Newt said his ad with Nancy on the couch was the stupidist thing he has ever done.
The stupidest thing...so far. What could Newt have been thinking? Maybe, gee it looks like the Dems will be in power for a while. I better kiss some Dem behind so that I can get my piece of the pie. Was he lying then or is he lying now?
SOURCE: Conservatives, Stop The Insanity: Newt Gingrich Is Horrible
I think Gingrich is truly a man of no moral character. He's unlikeable.
Just so you know, Business Insider is a pretty leftwing outfit.
Dale Tudor Sat, 11/12/2011 #61: "Newt said his ad with Nancy on the couch was the stupidist thing he has ever done."
But he isn't talking about why he did it or why he now wishes he hadn't as something politically stupid for his current goals in the present political context. He collaborated with Pelosi because he is a viro who deeply believes in climate hysteria and was trying to get back in the limelight with his viro allies. It was not an isolated incident. He has made a big deal about being a viro in the past, including in his bizarre but revealing book Contract with the Earth.
Gingrich acts like a flaky, glib academic who can take anything seriously and who has been influenced to hold and promote some really obnoxious policies -- all articulated in the same glib "intellectual" fashion as everything he says. He also used his clout in Congress in the 1990s to block reform of the Endangered Species Act.
Gingrich is a dangerous loose canon committed to an incoherent smorgasbord of ideas -- including some very bad ideology -- and cannot be trusted with power. He is selectively saying what he needs to now because he is in the Republican primary and trying to appeal to the right, but that does not represent what he is. See this earlier post on amg, previously cited in this thread by Blue Jay: http://www.asmainegoes.com/content/newt-gingrich-declares-potus-2012?pag...
It doesn't matter to me from whence the article about Gingrich came. Nothing in the column is untrue. In my opinion Newt Gingrich is mentally unstable. He has no core beliefs. Everything is mutable. Look at how he has conducted his personal life. There's something wrong with him. No one made him, impulsively, catching him off-guard, sit down for the TV clip with Nancy Pelosi. It took effort for him to do that. And then, to say, that it was a dumb thing to do? Doesn't that tell you, as merely one example, that this man is insane? He doesn't belong in the White House. He may be a well-versed historian, but there's nothing in his record of accomplishment that shows any administrative ability. He hasn't done anything except ..... talking. His performance as Speaker of the House was terrible. There's no other way to put it. He's another undisciplined BS artist; his record is one of inconsistency, inconstancy and self-promotion. The last (self-promotion) is the basis of his personal conduct. He's not dissimilar to Obama in that respect: In my opinion, they're both pathological narcissists. I don't understand the sudden presumption by some here that he's a leader. Which Republicans have real administrative experience, not just wishful thinking and BSing, in their backgrounds? Perry, Romney, Cain, Huntsman (by the way, the author of the column in Business Insider has written elsewhere of his support for Huntsman), Johnson and others?
If we need anything in the White House, we need a president who's purposefully deliberative, has administrative experience and who's consistent. I don't know which Republican would best fit that description, but it isn't Gingrich. He's just plain nuts.
In my advancing maturity, I've come to accept that I, personally, have little to say in the nomination process. And, being from Maine, our votes are totally irrelevant to the process. I think the old way of choosing a party's presidential nominee, in the smoke filled rooms (as they were described) was far superior to the ridiculous nomination process we have now. I haven't watched a single "debate". They're simply not debates, but, rather, media manipulated events (run by Democrats, by and large). They serve no useful purpose in helping us choose our national executive.
I don't have a candidate (yet) since Palin decided not to run, but I do have one thought: I will take any of the present Republican candidates (with the exception of Huntsman and maybe Paul) over the non-American (and that is not a reference to where he was born) who presently is playing President. Whatever their weaknesses, any of them would be a dramatic improvement over what we have now.
He knows his way around Washington and things have not changed much from the days he lead the GOP Contract with America. The illusions that a President is going to make any reforms is a farce, stabilization of the ship with a good cabinet selection is critical. Somehow he needs to foster some sound endorsements after his campaign workers walked out under his leadership. As the primary nears I will wait to see who gets any critical endorsements.
It's not a farce, Mr. Carmichael. Obama forced his health care reform through Congress. For all the whimpering and wailing, for all the promises to remove it, to unfund it, to challenge it in the courts, the Affordable Health Care Act is still on the books and is still wending its way into our laws and our lives.
Not too many people think our current health care system is fantastic, but you can't fill a single room with people and find a solution on what works. When Obama crammed this thing down the wind pipes of America every objection was to slow down and fix things universaly, well there is no better time then now to offer up the alterations.
...offering up alterations? It hasn't happened, has it. It's been almost 2 years now. The GOP controls the purse strings in the House of Representatives. The promises of repeal (which can't, of course, happen without control of the Senate) were followed by promises of de-funding administration of the act. The latter hasn't happened. Obama's "reform" isn't farcical; it's reality. It's not an "illusion" as you said earlier.
The point is, in this thread, that Gingrich is unstable and he has no demonstrated administrative ability. Perhaps, yes, he can surround himself with lieutenants, Cabinet Officers who MIGHT be sane and have the ability to "question authority". But why should we be willing to take that chance. History is full of chances like that... most with terrible outcomes. And, it was said by many.. "don't worry, he'll surround himself with good people." Why do we have to settle for that? Why are we choosing mentally unstable people like Obama and, now possibly, nominating another unstable person like Gingrich? Their records, both of them, are records of pathological, unprincipled narcissists?
Gingrich has been described as the "smartest guy in the room"... Where have we heard that before... very recently? We don't need the smartest man in the room to be President. Washington, Lincoln, Truman, Reagan... were they the smartest men? No. They were all far from it; they were all quite normal people. Normal people are stable. Obama isn't stable. Gingrich isn't stable.
The reality is that Obama was empower by the GOP and their failures to do much about it. At the time his popularity was intoxicating to most seasoned political figures, now they have moved on to the economy.
Who do you support Rudmin? Who should we look at?
Bob S - you ask a good question of Rudmin.
Rudmin - your repeated personal attacks regarding his mental health are juvenile- and false.
GW Rudman correctly observes:
"If we need anything in the White House, we need a president who's purposefully deliberative, has administrative experience and who's consistent. I don't know which Republican would best fit that description, but it isn't Gingrich. He's just plain nuts."
Cain and Paul fit that description. Romney is slick and polite, but he favors socialized medicine and introduced what has been described as Obamnycare. That, plus his abysmal record on human rights disqualifies him to be president in my view. We can't nominate somebody like McCain and expect a different result.
Who should we support? In my perfect world, it would be ME. Since that isn't possible, I think one needs to look at the records of accomplishment of the candidates. In my opinion, demonstrated administrative accomplishment is paramount for the office of the President. (Our current President had no record of administering anything. He had the 2nd highest absentee rate in the U.S. Senate in his brief 4 year term (a rate shared, not surprisingly, with John McCain) and surpassed only by bed-ridden Sen. Johnson.) It's a difficult task because we tend to evaluate and then elevate or diminish the accomplishments based on our opinions of their rectitude. That being said, I don't really like any of the candidates; and that's MY flaw. However, it's easy to like and adore a candidate who charms or mesmerizes with dazzling intellect when that's all they have. That's why we have President Obama. And that's why there's serious flirting going on now with Gingrich. "Why. He's the smartest man in the room!" (People who I think are smart surprise me when they say that about Obama and Gingrich. I have my doubts about the levels of their intellects. ) They didn't do anything.. so all they have is charm. They're nuts, but charming. "I hope I'm right about him!" "Don't worry. He'll surround himself with good people." That's a terrible way to choose a President. Tragically, that's exactly what the German intelligentsia said about Hitler as he rose to power.."His ministers and the generals will keep him in check. The people like him."
I think you should choose the candidate who has demonstrated administrative ability and who is normal, who has lived normally, who acts normally. Normalcy is always good and predictable. I have a preference, but the person has many flaws.
I could give you my choice, the least bad of the poor choices that we have. My wife asks me, "Aren't there any good Republican candidates?" I think it's a myth that there ever were "good" candidates. They all have their weaknesses and with none of them do we agree 100% about substantive issues based on their records of accomplishment. "Record of accomplishment" to me is important.* Like I said, I have a preference, but, it isn't important. You should go to the caucus in your town and stand for the person you like. It won't make any difference in the nomination anyway. By the time we caucus, the nominee will have already been chosen, based on the corrupt nature of the nominating process, in Iowa and NH followed by the anointing of the "press". How sad.
*Gingrich is a man of little accomplishment. He mesmerized his Congressional district in Georgia with his "dazzling intellect", just like he did in his classrooms where he was the center of attention by force of being "the professor". He became famous in the House for taking down Jim Wright and then offering his first "plan", the Contract with America, totally impotent in retrospect. Then he became Speaker of the House and started doing the same things about which he excoriated Wright and Clinton; how strangely sociopathic is that? And he did it in broad daylight!! He had his chance at greatness as Speaker of the House and did nothing with it. He only promised that they'd vote on the tenets of the Contract. He wasn't even a good legislator. He got into a fight with conservative Republicans who smelled him out for the phony that he was and is and quit the House, basically. And then, nothing. Books, book appearances. Expert opinion on tv shows... and here he is again. Mesmerizing... right. Be afraid of him!
"Rudmin - your repeated personal attacks regarding his mental health are juvenile- and false."
Thank you. I've been told that I act young for my age. I don't believe my assessment of Gingrich's sociopathic narcissism is false. There's something wrong with him. That's just my opinion, of course. Go ahead and support him, however, if you choose. You can make up your own mind.
Tardus. . Narcissism is a personality disorder. I'm sure his brain is functioning properly. Yes, I did say he was unstable; my bad.
Well, I am trying to make up my mind.
Gingrich seems to be the only one that sounds presidential.
I think Gingrich will be the perfect candidate ... for the Democrats. What was Gingrich's claim to fame as Speaker of the House? He has been the only Speaker of the House reprimanded for ethics violations. How soon we forget. He was reprimanded by his own party.
SOURCE: Ethics Panel Supports Reprimand of Gingrich
Can you see the Democratic ads now? "Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich: Corrupt then and Corrupt now! He wants to be YOUR President?"
Obama ,,,,,,,from Chicago,,,,,,,,on a Dailey basis,,,,,,
Calvin wrote: "Gingrich seems to be the only one that sounds presidential."
Why don't you look at his record(s) rather than how he sounds?
I think I will stick with Newt.
Marianne Gingrich: "He believes that what he says in public and how he lives don't have to be connected," she says. "If you believe that, then yeah, you can run for president."
Read more here:Esquire, Aug 10, 2010: Newt Gingrich: The Indispensable Republican
Too much baggage. He's he media's current pawn. Support Newt and when the media pops his balloon, you'll end with Romney as the nominee.
THAT is quite an article.
Why don't you look at his record(s) rather than how he sounds?
Nobody looked at Clinton's or Obama's .
Newt Gingrich is no conservative
By Gene Healy , 11/14/11, 8:05 PM
Has it really come to this? Newt Gingrich as the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney? That's what many in the punditocracy have proclaimed as the former speaker of the House has surged recently in the polls. Yet a look at his record reveals that Newt is hardly the "anti-Mitt" -- he's Mitt Romney with more baggage and bolder hand gestures.
READ MORE: New Gingrich is No Conservative
Gingrich has no administrative experience.
The powers that be do not want to nominate a conservative, we will see if the R primary voters want a conservative.
It appears that way, doesn't it.