Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

April 22, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

DECONSTRUCTING NEWT....I think Newt Gingrich has finally died and been replaced by a Newtbot. You know, one of those computer games where you type in a few initial subjects and it spits out some related nonsense prose in the style of a famous author. In this case, the author is Newt Gingrich.

Or maybe, as in one of those old Superman comics, Newt has died and been replaced by a full-blown Newt robot. Except the power supply is running down and the poor thing is reduced to spouting nonsense in a vaguely Newt-esque style.

Or....maybe Newt is still alive, but thanks to an alien virus even he can't talk like Newt anymore. He can only produce a parody of 1994-vintage Newt. That's probably it.

Seriously, does this even make any sense at all? Isn't it time to stop inviting a guy who talks like this onto Sunday morning talk shows?

Kevin Drum 8:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (96)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Or maybe newt is just the same scum sucking monster he has always been. As my gram used to say; People don't change as they get older, they just get more like themselves.

Posted by: klyde on April 22, 2007 at 9:13 PM | PERMALINK

He's a damn fool and proves it every time he opens his mouth. Why do people even listen to the man anymore?

Posted by: TomStewart on April 22, 2007 at 9:22 PM | PERMALINK

Golly! Newt has been totally unhinged. And he was once a professor correcting the essays of undergraduates?

Posted by: troglodyte on April 22, 2007 at 9:23 PM | PERMALINK

Newt's exposition bears the same relation to rational thought that the character Boomhauer (from King of the Hill)'s mumble bears to articulate speech.

Posted by: lampwick on April 22, 2007 at 9:24 PM | PERMALINK

And yet he stills stands out as a towering intellect and orator if you put him next to George W Bush.

Posted by: billy on April 22, 2007 at 9:26 PM | PERMALINK

What Newt said makes perfect sense to the 30% of the country that hasn't given up on Bush. In fact you can rearrange the words randomly and it *still* makes perfect sense to those of us who support Bush, as I'll demonstrate here:


“Well, who has one of the Halloween costumes this last year was being able to be either a women — the fact, what’s a costume, and we don’t have any discussion about we’re restricting political free speech under created a situation happened to our culture degrading of what’s happened for example, that ethics, essentially, zone of not being willing to say. Let me carry another example. I strongly supported Imus prostitute or a pimp at 10, 11, 12 years of age, buying to our culture because while McCain-Feingold, we also think the very thing he was dismissed for, which is the use of language which is stunningly that that’s a major component any of these things. It’s impossible to restrict vulgar talk about I being dismissed, but of and vicious and anti-human speech. And I would argue in the last 40 years.”

Posted by: Preemptive Wingnuttery on April 22, 2007 at 9:35 PM | PERMALINK

Gingrich was clearly quoted out of context, as anyone who saw the show can atest.

What he was saying, in a nutshell, is that actions have consequences, and everything is inter-related in our society.

I shouldn't have to explain that.

Posted by: Al on April 22, 2007 at 9:40 PM | PERMALINK

I think Newt Gingrich has finally died and been replaced by a Newtbot.

lol, seriously

Posted by: Swan on April 22, 2007 at 9:41 PM | PERMALINK

Gingrich was clearly quoted out of context, as anyone who saw the show can atest.

I saw the show, Al, and it was even more asinine on television than it is in print. What context are you talking about? He said what he said.

Sheesh.

Posted by: shnooky on April 22, 2007 at 9:43 PM | PERMALINK

I don't even have to read it. If it came from a movement conservative, it's crazy.

Posted by: craigie on April 22, 2007 at 9:44 PM | PERMALINK

Al, isn't it possible that liberals aren't influential enough that they caused the things that Newt is complaining about? Isn't it possible the people responsible for those things would have done them even if vocal liberals weren't vocal? Isn't the complaint that Newt really doesn't explain how he knows that liberals are responsible for these things?

It's really obvious that Newt is complaining about far-flung and specific examples without doing a bit of work to show how any of them might be connected to the influence of liberalism any more that the influence of one person's pervertedness or the market's influence. It's so obvious I shouldn't have to explain that.

Posted by: Swan on April 22, 2007 at 9:46 PM | PERMALINK

Odd that Stephanopoulos would invite Newt to discuss Blacksburg, since after all these years it's no secret that he wouldn't think of addressing such a disaster in any but the crassest partisan fashion. Probably he got the call because Stephanopoulos didn't want anybody from the administration (Russert had two of those), and no politician with a job and/or a real shot at an '08 presidential nomination wanted to talk about this at any length.

Posted by: penalcolony on April 22, 2007 at 9:48 PM | PERMALINK

Remember, this unhinged nutjob was a Republican Speaker of the House — and is toying with the notion of running for president.

Run, Newt, run!

Posted by: craigie on April 22, 2007 at 9:50 PM | PERMALINK

I shouldn't have to explain that.

Don't worry; you didn't.

