http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15950137/

Gingrich, a potential Republican presidential candidate in 2008, said Monday that a “different set of rules” may be needed to reduce the terrorists’ ability to use the Internet to recruit and communicate.

Not to worry though. Even the good people of Georgia know that Newt is pathetic.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15641954/

Exit polls conducted with Tuesday's elections indicate only 30 percent of Georgia voters think the Republican would make a good president, while 63 percent say he wouldn't. Seven percent declined to answer the question.

This guy is such an ass.

He's the perfect student of orwell. The problem is that he studied to do harm, not promote a greater good.

Hope he continues to remain unelectable. Given his strong efforts in the background, he would make a very nice target for a unseat next cycle, IMHO. We all would be better off.

Newt is the classic GOP hypocrite.

http://www.realchange.org/gingrich.htm#adultery

Newt is a good man and I hope he becomes President someday.

The good man who divorced his wife on her death bed and dropped another when she too became ill?

Newt is not a good man. If he was my dad and treated my mom like he treated his wife, I'd punch him out. Luckily, there's zero chance of him even running for President. The best he'll do moving forward is be the conservative hack interviewed on Hannity and Colmes.

LOL!!

That's about perfect. He can run out the rest of his days preaching to the choir.

I'm ok with that.

Newt for President

If Newt is such a solid person, why is he advocating a restricted Internet in the interest of his politics?

Shouldn't his view withstand the public debate?

Seems fishy to me!

Go ahead and give hard though. He just might make it! Let me know if you need some help!

Newt is not a good man.

Wow ... Newt is considering running for President? The guy probably most responsible for the right turn the Republican Party has taken the last 10-12 years?

Newt would make George W. Bush look brilliant.

Doesn't Newt have bigger fish to fry, like making sure needy kids don't get a free lunch at school?

well, newt is difficult to figure out. he started the GOP trainwreck in 1994 yet bailed out before it went off the cliff (nov 7th) leaving bush and rove in the midst of the wreckage. and just before the his train went off the cliff, he gave bush a scolding on iraq if to say "so long sucker!"

he was a college professor, history professor. I think if it came down to it, being a history professor and all, he would have never touched saddam, even if there WERE compelling evidence of WMDs. I think he instead would have focused on getting rid of Kim Song II -- someone with real WMDS and the type of society that history has repeatedly shown is able to deal with new freedoms -- ie many eastern bloc soviet states and in particular, east germany morphing into west germany to be united.

Newt is a very dangerous and paranoid man. He was talking about WWIII a few months ago. Not only that, he's a sleazy family values hypocrite.

I say run for President, Newt, you'll get blown out like the rest of your like-minded simpltons such as Santorum and Harris. Take a cue from Frist...

Newt for President. He is a good man.

That asshole Gingrich has one hell of a nerve advocating restriction of free speech at the same time he wraps the flag around himself. Thank God that party is out of power. Wayne, if you really feel this way, do NOT go around telling us about freedom either, you obviously speak out of both sides of your mouth.

Keith Olbermann weighed in with his Special Comment last night.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfwthwqVyGE

I live in Georgia and even here in Newt's homeland, the bloom is off his rose. Not that people here disagree with what he says. They realize what a sleazeball he's been and no one really trusts him anymore.

Newt would make a good President, he understands things better than most, but he's not electable.

And what makes him unelectable? Specifically.

Newt is a dangerous man, he'll start WWIII if given any power.

He's not electable because he would not make a good president. He should stick to his job as a right wing hack on political talk shows, along side Pat Buchanan, and banging congressional aides 23 years younger than he is. That's what he's good at.

Unelectable? Word is that he has a history of infidelities that makes George Allen's "macaca moment" look tame.

Deane, what makes him unelectable? Specifically.

What makes him unelectable?

Maybe it's that he cannot relate with anyone who isn't a high-brow upper crust snob. George W. Bush is more or less the same way, but he comes off as this aw-shucks guy who means well ... most of us know different by now of course. Newt is much smarter (not that it takes much there) and can articulate his words, he just comes off as aloof and elitist, kind of like a bigoted John Kerry.

Add in his infidelities (which, hey, I don't put a whole lot of water into), his ultra-right views, his disdain for the disadvantaged (he wouldn't help these folks to help themselves even, he would just ignore them) and the fact that he's an ass (kicking your wife to the curb on her deathbed? Wow, what a Boy scout!) ... yeah, let's drop-kick the GOP back another 200 years.

Is this the very best the Republicans have to offer?

Damn it, I WANT MY PARTY BACK!

>>>"Deane, what makes him unelectable? Specifically."

He tells it like it is. The American voter doesn't want to hear reality.

K.

Thanks for answering that for me.

After listening to the mouth-breathers (including DJ, Herb, and Wayne) harp on Clinton for getting a Monica-job for how many years now, it amazes me that ANY I-still-hate-Clinton Republican would even remotely consider supporting this sleazy ass-clown! Hypocrites!

Brianl: I do too!

There are only three potential presidential nominees for the Republican Party. They are Rudy Giuliani, John Mccain and Mitt Romney.

Which one do you prefer?

Sorry, no Mormon President (Romney) for me. The other two? I'll consider.

I'd be surprised if any Clinton-Bashers™ picked Giuliani due to his sexual "hi-jinks". That would also be extremely hypocritical as well.

What about Condi? If she ran, would she be forced to answer to her sexual status?

Comments about various politicians' sexual goings-on just reminded me of a new anti-Bush bumper sticker I saw.

It's got a picture of Monica Lewinsky on it, and next to her picture, it says, "Who do I have to blow to get an impeachment around here?"

"There are only three potential presidential nominees for the Republican Party. They are Rudy Giuliani, John Mccain and Mitt Romney.

Which one do you prefer?"

No on Romney. He's too far to the right IMO, he seems hellbent on this whole damned bash the gay thing, and he's in bed with the religious nuts. The fact that he's Mormon has nothing to do with it for me.

McCain ... I like him, I REALLY do. He's for the most part a moderate that dares to think and act for himself, he is not afraid to go against the grain of the GOP when he feels they are wrong (campaign finance reform and being so anti-torture the two that come to mind) ... but he is hellbent on staying the course in Iraq, not only that but adding MORE troops. Christ, he was a Vietnam veteran and a POW for years, he should know better than anyone that this is an unwinnable situation we're in.

Guliani ... sure he's "America's Mayor" and was the Rock of Gibraltar during and after 9/11, and he made the Bush administration look stupid (not that it's hard to) with how he handled New York in the aftermath. Is he REALLY qualified, however, to be President? I personally don't know his views and stance on most things. He's affable, and would be a popular vote, but I am not interested in someone because they are affable and a popular vote, I am interested in someone who will do the damn job.

Condi? That would counter the Hillary movement, but all she has done is be Bush's right-hand woman for six years. That CAN'T bode well for her. I'm scared to think of anyone that closely tied with Bush in that position.

The only one who worked under Bush who might have a chance is Colin Powell, and he has done a fabulous job of separating himself from the administration and the mess it's in.

WW said>>>>
Newt is a good man and I hope he becomes President someday.

Cheating on a sick wife is NOT a good man!
May you burn in HELL Newt!
And WW if you stay with your statment you might also.....
Reficul is looking for you.....

Chickenjuggler asked - "Deane, what makes him unelectable? Specifically."

Deane Replied - "He tells it like it is. The American voter doesn't want to hear reality."

I really gave that even more thought today. It really explains and says much about our current President I guess then.

You're right Deane: Bush did it to us really bad - or well - however you want to look at it. He lies REALLY good.

And that's expected? It's what we prefer? As a nation. Got it. I don't agree - but I hear ya.

Great.

I blame Clinton for doing it too. Lying, that is.

It's ALL Clinton and Carter's fault!!!!

>>>" Bush did it to us really bad - or well - however you want to look at it. He lies REALLY good. "

I don't think Bush lied. I think he just believed the wrong things. So did a lot of other people. Saying Bush lied has been the cheap and dirty tactic of the liberals. I refuse to be sucked into that cheap shot.

We live in a political era when few people want to do anything or stand up for anything. They just want to demean the other party with insults and accusations. Bush did what he thought was right. Most people today think it was the wrong thing to do, but that's with 4 years hind site.

"I don't think Bush lied. I think he just believed the wrong things. So did a lot of other people. Saying Bush lied has been the cheap and dirty tactic of the liberals. I refuse to be sucked into that cheap shot."

Bush is on record telling advisors and others close to him that he "was going to get that bastard" (referring to Saddam) well BEFORE the invasion.

He then uses faulty intelligence to justify the invasion, and when the intelligence proves faulty and he's left holding the bag, so he changes his tune to the American public.

He may believe the wrong things and be misguided, but he comes across as a lying, blithering idiot. Telling his advisors one thing and the American people another .. ?? What one are we supposed to believe?

Let's split the middle and call it less than honest huh?

nah, when a president convinces me that an invasion of another country is necessary only to find out later that he was "less than honest" when he made his case with me is nothing than less than a bald faced LIAR.

Oh no - I wasn't talking about the Iraq war at all when I said he lied. Not one bit. I think it's a cheap shot too, had I meant that, and I'm over it. It's not forgiven that he made a big mistake, nor forgotten. But I'm not talking about that.

I'm talking about the fact that he, by your definition Deane, that in order to get elected, he had to NOT be straight with the American public. Your example is that Newt doesn't have it in him to manipulate or whatever, and that would be his undoing in getting ( or NOT getting ) elected. Therefore, Bush, who got elected, must have done a good job in not telling it straight. Otherwise, like you note, he would have not gotten elected. Because people who tell it straight, can't get elected.

We agree, Deane. That's all I meant.

"Because people who tell it straight, can't get elected."

But then, how does one explain the election of Tom Potter and Bud Clark?

Bush lied, period. Otherwise there would have been WMD's.

Regarding the nominiees, Mitt Romney is an absolute NO. The morman cult is nothing more than a ponzi scheme, and anyone who gets sucked into that crap is too dumb to be president. McCain is too old. Guiliani is okay, and I'd almost prefer to see him run due to his social views, but I also think there could be a lot of negative campaign material put up against him, which would be an advantage for his opponenent.

>>>"Bush lied, period. Otherwise there would have been WMD's."

This is the type thinking simpletons engage in.


>>>We agree, Deane. That's all I meant."

I understood. I've already learned that you're one of the individuals who actually thinks. The liberals have a couple, believe it or not. Andrew and Missing to name two.

No Deane, it's the kind of thinking that is obviuos. Bush convinced everyone of WMD's, in the face of evidence saying otherwise. He misled America and the world, therefore he lied.

obviuos = obvious

Newt is a scumbag!
Staying on topic.....

Thanks for pointing out the spelling error on my post. Now if you'd only see the errors of your thinking, then you'd be on to something.

Rein, socialists have never been on the right side of history. Never.

Socialists? Who here is a socialist?

Neither have EXTREME RIGHT WING HACKS!