Gay Patriot Header Image

Rush: Newt is proudly, confidently articulating conservative ideals

Last night, as I was preparing for bed, I caught a bit of Greta van Susteren’s On the Record, particularly that segment when she offers us a clip of Rush Limbaugh.  So much did Rush’s point about Newt Gingrich’s surge in the polls resonate that I googled my favorite passage and alighted on his most excellent monologue in which he gets not only the rise of Newt, but also the recent appeal of Herman Cain.

Each man, Cain and Gingrich, do have the ability to articulate conservative principles.  Cain is an outsider, not part of a political class about whom Americans have become increasingly suspicious these last few years.  Newt is a master of policy, but even in coming to master policy, he has not lost sight, at least rhetorically, of those principles which have defined the conservative movement at least since Reagan’s celebrated speech in 1964.

So, let me just leave you with Rush’s monologue of November 18:

First principles are the answer.  First principles, first conservative constitutional principles are the answer.  Articulating that as fact with depth and conviction is what the people of this country want.  We and the rest of the people of this country are sick and tired of careful politicians, business as usual politicians.  We are fed up and exhausted with people who measure their comments. . . . Robust liberty and freedom for the American people is the answer, and then a government willing, after unleashing that, to get out of its way is the answer.

. . . .

What Newt’s doing is no secret.  Newt is tapping into the American mind-set. He has the ability to do it.  He also has the ability to blow it.  Which is what gives people pause, but at this point they’re looking past that, they’re looking past the baggage, and this is my point.

. . . .

The press, the media, the Democrats are trying to focus on the baggage, trying to focus on Cain’s baggage and whatever they can manufacture, or Michele Bachmann’s baggage, and even Romney’s baggage with his Romneycare.  We don’t hear any reports of the baggage that Barack Obama brings to the table, but it takes a C5A cargo jet to hold it all.  Newt Gingrich is making it clear that he is proud of this country and its history, of our culture, the idea of American exceptionalism.  My point is here, nobody ought to be shocked to learn that a Republican who is articulating conservatism proudly, competently, confidently, articulately, nobody should be surprised that that person is nearing the top of the heap.

Emphasis added.  It merits your time.  Read the whole thing.

Share

38 Comments

  1. I’m liking Newt. At this point, he’d be the one I’d vote for. I like Cain, but not sure about his lack of political experience and lack of foreign policy experience

    Comment by Mark — November 19, 2011 @ 10:43 am - November 19, 2011

  2. First, let me brag. I am in the Ft Lauderdale airport having just left the National Review cruise (met Steyn! Goldberg! Derb!).

    More than one speaker expressed alarm at the high floor on Barry’s numbers. There are many people who don’t get the urgency or, if they do, figure the piano will fall on other people’s heads.

    The incomparable Jay Nordlinger interviewed Charlie Cooke who ventured into Zucottie Park and Jonah G about OWS and heard a lot of stupidity that I hear from “just plain folks” every day.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — November 19, 2011 @ 10:55 am - November 19, 2011

  3. Newt is on a roll lately, sounding great. The trouble with him is that he’s almost as much of a flip-flopper (if not a Big Government guy) as Romney.

    I don’t just mean that ad he made (and recently disowned), where he foolishly gave cover to Nancy Pelosi on Global Warmism. Newt also supported Freddie and Fannie in the crucial years when they were creating the financial crisis, and played a key role in getting Bush’s new entitlement program passed. He sounds great, but then I look at his record and I feel like I can never know which way he might go, next.

    SCR, I am so jealous! Steyn == teh awesome!!1!

    Hey, speaking of OWS, guess what?
    - Occupy Toronto is kinda… fake: http://www.verumserum.com/?p=33729
    - Occupy London… kinda fake: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2053463/Occupy-London-90-tents-St-Pauls-protest-camp-left-overnight.html

    By “fake”, I mean that the tents at night are 90% empty. See the links.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 19, 2011 @ 11:39 am - November 19, 2011

  4. Several Republican candidates are good, but Newt does articulate conservative ideas better out of the group.

    Comment by Sebastian Shaw — November 19, 2011 @ 11:42 am - November 19, 2011

  5. Newt is a very intelligent guy. I’ve heard him give some speeches, and they were inspiring. His biggest difficulty is the media-generated problems of his private life. I think we’ve all heard that he went into a hospital to get a dying wife’s signature on divorce papers so he could run off and marry someone else. I’ve heard one of his daughters say that this tale is completely false and that the woman of the story is still alive. The media is just as frightened of him as they are of Rick Perry and Herman Cain, so they grab hold of anything that would bring any or all of them down.

    Comment by Dottie Laird — November 19, 2011 @ 1:39 pm - November 19, 2011

  6. Ah, if only we could transplant Gingrich’s brain into Perry’s body!

    Comment by EssEm — November 19, 2011 @ 1:53 pm - November 19, 2011

  7. His biggest difficulty is the media-generated problems of his private life

    Dottie, are you sure you listed all of the media-generated problems of his private life?

    Comment by Cinesnatch — November 19, 2011 @ 1:59 pm - November 19, 2011

  8. Just after I posted here, I found an article that answers several of the questions regarding Newt Gingrich’s private life. I recommend anyone who’s interested to go to this site: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68728.html

    Comment by Dottie Laird — November 19, 2011 @ 2:01 pm - November 19, 2011

  9. Clinton should have told the truth. But, why he had to answer for his personal life in front of a Grand Jury in the first place is beyond me. No politician–Republican, Democrat or otherwise–should have to answer for their private life, unless it becomes a matter of national security. If Ken Starr had actually been good enough (or there was even a case in what he was first authorized to do), he would have brought fourth a legitimate case(s) on the several issues he was investigating Clinton to begin with. Here, he was chasing for scraps and Clinton played right into his fold.

    There are much graver crimes to be concerned about in regards to a President. I know my belief that the Bush’ decision to go to war in 2003 was unjust is unpopular at GP, but the premeditation and cherry-picking that went on in his administration that got us in that debacle, to me, is infinitely worse than Clinton trying to talk his way out of screwing Lewinsky. Does that make me hold Clinton up as a role-model? No. What it says to me is that our priorities are way out of whack.

    Gingrich didn’t break any laws while he pursued censure/impeachment, but there is an irony there, at the very least. And the irony is that lying about holding up our marital oath becomes more important than the actual oath itself. Gingrich cheated on two wives and divorced them. His regard for marriage oaths is lacking, yet his unwillingness to step down to pursue another man’s perjure related to same lacking regard is telling.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — November 19, 2011 @ 2:54 pm - November 19, 2011

  10. Oh, we see, Cinesnatch; Republicans should be punished when they don’t break laws, and Obama Party members shouldn’t be even if they do break laws.

    What a nice game. Gay Obamabots like yourself can break whatever laws you want with no consequences but can arbitrarily punish Republicans when they do something you don’t like regardless of whether or not it’s against the law.

    In that case, why follow the laws? Perhaps that’s the lesson Republicans, Christians, and conservatives need to learn; since gays and liberals will prosecute you regardless of what you do, you might as well do it and shut them up in the process.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 19, 2011 @ 3:47 pm - November 19, 2011

  11. ND30, I’m glad you can see the irony in someone being prosecuted for a DUI by someone who just drove to the courthouse after five cocktails.

    And stop calling me an Obamabot because I disagreed with you. That would be like me calling you a “Bushwacker” or something of that ilk. And it makes just as little sense.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — November 19, 2011 @ 4:08 pm - November 19, 2011

  12. [...] Rush Limbaugh notes; “Newt is proudly, confidently articulating conservative ideals” [...]

    Pingback by Trunkline 2012: Saturday Political News in Review and the Cinema Politico Movie of the Week 11/19/11 « White House 2012 — November 19, 2011 @ 5:05 pm - November 19, 2011

  13. I’m glad you can see the irony in someone being prosecuted for a DUI by someone who just drove to the courthouse after five cocktails.

    But enough about Patrick Kennedy…

    Comment by V the K — November 19, 2011 @ 6:51 pm - November 19, 2011

  14. No politician–Republican, Democrat or otherwise–should have to answer for their private life, unless it becomes a matter of national security.

    You can not possibly mean this.

    Watergate did not have a thing to do with national security. No animals were harmed in the break-in and one politician putting a bug on another politician’s phone is just two sleaze artists doing what sleaze artists do. Right?

    Clinton was having to answer a deposition before a judge concerning the Paula Jones case. He chose to perjure himself. He chose to resort to placing himself in jeopardy of the “high crimes and misdemeanors” standard of the impeachment clause. As a professor of Constitutional law and as a long serving attorney general of Arkansas, he must have understood his exposure to jeopardy.

    Let’s see: Clarence Thomas=sex harasser. Ditto Herman Cain. Newt Gingrich= serial divorcer. G.W Bush=drunk driver. Eisenhower=mistress Kay Sommersby. FDR=devoted secretary Missy LeHand. JFK=rascal. RFK=Rascal. Teddy=Rascal with bad luck while driving. Lyndon=Texan. Reagan=rotten father. Clinton=First black President and rascal. Obama=race victim. Eisenhower, Ford, Reagan, Bush, Bush=dumb. Kennedy, Carter, Clinton, Obama=brilliant. Johnson=crafty. Nixon=Corrupt.

    Sorry, your crowd can not have it both ways. If you are free to slur and tar with innuendo, then your side should be tough enough to take as good as it dishes out.

    Comment by Heliotrope — November 19, 2011 @ 6:57 pm - November 19, 2011

  15. My side Helio? No thanks. Lump somebody else into that crowd. Pass.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — November 19, 2011 @ 7:02 pm - November 19, 2011

  16. The way the mainstream media is going after Newt is a sure sign he’s taking the lead. But he’s been attacked so much in the past that there are probably no “skeletons” left in his “closet.” And that’s a good thing for him.

    In a debate against Emperor O, our incompetent president would be toast. I’d say Newt has more than a fighting chance.

    Comment by Lori Heine — November 19, 2011 @ 8:07 pm - November 19, 2011

  17. why [Clinton] had to answer for his personal life in front of a Grand Jury in the first place is beyond me

    You cannot possibly mean this.

    From Wikipedia:

    According to Jones’ account, on May 8, 1991, Paula Jones was escorted to the room of Clinton, then Governor of Arkansas, in the Excelsior[2][3][4] (now Peabody) Hotel in Little Rock, Arkansas, where he propositioned her. She claimed she kept quiet about the incident until 1994, when a David Brock story in American Spectator told a lurid account, sometimes referred to as Troopergate, about an Arkansas employee named “Paula” offering to be Clinton’s girlfriend. Jones filed a sexual harassment suit against Clinton on May 6, 1994, two days prior to the 3-year statute of limitations, and sought $750,000 in damages…

    While there were no eyewitnesses to back up Jones’s account, Jones told a friend contemporaneously of the harassment and many other women were willing to testify to similar behavior by Clinton. In late 1997, Judge Susan Webber Wright ruled Jones was “entitled to information regarding any individuals with whom President Clinton had sexual relations or proposed to or sought to have sexual relations and who were, during the relevant time frame, state or federal employees.”…

    Clinton and his defense team challenged Jones’ right to bring a civil lawsuit against a sitting president… The Clinton defense team took the position that the trial should be delayed until the president was no longer in office… On May 27[1997], the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Clinton, and allowed the lawsuit to proceed…

