Doug Hoffman Forgives Newt Gingrich?

Posted on | November 18, 2011 | 52 Comments

When Professor William Jacobson called this to my attention, I could scarcely believe it, yet Dave Weigel has the story:

So what does Hoffman think? Is Newt to be trusted?
“I support all the candidates running right at the moment,” said Hoffman. “Any one of them would be better than the current president, and that definitely includes Newt Gingrich. Newt apologized to me for not endorsing me, and that’s water over the dam, I think.”
Right before the election, Gingrich apologized publicly for endorsing Scozzafava. Sometime after the election, he called Hoffman to tell him personally.
“He was very sincere in his apology,” said Hoffman. “He was given misinformation as to what this race was all about, and what the other candidate was all about. The people in this district, the sort of local leaders who had endorsed Scozzafava, fed him the wrong information. I don’t think it was an error in his judgement. I would advise other conservative Republicans: Don’t hold this against him.”

Wow. Just . . . wow.

Dave e-mailed me his story and I told him I’d already seen it, but replied to the effect that perhaps, after 14 years in Washington, I’ve finally “gone native.” Anybody in Washington who got screwed over as badly as Hoffman got screwed over by Gingrich would insist on exacting their bloody retribution as a matter of principle, as a warning to anyone else who might be tempted to do the same.

If you let yourself be treated like a doormat, you can’t complain about the footprints on your back. Capische?

Imagine if the shoe had been on the other foot. How would Newt have reacted if Hoffman had done to him what he did to Hoffman?

Even if it was a sincere mistake — Gingrich being “given misinformation,” as Hoffman says — wasn’t Gingrich obligated to double-check his facts before going on Fox News the third or fourth times to praise Scozzafave and trash Hoffman? At the time, everybody who knew anything about the NY-23 race knew Newt was wrong, and yet he refused to walk-back his endorsement of Dede until after she quit and endorsed the Democrat.

“Water over the dam”? Doug, you’d be Congressman Hoffman today if Newt hadn’t spent two weeks in October 2009 going on TV — again and again and again — to badmouth you as a dangerous extremist.

This forgive-and-forget turn-the-other-cheek stuff is fine as a moral ideal, but moral idealism and three bucks will get you a cup of coffee in Washington, and in the time it takes to drink that cup of coffee, you’ll get backstabbed by a half-dozen of your “friends” who figure you for a weakling. It’s like being the slowest wildebeest in the herd when a hungry lion leaps out of the bushes down by the watering hole. Next thing you know, vultures are picking your bones.

So Doug Hoffman has forgiven Newt Gingrich, but that doesn’t mean I’m obligated to emulate Hoffman’s Christian example.

“You Still Have to Answer for Santino, Carlo.”

Category: Dave Weigel, Doug Hoffman, Election 2012, Legal Insurrection, Newt Gingrich

Comments

52 Responses to “Doug Hoffman Forgives Newt Gingrich?”

Anonymous
November 19th, 2011 @ 12:19 am

So I guess Gingrich owes Hoffman an ambassadorship to, oh, I dunno, Vanuatu should he win?
smitty
November 19th, 2011 @ 12:22 am

I forgive you your misunderstanding of forgiveness.
If I may throw in a little nuance, forgiveness is a backward-looking point, directed at the thought “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.”So by all means forgive Newt NY-23, or admit that you are as Christian as _._._.
Now that the past is settled, there is the future.
You can steadfastly refuse to give Newt another opportunity to toss good people under the bus, without the slightest hint of being unforgiving.
Free you mind, and you soul.
Anonymous
November 19th, 2011 @ 12:23 am

I would refuse to serve in the Gingrich administration.
Anonymous
November 19th, 2011 @ 12:42 am

Smitty, there are organizations in Washington that publish legislative “report cards,” where members are Congress are graded on their votes based on the standards of, say, the American Conservative Union. Most votes a congressman takes are procedural, or involve issues of no particular concern to ACU. But when the big votes come up, ACU puts out an alert notifying Congress what is considered the official “conservative” position — yea or nay — on the measure. That is to say, ACU serves notice that it’s keeping score on that vote, and any congressman concerned about maintaining a high ACU score will have no excuse for voting “wrong.”

Certainly, there was adequate notice that NY-23 was a “report card” vote, and Newt has no excuse — or at least no excuse I’m interested in hearing. YMMV.
Dianna Deeley
November 19th, 2011 @ 1:14 am

It’s like being the slowest wildebeest in the herd when a hungry lion
leaps out of the bushes down by the watering hole. Next thing you know,
vultures are picking your bones.

Or the lion could have to extract the wildebeest from the jaws of a crocodile, then settle down to nosh. And then….

You – the lion – look up and every wildebeest in the entire world comes up over the hill. You cease noshing and look at your lion companions, every one of whom is looking as appalled as you feel. (At this point, the wildebeest you’d seized hops up and takes his leave, smartly, tail up, mockingly.)

The vultures land in some near-by trees and exchange croaks to the effect of, “Well! That’s not something you see every day.”

Metaphors can be manipulated. I’m tired enough and put upon by nonprofit world enough to feel a deep urge to do so.
ThePaganTemple
November 19th, 2011 @ 1:21 am

Wrong. Forgiveness means not only that you forgive a person the wrongs he done to you in the past, you have to be able to wipe the slate completely clean and be able to look forward toward the new day as though that person had never wronged you in the slightest. Otherwise, the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins-your sins-means, well, not a goddamn thing. I think the wording, paraphrased is something to the effect “even as your father in heaven forgives you you must forgive”.
Anonymous
November 19th, 2011 @ 1:34 am

Granted, it would be a dirty job, but someone’s got to do it.

What if he threw in a gift certificate to Tiffany’s?
Bob Belvedere
November 19th, 2011 @ 1:37 am

Perhaps Mr. Hoffman is like me: I forgive, but never, ever, forget.
Dianna Deeley
November 19th, 2011 @ 1:43 am

Why does the thought that an actively hostile press secretary couldn’t do a worse job than some supposed supporters of presidents who have held the job in the recent past spring forcefully to mind?
Adjoran
November 19th, 2011 @ 1:56 am

To me it just shows Hoffman is a class act. His forgiveness may or may not be related to Christian practice, I didn’t see it specified, but irrespective of whether the degree of his forgiveness is worthy of grace, he still comes off the better man.

Stacy’s spot on about DC culture, though – although a DC denizen might also publicly profess forgiveness, just work like crazy behind the scenes and on the phone to exact revenge.

Gingrich has apologized for virtually all of his transgressions, personal, political, judgement, the works. The problem is that he keeps doing this stuff, over and over. It smacks less of contrition than expedience – he’s sorry he was called to account, not that he does these things over and over.

Remember, he was thrown out of the Speaker’s chair on his butt by Republicans, not Democrats.

I’d love to think his conversion to Catholicism has led him to a new way of life, but he still acts too much like the Old Newt for me to believe it.
Anonymous
November 19th, 2011 @ 2:00 am

You left out “Snacks the Giraffe”.
Dianna Deeley
November 19th, 2011 @ 2:09 am

“Giraffes are selfish.”

Seriously. That’s the title of a Grascals song.
Jorge Emilio Emrys Landivar
November 19th, 2011 @ 2:36 am

Yet more evidence that Hoffman should have gotten the job.
Anonymous
November 19th, 2011 @ 3:18 am

And apparently a Barney Fife quote.
Anonymous
November 19th, 2011 @ 3:28 am

Reading Hoffman’s comments….he isn’t really forgiving Newt…or at the very least…he isn’t forgetting what Newt is done.

But Hoffman has gone on with his life, as a private citizen, no need to let Newt’s betrayal define him.

Certainly, Newt has intellect. I would even go as far as saying he would be useful in a Presidential administration.

However, he is not fit to be President.

His ascendency is a slap in the face to the Tea Party movement.

If Newt, Romney, or Huntsman wins the nomination, the Tea Party is dead and out efforts were for naught…
Anonymous
November 19th, 2011 @ 4:24 am

I don’t think you have to worry about Huntsman.

Let’s say Romney or Newt gets elected, and let’s assume you’re right in your assessment of their insufficient conservatism/classical liberalism:

1) The Founders considered Congress the most important branch of government. And with the electoral wave of a Republican president, comes more Republicans in Congress, including many freshmen and even old-timers heavily influenced by the Tea movement.

2) It’s doubtful that Romney/Newt would pick another Souter, or even another Kennedy to the Supreme Court. There’s a general cohort of conservative jurists, typically associated with the Federalist Society, that we can expect Romney/Newt to choose from.

So 2 out of 3 ain’t bad.

We shouldn’t make the mistake of the Obammy-boppers by personifying everything we want in one man.
smitty
November 19th, 2011 @ 6:49 am

Serious question: at what point does refusal to be involved in helping to bail out the ship become tantamount to abetting the ship’s sinking?
smitty
November 19th, 2011 @ 6:54 am

You have thoroughly misunderstood my point. I’m not a Gingrich apologist in the slightest for the NY-23 debacle. He thoroughly, completely screwed that up. But if we choose to #OccupyPastFailings, of what use are we?
Newt’s task, as well as Mitt’s, is to demonstrate some sort of repentance. Of the two, Newt appears to have sucked less at the task.
I don’t plan to vote for either in the primary.
smitty
November 19th, 2011 @ 7:04 am

Pagan, if you want to accept that Jesus Christ is the meaning of life, and study the Gospel, then you may understand that Christianity is not a call to be a doormat.
While a Hoffman may forgive a Gingrich, in a Proverbs 25:21-22 sense, Doug is by no means required to play Charlie Brown to Newt’s Lucy, as she repeatedly yanks the football away at the kick.
Yes, we are to turn the other cheek, give double garments, and walk twice as far, per the sermon on the mount. Such teaches us not to be materialistic, to go past halfway in personal relationships, and not take ourselves too seriously.
But the Gospel is about our relationship with the Almighty and with other people. It is absolutely not a public policy manual. The Alinskyite who attempts to ‘hold them to their standards’ deserves to be ignored. A Christian who sincerely offers scriptural feedback is a treasure. A servant of the devil who attempts to mock Christ by using His teachings as a weapon against Christians shall enjoy a ‘reward’, indeed.
Doug has made whatever peace he will with Newt. If anything, Stacy should consider tempering criticism. For Doug’s ultimate audience is neither you, nor me, nor Stacy, nor Newt. Rather, the Almighty.
smitty
November 19th, 2011 @ 7:09 am

Have you ever considered that if women did not forget the travail of childbirth, there would be no human race? If they held that pain in mind, the population would taper off by half every generation.
steve benton
November 19th, 2011 @ 7:16 am

Newt understands who the real enemy is – Obama and the media. Do I trust him? Hell no. Maybe Herman and Perry could learn a lesson from Newt about taking on your true enemy. The thought of Newt is making me re-examine my anti-Cain stance. Herman, what world have you been living in, and why do you know so little about America’s foreign policy? If you just knew a smidgen, I might could live with that.
Zilla of the Resistance
November 19th, 2011 @ 7:44 am

