Newt Gingrich: Lone Wolf, Loose Cannon

The New York Times has an article about Newt Gingrich's leadership style that voters may find very troubling in choosing a leader for the country: He doesn't take advice from others about strategy decisions -- he just marches to his own drum.

Asked in a debate here Thursday night to name one thing he might undo about his campaign, he said, “I would skip the opening three months where I hired regular consultants.”

Instead, Mr. Gingrich makes nearly all the key strategic decisions by himself, and in a manner befitting his personality — spontaneously, thinking aloud, often voicing a half-formed idea in full public view before committing to it.


One former Republican Congressman tells the Times:

There was a breakdown that had to do with his inability to process information beyond his own predispositions and his own ego,” said Vin Weber, a former Republican representative from Minnesota, who in the 1990s worked with Mr. Gingrich on returning their party to power in the House.

“We’d get up every morning, we’re like an army marching in a different direction and people never could understand why,” said Mr. Weber, who now supports Mr. Romney.

If this is how he runs his campaign, and how he made decisions when in Congress, voters should ask themselves if he's not likely to run his Presidency the same way and contemplate the dangers in such an approach. There's a reason Presidents have Cabinets. The Presidency is not a one-person game.

Newt Gingrich: Lone Wolf, Loose Cannon. Presidential material? Hardly.

< Great News For Dems: Newt On The Rise | US to Expand Drug War Along Northern Border >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Newt makes (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 08:10:07 PM EST
    the "anyone else" category palatable. Franco, Gilbert Gottfried, the Jim and kdog ticket ( which I support 100 percent, actually... a truthful pair, whether you agree with them or not)... heck, Newt makes me wish W could run for a third term.

    Instead, we get "the lesser of two weevils."  I am so dammed glad I'm out of the USA now.

    But is not this quality the one (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 11:25:48 PM EST
    many here wish Obama would exhibit?

    Whicxh quality, Oculus? (none / 0) (#15)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 11:33:17 PM EST
    The authoritarian, crypto-fascist quality, or the truth quality? Obama's a politician, and is biologically incapable of the second. The first? Obama has been displaying that one for four years, just not as openly as others.

    This is the true "hold your nose and vote for the Supreme Court" election, in 2012. I do not think that even the supreme court trump plays as a power card in 2012.

    There's maladjusted history professor versus maladjusted law professor, neither of whom deserve a vote. The system will force a winner though, because the system is the house.

    Any gambler knows the house always wins.


    Sticking to one's principles whatever may (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 11:51:33 PM EST

    Thanks, oculus... let me reply... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by jeffinalabama on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 12:20:39 AM EST
    I think the current president's principles consist of getting re-elected, and nothing more.

    In other words, he could begin as a radical-liberal (which he didn't) then become Stalin, then become Ward and June Cleaver, depending on where the electoral votes come from. Policy and position mean little to the current President, unless they relate to his re-election. Perhaps this has been caused by his advisors. I doubt it. He stands for process, electoral process.

    No, I don't respect Obama's handling of either domestic or foreign issues in general. Some specifics? yes. But in general, a third Bush term, a Romney term, these would be close to the same as Obama's first term, with the supreme court notwithstanding.

    By my understanding from talking to a (nonrepresentative, admittedly) selection of tort lawyers, Ledbetter has almost no teeth, nor do other policies.

    When examining health insurance reform, the delay in implementation, given the pimp-prostitute relationship between Big Insurance/Big Pharma and the administration-- the administration giving its money and then asking 'don't you love me best, baby' of the businesspimps... well, need I say more here?

    I agree with kdog. The grift is built in. But what Jim points out-- no foreign policy here, i'll discuss that myself with Jim-- is that energy costs aren't stable, and, additionally, the various stimuli have been either pathetically unimportant or criminally negligent, except for, perhaps, the auto industry bailouts. Since the president sets energy policy, economic policy, and jobs policies, why is this happening, and why are there no long-term plans to resolve the issues, even if the plans anger the DFH's and environmentalists, and/or republicans in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, or Wisconsin?

    Maybe because it doesn't matter. The fix has been in, and we aren't part of the grift. Or if you're part of the grift, then you're here as a provocateur.

    Much more to be discussed on this issue. Tomorrow morning I'm going to meet with some people who have green nonprofit farms following Colombia's ratification of Kyoto. I'll try to be back sometime later, even though it might be two or three days.


    not that i'm aware of. (none / 0) (#16)
    by cpinva on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 11:33:52 PM EST
    pres. obama's failing, in my opinion, is taking advice from the wrong people, not failing to take advice at all.

