Newt Gingrich

[blackhorse]

So, I watched the Presidential forum in Texas with both Cain and Gingrich and I have to say that Newt came off excellent. He speaks eloquently and directly to questions. At first, I would have passed him by, but I am getting to like him more and more. Anyone else like Newt or have impressions of his candidacy?

[Selene]

Roark:

I have been a Mr. Newt supporter since 1994 and the Contract With America. He is a futurist, very knowledgeable and certainly in the top three (3) of the group.

I was particularly happy to see one of the pieces of "baggage" that he is supposed to have to carry being proved wrong this last week by his daughter.

Adam

[Selene]

And another Newt myth bites the dust!

"Jackie Gingrich Cushman wants to set the record straight: Her dad didn't press her mom for a divorce while she was in the hospital."

"You can look them up online if you are interested in untruths," she wrote last week in her syndicated column. "But here's what happened: My mother and father were already in the process of getting a divorce, which she requested. Dad took my sister and me to the hospital to see our mother. She had undergone surgery the day before to remove a tumor. The tumor was benign. As with many divorces, it was hard and painful for all involved, but life continued. As have many families, we have healed; we have moved on."

Read more: http://www.seattlepi...p#ixzz1d1aqy9Q6

Seems like that "baggage" Mr. Newt is supposedly forced to carry by a despicably biased "press corps,." is getting lighter and lighter.

Here is her column:

http://www.creators.com/conservative/jackie-gingrich-cushman/setting-the-record-straight.html

But one of them seems to have taken on a life of its own, and simple corrections have not sufficed to set the record straight. Why does this happen? I can't be sure, but I suspect that the narrative created by these untruths proves to be so much more compelling and more dramatic than what actually happened that it proves irresistible.

I'm talking about the story of my father's visit to my mother while she was in the hospital in 1980.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Newt would make an excellent President.

I hope to see a Newt and Herman team for the nomination and running mate.

I'm fine with either leading the team.

Michael

[Peter]

Newt and Herman are from the same state, Georgia, so neither brings regionalism to the ticket of the other. Mitt and Newt or Herman makes sense.

Peter

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Peter,

I'm OK with a "Georgia experience" if it's those two.

I wasn't too keen on other Georgians, though. Like George Wallace, Lester Maddox or Jimmy Carter.

Michael

[Selene]

Folks:

What I am hoping for with the changed Republican primary system this year is that they go into the convention in fourth week of August in Tampa with no one having enough delegates to secure the nomination.

Tony Blankley, who I respect, wrote the following article in today's Rasmussen Reports:

First is the much-mentioned, weak front-runner Mitt Romney. He has consistently commanded about 25 percent in the polls. Is that a floor or a ceiling? Conservatives urgently want to nominate an undoubted and solid conservative. With the Republican primary voters increasingly conservative over the last generation, it would be curious if the GOP nominated the least perceived conservative two times running -- first Sen. McCain in 2008 and then Romney in 2012.

Second, equally important with nominating a conservative, the GOP primary voters urgently want to defeat the incumbent, and they hold that passion more powerfully than we have seen in living memory.

But do those strong feelings help Romney (seen by many as the most electable), or do they hurt him because he is not seen as convinced in his conservative policies?

The key to this tantalizing possibility is twofold.

First, the conservative/libertarian segment of the Republican base has an ANYONE but MITT concept, unless it is Mitt vs. O'biwan in the general election which is some 362 days from today.

Second, as Blankley observes:

"..., consider also that

the GOP changed its winner take all rules. Now, any state that holds a primary or caucus before April 1 must award their delegates on a proportional basis, rather than the winner-take-all method. This means that a front runner with, say, a 38 percent plurality in a six-way split field will get only 38 percent of the delegates instead of 100 percent.

This will keep second tier candidates in the hunt and deny the front-runner the steamroller effect that usually delivers a de facto winner in the GOP by February.

Blankley, properly, and hopefully concludes that:

And here is the kicker. If we do go into the August convention with no candidate holding a majority of the delegates, then the door is open to non-primary candidates being nominated after the first inconclusive ballot. Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, Mike Huckabee or others could get in the race. Or a brilliant speech by Newt Gingrich could take the convention by storm.

