Gingrich Says He’s ‘Conservative Alternative’ to Romney

Gingrich discussed the GOP nomination race yesterday with Sean Hannity. He spent several minutes expanding on illegal immigration/border security. If he articulates his positions on the issue this well, he will be hard for his opponents to pin down.

Romney: I'll Be Better Than Ted For Gay Rights

This is a prime example as to why Romney struggles with such a large swath of the GOP electorate.

I have a question for the MittHeads...do you believe this reflected his sincere views at the time? For the record, I do not.

....In an interview with Bay Windows Aug. 18th, Romney said one reason he's a better candidate for the Senate than opponent Sen, Edward Kennedy is because his voice would carry more weight on lesbian and gay issues than does Kennedy's....

Blackstone's Steve Schwarzman backs Mitt Romney

Stephen Schwarzman, chairman of the world’s largest private-equity firm, will host a fundraiser for Mitt Romney at his Park Avenue apartment next month, a sign that Romney is closing the sale with Wall Street’s wealthiest donors.

The event marks Schwarzman’s inaugural step to help Romney secure the Republican presidential nomination, according to a person familiar with Schwarzman’s plans who spoke on condition of anonymity. He will follow up with efforts to persuade colleagues in the financial industry to get behind Romney’s presidential bid, the person said.

Backing from Schwarzman, co-founder of Blackstone Group LP and a longtime Republican donor, may open doors for Romney with other contributors as the field of Republican candidates remains crowded with a little more than five weeks before the first nomination contest.

The full story is HERE.

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

Mitt Romney's Florida Surprise

Mitt Romney will pick up the ultimate Cuban-American endorsement trifecta Tuesday in South Florida: The support of U.S. Reps. Ileana Ros Lehtinen and Mario Diaz-Balart, and his brother, former Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart.

The endorsements of the Miami Cuban-American leaders is a leading indicator that Romney is making a big push in Florida for one of its most crucial voting blocs in the state's Republican primary, scheduled for Jan. 31.

“It’s a major boost for any candidate when the three of them get together and move in one direction,” said Carlos Curbelo, a Miami-Dade School Board member who has worked for the Diaz-Balart brothers.

“They represent this community,” he said. “In Miami-Dade, their support is crucial.”

The full story is HERE.

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

PPP Pollong: Romney beats Obama by 7 in Arizona, Gingrich only ties Obama

Arizona is one of the Obama campaign's dream states for 2012 but their chances there aren't looking very good right now- Obama has poor approval numbers in the state and trails Mitt Romney by a healthy margin.

Obama's Arizona approval rating is only 41% with 54% of voters disapproving of him. A higher than normal 22% of Democrats disapprove of the job he's doing, and with independents he's at a pretty bad 35/57 spread. Obama's seen a fair amount of erosion of his numbers in the state since early May, when his approval came down at a 46/50 spread.

Obama trails a hypothetical match up with Mitt Romney, 49-42. That 7 point spread is pretty similar to the 9 points Obama lost to John McCain by in 2008. Romney leads Obama by 11 points with independents and takes an impressive 16% of the Democratic vote.

Head-To-Head:

Mitt Romney 49% (+7)
Barack Obama 42%

Ron Paul 44% (+1)
Barack Obama 43%

Barack Obama 45%
Newt Gingrich 45% ( - )

Barack Obama 46%
Herman Cain 42% (-4)

Barack Obama 47%
Rick Perry 40% (-7)

PPP surveyed 500 Arizona voters from November 17th to 20th. The margin of error for the survey is +/-4.4%

The Full Story is HERE.
The crosstabs can be viewed HERE.

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

Sarah Palin's Last Stand?

It's been nearly two months since Sarah Palin officially ruled out a bid for the Republican presidential nomination, but with the 2012 race in flux, some of her die-hard supporters are still hoping she might reconsider.

Conservatives 4 Palin, a group that has long pushed the former Alaska governor to run for president, announced in a blog post it has raised enough cash to run a TV ad in Iowa asking Palin to rethink her 2012 decision.

Mitt is just too old fashioned

H/T Carlos

So what's the big deal with Herman Cain? So now there's a woman he has supposedly had a relationship with for the past umteen years. And there's phone records leading to him.

All this tells me is that Herman has probably found a way to come into favor once again with the Anybody but Romney crowd (ABR).

Sure, it's not as complicated as cheating on 2 wives and marrying your mistress, but then again, no one is perfect. Then there's Mitt, married to the same woman for 40+ years. He needs to get with the program if he wants the ABR to take a second look.

Maybe he can get on some reality show? Or even better, Dancing With the stars.

Nah...he's too old fashion....no fun. And what's worse, he doesn't reflect their current values.

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

David Frum Supports Romney's Immigration Stance

It's a crazy world. I agree with Right Wingnut and I disagree with Romney on an issue. David Frum disagrees with me. Actually, he doesn't know me, but anyway.

I think this is the best counter argument that I have read from the immigration restrictionists, so I thought I would post it here in the spirit of free debate. That, and I want to see if I can get Right Wingnut or Ohio Joe to agree with David Frum. Lol.

Gingrich had a good applause line about uprooting the illegal alien who has sunk 25-year roots in the country and has citizen children and grandchildren.

But how do you tell the difference between that person and between the illegal alien who has been present for 20 years? Or two years? Or two months? Gingrich proposes individualized hearings by citizen courts. But 12 million hearings? Really? Even if we could somehow complete a hearing an hour, you are talking about 1.5 million person-days, or 5,769 person-years.

And that's assuming the courts approved the concept, which they very well might not.

The idea is unworkable on its face. It would rapidly disintegrate into something very like blanket approvals of whole categories of illegals -- in other words, into some kind of qualified amnesty.

Hearings are the policy you endorse if your real goal is to find a way to represent amnesty as something other than amnesty.
...

Is there a better way? There is, and it's the way advocated by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

1: Enforce the immigration laws at the workplace, removing the magnet that draws new illegal workers and encouraging the existing illegal population to return home. Yes, that population includes people who have been present in the country for more than 20 years and won't return. It also includes people who have been in the country less than 20 months and might well return if they cannot find work in the U.S.

2: Pause to assess. See how much an enforcement-first policy reduces the illegal population. The best estimates suggest that the recession of 2008-2009 sent perhaps 1.7 million illegals back home.

A prolonged period of enforcement -- and the removal of the offer of early amnesty -- would likely reduce the illegal population even more.

3: Debate and decide on any future amnesty proposal after enforcement has taken effect, not before.

If any approach to immigration deserves to be described as "humane," it is the approach that begins with concern for the stagnating wages of American workers.

Right Wingnut Is Right

It's not often I get to say that, so I decided to give RW some backing in a separate post. It is also not often that I write a post and then have it validated the very next day. If I were any less humble, I would say, "I told you so." Wink.

But I want to ask my fellow Rombots a few questions.

1. Will you admit that Romney supported amnesty?

2. Will you admit that Romney probably doesn't really think we should just starve the illegal immigrants out of our country like rats?

3. Will you admit that in Romney's head, he probably does want some kind of amnesty for at least a portion of illegal immigrants?

4. Will you admit that if he does, it would be a very sensible policy?

5. Will you admit that Newt's immigration policy is both sensible and similar to the immigration policy that Mitt used to support (and still supports in his head)?

Yes, I admit to all of them. But here is the kicker: I still am going to vote for Romney and would never under any circumstances cast a vote for Newt Gingrich. Romney would make a great president and Newt would make a lousy one. I have and will continue to spell this out. But this particular round goes to Newt. This may mean that I am a terrible team player, but my ultimate allegiance is to truth. Besides, I am well aware that nobody will listen to me if I refuse to come to grips with obvious stuff like this. Sometimes you have to concede a point in order to win a broader argument. I can remember writing an article at Rightosphere entitled, "I Support Mitt Romney despite..." Maybe we all need to go through that practice again.

The bottom line is that if I can admit that Right Wingnut is right about something - and yes, the words come bitter in my mouth - then we can all be little more open minded.

GINGRICH and the UNION LEADER

The following will be the first of a succession of commentaries on Newt Gingrich aimed at illuminating his career and highlighting concerns over the multiple positions he has enjoyed in his personal and political lives that would be appropriate considerations for support by individuals and groups.

On Sunday, November 27, the Union Leader, one of New Hampshire's leading purveyors of news, headlined its support for Newt Gingrich. In its endorsement, over the imprimatur of its publisher, Joseph W. McQuaid and its Editorial Page Editor, Andrew Cline, we find the rationale for the paper's endorsement:

Courage, Conviction, Core Beliefs, Innovation, Experience, Leadership and Vision. These descriptives are interwoven in an editorial matrix that was unique in its ability to say little when so much was readily available. The endorsement concludes with this quote
" A lot of candidates say they're going to improve Washington. Newt Gingrich has actually done that "

Mr Cline subsequently stated " Gingrich is a guy who wants to be respected. We would rather have the guy who wants to be respected ."
These quotes seem the real basis of the paper's endorsement.
We will shortly develop a theme that Newt Gingrich really improved Newt Gingrich.......and that Washington is in far worse shape than when Newt first arrived in the Capitol in 1978. We will also examine the rationale by which Gingrich has earned and deserves the respect of Messrs. McQuaid and Cline. First....

POLITICAL CAREER / LEADERSHIP
Gingrich was first elected to the Congress in 1977. He subsequently was reelected to 10 successive terms, culminating in his election as Speaker of the House in 1995. Gingrich resigned from the House in 1998, THREE DAYS after being reelected to an 11th term. One is encouraged to ask WHY did he leave so abruptly and how was Washington improved during his tenure to earn the fawning endorsement of McQuaid and Cline?

Rumors of improper ethics have floated around Gingrich since 1994. Many were often just partisan politics. But formal complaints against the Speaker caused the GOP controlled House to constitute a special investigative committee, chaired by Rep. Porter Goss ( Rep - Fla) to investigate charges. The committee hired a Special Counsel, James M. Cole, to coordinate and direct the investigation.
The Final Report of the Special Counsel to the Committee, in 1998, concluded that Gingrich had violated tax law and lied to the entire panel, conclusions that would support censure and expulsion. Gingrich had already admitted that he brought discredit to the House and broke its rules by failing to ensure that financing for two projects that he personally benefited from would not violate federal tax laws and for giving false information to the investigative committee. The House decided not to bring more serious charges against Gingrich in exchange for an unprecedented fine of $ 300,000 and a formal reprimand, approved by an overwhelming vote of 395-28.
It was the FIRST TIME in the 208 year history of the HOUSE that a Speaker had been disciplined for ethical wrongdoing.
Rep Mark Sanford ( Rep-SC ) said that had he known what was in the ethics committee report, he would NOT have voted for Gingrich as Speaker. " The gray got grayer when you read the report", Sanford said. " When I think of my three boys and what kind of an example I want to set for them for leadership in this country, gray is NOT the example."
Rep Bob Livingston ( Rep - LA ) said that Gingrich "....has been a lightning rod for controversy ever since he steered his party to a majority in 1994 and took control of the Speaker's gavel." Livingston , of course , referred to Gingrich's history of controversy as Speaker including two partial shutdowns of the government and a well publicized personal fit over seating on AF One.

Gingrich has had a long history of the misuse of tax exempt funds by his political action committee GOPAC. Later commentaries will address issues of public and private morality, lobbying, insider trading and payoffs, absent ethics, political flip flops, etc. Particular attention will be directed at examining the tenets of the Union Leader's support including " Core beliefs", "Convictions", " Vision " as manifested in Gingrich's formation of a think tank named " The Center for Health Transformation " that funneled $ 37 MM to Gingrich while advocating that " anyone who earns more than $ 50,000 per year MUST purchase health insurance or post a bond" This " core belief " and " vision " of Gingrich, subsequently known as a MANDATE, netted the former Speaker a King's Ransom of fees. Of course, his core beliefs caused him to later deny his support of mandates, but......he kept the money.
We''l also talk about conflicts of interest, such as payments by Rupert Murdoch's publishing company and a contract with Murdoch's Wall Street Journal of $ 120 ,000 per year as an " advisor.".
Yes, my friends, there is lots to discuss about that paragon of virtue, the guy who wants to be respected by more than Andrew Cline and the Union Leader, the leader whose vision is focused upon himself, the architect of a changed Washington....who left the Congress 13 years ago and has since acquired net worth of $ 6.5 million and a thriving media company run by his third wife
It will be interesting. Gingrich is a veritable cornucopia for this degree of analysis and vetting.
Tune In !!!

CraigS

New National Poll: Gingrich Opens Up A 9 Point Lead On Romney

This poll was conducted last night, so Newt's immigration positions are fully accounted for.

Newt Gingrich’s surge to the top of the GOP presidential race has given him a nine-percent lead over long-time frontrunner Mitt Romney.

In the first national scientific public opinion poll since Gingrich garnered a key New Hampshire newspaper endorsement, likely 2012 Republican primary and caucus voters favored Gingrich over Romney by a 32%-23% margin, with Herman Cain at 14%, Ron Paul at 6%, Rick Perry 5%, Michele Bachmann 4%, Jon Huntsman 3%, someone else at 4%, and no opinion at 11%.

Conducted last night, the poll of 499 registered voters nationwide who said they’d vote in their state’s Republican primary or caucus has a margin of error of +/- 4%.

Read more HERE

Romney in 2006: Productive illegals should be able to apply for "citizenship"

Pablo will be pleased with this.

From Bloomberg:

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who charged Republican presidential primary rival Newt Gingrich with proposing “amnesty” for certain illegal immigrants, took a nearly identical position in a 2006 Bloomberg interview, saying some foreigners who entered the U.S. illegally should be allowed to remain and gain legal status.

Romney, who at the time hadn’t yet declared his first presidential candidacy for 2008, told reporters and editors in Bloomberg News’s Washington bureau that the 11 million immigrants who entered the U.S. illegally “are not going to be rounded up and box-carred out.” Law-abiding people who pay taxes, learn English and don’t rely on government benefits should be allowed to “get in line” to apply for citizenship, he said.

“We need to begin a process of registering those people, some being returned, and some beginning the process of applying for citizenship and establishing legal status,” Romney said during the March 29, 2006, session.

The comments contrast with the position Romney took last week when he challenged Gingrich’s assertion during a televised debate that the U.S. should have a “humane” immigration policy that allows some people who entered the country illegally long ago, have no criminal record, and have family, civic and religious ties to stay and get legal status. Romney called the approach “amnesty” and a magnet for illegality.

In 2006, Romney said regarding undocumented immigrants in this country: “We’re not going to go through a process of tracking them all down and moving them out.”

He suggested that some could stay and pursue legal status while others are deported. “We should have those individuals who are here illegally begin a process either of returning to their homes -- particularly those that are unable to be here without government support or those who are involved in crime --or beginning a process of registering for a citizenship, applying for citizenship and then carrying out the process necessary to get there,” Romney said.

(...)

Read it all HERE

Rich Lowry of the National Review is a hypocrite

Sunday on Meet the Press, Rich Lowry sat back, kept his mouth shut, and allowed host David Gregory to run with this video clip and accusation about Mitt Romney:

Of course the truth is, that Romney's statement was taken out of context. The video clip that Gregory played, actually cut off Romney's statement in mid-sentence.

Here is the ACTUAL TRANSCRIPT of that 2007 interview with Mitt Romney. I've only pasted from Romney's statement and not the entire interview. If you want to read the whole thing, go HERE. What was said in the video clip shown by Gregory is in RED. The BOLD came after Romney was cut off:

GOV. ROMNEY: Now let's, now let's look at those very carefully, OK, and you're, you're a careful reader. In the interview with The Boston Globe, I described all three programs that were out there, described what they were, acknowledged that they were not technically an amnesty program, but I indicated in that same interview that I had not formulated my own proposal and that I was endorsing none of those three programs. I did not support any of them. I called them reasonable. They are reasonable efforts to, to look at the problem. But I said I did not support--and I said specifically in that interview I have not formulated my own policy and have not determined which I would support. And, of course, the Cornyn proposal required all of the immigrants to go home. The McCain proposal required most of them to go home, but let some stay. And the Bush proposal I, frankly, don't recall in that much detail. But they had very different proposals. My own view is consistent with what you saw in the Lowell Sun, that those people who had come here illegally and are in this country--the 12 million or so that are here illegally--should be able to stay sign up for permanent residency or citizenship, but they should not be given a special pathway, a special guarantee that all of them get to say here for the rest of their lives merely by virtue of having come here illegally. And that, I think, is the great flaw in the final bill that came forward from the Senate.

MR. RUSSERT: But they shouldn't have to go home?

GOV. ROMNEY: Well, whether they go home--they should go home eventually. There's a set per--in my view they should be--they should have a set period during which period they, they sign up for application for permanent residency or, or for citizenship. But there's a set period where upon they should return home. And if they've been approved for citizenship or for a permanent residency, well, thy would be a different matter. But for the great majority, they'll be going home.

MR. RUSSERT: The children they had born here are U.S. citizens, so do the children stay here and the parents go home?

GOV. ROMNEY: Well, that's a choice, of course, the parents would, would make. But my view is that those 12 million who've come here illegally should be given the opportunity to sign up to stay here, but they should not be given any advantage in becoming a permanent resident or citizen by virtue of simply coming here illegally. And likewise, if they've brought a child to this country or they've had a child in this country, that's, that's wonderful that they're growing their families, but that doesn't mean that they all get to stay here indefinitely. We're fundamentally a nation of laws. And let me underscore something here that I think's awfully important, because this immigration debate can sound anti-immigrant to a lot of people. It's not intended to be that by myself or, I believe, by the vast majority of others that talk about it. We value legal immigration. We welcome people coming here with different cultures and skill and education, but we are a nation of laws. And our freedoms and our liberty are associated with following the law. We have to secure our border, we have to make sure there's an employment verification system to identify who's here legally and who's not. And then for the 12 million who've come here, welcome them to get in line with everybody else, but no special pathway.

Here is the entire Interview on video:



Now I expect these tactics from the liberal media and of course a sleazeball like Newt Gingrich. But the Editor of the National Review to sit back and not speak up and say something like, "Hey David, Romney was taken out of context in that video clip. Why not play the entire clip that will prove just the oposite of what your trying to portrait".

Have we gotten to the point now where the liberal and conservative media in some instances are in bed with one another? What would William F. Buckley have done if he had been on that panel? I'll tell you, he would have called Gregory out!

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

The New Hampshire Union Leader STILL BATTING ZERO

Well, they've done it again. Backed a GOP candidate who is not a true conservative and has about a snowballs chance in hell of winning the general election against Obama.

Perhaps they like dirty laundry and lots of baggage? Maybe they feel bad for President Obama and wanted to help nominate a candidate who levels the playing field. Loser vs loser?

In 2008, they pushed John McCain down our collective throats. This time around, it's Newt Gingrich. In a time where the economy is our top priority, they want us to nominate someone who can't even handle his own personal and campaign finances.

In an op-ed in Forbes Magazine Sunday , Richard Salsman chimes in on Newt Gingrich:

The latest heartthrob of the GOP conservatives is 15-term Congressman and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, born and raised a Southern Baptist but a man who then flip-flopped by converting to Catholicism in 2009 at the behest of his third wife (a House staffer 24 years his junior whom helped Gingrich cheat on his second wife). Romney has been married once, for 42 years. Conservatives seem to have no problem that Gingrich is both a religious and marital flip-flopper.

Worse, they don’t seem to object that in the past decade his “consulting” firm got $37 million in fees from pharmaceutical firms lobbying for the 2003 prescription drug benefit (Medicare Part D), from ADM and ethanol makers lobbying for subsidies, from Freddie Mac lobbying for federal support for the soon-to-be toxic sub-prime mortgage market, and from banks lobbying for the 2008 “TARP” bailout (which Gingrich endorsed). When he wasn’t busy pursuing these various corruptions, Gingrich was busy promoting Al Gore’s “cap and trade” legislation and global warming myths in widely-publicized TV and print ads sitting cozily on a coach with Nancy Pelosi, whose political tactics he has subsequently characterized as “despicable,” “dishonest” and “vicious.” Well, it takes one to know one.

Salsman nails it. Gingrich represents everything that most conservatives claim to be against. Yet, the ABR faction will look the other way and give Gingrich a pass. This acceptance of him is nothing more than Hypocrisy with a capital "H".

As to what is the reality of this endorsement and what weight does it hold? I can tell you as someone who has been involved in NH and Massachusetts politics for the past 40 years, it means diddly squat.

John McCain won in 08 not because he had the endorsement from the Union Leader, but because he had the best ground game and spent lots of time in the state. This time around, Romney has the best ground game and NOBODY else, I mean NOBODY else comes even close.

I'd like to tell the Union Leader editorial board where to stick their endorsement, but I won't. After all, it's Sunday when I'm writing this.

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

GINGRICH for PRESIDENT ????

I chanced upon an interesting coterie of Gingrich nuggets while digesting the Union Leaders Op -Ed page that suggested they endorsed Gingrich because of his " Character ."

Here are some Gingrich items, all substantiated by reams of background information, that I was not that familiar with . It is truly a political chamber of horrors:

Adultery

Tim Burger and Owen Moritz, NY Daily News, August 12, 1999
Andy Soltis, NY Post August 12, 1999

Several newspapers are now reporting that Newt Gingrich is dating and basically living with Callista Bisek a " willowy blond Congressional aide 23 years his junior. Bisek, 33, has been spending nights at Gingrich's apartment near the Capitol and has her own key. In an amazing act of hypocrisy, Gingrich was apparently dating Bisek all during the Clinton-Lewinsky adultery scandal, even as he proclaimed family values and bitterly criticized the President for his adultery

Reporters and other Washington insiders have known about this relationship since 1994, even before Gingrich became Speaker of the House. Gingrich had been married all that time and only filed for divorce in 1999

Newt is trying to create a new hybrid form, Christian adultery. According to MSNBC, Bisek sings in the National Shrine Choir and Newt would meet her at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception and listen to her sing while he read the bible.

" It was common knowledge that Newt was involved with other women during his first marriage. One woman, Anne manning , has already confirmed an affair with Newt at that time

Family Values ?

" He walked out in the spring of 1980..By September, I went to the hospital for my third surgery. The two girls came to see me and said " daddy is downstairs. Could he come up ? when he got there he wanted to discuss the terms of the divorce while I was recovering from my surgery, " said his first wife, Jackie. She had to later take Newt to court to get him to pay his child support so Jackie could pay the utility bill
Newt later said of his first wife " She isn't young enough or pretty enough to be the President's wife."
His second wife , Marianne, said " I don't want him to be President and I don't think he should be ."

Banking Scandal

During the House banking scandal in 1992, where so many congressmen wrote rubber checks on government money, Gingrich bounced 22 checks plus his vote on a secret pay raise for the House.

Murdochs' Book Deal

Here's an interesting tidbit.

In 1995, Rupert Murdoch was having regulatory problems with NBC claiming Fox News was Foreign Owned which is against U.S law. Typically, Murdoch offered lucrative book deals with leaders in countries like the U.K and China to solve his regulatory problems . Murdoch used his control of publisher Harper Collins in these efforts.

Murdoch offered $ 2.5 MM to Newt for his book and then raised the ante to $ 4.5 MM. When the details of the book deal were made public, Gingrich met personally with Murdoch on a park bench and negotiated an equally lucrative royalties based pay out.

In an earlier book deal in 1984, Gingrich's administrative assistant resigned over the ethics of using U.S taxpayer equipment to publish a personal book for profit

GOPAC

Even more sleaze, if you can believe it;

Newt in his political career was the king of using tax-payer subsidized donations for his personal and political purposes. He evidently even hijacked not one but two charities for poor inner city kids and used their donations for his personal goals

GOPAC was Newts long time political action committee. In an act of incredible hypocrisy, this crusader against taxes obtained taxpayer subsidies for his personal and political goals , by misusing these tax exempt groups GOPAC paid for a television program promoting a " grassroots"movement to reform government; publicly they claimed it was non partisan, but privately internal documents proved otherwise. When the program got too expensive , they transferred it to the " Abraham Lincoln Opportunity Foundation ", a tax -exempt group controlled by a GOPAC official named Bo Callaway. This group had been set up years earlier to help inner city kids , which is why it was tax exempt. The group spent $ 260,000 on the program in 1990. That same year, Newt started another tax exempt group that paid poor students for reading books. Most of this foundations money went to a former Gingrich aide who was Newt's official biographer.

There is lots more . The Gingrich sewer has just been opened the stench is beginning to rise.

CraigS

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.