Showing posts with label newt gingrich. Show all posts
Showing posts with label newt gingrich. Show all posts

Thursday, January 19, 2012

Gingrich "Attacks" CNN's John King As "Despicable"

UK's liberal Guardian accuses Gingrich of "attacking" King????
To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question for a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine.(APPLAUSE)
 I am frankly astounded that CNN would take trash like that and use it to open a presidential debate.
(APPLAUSE)
KING: As you noted, Mr Speaker, this story did not come from our network. As you also know, it is a subject of conversation on the campaign. I'm not – I get your point. I take your point.
GINGRICH: John, John, it was repeated by your network. You chose to start the debate with it. Don't try to blame somebody else. You and your staff chose to start this debate with it.
(APPLAUSE)

NewtsNews(4 hours ago)
ELECTION 2012 TRACKING GOP
Ballot updates daily
Election Primary and Caucus Results Update Periodically
----------- 1/11 ----- 1/12 --- 1/17 ---- 1/18 ---- 1/19 ---- Iowa --- New H --- S. Car
Ron P. -- 13% ---- 13% --- 12%^ --- 15%^ --- 16%^ ---- 22% ---- 23% ----- 19%^
Mitt R. --- 31%^ --- 34% --- 34%v -- 28%^ ---- 33%v --- 24% ---- 39% ----- 32%v
Newt G. - 16%v --- 14% --- 15% ---- 21% ---- 17%^ ---- 13% ----- 9% ----- 33%^Rick S. -- 16%v --- 15% --- 15% ---- 16% ---- 13%v -----24% ---- 9% ------ 9%
Removed from Virginia Primary: Newt G. - Rick S.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/19/politics/gop-debate/index.html?iref=obnetwork

Gingrich delivers show-stopper at beginning of South Carolina debate

By Rachel Streitfeld and Paul Steinhauser, CNN
An angry Gingrich chastised CNN for starting off with the question about his marriage
Newt Gingrich turned his contempt for the media into one of his strongest performances yet. When CNN Chief National Correspondent John King opened the debate with a question about open marriage, following an interview by Gingrich's ex-wife saying that he had sought one, the Republican chastised him."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," Gingrich told King, the moderator of the debate.
Gingrich's response elicited loud applause from the audience
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71705.html
CNN’s John King puts himself on firing line

This is one of the most explosive moments we’ve seen in debate history,” CNN’s David Gergen said on the air afterward. “It was also one of the harshest attacks that we’ve had on the press that I can remember in a long, long time.”
King, who seemed defensive during Gingrich’s onslaught, took full responsibility for the question.
“This is one of those damned if you do, damned if you don’t,” he said during an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper after the debate. “It was my judgment, my decision, and mine alone. If we’re going to deal with it, let’s deal with it upfront, let’s not try to sneak it into the middle of the debate somewhere.”
King elaborated on that decision later in a conversation with POLITICO. “My old AP training is, you deal with the lead of the day upfront first,” he said. “I respect anybody who disagrees, but we made our decision.”
“[Newt’s] criticism of the media is his right,” King continued. “He has the same First Amendment we do. It’s a tactic he’s used throughout the debate season.”
 Gingrich press secretary R.C. Hammond accused King of “gotcha journalism” but said he didn’t think it would hurt King’s reputation.
 former Reagan administration official Bud McFarlane, was equally critical. “I think Newt was hard on John King, but John King asked for it,” Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71705.html#ixzz1k1XSubkl


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71705.html#ixzz1k1X8OMBI

Newsmax:Gingrich Slams CNN for Marriage Questions, Gets Standing Ovations
Newt Gingrich hit back forcefully at the opening of CNN's presidential debate at an allegation that he asked his second wife to tolerate an "open marriage," angrily denying the claim. "I think the disruptive, vicious, negative nature of the news media makes it harder to govern this country," Gingrich fumed at the debate moderator, John King of CNN. "I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that." Gingrich's comments were greeted by multiple standing ovations from the audience.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/01/19/gingrich-slams-cnns-king-i-am-appalled-you-would-begin-presidential-d

Gingrich Slams CNN's King: 'I Am Appalled That You Would Begin a Presidential Debate With a Topic Like That'

By Noel Sheppard | January 19, 2012 | 20:52
       
CNN’s John King despicably started Thursday’s Republican presidential debate in South Carolina by bringing up allegations made by Newt Gingrich’s ex-wife earlier in the day.
When asked to respond to the controversy, the former Speaker of the House said, “I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate with a topic like that,” (video follows with transcribed highlights and commentary):
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
To the amazement of those in the audience as well as viewers at home, King addressed this issue right out of the gate.
“As you know," said the moderator to the former Speaker, "your ex-wife gave an interview to ABC News and another interview with the Washington Post and this story has now gone viral on the Internet. In it, she says you came to her in 1999 at a time when you were having an affair. She says you asked her, Sir, to enter into an open marriage. Would you like to take some time to respond to that?”
“No,” answered Gingrich, “but I will.”


