You may recall from this article that I'm a big believer in second chances.  Yes, if someone's committed a criminal offense, then they should suffer the appropriate consequences.  However, once that time has been served (including any restitution being paid in full), then people ought to be allowed to prove that they've learned their lesson and cleaned up their act.  And I know of no one more qualified to deal with malefactors than someone who's learned the hard way.  (Why do you think it is that computer criminals make the best IT security experts?)

Jesus Christ, himself the only perfect person to ever walk this earth, once admonished a crowd of self-righteous Pharisees: "If any of you have never sinned, then go ahead and throw the first stone at her!" (John 8:7, CEV).  The warning should be clear; yes, it's fair to examine someone's record when doing so is relevant, but those who have no interest in showing mercy or allowing for redemption in this life should expect to receive none at The Judgment.  We are commanded by that same Savior to remain open to forgiveness while we seek evidence of true repentance.  To NOT forgive hurts the soul of the unforgiving, not the unforgiven, as Christ has surely already forgiven:  "Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more." (John 8:11, ESV)

With regard to Italia Federici, what about her?  Yeah, she's had ties to Jack Abramoff, and served what appears to be a felony sentence because of it.  According to the article you've cited, her time has been served, her restitution has been paid, and for all we know those ties are cut.  (I've heard that Santorum has even stronger ties to Jack Abramhoff than this, but somehow he's escaped the noose for his misdeeds.)  As I said, she's served her time and paid her debt to society, so what's the issue here?  Why all the hurry to brand her with a scarlet letter?

None of the four candidates that we have in the republican presidential primary are clean.  (Need I remind you of this list on Liberty Counsel Action or this list on World Net Daily?)  Unlike the other three, Newt is at least being upfront with his negatives.  Evidently, however, others aren't being quite so upfront about when he's cleared of accusations:

So all that fuss and fluff about ethics charges (Newt was cleared on 83 of the 84 charges) and alleged tax fraud, and . . . O . M . G . !  . . . Newt is ultimately cleared of all wrongdoing.  Somehow I missed seeing that in all of the smear attacks against him.

It's no more complicated or problematic than this:  Are any of us the same people we were 20 years ago?  Ten years ago?  Two years ago?  We all grow and change and have formative events and experiences happen in our lives.  Newt Gingrich is no different.  Has he screwed up in the past?  Yes, the record is very clear on that point.  What of it?  I look at the reality that every single one of the four candidates still in this race is deeply flawed, but Gingrich at least has the common decency to devote an entire page of his campaign site to constructively addressing these issues. That includes a means to contact his campaign team with additional or follow-up questions.

I'm also looking at the reality that, of the three not-Romney candidates still in the republican primary, I see only one as able to beat both Romney and Obama.  Like it or not, forcing both WMR and BHO to run on their records is going to be the key to actually beating them, and I just don't' see Paul or Santorum as being able to pull that off.  Gingrich, on the other hand, already has Mittens on the defensive, and I'm convinced that he'll put Barry on the defensive in short order . . . and keep him there.

The socialist-progressives (regardless of party stripe) and liberal media elites actively slime the candidate that they're most afraid of.  Even though WMR is going negative against Santorum in Michigan, it's focused on his senate record.  And as much as the C4L likes to carp about it, REP can't get any significant media play to save his own hide.  But there's a reason that Romney went so personal and so negative in Florida; it's because Gingrich is actually a threat to derail the Romney Coronation Train (as opposed to just slowing it down, ala Paul and Santorum).

Yeah, Gingrich has an ego.  Like it or not, ego is part of the political campaign playing field.  The important question on that fact is whether or not the candidate in question understands a critical difference:  Ego (tempered by genuine humility) has a useful purpose in dealing with men, but is completely useless before God.  I'm firmly convinced that neither Obama nor Romney understand that distinction; but I am comfortable that Gingrich knows that distinction all too well, because his own life-choices have forced him to learn that distinction the hard way.

There was once a man well known as being a fearfully zealous persecutor (violently so) of the Christian church.  This man was so committed to the eradication of Christianity that any mention of him as a leading missionary was met with skepticism at best.  Yet the Apostle Paul (formerly Saul of Tarsus) became such an effective missionary that he was personally responsible for the spread of Christianity throughout the entire Mediterranean Basin.

For all that we might have some legitimate skepticism about the candidacy of Newt Gingrich, the reality is that he has clearly demonstrated that he has the ability to handle a multitude of issues and political attacks simultaneously (without the benefit of a teleprompter), and has the necessary gravitas to directly and decisively take on the multi-headed hydra of progessiveist big government.  And quite frankly, the best way to keep Gingrich on the conservative straight-and-narrow is to load the House and the Senate with a conservative critical mass (at least 40% of the seats up for election, assuming a Republican numerical majority in both chambers). Or did we forget that, by design, the legislative branch is the most powerful of the three federal branches?

Has Gingrich pandered politically in the past?  Yes.  Is he pandering to us now?  I see no evidence of it.  Can we trust him?  I'm willing to take that chance.  I don't view Ron Paul as being capable, I'm convinced as a fact that we cannot trust Mitt Romney, and I'm still not sold on a guy who thought that Romney was a good idea four years ago: