Why doesn't the GOP establishment spill the dirt on Newt?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

if the GOP establishment is so sure Newt is going to lose in the general, then why doesn't the GOP establishment spill the dirt on Newt...if there is unknown dirt to spill?

[RogueBeaver]

if the GOP establishment is so sure Newt is going to lose in the general, then why doesn't the GOP establishment spill the dirt on Newt...if there is unknown dirt to spill?

The dirt is all out there, they'll just throw it out in the GE for recycling to voters who might not remember his baggage-laden, sleazy past.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

if the GOP establishment is so sure Newt is going to lose in the general, then why doesn't the GOP establishment spill the dirt on Newt...if there is unknown dirt to spill?

The dirt is all out there, they'll just throw it out in the GE for recycling to voters who might not remember his baggage-laden, sleazy past.

well, if the dirt is already publically known, then there is NO REASON to believe Mitt would perform better over the next 11 months than Newt.  Mitt is a TERRIBLE candidate for 2012.

[opebo]

well, if the dirt is already publically known, then there is NO REASON to believe Mitt would perform better over the next 11 months than Newt.  Mitt is a TERRIBLE candidate for 2012.

Oh come on dude, I agree with you that he is unsuitable with the Born-again base in your party, but he's not terrible in the general election.  The only downside to his momonism is in the born-again states, and they're all going GOP anyway.  Certainly his 'competent moderate' schtick is better for the 'independent voters' than the extremist-madman schtick of Gingrich when people are feeling unsure..  that is unless we've gotten so bad that its 1933.

[TomC]

To say that the average voter recalls everything about Newt that is "already out there" overstates their interest. Certainly those kinds of people who are political junkies and like to hack for a candidate have already made their choice. Most Republicans- in fact most voters- don't have to finalize their choice right now and don't need to know everything. They will start tuning in sometime after Iowa (before if they live in Iowa.) Only then- soon before they have to vote- will most primary voters really process the pros and cons of each candidate still running. The establishment will be reminding them of all Newt's baggage, just as others will talk about how Romney's boring, insincere, and not conservative enough.

Voter interest hasn't peaked yet; there's still plenty of time for the man to villify the grinch.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

It's because Newt is one of them. He's establishment.

[memphis]

It's because Newt is one of them. He's establishment.

^^^^^^^^^
I don't know how you can get any more "establishment" than former Speaker of the House. At the end of the day, everybody in the GOP has to support whoever the nominee is. They don't need any more youtube/Jon Stewart videos of them denouncing Newt once we get into the general.

[Stranger in a strange land]

It's because Newt is one of them. He's establishment.

^^^^^^^^^
I don't know how you can get any more "establishment" than former Speaker of the House. At the end of the day, everybody in the GOP has to support whoever the nominee is. They don't need any more youtube/Jon Stewart videos of them denouncing Newt once we get into the general.

if the GOP establishment is so sure Newt is going to lose in the general, then why doesn't the GOP establishment spill the dirt on Newt...if there is unknown dirt to spill?

The dirt is all out there, they'll just throw it out in the GE for recycling to voters who might not remember his baggage-laden, sleazy past.

well, if the dirt is already publically known, then there is NO REASON to believe Mitt would perform better over the next 11 months than Newt.  Mitt is a TERRIBLE candidate for 2012.

Basically:

1) Romney is overrated. He looks great on paper but isn't that good a candidate in reality.

2) Newt is the establishment. He's the former speaker of the house for God's sake!

[Eraserhead]

Newt was the establishment. Almost all of power players in the GOP today can't stand the guy.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Newt is the establishment. He's the former speaker of the house for God's sake!

no, he used to be establishment.

IIRC, Bush41 broke faith with the GOP base when he raised taxes after promising in 1988 not to do so...in 1994, Newt promised to bring all 10 points of the Contract with America to a vote within the first 100 days...and he did just that.  He kept his word.

Newt, despite all his personal flaws and personal failures, represents someone who a proven track record of keeping his word to the jmfcsts.  And, as a former central member of the past establishment, he knows how DC works.  And he has learned from his past mistakes of pushing too hard for things that are not politically possible.

[NVGonzalez]

I think the establishment is being cautious in case Gingrich gets nominated and it is a good idea. After all it is Reagan who said to never criticize a fellow Republican.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I think the establishment is being cautious in case Gingrich gets nominated and it is a good idea. After all it is Reagan who said to never criticize a fellow Republican.

well, if they know of a fatal flaw then it is their duty to come forth now and not wait for general....now is the time to speak now, right now, or forever hold your peace...cause this coronation is about to take place.

[Zarn]

I don't support Mitt or Newt, but Mitt is a not as bad candidate than Gingrich.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I don't support Mitt or Newt, but Mitt is a not as bad candidate than Gingrich.

Mitt's a horrible candidate - other than the dust up with Perry, Mitt hasn't said a single memorable thing in over 6 years of running for POTUS.  He's like a dog who thinks he's going to pull one over on you if he moves slow enough, even though you are looking right at him.

[Zarn]

I don't support Mitt or Newt, but Mitt is a not as bad candidate than Gingrich.

Mitt's a horrible candidate - other than the dust up with Perry, Mitt hasn't said a single memorable thing in over 6 years of running for POTUS.  He's like a dog who thinks he's going to pull one over on you if he moves slow enough, even though you are looking right at him.

Right. Newt is still worse. He is a horse you will regret backing.

[Politico]

All in good time. There is still the hope that Newt will sabotage himself rather than taint the Republican brand by forcing the removal of old scabs...

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

All in good time. There is still the hope that Newt will sabotage himself rather than taint the Republican brand by forcing the removal of old scabs...

unless you can find new dirt within the last 10 years (of whatever time period Newt is claiming he has been redeemed by Christ), it will only legitimise Newt's redemption.

the jmfcsts aren't concerned with the kind of life Newt lived prior to coming to Christ, for all of that is under the blood of Christ.

[Politico]

All in good time. There is still the hope that Newt will sabotage himself rather than taint the Republican brand by forcing the removal of old scabs...

unless you can find new dirt within the last 10 years (of whatever time period Newt is claiming he has been redeemed by Christ), it will only legitimise Newt's redemption.

the jmfcsts aren't concerned with the kind of life Newt lived prior to coming to Christ, for all of that is under the blood of Christ.

I am confused: I thought the jmfcsts were Protestant, not Catholic?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I am confused: I thought the jmfcsts were Protestant, not Catholic?

trying to place the jmfcsts in a predefined box..?  bad move

[Filuwaúrdjan]

All in good time. There is still the hope that Newt will sabotage himself rather than taint the Republican brand by forcing the removal of old scabs...

I thought the Republican Party approved of scabs?

[Stranger in a strange land]

The Tiffany's Tab and the vacation in Greece both happened after his "redemption."

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

need details

[Politico]

need details

Back it May it was reported that he ran up a six-figure political campaign tab on Tiffany's jewelry for his third wife (or maybe another secret mistress? Never know with Newt...):

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/05/17/newt_gingrich_s_tiffany_s_bill_former_house_speaker_owed_as_much.html

It was also reported in June that he decided to take a vacation to Greece (Was it at his campaign's expense? Who knows...):

http://gawker.com/5809108/newt-gingrich-discovered-off-the-coast-of-greece

I guess, funny enough, it may be that a donation to Gingrich's campaign is really a partial subsidization of Tiffany's and Greece. Can we really expect any less from a career politician, though?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

shopping at Tiffany's and vacationing in Greece is a sin?!  who knew

[Stranger in a strange land]

shopping at Tiffany's and vacationing in Greece is a sin?!  who knew

If he used campaign funds for his vacation in Greece, then yes. If he used personal funds, it's obviously not an ethical issue, though it does lead to questions about his judgement if he's taking a vacation while he's supposed to be running for president.

The Tiffany's thing is at very least embarrassing and raises questions about his spending habits. If you were looking to hire an employee for your business, and you ran a credit check and found that he was deeply in debt to Tiffany's, you surely wouldn't count it as a positive.