The media’s long knives are out once again, and apparently it’s causing a war inside the network:
According to a breaking headline on Drudge Report, Marianne Gingrich — ex-wife of GOP candidate Newt Gingrich — dropped what sources claim is a game-changing bombshell about the former House Speaker — one that could “end” her ex-husband’s career. The interview, conducted last week by Brian Ross, is now causing major waves at the network, according to sources.
According to these sources, a “civil war” has since exploded at ABC on exactly when the confession will air.
The war behind the scenes? Some in the newsroom think it would be unethical to run this story before the SC primary.
I don’t believe it for a minute. This was leaked for a reason and that reason is to ensure the most liberal Republican gets the nomination….and then they go after him.
The MSM is fully behind Obama, fully behind the Democrat party. We all know what would happen if some kind of scandalous information came out about Obama. There wouldn’t be a “civil war” in the newsroom….it would just go away.
A knowledgeable ABC source tells me it seems likely that the Marianne interview will run tomorrow.
Must of been a short civil war…
Shocking!
As for the “bombshell” itself, Allah has some guesses on what it might be. If he’s right then it’s nothing we haven’t all heard about Newt already.
UPDATE
Letter from Newt’s daughters to ABC
The failure of a marriage is a terrible and emotional experience for everyone involved. Anyone who has had that experience understands it is a personal tragedy filled with regrets, and sometimes differing memories of events.
UPDATE
Like I said, “civil war” my ass. Now they are going to try and directly affect the debate:
ABC spokesman confirms: Marianne Gingrich interview WILL air Thur on “Nightline.” Excerpts to be released earlier, i.e. before CNN debate.
We know zilch about Obama’s single life.
His body man Reggie Love, had been photographed being teabagged by some guys.
And Obama misses him.
Obama used drugs….not just grass, but coke whenever he could!
Obama absolutely cannot write anything like his speeches or books.
I just cannot believe Newt’s legal divorces are make-or-break under these circumstances.
We all know divorces are ugly.
Look at the sealed facts Obama got released about his potential political opponent and a movie actress.
“Shall we try to kill him quickly, or will it be more damaging to let him stew in his own juices for five days?”
“Newt: Threat, or menace?”
The civil war rages on.
If it’s just more of the same (as Allah speculates) then I wouldn’t expect much impact, and I also think that ABC will have a little egg on its face for hyping it so much. However, notice that the interview is also described as a ‘confession’. And I doubt that Marianne would think that revelations of any kind of sleaze (whether it’s further adultery or even drugs) would be a one-interview career ender. I believe that she will claim that they were involved in criminal wrongdoing (maybe taking bribes, maybe something else). But unless she has hard evidence, I’m not sure people will believe her.
Anyway, if it’s two hours long and people actually watch it, it could leave quite a mark even without substantiated charges.
Slick was married, President, living in the Whitehouse, working and getting a hummer from Monica, and has a long list of indiscretions. He also lied to a Grand Jury Investigation and was found guilty. He was re-elected President and defended and given a pass by the MSM. Don’t want to hear any liberal wacho pushback about Newt!!
Yeah, we know Clinton was bad. But just because he more or less got away with it doesn’t mean we should lower the bar for our own candidates.
@bbartlog: I am in 100% agreement with you, sorry if I gave the wrong impression. My point was more oriented towards Democrats and the MSM. I do not know the whole Newt story but I am guessing not good. I am also guessing Newt won’t be the nominee. Thanks for calling me out on this one.
GOOD, we could use a president into group sex at nudist camps as long as all were drug free (no cocaine); otherwise woman, “Bring it on!”.
What a transparent piece of crap. Considering the same media, with GOP establisment’s blessing, has already anointed Romney, why would they consider “holding” any such info. Do any in the media believe that Newt will usurp Romney, what with the powers that be are behind him? Or even their parroted and outdated poll numbers? Or even that Romney’s has – to this moment – won only ONE primary, one caucus and two states?
This is BS, planted sans any documentation, merely to influence the SC vote. Pure and simple. They are desperate to crown Romney after Saturday, and figure they can “hint” at some unknown ancient scandal. Me? Holding out for the anyone-but-Romney candidate that can emerge post these original primaries.
Speaking of.. why aren’t they hot on the trail of Romney, overtly reluctant to release his tax returns? Right… they just want to save that crap for the general.
This is so obvious that it’s downright embarrassing to even appear in the MSM.
Newt’s already screwed having had 2 divorces and confirmed infidelities Maybe this will help ultimate “family values” conservative candidate Santorum be a legitimate alternative to Mitt.
@MataHarley: Well, they’ve decided to air it tomorrow night. Whatever they’re doing, it doesn’t look like it’s going to be sitting on the video and making people wonder what’s in it.
Saint Francis of Assisi is a Democrat or he’s another of those hypocritical Idiot-Crats trying to keep us freedom patriots contained in their self designed Skinner Boxes. Sorry Mr. Constraint many of us Conservatives live well out of those little boxes you “Oh So Holy” Crats try to keep us pinned down inside. Divorce is not against the law but possessing and using unprescribed amounts of cocaine is against the law. Many coke blow-heads use – use – use never falling apart needing NA 12-Step drug rehabilitation and common sense dictates this White House no longer is virgin territory to coke-heads drawing lines then snorting hits. There are testing labs that perform case-by-case pre-employment urine tests to dedact drug usage but none of these services have been employed by O’BongPipe.