Posted by: penalcolony on April 22, 2007 at 9:51 PM | PERMALINK

I left this comment on another site when this topic was posted on, but it's relevant here, too.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But what does that have to do with liberalism?

GINGRICH: Well, who has created a situation ethics, essentially...

Would that be anything like the situation where he was leading an impeachment of a president over an extramarital affair - while he was conducting one his damn self?

That kind of situation ethics, Newt?

***

Seriously - what ethics aren't situational? Everyone who has had a class in Ethics gets this salient fact.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 22, 2007 at 9:52 PM | PERMALINK

craigie nailed it.

Posted by: gregor on April 22, 2007 at 9:53 PM | PERMALINK

Why are we even having this discussion? Whenever a topic begins with..."well, did you hear Bill O'Reilly...blah,blah..."; or, "what about Chris Matthews' comments on 'Hardball'...yadda-yadda; or,
"...just check out Bret Hume the other day when he said...blah".
For God's sake, what is the bloody point? These dull tools are paid to elicit just this sort of response...isn't it obvious? They're fucking entertainers, and the Newtster - in order to maintain some sort of media profile - is exactly in that modality as well. Give it a rest, people; in the greater scheme of things, it's fly turds on the windows, full stop.

Posted by: barrisj on April 22, 2007 at 9:54 PM | PERMALINK

Bob Dole used to tell a joke about Newt that has always summed it up for me. Dole used to rave that Gingrich was such an intellect, always coming up with innovative proposals and so forth. Dole noted that the Speaker had 5 filing cabinets in his personal office. The first filing cabinet, which was a tall 5-drawer cabinet, was labeled "Newt's Ideas." The second cabinet, which was also a 5-drawer model was labeled "Newt's Ideas." The third and forth cabinets, which were also 5-drawer models, had the same labels: Newt's Ideas." In the corner, Dole said, right next to the four big filing cabinets, was a tiny, one-drawer filing cabinet. Its label: "Newt's Good Ideas."

Posted by: Pat on April 22, 2007 at 10:02 PM | PERMALINK

Penalcolony nails it! His thinking goes back to one of Kevin's earlier posts about 24/7 cable TV. The news shows needed talking heads desperately, but if you are a responsible self-preserving politico why would you go on a talk show in which the only quotes remembered would be the off-key ones. This leaves the arena to nutjobs like Newt.

So why are the talk shows focussing on the opinions of politicos regarding the VT massacre anyway? It is too early to propose a responsible policy response -- lets leave the arena to the psychologists and cultural commentators for now. The opinion that a cultural problem lies at the root of the VT massacre is widely felt, and deserves a more sober discussion by talking heads.

Posted by: troglodyte on April 22, 2007 at 10:05 PM | PERMALINK

nut job. newt is simply a nut job.

Posted by: mudwall jackson on April 22, 2007 at 10:07 PM | PERMALINK

Remember when Susan Smith killed her kids, Newt blamed it all on George McGovern, even though McGovern has only had one wife, never put his kids on the parish, and actually opened an honest business. So, he's been nuts in this way a long time. Of course, it turned out that Smith had been molested by her step-father, a paragon of the Republican prayer breakfast circuit.

A lot of movement conservatives think the Newt is the smartest conservative going--the horror is they may be right.

Incidentally, situational ethics--the doctrine that circumstances alter cases--under the name casuistry was developed by protestant and catholic theologians in the 16th C.

Posted by: john sherman on April 22, 2007 at 10:09 PM | PERMALINK

Situations run headlong into categorical imperatives every damned time.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 22, 2007 at 10:16 PM | PERMALINK

Ya'll have been had by sockpuppet newt. He's a parody of a conservative "thinker". If you stopped paying attention to him he would probably get bored and find something else to do.

Posted by: B on April 22, 2007 at 10:21 PM | PERMALINK

I think Newt deserves some kind of medal for red state red herrings. Talk about staying on your talking points.

Seriously, Newt went on national television and blamed CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM for the shootings at VA Tech.

Newt actually managed to link campaign finance reform to a killing spree by a mentally unhinged person. Yep, when a crazy person goes crazy the key federal law Newt focuses on is not the federal law that was broken--the one that prohibits crazy people from bying guns--but the federal law on how much money individuals are allowed to donate to a political campaign.

And, I'm sorry, Republicans support torture. Once the Republican party became the "Screw Civil Rights! Habeas Schmorpus! Rah Rah Torture!" party, they ceded right to accuse anyone, anywhere of situational ethics.

At this point, the key philosophical difference between Democrats & Republicans is that Democrats are the party that supports the Rule of Law, while Republicans flatly don't. You wanna talk situational ethics, let's look at the theory of the unitary executive, which seems to be "if the President does it, it can't be against the law." I don't know how much more un-American and screwed up a philosophy one could have.

