Newt Gets It Right about 2006 Election

[ScreamingEagle]

I once heard that Gingrich served divorce papers to his first wife while she was in the hospital for cancer treatment. Since then he has had at least one more wife and one more divorce and he’s now on either a new girlfriend or yet another wife (assuming the woman was stupid enough to marry him).

If the serial philander Gingrich is the pre-eminent voice of American conservatism, I will gladly be called a liberal, they cannot be any worse.

Worse than changing the name of the Oval Office?

If you are going to take the "high road" then supporting liberalism means you are either two-faced (just like a liberal) or just stupid. At least we conservatives did not condone Newt's personal (yet legal) actions.

 

[jillian]

Personal morality only counts when it's a Dem, right SE???

Amazing what hypocritical behavior you accept when it's one of your own.

Get your own house in order first.... and I don't recall anyone "condoning" immorality on the part of a dem... just the very expensive witch hunt that was offensive.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Clinton is a rapist.

Juanita Broaddrick

 

[theHawk]

I fail to see how anyone's past marriage(s) really effects these politicians. Just because someone gets a divorce doesn't mean the person is morally bankrupt. None of us have any idea what really happens in other peoples' marriages. We vote for politicians because of the way they vote on the issues we care about.

 

[theHawk]

Clinton is a rapist.

Juanita Broaddrick

Liberals like Jill do not care about any of the women that were either raped, sexually harrased by, or carried on an affair with Clinton. Whats important is the liberal agenda is carried on unabated. Didn't you get your talking points memo RWA? :bat:

 

[flaja]

But suddenly they are searching his daughters place? If you havent noticed they didnt find anything. Why? because he didnt do anything.

Then I presume that this innocent man will be suing the FBI for harassing him and the voters of Pennsylvania for throwing him out of office. When does the lawsuit start?

 

[flaja]

B.S., Flaja. You know darn well why Mark Foley's name was still on the ballot;

Of course I know why. Under Florida law you cannot cast a write-in vote for anyone who has not registered with the proper election officials as a write-in candidate. Furthermore, there is only a narrow time window in which a candidate can register and this window is about 6 months before election day. And note that the GOP has controlled the Florida legislature for about the past 8 years. If the GOP doesn’t like the candidate exclusion laws in Florida, they have had ample time to end them. But such laws help keep Republicans and other incumbents in power, so naturally the GOP won’t want to end them.

And how does Foley’s name being still on the ballot negate the fact that he is a child molester? I was responding to a post regarding the GOP’s practice of nominating crooks and child molesters. If Foley had not been nominated by the GOP, his name would not have been on the ballot and I wouldn’t have mentioned him.

Since you brought up Jack Abramoff, were there no Dems who had ties to him?

I haven’t said there weren’t any Democrats involved with Abramoff, but surely you don’t think Democrat involvement means the Republicans deserve a pass?

 

[jillian]

I haven’t said there weren’t any Democrats involved with Abramoff, but surely you don’t think Democrat involvement means the Republicans deserve a pass?

The fact of the matter is there's no reason for a lobbyist to focus on the people who have no power. So while there may have been some democratic contacts, it was the repubs who got the bulk of Abramoff's largess.

 

[flaja]

None of that is even CLOSE to the fact that Pelosi may be picking Hastings to be the leader of the Intelligence Committee. A Carter appointed Judge who was IMPEACHED and CONVICTED by a Democratic House and Senate in 1988 and removed from office for accepting bribes by defendants in cases he presided over. Talk about the lowest of scum. This guy shouldn't be able to even hold a Top Secret clearance, yet she may put him on the Intelligence committee. Republicans may have their problems but at least they don't shit on our country's National Security like the Dems are so good at doing.

How does any amount of Democrat corruption justify the least amount of Republican corruption?

I’m with Mercutio: A plague on both your houses.










http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aL6hiJ_1E1IY&refer=us[/QUOTE]

 

[flaja]

Worse than changing the name of the Oval Office?

If you are going to take the "high road" then supporting liberalism means you are either two-faced (just like a liberal) or just stupid. At least we conservatives did not condone Newt's personal (yet legal) actions.

Legal actions? I’m assuming that Gingrich committed adultery in the course of getting his divorces. Adultery may still be technically illegal in some states, Georgia included.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Legal actions? I’m assuming that Gingrich committed adultery in the course of getting his divorces. Adultery may still be technically illegal in some states, Georgia included.

First of all, why is it you liberals are so interested in the sexual affairs of politicians? I thought you guys said it was nobody's business in the first place....talk about hypocrisy....

Although adultery may be against the law in some states, in Newt's state of Pennsylvania it is not against the law. http://christianparty.net/adulterylaws.htm

Although he may be a sinner (tell me who isn't), he is NOT a lawbreaker. And he badly timed his divorce proceedings which certainly made him look like a cad. Clinton's actions, however, i.e. lying under oath and obstructing justice, (not to mention possible rape) were ILLEGAL. I'm sure then that you would also agree that such actions, especially by a sitting President of the U.S., are totally reprehensible. However, per Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats, adultery AND PERJURY are not grounds for impeachment of a president. Can you explain that???
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_199802/ai_n8788938


In any case, if you liberals think adultery is a reason to not run a candidate, then I guess we can't run McCain or Guiliani either. So how about we run Mitt Romney instead? He doesn't even drink! But then you probably would oppose Romney on the grounds that he is a Mormon and therefore would be too religious...:halo:

 

[Avatar4321]

Legal actions? I’m assuming that Gingrich committed adultery in the course of getting his divorces. Adultery may still be technically illegal in some states, Georgia included.

If thats all you have against him, he is in pretty good shape.

Besides, do you know where he committed his adultery. The location of the action would determine what law applies, not his home state.

 

[Adam's Apple]

I was responding to a post regarding the GOP’s practice of nominating crooks and child molesters.

Gingrich’s article was about the GOP’s practice of nominating crooks and child molesters?

...but surely you don’t think Democrat involvement means the Republicans deserve a pass?

No one was trying to give the Republicans a pass. Just trying to make sure you didn't purposely overlook the fact that Democrats came in for some scrutiny in this scandal as well.

 

[Adam's Apple]

The fact of the matter is there's no reason for a lobbyist to focus on the people who have no power. So while there may have been some democratic contacts, it was the repubs who got the bulk of Abramoff's largess.

So that makes it right/fair to point the finger at the Republicans and ignore the fact that a Dem "big fish", Harry Reid, got some attention from Abramoff and his clients and proved to be helpful to them????

 

[rtwngAvngr]

So that makes it right/fair to point the finger at the Republicans and ignore the fact that a Dem "big fish", Harry Reid, got some attention from Abramoff and his clients and proved to be helpful to them????

Democrats are losers even when they win.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

So that makes it right/fair to point the finger at the Republicans and ignore the fact that a Dem "big fish", Harry Reid, got some attention from Abramoff and his clients and proved to be helpful to them????

...which points out the fact that all Mormons aren't necessarily so holy ...

...and let's not forget Pelosi...a fake Catholic who supports abortion and gay marriage...

....ah yes, the self-righteous Dems....:halo:

 

[flaja]

Originally Posted by flaja
Legal actions? I’m assuming that Gingrich committed adultery in the course of getting his divorces. Adultery may still be technically illegal in some states, Georgia included.

First of all, why is it you liberals are so interested in the sexual affairs of politicians? I thought you guys said it was nobody's business in the first place....talk about hypocrisy....

You may be mistakenly thinking I am a liberal. To me adultery is an unpardonable sin. I condemn Gingrich ever bit as much I condemned Clinton or any other man who cheats on this wife.

As for adultery being purely private behavior in a politician: Suppose a politician has a rich wife and would stand to lose a fortune should they divorce. Then suppose this politician commits adultery and someone (say a Chinese spy) finds out about it and decides to blackmail the politician with the threat of telling his wife?

Although adultery may be against the law in some states, in Newt's state of Pennsylvania it is not against the law.

Since when is Gingrich not living in Georgia? Was he not living in Georgia when he divorced his first wife?

 

[flaja]

So that makes it right/fair to point the finger at the Republicans and ignore the fact that a Dem "big fish", Harry Reid, got some attention from Abramoff and his clients and proved to be helpful to them????

What makes you think I am ignoring the Democrats just because I did not name any corrupt Democrats?

 

[flaja]

...which points out the fact that all Mormons aren't necessarily so holy ...

...and let's not forget Pelosi...a fake Catholic who supports abortion and gay marriage...

....ah yes, the self-righteous Dems....:halo:

Considering the likes of Foley and Wheldon and Harris, all of these corrupt Democrats put together is not a legitimate reason to vote for Republicans. I, for one, am sick and tire of voting for the less of two evils.

 

[Avatar4321]

Considering the likes of Foley and Wheldon and Harris, all of these corrupt Democrats put together is not a legitimate reason to vote for Republicans. I, for one, am sick and tire of voting for the less of two evils.

Neither Harris nor Weldon were corrupt. simply repeating it again and against doesnt make it so. Foley wasnt even a candidate. Your bitching and moaning about crap you obviously know nothing about.