I worked for a company that conducted political surveys all over the country leading up to the NY-23 election. My company was a Republican house, meaning that the people sponsoring the surveys were pro-Conservative. If you know anything about market research or how surveys are loaded to favor one idea or another you would understand a lot more than most people about how you can manipulate people with surveys, but I digress.
I spent weeks calling voters in NY-23 conducting surveys for a pro-Hoffman entity (you can tell by how thses things are worded who is behind them) and there were tons of people who I spoke to who were PRO DOUG at the beginning of the survey but so appalled by how the loaded survey questions (which I was forced to recite verbatim) were so brutally negative towards Doug’s opponents in BOTH parties that halfway through the survey people would often hang up in disgust after announcing that they were no longer going to vote for Hoffman.
I was facebook friends with Doug and tried to WARN HIM about this, but the surveys kept coming out with loaded questions that were vicious against his opponents and people continued to be turned off in droves. I spoke to people who were ‘definitely voting’ in that election and over and over and over again, Doug lost support due to whoever the hell it was sponsoring that survey which was intended to sway people away from his opponent s and towards him, it blew up in their faces. What they should have done was talk about why one SHOULD vote for Doug rather than why they should not vote for the others. So you people should stop laying all the blame on Newt, someone on DOUG’S TEAM FUCKED UP and I know because I heard it with my own ears.
I have done thses sorts of surveys for many years starting back when Hillary was running for Senate for the 1st time, and there is one thing above all else that my experience taught me which is you drive people who would otherwise have supported you away when you get ugly – hell, that’s what lost Rick Santorum my support, because he was getting so very nasty with Herman Cain. You win by helping people understand why they should SUPPORT YOU, not by demonizing your opponent relentlessly because it turns people off.
Doug Forgave Newt, Newt apologized, that is good enough for me. It wasn’t all Newt’s fault anyway, someone on team Hoffman fucked up badly.
ThePaganTemple
November 19th, 2011 @ 8:08 am

I didn’t say Hoffman had to support him for President. He can forgive Gingrich and still support whoever he wants, Gingrich or otherwise. But if God forgives you, through the power of the shed blood of Christ, then he no longer sees your sins. Thus, he no longer judges you according to what you did in the past. True, your supposed to turn to Christ in those areas where you might be wont to sin, and trust him to help you find the strength to keep from sinning again, but when you die, and stand before the throne of judgment, God isn’t going to say, well I’m going to let you in but I’m going to be keeping an eye on you. Nope, it will be forgotten, over and done with. It will be like it never happened at all.

That’s what you are supposed to strive for here. I didn’t say you would always be successful, but you have to honestly try, and pray on it during those times when those old resentments pop up. For example, say you had a wife who was unfaithful to you. It would only be natural for you to want to divorce her. But you should try to reconcile, whether or not there are children involved, because you have become one flesh in the eyes of God. But it won’t work if you take her back and are going to stay resentful, which is why you should work to try to put it behind you to the best of your ability, and so you should pray on it, and work on trying to achieve that state.

Similarly, you should give Newt the benefit of the doubt and stop this trying to keep him from beating Newt in New Hampshire lol
ThePaganTemple
November 19th, 2011 @ 8:51 am

To say nothing of the fact that Newt was allegedly given misleading information about Scozzafava, which is related in this very post. So the most Gingrich should be faulted for is for not double and triple checking the facts as to who the candidates really were and what they were really about. He trusted bad information, probably because it came from a source he thought he could trust. It just shows he too is fallible, which we already knew. Who isn’t?
ThePaganTemple
November 19th, 2011 @ 9:05 am

The basic human sex drive overpowers the memory not only of the pain of childbirth but the associated problems of carrying children. Dopamine plays a role as well.
Datechguy's Blog » Blog Archive » My Reply to Stacy McCain, et/al: I do not approve, I understand » Datechguy's Blog
November 19th, 2011 @ 9:13 am

[…] 5: Doug Hoffman gets it, but Stacy still disagrees. Share this:PrintRedditDiggStumbleUponEmailFacebook opinions powered by SendLove.to […]
Dn
November 19th, 2011 @ 9:47 am

Snap out of it, will ya’?

In the general debates, Gingrich would be best positioned to take on and demolish what Obama has done, and is intending to do to the country.

The guy you were bizarrely supporting deems straight forward questions as “gotchas.”

Of the three Conservatives in the race, Bachmann, Santorum and Gingrich, Gingrich is the best suited for bringing real reform to our federal government.
Dcmick
November 19th, 2011 @ 9:58 am

Don’t confine Cain’s widespread ignorance to foreign policy. Cain’s ignorance is really reflective of an egomania, {what hasn’t concerned Cain himself, is something he hasn’t spent any time reading about or attempting to understand, and his ego now deems any questions about ANYTHING he doesn’t understand as a gotcha}.

Gingrich on the other hand KNOWS policy, and KNOWS the regulatory structure, and how much damage that regulatory overlay has done to America’s economy.

Does Gingrich have flaws? Of course, as do we all.

Some decry his multiple marriages, but look at it this way, at least we know Gingrich wasn’t some Chicago devotee of “the down low….”

He’s flipped positions on AGW, ——– but he isn’t the only one. And at the time when that movement was growing, there were a TREMENDOUS amount of scientists out there saying it was real. At least Gingrich has stayed abreast of the issue and now concedes that the “science” was fraudulent, and that it isn’t something to burden the American economy about. Romney meanwhile STILL supports the green gimmickry, {because of course he dare not flip on it, despite the mountains of evidence now indicating that it’s all a fraud, because were he to flip it would be YET ANOTHER flip and his political candidacy can’t afford yet another}.

He buys jewelry for his wife. Are we supposed to believe that will drive away women voters or something……..?

His knowledge of what needs to be done, his thorough understanding of the danger of Obama, his ability to articulate in short and succinct phrases the essence of things, ——— he’s the guy.

He’s the nominee.

The rest, ———- the supposed “baggage,” ————- all nonsense and irrelevant before the reality of our problems.
Anonymous
November 19th, 2011 @ 9:59 am

Cool with Doug, cool with me lol

Linked @ RR: Recommended Saturday Family Reading~
Dcmick
November 19th, 2011 @ 10:03 am

Smitty, RSM is still in the emotional throes of dealing with Cain’s candidacy imploding because of Cain’s vast and widespread ignorance.

He isn’t thinking through things clearly.

There are three Conservatives in the race.

Bachmann.

Santorum.

Gingrich.

Of those three, Gingrich is best positioned to articulate America’s answer to all things Obama.

Gingrich is the guy.

And RSM will just have to thrash and flail about a bit longer before he can man up, and handle that grim truth.
ThePaganTemple
November 19th, 2011 @ 10:31 am

And what has he done since his conversion to make you think that? Breakfast At Tiffany’s and Greek vacations don’t count.
Is This It? Newt Says GOP Choice Will ‘Come Down to Mitt and Me’ : The Other McCain
November 19th, 2011 @ 11:11 am

[…] past? Back to the days of mullets, when MTV played music videos?(Via Memeorandum.)RECENTLY:Oct. 18: Doug Hoffman Forgives Newt Gingrich?Oct. 16: How Bad Is Newt Gingrich?Oct. 15: Remembering Newt’s AwfulnessOct. 14: ‘You Have to […]
Joe
November 19th, 2011 @ 11:14 am

That reminds me of this.

Mrs. Other McCain might pause a second about a Tiffany gift certificate, but I think she would tell Stacy to tell Newt to stuff it too.
Anonymous
November 19th, 2011 @ 11:26 am

You point to the problem with Gingrich. The only thing he is good for is debating.

Just like Obama was only good for catch phrases and a spiffy campaign.

Newt is terrible in leadership. He was good in the run up to the Republican takeover in the 90s, but he was terrible in leadership of that takeover. Also, that wasn’t a Conservative movement to begin with.

He was last run out of office as a result of ineffective leadership and laundering money through a kids charity to his book’s ghost writer.

