March 8, 2012
theweekmagazine:

Good news! No matter what happens today, the race for the GOP nomination is far from over. Yes, Mitt Romney is widely expected to extend his lead in delegates — Nate Silver expects him to haul in 224 of the 437 up for grabs. Even so, Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul are each looking good in certain states. Deep-pocketed super PACs will likely keep the funds coming for Santorum & Gingrich — while Paul stands to benefit from his supporters’ enduring enthusiasm in the upcoming March caucuses. 
Why the GOP race won’t end on Super Tuesday

theweekmagazine:

Good news! No matter what happens today, the race for the GOP nomination is far from over. Yes, Mitt Romney is widely expected to extend his lead in delegates — Nate Silver expects him to haul in 224 of the 437 up for grabs. Even so, Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul are each looking good in certain states. Deep-pocketed super PACs will likely keep the funds coming for Santorum & Gingrich — while Paul stands to benefit from his supporters’ enduring enthusiasm in the upcoming March caucuses. 

Why the GOP race won’t end on Super Tuesday

February 22, 2012
Live Blog: Santorum Spends Debate Fighting Off Attacks From Romney, Paul
Categories: 2012, Republicans
by EYDER PERALTA
Read more: http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/02/22/147271751/live-blog-the-republican-presidential-debate

Live Blog: Santorum Spends Debate Fighting Off Attacks From Romney, Paul

Categories: 2012Republicans

by EYDER PERALTA

Read more: http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/02/22/147271751/live-blog-the-republican-presidential-debate

January 21, 2012
Newt Gingrich wins South Carolina primary

The remaining results are:

2) Mitt Romney

3) Rick Santorum

4) Ron Paul

January 19, 2012
What’s your opinion of the first question asked of the debate today, regarding Newt’s marital infidelity?

Do you feel it was appropriate or inappropriate? 

January 19, 2012
Marianne Gingrich, Newt’s ex-wife, says he wanted ‘open marriage’

Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich in 1999 asked his second wife for an “open marriage” or a divorce at the same time he was giving speeches around the country on family and religious values, his former wife, Marianne, told The Washington Post on Thursday.

Marianne Gingrich said she first heard from the former speaker about the divorce request as she was waiting in the home of her mother on May 11, 1999, her mother’s 84th birthday. Over the phone, as she was having dinner with her mother, Newt Gingrich said, “I want a divorce.”

Shocked, Marianne Gingrich replied: “Is there anybody else?” she recalled. “He was quiet. Within two seconds, when he didn’t immediately answer, I knew.”

The next day, Newt Gingrich gave a speech titled “The Demise of American Culture” to the Republican Women Leaders Forum in Erie, Pa., extolling the virtues of the founding fathers and criticizing liberal politicians for supporting tax increases, saying they hurt families and children.

“When a liberal talks about values, will he or she actually like us to teach American history?” Newt Gingrich told the women’s group. “Will they actually like young people to learn that George Washington was an ethical man? A man of standards, a man who earned the right to be father of this country?”

Appearing at a campaign event in South Carolina on Thursday, the former speaker called the interview by his ex-wife “tawdry and inappropriate,” and refused to answer any questions about it.

“I’m not going to say anything about Marianne,” he said, as his third wife Callista stood a few paces behind him.

Marianne Gingrich said she was speaking out for the first time this year because she wanted her story told from her point of view, rather than be depicted as the victim or suffer a whisper campaign by supporters of Newt Gingrich’s presidential bid.

“How could he ask me for a divorce on Monday and within 48 hours give a speech on family values and talk about how people treat people?” she said.

Asked about the timing of the revelations, she said she had had so many requests for interviews that “it was unavoidable.” She said that during a campaign season, “I knew I wouldn’t get through this year without” doing the interview.

The Gingrich campaign spokesman did not respond to requests for comment.

In the four weeks after that 1999 phone call, Marianne and Newt Gingrich saw a counselor. During that time, he seemed to vacillate about what he wanted to do. Marianne Gingrich had learned the name of his then-paramour, Callista — now his wife — though Newt Gingrich never talked about her by name.

Newt Gingrich asked Marianne for an “open marriage” so that he could continue to see whoever he wanted. Marianne Gingrich, who had attended services in a Baptist church with Newt Gingrich, refused.

She said she decided to go public when she heard someone make derogatory comments about her on a radio program.

“Truthfully, my whole purpose was to get out there about who I was, so Newt couldn’t create me as an evil, awful person, which was starting to happen,” she said.

She talked on video for two hours to ABC investigative reporter Brian Ross, an edited version of which will be broadcast on Thursday night’s “Nightline,” and a transcript of which was released today. She laughed when told that some were reporting that she had a “bombshell,” and emphasized that many of her views of Newt Gingrich and his political positions are positive.

In anticipation of the interview, Newt Gingrich told NBC’s “Today” show that his divorce was a private matter. He said his daughters from his first marriage had written a letter to ABC News asking the network to spike the broadcast.

“Intruding into family things that are more than a decade old is simply wrong,” he told NBC.

Newt Gingrich has said that he has asked God for forgiveness, but Marianne Gingrich said he has not spoken to her since the divorce.

Staff writer Nia-Malika Henderson and researcher Alice Crites contributed to this report.

