Newt Gingrich: Serial hypocrisry

Author: jeffpelline

Jeff Pelline is a veteran editor and award-winning journalist - in print and online. He is publisher of Sierra FoodWineArt magazine and its website Jeff covered business and technology for The San Francisco Chronicle for 12 years, and he was a founding editor and Editor of CNET News for eight years, among other positions. Jeff has a bachelor's degree from UC Berkeley and a master's from Northwestern University. His hobbies include sailing, swimming, and trout fishing in the Sierra.

27 thoughts on “Newt Gingrich: Serial hypocrisry”

  1. Congressman Paul also had a strong performance at the debate last night and is drawing record crowds in Iowa…

    What is the media going to do if he actually wins Iowa?


    1. John, the answer is that the media will destroy him. He is not allowed.

      Get over it. My cat will be president before Paul.

      1. Michael,

        I tend to agree with you and that is why I have suggested that their next bumper sticker should be “Send Washington a Message: Vote Paul for President!”


    2. The vote for my “Cat” will get more people interested than the current parade of disfunctional folks!

      Make sure the cat is playful and good looking and you’re in like flint!

  2. Funny. I was going to post this video on an earlier thread on “Newt” but stopped short when at the end it was sponsored by Ron Paul. ( I guess I would have posted it if it were not by an individual candidate)

  3. John,
    When you question leaderships of the biggest institutions in our nation you will not get you moment in the sun. Paul is setting himself up to be in a power position with his followers after Romney takes the nomination. He will have to get Ron’s revolution voters to win and Mitt will have to give Ron what he asks for to get his endorsement. I say the Fed is the biggest issue in the RP quiver.

  4. The GOP is void of anything meaningful. If the best candidate in the GOP is Newt, then it is clear the grand old party is bankrupt. Instead of spending the last 4 years developing strong leadership and direction, the GOP has squandered the time by bickering and creating roadblocks. What was once a strong political party is now a shell. It is a ghost ship with no rudder.
    Former life long GOP member.

    1. Gerald,

      I certainly agree with the M. Stanton Evans declaration that America has a two party system: The evil party and the stupid party, so I share much of your frustration.

      Who do you think the GOP should have put forward and what would their platform have been for success in your mind?


      1. Here’s what it should NOT consist of: On forever calling on Founding Fathers for advice, as is often done at George Rebane’s blog: There is a premise here that is unspoken and unquestioned. The Founding Fathers, whoever they really were, whatever opinions they really held, ( it’s kinda hard to ask them today), were and are SMARTER than anyone around today, and therefore working from what little we do know about them, is the only way to TRUTH to LIVE BY. I think this is total BS, and a very poor way to run a society, as all it really means is that whatever agenda YOU want, you’ll go digging for supposed facts from the past, instead of coming up with rational arguments to support your case.

        BTW John, in case you missed it elsewhere, while we know you believe in your version of a faith based being name Jesus, do you also believe in one named Santa Claus? A simple yes or no will do.

      2. Douglas,

        Are you talking about the mythical Santa that lives at the North Pole or the literary Santa given to us by a Christian pastor who wanted to enhance the giving of the season?


      3. Douglas is 100% right, at the risk of falling into the trap of speculating on what the founders would think, I think the founding fathers would likely roll over in their graves if they thought that 230 years later we were still looking to them for advice. History is a guide for the future, not an exercise in predestination.

      4. Yes! More than once, our form of government has been referred to as an experiment. Clearly, 230 Years into the experiment we would know more. Those who look to the founders for the answers must not care for the actual results. Perhaps the results do not agree with their ideology.

      5. I don’t think that our only choices are to ignore the founders or worship the founders: Both are wrong.

        We should always be ready to learn the lessons of history, whether they are largely good, as is the case with those who founded our nation, or even those who are largely bad like those who founded the Soviet Union or the Nazis. With those who did well, we can always improve on what they taught and must apply it to our current situation and from those who erred, we must note the warnings that are given.

        I just finished the book that Steve recommended that details how a little German town that was overtaken by the Nazis and it certainly has much to teach all of us. I would highly recommend it as well.


      6. I could not agree with you more John. We should know, understand, learn from and respect history and the processes and pressures that led to our founding. We can have both a healthy dose of respect and an independent vision for the future.

      7. Well John are you talking about the mythical Jesus, each one a little different from the other, depending on which church you go to, that proclaims itself to be “Christian.” or the real historical figure, whose true nature and history has been distorted and/or blurred so badly through the dust storms and human choices through time? With respect to Santa and the North Pole, I suspect it is much as Adam, Eve, and their connection to the Garden of Eden. He’s real and lives in a North Pole located right next to the Garden of Eden, not the North Pole up where you can see Russia on a clear day..

      8. From Wikipedia: Santa Claus, also known as Saint Nicholas, Father Christmas, Kris Kringle, and simply “Santa”, is a figure with legendary, historical and folkloric aspects who, in many western cultures, is said to bring gifts to the homes of the good children during the late evening and overnight hours of Christmas Eve, December 24.[1] The modern figure was derived from the Dutch figure of Sinterklaas,[2] which, in turn, may have part of its basis in hagiographical tales concerning the historical figure of gift giver Saint Nicholas. A nearly identical story is attributed by Greek and Byzantine folklore to Basil of Caesarea. Basil’s feast day on January 1 is considered the time of exchanging gifts in Greece.

