Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Newt Gingrich's Amazon Book Reviews

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the guy's-gotta-do-something-with-his-time dept.

Books 275

lee1 writes "Newt Gingrich has written 156 book reviews on Amazon, at one point becoming ranked in the site's top 500 list. Most of the books are cheesy political thrillers, but the newly announced presidential candidate is also trying to learn about quantum physics, and shows good taste, 'strongly recommending' Richard Feynman's QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter." Gingrich is an early joiner; I'd like to see the books on the shelves of the other likely presidential candidates, too.

cancel ×

275 comments

Troll (0, Troll)

cinderellamanson (1850702) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113144)

Newt Gingrich is a troll.

Re:Troll (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36113194)

Aren't troll's usually much larger than humans?

Re:Troll (1)

cinderellamanson (1850702) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113210)

Good point, a midget troll then. It wasn't long ago, before Obama's election that he was writing about segregation on humanevents.com, TROLL.

Re:Troll (0)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113224)

Their what? Their cars are. Their houses obviously are.
Their socks aren't, though they rarely wear them.

Re:Troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36113708)

Ugh, grammar fail. Well played sir.

Re:Troll (-1, Flamebait)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113274)

Yes. I hope this tiny troll dies of a painful anal cyst.

Re:Troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36113312)

You spelled tool wrong.

Re:Troll (1, Troll)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113434)

Frankly the field of candidates at the GOP's disposal all look like various forms of trolls. I think the smart money is on Obama taking it again in 2012, so now's the GOP's chance to let the Tea Party fruitcakes and all those simpering cowardly Republicans who refuse to standup to the Libertarians and other even less sensible riff raff that have seized the party smash themselves against the electoral rocks next year. Once it's clear that the Tea Party won't be able to install a president, the GOP can again regain control of the situation, turn the Libertarian wing back into the useful idiots they have usually been and then find a candidate for 2016 who has a good chance of becoming President.

Maybe the Tea Party can split off, take over the Reform Party like everyone else has and all the semi-sentient 'tards that make up the movement can stop infecting mainstream politics with the racist moronic gibberish they've been spouting.

Re:Troll (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36113552)

Why do you hate Guns and jesus?

Re:Troll (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36113572)

Why do you hate Guns and jesus?

Their guitarist sucks, that's why. And then when you consider their son writing has fallen apart since the early 90s - plah-ease!

Re:Troll (4, Insightful)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113558)

I'm sorry but you're way out of line. Firstly, I'm not a Tea Party member, but I am a sympathizer. You must be getting all your news from CNN and NBC if you actually believe that all Tea Party members are racist or retarded. YOu have nothing constructive to say, just a long rant of insults. Let's hear a detailed list of the real policy issues you have with them, not more of the Bill Maher inspired ad hominem attacks.

Re:Troll (1, Troll)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113632)

When the Tea Party actually has any policies beyond "Cut taxes and get that foreign Muslim-sounding Nigger out of office", you let me know.

Re:Troll (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36113616)

All of them have either kicked at one or several of the tentpoles of social conservatism (Newt Gingrich has wiped his ass with the "institution of marriage" multiple times) or Teabagger "thought" (Mitt Romney has "Romneycare" hanging over his head), or they're all on record supporting Paul Ryan's plan to whack Medicare - which has completely pissed off their older voting base. The primary is going to be ugly, and then whoever is unfortunate enough to be left standing is going to have to explain why they're better than the guy who got Osama bin Laden after Bush broke his promise to do just that.

Re:Troll (1, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113646)

I think the killing of Osama bin Laden has basically bought Obama a second term. The GOP might as well use the opportunity to cleanse the party of the maniacs, bigots and blowhards who have infected the party.

Re:Troll (1)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | more than 3 years ago | (#36114238)

After the 2008 loss to Obama we get the 2010 elections with the Tea Party. A Republican losing in 2012 will only help the Tea Party.