Newt is ANTI-TEA PARTY.
smitty
November 19th, 2011 @ 11:29 am

I think you’re accurate for the moment, but could be selling Rick Santorum very, very short.
smitty
November 19th, 2011 @ 11:41 am

Money offers the simplest example of my point.
My neighbor borrows $20, and agrees to pay it back after the next payday.
Doesn’t.
Wants to borrow more money.
One can reasonably decide to forgive the $20, if a charitable heart permits. It is as though there had never been a soured loan. But there is exactly no obligation whatsoever to continue lending when there is no track record of repayment.
Now, if the point seems elusive, please tell me at what point this situation would become theft, in your mind.
Oh, and can you spot me $20?
Garym
November 19th, 2011 @ 11:43 am

My wife still slaps me on both my boys birthdays. ; )
ThePaganTemple
November 19th, 2011 @ 12:05 pm

No I can’t and do you know why I can’t? Because I don’t loan money. It’s just not a good policy unless you loan it with the following criterion in mind.

1. The money asked for is not really necessary. Maybe a friend wants to go to a movie, or take his wife or girlfriend out to eat but he’s short on cash. In that case, then you decide whether this is something you want to do not out of need, but out of friendship. If so, you should not really expect the loan back right away. Hopefully, he’ll return the favor one day. Or maybe not. But it clearly isn’t that important one way or another.

2. The money asked for is for some necessary expense that can’t be met, or for some emergency. In this case you should give cheerfully, and expect repayment whenever possible. If this is not forthcoming, then the question becomes is he able to repay, and if so, is he unwilling. And in the event of another emergency, do you do it again? And perhaps more importantly, is it really an emergency?

A good rule of thumb is, don’t loan money unless there is a pressing and obvious need to do so, and in the meantime you also have to take your own needs and responsibilities into consideration, particularly if you have a family to support and bills to pay. You don’t have a right, actually, to shirk your legitimate responsibilities to help another person, even if that person’s needs are legitimate.

BUT, if you can do so, and you are reasonably, honestly sure the person is truly in need, and you can do so without shirking said responsibilities, then yes you should forgive him and help him again, even if he failed to repay you once, twice, three times before.

Bear in mind “help” doesn’t necessarily always have to be defined as forking over dollars.

Now that I’ve solved this enigma I have a question for you. Exactly what “sin” has Newt “committed”-AGAINST YOU, SMITTY-that requires you to “forgive” him?
Give It Up, Stacy: Cain Is Gone, Too. It’s Down to Mittens vs. The Newtster, and Mister Gorilla Will Decide | Daily Pundit
November 19th, 2011 @ 12:15 pm

[…] probably come down to this selection (see his “You still have to answer for Santino, Carlo rant) and neither am I, but let’s trace the history. Hindsight is always a wonderful tool, much […]
Tennwriter
November 19th, 2011 @ 1:16 pm

I’d vote for Gingrich rather than Romney. But I’m still hoping for Rick Santorum. Cain and Bachmann are cool too.
Mike F.
November 19th, 2011 @ 1:16 pm

Newt’s apology to Doug is merely a small first step. The damage he did in NY-23 was PUBLIC. The harm he did was PUBLIC. His apology and amends must also be public. If he cannot demonstrate the true humility of that act than he remains a non-starter…period.
Dianna Deeley
November 19th, 2011 @ 1:47 pm

So I’m told, but since I never watched the Andy Griffith Show, I rely on the liner notes for this information.
smitty
November 19th, 2011 @ 4:04 pm

The Pagan Temple:

Exactly what “sin” has Newt “committed”-AGAINST YOU, SMITTY-that requires you to “forgive” him?

Whoa, we veered way off thread. My purpose here (in comments across the post) has been to offer a simple explanation of what I perceive is a Christian theology of forgiveness, to support Doug Hoffman, and take a gentle swipe at Stacy McCain for, in my opinion, arguing the realpolitik to the discredit of Christ.
Very likely I’m putting too fine a point on matters. To ATFQ you pose, I don’t think Newt, or the majority of politicians for that matter, cleave too closely to their oath of office.
That said, the reasons for the failure are substantial. It really is more the fault of the game than the ‘playuhs’. Thus, what you see me arguing across blog posts is against the complexity of it all. Until we make everything simpler and make it easier to do the ‘right thing’, we should temper our criticism against, well, anybody, of any party. Even my local clown Moran.
ThePaganTemple
November 19th, 2011 @ 4:06 pm

