Newt Rips Hillary

[carpro]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/0301200...s_nasty_hill_nationalnews_maggie_haberman.htm


NEWT RIPS 'NASTY' HILL
DROPS NICE-GUY APPROACH TO 'RUTHLESS' RIVAL
By MAGGIE HABERMAN


March 1, 2007 -- Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich yesterday called Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton "a nasty woman" who runs an "endlessly ruthless" campaign machine.

The conservative Republican made the surprising comments - after months of taking care not to trash the Democratic presidential front-runner - in a wide-ranging New York Post editorial-board interview.

Asked whether Americans are ready to elect Rudy Giuliani - a leader, the questioner noted, whom Ed Koch had called a "nasty man" - Gingrich shot back, "As opposed to a nasty woman?"

Gingrich added that he thinks she'll be the nominee, and cited the battle between Clinton's camp and Sen. Barack Obama's team last week over Obama donor David Geffen bashing the former first couple.

"Nobody will out-mud the Clintons," said Gingrich, who added that he'll decide in the coming months whether to run for the White House.

He called Clinton's political team one of the most "talented" in U.S. history, but "endlessly ruthless."

"You can't beat them tactically . . . They're too relentless, they're too well-organized, they have too big a machine and they'll just grind you down," he said.

"If they think [Obama] is a real threat, they'll just grind him up."

 

[saturneptune]

There are some things Newt Gingrich has done in the past I do not care for, but would vote for him over the three front runners announced so far for the republicans.

 

[carpro]

There are some things Newt Gingrich has done in the past I do not care for, but would vote for him over the three front runners announced so far for the republicans.

Maybe.

So far as I can see, he is the only Republican even mentioned as a nominee that is smart enough and articulate enough to debate any of the democrats on the issues... and win the debate on the merits.

But he may well be as unelectable as some believe Hillary to be. Both are polarizing figures. But democrats are afraid of him. They remember 1994 ,and Gingrich, as the architect of their downfall from power.

 

[mcdirector]

Gingrich is smart and articulate - I can't believe he let that comment slip. But he cannot take the moral high ground. His divorce and it's circumstances are going to haunt him regardless of how politically astute he is.

Of course Giuliani's personal life is part of the reason I don't believe he'll get too far in the process either.

 

[church mouse guy]

I disagree about divorce being a factor with Rudy. Afterall, Reagan was divorced and some Republicans were against him on that grounds. So I think that Rudy can set that issue aside easily by just saying that he was divorced twice instead of once. Afterall, Rudy is big city and Reagan broke the trail. As for Rudy's ill-spoken stance on abortion, he is going to have to say that it is merely a personal opinion and that he will support and work for the long-standing GOP plank of ending abortion.

But I agree that Gingrich is out of the running for President. I think that Romney is too because the Mormons are just too wierd.

 

[mcdirector]

In Giuliani's case, there is more than just a divorce or two. There was a notorious divorce. And he was a mayor, granted he was the mayor of a really big city in a really big crisis, but he was still a mayor. Reagan had been married to his Mrs. for quite a while and was a former governor.

Personally, I think the abortion issue is problematic for a Republican as is his stance on gay marriage.

 

[church mouse guy]

Well, Mcdirector, I was reading you seriously until your remarks about capital punishment and your endorsement of Ron Paul's abolition of the death penalty. So your point is not theologically based in my mind.

As for Reagan, I think that a divorce is a divorce and for a public figure there will always be scandal connected with it as long as we buy newspapers from the yellow press. So the question becomes, do you have a principled stand against divorce or are you just against messy divorces?

Here again, I will depart from Fundamentalism in that I believe that divorce is allowed in cases of adultery or desertion, in which after a period of time it is assumed that adultery has occurred. So if you are going to allow a divorce in the case of adultery, then in my mind you have to allow multiple divorces to an individual. In other words, a man has a right to divorce a woman who has committed adultery.

However, legally, our society allows for divorce on any grounds, so I think Rudy has no problem that the Democrats can attack. Here again, assuming it is Rudy vs. Hillary, Hillary has one of the strangest marriages in the world and she is not likely to attack Rudy on divorce, although her operatives might since the Clintons are dirty politically.

 

[KenH]

If Rudy's two former wives couldn't trust him, why should I - or anyone else?

 

[KenH]

So far as I can see, he is the only Republican even mentioned as a nominee that is smart enough and articulate enough to debate any of the democrats on the issues... and win the debate on the merits.

Congressman Ron Paul is the only potential Republican nominee who has the intelligence and can lay out a stance on the issue to whip the Democrats in debate on the merits. He is a true straight talker and won't have to hem haw around or defend flip flops.

 

[mcdirector]

Well, Mcdirector, I was reading you seriously until your remarks about capital punishment and your endorsement of Ron Paul's abolition of the death penalty. So your point is not theologically based in my mind.

I didn't make any remarks about capital punishment nor did I endorse Ron Paul in any way. I meerly said that I do not support any of the current front runners in this thread or the Ron Paul thread. Posting on a thread is not endorsement. Please go back and read both threads. You are putting words in my mouth cmg.

 

[carpro]

Congressman Ron Paul is the only potential Republican nominee who has the intelligence and can lay out a stance on the issue to whip the Democrats in debate on the merits.

Obviously, I disagree.

 

[hillclimber1]

There are some things Newt Gingrich has done in the past I do not care for, but would vote for him over the three front runners announced so far for the republicans.

So would I SN, and I'm encouraged over Ron Paul's interest.

 

[hillclimber1]

Gingrich is smart and articulate - I can't believe he let that comment slip. But he cannot take the moral high ground. His divorce and it's circumstances are going to haunt him regardless of how politically astute he is.

Of course Giuliani's personal life is part of the reason I don't believe he'll get too far in the process either.

I don't think he miscalculated with that comment. He may be establishing the idea that he will not be put off by politically correct nonsense.

 

[mcdirector]

I don't think he miscalculated with that comment. He may be establishing the idea that he will not be put off by politically correct nonsense.

Could well be. It is certainly nonsense.

 

[saturneptune]

So would I SN, and I'm encouraged over Ron Paul's interest.

I was actually thrilled to see we finally agree on something. I get a really sick feeling about this next election, and not sure why, since no one is sure who will win. Given the collection of weak republican candidates, there does not seem to be a lot of chance of improving the Presidency.