Re:Troll (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36114362)

I don't think so, because whoever becomes the Republican candidate is going to, at least, publicly, smooth talk the Tea Party. They will, to a large extent, be the writers of the 2012 Republican Presidential narrative. This will be the Tea Party's big chance to show their stuff, to push the GOP candidate into the sort of manic hysteria they seem to approve of, and whoever that candidate is, that's exactly what he will do. Meanwhile, Obama will run another cool, potent campaign like he did in 2008, with the "No Drama" philosophy, and just let the Tea Party drive the Republican candidate into the rocks. The Tea Party seems to bring out the worst in even sensible candidates.

How does he have the time? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36113168)

Between running for president, commenting on Fox News shows, and cheating on his wife, how does he have time to read so much?

Re:How does he have the time? (2)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113192)

.....cheating on his wife, how does he have time to read so much?

He takes the bottom and reads while the woman does all the work?

Re:How does he have the time? (3, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113586)

He takes the bottom and reads while the woman does all the work?

Nah, your arms get cramp.

Doggy style, then you can use her back as a desk.

Umm, so they say.

Re:How does he have the time? (1)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113836)

Audiobooks: Political Thrillers get her hot.

Re:How does he have the time? (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36114004)

Nah, your arms get cramp.

That's why you rest your elbows on her knees. As long as it's not small print, you're good

Re:How does he have the time? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 3 years ago | (#36114168)

Whatever position you choose, if you have a mind to read, at least one of you is doing it fucking wrong (pun intended).

Re:How does he have the time? (5, Informative)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113408)

He started these reviews right after he left the House, I remember reading some of them in '02 and '03. Emailed his homepage at one point about a book and he replied.

I don't like his politics, but he was friendly and intelligent in email.

Re:How does he have the time? (3, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113570)

Obviously someone in his position can delegate an aide to cheat on his wife.

I am nowhere near ready to assume he doesn't just (0, Flamebait)

spads (1095039) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113184)

pay someone to write those things for PR.

Re:I am nowhere near ready to assume he doesn't ju (4, Insightful)

osgeek (239988) | more than 3 years ago | (#36114378)

You'd likely be wrong. Malign the guy as you will - lord knows the US press was all too eager to do so back in the 90's - but he's extremely intelligent. It's obvious if you listen to the guy speak for five minutes that he's very thoughtful and well read.

Here's the link to his Amazon posts (5, Informative)

cshay (79326) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113212)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A27WFYW9ZJ5DN1 [amazon.com]

For some reason the Washington Post did not include it.

Re:Here's the link to his Amazon posts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36114094)

Is there any way to be sure the account is really his - as opposed to "created by a ghostwriter or PR representative aiming to impress the public with Gingrich's literacy"?

Re:Here's the link to his Amazon posts (2)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | more than 3 years ago | (#36114154)

Is there any way to be sure the account is really his - as opposed to "created by a ghostwriter or PR representative aiming to impress the public with Gingrich's literacy"?

Gingrich isn't a real person. CSPAN is just a set on a stage in London. Washington doesn't exist. Have your ever been to Washington? Of course you haven't you would have fallen off the face of the earth if you tried to make the voyage. Anyone who says otherwise is a shill for the "Airplane Lobby."

Re:Here's the link to his Amazon posts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36114352)

Despite "strongly recommending" Feynman, Gingrich also had this to say in a later review - of "Potshot(Spenser)":

Having recently read a fair amount of Richard Feynman's efforts to explain quantum physics in lay terms, I beamed approvingly as Spenser opined, "Afterlife is no less implausible than anything else. All explanations of existence are equally incredible." Faith in God is at least as plausible as faith in physics in explaining the behavior in the universe.

Obligatory Karma burning commentary (-1, Troll)

00_NOP (559413) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113246)

I heard his library burnt down and he was very disappointed at the loss of his books.

He hadn't finished colouring them all in.

ZING! (-1, Offtopic)

TiggertheMad (556308) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113262)

but the newly announced presidential candidate is also trying to learn about quantum physics, and shows good taste, 'strongly recommending' Richard Feynman's QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter."

I can see why physics books would appeal to the newtster, they tend to have lots of pictures in them...

Re:ZING! (1)

ultracool (883965) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113810)

QED does not have lots of pictures in it. Physics books for the layman tend to not have many pictures. Physics textbooks are much more equation-heavy than picture-heavy.

Ron Paul (1)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113276)

Not that he's written any book reviews that I'm aware of, but I'm sure a lot of the books on this list that he didn't write are on his shelves: Ron Paul on Amazon.com [amazon.com]

Amazon reviews (2, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113278)

Are we really basing our opinions of Newt Gingrich on the fact that his Amazon account has "recommended" a book by Feynman?

By that measurement, my recommendation of Barry Cooper's biography of Beethoven qualifies me to conduct the Chicago Symphony and to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

But I'm a bit suspicious of Gingrich's recommendations ever since in an interview on Fox News he said he read Plato in the original Latin.

Personally, I'm glad Gingrich is running for president. It should be good for some lulz. If he were to win, do you realize he'd be only our second divorced president? Ronald Reagan was the first. Though, to be fair, even St Ronnie didn't have the balls to kick a wife to the curb for getting cancer. You know, when I first heard that, I thought "That's probably just political mud-slinging. It was probably just coincidental that Gingrich's wife was diagnosed with cancer around the time of the breakup of their marriage". Until I looked into it a little further and read some interviews and articles and lo and behold, Newt actually did kick his wife to the curb for getting cancer and was already banging his next wife while that one was getting chemo. Further, it appears that he kicked a subsequent wife to the curb for getting multiple sclerosis. As Gingrich put it in a rare moment of blunt honesty: "I can't deal with them sick bitches".

Clearly, he's got the right stuff to be a Republican front runner.

Re:Amazon reviews (1)

00_NOP (559413) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113316)

You betcha.

Re:Amazon reviews (3, Interesting)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113582)

I'd like to see a source for that. I suspect if he actually said that Google would know about it.

Re:Amazon reviews (4, Funny)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113650)

Well we know where he'd stand on health care. You can be a citizen as long as you don't get sick. When you do, you'll be deported to Mexico and be replaced with a sexy 23-year-old from Sweden.

Re:Amazon reviews (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36113772)

actually he's stated in the past that he's behind a mandate for health insurance and subsidies for poor people who can't afford it.

which means his ambitions to be GOP nominee are dead in the water. like romney. backing a mandate is going to be an albatross around both their necks.

Re:Amazon reviews (3, Funny)

layer3switch (783864) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113900)

you'll be deported to Mexico and be replaced with a sexy 23-year-old from Sweden.

So it's safe to assume, Gingrich/Trump 2012 ticket?

Re:Amazon reviews (2)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | more than 3 years ago | (#36114044)

Or a Gingrich/Giuliani 2012 ticket.

Re:Amazon reviews (3, Insightful)

farnsworth (558449) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113724)

Are we really basing our opinions of Newt Gingrich on the fact that his Amazon account has "recommended" a book by Feynman?

By that measurement, my recommendation of Barry Cooper's biography of Beethoven qualifies me to conduct the Chicago Symphony and to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

But I'm a bit suspicious of Gingrich's recommendations ever since in an interview on Fox News he said he read Plato in the original Latin.

Personally, I'm glad Gingrich is running for president. It should be good for some lulz. [...]

Clearly, he's got the right stuff to be a Republican front runner.

What flamebait. You may not agree with his politics, and his personal life may abhor you, but it seems perfectly valid to assess someone's intellectual capacity based on something like this. You don't have to vote for him, but this may be an interesting find for someone choosing between Sarah "I read them all" Palin and this guy. He clearly is a sharp man.

Re:Amazon reviews (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36113812)

You may not agree with his politics, and his personal life may abhor you, but it seems perfectly valid to assess someone's intellectual capacity based on something like this.

That seems to be exactly what he's doing:

he said he read Plato in the original Latin.

Re:Amazon reviews (0)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113956)

but it seems perfectly valid to assess someone's intellectual capacity based on something like this.

Wait a minute, I should "assess someone's intellectual capacity" based on a "recommend" an account in his name gave on Amazon?

Well then, the fact that I've recommended Kant's Critique of Pure Reason indicates that I'm fucking brilliant. And since I "recommended" Jeff Gordon: Nascar Driver (Ferguson Career Biographies) [Hardcover] ISBN-10: 0816058857 I am qualified to win the Daytona 500.