    On November 13, 1998, Clinton settled with Jones for $850,000…

    Jones’s lawyers [had] decided to show to the court a pattern of behavior by Clinton that involved his allegedly repeatedly becoming sexually involved with state or government employees. Jones’s lawyers therefore subpoenaed women they suspected Clinton had had affairs with, one of whom was Monica Lewinsky…

    During the deposition in the Jones case, Clinton was asked, “Have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court?” The judge ordered that Clinton be given an opportunity to review the definition. It said that “a person engages in sexual relations when the person knowingly engages in or causes contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.”[16][17][18] Clinton flatly denied having sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky…

    And that, Cinesnatch, is why Clinton had to answer for his personal life in front of a grand jury.

    1) Because he had propositioned aggressively (molested? harassed? assaulted?) hordes of women. Note the starting point: his own bad actions.
    2) Because Paula Jones was named as one in a story, at which point she decided she had to fix it by suing Clinton for said harassment.
    3) Because the Supreme Court of the United States decided *unanimously* that Clinton was answerable to the suit as any citizen would be, i.e., he had to answer the woman’s lawyers’ questions.

    Whereupon Clinton committed the crime of perjury. And a fundamentally dishonest chief executive is indeed a matter of national security.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 19, 2011 @ 8:18 pm - November 19, 2011

  18. I know my belief that the Bush’ decision to go to war in 2003 was unjust is unpopular at GP

    “Unpopular at GP” is not the right word, Cinesnatch: try “objectively unsupported” or “objectively incorrect”.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 19, 2011 @ 8:23 pm - November 19, 2011

  19. Sorry, I meant: not the right phrase.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 19, 2011 @ 8:25 pm - November 19, 2011

  20. ND30, I’m glad you can see the irony in someone being prosecuted for a DUI by someone who just drove to the courthouse after five cocktails.

    That would be true if both people involved had broken the law.

    But what did you say, Cinesnatch?

    Gingrich didn’t break any laws while he pursued censure/impeachment

    Clinton broke the law.

    But who did you demand resign? Gingrich.

    That’s why you’re called an Obamabot. You simply are a blind bigot who will excuse any behavior by an Obama Party member and demand the head of a Republican instead.

    And then you did what you always did when you are cornered; you whine and bleat that Republicans are bad, so Obama Party members should be excused for their behavior.

    ILC called it exactly, Cinesnatch; you are incapable of objective evaluation. In your mind, anything an Obama Party member does is OK and not to be punished, and anything a Republican does is wrong and should be punished.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 19, 2011 @ 8:43 pm - November 19, 2011

  21. As an outsider I have a different perspective than most of you. First of all, thanks for reminding some of the reason as to why Clinton was impeached for perjury.

    Second, with regard to Nixon, I still think that he was very good on the international scene. Also, considering he was a Quaker I think that he had to make decisions that were uncomfortable to him, and he did not dither for several months in making those decisions with regard to Vietnam. Remember, Nixon inherited the Vietnam conflict from JFK and LBJ.

    Third, with regard to the current crop of contenders and here are my thoughts: Newt Gingrich is one person who more or less gets my support, especially now that I know the real story about his past life and that “divorce”. His ex-wife is alive and she had an operation to remove tumors.

    With regard to the remaining candidates: Ron Paul really creeps me out, and it really is hard to explain. Needless to say I think that foreign policy is his big downfall. He has no idea at all and I do not like the way he is associated with neo-Nazis in the USA. Rick Santorum also creeps me out, but not to the same extent as Ron Paul. His good point is the pro-life stance. Bachmann is simply not qualified for the role. She has next to nothing in the way of political executive experience, and yes, her responses do make her seem a bit like a flake. (that is really harsh, I know). Mitt Romney is also creepy. Rick Perry is a fading star and Huntsman should just go home to the DNC. Huntsman is a Green in disguise as a Republican and not to be trusted.

