People are always more willing to forgive those who are like them. Gingrich fills the bill. Though my main point of contention with him is the moral high ground he takes and his hounding of Clinton while having his own affair. You could point out that Clinton was in a position to know better, but if you take the moral high ground then you need to do the right thing no matter who or what you are - that does not seem to bother Gingrich. While he will do well with the TP in the primaries this is not a candidate for the people, leaving a choice of the lesser of two bad choices.

The lure of Gingrich is his talent as a debater, and the burning desire to see him clean up with Obama in a debate. Gingrich has the intellectual prowess to forcefully represent conservative values and policies. Given this type of challenge, the left wing never wins. Obama would be destroyed in a debate with Gingrich. NEW PARAGRAPH: But Gingrich's weakness is his status as media whipping boy. They will decimate him if he is nominated, and Obama will coast to reelection. Gingrich has a few spots on his record, but none which are worse than what the media often ignores in Democrats. He would make a fine president, but the media will never give him a fair shake. This is why his candidacy is a big risk.

Count me in as part of the anyone but Newt contingent. I always appreciated his unbridled defense of conservatives as part of his shtick as bombastic scold of the liberal media. But, I have come to realize he is the antithesis of the Tea Party by lobbying on behalf of Big Pharma, Freddie Mac, Health Care conglomerates and while frequently compromising at the expense of fiscal conservatives. He even backed liberal, RINO Dede Scazzofava in the NYCD 26, over a conservative Republican, backed by the Tea Party. He will be the Tea Party's worst nightmare, if nominated, and will guarantee a Ron Paul third party effort, thereby, ensuring a second term to America's worst President. Anyone-But-Newt. Anyone?

Noot's comment that Barney Frank should be put in prison demonstrates that he is either a brainless ideologue, knee-jerk reactionary, or manipulative demagogue. In any case, please nominate him. Obama will crush him, and the satirical element in the "liberal" media (Daily Show, Colbert, Olberman, etc) needs him. And if he has lowered the standards of the Tea Party, well, that wasn't very far down to go.

Newt and the Tea Party deserve each other. They are all morally corrupt lackeys of the corporate oligarchy and enemies of the people. While falsely claiming to represent the middle class, they are lining their pockets with filthy lucre passed down to them by the 1% ruling class, the best politicians money can buy. Liars, hypocrites and cowardly bullies.

Well, Dehumist, in all fairness I think Newt was attacking Clinton because he lied under oath, not because he did what he lied about. He was excellent in his hour-long interview with Hannity last night, addressed the early-immaturity issues and had an exciting plan for campaigning against Obama in the general. I was looking for a bumper sticker! But now, reading this column, I think I'll save my bumper space awhile longer. As a Tea Partyier myself,a real one not the imaginary one of Lavran, I am seeking the someone who will beat Obama.

My goodness! Look at all the comments. Seven including this one. This website is so bad it defies description. The old comments section would have had tem times as many - at least. I think I'll start a new paragraph. I think I'll start another one. Nobody could beat Newt in a debate, but he's got too much baggage.

Barbara: Someday maybe you will come realize that the government is not the enemy, but the corporations are. Perhaps in that moment of enlightenment, you take your populism to where it belongs, as one of the 99% of the Occupy movement. It's hard to imagine that the word "excellent" can appear in the same sentence with Hannity and Gingrich. They are both only excellent at lying, bullying and deception.

It is a bit sparse these days. But then again, we don't have to put with the garbage spewed by The Sage John Locke or The System Worked. etc ad nauseum...

It is sparse these days, but then again, we don't have to put up with the garbage of comfortablynumb, or kurtlarsen etc. ad nauseum...

abo

Let's see, Newt is a "patriot" who loved his country so much, he cheated on and divorced two wives. He left Congress due to ethics violations, and now claims that his trip to the Greek Isles a few months back helped him understand the Greek economic crisis. Add to that he's been a lobbyist and Fox News talking head for years, and you have a perfect candidate. He was right about "right wing social engineering", too bad he doesn't have to courage to stand by that one. Another poster mentioned that Gingrich went after Clinton for lying under oath about his affair. That's true, but why was Clinton in a position to be under oath to begin with? Because someone saw fit to go after Clinton over his behavior. Meanwhile, Gingrich was one of 3 loud voices calling for Clinton to resign. Gingrich was having an affair of his own, Ensign has since been caught in a compromising position, shall we say, and Mark Sanford refused to resign as South Carolina's governor after being caught lying to his staff (and his wife?) about "hiking the Appalchian trail". All this only shows that bad behavior knows no political party.

incredible: glad you said that. I've been wondering myself: is it POSSIBLE that all those prior posters never subscribed to the Globe, so are not eligible to post now? How could that many people been just mooching off the site, without even paying their share of the costs of producing a newspaper?

Count me as one who thinks tea parties are for little girls and their imaginary friends, and count me as one who has serious doubts about Gingrich's ethics, but my understanding of the Tea Party is they will support whomever most closely matches their agenda, regardless of past history of that individual. Stats old man: a few corrections. It's Dede Scozzafava, not Scazzofava, and it's NY23, not NY26. Hoffman ran as a 3rd party candidate after failing to get the Republican nomination, and Gingrich is consistent in not supporting 3rd party runs (although we will see what he does if he isn't the nominee next year). Further, Hoffman's campaign was managed and paid for by out-of-state interests, while both Scozzafava, a resident of Gouvernor since early childhood, was the only one with true, local roots. They need jobs up there, not ideologues, and both Scozzafava and Owens were active in trying to attract business to pick up the slack since the tin and talc mines closed. Personally I think the 'liberal RINOs' you despise are the true soul of the Republican Party. Starting with Nixon the GOP has slowly been taken over by the Dixiecrats and other extremists. I suppose the polarization of the Democrats into something more liberal than they have always been has had a hand in that.

check out the Washington Post comments section sometime; they have even more moochers, and, surprisingly, their trolls are even nastier than the trolls on boston.com.

The strength of the Tea Party resides in what the candidate does after the election.

Starting with Nixon the GOP has slowly been taken over by the Dixiecrats and other extremists. Yeah, that must have led him to support wage and price control, urge rapprochement with Russia, open diplomatic ties with the Red Chinese, and institute wage and price controls. Yes, truly Dick Nixon was an extremist, if by my extremist you mean liberal Rino. Yes, I do despise liberal RINO's. Who, besides dye-in-the-wool Democrats don't.

Is anyone, besides Sarah Palin, able to scare off Independents more than Barack Obama and Newt Gingrich?

Nixon was the first to cater to anyone for a vote. That doesn't make him anything other than sleezy. Whom you despise is your business, chief. I favor fiscal responsibility, and a 'you worry about your yard and I'll worry about mine' approach. If that makes me someone you despise, so be it. And yes, speaking as a transplanted southerner, the GOP has been taken over by the Dixiecrat mentality. In a way, the Confederacy may have lost the military conflict, but has since won culturally, economicly, and politically.