Shocking Minnesota Poll - Commanding lead for Newt Gingrich

[sea oat]

The mind of a Gingrich supporter is seriously a mysterious place.

Maybe they vote for him because they think he's the best one to beat Obama. But the most recent poll I saw suggests he would trail Obama even more than Santorum would.

Or maybe they vote for him because they think he's the most conservative candidate running. I don't even know where to begin with that. It's like trying to explain why smoking cigarettes isn't healthy. Where do you start? I'm obviously at odds with Ann Coulter politically, but she actually did a pretty darn good job at making her point about Gingrich's sham conservatism here.

I can't even see how people think he's fiscally conservative, either. I mean just tonight, the man was blowing hot air about how we should go back into the moon instead of letting the Chinese take the reins. And with what money, Mr. Gingrich? With the money that you'd save by hiring children as janitors? Who's buying this stuff about private businesses taking over and finding enough of a financial incentive to do so when estimates suggest that the cost of colonizing the moon would be enough to bankrupt the world multiple times over?

Anyway, it seems like people might be starting to wake up. It seems his popularity is actually down slightly since last week. I'm not counting on it, though.

 

[NightHawkeye]

The mind of a Gingrich supporter is seriously a mysterious place.

Maybe they vote for him because they think he's the best one to beat Obama. But the most recent poll I saw suggests he would trail Obama even more than Santorum would.

Or maybe they vote for him because they think he's the most conservative candidate running. I don't even know where to begin with that. It's like trying to explain why smoking cigarettes isn't healthy. Where do you start? I'm obviously at odds with Ann Coulter politically, but she actually did a pretty darn good job at making her point about Gingrich's sham conservatism here.

I can't even see how people think he's fiscally conservative, either. I mean just tonight, the man was blowing hot air about how we should go back into the moon instead of letting the Chinese take the reins. And with what money, Mr. Gingrich? With the money that you'd save by hiring children as janitors? Who's buying this stuff about private businesses taking over and finding enough of a financial incentive to do so when estimates suggest that the cost of colonizing the moon would be enough to bankrupt the world multiple times over?

Anyway, it seems like people might be starting to wake up. It seems his popularity is actually down slightly since last week. I'm not counting on it, though.

Newt Gingrich is doing what probably no other candidate could do. He is "humbling" the Republican party ... or, maybe I should say he's "humbling" the Republican elite. It was obvious with all the "Newt-hate" yesterday that the Republican elite have been forced out into the open - out of the shadows, if you will. Even Romney is now revealed as a down and dirty politician, who'll do whatever he has to do in order to win ... and, of course, Romney has the "big-money" backing to do it. What Romney doesn't have is much enthusiastic support. Romney represents business as usual in Washington -- more crony capitalism.

Newt's got a message of change that resonates with many voters though. When he projects well during debates his poll numbers shoot up. His message is important.

Whether Newt can win, and whether Newt can follow through are perhaps less important now than the fact that Newt is forcing the Republican party to re-evaluate its message and campaign plans.

If you paid attention to the last couple of debates, you might have noticed that Ron Paul and Newt have re-inforced each other's messages repeatedly. There appears to be a bond between them from having worked together in the house of representative for years. Personally, I find that very telling ... especially in light of all the vitriol spewing from the Republican elite at the moment. It hints of the possibility that Newt's accomplishments in Washington occurred despite the Republican party power brokers best efforts to the contrary. Newt claims to be a rebel after all.


Just my $0.02, since you asked. Not that I voted for Newt ... though I do find that his message has great appeal.

.

 

[sea oat]

Newt Gingrich is doing what probably no other candidate could do. He is "humbling" the Republican party ... or, maybe I should say he's "humbling" the Republican elite. It was obvious with all the "Newt-hate" yesterday that the Republican elite have been forced out into the open - out of the shadows, if you will. Even Romney is now revealed as a down and dirty politician, who'll do whatever he has to do in order to win ... and, of course, Romney has the "big-money" backing to do it. What Romney doesn't have is much enthusiastic support. Romney represents business as usual in Washington -- more crony capitalism.

Newt's got a message of change that resonates with many voters though. When he projects well during debates his poll numbers shoot up. His message is important.

Whether Newt can win, and whether Newt can follow through are perhaps less important now than the fact that Newt is forcing the Republican party to re-evaluate its message and campaign plans.

If you paid attention to the last couple of debates, you might have noticed that Ron Paul and Newt have re-inforced each other's messages repeatedly. There appears to be a bond between them from having worked together in the house of representative for years. Personally, I find that very telling ... especially in light of all the vitriol spewing from the Republican elite at the moment. It hints of the possibility that Newt's accomplishments in Washington occurred despite the Republican party power brokers best efforts to the contrary. Newt claims to be a rebel after all.


Just my $0.02, since you asked. Not that I voted for Newt ... though I do find that his message has great appeal.

.

Ok, I'm sorry, but this is complete and utter nonsense. If what you said is actually what's flying through the minds of Newt supporters, it does absolutely nothing but further support my statement that the mind of a Newt supporter is a mysterious place.

Exactly how is Gingrich for "change," and how is he NOT for the same exact type of crony capitalism that Romney is for? Because he says so? Or is it just because he makes less money than Romney does? Come on. That reasoning is like saying one is voting for Pelosi because Obama is a Democrat. He's a part of the very problem that he criticizes.

And actually, I have, indeed, been paying close attention to the past 2 debates. I've also been following Paul, since I voted for him. I'm not a Libertarian. In fact, I'm a left-leaning Occupy Wall Street supporter, so it was a decision that I'd churned over in my own mind for a long time before I made it. Why did I make the vote? Solely because I think he's the only one up there who's genuine about doing away with crony capitalism. At this point, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I haven't seen one iota of evidence that Paul and Gingrich agree with each other in any substantive way.

In all fairness, I did see an interview a few weeks ago where Newt was decrying how the system is rigged, and essentially borrowed OWS language and ideas. This coming from the same man who told them, in November, to "take a bath" and "get a job." This is one of the main problems with the man. He obviously has a bad habit of unrepentantly attacking others for doing exactly what he's doing, and even has the nerve to criticize a corrupt system that he's consistently profited from, and been a supporter of over the decades. He has a record of corruption, and absolutely nothing he's blown hot air about recently has convinced me that I should believe he's suddenly repentant, and toss him the keys to the presidency. It's like tossing the keys of a police department to someone with a 90-page rap sheet because they promise they'll fight against everything criminal they've done up until 5 minutes ago. It's absurd.

I just can't wrap my mind around his complete lack of self-awareness, nor can I fathom some people's dogged unwillingness to care.

And by the way, Ron Paul's youtube channel completely nails Gingrich on his "serial hypocrisy." Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy - YouTube

 

[NightHawkeye]

Ok, I'm sorry, but this is complete and utter nonsense.

Whoa!

I'm beginning to regret that I took your question seriously.

If what you said is actually what's flying through the minds of Newt supporters, it does absolutely nothing but further support my statement that the mind of a Newt supporter is a mysterious place.

I have no idea what goes through the minds of Newt supporters. I didn't vote for him when I had a chance. I was simply explaining a few things to you which are factual. The fact that you don't like those facts doesn't change things.

I'm supposing that you are for Romney. I'm OK with that. There are lots of other liberals here who have been beating the Romney drum as well ... a fact which sets off all sorts of alarm bells regarding Romney.

Exactly how is Gingrich for "change," and how is he NOT for the same exact type of crony capitalism that Romney is for? Because he says so? Or is it just because he makes less money than Romney does? Come on. That reasoning is like saying one is voting for Pelosi because Obama is a Democrat. He's a part of the very problem that he criticizes.

Gingrich may, in fact, be part of the very problem he criticizes. That's certainly Santorum's claim.

And actually, I have, indeed, been paying close attention to the past 2 debates. I've also been following Paul, since I voted for him.

I'm not a Libertarian. In fact, I'm a left-wing Occupy Wall Street supporter, so it was a decision that I'd churned over in my own mind for a long time before I made it. Why did I make the vote? Solely because I think he's the only one up there who's genuine about doing away with crony capitalism. At this point, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I haven't seen one iota of evidence that Paul and Gingrich agree with each other in any substantive way.

OK. I merely offered you my opinion that Gingrich and Ron Paul have exhibited a pattern of supporting each other in the debates.

In all fairness, I did see an interview a few weeks ago where Newt was decrying how the system is rigged, and essentially borrowed OWS language and ideas. This coming from the same man who told them, in November, to "take a bath" and "get a job." As if getting a job is a simple thing to do in the US these days. This is one of the main problems with the man. He obviously has a bad habit of unrepentantly attacking others for doing exactly the same exact thing he's doing. I just can't wrap my mind around his complete lack of self-awareness, and around people's dogged unwillingness to care.

So ... are you attempting to understand your enemy?

Or does Gingrich simply scare you so badly that you feel compelled to bash him here?

 

[Maren]

Whoa!

I'm beginning to regret that I took your question seriously.


I have no idea what goes through the minds of Newt supporters. I didn't vote for him when I had a chance. I was simply explaining a few things to you which are factual. The fact that you don't like those facts doesn't change things.

I'm supposing that you are for Romney. I'm OK with that. There are lots of other liberals here who have been beating the Romney drum as well ... a fact which sets off all sorts of alarm bells regarding Romney.


Gingrich may, in fact, be part of the very problem he criticizes. That's certainly Santorum's claim.





OK. I merely offered you my opinion that Gingrich and Ron Paul have exhibited a pattern of supporting each other in the debates.


So ... are you attempting to understand your enemy?

Or does Gingrich simply scare you so badly that you feel compelled to bash him here?

This is what has us confused. Romney, who has had one political office (Governor of Massachusetts) and never worked in Washington (in any capacity) is somehow a "Washington Insider" and Gingrich, who has always been either a Congressman or political consultant in Washington is not a "Political Insider" and represents change from the typical Washington politics, despite the fact that he has spent his entire adult life participating in those politics. Now do you understand the confusion?

Also, you are completely wrong about Ron Paul and Gingrich. Paul produced the most effective attack ad in Iowa against Gingrich. And in the debates, when Gingrich has talked about voluntarily stepping down as Speaker and how Congress allegedly supported him has spoken out how about how Gingrich is engaging in revisionist history. Ron Paul really appears not to care for Gingrich, as do most other Congressmen that were in the Congress at the same time as he was.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Also, you are completely wrong about Ron Paul and Gingrich. Paul produced the most effective attack ad in Iowa against Gingrich.

Indeed he did. Yet, Gingrich did not complain about it ... at least that I recall.

Even with politicians, business is business. Most of 'em take most of it in stride. Gingrich's complaint with Romney was "LIES". Newt made no such complaint against Ron Paul.

And in the debates, when Gingrich has talked about voluntarily stepping down as Speaker and how Congress allegedly supported him has spoken out how about how Gingrich is engaging in revisionist history. Ron Paul really appears not to care for Gingrich, as do most other Congressmen that were in the Congress at the same time as he was.

I believe you may be personalizing something which is inherently impersonal, Maren. Ron Paul does not care for many of the programs which Gingrich has supported; both he and Newt understand that. Disliking an idea is not the same thing as disliking a person ... though, unfortunately, some people have difficulty distinguishing between them.

It is entirely possible to be cordial with someone whose ideas you disagree with. Few of us are surrounded by people who think exactly the way we do. For example, I find some "liberals" to be likable people. It's not necessarily a character flaw ... they're merely misguided.

 

[Maren]

Indeed he did. Yet, Gingrich did not complain about it ... at least that I recall.

Even with politicians, business is business. Most of 'em take most of it in stride. Gingrich's complaint with Romney was "LIES". Newt made no such complaint against Ron Paul.


I believe you may be personalizing something which is inherently impersonal, Maren. Ron Paul does not care for many of the programs which Gingrich has supported; both he and Newt understand that. Disliking an idea is not the same thing as disliking a person ... though, unfortunately, some people have difficulty distinguishing between them.

It is entirely possible to be cordial with someone whose ideas you disagree with. Few of us are surrounded by people who think exactly the way we do. For example, I find some "liberals" to be likable people. It's not necessarily a character flaw ... they're merely misguided.

I'm not trying to state that Paul dislikes Gingrich on a personal level. Just that many of the Congressmen (here is a sample) from the time Gingrich was Speaker have tails of Gingrich being egotistical and petty, and don't support him in the election, they believe Newt will harm the Republican party.

Sen. Coburn (R-OK) wrote a book and it has a story that many feel is representative of Gingrich as a leader. Again, this merely is an example of why the Congressmen who worked with Newt in the House do not support his campaign and why Ron Paul last night stated roughly (from what I recall) that the Congressmen that do support Newt must not know him.

But again, I understand that has nothing to do with Paul liking Gingrich. Being friends and feeling that person would make a good president are totally different issues.

 

[NightHawkeye]

I'm not trying to state that Paul dislikes Gingrich on a personal level. Just that many of the Congressmen (here is a sample) from the time Gingrich was Speaker have tails of Gingrich being egotistical and petty, and don't support him in the election, they believe Newt will harm the Republican party.

Sen. Coburn (R-OK) wrote a book and it has a story that many feel is representative of Gingrich as a leader. Again, this merely is an example of why the Congressmen who worked with Newt in the House do not support his campaign and why Ron Paul last night stated roughly (from what I recall) that the Congressmen that do support Newt must not know him.

The fact that many congressmen don't like Newt seems to be a resume enhancement, Maren. Especially since he is credited with real significant accomplishments as speaker of the house.

But again, I understand that has nothing to do with Paul liking Gingrich. Being friends and feeling that person would make a good president are totally different issues.

I spent some time searching the transcript and couldn't find anything close to that, Maren. The closest was this:

PAUL: So, Reagan nor you had a truly balanced budget because the national debt goes up, and that's what we pay the interest on. So I think you've stretched that a little bit more than you should have.
​

Yet, even this Gingrich agreed with ...

GINGRICH: I agree with Ron -- but let me finish. I actually agree with you, and I propose that we take Social Security off budget so no president can ever again get threaten, as Obama did in August, that he would not send the check out, and you could set Social Security back up as a free-standing trust fund. It does have enough money and you could in fact pay the checks without regard to politics in Washington.
​

Take a look at the transcript, Maren. Let me know when you find Ron Paul indicating a dislike for Gingrich. GOP CNN Florida debate: Jan. 26, 2012. Transcript - Lynn Sweet

 

[Maren]

The fact that many congressmen don't like Newt seems to be a resume enhancement, Maren. Especially since he is credited with real significant accomplishments as speaker of the house.


I spent some time searching the transcript and couldn't find anything close to that, Maren. The closest was this:

PAUL: So, Reagan nor you had a truly balanced budget because the national debt goes up, and that's what we pay the interest on. So I think you've stretched that a little bit more than you should have.
​

Yet, even this Gingrich agreed with ...

GINGRICH: I agree with Ron -- but let me finish. I actually agree with you, and I propose that we take Social Security off budget so no president can ever again get threaten, as Obama did in August, that he would not send the check out, and you could set Social Security back up as a free-standing trust fund. It does have enough money and you could in fact pay the checks without regard to politics in Washington.
​

Take a look at the transcript, Maren. Let me know when you find Ron Paul indicating a dislike for Gingrich. GOP CNN Florida debate: Jan. 26, 2012. Transcript - Lynn Sweet

Ok, apparently he didn't say it during the debate last night. I started thinking perhaps it was something he said in Monday's debate but, though I can't find a transcript, it appears it wasn't then either (the one rebuttal of Newt by Paul in that debate I can find is that Newt didn't voluntarily step down as Speaker, he quit because he did not have the votes to continue as Speaker). So, I'm not sure if I heard something prior to the debate starting or if I just misheard/imagined -- and I do admit I was doing other things with the debate in the background so may have misheard. Since I haven't found the quote, I'll retract and admit I was wrong.

As for Congressmen not supporting him being a positive, you might have a point if it was Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats. But when some of the most conservative members of his own party don't support him, claim that he is a poor leader and would not make a good president, I think that is hard to spin as a positive.

 

[Defensor Fidei]

Gingrich and Paul probably have one of the worst relationships among the candidates, going back to their time in Congress. In the 1990s, Newt Gingrich backed a Democrat-party-switcher in a Republican primary challenge against Ron Paul. Newt also worked to deny Paul committee positions and such he should have had due to seniority.

And up until these last debates, Gingrich was probably the most vehemently anti-Paul candidate in the race. Romney said he would vote for Paul if the latter won the Republican nomination. Even Santorum said he would support a Paul nominee while "taking a lot of antacids".

Gingrich was the only candidate to come out and say openly that he would not vote for Ron Paul if he were the Republican nominee against Barack Obama. Newt called Paul "dangerous" and said that Paul and his views are "totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American."

I don't know where NightHawkeye is getting the idea that Newt and Ron have been on especially friendly terms with each other.

 

[NightHawkeye]

As for Congressmen not supporting him being a positive, you might have a point if it was Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats. But when some of the most conservative members of his own party don't support him, claim that he is a poor leader and would not make a good president, I think that is hard to spin as a positive.

No ... it's certainly no positive. Question is whether it's really much of a negative though.

Kinda depends on how one views the Republican party, doesn't it Maren? I was gonna post a picture of a pack of jackals ... but I'll refrain because there are some good people in the Republican party.

But, can the blind lead the blind? Congress is in such a mess they don't know how to get out. To me, it looks like they don't even know how deep the mess is, sadly.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Gingrich and Paul probably have one of the worst relationships among the candidates, going back to their time in Congress. In the 1990s, Newt Gingrich backed a Democrat-party-switcher in a Republican primary challenge against Ron Paul. Newt also worked to deny Paul committee positions and such he should have had due to seniority.

That's not a big deal in the South. Many, maybe even most, democrats in the South either changed parties or ended their political careers not that long ago. Take Rick Perry, for example. Just more politics as usual. Ron Paul has always been an outsider.

Even if Newt had great admiration for Ron Paul, it would have been difficult to support him for any prominent position until he had attained considerable seniority. Politics is the "art of the possible".

Evita - "Art of the Possible" - YouTube

And up until these last debates, Gingrich was probably the most vehemently anti-Paul candidate in the race.

Got a reference for that? I haven't seen it.

Romney said he would vote for Paul if the latter won the Republican nomination. Even Santorum said he would support a Paul nominee while "taking a lot of antacids".

Gingrich was the only candidate to come out and say openly that he would not vote for Ron Paul if he were the Republican nominee against Barack Obama. Newt called Paul "dangerous" and said that Paul and his views are "totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American."

He said that after being blasted in Iowa by negative Ron Paul ads. It's an accurate statement. I doubt that even Ron Paul would call it inaccurate.

More tellingly, LOL, Newt did not say he would vote for Obama just to spite Ron Paul.

 

[Defensor Fidei]

That's not a big deal in the South. Many, maybe even most, democrats in the South either changed parties or ended their political careers not that long ago. Take Rick Perry, for example. Just more politics as usual. Ron Paul has always been an outsider.

Not a big deal for a Speaker of the House to support a party-switching primary challenger against your own party's congressman, while you're telling me Newt and Paul are the best of friends.

Even if Newt had great admiration for Ron Paul, it would have been difficult to support him for any prominent position until he had attained considerable seniority. Politics is the "art of the possible".

Evita - "Art of the Possible" - YouTube

Um, what? Congressional committee assignments are typically based on seniority, unless an establishment leader like Gingrich maneuvers to keep people he doesn't like out.

Got a reference for that? I haven't seen it.

Um, seriously? Look down one line where you admit the words I attribute to Gingrich are accurate.

He said that after being blasted in Iowa by negative Ron Paul ads. It's an accurate statement. I doubt that even Ron Paul would call it inaccurate.

More tellingly, LOL, Newt did not say he would vote for Obama just to spite Ron Paul.

What kind of attempt at spin is this?

Gingrich was the only candidate to say he would not vote for Ron Paul even if Paul won the Republican nomination. He is the only one to attack Paul and his supporters as not being "decent Americans".

Paul and Romney have had a much better relationship throughout this campaign season than either did with Newt, so I don't know what your point was supposed to.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Not a big deal for a Speaker of the House to support a party-switching primary challenger against your own party's congressman, while you're telling me Newt and Paul are the best of friends.

Never said best of friends.

Um, what? Congressional committee assignments are typically based on seniority, unless an establishment leader like Gingrich maneuvers to keep people he doesn't like out.

It has happened with great regularity when the congressman wasn't a trusted insider.

Um, seriously? Look down one line where you admit the words I attribute to Gingrich are accurate.

Newt's comments were made very recently, just prior to the Iowa caucuses. What else you got?

What kind of attempt at spin is this?

Exactly my sentiment. Why are you making a big deal out of what was a simple comment based on observation of the behaviour of the two men during the debate.

Gingrich was the only candidate to say he would not vote for Ron Paul even if Paul won the Republican nomination.

He is the only one to attack Paul and his supporters as not being "decent Americans".

Give me a break. Since English is your second language, I realize it's harder to distinguish some things, but that's not quite what Newt said. The difference, though subtle, is important. I voted for Ron Paul. Newt's remarks haven't offended me. It's just not a big deal.

 

[jamesrwright3]

Why do people keep confusing Republican primaries with the General Election. Obama will win the Utah Democratic Primary but has about a ZERO chance of winning Utah in the General Election. Just like Gingrich polling just over a third of the Republican primary voters in Minnesota does not mean he has any chance of winning the state in November.

The fact is, Gingrich has the highest unfavorable rating of any candidate at the moment -- higher even than Obama's. When more than half of all registered voters have an unfavorable rating of a candidate, they have almost no chance of being elected in November.

One other note, Minnesota actually has a caucus rather than a primary and campaigns with nontraditional campaigns (such as Gingrich is running), in the past, have not done well in states with a caucus. Typically you need a strong grassroots organization in caucus states to do well in the state, something Gingrich does not have. Guess we'll see if that holds true again this year.

I honestly didn't think there would be any Democratic primaries this year.

 

[stiggywiggy]

Well, I suppose some people could share Newt's values of adultery,

Why would you even speculate on something you obviously can't have a clue about: Newt's "values of adultery." You seem to believe he "values" adultery highly. Why? Because he committed it?

Strange belief: Sinners sin. Therefore sinners always "value" their own particular sin.

Do you value your own sins, or are you without sin? If the latter, carry on. According to Jesus, you qualify for the stone-throwing.

But I'm just curious: Did you run as fast as you could from Clinton's values? Should voters in the 60's have run from JFK's values? Should we run from the "values" in the Constitution because
Jefferson had a mistress?

 

[Defensor Fidei]

Why would you even speculate on something you obviously can't have a clue about: Newt's "values of adultery." You seem to believe he "values" adultery highly. Why? Because he committed it?

Strange belief: Sinners sin. Therefore sinners always "value" their own particular sin.

Do you value your own sins, or are you without sin? If the latter, carry on. According to Jesus, you qualify for the stone-throwing.

But I'm just curious: Did you run as fast as you could from Clinton's values? Should voters in the 60's have run from JFK's values? Should we run from the "values" in the Constitution because
Jefferson had a mistress?

Adultery and sexual impropriety seem to be features associated with Newt Gingrich's entire life, at least since puberty, so yes, it would appear that those are his values. He is living in an adulterous state of sin right now with a woman younger than his daughter. The amphibious egomanic is evidently motivated by sex and power, nothing more.

Nominate Newt Gingrich, and the Republican Party can NEVER seriously use the terms "family values" or "sanctity of marriage" ever again.

 

[stiggywiggy]

Adultery and sexual impropriety seem to be features associated with Newt Gingrich's entire life, at least since puberty,

Puberty? Please elaborate. What sexual impropriety was Newt committing at age 13? I think the public is aware of two affairs, but you said his "entire life." If you have a scoop, why not share it here? Maybe Drudge will pick it up.

so yes, it would appear that those are his values.

This idea of a man valuing his own sins and weaknesses is interesting. You figure heroin addicts value heroin addiction?

He is living in an adulterous state of sin right now with a woman younger than his daughter.

Look, you seem pretty eager to widen the target area for your stone-casting, but some things just won't work. A man cannot have an adulterous affair with his own wife.

The amphibious egomanic is evidently motivated by sex and power, nothing more.

EVIDENTly??? So present your evidence, Mr. (or Ms?) Prosecutor. The "sex" part is based on two affairs with women he ultimately married. We got that. His thirty years of public service has been defined by you as based on a particular sin: sex. Now explain the power part.

Incidentally, may I ask one personal thing, just out of curiosity: Do the particular sins you've committed in your life also define what "motivates" you? Or does this only apply to other people's sins?

Nominate Newt Gingrich, and the Republican Party can NEVER seriously use the terms "family values" or "sanctity of marriage" ever again.

Why would that follow? Why would Newt Gingrich's marital infidelity mean that Santorum, for example, can't talk about "family values" in 2016?

 

[HerbieHeadley]

Herman Cain just endorsed Newt!

“I hereby officially and enthusiastically endorse Newt Gingrich for President of the United States!”

Newt getting ready to speak as well on C-SPAN...

Newt Gingrich Delivers Keynote at Palm Beach, Florida GOP Party Event | C-SPAN

 

[NightHawkeye]

Herman Cain just endorsed Newt!


Newt getting ready to speak as well on C-SPAN...

Newt Gingrich Delivers Keynote at Palm Beach, Florida GOP Party Event | C-SPAN

I'm surprised it took Herman so long.