    That leaves Herman Cain, Gary Johnson and Newt Gingrich. Of these, Gary Johnson has the successful executive experience as a governor. However, Gary Johnson has a few problems with regards to some of his ideas that are probably not acceptable to most. His big downfall is foreign policy. Yet, I do not put him in the same boat as Ron Paul (they are both libertarians). Herman Cain has executive experience but not political experience. He is not well versed in foreign policy. Then there is Newt, and as I try to look back on the period when he was Speaker of the House, I barely remember a man who took on Clinton, and who actually tamed Clinton, bringing burgeouning government debt under control.

    Only three candidates have a good record when it comes to taking control of debt: Gary Johnson, Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain. Of these, only Newt could take on Østupid in debates and win.

    Comment by Straightaussie — November 19, 2011 @ 8:48 pm - November 19, 2011

  22. Rick Santorum also creeps me out, but not to the same extent as Ron Paul. His good point is the pro-life stance.

    Ron Paul is pro-life and a former OBGYN, who provided reduced rate and free services rather than collect Medicaid/Medicare. And you give Santorum the point for being pro-life?

    Comment by Cinesnatch — November 19, 2011 @ 9:46 pm - November 19, 2011

  23. ILC >> Clinton’s crime of perjury (and obstruction of justice) related to his involvement with Lewinsky, did it not? The affair was mutual, was it not? Who were the hordes of assaulted women Jones brought in for her lawsuit? What was proven with Willey? Linda Tripp testified Willey was amorous towards the President. What about Broaddrick? She’s on public record denying the assault twenty years after it was supposed to have happened. Flowers? Lewinsky? Neither of them claimed assault.

    In summation, Clinton is a creepy horn-dog whose bedroom antics did nothing to increase the national debt. Thank you Ken Starr.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — November 19, 2011 @ 10:09 pm - November 19, 2011

  24. ND30 >> Taking your sweeping generalizations elsewhere and wrap somebody else in them.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — November 19, 2011 @ 10:11 pm - November 19, 2011

  25. Clinton’s crime of perjury (and obstruction of justice) related to his involvement with Lewinsky, did it not? The affair was mutual, was it not?

    You cannot possibly mean to minimize what Clinton did, Cinesnatch. He LIED UNDER OATH. If enough people (like you) excuse the President lying under oath, then we might as well start stabbing and shooting each other in the streets right now, because we have no constitution left and not much remaining basis for civilization; stabbing and shooting each other in the streets is where it will logically end up in another 30-50 years.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 20, 2011 @ 12:22 am - November 20, 2011

  26. I don’t know… I think it is more like: “Newt is proudly, confidently, a RINO”. One of the Fox shows enumerated his flip-flops and changes of mind. Quite a lot out there. Obama didn’t run as his record and history indicated; it appears Newt isn’t either.

    Comment by The Other Peter H — November 20, 2011 @ 12:23 am - November 20, 2011

  27. As for the word “assault”: Notice I put a question mark on it. Some have recently characterized Herman Cain’s alleged (and more: altogether unproven) sexual advances as a kind of assault. If that is the new meaning of “assault” (and I don’t necessarily agree that it should be), then let it be applied to Clinton, who allegedly EXPOSED HIMSELF to Jones against her wishes and, in the case of Juanita Broaddrick, allegedly raped her outright, and, in the case of Lewinsky, pressured a junior employee in his own office.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 20, 2011 @ 12:29 am - November 20, 2011

  28. ILC, I was the one who characterized Bialek’s accusation as an assault, if it indeed happened. It’s no less an assault than throwing talcum powder on someone, as I’ve now come to understand. Broaddrick’s accusation was assault. That it was rape doesn’t change the fact that it was an assault. Jones’ accusation was harassment/indecent exposure. If we go back to your original phrase of propositioned aggressively (molested/ harassed/assaulted), only Jones, Broaddrick and Willey fall into this category. Willey has been discredited and contradicted herself. Broaddrick changed her story less than two years after denying a 20-year old incident. Leaving Jones. Was anything ever proven?