    There's a reason why Obama chose (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by Anne on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 09:35:47 AM EST
    these particular people for his team and I don't believe it was because they didn't share his worldview, his goals, his beliefs.

    I think it far more likely that they are there, and in Geithner's case, still there, because they are helping him do what he wants to do.

    I don't see, really, what good it does to keep denying that the Obama we've been experiencing for the last three years is who he really is; he is not some incompetent tool/fool doing the bidding of the underlings.


    Exactly (none / 0) (#47)
    by chrisvee on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 11:58:43 AM EST
    Obama is an intelligent person. He's not an unwitting tool.

    What burns me up the most is the austerity pandering. Clearly Obama (and many others in positions of political leadership) are smart enough to comprehend MMT; that they continue to feed us this austerity crap reveals them as either craven or opportunistic.

    In this environment of Dems always being will to 'take one for the team'  I wonder who will arise to take over leadership from Obama?

    Gingrich is just an abomination on all levels but certainly he would energize the Dem base.


    Hmmmm. Good point. (none / 0) (#20)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 11:55:31 PM EST
    But at the end of the day, if Obama's advisors advise him to do what Newt 'would' do (somewhat an exaggeration, but given the authoritarian leanings of the current CIC, not over-the-top, IMO), is there a difference, other than Obama's smoother delivery?

    Newt, in addition to being a batsh!t crazed politician devoted to his own cult of personality, happens to have a pathetically bad public speaking voice, whether lecturing or 'leading.'


    On some level Newt makes (none / 0) (#24)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 01:01:11 AM EST
    Ron Paul look reasonable.  I am not a huge fan of Obama, but he's not insane like most of the GOP leadership is and he's not completely delusional as Newt has proven himself to be countless times during his public life.  I had forgotten how nuts he is until I read the Esquire article yesterday.  I think I had forgotten because his last time at the the peak of power was too frustrating and unpleasant to retain in my memory banks.

    Good managers and (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 09:18:17 AM EST
    truly smart people reject bad advice.

    I think Obama is a poor manager, thank goodness, but he likes the "bad" advice he is getting.

    But I gotta say you just gave one of the best excuses for Obama I've seen.


    Why Newt is having a 2nd act IMO (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 08:23:12 AM EST
    Romney is stiff, uncomfortable, cold, zombie without the Reagan, dog torturing, wound too tight when he is trying to be personable as if he might actually eat the people he is greeting... he's just all wrong and he is part of the 1 percent who should never ever make jokes about firing people and "maybe" releasing his taxes.  He doesn't get people even worse than Obama doesn't get people.  

    Newt doesn't really get people either but people get him.  They respond to his ability to think on his feet, to come back with a snappy answer to stupid questions.  The imagine him slicing up Obama in a debate and they want to see that.  They think of all the dithering from the white house for the last four years and they think "Newt doesn't dither". They like that Newt is willing to beat up on Obama and democrats in congress.  And the old theme of the leftist media victimizing poor republicans is probably thrilling some people living in a cave somewhere.
    At least Newt has some life in him.  Compared to what has felt like a slow sad slide in to national failure and 2nd world stature, new life, whatever form it takes is attractive.

    I think if Newt gets the republican nomination there will be a third party candidate or a brokered convention.  I can't imagine an election where the independents accept a choice of Obama, Newt or Romney.  Frankly I can't even imagine most democrats or republicans being happy with that.

    Great analysis of Newt's appeal (none / 0) (#42)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 03:06:10 PM EST
    I even find myself cheering him occasionally, such as telling Mitt to cut out the "pious baloney" about not really being a politician.

    But I do disagree about the third party thing if Newt gets the nomination.  What the super-righties won't tolerate without a big fight, I think, is Romney.  I don't think they'll be able to go third party, but there's more of a chance there than anywhere else, IMO.


    It appears (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by CoralGables on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 10:06:49 AM EST
    South Carolina is looking at a possible 20 point swing over the course of one week. Romney was up an average of ten points a week ago, and now it's beginning to look as if Romney could be a 10 point loser in today's primary.

    Something (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 07:42:22 PM EST
    nobody seems to discuss is the fact that Newt does not have the oral discipline to run for president.

    that would seem to be at odds (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 08:09:18 PM EST
    with his pole numbers.

    I would love to say I think (particularly republican) voters would ask questions as serious as the ones in this post.  sadly I dont think they will.
    people who support him do so because he is a loose cannon.  because he is angry or at least has the ability to appear to be as angry as they are.

