The Full Newt

[g5000]

“If there’s anything in there that is going to help us lose the election, we should know it before the nomination.” - Newt Gingrich

Okay. So we really need to hold Newt to that, right?



Washingtonpost.com: House Reprimands, Penalizes Speaker

The House voted overwhelmingly yesterday 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.

No matter how much Newt squirms and wriggles, he cannot get out of the fact that he is the only one ever fined. And when you think about all the scum and all the scandals that have occurred in more than 200 years, that is really saying something. Keep it in mind when he tries to downplay or lie about it.

"Newt has done some things that have embarrassed House Republicans and embarrassed the House," said Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.). "If [the voters] see more of that, they will question our judgment."

As a Republican voter, I am certainly questioning the judgement of my party for lifting Newt back off the floor, dusting him off, and trying to pass him off as one of us. They are really scraping the bottom of the barrel here.

"We have proved to the American people that no matter how rough the process is, we can police ourselves, we do know right from wrong," said Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.), who headed the investigative subcommittee that charged Gingrich.

Before you make the mistaken assumption and try to dismiss me as some kind of liberal just because I find a piece of scum not worthy of the nomination, keep that "know right from wrong" quote in mind.

I have been around this party for far longer than most of you.

In a strongly worded report, special counsel James M. Cole concluded that Gingrich had violated tax law and lied to the investigating panel, but the subcommittee would not go that far. In exchange for the subcommittee agreeing to modify the charges against him, Gingrich agreed to the penalty Dec. 20 as part of a deal in which he admitted guilt.

Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) said that had he known what was in the ethics committee's report, he would not have voted for Gingrich as speaker. "The gray got grayer when you read the report," he said. "When I think of my three boys and what kind of example I want to set for them for leadership in this country, gray is not the example."

That's the same Mark Sanford who was later elected Governor of South Carolina and then blew himself up spectacularly by abandoning his post to participate in an extramarital affair with an Argentinian "soul mate"

Great example to his three boys.


Anyway, Newt lied to Congress and committed tax fraud.

Now he attacks Mitt Romney for paying his taxes at a 15 percent rate. He also ignores that the reason the rate was not higher is because Romney gave away all of his money he earned which would have been taxed at the normal income tax rate.


Newt appears to be very jealous of people who have more wealth than he does, and he wants to raise their tax rates. Why have his supporters not caught on to this game of class warfare of his? Rich Boy wants to tax the More Rich Boy more.


Gingrich also has a bad habit of burning his supporters:
Gingrich Fight Touches Colleges, Too - NYTimes.com

And, both he and Ms. Jeffrey noted that Mr. Gingrich's admission in his Dec. 21 statement that he had acted improperly left proponents of the course in the uncomfortable position of defending a course he no longer seemed to be defending himself.

''The foundation and the university acted in good faith and if it turns out we were not dealt with in good faith in return, there will be a lot of unhappy people,'' Mr. Fleming said. ''I know the Speaker. I'm on good terms with him, but I was surprised by his statement Dec. 21 admitting guilt or acknowledging that people were misled. If he deceived us in some way or had knowledge this would not work out well for the university, I think we'd be very upset.''

There certainly are a lot of people being deceived by him today, too. And they are going to be very unhappy people someday.





Last week, Gingrich's ex-wife said he asked her for an open marriage. I have two thoughts about this.

First, before dismissing the ex-wife as a liar, just remember how willing you were to believe chain e-mails purporting to list claims from associates of Obama's. You wouldn't want to be a hypocrite, too.

"Oh, sure, sure, sure, Newt was a serial adulterer, but asking for an open marriage? No way he did THAT!!!"

Second, Gingrich said he was appalled the issue of family values would be raised in a Presidential debate. He thundered in sanctimonious hypocrisy about the liberal media having the audacity to raise the issue of the sanctity of marriage. This smoke and mirrors tactic never fails to work with the rubes. He was met with rousing applause.

All right. Let's put that outburst in proper perspective, too, shall we?


Here is some of what Newt said:

To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question in a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine. (Cheers, applause.)

South Carolina GOP CNN debate, Jan. 19, 2012. Transcript - Lynn Sweet



Now let's look at Newt's own media tactics:

In reviving the presidential sex scandal just one week before Election Day, Gingrich and his chief strategists aimed to energize their most loyal supporters, whose enthusiasm appeared to be waning after House conservatives lost the budget fight and the Clinton scandal fell off the front pages.

1998: Washingtonpost.com Special Report: Clinton Accused

Therefore, by his own standards, Newt is "as close to despicable as anything I can imagine".



Next, I expect the Republican Party has no desire to deviate from its blaming of the GSEs for the sub-prime meltdown. And it appears Newt plans on sticking to that line of attack as well.

So let's measure him by his own standards a little bit more:


FULL TRANSCRIPT: Bloomberg/Washington Post GOP Debate in N.H. - - NationalJournal.com

NEWT GINGRICH: And if you want to put people in jail, I want to second what Michelle said. You ought to start with Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. And let's look at the politicians who created the environment, the politicians who profited from the environment and the politicians who put this country in trouble.

CHARLIE ROSE, HOST: Clearly, you're not saying they should go to jail?

GINGRICH: Well, in Chris Dodd's case, go back and look at the Countryside deals. In Barney Frank's case, go back and look at the lobbyists he was close to that -- that -- at Freddie Mac.

The hypocrisy:

Gingrich Said to Be Paid About $1.6 Million by Freddie Mac - Bloomberg

Gingrich’s first contract with the mortgage company was in 1999, five months after he resigned from Congress and as House speaker, according to a Freddie Mac press release.

His primary contact inside the organization was Mitchell Delk, Freddie Mac’s chief lobbyist, and he was paid a self- renewing, monthly retainer of $25,000 to $30,000 between May 1999 until 2002, according to three people familiar with aspects of the business agreement.

During that period, Gingrich consulted with Freddie Mac executives on a program to expand home ownership, an idea Delk said he pitched to President George W. Bush’s White House.

Therefore, by his own standards, Newt should be in jail.


But that's not all!

Gingrich has a way of changing his stories as more facts come to light. Here is another example of him saying one thing, but actually doing the exact opposite:

News Headlines

HARWOOD: Since -- since you mentioned Fannie and Freddie, Speaker Gingrich, 30 seconds to you, your firm was paid $300,000 by Freddie Mac in 2006. What did you do for that money?

GINGRICH: Were you asking me?

HARWOOD: Yes.

GINGRICH: I offer them advice on precisely what they didn't do.

(LAUGHTER)

Look -- look, this is not -- this is not...

HARWOOD: Were you not trying to help Freddie Mac fend off the effort by the Bush administration...

(CROSSTALK)

GINGRICH: No. No, I do -- I have never...

HARWOOD: ... and the -- to curb Freddie Mac.

GINGRICH: I have -- I assume I get a second question. I have never done any lobbying. Every contract was written during the period when I was out of the office, specifically said I would do no lobbying, and I offered advice.

And my advice as a historian, when they walked in and said to me, "We are now making loans to people who have no credit history and have no record of paying back anything, but that's what the government wants us to do," as I said to them at the time, this is a bubble. This is insane. This is impossible.

That is a HUGE lie. I'll prove that in a second. But first, notice he makes no mention that he actually went to work for Freddie Mac's top lobbyist seven years earlier, and collected a total of $1.6 million.

Here is a Q&A session old Newt had with Freddie Mac employees in 2007.

Q: A key element of the entrepreneurial model is using the private sector where possible to save taxpayer dollars and improve efficiency. And you believe the GSE model provides one way to use the private sector.

Gingrich: Some activities of government – trash collection is a good example – can be efficiently contracted out to the private sector. Other functions – the military, police and fire protection – obviously must remain within government. And then there are areas in which a public purpose would be best achieved by using market-based models. I think GSEs provide one of those models. I like the GSE model because it provides a more efficient, market-based alternative to taxpayer-funded government programs. It marries private enterprise to a public purpose. We obviously don't want to use GSEs for everything, but there are times when private enterprise alone is not sufficient to achieve a public purpose. I think private enterprise alone is not going to be able to help the Gulf region recover from the hurricanes, and government will not get the job done in a very effective or efficient manner. We should be looking seriously at creating a GSE to help redevelop this region. We should be looking at whether and how the GSE model could help us address the problem of financing health care. I think a GSE for space exploration ought to be seriously considered – I'm convinced that if NASA were a GSE, we probably would be on Mars today.

The man is GSE crazy! He loves them! He wants more of them. He can't get enough of them.

To continue:

Gingrich: Certainly there is a lot of debate today about the housing GSEs, but I think it is telling that there is strong bipartisan support for maintaining the GSE model in housing. There is not much support for the idea of removing the GSE charters from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. And I think it's clear why. The housing GSEs have made an important contribution to homeownership and the housing finance system. We have a much more liquid and stable housing finance system than we would have without the GSEs. And making homeownership more accessible and affordable is a policy goal I believe conservatives should embrace. Millions of people have entered the middle class through building wealth in their homes, and there is a lot of evidence that homeownership contributes to stable families and communities. These are results I think conservatives should embrace and want to extend as widely as possible. So while we need to improve the regulation of the GSEs, I would be very cautious about fundamentally changing their role or the model itself.

Q: This is not a point of view one normally associates with conservatives.

Gingrich: Well, it's not a point of view libertarians would embrace. But I am more in the Alexander Hamilton-Teddy Roosevelt tradition of conservatism. I recognize that there are times when you need government to help spur private enterprise and economic development. Look at our own history. The government provided railroad land grants to encourage widespread adoption of what was then the most modern form of transportation to help develop our country. The Homestead Act essentially gave land away to those willing to live on it and develop it. We used what were in effect public-private partnerships to bring telephone service and electricity to every community in our nation. All of these are examples of government bringing about desired public purposes without creating massive, taxpayer-funded bureaucracies. To me that is a pragmatic and effective conservative approach.

"We have a much more liquid and stable housing finance system than we would have without the GSEs."

And there is no such thing as "the Alexander Hamilton-Teddy Roosevelt tradition of conservatism."

Jesus, this guy has balls!






Christie: Gingrich 'embarrassed' the GOP - POLITICO.com

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on Sunday dubbed Mitt Romney’s showing in South Carolina “clearly disappointing,” but quickly turned his focus to Newt Gingrich, saying he has been “an embarrassment to the party.”

Christie, a key Romney surrogate in his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, blasted Gingrich on NBC's "Meet the Press" for his ethics violation fine and losing the speakership in the House, saying that “sometimes past is prologue.”

“Newt Gingrich has embarrassed the party over time. Whether he'll do it again in the future I don't know, but Gov. Romney never has,” Christie said on NBC's “Meet the Press.”

 

[g5000]

49 reads and not one reply.

Overwhelmed with buyer's remorse?

 

[Amelia]

I subscribed.

Couldn't think of anything to add ...

 

[g5000]

I think just on the GSE thing alone, Obama will sink Newt.

All it will take is to point out Newt saying having a connection to Freddie Mac lobbyists is jail-worthy and then showing he was paid $1.6 million by their top lobbyist.

But the real torpedo will be Newt's fantasy conversation that he was told by the GSEs they were being forced to make bad loans and that he told them they were insane.

All that needs to be revealed is that insider Q&A he had at Freddie Mac saying the housing market was more stable than it would have been without the GSEs. And Bloomberg news has indicated that Freddie Mac insiders are saying Newt's fantasy version is total bullshit.

If Bloomberg can find them, so can Obama, if he hasn't already.


Newt is toast. The GSEs are a HUGE hot button for conservatives and Obama knows it. He is surely keeping his billion dollars worth of powder dry, waiting for the day to blow Gingrich off the face of the Earth.

 

[Valox]

Honestly, it doesn't matter with many Republicans. They are out for blood and have no problem with Gingrich being their vampire.

 

[Jroc]

I think just on the GSE thing alone, Obama will sink Newt.

All it will take is to point out Newt saying having a connection to Freddie Mac lobbyists is jail-worthy and then showing he was paid $1.6 million by their top lobbyist.

But the real torpedo will be Newt's fantasy conversation that he was told by the GSEs they were being forced to make bad loans and that he told them they were insane.

All that needs to be revealed is that insider Q&A he had at Freddie Mac saying the housing market was more stable than it would have been without the GSEs. And Bloomberg news has indicated that Freddie Mac insiders are saying Newt's fantasy version is total bullshit.

If Bloomberg can find them, so can Obama, if he hasn't already.


Newt is toast. The GSEs are a HUGE hot button for conservatives and Obama knows it. He is surely keeping his billion dollars worth of powder dry, waiting for the day to blow Gingrich off the face of the Earth.