Posted by: anonymous on April 22, 2007 at 10:34 PM | PERMALINK

We have a lot of trick-or-treaters in our neighborhood, and I have yet to see a kid dressed up as a pimp or a prostitute.

Posted by: Emma Anne on April 22, 2007 at 10:34 PM | PERMALINK

GINGRICH: Well, who has created a situation ethics, essentially...


It must be those people whose first resort is violence, recalcitrance and contempt, and for whom society doesn't exist except as a method of controlling the suckers.

Posted by: cld on April 22, 2007 at 10:35 PM | PERMALINK

Would that be anything like the situation where he was leading an impeachment of a president over an extramarital affair - while he was conducting one his damn self?

That kind of situation ethics, Newt?

Game, set, and match to Global Citizen.

Posted by: trex on April 22, 2007 at 10:41 PM | PERMALINK

I think it was liberalism that caused Newt to serve his first wife with divorce papers while she was recovering from cancer surgery. And it was liberalism that caused him to get blowjobs in the car from his mistress while his daughters from his first wife played outside. And it was liberalism that caused Newt to bounce 22 checks in the House banking scandal. And it was liberalism that caused him to rail against Bill Clinton's infidelity while he cheated on his second wife with a woman 25 years younger than himself.

Yup - it was liberalism that caused all of those things and every other bad thing in the universe, too!

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on April 22, 2007 at 10:47 PM | PERMALINK

Bomb bomb bomb
Bomb bomb Iran....

Posted by: McCain, Cho, or a lover of situational ethics? on April 22, 2007 at 10:48 PM | PERMALINK

How about the ObamaBot who responded to the Virginia Tech massacre by talking about the "verbal violence" of Don Imus?

Posted by: Steve Sailer on April 22, 2007 at 10:54 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, Don Imus could have spoken to that kid on his own level.

Posted by: cld on April 22, 2007 at 10:56 PM | PERMALINK

Newt just uses 'intellectual talk' and 'ideas' to seduce the listener into believing this is a guy worth listening to. Then he feeds them the same old hateful bigotted lies that all the other Republicans spew.

Newt is just a disgusting little worm like all the other Republican politicians.

He says the Liberals are at fault, but which party has had the power since 1980? Seems Repubs have had their fair share of presidencies (going back to Grant even) and almost all have been criminals or had criminal activities in the administration somewhere.

Newt's a worm!

Posted by: MarkH on April 22, 2007 at 10:59 PM | PERMALINK

Newt Gingrich/Zell Miller 2008

Posted by: R.L. on April 22, 2007 at 10:59 PM | PERMALINK

Nothing wrong with Newtie. He's just your garden-variety sociopath dominating a clutch of right wing authoritarians. Stuff like this grows like spanish moss in the former confederacy...

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

Posted by: Snorri Sturluson on April 22, 2007 at 11:16 PM | PERMALINK

I have been ripping Newt Gingrich in various forums since before doing battle with Ray Suarez on the old NPR bulletin board. That was before NPR divided the board into discussions. At the time, Gingrich was Speaker of the House.

I could never figure out whether Ray thought I was too hard on poor ol' Newt or he was afraid that the then god-like Newt might cut into NPR's funding.

While I got more than a few laughs watching Ray Suarez trying to defend Newt Gingrich, I agree with Gingrich that excessive liberalism has not been good for schools. As I suggested to Der Spiegel a few days ago, I remember a time when schools in the United States were relatively safe. From about the third grade through graduation, I carried a pocketknife to school. Most boys did. Nor were knives the only weapons that found their way to school.

Along with several other students, a cousin of mine took his surplus British .303 Enfield to school. Ammunition, of course, was verboten. The weapons were modified, by removing excess wood, into lighter hunting rifles in the school's wood working shop.

During the course of the modifications, there were occasions when I would walk with my cousin as he carried his rifle home from school. Our journey took us past the same newly built elementary school where my wife would, a decade later, have her first teaching job. At the time, no one thought anything about two schoolboys carrying a rifle on a city street. Today, the same cousin is a superior court judge.

My wife entered teaching at a time when schools began putting an emphasis on social engineering, political correctness, and running male teachers out of the classroom. These days, my wife is an award winning nationally certified teacher with over three decades of classroom experience. She has been a mentor to other teachers. Among her present duties is teaching other teachers how to teach.

Years ago, one of her students inadvertently brought a pistol to school. My wife confiscated the weapon, locked it away, and called the parents. After a little tete-a-tete with the parents and the child, the parents took both firearm and their little miscreant home. Nothing ever came of the incident. My wife does not believe hauling a child off in handcuffs and given a criminal record to be in the best interests of the child or of society.

Because she treats students with dignity and respect, she has never had any real problems with classroom behavior. At the same time, were she starting her professional career, after graduating from college with honors after three years, she would not pick education. Our daughter, an Ivy League graduate, never seriously considered entering the public school classroom.