    I’m not on record demanding the head of Cain for his supposed sexually agressive missteps. It’s just another example of the media choosing sensationalism over substance. In fact, I’m intrigued by his economic plan. (And to a much lesser–stress on the word LESSER–extent, as I have gone on record, I would be mildly curious to see a matchup between him and Obama to finally put the Republican racist theories to bed.) Also, I’m not crazy about his gay marriage flip-flopping. But, I find him an intriguing candidate none-the-less. If he in fact did what he was accused of … you know ILC … I don’t really give a crap. And, frankly, I don’t really want to know. Most of the people who work in Washington or end up there, are corruptible scum. Until the system and society changes and breeds a better slew of person, this is what we have to choose from.

    As long as we’re working with the current crop of Republicans and Democrats in Congress and the White House, I don’t want to know anything about their personal lives, I just want people who know what the Hell they’re doing. Do I have to like them? No. Are they problem solvers? That’s all that really matters at this point. We simply need politicians who know how to play the game to maximize the full potential of capitalism while effectively confronting social realities. But maybe I’m asking for too much. What do I know? Everything I just said in Post #27 comes from an “Obamabot” … according to ND30.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — November 20, 2011 @ 1:15 am - November 20, 2011

  29. http://www.citizenlink.com/2011/11/19/thanksgiving-family-forum-complete-video/

    Comment by rjligier — November 20, 2011 @ 3:58 am - November 20, 2011

  30. I don’t want to know anything about their personal lives,

    You can not possibly mean this.

    Do you give Barney Frank a pass for keeping a partner who ran a whorehouse from Barney’s residence? Even if Barney really didn’t know, it was thinking with his crotch that caused the problem for him.

    I suppose that it is possible that Barney is so disciplined as a fine statesman that he can think with his crotch, but turn on the laser beam of informed decision making in a nano second when the need presents itself. But you would have to examine him within his personal life to know that.

    This broad brush stuff about how one’s character does not matter vis a vis his personal life just won’t fly. Obviously, you don’t actually believe it or you would not castigate Newt for how he handled a succession of wives and then promoting family values. Apparently one’s imperfections are disqualifying, but we need not pay any attention to one’s imperfections. How does that work?

    Comment by Heliotrope — November 20, 2011 @ 10:21 am - November 20, 2011

  31. This broad brush stuff about how one’s character does not matter vis a vis his personal life just won’t fly. Obviously, you don’t actually believe it or you would not castigate Newt for how he handled a succession of wives and then promoting family values.

    I was pointing out the irony in the impeachment proceedings, which made them quite ridiculous. This broad brush stuff about how most politicians can actually possess character just won’t fly. You throw out the Frank example like he’s someone I’d defend.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — November 20, 2011 @ 11:34 am - November 20, 2011

  32. I was pointing out the irony in the impeachment proceedings, which made them quite ridiculous.

    No, you were not.

    You were equivocating and trying to spin for the fact that Clinton broke the law by attacking Newt Gingrich’s personal life.

    And then when you were cornered on that, you contradicted yourself.

    Heliotrope and ILC nailed it. You are an amoral hypocrite who will say and do anything to attack Republicans while defending any crime by an Obama Party member.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 20, 2011 @ 3:54 pm - November 20, 2011

  33. You are an amoral hypocrite

    This coming from someone who has referred to me already as a child molester.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — November 20, 2011 @ 4:42 pm - November 20, 2011

  34. Yup, Cinesnatch.

    That’s because you and your idiot Obama Party are now trying to claim that JFK’s assassination was caused by Republicans.