January 11, 2012
Gingrich: Ron Paul’s base is “people who want to legalize drugs”

ByWalt CronkiteSarah Huisenga

"During a radio interview with conservative commentator John McCaslin, the former House speaker also said Paul is naive about the war on terrorism and Iran’s nuclear program. "This is a guy who basically says, if the United States were only nice, it wouldn’t have had 9/11. He doesn’t want to blame the bad guys. … He dismisses the danger of Iranian nuclear weapon and seems to be indifferent to the idea that Israel could be wiped out. And as I said, I think the key to his volunteer base is people who want to legalize drugs."

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57347050-503544/gingrich-ron-pauls-base-is-people-who-want-to-legalize-drugs/

Personal comment: I thought Newt was running a ‘positive’ campaign? Hmm. If he wants to gain support through this election cycle he probably shouldn’t be attacking voters.  His job is to try and convince those supporters to eventually support him as the presidential nominee (if he actually receives that title). Doesn’t seem too smart, eh?

December 28, 2011
Newt’s Constitutional Confusions

by Roger Pilon

This article appeared in Daily Caller on December 14, 2011.

If the tea party stood for anything when it upset conventional politics a year ago, it was to revive debate about restoring limited constitutional government. Newt Gingrich seems to be tapping into that effort, but the tea party folks better look more closely before they buy what Newt is selling. In his voluminous 21st Century Contract with America he has a long section entitled “Bringing the Courts Back Under the Constitution.” A mass of constitutional confusions, laced with several good points, it’s a throwback to some of the worst elements of Nixonian conservatism. And if its proposals were implemented, far from limiting government, they’d do just the opposite.

In fact, the most striking feature of Newt’s manifesto is its failure even to notice that. Its focus is on what he sees as an out-of-control judiciary that’s frustrating the popular will, which he’d remedy with everything from judicial impeachments to abolishing whole circuits. Yet as his first example of what he calls “judicial supremacy” — the power of the court to say what the law is, which Marbury v. Madison made explicit in 1803 — he offers the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Kelo v. New London, which upheld, as a “public use,” the city’s transfer of Ms. Kelo’s home to a private developer. Mistaken as the court’s reading of the Constitution’s Takings Clause was in that case, the decision hardly frustrated popular government. Indeed, it upheld the city’s actions.

But the confusion doesn’t end there. In fact, here’s how Gingrich states his point broadly: “Since the New Deal of the 1930s the power of the American judiciary has increased exponentially at the expense of elected representatives of the people in the other two branches.” Really? To be sure, during Franklin Roosevelt’s first term the court, consistent with its understanding of constitutionally limited government stretching back to the founding, held several New Deal schemes to be unconstitutional. But after Roosevelt’s infamous court-packing threat of 1937, which Gingrich praises, the court collapsed and the modern welfare state poured through. That’s the regulatory and redistributive Leviathan that gave rise to the tea party. Yet there’s Newt, right behind the process that brought that state about.

And as he refines his thesis, it doesn’t get any better. Ever since Cooper v. Aaron in 1958, he claims, the political branches “have largely acted as if the Constitution empowered the Supreme Court with final decision making authority about the meaning of the Constitution.” Cooper v. Aaron, recall, was the Little Rock school desegregation case — federal troops and all — where a unanimous court told state officials that they couldn’t nullify Supreme Court rulings — hardly a decision to find wanting as one vies for the presidency.

Nor does Gingrich rest his case against the courts on that decision alone, which he treats simply as the font of the modern problem. Ever the historian, he reaches back for other examples of popular resistance to the court’s “finality,” landing especially on some of Thomas Jefferson’s more intemperate comments about the court. Here again, however, his contention that Jefferson faced “a judicial branch that exceeded its authority” is utterly confused. The Federalists opposing Jefferson’s rise, he writes, “had used the federal judiciary to enforce the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 to imprison Jeffersonian activists.” Well yes, they had: that’s how the acts, like all statutes, were enforced. How, then, had the judiciary “exceeded its authority”? To the contrary, if anything the courts had shirked their authority — their power to find the infamous acts unconstitutional. As in Kelo, they deferred to the political branches, which had passed the acts and, in doing so, had themselves exceeded their authority.

We come, then, to the heart of the problem with Gingrich’s thesis: Nowhere, not once in his entire discussion about the courts, do we find him recognizing even the problem of overweening government, much less the source of that problem in the political branches. The Supreme Court didn’t give us the New Deal; Congress and the Roosevelt administration did. Nor did it give us the Great Society — or Obamacare. Gingrich is stuck in the era when conservatives, decades ago, were reacting to the admitted excesses of the Warren and Burger Courts with cries of “judicial activism.”

We’ve since come to have a more sophisticated view of these matters. The irony is that to support his attack, Gingrich cites contemporary critics of the conservative Rehnquist Court like Dean Larry Kramer at Stanford and Professor Mark Tushnet at Harvard, men of the left who’ve opposed the court’s modest recent efforts to revive enumerated powers federalism — the idea that Congress’s powers are limited, especially its commerce power through which it enacted Obamacare. In the challenge to that act now before the court, would Newt urge judicial deference to Congress? That’s not what the tea party stands for.”

(Source: cato.org)

November 11, 2011
GOP memes

Ron Paul:

Newt Gingrich:

Mitt Romney:

Liked posts on Tumblr: More liked posts »