Here is a list the scandals that have involved Newt Gingrich in the last week. As you read this list, ask yourself if this man would be fitting representative for our country as president of the United States.

1) Gingrich’s second wife, Marianne Gingrich, reveals on ABC News that Newt asked her for an “open marriage” so he could continue to have an affair while remaining married. 

2) After the “open marriage” allegation, Gingrich stated in his defense that he “offered several witnesses” to ABC news who could counter the allegations but that ABC news “wasn’t interested.” A few days later, Gingrich then admits that he lied and that he never offered counter witnesses to ABC.

3) Forbes magazine reports that Gingrich very possibly is a tax cheat and that he didn’t pay all the necessary taxes for 2010. Gingrich owes up to $69,000 in taxes to the IRS.

4) Politico runs a story that proves conclusively that Gingrich supported and praised the model used by Freddie/Fannie to make home loans. This model allowed for “subprime” mortgages to be used widely in the U.S. and eventually lead to the housing crisis. Politico’s story contradicts Gingrich’s many claims that he was simply a “historian” for Freddie/Fannie and that he warned against the model. 

5) Countering Gingrich’s recent claims that he was Ronald Reagan’s greatest supporter/follower, many insiders to the Reagan White House wrote that Gingrich “repeatedly insulted Reagan”and said that Reagan was responsible for America’s moral “decay.” Newt goes on to say thatReagan’s policies were “flawed” and “insufficient” to counter the spread of Communism and the Soviet Union. 

6) A new video of Newt Gingrich is uncovered that shows Newt in 1985 bashing Ronald Reagan saying “the Reagan administration has failed” and that “Harry Truman has accomplished vastly more in foreign policy in five years than Reagan in the same amount of time.” 

7) At a recent rally in Florida, Gingrich said “I never criticized Clinton for having sex with Lewinski.” That is truly an astonishing thing for Gingrich to say. 

8. In an interview with CBN, Gingrich says that his many mistakes, like being a serial adulterer, makes him look more “normal and relatable” to people.

9) Joe Scarborough served in the House as a Republican during Newt’s time as speaker. Scarborough writes about how Newt passed the Contract with American and then fought with the GOP to break key provisions of that same contract. Scarborough also brings up how Gingrich “compared Reagan with Neville Chamberlain, dismissed Reaganomics as flawed and called Reagan’s approach to the Soviet Union an utter failure a few years before the U.S.S.R. was relegated to the dustbin of history.”
 

10) In 2007, Gingrich said that Spanish is the “language of the Ghetto.” Fact-checkers have verified that Gingrich has given several explanations for this comment but he has never really apologized for it.

11) Aside from the scandals, there are also just plain “Zany” comments made by Gingrich. In a speech in Florida recently, Gingrich vowed to create a “permanent colony on the moon by the end of his second term in office.” And that colony will “become the 51st state in America.”

12) Former GOP presidential nominee, Bob Dole, issues a stinging anti-endorsement of Gingrich pointing out that hardly anyone who served under Gingrich has endorsed him.

Did I forget anything else that happened in the last week or so? Those are just the scandals I could think of off the top of my head. Just imagine what the Democrats could do with a list like this. And remember, that is only last week.

What relevance does this photograph have to what I have written below? Nothing. I include it here because 1) I love photography, 2) Every photograph tells a story and I like this story, and 3) This photograph from last year, around Christmas, is the best one I have ever found depicting the next President of the United States of America. How cool is this shot? I wish I could claim this photograph as one I had made!

What about last night’s debate? Mr. Gingrich is discovering firsthand, the cool, steely determination of executive authority. The alpha male of the Republican presidential candidates is clearly Governor Romney.

What we witnessed last night is called “command.” Governor Romney possess leadership command. Need I write more?

And Gingrich? How long must Americans continue to provide a forum for an undisciplined, pompous, chest-beating, name-dropping Washington insider to pontificate? Do Americans really want a President that has spent the last half of his life in self-promotion and self-love — who is still “maturing?” The two million dollar “historian?” Someone who might awaken the day after his coronation as President and decide to build an island in the Atlantic ocean so he can claim a 51st state for his legacy?

Contrast Mr. Gingrich with Governor Romney. Until this week, Governor Romney’s demeanor has been that of a confident, but modest gentleman — secure in the confidence that comes from decades of extraordinary accomplishments in leadership — beholden to no one. Some have mentioned to me that his style has been humble; a possible reference to his Christian upbringing in which the virtue of humility is considered above almost all other human character traits. “Well, let me tell you this” (to quote Newt). Governor Romney had enough of the Gingrich “baloney” last night and decided to put Mr. Humpty Dumpty in his place. One of the best examples of that moral authority was Governor Romney’s response to Gingrich’s immigration attack — Gingrich appeared to cower, afraid to even glance in the direction of Romney as he pierced him with one dagger after the next (Governor Romney’s height advantage helps too).