Break out the Nicorettes and flavored Vodkas. We could be in for the modern version of smoke-and-whisky-filled rooms in Tampa next August.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_tony_blankley/gop_primary_deadlock

This would be an incredible event, worthy of the final two books of the Allan Drury series!

Adam

[blackhorse]

The way things are currently heading It looks to be a Mitt / Gingrich showdown. Go Newt!

[Selene]

The way things are currently heading It looks to be a Mitt / Gingrich showdown. Go Newt!

Roark:

Interesting article from today's Wall Street Journal by Dorothy Rabinowitz, she noted that at the Iowa Faith & Freedom Coalition forum last month, "There were two exceptions to the lineup of speeches embracing religious themes."

One was Herman Cain, who concentrated on the meaning of American freedom and admonished the crowd to stay informed, "because stupid people are running America." The other was Mr. Gingrich. No one else's remarks would ignite the huge response his talk did.

He began with the declaration that Americans were confronting the most important election choice since 1860. America would have the chance in 2012, Mr. Gingrich said, to repudiate decisively decades of leftward drift in our universities and colleges, our newsrooms, our judicial system and bureaucracies.

Finally, Mr. Gingrich announced that as the Republican nominee he would challenge President Obama to seven Lincoln-Douglas-style debates. "I think I can represent American exceptionalism, free enterprise, the rights of private property and the Constitution, better than he can represent class warfare, bureaucratic socialism, weakness in foreign policy, and total confusion in the economy."

Concluding, she declares that:

His rise in the polls suggests that more and more Republicans are absorbing that fact, along with the possibility that Mr. Gingrich's qualifications all 'round could well make him the most formidable contender for the contest with Barack Obama.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204190704577026041280212400.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h

[Peter]

Newt News

“Newt Gingrich, who has built his now resurgent presidential candidacy in part around virulent criticism of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, found himself Wednesday defending the at least $1.6 million he reportedly earned while under contract to Freddie.

While campaigning in Iowa, Gingrich was besieged by reporters asking him about a Bloomberg News report that his consulting firm took in much more from Freddie Mac than previously reported.”

end quote

Ah crap! And he has already lied and waffled about it. If he can weather this he could beat Mitt. I believe the media reported $25,000 a week for his “influence” on the Republican side. It’s depressing.

Peter

[Selene]

Newt News

“Newt Gingrich, who has built his now resurgent presidential candidacy in part around virulent criticism of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, found himself Wednesday defending the at least $1.6 million he reportedly earned while under contract to Freddie.

While campaigning in Iowa, Gingrich was besieged by reporters asking him about a Bloomberg News report that his consulting firm took in much more from Freddie Mac than previously reported.”

end quote

Ah crap! And he has already lied and waffled about it. If he can weather this he could beat Mitt. I believe the media reported $25,000 a week for his “influence” on the Republican side. It’s depressing.

Peter

Depressing? No, quite inaccurate. Just like the bullshit baggage story that has followed him for twenty (20) years. You know, the one where he served his wife with divorce papers while she was in the hospital with cancer.

Shock of shock, it was not true.

Besides which, that kind of despicalble behavior is owned by the Democrats. Paging Johnny boy Edwards...

Adam

[caroljane]

Newt News

“Newt Gingrich, who has built his now resurgent presidential candidacy in part around virulent criticism of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, found himself Wednesday defending the at least $1.6 million he reportedly earned while under contract to Freddie.

While campaigning in Iowa, Gingrich was besieged by reporters asking him about a Bloomberg News report that his consulting firm took in much more from Freddie Mac than previously reported.”

end quote

Ah crap! And he has already lied and waffled about it. If he can weather this he could beat Mitt. I believe the media reported $25,000 a week for his “influence” on the Republican side. It’s depressing.

Peter

Depressing? No, quite inaccurate. Just like the bullshit baggage story that has followed him for twenty (20) years. You know, the one where he served his wife with divorce papers while she was in the hospital with cancer.

Shock of shock, it was not true.

Besides which, that kind of despicalble behavior is owned by the Democrats. Paging Johnny boy Edwards...

Adam

I was not aware that despicable behaviour was ownable in the US. Can I get some kind of proxy international shares or take out a patent or something for up here? My despicable behaviour is unique and cutting edge but it doesn't pay a cent, quite the opposite, and everybody can just copy it and knock it off cheap. I don't think I can even trademark it. I need justice.

