Gingrich Calls Climate Ad With Pelosi ‘Single Dumbest Thing I’ve Done in Recent Years’
**Written by Doug Powers
As we stampede toward the Iowa caucuses and beyond, Newt Gingrich is trying to shake some unnecessary baggage that has caused him some political problems as well as mockery from assorted conservative bloggers. Specifically, I’m referring to Gingrich’s appearance next to Nancy Pelosi on what became affectionately known as the “global warming loveseat” in a PSA for Al Gore’s organization WeCanMakeAlGoreRicher.org WeCanSolveIt.org.
Whether or not Gingrich regrets dabbling in Gore’s global warming magic remains to be seen, but he sure is sorry about being pictured sitting next to Nancy Pelosi:
GOP White House hopeful Newt Gingrich wants voters to know he really, really regrets making a 2008 ad with then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) calling for action to address climate change.
“That is probably the dumbest single thing I’ve done in recent years,” Gingrich, the former House Speaker, said Tuesday on Fox News, calling the ad “inexplicable.”
Okay, Newt’s kinda-sorta repented for the Pelosi ad — will Mitt see Newt’s repentance and raise him one Romneycare regret at tonight’s debate? Highly unlikely.
**Written by Doug Powers
Twitter @ThePowersThatBe
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Obama’s latest campaign angle: I’ve been saving America from wild Republican debts
May 24, 2012 04:33 PM by Doug Powers
55 Comments
Biden: Tea Party stopped us from growing the economy
May 23, 2012 01:55 PM by Doug Powers
44 Comments
Catholic lawsuit against Obamacare mandate cites 1993 legislation written by Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer
May 22, 2012 04:35 PM by Doug Powers
48 Comments
A 2012 campaign must-read: The conservative survival guide to Mitt Romney
May 21, 2012 10:23 AM by Michelle Malkin
159 Comments
Biden: Hey, I don’t blame people for voting for a convicted felon instead of my boss
May 18, 2012 01:21 PM by Doug Powers
73 Comments
Categories: 2012 Campaign,global warming,Nancy Pelosi,Newt Gingrich
JustOneMinute
» Barack, Youthful Leader!JustOneMinute
» Patterico And The Brett Kimberlin GangBabalu Blog
» U.S. Manned Space Flight in The 21st CenturyVillainous Company
» Must Read Post of the Day. Possibly, the Year
I don’t have any idea what else newt has done that he should regret, but this ad with that ding dong dear nan, is right on the top!
L
I like Newt more and more as time goes on.
Sadly, I don’t expect either the RepCon primary voters, nor the general electorate, to have the collective brains to make him president.
He would be a major breath of fresh air for the USA, assuming the virulent MessNBC machine wasn’t succesful in destroying him.
Hmm.
Dumber than endorsing DeDe Scuzzyfavor?
It’s close.
I so admire the man’s intellect along with his knowledge of history, which should be a great example of how the country was planned to work by our founders. I do find it hard to buy everything he says now after some of his slips, like the couch with Piglousi. I’d still vote for him over Romney…then again like Levin I’d vote for a can of orange juice over HugObama.
Another example of how he looks like an entrenched Republican and not a conservative.
Not sure I can trust him.
Why yes, Newt, yes it was!
Apology accepted, I suppose. The problem with Newt is that he is the most intelligent (policy-wise) and erudite candidate on our side.
His personal foibles and foot-in-mouth disease make what’s left of my hair hurt. In any case, I’m almost willing to forego these idiocies and support him.
Almost.
I also like how he took Piers Morgan to school…
Ok, it was dumb to be pictured with her. Is that all? How about the substance of the policy issue behind the picture known as man made global warming?
Do you repudiate that or is it real in your mind and man needs to curtail economic activity in order to save the planet from destruction in
tentwo years?Thats a much more important topic. He seems to be non apologizing here.
Pretty sure that ad runs a close second to his endorsement of Dede Scozzywhaterhernamewas in the NY-23 race.
The biggest upside to a Newt candidacy would be watching him destroy Obama in a debate.
Hey Newt, you gonna color your hair as part of this makeover?
He’s smart enough now to realize that he does not want to dis the Conservative base, especially now that Mitt is in his sights and Cain is faltering.
I’m liking Newt more too, with Cain’s problems and Bachmann and Paul going nowhere. Just please, no Romney or Perrybush. I could live with Newt/Bachmann.
I’d like to see Brit Stuart Varney school the Brit Morgan. It would be delicious.
Absolutely!
With what Barky has/has not accomplished in the last three years is like throwing meat to the lions and that’s what it will look like when Newt moves in for the kill.
Let’s face it – there is no perfect candidate. We are totally supporting Newt as he is the most intelligent, articulate and thoughtful candidate out there and I’m sure the Lefty LSM and MessNBC already have their best b.s. ready to sling his way.
Bring it on!
I take it back.
Just heard Newt actually qualify his answer about global warming as opposed to just ripping it to shreds as the hoax that it is.
NEWT – GET WITH THE PROGRAM! UGH!
Perrybush. LOL. I like Newt/Bachmmann or Newt/Santorum or Newt/Cain…. Romney scares the crap out of me. Like a Charlie Crist or John McCain.
Ok, I think I need to take a shower.
Ahem, just because Cain is encountering [predictably] a smear campaign is no call to jump in the sack w/ the nearest RINO/Swamp Creature!
Besides, we need reserve our opinions until trolls have had a chance to weigh in and critique his chances narrowly not defeating O’Drama.
In 3… 2…
The game plan from the early 2000′s was to repeat the “reach across the aisle and get along with each other” mantra. Unfortunately, the Repubs were the only ones reaching, and while they reached, the Demonuts picked their pockets clean.
You can’t get along with a democrat unless you ARE a democrat. It isn’t in their DNA to get along with anybody else.
Gingrich and McCain showed how “trusting” they could be, yet the demonuts stabbed them in the heart. They kept reaching, and hoping. I would think that Newt would know this by now.
He is brilliant on many subjects. My ex-boss has met him and had dinner with him where he was the guest speaker. Just don’t let him go on certain points without calling him on it.
I would accept nothing less than a real debate, without the MSM running interference for the Marxist in Chief.
***
Sitting next to a rattlesnake, skunk or porcupine is always a bad idea. Never works out very well. Ditto for sitting down next to a witch like SanFranNan–good thing she didn’t plant that honking big humongeous gavel in your rear end, Newt!
***
Old Mexican Maxim–”En la boca cerrada no entran moscas!”. Flies can’t enter a closed mouth! Or to paraphrase the Bible saying, “It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought to be a fool–than to open your mouth and confirm it!”. And look out where you sit–bad company.
***
John Bibb
***
mmmm Newt you look so dreamy with those boxer briefs and that turkey neck…
Democrats really are the proverbial scorpion on the frog’s back.
He’s right. It was an ugly moment. It happened when many conservatives thought we were getting totally rolled and that the masses were completely sold on global warming, so the best they could fight for was to get a seat at the table to try to mitigate the damage.
That was a mistake. A big one.
And, yes, it was a much bigger mistake than Scozzafava, although that was a stinker, too.
Leaders make thousands of decisions, many of them based on pragmatism. Some of those decisions will really suck.
However, Gingrich really is a conservative. We may think he should have done this or that thing differently, but when he was leading the Republican Party in the 1990′s he went down fighting. Remember the government shutdown. That ended up costing him the Speakership.
He did not have to do it. He could have Boehner’ed it.
Newt’s erudite and glib, but also a patsy and pushover — like a lot of politicos down deep he ultimately lives to be loved for himself, not his principles. Can’t trust him with any real power. He seemed to be going OK at first back in days of “Contract with America” (remember that?) but then, during the “shutdown”, when he shoulda hung tough confronting the White House, he wound up getting seduced by Clinton and the media and caved. He’s an “oxymoron” — book smart but street stupid. Bright but with too-round heels, alas not truly a leader.
I strongly concur!
The other dumbest thing he has done in the past is trying to be nice to, and be cooperative to the radical progressives, many of whom are still in office.
I can only hope he’s learned his lesson: Conservatives cannot compromise with progressives, ever. Once they get that little crack, they’ll stuff things into it, ever widening it, until the conservative suddenly realizes that he’s been had. We need to be smarter than that.
You misunderstand how the politics of it works. Gingrich was not a dictator of the House. As the days wore on and the media kept pounding away about the horrible Republicans destroying the country, trying to terrify the voters, support within the Republican ranks was dwindling.
Newt knew he had lost. He tried to put the best face on it he could.
RedDog said:
Ok.., no need to get all snarky about it! I get your point and anyone that doesn’t believe this country wouldn’t be better off under Newt than current mgmt. has utterly lost it.
But 2012 is our’s to lose. What we’re seeing ( however Unhinged he might seem to ‘us’ ) is O’Drama at His most composed and long scripted moments. We’ve seen enough Managerial Meltdowns in our lives to know one when we see one.