Another reason Mitt won’t budge on Global Climate Change is because Bain Capital has investments in green energy technology companies.
Info
November 19th, 2011 @ 4:06 pm

At the risk of being too literal, sometimes the first step towards forgiving someone is developing a will to forgive. Without knowing you personally, it sounds like you’re at least on the right path…
Anonymous
November 19th, 2011 @ 4:12 pm

Fallibility is shared by all, but what made him so? He was “listening to the wrong people.” And that’s a central problem. Exactly how conservative is he? Is he classically liberal (small gov, big individual rights) but was persuaded by others not to be? Or is he moderately Statist and a go-along-get-along guy content to feather his nest while delivering rhetoric?

He talks a good game but he deviates from manifestly conservative positions too much of the time to ignore. I don’t believe it’s others telling him to do that. He is a well-educated man by academic standards. He’s also well-educated by life experience. He is not one to take opinion as much as give it; he’s the professor, so let’s not give him too much leeway on getting talked into positions he doesn’t really have.

So, not only does he have “big government” tendencies (less than many but significant in some very important instances), he’s getting talked into these positions, supposedly, by those around him. Well who are these people with whom he’s associating? The population of activists, bureaucrats, lobbyists, and leeches that so infect the political class? He’s choosing to listen to them and get persuaded into anti-conservative poses?

It just doesn’t fly. For a man who is so smart – and I really do think he’s smart – he’s being undermined by his own lack of conviction… or principle.

Were he in tune with the Tea Party (whose voice he is parroting today), he’d have had zero inclination to fail the Scozzafava-Hoffman Test. He was not, obviously. What a terrible reflection on The Professor that he missed a hanging curve. And now we have to decide whether or not the man can escape his tendencies to associate with and be persuaded by a dubious cadre of supporting cast from The Machine and whether or not he has the principle or conviction to deflect them when he is reinstated among them.

For the primaries that’s a trust I just cannot place. Others deserve the position first in spite of Newt’s rhetorical juggernaut.
Anonymous
November 19th, 2011 @ 5:25 pm

Gingrich is not, and never has been a Conservative. He is a career politician Republican.
ThePaganTemple
November 19th, 2011 @ 6:21 pm

Bachmann or Santorum have one chance to break through, in Iowa. If neither of them does the job, then I’m pretty sure its going to be between Newt and Mitt, with Ron Paul just a sideshow. All the others will be gone by the time South Carolina is come and gone, in all probability.
ThePaganTemple
November 19th, 2011 @ 6:29 pm

Realpolitik? Is that what he calls it? I though realpolitik was coldly practical, even ruthless tailoring of policy in acquiescence to political realities. Well, the political reality is, in all likelihood, barring some unforeseen miracle, Cain is done. So is everybody else. If someone, hopefully Bachmann, doesn’t break out in Iowa, then that’s the name of that tune. The contest will be down to between Romney and Gingrich. And I’m going to be frank, I think Romney will probably seal the deal by South Carolina, especially if he wins Iowa, and then New Hampshire, and then goes on to win SC, you know by then he’s going to have the momentum to carry him through to Florida and beyond.

To tell you the truth I don’t care. Whoever gets the nomination, I’ll vote for them. This nitpicking over every little perceived flaw, real or imagined, is getting tiresome. It’s precisely why Palin decided to stay out. I frankly don’t know why anybody would want the damn job. I don’t think anybody that’s halfway sane does.
Bob Belvedere
November 20th, 2011 @ 3:45 pm

Disqus generic email templateI think a good number of women would still go ahead with another round of childbirth because the glory of the immediate aftermath is also remembered. —– Original Message —–
From: Disqus
To: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2011 7:09 AM
Subject: [theothermccain] Re: Doug Hoffman Forgives Newt Gingrich?

smitty wrote, in response to Bob Belvedere:

Have you ever considered that if women did not forget the travail of childbirth, there would be no human race? If they held that pain in mind, the population would taper off by half every generation.
Link to comment