Re-Evaluating Newt..

[Cecilie1200]

By far the best debater and most informed candidate and could easily kick Obama's ass in a debate...

Turned Clinton from a deficit spending President in a fortunate economy to a budget surplus and Democrat pro-sexual harassment hero..

Soo.. what's your beef with this Guy...?

Newt Gingrich: 2012 Campaign Staff Exodus Makes Me 'Feel Liberated'
06/15/11

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said during an appearance on Fox News on Tuesday night that he feels "liberated" by the mass exodus of staffers from his presidential campaign.

Last week, news of aides jumping ship from the Gingrich 2012 political operation sent shockwaves across the political spectrum. Campaign manager Rob Johnson and spokesman Rick Tyler were just two of numerous members of the presidential candidate's team to resign.

Newt Gingrich: 2012 Campaign Staff Exodus Makes Me 'Feel Liberated' (VIDEO)

When "the best debater" and "most informed candidate" can't even convince his own campaign manager and spokesman to stay with his campaign at this early date - then something is definitely wrong!

When a mass exodus of staffers makes a presidential candidate feel "liberated" - then someone is out of touch with reality and my money is on the Newt!

Huffington Post? Puhleeze. I would have explained what happened to you if you hadn't proven yourself to be a braindead twink who's incapable of finding the truth, let alone comprehending it.

Dismissed. Move along.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I think Newt and Ron Paul should find where they agree and push the others out of the way... Then let the best man win.

Now there's a race to the bottom.

...your main problem is your utter inability to understand anything that goes on around you. No one gave a shit about President Horndog ******* around on his wife. Oh, yeah, like that was really shocking and unexpected. We, and Newt, had a problem with him BREAKING THE LAW WHILE HE DID IT. I realize, however, that laws are just suggestions and not to be taken seriously to the leftists.

And your main problem is that you believe such nonsense. Newt cared about getting the President by any means possible. The impeachment was over Clinton's lying about a matter tangential to the charges against him. Clinton wasn't accused of having an affair with Lewinsky, or of sexually harassing Lewinsky. Clinton was being deposed on the Paula Jones accusation, why was he even being questioned about Lewinsky?

I realize, however, that the most revolting hypocrisy is acceptable to the far right, as long as a candidate shares their teabagging rhetoric.

[Not really, I just wanted to make fun of your grandstanding and pitiful excuse making for attacking Clinton while defending Newt.]

Your knowledge of the Clinton impeachment is only exceeded by your knowledge of the legal system and how it works, Perry Mason. Let me guess. You were in middle school when Clinton was impeached?

Run along, Junior. It would take a brain transplant to bring you up to speed enough to understand what happened, and I don't have that much patience with fools.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well if you must ask lumpy.......................

Big Deal--there is no politician that is PER...FECT. All of them have made mistakes and this one is on Newt. He still far outweighs the others as the true statesman out of the bunch--and he could clean Obama's clock in any debate--and everyone knows it.

I dont disagree with that. But I am not interested in establishment politicians. If you want even bigger government give the man your vote.

And you base the belief that he'll increase the size of government on what? The mere fact that he's held public office before? Or is there something else?

 

[Cecilie1200]

By far the best debater and most informed candidate and could easily kick Obama's ass in a debate...

Turned Clinton from a deficit spending President in a fortunate economy to a budget surplus and Democrat pro-sexual harassment hero..

Soo.. what's your beef with this Guy...?

Don't have one. He's already my choice, assuming he's still in by the time my state's primary rolls around.

Newt is the smartest guy in the room. He has tons of experience. I love watching him during the debates. Yep. Smartest guy in the room.

He also has tons of baggage which will affect his chances of being nominated.

Stranger things have happened though.

Tons of baggage such as . . . ?

 

[Amelia]

Don't have one. He's already my choice, assuming he's still in by the time my state's primary rolls around.

Newt is the smartest guy in the room. He has tons of experience. I love watching him during the debates. Yep. Smartest guy in the room.

He also has tons of baggage which will affect his chances of being nominated.

Stranger things have happened though.

Tons of baggage such as . . . ?

In addition to the adultery?

Newt is one of those guys who says he loves America but seems to hate Americans.

In the 1990's there was a news story about a woman whose baby was cut out of her belly. The rest of us were recoiling at the horror of people, individuals, who could do that. Newt was pontificating about the seething underbelly of the welfare society.

Newt has no heart. He has a brain and a weenie. And the weenie obviously overrules the brain more often than it should.



