Newt Gingrich is the fastest GOP presidential candidate political suicide since Mitt Romney’s old man George Romney cratered in the Republican Presidential primaries in 1968 after claiming that he had been “brainwashed” into supporting the  Vietnam War. Gingrich has received near universal conservative condemnation for attacking Paul Ryan’s budget plan on Sunday on “Meet The Press” on NBC and seeming to endorse a form of ObamaCare. How ironic that Gingrich, who has always prided himself on his futuristic innovative thinking, was done in by attempting to appease non-conservatives on a low rated show of the increasingly irrelevant lamestream press. The new media, talk radio, blogs and conservative outlets on the net, ran with it, Gingrich is now political toast and he simply can’t believe what has happened to him in such a short time span.
In response to this, Gingrich released this incredibly delusional statement:
The literati sent out their minions to do their bidding. Washington cannot tolerate threats from outsiders who might disrupt their comfortable world. The firefight started when the cowardly sensed weakness. They fired timidly at first, then the sheep not wanting to be dropped from the establishment’s cocktail party invite list unloaded their entire clip, firing without taking aim their distortions and falsehoods. Now they are left exposed by their bylines and handles. But surely they had killed him off. This is the way it always worked. A lesser person could not have survived the first few minutes of the onslaught. But out of the billowing smoke and dust of tweets and trivia emerged Gingrich, once again ready to lead those who won’t be intimated by the political elite and are ready to take on the challenges America faces.
Gingrich is living proof that one can be rather bright and have all the judgment of a stunned duck. This is why we have campaigns to sort the wheat from the chaff, and Gingrich has given ample proof of what category he falls into. Begone Newt, stop embarrassing yourself and wasting our time.
Newt Gingrich is a new Catholic convert. I suspect that he has thus been taken in by the blathering about social justice and the common good that goes on in what passes for theological thinking within much of the Church in the West. I could be wrong, but why else would such an ostensible conservative as Gingrich sell his soul like this?
I will now remind all the liberal readers of one immutable fact: there is NO social justice, NO common good without righteousness and holiness, repentance and conversion. You do the later before you get the former. The Kingdom of Heaven is about saving souls, NOT feeding bellies. Should we as Christians feed bellies? Absolutely! BUT that is NOT the goal. Jesus Christ is the goal.
“I could be wrong, but why else would such an ostensible conservative as Gingrich sell his soul like this?”
Gingrich has always been like this Paul, at least since he became Speaker of the House after the 94 election. He has always wanted to hunt with the hounds and run with the foxes. The problem for Gingrich is that he has been out of politics since the nineties when his adultery with his present wife blew up his second marriage. He didn’t realize how swiftly things move now with the new media and how many regular Republican activitists watch every political move in microscopic detail on the net. Futurist Gingrich simply couldn’t adapt to changing technology and the irony is rich.
I’m Catholic, but I could never vote for Gingrich. He has too much moral baggage, and he’s a recent convert who needs to do a little more growing up before he aspires to higher office.
I thought Gingrich was going to be the #1 guy this coming election, then he opened a can of worms with this one. Unless Rick Perry does indeed run for Presidency, we may be stuck with Mitt Romney.
Gingrich is living proof that one can be rather bright and have all the judgment of a stunned duck.
WIN!
You crack me up, Kyle!
As long as he lives there exists the fervent hope that he (and all of us!) confesses; does penance , amends his (our lives) life and through good works glorifies Almighty God, through Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Savior, who lives and reigns with God the Father Almighty in the unity of the Holy Spirit.
That Gingrich “hound don’t hunt.” Newt placed himself squarely in the “politics of personal destruction bear trap.”
The dems have nothing positive about which to “brag.” So they will as usual 24/7 and with $$$ billions in free campaign air time provided by their MSM propaganda organs, assassinate Gingrich’s character.
Why must the GOP eat its children and serve as an echo chamber for lying, liberal detractions?
Gingrich is living proof that one can be rather bright and have all the judgment of a stunned duck.
What else is there to say?
Gingrich made to many enemies when he was Speaker when he opened his mouth.
His own mouth got him into trouble and delivered a golden egg to those he rubbed the wrong way (too many times).
. . .that and he underestimated how the new media, as Don said, has transformed politics from a weekly news cycle to a second-by-second news cycle.
He’s nearly ruined his campaign, if not destroyed it.
I could vote for a new Catholic, a new ex-Cathoic, a bad Catholic, or anyone else who has not lived his life in perfect standing with the Church. Given a choice between two identical candidates, I’d vote for the Catholic, but a candidate’s religion wouldn’t be among my top ten considerations.
How about the rest of you?
I would have voted for a Protestant Ronald Reagan a 1,000 times and never for a Catholic Ted Kennedy. It is the positions of a candidate, and their character and leadership skills, not their religion, that determines my vote. (I doubt if I would vote for a public atheist, although my guess is that their political positions would differ enough from mine that I would not vote for them in any case.)
I voted for George Bush in 2004 primarily BECAUSE John Kerry was Catholic. I would have voted for almost anyone over John Kerry because I didn’t want a President claiming to be Catholic while also supporting abortion.
but a candidate’s religion wouldn’t be among my top ten considerations
1. To what extent does the candidates formal affiliation influence his thinking and behavior?
2. One’s understanding of creed and code influences one’s thinking on social questions. To what extent are the candidates conclusions within a range of permissible conclusions?
3. To what extent are the candidates views when getting down to the brass tacks congruent with views that might have been reached beginning with the premises of the Church?
4. What does the candidate’s affiliation indicate to you about how he will approach questions as yet unaddressed?
Affiliations of all kinds are salient bits of information about how and what a candidate thinks, what he fancies is respectable, and to whom he wishes to appeal.
Art, those are some good questions. In a perfect world, my answer to all four would be “Bill Bennett”. I don’t think that there are many politicians with an integrated set of principles which animate their faith and political beliefs, though. So I think that with regard to the first question, the answer is going to vary a lot.
With the second and third questions, I’d bet that a random evangelical or Mormon would be as likely to govern consistently with the Catholic Faith as a random Catholic would. They might not catch every nuance, but they’d be more likely to be clear on the basic rules of civilization.
I’ve been thinking in terms of policy so far, but your fourth question opens the door to another consideration, character. I know that’s not exactly what you asked about, but the unexpected mistakes an elected official makes are more often matters of character than of unforeseen policy issues. I wish that we could judge a man’s character by his creed, but there are too many people like me who believe all the right things but can’t be trusted to do anything right.
but a candidate’s religion wouldn’t be among my top ten considerations.
I wouldn’t necessarily put a candidate’s religion in my top ten considerations, but in others situations I might.
That the politician had recently had a high profile change in religion (depending on how he explained it) might tend to push it up on my list of considerations, whether positive or negative.
I’d just like to denounce everything Pinky said (that jerk!). If the head of the budget committee is exchanging letters with the Archbishop of New York, maybe more people understand the relation between religious and political thought than I typically assume.
In the blink of an eye, Gingrich morphs from maverick, to the wizard of oz, to the leader of the tinfoil hat brigade.
I am very impressed. That must have taken some work!!!! LOL.
As a lifelong Catholic, I can’t for the life of understand what part of Catholicism (other than to Catholic Vote) that fits with Newt Gingrich’s personal and political views. The part of the Trinity I worry about with him is Three Wives and Three Faiths.
I find him part of a growing segment of Elitist Converts to Catholicism for nothing more than political gain,,,,, whose experience they feel can help the catholic Church add new members to dwindling parishes.
As a Graduate Student of Politics interested in the effect of Religion in Politics, when Newt entered the political arena, he was moved to convert from Lutheran to Southern Baptist who was baptized by Influential Southern Baptist Leader G. Avery Lee.
He entered the Catholic Church after his marriage to politically connected Catholic Callista while creating non-profit organizations aimed at religious conservatives, Renewing American Leadership, or ReAL, appointing to the board evangelical leaders such as Jim Garlow of Skyline Church in California and David Barton of the Texas-based WallBuilders.
“Vote Gingrich. Are You Better Today Than You Were Three Wives Ago? “
Kurt,,, cute — gives new meaning to “MOURNING in America”, doesn’t it????
What a mess.
Gingrich lost MY potential vote when he abandoned his first wife right after her cancer surgery. I don’t think he can possibly win the Republican nomination, but if he does, you can be SURE the Dems will (hypocritically) play up his moral failings and enough women will be unable to hold their noses and vote for him. Worst possible outcome: a second term for The Obammunist.