Newt Gingrich's Amazon Book Reviews

lee1 writes "Newt Gingrich has written 156 book reviews on Amazon, at one point becoming ranked in the site's top 500 list. Most of the books are cheesy political thrillers, but the newly announced presidential candidate is also trying to learn about quantum physics, and shows good taste, 'strongly recommending' Richard Feynman's QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter." Gingrich is an early joiner; I'd like to see the books on the shelves of the other likely presidential candidates, too.

Comments

Troll

[cinderellamanson]

Newt Gingrich is a troll.

Re:Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't troll's usually much larger than humans?

Re:Troll

[cinderellamanson]

Good point, a midget troll then. It wasn't long ago, before Obama's election that he was writing about segregation on humanevents.com, TROLL.

Re:Troll

[Hognoxious]

Their what? Their cars are. Their houses obviously are.
Their socks aren't, though they rarely wear them.

Re:Troll

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Yes. I hope this tiny troll dies of a painful anal cyst.

Re:Troll

[cinderellamanson]

Mod me down, but it's true.

http://www.google.com/search?&q=newt%20gingrich%20racist

Re:Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

You spelled tool wrong.

Re:Troll

[MightyMartian]

Frankly the field of candidates at the GOP's disposal all look like various forms of trolls. I think the smart money is on Obama taking it again in 2012, so now's the GOP's chance to let the Tea Party fruitcakes and all those simpering cowardly Republicans who refuse to standup to the Libertarians and other even less sensible riff raff that have seized the party smash themselves against the electoral rocks next year. Once it's clear that the Tea Party won't be able to install a president, the GOP can again regain control of the situation, turn the Libertarian wing back into the useful idiots they have usually been and then find a candidate for 2016 who has a good chance of becoming President.

Maybe the Tea Party can split off, take over the Reform Party like everyone else has and all the semi-sentient 'tards that make up the movement can stop infecting mainstream politics with the racist moronic gibberish they've been spouting.

Re:Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you hate Guns and jesus?

Re:Troll

[Low Ranked Craig]

I'm sorry but you're way out of line. Firstly, I'm not a Tea Party member, but I am a sympathizer. You must be getting all your news from CNN and NBC if you actually believe that all Tea Party members are racist or retarded. YOu have nothing constructive to say, just a long rant of insults. Let's hear a detailed list of the real policy issues you have with them, not more of the Bill Maher inspired ad hominem attacks.

Re:Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you hate Guns and jesus?

Their guitarist sucks, that's why. And then when you consider their son writing has fallen apart since the early 90s - plah-ease!

Re:Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

All of them have either kicked at one or several of the tentpoles of social conservatism (Newt Gingrich has wiped his ass with the "institution of marriage" multiple times) or Teabagger "thought" (Mitt Romney has "Romneycare" hanging over his head), or they're all on record supporting Paul Ryan's plan to whack Medicare - which has completely pissed off their older voting base. The primary is going to be ugly, and then whoever is unfortunate enough to be left standing is going to have to explain why they're better than the guy who got Osama bin Laden after Bush broke his promise to do just that.

Re:Troll

[MightyMartian]

When the Tea Party actually has any policies beyond "Cut taxes and get that foreign Muslim-sounding Nigger out of office", you let me know.

Re:Troll

[MightyMartian]

I think the killing of Osama bin Laden has basically bought Obama a second term. The GOP might as well use the opportunity to cleanse the party of the maniacs, bigots and blowhards who have infected the party.

Re:Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Ugh, grammar fail. Well played sir.

Re:Troll

[ZombieBraintrust]

After the 2008 loss to Obama we get the 2010 elections with the Tea Party. A Republican losing in 2012 will only help the Tea Party.

Re:Troll

[MightyMartian]

I don't think so, because whoever becomes the Republican candidate is going to, at least, publicly, smooth talk the Tea Party. They will, to a large extent, be the writers of the 2012 Republican Presidential narrative. This will be the Tea Party's big chance to show their stuff, to push the GOP candidate into the sort of manic hysteria they seem to approve of, and whoever that candidate is, that's exactly what he will do. Meanwhile, Obama will run another cool, potent campaign like he did in 2008, with the "No Drama" philosophy, and just let the Tea Party drive the Republican candidate into the rocks. The Tea Party seems to bring out the worst in even sensible candidates.

Re:Troll

[uncqual]

Perhaps, but voters seem to have very short memories.

Recall that shortly after the initial "battle" of the Gulf War in January 1991, President George H. W. Bush had incredibly high popularity ratings (about 90% as I recall). Nevertheless, in November 1992, he was defeated by Bill Clinton (admittedly with the help of the spoiler Ross Perot).

Really, "it's the economy, stupid" (to quote Bill Clinton's campaign guru, James Carville).

Housing prices continue to decline in spite of Obama's efforts to "fix" them. Unemployment is still very high and not rebounding as many had hoped even a year ago. The Federal budget and the budgets of many large states are in serious trouble. Well, you get the idea...

Obama can't just run on "I got Osama",

The best thing Obama can hope for if the economy doesn't show strong signs of recovery by November 2012 is that the Republicans field a weak candidate (as they did in 2008 and as the Democrats did in 2004). BTW, Newt would likely be such a candidate.

Re:Troll

[Moryath]

"Tool" in the case of a GOP operative would be spelled either B-R-I-B-E-D or C-O-R-R-U-P-T.

Re:Troll

[Moryath]

It's not the guns, it's the neanderthal GOP morons who tend to misuse them.

Same thing for Jesus. Jesus was a nice man who had a lot of good things to say - among them that greed was bad, taking care of the poor and infirm is good, and treating people with respect is a wonderful thing.

The GOP, meanwhile, are a hateful bunch of assholes who believe in rewarding greed and fucking the poor over at every turn. Not to mention their attitude on the elderly - two of these GOP scumbags on a local radio station were actually joking and laughing at the idea of holding an "Alpo Drive" to feed impoverished seniors recently.

Re:Troll

[Moryath]

You're going to be waiting a long time.

You must be getting all your news from CNN and NBC if you actually believe that all Tea Party members are racist or retarded.

Nope, all it took was driving by one of their rallies.

Let's hear a detailed list of the real policy issues you have with them

For starters, they all claim to be "Christian." And screaming about how taxes need to be cut on the rich (when most of them are not rich in the slightest but labor under the psychotic delusion that they will somehow hit the lottery soon) so they can "keep more of my money."

What did Jesus have to say about this? Ah yes:
Matthew 19:24, "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a greedy man to enter the kingdom of God."

Isn't it nice how much of a bunch of un-christian greedy ratbastards the Greed Over People (GOP) party and the Ree Tardiers really are?

Re:Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Aside from a mediocre "recovery" there are two other possibilities for the state of the economy in 2012.

1. Carter-like stagflation. This would explain the Republicans paying lip service to deficit reduction while watching commodities soar due to Federal Reserve policy. It's a proven Democratic one-termer scenario.

2. Depression. Counter-intuitively, I think this favors Obama. Since the Depression will have started under GWB, it can be argued that it's simply a continuation of a problem caused by the Republicans. It's a proven Democratic dynasty creater--hello FDR and 90% top marginal tax rates!

I think, regardless of what the Fed or either party does, we are more likely to depress than inflate. Any QE sufficient to fix the housing bubble drives oil too high, cutting off recovery as we have seen the last few months. Those who say we are in for hyperinflation are forgetting that QE is only happening in response to market crashes, which are deflationary events.

Re:Troll

[Risen888]

Among the "mainstream" Republican candidates (if you can still count Gingrich as "mainstream"), Newt Gingrich is without a doubt the most educated, well-spoken, most recognized (for good or ill), and most coherent (as in philosophy). Especially against the field of sleazeballs (Romney) and nutters (Bachmann) that seem to be lining up for the bid, I think he's got a real shot at the nomination.

Disclaimer: I am not a Republican or a Gingrich supporter. I do really loathe Michelle Bachmann.

Re:Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

"You must be getting all your news from CNN and NBC if you actually believe that all Tea Party members are racist or retarded."

I live outside the US and like me, the rest of the planet believes that the Teabaggers _are_ racist, retarded, uneducated and funny.

Re:Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Fox News: Not racist, but #1 with racists.

Re:Troll

[bky1701]

I typically take it as a sign of a right-wing nutjob when they claim CNN is left-wing. I'd give you NBC, but seriously, man. Get out of your bubble. You need context.

Re:Troll

[Lumpy]

Because jesus is too much of a pussy to handle an AR-50.

"And lo GOD did smite him.. in the face with a depleted uranium round from 1500 meters... The splatter seen through the spotting scopes made them rejoice in the face of the LORD." - Diesel 12:40

Re:Troll

[lee1]

Jesus was a nice man who had a lot of good things to say - among them that greed was bad, taking care of the poor and infirm is good

Unless they are members of your own family. Jesus advised people to abandon their families and responsibilities and just follow him, because God's kingdom was just around the corner. Guess how that worked out for them? Jesus was a "nice man" in the sense that David Koresh was a "nice man".

Re:Troll

[Lumpy]

90% of "Christians" do NOT follow Jesus's teachings.

Jesus's teachings are dead simple.... but that does not make people rich, so the Catholic church changed them to make things more lucrative... and the reformists kept those nice additions as it keeps the coffers full.

Remember kiddies, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:24) Straight from the Christian bible. Their own Savior, the ones the rich embrace and claim as theirs tells them bluntly "Hey rich man, suck it in hell!"

The bible is littered with verses that condemn the Rich Republican types clamoring for ending welfare and "to hell with the poor" attitudes that are rampant in the Tea Party and Republican party right now. But that is the inconvenient part of the religion that need to be ignored.

Honestly, when you meet a Christian, most of the time you really don't meet a Christian but a person who is on Sundays from 9am to Noon when he/she can be seen in church.

And just like you I'll be modded down because I outed them for what they are, hypocrites . For some reason there is a Significant bias against anything negative against the GOP or Tea Party here today. I have no problems with a rich person, just the rich person that lies through his teeth.

Re:Troll

[Lumpy]

No what will buy Obama his second term is the GOP doing retarded things and pull out another Palin.

Palin is what lost the Republicans the last election. Why they chose that raving lunatic I'll never know.

Now all the candidates I see now are all also nut-jobs. They are screwing it up BAD... Come on, give us a real leader to at least hear some real educated and enlightening discussion and arguments out of.

If the Dems actually get the Blacks and Hispanics to vote.. the GOP is utterly screwed. They outnumber the rich old white person, the largest voting demographic, 30 to 1.

Re:Troll

[justforgetme]

...he was writing about segregation on humanevents.com, TROLL.

Don't these guys normally have staff to do that kind of thing for them? You know, PR specialists, writers, Novelists?

Re:Troll

[ThurstonMoore]

Wish i could mod you up. Everything you said is do true.

Re:Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

I've met "Tea Party" members who are sensible.

But their leadership is batshit insane.

Since it's the leaders that the rest of us get stuck with, I'm afraid you'll have to forgive me if I say I'm scared to death of what the Tea Party could do to this country, regardless of how racist or retarded individual members may or may not be.

Re:Troll

[cinderellamanson]

sorry, that was racist.

I'm sorry newt, I thought you were pat.

pat, i think we disagree on stuff.

Maybe He Will Finish 1945?

[hduff]

http://www.allyngibson.net/?p=2169

http://www.amazon.com/1945-Newt-Gingrich/dp/0671877399

http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=74249

It would be nice to read the sequels, Newtster.

Re:Maybe He Will Finish 1945?

[Captain Splendid]

Sweet Jesus this man is getting a tongue bath from the press right now. Even McCain's jealous.

Mind you, he's a liferaft for the press. They get to cling to him in the stormy tea party waters right up until election day, after which, they'll just let him float away to go watch Obama's 4 year victory lap.

Re:Maybe He Will Finish 1945?

[PyroMosh]

I suspect you are right. But it is by no means a fait accompli.

Remember at this point in the election cycle during George H.W. Bush's first term, the Democratic field was a mess. The President's approval numbers were soaring, and all the "serious" Democratic candidates were sitting on the fence. When an unknown governor from Arkansas emerged as the nominee, the White House was elated! History would show that Bush would defeat Clinton handily! This guy was nobody!

It's VERY early.

How does he have the time?

[Anonymous Coward]

Between running for president, commenting on Fox News shows, and cheating on his wife, how does he have time to read so much?

Re:How does he have the time?

[Nidi62]

.....cheating on his wife, how does he have time to read so much?

He takes the bottom and reads while the woman does all the work?

Re:How does he have the time?

[Wyatt Earp]

He started these reviews right after he left the House, I remember reading some of them in '02 and '03. Emailed his homepage at one point about a book and he replied.

I don't like his politics, but he was friendly and intelligent in email.

Re:How does he have the time?

[Hognoxious]

Obviously someone in his position can delegate an aide to cheat on his wife.

Re:How does he have the time?

[Hognoxious]

He takes the bottom and reads while the woman does all the work?

Nah, your arms get cramp.

Doggy style, then you can use her back as a desk.

Umm, so they say.

Re:How does he have the time?

[ZombieBraintrust]

Audiobooks: Political Thrillers get her hot.

Re:How does he have the time?

[Nidi62]

Nah, your arms get cramp.

