Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Between running for president, commenting on Fox News shows, and cheating on his wife, how does he have time to read so much?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A27WFYW9ZJ5DN1
For some reason the Washington Post did not include it.
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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)
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
Genrich isn't a dumb. That not his weak point. His weak point is his penis.
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.
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.
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
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.
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.
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
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
Jesus was a liberal
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
Jesus was a liberal
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.
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.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
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.
Support SETI@home
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.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
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.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
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.
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.
Dude .... Feynman!
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.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
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).
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
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.
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
This is where I get my recommended daily allowance of "Foot in Mouth."
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 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.
Play Command HQ online
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 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.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
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.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?