PART I: Newt Gingrich Is Evil, and Must Be Destroyed


The Pink Flamingo has been working on this specific post for several weeks. I’m adding three additional pieces over the next few days, as I finish them. They are part of the series that began yesterday with the expose of Mitt Romney’s almost endorsement of Obama-care. This man is NOT a conservative. He is as liberal as they come, only he hides spots like the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing.

The Murdock Machine is dead seat against Newt Gingrich.  Folks at FOX and the Wall Street Journal are going all out to destroy him.  Perhaps they’d be best served by investigating their own.  What does happen to the WSJ and Roger Ailes when Murdock goes to prison in the UK.  The Charlotte Church incident alone, should be enough to land him in the slammer.   What you need to understand is that Murdock was once on the board of the Cato Institute.  Cato hates Newt.  Murdock is a libertarian.  Libertarians hate Newt.

If the Mitt Romney Conservative Panderers were fair, they would admit that FOX News set Newt up on Thursday night to make Romney look good. The problem is they are not fair. I have never seen such gross bias against any single candidate – ever.  They all want to allegedly defeat Obama, ergo they think that Newt is evil for targeting Bain Capital.

“…Even more troubling to some, Bain arguably drove some companies to the ground by taking on more debt to give investors dividends earlier.

“These were not businesses close to collapse,” said Josh Kosman, author of “The Buyout of America.” “They borrowed all this money against the company and then borrowed money again to take a dividend because the company was stable.”…Evaluating Romney’s time at Bain depends on how you define success. He consistently delivered for investors, producing as much as 173 percent in annualized returns, according to a prospectus obtained by the Los Angeles Times. But the businesses under his firm’s care did not always fare as well — and their names are less well-known than the ones the Romney campaign prefers to tout, such as Domino’s Pizza, Sports Authority and Staples….”

Mitt Romney has a few stooges in New Hampshire who are filing complaints that Newt’s robocalls violate the National Do Not Call Registry. Political calls are exempt.  This is all rather humorous and disgusting because in South Carolina, Nikki Haley is doing robocalls for Mitt.  Guess it’s illegal only when Mitt’s minions want to stop Newt, but it’s okay for his flunkies to do the same thing against Newt.

Stop Political Calls

Michael Savage is offering Newt Gingrich a million bucks to pull out of the election.

“…“There was a period of time right after the 2008 election when Republicans had collectively lost 50 seats in two election cycles and our viability was clearly in question and Newt was the one who continued to come to our conference and encourage us. He was maybe fulfilling the role of cheerleader at that point but I don’t recall seeing the other contenders down here telling us that cheerful persistence will pay off, and Newt did,” Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas)

As far as The Pink Flamingo is concerned, it is entirely possible Mitt Romney completely ruined his chances of being elected when he came out with his “I’ve been married to the same wife” ad. Everyone “Knows” Newt will self-destruct before Florida.  Why don’t you hear about Romney’s legendary temper.

Erick Erickson adds his own self-righteous spin.

“…I’m just not yet at a position where I think I can look myself in the mirror and be comfortable knowing I voted for a guy on his third wife who cheated on the first two. Honestly, it is more the cheating than the number of marriages. And even after moving his letter from the Baptist to the Catholic church, it seems he may have settled down on the marital front, but he’s still cheating on conservatives.

I’m having a very hard time this election trying to find a winner. I’m having a hard time trying to get used to the idea of Newt Gingrich as the guy with whom we will confront Barack Obama. The debates would be awesome. But the rest?

At what point does winning so badly mean willing to risk one’s principles or one’s soul?…”

Weekly Standard

WHY is the Beltway and conservative punditry so in love with Romney, and keep pushing him?  Very few liberals and Dems are going after Romney, but they are constantly going after Newt.   Why isn’t the media attacking Romney the way they are Gingrich?  Why isn’t the media beating up on Romney?  They have gone after Bachmann, Huntsmann, Santorum, Cain, and Perry.  They are going after Newt, now – but why is Mitt Romney sacred?  Mitt’s stand on immigration is going to cost him the Hispanic vote, rendering him unelectable.

First things first.  Have you noticed that Mitt Romney gets rattled and a little hostile when he is questioned.  He rather acts like Barack Obama, not wanting to be questioned.  If that rattles him, what would the Iranians do?  They talk about Good Newt Bad Newt, but no one is mentioning that Bad Mitt is starting to resurface.  Four years ago, he conducted one of the dirtiest and most arrogant of campaigns.  But – now that he has been anointed as the one to beat, none of that matters.  Doesn’t matter if Bad Mitt is behaving nastily against Newt.  Romney has yet to be properly vetted.

“...Electability has been central to the former Massachusetts governor’s pitch, but the new polls show him losing his edge on the issue. A CBS News/New York Times poll out Tuesday found 31 percent of likely Iowa caucus-goers think Gingrich has the best chance to beat President Barack Obama, compared with 29 percent for Romney. The other candidates trail in single digits….”

The problem is Mitt Romney is not electable.  He is going to go down in flames.  Obama is salivating to get to him. Two words:  Bain Capital.


Has the conservative punditry ever stopped to think that we don’t really want Mitt?  Most of us will vote for him, but maybe we want something different.  Maybe we have a gut feeling about a few things.  Rush is starting to see the light, and for once is calling people out, the way he should be doing.  It’s about time.

“...While Romney tries to pin the Outsider label on his lapel, primary voters are surely noticing that the party establishment has coalesced around him, not Gingrich. The Washington establishment doesn’t much care for Gingrich, while the base is rather fond of him. Romney hopes to eat into that support by making primary voters think of Gingrich as the establishment candidate and Romney as the rebellious outsider who will upend the status quo. That’s unlikely to happen for one, simple reason. It’s absurd….”

Something nasty is going on here.  There are numerous conservatives who say that Newt is not electable.  Well, they aren’t in touch with the “average” American, I gather.  Then there is this complaint that Donald Trump hosting a debate is a disaster.  It is not dignified?  Please, explain Ron Paul, Herman Cain, and Michele Bachmann.  I find the Donald a heck of alot more dignified than they are.  Nothing is as undignified as the continued hissy-fit Mark Steyn keeps pitching against Newt.  It is getting old.  Ann Coulter just plain old has a crush on Mitt, maybe?

Then there is this complaint that it is not dignified for Republicans to take place in his Iowa debate.  Please, explain dignified to the RNC.  The entire debate process has been undignified.  What is now even more undignified is the way conservatives are attacking. We all know that liberals are going to attack, and do but this constant hammering from conservatives is pathetic and disgusting.

Let’s take the private jet thing.  Then there is the Tiffany spending.  If he pays the damn bills, what’s the problem?   Conservatives drool over the Koch brothers and their billion dollar life style.  They’ve never met a millionaire they don’t love and adore.  They defend spending and money, BUT let someone they are out to destroy spend a little money some place other than commercial air and Walmart and they are evil and must be destroyed.

I don’t get it.  Conservative punditry likes to wax poetic about money, and millionaires. They glory in the fact that Mitt Romney is flying commercial – when we all know he is doing it for effect.  Newt Gingrich has been a money making machine.  That, too, is evil because he is not making it on Wall Street, tossing pizzas, or running capital investment firms.  He went out and schlepped for the millions he earned.

“…Gingrich and his aides say he has cut back on spending dramatically since the campaign’s near-collapse in June, always flying commercial and sometimes driving himself to appearances. He often stayed with friends, such as former Iowa congressman Greg Ganske, though he has recently gone back to lodging in name-brand hotels.

In addition, the candidate regularly piggybacks on already scheduled public gatherings, with the aim of attracting free “earned media,” or press coverage, rather than buying ads or paying for his own events. Last week in Iowa, for example, Gingrich appeared at a conservative group’s pizza party, addressed a Nationwide Insurance forum, appeared at a conference of electrical co-ops and was the keynote speaker at a local GOP dinner….”



Thank you Dennis Prager!

“….. I do not want to know anything about the sexual life of any candidate. Media reporting or questioning about candidates’ sexual lives constitutes a form of hypocrisy so deep that the English language does not have a word for it. Media people report on the sexual lives of candidates — for virtually any public office — on the grounds that since these politicians have great power, the public needs to know all about them. Yet, they offer no insight into their own sexual lives, even though some in the news media are far more powerful than almost any politician except the president of the United States. If we cannot trust a candidate who committed adultery, then why can we trust a news reporter or editor who has committed adultery?

The only thing this preoccupation with candidates’ sexual lives has achieved is to ensure that some of the best, brightest, finest, and most honest men in America never run for office….”

This is just insane.  The pile-on is growing deeper, thicker and stinkier each day.  Leading the hate is Jennifer Rubin.

“…The conservative base is understandably nervous that its nominee, if elected, will sell out. Like many Supreme Court justices, a presidential nominee, they fret, may become a captive of Beltway thinking and seek the approval of the press and liberal elites. It’s a rational concern. And there is substantial evidence that at least one of the candidates is susceptible to the Georgetown Syndrome…”

There are several things going on here.  First, the Dems want to knock Newt out of the race to run against Mitt.  Contrary to popular opinion, I think Mitt is much easier to beat than Newt.

The Daily Beast

Then there is Karl Rove and FOX.  They are propping up Romney.  Then again on Tuesday, Hannity was doing a Texas Two Step when it came to supporting the nominee.  It sounded as though he were doing an end run to turn around to support Newt?

Lindsey is one of the few Republicans who is being honest.

“…“It wasn’t easy to do what he did – he was the first Republican leader in the Congress in 40 years, and I think it showed,” Mr. Graham said, reminding the assembled reporters that the skills required to run a successful campaign don’t always translate to graceful management of the legislative body after an historic win. “I think he has learned from those experiences.”

Mr. Graham said the former speaker “certainly doesn’t hold grudges because the coup was held in my office.”

“The conversation I had with him was reassuring,” said the South Carolina Republican, who has not yet backed any of the candidates running for the nomination. “I’m talking to a different guy.”

Mr. Graham also dismissed Mr. Gingrich’s lack of endorsements from former colleagues.

“I’m not sure he worries about that one bit,” Mr. Graham said. “Why do you want a bunch of people helping you who are at 9%” in public-opinion polls?…”


The real problem?

“…“Where Romney, the former business executive and Massachusetts governor, poses a threat in his ability to win independents and conservative Democrats attracted to his image as an economic Mr. Fix-It, Gingrich could pursue a strategy that combines energizing the conservative base and chipping away Democratic support among Hispanics….

“Some Democrats believe that Gingrich, a hero of the conservative movement, would excite the party base more than a former liberal-state governor with a history of centrist views. And voters yearning for authenticity may be more open to the voluble and rumpled former House speaker, who frequently discusses his past mistakes and his recent conversion to Catholicism, than to a former equity-fund executive with perfect salt-and-pepper hair.

“‘He does not carry Wall Street baggage,’ said one Democratic strategist working on the Obama reelection effort, speaking on the condition of anonymity to freely discuss his thinking. ‘He’s really smart. He’s definitely authentic.’…“There are signs that Gingrich, 68, may be having some success with his image makeover.

“Democratic pollster Peter Hart was struck last week by the reactions of GOP primary voters who took part in a focus group Hart conducted for the Annenberg Public Policy Center. Asked what relative Gingrich reminded them of, several said a favorite uncle or a grandfather. Romney was a ‘missing father’ or a second cousin, Hart said, indicating the voters felt more affinity for Gingrich….

GOP strategists acknowledge that Gingrich could well self-destruct before winning the nomination. But if he survives, they say, he may be more formidable than some predict.”…”

Perhaps the problem is the conservative intelligentsia.

“…Indeed, the rise of Gingrich—and the real chance that he might win the nomination—highlights a major dilemna for the Republican Party establishment. For two decades, the GOP has attacked expertise and authority, and offered an emotional, reactive approach to politics—“You should go with your gut, and anyone who says otherwise is an elitist.” If Gingrich wins the nomination, against the wishes of seemingly everyone within the GOP nomination, it might be a sign that this approach worked too well. Republican leaders created a monster, and they’ve lost the power to control it….”

FIve Thirty Eight

I think Christian Whiton’s piece says it all.

“…Now reenter Newt Gingrich, the man whom Republican Washington just knows failed as Speaker of the House, despite the welfare, capital gains tax and balanced budget reforms that bear his fingerprints.

On EPA replacement, for example, Gingrich says: “I don’t think you can train the current bureaucrats. I think their bias against capitalism, their bias against local government, their bias against economic rationality, is just amazing.”

Here, Gingrich is revealing his reverence for Andrew Jackson, who in his presidency succeeded in replacing fully one-fifth of the federal bureaucracy, seeing this as a requirement for radical change.

Most Washingtonian Republicans view desires like this as hopelessly naive. During their careers, they have seen modest changes, but nothing like the major shifts in Washington that have occurred at turning points in American history. Those with historical knowledge of them tend to know only of times the bureaucracy grew as opposed to those where it was actually tamed.

The idea of reversing federal growth is fine to keep on the wish list, but those who advocate it seriously are seen as rubes—either new arrivals in Washington who just fell off a turnip truck or unsophisticated congressmen from ‘flyover country.’ To be a true Beltway Republican is to have accepted the assumption that the scope of government cannot be radically altered. And they think it is politically foolish to try….”


If you check the libertarian sites, you’ll discover they dislike Newt Gingrich so much, they’re supporting Romney. All of this is a bit strange, because Romney is no libertarian. It makes you wonder what is going on here. It also makes you realize “libertarian” is not about “libertarian” but about Cato, AFP, and a few other things. Today’s libertarian is their stooge.

For some strange reason, libertarians are in love with Mitt. That makes sense, he is one of them. Survival of the fittest, now matter how many jobs you destroy. It’s all about making money.

Glenn Beck is in a hissy fit, angry with Newt for saying that Teddy Roosevelt was on of his favorite presidents. Good Golly Miss Molly, doesn’t Newt have the brains to know that Glenn Beck doesn’t like Teddy Roosevelt. Doesn’t Newt know that he is to like who Beck says he should like and hate who Beck says to hate? True to form, Beck’s libertarian lap-dog, Andrew Napolitano agrees with Beck. I bet you dos centavos that John Stossell will be right along with them. It’s a libertarian thing.

Beck looks a little crazed in this photo.

Raw Story

The libertarians are after Newt. They don’t like him. Sparkles Bachmann called him a “socialist”. There is a very good reason for this. Newt is not a libertarian.

“...As he said in 2007, “It’s not a point of view libertarians would embrace, but I am more in the Alexander Hamilton-Teddy Roosevelt tradition of conservatism. I recognize that there are times when you need government to help spur private enterprise and economic development.”

Look at American history, Gingrich continued, “The government provided railroad land grants to encourage widespread adoption of what was then the most modern form of transportation to develop our country. The Homestead Act essentially gave away land to those willing to live on it and develop it. We used what were in effect public-private partnerships to bring telephone service and electricity to every community in our nation. All of these are examples of government bringing about public purposes without creating massive taxpayer-funded bureaucracies.”…”

If you start reading the comments on articles against Newt, Romney supporters are starting to sound like Ron Paul Bots.

“…This week, Cato vice president Gene Healy penned a piece in the Washington Examiner urging conservatives not to settle on Newt. “Newt’s hardly the ‘anti-Romney,’” Healy cautions, “he’s Mitt Romney with more baggage.”

According to Healy, Gingrich’s opposition to Paul Ryan’s budget, which remade Medicare into a private coverage system, betrayed an “irresponsible approach toward entitlements.” When it comes to foreign policy, Healy reminds us, in 2009 Newt “proposed zapping a North Korean missile site with laser weapons.” Boaz concurs: “Gingrich looks like a volatile guy to have his finger on the button.” The libertarian magazine Reason has been in full anti-Newt gear this week as well. In one article titled “Appalling Moments in Newtspeak,” Jacob Sullum reminds readers of Gingrich’s willingness to compromise civil liberties in the name of national security.

While less than perfect, libertarians are hoping for a Jon Huntsman resurgence to spare them from Newt and Mitt. “I think there is burgeoning interest in Jon Huntsman,” says Boaz, though perhaps “too late to matter.” While not a card-carrying libertarian, says Tanner, he possesses the right combination of a very conservative economic agenda and more moderate positions on foreign policy and social issues.

But a candidate Romney or God-forbid Gingrich is more likely. Libertarian blogger Will Wilkinson expressed the libertarian frustration with Newt Gingrich with a little dramatic flair on Twitter Monday: “If Newt Gingrich becomes president, we all deserve to die in a purifying fire.”…”


Karl Rove is against Newt. That makes sense.


Speaking of Ron Paul, he is starting to become downright vicious against Newt. Gingrich made Glenn Beck look like a libertarian fool, which he is, in a Q/A that pundits are saying Beck did well with. Beck came across as an ignorant lout.

“...Beck also zeroed in on Gingrich’s references to former President Theodore Roosevelt, and noted that Roosevelt started the progressive party. Gingrich said he thinks some of Roosevelt’s ideas led to social advantages we take for granted today. “There are minimum regulatory standards of public health and safety that I think are really important,” he said.

“What I’m against is government trying to implement things because bureaucracy’s such a bad implementer,” he said. “And I’m against government trying to pick winners and losers. … You want to make sure for example, that if you buy certain electric things, that they don’t start fires in your house.”…”

Let’s make Glenn Beck look like a fool!

The Blaze

It’s a Ron Paul kinda’ thing.


The problem is Glenn Beck is NOT Republican. He once played on one FOX, but he was a Dem a few years ago. Now he is a libertarian.

United Liberty

2 thoughts on “PART I: Newt Gingrich Is Evil, and Must Be Destroyed

  1. Thank you, Pink Flamingo, for such an enlightening post. I’m afraid we are going to have to brace ourselves for 4 more years of Obama. Whether there will be anything left of the country after that is hard to say. Get ready for the USSA. Nikki Haley has now endorsed Mitt – weird!

Comments are closed.