That's why you rest your elbows on her knees. As long as it's not small print, you're good

Re:How does he have the time?

[X0563511]

Whatever position you choose, if you have a mind to read, at least one of you is doing it fucking wrong (pun intended).

Re:How does he have the time?

[IICV]

Between running for president, commenting on Fox News shows, and cheating on his wife, how does he have time to read so much?

Just FYI - Newt Gingrich is not running for president, and probably will never run for president. Doing so would require that he open up his campaign books to some federal oversight that would ruin the various money raising scams he likes to run.

Instead, you'll find that he's formed a committee to think about the possibility of maybe entertaining the idea of running for President at some unspecified point in the future or maybe not, which is enough to get people to donate money but not enough to bring his "campaign" under federal oversight.

Here's Rachel Maddow talking about it in more detail.

Re:How does he have the time?

[Anonymous Coward]

the newly announced presidential candidate is also trying to learn about quantum physics

He wants to figure out how to be with his wife and his mistress at the same time.

Re:How does he have the time?

[Anonymous Coward]

you're an idiot, probably a fat couch potato too who has nothing better to do than post retarded crap in this forum. How do you find any time to do anything but poop?

Re:How does he have the time?

[sorak]

Between running for president, commenting on Fox News shows, and cheating on his wife, how does he have time to read so much?

If he were really doing all four at the same time, I would probably start watching Fox News.

Re:How does he have the time?

[Shotgun]

Considering how he has already announced his candidacy, how can your slander be considered "informative"? And how can ANYTHING from Rachel Maddow be considered informative? Who gave the Koolaid sippers mod points?

Re:How does he have the time?

[Shotgun]

Do you realize who New Gingrich is? You know, the big, fat, pasty old guy? I'd rather tune in to something starring Ron Jeremy over Newt.

Dude, I'm getting sick now.

Re:How does he have the time?

[orgelspieler]

Obviously someone in his position can delegate an aide to cheat on his wife.

Wasn't it his aide's wife he was cheating with? I think that would get a little awkward. Or am I thinking of some other Republican running for president?

Re:How does he have the time?

[sorak]

Good point, but you don't watch porn for the dudes. It's always either Ron Jeremy or some knuckle-dragging simian who you just hope they won't show during the good parts...

But, yeah, I couldn't imagine "Newt" keeping his comically over-sized head off the camera, so just pretend I didn't say anything.

Re:How does he have the time?

[orgelspieler]

I'm wrong. It was somebody else's aide he was cheating with. Also, his first wife was his high school geometry teacher. That's got to be worth some geek cred, right?

Re:How does he have the time?

[Hognoxious]

I'm wrong. It was somebody else's aide he was cheating with.

Narrow escape there. Because if he'd sent an aide to cheat on an aide there'd be the risk of somebody sleeping with his own wife, and that would never do!

I am nowhere near ready to assume he doesn't just

[spads]

pay someone to write those things for PR.

Here's the link to his Amazon posts

[cshay]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A27WFYW9ZJ5DN1

For some reason the Washington Post did not include it.

Re:Here's the link to his Amazon posts

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there any way to be sure the account is really his - as opposed to "created by a ghostwriter or PR representative aiming to impress the public with Gingrich's literacy"?

Re:Here's the link to his Amazon posts

[ZombieBraintrust]

Is there any way to be sure the account is really his - as opposed to "created by a ghostwriter or PR representative aiming to impress the public with Gingrich's literacy"?

Gingrich isn't a real person. CSPAN is just a set on a stage in London. Washington doesn't exist. Have your ever been to Washington? Of course you haven't you would have fallen off the face of the earth if you tried to make the voyage. Anyone who says otherwise is a shill for the "Airplane Lobby."

Re:Here's the link to his Amazon posts

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite "strongly recommending" Feynman, Gingrich also had this to say in a later review - of "Potshot(Spenser)":

Having recently read a fair amount of Richard Feynman's efforts to explain quantum physics in lay terms, I beamed approvingly as Spenser opined, "Afterlife is no less implausible than anything else. All explanations of existence are equally incredible." Faith in God is at least as plausible as faith in physics in explaining the behavior in the universe.

Re:Here's the link to his Amazon posts

[Anonymous Coward]

For some reason the Washington Post did not include it.

I've noticed that traditional media never encourages readers to check primary sources... A few theories on this:

1. If we see the primary sources, we'll realize that journalists are useless middlemen. They value their position as gatekeepers of information and don't want to give it up.
2. If we see the primary sources, we'll realize how incompetent the journalist's summary is.
3. Journalists don't think their readers are smart enough to understand primary sources.
4. Journalists are idiots, and unhelpful to boot.

I think it must be some combination of the above...

Obligatory Karma burning commentary

[00_NOP]

I heard his library burnt down and he was very disappointed at the loss of his books.

He hadn't finished colouring them all in.

ZING!

[TiggertheMad]

but the newly announced presidential candidate is also trying to learn about quantum physics, and shows good taste, 'strongly recommending' Richard Feynman's QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter."

I can see why physics books would appeal to the newtster, they tend to have lots of pictures in them...

Re:ZING!

[ultracool]

QED does not have lots of pictures in it. Physics books for the layman tend to not have many pictures. Physics textbooks are much more equation-heavy than picture-heavy.

Re:ZING!

[Anonymous Coward]

There are plenty of picture heavy physics books for lay people
http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Books/b?ie=UTF8&node=3283

Re:ZING!

[NekSnappa]

To paraphrase "A Fish Called Wanda"

Otto: Apes don't read physics books.
Wanda: Yes they do Otto, they just don't understand them!

Ron Paul

[XxtraLarGe]

Not that he's written any book reviews that I'm aware of, but I'm sure a lot of the books on this list that he didn't write are on his shelves: Ron Paul on Amazon.com

Amazon reviews

[PopeRatzo]

Are we really basing our opinions of Newt Gingrich on the fact that his Amazon account has "recommended" a book by Feynman?

By that measurement, my recommendation of Barry Cooper's biography of Beethoven qualifies me to conduct the Chicago Symphony and to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

But I'm a bit suspicious of Gingrich's recommendations ever since in an interview on Fox News he said he read Plato in the original Latin.

Personally, I'm glad Gingrich is running for president. It should be good for some lulz. If he were to win, do you realize he'd be only our second divorced president? Ronald Reagan was the first. Though, to be fair, even St Ronnie didn't have the balls to kick a wife to the curb for getting cancer. You know, when I first heard that, I thought "That's probably just political mud-slinging. It was probably just coincidental that Gingrich's wife was diagnosed with cancer around the time of the breakup of their marriage". Until I looked into it a little further and read some interviews and articles and lo and behold, Newt actually did kick his wife to the curb for getting cancer and was already banging his next wife while that one was getting chemo. Further, it appears that he kicked a subsequent wife to the curb for getting multiple sclerosis. As Gingrich put it in a rare moment of blunt honesty: "I can't deal with them sick bitches".

Clearly, he's got the right stuff to be a Republican front runner.

Re:Amazon reviews

[00_NOP]

You betcha.

Re:Amazon reviews

[Low Ranked Craig]

I'd like to see a source for that. I suspect if he actually said that Google would know about it.

Re:Amazon reviews

[Greyfox]

Well we know where he'd stand on health care. You can be a citizen as long as you don't get sick. When you do, you'll be deported to Mexico and be replaced with a sexy 23-year-old from Sweden.

Re:Amazon reviews

[farnsworth]

Are we really basing our opinions of Newt Gingrich on the fact that his Amazon account has "recommended" a book by Feynman?

By that measurement, my recommendation of Barry Cooper's biography of Beethoven qualifies me to conduct the Chicago Symphony and to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

But I'm a bit suspicious of Gingrich's recommendations ever since in an interview on Fox News he said he read Plato in the original Latin.

Personally, I'm glad Gingrich is running for president. It should be good for some lulz. [...]

Clearly, he's got the right stuff to be a Republican front runner.

What flamebait. You may not agree with his politics, and his personal life may abhor you, but it seems perfectly valid to assess someone's intellectual capacity based on something like this. You don't have to vote for him, but this may be an interesting find for someone choosing between Sarah "I read them all" Palin and this guy. He clearly is a sharp man.

Re:Amazon reviews

[Anonymous Coward]

actually he's stated in the past that he's behind a mandate for health insurance and subsidies for poor people who can't afford it.

which means his ambitions to be GOP nominee are dead in the water. like romney. backing a mandate is going to be an albatross around both their necks.

Re:Amazon reviews

[Anonymous Coward]

You may not agree with his politics, and his personal life may abhor you, but it seems perfectly valid to assess someone's intellectual capacity based on something like this.

That seems to be exactly what he's doing:

he said he read Plato in the original Latin.

Re:Amazon reviews

[Anonymous Coward]

"Clearly, he's got the right stuff to be a Republican front runner."

Holier than thou. Selective memory. Affirms prior biases.

Citation needed? See John Edwards.

Oh, right, Edwards was banging some other chick he met on the campaign trail and didn't even bother to divorce his wife, who had cancer, shortly died after this all broke, etc. etc. That's MUCH better, isn't it.

Human beings suck. And you more than most. Good job being part of humanity, asshole.

Re:Amazon reviews

[layer3switch]

you'll be deported to Mexico and be replaced with a sexy 23-year-old from Sweden.

So it's safe to assume, Gingrich/Trump 2012 ticket?

Re:Amazon reviews

[PopeRatzo]

Citation needed? See John Edwards.

John Edwards' marital infidelity coming to light ended his political career. Newt's adultery wasn't even a speed bump to his goal of the presidency.

But then, as Newt said, he only cheated on his wives because he loved his country so much, bless his soul.

Re:Amazon reviews

[PopeRatzo]

but it seems perfectly valid to assess someone's intellectual capacity based on something like this.

Wait a minute, I should "assess someone's intellectual capacity" based on a "recommend" an account in his name gave on Amazon?

Well then, the fact that I've recommended Kant's Critique of Pure Reason indicates that I'm fucking brilliant. And since I "recommended" Jeff Gordon: Nascar Driver (Ferguson Career Biographies) [Hardcover] ISBN-10: 0816058857 I am qualified to win the Daytona 500.

Re:Amazon reviews

[ZombieBraintrust]

Or a Gingrich/Giuliani 2012 ticket.

Re:Amazon reviews

[Jason Earl]

Didn't Newt's adultery happen in the 90s? Apparently Republicans are just better at forgiving *past* offenses.

Re:Amazon reviews

[Anonymous Coward]

I read through the whole review list (skimming over most of the fiction titles). Speaking as a moderate Democrat who would probably disagree with him on a lot of things, I was actually quite impressed. Very impressed, in fact. He has read on a wide variety of topics, and appears to be one of the most scientifically literate politicians I'm aware of. Some of the things I noticed:

There's a LOT of history books. Both ancient history and recent history. Particularly military history.

There's a lot of science, including:
        Quantum Mechanics (Elegant Universe, QED, Schroedinger's Cat, etc.)
        Genetics
        Paleontology/Evolution (He's clearly not a creationist)
        Technology
        Sociology (Guns, Germs, and Steel)

In a number of cases, he notes that he disagrees with the ideology of a liberal book author, but recommends the author's book anyway, and compliments it, and the author, highly. He does not appear to be one of the Republicans who believes that liberals have nothing to say that's worth listening to.

I'm not likely to vote for him (particularly if he's going up against Obama, who despite his flaws, I rather like) but I was overall quite impressed with what he has been reading and with what he had to say about it. I would venture to say that at this moment in time, if I were to choose from the current crop of Republican hopefuls, I would rather vote for him than for any of the others. I don't necessarily agree with all of the positions he takes, but I believe he is an intelligent man who tries to understand things deeply and is smart enough to not just take ideological positions when real understanding is called for. He also appears to be a somewhat moderate Republican who is not just repeating the party line, and actually differs with his party on a number of issues.

We could probably do a lot worse as a president.

Re:Amazon reviews

[Attila Dimedici]

I go to a forum that has a large number of Republicans on it. If they are representative of Republican primary voters (and they appear to be), Newt's chances of winning the Presidency is only marginally better than Ron Paul's. The posters on that site believe that character counts...and they think that Newt's marital history indicates that he is deficient in that area.

Re:Amazon reviews

[PopeRatzo]

He has read on a wide variety of topics, and appears to be one of the most scientifically literate politicians I'm aware of. Some of the things I noticed:

So, you believe every review on Amazon, especially reviews of books with some political content or importance, have been written by people who have actually read the books?

And further, you believe that a politician's online presence is solely created by the politician himself and not the work of many "consultants" whose entire job in Washington is to create an online presence for politicians, including tweets, blog posts, and posts on conservative "think-tank" websites?

Do you also believe that every word of every speech delivered by a politician represents his own work product?

Or is it just Newt Gingrich who you believe is the last honest politician in Washington?

Here's a guy who has admitted to cheating on at least two wives, yet you believe he is incapable of cheating in any other arena.

We could probably do a lot worse as a president

So, rather than evaluate his actual record in public office (which Gingrich has) we should just cast our votes based on his reading list? If that's the case, then I want to see him give oral reports on the books he's claimed to have read. If as a nation we're going to force the current occupant of the White House to provide documentary proof of his innocence of the crime of presidenting while black, then the least we can do is force the most puffed-up, self-absorbed, unctuous and perfidious blow-hard in Washington to prove that he's actually read the books that the Amazon account in his name has claimed to have read.