Why does Gingrich keep whining about “attack ads?” This week Gingrich has begun to flail. He does not want to take on a defensive posture, so he jabs at the wind with his weak, empty attacks, resorting to personal labels such as “Liar!”, “Wrong!”, “Desperate!”, etc. (complete irony). Governor Romney’s message is meant to resonate with Americans who are thoughtful; thinking.

Gingrich’s message is directed to the lowest common denominator; those that will believe anything he says or to those that want to believe the pander (lunar colony). Hence, if he says that Governor Romney voted for a Democrat, it is like Pharaoh Ramses declaring, “Let it be written! Let it be done!” All are to then fall in line behind Gingrich. Why can he not just answer to truth?

He demanded that Governor Romney release his taxes. Done. Romney demanded that Gingrich release all the secret files supporting his ethics sanctions. Deflection. Everything about Gingrich is deflection. Even when he has no good answer in the debate, he talks by complimenting the competitors – deflection by flattery! Gingrich is a master of the cunning. You can even see it in his countenance.

Pre-Iowa, the PACs promoting Congressman Paul and Governor Romney were generous with Gingrich by letting up when Gingrich tanked after a few days of truth letting (revealing a mere 1/100th of his laundry). Frankly, they should have flattened Gingrich right then and there to end his political career before he got a second wind to promote anti-capitalism.

If Gingrich were to leave the race today, he would best be remembered for his liberal rhetoric and the damage he exacted on the Republican Party. He feigns surprise as more truth is revealed. It is no fluke that just about every staunch conservative is coming out against Gingrich, except the entertainers (Limbaugh / Hannity — those who profit most by liberals in the saddle).

AN ASIDE — DEBATE TRIVA: Did any of you notice some subtle details from the debate? As Blitzer announced the names of each candidate, only one candidate clapped each time: Governor Romney. Two candidates sang the Anthem: Senator Santorum and Governor Romney. Most of the candidates often dissolve to the casual in addressing one another by first name. Governor Romney almost always refers to the others with the respect they deserve by their mere presence in a presidential debate: “Senator Santorum, Speaker Gingrich, Congressman Paul.” Note: People often refer to Governor Romney as “the most presidential…” referring to his appearance. It is called “command presence.”

As a political hack, I have followed the details of campaigns since the Iran hostage crisis. What we have witnessed these past weeks in presidential politics in unprecedented. I saw part of an interview on O’Reilly last night with Ann Coulter that I think summarized what has seemed absolutely clear to me for months. O’Reilly was pressing her to opine as to why the avalanche of major conservatives pummeling Gingrich. My quoting her probably is imperfect, but in effect she said, “I think it is because they are seeing that Romney is running as a moderate and will probably govern as a conservative. Gingrich is talking like a conservative, but may govern as a liberal . . . “ She said Gingrich might wake up one day and decide he was serious about a lunar colony while the debt keeps escalating!

We probably posted to this Ann Coulter article already, but I love this paragraph from her article yesterday titled, RE-ELECT OBAMA: VOTE NEWT! (a must read)

Gingrich may have spent his entire life in Washington and be so much of an insider that, as Jon Stewart says, “when Washington gets its prostate checked, it tickles [Newt],” but he is deemed the rebellious outsider challenging “the Establishment” — because, again, “the Establishment” is anyone who opposes Newt.

And this:
Read more…

If you’ve been over to Drudge Report or listened to Rush Limbaugh (today’s transcript) in the last 24 hours you’ve seen/heard a few clips of Gingrich bashing or distancing himself from Reagan/Reaganism. If Newt hadn’t been wrapping himself in the robes of “The True Reagan Conservative” and taking co-credit for all of Reagan’s accomplishments in debates and on the stump then I guess this wouldn’t seem so hypocritical. Megan Kelly, Fox News anchor, said that in one speech Newt referred to Reagan/Reaganism over 50 times.

Well, this NEW video below is the most damning to Gingrich’s claim to be a true Reaganite than anything I’ve ever seen so far:

Newt’s been running around for months giving Mitt grief as the “Massachusetts Moderate” because, in a 1994 debate vs Ted Kennedy, Mitt said “I was an Independent during Reagan-Bush, I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush” (the context was spending and fiscal policy … unfortunately these were definite weaknesses for Reagan and Bush). Would you say that “turnabout is fair play” here?