    Newt is a liar a fraud and a cynical poseur.  but in my opinion he is not a clown.  he is dangerous.  particularly so in a time when the country is in such deep distress and so angry. he has a frighenting ability to channel and hijack the anger of the republicans.  if by some miracle he becomes the nominee (something I see as more possible by the day) and god forbid the economy takes a more serious downturn because of europe or whatever else.  god protect us.

    I do not make nazi comparisons often or lightly but one may be in order here.  Newt has a fiendishly nimble mind and manipulative sole.

    be afraid.


    Nixon without the self discipline (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 11:51:23 PM EST
    That is dammed close to the (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 11:59:03 PM EST
    mark.   there something more, but i can't quite explain it without having to think about Gingrich. I'd much rather a) pick the lint out of my navel, or b) get into a blog-clogging display of posts with ABG.

    Yep, b is definitely the worst choice of any I mentioned.


    I think I might say (none / 0) (#27)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 08:49:13 AM EST
    Nixon with the cunning to get away with it.

    Pole numbers? Pun intended? (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by ruffian on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 11:55:36 AM EST
    And then there is the.... (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by easilydistracted on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 12:22:10 PM EST
    ...Newt on The Rise

    from the astute BTD.

    Yes, well (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Zorba on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 01:02:31 PM EST
    the puns and double entendres just write themselves when it's about Newt Gingrich, don't they?   ;-)

    And here I thought I was the only one (none / 0) (#33)
    by easilydistracted on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 12:05:04 PM EST
    to notice the double entendre.

    HA (none / 0) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 02:39:46 PM EST
    only subconsciously.  

    Do you mean that (none / 0) (#2)
    by DFLer on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 08:01:58 PM EST
    he doesn't brush his teeth?

    One former Republican (none / 0) (#5)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 08:11:22 PM EST
    Vin Weber must have an ax to grind. He's a DC lobbyist that was gone from the House two years before Newt ever became Speaker.

    Fox's latest spin on Gingrich's leadership (none / 0) (#6)
    by Yman on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 08:12:31 PM EST
    The "psychological data" - aka Newt's three marriages - is a big positive for Newt:

    So, here's what one interested in making America stronger can reasonably conclude -- psychologically -- from Mr. Gingrich's behavior during his three marriages:

    1. Three women have met Mr. Gingrich and been so moved by his emotional energy and intellect that they decided they wanted to spend the rest of their lives with him.

    2. Two of these women felt this way even though Mr. Gingrich was already married.

    3. One of them felt this way even though Mr. Gingrich was already married for the second time, was not exactly her equal in the looks department and had a wife (Marianne) who wanted to make his life without her as painful as possible.

    Conclusion: When three women want to sign on for life with a man who is now running for president, I worry more about whether we'll be clamoring for a third Gingrich term, not whether we'll want to let him go after one.

    I thought this had to be The Onion, but it's not.

    Since #1 (none / 0) (#7)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 08:18:35 PM EST
    was his high school teacher (today would she be arrested?), I'm pretty sure one of our TL closest psychologists could analyze Newt's relationship issues as stemming from her.

    they preceded her by years (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 09:38:01 PM EST
    read about his early life. A snippet:

    Newt was a solitary boy whose extreme nearsightedness made it extremely difficult for him to recognize people until he was about 12, according to Bob Gingrich. He made few if any friends, said relatives.

    His mother was bipolar, he was overweight and had no friends, he didn't find out his stepfather wasn't his real father until he was 15.

    Dr. Frederick Goodwin, director of the Center on Neuroscience, Behavior, and Society at the George Washington University Medical Center and a national authority on bipolar disorder, said that "Gingrich's quickness, his ability to pick things up quickly, is consistent with studies of first-degree relatives of manic-depressives."

    While stating that he was not making a diagnosis, he noted that in leaders, hypomanic behavior is "often intolerant and impulsive." Studies characterize the thinking of a person in a hypomanic state as "flighty. He jumps by bypaths from one subject to another, and cannot adhere to anything."

    There's a lot more out there, a lot of it coming from his family.


    That's Keith Ablow` (none / 0) (#40)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 02:58:23 PM EST
    Dr. Keith Ablow, a totally batshit crazy mean psychiatrist who's a Fox "contributor."  To be entirely fair, I suspect most of the rest of the Fox people snicker and shake their heads at most of the stuff he comes out with because it's too loony even for them.

    Can we have threads devoted to bashing ... (none / 0) (#8)
    by cymro on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 09:01:23 PM EST
    ... Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum?  

    I am no fan of any of the GOP candidates, but if we're going to bash them, why not keep things fair and balanced?  TL seems to be aligning with the Republican establishment in singling out Newt for extra special attention.

    You can bssh the others on (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 09:39:59 PM EST
    open threads. I don't care to give any of them much attention, but Newt is particularly dangerous. There will be plenty of time to bash the ultimate nominee once he's out. And I'm just doing my part to get rid of him sooner rather than later.

    I don't follow your logic (none / 0) (#13)
    by cymro on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 11:17:33 PM EST
    You say that "there will be plenty of time to bash the ultimate nominee," so why contribute to the anti-Newt rhetoric before he becomes the nominee?

    IMO, there are two possibilities:

    (a) Newt becomes the nominee. Highly unlikely IMO, given the preferences of the GOP establishment. But in any case, as you argue above, there will still be plenty of time to attack him. He will not defeat Obama, and he will have prevented Romney from getting the nomination.

    (a) Newt does not become the nominee. The likely outcome, IMO. In which case, the longer he stays in the primary race, attacking Romney, the more he hurts the GOP cause in the long run. He may contribute significantly to the ultimate defeat of Romney in the presidential election.

    So what's the point of working to "to get rid of him sooner rather than later"?  


    I can't speak for anyone else, but (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Anne on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 08:53:35 AM EST
    the best reason I can think of to get rid of Newt now is to not give one more minute of legitimacy to him and the particular brand of crazy that drives him.

    Anyone who spends 10 minutes looking at his background and history can see that there's a whole lot of pathology and dysfunction there that, mixed with the power of the office, has the potential to be extremely dangerous.

    No, I don't care how useful people think his presence might be to elevate Obama to another 4 years, Newt is an example of the kind of candidate who needs to have his plans decisively cut off at the knees, even to the extent of foreclosing even the possibility of appearing on anyone's ticket as the No. 2 guy.

    As MKS so accurately said, he's Nixon without the discipline, or, if a more current reference is needed, he's what The Decider would have been if he'd had Dick Cheney's brain.


    If only TalkLeft posts had the power ... (none / 0) (#36)
    by cymro on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 01:30:52 PM EST
    ... to "to get rid of Newt now (and) not give one more minute of legitimacy to him," just think what else we could accomplish after that!

    I have no such illusions that we can actually affect the Republican primary. I'm simply agreeing with BTD that Newt's continued presence in the race is a good thing for Democrats, because it keeps the GOP off balance.

    I am not concerned about him winning the nomination, because I don't believe he will. And if (through some failure on Romney's part) Newt does actually become the nominee, I'm not concerned about him winning the presidency.

    So, even though I agree with everything you say about his unsuitability for the role of President, I don't share your fears of that actually happening. Time will tell if I'm wrong...


    i think you'd best go find a dictionary, (none / 0) (#17)
    by cpinva on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 11:42:17 PM EST
    and look up the word "bash", because it's clear you don't its actual meaning. citing facts, regardless of how unpleasant they may be, about someone, is ordinarily not considered bashing.

    mr. gingrich has a public history, and it's not a generally positive one. again, you may not like this, but there it is. bashing would be strictly opining, with no substantive, factual basis.


    Since you like dictionaries ... (none / 0) (#22)
    by cymro on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 12:17:40 AM EST
    ... here's a typical definition of "bash" (link): To engage in harsh, accusatory, threatening criticism.. Other dictionaries have similar definitions. I saw no mention of whether such criticism has a factual basis.

    While we're on the subject of definitions, here's the definition of "Loose Cannon" (link): An unpredictable person or thing, liable to cause damage if not kept in check by others.

    In relation to Newt, it seems to me that the first part of that definition appears to be factual, while the second part is opining.

    Finally, if you don't like that definition, here's another one (link): an uncontrolled or unpredictable person who causes damage to his own faction, political party etc. [my emphasis]

    So, regardless of the question of whether there are factual bases for criticisms of Newt, if you really believe he is a "loose cannon" then this definition supports my original argument for keeping him around as long as possible.

    Thanks for the stimulus you provided--I do like dictionaries myself :-)


    Why stop with those three? (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 10:20:44 PM EST
    If you want to dilute the criticism, ask us to bash the republican down the street that doesn't clean up the dog poop.

    Santorum is too stupid to be elected. His monetary supporters, i venture, have less intelligence or common sense than he does.

    Paul is a joke. His presidential Ayn Randiness has been a joke for years, but the republican party has a portion, a very stupid portion, that keeps supporting ol' ronnie. When he implodes or begins to show signs of dementia, they will switch to Rand.

    Mittens is... well, a lot like Obama in certain policies. And, as Jeralyn says, less likely to cause the problems an evil git like Newt would.

    Concentrating on the disgusting history professor who finds the educational practices in The Congo (the same colony (actually personal possession of the Belgian king) in which arms of non-workers were cut off by Europeans and indigenous security personnel with Pangas (machetes)... well, this person wanting to be president saw it easy to support the educational program there.

    Fair and balanced? it doesn't exist. Report the truth about the most heinous. Let the stupid be branded by their words, but let's keep pointing out that the authoritarian, crypto-fascist movement has re-emerged HARD on the republican side.

    Don't think I forgive Obama for his authoritarian, crypto-fascist governance. But Obama has been a crypto-fascist. Newt, like Cheney, wants to lose the crypto difference.


    At least you spread your vitriol around ... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by cymro on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 01:56:11 PM EST
    ... rather than focusing solely on one GOP candidate.

    I can't agree with all your characterizations, however. Calling Santorum "stupid" and Paul "a joke" does not do justice to their career success as politicians. We may not agree with their views, but a lot of people do. It's easy to dismiss all those people as "wrong-headed" or "misguided." But if we're ever going to get some of those people to change their minds and vote for "our" candidate, we have to start by understanding them, not dismissing them.


    The career success of Rick Santorum? (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 03:02:41 PM EST
    He got defeated by 18 points for a second term in the Senate.

    I agree he's not all that stupid, but he sure is single-minded and not particularly intellectually nimble.


    So getting elected to the US Senate ... (none / 0) (#43)
    by cymro on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 04:19:11 PM EST
    ... just once is a failure in politics?! I guess there are an awful lot of failed politicians out there, all those unsuccessful wimps who never made it beyond their local government or state offices.

    Well, no (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 09:21:52 PM EST
    but there's a very wide space between being a success and being a failure, wouldn't you say?

    He got elected more or less on a fluke and couldn't get reelected.  That ain't a record of success in my book.  Maybe it is in yours.


    So being a US Senator is a not a failure ... (none / 0) (#45)
    by cymro on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 10:36:41 PM EST
    ... but it's just ho-hum, not really a success, unless you also get re-elected. Sorry, I don't see how you can possibly justify that opinion, when--out of the entire US adult population of approximately 100 million adults--an average of 16.25 people per year achieve that distinction.

    You do set a very high bar, one that is tougher for politicians to attain than athletes, for example. To be consistent, you must not regard an athlete as successful until they make the professional all-star team in their chosen sport, because all-star teams are all slightly easier to reach than the US Senate; they honor 20 players (hockey), or 24 players (basketball), or 68 players (baseball). The rest of the players in the major leagues are not failures, but not successes either.

    Do you by any chance live in New York, where your sports teams are perennially stuffed with super-stars, and your sports teams are regarded as failures unless they win the championship each season?


    A Francis phrasing (none / 0) (#38)
    by christinep on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 02:04:48 PM EST
    Cymro:  I've long admired those --as your comment reminds me--who do not "seek so much to be understood as to understand.".  Per St. Francis of Assisi.  

    There's a funny interview his parents did (none / 0) (#11)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 09:50:12 PM EST
    in 1995 with Connie Chung -- it was aired on TV and his mother whispered a secret to Connie only the mic was on and picked it up: Newt had told her Hillary was a b*tch:

    CHUNG: What does Newt tell you about President Clinton?

    Mr. GINGRICH: The only thing he ever told me--that he's smart, that he's an intelligent man and he's not very practical, but he is intelligent. That's all he's ever told me.

    CHUNG: Mrs. Gingrich, what has--what has Newt told you about President Clinton?

    Mrs. GINGRICH: Nothing, and I can't tell you what he said about Hillary.

    CHUNG: You can't?

    Mrs. GINGRICH: I can't.

    CHUNG: Why don't you just whisper it to me, just between you and me?

    Mrs. GINGRICH: (Whispers) She's a bitch.

    About the only thing he ever said about her. I think they had some meeting, you know, and she takes over.

    CHUNG: She does?

    Mrs. GINGRICH: Oh, yeah. Yeah. But when Newtie's there, she can't.

    Source: Eye to Eye with Connie Chung, Speaker of the House; Kathleen and Bob Gingrich and Their Daughters Discuss Newt Gingrich's Life and Rise in Politics, CBS News Transcripts January 05, 1995,

    "Ignorance" IS (none / 0) (#46)
    by Amiss on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 03:34:18 AM EST
    bliss :)

    "Maverick!" (none / 0) (#25)
    by lilburro on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 01:28:09 AM EST
    Just kidding.  That Newt is experiencing a second act in American Life at all is incredibly interesting.  Is there no photogenic white American male not named Rick Perry who can lift the crown from his head?  Sheesh.