Freddie Mac "insiders" are all Dems, Obama and the dems are in bed with Fannie and freddie up to thier eyebrows, Obama won't bring that up, because he'll look worst than Newt. All that other stuff? You make a lot of enemies when you rock the boat, as Newt did when he took back the house..Nothing to see here... Move on

 

[California Girl]

49 reads and not one reply.

Overwhelmed with buyer's remorse?

49 reads does not mean 49 members read it, a bunch of those are probably bots.

 

[g5000]

Freddie Mac "insiders" are all Dems

Not true at all. A lot of politicians and wonks of both parties in DC have worked at or for the GSEs at one time or another.

It's the GOP's dirty little secret.

 

[Full-Auto]

I think just on the GSE thing alone, Obama will sink Newt.

All it will take is to point out Newt saying having a connection to Freddie Mac lobbyists is jail-worthy and then showing he was paid $1.6 million by their top lobbyist.

But the real torpedo will be Newt's fantasy conversation that he was told by the GSEs they were being forced to make bad loans and that he told them they were insane.

All that needs to be revealed is that insider Q&A he had at Freddie Mac saying the housing market was more stable than it would have been without the GSEs. And Bloomberg news has indicated that Freddie Mac insiders are saying Newt's fantasy version is total bullshit.

If Bloomberg can find them, so can Obama, if he hasn't already.


Newt is toast. The GSEs are a HUGE hot button for conservatives and Obama knows it. He is surely keeping his billion dollars worth of powder dry, waiting for the day to blow Gingrich off the face of the Earth.

It wont get the traction you expect. Democrats are in to deep.

 

[g5000]

I think Newt is pissed at Mitt because Newt had to pay the regular income tax rate on his GSE lobbyist fees, and Mitt only had to pay 15 percent on his capital gains.

It just chafes Newt to no end.

 

[Jroc]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTbIb75JdwY]Don't Regulate Fannie Mae or Freddy Mac - YouTube[/ame]

 

[jillian]

I think just on the GSE thing alone, Obama will sink Newt.

All it will take is to point out Newt saying having a connection to Freddie Mac lobbyists is jail-worthy and then showing he was paid $1.6 million by their top lobbyist.

But the real torpedo will be Newt's fantasy conversation that he was told by the GSEs they were being forced to make bad loans and that he told them they were insane.

All that needs to be revealed is that insider Q&A he had at Freddie Mac saying the housing market was more stable than it would have been without the GSEs. And Bloomberg news has indicated that Freddie Mac insiders are saying Newt's fantasy version is total bullshit.

If Bloomberg can find them, so can Obama, if he hasn't already.


Newt is toast. The GSEs are a HUGE hot button for conservatives and Obama knows it. He is surely keeping his billion dollars worth of powder dry, waiting for the day to blow Gingrich off the face of the Earth.

It wont get the traction you expect. Democrats are in to deep.

i don't think it will change votes on the right. they really don't care what newt's done. they just want the most vicious voice possible. newt does good vicious. he was the only person in politics about whom tip o'neil ever used the word "hate". and it won't have any influence on people on the left. dems would chew their own arms off before they'd vote for newt, anyway.

will it influence the middle? i think it will. certainly, the fact that newt has a 60% unfavorable rating doesn't bode well for him.

 

[g5000]

I think just on the GSE thing alone, Obama will sink Newt.

All it will take is to point out Newt saying having a connection to Freddie Mac lobbyists is jail-worthy and then showing he was paid $1.6 million by their top lobbyist.

But the real torpedo will be Newt's fantasy conversation that he was told by the GSEs they were being forced to make bad loans and that he told them they were insane.

All that needs to be revealed is that insider Q&A he had at Freddie Mac saying the housing market was more stable than it would have been without the GSEs. And Bloomberg news has indicated that Freddie Mac insiders are saying Newt's fantasy version is total bullshit.

If Bloomberg can find them, so can Obama, if he hasn't already.


Newt is toast. The GSEs are a HUGE hot button for conservatives and Obama knows it. He is surely keeping his billion dollars worth of powder dry, waiting for the day to blow Gingrich off the face of the Earth.

It wont get the traction you expect. Democrats are in to deep.

Democrats love the GSEs. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain by pointing out that Newt loves GSEs, too. It won't cost or gain them any votes, but it will cost Newt votes.

 

[Toro]

I think just on the GSE thing alone, Obama will sink Newt.

All it will take is to point out Newt saying having a connection to Freddie Mac lobbyists is jail-worthy and then showing he was paid $1.6 million by their top lobbyist.

But the real torpedo will be Newt's fantasy conversation that he was told by the GSEs they were being forced to make bad loans and that he told them they were insane.

All that needs to be revealed is that insider Q&A he had at Freddie Mac saying the housing market was more stable than it would have been without the GSEs. And Bloomberg news has indicated that Freddie Mac insiders are saying Newt's fantasy version is total bullshit.

If Bloomberg can find them, so can Obama, if he hasn't already.


Newt is toast. The GSEs are a HUGE hot button for conservatives and Obama knows it. He is surely keeping his billion dollars worth of powder dry, waiting for the day to blow Gingrich off the face of the Earth.

I don't think that's a criminal offense.

 

[Jroc]

I think just on the GSE thing alone, Obama will sink Newt.

All it will take is to point out Newt saying having a connection to Freddie Mac lobbyists is jail-worthy and then showing he was paid $1.6 million by their top lobbyist.

But the real torpedo will be Newt's fantasy conversation that he was told by the GSEs they were being forced to make bad loans and that he told them they were insane.

All that needs to be revealed is that insider Q&A he had at Freddie Mac saying the housing market was more stable than it would have been without the GSEs. And Bloomberg news has indicated that Freddie Mac insiders are saying Newt's fantasy version is total bullshit.

If Bloomberg can find them, so can Obama, if he hasn't already.


Newt is toast. The GSEs are a HUGE hot button for conservatives and Obama knows it. He is surely keeping his billion dollars worth of powder dry, waiting for the day to blow Gingrich off the face of the Earth.

It wont get the traction you expect. Democrats are in to deep.

i don't think it will change votes on the right. they really don't care what newt's done. they just want the most vicious voice possible. newt does good vicious. he was the only person in politics about whom tip o'neil ever used the word "hate". and it won't have any influence on people on the left. dems would chew their own arms off before they'd vote for newt, anyway.

will it influence the middle? i think it will. certainly, the fact that newt has a 60% unfavorable rating doesn't bode well for him.

We don’t' need the leftist, you can keep um, independents don't want Obama, the love affair is over. For clear thinking people anyway

 

[toomuchtime_]

“If there’s anything in there that is going to help us lose the election, we should know it before the nomination.” - Newt Gingrich

Okay. So we really need to hold Newt to that, right?



Washingtonpost.com: House Reprimands, Penalizes Speaker

The House voted overwhelmingly yesterday 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.

No matter how much Newt squirms and wriggles, he cannot get out of the fact that he is the only one ever fined. And when you think about all the scum and all the scandals that have occurred in more than 200 years, that is really saying something. Keep it in mind when he tries to downplay or lie about it.

"Newt has done some things that have embarrassed House Republicans and embarrassed the House," said Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.). "If [the voters] see more of that, they will question our judgment."

As a Republican voter, I am certainly questioning the judgement of my party for lifting Newt back off the floor, dusting him off, and trying to pass him off as one of us. They are really scraping the bottom of the barrel here.



Before you make the mistaken assumption and try to dismiss me as some kind of liberal just because I find a piece of scum not worthy of the nomination, keep that "know right from wrong" quote in mind.

I have been around this party for far longer than most of you.






That's the same Mark Sanford who was later elected Governor of South Carolina and then blew himself up spectacularly by abandoning his post to participate in an extramarital affair with an Argentinian "soul mate"

Great example to his three boys.


Anyway, Newt lied to Congress and committed tax fraud.

Now he attacks Mitt Romney for paying his taxes at a 15 percent rate. He also ignores that the reason the rate was not higher is because Romney gave away all of his money he earned which would have been taxed at the normal income tax rate.


Newt appears to be very jealous of people who have more wealth than he does, and he wants to raise their tax rates. Why have his supporters not caught on to this game of class warfare of his? Rich Boy wants to tax the More Rich Boy more.


Gingrich also has a bad habit of burning his supporters:
Gingrich Fight Touches Colleges, Too - NYTimes.com



There certainly are a lot of people being deceived by him today, too. And they are going to be very unhappy people someday.





Last week, Gingrich's ex-wife said he asked her for an open marriage. I have two thoughts about this.

First, before dismissing the ex-wife as a liar, just remember how willing you were to believe chain e-mails purporting to list claims from associates of Obama's. You wouldn't want to be a hypocrite, too.

"Oh, sure, sure, sure, Newt was a serial adulterer, but asking for an open marriage? No way he did THAT!!!"

Second, Gingrich said he was appalled the issue of family values would be raised in a Presidential debate. He thundered in sanctimonious hypocrisy about the liberal media having the audacity to raise the issue of the sanctity of marriage. This smoke and mirrors tactic never fails to work with the rubes. He was met with rousing applause.

All right. Let's put that outburst in proper perspective, too, shall we?


Here is some of what Newt said:


South Carolina GOP CNN debate, Jan. 19, 2012. Transcript - Lynn Sweet



Now let's look at Newt's own media tactics:


1998: Washingtonpost.com Special Report: Clinton Accused

Therefore, by his own standards, Newt is "as close to despicable as anything I can imagine".



Next, I expect the Republican Party has no desire to deviate from its blaming of the GSEs for the sub-prime meltdown. And it appears Newt plans on sticking to that line of attack as well.

So let's measure him by his own standards a little bit more:


FULL TRANSCRIPT: Bloomberg/Washington Post GOP Debate in N.H. - - NationalJournal.com






The hypocrisy:

Gingrich Said to Be Paid About $1.6 Million by Freddie Mac - Bloomberg






Therefore, by his own standards, Newt should be in jail.


But that's not all!

Gingrich has a way of changing his stories as more facts come to light. Here is another example of him saying one thing, but actually doing the exact opposite:

News Headlines



That is a HUGE lie. I'll prove that in a second. But first, notice he makes no mention that he actually went to work for Freddie Mac's top lobbyist seven years earlier, and collected a total of $1.6 million.

Here is a Q&A session old Newt had with Freddie Mac employees in 2007.



The man is GSE crazy! He loves them! He wants more of them. He can't get enough of them.

To continue:

Gingrich: Certainly there is a lot of debate today about the housing GSEs, but I think it is telling that there is strong bipartisan support for maintaining the GSE model in housing. There is not much support for the idea of removing the GSE charters from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. And I think it's clear why. The housing GSEs have made an important contribution to homeownership and the housing finance system. We have a much more liquid and stable housing finance system than we would have without the GSEs. And making homeownership more accessible and affordable is a policy goal I believe conservatives should embrace. Millions of people have entered the middle class through building wealth in their homes, and there is a lot of evidence that homeownership contributes to stable families and communities. These are results I think conservatives should embrace and want to extend as widely as possible. So while we need to improve the regulation of the GSEs, I would be very cautious about fundamentally changing their role or the model itself.

Q: This is not a point of view one normally associates with conservatives.

Gingrich: Well, it's not a point of view libertarians would embrace. But I am more in the Alexander Hamilton-Teddy Roosevelt tradition of conservatism. I recognize that there are times when you need government to help spur private enterprise and economic development. Look at our own history. The government provided railroad land grants to encourage widespread adoption of what was then the most modern form of transportation to help develop our country. The Homestead Act essentially gave land away to those willing to live on it and develop it. We used what were in effect public-private partnerships to bring telephone service and electricity to every community in our nation. All of these are examples of government bringing about desired public purposes without creating massive, taxpayer-funded bureaucracies. To me that is a pragmatic and effective conservative approach.

"We have a much more liquid and stable housing finance system than we would have without the GSEs."

And there is no such thing as "the Alexander Hamilton-Teddy Roosevelt tradition of conservatism."

Jesus, this guy has balls!






Christie: Gingrich 'embarrassed' the GOP - POLITICO.com

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on Sunday dubbed Mitt Romney’s showing in South Carolina “clearly disappointing,” but quickly turned his focus to Newt Gingrich, saying he has been “an embarrassment to the party.”

Christie, a key Romney surrogate in his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, blasted Gingrich on NBC's "Meet the Press" for his ethics violation fine and losing the speakership in the House, saying that “sometimes past is prologue.”

“Newt Gingrich has embarrassed the party over time. Whether he'll do it again in the future I don't know, but Gov. Romney never has,” Christie said on NBC's “Meet the Press.”

And the South Carolina voters knew all of this and still preferred Newt to Romney. In the general election if Obama starts beating these dead horses, Newt will just say it's because he is afraid to run on his record of four years of failure to right the economy or to stop Iran from targeting US cities with nuclear armed missiles or to do anything that isn't just downright stupid about the ME.

Voters want to know what he can do to help the US with its current problems, not what his ex wife thinks of him. In South Carolina, the voters clearly thought he would be better able to do the job as president than Romney, and in the general election voters capable of thinking will decide Newt can do a better job as President than Obama has done or can hope to do.

 

[g5000]

i don't think it will change votes on the right. they really don't care what newt's done. they just want the most vicious voice possible. newt does good vicious. he was the only person in politics about whom tip o'neil ever used the word "hate". and it won't have any influence on people on the left. dems would chew their own arms off before they'd vote for newt, anyway.

will it influence the middle? i think it will. certainly, the fact that newt has a 60% unfavorable rating doesn't bode well for him.

I think a Newt nomination will cost votes on the right. It certainly will cost my vote. I think a lot of people on the right like me will just stay home like we did in 2008 and 2006. Since our only choices are Newt vs. Obama or Romney vs. Obama, I already plan on staying home.

 

[Toro]

And the South Carolina voters knew all of this and still preferred Newt to Romney. In the general election if Obama starts beating these dead horses, Newt will just say it's because he is afraid to run on his record of four years of failure to right the economy or to stop Iran from targeting US cities with nuclear armed missiles or to do anything that isn't just downright stupid about the ME.

Voters want to know what he can do to help the US with its current problems, not what his ex wife thinks of him. In South Carolina, the voters clearly thought he would be better able to do the job as president than Romney, and in the general election voters capable of thinking will decide Newt can do a better job as President than Obama has done or can hope to do.

South Carolina conservative evangelical Republican voters.

Corrected that for you.

So if the majority of Americans are conservative evangelical Republican voters, Newt won't have any problems.

 

[g5000]

And the South Carolina voters knew all of this and still preferred Newt to Romney.

I don't think they knew any of this.

And it's South Carolina. Home of some of the most toxic politicking in the country. Remember McCain's tarbaby in 2000? Remember the SC good ol' boy state senator saying, "We already have one raghead in the White House, we don't need another raghead in the governor's mansion" when speaking of Nikki Haley?

I don't think SC GOP voters are bright enough to have looked beyond Newt's pasty face, or listened to anything beyond what comes out of Newt's mouth, or believed anything beyond what Newt tells them to believe.

In the general election if Obama starts beating these dead horses, Newt will just say it's because he is afraid to run on his record of four years of failure to right the economy or to stop Iran from targeting US cities with nuclear armed missiles or to do anything that isn't just downright stupid about the ME.

None of this is a dead horse. As far as I know, I am the first to point out his 1998 sex scandal ads and demonstrated his hypocrisy when he said doing such a thing right before a primary is despicable.

Much of this material has not yet been used against him.

But it will be.

Voters want to know what he can do to help the US with its current problems, not what his ex wife thinks of him.

See, this is the part that drives me crazy. Clinton gets a blowjob and was impeached, and people like you seem to have enough depth to repeat the canard it was about him lying, not about the sex.

I point out the hypocrisy of Newt getting all huffy about his family values being brought up the same week as an election when he did the same thing in 1998 with Clinton, and you think I am talking about his sex life.

Such doublethink is hypocrisy squared!

In South Carolina, the voters clearly thought he would be better able to do the job as president than Romney, and in the general election voters capable of thinking will decide Newt can do a better job as President than Obama has done or can hope to do.

Your mistake is believing the voters "thought". They didn't. They are on a "anything but Mitt" lemming stampede over a cliff.

 

[Toro]

It wont get the traction you expect. Democrats are in to deep.

i don't think it will change votes on the right. they really don't care what newt's done. they just want the most vicious voice possible. newt does good vicious. he was the only person in politics about whom tip o'neil ever used the word "hate". and it won't have any influence on people on the left. dems would chew their own arms off before they'd vote for newt, anyway.

will it influence the middle? i think it will. certainly, the fact that newt has a 60% unfavorable rating doesn't bode well for him.

We don’t' need the leftist, you can keep um, independents don't want Obama, the love affair is over. For clear thinking people anyway

Obama has greater support amongst Independents than Newt.