Public schools in the United States never have been great places of education. At the same time, as noted above, there was a time when they were relatively safe. Then, preoccupied with social engineering, liberals lost control of the classrooms, bathrooms, and halls. In the process, they made schools less safe than they once were.

Schools have taken on the responsibility of teaching various extracurricular activities. There is sex education, driver's training, drug awareness, and gang resistance, to name a few. Meanwhile, gone is awareness training for the one thing educators fear most - firearms in the hands of students.

Then, given the mess that social engineers made of sex education and drug awareness, I can see where they might be a little gun-shy.

Posted by: Bell on April 22, 2007 at 11:17 PM | PERMALINK

So why are the talk shows focusing on the opinions of politicos regarding the VT massacre anyway?

Posted by: troglodyte on April 22, 2007 at 10:05 PM

Because it's easier than actually thinking.

Posted by: Vincent on April 22, 2007 at 11:19 PM | PERMALINK

Gingrich is one Newt who will not get better.

Posted by: Ni on April 22, 2007 at 11:28 PM | PERMALINK

The sad thing is if you put him back in congress up against a President Obama, Obama would shit his pants and collapse like a tent made of toilet paper (and I'm not even talking about two-ply).

Posted by: jussumbody on April 22, 2007 at 11:50 PM | PERMALINK

Well, liberals are responsible for the gun laws in Virginia. And we know how often liberals are demanding that we should buy all of our hollow tip ammunition from Ebay. It's also fair to point out that liberals forced his high school geometry teacher (and wife) to get fat and unattractive and force him to have an affair.

Posted by: Tuna on April 22, 2007 at 11:51 PM | PERMALINK

Gingrich's meandering stream of neo-consciousness oddly echoes Bush's babbling brook of non-sequiturs while addressing a high school in Ohio last Thursday.

In that truly bizarre ramble through the epistemological netherworld of Planet Bush, he conflated a rug that says "optimistic person comes to work", "a chicken plucking factory or whatever you call them", opinion polls that "just go poof at times I mean they're a moment that they are" (?!) & his role as Commander in Chief: "Nobody ought to ever hope to be a war president or a presidency - a president during war. But that's how I see the world." The students understandably reacted with polite bewilderment - inappropriate applause & confused laughter. Bush's minders gave eachother nervous sidelong glances that eloquently declared their grim realisation that the President is dumber - & possibly crazier - than a purse full of raw meat & hammers.

Gingrich's scattershot conflation of V Tech, campaign finance, Halloween costumes, Imus, video games & "situational ethics" to blame liberals for mass murder & the existence of sin, while less torturously expressed than Bush, is clearly symptomatic of the same pathology: CTDD. Conservative Tourette's Disassociative Disorder.

Posted by: DanJoaquinOz on April 23, 2007 at 12:10 AM | PERMALINK

As I understand the Carpetbagger Report's objection is that Newt's complaints didn't have a central theme. But, they did. Newt asserted that "liberals had created a zone of not being willing to talk about" things. In support of this thesis, he mentioned various liberal ideas that he says have reduced communication:

1. McCain-Feingold. This law clearly restricts speech, since it prohibits various types of political ads in the period before an election.

2. "We say it’s impossible to restrict vulgar and vicious and anti-human speech." So, Newt claims that we cannot talk about the need to restrict anti-human speech. If this objection were correct, it would represent a social restriction on certain types of speech.

3. Newt's 1999 quote after Columbine said, "I accuse you in Littleton…of being afraid to talk about the mess you have made.” Again, he was complaining about a lack of communication.

I don't necessarily agree with Newt. But, he does have a somewhat consistent theme here.

Posted by: ex-liberal on April 23, 2007 at 12:10 AM | PERMALINK

Here's what to do with this media mess. REGULATE it like this:
1) News-civic affairs-opinioncinema/whatnot shows can not have any commercials.
2) Mandate that ALL networks and cable channels devote X% of their airtime to non-profit civic programming with no commercials.

Force big media corporations to fund news gathering, etc, from the profits of entertainment media rather than creating infotainment profits that are corrupting.

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on April 23, 2007 at 12:11 AM | PERMALINK

It was never Newt, not even back in the 90s. It was the media making him into something newsworthy, he was merely the right loud mouth at the right time.

Posted by: Fred on April 23, 2007 at 12:19 AM | PERMALINK

I hate to introduce the "H" word here, but Gingrich obviously studied his speeches most assiduoulsy as he uses exactly the same trick.

Every time he argues a case, he states as a matter of fact those things that at least are not true and usually are outright lies; but no one calls him on it!

This has gone on throughout his career, continues to this day, and I have no idea why.

His whole philosophy is clearly founded on mis-facts but he is still thought of as an intellectual.

Surely only in Republican minds!