Got a ways to go before he catches John Edwards (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36113730)

Let's see, the last three Dem VP candidates:

1. Joe Lieberman quit the Democratic Party and was seriously considered as a running mate by John McCain
2. John Edwards cheated on his dying wife (ten-upping Gingrich), had a kid with his mistress, and then illegally used campaign funds to pay her hush money
3. Joe Biden - serial plagiarist going all the way back to college.

And these are the guys who actually made it on the ticket.

And God only wonders what you thought about Bill Clinton's infidelities - did you take the "it's only sex" wimp-out? Like so many who are quick to criticize Gingrich, did you give Slick Willie and his bent willie a pass?

Re:Got a ways to go before he catches John Edwards (5, Insightful)

scot4875 (542869) | more than 3 years ago | (#36114142)

Hypocrisy - look it up. I don't care one whit if Gingrich fucks a busload of nuns during his spare time. I *do* care when he (and his party) make "morality" part of the platform, and then turns around and violates said morals. Why the fuck should I vote for someone who violates one of his main promises?

Your failure to understand seems to stem from the fact that you (and other slow thinkers like you) think adultery is automatically bad, and that we wouldn't vote for someone based on who they do and/or don't put their dick in.

Just like when Obama said "I'm going to close Gitmo" and "I'm going to investigate AT&T over the warrantless wiretaps" and then didn't do either of those things. That loses him points. It would then be sheer hypocrisy if he were to open more detention facilities, or ask for more wiretaps. But if he decides he wants to screw Hillary Clinton on the side? I don't care -- he never told me he wouldn't, and it's not something I'd base a vote on anyway.

Do you get it? It's not the extra marital affairs we care about. It's the hypocrisy.

--Jeremy

Re:Got a ways to go before he catches John Edwards (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36114248)

Hypocrisy - look it up. I don't care one whit if Gingrich fucks a busload of nuns during his spare time. I *do* care when he (and his party) make "morality" part of the platform, and then turns around and violates said morals. Why the fuck should I vote for someone who violates one of his main promises?

Your failure to understand seems to stem from the fact that you (and other slow thinkers like you) think adultery is automatically bad, and that we wouldn't vote for someone based on who they do and/or don't put their dick in.

Just like when Obama said "I'm going to close Gitmo" and "I'm going to investigate AT&T over the warrantless wiretaps" and then didn't do either of those things. That loses him points. It would then be sheer hypocrisy if he were to open more detention facilities, or ask for more wiretaps. But if he decides he wants to screw Hillary Clinton on the side? I don't care -- he never told me he wouldn't, and it's not something I'd base a vote on anyway.

Do you get it? It's not the extra marital affairs we care about. It's the hypocrisy.

--Jeremy

But you're gonna turn around and vote for Obama anyway, aren't you?

You know, if you voted for Obama in 2008 just to prove you're not racist, you have to vote for someone else in 2012 to prove you're not an IDIOT

Re:Amazon reviews (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36113876)

"Clearly, he's got the right stuff to be a Republican front runner."

Holier than thou. Selective memory. Affirms prior biases.

Citation needed? See John Edwards.

Oh, right, Edwards was banging some other chick he met on the campaign trail and didn't even bother to divorce his wife, who had cancer, shortly died after this all broke, etc. etc. That's MUCH better, isn't it.

Human beings suck. And you more than most. Good job being part of humanity, asshole.

Re:Amazon reviews (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113906)

Citation needed? See John Edwards.

John Edwards' marital infidelity coming to light ended his political career. Newt's adultery wasn't even a speed bump to his goal of the presidency.

But then, as Newt said, he only cheated on his wives because he loved his country so much, bless his soul.

Re:Amazon reviews (2)

Jason Earl (1894) | more than 3 years ago | (#36114070)

Didn't Newt's adultery happen in the 90s? Apparently Republicans are just better at forgiving *past* offenses.

Re:Amazon reviews (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#36114110)

I go to a forum that has a large number of Republicans on it. If they are representative of Republican primary voters (and they appear to be), Newt's chances of winning the Presidency is only marginally better than Ron Paul's. The posters on that site believe that character counts...and they think that Newt's marital history indicates that he is deficient in that area.

