Newt Gingrich's Amazon Book Reviews 275
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.
Maybe He Will Finish 1945? (Score:5, Funny)
http://www.allyngibson.net/?p=2169 [allyngibson.net]
http://www.amazon.com/1945-Newt-Gingrich/dp/0671877399 [amazon.com]
http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=74249 [alternatehistory.com]
It would be nice to read the sequels, Newtster.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
How does he have the time? (Score:4, Funny)
Between running for president, commenting on Fox News shows, and cheating on his wife, how does he have time to read so much?
Re: (Score:3)
.....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? (Score:4, Funny)
Nah, your arms get cramp.
Doggy style, then you can use her back as a desk.
Umm, so they say.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
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? (Score:4, Funny)
Obviously someone in his position can delegate an aide to cheat on his wife.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 s
Here's the link to his Amazon posts (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A27WFYW9ZJ5DN1 [amazon.com]
For some reason the Washington Post did not include it.
Re: (Score:2)
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."
Ron Paul (Score:2)
Amazon reviews (Score:2, Insightful)
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 so
Re: (Score:2)
You betcha.
Re:Amazon reviews (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Amazon reviews (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Amazon reviews (Score:4, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
Didn't Newt's adultery happen in the 90s? Apparently Republicans are just better at forgiving *past* offenses.
Re: (Score:3)
Didn't Clinton's adultery happen in the 90s? Apparently Republicans are just better at forgiving *their own* offenses.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re:Amazon reviews (Score:4, Informative)
No, they say they believe that character counts. Tribal interests will trump "character" every time.
Re:Got a ways to go before he catches John Edwards (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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 the
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Let's start a sub thread here... (Score:3)
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
Re:Let's start a sub thread here... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I knew a Birther would show up sooner or later.
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re:Got a ways to go before he catches John Edwards (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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 creat
Re: (Score:3)
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 a
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Weak Candidates (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Weak Candidates (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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 te
someone else (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
With the Tea Party calling the shots, I imagine a lot of more sensible folks who might otherwise run will pass.
Re: (Score:2)
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 hea
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, he mostly reviews cheesy political thrillers? (Score:2)
...mostly?
Very Disappointed (Score:2)
Other books (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Other books (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3)
I thought the guy was a Mormon. I'm getting kind of suspicious...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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 (Score:4, Funny)
I think she got rid of her bookcases so she could see Russia more clearly.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Required, timely reading, September 19, 2001 (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.amazon.com/review/RJKX0KUG5773Z [amazon.com]
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does he support climate change and evolution? (Score:3)
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.
Jerry Pournelle, former Science Adviser to Newt G (Score:3)
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 [amazon.com], 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Troll (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 t
Re:Fooling around never slowed Clinton (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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 anythin
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Thanks for the information. It's still pretty cold.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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!"
--Jerem
Re: (Score:3)
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 re
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I am nowhere near ready to assume he doesn't ju (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re:I am nowhere near ready to assume he doesn't ju (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re:I am nowhere near ready to assume he doesn't ju (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to read the fucking article or post. Whose the pathetic one here?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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?)
Re: (Score:3)
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.