A news flash from THE EX WIFE??? Ha ha ha……Let me tell you about my ex, he’s a real jerk, how long have you got?
No surprise, bbartlog. I figure the entire purpose is to prevent any Newt momentum in SC, to benefit Romney… the perfect (as they will portray him) evil, soul’less, heartless capitalist as an Obama opponent. Personally, whatever it is, I don’t care. And considering Clinton’s behavior in the WH, it’s hypocritical for the lib/progs to care either. They’ll merely use it as a tool to shame the conservative “family values trump all” types. It’s a divide and conquer ploy, all to benefit Mittens.
Oh give it a breaK, rich. Divorce isn’t the equivalent of murder, embezzlement etc. It’s commonplace these days. So you may try to herd the hard nosed “family values” types that may care about this… few as they may be in this day and age. But it’s all lib/prog hype merely to boost Mittens, your favorite adversary.
The professor at Legal Insurrection pointed out one of Romney’s advisors is in tight with Drudge and its not to far of leap to land on Team Romney using Drudge to influence ABC to release it “early” due to possibly being scooped with information that is already out there. The “civil war” pap is a joke. ABC had every intention of running it before the S.C. primary. They are faking some internal strife to be able to claim some type of ethical consciousness. Romney’s coronation will not be denied!
Unethical? These dirty tricks couldn’t happen to a more ethical man…lol.
Something for nothing does not exist, in nature or in human affairs.
Who is paying Marianne?
Is it George Soros (or his designated surrogates)?
Is it Mitt Romney (or his designated surrogates)?
She is not doing this for free, any more than the “witnesses” who came forth against Mr Cain did so for free. Any more than the divorce records of Tim Ryan were suddenly unsealed for free. These things do not happen by accident. Someone is “taken care of” to get this stuff out in public.
My presumption is that King Putt already has the means whereby to destroy Romney. The cabal of Chicago thugs has done their opposition research; they have their sources and their files; the greatest mudfest ever will come forth from “the Campaign” once Romney is nominated. Remember what happened to Herman Cain.
Therefore all putative opponents of Romney must be destroyed first.
Remember: our #1 narcissist knows how to destroy his opponents. The only track record he has is in sabotaging those who run against him. Ask any previous opponent.
Well, this explains a lot. If Gingrich is considering having Sarah anywhere near DC, the MSM will do everything in its power to crush him.
I’ll say it again, I am disgusted with the GOP field. If McCain hadn’t chosen Palin, I would have written someone else’s name in for prez. That’s where I stand right now. Since 3 out of 4 State that voted for Obama are about to choose our nominee, there better be one kick-a$$ VP. And if they had any sense, they would be doing what Dubya did and start saying who their advisers are.
@mathman:
This struck me as rather cold for a mother, who has two daughters out there campaigning for their father, to possibly ruin h relationship with her daughters to do what? Get even? Add her mark to this country’s future?
As far as who is destroying who, the Chicago pattern allows for anyone opposing Obama to be destroyed, at whatever stage of the process necessary. Destruction alleviates the threat of competition.
Well, the daughters are going to handle the press issues on this, probably isn’t what Marianne or Brian Ross hoped for.
Missy, this was Marianne, Wife Number Two, who was interviewed. The daughters came from marriage number one. The first wife has not spoken out against Newt.
I’m hoping the daughters do carry the day, but I’m sure the LSM will try their best to take Newt out for Dear Leader’s sake.
You know, I’m back and forth on Newt almost daily. If anything, this maneuver means someone out there thinks Romney may not be so inevitable after all, which makes me swing, once again toward Newt.
I really don’t give two cents about the sex life of somebody else, my concern remains that Newt is still a Neo-Federalist who won’t do anything to promote personal liberty or shrink the national hemorrhoid that is the federal government.
Man this is entertaining. Where is the Tea Party? Where are they? Is this their guy? Or is it Bachmann? Or Perry?
The Republican Party fooled all of you with their talk of “limited Government” back in 2010 and now their foisting on us the likes of Newt, Mitt, Cain, etc.
Total bullship. This two-party dog-and-pony show is laughable.
@oldone:
You are right, I got them mixed up. His daughters are well spoken and aren’t intimidated from the couple of interviews I’ve seen the do. If this latest issue was serious, I doubt it would be passed to the daughters to handle. I’m sure Newt already knows exactly what she is going to say.
THE Soothsayer
you said my word yes BRING IT ON,
SHE IS THE EX, NOT HIS WIFE. THE FACT IS SHE SHOULD HAVE TRY TO KEEP HIM,
SHE FAILED, NOW SHE JUST HAVE TO LET GO, AND FIND ANOTHER ONE,
WHATEVER SHE SAY AGAINST HIM IF SHE DOES, IS HER LOST ALONE, HE WON’T COME BACK TO HER.
MISSY hi, nice to have you back.
@mathman: It isn’t “da won” that is so cleaver and devious — please do not give the SOB that much credit — it IS the rabid Internationalist bolshevik / moo-slime cabal that is behind him — and that reaches far beyond Chicago — and the shores of this country
Early excerpts don’t suggest anything terribly surprising. Newt wanted an open marriage… how is that much different than his already-known suggestion to Marianne that she should just tolerate his affair? If that’s all they have then I expect that the votes lost due to people being reminded of his character will be more or less balanced out by the votes of those who are pissed off at ABC trying to manipulate the SC primary outcome.
MARRIAGE IS SACRED AND BETWEEN THE BOTH OF THEM THERE IS A CODE OF SILENCE NEVER TO BE BROKEN; EXCEPT IF ONE OF THE TWO, RAPE THE OTHER WITHOUT CONSENT, OR BEAT THE OTHER WITHOUT CONSENT OR FAIL TO FEED AND PAY THE EXPANSES OF THE HOME WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE OTHER, OR KEEP THE OTHER HOSTAGE IN THE HOUSE, WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE OTHER.
Bees #27 Beautiful- Great laugh to start the day as I watch Rick Perry say– bye
Mata #14 I’m a bit suprised you are so dismissive of “the hard nosed family value types ” in your party.These Social Conservs. are a major reason I’m a Dem.
ah… there’s nothing worse than a mistress scorned for a new mistress…LOL Marianne, the first “other woman”, wants to whine about Newt’s latest other woman?
Cue the violins.
Funny, she did a big interview with Esquire in 2010… no bombshells there. Just the intimate scrutiny of a man who always had lofty goals, achieved success, but was always treated as an outsider by the beltway, and has his own demons and battles to fight. All humans do.
Just as corporate raiding is legal, so are divorces. Many may consider both these activities as flawed character traits. If my choice was based in comparing the ethics of these two character flaws, I’d choose the man with the divorces over the corporate raider. At least his character flaws were confined to immediate family/mistress circles while the corporate raider may destroy the thousands of lives of those he’s never met.
But there’s four left standing. Thus far, the anointed one has only won NH. Santorum won the IA caucus, which doesn’t allocate delegates. We’ll have to see with SC, but it looks like there’s a movement out there that is determined to ensure it’s only a race between Romney, Paul and Santorum.
If this drops Newt down in the polls, it will be the third time he’s been declared politically dead… yet he still keeps coming back, and never says never. In the long run, either the establishment will win out and stage the Romney coronation as planned, or the anyone-but-Romney distaste remains strong enough to buck Romney, and install someone else. But they will learn that squashing Newt won’t be as easy as it was with Cain.
MATA
hi
NEWT had another STANDING OVATION, HE IS THE ONLY ONE
WHO CAN ACHIEVE TO HAVE THOSE TWO STANDING OVATION, CAN YOU SEE THE LAST STANDING OVATION HE SHOULD HAVE DEBATING AGAINST OBAMA,
IT WOULD BE A WORLD WIDE STANDING OVATION THE BIGGEST EVER.
THE ONE EVERYONE WISH FOR,
America has much larger problems than what Newt’s Ex-Wife might have to say. Given 50% divorce rate in our country, gay marriage, and infidelity in the Whitehouse, I would say no one or political party has a moral high ground. Especially the amoral MSM. I would suggest America and especially our media focus on our problems such as unemployment, our national debt, scandals in the Whitehouse, failure of 0-bamacare as the answer to our healthcare, and our economy. These are issues have impact on all Americans and which 0-bama promised to make better but has failed. Sadly Democrats along with the MSM will do anything and everything versus focus on the real issues. Pathetic!!
This blanket perception of each party isn’t something I subscribe to, rich. Not all Democrats/liberals are die hard progressives like their leadership, and not all Republican/conservatives make all their decisions based on social issues such as abortions… i.e. “family values”. You have overt communists and Marxists in your party, and the Republicans find themselves the home to equally despicable types like the KKK and skinheads.
My point? Both are a potpourri of individuals… some likeable, some not. But no two are alike. That you allow a segment of the Republican party to dictate your voting registration, while pretending to celebrate “diversity”, is somewhat sad.
I don’t dismiss the correct observation by the family values voters that the family core this nation used to honor is being triaged down in import. Certainly there are families left, but even they rarely have the family dinners, vacations, and family time that was more prevalent in the past. Our family used to gather in front of the TV to watch various shows together… Disney’s Wonderful World of Color, etc. That’s not likely to happen today. All the kids have their own TVs in their rooms, or their noses are down, furiously tweeting, or spend endless hours in the gaming world.
But Congress and a POTUS cannot regulate human behavior, or mandate a return to old family values. Yes, public school curriculum and education can contribute to that laissez faire attitude towards a traditional family, but they follow along behind the culture that is presented via the entertainment world of films and TV. Most of the controversial issues start first in the streets with demonstrations and demands of focus groups, not in the halls of Congress.
Divorces used to be frowned upon decades ago… whether you were Catholic or not. Then the boomers came to town, and divorce and a more flamboyant lifestyle became more acceptable. While Congress and a POTUS may respond with federal benefits that reflect this cultural change, I don’t consider central government the initial driver of cultural change. But I’m sure that many with family values here will disagree… the beauty of the nation. Individuals and their rights to hold their own beliefs.
But today’s economic reality may dictate that even family values is too much a luxury demand of a candidate, if that candidate isn’t also convincing in plans to return to a nation that encourages entrepreneurship and is fiscally responsible.
BTW, hasn’t anyone noticed that this is not only convenient distraction for SC’s primary, but is likely to wipe out all interest in Obama killing the Keystone Pipeline jobs?
Of course, the admin will be blaming it on Nebraska’s governor… but considering the general cavalier approach of the central government towards eminent domain, only the truly ignorant will buy that excuse.
@MataHarley:
Or, the doublespeak he has going on with Valerie’s Iran.
http://www.mehrnews.com/en/newsdetail.aspx?NewsID=1513259
Mata I celebrate diversity but not when it comes to allowing govt. to dictate what is acceptable in the bedroom or between consenting adults.I don’t believe govt. should have a say in what adults read or watch or put in their bodies. Certainly govt. should not have any say in our religious beliefs or declare OUR nations religion.
I’ll amend my #29 to say the evangelical,too often hypocritical,right is not the reason I’m a Dem.(described at length in other posts),but it is the MAJOR reason I’m not a Repub.
Even though I can’t vote, I was helping Michele Bachmann. Its the North Dakota influence and the pipeline.
My mom who resides in Dallas was helping Perry. She can vote and is disappointed that Perry is throwing in the towel.
My employees are split between Newt and Santorum. The pipeline is a no show and so am I. North Dakota needs that pipeline or their boom is curtailed or possibly finished.
I see Nazi tactics from the WH and MSM. ” They came for the rich and I could care less. Then they came for me.” Its divide and conquer. Hitler got rid of Roehm of SA( brown shirts). Von Fritz and Blomberg( chief of staff and army commander) were cashiered by Hitler. All three were blamed for homosexual and infidelity escapades. Roehm was executed. Destroy your political opponents. History repeats itself. The WH is desperate and will stop at nothing.
@Richard
However Newt and Rick Sanatorium (sic) wants to dictate to you in your and all Americans in their bedrooms but do what they like in their own lives and bedrooms. Breath-taking shameless hyprocrites. Let’s hope Bill Clinton is enjoying Newt getting his just desserts.
I’m sorry rich, but are you under the impression that conservatives *want* the central government in our bedrooms? Or that we want them to ban reading material, or dictate religious beliefs? If you do have that impression, you’ve been spending too much time on Obama’s site, HuffPo or DailyKOs. Because conservatives want exactly the opposite.
As far as what is put in our bodies… I certainly think there is a case to be made for minimal health/safety standards for food and drugs. And if you want recreational drugs legalized, then you should be a Ron Paul supporter… he’ll give you lots of tax income for that.
@Missy, always nice to see you back here. Can’t say as I’m surprised at Obama doublespeak/fence straddling. It’s a art that he, and Mittens, have mastered. Debates between those two would result in a few hours of learning… well… nothing. Just competing “soaring rhetoric” and platitudes.
@GaffaUK:
Just desserts? You do realize it was perjury and obstruction of justice that did Clinton in, not the sex.
What the heck are you talking about? Marriage/civil unions is not about prohibiting same sex activities. It’s all about how to dole out federal monetary benefits. Frankly, I wish the central government were completely out of the marriage definition game… traditional or same sex. When there’s no benefits to fight for, the issue goes away. In the past ages, people weren’t required to get marriage licenses for a religious based ritual. Why now? Because the feds have used that as a ticket for financial handouts.
In reality, for the central government, it’s less about morality than it is about money. Individuals may have their own personal preferences, but no conservative wants the federal government to dictate what any one may do in the privacy of their own home for sexual activity. What a bogus red herring.
It’s the same for abortion. Individuals are all over the map in personal beliefs. A Gallup poll last summer showed that a hefty majority of responders supported some limitations on abortions… i.e parental consent for minors, advising girls of the risks involved, no partial birth abortions, a 24 hour cooling off period before the abortions are performed, etc.
As far as legality, 62% wanted first trimester abortions legal, and the later in the pregnancy term, the support goes down. Needless to say, if you use the polls and general acclimation to abortion over the decades, only a minority are demanding a repeal of Roe v Wade… which isn’t likely to happen anyway.
What’s not so high in approval is federal funds for abortions. In other words, the majority of American aren’t likely to get up in arms if the next door neighbor chooses to get an abortion, but they don’t want their tax dollars paying for it. And that is the quintessential conservative stance…. get the federal government out of this crap.
None of the above issues has jack to do what what is being done in the privacy of anyone’s bedrooms. Therefore the leaps you take to assume skewed logic where none exists is what’s “breath-taking shamless”.
@MataHarley:
I’m not looking forward to have hubby come home tonight, he’s going to be spitting nails over this nonsense. I try to keep him calmed down, I tell him it will be all over with before we get to vote in the primaries anyway, if it’s Romney, I will probably have to live in the other house.
If you assert “MAJOR reason I am not a Repub” which asserts that there be other reasoning giving concern that that there must be an alternative. Social Network blogs use various political term identifiers; some being, “Very Conservative, Conservative, Liberal, Very Liberal, Other Point Of View”. They never use Racist- Affirmative Action, Socialists, Occupy, Democrat, Progressive, PETA, Rosie O’donnell, Union-Labor, Communist, Welfare-Abortion which are better identifiers so as to improve someone’s place and argumentability. Allow me to interject terms “Jacobin, Cretin, Superiorist” as accurate indicators of Left-Wing stupidity. There are those that openly wear “I Love Animals” or “I Want Clean Air” buttons like that stup loves animals or a clean environment more than me. I recommend continue living in grannie’s basement til she throws you out.
IT happened to my niece, she was married just a few years, she helped him and hire a secretary to help him,
while she was also working, then she caught him,by surprising him one day, she came crying and we talked,
she went back to talk trying to save her marriage, he wanted to stay married and ask to keep his mistress, she said noway, get out now, he left, she start to cut all his pants and threw out all the clothes with the pants down from the second floor of his mother house they where living in, ask the mother to call him to get his clothes, that’s the end, her boss took her on a trip around the world, it help her to heal.
she never saw him after,
edit; the moral of the story, watch where your pants are always
@MataHarley:
It is never surprising that a non-conservative does not know or understand what conservatism truly is. In my view, liberals tend to view conservatism as originating from the government and extending to the individual, and limiting the individual by use of the government. The opposite is, in fact, the truth. We desire, as individuals, conservatism originate from the individuals, and extended to the government, to limit government in their control/effect on the individual. In other words, the core value of conservatism is to conserve the individual’s liberty and freedom.
And when liberals make this mistake, they tend to assign positions on issues to conservatives that we just don’t have.
Liberals, on the other hand, tend to be all over the map when it comes to an individual’s liberty and freedom. They want government out of individual’s bedrooms, out of women’s bodies, or away from people’s vices, and at the same time, they want government to control our money, dictate what foods we can eat, control what firearms we can own/buy, dictate what we can build on our property, influence what kind of vehicle we should have, control our media content, control how our workplace is organized, etc.
People like Rich do not understand what a true conservative is and what they stand for. Instead, they listen to what others tell them constitutes a conservative, and so the “evangelical” who wants to “outlaw” homosexualism gets labeled a conservative, and the result is that anytime someone like Rich hears about conservatism, he thinks of that person as a homophobic biggot.
The definition of what constitutes a conservative then is changed to something that is completely different from the truth.
MISSY
how smart of you to have 2 houses, when things get hot, one move out
just until it cools , great idea, better than accusations to destroy one reputation, which is the lowest action to do in a couple’s life
bye
@johngalt: Welcome back. I was wondering you have been. What it boils down to is conservative=everything bad and liberal=everything good.
Perry is out and endorses Newt. Mitt leads Newt in S Carolina by 1.5 %( 2 polls from Real Clear Politics) and will tighten some more. What are the nazis( small case) in the WH and MSM going to do? In another poll the precedent has slipped nationally. I know that national polls are irrelevant as of today. Plenty of intrigue coming up. Lots of fun watching this gong show.
I watched Newt blow a hole in the Dem race card this morning on NBC. Newt might just win S. Carolina.
@another vet:
I stated on another topic that I have been away due to college football season. I have an addiction to it and during the season, little else can hold my attention.
You have boiled down the liberal views on conservatism/liberalism to it’s result. I was explaining the reason why the result is what it is. The real question is, for liberals, that if you are completely wrong about what constitutes conservatism, then what else are you wrong about concerning politics?
I will wait patiently for Rich to admit to being wrong on conservative values. I realize I will wait a long time for it, but I’ll wait nonetheless because I like him.
@Richard Wheeler: I don’t know how you can believe what you say and be a democrat. The reasons you cited, along with some others, are the main reasons I gave up on them long ago. Every time you turn around they want to regulate, tax, or dictate everything we do. If you really believed what you say, you would a Libertarian.
@johngalt: I can’t say I follow sports that much other than the Black Hawks. As for college football, if I were to follow it and root for a team it would be ASU. Getting back on topic, it’s funny how long ago conservatives of today would have been considered liberals and the liberals of today conservatives. It would be hard imagining someone with modern liberal views supporting the Revolution and not the king since the king represented big government.
Mata and John Galt I am referring to the self proclaimed Social Conservatives in the Republican Party. Am I to believe “true” Conservatives disown many of their beliefs discussed above.
Soothsayer I’m one of those “superiorists” living large in San Clemente Cal. When do you expect to graduate from high school?
Semper Fi Enjoy the debates and Mrs.Newt 2 of 3
Another Vet and John Galt. I certainly hold many Libertarian beliefs. I also hold many Conservative values.
I OPPOSE the Social Conservs/Evangelical right wing of the Republican Party.
One of the classy things Rick Perry noted when he announced his suspending his candidacy this AM was how Christians (like him) forgive those (like Newt Gingrich) who have sought repentance and turned their lives around.
Newt Gingrich has made a point of his faith and the effect it is having on his life in recent years.
We need to keep perspective.
There is only one unforgivable sin: the spitting on the value of the sacrifice of the life of God’s only son in our behalf.
(Does anyone recall Bill Clinton saying he had experienced a Paul-on-the-road-to-Damascus moment?)
@another vet and @johngalt, it seems rich is suffering from a honest identity problem, exasperated by erroneous presentation of labels. Maybe there’s hope for him yet. :0)
@oil guy from Alberta, your comment drive me to the latest poll round up on RCP. Yoouza…. what a difference a debate makes.
Out of the five polls, Newt is leading in three of them, from 2-6 points. One poll, the NBC/Marist, is over two days… one of them the day of the debate. So I discount it’s Romney 10 point lead as being dated, in light of the serious bump. All but that one were post Monday’s debate, but pre Perry’s exit.
The other poll, the Tarrace Group for Politico, was really interesting reading. Romney is up over Newt by 7 points… the only post debate poll where he is.
But some things about that one I really found fascinating. First, only 9% of those participants were under the age of 45. Needless to say, that would be why the question as to which candidate they could *never* support turned out to be Ron Paul… 35% said never never never.
The other weird thing is that they say that Romney was up 7 points, but the first question asked was if the vote were held today, who would it be? Romney was only at 31%, with Newt nipping at his butt with 29%. Uh.. where’s the 7 point spread??? sigh… I guess the name “Politico” on that poll might be the explanation of number manipulations, yes?
Newt too highest in the “strong” favorability/impression category – 40% to Romney’s 36%. But when you combined “strong” and “somewhat strong” together, Newt was 63% to Romney’s 69%.
“Definite” votes have Romney and Gingrich 1 point apart, with 23% firmly in the Romney camp to 22% firmly in Newts.
When it came to “who’s your second choice”, Newt was the highest with 23%, and Santorum right behind him at 22%. Romney was the second choice for only 19%, barely clearing Perry’s 18%.
87% of all the responders have watched all, most or some of the debates. 14% didn’t watch any. 92% of the responders described themselves as either very conservative, or somewhat conservative.
It’s one more thing that makes me believe that the bulk of Ron Paul supporters are young, and the older the voter gets, the less likely they are to support RP. So now I’m seriously pondering the idea that a RP 3rd party run may do some considerable damage to Obama.
But one thing is for sure… unless Marianne Gingrich genuinely has some new bomb, the field is narrowing, the Romney expectations need to be lowered in light of a possible loss in SC, plus the new recount loss in IA, and there’s actually a horse race for a change.
@Richard Wheeler:
A true conservative, like I said, wants to “conserve” the individual’s liberties and freedoms by limiting government intrusion into the individual’s life.
The term “social conservative” is a term liberals use liberally to envelope all conservatives and thus, identify and isolate the “enemy” as they see it.
For example, a true conservative, while possibly being against abortion, for whatever reason, does not “want” government to intrude upon a woman’s body.
For another example, a true conservative, while possibly being against homosexual marriage, does not wish for the government to legislate, one way or the other, what people can do in the privacy of their own homes, nor what people consider their “relationship” with their significant other.
The idea is that conservatism is for limiting the government’s intrusion into the individual’s life.
Liberals, though, pick and choose, and are inconsistent, on how they want government control over people’s lives. How can you support politicians who want government to stay out of people’s sexuality in their homes, but yet, want government to control how we go about protecting that home. How can you support politicians who want government to stay away from legislating anything about a woman’s body, but yet, want government to control our salt intake. Those politicians you support are inconsistent in how they view government intrusion in the individual’s lives.
Well dang, rich… I (all caps) *oppose* your Marxist-socialist-communist wing of the Dems just as strongly. That doesn’t mean I think everyone in the Dems fits that definition. If they did, a Blue Dog would just be a canine who accidentally got caught in the paint booth….
I don’t know what a “true” conservative is, or a “real” conservative… as some of the RP supporters love to label themselves. What I do know is that the evangelical wing of the GOP… those you apparently detest to an abnormally emotional degree… apparently don’t seem to be as lockstep as you portray.
For example, the Tarrance/Politico poll above that I cited data from? More of the Christian evangelicals were supporting Newt over the more obvious choice of Santorum. This lends some credibility to my observation that “family values” may be too much a luxury demand of a candidate, if that candidate isn’t convincing he can adequately address the economic woes we face.
@ilovebeeswarzone:
I was just kidding. I could never leave him, all he knows how to cook is Kraft Macaroni & Cheese and microwave food and who would do his laundry? Besides, nothing ever gets hot aqround here. lol
@MataHarley:
Mata, thanks for linking to the raw Tarrace Group poll for Politico.
Again, LIKELY Republican Primary voters in South Carolina only pick Ron Paul in the single digits!
But there are still on line polls where all one has to do is leave the page and/or refresh the page and they can vote again and again.
I didn’t realize that when I first voted there.
But the Ron Paul vote tally of over 87% clued me in.
I tried refreshing the page and, sure enough, I could vote over and over….if I were childish.
Tells you why so few on line polls are being used anymore.
CNN will probably have one.
After the Fox debate a Twitter ”vote” (which easily can be gamed) showed Ron Paul the biggest winner.
LOL!
John Galt I am against Govt. intrusion into our INDIVIDUAL lives and appreciate your explanation of true Conservatism.Certainly this is NOT the Republican Party as we know it. You say libs made up Social Conservs. What do You call those within Repub. Party discussed above?
Missy
hi,
we have to find a way to heat up the place for you to stay warm and him to get hot,
don’t show this comment to him
bye
EDIT, starve him, get him dirty.
EDIT; attack him
Richard Wheeler
those are a secret group of CONSERVATIVES, JUST LIKE THE KNIGHTS OF THE ROUND TABLE, NOT TO MESS WITH.
BYE
Looks like I’ll be gaming Newt releases all day and I’ll watch the CNN debate tonight.
Newt just derided the Bamster trip to the Magic Kingdom where part of Main Street will be shut down. Nothing new here for America. I can’t wait for the announcement of the two new czars, Mickey Mouse to his right and Goofy to his left.
Now whats going to happen with the Marianne fallout?
Instead of “Superiorist” from San Clemente allow me to suggest the definitrion of “cretin” as used by Christopher Hitchens “unteachable”. There is “cretinism” which is a born retardation different from being cretin which is a cognative act of being educationally stuck or stubborn. My modern education includes Pravda, India Times, UK Telegraph, NY Sun, Daily Mail, Question Time to the Prime Minister (sans Meryl Streep), and deep digs into relevant history. The Occupy Movement, for a case comparison, has some, not complete, origins dated back to Ancient Rome when slaves tried to get title and better returns for their labour by controlling the farm estates of their masters. They promised to pay taxes and share profits with the owners. Many modern Howard Zinn schooled historians love the “Jacobins” never explaining that that mob of radicals were tools and pawns for the elite lawyer bourgoise class of lawyers conniving to usurp control (sounds familiar). I plan to use and hope to spread equating “Jacobin” with “Democrat”.
oil guy from ALBERTA
HI,
WHAT’s going to happen to NEWT? I think he will have the WOMEN VOTING FOR HIM,
they will sympathize for him
and the men will vote for him, they will sympathize with him
bye
THE SOOTHSAYER
hi,
yes that’s more knowledge than the sad clemancy, except for his football kicking here
bye
His daughters act Like they are the only family in the U.S. that has been involved in a divorce . Sorry girls you are not that special. I think this may help Newt. How many men have gotten divorced and have a bit$ h for an ex wife? They will empathize with him.
BTW I am a woman.
I may not be johngalt, rich, but I already answered your last sentence/question. There are those in the Republican party, or conservatives, that are evangelical in their politics. They are not the entire party. Which brings me to your first sentence….
Correction… it most certainly IS the Republican party as we know. It’s just not the Republican party as YOU know it because you’ve bought into the incorrect redefinition, conveniently provided to you by the lib/progs. It never was just evangelical Christians. And no conservatives (including evangelical Christians) have ever advocated for government intrusion in the bedrooms.
My guess, on the Republican side, nothing, oil guy. But you can bet your bippie that the Dems will try to explode this, and attempt to make someone care. Of course, considering the behavior of their idols, Clinton and JFK, that ain’t gonna fly too well. Are they going to criticize Newt’s morality, when they’ve spent their lives standing up for both Clinton and JFK’s affairs as none of the public’s business? They can only hope to paint the word, hypocrisy, across the forehead of the Republican Party. But as I’ve pointed out, even for evangelicals… who are aware than man is flawed, and believe in redemption and forgiveness… consider economics are trumping the heinous crime of divorce.
Marianne will get her 15 minutes of fame, then flame out.
MATA THE BLUE DOG CAUGHT IN A CAN OF PAINT,
THAT WAS FUNNY.
Mata J.G.’S description of true Conservatism bears little resemblance to the Republican Party. I believe many here at F.A. would agree. The powerful invasive pressence of the evangelicals in the Repub.Party pales any influence your so called “Marxist/socialist/commie wing” of the Dem. Party may wield..
DISENCHANTED #67 Marrianne tells Newt. Sorry dear we can’t stay married if you continue to f— your mistress.What a bitch.
Gosh darn, rich. For a normally bright guy, even if of the opposition in political beliefs, you’re kinda slow on the uptake here, aren’t you?
Aren’t you confusing the citizens that vote, register or lean conservative with what the establishment Republican political party gives us to choose from in an election? Have we not complained about Bush’s domestic policies and spending? The choice of McCain? The pressure to accept Romney as the chosen one? Much of this has to do with focus groups paying for polls (which influence herd mentality voters), a media that highlights negatives of those they don’t like, and bolstering pathetic creds of those they do.
Some people don’t have the luxury of working at home, or having the time to gather well rounded knowledge on politics and agendas. Therefore, the “sound byte educated” are many and vast… in both parties. ‘scuse me, but you’re acting like one now.
Shall I judge you and all your peer Democrats that aren’t holding elected positions by Pelosi, Reid, Waters, Jackson Lee, and Kuchinich (just to name a few)?
And if you think that evangelical Christians… who are NOT advocating federal intrusion into the home and bedrooms, nor prohibiting same sex unions (not to be confused as to whether the feds will dole out money and benefits)… are worse than those attempting to change the founding principles of this nation as a republic, founded on capitalism into a Euro-socialist or communist welfare state, you are indeed further gone than I ever suspected.
I’m sorry, but isn’t this the same “bitch” that was carrying on an affair with a married Newt, and never gave it a second thought? If you became a wife after being a mistress (actually kind of unusual in itself…), can you honestly be credible feigning surprise when he does the same?
Cue the violins…..
Actually, what I find kind of amazing… and perhaps a statement on Newt’s related emotions… he’s married both of his mistresses, and has stayed with both for quite some time. Most of them usually never marry the “other woman”. Guess he actually cared.