        Santa Claus is generally depicted as a plump, jolly, white-bearded man wearing a red coat with white collar and cuffs, white-cuffed red trousers, and black leather belt and boots (images of him rarely have a beard with no moustache). This image became popular in the United States and Canada in the 19th century due to the significant influence of Clement Clarke Moore’s 1823 poem “A Visit From St. Nicholas” and of caricaturist and political cartoonist Thomas Nast.[3][4][5] This image has been maintained and reinforced through song, radio, television, children’s books and films. The North American depiction of Santa Claus as it developed in the 19th and 20th century in turn influenced the modern perceptions of Father Christmas, Sinterklaas and Saint Nicholas in European culture[citation needed].

        According to a tradition which can be traced to the 1820s, Santa Claus lives at the North Pole, with a large number of magical elves, and nine (originally eight) flying reindeer. Since the 20th century, in an idea popularized by the 1934 song “Santa Claus Is Coming to Town”, Santa Claus has been believed to make a list of children throughout the world, categorizing them according to their behavior (“naughty” or “nice”) and to deliver presents, including toys, and candy to all of the good boys and girls in the world, and sometimes coal to the naughty children, on the single night of Christmas Eve. He accomplishes this feat with the aid of the elves who make the toys in the workshop and the reindeer who pull his sleigh.[6][7]

  5. If Newt Gingrich flipflops on marriage partners, bedding the next, before leaving the current, then what fealty will he owe to 310 million anonymous Americans? Newt plainly doesn’t give a shite about anyone, but his megalomaniac power-hungry self.

  6. Newt commented to Romney “Let’s be candid. The only reason you didn’t become a career politician is you lost to Teddy Kennedy in 1994,” he said.

    Romney could have pointed out that the only reason Newt didn’t stay as a career politician was due to an investigation by the House Ethics Committee Gingrich when Newt was sanctioned $300,000 on a 395-28 House vote, then announced on November 5, 1998 that he would not only stand down as Speaker, but would leave the House as well.

  7. I’m reflecting this morning on why I think it is impossible for Newt Gingrich to win the Republican presidential nomination. There is just too much out there to
    disqualify him. How many people forgot that he was involved in the house banking scandal, kiting more than 20 checks, including a $10K check to the IRS? Or the origins of his relationship with his first wife; she was his high school teacher. Or his own book deal, while he was attacking Jim Wright. Or the point that the one ethics violation that really stuck with him was that he violated federal IRS law by claiming tax exempt status for a college course that was run specifically for political purposes–ironic isn’t it–this is what he serially lied to the congressional ethics committee about.

    But most damning is his comment when he resigned his house seat and speakership on November 5, 1998, after the worst record for losing house seats in a mid-term election since 1934.

    Here is what he said about the party he led to disaster:

    “I’m willing to lead but I’m not willing to preside over people who are cannibals. My only fear would be that if I tried to stay, it would just overshadow whoever my successor is.”

    All of this is in the Romney quiver ready to be fired.

    I predict Ron Paul wins Iowa because he has the ground and people will want to block Newt. Romney wins New Hampshire, and GIngrich’s last run is in South Carolina, where he tries to re-coup, but with less than an overwhelming win he fades to black. The party will coalesce around Romney because the alternative is a disaster in 2012, just like the disaster he led the party to in 1998.

    John should be happy, Paul will get his day in the sun.

  8. By the way, there is growing evidence to support this theory (I fully admit political prognostication is like weather reporting) with new polling showing Gingrich’s unfavorable ratings rising as the attacks stick, and Paul becoming many people’s second choice. Paul has a 61% favorable rating in recent polling, by far the highest of any “second tier” candidate.

    Click to access PPP_Release_IA_1213925.pdf

    1. Steve,

      I largely agree with what you have said and am certainly happy to see Congressman Paul getting the attention he deserves.

      IF his win in Iowa also gets him a win or even close second in NH, then it could provide an opening for Perry to rebound in SC or Florida I would think.


  9. I think the same dynamic that works against Gingrich works against Paul from another angle…..unlike Gingrich, Paul is pretty scrupulously honest, consistent and frankly an admirable guy…..but the narrow appeal of his message worries main stream Republicans, and rather than risk losing like Goldwater, they will coalesce around a candidate that has a solid chance at the middle.

    If they don’t Republicans run the risk of losing the House due to weakness at the top, Democrats oversee the recovery, and then demographic change begins to take hold, and Republicans run the risk of becoming a decade long minority party until they shift to the center on social issues.

    In 8 years Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada will be out of the red block and the southern strategy will have played out. Rove must be apoplectic.

  10. Gingrich is in the race for pure, make himself richer, and not only to hell with his country, but likewise his party. He’s knows he’d never be able to win the general election, yet he sticks around to gain more fame to sell more books and get more talk shows. Greed at its finest hour. Latest poll say over 50% would never vote for him. Barry Pruitt would be a better choice.

    1. Douglas,

      You are so right about Newt: There has never been a candidate who spent so much time with book-signings this late in the process as Newt is doing.

      Are you going to print up the Pruitt for President bumper stickers?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: