Talk:Newt Gingrich

Palestine Israel

How about mentioning Gingrichs latest “thesis” that Palestinians are “an invented people. They are somewhat Arabs and nothing else”. This errant saying is part of his “Israel strategy” and caused a lot of irritation in Europe. B.t.w. Palestinians are semites. Not arabs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.134.136 (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

South Carolina Polls

Do we have any numbers for how newt is performing in South Carolina? Manofmyth (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

There are polls listed here on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_Republican_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2012#South_Carolina_.2847_Delegates.29 Newt is leading in South Carolina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithandmissy (talk • contribs) 15:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Egomania

I have had personal experience with Newt Gingrich and found him to be egomaniacal and megalomaniacal. While I'm sure many politicians are egomaniacs, is the psychological makeup of a politician noteworthy for Wikipedia? I'm sure many people would like to know what he's really like, but are personal recollections in dealing with him admissable, even if annotated? Thanks. 66.122.183.78 (talk) 10:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

If it's reliably cited and relatively mainstream, then yes, it's fair game. Your personal anecdote is probably not. —Designate (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't suspect it as admissible. --Meepdeedoo (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

While I've had similar contact with the man, I agree that it's likely inadmissible. He's a sleazeball, though full disclosure: I'm a Romney guy! Darren717 (talk) 06:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm taking issue here with all three prior posts. 1) I am highly skeptical that you are qualified to what degree, if any, someone you "had a personal experience with" is "egomaniacal and megalomaniacal." What are your professional qualifications to determine such "psychological makeup?" An ACTUAL psychologist would NOT presume to make such an examination without an actual examination and would also be gagged by numerous laws preventing the dissemination of such information.

2) "I wouldn't suspect it as admissible" and & 3) "...likely inadmissible..." Really? Gee, do you think? Um, how about "Hell no, it isn't admissible." That would fit better. We are discussing a bio of a living person. Talk about liability. Scotti 69.245.157.223 (talk) 04:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Children Information?

Most other wiki pages for major political figures include information about their children (names, years of birth, and gender). This seems absent unless I'm missing it.

This site http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Gingrich/Children.php includes the information:

"Gingrich has two daughters, both from his first marriage to Jackie Battley

Kathleen Gingrich Lubbers (born 1963) is currently the president of Gingrich Communications. Jacqueline Sue Gingrich Cushman (born 1966) is a published author."

(quoting directly from the site, may need to reword) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericwburns (talk • contribs) 21:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

See Newt Gingrich#Personal life, end of first paragraph, though admittedly it seems a bit buried. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 20 November 2011

I would suggest including a link for Mr. Gingrich's reviews on Amazon.com.

Here is the link:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A27WFYW9ZJ5DN1/ref=cm_cr_tr_tbl_1469_sar?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview

Cpvisa (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

 Not done I don't see a point. He isn't a famous book reviewer. CTJF83 15:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I think it would provide insight into Mr. Gingrich's thought process and would also reveal something about his intellect. (If he were not a presidential candidate, I would not be making this suggestion.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpvisa (talk • contribs) 18:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe it is Wikipedia's role to "provide insight" or "reveal things" not already well-known and/or reported on. We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.Nstrauss (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 21 November 2011

In his Bio info it says his Mother and Father married in Sept 1992, this doesnt make sense, I think its ment to be 1942. 90.219.152.37 (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Marriage Date of newt Gingrich's parents

The date of marriage is listed as 1992 but Newt Gingrich's date of birth is listed as 1943. Is his parent's marriage date 1942 instead of 1992. I would have changed it but the page is listed as semi-portected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisstacey (talk • contribs) 15:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Taking credit for Library of Congress online?

The following was listed in this article under "Other Legislation," suggesting that Thomas online is due, somehow, to work by Gingrich. The Library of Congress makes no mention of legislation in 1994 that paved the way for bringing legislative resources online in 1995. While it's nice that Gingrich likes the idea, it seems inappropriate to credit him for the work, which properly belongs to the director of the Library of Congress since 1987, James H. Billington who championed the project. So the following is now out of this bio:

Shortly after the Republicans won the House majority, Gingrich promised that the House would be on the Internet by the opening day of the 104th United States Congress. In January 1995, Gingrich and the Library of Congress unveiled THOMAS, an Internet-accessible database of congressional information. THOMAS initially included text versions of bills of the 103rd United States Congress, directory information, and other legislative materials. Commenting on the new system, Gingrich said, "This will change the balance of power in America toward the citizens out of the Beltway. There will be a shift to talking about ideas, not personalities."