And I'm saving my vote for the first candidate who's read both Ulysses (Joyce) and the complete works of Richard K. Morgan.

Re:Amazon reviews

[tyrione]

Perhaps Newt has a strange kinship to the fact Richard played the bongos at a strip club while being a Professor at Caltech. Otherwise, I doubt Feynman would ever want to have his name anywhere near the name of Newt Gingrich.

Re:Amazon reviews

[SETIGuy]

Paleontology/Evolution (He's clearly not a creationist)

Wait until he gets asked in a debate. He'll become a creationist if he isn't one already. And at that point he'll claim he always was one.

Re:Amazon reviews

[Grishnakh]

Those "Republicans" you see on that forum are NOT representative of Republican voters. Back in 2008, I used to frequent some forums that had a lot of Republican voters too, and they passionately HATED McCain, because he was a RINO, he pushed for amnesty, etc. etc. Objectively too, out of all the Republicans who ran in the Primaries, McCain I think we can agree was the least conservative of all of them.

Guess who got the Republican nomination?

2008 was an interesting election, in a bad way. On both sides (D and R), the voters in the Primaries managed to pick the absolute worst candidates on both sides (McCain and Obama), and then ran them against each other. I really wonder what 2012 is going to look like. The Republicans look worse than ever, trying to make giant issues out of homosexuality and abortion, while the badly wounded economy is teetering on a cliff. Meanwhile, the Democrat President is doing everything he can to distract us from this fact, and hoping we'll vote for him again despite his disastrous performance so far (esp. when he had a Democrat-controlled Congress to work with for 2 years). If the Democrat voters have any brains at all, they'll elect someone else in the Primaries to take his place. But I don't have any real hope of that. I think what'll happen is Obama will get the Dem nomination again, but the Republican and swing voters will hate him because of the economy and other things (his crappy healthcare "reform", his abysmal performance on other things he actually said he'd do), and they'll elect the Republican candidate. Then, we'll have a Reps in Congress and the White House, and it'll be 2001 all over again, only much worse, with the nation marching off to a new war or three, every decent government service being canceled (like National Parks, which will probably be sold to the highest bidder), and suspension of all civil liberties and institution of martial law. It's going to look a whole lot like Germany in the 30s.

Re:Amazon reviews

[PopeRatzo]

The posters on that site believe that character counts

No, they say they believe that character counts. Tribal interests will trump "character" every time.

Re:Amazon reviews

[Risen888]

He's got my vote.

Re:Amazon reviews

[Risen888]

Wait a minute, I should "assess someone's intellectual capacity" based on a "recommend" an account in his name gave on Amazon?

It's a form of insight into someone's intellectual habits, yes.

Well then, the fact that I've recommended Kant's Critique of Pure Reason indicates that I'm fucking brilliant. And since I "recommended" Jeff Gordon: Nascar Driver (Ferguson Career Biographies) [Hardcover] ISBN-10: 0816058857 I am qualified to win the Daytona 500.

Based on the fact that you've dragged that pisspoor joke out through two posts now, my assessment of your capacity for wit is not high.

Re:Amazon reviews

[lennier]

Well then, the fact that I've recommended Kant's Critique of Pure Reason indicates that I'm fucking brilliant. And since I "recommended" Jeff Gordon: Nascar Driver (Ferguson Career Biographies) [Hardcover] ISBN-10: 0816058857 I am qualified to win the Daytona 500.

I see you are well-read. But have you recommended On The Electrodynamics of WWE vs NWO and À la recherche du temps rapide à Haute Ridgemont?

Re:Amazon reviews

[Risen888]

God damn, you're still banging the drum, aren't you?

you believe that a politician's online presence is solely created by the politician himself and not the work of many "consultants" whose entire job in Washington is to create an online presence for politicians, including tweets, blog posts, and posts on conservative "think-tank" websites?

Considering that the bulk of the reviews are from 2002 - 2004, I rather doubt that that is the case in this instance. And the reviews sound like him, if you've ever read any op-ed pieces or anything by him. But you wouldn't know that. Because you haven't looked, have you?

So, rather than evaluate his actual record in public office (which Gingrich has) we should just cast our votes based on his reading list? If that's the case, then I want to see him give oral reports on the books he's claimed to have read. If as a nation we're going to force the current occupant of the White House to provide documentary proof of his innocence of the crime of presidenting while black, then the least we can do is force the most puffed-up, self-absorbed, unctuous and perfidious blow-hard in Washington to prove that he's actually read the books that the Amazon account in his name has claimed to have read.

Man, you are just hateful.

Re:Amazon reviews

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not a Republican, but you had better take the threat of Newt Gingrich seriously. The man is very intelligent, not a joke - and compared to the crackpots floating around the Republican party lately, Gingrich for all his flaws is a serious contender. He is very conservative, yet reasonable, so he will appeal to the far right as well as the moderate right. Even considering his dirty laundry, Gingrich could very well become the next President.

Re:Amazon reviews

[Anonymous Coward]

Google confirms it. Source

Re:Amazon reviews

[hubie]

One of the first things he did when he became Speaker was to get rid of the Office of Technology Assessment.

Re:Amazon reviews

[Anonymous Coward]

When it comes to a choice between being stabbed with a butter knife or a sword, you're not in a winning position, you're going to get hurt either way.

Re:Amazon reviews

[giuseppemag]

Plato was Greek, so I doubt he wrote originals in Latin :)

Re:Amazon reviews

[Hognoxious]

And the reviews sound like him, if you've ever read any op-ed pieces or anything by him.

Once there was a town, and the town had a town hall, and the town hall had a clock. On a hill above the town stood a castle, and at noon every day a cannon shot would ring out. One day a visitor was in town, looking at the clock and he noticed that the shot occurred exactly as the hand touched twelve. Commenting on the accuracy of the piece, a man standing nearby by (who turned out to be the town clerk) said that one of his duties was to adjust it if it deviated from the noon signal.

    The next day was rather foggy, and at half past eleven he saw two soldiers on horseback adjusting their watches. "I hate this weather," said the first. The second replied "Me too. It's a lot easier to stand in the lookout tower and use the telescope."

Re:Amazon reviews

[PopeRatzo]

I think what'll happen is Obama will get the Dem nomination again, but the Republican and swing voters will hate him because of the economy and other things

By "other things" I assume you mean the amount of melanin in his skin, which for most Republicans, is much more important than the state of the economy.

It's going to look a whole lot like Germany in the 30s.

"Going to"?

Re:Amazon reviews

[PopeRatzo]

But have you recommended On The Electrodynamics of WWE vs NWO and à la recherche du temps rapide à Haute Ridgemont?

I'm waiting for the movie to come out.

Re:Amazon reviews

[Anonymous Coward]

But I'm a bit suspicious of Gingrich's recommendations ever since in an interview on Fox News he said he read Plato in the original Latin.

And here I always thought plato was from greece not rome...

Re:Amazon reviews

[Qzukk]

Didn't Clinton's adultery happen in the 90s? Apparently Republicans are just better at forgiving *their own* offenses.

Re:Amazon reviews

[19thNervousBreakdown]

Saying we could do worse as president isn't much of an endorsement--hell, you could put my drunken, meth-scabbed, bike-stealing neighbor in the oval office and you could still do worse. We only get to pick one, so the idea is to pick the one where we can't do better.

As for Newt seeming to be a decent guy by his Amazon book reviews, well yeah, most people are capable of looking learned, compassionate, and open-minded, given effectively infinite time to compose and edit their thoughts if that's what they really want to do. Imagine what somebody who spent their entire life dissembling, with a team of PR people just begging for the opportunity to make them look good would be capable of.

You don't find out what a person is really like by hanging out with them while everybody's comfortable and relaxed, and you don't find out what they're like when they're warm and safe in their house, killing time on the internet. Anyone who isn't a psychopath seems nice when they have everything they want and don't have an immediate way to get more. You'll find out, and should have already found out, what he's like when you look at his voting record, or how he treated his wife, or how well he upholds the morals he spouts.

Finally, seeing that he's read and thinking that because he's read books on paleontology/evolution and says that the book is worth reading or well written, he's definitely not a creationist is just silly. I've read Ayn Rand, but I don't agree with her philosophy. I've read the entire Bible, but I'm an atheist. Maybe you've heard the saying "know your enemy"? If that's what he was doing, why wouldn't he take the opportunity to spin that into displaying his open-mindedness to liberals in a way that's non-threatening to conservatives?

If you weren't talking about someone who's based their entire career on being the best liar (because it is frankly impossible to make enough people happy to win a simple majority election without lying) I might give you a 50/50 shot at being right in your first-level assessment, but this is a politician, publishing things. I mean, come on.

Re:Amazon reviews

[Anonymous Coward]

People leaving their partner soon after a diagnosis of cancer isn't common, but it happens enough that it's not unexpected. Cancer changes how people treat you.

Re:Amazon reviews

[locallyunscene]

Oh my god is that brutal.

I don't have a fondness for the man, but to mark this as funny seems a quite spiteful.

Re:Amazon reviews

[locallyunscene]

Obama was not the worst candidate by far. In fact I would dare say he was the best candidate. he had great potential.

Now as for a supposedly liberal president I would agree he is not up to par with some of the other potential presidents that were on the field at the time. Hard to say though because it seems to be that the party makes the man(or woman) these days when it comes to the high offices and not the other way around.

Re:Amazon reviews

[dogmatixpsych]

Using that same example and extending it a bit, this also applies to Pres. George W. Bush's intellectual capacity. He and Karl Rove would have book reading contests (Pres. Bush read a lot already, it was just a competition that the two built up). Based on the books that Pres. Bush read (e.g., The nonfiction ran from biographies of Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Carnegie, Mark Twain, Babe Ruth, King Leopold, William Jennings Bryan, Huey Long, LBJ and Genghis Khan to Andrew Roberts's "A History of the English Speaking Peoples Since 1900," James L. Swanson's "Manhunt," and Nathaniel Philbrick's "Mayflower." Besides eight Travis McGee novels by John D. MacDonald, Mr. Bush tackled Michael Crichton's "Next," Vince Flynn's "Executive Power," Stephen Hunter's "Point of Impact," and Albert Camus's "The Stranger," among others.), we can extend your surmise of Gingrich to Pres. Bush: "He clearly is a sharp man."

More info: http://sec.online.wsj.com/article/SB123025595706634689.html#printMode

Re:Amazon reviews

[Grishnakh]

I think what'll happen is Obama will get the Dem nomination again, but the Republican and swing voters will hate him because of the economy and other things

By "other things" I assume you mean the amount of melanin in his skin, which for most Republicans, is much more important than the state of the economy.

For the swing voters, I mean just about everything he's done while in office. The die-hard Republicans wouldn't vote for him anyway, just because of a (D) next to his name, but your charges of racism are typical for a liberal. If you haven't noticed, the leader of the GOP party is a black guy named Steele IIRC, and when idiot Bush was in office, two of his top cabinet members were black (Rice and Powell). It's funny how liberals keep clinging to the tired charge of "Racism!!" as if that's going to change anyone's mind, or as if it were actually true, instead of addressing the real issues of how badly the Republicans screwed up the economy with their policies of corporate welfare. Of course, this might be because the liberals, once they took over the government, did nothing to fix the giant mess the Republicans created, and instead made it many times worse through their policies of corporate welfare, but it is funny how the individual liberals such as yourself cling to the "Republicans are racist!" banner that your masters in Congress have created to keep you distracted from what they're really doing.

Re:Amazon reviews

[Archangel Michael]

Only half true. Free Health Care for everyone but tax payers. Tax payers are "rich" so they are evil and deserve it.

Re:Amazon reviews

[miconred]

maybe ture maybe flase,

Re:Amazon reviews

[Grishnakh]

BS. He was terrible; he just droned on and on about hope and change, but never anything substantive. The best candidate on the Democrat side was Kucinich. Even Hillary was better than Obama. She sucks of course, but at least she had some kind of executive and political experience, being Bill's wife and also a Senator (for longer than the brief period Obama bothered to keep his seat warm).

Now as for a supposedly liberal president I would agree he is not up to par with some of the other potential presidents that were on the field at the time.

Yep, he turned out to be a total liar once he got in office. To try to please everyone in his duplicitous way, he swung to what he thought was the center, and because Bush-lite. What's the point of electing a Democrat if you're going to get someone that continues the wars, continues the Drug War, continues to have a totally opaque administration (despite his promises for transparency), continues to help the big corporations, continues neglecting the country when natural disasters strike, etc.?

Re:Amazon reviews

[Archangel Michael]

The problem with Newt is that he is probably too smart to win the (R) primaries. He'll come across as pompous and arrogant, because he knows he's smarter than ... Giuliani and Palin. The left will never like him, because he has intelligence behind his positions, and because he doesn't fit the narrative of the left that only stupid people are (R). In fact, I know way too many leftwingers who think he IS stupid because he is an (R).

I personally like the guy's intelligence and breadth of knowledge on all sorts of issues. I don't agree with him much, but it is refreshing when comparing to the likes of Palin, Reid and Pilosi who just look like hacks. But again, that is the very reason he's unelectable.

Re:Amazon reviews

[sorak]

Or a Gingrich/Giuliani 2012 ticket.

I'm pretty sure the bumper sticker will read "Gingrich/Giuliani 911"

Re:Amazon reviews

[Shotgun]

Newt isn't president yet. He doesn't even have the Republican nomination. It's amazing that you can see how much this issue didn't get in his way in the future.

Re:Amazon reviews

[Shotgun]

Damn! That was good, Grishnakh.

That is the best refutation of this tired racist nonsense I have heard to date.

Re:Amazon reviews

[Jason Earl]

My problem with Clinton wasn't that he had an affair, although I think that the people that he chose to have affairs with showed a decided lack of judgment. The problem with Clinton was that he lied about his actions under oath after he got caught. Then instead of resigning in disgrace when he got caught lying he forced the country through an impeachment trial. If you contrast that with Gingrich you see there really is no comparison. Gingrich got caught, and resigned. Clinton just made up bigger and bigger lies.

To be honest, I am always somewhat surprised that John Edwards got crucified for adultery and Bill Clinton got little more than a reprimand for lying under oath and gross abuse of his power when the truth came out. That seems like pretty fuzzy thinking on the part of Democrats. I don't care (much) if politicians fool around. I am adult enough to realize that such behavior probably goes with the territory. What I don't want are politicians that feel that they can lie under oath, or use their power to cover up their misdeeds.

Perhaps you feel differently. That's fine.

Re:Amazon reviews

[PopeRatzo]

It's funny how liberals keep clinging to the tired charge of "Racism!!"

It's funny how Republicans are getting "tired" of having their racism pointed out.

That's not quite the same thing as the charge being tired. In fact, Republicans' racism is pretty fresh. Still hot out of the oven, in fact. It hasn't aged a day since 1970.

Re:Amazon reviews

[Grishnakh]

It's even funnier how stupid liberals automatically assume anyone who isn't a liberal or a Democrat must automatically be a Republican, even when that person previously referred to Bush as an "idiot".

Again, if you think Republicans in general are racist, when several of their leaders and heroes are black, you're a moron. I certainly never heard any Republicans complaining about Bush appointing Rice or Powell, or complaining when Clarence Thomas was nominated. They didn't seem to mind that Steele guy leading the GOP. Who's leading the DNC? It's a white woman! I guess the Democrats must be racists, right?

Re:Amazon reviews

[PopeRatzo]

Again, if you think Republicans in general are racist, when several of their leaders and heroes are black, you're a moron.

"Several"? Did you really just say "several"? Do you know that until last year, of the nearly TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY Republican national elected officials, exactly ZERO were black. Not a one. However, you will notice that as soon as a Black Democratic President (BDP) is elected, the GOP scrambles and finds exactly TWO. This is what known as "tokenism" and it's the hallmark of a certain very cynical racism.

And "heroes" and "leaders"? You've got to be joking. When Allen West shows up at a GOP meeting, he has to walk in with a white member so security doesn't throw his ass out.

Tell you what: when the GOP nominates a black man or woman to run for president, then I'll stop calling them racist. And I don't mean having a token like Hermann Cain running in a few primaries.

Weak Candidates

[ZombieBraintrust]

The candidates the press is focusing on are really weak so far. The last important thing Gingrich did was resign in disgrace from office. Its cool that he likes to read and has shown a minimum level of skill with computers. At least he doesn't have his wife print out his email. (John McCain) ... But Gingrich has a slim chance of winning the primary. I respect Gingrich for what he has done but I can't trust a man who betrays his family like he did. I also don't respect quitters and cable news personalities. (You too Sarah Palin)

Re:Weak Candidates

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, come on man, what the hell do you want from a president? If badass quotes like "I can't deal with sick bitches" don't cut it, what's it gonna take to make you happy? You holding out for the presidator?

(Yes, the above was meant facetiously. Serious reply below...)

The candidates the press is focusing on are really weak so far.

Aren't they usually? Yes, sometimes you have the retired military guys and such, but most of the candidates most years are either insipid slick politicians (mostly yankees and/or democrat) or crowd-rallying loudmouths with embedded feet (mostly southern and/or republican), all handily thrashed by a generic opposite-party candidate.

This is because presidential candidates don't arise from nowhere, they come up through state governorships, congress, or high-level bureacracy (i.e. cabinet), and none of these tracks have particular bias toward a strong presidential candidate -- ex-governors are perhaps the closest.

Re:Weak Candidates

[Anonymous Coward]

presidential candidates don't arise from nowhere the current president notwithstanding, more or less.

Re:Weak Candidates

[ZombieBraintrust]

I would be happy if the press focused on any of those types. Instead we get TV show hosts who have worked for Fox News in the past year.

Re:Weak Candidates

[Orgasmatron]

You do know that McCain's arms haven't worked right ever since he was tortured by the North Vietnamese while he was a prisoner of war, right?

If I was physically unable to use a computer in a normal way, I might just get my wife to print my emails too.

Re:Weak Candidates

[guspasho]

They are weak because none of them are seriously running. Gingrich is the worst example of the bunch. He pretends to run in every election, getting some attention for it (which is the real point) and then dropping out long before it becomes a serious contest. The rest, like Donald Trump, another serial "candidate" are doing the same thing. Probably more so than Democratic politicians, Republicans are notorious self-aggrandizers. Look at Sarah Palin's post-2008 career. She quit her job halfway through her term so she could make reality TV shows and $100,000 speaking engagements.

Re:Weak Candidates

[ZombieBraintrust]

http://www.google.com/search?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&biw=1280&bih=904&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=john+mccain+hands&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq= They look find to me. Look good enough to move a mouse around and press print.

Re:Weak Candidates

[Risen888]

Gingrich has never run for President before. Do some research before you spout shit off.

Re:Weak Candidates

[Anonymous Coward]

A good reason not to have him in charge of the big red button. He'll never press it in time.

Re:Weak Candidates

[Dr. Gamera]

I don't think "pretends to run" was an unfair characterization of the 2008 campaign; see this excerpt from 20 September 2007:

"Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich says he still might run for president in 2008, but he wants his supporters to cough up some cash to help him.

Gingrich wants his backers to pledge 30 million dollars by November. He says that's what he would need to compete with Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who has raised the most money, so far, for the GOP presidential race."

http://www.mysouthwestga.com/news/story.aspx?id=52130

Re:Weak Candidates

[Risen888]

The operative part of the GP's post that I was taking issue with was "pretends to run in every election." (emphasis mine) I was aware of your datapoint.

Baraq Obama:

[Anonymous Coward]

5 different autobiographies of himself (ghost written with Bill Ayers).

someone else

[BigJClark]

Who's to say this isn't somebody employed by Newt to read these books, to make it seem like Newt is a well-read, intelligent, individual?

Re:someone else

[Wyatt Earp]

I don't think so, as I posted before, he really started this when he was out of the House and a political pariah.

Re:someone else

[MightyMartian]

I still can't quite figure out why that particular adulterer is even seriously considered after his fist thumping over the Clinton-Lewinsky affair. What an obscene, vile, disingenuous hypocrite that man is.

Re:someone else

[ZombieBraintrust]

Genrich isn't a dumb. That not his weak point. His weak point is his penis.

Re:someone else

[moortak]

His history as a professor and his place on the board of the National Space Society at least hint that he was probably the one to read them. He may be a political douche, but he is also a bright guy with a lot of time on his hands.

Re:someone else

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah... who'd allow an adulterer in office? Not us.

Especially if he takes issue with a president lying in grand jury testimony. We don't like rabble-rousers... just keep quiet!

Glad to see the /. politibot is well-oiled and ready for business, though.

Re:someone else

[MightyMartian]

It must be tough be a Republican these days, with that awful slate of candidates. Looking at the GOP leadership right now is kind of like looking at the Kremlin leadership into the early 1980s; a bunch of old men with heart problems and cranky looks, each one more ideologically frozen than the last, watching as history passed them by.

Re:someone else

[osgeek]

What an obscene, vile, disingenuous hypocrite that man is.

Wait... you mean Clinton? The guy who used the power of the presidency in an attempt to smear and bury Paula Jones to cover up just some of his illegal sexual harassment activities?

People joke about the Repubs going after Clinton for getting blow jobs in the White House. I never cared that much about that part of it. It was the fact that he abused his power to go after Paula Jones that sickened and disgusted me. The guy was absolutely reprehensible, and the fact that he still has the support of his party -- ostensibly the party that supports women -- points out the extraordinary hypocrisy of the Democrats.

Re:someone else

[onefriedrice]

I still can't quite figure out why that particular adulterer is even seriously considered

He isn't seriously considered, unless you assume that the fact that his announcement for candidacy is newsworthy means he has a chance to win the GOP nomination. He doesn't.

Re:someone else

[phantomfive]

The best thing about the Lewinsky affair was how many Republicans lost office because of it. Either because their consciences got to them or because they looked like idiots (like Gingrich). It makes me smile every time I remember it.

Gingrich may win because of one thing: people would rather vote for a sleazy liar who will do what they want than a man with integrity who will does what they don't want. At first it sounds bad, but if you think about it, there is some reasonableness to it.

Best example I heard recently was from some politician who was campaigning for senator of some state, which is not important. The speech went something like this:

POLITICIAN: When I was your state representative, I voted for public health care!
CROWD: BOO!!!!! (lots of boos)
POLITICIAN: But as your senator, I will vote against public health care!
CROWD: Yay!!!! (lots of cheers)

No joke. It was really that obvious. John Kerry got labeled as a flip-flopper, but in reality his problem was that no one could tell what he would do once he was elected. People are not willing to vote for someone who lacks character and won't do what they want.

Re:someone else

[MightyMartian]

With the Tea Party calling the shots, I imagine a lot of more sensible folks who might otherwise run will pass.

Re:someone else

[Rik Rohl]

The perfect political candidate!

Re:someone else

[Risen888]

For one thing, most of the reviews are from '02 - '04. Moderately early in the internet game and pretty recently after he resigned as Speaker of the House. To say that he was paying someone else to do it is probably a little bit farfetched just in terms of the chronology. I doubt he was sitting around in 2002 thinking about running for President in 2012 and thought to himself "hey, I know, I'll pay someone to write book reviews for me on the internet." It just doesn't make any sense.

Two, if you've ever read any op-ed pieces by him or heard him speak, the book reviews do sound like him.

Re:someone else

[Boronx]

I suppose you know something Ken Starr doesn't. Clinton ran the cleanest whitehouses in the past 30 years. I give the Republicans some credit for making sure of it.

Re:someone else

[Anonymous Coward]

Mysteriously the IRS randomly audited her EVERY YEAR Bill was in office.

He didn't get convicted of perjury because:
A) the vote went on party lines.
B) this would have set a precedent that politicians were expect to not lie under oath and the senate wasn't comfortable about it.
C) the economy was good and the people weren't clamoring for his head

Re:someone else

[osgeek]

I guess Clinton paid Jones $850,000 friggin' dollars to shut her up just for the hell of it? Then you add in that he was a proven philanderer and abuser of his power with Monica Lewinsky, and it's pretty obvious that Paula Jones was the victim of the crime.

You're right about the Republicans keeping Clinton fairly clean, although I'd argue that he was too busy thinking with his dick and dealing with the aftermath of his compulsions to get himself in other trouble. He was also also extraordinarily lucky to be president when the Internet took off, taking the economy with it.

Re:someone else

[davide marney]

Wait, wait, the "tea party [is] calling the shots"?! I'm a member of the Northern Virginia Tea Party and no one told ME I was calling the shots. Dang! Must've missed the memo.

The closest we get to calling the shots is deciding what colors to put on our hand-lettered signs for the next rally.

Re:someone else

[MightyMartian]

There will come a day when people won't gleefully announce they were members of the Tea party, but will, in hushed, ashamed tones, explain to their grandchildren how their emotions and lack of empathy or common sense lead them down a dark path for a while.

Re:someone else

[rgviza]

It wasn't the affair, it was the lying under oath. Bill Clinton got caught doing this in the Paula Jones deposition for (SURPRISE!) sexual harrassment.

He said he never had relations with Lewinsky under oath. Then her clothes with his semen on it were entered into evidence for his impeachment.

Having AN(one) affair and admitting to it is a little different than fucking (or trying to fuck) everything that moves then lying about it under oath when it catches up with you.

Of course Clinton is the Greatest President Ever!(tm) so he gets a pass for perjury.

Talk about obscene and vile. Clinton takes the cake.

Re:someone else

[Shotgun]

Only if you moochers and looters get your way and install the authoritarian rule that is necessary to "spread the wealth". Then anyone speaking the truth will have to do it in hushed tones.

Re:someone else

[MightyMartian]

The really pathetic part is that you Libertarians actually think paying taxes is tyranny. You're so coddled, ignorant and selfish that you end up equating yourselves to actual victims of tyrants.

Re:someone else

[Anonymous Coward]

Clinton isn't running for anything, Newt is. Might as well say, "you don't like Newt? That Charlie Manson, HE was awful." Whatever Clinton is, whatever Manson is, whatever anyone else is, Newt is a lowlife.

Re:someone else

[Shotgun]

No, the REALLY pathetic part is you looters actual think taking money from people who earned it to give to moochers is charity, and will do anything other that convince them that they deserve to have someone support their existence simply because they've become accomplished at exhaling CO2.

It's a political play

[Anonymous Coward]

For what it's worth.. there's a lot of rumor mongering in the political world about his ... out of the ordinary.. efforts to make his name relevant again in an effort to drum up support for a presidential run... he's established a handful of organizations (not all bearing his name) as ways to influence other organizations and what not in the last few years. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if it's not some intern writing these reviews to make him seem more well rounded and intelligent to the intellectual elite that don't typically vote Republican.

Re:It's a political play

[ZombieBraintrust]

Nah he probably just likes to read. It not as if he has a real job or anything.

So, he mostly reviews cheesy political thrillers?

[denzacar]

...mostly?

Very Disappointed

[Ranger]

I was hoping these would be hilarious reviews of the Newt "I had a hard on for America so I fooled around" Gingrich's books. I'd love to see Amazon tags on his stuff like there is on Jonah Goldberg's execrable Liberal Fascism. Some of my favorites are "doughy pantload", "books written while high on cheeto dust", and "cheeto-erotic asphyxiation".

Dump Gingrich. It's what he does.

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, I think his habit of divorcing his wife when she gets seriously sick goes more to character than his bookshelf. He's done it twice now. "In sickness and in health" my /dev/null.

If he dumps the women he "loves" over that, he sure as heck isn't going to think twice about dumping America for the benefit of the Party when the going gets rough.

Why oh why can't we have a good Republican candidate? Obama's not invincible, but he's not going to break a sweat against the current clowns. And yes, that includes the "man should be an island" Ron Paul.

Re:Dump Gingrich. It's what he does.

[MightyMartian]

I think the GOP inner circle knew that the rise of the Tea Party was going to hurt their chances, but this, as I said elsewhere, is a golden opportunity to get rid of the Tea Party completely. Once moderate, or heck, even sane Republicans figure out that trying to satisfy a bunch of seriously confused malcontents will deprive them of moderate votes, the Tea Party will join the other Libertarian movements on the dustbin of history.

Re:Dump Gingrich. It's what he does.

[ZombieBraintrust]

Ohh, I'm sure respectable people are running. Maybe even people who had more experience than Barack Obama did in 2008. But normal, respectable, and dependable doesn't get viewers. The media is going to focus on clowns till a straw poll or a primary cuts them out. Then they are going to make shit up.

Should have read "Infidelity: A Survival Guide"

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it is awkard trying to explain two ex wifes (both seriously ill at the time of the divorce) and the criticism of Bill Clinton while newt was having an affair with a staff member. Cable TV makes a great job at informing people about what really matters.

Other books

[Wyatt Earp]

Palin won't have read many, but her shelves will have "important" books for the looks.
Ron Paul will have alot of economic and revisionist history stuff, pretty much anyone over from Lewrockwell.com that's written a book, he will have all their stuff.
Donald Trump will have books about himself, by himself.
Romney will have a good mix of Christian, Mormonism and pop history books.

Re:Other books

[ZombieBraintrust]

When asked about his favorite book Romeny stated "Battlefield Earth" by L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology.

Re:Other books

[imadork]

I'd love to read GWB's review of My Pet Goat.

Re:Other books

[Bemopolis]

Palin won't have read many, but her shelves will have "important" books for the looks.

She doesn't have room on her bookshelves for too many books — they are already teetering under the weight of newspapers and magazines. You know, all of them.

Re:Other books

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet the man held a post higher than you. Just goes to show who rules and who gets treated like a bitch, bitch.

Re:Other books

[MightyMartian]

I think she got rid of her bookcases so she could see Russia more clearly.

Re:Other books

[layer3switch]

Just goes to show who rules and who gets treated like a bitch, bitch.

That's what Cheney said to Bush back in 2001. (doo-doom tah~! *drum)

Re:Other books

[ZombieBraintrust]

When asked about his favorite book Romeny stated "Battlefield Earth" by L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology.

By the way the above post isn't a joke. He actually said his favorite book was "Battlefield Earth."

Re:Other books

[Mongoose Disciple]

According to a book recently written by one of the managers of her campaign, she actually does/did read several Alaska-local papers every day -- but when put on the spot, she didn't want to give that answer for fear it would make her appear too provincial.

So instead she told a lie that made her look illiterate and/or intellectually uncurious instead.

I demand a little more from my politicians; I don't expect honesty, but want them to tell smarter lies.

Re:Other books

[MightyMartian]

I thought the guy was a Mormon. I'm getting kind of suspicious...

Re:Other books

[dancingmad]

I've been reading a lot of these insider books lately and I take them all with a grain of salt, whether they come to praise the politician or just bury them. However, it still says something about Palin that she couldn't name any national or international newspapers or magazines. Even if she flubbed the answer a bit after getting flustered if she recovered and answered something, she probably would have been forgiven (for that gaffe at least).

Re:Other books

[dargaud]

When asked about his favorite book Romeny stated "Battlefield Earth" by L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology.

By the way the above post isn't a joke. He actually said his favorite book was "Battlefield Earth."

That book is not deep but actually quite entertaining; read it if you can borrow a copy. No, I'm not a scientologist. Just make sure to absolutely stay away from the Mission Earth series: that's the worse SF book I've ever read.

Re:Other books

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to figure a Mormon is going to like anything that publicizes Scientology. It's a religion even more ridiculous than Mormonism!

"Yeah, I know I believe in magic underwear, but look at what THESE guys believe!"

Re:Other books

[dkf]

I thought the guy was a Mormon. I'm getting kind of suspicious...

Close. He's a Moron.

Re:Other books

[pnutjam]

I second this, it is a good book, very simplistic in parts, but entertaining.

Re:Other books

[js_sebastian]

When asked about his favorite book Romeny stated "Battlefield Earth" by L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology.

By the way the above post isn't a joke. He actually said his favorite book was "Battlefield Earth."

If we are deciding who to vote on based on the books they read (which is only slightly better than deciding based on how convincingly they can smile on camera) then Romney has just been disqualified as far as I'm concerned... Hubbard is not just the founder of a cult, he is also one bad writer...

..and don't get me started on the movie! ugh... that was the worst movie I was ever conned into paying a theater ticket for (only because I didn't know it was from Hubbard, and because Forest Whitaker was in it). Lessons learned: a) avoid all movies with John Travolta in them, and b) always check from whoose book sci-fi movies come from.

Re:Other books

[crow_t_robot]

"A terrific story." -- Robert Heinlein

Re:Other books

[Anonymous Coward]

And he knows that the book was titled "The Pet Goat"

Re:Other books

[dogmatixpsych]

Why. We Mormons can't like science fiction? Orson Scott Card or Brandon Sanderson (I know he writes fantasy and not science fiction) might disagree. Dune is one of my favorite books. Most of my favorite books, like the stereotypical geek's, are sci fi or fantasy. I can't say I've read Battlefield Earth but from what I've heard it's quite an enjoyable novel. Who cares if it's written by L. Ron Hubbard. I don't agree with the political views or lifestyle of John Lennon but I enjoy his music. I don't agree with a lot of Ayn Rand's philosophy but I can appreciate her novels (they are written very well).

We're on a news for nerds/geeks site and a politician gets criticized for liking science fiction, even if it's by the founder of Scientology?

Re:Other books

[MightyMartian]

Um, I wasn't insulting Mormons. I like Card, even though sometimes he gets a little too... well... ideological about certain things. At any rate, it was more to the point that the only people I've ever seen who actually liked Battlefield Earth were $cientologists. It's a terrible novel, I could only get a hundred pages or so into it before I just gave up. Hubbard was a crappy writer, sort of the turd on the table of Golden Age of SF. My suspicion is more to the point that this guy might actually be a closet $cientologist, or, more likely, has extraordinarily bad taste.

Re:Other books

[dogmatixpsych]

I know, I was just having a little fun. Like I said, I haven't read the book so I can't comment on the quality of its writing. I've just heard more positive things about it than negative, once people separate out their dislike of Scientology from the writing. Maybe it is poorly written and I'd have to question Mitt Romney's taste in novels. I don't know though without reading it myself and it's way down on my reading list - at the bottom. :)

Re:Other books

[Anonymous Coward]

Give me a break. And I suppose Obama has books of Marx, Lenin and Mao on his shelf. Do we always have to degrade to STUPID "sound bite" type comments. It's actually pretty easy. How about a rational discussion for a change.

Re:Other books

[Shotgun]

Have you considered what you didn't see? The hours of demeaning questions and beratement from Katie Curric? I found the presses treatment of Palin to be very snotty. After a while of that treatment, my attitude would turn to "fuck you". Palin's response seemed to be very much in the "fuck you" territory to me.

Fooling around never slowed Clinton

[Anonymous Coward]

It's amazing that when Bill Clinton was philandering before and after getting elected that the same level of Slashdot indignation wasn't heaped on him.

Re:Fooling around never slowed Clinton

[MightyMartian]

The fact remains that Gingrich was soon reviled almost in equal parts by his own party, whereas Clinton, despite semen-stained dresses and a history of out-of-control boinking predated his Presidency by many years, left office very popular, and remains even now a very popular ex-president.

You can bitch and whine all you like, but to some extent its because Gingrich was an unco-operative malcontented blowhard who liked to show off how smart he was, but was ultimately a lightweight compared to Clinton, who is, despite his mastery of that folksy Arkansas charm, a very bright and well-read man. Both men seem to have the same vices, but only one of them possesses the virtue.

I'll tell you what happens if Gingrich wins the nod (and I doubt he will, he's way to much a plain fucking asshole to ever actually win). Obama will go into the 2012 election with a recovery economy, Al Qaeda on the run with Obama able to (figuratively, at least) hold up bin Laden's head, and ol' Newt will be there, the unmitigated unapologetic prick he is, calling Obama down on everything in that Fox News way he has to do things, and the voter will look at Obama and see an imperfect and yet hopeful man and then look at Gingrich and see a fundamentally mean-spirited jerk.

Re:Fooling around never slowed Clinton

[ZombieBraintrust]

Do not judge so that you will not be judged” Matthew 7:1

“Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. Matthew 7:3-5

It was more about hypocrisy than anything.

Re:Fooling around never slowed Clinton

[ZombieBraintrust]

Republicans heaped indignation on Bill Clinton.

Mostly Republicans heaped indignation on Gingrich. (I think, I was kinda of young when he last held office), He sure didn't resign because of what Democrats thought.

Also it is one thing to cheat on your wife. Its another to cheat on your sick wife.

Re:Fooling around never slowed Clinton

[scot4875]

Here's the difference. I'll go slowly and use small words so you might understand.

Clinton never ran on a platform of "family values" in the party of "family values" and "sanctity of marriage."

Do you get it now? Similarly, Clinton is the guy that said "I never inhaled," and we didn't hold it against him because he didn't run on an anti-drug platform. Clinton could have also been banging Al Gore, and we wouldn't have held it against either of them because neither one ran on a platform of "no homos!"

--Jeremy

Re:Fooling around never slowed Clinton

[riverat1]

I don't even care that much that he cheated on his sick wife. That's between the two of them. But serving divorce papers to her while she's in a hospital bed for chemo is pretty cold.

Re:Fooling around never slowed Clinton

[Anonymous Coward]

The was between chemo courses. She was recovering from abdominal surgery at the time, and couldn't yet get out of bed by herself. But I'm sure she didn't need him for anything.

Re:Fooling around never slowed Clinton

[riverat1]

Thanks for the information. It's still pretty cold.

Re:Fooling around never slowed Clinton

[uncqual]

Yes, but he did unfortunately perjure himself while he was a sitting President. That's illegal for you or me (and him). Given that the Department of Justice is in the Executive branch and is responsible for enforcement of Federal Laws and administration of Justice in the US, that's a pretty huge deal - sort of like the Chief of Police getting caught hot-wiring and stealing a car.

I didn't like it when he spoke to all Americans and lied directly to our faces, but it wasn't a crime (and most of us didn't really believe it of course - we were well prepared not to after his "I didn't inhale" lie years earlier). I thought he showed poor judgement in his selection of a mistress (someone who was a bit more likely to be discrete would have been a much better choice for everyone - himself, his family, and his country), but it wasn't a crime. The least of my concerns is that he cheated on Ms. Clinton (all other things being equal, I'd trust the guy more who hadn't, but generally I consider that to be between him and Hillary).

Re:Fooling around never slowed Clinton

[MightyMartian]

Not to mention that a lot of Americans thought that the Ken Starr "investigation" was more of a witch hunt than an actual investigation of misconduct. Clinton was hardly the first President to have been fornicating while in office, and I think a lot of people, sympathized with Clinton's dishonesty, even if they didn't approve of it, mainly because there were probably no small number of people who would likely have done the same thing in his shoes.

The whole impeachment was a mockery of justice, and everyone knew it. I think even a lot of Republicans knew it, but Ken Starr and Newt Gingrich had basically pushed Congressional Republicans over a cliff. Even if they had wanted to put on the brakes, there was no way out of it. Gingrich's heedless partisanship basically torpedoed the Republicans and Clinton walked away incredibly popular. There was every indication that if the 22nd Amendment didn't exist, Clinton could have handily won a third term.