Behind the scenes there is so much in-fighting, back-stabbing, plotting and counter-plotting you wouldn’t believe it. Bammie is burnt OUT and on auto-pilot. Thank You Sandusky! ( We’re in Cleveland Sir… )
I’m gonna invest in some nose clips stock. Looks like I could make a killing come 2012.
Doesn’t anyone see the pattern here?!??
Popular sentiment for smaller government = contract with America.
Democrats sweep White House and Congress = sudden love of big government
Tea Party rises = sudden hatred of big government.
Newt just goes whichever way the wind blows, just like the slimiest of the politicians. The Nancy Pelosi love seat is hardly his most damning moment. I’d say his endorsement of the individual mandate for purchasing health care insurance is far worse (of course, now he insists that what he wants is a “variant” of the individual mandate – same BS, new adjective). Here’s the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThwVp0cwOMA#t=10
And for anyone bufuddled enough to believe Newt is a “true conservative” that believes in free markets, this is the nitwit who credits FDR with ending the Great Depression (as opposed to exacerbating it for 15 years) and said on a news show just last night that if he could pick any president to be the 5th face on Mt. Rushmore it would be FDR. Now, let’s see… we’ve already got a guy in the White House who is enamored with FDR and the New Deal. Exactly how much good does it do to replace him with somebody with a “variant” (to use Gingrich’s word) of the same socialist crap?
I’ve said it time and again: the battle is not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between Keynesian Economics (“moderate” socialists / corporatists) and Austrian Economics (free-market capitalists). Bush was a Keynesian. Obama is a Keynesian. Romeny is a Keynesian. Cain and Gingrich are ultra-Keynesian. Perry is a natural sleazeball televangelist who somehow slimed his way into politics instead, but when push comes to shove he sides with the Keynesians. Ever wonder why we get more big government crap no matter which party gets elected? There’s your answer. We need to kick the Keynesians out of the Republican party. Otherwise it’s not a question of whether or not we get socialism, it’s just a question of how much and how quickly. Obama wants a sudden socialist revolution. Gingrich and company just want to ease us into it instead.
A vote for Newt is a slap in the face for everything the TEA Party is reported to stand for. There’s no legitimate intellectual excuse for taking a recycled status quo candidate and suddenly believing he’s our he’s our new savior.
From “Rollback:
And that’s just for starts. If he’s the best we’ve got, then we don’t actually have anything, unless you’re only in this for bragging rights.
When it’s announced that the DNC and the RNC are one and the same, will anyone be surprised?
Link to the video of my above accusation of Gingrich wanting FDR on Mt. Rushmore:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/romneys-allergy-perrys-theme-song-the-personal-side-of-8-gop-hopefuls/
You have to scroll over and click on Newt Gingrich’s picture to get to his portion of the Interview. The question and answer are at 2:05.
Exactly my point, I understand perfectly. But instead of “putting a face on it” and retreating like an academic losing a debating round, he and his homies should have gotten back in their faces and made them pay heavily for every inch of it, like a street fighter with real skin in the game. That’s how you can lose battles yet still win the war. Instead, they acted like a government shutdown was a bad thing! Alas the problem with Newt (and a lot of others) is that he’s a politician not an effective leader.
Newt, drinks are on me. Could not agree more. Candor is refreshing.
Will Newt repent for NY-23?
Well?
I doubt it.
There are several important differences between Romneycare and Obamacare. But the most important difference is that Romney worked with the majority Democrats to give the people of Massachusetts what they wanted. Obama took a partisan approach to force Obamacare upon the majority of Americans who don’t want it. Implementing your own agenda against the clear will of the people is call “tyranny”. And it doesn’t matter whether it is liberals or conservatives who are doing it.
Like I said, you don’t understand politics. It’s not a street fight, and it’s not a war.
You actually have to convince the voters you are making ‘the trains run on time,’ or the voters stomp you flat, and then all you accomplished was some economic dislocation.
Under your rules of thinking, he should never have really challenged the status quo. He should have just dissed FDR.
He did long ago. When Scozzafava threw her support to the Democrat.
As far as I know, Bachman is the only candidate openly advocating the dismantling of the EPA. A good part of the reason I continue to support her.
In fairness, we’ve only very recently passed thru a difficult time in our history where it would have been far better to be accused of being a child molestor than anything other than an enthusiastic supporter of all things environmental.
Corporations were being brow beaten by “watermelons” into jumping on the bandwagon… or else! This past weekend we stayed at a major chain hotel. ‘Reminders’ everywhere coercing guests to “Live Green”. Maybe if we keep pitching them out as I did, and start Living Like You Paid For The Room ( they’ll get the idea? )
Yeah. Ya know, my first thought was “better late than never”, but it really isn’t. Sitting there with arguably the most socialistic/damaging politician in US history for the purpose of promoting “junk science” – which if embraced would destroy America – is way beyond stupid. Insane. Inane. Incomprehensible.
Now let’s add in cutting Paul Ryan off at the knees in the middle of a major budget/deficit debate in Congress – refering to the Tea Party position as “social engineering” from the right.
So I asks meself, What kind of decisions would this shmuck make if in the White House? Then I answers meself. Shoot from the hip / dopey ones.
Then I look at the man. Not his politics – him.
* Marries Jackie Battley – 1961, and has two daughters.
* Left Battley after having an affair with Marianne Ginther – spring 1980. Visits Battley in the hospital with their children to discuss divorce terms. (Newt denies – but others verified)
* Marries Ginter 6 months after divorce with Battley.
* While prosecuting Clintoon – and attacking his infidelity and immorality – he has a long term affair with Callista Bisek, a Congress staffer.
* Excuse? “There’s no question at times in my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate.” Gag me with a stimulus shovel. That’s about the lamest excuse I’ve ever heard.
* Divorces Ginter – marries Bisek.
* Writes “Rediscovering God in America – Reflections on the Role of Faith in Our Nation’s History and Future” Gag me with a bulldozer. Hypocrisy level: Off the scale.
I could never vote for Newt. Sorry. I agree with Phyl the GOP has lost it’s bearings and foundations, but I disagree why. I hate agreeing with Peggy Noonan, but she did write Reagan’s speeches, and occasionally gets it right. Her book “When Character Was King: A Story of Ronald Reagan” nails it. Its about integrity, character, values & convictions
That’s why Cain is my man. Looking at the trajectory of his life – the sexual allegations are completely out of character, and I’ll bet a Cuban cigar there is zero substance to back them up.
I’m amazed how some conservatives just won’t get on board with a candidate unless he/she is a perfect representation to their own way of thinking. After watching, and listening, to all of the candidates in the debates, I’ve come to the conclusion that only Romney and Newt can beat Obama.
Romney is the down-the-middle Republican with no baggage that will appeal to independents. Newt would absolutely shred Obama in the debates and with his ideas. The others are just not seasoned, or polished, enough to take Obama on.
Newt supported the candidate for NY23 because she was the voters choice for the Republican nomination. That’s good enough for me. Now he might get the support of those voters for not having thumbed his nose at them. The guy is smart, but all smart people do dumb things at one time or another.
At least he admitted he made a mistake. That’s not easy to do publicly. I’m not happy about his personal peccadilloes, but I believe his principles are largely in the right place.
I really wish Cain would get a better manager because I’d love to see a Cain/Gingrich ticket.
Bullsqueeze! It was what the politicians wanted! It sure as hell wasn’t what the people wanted! We got it crammed just like Obowmaoscare!
What amazed me was how deeply she respected Reagan and exactly how much integrity he had.
Since then, we’ve had a lecher and an admitted cokehead as president, both provided by the Democrats and people don’t seem to care.
I hear ya. We are getting our candidate selected for us once again. Crikey.
I hope you’re wrong.
Churchill had his Gallipoli, and where would we be without him?
Newt 2012!
It seems that individuals who enter politics do so because they are too stupid to get other jobs and are very good at promising anything, while lying about everything.
orlandocajun said:
Oh puhleeze. Michelle Bachman is spoiling for the fight and would be on O’Drama’s hiney w/ reticulating jaws.
Best part, the DNC will be so stunned into inaction b/c their ‘ethics’ allow them to kill babies but prohibit them from using a blowgun dart on a python?
Au contraire. Just like in Ohio yesterday , the people in those places vote to give themselves anything and everything even though they can’t pay for it. Their fallback position is to get it from taxpayers in other states who don’t overload their budgets. They had the ex murderer bringing home the bacon for years in Mass to subsidize everything else. $7.3 billion in stimulus $ alone.
In essence, they didn’t just vote to give it to themselves, they voted to have me help pay for it. Romney helped them do it.
What would be worse? Electing a man like Newt, who would impose a burdensome environment-driven tax on everything you do, or electing someone like Ron Paul, who would allow Israel to defend itself against Iran without asking for permission from the U.S?
