Perry Drops Out, Endorses Newt

Exciting news today, as Rick Perry ends his campaign and throws his support behind Newt Gingrich.

From Perry’s remarks:

As I have contemplated the future of this campaign, I have come to the conclusion that there is no viable path to victory for my candidacy in 2012.

Therefore, today I am suspending my campaign and endorsing Newt Gingrich for president.

I believe Newt is a conservative visionary who can transform our country.

We have had our differences, which campaigns inevitably bring out. And Newt is not perfect, but who among us is?

The fact is, there is forgiveness for those who seek God and I believe in the power of redemption, for it is a central tenet of my own Christian faith.

And I have no question Newt Gingrich has the heart of a conservative reformer, the ability to rally and captivate the conservative movement and the courage to tell the Washington interests to take a hike if it’s what is best for the country.

Also, Rick Santorum was declared the official winner of the Iowa caucuses. The latter news will have a significantly smaller impact on the rest of the campaign.


55 thoughts on “Perry Drops Out, Endorses Newt

  1. bardolf January 19, 2012 / 12:55 pm–abc-news.html

    Newt Gingrich lacks the moral character to serve as President, his second ex-wife Marianne told ABC News, saying his campaign positions on the sanctity of marriage and the importance of family values do not square with what she saw during their 18 years of marriage.

    In her first television interview since the 1999 divorce, to be broadcast tonight on Nightline, Marianne Gingrich, a self-described conservative Republican, said she is coming forward now so voters can know what she knows about Gingrich.

    In her most provocative comments, the ex-Mrs. Gingrich said Newt sought an “open marriage” arrangement so he could have a mistress and a wife.She said when Gingrich admitted to a six-year affair with a Congressional aide, he asked her if she would share him with the other woman, Callista, who is now married to Gingrich.

    • Cluster January 19, 2012 / 1:43 pm

      Newt Gingrich lacks the moral character to serve as President, his second ex-wife Marianne told ABC News, saying his campaign positions on the sanctity of marriage and the importance of family values do not square with what she saw during their 18 years of marriage.

      First of all, his campaign does not center on the sanctity of marriage, and if Bill Clinton can become POTUS, then there are no standards in this area.

      Carry on with the hyper drama

      • bardolf January 19, 2012 / 3:40 pm

        If you could find an ex-wife of Clinton’s who claimed he was interested in an open marriage you might have a point. Alas, it seems the only point you really have is at the top of your head.

      • Sunny January 19, 2012 / 3:53 pm

        Better yet, Cluster, if you could find an ex-wife who had a serious illness when Bill filed for divorce – that could be even more relevant. Further, I don’t believe that Bill ran on the “family values” mantra most conservatives like to brag about, including Gingrich. Big difference between the two men.

      • Cluster January 19, 2012 / 4:26 pm

        The only difference between Clinton and Gingrich is honesty, of which Clinton had zero. Thanks barstool for moving the goal posts once you realized you had a bullshit argument. So now it has to be an ex-wife and an open marriage? Is that the new standard?

        I will need to inform you that what Newt wanted (that is if his ex-wife isn’t lying), wasn’t an open marriage. An open marriage is where both parties agree to have affairs with other people. What Newt wanted was to just have a mistress. That’s not an open marriage. And you’re welcome for the education.

      • bardolf January 19, 2012 / 5:49 pm


        Thanks for the education. According to Christian doctrine the sin of adultery is not only against the wife but against the community as well. If you give someone permission to lie about you, it is still a breach of the 8th commandment.

        You might want to dust off your bible and show up to church more regularly.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 19, 2012 / 6:26 pm

        Bill Clinton, last time I checked, isn’t running for the Democratic party nomination in 2012. You can’t accept Romney, Paul is a lunatic and Gingrich, well, just watch Nightline tonight as Marianne Ginther gets her pound of flesh back. Every day it looks like James Carville is prophetic, “If Barack Obama is elected President there won’t be another GOP president for 40 years.”

      • Cluster January 19, 2012 / 8:01 pm

        The Christian doctrine also calls for repentance and forgiveness, of which Newt has, and asked for. If God can forgive, why can’t you?

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 19, 2012 / 8:40 pm

        Cluster its not up to me to forgive Newt Gingrich or Callista since I’d never vote for him so political forgiveness is moot. I didn’t feel the need to have to forgive Bill Clinton either nor do I think these sex scandals disqualify a man or a woman from being a good politician. People aren’t perfect and I want some warm blood running through the veins of anyone who has the toughest job in America. I do feel, however, that the evangelical conservatives in South Carolina will not be able to forgive serial adultery and thereby throw their support to Santorum which will be enough to end the Gingrich campaign.

      • neocon1 January 19, 2012 / 8:45 pm


        You might want to dust off your bible and show up to church more regularly.

        Like the lying, raping, serial adulterer, BJ getting, lip biting, cigar wielding, KKKlinton did?

        Ps it was YOUR guy, you know, thr donk presidential candidate edwards who divorced his cancer ridden wife in the hospital while his whore was having his kid down the street…….or was it bwany fwank??

      • Majordomo Pain January 19, 2012 / 9:07 pm


        Neither Barney Frank nor John Edwards has been endorsed as his favorite by Matt Margolis. The goal isn’t to have Romney as the nominee it’s to have Santorum as the nominee.

  2. bardolf January 19, 2012 / 12:58 pm

    “Also, Rick Santorum was declared the official winner of the Iowa caucuses. The latter news will have a significantly smaller impact on the rest of the campaign.” – Matt

    More evidence that the GOP primary season has been arranged for a Mitt coronation. BTW a Ron Paul supporter reported this the night of the primary, with actual evidence and an affidavit to support the claim.

    Mitt happens.

    • neocon1 January 19, 2012 / 1:00 pm

      mitt wont happen in Fla…..

      • bardolf January 19, 2012 / 3:42 pm

        I’d wager a six pack that Mitt wins Florida.

    • Cluster January 19, 2012 / 1:44 pm

      Wow, that’s so different than the democratic primary, where the only vetting done on Obama was to determine the level of tingle everyone felt.

      • Sunny January 19, 2012 / 3:50 pm

        Even more interesting Cluster, there does not seem to be a Republican candidate that creates any level of tingle for the majority of the party. They are still looking for the non-Mitt and I don’t think that Newt fulfills the “tingle” test.

      • Cluster January 19, 2012 / 4:29 pm

        Conservatives don’t get tingles for political candidates sweety. That condition is strictly the domain for the adolescent liberals who gush over someone who can simply read from a teleprompter. It doesn’t speak well to the intelligent quotient of said people either.

  3. neocon1 January 19, 2012 / 12:59 pm

    Interesting…….why not Santorum?

    • Green Mountain Boy January 19, 2012 / 1:26 pm

      Bucking for VP?

  4. bartok January 19, 2012 / 1:07 pm

    Ron Paul supporter reported this the night of the primary, with actual evidence and an affidavit to support the claim

    Actual evidence?

    But, because he was a Ron Paul supporter (the big red nose and spinning bow-tie was the givaway) they didn’t take you seriously?

    • bardolf January 19, 2012 / 3:39 pm

      My point was that it was someone who didn’t benefit from declaring Santorum the winner. If the GOP can’t even run its own caucus, involving less than 150,000 people why should they be trusted to run a country of 300,000,000?

      • Cluster January 19, 2012 / 4:36 pm

        Well then you had no point, as you seldom do. But do you remember when the democrats “found” all those unaccounted for ballots for Al Franken in the trunk of someones car? Does that relate to effective governance of 300,000,000 people?

      • Amazona January 19, 2012 / 5:45 pm

        And if a self-proclaimed intellectual professor still says “less than 150,000” why should we think he is brighter or better educated than the average Ronbot?

        Point: “The GOP” didn’t “run” the Iowa caucus. The local Republicans “ran” the caucus, which is by definition a pretty loosely organized event in the first place. The actual structure of the caucus is that a bunch of people stand around talking about candidates until enough have been swayed in one direction or another to give an opinion.

      • bardolf January 19, 2012 / 5:58 pm

        Amy would you prefer fewer than 150000? Does that really add something to your understanding? Do you want an exact count?

        Again, the rom nomination has been on from the start. A win for Rick would have generated an entire different set of headlines. The skipping over of Paul is intentional. With 2 days to go the Newt is about to get clobbered.

      • Amazona January 19, 2012 / 6:14 pm

        Oh, I understood your comment. I just thought it was funny.

        Just as funny as your avoidance of the reality that “the GOP” did not “run” the Iowa caucuses. You just stick to the generalities, the superficial, the coy and fey comments and the effort to come across as a political commentator while avoiding actual politics.

        And don’t forget to keep honing that truly amazing talent for simply inventing bizarre scenarios based on nothing more than the voices in your head, and then presenting them as if they have any relation to reality at all.

        We can pretend it is ‘creativity’ instead of mental imbalance if that will make you feel better.

      • bardolf January 19, 2012 / 6:25 pm


        Do you believe there is any tangible meaning to terms like “mental imbalance” or even “mental disease”?

        Are they shorthand for people outside of societal conventions or do you believe there is an unknown but actual physical problem?

        I ask because lots of young boys are given serious medications in the public school system because of ADHD which has no physical basis. It is chiefly women who decide they have an imbalance because the boys won’t act like they are supposed to, that is shut up and listen.

      • neocon1 January 19, 2012 / 8:49 pm


        ADHD which has no physical basis. It is chiefly women who decide they have an imbalance because the boys won’t act like they are supposed to, that is shut up and listen

        there is NO such thing as ADHD, like AGW it is a scam.

  5. RetiredSpook January 19, 2012 / 1:48 pm

    Interesting dynamic at work on Mitt’s 15% tax rate. The media hype lasted less than 24 hours until someone pointed out that John and Teresa Kerry’s effective tax rate in 2003 was 12.8%. Oops.

    • Sunny January 19, 2012 / 5:59 pm

      Spook, I do not think most people have a problem with Mitt paying 15% tax rate on investment income. I think the real problem for Mitt will be his nonchalant way of handling the speaking fees, declaring it “wasn’t that much money” when it was over $350,000.00. That is a lot of money, and there are families in this country that live on less than what Mitt made from one speech. It appears he really does not understand what the average American has to do to make a living and how much income many millions of families live within. There is no empathy from him which makes some people nervous in wondering how he will lead should he become president. President Reagan understood how families struggled to make ends meet and felt the tax system was unfair to middle and poorer America. We all know Mitt is a wealthy man, that he worked for his wealth, but he also came from privilege having advantages most Americans only dream of. He is going to have to understand better how most American live and address what he plans to do to make their lives better – not just the very wealthy.
      If I remember correctly, it was the right that beat up John and Teresa Kerry. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, all conservatives want us to remember how wonderful capitalism is. And believe me, they media hype is not over regarding Mitt’s 15% tax rate. A lot will depend on what is on his tax returns – when he finally decides to release them.

      • Amazona January 19, 2012 / 6:05 pm

        Yeah, because “empathy” is such a big big part of the ability to understand the political model upon which our nation is based, and to commit to governing according to that model.

        Barry empathizes about all sorts of things, and is an impotent loser of a president who couldn’t lead a parade. Clinton felt our pain all over the place and was a mess, as well as making Newt’s two affairs insignificant by comparison to his decades of being an indiscriminate hound dog.

        Let’s not worry too much about “empathy” and leave the touchy-feely stuff to those who lack the ability to think instead of feel.

        But thanks for pointing out the PL dependence on feeling instead of thinking.

      • Amazona January 19, 2012 / 6:10 pm

        It appears he really does not understand what the average American has to do to make a living

        Yeah, he just built business after business, based on the understanding of what the average American has to do to make a living as well as what the average business has to do to stay in business long enough to provide a living for those people.

        I get the impression Velma would like to see some emoting from Romney, some reality-TV-level expression of something that SHE could relate to, instead of his calm explanations of how to make an economy run well, and create jobs for “most Americans” to have.

      • tiredoflibbs January 20, 2012 / 1:51 pm

        Amazona: “I get the impression Velma would like to see some emoting from Romney, some reality-TV-level expression of something that SHE could relate to”

        Of course!

        After all, she voted for and give her ever loyal and unshakable support to the American Idol pResident – one who was touted as a “sort of a god”, a rock-star, the one, etc. etc. no matter his massive lack of experience, no examples of leadership, nor given his past relationships with socialists, fascists and domestic terrorists.

    • neocon1 January 19, 2012 / 2:43 pm

      other than money who cares about EX wives?
      hell the hilda beast sleeps in the middle with slic and who ever.

    • Cluster January 19, 2012 / 4:31 pm

      The thought of the selfish, big spender Michelle as first lady is already repulsive to millions of Americans

      • Amazona January 19, 2012 / 6:00 pm

        I also suggest that the term “open marriage” might very well be Marianne’s spin on a very different suggestion that divorce from her might not be the only way to approach his affair—that perhaps the marriage might continue but without him giving up either woman.

        Yes, it was a pretty crappy and selfish thing to suggest. It shows indecisiveness and weakness. But Newt has admitted this and that this was a shameful part of his life and history, he regrets it and identifies it as the biggest mistake of his life, and he has sworn to change and be a very different man.

        We can assume that God has forgiven him, being God and all. His daughters have forgiven him, love him, and have made him a big part of their lives and the lives of their own families.

        Christianity—true Christianity, not the Velma one of judgmentalism and hatred—is all about redemption and forgiveness. I am always amused by those who claim to be so Christian they never forgive anyone for anything.

      • Majordomo Pain January 19, 2012 / 11:15 pm

        The Obama’s have a more traditional family than Gingrich does would not you admit? Is not it a bit tawdry that Newt Gingrich’s daughters from his first wife are defending his third wife from accusations of his second wife?

      • Majordomo Pain January 19, 2012 / 11:18 pm

        Amazona the definition of open marriage, “:a marriage in which the partners agree to let each other have sexual partners outside the marriage.”

      • Amazona January 21, 2012 / 8:26 pm

        I’ll take your word for it, pain—you seem to know what you are talking about.

        Yet you do not address the question of whether Newt actually asked his wife (also an adulterer, by the way) for an open marriage, or whether he just, when confronted with his infidelity, said he didn’t want a divorce but didn’t want to give up his girlfriend, either, and Marianne, looking back over more than a decade of what was obviously filled with bitterness, anger and resentment, suddenly reframed this initial inability to decide as a declaration of wanting an “open marriage”.

        There is a difference between a desire to not have to make a difficult decision and the intention to have an ongoing relationship such as the one you describe.

        He did make the decision, once he realized he had to.

        And he categorically denies ever asking his wife, Adulteress No. 1, to “share” him with Adulteress No. 2, or to engage in an ongoing sexual free-for-all.

        Don’t forget Marianne’s hypocrisy in whining about Callista doing exactly what she had done when it was her turn, or the bragging about having the power to end Newt’s presidential bid, an obvious statement of revenge.

        Has Marianne ever repented for her complicity in the affair with Newt while he was married to Jackie? Has she talked about the moral and spiritual journey she has taken, to arrive at a point of deep and sincere regret and guilt for her past actions, and a commitment to a future of respect and commitment? Newt and Callista have, and those close to them believe them and testify to the strength of that commitment.

        Marianne, on the other hand, appears to have merely lain in wait for a chance to get even.


      • Amazona January 21, 2012 / 8:29 pm

        Only a major pain could find it “tawdry” that the people closest to Newt throughout his turbulent marital history love him, respect him, and more to the point have had the best opportunity of anyone to witness, closeup, his remorse for his past actions and his commitment to a life of dignity and honesty in his marriage.

        If anything is “tawdry” it is the ghoulish glee with which the RRL dupes and drones have pounced on this and wallowed in the pain and misery of Newt’s past, rejoicing in every sordid detail and adding some when they have sucked the juices out of facts.

    • Amazona January 19, 2012 / 5:54 pm

      Velma loves to speak for women, and for Christians, yet has never shown any hint of being qualified to do either.

      But then Libs see people as demographics, amorphous groups of whatever, while conservatives see individuals, with individual characteristics. This is one reason conservatives don’t carry on about the “black vote” or the “Latino vote” etc. the way Libs do.

      We appeal to intellect and reason while Libs try to shove people into groups and lump them together with assigned characteristics.

      Any divorced person, male or female, can understand the phenomenon of having the rejected spouse jump on a chance for a national venue for complaining about the other.

      And Newt has been very up-front about his regrets about his past actions, his awareness that he was a cad, his feeling that this was a shameful part of his life, and his guilt. He has also talked about the power of redemption, of finding God and committing to a life of honor, and part of that has been accepting and admitting his sins and defects.

      There is no evidence whatsoever that his change was superficial, politically motivated, temporary or fake in any way. He is living his life now according to the values he adopted when he accepted his sins and vowed to become a different man.

      And as for the squeal of “Better yet, Cluster, if you could find an ex-wife who had a serious illness when Bill filed for divorce” I have two words for you, Velma: John Edwards.

      And THAT wife died.

      • bardolf January 19, 2012 / 6:01 pm


        I agree John Edwards and Newt are peers.

      • Amazona January 19, 2012 / 6:06 pm

        And there you go again, inventing something that was not said and then saying something utterly stupid about it.

        I think a map of your thought process would look like a pile of spaghetti.

      • Green Mountain Boy January 19, 2012 / 6:30 pm

        It is obvious that Newts daughters love thier father and will defend him and will tell thier side as they see it. I will trust thier opinion on this because if they did not respect thier father this would come through on the interviews, writings that they have given.

        I can’t believe I am defending Newt again.

    • tiredoflibbs January 20, 2012 / 1:47 pm

      oh yes velma, you libs have such great female representation:

      Debbie Wasserman “unemployment is lower now than when obama took office” Shultz
      Nancy “we have to pass healthcare in order to see what is in it” Pelosi
      Michelle “I am finally proud to be an American” Obama
      Hillary “vast right wing conspiracy” Clinton
      etc. etc. etc.

      Your “green with envy” catty attitude is coming through again and it is not pretty – no wonder you are so bitter.

  6. Amazona January 19, 2012 / 6:24 pm

    Well, I bid adieu for the nonce, off to close on my wonderful new property. I am so excited. I thought I might feel regret at leaving Wyoming but instead I am just feeling enthusiastic about a new kind of life, some new business opportunities, and a really cool new house and ranch.

    I said, a few weeks ago, that I was going to view the beginning of the new year as a pivot point, around which we could move in exciting and optimistic new directions, and I am finding that to be the case.

    While the Usual Suspects are whingeing on and on and on and ON about OUR prospective candidates, I am loving the spectacle of having conservative values and ideas explained, argued about, and made the focal point of the selection process. It is such a great change from last time, when the Dems chose their candidate based on tingles and the reverb from the speaker systems, and the Republicans just put up a token, reading the tea leaves and seeing that the nation was still gullible and easily manipulated enough to buy into the American Idol format of the election.

    This time we have a choice, we have a record to run against, and a very good chance to fix things before they become irretrievably broken. Barack Obama is the best thing that could have happened to our country, because his radicalism has jump-started a realization of the importance of our foundational law and philosophy, and accelerated the process of a revival of Constitutional commitment.

    All we have to do is look at the representatives of the Left who post here. There is not a true political thought among them. All they have to offer is sour hostile emotion, and I think they represent the hard-core Left that will vote for Obama no matter what. They illustrate, day in and day out, the choices of the Left: Total ignorance of the ideology or the awareness that the reality of the ideology is so toxic that it simply cannot be acknowledged, much less defended.

    • bardolf January 19, 2012 / 6:43 pm

      Good luck!

    • Cluster January 19, 2012 / 8:17 pm

      Good luck on the new venture Amazona!! Acquiring new property is always exciting

      • neocon1 January 19, 2012 / 8:51 pm

        good luck

      • Amazona January 21, 2012 / 8:09 pm

        Thanks, guys. It was time for a fresh start, and so far it all feels really good. The sellers are wonderful, offering to help me get settled in, learn the irrigation system (it’s really not enough to know that water runs downhill), introduce me to neighbors and people like vets and farriers, etc. The whole vibe is upbeat and positive and I’m really ready for that. It’s been a rough patch, sounding a lot like a really bad country western song—my husband died, my house burned down, my dog got run over, my long-time employee died, blah blah blah, I’ve kept upbeat and optimistic but it’s really time for a break, and some fun. (Time to get that bad paint blasted off Ruby and get her ready for some summertime cruising.)

        I even celebrated by blowing some of my ranch sale proceeds on a new truck, a real BFT—–F450 crew cab long bed Power Stroke dually, with all the bells and whistles. Could have used such a beast up in the Big Wonderful, but better late than never. I dug out the old Excursion, 12 years old with 177,000 miles on her, almost broken in, and folded down the back seats to set up a doggy daycare center, and pooches and I can hit the road whenever we need to, till we get settled in at the new digs.

        Though they are already tired of having me start off every trip with a very off-key rendition of “On The Road Again”, especially as the title is about all the words I know.

        It’s all good.

        I am also getting a good vibe off the political process in the GOP. Yes, there is a little cannibalism going on, but we can handle that. I am not thrilled with Romney’s attack ads and wish he had a little more pizazz, but as a conservative what really matters to me is the message, and the skills that indicate the message is doable, more than the whole tingle thing. I’m not totally happy with Newt’s background, from being undisciplined as the House leader to being selfish and, yes, immoral as a husband, but I also think the best people grow and mature and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt regarding his commitment to a higher moral standard and some maturity in his melding of ideas and execution.

        I am also seeing a Santorum who comes across, more so all the time, as ready for prime time, solid and stable and predictable with a good history. The inability of the RRL to find anything with which to try to smear him says volumes, and even his opponents can’t come up with anything worse than “big government conservative” which needs to be compared to “big government Liberal” as a big nation does need a degree of bigger government and the key is, is it Constitutional.

        Even cranky Ron Paul has his place in the process, goading people into thinking about economic issues like the Fed, even though the idea of him being the leader of the Free World is a weird combination of ick and giggles.

        You wanna know how hard it is for the RRL dupes and drones to get traction? They’re slamming SARAH PALIN!!

        The weather has even been wonderful, balmy and sunny in spite of being the end of January. The horses are blissed out at having a winter without much snow and wind, and are dozy and grateful in the sunlight. Little Ed, the miniature stallion (bought in northern Alberta and therefore named Ed Monton) got out, got rowdy, got kicked in the head and lost an eye, but he’s so supremely overconfident of his ultimate coolness he’s pretty sure it won’t be a problem. I wish I could think he learned a lesson, but he is a classic example of testosterone poisoning, and probably thinks he won that fight.

        Yep—it’s good and getting better.

  7. watsonredux January 19, 2012 / 11:04 pm

    cluster said, “Conservatives don’t get tingles for political candidates sweety. That condition is strictly the domain for the adolescent liberals who gush over someone who can simply read from a teleprompter.”

    No, cluster, conservatives just get little starbursts shooting at them through their television screens. Rich Lowry told us so.

    Look cluster, they’re winking at you again! Are you sitting up a littler straighter? lol

    • neocon1 January 20, 2012 / 11:36 am


      what are you talking about?
      lay off the crack pipe fool

    • Amazona January 21, 2012 / 8:14 pm

      neo, the wattle is just agreeing that the RRL dupes and drones are helpless in the face of the principled stance of the Constitutionalist Conservatives, by showing off all they’ve got—a silly effort to imply that we’re just as shallow and superficial as they are.

      It’s either that or attacking Sarah Palin. The amusement factor appears to be growing as they get more and more frustrated. But then, what could bumfuddle a wattle or his ilk more than serious people talking about serious solutions to serious problems? It’s just too too alien to the American Idol, tabloid, identity politics he CAN relate to.

Comments are closed.