web analytics

No. No, no, no.

I can’t possibly vote for Newt. His face is too small. That little pinched face all scrunched up in the middle of that big head. Oh, no.

Also, Newt Gingrich. When he was a thing, my shirts had shoulder pads. I am not going back to that place.

Also, “Newt.” Jesus. Dude’s name is Newton Leroy.

Newton Leroy. Willard Mitt. Barack Hussein. Criminy buckets, what’s gone screwy with American politics?

How about — Vote for Herman Cain. He doesn’t even have a middle name.


Comment from Deborah
Time: October 26, 2011, 8:20 pm

Yeah. He should have gone by Leroy. 🙂
James Richard isn’t bad though.

Comment from Stark Dickflüssig
Time: October 26, 2011, 8:44 pm

I would love to see Newt on the Capitol steps bouncing end-over-end until he smacks face-first into the ground.

Comment from Gromulin
Time: October 26, 2011, 9:03 pm

Looks like John Daly. I’d vote for Daly first, actually.

Comment from Alice
Time: October 26, 2011, 9:07 pm

“…face is too small..” *snort*

I’ve been saying that about Victor Garber for years (here’s hoping the link works… http://cdn-images.hollywood.com/cms/294×255/3472139.jpg ) Never made the connection with Newt.

Comment from mojo
Time: October 26, 2011, 9:25 pm

If you vote for a black guy from Georgia instead of the half-white havhard-edumacated guy from Hawaii/Indonesia, you’re obviously a racist.

Says so right here on the MSM.

Comment from S. Weasel
Time: October 26, 2011, 9:30 pm

Dude does have an improbable quantity of forehead, Alice.

Comment from Uncle Badger
Time: October 26, 2011, 9:34 pm

Newt was popular (very popular) on the Right here in the UK some long time ago.

Then he fell for the global warming BS and might just as well have announced he’d had a lobotomy.

And, indeed, falling for that scam, perhaps he had?

Comment from Mono The Elderish
Time: October 26, 2011, 9:52 pm

More likely a stroke uncle B.

Comment from Some Vegetable
Time: October 26, 2011, 10:04 pm

I learned everything I wanted to know about Newt in 1994. It’s very useful to have him in the bleachers lobbing crazy ideas onto the field now and again to stir the old and usual game up. Makes things exciting.

However if you let him quarterback the team he lobs crazy ideas all the time everywhere in random and unpredictable directions, fucking things up.

I wish he’d just go away.

Comment from Randy Rager
Time: October 26, 2011, 10:17 pm

Didn’t like him in the ’90’s, don’t like him now. The sooner he goes away, the better.

Comment from Alice
Time: October 26, 2011, 10:17 pm

On the other hand, how cool would it be for Newt to campaign on “not looking like those guys on the dollar bill”.

I know. Not worth it, but it’s something.

Comment from Mike James
Time: October 26, 2011, 10:47 pm

My eagerness to vote against the SCoaMF is tempered by the dawning realization that I will probably loath whoever it is I’ll have to vote for.

Newt Gingrich, for all that he’s not really what is called for, seems to think the fastest during debates, and would make the Stuttering Cluster*uck of a Miserable Failure stutter even more miserably during a debate during the general election.

Not much to go on, I realize.

Comment from Gromulin
Time: October 26, 2011, 10:51 pm

Long before he was a national figure, I used to watch him on the community access / community college channel teaching history courses. The guy is an awesome historian, I’ll give him that.

Comment from Vinnie “newt mitt” Mc
Time: October 26, 2011, 10:56 pm

c’mon Weez…. if it is the Newt… and we all know it can’t be can it? but if it is wouldn’t you love to see a debate with the little faced giant brained one and the “smartest president ever”??? how bout a pic of hussein’s big ole “red” ears as his super smart brain explodes as he’s getting the floor wiped with his is-ness? Weez! we need ya… I know one too many crumpets has left ya a lil soft over in socialism lite-land but we’re bleeding over here from the death of a thousand cuts… i’d vote for Ronald McDonald… even sHrILLARY would be better than the mess we got goin now…

Comment from Sigivald
Time: October 26, 2011, 10:56 pm

Gone screwy?

We had a Supreme Court Justice named Learned Hand.

Awesomely weird names are our proud heritage!

(Agreed re. how useless Gingrich is as a candidate.)

Comment from Nina
Time: October 26, 2011, 11:43 pm

I could do without Newt, but even he’d be better than what we’ve got in there now.

Comment from JeffS
Time: October 26, 2011, 11:45 pm

This is the obligatory link y’all forgot!


Comment from EZnSF
Time: October 27, 2011, 12:17 am

I LOVE Newt. Smartest politico in the country.

Comment from Dan.
Time: October 27, 2011, 12:45 am

The Republican nominee (after watching this crew) could do OK by hiring Newt as his designated debater.

By the way — who ever said we had to have debates, anyway?

And how can we call these things debates?

Comment from Deborah
Time: October 27, 2011, 1:36 am

Actually, Newt would make a good Chief of Staff for the next Republican president. He was Speaker of the House after all; he knows how to get things done. As chief of staff, his great intellect and insider knowledge would be put to its best use, but he’d be otherwise muzzled since the CoS speaks only for the President, not himself.

Comment from Ric Locke
Time: October 27, 2011, 1:48 am

Newt Gingrich is a brilliant guy. He’s a fantastic speaker, a great debater whose mind works really fast, and an excellent historian.

I don’t want him for President.

In fact, I would support a Constitutional Amendment making anyone elected to Congress — House or Senate — ineligible to be elected President. It would cut through a lot of fog.


Comment from Can’t hark my cry
Time: October 27, 2011, 2:06 am

Dan: Woo-hoo!
One of the sad things about campaigning is that the skills that make one a successful campaigner don’t necessarily translate into good skills as an elected official. In particular–being a good (or bad) debater doesn’t tell us anything about whether the candidate knows how to manage the executive branch, or work cooperatively with the legislature.

About Gingrich’s face. Um. If you position the browser so that all you can see is forehead and eyes, there is nothing weird or out of proportion. His nose and mouth are perhaps more delicate than one might anticipate, but if his chin, cheeks, and dewlaps weren’t so large, the whole thing would be proportional. Age does that shit, regrettably.

None of the above is to be taken as in any way suggesting that Gingrich might be a good choice for President. Just. . .as anno domini conturbat me, I’m less comfortable with ragging on folks for the effects of gravity on flesh. . .

Comment from catnip
Time: October 27, 2011, 2:06 am

Yes, Newt knows government inside out, has a mind like an encyclopedia, and would dice the O into a thousand pieces in a debate. But you could hear the faint hiss of the Balloon Man’s conservative principles leaking out as he sat cosily on that park bench with San Fran Nan.

Comment from Elphaba
Time: October 27, 2011, 3:02 am

I agree with Ric Locke. Newt ain’t presidential but he’d still be useful. I really like and respect Herman Cain. I listened to his radio show for years and he’s consistent about his position. He’ll bust his ass to to right by America.

And yes, good point, catnip! Newt is waaaaay too cozy with Nancy Pelosi. Ew.

Comment from Rich Rostrom
Time: October 27, 2011, 3:36 am

The late, great Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Illinois, 1974-2006) said of Gingrich “He is half visionary, half lunatic.”

He was much more effective as a bomb-throwing challenger to the entrenched Democrats in Congress than he was as a leader of the Republican majority.

(Apropos of Newt’s effective bomb-throwing: Joe Nocera of the NYT recently acknowledged the “borking” of Robert Bork, but only to equate it with the alleged “borking” of Jim Wright, i.e. Gingrich’s devastating exposure of Wright’s corruption. It’s borking when liberals lie about a conservative, I guess, and when conservatives tell the truth about liberals.)

One thing about Gingrich: he was a featured speaker at the 1983 World Science Fiction Convention. I don’t know of any other major political figure who ever did that. Gingrich was only in his third House term then, to be sure, but even so…

I’ve said (and even some liberals agree with me) that Gingrich is one of the few politicians who grasps that the future is going to be very different from the past.

But (vide Hyde’s appraisal) I don’t think he’d be a good President. Nor a good candidate – his personal-life baggage would be damaging.

Comment from Pablo
Time: October 27, 2011, 3:52 am

Newt does a find job of smacking debate moderators around. That alone earns him a place on the stage. The White House, not so much.