[Selene]

Newt News

“Newt Gingrich, who has built his now resurgent presidential candidacy in part around virulent criticism of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, found himself Wednesday defending the at least $1.6 million he reportedly earned while under contract to Freddie.

While campaigning in Iowa, Gingrich was besieged by reporters asking him about a Bloomberg News report that his consulting firm took in much more from Freddie Mac than previously reported.”

end quote

Ah crap! And he has already lied and waffled about it. If he can weather this he could beat Mitt. I believe the media reported $25,000 a week for his “influence” on the Republican side. It’s depressing.

Peter

Depressing? No, quite inaccurate. Just like the bullshit baggage story that has followed him for twenty (20) years. You know, the one where he served his wife with divorce papers while she was in the hospital with cancer.

Shock of shock, it was not true.

Besides which, that kind of despicalble behavior is owned by the Democrats. Paging Johnny boy Edwards...

Adam

I was not aware that despicable behaviour was ownable in the US. Can I get some kind of proxy international shares or take out a patent or something for up here? My despicable behaviour is unique and cutting edge but it doesn't pay a cent, quite the opposite, and everybody can just copy it and knock it off cheap. I don't think I can even trademark it. I need justice.

Boy carried a big bat...

david justice

By mjdeadspin

Mar 31, 2007 2:15 PM 83,367 25

David Justice Almost Killed Halle Berry

It's hard to imagine that the woman in that picture almost ended her life over a career .279 hitter. She says that's what happened, though. Halle Berry told Parade Magazine (the one that comes with your Sunday paper) that she tried to kill herself after her break-up with David Justice.

Not that I have anything but contempt for him anyway, but I don't know that I could have ever forgiven David Justice. We almost lost Halle because of this pretty-boy Braves outfielder, and current Yankee broadcaster? Insane. I couldn't live with that.

But on the other hand, if this had never happened, maybe her self-esteem would've never dropped low enough to do that scene with Billy Bob Thornton in Monster's Ball, so maybe it was for the best.

Halle Berry Tells 'Parade' Magazine She Attempted Suicide in 1997 [VOA News]

[Selene]

Mr> Newt fires back...I'm no Bill Clinton!

Extramarital Affair During Clinton Impeachment

The impeachment proceedings against President Clinton were due to the fact that the president committed perjury in front of a sitting federal judge, which is a felony.

Opponents often try to delegitimize Newt Gingrich by pointing out that he had admitted to having an extramarital affair during the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. What these accusers are ignoring is that the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton were due to the fact that the president committed perjury in front of a sitting federal judge, which is a felony. As the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Newt felt that he had a duty to uphold the rule of law by pursuing impeachment. He stands by that decision today.

Asking Wife For Divorce While She Was In The Hospital Dying of Cancer

Newt’s daughter recently wrote a column to set the record straight about this smear.

This story is a vicious lie. It was first reported by a left wing magazine in the 1980s based on heresay and has survived in left-wing chat rooms on the Internet until today. It is completely false.

Recently, Newt’s daughter, Jackie Gingrich Cushman, wrote a column to set the record straight about this smear. The column reveals that 1) It was her mother that requested the divorce, not Newt, and it was months before the hospital visit in question; 2) Her mother was in the hospital to remove a tumor, but it was benign, and she is still alive today; 3) Newt visited the hospital for the purpose of taking his two children to see their mother, not to discuss a divorce. You can read it here.

http://www.newt.org/answers lots of positions and answers at this campaign website.

[Mark]

That Newt Gingrich might be eloquent, intelligent, learned – or have been nice to his previous wives – can be set aside. The question that matters here is: Does his past behavior show that he honestly holds a fairly good political philosophy and acts on it?

Gingrich’s 1994 "Contract With America" was a list of reforms that the Republican Party pledged to enact if it got control of the House. It was a mixture of the Communist Manifesto and random piecemeal pragmatic measures some of which had a good sound to them. The Republicans did get control of the house. Six years later America was generally worse off than before.