Posted by: notthere on April 23, 2007 at 12:38 AM | PERMALINK

Doc on the Radar Station:

PBS in the States, CBC in Canada both go the semi-commercial route. BBC in the UK goes the public financing route: France, I think, has the same. Other Western European coutries to soem degree or another. All have charters that require independence of news promulgation.

Your premise is that some US stations are broadcasting not news but propaganda. Wow! What a suggestion!

Of course, you are right. No US charter of news independence or coverage.

So do we want a nation educated by real, truthful, unvarnished and actual news, or with a bent -- whether right or left? And who judges?

You know where I stand. But where GWB, the trolls on this site, or the 30% who think all this is OK? And what power do they have?

Hell, what was the actual membership of the NAZI party when they took power? (Sorry) But I really lost hope about humanity when we had both Rwanda and Yugoslav genocide. Our inability to act over Dafur only reinforces.

Posted by: notthere on April 23, 2007 at 12:55 AM | PERMALINK

Why does something have to be evil to be [i]wrong[/i]?

Posted by: Crissa on April 23, 2007 at 1:09 AM | PERMALINK

Crissa -- it doesn't.

And it never did. Until these guys came aroound and twisted us all. This is the most evil government the USA has ever had.

Posted by: notthere on April 23, 2007 at 1:18 AM | PERMALINK

Newt Gingrich's verbal diarrhea is nothing new. Once, during a discussion with fellow Republicans about the then-House Speaker, the late Sen. Barry Goldwater observed that Gingrich was his own worst enemy because "he talked too much", and then asked rhetorically, "Can't anybody shut that guy up?"

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on April 23, 2007 at 1:18 AM | PERMALINK

"Isn't it time to stop inviting a guy who talks like this onto Sunday morning talk shows?Isn't it time to stop inviting a guy who talks like this onto Sunday morning talk shows?"

Abso-frickin'-lutely

The continuing degradation of the MSM.

Posted by: worldserious on April 23, 2007 at 1:34 AM | PERMALINK

ex-thinker: "I don't necessarily agree with Newt..."

...but I certainly identify with his incoherence.

Posted by: Kenji on April 23, 2007 at 1:39 AM | PERMALINK

Actually, it makes as much sense as what Obama said.

There is a real problem in a country in which little girls dress up as hookers for halloween and interest groups are prohibited from criticising candidates within 60 days of elections.


Trying to say it all in 25 words or less was ill-advised. but Gingrich really spoke no more foolishly than Obama.

Crissa: Why does something have to be evil to be [/i]wrong[i]?

When people are unwilling to call an action evil, they usually try to find exculpation for the actor. In the case of Cho, the system failed to identify a troubled youth; in the case of jihadists it's a problem with global global capitalism. Calling an action "evil" is really shorthand for calling the actor "wrong".

Posted by: MatthewRMarler on April 23, 2007 at 2:20 AM | PERMALINK

Late night people, check out something new I wrote here.

Posted by: Swan on April 23, 2007 at 2:37 AM | PERMALINK

Why?

Posted by: snicker-snack on April 23, 2007 at 2:56 AM | PERMALINK

I think it is time we all wrote and called shame on Newt and on Limbaugh (who said Cho must have been a liberal in his April 19, 2007, radio show.) These nutjobs need to be called to account for shamelessly exploiting the Virginia Tech massacre for political gain.

Somebody wrote that the opposite of love isn't hate. The opposite of love is indiffrence. In this case both Limbaugh and Gingrich are indifferent to the feelings of the Virginia Tech families and their victims.

Posted by: Ron Byers on April 23, 2007 at 5:38 AM | PERMALINK

Even Newt doesn't listen to himself anymore.

Posted by: Tilli (Mojave Desert) on April 23, 2007 at 5:49 AM | PERMALINK

Seriously, if either Newt or Rush were trying to pin Virginia Tech on Liberals, I wouldn't be upset, but when both of the towering intellects actively attempt to associate the word "liberal" with a mass murder, given their past branding successes, it is hard not to conclude that Newt and Rush's comments aren't part of a coordinated branding effort. I am sick of this shit. It has to be stopped now.

Posted by: Ron Byers on April 23, 2007 at 6:02 AM | PERMALINK

Click here to find out how slimy Newton Leroy Gingrich really is.

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on April 23, 2007 at 6:38 AM | PERMALINK

Newt Gingrich is building up a false enemy, like Joesph McCarthy did with his communist suspicion, so there is method to his madness. You just have to find enough of those stupid rednecks types to believe Dems are all about indecency.

Newt doesn't see anything wrong with Bush's "pay to play" Repug philosophy, and indeed Newt has even said so. This is why Murdock, owner of FOX and CNN, wants Newt to run, and asked him to run, because Murdock likes buying his way to power and sees nothing wrong with making himself rich that way either, and thus why FOX News is nothing more than a Repug support machine. But Murdoch's Fox TV network is fighting a record-setting FCC indecency fine.

