I spoke with Newt Gingrich on my show earlier today and asked him about his Climategate remarks, immigration (we agree to disagree on the means to the end), and informed him of the story where a Washington Post blogger is asking readers to crowdsource Gingrich’s private life.
It is a shame that the media won’t crowdsource White House visitor logs but will for Sarah Palin’s emails and GOP candidates’ private lives. Besides, are there really any other skeletons in Gingrich’s closet at this point?
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
28 Comments
Hello???????????
That's exactly my point. They've already dug up his dirt and skeletons. Besides, Trump is doing what the media isn't. I imagine some very interesting facts come from the Trump camp near election time about the CT social insecurity number using Teleprompter Tyrant.
Audio trouble. I'll catch it on the pod.
"Aaron Blake is a gravel-sucking plecostomus."
Can't really source that, but I think I heard Gingrich say that once.
They never did their job on Obama! Maybe someone should remind him that he's running again. Time to correct your past negligence. Aaron, do your job! Get your head out of his butt!
JWrightBAyersRashidKhalidiTRezkoJarrettHolderPanthersSolyndra
and BundlersgettingreengrantsandMuslimBrosForeignPolicy
and so much he could really be investigating.
" … other skeletons …"?
Are you serious?
Watch for the boneyards to spill and rattle all over the landscape –sooner than later.
Last man standing in March: statesman-patriot http://www.ronpaul2012.com
We should "crowd source" Aaron Blake and see what we can dig up in his personal life.
In the Progressive world, if sourcing fails there is always fabrication.
Maybe they can enlist Dan Rather to come forth with "documents"….
"That night in Hoboken with the transgender midget"
2012 will be quite messy.
He's been watching "Men in Black" a little too much….
Reposted:
I don't do Twitter, but why doesn't someone (maybe a lot of people) start tweeting all the OBAMA rumors (gay cocaine sex, Vera Baker, Toney Rezko, Blago, Connecticut SSN, Rev Wright, etc. etc.—-since it's public, it will backfire, no?
Just like Attackwatch!!
"Neuter Newt" is the new Journ-O-list cry,
Osama! oops I mean Obama, is the
new Dalai Lama!
Kiss the last republic, a fond Goodbye.
Um, Dana
Obama is already funding an anti-Mitt campaign. Gingrich has absolutely no chance in the general. That folks are ignoring the top of the Democratic Christmas list, this year, goes to show the vacuum that supports Newt.
Huntsman is far more fiscally conservative, and electable. His mug might take getting used to, but once we stop playing with our hair and start focusing on Republican strategy, we may just see that he is one of the ones who could go the distance. We already know the left is less obsessed with looks…
WaPo doesn't employ qualified journalists who can do any research. They couldn't afford to hire people to dig up dirt in Sarah Palin's emails and they can't find any new dirt on Gingrich. I can just see it now, someone is looking through old yearbooks to find some teacher that didn't like Newt. Maybe David Axlerod can find some woman who passed Newt in the hallway of the Capitol building and have her come out with lurid accusations.
Too Bad WaPo won't devote as much time to Brian Terry's murder. Or even Bill Ayers admission he lauched Obama's political career from his living room. They can only expose something on a conservative. Libs are off limits.
NO CREDIBILITY!!!!!
Happy to see the dogs coming out to sink Gingrich…not that they don't have some valid criticisms…Gingrich aint as solidly conservative as some, like Bachmann, though for that matter, he has allot more qualifications and gravitas than someone like that.
But I'm looking forward to a War in the Republican ranks…this primary season has been far too boring.
"I can just see it now, someone is looking through old yearbooks to find some teacher that didn't like Newt."
No…there going to be looking through old yearbooks for pictures of Gingrich's High school teacher that he later married
.
And believe me, I am a Gingrich supporter. Only time I stopped supporting him was after his disastrous gaffe visa vi Paul Ryans medicare plan (though that really was taken out of context). I just want people to know exactly how…colorful…Gingrich's history is before they vote for him.
"Gingrich has absolutely no chance in the general."
Based on what his baggage? Its a vulnerability sure but remember, campaigns are fought in the present not the past. The winds favor the Republican candidate this cycle, due to the economy, and this may very well be that once in quarter century election where such dramatic circumstances are in place that an admittedly vulnerable but charismatic candidate like Gingrich could win.
Besides, latest polls show Gingrich with a within-the-margin-of-error lead on Obama.
