GingRICH

[Steinhauer]

My father's brother's cousin's friend's nephew says Gingrich doesn't. (That's inspired by the Spaceballs movie line. ) Point is, I can't trust second hand info like this.

We all know someone who knows someone. These days, it's a small country and a small world. Heck, I know someone who knows Tom Brokaw. I know someone who knows Ron Paul. A North Dakota governor used to jog down my street when I was growing up and I talked to him sometimes.

Doesn't make me an authority on a person's political or social position. We can only go to the public record for that.

That is why it is a matter of public record that Newt was a satistician that pushed for the passing of the ADA

And yeah, Newt was my college history professor. I knew his political views then because he talked about them in class.

My mother in law used to work with his ex wife (the one in those interviews). So it isn't exactly a friend of a friend of a second cousin thing My brother in law had lunch with Newt several times last month. He is a local.

 

[Reba]

Wirelessly posted (BB Curve 9300)

Wirelessly posted (BB Curve 9300)



Do you think they were hacked in IA and NH?

Yep.

By whom, and for which candidate?

 

[Beowulf]

No, I don't think the votes were hacked in IA and NH. Even the results for Ron Paul were in line with polling. Ron Paul also did not campaign as hard in South Carolina from what it sounds like. His campaign's strategy is to go after the lower cost delegates in other states' caucuses.

However, it is difficult to know if voting in South Carolina was as was reported because, apparently the voting machines are electronic without a paper trail. So even if there were a recount, there is no paper trail to go back to. This is what raises questions.

But I don't think the votes for Paul were "hacked away." His results were in line with polling.

Now Gingrich, on the other hand... It is just a surprise and a disappointment, because the issue is not just whether not he sleeps around, it's his ethics violations. He was the only Speaker of the House in history ever removed from his job by his own Party for ethics violations. His party basically said to him, "Stop being more corrupt than us, you're making us look bad."

Read the official papers here: In the Matter of Representative Newt Gingrich | House Committee on Ethics

And 40% of the Republican voters wanted him? Really?

It's just a shocker until I remember that most human beings do things completely opposite from what they say, and rationalize away what they do. Practically everyone does. Some on harmless little things, and some on really serious things. This one was a really serious thing.

Some commentators say that this was a South Carolina thing and Gingrich is going to fade in the long run. I hope so.

Oh please. Very articulate but look around you. The folk in South Carolina are idiots? I do not think so. Of COURSE the corporations/media will try to have THEIR way, and that means tweaking the vote results. After all, there is no paper trail, and do you really think they woud let the public have what they want? Get real.

 

[Steinhauer]

Honest? Really? He had to be honest because he got busted on it. He publicly shamed President Clinton on the sex scandal while he was having an affair at the same time. He proposed to the mistress before asking his wife for a divorce. Let's not forget the fact that Gingrich asked the Catholic Church to give him an annulment on his marriage that lasted nearly 2 decades.

Also, he tried to pinpoint the blame on the government for the affairs. Not to mention that he said that knew what he was doing was wrong yet he did it anyway. That tells me he doesn't have a moral compass. He will do it just because he can.

In 1983, he demanded that Representatives Daniel Crane and Gerry Studds be expelled for having extramarital relationships with House pages. He campaigned on family values and more. The Republicans can do much, much better than this sorry excuse of a human being.

The fact is, the history does matters. Otherwise, we wouldn't have history classes.

Have you been reading those left wing websites again?

All of this is at least 15 year old news. He slammed Clinton for lying to Congress. Clinton turned the Oval office into a brothel and deserved to get slammed. It was Ken Starr and Bob Barr that slammed Clinton for the affair (in case your memory is lacking).

Clinton lied to Congress - Newt, did not. In fact, Newt did not even cover up his affair to the point it took a Congressional Hearing. He did not use taxpayers money in his defense in a Congressional hearing. Clinton did - so yeah, Clinton deserved to get slammed, and slammed hard.
As hypocritical as Newt was (and yes, he admitted his hypocrisy - 15 years ago) he was slamming Clinton for LYING UNDER OATH TO CONGRESS.

Trying to equate the two is a futile attempt:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

So, I am not sure what history you are referring to, but I remember all of this rather well. It sure is convenient to make those fallacious accusations though - however old they may be.

Ever hear of Vera Baker? probably not, because it isn't on a 24/7 continuous loop on any of the major networks.

 

[saywhatkid]

That is why it is a matter of public record that Newt was a satistician that pushed for the passing of the ADA

And yeah, Newt was my college history professor. I knew his political views then because he talked about them in class.

My mother in law used to work with his ex wife (the one in those interviews). So it isn't exactly a friend of a friend of a second cousin thing My brother in law had lunch with Newt several times last month. He is a local.

So, you have been "campaigning" for Cain, and now Gingrich; and as I add up things, it appears your motivation is that you know them personally, or they are from your neck of the woods. I find it very interesting that Reba, a solid Conservative, was not thrilled that he (Gingrich) won the primary in SC. Her opinion, if I were looking to vote to the right, carries a lot more weight than your professor discussing his personal politics in his classroom that was devoted to something entirely different. Way to hook 'em while they are a captive audience!

 

[saywhatkid]

Have you been reading those left wing websites again?

All of this is at least 15 year old news. He slammed Clinton for lying to Congress. Clinton turned the Oval office into a brothel and deserved to get slammed. It was Ken Starr and Bob Barr that slammed Clinton for the affair (in case your memory is lacking).

Clinton lied to Congress - Newt, did not. In fact, Newt did not even cover up his affair to the point it took a Congressional Hearing. He did not use taxpayers money in his defense in a Congressional hearing. Clinton did - so yeah, Clinton deserved to get slammed, and slammed hard.
As hypocritical as Newt was (and yes, he admitted his hypocrisy - 15 years ago) he was slamming Clinton for LYING UNDER OATH TO CONGRESS.

So, I am not sure what history you are referring to, but I remember all of this rather well. It sure is convenient to make those fallacious accusations though - however old they may be.

Ever hear of Vera Baker? probably not, because it isn't on a 24/7 continuous loop on any of the major networks.

Good job, playing the Clinton card! Got any more? JFK was a womanizer also. Nixon was never convicted of the Watergate thingie, it was just a rumor carried out by those nasty Liberals. Want more? You do this constantly; get into a debate and drag back all the same tired crap over and over. How does Clinton having an affair somehow lighten the load on Gingrich?

In your world, if someone shot Bush, you would find it justified to shoot Obama, to even things out.

Good luck with the thread Einsteinhauer.

 

[Steinhauer]

So, you have been "campaigning" for Cain, and now Gingrich; and as I add up things, it appears your motivation is that you know them personally, or they are from your neck of the woods. I find it very interesting that Reba, a solid Conservative, was not thrilled that he (Gingrich) won the primary in SC. Her opinion, if I were looking to vote to the right, carries a lot more weight than your professor discussing his personal politics in his classroom that was devoted to something entirely different. Way to hook 'em while they are a captive audience!

Every professor I have ever had has discussed their political views in one shape, form or another.

Reba can vote for anyone she chooses - isn't that the beauty of freedom?

If I vote for Gingrich, it isn't because he was my former professor - I have stated many times previously that I felt he would make a wonderful presidential advisor due to his past and should not be president.

If I vote for Gingrich it will be because I feel he is a far better candidate for presidency. I know the Democrats favor Romney - so I may end up voting for Gingrinch to avoid voting for Romney.

 

[Reba]

Beowulf, TCS got this email this morning:

Dear (TCS's real first name),

After historic finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire, our campaign quadrupled its amount of support from 2008 in South Carolina!

Thanks to everyone who worked so hard in the Palmetto State to spread our message and help continue our momentum! I’m grateful for the countless hours you put in to recruit more voters to our cause.

Only a little over one percent of the delegates have been awarded, and although Newt Gingrich prevailed last night, there is only one candidate in this race who has the organization, the resources, and the volunteers to compete nationwide with establishment candidate Mitt Romney – and only one candidate whose name will appear on every ballot with Mitt Romney’s.

You see, at the very beginning of our campaign, I worked with my staff to create a strategy that would keep us in for the long haul.

The race for the Republican nomination will be a marathon, not a sprint, and we’re just getting started.

I hope you’ll help me further strengthen our organization in upcoming states by donating whatever you are able right away.

Florida is just around the corner, with caucuses in Nevada, Maine, Colorado, and Minnesota following right on its heels.

On March 6, hundreds of delegates will be up for grabs on Super Tuesday with elections in multiple states, including Virginia, where it’s a two-man race between me and Mitt Romney.

We’re primed to do very well in these contests. Staff and volunteers have been working around the clock in many of these states to deliver a victory, and I’m excited about what we can achieve.

With Newt’s win in South Carolina, the spotlight will be on his candidacy like never before.

So I believe it’ll become clearer than ever that neither he nor Mitt Romney have the conservative credentials needed to take on and defeat Barack Obama.

When voters examine the records of both leading establishment candidates, they’ll see a history of support for bailouts, massive spending, health care mandates, gun control, union boss power grabs, Cap-and-Trade, and more destructive policies.