Newt doesn't have any problem with that, but wants to set-up the radical right-wing base under a pretext of decency. It's like Bush saying he's a "united and not a divider" or he was a "compassionate" conservative. Bush is any of those ideas, never was and never will be.

It's Karl Roves same old tatics, but these tatics are pretty much played out. Still, Newt is hoping to connect with a radical right-wing constituency of closed-minded religious righties, which of course is Bush’s only supporters these days, a reguler cult club.

Bush at 30% - that's a lot of brain dead redneck support out there. But it's not enough to get elected, least not anymore.


Posted by: Cheryl on April 23, 2007 at 7:44 AM | PERMALINK

It's true what they say, then -- crystal meth doesn't snort itself....

Posted by: Hemlock for Gadflies on April 23, 2007 at 8:46 AM | PERMALINK

"Dope smoking, draft-dodging, deadbeat dad who divorced his dying wife." - Molly Ivins

Seems like the ideal GOP nominee for 2008.

Posted by: MaxGowan on April 23, 2007 at 9:12 AM | PERMALINK

He's just older and more craven.

Posted by: WeaverRose on April 23, 2007 at 9:45 AM | PERMALINK

He definitely goes around spouting stuff and in the whole some of it doesn't sound good. But the fact is that there is a lot of violence in those video games and when you expose that to an unbalanced kid, you have to wonder about whether it affects their actions. A lot of what he says is true. Bob Dole is right, there's about 5 cabinets of Newt ideas, and one box of good Newt ideas. Apparently, most other Senators don't have a box of good ideas.

Posted by: Chad on April 23, 2007 at 9:59 AM | PERMALINK

Newt's rambling is a word salad of losely connected ideas that reflex his dementia, not a "towering intellect".

Oh, and that filing cabinet of "good ideas"?

It's empty.

Posted by: Dr. Morpheus on April 23, 2007 at 10:14 AM | PERMALINK

Yeah, the size of a box of snuff.

But, Newt does have a point - If one only followed his lead of watching Ron Jeremy and not Dragons and Dungeons, the world would be a......... Actually, a lot of similarites between Ron and Newt - Fat, hairy slime balls.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on April 23, 2007 at 10:16 AM | PERMALINK

Newt is either off his meds or off his rocker. He sounds like Pat Robinson blaming gays for 9/11.

Gratuitous confrontational partisanship is sooo 1990s. Clearly Newt is not fit to lead our country out of the hole Bush, Cheney & Rove have dug us into.

Posted by: pj in jesusland on April 23, 2007 at 10:33 AM | PERMALINK

Newt likes to fashion himself as an intellectual but there's a reason why intellectuals usually don't win races for public office. Talk about fuzzy-headed thinking.

Posted by: Sean Scallon on April 23, 2007 at 10:36 AM | PERMALINK

You know what are liberal? Virginia's gun purchase and gun ownership laws -- the very laws that insured Cho Seung-hui was able to buy multiple weapons, each after a minute's wait. Hell, Virginia's Open Carry laws even permit gun owners to carry guns openly, anywhere on their body.

Is the NRA suggesting we allow all college students to carry guns to class???

Posted by: pj in jesusland on April 23, 2007 at 10:59 AM | PERMALINK

If her were only fuzzy-headed, that could be forgiven. But it's far beyond that: Gingrich was, in our time, THE major perp. of the politics of personal destruction. Nobody contributed more to the current climate than good old Newt.

Posted by: MaxGowan on April 23, 2007 at 10:59 AM | PERMALINK

Bell on April 22, 2007 at 11:17 PM:

Then, preoccupied with social engineering, liberals lost control of the classrooms, liberals lost control of the classrooms, bathrooms, and halls...

Then, because more families had to have both parents working to make ends meet, parents neglected their children's upbringing...

Bell, I've heard this 'liberals have caused the decline of the US educational system' far too much. You've failed to show the correlation between 'liberal social engineering' - a term which you have neglected to define - and 'losing control of the classrooms'. You also fail to identify the base causes of a student's inability to function within a school environment, starting with poor parenting...You can even go back further than that; why do some parents fail to raise their children to be able to function in a socially and academically acceptable manner while in school?

Please don't use more nebulous phrases such as 'liberal social engineering' to explain; be specific, give examples, et cetera.

Posted by: grape_grush on April 23, 2007 at 11:04 AM | PERMALINK

"Are we to allow students to carry weapons"

Well, two letters to the Sunday Oregonian suggested exactly that - Both came from rural areas to the east of Portland.

One cited the low rate of violence in Vermont - said that it was due to concealed permits - then, he spoke of the very high rate in DC, where there are no permits - Yeah, I forgot about that huge wall of concrete surrounding DC - No access to Virginia or states to the south of there.

But, the one point made about the possibility of students having weapons, thereby restraining a shooter - Yeah, right - A delusional death wish killer, planning his or her own suicide by either Cop or self, will not wish to get into a High Noon mode in a classroom. Is there any intelligence left in the bizarro world of Gun-Nuts?