At least that's how he comes across often, and that's baggage.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Newt is the smartest guy in the room. He has tons of experience. I love watching him during the debates. Yep. Smartest guy in the room.

He also has tons of baggage which will affect his chances of being nominated.

Stranger things have happened though.

Tons of baggage such as . . . ?

In addition to the adultery?

Newt is one of those guys who says he loves America but seems to hate Americans.

In the 1990's there was a news story about a woman whose baby was cut out of her belly. The rest of us were recoiling at the horror of people, individuals, who could do that. Newt was pontificating about the seething underbelly of the welfare society.

Newt has no heart. He has a brain and a weenie. And the weenie obviously overrules the brain more often than it should.



At least that's how he comes across often, and that's baggage.

I'm not his wife, and I'm not looking to date him, so I really don't consider his marital relationships, past or present, to be any of my business. And I really don't think now is the time to be quibbling about trivial bullshit. Our nation is in trouble, and to be blunt, I think anyone who's worried about "he's not a very nice or likable guy" at a time like this deserves to have their nation fall apart around them.

Now, show me evidence that Mr. Gingrich violated the law, a la former President Horndog, and we'll talk.

 

[Amelia]

Tons of baggage such as . . . ?

In addition to the adultery?

Newt is one of those guys who says he loves America but seems to hate Americans.

In the 1990's there was a news story about a woman whose baby was cut out of her belly. The rest of us were recoiling at the horror of people, individuals, who could do that. Newt was pontificating about the seething underbelly of the welfare society.

Newt has no heart. He has a brain and a weenie. And the weenie obviously overrules the brain more often than it should.



At least that's how he comes across often, and that's baggage.

I'm not his wife, and I'm not looking to date him, so I really don't consider his marital relationships, past or present, to be any of my business. And I really don't think now is the time to be quibbling about trivial bullshit. Our nation is in trouble, and to be blunt, I think anyone who's worried about "he's not a very nice or likable guy" at a time like this deserves to have their nation fall apart around them.

Now, show me evidence that Mr. Gingrich violated the law, a la former President Horndog, and we'll talk.

You're pointing at the marital infidelity side of the equation and poopooing us holding that against him. Republicans don't get to poopoo that. We've let the religious right carry the torch for us for so long that we are the preacher party. Democrats can cheat and not destroy their party. But if we cheat, we're hypocrites. You might not think it's fair or smart, but that's how it is. Newt burned his morality card and that's baggage.


But for me it's way more than the adultery. It's his hatefulness and lack of empathy. That's more than not being "likable". When a woman is murdered in a heinous way, you give condolences to her family. You don't start hurling around bullshit about the welfare state.



Back during the ground zero mosque upheaval he said something else which showed me that he hadn't learned his lesson, and which can be held against him in soundbites and on a deeper level. I don't remember the details and am not going to look it up at this time. I don't need to now because he's not a contender so I don't have to worry about him. Newt burnt his bridges with me long ago and I'm glad he's not a contender now.

 

[Amelia]

Now, show me evidence that Mr. Gingrich violated the law, a la former President Horndog, and we'll talk.

You asked about baggage. You don't get to define the terms about what should or should not be baggage and say "we'll talk" as if your terms make the baggage no more.

Baggage IS, whether you think it is logical or not. And Gingrich has it.

 

[techieny]

Keep your eye on Newt. I see him gaining much traction in the coming months. While our country continues its slide the constant sparring between Romney/Perry elevates Newt!

 

[Cecilie1200]

In addition to the adultery?

Newt is one of those guys who says he loves America but seems to hate Americans.

In the 1990's there was a news story about a woman whose baby was cut out of her belly. The rest of us were recoiling at the horror of people, individuals, who could do that. Newt was pontificating about the seething underbelly of the welfare society.

Newt has no heart. He has a brain and a weenie. And the weenie obviously overrules the brain more often than it should.



At least that's how he comes across often, and that's baggage.

I'm not his wife, and I'm not looking to date him, so I really don't consider his marital relationships, past or present, to be any of my business. And I really don't think now is the time to be quibbling about trivial bullshit. Our nation is in trouble, and to be blunt, I think anyone who's worried about "he's not a very nice or likable guy" at a time like this deserves to have their nation fall apart around them.

Now, show me evidence that Mr. Gingrich violated the law, a la former President Horndog, and we'll talk.

You're pointing at the marital infidelity side of the equation and poopooing us holding that against him. Republicans don't get to poopoo that. We've let the religious right carry the torch for us for so long that we are the preacher party. Democrats can cheat and not destroy their party. But if we cheat, we're hypocrites. You might not think it's fair or smart, but that's how it is. Newt burned his morality card and that's baggage.