With regards to Huntsman, I really do like his record, and some of the things he has said BUT his commitment to Climate change (we need to trust the experts!) and his commitment to pull out of Afghanistan are huge turn offs for me. That, and, I cant handle his style. He might not be as souless as Romney, but he is at least as oily and unctious and definitely more cutesy…you can practically smell it when he tries to take a "playfull" jibe at his opponents…
I'm with you Bear. It seems like that may be the only way to make these creeps think twice about going into the sewer for dirt on any R or conservative running for office. Imagine if pictures of one of these twenty somethings drunk on the street showed up on the web. Anyone out there know anything about this hack?
Newts accomplishments in government dwarf anything his rivals have managed to achieve.__Is Newt guilty of so many missteps that the tremendous good he has done is outweighed? I don’t think so.__The 2012 election will be about a government careering toward financial ruin, and Gingrich is the candidate who can say he actually wrestled the federal budget into balance __.by comparison, Gov. Jon Huntsman, who the Editors of National Review say rates “serious consideration,” blew out Utah’s budget, raising government spending by a whopping 33 percent.__ In an election about the imperative to repeal Obamacare, Gingrich is the candidate who helped defeat Hillarycare .__by comparison, Governor Romney ushered in a health-care system that became a model for Obamacare (and he stubbornly continues to insist that it was a great achievement — the main reason he can’t crack the 25 percent ceiling in most polls).__ we are talking about clearing a seven-person field — eliminating strong conservatives,** preserving spots for two moderates before a single vote has been cast.
When you ask conservatives and Republicans what they think of Governor Huntsman’s bid, you don’t get a bunch of psycho-babble about “inability to forge a connection.” You get, “Why would Republicans nominate a guy Obama picked for an important role in his administration?
How bad can the administration be if we’re going to recruit our nominee from it?
Huntsman was a spendaholic and global-warming alarmist who was lax on illegal immigration and favored a government mandate that citizens purchase health insurance.
"oily, unctious and cutesy" aren't ways to judge. How a candidate recognizes our crisis should. Huntsman is against the implied Socialism of bank losses back upon the taxpayer of this country. The Tea Party should recognize his candidacy on what he proposes doing about it. Only Paul is similar in this regard, but Paul will invite turmoil we can not afford.
The climate debate shouldn't be a pledge to deny more carbon = warming. Saying we are contributing enourmous amounts carbon to the atmosphere and that it is a green house gas, are statements of fact. You may as well support creation, as science, if you deny it. Huntsman hasn't endorsed Cap & Trade. His recognition of the problem is another testament to the truth he speaks. It doesn't mean he's going to "bankrupt" anybody.
See above reply, please, and judge Huntsman on his views on China and the platform he runs on. You paint with a broad brush to indight a guy for serving his country. With respect to the crisis we are in, neither political narative holds water, and the reality is that both Big Government and Wall Street got us where we are. An appointed Fed official, named Greenspan, who doesn't grind the axe of an "electable politician" came right out and said he "found a flaw". The context of that statement was thinking the private firms in our financial community would steward us in the right direction. They didn't, and it is time we addressed both the failings of the agencies in government, as well as these institutions outside of it.
The Republicans, the Conservatives, and most importantly, the People, have had four years to think about this.
""oily, unctious and cutesy" aren't ways to judge"
Oho, they arent? Judging a politician based on style isn't valid when half their job is showmanship? Remind me again why I cannot stand Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann…I'll give you a hint, its not because I disagree with them on the issues. Though I have had a somewhat moderation of attitude towards Huntsman…he should have just run as a middle of the party conservative, a position which would likely not have mean him compromising many of his past positions… running as a a down the line moderate the way he has in today's Republican party is a strategic error which does not reflect well on his decision making.
"Saying we are contributing enourmous amounts carbon to the atmosphere and that it is a green house gas, are statements of fact."
"Huge" is a relative term. And so is we for that matter…does "we" include our agricultural practices or are we just talking the internal combustion engine? Yeah, we are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and its a greenhouse gas…are we "skeptics" denying that? Don't mistake me for an absolutist…I have spent quite a bit of time (relatively speaking) looking into this. There is plenty of evidence that CO2 cycles are related to global temperatures…the extent of this relationship is precisely where the issue lies, not that it exists.
But saying that Global warming is a problem worthy of our attention is quite a step beyond stating the facts you outlined. Huntsman has made steps in the positive direction on this, and I have no problem with climate change "agnostics". I think I fall under that category. My contention here is that Politicians, particularly those of the conservative bent should defer to patience on this and simple common sense. The world isn't going to melt, its not going to be day after tomorrow if we don't act until we are absolutely certain, assuming Anthropogenic global warming is happening.
That and Conservatives need to have a healthy skepticism of the scientific community, just like they should have a healthy skepticism for all Human endeavors. Smart people are even more capable of grave errors than idiots. And I, personally, don't feel inclined to consider anyone who blindly accepts the consensus of the scientific community and then proceeds to call those who don't unscientific.