Posted by: thethirdPaul on April 23, 2007 at 11:13 AM | PERMALINK

What disappoints me most is the fact that real conservatives haven't done more to distance themselves from nutbags like Gingrich and Bush.

Posted by: global yokel on April 23, 2007 at 11:24 AM | PERMALINK

One cited the low rate of violence in Vermont - said that it was due to concealed permits

Or perhaps it's because Vermont is populated by sober sensible Yankees instead of gun-crazed Southern yahoos.

Posted by: Stefan on April 23, 2007 at 11:25 AM | PERMALINK

Are we going to let Newt (do what I say, and not what I do) Gingrich define this issue. Why the heck should we allow him to get away with linking liberalism with Virginia Tech? Why should we let Rush Limbaugh do the same? Aren't you guys tired of having to defend against every wack job wanting to define "liberalism" as being evil? Just say NO and say it loudly, I am mad as hell and I am not going to take this "conservative" branding any more. Neither should you.

Posted by: Ron Byers on April 23, 2007 at 11:39 AM | PERMALINK

Got that right, Sefan, having lived in Vermont. It's cultural.

In New York State, there is a prescribed licensing procedure for handgun ownership - classes, character references, fingerprints.

Posted by: MaxGowan on April 23, 2007 at 11:40 AM | PERMALINK

If you want contact information for both Gingrich and Limbaugh you can find it at Blue Girl's Watching Those We Chose site.

Posted by: Ron Byers on April 23, 2007 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

While I understand the general strategy of pointing out the idiocies of the right (or left), hasn't the time long past where anyone pays Gingrich the slightest attention?

This is a guy that was supposedly the architect of the Republican revolution in the early 1990s, yet he couldn't get re-elected less than a decade later in a conservative district in a southern state.

In short who gives a shit what he says about anything?

Then again, as Craigie is suggesting, the longer soulless nut jobs like McCain and Gingrich stay in the election, the more out of touch and stupider they make the Republicans look in general.

Posted by: JeffII on April 23, 2007 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

Ron,

Just say NO and say it loudly, I am mad as hell and I am not going to take this "conservative" branding any more. Neither should you.

I'm with you. Substitute any other group where Newt says 'liberal' (jews, blacks, women, juvenile delinquents) and you'll see how hateful he is.

Locally I've been taking back the 'liberal' word, and the ironic thing is I've always been more of a moderate than a liberal, but I hate the attempted branding that has been going on.

Posted by: Tripp on April 23, 2007 at 11:45 AM | PERMALINK

I remember deconstructing newts in bio 101.

Posted by: absent observer on April 23, 2007 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINK

Rush Limbaugh is making a slightly different argument. He claims Cho was a "liberal." Limbaugh still has a large radio audience. They are trying to connect the word "liberal" with Virginia Tech. It is probably part of a branding operation. The word "liberal" is regaining strength in American politics. The "conservative" thinkers can't let that happen. Gingrich is as aware of the power of branding as anybody. Don't be fooled. This isn't just Gingrich making crazy. He is trying redo what he and the conservative think tankers did 15-20 years ago.

Posted by: Ron Byers on April 23, 2007 at 11:54 AM | PERMALINK

I'm with you. Substitute any other group where Newt says 'liberal'

All of the contact information on both these jackasses is available here.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 23, 2007 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINK

Remember, Newt was lying to his wife aout an ongoing affair while he was leading the charge for Clinton's impeachment -- for lying about an affair.

Newt is the embodiment of hypocrisy. He's repulsive.

Posted by: pj in jesusland on April 23, 2007 at 12:12 PM | PERMALINK

I watched him spew this incredibly insane stuff, and got real mad. But George S. didn't blink. Maybe he's heard it all before and just doesn't gasp at the absurdity of Newt's ramblings. And there were whole sentences that didn't make any sense at all. Liberal. Liberal. Liberal. It's all their fault.

Posted by: bobbywally on April 23, 2007 at 12:13 PM | PERMALINK

Or perhaps it's because Vermont is populated by sober sensible Yankees instead of gun-crazed Southern yahoos. Posted by: Stefan

Actually, in part it's because Vermont isn't populated. If I'm not mistaken, per capita violent crime statistics are lower in areas/states with lower population density.

Posted by: JeffII on April 23, 2007 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINK

.......................................newt never took a vow...he didn't break.......................................

Posted by: mr. irony on April 23, 2007 at 12:19 PM | PERMALINK

Doc at the Radar Station Here's what to do with this media mess. REGULATE it like this:
1) News-civic affairs-opinioncinema/whatnot shows can not have any commercials.
2) Mandate that ALL networks and cable channels devote X% of their airtime to non-profit civic programming with no commercials.