Gingrich is a neoconservative in what he says and with whom he associates. He belongs to three neoconservative think tanks: the American Enterprise Institute, the Hoover Institution, and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He advised the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (liberation being code for bombing, invasion, occupation) and serves on the Committee on the Present Danger (promoting the Iraq War and a future Iran War). He’s endorsed by the neoconservative Weekly Standard edited by William Kristol.

The depth of his disagreement with Michael Scheuer (see this video:

) can be gauged by his statement: Islamics "want to kill us because they want to kill us." He promoted the Iraq War and now promotes (the) one with Iran.

He recently wrote a book called Rediscovering God in America. I haven’t read it but a reviewer quotes: "There is no attack on American culture more deadly and more historically dishonest than the secular effort to drive God out of America’s public life." Judging from the book review he’s trying to get the Christian vote by pretending to be one of them.

His Gingrich Group, Inc. received between $1.6 and $1.8 million from Freddie Mac in return for his advice (which was: expand home ownership to the poor), then he lied about it afterwards. This is not a shame, not depressing, not something to be weathered, it’s an indication of the man’s character and what to expect in the future.

He seems content with the Patriot Act, the TSA, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, and other police state measures.

As a defender of individual rights and laissez-faire capitalism – "free enterprise" if you want to use that language – he’s a complete fraud.

In short, of all the candidates he’s the one best suited to ARI-Objectivists.

Among the candidates, ARI writers either ignore or trash by far the best authentic defender of individual rights, Ron Paul, who last week was 2% points ahead of Gingrich in an Iowa poll.

More in the same line in this OL post.　

　

[blackhorse]

Newt sounds (and looks) better and better everyday. I can see him winning the GOP nom. Romney is too RINO, the Tea Party folk remembered all too well what Bush II and the RINO's did to our nation, and that is what will seal Romney's fate as second place yet again.

[Selene]

Newt sounds (and looks) better and better everyday. I can see him winning the GOP nom. Romney is too RINO, the Tea Party folk remembered all too well what Bush II and the RINO's did to our nation, and that is what will seal Romney's fate as second place yet again.

Newt agrees:

TAPPER: “You are going to be the nominee?”

GINGRICH: “I’m going to be the nominee. It’s very hard not to look at the recent polls and think that the odds are very high I’m going to be the nominee. And by the way I don’t object if people want to attack me, that’s their right. All I’m suggesting that it’s not going to be very effective and that people are going to get sick of it very fast. And the guys who attacked each other in the debates up to now, every single one of them have lost ground by attacking. So they should do what they and their consultants want to do. I will focus on being substantive and I will focus on Barack Obama.”

– Jake Tapper with Team Iowa: Stephanie Smith, Shushannah Wa

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/gingrich-tells-abc-news-im-going-to-be-the-nominee/?wpisrc=nl_pmfix

He is following Ronald Reagan's eleventh commandment - do not denigrate a fellow Republican...

[Selene]

Roark:

Asked in an interview with the Post on Wednesday evening if he would return fire against Romney and Ron Paul, who ran a scathing web video, if he dipped in the polls, Gingrich replied, “No. I’ve gotten this far because I’ve stayed totally positive, and I’ve stayed focused on Barack Obama.”

Gingrich has scored points in GOP debates for passing on opportunities to attack rival Republicans, and has even chastised the moderators by suggesting they were trying to provoke fights among friends. He seems to be betting that any candidate who attacks him will in turn come across to Republican voters as typical – and desperate – politicians.

“What’s contributing to [Gongrich’s] strength in the polls is that he’s talking about issues and ideas and avoiding the typical politician’s campaign,” said the adviser, who requested anonymity to discuss internal campaign strategy.

“Voters this year aren’t interested in that,” the adviser continued. “Voters don’t want a typical politician.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/gingrich-kill-romney-with-kindness/2011/12/01/gIQA13pcHO_blog.html

Smart boy, now if he does not get too cocky and arrogant which he is right on the verge of doing, he should be fine.

Adam

[GALTGULCH8]

Found this on the www.dailypaul.com website today:

http://www.dailypaul.com/

Link to video:

http://youtu.be/CWKTOCP45zY

says it all. American people responded to Obama's eloquence in last election and lived to regret it as we plummet towards the abyss. Now, once again, the pied piper effect is happening

as the undisputed eloquence of a professor of history who certainly does tempt with his rhetoric and posturing as the "adult in the room" during debates is about to lead the electorate

to possibly elect a militaristic neocon.