If our Party wants to beat President Obama, it must choose a nominee who can provide a clear contrast to his administration.

As we head into a very busy month of campaigning, I’ll continue to stand strong for real change, like:

*** Cutting $1 trillion in spending during the first year of my presidency.

*** Eliminating five bloated, unconstitutional federal agencies and returning those powers to the states.

*** Balancing the federal budget in three years.

*** Securing our borders and getting serious about keeping this nation safe.

I’m counting on you to fight alongside me.

So please, donate whatever you are able right away to make sure we have every possible resource to win the Republican nomination.

Despite what the establishment media would have the American people believe, voters don’t have to settle for more of the same Big Government, big spending, status quo candidates.

Together, you and I can return this country to its founding principles of individual freedom, limited government, sound money, and personal responsibility.

Onward!

For Liberty,

Ron Paul

P.S. After achieving historic results in Iowa and New Hampshire, our campaign quadrupled its total from 2008 in South Carolina last night!

Now, as we look ahead to several contests in the coming weeks, it’s more critical than ever that I know I can count on your support.

Only my campaign has the resources, the organization, and the volunteers to compete nationwide with establishment candidate Mitt Romney – and only my name will appear on each ballot along with Mitt Romney’s.

With the spotlight brighter than ever before on my both my leading establishment opponents, more voters will realize that their Big Government candidacies spell certain defeat against President Obama.

Please, help me reach millions more voters with the truth about my consistent conservative record, as well as our message of freedom and real change, with your most generous contribution today.


Paid for by Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee

Ron Paul 2012 Official Campaign Website

 

[Steinhauer]

Good job, playing the Clinton card! Got any more? JFK was a womanizer also. Nixon was never convicted of the Watergate thingie, it was just a rumor carried out by those nasty Liberals. Want more? You do this constantly; get into a debate and drag back all the same tired crap over and over. How does Clinton having an affair somehow lighten the load on Gingrich?

In your world, if someone shot Bush, you would find it justified to shoot Obama, to even things out.

Good luck with the thread Einsteinhauer.

Good job bringing up Newt's affair which is what ... 15 years old now

Talk about re-hashing a dead horse over and over again then blaming it on someone else when they decide to counter it

Smoooth ... real smooth.

Are you stating you wish someone had shot Bush? (I can do that too)

 

[Banjo]

Have you been reading those left wing websites again?

No, these are all well-stated facts. People didn't make this up. *shrugs* The fact is, he did try to pinpoint the blame on the government for causing him to engage in extramarital affairs. He said that he knew what he was doing was wrong, yet he did it anyway. This is a selfish prick we are talking about, he doesn't care about you nor anyone else. He just want your vote. That's all that matters to him.

All of this is at least 15 year old news. He slammed Clinton for lying to Congress. Clinton turned the Oval office into a brothel and deserved to get slammed. It was Ken Starr and Bob Barr that slammed Clinton for the affair (in case your memory is lacking).

So? History has a lot of relevance, if people don't learn from them, they are doomed to repeat it again.

Clinton lied to Congress - Newt, did not. In fact, Newt did not even cover up his affair to the point it took a Congressional Hearing. He did not use taxpayers money in his defense in a Congressional hearing. Clinton did - so yeah, Clinton deserved to get slammed, and slammed hard. As hypocritical as Newt was (and yes, he admitted his hypocrisy - 15 years ago) he was slamming Clinton for LYING UNDER OATH TO CONGRESS.

Of course, Bill Clinton lied under oath which was illegal. But he is no longer the president of the USA. People moved on a long time ago. Newt is now eyeing the Oval Office. The only reason that he had to be "honest" about certain things was because he got busted. If he never got busted on anything, he wouldn't have anything to be honest about.

Newt Gingrich cheated on all of his wives. I wouldn't be surprised if he cheated on his current wife too as well. He's a self-confessed womanizer. Now, Newt was forced out of the government to avoid any further embarrassment to the GOP. Now they want him to run for presidency? Something's wrong with the picture here. Where's the moral compass? Does it not matter to them that he has a history of being highly dishonest? Having an affair is a sign of being perfectly dishonest, there is nothing honest about it.

So, I am not sure what history you are referring to, but I remember all of this rather well. It sure is convenient to make those fallacious accusations though - however old they may be.

Yes, it is convenient to know the truth. Better to know more about the person you are voting for than knowing nothing. This way, you can blame yourself instead of the politician.

Ever hear of Vera Baker? probably not, because it isn't on a 24/7 continuous loop on any of the major networks.

That one died down pretty quickly. Was it true or not? There weren't much to go on, so people moved on. Besides, we're not talking about Obama. You have a tendency to shift the attention to President Obama quite a bit. You need to move on. President Obama is already in the office and if there was truly a sex scandal, it wouldn't have died down so fast.

 

[Steinhauer]

No, these are all well-stated facts. People didn't make this up. *shrugs* The fact is, he did try to pinpoint the blame on the government for causing him to engage in extramarital affairs. He said that he knew what he was doing was wrong, yet he did it anyway. This is a selfish prick we are talking about, he doesn't care about you nor anyone else. He just want your vote. That's all that matters to him.



So? History has a lot of relevance, if people don't learn from them, they are doomed to repeat it again.



Of course, Bill Clinton lied under oath which was illegal. But he is no longer the president of the USA. People moved on a long time ago. Newt is now eyeing the Oval Office. The only reason that he had to be "honest" about certain things was because he got busted. If he never got busted on anything, he wouldn't have anything to be honest about.

Newt Gingrich cheated on all of his wives. I wouldn't be surprised if he cheated on his current wife too as well. He's a self-confessed womanizer. Now, Newt was forced out of the government to avoid any further embarrassment to the GOP. Now they want him to run for presidency? Something's wrong with the picture here. Where's the moral compass? Does it not matter to them that he has a history of being highly dishonest? Having an affair is a sign of being perfectly dishonest, there is nothing honest about it.



Yes, it is convenient to know the truth. Better to know more about the person you are voting for than knowing nothing. This way, you can blame yourself instead of the politician.



That one died down pretty quickly. Was it true or not? There weren't much to go on, so people moved on. Besides, we're not talking about Obama. You have a tendency to shift the attention to President Obama quite a bit. You need to move on. President Obama is already in the office and if there was truly a sex scandal, it wouldn't have died down so fast.

Not so fast.

If people moved on a long time ago (and they did) why is something that was admitted to 15 years ago coming up now? Seems you want to shift any republican into a negative light to shift the negative attention away from Obama.

 

[Banjo]

Not so fast.

Sorry, let me re-clarify...

People moved on a long time ago except for Steinhauer.

 

[Steinhauer]

Sorry, let me re-clarify...

You are forgiven, now let me re-clarify - why is Newt's affair, which happened 15 years ago - at a time you reportedly claim people have moved on from, coming up now?

Is it because you have been unable to move on?

Do you like Obama? I am fairly certain you might. So any negative attention would be quickly skirted to the side right?

Skirted to the side, and negative attention ( FROM 15 YEARS AGO THAT HAS BEEN RE-HASHED A GAZILLION TIMES OVER ) focused on the front runner of the Republican primary (which currently happens to be Newt Gingrich).

 

[Beowulf]

Meh. Gingrich is a slimeball.

 

[Banjo]

You are forgiven, now let me re-clarify - why is Newt's affair, which happened 15 years ago - at a time you reportedly claim people have moved on from, coming up now?

Is it because you have been unable to move on?

Because he is running for presidency. That's the difference. Bill Clinton isn't the president anymore.

Now, he didn't just have an affair. He had at least two affairs that the public are aware of. The first two marriages ended in divorces due to infidelity. The fact is, marriage itself is considered sacred. Not something to be taken lightly.

History has a lot of relevance and it's quite telling of what character is like. He claims to have learned quite a lot in his lifetime. However, based on the history, it's clear that he hasn't.

The only reason why he partly took responsibility for his wrongdoings is because he believed that God was forgiving and showed mercy. He took the easy way out.

 

[Banjo]

Do you like Obama? I am fairly certain you might. So any negative attention would be quickly skirted to the side right?

Skirted to the side, and negative attention ( FROM 15 YEARS AGO THAT HAS BEEN RE-HASHED A GAZILLION TIMES OVER ) focused on the front runner of the Republican primary (which currently happens to be Newt Gingrich).

That's the unfortunate part of being a politician, all the skeletons will have to come out of the closet. I didn't make up the rules.

Do I like President Obama? I have to be honest, I have found him to be somewhat withdrawn from the public, emotionally-wise. He's a very private person, far more than President George W. Bush ever was, which I was surprised to learn. However, I can't imagine what he has to go through on a daily basis. It's not a job just anyone would take on. It requires a lot from a person and not to mention highly stressful.

It would be easy to blame him for everything that's going on in your country. However, I feel that would be too easy to do. It's more to do with the entire government, President Obama may be part of the problem, but he's certainly not all of it. The whole government is. The whole system and how it works is what's ruining the country.

 

[Steinhauer]

Because he is running for presidency. That's the difference. Bill Clinton isn't the president anymore.

Now, he didn't just have an affair. He had at least two affairs that the public are aware of. The first two marriages ended in divorces due to infidelity. The fact is, marriage itself is considered sacred. Not something to be taken lightly.

History has a lot of relevance and it's quite telling of what character is like. He claims to have learned quite a lot in his lifetime. However, based on the history, it's clear that he hasn't.

The only reason why he partly took responsibility for his wrongdoings is because he believed that God was forgiving and showed mercy. He took the easy way out.

Running for President - just like Obama is right?

Now, if there had been absolutely nothing going on between Obama and Vera Baker - why did she leave the country when the story broke she was having an affair with Obama? Was it because of her undying patriotism? She was the finance director of his campaign in illinois. She is currently drawing a check from a government municipality in Chicago - from a foreign country.

Why is this not a three ring circus media event?

Oh, I know ... because it is actually NOT 15 year old news and is currently going on.

That right there is far more incriminating evidence than was given when allegations were made public against Herman Cain.

The voters who helped Gingrich win South Carolina have certainly moved on .... just saying.

Look, I don't like Newt's past. Newt doesn't like his past. I am sure Clinton even feels bad about what he did. But the point is, it happened a long time ago.

edit to add; I never defended his affair - I defended his HONESTY about it. I would much rather have a politician that isn't fearful of telling the truth - no matter how horrible news it may be to themselves.

 

[Banjo]

Running for President - just like Obama is right?

Naturally, he would be seeking for a re-election. It's expected.

Now, if there had been absolutely nothing going on between Obama and Vera Baker - why did she leave the country when the story broke she was having an affair with Obama? Was it because of her undying patriotism? She was the finance director of his campaign in illinois. She is currently drawing a check from a government municipality in Chicago - from a foreign country.

This is the first time I've heard of her being paid by the government. Do you have any evidence to back up what you are saying here? Do you realize that people can't really just walk in a bank and get proof of a person's banking history?

Why is this not a three ring circus media event?

Because it was National Enquirer.

Oh, I know ... because it is actually NOT 15 year old news and is currently going on.

It matters.

That right there is far more incriminating evidence than was given when allegations were made public against Herman Cain.

Cain's campaign came to a halt due to all of the allegations being made against him. I don't know if any of these allegations are true, but the way his campaign handled them were done rather poorly. That's what really killed his campaign.

The voters who helped Gingrich win South Carolina have certainly moved on .... just saying.

Meh.

Look, I don't like Newt's past. Newt doesn't like his past. I am sure Clinton even feels bad about what he did. But the point is, it happened a long time ago.

15 years is not that long. 50 years is.

I never defended his affair - I defended his HONESTY about it. I would much rather have a politician that isn't fearful of telling the truth - no matter how horrible news it may be to themselves.

He was only honest about it because he got busted. He is a true hypocrite and still is.

Now, regarding Vera Baker, remember it was National Enquirer who broke the story. Then they quickly revised it and it became a rather short story with vague details. After that, what happened? Not much. I also just checked the National Enquirer, the story seems to have disappeared for good. Guess they didn't have much of a leg to stand on in the first place.

 

[Reba]

...Heck, I know someone who knows Tom Brokaw.

Ha, ha, funny you should say that. Last December, I attended an event where Brokaw was the guest speaker.

I know someone who knows Ron Paul.

Apparently Paul knows us since he sent TCS an email.

...Doesn't make me an authority on a person's political or social position. We can only go to the public record for that.

Yes, it's the public record, especially voting record, that matters when it comes to what a politician supports. Financial records are also important. Does the person put his money where his mouth is?

"For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."
(Matthew 6:21, KJV Holy Bible)

 

[Steinhauer]

That's the unfortunate part of being a politician, all the skeletons will have to come out of the closet. I didn't make up the rules.

Do I like President Obama? I have to be honest, I have found him to be somewhat withdrawn from the public, emotionally-wise. He's a very private person, far more than President George W. Bush ever was, which I was surprised to learn. However, I can't imagine what he has to go through on a daily basis. It's not a job just anyone would take on. It requires a lot from a person and not to mention highly stressful.

It would be easy to blame him for everything that's going on in your country. However, I feel that would be too easy to do. It's more to do with the entire government, President Obama may be part of the problem, but he's certainly not all of it. The whole government is. The whole system and how it works is what's ruining the country.

Thank you for an honest straight forward answer. My take on Obama is that he is quite possibly a very decent person. But I personally feel he is not ready nor has been ready to be President. You see him as "withdrawn" and I see him as "secretive" - especially after claiming this would be the most transparent presidency ever.

He has divided this nation in a way I have never experienced or seen before.