But for me it's way more than the adultery. It's his hatefulness and lack of empathy. That's more than not being "likable". When a woman is murdered in a heinous way, you give condolences to her family. You don't start hurling around bullshit about the welfare state.



Back during the ground zero mosque upheaval he said something else which showed me that he hadn't learned his lesson, and which can be held against him in soundbites and on a deeper level. I don't remember the details and am not going to look it up at this time. I don't need to now because he's not a contender so I don't have to worry about him. Newt burnt his bridges with me long ago and I'm glad he's not a contender now.

What makes you think I'm a Republican?

Furthermore, please refer back to what I said earlier: if you're worried about his personality at a time like this, you deserve to have your country fall apart around you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Now, show me evidence that Mr. Gingrich violated the law, a la former President Horndog, and we'll talk.

You asked about baggage. You don't get to define the terms about what should or should not be baggage and say "we'll talk" as if your terms make the baggage no more.

Baggage IS, whether you think it is logical or not. And Gingrich has it.

Yes, because there are a lot of shallow halfwits in this country who've been weaned on The National Inquirer and now don't seem to know how to differentiate between politicians and celebrities and set priorities when it comes to elections.

I don't get to tell you what inane bullshit you can or can't value over little things like issues, positions, and plans, but I sure as hell DO get to tell you that your "baggage" is a load of crap if that's what I think. And I do. So again, feel free to vote for the person who seems warm and fuzzy to you, but don't even consider coming in here and bitching about the problems in this country afterward. Your response is going to be, "But I'm sure he sends his condolences for your suffering, and that's all you cared about, isn't it?"

Myself, I'd rather have a coldhearted bastard who can fix our problems than a nice, likable person who sympathizes with them.

 

[Amelia]

Now, show me evidence that Mr. Gingrich violated the law, a la former President Horndog, and we'll talk.

You asked about baggage. You don't get to define the terms about what should or should not be baggage and say "we'll talk" as if your terms make the baggage no more.

Baggage IS, whether you think it is logical or not. And Gingrich has it.

Yes, because there are a lot of shallow halfwits in this country who've been weaned on The National Inquirer and now don't seem to know how to differentiate between politicians and celebrities and set priorities when it comes to elections.

I don't get to tell you what inane bullshit you can or can't value over little things like issues, positions, and plans, but I sure as hell DO get to tell you that your "baggage" is a load of crap if that's what I think. And I do. So again, feel free to vote for the person who seems warm and fuzzy to you, but don't even consider coming in here and bitching about the problems in this country afterward. Your response is going to be, "But I'm sure he sends his condolences for your suffering, and that's all you cared about, isn't it?"

Myself, I'd rather have a coldhearted bastard who can fix our problems than a nice, likable person who sympathizes with them.

You asked about the baggage. I noted some of it. You can deny it all you want, but it exists.

Newt is not a viable candidate.

That's the bottom line.

 

[The T]

You asked about baggage. You don't get to define the terms about what should or should not be baggage and say "we'll talk" as if your terms make the baggage no more.

Baggage IS, whether you think it is logical or not. And Gingrich has it.

Yes, because there are a lot of shallow halfwits in this country who've been weaned on The National Inquirer and now don't seem to know how to differentiate between politicians and celebrities and set priorities when it comes to elections.

I don't get to tell you what inane bullshit you can or can't value over little things like issues, positions, and plans, but I sure as hell DO get to tell you that your "baggage" is a load of crap if that's what I think. And I do. So again, feel free to vote for the person who seems warm and fuzzy to you, but don't even consider coming in here and bitching about the problems in this country afterward. Your response is going to be, "But I'm sure he sends his condolences for your suffering, and that's all you cared about, isn't it?"

Myself, I'd rather have a coldhearted bastard who can fix our problems than a nice, likable person who sympathizes with them.

You asked about the baggage. I noted some of it. You can deny it all you want, but it exists.

Newt is not a viable candidate.

That's the bottom line.

Any in the field are viable...moreso than Obama ever was.

 

[SAT]

YOu know why I don't buy what she said. She and Thomas worked at the Department of Education, where he was supposedly a creep. Then he went to EEOC.

Now most people, when they have a boss they hate, they have a little party. They do a little dance. They say a little prayer of thanks to whatever sky pixie they worship. They don't make an effort to get that person back into their lives.