Impeachment was supposed to be for "high crimes and misdemeanors", not for an elected official who lied under oath about getting a blowjob. I don't think one has to defend Clinton's lying under oath to say that the absurdity and sheer maliciousness of having the leader of the Free World's private sexual escapades treated the same way one might treat a president who took bribes was not lost on the American people.

And then, when Gingrich's and other Republicans' own fornicating, adulterous ways were revealed, it only showed how hypocritical the Republicans had been during Clinton's second term, how willingly, even gleefully they attacked the President when some of them were no better. The whole "Family Values" nonsense that the Republicans had run on for decades was completely trashed.

As to Gingrich, well, he was probably more hated by Republicans than by Democrats. But he's talking the talk right now, and the Tea Party, populated by some of the most gullible, credulous people around, will likely herald him as some sort of Conservative messiah, when he should be the guy that you wouldn't piss on if he was on fire.

Re:Fooling around never slowed Clinton

[ZombieBraintrust]

No it was not a big deal. It was minor a deal. Like jaywalking or being drunk in public. What you had was a Republican Congress attempting to overturn an election over minor bullshit. That is not how a democracy or a republic works. What the Rebublicans were attempting was a coup d'état. If they were successful it would have lead to civil war.

Re:Fooling around never slowed Clinton

[Risen888]

You don't consider Newt Gingrich "bright and well-read?" Why not?

Re:Fooling around never slowed Clinton

[Risen888]

The man lied under oath. That's not a minor deal. That's a big deal.

But to me the bigger deal was that the Bill Clinton impeachment circus further eroded our expectations of and respect for the office of President. Certainly he can't be held wholly responsible for that, but he is part of a direct line of Presidential malfeasance that ultimately got us to where we are today. And that's a big deal too.

Re:Fooling around never slowed Clinton

[Risen888]

Impeachment was supposed to be for "high crimes and misdemeanors"

Perjury is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison.

Re:Fooling around never slowed Clinton

[MightyMartian]

Indeed, and how many times do you hear of guys ever getting sentenced to that much. And, as I said, I'm not defending his lying under oath, but rather the fact that a fairly large number of Americans were sympathetic to him, and viewed Gingrich as Starr as nothing more than scandal-hungry bastards. Everyone, and I repeat everyone, knew Clinton was a philandering bastard, and if they didn't, well Paula Jones cleared that up right quick.

The Lewinsky affair had nothing to do with governance, and everything to do with a power-hungry Republican mob politically overreaching, and the charge was lead by Gingrich, who as instrumental as he may have been in that so-called revolution, ended up getting run over by it. I realize some Republicans are still sore about the whole thing, but to imagine that the President of the United States would get tossed out of office because he lied about a blow job requires a kind of fantasy existence not appropriate for people who live in the adult world.

Re:Fooling around never slowed Clinton

[MightyMartian]

The man lied under oath. That's not a minor deal. That's a big deal.

It's a big deal if it's about corruption or treason. No matter how you try to frame it, no one is going to buy it if it's about getting a blowjob from an intern.

Re:Fooling around never slowed Clinton

[MightyMartian]

I think he's bright and well-read, just not as bright and well-read as he thinks. He's shown some considerable incapacity for medium-term strategic thought, otherwise he would have walked away from the Clinton-Lewinsky affair before he poured gasoline on himself and his party. He did such a good job of chewing the scenery that America looked on Clinton as the wounded party and Gingrich as his pals as a bunch of miserable bastards.

In other words, Clinton beat him. And from what I've heard, once you get over the folksy charm, Clinton himself apparently has a formidable intellect.

Re:Fooling around never slowed Clinton

[Risen888]

once you get over the folksy charm, Clinton himself apparently has a formidable intellect.

No argument there.

Re:Fooling around never slowed Clinton

[Risen888]

It's a big deal if it's about corruption or treason.

No, it's a felony. It's a big deal.

No matter how you try to frame it

I'm not framing anything. I'm giving facts.

no one is going to buy it if it's about getting a blowjob from an intern.

It wasn't about getting a blowjob from an intern. The specific statement in which Clinton perjured himself was about Monica Lewinsky, but he was facing sexual harassment charges from Paula Jones, a former employee of the state of Arkansas from when Bill Clinton was governor. Do you not find obstruction of justice during a sexual harassment hearing serious?

Re:Fooling around never slowed Clinton

[Risen888]

I'm not defending his lying under oath

Well, good. Let's start there.

but rather the fact that a fairly large number of Americans were sympathetic to him

I couldn't care less. The man lied under oath.

and viewed Gingrich as Starr as nothing more than scandal-hungry bastards

That's certainly true. And it changes nothing.

but to imagine that the President of the United States would get tossed out of office because he lied about a blow job requires a kind of fantasy existence not appropriate for people who live in the adult world.

He lied under oath during an unrelated (except inasmuch as it shows a pattern of sexual predation) trial for sexual harassment. I find it surprising how cavalierly that fact is dismissed in that discussion. Do you not find that alarming?

Re:Fooling around never slowed Clinton

[uncqual]

The lawsuit which eventually lead to Clinton's perjury was brought by a private citizen -- nothing to do with Congress (well, except that IIRC the private citizen was suing under a law passed by Congress -- actually, I think it was a session of Congress controlled by Democrats but don't recall for sure). There are a lot of laws I don't like, but I follow them and, if I didn't, I wouldn't perjure myself to avoid the consequences. If you don't like a law, get it changed via the Legislative or Judicial branches - don't lie about it when you're being sued under that law ... esp. if you're the POTUS (esp. one which is a lawyer and a member of the bar).

Private citizens go to jail for simply lying to a Federal Agent -- that's not even perjury. Why should the POTUS get a pass?

Obviously you don't think perjury is a big deal. What about theft? What about murder? I assume that if you were seeking recourse for theft of your property or murder of a loved one, you would expect the other side to lie under oath and would have absolutely no problem with it? For every act of perjury, there is usually another party who risks being denied justice because of it. Witnesses telling the truth under oath is a critical component of our justice system -- I expect hoods and gangbangers to perjure themselves, not so much the President of the United States.

Generally, it seems, you have no problem then with a witness lying regarding a sexual harassment suit? Is that because you approve of sexual harassment in the workplace, or figure you will always be on the delivering side of it, or what?

And, no, the VP would have become President -- that's hardly civil war. There wasn't a civil war after Nixon resigned under almost certain threat of impeachment (and likely conviction and expulsion).

Re:Fooling around never slowed Clinton

[Qzukk]

The specific statement in which Clinton perjured himself was about Monica Lewinsky

Are you still crying about "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" where the judge defined sexual relations to a specific set of actions that did not include getting a blow job?

The problem here isn't "perjury" because none happened. The problem is that to give the government the power to beat down pedos and drug runners, we've given them the ability to redefine the english language as it pleases. Without that, copying files from one disk to another can't be defined as "creating child porn". Growing two plants in your back yard can't be defined as "intent to distribute". Beyond that, many loopholes solely exist due to the twisting of the words the law encourages.

Re:Fooling around never slowed Clinton

[MightyMartian]

Nope, mainly because you're use of the word "predation" is exactly the kind of hyperbole that ended up putting egg on Clinton's face. You're trying to force the whole issue, as Gingrich and Co. did in a direction that most Americans never agreed with. Your narrative died when the whole impeachment process failed. Nobody believed it, not even a lot of Republicans, judging by how quickly they turned on Gingrich.

At what point do you admit the whole thing was a waste of time?

Re:Fooling around never slowed Clinton

[Risen888]

Nope, mainly because you're use of the word "predation" is exactly the kind of hyperbole that ended up putting egg on Clinton's face.

Hyperbole? The man lied under oath while he was in court for sexually harassing a woman who worked for him. That's not hyperbole. That's public record.

Got a ways to go before he catches John Edwards

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see, the last three Dem VP candidates:

1. Joe Lieberman quit the Democratic Party and was seriously considered as a running mate by John McCain
2. John Edwards cheated on his dying wife (ten-upping Gingrich), had a kid with his mistress, and then illegally used campaign funds to pay her hush money
3. Joe Biden - serial plagiarist going all the way back to college.

And these are the guys who actually made it on the ticket.

And God only wonders what you thought about Bill Clinton's infidelities - did you take the "it's only sex" wimp-out? Like so many who are quick to criticize Gingrich, did you give Slick Willie and his bent willie a pass?

Re:Got a ways to go before he catches John Edwards

[scot4875]

Hypocrisy - look it up. I don't care one whit if Gingrich fucks a busload of nuns during his spare time. I *do* care when he (and his party) make "morality" part of the platform, and then turns around and violates said morals. Why the fuck should I vote for someone who violates one of his main promises?

Your failure to understand seems to stem from the fact that you (and other slow thinkers like you) think adultery is automatically bad, and that we wouldn't vote for someone based on who they do and/or don't put their dick in.

Just like when Obama said "I'm going to close Gitmo" and "I'm going to investigate AT&T over the warrantless wiretaps" and then didn't do either of those things. That loses him points. It would then be sheer hypocrisy if he were to open more detention facilities, or ask for more wiretaps. But if he decides he wants to screw Hillary Clinton on the side? I don't care -- he never told me he wouldn't, and it's not something I'd base a vote on anyway.

Do you get it? It's not the extra marital affairs we care about. It's the hypocrisy.

--Jeremy

Re:Got a ways to go before he catches John Edwards

[Anonymous Coward]

Hypocrisy - look it up. I don't care one whit if Gingrich fucks a busload of nuns during his spare time. I *do* care when he (and his party) make "morality" part of the platform, and then turns around and violates said morals. Why the fuck should I vote for someone who violates one of his main promises?

Your failure to understand seems to stem from the fact that you (and other slow thinkers like you) think adultery is automatically bad, and that we wouldn't vote for someone based on who they do and/or don't put their dick in.

Just like when Obama said "I'm going to close Gitmo" and "I'm going to investigate AT&T over the warrantless wiretaps" and then didn't do either of those things. That loses him points. It would then be sheer hypocrisy if he were to open more detention facilities, or ask for more wiretaps. But if he decides he wants to screw Hillary Clinton on the side? I don't care -- he never told me he wouldn't, and it's not something I'd base a vote on anyway.

Do you get it? It's not the extra marital affairs we care about. It's the hypocrisy.

--Jeremy

But you're gonna turn around and vote for Obama anyway, aren't you?

You know, if you voted for Obama in 2008 just to prove you're not racist, you have to vote for someone else in 2012 to prove you're not an IDIOT

Re:Got a ways to go before he catches John Edwards

[MightyMartian]

You know, if you voted for Obama in 2008 just to prove you're not racist, you have to vote for someone else in 2012 to prove you're not an IDIOT

I knew a Birther would show up sooner or later.

Re:Got a ways to go before he catches John Edwards

[SETIGuy]

John Edwards cheated on his dying wife (ten-upping Gingrich)

Gingrich cheated on his first wife while she was dying of cancer, told her he wanted a divorce when she was in a hospital bed recovering from surgery, and then left her for his second wife. It appears likely that Gingrich had already started sleeping with his third wife before he married his second wife, so it's unlikely the second wife developing a disease was the cause of the affair, but he eventually divorced his second wife and 10 days later, married the third, a congressional aide 23 years his junior. While this affair was going on, Gingrich tried to impeach Clinton for getting a blowjob from a consenting adult. It's likely he's already sleeping with his fourth and fifth wives.

Gingrich fulled illegal campaign donations through his non-profit, and after it appeared it would get him kicked out of the House he decided to quit. He still got fined $300,000 for this and for perjuring himself in front of the House Ethics Committee. He should have gotten prison time. Throughout the time these things were happening, Gingrich was trumpeting his superior ethics, his Baptist faith and his family values. His excuse for this behavior: he was working too hard for the American people, so it's our fault. “There’s no question at times in my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate.” These aren't things he did, but things that just happened in his life. Why should we hold him responsible for things that just happened? But now he's converted to Catholicism and has a new appreciation for why God should have a greater role in our government, so we apparently have no choice but to forget his past sins. Not bloody likely.

Re:Got a ways to go before he catches John Edwards

[williamhb]

Hypocrisy - look it up. I don't care one whit if Gingrich fucks a busload of nuns during his spare time. I *do* care when he (and his party) make "morality" part of the platform, and then turns around and violates said morals. Why the fuck should I vote for someone who violates one of his main promises?

Your failure to understand seems to stem from the fact that you (and other slow thinkers like you) think adultery is automatically bad, and that we wouldn't vote for someone based on who they do and/or don't put their dick in.

Just like when Obama said "I'm going to close Gitmo" and "I'm going to investigate AT&T over the warrantless wiretaps" and then didn't do either of those things. That loses him points. It would then be sheer hypocrisy if he were to open more detention facilities, or ask for more wiretaps. But if he decides he wants to screw Hillary Clinton on the side? I don't care -- he never told me he wouldn't, and it's not something I'd base a vote on anyway.

Do you get it? It's not the extra marital affairs we care about. It's the hypocrisy.