Will they learn that Newt advocated an individual mandate, that he advocated war with Iraq and now with Iran, that he railed against politicians who were paid off as lobbyists and then took 1.6 m from a govt subsidized entity, Freddie Mac, or was it Fannie Mae?

Whatever shortcomings Ron Paul may have they do not include flip flopping, foreign military interventions, unethical behavior, or advocating ignoring the Constitutional limits on central government. Ron Paul will not even accept a government pension after serving his twelfth term in the Congress.

[Peter]

Crocodile Gingrich NOT Chameleon “Newt” Gingrich needs to run.

Or at least his campaign should allude to the name Crocodile with a cartoon look alike. Uh huh, that’s it. Not too provocative or menacing. BO is the President after all. Yup, a grinning, big toothed, crocodilian Newt logo with the Speaker holding a big (rubber) blade labeled ‘big government cuts’ and saying in an Australian accent: “Now, that’s a knife. I’ll (figuratively) poop that jerk out after the breakfast election, then I’ll go after Congress for lunch.” Or is that too threatening? Michelle might think it is bullying.

Forget about it. But I still like the name change to Crocodile Gingrich. “I will be the Republican Nominee,” says he, but Romney leads in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. But Crocodile leads in Florida which is how it should be. How about “Go Gaters?”

Peter

[Backlighting]

The Case for Gingrich

By Bruce Walker

There are many problems that conservatives should have with a President Gingrich. His personal life has been speckled with adultery. He has flip-flopped on global warming. His firm has profited, though modestly, from the housing debacle (although there is no hint of wrongdoing on Gingrich's part.) Gingrich sounds very wonky for a conservative who wants to lead a revolution; conservatism is not, in essence, detailed. Basic principles, nearly all of which devolve choice to the individual or the state government, are clear, few, and brief.

Nevertheless, there is a compelling case for Gingrich as the Republican nominee. He is both glib and brilliant. In this respect Gingrich resembles much more the parliamentary pugilist Winston Churchill, who also had very heavy baggage, than Ronald Reagan, who gave "The Speech" ten thousand times. Like Churchill, who mastered much more than just politics, Gingrich is an historian, a fiction writer, and a dozen other things.

He will not be stumped by the media. In fact, Gingrich will have the knowledge to actually embarrass the automatons who read teleprompter questions. More pointedly, Gingrich has the best chance of any Republican to display Obama before America in a "deer in the headlights" moment. Our current president is a profoundly ignorant man whose ignorance is masked by equally ignorant and wholly programmed media.

Yet what Obama doesn't know can hurt us, and a single slip in the debates could cost him -- and perhaps his party -- five percentage points in the general election. That could not only seal the presidential election, but also swing dozens of House and Senate races and turn a presidential victory into a presidential landslide. People are scared now, and a man who obviously grasps the present crisis can be a valuable electoral asset.

Gingrich also understands Congress. He was House minority whip and then speaker of the House, the most important office in Congress. Gingrich would understand how to move legislation through Congress, and so a conservative agenda supported by him would have a much greater likelihood of actually becoming law than it would with some more ardent, but less experienced, conservatives.

An analogy might be made between LBJ and Gingrich. President Johnson was not nearly as liberal as most Democrat nominees in the last fifty years, yet he transformed America (for the worse, but still dramatically) with his "Great Society" agenda. Johnson, who had been Senate majority leader before he was vice president, knew just how Congress worked. Since Johnson, America has moved progressively to the left, because Johnson was able to get enacted what seemed like a modestly leftist agenda.

Moreover, Gingrich as a novice speaker learned the hard way what works and what doesn't in high-profile national legislative debates. It is easy to underestimate what he accomplished with a modest House majority and a Senate in which Republicans could not even end debate on a bill, much less, in either house, override a presidential veto.

His personal scandals of the past would actually come as a strength in the general election. Gingrich as speaker was smeared and attacked so relentlessly that all the "bad news" has been heard long before. Rather like with Clinton, who had even more scandals, no one much cares about an older man whose life has been scrutinized and used by his enemies.

Gingrich's age -- he would be 69 in November 2012 -- could actually reassure conservatives and Gingrich's countrymen if he picked an appealing and strongly conservative running mate, like Michele Bachmann, and if he also stated that he would serve a single term as president.

