newt gingrich

Bob Cesca points to this line from Newt Gingrich:

GINGRICH: “When I was speaker, we had four consecutive balanced budgets.”

As Bob points out, we only had two, not four balanced budgets.

But there is something else here that has been eating away at me. More and more the right is trying to make it out that Newt was the sole man responsible for the balanced budget. They won't mention President Clinton and that it involved negotiations. Somehow the Speaker of the House has become the budget writer for the United States under these people.

So why haven't we had one since? In the 14 years since the time Newt refers to ten of those years we had a Republican Speaker. Neither Dennis Hastert nor John Boehner have produced a balanced budget. During most of Hastert's term we also had a Republican controlled Senate and White House. Why no balanced budget?

I'm not going to get on Newt for lying. We know this is a man that has a hard time ever telling the truth. What does get me is how many people on the right buy into this line of bullshit. To those people they need to ask themselves this; if the Speaker is the man who balances the budget and that is what we need right now, then why isn't Newt running for Congress? I think we all know the answer to that....

Last week Freddie Mac released Newt Gingrich from his non-disclosure agreement with them. Now Newt's old firm is refusing to do the same:

A lawyer for a consulting firm founded by former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich said he was barring the release of a contract between the Republican presidential candidate and Freddie Mac.

Gingrich said last week it would be up to his partners in his former company, the Center for Health Transformation, to determine whether to release the documents. Earlier, he said he would be happy to release the contract, yet couldn’t make it public because Freddie Mac, the mortgage company now under U.S. conservatorship, refused to waive a confidentiality agreement.

Freddie Mac officials said last week that Gingrich was “welcome” to release the contract, under which his consulting firm was paid at least $1.6 million over eight years for his services.

This goes back to something I've said before. The right constantly wants everything Barack Obama did in college 20-30 years ago made public, yet their candidates can hide things they just did a couple of years ago.

This also shows that Newt has been hiding something about his time consulting for Freddie. Now the media will start digging to find out what that is and once they do the right will start their little girly cries of "the liberal media". Of course it's nothing more than the media doing their actual jobs.

Newt Gingrich is struggling to regain being anybody in the GOP field, so now he is grasping at straws:

Newt Gingrich is seeking to salvage his Iowa campaign by going after President Obama -- and suggesting the president give up his salary in 2012 because of reports he will spend most of the year seeking re-election.

At a campaign appearance this morning in Independence, Iowa, Gingrich blasted reports that Obama and his re-election team will run against a "do-nothing" Congress in 2012.

"For the president's staff to announce that he's now going to govern without Congress," Gingrich said, reports the Des Moines Register. "Well, that means he's not going to govern. He's going to be a candidate for an entire year. He shouldn't take his salary.

How about this; for December of 2011 Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul will get $18,000 in pay, yet both have an antecedence record of less than 5%. Does Newt feel they should do the same? How about surrogates, like Senator Rand Paul, who is now out on the campaign trail with his father. Should he forego his pay?

Or what about Newt himself. During his tenure in Congress, did he ever once sacrifice his salary while campaigning? No.

This is nothing but Newt grasping at straws and it shows what a two faced bastard he really is. Our political system certainly is screwed up and this is one of the reasons for it, but to sit there and demand only one person make this kind of sacrifice while others, including Newt himself, never have and never will, shows the hypocrisy that people like Newt will resort to just to pander to the fringe base. Of course that is the Newt we all have come to know. Don't you screw around on your wife, only I can. Now you can see why his campaign has imploded.

We are one week from the Iowa caucuses and things don't look good for the GOP:

If I were running the Iowa Republican Party, I would be seeking to vastly increase the turnout at the Jan. 3 caucuses. After all, those who turn out can be recruited to help in future Iowa Republican campaigns. I would be especially interested in attracting new young voters; the median age of 2008 caucusgoers was nudging up toward 60.

Yet despite polls showing that Republicans are enthusiastic about the coming campaign and determined to defeat Barack Obama, Iowa Republican insiders are predicting that turnout will not exceed and may not even reach the 119,000 of 2008, when Republicans were dispirited about their party's chances. Puzzling.

Low turnout is indicative of an enthusiasm gap and also coincides with what recent polls have shown us - a Republican base that isn't that excited about the election. Sure Republicans want to see President Obama voted out of office, but the problem is who they are going to replace him with?

Can they stomach 4 or even 8 years of Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney?

Would it be better to suffer through another 4 years of President Obama, at least knowing what they got, then spend that 4 years regrouping to find a better candidate?

If I were a betting man I would place my money on the second option. 2016 doesn't seem that far off, but 2020 does. If the GOP ends up putting a Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich in the White House that means the Democrats could come out with Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden in 2016, then the Republicans may likely be screwed until 2024.

Newt's inability to take responsibility for his campaign not securing 10,000 valid signatures in Virginia has caused him to not only go beyond the spin, but also disrespect the 2,402 American's who lost their lives on December 7, 1941:

Newt Gingrich’s campaign director said the candidate is viewing the setback in Virginia, in which he failed to collect enough signatures to qualify for the state’s primary, as an “unexpected setback” similar to the attack on Pearl Harbor.

“Newt and I agreed that the analogy is December 1941,” campaign director Michael Krull wrote on the Gingrich Facebook page. “We have experienced an unexpected set-back, but we will re-group and re-focus with increased determination, commitment and positive action. Throughout the next months there will be ups and downs; there will be successes and failures; there will be easy victories and difficult days - but in the end we will stand victorious.”

Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack - what happened to Newt wasn't. As I pointed out yesterday, Newt knew he was in trouble in Virginia. He took the drastic step of leaving the campaign trail in Iowa, two weeks from the caucuses, and flew back to his home state to muster up the signatures.

Newt has no one to blame but Newt. Instead he refuses to take responsibility for what has happened and wants to blame everyone else. Republicans always talk about "being responsible" and mature, yet when they have their own faults it's the cause of everyone else. Time to practice what you preach Mr. Speaker and accept the responsibility that you fucked up!

Did Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann have ACORN do their canvassing in Virginia?

Virginia finally decided the primary ballot. Everyone except Mitt Romney and Ron Paul have failed to meet the requirements to appear. That includes the current Virginia front runner, Newt Gingrich.

But Newt isn't going down without a fight. Instead he has said he has a plan:

“Only a failed system excludes four out of the six major candidates seeking access to the ballot. Voters deserve the right to vote for any top contender, especially leading candidates. We will work with the Republican Party of Virginia to pursue an aggressive write-in campaign to make sure that all the voters of Virginia are able to vote for the candidate of their choice.”

(emphasis added)

Now there's a big problem there and one that a resident of Virginia, like Newt Gingrich, should recognize. Virginia does not allow write-in ballots!

That's not the only mistake Newt made in all of this. It turns out that Newt actually left Iowa earlier this week to try and get the final signatures needed

With the Iowa caucuses less than two weeks away and New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries right behind them, Newt Gingrich is bound for---Virginia.

Gingrich will campaign in the state Wednesday and Thursday, even though its GOP presidential primary isn’t until March. And therein lies the problem.