Re:Amazon reviews (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36114090)

I read through the whole review list (skimming over most of the fiction titles). Speaking as a moderate Democrat who would probably disagree with him on a lot of things, I was actually quite impressed. Very impressed, in fact. He has read on a wide variety of topics, and appears to be one of the most scientifically literate politicians I'm aware of. Some of the things I noticed:

There's a LOT of history books. Both ancient history and recent history. Particularly military history.

There's a lot of science, including:
        Quantum Mechanics (Elegant Universe, QED, Schroedinger's Cat, etc.)
        Genetics
        Paleontology/Evolution (He's clearly not a creationist)
        Technology
        Sociology (Guns, Germs, and Steel)

In a number of cases, he notes that he disagrees with the ideology of a liberal book author, but recommends the author's book anyway, and compliments it, and the author, highly. He does not appear to be one of the Republicans who believes that liberals have nothing to say that's worth listening to.

I'm not likely to vote for him (particularly if he's going up against Obama, who despite his flaws, I rather like) but I was overall quite impressed with what he has been reading and with what he had to say about it. I would venture to say that at this moment in time, if I were to choose from the current crop of Republican hopefuls, I would rather vote for him than for any of the others. I don't necessarily agree with all of the positions he takes, but I believe he is an intelligent man who tries to understand things deeply and is smart enough to not just take ideological positions when real understanding is called for. He also appears to be a somewhat moderate Republican who is not just repeating the party line, and actually differs with his party on a number of issues.

We could probably do a lot worse as a president.

Re:Amazon reviews (2)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36114284)

He has read on a wide variety of topics, and appears to be one of the most scientifically literate politicians I'm aware of. Some of the things I noticed:

So, you believe every review on Amazon, especially reviews of books with some political content or importance, have been written by people who have actually read the books?

And further, you believe that a politician's online presence is solely created by the politician himself and not the work of many "consultants" whose entire job in Washington is to create an online presence for politicians, including tweets, blog posts, and posts on conservative "think-tank" websites?

Do you also believe that every word of every speech delivered by a politician represents his own work product?

Or is it just Newt Gingrich who you believe is the last honest politician in Washington?

Here's a guy who has admitted to cheating on at least two wives, yet you believe he is incapable of cheating in any other arena.

We could probably do a lot worse as a president

So, rather than evaluate his actual record in public office (which Gingrich has) we should just cast our votes based on his reading list? If that's the case, then I want to see him give oral reports on the books he's claimed to have read. If as a nation we're going to force the current occupant of the White House to provide documentary proof of his innocence of the crime of presidenting while black, then the least we can do is force the most puffed-up, self-absorbed, unctuous and perfidious blow-hard in Washington to prove that he's actually read the books that the Amazon account in his name has claimed to have read.

And I'm saving my vote for the first candidate who's read both Ulysses (Joyce) and the complete works of Richard K. Morgan.

Weak Candidates (2, Insightful)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113322)

The candidates the press is focusing on are really weak so far. The last important thing Gingrich did was resign in disgrace from office. Its cool that he likes to read and has shown a minimum level of skill with computers. At least he doesn't have his wife print out his email. (John McCain) ... But Gingrich has a slim chance of winning the primary. I respect Gingrich for what he has done but I can't trust a man who betrays his family like he did. I also don't respect quitters and cable news personalities. (You too Sarah Palin)

Re:Weak Candidates (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36113486)

Oh, come on man, what the hell do you want from a president? If badass quotes like "I can't deal with sick bitches" don't cut it, what's it gonna take to make you happy? You holding out for the presidator?

(Yes, the above was meant facetiously. Serious reply below...)

The candidates the press is focusing on are really weak so far.

Aren't they usually? Yes, sometimes you have the retired military guys and such, but most of the candidates most years are either insipid slick politicians (mostly yankees and/or democrat) or crowd-rallying loudmouths with embedded feet (mostly southern and/or republican), all handily thrashed by a generic opposite-party candidate.

This is because presidential candidates don't arise from nowhere, they come up through state governorships, congress, or high-level bureacracy (i.e. cabinet), and none of these tracks have particular bias toward a strong presidential candidate -- ex-governors are perhaps the closest.