Hill took a transfer to work with Thomas again. Despite the supposed sexual harrassment.

Then she maintained contact with him for a decade, going back to him for letters of recommendation. This is really making a lot of effort to keep someone you hate in your life.

Then lo and behold, he's up for this appointment, and she comes out of the woodwork and says he did this... um... stuff... which really amounted to less obnoxious behavior than I see in my office every day. Which no one else in the office actually said they saw.

You don't have the facts straight, or the background knowledge of the situation.

Most people aren't in Hill's position. Clerking for a federal judge is a very big deal. It was an even bigger deal for a black woman back then. If she pisses Thomas off, it's very easy for him to ruin her career.

As for going back for letters of recommendation, he's the judge that she clerked for. So what does she say when she applies for positions? "I clerked for a federal judge, but don't ask me which one".

As for "no one else saw it", do you really think that's a compelling argument?

Hill didn't come "out of the woodwork". She was about to be subpoenaed, so she came in voluntarily.

What I know about abolishing the czars is that they're Unconstitutional and have no business having power in our federal government, and thus, I know that it's an excellent idea to return that power to the people duly elected or appointed in accordance with law.

But as I mentioned earlier, I realize that laws are just suggestions to be ignored at will to leftists, so I don't expect you to understand why they're so important to the rest of us.

The czars are not unconstitutional. You have no clue what you're talking about.

Let me guess. You were in middle school when Clinton was impeached?

Run along, Junior. It would take a brain transplant to bring you up to speed enough to understand what happened, and I don't have that much patience with fools.

No patience with fools. Then your inner life must be hell.

I'm old enough to remember the Cuban Missile Crisis, the assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK, the first moonwalk, and when the Andy Griffith Show was in black and white. I watched the Watergate hearings live, and I remember the Clinton impeachment hearings well.

In other words, you're wrong on the facts, and in your guesses.

 

[JoeB131]

YOu know why I don't buy what she said. She and Thomas worked at the Department of Education, where he was supposedly a creep. Then he went to EEOC.

Now most people, when they have a boss they hate, they have a little party. They do a little dance. They say a little prayer of thanks to whatever sky pixie they worship. They don't make an effort to get that person back into their lives.

Hill took a transfer to work with Thomas again. Despite the supposed sexual harrassment.

Then she maintained contact with him for a decade, going back to him for letters of recommendation. This is really making a lot of effort to keep someone you hate in your life.

Then lo and behold, he's up for this appointment, and she comes out of the woodwork and says he did this... um... stuff... which really amounted to less obnoxious behavior than I see in my office every day. Which no one else in the office actually said they saw.

You don't have the facts straight, or the background knowledge of the situation.

Most people aren't in Hill's position. Clerking for a federal judge is a very big deal. It was an even bigger deal for a black woman back then. If she pisses Thomas off, it's very easy for him to ruin her career.

As for going back for letters of recommendation, he's the judge that she clerked for. So what does she say when she applies for positions? "I clerked for a federal judge, but don't ask me which one".

Well, the first thing you got wrong here was that she was "Clerking for a federal judge". At the time, Thomas was not a judge, and she was not "clerking".

He was the head of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of education. Then he transferred to the head of the EEOC-and SHE TRANSFERED TO WORK FOR HIM AGAIN. These are both parts of the EXECUTIVE Branch, not the Judiciary. Also at the time, she had passed the bar and was a practicing staff lawyer.

So your facts are completely wrong and you are profoundly ignorant, and apparently too stupid to use Google or Wiki.

Further, she was a Ivy League Law school graduate, a woman and a minority. Big law firms would be tag teaming each other to sign her up, normally. Of course, at a law firm, you'd be required to actually do some work, unlike the government or academia, where "work" is a four letter word.

As for "no one else saw it", do you really think that's a compelling argument?

Hill didn't come "out of the woodwork". She was about to be subpoenaed, so she came in voluntarily.

Yeah, that is a compelling argument. I know in my office who is sleeping with who, who is gay, who is sucking up to the boss to get that promotion, and so on. And it's like that in every workplace. And I go out of my way to NOT listen to office gossip.

Comparing Thomas to Clinton- there wasn't even a whisper about this kind of stuff before Hill came out of the woodwork. (By they way, she was only supeoned by the Judiciary Committee because Biden's staff scrambled to find any dirt they could on him, and she made an oblique reference that didn't look anything like her eventual testimony. By the time Arlen Spector got through with her, she had no credibility, and Biden had to retreat with his tail betwix his legs.)

On the other hand, we all knew that Clinton was a horndog from day one. I think the main reason he got away with it was that we were all kind of number to six years of this shit.

 

[SAT]

Well, the first thing you got wrong here was that she was "Clerking for a federal judge". At the time, Thomas was not a judge, and she was not "clerking".

He was the head of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of education. Then he transferred to the head of the EEOC-and SHE TRANSFERED TO WORK FOR HIM AGAIN. These are both parts of the EXECUTIVE Branch, not the Judiciary. Also at the time, she had passed the bar and was a practicing staff lawyer.

So your facts are completely wrong and you are profoundly ignorant, and apparently too stupid to use Google or Wiki.

Further, she was a Ivy League Law school graduate, a woman and a minority. Big law firms would be tag teaming each other to sign her up, normally. Of course, at a law firm, you'd be required to actually do some work, unlike the government or academia, where "work" is a four letter word.

You are correct, I got some of her bio wrong. Just like you got your claim about her "coming out of the woodwork" wrong.

But the argument remains-these jobs are not like being a store clerk or a waitress. You can't hide large parts of your biography and not feel the repercussions.

Yeah, that is a compelling argument.

No, it isn't. Others in an office often don't know about a coworker being sexually harassed, because the harasser only harasses in one on one situations.

 

[JoeB131]

Well, the first thing you got wrong here was that she was "Clerking for a federal judge". At the time, Thomas was not a judge, and she was not "clerking".

He was the head of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of education. Then he transferred to the head of the EEOC-and SHE TRANSFERED TO WORK FOR HIM AGAIN. These are both parts of the EXECUTIVE Branch, not the Judiciary. Also at the time, she had passed the bar and was a practicing staff lawyer.

So your facts are completely wrong and you are profoundly ignorant, and apparently too stupid to use Google or Wiki.

Further, she was a Ivy League Law school graduate, a woman and a minority. Big law firms would be tag teaming each other to sign her up, normally. Of course, at a law firm, you'd be required to actually do some work, unlike the government or academia, where "work" is a four letter word.

You are correct, I got some of her bio wrong. Just like you got your claim about her "coming out of the woodwork" wrong.

But the argument remains-these jobs are not like being a store clerk or a waitress. You can't hide large parts of your biography and not feel the repercussions.

You just didn't get a few things wrong. You got EVERYTHING wrong.

I go back to my point, WHICH YOU HAVE DODGE TWICE NOW. She was at Dept. of Ed. He moved to EEOC. There was no good reason for her to transfer to EEOC as well, but she did. IN fact, the DOE position was protected, and the EEOC one was questionable, because the Reagan Administration was openly talking about shutting down EEOC as being utterly worthless. (Alas, they didn't.)

So she went from a safe job where she could have built credibility with a new, not going to harrass you supervisor, to one that could be closed down at any minute with a guy who apparently was harrassing her daily. Does this make a lick of sense to you? Honestly, it doesn't for me. I have a bunch of ex-bosses I'm not fond of, but they never did anything that bad. There's no amount of money you could offer me to work for one of them again.

So looking at the narrative she gave not making a lick of sense, I really have to wonder if there was something else going on. Maybe she had an unrequited thing going on for him, and got all offended he married a white woman. (Seriously, I know black women who think this is the ultimate race treason.) Maybe she felt that he got the promotions she thought she deserved. Or maybe she was a Democratic hack who just hates Republicans.

Yeah, that is a compelling argument.

No, it isn't. Others in an office often don't know about a coworker being sexually harassed, because the harasser only harasses in one on one situations.[/QUOTE]

In every case of alledged sexual harrassment I've every seen, the entire office knew about it, usually because the agreived person told everyone she knew how offended she was.

And let's look at the exact nature of the supposed "offending" behavior. He made a few vulgar comments. He asked her out to dinner. Sweet Evil Jesus on a Pogo Stick, man, that would apply to 90% of male workers in the country!

 

[SAT]

I got some of the story wrong. So did you, and you continue to do so, with your comments about the nature of the harassment.

She gave her reasons for transferring to EEOC.

You do not seem to grasp that she was pursuing a particular line of work, and seem to believe that she could have worked for some other EEOC.

There are many harassed women who don't tell what happened to all of their coworkers. You wonder why? Look at your own line of attack on her, and your creepy defense of offenders.

 

[Lumpy 1]

A lot of interesting posts... but... what about Newt..?

 

[SAT]

He's well named-after a slimy, slippery creature that lacks a conscience or a long-range plan.