Skywriter (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request: Bias in Opening Paragraph?

The following was taken from the opening paragraph- questionable statements bolded

Newton Leroy "Newt" Gingrich ( /ˈnuːt ˈɡɪŋɡrɪtʃ/; born Newton Leroy McPherson; June 17, 1943) is a U.S. Republican Party politician who served as the House Minority Whip from 1989 to 1995 and then as the 58th Speaker of the United States House of Representatives from 1995 to 1999.

On January 21, 1997, the House of Representatives voted to discipline him for ethical wrongdoing. He was accused of using tax-deductible charitable donations to fund a non-charitable college course that he taught, and of giving false information about this to the House Ethics Committee. In a 395-28 vote, the House ordered Gingrich to pay an unprecedented $300,000 penalty as part of a settlement to avoid a full hearing.[3] Gingrich had represented Georgia's 6th congressional district from January 3, 1979 until January 3, 1999 when he resigned as speaker and as a member of Congress. Gingrich did not serve the 11th term to which he had been elected in November 1998. An author and historian, Gingrich twice ran unsuccessfully for the House in the 1970s during the eight years he was teaching history in college. On his third try, he won a seat in the election of November 1978 and was re-elected ten times. Gingrich resigned from the House on Nov. 5, 1998, three days after being elected to the 11th term. [4] His resignation came on the heels of an election in which the Republican Party lost five congressional seats and after Rep. Bob Livingston (R-Louisiana) mounted a campaign to depose Gingrich as party leader.[5] Gingrich had "been a lightning rod for controversy ever since he steered his party to the majority in 1994 and took control of the speakers gavel."[6] A co-author and architect of Contract with America, Gingrich was in the forefront of Republican Party success in the 1994 Congressional election. In 1995, Time magazine named him "Man of the Year" for his role in ending 40 years of majority rule by the Democratic Party. During his four years as House speaker, Gingrich sometimes opposed President Bill Clinton but he also worked closely with Clinton, in 1996, to limit public welfare, and, in 1997, to pass a capital gains tax cut and, in 1998, to pass the first balanced budget since 1969. In the 13 years after resigning from the House, Gingrich became a highly paid[7] [8] political consultant. He has written twenty-three books including historical fiction. He is the founder and/or chair of American Solutions for Winning the Future, Center for Health Transformation, Gingrich Productions and Renewing American Leadership.

In May 2011, Gingrich announced his intent to seek the Republican nomination to run for the U.S. presidency.

These statements may or may not be true, but have no placement in the opening paragraph. When compared with the introduction to the articles about Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John McCain and Mitt Romney, Gingrich's introduction- which is the part that is most read- lists in brief their early life, and career accomplishments. Controversies and in the case of the "lightening rod" quote- a quote that is inherently negative in the introduction to the article. This introduction seems biased against Gingrich, while the various introductions to the other public figures aforementioned do not show the same amount of bias and negativity.. We need to keep this encyclopedia fair to all on it, whether the editor agrees with the positions of the subject of the article or not. I am not saying that these issues need hidden- they should just be addressed in the appropriate areas of the article. Please we need to keep this fair. Bismarckthegreat (talk) 01:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you're forgetting how important ethics charges were to his career. Similarly, his resignation just days after winning in Georgia is pretty important. Darren717 (talk) 06:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, let's compare one other important public figure with misconduct in their history. President Clinton for instance. See statement below.

Statement on President Clinton's First Paragragh: Later, he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice in a scandal involving a White House intern, but was acquitted by the U.S. Senate and served his complete term of office.

In my view, I support that Newt has been given a negative bias. This short and quick statemtent on IMPEACHMENT do not compare to the statemtents complained about by Bismarkthegreat. In fairness to both of these important public figures, I think the tone should also be similar. The opening paragragh has much more detail than is needed and this information can be moved to other sections of this article. This statement, for instance, He was accused of using tax-deductible charitable donations to fund a non-charitable college course that he taught, and of giving false information about this to the House Ethics Committee. Is much more detail than is needed in a summary. Move it to a section below. This would be much more in line with the Clinton article and both of them have had misconduct in their history. As further example of bias, please note that Gingrich's article mentions Lewinsky by name in the summary, where as it is not mentioned in Clinton's article, just stated as intern. Being that they are both tied to the incident, we should see a level of fairness in the reporting of the information. I support a rewrite of complaints by Bismarkthegreat as well as the Callista and Lewinsky comments. Either remove them or rewrite them with less bias and feel free to put them in other areas of the article. Jvaughters (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. It's a fact that he ran for re-election after he was tossed as speaker. When he won, he refused to serve. So, GA had to pay for a whole new congressional election for his district. I wonder how much that cost the state of GA. Sorry the facts are negative. Blame Newt. FrancisDane (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Jackie quote

I'm restoring the quote about his ex-wife, Jacqueline Battley, "She's not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of the President. And besides, she has cancer." This quote was originally in a story on the front page of the Wall Street Journal. I'm giving a secondary source, the Los Angeles Times, because this link is verifiable free on the Internet and the WSJ story is not (or at least I can't find it). If somebody can find a working link to the WSJ story, it would improve the story to put it in.

This quote belongs in the story for several reasons.

1. The WSJ is indisputibly a WP:RS. So is the LAT. This quote has been widely repeated in WP:RS.

2. It meets the standards of WP:BLP because it's been widely reported. It met the editorial standards of the WSJ, and was presumably vetted by the WSJ's libel lawyers.

3. I don't know if the quote is true or not, but for WP purposes, that doesn't matter. It meets the standard of WP:VERIFIABILITY. We can never know what the truth is for a quote like this; we can only know what's verifiable by WP:RS.

4. This quote is indisputably significant for someone who is running for president. There are conservative voters who say that they want a president who shares their commitment to the institution of marriage, and this could reasonably affect their vote.

5. Gingrich has made many statements about the importance of values and morality, and criticized his opponents for not meeting up to those standards. There are voters who dislike hypocrisy, and thuis could reasonably affect their vote.

6. It's reasonable that any voters, whatever their politics, might be less likely to vote for a presidential candidate who abandoned his wife for these reasons, including cancer.

There are many stories about Gingrich's handling of the divorce which reflect unfavorably on him. I'm ignoring most of them. Out of respect for WP:WEIGHT, I don't think we should have them all, but this is one of the best-documented and most striking.

I don't have the WSJ story at hand, but I'm sure that it included a denial by Gingrich, and as I recall Gingrich has denied this quote several times. If someone could add Gingrich's denial, that would improve this article. --Nbauman (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I did a search on the WSJ website (I have a subscription) and could not find anything about a quote like this. However, the online archives only go back two years. Does anyone have a date for the WSJ article? 72Dino (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I searched the WSJ website and I couldn't find it either, even in the WSJ archives. It has to be earlier than 1994, because that's when the LAT article appeared. I think I have it in a database, although it's on another computer. Any major library should have the entire WSJ database, in full text, which goes back at least to the 1980s if not issue 1 number 1. I'll find it eventually, and add it, because as I recall Carter gave the quote to the WSJ, but for WP:RS and WP:BLP purposes the LAT would be perfectly satisfactory. For WP:VERIFIABILITY the LAT is better.

The quote is also in the New York Times, with a denial from Gingrich. Gingrich's Life: The Complications and Ideals, By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE, New York Times, November 24, 1994 I'll add that too. If the NYT and WSJ think it's important enough to mention in major news stories, that should satisfy WP:WEIGHT too. -- Nbauman (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Found the WSJ article and added the ref. 72Dino (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of whether this quote is true or not is irrelevant, the real issue here is that the neutrality of this article is jeopardized by needless, negative statements. This quote could only be described as needless and negative. It is irrelevant to Newt Gingrich the man and to his political career if one no name journalist at the WSJ called his wife unatractive and was blatantly rude about her illness. The fact that the WSJ has mentioned that in major news stories is a result of their attempt to credit themselves with following the man through his career, while they in reality did nothing of the sort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.245.217 (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

To address the prior "comment" and I quote : "It is irrelevant to Newt Gingrich the man and to his political career if one no name journalist at the WSJ called his wife unatractive [sic] and was blatantly rude about her illness." The journalist didn't call Newt's first wife anything. The journalist was quoting Newt. And, his well known mistreatment of his first wife (his high school teacher)is very relevant to voters' assessment of "Newt the man." FrancisDane (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC).

Edit request from , 27 November 2011

Under the section on "Government Shutdown" about half way down, the article says that "Thomas Daschle, R-South Dakota". Of course it should say "Thomas Daschle, D-South Dakota. Buck2000 (talk) 04:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Good catch.  Done Fat&Happy (talk) 05:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

External links, CongLinks, please add after the nyt parameter: | wsj = G/newt-gingrich/6579 as the Wall Street Journal now has a topic collection of their articles about him. 75.59.204.236 (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! nprice (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Resignation

The sentence, "Republicans lost five seats in the House in the 1998 midterm elections—the worst performance in 64 years for a party that didn't hold the presidency." is patently false. A swing of less than a percent is hardly even particularly bad performance, and the 96 elections had a -9 seat swing. 149.101.1.115 (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)dbartramr

The sentence is referring to midterm elections only. It may need to be rephrased. —Designate (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Lead Section Cleanup and POV Issues

The lead section has become sloppy in recent weeks and does not conform with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. It is disorganized with too many paragraphs and sentences not grouped by subject matter. There is also a lot of junk in there that just doesn't merit lead paragraph status.

More importantly, what *is* included appears to have an anti-Gingrich bias in violation of WP:NPV. There is no need to include Gingrich's unsuccessful runs for office. This isn't Sarah Palin, folks; he's not known for losing elections. Then, the fact that he resigned from office on ethics charges is of dubious importance (I agree with Bismarchthegreat's comment above), but regardless, even if it stays in the lead, it should be put below in a separate paragraph. And the fact that Livingston mounted a campaign to depose him? Who cares?

Moving on... The fact that he worked with Clinton at times and opposed him at times, not worth mentioning; all opposite-party speakers are the same... The vote tallies on the ethics charges, not important... Extra emphasis on not serving out his final term, not warranted... "Highly paid" consultant? Yes, it has become a recent issue in the election, but take a step back, please - this smacks of bias.

For all of the reasons above, I'm adding a POV-lead tag.

--Nstrauss (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I took a stab at rewriting it to fit in with our better articles. The order I like is 1) Very basic overview for fifth-graders, 2) Upbringing and early career, 3) reasonably thorough summary of House career, 4) post-House career. This fits in with FAs like Barack Obama for example. —Designate (talk) 20:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Much better, but I think we're not quite there. First, the details of his early life don't seem important enough to merit inclusion. (Obama's upbringing and education are unique and noteworthy on their own; Gingrich's are not.) Second, "highly paid" consultant is much too strong; should be something like "political consultant." And while I personally agree that Gingrich's activities amount to de facto lobbying I don't think it's appropriate for the lead when (a) it's not included in the body of the article; (b) it is currently in heavy dispute and the facts are still being revealed; and (c) no neutral news source has come out and explicitly said he was a lobbyist. --Nstrauss (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

"Much too strong" according to what source? NPOV generally means avoiding the insertion of a Wikipedia slant between the sources and the article. The terminology here is appropriately sourced, and on a more general level the level of compensation has been considered notable by several mainstream sources. There ought to be something brief in the introduction about how, if he has not been a lobbyist, his compensation has been controversial for a "historian" or whatever he really is. "highly paid" hints subtly that he is perceived by many to be a controversial Washington insider. This is central to Newt Gingrich's public persona, in fact. If this hint is to be deleted, I would insist that a neutral reading requires a mention of the common perception that he's been a lobbyist/insider. You think that would be preferable? In any case, the article does not not explicitly say he was a lobbyist so I do not understand how you come to the conclusion that the article is inconsistent with "neutral news sources[s]".--Brian Dell (talk) 06:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

"'highly paid' hints subtly" ***Wikipedia*** should NOT "hint" at anything. It is not the role of a legitimate encyclopedia to "hint." Facts are straight forward AND documented. He is also a "highly paid" public speaker. Has that merited mention? He was also a "highly paid" guest commentator. Has that merited mention? He is a "highly paid" writer. Has that merited mention? No, no and no. The only reason "highly paid" is there is to suggest at something that is not supported by the facts--that there is something wrong with being a successful consultant. Perhaps the United States should elect UN-successful consultants (speakers, commentators, writers, etc.) as Presidents. --Scotti — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.157.223 (talk) 05:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Bdell555, you have to take a step back and look at the larger view. We're discussing whether "highly paid" should be in the lead, not whether it should be in the article at all. For a tidbit to be in the lead it has to be an extremely noteworthy tidbit. 10 years from now, will Gingrich be known for how much money he has made as a consultant? No, it's only particularly noteworthy at the moment because he's now running a campaign against Washington insiders. Once his campaign is over he will go back to making lots of money and no one will care. You say that "a neutral reading requires a mention of the common perception that he's been a lobbyist/insider." Regarding the "lobbyist" moniker, see above for my take on that. As for being an "insider," I think using the term "political consultant" (no "highly paid") conveys that message; whether he was highly paid does not make him any more of an insider. (E.g. I'm not aware that Tom Delay, the ultimate Washington insider, made much money.) --Nstrauss (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

There ought to be something about his early life, although it doesn't have to be everything I included. The lead's meant to be a summary of the entire article, so it should touch on every top-level section. —Designate (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree on your last statement. Look at the lead for nearly every other PF and you will not see any reference to their early life unless it is somehow related to their fame. --Nstrauss (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Personality Traits

There is a lot of stuff at

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2011/12/insiders-not-so.php

commenting on Newt's personality, coming from anonymously sourced Republican "insiders". The overwhelming refrain from the majority of insiders on both sides focused on Gingrich's temperament and the unpredictable risks it would create in a general election:

"Winning the presidency is all about discipline, focus, and organization," said one Republican insider, "none of which are strong suits for Gingrich."

"With Newt, we go to bed every night thinking that tomorrow might be the day he implodes," said another Republican.

"Not good for our confidence - or fundraising." A third Republican stated plainly, "Gingrich is not stable enough emotionally to be the nominee - let alone, the president."

"Newt can't take the scrutiny," agreed a Democrat, "and he has the personality of an angry badger."

"Bigfoot, dressed as a circus clown, would have a better chance of beating President Obama than Newt Gingrich, a similarly farcical character," quipped another Republican.

When his party colleagues are willing to talk about the subject, then it transcends chitchat and the very fact that many of his peers hold this perception of him makes it news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.208.101 (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It is embarrassing that this is even here--OBVIOUSLY it does NOT belong. "Anonymously sourced" has no legitimate place in a legitimate encyclopedia. Disgusting. --Scotti — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.157.223 (talk) 05:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

A long list of sources IS given at the web address cited above, a list you obviously didn't read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.208.101 (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Ph.D. thesis

This should go in somewhere.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/opinion/what-gingrich-didnt-learn-in-congo.html Op-Ed Contributor What Gingrich Didn’t Learn in Congo By ADAM HOCHSCHILD Published: December 4, 2011 Gingrich's 1971 Tulane doctoral dissertation: “Belgian Education Policy in the Congo 1945-1960.”

--Nbauman (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Why is Newt characterized as a historian? This thesis sounds more like an education thesis, not history. Is he, like Glenn Beck, a self-taught historian? Perhaps something should be added to the article to clarify the fact that he does not have a doctorate in history. FrancisDane (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Child support

I haven't been able to find a reliable source for the assertion that after his first divorce, Newt's ex wife had to sue to get child support — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.121.54 (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Where does that assertion appear in the article? Fat&Happy (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 December 2011 Newt Gingrich

House Reprimands, Penalizes Speaker "The House voted overwhelmingly to reprimand House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and order him to pay an unprecedented $300,000 penalty, the first time in the House's 208-year history it has disciplined a speaker for ethical wrongdoing. The 395 to 28 vote closes a tumultuous chapter that began Sept. 7, 1994, when former representative Ben Jones (D-Ga.), then running against Gingrich, filed an ethics complaint against the then-GOP whip."

by John E. Yang Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, January 22 1997; Page A01

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/012297.htm

Joprocter (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Newt Gingrich, John McCloskey and Opus Dei

C. John McCloskey who is a member of the controversial Opus Dei Catholic Group is the priest who converted Newt Gingrich

[...]Fr. C. John McCloskey recently returned home to Washington, D.C. to celebrate the 30th anniversary of his priesthood. A somewhat shy man, McCloskey has been responsible for many conversions to the Catholic Church, including Judge Robert Bork, Newt Gingrich, Lawrence Kudlow and Dr. Bernard Nathanson. (Before his conversion, Nathanson had been a NARAL founder and abortionist who was responsible for the deaths of thousands of babies.)[...] http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2011/07/25/father_c_john_fisher_of_men_106289.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.181.46.73 (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

PR tactic 1994: circulating a list of hurtful words

"Back in 1994, Gingrich and Frank Luntz circulated a list of hurtful words conservatives should always call liberals. “Traitors” was at the top, also some that sound particularly ironic today: “waste,” “corruption,” “self-serving,” “greed,” “cynicism,” “cheat,” “steal” and “patronage.”" Why smart conservatives suddenly hate Newt-Right-wing intellectuals have turned on Gingrich. They've also realized he'd be terrible in a general election, salon.com, Dec 8, 2011.91.39.91.41 (talk) 03:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

this is a highly biased article on a highly biased site and has no place in an already Neutrality disputed article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.245.217 (talk) 14:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)