Gingritch: I boffed her because I'm such a hard-working, patriotic person

[JonasSalk]

You still got his name wrong.

[Tonitrus]

His ideas are mostly bad though. I can't stand him - total partisan hack - cares more about winning than about being right or helping his country. And a complete hypocrite, lying, no ethics piece of shit.

Other than that he seems like a nice guy.

And his worst crime....co-authoring Nazi-victory Alt-history novels.

[Berkut]

His ideas are mostly bad though. I can't stand him - total partisan hack - cares more about winning than about being right or helping his country. And a complete hypocrite, lying, no ethics piece of shit.

I'm not sure that's completely right.  He is hyper-partisan, to be sure.  But to say he cares more about winning than being right or helping his country?  No - he pushes ideology first and foremost.  He isn't a "do whatever it takes to win" guy.

The guy was pushing to have Clinton impeached while at the same time having an affair himself. How is that "ideology first and foremost"? What does ideology have to do with impeaching a sitting President fot getting a blowjob?

He is most definitely a "do whatever it takes to win" guy. I would add "...and fuck the country in the process if necessary".

[Barrister]

His ideas are mostly bad though. I can't stand him - total partisan hack - cares more about winning than about being right or helping his country. And a complete hypocrite, lying, no ethics piece of shit.

I'm not sure that's completely right.  He is hyper-partisan, to be sure.  But to say he cares more about winning than being right or helping his country?  No - he pushes ideology first and foremost.  He isn't a "do whatever it takes to win" guy.

The guy was pushing to have Clinton impeached while at the same time having an affair himself. How is that "ideology first and foremost"? What does ideology have to do with impeaching a sitting President fot getting a blowjob?

He is most definitely a "do whatever it takes to win" guy. I would add "...and fuck the country in the process if necessary".

I said he was hyper-partisan.

But someone said your description sounded more like Karl Rove, and that's an interesting comparison.  Both are highly partisan, but Rove always put winning over ideology.  He was a different animal than Gingrich.

[Duque de Bragança]

Actually I love Newt.  He's an ideas man, and there are too few of them in politics.  But his personal life is an absolute train wreck.

He's a poser.  He's an ideas man of politics like Bernard Henri-Levy's an ideas man of modern philosophy.  He looks and occassionally sounds the part, actually he's as vapid as his excuses.

Nice comparison! 

[grumbler]

I said he was hyper-partisan.

But someone said your description sounded more like Karl Rove, and that's an interesting comparison.  Both are highly partisan, but Rove always put winning over ideology.  He was a different animal than Gingrich.

I see no difference between Rove and Gingrich other than that Rove reveled in the image of being the worlds biggest asshole, and Gingrich tried to pretend he wasn't.  Maybe you have seen something substantive that i haven't, however.

I don't see Gingrich as being any kind of a patriot any more than I see Rove in that role.  As a the kind of person they are, the difference to me is that Rove was a bit more honest and straightforward; he never pretended that he was doing it all for his country.

[Berkut]

His ideas are mostly bad though. I can't stand him - total partisan hack - cares more about winning than about being right or helping his country. And a complete hypocrite, lying, no ethics piece of shit.

I'm not sure that's completely right.  He is hyper-partisan, to be sure.  But to say he cares more about winning than being right or helping his country?  No - he pushes ideology first and foremost.  He isn't a "do whatever it takes to win" guy.

The guy was pushing to have Clinton impeached while at the same time having an affair himself. How is that "ideology first and foremost"? What does ideology have to do with impeaching a sitting President fot getting a blowjob?

He is most definitely a "do whatever it takes to win" guy. I would add "...and fuck the country in the process if necessary".

I said he was hyper-partisan.

But someone said your description sounded more like Karl Rove, and that's an interesting comparison.  Both are highly partisan, but Rove always put winning over ideology.  He was a different animal than Gingrich.

You said he was NOT a do whatever it takes to win guy - about the guy who led the charge to impeach Clinton on his sexual indiscretions, while at the exact same time was having an affair himself.

If trying to impeach a sitting President for something trivial is not "doing whatever it takes to win" and no mind the consequences - then what would be???

The difference between Rove and Gingrich is only that Rove is an operative, rather than a politician. So I guess Rove is a little more honest about what  he is - I actually have no real problem with Rove. Don't like the guy really, but he is a guy who is doing a job, and was pretty damn good at it. Gingrich is everything I despise about the worst of politicians. A partisan hack who cares nothing about the country he supposedly leads except insofar as it can get him more power, and lacking a basic understanding of what it means to be a leader.

[Razgovory]

You said he was NOT a do whatever it takes to win guy - about the guy who led the charge to impeach Clinton on his sexual indiscretions, while at the exact same time was having an affair himself.

Actually, he was fairly quiet during the whole episode if I recall.  He seemed to be keeping his head down.  After all he had already left one wife before that who was dying of cancer.

[Berkut]

You said he was NOT a do whatever it takes to win guy - about the guy who led the charge to impeach Clinton on his sexual indiscretions, while at the exact same time was having an affair himself.

Actually, he was fairly quiet during the whole episode if I recall.  He seemed to be keeping his head down.  After all he had already left one wife before that who was dying of cancer.

You do not remember correctly. He was very vocal attacking Clinton, and was one of the first to bring up the idea of impeaching him.

[Caliga]

The difference between Rove and Gingrich is only that Rove is an operative, rather than a politician. So I guess Rove is a little more honest about what  he is - I actually have no real problem with Rove. Don't like the guy really, but he is a guy who is doing a job, and was pretty damn good at it. Gingrich is everything I despise about the worst of politicians. A partisan hack who cares nothing about the country he supposedly leads except insofar as it can get him more power, and lacking a basic understanding of what it means to be a leader.

In other words, Gingrich is most definitely Presidential material.

[Berkut]

The difference between Rove and Gingrich is only that Rove is an operative, rather than a politician. So I guess Rove is a little more honest about what  he is - I actually have no real problem with Rove. Don't like the guy really, but he is a guy who is doing a job, and was pretty damn good at it. Gingrich is everything I despise about the worst of politicians. A partisan hack who cares nothing about the country he supposedly leads except insofar as it can get him more power, and lacking a basic understanding of what it means to be a leader.

In other words, Gingrich is most definitely Presidential material.

[Sheilbh]

I liked the concept of the Contract With America.  Not the particulars, of which I remember none, just the notion that "here's a list of things we promise to do if you elect us."

Don't all parties do that every election?

[Ed Anger]

I liked the concept of the Contract With America.  Not the particulars, of which I remember none, just the notion that "here's a list of things we promise to do if you elect us."

Don't all parties do that every election?

Last congressional election, the Dems line was:

BUSH DID IT. IT'S ALL HIS FAULT. DON'T ELECT THEM.

[Admiral Yi]

Don't all parties do that every election?

Parties endorse platforms which are full of plattiudes like "we will work for goodness and against badness."

The CWA was very specific (things like eliminat the National Endowment for the Arts) and it was signed by the great majority, if not all, Republican Congressmen who won election that term.

[Razgovory]

I liked the concept of the Contract With America.  Not the particulars, of which I remember none, just the notion that "here's a list of things we promise to do if you elect us."

Don't all parties do that every election?

Last congressional election, the Dems line was:

BUSH DID IT. IT'S ALL HIS FAULT. DON'T ELECT THEM.

I guess that explains why they lost so many seats.  Bush hadn't been president for two years.