Force big media corporations to fund news gathering, etc, from the profits of entertainment media rather than creating infotainment profits that are corrupting.

I appreciate Doc's post for illustrating liberalism's weakened support for free speech. I'm not sure that the reduction in free speech is to blame for the murders at VA Tech, But, it is clear that today's liberalism no longer supports Freedom of Speech as strongly as it used to. Political Correctness is now considered to be more vital than Freedom of Speech.

P.S. Today the Supreme Court hears oral argument on a case that could restrict some of the worst provisions the McCain-Feingold Campaigne Finance Reform. Hopefully the current SC will take a step back toward supporting Freedom of Speech.

Posted by: ex-liberal on April 23, 2007 at 12:19 PM | PERMALINK

Or perhaps it's because Vermont is populated by sober sensible Yankees instead of gun-crazed Southern yahoos. Posted by: Stefan

Actually, in part it's because Vermont isn't populated. If I'm not mistaken, per capita violent crime statistics are lower in areas/states with lower population density.

Posted by: JeffII on April 23, 2007 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK
…Calling an action "evil" is really shorthand for calling the actor "wrong". MatthewRMarler at 2:20 AM
Are you serious or merely trying to provide an example of Newtonian steam-of-semiconsciousness? As long as Americans value their guns more than the lives of their children, they will continue to allow whackos the means for mass murder. To equate wrong with evil is a moral absurdity unless you consider George W. Bush to be evil because it is wrong in Iraq?
….Political Correctness is now considered to be more vital than Freedom of Speech…..ex-lax at 12:19 PM
It's funny that those who most decry any negative statement about their Dear Leader are the first to equate 'freedom of speech with their right to speak hate on the public airways and the unlimited right of the big money to propagandize for their political agenda. Posted by: Mike on April 23, 2007 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

Rush Limbaugh is making a slightly different argument. He claims Cho was a "liberal." Limbaugh still has a large radio audience. They are trying to connect the word "liberal" with Virginia Tech.

Yep, Blacksburg as Berkeley. Anything who knows anything about the history of Virginia Tech -- a campus whose quasi-military traditions are more reminiscent of Texas A&M (in fact, you can hear a few bars of "Reveille" in the opening of the Gobbler fight song) -- knows how ridiculous the "liberal" tag there is. It ain't Charlottesville.

Posted by: Vincent on April 23, 2007 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINK

This is a silly ad hominem attack on Gingrich, . . . Posted by: mhr

There is no such thing as an "ad hominem" attack. Gingrich is the one spouting the idiotic opinions. Therefore, Gingrich is an idiot. You cannot separate a person from what they say or do unless they have been proven to be certifiably insane. And in Gingrich's case . . .

Posted by: JeffII on April 23, 2007 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

mhr: "...silly...ad hominem attack...typical...liberals...waah...I'm failing in public...help!!!"

Posted by: Kenji on April 23, 2007 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK


mhr: Gingrich ate Cuomo alive.


fyi..

zombies never get elected president...

Posted by: mr. irony on April 23, 2007 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

I appreciate "ex-liberal"'s post for illustrating neoconservatism's dishonesty.

Oh, and "ex-liberal"? Fuck you very much for suggesting that the so-called "reduction in free speech is to blame for the murders at VA Tech."

Posted by: Gregory on April 23, 2007 at 4:17 PM | PERMALINK

Dear Grape GrUSH,

Some people must be told: "The big hand is on the twelve and the little hand is on the seven." Others need only be told: "It's seven o'clock."

Also, please learn to quote others correctly when you type. Otherwise, just yell at the computer screen.

Thank you.

Posted by: Bell on April 23, 2007 at 8:11 PM | PERMALINK

Mike: It's funny that those who most decry any negative statement about their Dear Leader are the first to equate 'freedom of speech with their right to speak hate on the public airways and the unlimited right of the big money to propagandize for their political agenda.

That's right, Mike. Freedom of Speech means people are free to say things you and I disapprove of. It means that powerful institutions like newspapers and TV stations can spew their chosen message out as much as they like with no government restrictions. It means that rich groups can buy ads to promote their point of view. You may be familiar with the quote, often attributed to Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." That's Freedom of Speech.

In the days when I was a liberal, most liberal groups would have agreed with Voltaire's statement. In those days, Freedom of Speech was supported by liberals as well as libertarians. However, nowadays one doesn't hear many liberals offering to defend to the death Rush Limbaugh's right to say what he does on the radio.

Posted by: ex-liberal on April 23, 2007 at 8:39 PM | PERMALINK

Your wrongs, as usual, ex-thinker. Do you een know what a "liberal" is? Or do you just swallow Rush Limbaugh's lies (etc.)? Guess we know the answer to that.

Posted by: Kenji on April 23, 2007 at 9:06 PM | PERMALINK

Or, you're wrong might be a better way to put it.

Posted by: Kenji on April 23, 2007 at 9:23 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly