up. I’ll give Newt a 4 year shot at it. He knows his way around the yard and is not afraid to bite. He knows he has only one shot left to go down in history as the President who saved America from the Marxists/Socialists/Communists. Its Newt’s time.
You think Mccain is a nice man?
“That’s why they fear Newt. He’s running for Sheriff”
BINGO ! We have a WINNER !
The job of the next President is not going to be fun.
He will need to actually cut spending and piss off a lot of people that have been living off the govt. dole for decades.
It will be like having a new sheriff in town, and his name is NEWT.
I'm ready for someone who will take action, and based on his record, Newt is a proven leader.
That is a very good post, Erik! Thanks!
**** I just heard Steve Hayes (interviewed by Bill Hemmer on Fox) deliver a blistering attack on Newt. And then went on to say that Romney did well last night***
Every single talking head on FOX has been given marching orders. ‘Raise Romney from the dead and put Newt in his grave’.
He!! Bill O’Reilly was allowed to have Glenn Beck on as a guest because he was bashing Newt. That told me everything we FReepers have been noticing is true.
The FOX HOLE - hiding and shooting in the wrong direction.
A progressive is a progressive is a progressive.
If Newt is the answer, its time to stop trying to save America and worry about my own soul.
Good luck.
FOX is dead. So is Beck. They clearly have a one track agenda to get Romney elected.
We will agree to disagree about her performance on the campaign trail and in the debates. Being the only woman in the race, it may be offputting to some that she fights back and asserts herself. She challenged Gingrich and Paul on their views. Is that unbecoming? Self-serving? What candidate up there isn't self-serving?
Calling Bachmann a "psycho" crosses the line on what is appropriate. Words have meanings. To label someone mentally ill that you disagree with is reminiscent of how the Soviets treated dissidents.
Except one.
Which Presidential candidate has refused to participate in the cushy Congressional pension program?
Which Presidential candidate has never voted to increase Congressional pay?
Which Presidential candidate returns a portion of his Congressional pay to the U.S. Treasury?
Which Presidential candidate has no ties to the globalist insiders?
Don't beat yourself up over it. Romney is NOT trustworthy.
Four years ago, he came on local radio here and later lied about what transpired and what had been said.
The local radio talk-show hosts have PLENTY to say about how duplicitous Romney is.
You know, that's a durn good point.
We hear two things against Newt all the time:
1) He was so horrible he had to be relieved of command in the House by the "good Republicans," and
2) He's just another "establishment, political insider" that the GOP "leadership" is trying to select for us.
Yet, has anyone else noticed how fundamentally in discord these two theses really are?
Let's see, Newt is an insider - but he was undercut and removed from his leadership position by political insiders like Dick Armey in the House. Republicans in the House who then went on the basically reverse the conservative course of the Republican Congress by jumping on board with new "entitlement" programs and "reaching across the aisle" to the Democrats more and more often and extensively.
When Newt was there, the GOP held the course. When Newt was gone, they quickly folded back into the Party of Socialism Lite.
It sounds to me like Newt was actually removed from his House leadership position because he was getting in the way of the go-along-to-get-along mentality of the GIOP establishment.
Welcome to Planet Earth, stranger.
Passport, please.
Planning to stay long?
State your business here.
The author is an intellectual hack and a dirth of cogent thought.
just some really stoopid and synthetic offenses as he seeks to undermine and undercut Newt’s candidacy.
No way Romney beats Obama. It just ain't happening at least in this reality.
I’m no fan of Gingrich, but this is pretty thin gruel. The author didn’t like the way he walked past him? If I remember correctly during the Lewisky scandal Gingrich critisized the lying under oath not the affair - a small point but completely the opposite of what is said in the article.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.