Comment from pajama momma
Time: October 27, 2011, 4:44 am

For my classes at school, I have some videos I’m required to watch. The woman’s head is SO freaking huge, I cannot concentrate on anything she’s telling me because all I can focus on is her huge noggin.


Comment from MIke C.
Time: October 27, 2011, 7:37 am

As some wit on GCP opined, Newt has more baggage than a Samsonite store. Pity. He does have a grasp of many things, but if he gets the nomination, DuhOne gets 4 more years.

This is not shaping up to be a fun election season…

Comment from Oceania
Time: October 27, 2011, 7:43 am

Have you worked out yet how WTC7 fell over by itself?

Comment from MIke C.
Time: October 27, 2011, 8:57 am

“Strong The Stupid is with this one, yes.”

/Alt Yoda

Comment from Ric Locke
Time: October 27, 2011, 12:36 pm

Now, now, Mike C., from his POV it’s a good question.

When the Goa’uld demolition team responsible for the main event were exiting, the NID tech managing the stargate fumbled a control. There’s lots of energy in one of those things, y’know. The team got out safely, so it didn’t set off an intrauniversal Incident (you know how surly those guys can be), but there were a few empty-coffin funerals on this end.

The rest is coverup in depth. It’s interesting that it was successful, even with Oceania and the other big brains. Maybe our bureaucrats aren’t as totally clueless as they sometimes act, although I don’t know that that’s an encouraging notion, actually.


Comment from Can’t hark my cry
Time: October 27, 2011, 1:37 pm


Comment from beasn
Time: October 27, 2011, 2:03 pm

even sHrILLARY would be better than the mess we got goin now…

Bite your tongue, that harpy has the same platform as the thug.

Comment from Stark Dickflüssig
Time: October 27, 2011, 3:24 pm


I wonder if Oceania cries herself to sleep thinking about how she was outsmarted by George W. Bush (& continues to be so outsmarted every single day)?

Comment from fashizzlizer
Time: October 28, 2011, 12:55 pm

Gingrich could do no worse than the stuttering geekazoid waterhead we have in the job at present. Gingrich does have a hand on several problems that WILL come down the pike, namely EMP attacks, stateless WMD attacks using surrogates and/or agents and the like. HE does get it on a lot of levels.

On the other hand he was complicit for kissing up to LalaPelosi and Gorebal Warming, so he loses massive conservative creds for that stance.

Not a total boob, not a professional tool. A decent choice for SecDef or SecState, but not the Big Dog. Cain is the frontrunner for that job right now.

And Paul is a tool, as well as Huntsman. What a puss.

Comment from fashizzlizer
Time: October 28, 2011, 1:44 pm

Have you worked out yet how WTC7 fell over by itself?

Bill Cosby said “There’s always room for Jello.” This proves there’s always room for stupid…Oceania, this is world class stupidity, this right here.

Consider this piece of wisdom: It is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt…

You ‘remove all doubt’ every time you post something…

What a douche nozzle.

Comment from Noelegy
Time: October 28, 2011, 3:55 pm

@Alice: I fell in love with Victor Garber after I saw “Titanic” (I could not care less about the Jack/Rose romance and loved the movie for its historical significance), but you’re right; he doesn’t have a good face/head ratio.

But he’s not nearly as bad as Newt, and Stoat W. nailed it perfectly.

Willard Mitt! I think if I were faced with that choice, I’d go by “Willard” rather than “Mitt” and risk being called “Mittens” all my livelong days. Oh, wait…

Comment from Goober
Time: October 28, 2011, 6:44 pm

Dude, because, like, totally, George Bush was , like, so smart that he somehow managed to pull off the largest conspiracy in the history of planet earth, involving thousands of co-conspirators with no prior association with each other, and of whom not a single one has spoken up in the ten years since they all murdered 3,000 of their fellow citizens. The amazing part is how he pulled this off all the while being a simpering moron with the intellect of a chimpanzee, if you listen to the same people talk 10 minutes later about some other Bush-related issue.

So which is it? Simpering chimpanzee or towering evil intellect of previously uncharted proportions, Oceania?

Comment from Goober
Time: October 28, 2011, 6:52 pm

Mark Cuban is either a liar or a coward. The same goes for every “truther” who believes, despite the mountain of evidence against such a claim, that George Bush and a cabal of thousands of others planned and executed the 9/11 attacks as a ‘false flag’ excuse to go to war, presumably because, you know…


…and profit!

OK, so the reasoning behind their little conspiracy nutbaggery isn’t the only thing missing, because Halliburton and profit couldn’t possibly explain it (although that is the only justification I could come up with in my search of “truther” sites). The reason being that there would need to be thousands of people involved in this plot.

Cruise missile hit the Pentagon and it was made to look like an airliner crashed into it? OK, then you have at least the flag officers off of whatever naval ship fired the cruise missile that are in on it, as well as the targeting guy on board. Also, the guys responsible for supply would notice a cruise missile went missing, right? Then you have all the obviously paid government stooges who “claimed” to have watched an airplane crash into the pentagon – we can discount those folks all together, right? Forget the video showing the plane crash, too – it is obviously a forgery. Of course, this means that some more people were paid to develop a forged surveillance video of a plane crashing into the Pentagon somehow, and of course, they were totally in on it, too, since they haven’t reported a thing in the last decade.

WTC collapse was a controlled demolition? Fair enough, then you have construction and demolition crews mobbing the building for a few weeks prior to the event setting charges and preparing the demolition. Say, 50 people directly involved with setting the charges, management at the company who ordered the materials, and the supplier warehouses, who even if they didn’t know where the explosives were going, don’t you think they would have remembered selling a shit-ton of explosives right before the event happened? No one does, amazingly enough. Oh, yes, and you have the federal regulators who monitor explosives and keep track of where they are at all times. Never mind the people, you know, actually IN THE BUILDINGS who would have noticed major demolition activities going on to access structural members of the WTC who all have reported that they remember no such thing (and no, Mr. Cuban, a few telecom guys routing wires isn’t enough activity for a controlled demolition. They would have been tearing out walls, not poking holes in them to route a wire.) So, now you have thousands of survivors that were probably ALL IN ON IT, who despite knowing that the buildings were going to be imploded still went into the buildings on that day and risked their lives – for what? Some money? All of them? Every, stinking, one?

By the time you add it all up, you are talking about easily thousands of people involved, and many of these folks have no connection to one another. How is a naval flag officer connected to a video photoshopper in Washington DC? How did they get into this grand conspiracy together? How were all of these people vetted to make sure that they wouldn’t talk? Money? Halliburton didn’t make enough profit to pay off this many people with enough money for them to all keep quiet for 10 years. Where did the money come from?

But all of this is beside my main point, which is this:

If Mark Cuban and his truther ilk really, truly believed that what they espouse is true, then they shouldn’t be going to baseball games and enjoying beers in their owner box, as Mark Cuban is doing. If he truly believed that our government was so corrupt and evil as to have in their pocket the thousands of people necessary to plan and pull off the murder of almost 3,000 people so that they could make a little money, then he should be standing on a line somewhere, with a rifle in his hand, fighting against this horrific government, which, if found to be guilty of these crimes, would be on par with Nazi Germany. Rosie O’Donnel, Charlie Sheen, Mark Cuban – if they really believe this drivel that they are spouting, they’d be at war with a murderous government.

Instead, Mark keeps going to baseball parties every Sunday, Rosie keeps shoveling food into her fat fucking mouth like a CAT 320 excavator, and Charlie keeps abusing porn stars in ridiculously overpriced hotel rooms.

SO I can come to only two conclusions:

1.) They truly believe that they live under a government so evil that it could only be eclipsed by Nazi Germany, itself, and are choosing to do nothing about it besides making “documentaries” getting out the “truth” (never mind that these documentaries are highly profitable – hey, don’t blame me, turnabout is fair play! If profit is evil, then its evil no matter who makes it, right?). Never mind that the “truth” in these documentaries are mostly outright fabrications, but hey… If this is true, and they truly believe the drivel that they are spouting while attending parties and living life as if nothing is wrong, then they are evil cowards.

2.) They are lying through their teeth for attention and profit. If this doesn’t cheapen the sacrifices of the people who died in this tragedy, I’m not sure what does.

I believe that both options are true to an extent. These people are all lying cowards. Every one of them.

Comment from Alice
Time: October 29, 2011, 10:22 pm

Hi, Noelegy. I think Garber is a very good actor. He first came to my notice in ‘Alias’ as Jennifer Garner’s dad. As frequently happens, once I noticed him, he started appearing everywhere. Have to say though I couldn’t quite manage to sit through his performance as Jesus in the recent rebroadcast of the movie version of ‘Godspell’. Gah!