But really I can get over Huntsman's style…its not as irritating as Sarah Palins. If he runs again and runs a bit farther to the right, or hell, if he runs a bit farther to the right now, I might consider him.
"Big Government and Wall Street"
You say that as if they are distinct entities…the increasing problems caused by "Wall Street" are largely a result of Big Government. These idiots in New York have been allowed to maintain themselves on the taxpayer dime, and they have routinely profited by manipulating a system which has too many rules and taxes. With less regulation and less taxes, the fat cat's would have less rules to manipulate. You can't cheat when there's no rules. (Not that I am advocating that, but it illustrates the principal) A system of Big government socialism and Keynesian economics rewards the rich who have money to spend buying out the politicians and punishes those who can't do so.
Point is, these private "institutions" you deride would not be a problem if they weren't completely intertwined with the government. The companies which are corrupt and inefficient and just plain stupid would have imploded if not for government intervention, and we should stop pretending that the problem is an excess of government AND Capitalism when really the problem is completely in the governments court, precisely because those who make mistakes would be destroyed in the free market.
I appreciate the response, thanks.
The theme for the Republicans seems to be less rules, and allow for failure. The finance sector is more delicate than any other. I'm not a Ron Paul fan of gold standards. The fact is they were played with before 1971, anyway. The reason i bring that up is that I support the fractional reserve system, that allows banks to make loans according to capital requirements, like one dollar for every eight that get loaned. Not only is deciding, and sticking to a reserve requirement an absolutely vital aspect of regulation, but how that "dollar" is defined is also constantly at play. It is a rule the banks fool with, constantly. And when they know they will be saved, they want to set nothing aside and take risk. These are awful times. More-
We live under implied rescue by Uncle Sam. Just like last time, it will be "for our sake" the banks will be saved again. So, we either begin to like regulation a whole lot, or we dismantle what we've allowed to be built. We can also let is crash, but the case for 25% unemployment isn't hard to see, when large chunks of the economy go insolvent, not because of failure, but because of a banking and currency collapse. Some of the destruction would be welcome, but most of it would be unnecessary collateral damage.
So, Republicans who confront the simplicity of a principled collapse have to ask themselves if its necessary, and if so, do they really think our "esteemed agents of government" will ever allow it? I'd say no on both counts and explore a return to what worked for most of the 20th century. A government that is actually bigger than any bank, that can shut that bank down before it has lost even two, of the eight dollars it has loaned out. Because that bank was given a franchise on fractional reserve, and then it screwed up. It is a whole lot different than how any other business works. Sorry if I sound pedantic.
"Too many rules"? I'm thinking of "non-banks". I'm thinking of how Credit Default Swaps are not legally insurance, and how the sky isn't blue. I'm thinking about how rules were introduced, or modified, to allow crazy things like goodwill to actually be bank capital. I'm thinking about how Senator Phil Gram said all he did was introduce more rules, when he repealed Glass-Steagal and gave us the CFMA, of 2000. I'm getting at deregulation, here, and all of the constructs that have come into existence to skirt the law, or rebuild the investment community away from its jurisdiction. The banks are up one because they did all of this, and two because we will be right there to help bail them out next time. So, in a way it is "2 – Nothing" on us.
It's starting to matter less to me if we say Big Government, or Wall Street, did it. There's no question in my mind that Wall Street was busy while we watched Monica Lewinski. All i'm asking, and why I support Huntsman, is for failure to become failure again, without it becoming calamity.
"We" includes agriculture. 6 billion tons per year from the US trans/Agri/electric sectors, with the atmosphere containing an estimated 3 trillion tons of CO2. I plug numbers in the utility sector and am more impressed by conclusions that solutions aren't expensive, than that the need for them has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. IOW, I don't buy into "+3 degrees by 2100" without mitigation.
On cost, the EPA's latest mercury rules address 40 year old technology with technology we've had for 20+ years. I'm trying, but I still can't get to a point where people's utility rates will rise much more than a tenth, or two, of one penny per kwh. Natural gas prices are about to do something to the coal industry, that the EPA will hardly keep up with, free-market style. Meanwhile, Romney thinks there's 1.7 trillion in annual GDP growth to come from deregulation.
Near the 2012 election The Food Stamp President would like to Institute A Mortgage Refinance Plan That is The Idea Of A Romney advisor.
The plan that Obama wants to implement "would be modeled after one originally devised by Columbia University economists Glenn Hubbard (a campaign adviser to Mitt Romney and AEI visiting scholar) and Christopher Mayer." These are the two guys that have come up with this refinancing program. , Hubbard," who is the Romney adviser, "says the plan would have an immediate fixed cost to the government of $121 billion.
You must be logged in to post a comment.