Re:Weak Candidates (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36113596)

presidential candidates don't arise from nowhere the current president notwithstanding, more or less.

Re:Weak Candidates (1)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113888)

I would be happy if the press focused on any of those types. Instead we get TV show hosts who have worked for Fox News in the past year.

Re:Weak Candidates (5, Informative)

Orgasmatron (8103) | more than 3 years ago | (#36114228)

You do know that McCain's arms haven't worked right ever since he was tortured by the North Vietnamese while he was a prisoner of war, right?

If I was physically unable to use a computer in a normal way, I might just get my wife to print my emails too.

Re:Weak Candidates (1)

guspasho (941623) | more than 3 years ago | (#36114320)

They are weak because none of them are seriously running. Gingrich is the worst example of the bunch. He pretends to run in every election, getting some attention for it (which is the real point) and then dropping out long before it becomes a serious contest. The rest, like Donald Trump, another serial "candidate" are doing the same thing. Probably more so than Democratic politicians, Republicans are notorious self-aggrandizers. Look at Sarah Palin's post-2008 career. She quit her job halfway through her term so she could make reality TV shows and $100,000 speaking engagements.

Baraq Obama: (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36113326)

5 different autobiographies of himself (ghost written with Bill Ayers).

someone else (1)

BigJClark (1226554) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113376)


Who's to say this isn't somebody employed by Newt to read these books, to make it seem like Newt is a well-read, intelligent, individual?

Re:someone else (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113424)

I don't think so, as I posted before, he really started this when he was out of the House and a political pariah.

Re:someone else (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113456)

I still can't quite figure out why that particular adulterer is even seriously considered after his fist thumping over the Clinton-Lewinsky affair. What an obscene, vile, disingenuous hypocrite that man is.

Re:someone else (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36114370)

Yeah... who'd allow an adulterer in office? Not us.

Especially if he takes issue with a president lying in grand jury testimony. We don't like rabble-rousers... just keep quiet!

Glad to see the /. politibot is well-oiled and ready for business, though.

Re:someone else (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36114390)

It must be tough be a Republican these days, with that awful slate of candidates. Looking at the GOP leadership right now is kind of like looking at the Kremlin leadership into the early 1980s; a bunch of old men with heart problems and cranky looks, each one more ideologically frozen than the last, watching as history passed them by.

Re:someone else (2)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113482)

Genrich isn't a dumb. That not his weak point. His weak point is his penis.

Re:someone else (1)

moortak (1273582) | more than 3 years ago | (#36114074)

His history as a professor and his place on the board of the National Space Society at least hint that he was probably the one to read them. He may be a political douche, but he is also a bright guy with a lot of time on his hands.

It's a political play (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36113394)

For what it's worth.. there's a lot of rumor mongering in the political world about his ... out of the ordinary.. efforts to make his name relevant again in an effort to drum up support for a presidential run... he's established a handful of organizations (not all bearing his name) as ways to influence other organizations and what not in the last few years. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if it's not some intern writing these reviews to make him seem more well rounded and intelligent to the intellectual elite that don't typically vote Republican.

Re:It's a political play (1)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113550)

Nah he probably just likes to read. It not as if he has a real job or anything.

So, he mostly reviews cheesy political thrillers? (1)

denzacar (181829) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113414)

...mostly?

Very Disappointed (1)

Ranger (1783) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113420)

I was hoping these would be hilarious reviews of the Newt "I had a hard on for America so I fooled around" Gingrich's books. I'd love to see Amazon tags on his stuff like there is on Jonah Goldberg's execrable Liberal Fascism [amazon.com] . Some of my favorites are "doughy pantload", "books written while high on cheeto dust", and "cheeto-erotic asphyxiation".

Dump Gingrich. It's what he does. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36113422)

Honestly, I think his habit of divorcing his wife when she gets seriously sick goes more to character than his bookshelf. He's done it twice now. [nationalpost.com] "In sickness and in health" my /dev/null.

If he dumps the women he "loves" over that, he sure as heck isn't going to think twice about dumping America for the benefit of the Party when the going gets rough.