Comment from J.J. Sefton
Time: October 29, 2011, 11:23 pm

If Newt, as completely improbable as it is, ever does become the nominee, I will slam that lever down for him so hard that whomever is able to pull it back up will be the king of England.

Seriously, I hate Newt because he sounds so absolutely brilliant and together during the debates but does the most insane, politically suicidal things during the off-season. Sitting with Nancy Pelosi and agreeing about AGW legislation?! Praising Al Sharpton?!

Well, at least at these debates he is able to articulate what conservatism is all about clearly and cogently, and at least for that, I’m grateful.

Comment from Wiccapundit
Time: October 29, 2011, 11:24 pm


How about Judge Kennesaw Mountain Landis? (Commissioner of Baseball during the Black Sox scandal).

Who names their kid after a geographic location?

Lake Meade Smith.
Missouri River Jones.

The mind just boggles at the possibilities.

Comment from torquewrench
Time: October 30, 2011, 1:44 am

What I would say to Newt when alone in an elevator:

“Give it up. You seem to believe that since Bill Clinton is from the South, is glibly smart and had a scandalous personal life, and was President, that you can be President too.”

“You can’t. Even though you too are from the South, are glibly smart and have a scandalous personal life.”

“Because the media carried water for Clinton his entire career. They covered for him constantly. If it hadn’t been for Matt Drudge, no one would ever know the name ‘Monica Lewinsky’. The media knew, but until Drudge blew it open, they weren’t going to say a word. And never would have.”

“But whereas they covered for Clinton, they’ll crucify you. That’s unfair, inappropriate, unprofessional, and also inescapable. As I was saying, give it up. Whoops! This is my floor. Have a nice afternoon.”

Comment from Dave in Texas
Time: October 30, 2011, 5:19 am

she turned me into a newt.

I got better.

Comment from Tim
Time: October 30, 2011, 2:45 pm

Let’s not forget Strobe Talbot and Porter Goss. Strobe? Really?

Comment from Claire
Time: October 30, 2011, 6:01 pm

Actually, big shirts with shoulder pads and leggings and little booties and skinny ties and all the rest are coming back into fashion, oddly enough.

Comment from Zimriel
Time: October 30, 2011, 6:29 pm

Oh, LOL, shirts with shoulder pads. I’m male and I remember them . . .

I might even have been present at the occasion when they went out of style. In late spring 1997 I volunteered at a clothes-drop. I was stunned at how many of the obviously-female shirts had shoulderpads. I didn’t see many women or girls wearing them on the street (they had t-shirts) or at work (business attire).

Comment from Zimriel
Time: October 30, 2011, 6:34 pm

Newt will last three weeks as Chief of Staff. The first week he will come up with brilliant ideas and implement enough of them to make enemies. The second week his mouth will say something stupid and/or will be photographed under some cheerleader’s skirt. The third week will be the media frenzy.

If you want the next administration to start off spectularly badly, hire Newt.

Comment from Sockless Joe
Time: November 5, 2011, 11:20 pm

Learned Hand, though very influential, was never on the Supreme Court.

Anywho — I am not a Cain fan. Wrote a bit about that before this whole sexual harassment thing came up.

Not that I’m a Newt fan either. He has said some zany things over the years, and when it comes down to it his personal history with the health care mandate is actually worse than Romney’s. At least Romney can claim he wouldn’t have imposed it at the Federal level.

To the extent that Romneycare hangs around Romney’s neck, the 1990s fight against HillaryCare hangs around Newt’s even more.

Comment from S. Weasel
Time: November 6, 2011, 11:32 am

I’m not a fan of any of them really, Joe. I hate the field this time around. Like many, I’m just chafing under the GOP’s “you have to choose Romney because his turn is why.”

Write a comment

(as if I cared)

(yeah. I'm going to write)

(oooo! you have a website?)

Beware: more than one link in a comment is apt to earn you a trip to the spam filter, where you will remain -- cold, frightened and alone -- until I remember to clean the trap. But, hey, without Akismet, we'd be up to our asses in...well, ass porn, mostly.

<< carry me back to ol' virginny