- Nov 26, 2011
- 123,644
- 57,311
- 2,290
“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
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.
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:
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:
"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
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:
South Carolina GOP CNN debate, Jan. 19, 2012. Transcript - Lynn SweetTo 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.)
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.”
Last edited: