I'm a much bigger fan of Scherer than I am of Newt Gingrich. Nevertheless, however much Scherer insists upon the innocuousness of his statements about Gingrich, those statements are full of insinuation. If Tyler is right about the facts (and Scherer is not really disputing those facts), then Scherer's statements are misleading at best.

It is all too tempting to succumb to swift-boating tactics, particularly because the Republican Party and its adherents make use of them, frequently and expertly. It is doubly tempting because swift-boating tactics set the bar so high for outrage that what was once outrageous (like George W.'s history of fecklessness and recklessness) seems tame. Journalists must resist this temptation and they must be wary of indulging in anything other than careful and sincere criticism.

would still stink out out loud.

The very notion that Newt Gingrich, that self-described paragon of virtue, didn't pay a penalty is belied by the manner in which it was paid:

A loan from Bob Dole. See this article: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/04/17/dole.gingrich/

Gingrich was going to pay it out of campaign funds, but then even he recognized that people might see that as unseemly. Really?

I don't think Mr. Scherer needed to dignify this faux protest with a response, but he should be applauded for the professional manner in which he dispatched Gingrich nonetheless.

There are many, many things to criticize regarding the loathsome Newt Gingrich, but this one says it all about the man: he served his wife with divorce papers while she was in the hospital fighting off cancer.

Try spinning that.

I'm no fan of Newt - never liked him much, even though I'm more centrist than Salon.

But the very statement the author pulls from his own article demonstrates a clear implication that the 'penalty' was a result of a finding of wrongdoing. Paying the fine was due to his being accused.

And the author acknowledges this wasn't the case. I do not believe either, nor does it matter, what Gingrich's mindset was when paying the fine or where the funds came from.

Citing other sources to support a misrepresentation is shabby behaviour at best. Just because others do it wrong, does not make it right. And it wasn't the term that was objectionable, it was the phrasing. Careful, obvious, intentional phrasing.

Poor reporting.

Dear Salon:

If Mr. Tyler is correct, then Mr. Scherer's statement in question is misleading. At least I find it so, and I embrace any opportunity to disagree with faith-based Republicanism. But this is something else. Mr. Scherer's statement suggests a lot more than he admits to. In his response to Mr. Tyler (and to us...remember Us?), he ignores the context in which his assertion is embedded. That context attacks Mr. Gingrich for speaking up at all. It feels a little too much like police-speak to this reader. It's divisive. It makes no effort to create a platform for reasonable dialogue. It feels, finally, like skin-deep journalism. Don't we have too much of that?

Robert McDowell

I am bound by certain personal beliefs about the future so that I don't allow myself affiliation with any political party offially or casually. This sort of stance is virtually impossible unless one is living under a rock inside a cave, so I substitute omnibus gimlet-eyed survey of people's personalities and actions for the partisan lockstep mind chill. Of course, this is a conceit, an illusion of broad proportion; yet, as a starting point it can be a liberating way of making sense of government and those so audacious as to think they can rule other men to some benefit.

That is certainly the baseline. I have to believe that someone is essentially trying to do a good thing, currently, to be taken seriously. With that guideline, through gritted teeth, I have to say that I think Gingrich is interested in reform and changes in government for the better. George W. Bush is a twit, but I do not think he is trying to do bad things. He should be arrested for stupidity, but he's not evil, just out of his league. See how it works?

It's not because of which way they lean, but the qualities of their heart, and it's much more satisfying cheering for good than cheering for your faith or party.

I think the latter initiates dicey articles such as this one on Newt. Really, to overcome the bad actors such as Dick Cheney (truly dark character) the facts have to be clear, the reasoning fine, and the benefit of the doubt rolled out like a red carpet...over a pit with sharp sticks. Report accuratly without guile and the facts will prevail. Make crap up and twist stuff all around and you're part of the problem. Just because 'they' are so adept at slinging inuendo doesn't mean good sorts should promote or tacitly condone their own sordid salvoes. Iknow, I know, who's all good or all bad...it's just a suggestion.

Gingrich is a psycopath and a schizophrenic. If people only knew. This 'little' tiny connection between Gingrich and Abramoff does not scratch the surface. It would take a 'ken Starr'and his legions, to spend the same time, 15 years, stealing billions of taxpayer dollars, bullying,threatening, destroying innocent peoples lives and then find absolutely nothing; and in the case of Gingrich and Abramoff, to have the ZEAL to the point of ACTUALLY finding the truth without having to resort to the the criminal things Ken Starr and his band of worthless "GODLESS" true evil worshiping menions, did to the Clintons and the people they knew. Actually, to catch Gingrich'with his pants down' and clean his drawers would not take a mental giant, just a judge like Starr on the payroll, the judge could get it done in a year, then he could sit back and collect billions of the peoples tax dollars, by lying through his QUEER teeth and just dragging it out as he did with the Clintons.

I do not think one would have to go far to find Gingrich's hand into the Starr *s..t *p.t.

These two pariah's Gingrich and Abramoff are greedy, spineless, self-centered, egostitical, maniacal, egocentric *a..*h..es, and should be stung up by their *b...s.

The only time we have a breather from Gingrich, is when he gets to high and disoriented off his meds and has to go back on his lithium or something compatible.

People this evil, continue to wreak havoc in our world until the day they die and many times beyond the grave.

George Bush and his entire family fit into this category along with Rumsfield, Cheney, as they say, just "the tip of the old iceberg".

By the way, is Rumsfield? Divorced? Children, grandchildren? Gay?

The list is ENDLESS! Psycopaths have no conscience!

Oh yes, gingrich's spokeperson Tyler, either, he is of the same ilk as Gingrich or he a stupid ignorant jerk. "When you lie down with dogs, you come up with fleas". Boy, with these guys, one would need many, many baths and flea medicine to last forever, because, "a leopard never changes his spots.

I really enjoyed writing this, especially, because I know it is the truth!!