This sort of promise, along with the selection of a vigorous and articulate conservative vice president, could reassure conservative voters that voting for Gingrich would also mean voting, in four years, for, perhaps, a President Bachmann or President Santorum or President Jindal. Such a conservative could win the 2016 nomination without a divisive fight and insure that for eight or even twelve years, no leftist legislation is enacted, no leftists are appointed to the Supreme Court, and a conservative agenda is pressed steadily at other levels, like federal regulatory agencies.

The hunt for a perfect candidate, while a vastly unpopular radical ruins America, is imprudent and unnecessary. The first goal, the indispensable goal, is to vote Obama out of office. Gingrich, like it or not, is a perfect candidate for that purpose.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/the_case_for_gingrich.html#ixzz1fREBHpAo

[Selene]

LV:

I will tell you another reason why I love Newt. In Des Moines today or yesterday, talking off the cuff, he pointed out that young kids in the poor blighted neighborhoods had no role models that get up in the morning and go to work on time and earn a living.

He "created a program," as he was speaking, whereby the schools would employ the students in the library, the front office, mopping floors and cleaning toilets in order to have them LEARN and be conditioned to the concept of work for pay.

You would have thought that he had just proposed selling children into indentured servitude, slavery or worse if you listen to main stream media!

The beauty of today, is that folks do not listen to main stream media. In fact, for the first time since TV's were sold, the number of televisions in America dropped!

Excellent sign.

Nice post LV!

Adam

[Backlighting]

I like Newt. Certainly no John Galt but a monumental improvement over Barack, if elected.

I'd like to see him with Marco Rubio on the ticket.

[Selene]

I like Newt. Certainly no John Galt but a monumental improvement over Barack, if elected.

I'd like to see him with Marco Rubio on the ticket.

LV:

Agreed. I have always been a proponent of Newt because of his ability to creatively propose solutions that work and are effective.

His classic statement about the last year of High School in America being that it is the "...most expensive dating service in the world." is quite accurate.

He is very close with the Toffler's which allows him to, as a futurist, be open to solutions. Granted some of his ideas, like anyone else's, do not stand up to intense debate and analysis.

However, at least the discussion is about what can work in reality.

For example, when I was with NY City government, I pushed through a simple addition to all roadway Capital Improvements, which was that, as part of the contract, the construction company would have to plant two (2) sapling inches of trees for every sapling inch taken down during the job.

Simple, but it replenished the tree lined beauty of NY City streets for a very reasonable cost.

Newt is not a perfect candidate for any Presidential election, but he is perfect for this election and he is surely the man for these specific times in the United States.

Adam

[Peter]

I see Sarah Palin “nearly” endorsed Rick Santorum for his religiously conservative stances on “the sanctity of marriage” and the rights of fertilized human eggs even after just one day in existence. I won’t be voting for either one of them. Better stances would be to drop religion out of political discourse and instead use reason as an argument. “Equal protection under the law,” is a better stance than gay bashing and clearly more Constitutional and “one day old embryos” are not yet “persons with rights,” though a human embryo should be treated with more respect than a turtle egg.

Thanks to LV for the link to the Gingrich article!

Adam wrote:

Newt is not a perfect candidate for any Presidential election, but he is perfect for this election and he is surely the man for these specific times in the United States.

end quote

My polling stats showing Romney leading in New Hampshire are right but I was wrong about Mitt leading in Iowa and South Carolina. My remembrance was from over a week ago and it’s now wrong. Too bad I cannot see into the future for polling data. Crocodile Gingrich is leading in most polls at this moment and will most likely garner votes from Herman Cain and others as they drop out of the running.

This morning on Fox, Karl Rove had an interesting insight from an unnamed associate of the former speaker. Robert Tracinski went to hear Newt speak about a year ago and said nearly the same thing: “It’s all about Newt.” Rove said Newt is at his best when he is the underdog and at his worst when he is on top. When on top, he grates on people (as does his wife, who recently compared herself to a combination of Nancy Reagan, Jackie Kennedy and some other former first lady.) His supporters will need to weather his grandiose assessments of himself and his overconfidence because in his mind’s eye, it IS all about him.

Peter