Newt is undergoing a hyper-speed “death by a thousand cuts.” I felt the tide turning around 48 hours ago and stated here that this was the beginning of the end for Newt. I honestly didn’t think it would come this fast, but I’m not complaining.

Newt and his fans I’m sure will blame Romney and his team for this . . . but that’s not the truth at all. Newt tried to build a skyscraper campaign on a toothpick foundation. He’s spent his entire career spouting off on every issue (most of the time on both sides) and now he’s “SHOCKED” that he’s being held to account for his own words. He’s practiced scorched earth politics his whole career, and burned plenty of bridges in the process. Fewer than 10 of the congressmen that served under him have endorsed him (Mitt has over 70 congressional endorsements . . . and more coming), a telling sign that Newt is plenty capable of losing his clout and influence all by himself … no reason to blame Mitt. If Drudge can take out Newt in 2 days, just imagine what Obama/Reid/Pelosi could do to him with the mainstream media cheering all the way along. Getting rid of Newt as a potential nominee is a service for which ALL Americans should be grateful!

Florida’s U.S. Senator Marco Rubio chimed in big time for Governor Romney yesterday: This is what we call “goodwill” having been earned after a lot of hard work for another candidate:

“Mitt Romney is no Charlie Crist. Romney is a conservative, and he was one of the first national Republican leaders to endorse me. He came to Florida, campaigned hard for me, and made a real difference in my race.”

Guess who did this kind of work for candidates after his first presidential campaign and loss? Ronald Reagan. This has rarely been discussed this cycle, but there is a reason Reagan’s coat tails brought in so many conservatives with him. After he lost the 1976 nomination to Ford, Reagan campaigned hard for many U.S. senators, congressmen, and governors. That goodwill mattered, big time.

PROOF that Newt Gingrich, the entertainer, demands an audience for validation:

This New York Times article contains a video in which he calls Governor Romney “dishonest” and calls him a liar.

In an interview with the morning show “Fox and Friends,” Mr. Gingrich said NBC’s rules amounted to stifling free speech. In what has become a standard line of attack for his anti-establishment campaign, Mr. Gingrich blamed the media for trying to silence a dissenting point of view.

“I wish in retrospect I’d protested when Brian Williams took them out of it because I think it’s wrong,” Mr. Gingrich said. “And I think he took them out of it because the media is terrified that the audience is going to side with the candidates against the media, which is what they’ve done in every debate.”
[...]
Mr. Gingrich’s performance in the debate in Tampa on Monday night was far more muted. Critics noted that he seemed to be off his game. The National Journal, which co-hosted the NBC debate, compared Gingrich to “a stand-up comedian whose routine suffers without echoes of laughter egging him on.”

Mr. Gingrich clearly noticed something was off, too. “We’re going to serve notice on future debates,” he told Fox. “We’re just not going to allow that to happen. That’s wrong. The media doesn’t control free speech. People ought to be allowed to applaud if they want to.”
[...]
At debates during the general election, which are governed by rules set by the Commission on Presidential Debates, the audience is told to remain silent. “No cheers, no applause, no noise of any kind,” as Jim Lehrer reminded them in 2008.

Gingrich’s Use of Saul Alinsky:

The Dough Boy of GOP reaction has apparently decided he can win it all by making Alinsky the central figure of the 2012 campaign. Every time Gingrich opens his mouth, out comes pronunciamenti like “the centerpiece of this campaign…is American exceptionalism versus the radicalism of Saul Alinsky.” (Fox Nation 1/21/12) or “Saul Alinsky radicalism is at the heart of Obama.” (CNN 1/22/12)

If this were not silly enough, harken to Rudy Giuliani on the TV upbraiding Gingrich for acting like Alinsky: “What the hell are you doing, Newt? I expect this from Saul Alinsky. This is what Saul Alinsky taught Barack Obama.”
[...]
In Congress, Gingrich made a name of sorts for himself the time he groused about being asked to deplane from Air Force One’s rear door. He wanted to come down the front steps, where the Marine guard throws you a salute and people on the wrong side of the velvet rope strain for so much as a smile. Gingrich likes to run with the overdogs, with the megas — the mega rich, the mega powerful, the mega glorious.

Alinsky spent his life with the have-nots and the have-not-enoughs. He hated to see people kicked around, but he didn’t entertain Captain America fantasies. He didn’t want to wear a cape. Instead, by organizing people, he wanted to insure that every man and woman could have their own cape.

WHAT ABOUT CHARITABLE GIVING COMPARISONS? Why the fuss over Romney’s wealth?

Make no mistake; Newt Gingrich is a very wealthy man. I have seen estimates of net worth exceeding $70 million. Here is how they stack up in charitable giving:

Romney (2 yrs)…..$7 million / 16.7%

Gingrich……………….$81,133 / 2.6%

Obama (’07)………$240,000 / 5.7%

Biden (10 yrs)…….$369.00 / 0.3%

Biden (2010)………$5,350 / 1.4%

Gore (1997)……….$353.00 / 0.000002% (guesstimate)

~Addendum from Ross
Check out a short video about Mitt from Celeb Life below the fold. Read more…

NOTE: Specific Endorsement Count by Candidate & Names: End of Post

Any one endorsement for a presidential candidate, in and of itself, is not generally considered that important in the long-term. However, how that endorser supports the candidate over time and the number of endorsements of stature can have significant influence. Every endorsement is a huge vote of confidence by the person putting their name on the line, in public (consider those who do not endorse candidates at all — there is a reason they don’t step up)

I have been giving a lot of thought to the large number of endorsements Governor Romney has compiled week in and week out. Gingrich sees this “voting” and he attempts to blunt their importance by referring to these as “the establishment” supporting Governor Romney.

Nonsense.

No matter how you cut it, almost EVERY one of these endorsers knows both Gingrich and Romney; some better than others. Very few of these choose Gingrich. By the way, I have yet to hear any close friend of Gingrich or any colleague of his (that worked closely with him for years), ever say anything positive about the man as a leader (besides his ability to speak well). Why is that? I only hear negative things said of him from those that know him well.

Yesterday’s Opinion section of The Wall Street Journal discusses this important topic:

Do endorsements matter? Politicians certainly think so, and they spend loads of time courting party elites and opinion-makers. So far, though, 2012 has shown how the politics of anointment and appointment can fail.

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley flopped mightily in trying to deliver her state for Mitt Romney. Evangelical leaders held a summit to get the Palmetto State to back their new choice, Rick Santorum, but he fared much worse than Mr. Romney. Newt Gingrich knows the feeling—New Hampshire’s supposedly dominant Manchester Union Leader newspaper huffed and puffed for Newt and got him less than 10% of the vote.

But it’s easy to cherry-pick examples to prove the folly of endorsements. In some circumstances, they can make a substantial difference.

Throughout American history, presidencies have been created by the laying on of incumbent hands. Thomas Jefferson effectively passed the presidency to his friend and confidant, James Madison. Andrew Jackson handed his populist democracy off to an unlikely dandy, Martin Van Buren, in 1836. Few would have imagined the studious and portly William Howard Taft as president until Theodore Roosevelt picked him in 1908. More recently, George H.W. Bush might not have been elected president without Ronald Reagan’s blessing. Madison, Van Buren, Taft and Mr. Bush all got their predecessor’s third term—when popular, presidents have extraordinary powers.

What about little-known state legislators and local sheriffs? Even low-level backing can attract the cameras and generate a positive story. But this can backfire if candidates overplay their hands, as Jon Huntsman did when his campaign hinted at a “major” announcement in Florida. Speculation naturally centered on former Gov. Jeb Bush. Not quite. Mr. Huntsman got only his son, Jeb Jr., and the media’s letdown showed in the coverage.
[...]
Even more than Democrats, Republicans typically nominate a candidate that party elites support. In “The Party Decides,” political scientists Marty Cohen, David Karol, Hans Noel and John Zaller analyzed endorsements made prior to the Iowa caucuses in presidential primary contests from 1980 to 2004. They found that the candidate who had won the biggest share of endorsements won the eventual nomination in nine of 10 competitive contests (the exception was Democrat John Kerry in 2004). On the GOP side, the eventual nominees all won a strong plurality of endorsements.

Not surprisingly, given Mr. Romney’s position as the front-runner and the fear that many Republican officeholders have of sharing a ballot with Mr. Gingrich or Ron Paul, the former Massachusetts governor has a long lead in endorsements from elected officials. According to the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call, Mr. Romney has the backing of 72 members of Congress, versus a combined 17 for the other candidates.

This is good news for Mr. Romney. Mr. Gingrich is attempting to stir the populism of the GOP base by railing against “elites,” but many voters welcome guidance in intra-party contests. In a general election, voters have the invaluable short-hand cue of the party label. But in a nominating contest, all candidates have the same party label. How to choose just one? Differences in personality, background and policy help, but so does a candidate’s association with other well-known party figures. People want to puzzle out which candidate comes closest to their kind of Republican or Democrat.

Non-endorsements can send powerful signals to voters as well. For decades, leading Southern Democrats practiced “golden silence” in presidential years, refusing to endorse their party’s presidential nominees. This was a green light to voters that it was acceptable to support a Republican for the White House. In 1960, President Eisenhower wanted Vice President Nixon to succeed him, but he damaged Nixon’s campaign when asked what major decisions in his administration Nixon had influenced. “If you give me a week, I might think of one,” said Ike. The comment ended up in one of John Kennedy’s TV ads.

Could non-endorsements end up mattering in 2012, too? Despite decades on Capitol Hill and four years as speaker of the House, Mr. Gingrich has only 11 congressional endorsements, five of them from Georgians.

[emphasis added]

CHECK THESE TWO SITES FOR MANY SPECIFICS:

Endorsements for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012

RACE 4 2012 — Endorsements as of January 20, 2012
,

*********************************************************************************
* * * * PELOSI: Gingrich as President: “THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN” (below fold) * * * *

Was there an important speech last night? I heard something about the POTUS speaking. Oh well, I missed that one.

Now that I think about Newt walking out onto the debate stage the other night, he actually walks like a duck! Do you remember that profile shot from behind the curtain, looking out toward the audience as Mr. Gingrich walked out? He sorta waddled.

In all seriousness . . .

Monday night, Gingrich told the us that he was merely acting as a concerned “citizen” in all these jobs he has had earning multi-millions of dollars. Right. Again, what do we know? We are all simply naive.

A number of sources yesterday checked into whether Mr. Gingrich used his influence inappropriately. Here is what we find from CNN‘s Truth Squad. You judge:

The New York Times also reported last month that the world’s largest insulin maker, Novo Nordisk, had hired Gingrich to help “position itself as a thought leader” to raise awareness about diabetes.

Former Colorado Rep. Marilyn Musgrave told CNN last month that Gingrich called her at the height of the 2003 debate urging her to vote for the bill.

“Newt called me to vote yes,” said Musgrave, who is now director at the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List.

“He asked for a yes vote on a Medicare prescription drug benefit,” she said. “Dick Armey” — a former House majority leader — “called me and wanted a no. But I had already made up my mind to vote not to expand an entitlement that we were going to have to pay for down the road.”

Musgrave, who is neutral in the presidential race, said she was not sure if Gingrich was technically “lobbying” when he called her, because she did not know if he was working for anyone else at the time.

“All I know is he wanted a yes,” Musgrave said.

Musgrave was one of 19 House Republicans who voted against the plan, which passed 220-215.

Two other Republicans who served in Congress at the time, Arizona Rep. Jeff Flake and Idaho Gov. Butch Otter, told the Des Moines Register last month that they interpreted Gingrich’s actions as lobbying.

“He told us, ‘If you can’t pass this bill, you don’t deserve to govern as Republicans,’ ” Flake told the paper. “If that’s not lobbying, I don’t know what is.”

According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the bill is projected to cost nearly $1 trillion from 2010 through 2020. The price tag for Medicare Part D was added to the nation’s deficit.

“It was a huge entitlement” that left the insurance and drug industries as big winners, said Uwe Reinhardt, a professor of health economics at Princeton.

[emphasis added]

Read more…

Today Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Florida Speaker Designate Will Weatherford held a hard-hitting conference call stripping Newt Gingrich of his I-wasn’t-a-Freddie-Mac-lobbyist disguise.


GOV. TIM PAWLENTY: “NEWT GINGRICH AS A POTENTIAL NOMINEE FOR PRESIDENT: REALLY? I MEAN REALLY?”

“His influence-peddling with respect to Freddie Mac to Congress, that needs to be revealed. And so he called upon Governor Romney to be transparent, well Speaker Gingrich needs to be transparent on this issue and many others. And the notion that he was paid $1.7 million as a historian for Freddie Mac is just B.S., it’s just nonsense. And so he needs to reveal, and his firm needs to reveal, that contract. He needs to go through in detail what positions and advice he gave Freddie Mac, how they responded to that. And then also what advocacy, if any, that he undertook with respect to these issues with the United States Congress.”
– Gov. Tim Pawlenty

AUDIO: Pawlenty and Weatherford: Gingrich’s “Historian” Work for Freddie

Transcript of “Definitely Not A Lobbyist” conference call:

OPERATOR: “Ms. Gail Gitcho, you may now begin.”

GAIL GITCHO, COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: “Thanks Claire and thanks everyone for joining today. I have Governor Tim Pawlenty on the line and also Florida Speaker Designate Will Weatherford, and they’re going to talk about Speaker Gingrich’s record and his work for Freddie Mac. And I’ll turn it over to Governor Pawlenty and then Mr. Weatherford and then we’ll take some questions and wrap up. So Governor Pawlenty, go ahead.”

GOV. TIM PAWLENTY: “Great, thank you Gail. Good morning everyone, thanks for being on the call this morning. We’re going to talk this morning about Speaker Gingrich’s record in a couple of key areas. One, as Speaker and the other as his post-Speaker role as advocate and lobbyist and influence-peddler in Washington DC. And I think for Republicans and conservatives all across this country, a question is going to have to be as they consider Newt Gingrich as a potential nominee for president: really? I mean really? This is somebody who has had so many incredibly unfortunate and questionable activities while he was speaker, post-speaker, that he is not somebody that I think can carry the banner for the Republican Party and the conservative movement forward as the nominee or as a future president. Let me give you just a couple of example and then I’ll turn it over to Speaker-Designate Weatherford for his comments. If you’re going to be president of the United States, people have to understand your full record. They have to see it in user-friendly and transparent ways. Newt Gingrich has represented hundreds of clients and interest groups in Washington, DC since he left the speakership. We have very little insight and transparency as to what exactly he did for many for those clients, in many cases, for huge sums of money. To say that he wasn’t a lobbyist is an incredible hair-splitting. He’s been an advocate to the Congress trying to push influence in Washington, DC. In the case of Freddie Mac, he was lobbying Republican members or advocating with Republican members against Republican interests on one of the most difficult and unfortunate behaviors by the federal government in modern history, and that is their activities in the housing market. If you go down to Florida where the primary is going to occur shortly, one of the most devastating blows to the Florida economy in recent years of course has been the housing market. And on of the principle culprits in the demise of the housing market was the role of Congress and their government sponsored entities of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and their role in the housing market. And now you have a candidate for the President of the United States, Newt Gingrich, who was paid $1.7 million by Freddie Mac and we don’t have insight or transparency as to what he actually did, what positions he took, what advice that he gave. His influence-peddling with respect to Freddie Mac to Congress, that needs to be revealed. And so he called upon Governor Romney to be transparent, well Speaker Gingrich needs to be transparent on this issue and many others. And the notion that he was paid $1.7 million as a historian for Freddie Mac is just B.S., it’s just nonsense. And so he needs to reveal, and his firm needs to reveal, that contract. He needs to go through in detail what positions and advice he gave Freddie Mac, how they responded to that. And then also what advocacy, if any, that he undertook with respect to these issues with the United States Congress. And I think voters deserve to see all of that from Newt and more.

And then beyond that, he has a whole list of other clients that he should release all of the groups that have paid him for all of the reasons, over all of the years for lobbying and for advocacy, for issue work, for strategic development, release it. We should have a chance to know who he represented and for what purposes and at what price.

(Good stuff! Much more…)

Read more…

“Show me the records!”

Governor Mitt Romney has turned the tables on Newt Gingrich:

TAMPA – A combative Mitt Romney on Monday broadened his call for Newt Gingrich to release records from his work as a consultant, speculating that those documents and records from the ethics investigation that led Gingrich to resign from the House of Representatives could show “potentially wrongful activity of some kind.”

“We could see an October surprise a day from Newt Gingrich,” Romney told reporters at a media availability here. “And so let’s see the records from the ethics investigation, let’s see what they show. Let’s see who his clients were at the time he was lobbying Republican congressmen for Medicare Part D.

“Was he working or were his entities working with any health-care companies that could’ve benefited from that? That could represent not just evidence of lobbying but potentially wrongful activity of some kind.”
[…]
“He said in a debate, actually, that people who profited from the failed model of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae ought to give back their money,” Romney said. “Well, the speaker made $1.7 million in his enterprises from providing services to Freddie Mac. He ought to give it back.”

Here’s what Gingrich claims:

Gingrich repeatedly has said that he never lobbied lawmakers on behalf of Freddie Mac and health-care companies, saying he was paid for his services as a consultant and historian.

“I was not a lobbyist, I was never a lobbyist, I never did any lobbying. Don’t try to mix these things up. That fact is I was an adviser strategically,” he said Sunday on “Meet the Press.”

Earlier today Governor Tim Pawlenty and Florida House of Reps Speaker Designate Will Weatherford held a press conference call on Gingrich’s work as a “historian” for Freddie Mac. Pawlenty sums it up: “The notion that he was paid $1.7 million as a historian for Freddie Mac is just B.S. Newt Gingrich has represented hundreds of clients and interest groups in Washington, D.C., since he left the speakership. To say that he wasn’t a lobbyist is incredible hair-splitting.”

Romney hit Gingrich on his “highly eratic” style of leading:

He noted that Gingrich voted in favor of establishing the Department of Education, yet now says the department should be eliminated and its authority sent to the states. And Romney said Gingrich is “opposed vehemently” to the Massachusetts health-care system “and yet just a couple of years ago wrote about what a superb system it was.”


“He’s gone from pillar to post almost like a pinball machine, from item to item in a way which is highly erratic and does not suggest a stable, thoughtful course which is normally associated with leadership,” Romney said.

(emphasis added)

Pinball Policy Newt…



Romney speaking to the press in FL:

“By the way, saying that Newt Gingrich is a lobbyist is just a matter of fact. He indicates that he doesn’t fall within the narrow definition of lobbyists that he might have in mind. But if you’re working for a company, getting paid for a company through one of your many entities and then you’re speaking with Congressmen in a way that would help that company, that’s lobbying. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.” ~ Mitt Romney

Romney’s new Florida radio ad features FL Atty Gen Pam Bondi:

Read more…

Nobody believes that Newt Gingrich was ever serious about a run for the presidency. So why did he enter the race you ask? Think about it. The man loves the limelight. It is all about Newt. Have we ever seen any man on the world stage, in any era, with such an insatiable love of self? Is there any person even close in comparison to Mr. Gingrich in self absorption?

One man comes to mind: Hugo Chavez. I insert that name here because the man’s ego and self-love is enormous, but even Chavez does not compare with Gingrich. As dangerous as Chavez is, hobnobbing with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, he is not as dangerous as Newt Gingrich.

The world knows Chavez as a corrupt dictator (non-leader); a dictator of a third world country — Gingrich would have the world believe his “core” is now different; that character is not important. Chavez is a known entity. Gingrich has the world fooled; to this point — today. Gingrich was literally kicked out of the Speakership by those he was “leading!” And hit with a huge fine! As Speaker, 84 ethics violations were filed against him. He was kicked out of the House leadership with a vote of 395 to 28! Mr. Gingrich is seeking power of the greatest nation on Earth.

Try to imagine what would be written in the elementary school history books about all the “firsts” that a Gingrich presidency would usher in. Need I list them all? Just think about all the character lapses in marriage, numerous unethical decisions, the many times he has said, “Yeah, that was a mistake” (about 10 times in the last three months alone), etc.

Did you hear what Gingrich said Saturday night during his speech? He said something like, “You know, it is not my ability to debate that brought this win; it is my ability to articulate the values Americans want to see in their President . . . “ He said that! Gingrich actually believes that of himself! (have I ever mentioned arrogance in reference to this person?)

What does he tell us? “Forget all that stuff in my past, “I have matured. I am 68 years old. I am a grandfather now. I sought redemption . . . ” “I”, “me”, “I”, “I”, “I” — What? I remember maturing from age 15 to 25. Gingrich tells us he is still maturing as he pushes 70 years old?! You know what that is code for? They are the words of a two-timer — a person who is used to wanting his cake and eating it too. Are they not? Have you ever compared the number of self-described pronouns used by Gingrich vs. Governor Romney in any of the debates? There are too many to count.

Gingrich hates the “elite media” right? He said so with conviction by yelling at John King at the debate. He has everybody fooled on this front too. Consider this from MailOnline, speaking for the press:

Gingrich loves the press. In some respects we are, as John McCain famously noted, his “base”. He craves the media. I’ve never seen a man so happy as Gingrich was when he ambled into the spin room in Myrtle Beach last Monday night and about 200 of us swarmed around him hanging on his every word.

Romney would have rather been anywhere else in the world than that in the middle of that heaving, sweaty scrum. But Newt was in pure heaven. He loves the game.
[...]
At the end of the Charleston debate, Gingrich warmly thanked CNN and afterwards he spoke cordially with King.
[...]
In South Carolina, it was an open secret that the press were rooting for Gingrich, not out of bias or any belief that he would be a weaker candidate against Obama but simply because the press wants a good story and a knock-down, drag-out battle for the GOP nomination to cover.

Let’s face it, Gingrich loves the “destructive, vicious, negative” news media. He knows how to play the game. And the press loves him for it.

[emphasis added]

Gotta love how Governor Romney is peeling away layers of the gloves in Florida. The world has not yet seen even a glimpse of Mr. Gingrich’s sullied, hidden career. Well, we are about to find out a lot more than we ever thought existed about Mr. Gingrich. Frankly, I was surprised that more than a handful of people voted for the guy. But I think it is because of what Ann Coulter said yesterday; that voters don’t think more than “three seconds” about the man’s past.