Second Question: If America’s track record of ensuring every free society’s safety and removing any bad actor they wish is what keeps your country safe, why do you think China is an untouchable military power, given that they don’t practice their military activities in any way similar to that of the U.S? If Ron Paul was elected and only focused military expenditures on his own country, as does China, would America be less safe than China is? If so, why?
Newt, agreeing with liberals makes you look like Todd who quickly agrees to be sexy Samantha’s boy-friend.. Yep, you’re gonna get &^%$#’ed, but not the way you were thinking.
Next time talk to us before you decide to jump off a cliff.
T-Bone,
Excellent points as always. To their credit, some good folk like Dexter Alarius put up a bold fight to the bloody end. He wasn’t alone.
Bringing us to our next topic. However did it become so easy to foist taxes upon ourselves.., others? That/’those’ guys?
Every time there’s a new battlefront being drawn, it’s over -who- is going to PAY for it! Was this what our Founding Fathers intended?
Your population has been brainwahsed into thinking that status quo, big government spenders that are good on policy are a better choice than candidates like Ron Paul, who realizes that a smaller government is a less harmful entity.
There is no such candidate. Michelle put it better than I can, “As all of these candidates’ campaigns remind us — endlessly — there’s no such thing as a perfect candidate.
Yep, don’t we all know it? Politics is the Pageant of the Imperfects.” Cain is not perfect, but is the best horse in the race.
This is America. You of course have the right to be wrong. Cain can take it. Debates with Cain and Zero without his TOTUS!!?! (Ahhhhh, wait a sec…, ya know, ahhhhh) PRICELESS!!
Hence the pitfall of trying to elect a candidate that won’t reduce the size of government. When government stays big, and spends big, any number of candidates to elected office will eventually screw you around with insane laws that they pass in Congress.
With someone like Ron Paul, as he reduces the size of government, no number of bad politicians will be able to affect your life to any degree because their reach and ability to affect you will be minimal.
That’s a non-sequitur. Giving the people of Massachusetts what they wanted and getting the country to help pay for it are two different issues. They couldn’t get a dime of out-of-state money if our elected representatives in Washington didn’t give it to them. I agree that that is an issue we need to solve. But expecting conservatives to rule against the will of the people because they are “the elite” and know what’s best for the great unwashed is no different than how liberals want to rule us.
123upnorth,
Much of where I was going. We could stop at, The Status Quo simply not being good enough?
As w/ a lot of things, I blame Greenspan. In the 90′s futures traders were glued on how thick his briefcase was or what colot TIE he was wearing enroute to a Fed mtg. The whole Street waiting on pins and needles to see if there’d be another [centrally planned] Rate drop/increase/HOLD!
Pols seized on this and now it’s the norm. Like the 11th Hour ‘reprieve’ we got on the BTC’s. Pageant of the Imperfects to be sure.
Even more amazing was Noonan going gaga over Obarry. She bought the hopeychangey magic, and somehow had Zero in league with Reagan. She’s back on the WSJ conservative reservation now, but this was almost surreal:
What I Saw at the Inauguration WSJ JANUARY 23, 2009:
“As for Mr. Obama, some thoughts that start with a hunch. He has the kind of self-confidence that will serve him well or undo him. He has to be careful about what he wants, because he’s going to get it, at least at the beginning. He claimed a lot of moderate territory in his Inaugural Address (deepen and expand our alliances, put aside debates on size of government and aim for government that is competent and constructive), but no one is certain, still, what governing philosophy guides him.”
Earth to Peggy. Do you read?
There’s no arguing that Newt hasn’t screwed up on occasion, anymore than we can claim none of the other candidates on our side haven’t. And I agree that Newt is the brightest, most articulate candidate in the group. His baggage isn’t insurmountable, but certainly is not a badge of honor either. Lots of women voters are against him.
I’m sticking with Cain. If he cannot rebound from these allegations he will become yesterday’s news. I’m betting he can. If he comes out of this OK, he has a solid chance at the nomination and an excellent chance of winning against Obama.
If Cain is gone though, Newt will be my next choice to support. Having said that, heck I’d vote for Ron Paul against Obama, if it came down to that. That’s about as possible as finding green cheese on the moon though.
Sorry 123upnorth, that’s just the way it is. And you neglected to add in your post above, that while he would allow Israel to protect herself…..Ron Paul would not go to her defense, because it would not be a direct assault on us.
Maybe you didn’t want Romneycare, but polls show that the majority of Massachusetts citizens still want it. And if the polls are wrong, the voters are free to get rid of it.
There are parts of Romneycare that many, including myself, don’t like. But experimenting at a State level to see what works and what doesn’t work is vastly better than experimenting on the whole country. It’s a lot easier to change things at the State level, as long as the will of the majority is still honored by both parties.
It concerns me that I’m seeing signs among conservatives showing a desire to become more like progressives. How so? Many seem to want their elected politicians to rule with an iron fist against the will of the people whenever the majority chooses anything less than “pure conservatism”. That is just as much a form of tyranny as when progressives force their liberal agenda on the people. In our form of government you persuade people to choose what is best for them. You don’t force them to do what you think is right.
Papa Louie said:
Well certainly the majority that either can’t afford, planned poorly or simply prefer someone else foot the bill?
Here’s what I’m seeing from the wealth mgmt. perspective: Lots of under the table ‘swaps’. Business owners ( the people Obama can’t bring himself to admit publicly he HATES ) are aligning their interests by handshake alone.
You’ve got middle/lower class people flaunting the cell phone/driving laws and the upper trading mansions without all that ‘fussy’ paperwork!
Yo, @$$clowns, you brought it on yourselves. We either can’t afford to comply, are too exhausted to comply and in some cases, refuse to comply. We don’t NEED no stinking 1035 Exchanges…
The only difference is that Romneycare was for one state and Obamacare was for the entire country.
Either which way, it was a way to push more socialism.
Newt do;t you know never believe anything a liberal says???
Man made global warming is another liberal lie.
Can someone tell me why the hell John Huntsman is on the stage other than the fact that he is the Govt media’s nominee?
Romneycare will not defeat Obamacare.
That’s what is planned.
Cain upsets those plans, that’s why the all out assault. He’s not one of the inside players. Can’t have the people electing one of their own. They might get ideas about enforcing laws against foreign nationals running rampant.
Can’t have that.
Romney vs Obama.
Or we could quit acting like the sheeple they treat us like.
If Romney is the nominee, it’s GOP-RIP…..
Sorry, but this is touchy-feely gobledeguk. There has to be some kind of standard for how a leader is to represent his constituency. At one time that standard was the Constitution. Politicians still take the legacy oath, but I guess the modern thing to do would be to take an oath to uphold the welfare and endless entitlement state based off an amalgam of current polling data.
So its “tyrannical” now to want to avoid bankruptcy?
We need another go along to get along republican so the Media will treat him fairly like John McCain. Line up sheeple and vote for Mitt McRomney.
As usual we have to hold our noses while we go vote … but Newt or Romney are far better than what we had in McCain in 2008.
Yes it is. You don’t seem to understand the real world.
Failure to get this basic reality is why socialists and degenerates are overrunning our domestic society, and totalitarians and fanatics are eroding America’s position globally.
The America we treasure cannot survive our indulgence in “leaders” who fail to understand that the only alternative to playing to win is extinction.
Defeating Obama in a debate is irrelevant if we just wind up with more romantic naivete like
having wilted in just 14 years from
Sorry, Newt talks some good talk, but I don’t sense fire in his belly, and fear that anyone who can be seduced into sharing a love seat with Nancy Pelosi is liable to confront, say, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and start feeling thrills up his leg.
When he he announce his repentance? If he had, the LSM would have plastered it as a 24-7 news story.
You mean Marxists haven’t already taken over the GOP? C’mon, when was the last time they nominated a conservative? Almost 30 years now….
Romney is a Marxist, Obama-lite. He has a HISTORY of leftwingwackoism – he MUST, since he was the governor of a leftwingwacko dominated state.
A politician cannot win in that state unless they bow down and worship regularly before the Marxist altar.
(laughs)
Yeah, didn’t see THAT one coming, Newt.
Nope. They wanted Republicans to continue to think Newt still supported Scozzafava so those votes wouldn’t go to Hoffman.
BTW, ‘repentance’ is a bit stronger than what I remember him saying. It was more along the lines of “well that was clearly a mistake.” He did not acknowledge there had been a basic error in his thinking/judgment about Scozzafava, only that the tactic had not worked.
Nevertheless, he is a top Republican. Leaders have to back their party’s nominee unless they have a damned good reason not to do so. He made an error in judgment. There was a damned good reason not to back her, but the error was not nearly so extreme as some here see it.
Party loyalty has to matter, or the Democrats sweep everything, the way Phil wants them to do. Divide and conquer works.