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/01/19/gingrich-slams-cnns-king-i-am-appalled-you-would-begin-presidential-d#ixzz1jyOdZcGv
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/

Gingrich Tears a Strip Off of John King & CNN

However you feel about Newt Gingrich, his response to CNN's John King, at the start of tonight's U.S. Presidential debate was sublime:

h/t Fred
Newt Gingrich SLAMS CNN For Question About His Ex-Wife! SC Republican Presidential Debate pt.1



Newt Gingrich and John King marriage exchange – the full transcript

‎
The Guardian - 1 hour ago
JOHN KING: And just as speaker Gingrich surged into contention here in South Carolina, a direct fresh character attack on the Speaker. ...
JOHN KING: And just as speaker Gingrich surged into contention here in South Carolina, a direct fresh character attack on the Speaker.
And Mr Speaker, I want to start with that this evening.

As you know, your ex-wife gave an interview to ABC News and another interview with The Washington Post. And this story has now gone viral on the internet.
In it, she says that you came to her in 1999, at a time when you were having an affair. She says you asked her, sir, to enter into an open marriage.
Would you like to take some time to respond to that?
GINGRICH: No, but I will.
(APPLAUSE)
GINGRICH: I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office. And I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that.
(APPLAUSE)
KING: Is that all you want to say, sir?
GINGRICH: Let me finish.
KING: Please.
GINGRICH: Every person in here knows personal pain. Every person in here has had someone close to them go through painful things. To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question for a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine.
(APPLAUSE)
My – my two daughters – my two daughters wrote the head of ABC and made the point that it was wrong, that they should pull it, and I am frankly astounded that CNN would take trash like that and use it to open a presidential debate.
(APPLAUSE)
KING: As you noted, Mr Speaker, this story did not come from our network. As you also know, it is a subject of conversation on the campaign. I'm not – I get your point. I take your point.
GINGRICH: John, John, it was repeated by your network. You chose to start the debate with it. Don't try to blame somebody else. You and your staff chose to start this debate with it.
(APPLAUSE)
Let me be quite clear. Let me be quite clear. The story is false. Every personal friend I have who knew us in that period said the story was false. We offered several of them to ABC to prove it was false. They weren't interested because they would like to attack any Republican. They're attacking the governor. They're attacking me. I'm sure they'll presently get around to Senator Santorum and Congressman Paul.
I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans.
(APPLAUSE)
Local: Gingrich Slams CNN for Asking About Ex-Wife‎ WLTX.com
In-Depth: Gingrich Knocks Media for 'Open Marriage' Question‎ BloombergTelegraph.co.uk- Daily Caller
all 1512 news articles »
The Guardian







  • Newt Gingrich slams John King for question on ex-wife (2:01)

    Washington Post - 11 minutes ago
    Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich slammed John King for opening the Republican presidential debate with a question concerning his ex-wife. (Jan. ...


    • Pam Geller endorses Newt Gingrich

    Gingrich Wins The GOP Debate In The First Five Minutes

    First question from the enemedia's CNN, craven news network:
    The country needs a fighter. There is a war on the American people, we are under attack from within, and the Republican establishment have been meek, kowed, defeated. Gingrich is fierce. We need a fighter to go toe to toe against the silver tongued snake in the White House.
    Posted by Pamela Geller on Thursday, January 19, 2012 at 09:41 PM in WHITE HOUSE 2012 |

    Thursday, January 19, 2012

    Big Day in the GOP Race

    Perry pulled out (it is with great joy that I note that my exposing Perry's Islamic curriculum and close ties to Grover Norquist helped to cut the Perry campaign off at the pass this past summer).
    Santorum actually won Iowa (enemedia and GOP establishment feed distrust among Conservative voters).
    Tne enemedia is Caining Newt.
    I stand behind my endorsement for Newt. Atlas readers, get out the vote for Newt. He is right on the Muslim Brotherhood. He is right on sharia. He is right on the Fakestinian people.
    Do not make perfect the enemy of the good.
    UPDATE: At least he asked her ........  

    Here is Aga Khan/Rick Perry Curriculum: Scrubbed from Web, Cache Scrubbed from Google Search

    "The religion that the Prophet Muhammad preached provided his followers an ethical and moral vision for leading a life of righteousness." Perry/Khan curriculum.
    In one of my first posts on the controversial Aga Khan/Perry school curriculum on Islam for Texas public schools, I published the links (URLs) to the Muslim Histories and Cultures Program (MHC). The MHC page said proudly: "In April 2004, the Aga Khan Foundation (AKF) and UT-Austin finalized a grant proposal that created the partnership that became known as the Muslim Histories and Cultures Program (MHC).... Governor Perry was instrumental in getting this program off the ground."
    Soon after I posted about it, the links went dead. It was curious that the multiple pages of all nine lessons plus adjunct powerpoints and lesson plans were all taken offline. Subsequently, I found the Google cached pages and posted those links of the curriculum material. Now those links have also been removed. The cache is gone. Why are they hiding this?
    Before everything disappears, I am posting the text and the screenshots of all nine lessons of this proselytizing whitewash of Islam. We are handicapping our children by whitewashing the jihadic doctrine and the threat it presents to the West. This is the actual curriculum, not any one single teacher's lesson plan (which is what other misinformed blogs are using, claiming it is the actual official curriculum, in an attempt to exonerate Perry of this dastardly action).
    Further, why is this even being taught in the public schools? There is no intense, extensive Jewish curriculum or Hindu curriculum or Christian curriculum. Further, these religions are not slaughtering Americans and non-believers in the hundreds of thousands, so why color it pretty?
    Rick Perry's partner in this Islamic education program is the Aga Khan. The Aga Khan Development Network signed three agreements with the Syrian Government, and “between 2003 and 2008,” the Aga Khan’s group “spent $40 million to develop business in Syria.” Syria has been listed by the State Department as among the State Sponsors of Terrorism since December 29, 1979, and for years has allowed the jihad terror groups Hamas and Hezbollah to operate with impunity out of Damascus.
    Another Aga Khan organization, the Aga Khan Fund for Economic Development, is one of the owners of the Bank al-Habib in Pakistan. In 2007, Daniel Pearl’s widow Mariane sued that bank, charging that it had funded al-Qaeda and was involved in killing Daniel Pearl. Those charges have never been answered.
    SPIEGEL Interview with Aga Khan: Spiegel: So, what are the root causes of terrorism?
    Aga Khan: Unsolved political conflicts, frustration and, above all, ignorance. Nothing that was born out of a theological conflict.
    [...]
    SPIEGEL: That means the West should deal with the radical Islamist Hamas as well?
    Aga Khan: You have to work with whoever the population has elected as long as they are willing to respect what I call cosmopolitan ethics.
    Aga Khan Senior: How the Eton-educated wartime Aga Khan offered '30,000 armed Arabs' to help Hitler - but still evaded treason trial

    JihadWatch on Perry connections to Grover Norquist

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/01/norquist-protege-rick-perry-dropping-out-of-presidential-race.html
    Grover Norquist may be more responsible than anyone else for Muslim Brotherhood access to the highest levels of power in the U.S. While it is hard for any Republican candidate to avoid Norquist altogether, so all-pervasive is his influence and power, Norquist is clearly much closer to Perry than to other candidates. Perry and Grover Norquist held a joint press conference in March 2011. Perry appeared at a fundraiser for Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform group. More: Norquist actively campaigned for Perry back in 2009. More still: Perry was investigated by the Texas Ethics Commission in 2004 for allegations that he illegally used campaign money to finance a trip to the Bahamas. In the course of this investigation, it came to light that along on the Bahamas trip at his own expense was Grover Norquist. Perry and Norquist are clearly not just casual acquaintances. Which other candidates have fundraised for Norquist? Which have vacationed with him?
    Then there was the whole business of the Perry/Aga Khan curriculum on Islam for Texas schools, a complete whitewash of Islam and jihad that was initiated and officially sanctioned by Perry himself. The Perry campaign obviously realized how damaging the curriculum could have been to their man's chances, and so deleted it not only from the web, but also from the Google cache
    Posted by at No comments:
    Labels: , , ,

    Monday, December 26, 2011

    Gingrich Ethics Violation Smears: Palinized, Innocent by IRS Violated No Laws


    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2817551/posts



    board comments


    And what was his unpardonable crime? Teaching a course? C’mon dude.

    The IRS cleared the organizations involved and by implication cleared Gingrich. It was pure and complete politics that Newt took a way out of.

    Holy crap, what a bunch of small potatoes. Hell, Obama got half his cash last time from overseas. They went after Newt hard with 85 alleged violations and 84 were bullshit and 1 led to a reprimand. Hell, clinton was censured and the Dems would him back in in a heartbeat. You’re bailing out a rowboat with a dixie cup, my FRiend

    For those who don’t know politicians are sanctioned crooks. The trick is to find the one with more integrity than the other one. We know what they are and accept it, to some extent. This has always been the case. If you consider this example some litmus case on Gingrich then you’re naive. The msm lays on conservatives and covers for liberals. This article reads like the absurd. And the actual issue was absurd. Hard to believe you were a JAG.

    “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.”
    Wow, is that the pot calling the kettle black or not. The recently discredited governor with his South American lover. I’m sure if the SC voters would have known he was a philanderer, they wouldn’t have voted for him as governor. Unfortunately all of the idiots are not in the DimCrap party.
    However, don’t misinterpret this as a defense of Newt, who may well be ne(u)wtered before all this race is over.

    To: fightinJAG; All
    For those who don’t know, Newt exposed House Speaker Jim Wright (D) and Wright was forced out:
    In 1988 Wright became the target of an inquiry by the House Ethics Committee. Their report in early 1989 implied that he had used bulk purchases of his book, ‘Reflections of a Public Man’, to earn speaking fees in excess of the allowed maximum, and that his wife, Betty, was given a job and perks to avoid the limit on gifts.
    Faced with an increasing loss of effectiveness, Wright tendered his resignation as Speaker on May 31, 1989, the resignation to become effective on the selection of a successor. He was the first Speaker to resign because of a scandal.
    Democrats had held for 40 years (1954). When Newt became Speaker (1994) the Democrats wanted revenge and they got it.
    We are all guilty of breaking some federal regulation - it’s just a matter of who wants to enforce it and why

    THE IRS FOUND HIM TO BE INNOCENT OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM ... HE VIOLATED NO LAWS!!!! If you’re going to pontificate, at least get your facts straight!

    18 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 20:43:47 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by KalaSam

    Curiously you didn’t mention the other 84 bogus charges that were filed against Newt & subsequently dropped. He was Palinized before there was such a term. You also failed to mention the IRS cleared him of all charges after his departure.
    The dems have been famous for these tactics for years. Have you denounced these tactics........except for ONE instance against Newt? They were wrong all the other times against Newt & MANY others except this once? Do you really not see the pattern?
    And what was his unpardonable crime? Teaching a course? C’mon dude.

    20 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 20:45:58 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by Confab

    Skip to comments.
    House Reprimands, Penalizes Speaker (Flashback)
    WaPo ^ | Jan.22, 1997 | John E. Yang 
    Posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 20:16:15 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by fightinJAG
    comment:  To: fightinJAG
    Are you a Ron Paul nutter spreading that crazy “ Blame America for 9-11 “crazy man's Newt Smears here ?? 
    21 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 20:49:52 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by ncalburt (
    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.

    The ethics case and its resolution leave Gingrich with little leeway for future personal controversies, House Republicans said. Exactly one month before yesterday's vote, Gingrich admitted that he brought discredit to the House and broke its rules by failing to ensure that financing for two projects would not violate federal tax law and by giving the House ethics committee false information.
    "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."

    [snip]

    The 395 to 28 vote closes a tumultuous chapter that began Sept. 7, 1994, when former representative Ben Jones (D-Ga.), then running against Gingrich, filed an ethics complaint against the then-GOP whip. . . .
    [snip]

    House ethics committee members took pride in yesterday's bipartisan resolution of the case. "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.

    [snip]

    For Gingrich, it was another humbling event in a remarkable series of peaks and valleys since 1994.
    [snip]

    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.
    (Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
    ========================================================
    The parts this guy didn't snip:


    But some lawmakers said the $300,000 financial penalty, described as a reimbursement to the ethics committee for the additional cost Gingrich caused it when he gave it false information, was too severe.

    "I was willing to swallow hard and vote for the reprimand, but when they add the $300,000 assessment . . . that's excessive," said House Government Reform and Oversight Committee Chairman Dan Burton (R-Ind.), one of three committee chairmen to vote against the punishment.

    Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), who cast the lone dissenting vote on the ethics committee, said of Gingrich's violations: "They are real mistakes but they shouldn't be hanging offenses."

    House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) gave a spirited speech calling the penalty unwarranted. Answering those who said a speaker should be held to a higher standard of ethical conduct, DeLay said: "The highest possible standard does not mean an impossible standard no American could possibly reach." He closed by declaring: "Let's stop this madness, let's stop the cannibalism."

    The last phrase echoed the May 31, 1989, resignation speech of House Speaker Jim Wright (D-Tex.), who called on lawmakers "to bring this period of mindless cannibalism to an end." Wright resigned in an ethics scandal triggered by a complaint filed by Gingrich.

    Despite the partisanship that surrounded the Gingrich ethics case for more than two years, DeLay's speech provided the only spark of yesterday's debate. With Gingrich willing to accept the punishment, the outcome was never in doubt.



    Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.

    1 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 20:16:21 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by fightinJAG
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]
    To: fightinJAG
    For those who don’t know, Republicans strongly supported action against Gingrich by the House Ethics Committee.
    2 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 20:18:24 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by fightinJAG (NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION! Everyone should pay taxes, everyone should pay the same rate.)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
    To: fightinJAG
    And for others who don’t know, Gingrich committed no crime or rules violation.
    3 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 20:22:48 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by jimfree (In Nov 2012 Herman Cain will have more relevant and quality executive experience than Barack Obama)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]
    To: fightinJAG
    Jan.22, 1997Old news...yawn... 
    4 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 20:24:42 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by moovova (Report my sarcastic, fear-mongering, hate-filled lies to www.AttackWatch.com by clicking HERE.)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
    To: fightinJAG
    Many House Republicans said they had trouble reconciling their leaders' characterization of Gingrich's rules violations as tantamount to a jaywalking ticket and the magnitude of the penalty. "That argument loses its steam [when] you talk about $300,000," said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.).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." 
    5 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 20:25:08 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by fightinJAG (NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION! Everyone should pay taxes, everyone should pay the same rate.)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]
    To: jimfree
    Anyone who think Gingrich is going to get the Republican caucus unified under his leadership is dreaming.
    He is still hated and mistrusted by many who have personal experience working with him.
    That number will grow as more in the party try to work with him if he’s elected.
    6 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 20:26:54 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by fightinJAG (NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION! Everyone should pay taxes, everyone should pay the same rate.)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]
    To: fightinJAG
    Newt is NOT for today. Not now.
    7 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 20:28:22 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by BunnySlippers (I LOVE BULL MARKETS . . .)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
    To: fightinJAG
    Gingrich aligned himself with Ronald Reagan. In congress, led the Republican Revolution taking the Republican majority for the first time in 40 years. As Speaker passed the Contract with America, cut taxes, decreased the deficit, balanced the federal budget, blocked HillaryCare, reformed welfare, fought Clinton tooth and nail. A determined aggressive man with these ambitions and accomplishments makes many political enemies along the way. Someones ox always gets gored. Toes get stepped on. Partisan bickering, sniping and ethics charges break out. Nothing came of any of it.
    8 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 20:30:20 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by Jim Robinson (Rebellion is brewing!! Impeach the corrupt Marxist bastard!!)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
    To: fightinJAG
    At least Newt did support Ronald Reagan and the Reagan Revolution. He did build a successful Republican majority. He did cut taxes, did reduce the deficit, did balance the budget, did block HillaryCare, did reform welfare, did allow us to reap the whirlwind of the Reagan economy.Romney saddled Massachusetts with budget busting RomneyCare, taxpayer funded "safe and legal" abortion, gay marriage, leftist judges and a completely destroyed Republican label. And RomneyCare did become the model and impetus for ObamaCare.
    Not to mention the fact that Newt has the support of the Republican conservative base and the grassroots tea party supporters:

    Romney has the support of the establishment elite and shares the moderate/liberal RINO vote:
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/151355/Gingrich-Romney-Among-GOP-Voters-Nationwide.aspx
    Who you gonna call? 
    9 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 20:32:45 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by Jim Robinson (Rebellion is brewing!! Impeach the corrupt Marxist bastard!!)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]
    To: BunnySlippers
    I can’t believe this is even happening. This is McCain 2008 or Dole 1996 all over again. Going up against Newt, I can’t wait to see the MSM fawning over Obama as the family values candidate.
    10 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 20:33:56 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by Hoodat (Because they do not change, Therefore they do not fear God. -Psalm 55:19-)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]
    To: jimfree
    And for others who don’t know, Gingrich committed no crime or rules violation.Yeah, sure he didn't. That's why he resigned. 
    11 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 20:35:19 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by Hoodat (Because they do not change, Therefore they do not fear God. -Psalm 55:19-)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]
    To: fightinJAG
    Holy crap, what a bunch of small potatoes. Hell, Obama got half his cash last time from overseas. They went after Newt hard with 85 alleged violations and 84 were bullshit and 1 led to a reprimand. Hell, clinton was censured and the Dems would him back in in a heartbeat. You’re bailing out a rowboat with a dixie cup, my FRiend.
    12 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 20:37:56 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by ez ("Abashed the Devil stood and felt how awful goodness is." - Milton, "Paradise Lost")
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
    To: fightinJAG
    For those who don’t know politicians are sanctioned crooks. The trick is to find the one with more integrity than the other one. We know what they are and accept it, to some extent. This has always been the case. If you consider this example some litmus case on Gingrich then you’re naive. The msm lays on conservatives and covers for liberals. This article reads like the absurd. And the actual issue was absurd. Hard to believe you were a JAG.
    13 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 20:38:04 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by TwoSwords
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]
    To: fightinJAG
    “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.”
    Wow, is that the pot calling the kettle black or not. The recently discredited governor with his South American lover. I’m sure if the SC voters would have known he was a philanderer, they wouldn’t have voted for him as governor. Unfortunately all of the idiots are not in the DimCrap party.
    However, don’t misinterpret this as a defense of Newt, who may well be ne(u)wtered before all this race is over.
    14 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 20:38:25 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by secondamendmentkid
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]
    To: Hoodat
    Well, I;m hoping we get behind Perry.
    I know this doesn’t t help. Or mebbe it does ...
    15 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 20:39:23 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by BunnySlippers (I LOVE BULL MARKETS . . .)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]
    To: fightinJAG; All
    For those who don’t know, Newt exposed House Speaker Jim Wright (D) and Wright was forced out:
    In 1988 Wright became the target of an inquiry by the House Ethics Committee. Their report in early 1989 implied that he had used bulk purchases of his book, ‘Reflections of a Public Man’, to earn speaking fees in excess of the allowed maximum, and that his wife, Betty, was given a job and perks to avoid the limit on gifts.
    Faced with an increasing loss of effectiveness, Wright tendered his resignation as Speaker on May 31, 1989, the resignation to become effective on the selection of a successor. He was the first Speaker to resign because of a scandal.
    Democrats had held for 40 years (1954). When Newt became Speaker (1994) the Democrats wanted revenge and they got it.
    We are all guilty of breaking some federal regulation - it’s just a matter of who wants to enforce it and why.
    16 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 20:40:06 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by donna (This is what happens when America is no longer a Christian nation.)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
    To: donna
    Call this Gingrich’s Revenge.
    17 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 20:43:24 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by HiTech RedNeck (Sometimes progressives find their scripture in the penumbra of sacred bathroom stall writings (Tzar))
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]
    To: Hoodat
    THE IRS FOUND HIM TO BE INNOCENT OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM ... HE VIOLATED NO LAWS!!!! If you’re going to pontificate, at least get your facts straight!
    18 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 20:43:47 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by KalaSamy
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]
    To: fightinJAG
    Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) said..."When I think of my three boys and what kind of example I want to set..."Oh look! There's ex-Rep Sanford now on a beach in Argentina, with his mistress! Let's ask him what shade of gray he prefers..."
     
    19 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 20:44:24 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by moovova (Report my sarcastic, fear-mongering, hate-filled lies to www.AttackWatch.com by clicking HERE.)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]
    To: fightinJAG
    Curiously you didn’t mention the other 84 bogus charges that were filed against Newt & subsequently dropped. He was Palinized before there was such a term. You also failed to mention the IRS cleared him of all charges after his departure.
    The dems have been famous for these tactics for years. Have you denounced these tactics........except for ONE instance against Newt? They were wrong all the other times against Newt & MANY others except this once? Do you really not see the pattern?
    And what was his unpardonable crime? Teaching a course? C’mon dude.
    20 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 20:45:58 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by Confab
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
    To: fightinJAG
    Are you a Ron Paul nutter spreading that crazy “ Blame America for 9-11 “crazy man's Newt Smears here ?? 
    21 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 20:49:52 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by ncalburt (NO MORE WIMPS need to apply to fight the Soros Funded Puppet !)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
    To: KalaSamy
    THE IRS FOUND HIM TO BE INNOCENT OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM ... HE VIOLATED NO LAWS!!!! If you’re going to pontificate, at least get your facts straight!Moving the goal posts, are we? Who said anything about the IRS. But then people who are completely innocent of all charges typically make a habit out of paying $300,000 fines and resigning their posts. Next, you will be telling me that Bill Clinton was innocent because the IRS said so. (In all-caps, of course) 
    22 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 20:50:58 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by Hoodat (Because they do not change, Therefore they do not fear God. -Psalm 55:19-)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]
    To: fightinJAG
    It was a disgrace what was done to Gingrich. I remember it well and I was ashamed how the Republicans attacked one of their own for doing nothing more than helping the conservative cause. History repeats itself.
    23 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 20:51:14 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by vbmoneyspender
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]
    To: fightinJAG
    So the Mitt Romney Alinsky tactics begin...

    For those who don’t know, Republicans strongly supported action against Gingrich by the House Ethics Committee.

    For those who don't know, Republicans folded like weenies, and that's how it happened every Republican since has been trashed.
    24 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 20:53:40 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by Cringing Negativism Network ("FREE TRADERS": Self-loathing Americans)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]
    To: Hoodat
    ” Who said anything about the IRS”
    The specific charges were that Newt had broken IRS laws. The fact that the IRS found Newt innocent shows how bogus the charges were especially in conjunction w/ all the other previous bogus charges.
    Did you agree w/ what the dems did to Palin? Were all those legit too?
    25 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 20:56:26 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by Confab
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]
    To: moovova
    !Ella no esta culpable!
    26 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 20:56:47 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by Cringing Negativism Network ("FREE TRADERS": Self-loathing Americans)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]
    To: Confab
    Did you agree w/ what the dems did to Palin? Were all those legit too?I missed the part where Palin paid a $300,000 fine. 
    27 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 20:57:54 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by Hoodat (Because they do not change, Therefore they do not fear God. -Psalm 55:19-)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]
    To: Jim Robinson
    After a long deliberation, I have decided that I will not vote for Gingrich in the primaries. You know all the reasons why, so no need to detail them here.
    And I see no reason to rush into Newt’s arms before one vote has even been cast for the nomination. I am not influenced by polls and charts about who else is supporting him. That makes no difference to me as there is no need to jump on a bandwagon during the primaries.
    At the least, conservatives going all in for Newt now are GIVING UP WHATEVER LEVERAGE they may have had on a President Gingrich. So many who were saying months ago they would never vote for Newt, and for good and longstanding reasons, nevertheless have flown to his support like moths to a candle — imo, showing the GOP elites nothing but a streak of desperation and impatience.
    And showing Newt that he can do and say just about anything, now and in the past and, therefore, in the future, and apparently desperate conservatives will support him anyway. Some of them will give it all up just for the very short-term and ultimately politically meaningless thrill of — maybe — seeing Gingrich debate Obama.
    Gingrich is treating conservatives like they’re stupid. He spends 20 years flakking for the individual mandate in healthcare, when it becomes a problem, he says oh, don’t worry, I’m not for that. And, off everyone goes, big smiles on their faces, singing Zippety-do=dah! And Gingrich must be saying to himself, GOD, THIS IS EASY.
    Jim, you know this man is a phoney. And we are going to run fullspeed to latch on to him before the voting has even started rather than **at least giving him a run for his money and making him work to win the nomination** — thereby at least trying to send him the message that we don’t lap up his Barbara Streisand and he better understand our demands and understand them well.
    No, the way things are going now, Gingrich must be saying to himself, “I thought I’d have trouble with those pesky conservatives trying to hold my feet to the fire on all my liberal crap over the years, but, GOD, THEY ARE EASY.”
    Have you noticed that before Gingrich was the frontrunner, we were spending our time hotly debating MASSIVE TAX REFORM and GOVERNMENT SPENDING CUTS?
    After, all the movement has talked about is Newt. And that’s how it’s always been with Newt: he always manages to make it all about him.
    I for one am going to keep on him and try to raise the voice that lets him know he’s not doing a cakewalk with at least some conservatives.
    If we end up with a President Gingrich (and I will vote for the GOP nominee), at this rate conservatives are doing nothing but MARGINALIZING themselves as an influence on him and his administration. If he’s going to win, it would actually be better for him to squeak through and know very well where his bread his buttered.
    He is NOT principled, but he can be managed somewhat if he knows he must earn and earn our votes (conservatives) every day.
    28 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 20:58:43 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by fightinJAG (NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION! Everyone should pay taxes, everyone should pay the same rate.)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]
    To: Hoodat
    Only reason there was a fine, was because the GOP was WEENIES.
    Grow a pair, GOP.
    Stop attacking our own. Democrats are the opposition.
    29 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 20:59:25 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by Cringing Negativism Network ("FREE TRADERS": Self-loathing Americans)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]
    To: Hoodat
    The IRS cleared the organizations involved and by implication cleared Gingrich. It was pure and complete politics that Newt took a way out of.
    30 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 21:00:05 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by jimfree (In Nov 2012 Herman Cain will have more relevant and quality executive experience than Barack Obama)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]
    To: Hoodat
    I missed the part where Palin paid a $300,000 fine.She avoided that potential outcome by resigning. Do you know what Newt was fined for? And does it even matter to you? 
    31 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 21:00:13 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by vbmoneyspender
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]
    To: secondamendmentkid
    Yes, the point was that at the time the Republicans were the ones strongly behind getting Gingrich out. In fact, that’s why he resigned later. His own party couldn’t stand him.
    Those who think Gingrich is going to go to Washington and do all these marvelous things must think his reputation within the party is all fixed now and he has become an inspiring, unifying leader rather than the trainwreck he became as Speaker.
    32 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 21:02:30 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by fightinJAG (NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION! Everyone should pay taxes, everyone should pay the same rate.)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]
    To: Cringing Negativism Network
    Embarrassing isn’t it? The dems bought into this despicable tactic, & apparently so did a few republicans.
    Look at how conservative the republicans became after Newt’s departure! /sarc
    33 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 21:02:52 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by Confab
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]
    To: donna
    ***** “We are all guilty of breaking some federal regulation - it’s just a matter of who wants to enforce it and why.” *****
    Ii probably broke 20 - 30 Laws in my sleep last night, a dozen more while making Coffee this morning and an uncountable # during my day ... the Vast Majority of which go unnoticed ... unless I am driving and then a well armed “Revenue Enhancement Agent” will point them out and charge me accordingly ... in the end ... Enforcement is all about power and the ability to control other people. Most Laws were passed to protect ... many are not, these days it is all about Money (FOR GOVT) and those are the Laws that are enforced.
    I can no longer recognize the Country that I was born in ... Freedom may as well be a foreign word or idea, Justice is no longer Blind, it is a Select Fire weapon or a WMD... depending on the Power that wields it.
    TT
    34 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 21:03:32 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by TexasTransplant (Radical islam is real islam. Moderate islam is the trojan horse.)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]
    To: fightinJAG
    You mis-spelled “his own party were spineless twerps”.
    35 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 21:03:36 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by Cringing Negativism Network ("FREE TRADERS": Self-loathing Americans)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]
    To: TwoSwords
    I don’t care who you are, that’s funny!
    Good grief, do you have no clue what it means when someone posts an article?
    Do you think I wrote this piece or endorse each word in it?
    That’s just weird.
    36 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 21:04:21 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by fightinJAG (NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION! Everyone should pay taxes, everyone should pay the same rate.)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]
    To: donna
    What’s your take on the fact that it was members of Gingrich’s own party that were the strongest proponents of punishing him for his ethics violations and who later all but demanded he resign?
    37 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 21:06:12 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by fightinJAG (NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION! Everyone should pay taxes, everyone should pay the same rate.)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]
    To: Hoodat
    You apparently missed the part where she paid 100’s of thousands of dollars fighting the charges. Part of the reason she gave for leaving office was to stop the blood letting in court.
    It’s a pay me now or pay me latter deal. Newt felt betrayed by his own & simply decided to move on. It’s really not that hard to comprehend.
    38 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 21:06:31 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by Confab
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]
    To: fightinJAG
    At some point you decided to post this article.
    Own it.
    So who do you support please?
    39 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 21:06:43 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by Cringing Negativism Network ("FREE TRADERS": Self-loathing Americans)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]
    To: KalaSamy
    This isn’t just about violating laws.
    40 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 21:09:27 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by fightinJAG (NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION! Everyone should pay taxes, everyone should pay the same rate.)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]
    (own it. Or refute it)
    Clearly there’s some reason you decided this article was important to post.
    What was that reason?
    41 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 21:10:18 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by Cringing Negativism Network ("FREE TRADERS": Self-loathing Americans)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]
    To: fightinJAG
    For those who don’t know, Republicans strongly supported action against Gingrich by the House Ethics Committee.


    This sentence seemed to indicate your support for the article. I apoligize, with reservations. What would make one think you weren’t supporting the article?
    42 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 21:10:45 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by TwoSwords
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]
    To: fightinJAG
    Tell me, did the party become more, or way less conservative after Newt’s departure? Newt delivered a republican congress for the first time in forty years. Many of the same republicans that kicked him to the curb delivered the congress & the presidency to the dems just years later. Who has the better track record? Newt, or the ones that kicked him out?
    43 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 21:12:13 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by Confab
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]
    To: Confab; vbmoneyspender; jimfree; Cringing Negativism Network
    From the article:Exactly one month before yesterday's vote, Gingrich admitted that he brought discredit to the House and broke its rules by failing to ensure that financing for two projects would not violate federal tax law and by giving the House ethics committee false information. 
    44 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 21:13:43 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by Hoodat (Because they do not change, Therefore they do not fear God. -Psalm 55:19-)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]
    To: Hoodat
    Speaking of Bob Dole, Gingrich borrowed the money to pay off his ethics charge fine from, yes, Bob Dole.
    First, he borrowed the entire $300,000 from Bob Dole. Then, when that became an embarrassment, he said he would only use $150,000 on loan from Dole. When that became an embarrassment, Gingrich finally said he would use his own money.
    Dole and Gingrich must have been tight.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/ethics.htm
    45 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 21:14:03 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by fightinJAG (NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION! Everyone should pay taxes, everyone should pay the same rate.)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]
    To: ncalburt
    Check my posting history for yourself.
    46 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 21:15:35 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by fightinJAG (NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION! Everyone should pay taxes, everyone should pay the same rate.)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]
    To: fightinJAG
    What’s your take on the fact that it was members of Gingrich’s own party that were the strongest proponents of punishing him for his ethics violations . . .What's your basis for that statement. I remember what happened and that's not true. Rather than fight the issue, the Republicans cut a deal like they usually do.
    Here's the history on the ethics charge. The Democrats contended that Newt's 'Renewing American Civilization' college course had a political purpose rather than a educational purpose. Thus, the Democrats charged that the tax-exempt status of Newt's organization, which was responsible for the college course, was violated. This was payback for the legitimate charges Newt had brought against Speaker Wright and which had resulted in his resignation.
    Put simply, the ethics charge against Gingrich was bullshit then and it's a bullshit charge now. And you should be man enough to acknowledge that fact. 
    47 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 21:17:08 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by vbmoneyspender
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]
    To: Confab
    Spot. On.
    Gingrich was the one, the left perfected the politics of personal destruction upon.
    Gingrich was the one, the GOP perfected ... running in abject terror away from, precisely when he (and America) needed them most, upon.
    Gingrich is the moment, RINO’s happened.
    Weeniehood is not a winning strategy.
    48 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 21:17:20 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by Cringing Negativism Network ("FREE TRADERS": Self-loathing Americans)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]
    To: Confab; vbmoneyspender; jimfree; Cringing Negativism Network
    Gingrich Admits He Broke Rules and Misled PanelWASHINGTON — After two years of vehemently denying wrongdoing, House Speaker Newt Gingrich made an about-face Saturday and admitted that he had violated House rules in connection with several tax-exempt charitable organizations and had also provided "inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable" information to the Ethics Committee.

    Gingrich's admission of wrongdoing in a case he had once dismissed as a "fishing expedition" came after the ethics panel's investigative subcommittee criticized the powerful speaker for improperly using the charitable organizations for partisan ends and not leveling with the committee in responses to its inquiries.     
    49 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 21:17:33 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by Hoodat (Because they do not change, Therefore they do not fear God. -Psalm 55:19-)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]
    To: Hoodat
    Who. Do. You. Support?
    Say it.
    50 posted on Wed Dec 07 2011 21:18:32 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by Cringing Negativism Network ("FREE TRADERS": Self-loathing Americans)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

    Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
    Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
    Free Republic
    Browse · Search    		News/Activism
    Topics · Post Article
    FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
    FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
    Posted by at No comments:
    Labels: ,
    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)