Jayde’s great article below refers to the reporting of Reid Epstein of Politico. In my opinion, Governor Romney was generous in his reference to Gingrich by using the term “leader” in any form:

“Speaker Gingrich has also been a leader,” the former Massachusetts governor said. “He was a leader for four years as speaker of the House. And at the end of four years, it was proven that he was a failed leader and he had to resign in disgrace. I don’t know whether you knew that, he actually resigned after four years, in disgrace.”
[emphasis added]

It is only my opinion, but based on what I have learned about Gingrich’s “leadership”, his style is more like that of a dictator. He has the reputation of giving his word to one person on a specific direction and then taking a wholly different tack without blinking an eye. A true leader is above reproach and does not exhibit any ethical lapses.

Gingrich would have us believe these major character flaws were “mistakes” of his past. They are not mistakes at all. They are actions which serve as spotlights on major core character weaknesses. A true leader is honored by those whom he leads. A true leader puts the team he leads before self and deflects credit to those members of the team that follow his lead. A true leader knows how to execute (Gingrich is not an “execute”ive). Gingrich has always struggled to keep a team in place. Why is that?

Consider the hundreds of sincere testimonials that have been published from people that have been “led” by Mitt Romney throughout his career. How do those compare to what people say about Gingrich when he has had power? Is it possible to find any testimonials in support of Gingrich that even compare? Are there any? I have yet to hear of any or read any of them.

There are those around Hugo Chavez that would like to kick him out of office like the House did with Gingrich, but Chavez has the power to rule with an iron fist to keep them from the insurrection.

Read more…

Now, we’re talkin’!

Standing in front of a home-building supply business yesterday, Governor Romney kicked off his Florida campaign. And, he’s telling it like it is…

Mitt Romney: Newt Gingrich is a ‘failed leader,’ ‘disgrace’
Politico
Reid J. Epstein – Jan 22, 2012

ORMOND BEACH, Fla. – Mitt Romney landed here Sunday with a simple message: Newt Gingrich is a failure and a fraud. And a disgrace. And a hapless showman.

Standing under a brilliant orange Florida sunset, Romney delivered his longest sustained critique of the South Carolina primary winner to date – ticking through a list as if he were reading off Gingrich’s Wikipedia page, and undercutting each item as he got to it.

“Speaker Gingrich has also been a leader,” the former Massachusetts governor said. “He was a leader for four years as speaker of the House. And at the end of four years, it was proven that he was a failed leader and he had to resign in disgrace. I don’t know whether you knew that, he actually resigned after four years, in disgrace.”

Romney continued: “He was investigated over an ethics panel and had to make a payment associated with that and then his fellow Republicans, 88 percent of his Republicans voted to reprimand Speaker Gingrich. He has not had a record of successful leadership.”

Then Romney got into Gingrich’s post-congressional career.

“Over the last 15 years since he left the House, he talks about great bold movements and ideas,” he told the crowd of several hundred people gathered at a building materials company here. “Well, what’s he been doing for 15 years? He’s been working as a lobbyist, yeah, he’s been working as a lobbyist and selling influence around Washington.”

Epstein then writes that Romney then tore into Gingrich and his role at Freddie Mac and Florida’s real estate crash. Elaborating on Newt’s bombastic, bellowing stage presence, The Gov went straight to the heart of the election with this zinger:

“We’re not choosing a talk show host, all right? We’re choosing a leader, we’re choosing the person who should be the leader of the free world,” Romney said.

(emphasis added with relish) Read the entire article and leave pro-Romney comments here.

It’s high time Gov Romney revved it up! He’s got to. Get the truth out there and take no prisoners. Voters want passion. I’m thrilled.

And, regarding Gingrich’s pious baloney debate performance on Saturday night, leave it to Newt to get sanctimonious about cheating on two wives.


● What’s Romney up to today?

8:00 AM
Roundtable on housing issues
Sheraton Tampa Riverwalk Riverview Room, 200 North Ashley Drive, Tampa, Fla.

9:00 PM
Debate hosted by St. Petersburg Times and NBC
4202 East Fowler Ave.,Tampa, Fla.
Mitt Romney
Ron Paul
Rick Santorum
Newt Gingrich

Let ‘er rip tonight, Gov!

► Jayde Wyatt

~UPDATE from Ross
Glenn Beck has been taking Newt to task for quite some time and the following video is just the latest example. Read more…