Why oh why can't we have a good Republican candidate? Obama's not invincible, but he's not going to break a sweat against the current clowns. And yes, that includes the "man should be an island" Ron Paul.

Re:Dump Gingrich. It's what he does. (0)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113492)

I think the GOP inner circle knew that the rise of the Tea Party was going to hurt their chances, but this, as I said elsewhere, is a golden opportunity to get rid of the Tea Party completely. Once moderate, or heck, even sane Republicans figure out that trying to satisfy a bunch of seriously confused malcontents will deprive them of moderate votes, the Tea Party will join the other Libertarian movements on the dustbin of history.

Re:Dump Gingrich. It's what he does. (2)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113524)

Ohh, I'm sure respectable people are running. Maybe even people who had more experience than Barack Obama did in 2008. But normal, respectable, and dependable doesn't get viewers. The media is going to focus on clowns till a straw poll or a primary cuts them out. Then they are going to make shit up.

Should have read "Infidelity: A Survival Guide" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36113430)

Because it is awkard trying to explain two ex wifes (both seriously ill at the time of the divorce) and the criticism of Bill Clinton while newt was having an affair with a staff member. Cable TV makes a great job at informing people about what really matters.

Other books (5, Insightful)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113460)

Palin won't have read many, but her shelves will have "important" books for the looks.
Ron Paul will have alot of economic and revisionist history stuff, pretty much anyone over from Lewrockwell.com that's written a book, he will have all their stuff.
Donald Trump will have books about himself, by himself.
Romney will have a good mix of Christian, Mormonism and pop history books.

Re:Other books (5, Informative)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113592)

When asked about his favorite book Romeny stated "Battlefield Earth" by L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology.

Re:Other books (5, Informative)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113990)

When asked about his favorite book Romeny stated "Battlefield Earth" by L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology.

By the way the above post isn't a joke. He actually said his favorite book was "Battlefield Earth."

Re:Other books (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36114410)

I thought the guy was a Mormon. I'm getting kind of suspicious...

Re:Other books (2)

imadork (226897) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113612)

I'd love to read GWB's review of My Pet Goat.

Re:Other books (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36113658)

And yet the man held a post higher than you. Just goes to show who rules and who gets treated like a bitch, bitch.

Re:Other books (1)

layer3switch (783864) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113976)

Just goes to show who rules and who gets treated like a bitch, bitch.

That's what Cheney said to Bush back in 2001. (doo-doom tah~! *drum)

Re:Other books (2)

Bemopolis (698691) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113636)

Palin won't have read many, but her shelves will have "important" books for the looks.

She doesn't have room on her bookshelves for too many books — they are already teetering under the weight of newspapers and magazines. You know, all of them.

Re:Other books (3, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113668)

I think she got rid of her bookcases so she could see Russia more clearly.

Re:Other books (2)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 3 years ago | (#36114302)

According to a book recently written by one of the managers of her campaign, she actually does/did read several Alaska-local papers every day -- but when put on the spot, she didn't want to give that answer for fear it would make her appear too provincial.

So instead she told a lie that made her look illiterate and/or intellectually uncurious instead.

I demand a little more from my politicians; I don't expect honesty, but want them to tell smarter lies.

Fooling around never slowed Clinton (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36113536)

It's amazing that when Bill Clinton was philandering before and after getting elected that the same level of Slashdot indignation wasn't heaped on him.

Re:Fooling around never slowed Clinton (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113622)

The fact remains that Gingrich was soon reviled almost in equal parts by his own party, whereas Clinton, despite semen-stained dresses and a history of out-of-control boinking predated his Presidency by many years, left office very popular, and remains even now a very popular ex-president.

You can bitch and whine all you like, but to some extent its because Gingrich was an unco-operative malcontented blowhard who liked to show off how smart he was, but was ultimately a lightweight compared to Clinton, who is, despite his mastery of that folksy Arkansas charm, a very bright and well-read man. Both men seem to have the same vices, but only one of them possesses the virtue.

I'll tell you what happens if Gingrich wins the nod (and I doubt he will, he's way to much a plain fucking asshole to ever actually win). Obama will go into the 2012 election with a recovery economy, Al Qaeda on the run with Obama able to (figuratively, at least) hold up bin Laden's head, and ol' Newt will be there, the unmitigated unapologetic prick he is, calling Obama down on everything in that Fox News way he has to do things, and the voter will look at Obama and see an imperfect and yet hopeful man and then look at Gingrich and see a fundamentally mean-spirited jerk.

Re:Fooling around never slowed Clinton (2)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113660)

Do not judge so that you will not be judged” Matthew 7:1

“Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. Matthew 7:3-5

It was more about hypocrisy than anything.

Re:Fooling around never slowed Clinton (2)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113700)

Republicans heaped indignation on Bill Clinton.

Mostly Republicans heaped indignation on Gingrich. (I think, I was kinda of young when he last held office), He sure didn't resign because of what Democrats thought.

Also it is one thing to cheat on your wife. Its another to cheat on your sick wife.

Re:Fooling around never slowed Clinton (1)

riverat1 (1048260) | more than 3 years ago | (#36114036)

I don't even care that much that he cheated on his sick wife. That's between the two of them. But serving divorce papers to her while she's in a hospital bed for chemo is pretty cold.

Re:Fooling around never slowed Clinton (3, Insightful)

scot4875 (542869) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113898)

Here's the difference. I'll go slowly and use small words so you might understand.

Clinton never ran on a platform of "family values" in the party of "family values" and "sanctity of marriage."

Do you get it now? Similarly, Clinton is the guy that said "I never inhaled," and we didn't hold it against him because he didn't run on an anti-drug platform. Clinton could have also been banging Al Gore, and we wouldn't have held it against either of them because neither one ran on a platform of "no homos!"

--Jeremy

I'm looking forward to his review of .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36113760)

"Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quantity Surveying"

Required, timely reading, September 19, 2001 (3, Informative)

layer3switch (783864) | more than 3 years ago | (#36113818)

http://www.amazon.com/review/RJKX0KUG5773Z [amazon.com]

Clark describes a pattern of destructive dishonesty that permeated the Clinton Administration. Clark could never count on candor from Shelton (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs), Secretary of Defense Cohen, or President Clinton. Contrast that with the fact that we have every reason to believe President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretaries Powell, and Rumsfeld. This administration will prove far more reliable and far more honorable.

Newt, as always, smart at narratives but really stupid at drawing a logical conclusion.

A better question... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36114084)

Let's see Sarah Palin's reviews. If you can't find any.

I do not understand Gingrich (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36114322)

He seems, at times, very smart - forward looking, creative, bold and while yes always (US-style) conservative someone who would likely drive America into the future in interesting (I mean that in the good sense) ways. No one can say it would be a boring presidency anyway! Open-minded, and creative about shaking the established order (anti-conservative in a sense we rarely see in any US politician). Reality-oriented and science knowledgeable/enthusiastic (among U.S. Republican politicians, very rare attributes indeed). Can be frank and open.

And at other times... a evil nut. Pushing the religionista's agenda Taleban-style. (Religious in the first place seems surprising if he really is the person described in my paragraph #1, but if he was religious wouldn't you expect a tolerant type?) Trying to undermine the administration without any regard to American's interests. Indeed, seems he'd _prefer_ the US to suffer so long as it hurts Obama's re-election prospects. Seemingly deeply corrupt. Transparently fickle and shallow. Naked, truly naked and unmitigated, greed for power trumping everything and anyone else.

I could never vote for him because the risks and likelihood of personality #2 outweigh the upside of #1. But I really don't get it, is this really one person? I see much to admire (and by US standards I'm extremely liberal(US meaning, i.e. left) ) yet how can this coherently exist with his awful attributes?!? An interesting human being, to be sure!

Once again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36114376)

slashdot turns from "news for nerds" to politics. Who freakin cares about Newt's Amazon book reviews? This is just another opportunity for an extremely liberal reader base to bash conservatives. If I wanted to read that, I'd go to MSNBC, CNN, ABC, AP, NPR...
Get back to nerdy news please!

Re:Once again... (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36114398)

You don't need to read the fucking article or post. Whose the pathetic one here?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...