    Sliming, smearing pieces of shit, trying to blame Republicans for a murder that took place before most of them were even born. That’s all you and your Obama Party are, and it’s high time that people realize that there is no decency left in sick desperate Obama Party whores like you, Serenity, Levi, Rob Tisinai, and others.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 21, 2011 @ 12:37 pm - November 21, 2011

  35. FTR: JFK was shot by a Communist.

    I guess some lefties want to obscure that (or not admit it). It points to the hatefulness of leftism. Just as they don’t want to admit that the Nazi Party was a left-wing workers’ movement, the National SOCIALIST German WORKERS’ Party. Better to blame everything on conservatives.

    I was the one who characterized Bialek’s accusation as an assault

    Then it doesn’t seem very logical, if you object to the word being applied to Clinton.

    If we go back to your original phrase of propositioned aggressively (molested/ harassed/assaulted), only Jones, Broaddrick and Willey fall into this category.

    Three’s not enough for you? And why, despite the weaknesses in Jones’ case, did Clinton pay her $850,000 – MORE than she asked for? If Herman Cain is to be impugned for the NRA having paid in the low-five figures to make woman X’s complaint go away, then (by that logic) Clinton should be condemned on his having paid a woman in the high-six figures. Order-of-magnitude difference there (approaching two orders, to be precise). If Jones’ case was weak on matters involving Jones directly (and I think it was), it must have been strong elsewhere; perhaps in its ability to establish a *pattern* of Clinton-as-wild-predator.

    If [Herman Cain] in fact did what he was accused of … you know ILC … I don’t really give a crap.

    You don’t care if it turns out Cain is a liar? I don’t get that at all, because I sure care.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 21, 2011 @ 1:30 pm - November 21, 2011

  36. 17: Let’s put each and every politician up against that litmus test (telling the truth about extramarital relations) and see what they come up with. I don’t see how anyone can discuss people Clinton and Gingrich an get into a contest about their personal lives. If you wanna do that then here you go:
    Clinton: 1 wife, still married, married for 36 years
    Gingrich: 3 wives – was, at minimum, fooling around with wife #3 while still married to wife #2. I believe he was doing this at the same time he was advocating the Clinton impeachment.
    So….as far as the handling of their personal lives, who wins that contest?

    Comment by Kevin — November 21, 2011 @ 7:59 pm - November 21, 2011

  37. ND 30 >> I have no idea where you’re coming at me with Kennedy conspiracy theories. And, until you apologize for making slanderous statements towards me, I will no longer engage you in discussion. I’ve tolerated it long enough. I have no problem talking about the merits of an issue, but I won’t support your libel. It’s inexcusable.

    ILC >> I clearly stated Bialek made an accusation. And I did not say whether or not I believed her. The accusation she was making was assault. If you disagree, so be it. However, if someone were to grab your head and shove it towards their crouch, I think you would consider that assault, if that’s what you were accusing your assailant of. Again, I never said I believed her. Links or it didn’t happen.

    As far as the magnitude of the payouts are concerned, perhaps comparing a sitting president to a business entrepreneur has something to do with it. As far as overpaying her, I have no idea. As far as the serial nature, what was legally proven? You have one woman who settled, one woman who was discredited and another woman who has gone on legal record saying assault never happened. Legally, no pattern was ever proven.

    Do I still think he’s a pig? Yes. Is his personal life any of my business? No.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — November 21, 2011 @ 8:21 pm - November 21, 2011

  38. 37.ND 30 >> I have no idea where you’re coming at me with Kennedy conspiracy theories.

    Try reading the link. You were already given it once.

    And, until you apologize for making slanderous statements towards me, I will no longer engage you in discussion. I’ve tolerated it long enough. I have no problem talking about the merits of an issue, but I won’t support your libel. It’s inexcusable.

    Oh, the hilarity. The little Obamabot Cinesnatch had no trouble slandering Sarah Palin, claiming that she was guilty of attempting to murder Gabrielle Giffords, and now has no problem slandering Republicans, claiming that they were responsible for the Kennedy assassination.

    But heaven forbid this actually be called out as such!

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 22, 2011 @ 2:52 pm - November 22, 2011

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.