--Jeremy

There's a difference. I don't see a problem with a sinner, sorry but that's the most convenient word, saying "we need to improve on morality". Just as I've been in plenty of meetings where time's been lost of everyone being late, and haven't felt the need to lambast the person who says "We really need to get these meetings started on time" with a cry of "Hypocrite!" Obama basing his campaign on being able to cut through all the Washington bull and excuses and, for instance, close Gitmo in a year, and then finding he can't cut through all the Washington bull and excuses and close Gitmo in a year - that was a genuine broken promise. No, the only complaint I've got against Gingrich is he's a Republican. (And much as I've been disappointed by Obama not being able to deliver, I'd still rather a President who struggled to deliver policies I like, rather than one who's very effective at delivering policies I don't like!) But then I'm a bloomin' foreigner that doesn't vote in the US anyway!

Re:Got a ways to go before he catches John Edwards

[SETIGuy]

You know, if you voted for Obama in 2008 just to prove you're not racist, you have to vote for someone else in 2012 to prove you're not an IDIOT.

That depends upon whether the Republicans offer someone who would be better. If the choice is get fucked soft or get fucked hard with a broomstick, only an IDIOT chooses "get fucked hard with a broomstick." So far none of the Republican field are offering to fuck us with anything smaller than a chain saw.

Re:Got a ways to go before he catches John Edwards

[Grishnakh]

While you're right about #1-3, your criticism of Clinton is unwarranted. What exactly did he do that was so bad? In fact, what did he do that was anyone else's business?

Did he cheat on a dying wife? Nope. Have a kid? Nope (blowjobs don't result in pregnancies).

Besides, put yourself in his shoes for a minute. If you were married to Hillary, wouldn't you want to cheat too? The poor guy probably felt trapped because she turned out to be such a bitch (I'm sure she seemed nice before the wedding), but he couldn't divorce her while still active in politics. Who knows, maybe she didn't even care if he slept around, as long as he was discreet about it.

Clinton's indiscretions totally pale when compared to people who toss out their sick or dying wives.

As for Lieberman, he would be a great running mate for McCain. They're a lot alike: Lieberman was a DINO, while McCain is a RINO. They're perfect for each other.

Re:Got a ways to go before he catches John Edwards

[Grishnakh]

I'm sorry, but anyone who willingly screws Hillary Clinton is someone I'd never vote for, simply because I would have no confidence in their mental health. I only give a pass to Bill because he married her young, and she probably was (or acted) different back then. I'd bet money that those two haven't had sex in over a decade, and they're only staying married to further her career (and previously his, while he was still Pres).

Any man who wants to bone Hillary now should be committed.

Re:Got a ways to go before he catches John Edwards

[uncqual]

But if he decides he wants to screw Hillary Clinton on the side? I don't care

Well, I wouldn't "care" either in some sense, but I would have to question his judgement on multiple levels.

Re:Got a ways to go before he catches John Edwards

[Grishnakh]

Personally, I don't believe in voting for getting fucked at all (at least not by a politician). Why should I pick either one of them? Just because all you other morons think you have to pick one of the two media-approved choices?

Instead, I'll vote for someone who I think will do a decent job. If the rest of you idiots vote for someone who fucks you over, whether by broomstick or chainsaw, that's on you. Don't blame me.

If you vote for the "lesser of two evils", don't be surprised when you're rewarded with evil. If you voted for evil, you only have yourself to blame.

Re:Got a ways to go before he catches John Edwards

[Asic Eng]

Instead, I'll vote for someone who I think will do a decent job.

But you won't tell us who that is. He must have tremendous chances...

If you vote for the "lesser of two evils", don't be surprised when you're rewarded with evil.

*You* are rewarded with evil, too. That's how elections work, at the end you have to live with the victor of the election, no matter who *you* voted for.

If you voted for evil, you only have yourself to blame.

If we are getting more evil, we blame those who made that possible. That includes those who think participating in an election is a mere exercise to feel blameless.There are large numbers of voters who will always stick to their party, no matter which candidate runs. If that number is bigger then the number of people who have even heard of your alleged "decent job doing guy", then voting for him is an exercise in futility. It's possible to get a fairly good idea whether that's the case using polls. If you ignore that information you should be blamed for doing so.

Re:Got a ways to go before he catches John Edwards

[Ksevio]

If Obama had his way, I'm sure Gitmo would be shut down by now, but thanks to Congress passing legislation barring the transfer of the inmates to US soil, there's not much he can do. Now if he'd shutdown Gitmo and setup a new prison camp on the other side of the island - that'd by hypocrisy. Trying to do something, but having other people prevent you is not.

Re:Got a ways to go before he catches John Edwards

[Risen888]

If we are getting more evil, we blame those who made that possible. That includes those who think participating in an election is a mere exercise to feel blameless.There are large numbers of voters who will always stick to their party, no matter which candidate runs. If that number is bigger then the number of people who have even heard of your alleged "decent job doing guy", then voting for him is an exercise in futility. It's possible to get a fairly good idea whether that's the case using polls. If you ignore that information you should be blamed for doing so.

Ah yes, the "don't waste your vote" argument. In 2008, all my Democrat friends tried to harass me with that line of thought. "If you don't vote for Obama, there'll be another war, we'll be in Afghanistan for another decade, we'll keep torturing people and we'll lose all our civil liberties!"

And damned if they weren't right. I didn't vote for Obama and that's exactly what happened.

Re:Got a ways to go before he catches John Edwards

[MachineShedFred]

It would also be an act of war, since he'd be invading Cuba; but that's neither here nor there.

Re:Got a ways to go before he catches John Edwards

[Arkofjoy]

The only problem with the " you have to vote for one of the bastards" argument is the number of people who don't bother to vote in American elections. My sister lives in upstate NY . it is a heavily republican area. When her friends put up Obama posters people came by in the night and took them down. She knows people who have been fired from their jobs for admitting that they are registered Democrats. This is in spite of the fact that it is an area of high unemployment and the GOP is ever ready to look to ways to screw the unemployed. And Yet I looked at the voting record for the county after the election and More people DIDN'T vote then voted for Obama And McCain put together. Had all those who Didn't vote in the last election across America voted for Alfred E Neuman instead, there would now be a buck toothed imaginary person in the white house. Oh what a wonderful world it would be.

Re:Got a ways to go before he catches John Edwards

[Arkofjoy]

And I sure Alfred E Neuman would promise to "DO NO Evil" unless it was really really funny in an adolescent humour sort of way, Or involved Justin Bieber.

Re:Got a ways to go before he catches John Edwards

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't exactly agree with you, but your post made me laugh hard. Thanks.

Re:Got a ways to go before he catches John Edwards

[Shotgun]

And since when does Obama care about unilateral invasions (re: Pakistand, Libya)?

I'm looking forward to his review of ....

[Anonymous Coward]

"Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quantity Surveying"

Required, timely reading, September 19, 2001

[layer3switch]

http://www.amazon.com/review/RJKX0KUG5773Z

Clark describes a pattern of destructive dishonesty that permeated the Clinton Administration. Clark could never count on candor from Shelton (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs), Secretary of Defense Cohen, or President Clinton. Contrast that with the fact that we have every reason to believe President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretaries Powell, and Rumsfeld. This administration will prove far more reliable and far more honorable.

Newt, as always, smart at narratives but really stupid at drawing a logical conclusion.

Re:Required, timely reading, September 19, 2001

[SETIGuy]

I wish I had mod points. But talking about how wonderful the administration was, 8 days after 9/11, isn't all that surprising. Everyone in the media was doing so at that time. After all, the success of that attack couldn't have been because of major screw-ups (or possible malfeasance) by the administration.

Re:Required, timely reading, September 19, 2001

[phantomfive]

That is the political plague of our times. We have many political leaders who are good at pointing out problems, but very, very lousy at coming to even a remotely good solution.

Re:Required, timely reading, September 19, 2001

[Boronx]

This is true of 100% of people. Always listen to criticism and doubt of any advice.

Re:Required, timely reading, September 19, 2001

[phantomfive]

What? No, some people are pretty good at coming up with solutions. That's how things get invented, and things like the constitution get written.

A better question...

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see Sarah Palin's reviews. If you can't find any.

I do not understand Gingrich

[Anonymous Coward]

He seems, at times, very smart - forward looking, creative, bold and while yes always (US-style) conservative someone who would likely drive America into the future in interesting (I mean that in the good sense) ways. No one can say it would be a boring presidency anyway! Open-minded, and creative about shaking the established order (anti-conservative in a sense we rarely see in any US politician). Reality-oriented and science knowledgeable/enthusiastic (among U.S. Republican politicians, very rare attributes indeed). Can be frank and open.

And at other times... a evil nut. Pushing the religionista's agenda Taleban-style. (Religious in the first place seems surprising if he really is the person described in my paragraph #1, but if he was religious wouldn't you expect a tolerant type?) Trying to undermine the administration without any regard to American's interests. Indeed, seems he'd _prefer_ the US to suffer so long as it hurts Obama's re-election prospects. Seemingly deeply corrupt. Transparently fickle and shallow. Naked, truly naked and unmitigated, greed for power trumping everything and anyone else.

I could never vote for him because the risks and likelihood of personality #2 outweigh the upside of #1. But I really don't get it, is this really one person? I see much to admire (and by US standards I'm extremely liberal(US meaning, i.e. left) ) yet how can this coherently exist with his awful attributes?!? An interesting human being, to be sure!

Once again...

[Anonymous Coward]

slashdot turns from "news for nerds" to politics. Who freakin cares about Newt's Amazon book reviews? This is just another opportunity for an extremely liberal reader base to bash conservatives. If I wanted to read that, I'd go to MSNBC, CNN, ABC, AP, NPR...
Get back to nerdy news please!

Re:Once again...

[MightyMartian]

You don't need to read the fucking article or post. Whose the pathetic one here?

Re:Once again...

[lee1]

Dude .... Feynman!

Re:I am nowhere near ready to assume he doesn't ju

[osgeek]

You'd likely be wrong. Malign the guy as you will - lord knows the US press was all too eager to do so back in the 90's - but he's extremely intelligent. It's obvious if you listen to the guy speak for five minutes that he's very thoughtful and well read.

Re:I am nowhere near ready to assume he doesn't ju

[lee1]

I agree with this. He's far from a cookie-cutter conservative. I'm only familiar with his ideas from his speeches, which contain lots of insight and good ideas, until he starts talking about god - then I tune out.

Let's start a sub thread here...

[NotQuiteReal]

drinkers who tell their kids not to drink

crippled motorcycle riders who tell their kids not to ride bikes.

smokers who tell their kids not to smoke

Etc... Clearly there is no merit whatsoever to the school of "do as I say, not as I do..." right?

Unfortunately, for politicians, it should matter, but doesn't. Modern American politics (and most others, I am sure) is about picking the lessor of many evils. No matter who you vote for, you won't get what you were promised. Maybe you can pick a "leaning toward", at best. And we don't even get that. Instead it boils down to personal attacks, rarely addressing the issues. Welcome to the cut-jump-edit digital, ADD, apethetic world.

Re:Let's start a sub thread here...

[n dot l]

drinkers who tell their kids not to drink

An alcoholic father begs his son to never drink, because he fears his son is at risk of becoming like him and wants better. The son, having watched him struggle with finances and go in and out of rehab for years on end gets the point, despite the fact that his father is hung over as he gives his lecture.

A politician speaks of the dangers of alcohol to society. He takes a hardline stance against it, supporting zero-tolerance measures, and campaigns for prohibition. He declares these things to be his deeply held personal beliefs. When asked about the martini in his hand, he dodges the question and waits for his supporters to drown out the interviewer with calls to "keep the candidate's personal life out of the debate."

One of these men is clearly and self-evidently speaking what they truly believe, and holds himself up as a warning to others at cost to himself. The other one is lying for his own benefit. Can you tell which is which?

Only candidate I'd vote for

[Cito]

Would be the one that has Turner Diaries in the amazon favorites.

Re:Only candidate I'd vote for

[1729]

Would be the one that has Turner Diaries in the amazon favorites.

Would you settle for Mein Kampf?

(You do realize this isn't Stormfront, right?)

Met him once.

[Anonymous Coward]

He made the rounds in Silicon Valley around 2000 and stopped by the start-up where I was working. I got to shake hands with him and a couple of sidemen (whose names I can't recall ... probably for good reasons). I remember thinking that slime just oozed from the guy. Also, his questions to the local tech types showed a lot of ignorance. To be fair, he was probably ahead of many peers in that area.

OT: I'd met Jack Kemp at random several years before that. He might not be everyone's cup of tea politically, but in contrast to Gingrich he seemed like a nice, down-to-earth guy. It could be that his years in pro football (with people from lots of different backgrounds) seasoned him better than most politicians.

Re:I am nowhere near ready to assume he doesn't ju

[toadlife]

He is well trained.

Gingrich is smart.

[Anonymous Coward]

He has a lot of negatives, and I don't think he'll be a winning candidate, but he's not an empty suit. The guy is impressively intelligent; he would probably be the smartest president we've had in many decades. I'm a libertarian/conservative, though, and I'm not sure I would vote for him because of character issues.

Re:Gingrich is smart.

[MightyMartian]

If he's so damned smart, why did his anti-Clinton crusade end with him even being hated by his fellow Republicans and Clinton leaving office with high ratings?

He may have smarts, but he's clearly more driven by partisanship than by common sense. The politician he most reminds me of is Nixon, except without even the faintest odor of at least grand intentions.

Re:Gingrich is smart.

[Boronx]

What did he think about the Iraq war and Colin Powell's speech at the UN?

Does he support climate change and evolution?

[Bobartig]

Team Newt is driving hard to brand Newt as the "intellectual" candidate. I heard a GOP analyst discussing candidates on the radio when an obvious shill called in, repeating the analysts talking points on Newt verbatim. It was shameless...

The GOPs recent and continuing anti-science, anti-education stance is beyond appalling. Coming from the Party of Ignorance, he needs to tend to his own garden before he gets cred for recommending Feynman on Amazon.

Re:Does he support climate change and evolution?

[JSBiff]

One important thing to keep in mind about Republicans is that they aren't completely anti-science, and the Dems are not completely pro-science.

While the Republican party, on the one hand, tends to deny climate change, on the other hand, embraces one of the science/technology approaches which has the greatest potential to help reduce and control climate change: nuclear power.

Also, at least where it makes economic sense, I think you'd find that most Republicans embrace efficiency - to a point. Perhaps not to as great a point as some efficiency advocates would want, but nuclear and efficiency combined could help dramatically reduce America's carbon footprint.

On the other side of the aisle, while Obama has, at least in his speeches, been pro-nuclear, there is a very significant portion of the Democratic party which has and continues to be very strongly anti-nuclear. It's my observation (and I've seen others make a similar observation) that while there is some basis for people to legitimately be worried about the risks of nuclear power, that some of the staunchest anti-nuclear advocates use a lot of similar rhetoric and junk science to fight against nuclear power as the climate change denialists.

Now, keep in mind here, I'm not trying to start a pro/anti-nuclear flamewar here - just giving an example that, even though sometimes Republicans seem anti-science, and Dems seem pro-science, the issue is more nuanced than that. On specific issues, both parties can be anti-science and pro-science, as it suits their pre-determined platforms.

Re:Does he support climate change and evolution?

[Dr. Gamera]

Team Newt is driving hard to brand Newt as the "intellectual" candidate.

I abhor Gingrich's politics. I'm not impressed by his treatment of his ex-wives, though I care relatively little about "character" issues that are largely irrelevant to job performance.

But it seems quite fair to me to brand Gingrich as "intellectual". Ph.D. in history from Tulane, eight-year college professor, plenty of intellectual achievements in the years since.

Re:Gingrich is not smart.

[Bobartig]

His "impressive" intelligence is more than negated by his actions.

The drivel he spews on Fox News makes him a party-line hack, nothing more. The smartest guy in the room needs to lead by reason and logic, not repeat tired, inflammatory lies. When I saw a clip of him discussing the Citizens United case, I thought, "ok, your legal analysis is crap. I can excuse that because you are not a lawyer (despite being a legislator), but please stop repeating tired lies."

Anyrate, as smart as Newt may be, you'd be hard pressed to demonstrate that he's more intelligent than Obama. Ultimately, though, it doesn't matter. What matters is how good of a politician you are. George W, Regan, both idiots who were extremely successful at playing the political game.

Reviled by conservatives for green stance

[blind biker]

I don't know if Gingrich is the only conservative that came out openly to combat climate change, but he is certainly the most vocal. And he's being punished for it. I'm only mentioning this, as it looks that the GOP has been ever more turning against anybody suggesting there is a possibility for man-made climate change. I was very surprised to learn that there is an ultra-conserrvative that is completely counter this trend.

Re:I am nowhere near ready to assume he doesn't ju

[Lemmy Caution]

He had a lot more credibility in the 1990s. Since then, he has flip-flopped and boomeranged on so many issues, the people who admired him as the tech-savvy alternative to the older conservatives have generally abandoned him. His personal history makes him unelectable, especially against a President whose personal life is beyond reproach, and whose commitment to his family is respected even by his opponents.

I'd bet $1

[Legal.Troll]

that at least some of these were written by a harem of unpaid interns

Jerry Pournelle, former Science Adviser to Newt G

[tengu1sd]

Jerry Pournelle, generally well known rocket scientist, technologist and big name writer was science adviser to Congressman G. Jerry writes about getting a call from somebody "calling from congress." Turned out to be Newt, having read A Step Further Out, personally calling to recruit. That led to a long term staff gig and ears to whisper in. I don't tend to agree with Newt's latest directions, but I'm willing to listen to anyone willing to to give Jerry Pournelle a microphone and input into space and science policy.

I do nbot like

[kubitus]

Newts closeness to Jerry Pournell, one of the grave-diggers for BYTE

Re:I am nowhere near ready to assume he doesn't ju

[osgeek]

Hey, if you hate the guy, at least "know thy enemy". The guy is a pretty hefty intellectual in his own right.

Re:I am nowhere near ready to assume he doesn't ju

[osgeek]

He talks about god for the same reason Obama does. You can't get elected President in this country (especially not by the Republican party) if you don't talk about your strong faith. Sad, I know, but the public is too mired in its superstitions for things to work otherwise.

Re:I am nowhere near ready to assume he doesn't ju

[osgeek]

I don't know. Actually, I think that Newt was more of a damaged entity after the Clinton impeachment. Since then, he's reformed his image to a degree by staying out of elected office.

If Newt has kept his nose clean for the last ten years and expresses regret for his past family issues, the Republicans will give him a pass on his personal life.

he never got over 100k votes

[Anonymous Coward]

he's a joke, you can look it up, but he never received over 100k votes in any election he has run in. in populated areas, people running for mayor have gotten more votes than that and have lost.

Clinton was impeached for perjury and

[Quila]

obstruction of justice. He was never prosecuted for the sex.

As is usual in politics, it's the cover-up that gets you.

Re:Clinton was impeached for perjury and

[Grishnakh]

Perjury? Obstruction of justice? How did he do either? He got a blow-job, and some politicians found out about it, and then questioned him about it. What kind of normal person in power would actually admit to that? What business did anyone have even asking him about it (except for his wife, who I suspect didn't care). The whole thing was just a giant scheme to gain political power, when there was actually nothing wrong done (at least nothing that warranted bringing the government to a stand-still for a whole year, and nothing that was the business of anyone outside of Clinton, his wife, and his ugly girlfriend).

If some jerk gets you in court and asks you about what sexual positions you and your wife enjoy, do you have an obligation to answer truthfully? I don't think so. Any court that doesn't immediately shut down inappropriate lines of questioning like that, and immediately have any such attorneys not only thrown out of court, but permanently disbarred, is a court that deserves no respect.

Re:Clinton was impeached for perjury and

[CrimsonAvenger]

Perjury? Obstruction of justice? How did he do either? He got a blow-job, and some politicians found out about it, and then questioned him about it. What kind of normal person in power would actually admit to that?

Well the perjury part might come about because he lied under oath. Note the "under oath" part. It's important.

And Obstruction of Justice is one of those charges that frequently gets thrown at people who lie to the police and other government investigators. Martha Stewart went to prison for lying to the FBI, if you'll remember.

Note also that this was NOT in regards to Monica, but in regards to a Sexual Harassment charge made by whatsername from Arkansas.

Note further that the Supremes had rules shortly before that trial that "consent" didn't make it any less sexual harassment when your boss tells you he'd like to bang you.

Or don't you remember what the meaning if "is" is?

Re:Clinton was impeached for perjury and

[Grishnakh]

Well the perjury part might come about because he lied under oath. Note the "under oath" part. It's important.

Again, I don't care. As I said before, if some slimy lawyer asked you under oath about the sexual positions you enjoy with your wife, should you answer him? No, he should be disbarred, and if the court doesn't do that, the court deserves no respect.

And Obstruction of Justice is one of those charges that frequently gets thrown at people who lie to the police and other government investigators.

Political BS. If the government investigators are asking inappropriate questions, then lying to them is not wrong. It was none of their business.

Note also that this was NOT in regards to Monica, but in regards to a Sexual Harassment charge made by whatsername from Arkansas.

That's certainly not what I remember. I remember Monica and that fat bitch Linda Tripp that blew the story. The Paula whatshername thing was a separate matter from what I remember.

Note further that the Supremes had rules shortly before that trial that "consent" didn't make it any less sexual harassment when your boss tells you he'd like to bang you.

So it's "sexual harassment" if you willingly have sex with your boss? That's BS. The Supremes can go fuck themselves for all I care. That's the same shitty court that ruled that private companies can use eminent domain to seize peoples' homes. I have no respect for any rulings they've made in the last couple decades.

Re:Clinton was impeached for perjury and

[Shotgun]

Well the perjury part might come about because he lied under oath. Note the "under oath" part. It's important.

Again, I don't care. As I said before, if some slimy lawyer asked you under oath about the sexual positions you enjoy with your wife, should you answer him? No, he should be disbarred, and if the court doesn't do that, the court deserves no respect.

So, you don't answer him. You say, "I'm not going to answer that." If the judge thinks you SHOULD answer it, you can still refuse, though you might spend some time in the pokey on contempt charges. As it is, Clinton was on trial for sexual harassment charges. Having sex with subordinates is very germane to a sexual harassment trial. He was under oath and chose to lie. He didn't choose to refuse to answer the question. He chose to LIE, and thereby making a mockery of the entire justice system.

And Obstruction of Justice is one of those charges that frequently gets thrown at people who lie to the police and other government investigators.

Political BS. If the government investigators are asking inappropriate questions, then lying to them is not wrong. It was none of their business.

Lying under oath is WRONG. Saying "That is none of your damn business" is completely appropriate. Unfortunately, as I stated above, due to the circumstances the question was completely germaine.

Note also that this was NOT in regards to Monica, but in regards to a Sexual Harassment charge made by whatsername from Arkansas.

That's certainly not what I remember. I remember Monica and that fat bitch Linda Tripp that blew the story. The Paula whatshername thing was a separate matter from what I remember.

You might want to brush up. Your memory is failing you. Paula Jones brought a sexual harassment suit, and Linda Tripp tipped off the investigators that Slick Willie was still up to his old tricks.

Note further that the Supremes had rules shortly before that trial that "consent" didn't make it any less sexual harassment when your boss tells you he'd like to bang you.

So it's "sexual harassment" if you willingly have sex with your boss? That's BS. The Supremes can go fuck themselves for all I care. That's the same shitty court that ruled that private companies can use eminent domain to seize peoples' homes. I have no respect for any rulings they've made in the last couple decades.

Whether YOU have any respect is irrelevant. The feminazis have pushed the scope of sexual harassment beyond the point of being beyond ridiculous. One of the corporate training sessions I was forced to sit through claimed that if a woman overheard you commenting about another woman, it could be construed as sexual harassment. The Clinton trial simply demonstrated that with enough money or power, the rules that control the rest of us don't apply to you.

Re:Clinton was impeached for perjury and

[Quila]

Perjury: Lied under oath in both a sexual harrassment trial and to a federal grand jury.

Obstruction of justice: Bribing witnesses by securing jobs for them, and otherwise trying to convince witnesses to lie

Re:Clinton was impeached for perjury and

[hey!]

Well, if it weren't Clinton who was doing it nothing he said under oath would be called "perjury". What he did was "prevaricate". He quibbled. He split hairs. He demanded definitions from Ken Starr and cynically exploited semantic loopholes in them. Was that sleazy? Sure. Was it misleading? Absolutely. Was it lying? Morally, yes. Technically, no. He just pissed Ken Starr off by out-lawyering him, so Starr decided to bring him down politically by bringing a charge that wouldn't hold up in court and certainly wouldn't succeed in the US Senate.

Impressive reading list. So what

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok I am impressed, envious even that he has time to read and comment on all these books while doing all the other stuff. His reading list, OTOH is as narrow and partisan as his politics. Of the few 3 stars he has given, one is for Bob Woodward's book. What did you expect. He is a fucking hack and deserves to be ignored.

Re:I am nowhere near ready to assume he doesn't ju

[truthsearch]

I've listened to many of his speeches. No matter how intelligent he appears, I can't get past the incredible hypocrisy and racism. He brushes off the criticism with arrogance.

Weigel said it first

[KhabaLox]

WaPo copied Dave Weigel at Slate who wrote about this a day earlier.

Re:I am nowhere near ready to assume he doesn't ju

[locallyunscene]

[mild snark]So it's news now that a mainstream Republican candidate doesn't completely disparage the "intellectual elite" and actually reads books critically enough to write reviews?[/snark]

I'll root for Newt insofar as he'll bring at least a little intellectual criticism to the circus of the next presidential election. Maybe that's wishful thinking though. The Republican party has resisted any such change to their policies preferring instead to mold the man to the party. Hopefully they learned the lesson from McCain of trying to shoehorn moderate candidates into neocon stances. Who knows though.

Six Principles of Global Manipulation

[Anonymous Coward]

I offer to your attention a film about six priorities of the generalized instruments of management by countries and people of Earth.
Six Principles of Global Manipulation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fF3TQ0lJnU

and:

Anti-Qur'an Strategy of the Bible Project Wheeler-Dealers
http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1wXgXwj3MI

Re:I am nowhere near ready to assume he doesn't ju

[toadlife]

Yes, I am letting my detest for him cloud my judgement a bit. He has a PhD, so he can't be "stupid", but considering the fact that his PhD is in history and the policy positions he has supported have a history of turning nations into plutocracies, I can only come to the conclusion that he is a psychopath.