Mata And whose fault that the Repub. Party gives you such poor choices and then waters down and directs the outcome to the Mac’s and the Mitt’s? WAIT—-THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
Why not the guts to start a true 3rd Party, The Conservative Party Over 50% of Americans describe themselves as Conservatives. Couldn’t possibly be less popular than 2 current Parties standing at 11% approval in Congress Thats ELEVEN PER CENT.
BTW I’d join if you leave evangelicals and friends with the Repubs.lol
Enjoyed your take in #72 The current “cared for” Mrs Newt must be keeping a close eye. EH
@Richard Wheeler: In the 112th Congress there are a grand total of 26 members of the Blue Dog Coalition. That means the overwhelming majority of Dems in Congress lean left. Are you trying to say that those 26 Blue Dogs have more clout with the Dems than the remaining lefties? Their push towards socialism/Marxism as evidenced by Obamacare, the government takeovers of private companies, the constant trumping of class warfare, and their blind support of OWS show otherwise. I’m not happy with the Republican Party but the statement that the left doesn’t control the Democrats defies reality. That is why they got their clock cleaned in 2010. I have voted for third party candidates in the past, mainly Libertarian. How about yourself?
ANOTHER VET Pox on the far left and far right evangelicals and social conservs.(or whatever you call them) A true 3rd Party is needed that represents what a majority of Americans want.
LABOR PARTY-USA
Richard Trumbka – President
James Hoffa – Vice President
@Richard Wheeler: Unfortunately that may not happen until the country goes bankrupt.
@Richard Wheeler
I’m in. But you need to understand Rich that this means some major deconstruction of government institutions.
Geeez, rich… you just dropped another couple notches in the “brighter than the average bear” category, dude. Puleeze. You’re dishing up fish in a barrel stuff here.
First of all, neither the Republican nat’t committees, or the voting base, has control over the choices. We can only deal with those that step forward to run of their own volition.
duh…
Secondly, the GOP campaign headquarters choose not conservative candidates, but those that emulate YOU.. which is why we, the voting base, generally aren’t enthusiastic.
Those that emulate you are, of course, just a Blue Dog Dem with an R behind their name. Meaning that all those heinous things you detest about the evangelical Christians aren’t even a factor. In fact, conservatism is so watered down that it looks like tri-washed liberalism. Hardly anything you can whine about with any legitimacy.
@Mata
In regards to sexuality – social conservatives like Gingrich & Santorum do clearly discriminate. If gay people cannot marry then that’s discrimination against homosexuality. Period.
Why did you marry? Did you marry only because of federal monetary benefits? lol
Talking of red herrings – you mix your views that central government should get out of the marriage definition game with the social conservatives. You know your proposal is never likely to happen. And that’s not something Gingrich and Santorum would agree to either. They do want to dictate who can marry based on their sexuality based on their own moral and idelogical reasons.
Newt Gingrich is a hypocrite because he bangs on about family values and he went after Clinton over it – and yet he a serial adulterer! Why trust someone who makes his moral values political but spectacularly fails to even bother to try to live up them. He used dirty tricks against his opponents and then cries foul when dirty tricks are used against him.
As for abortions – you know that what the majority want and what becomes law don’t always correlate. If it did then a lot more states in the US (and the UK as well) would have the death penalty. Instead we have people like Santorum saying that abortion should be illegal at any stage – including those victims of incest and rape! Voting for him gives him that mandate to put his screwed up policies into practise.
As for definitions of conservatism and liberalism and the roots of those expressions…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
So obviously the US have bastardise those terms since – but really the clue is in the name (or as you would say ‘duh’) – think CONSERVE and LIBERTY. There are plenty of US conservatives who want liberty (as long as it’s matches their values) and plenty of US Liberals who want the government to mandate everything. But basically conservatives want to go back to some golden age and liberals want to progress (although god knows where) – and both of these have aspects of utopias/dystopias – good and bad aspects – wrapped in political spin.
As for putting up with fringe wingnuts in a party – that’s a good point – except there is a big difference in putting up with them and actually voting for them. lol. So if you advocate Paul – a libertarian or social conservatives – Gingrich and Santorum – then you align yourself with their nutty fringe politics and values.
@Missy:
Missy – remind me why Gingrich resigned from being Speaker again? lol
@GaffaUK:
So sayeth the Great Gaffa. Please desist with further debate on gay marriage.
Here’s where you are wrong sir. As you may have heard before, your right to swing your fist end where my nose begins. Marriage is a traditional religious ceremony. Civil unions are recognized by the government, which is why the feds don’t care if it happens in a church or not. In this country, the two have become indistinguishable. My answer to this is if the government wants to keep their hands in who is united to whom, issue civil union licenses. The churches can include the marriage certificate. If a church wants to perform marriages for homosexual couples, it is their right. The problem with allowing gay marriage right now is that it would end up affecting the rights of churches.
Don’t say it can’t happen either. Right now there are many Catholic hospitals that may close because of the contraception and abortion language written into Obamacare. The left wants to destroy religion and religion ceremonies and you expect them to just take it. Or call them bigoted because they don’t follow your views.
@GaffaUK:
The Republicans lost five House seats in the election and his Speakership was being challenged by Rep. Livingston(who is now campaigning for him) and he did not think he had enough support in the House to ride it out.
It had nothing to do with his affair, those issues didn’t surface until much later….after he was well out of the House.
Mata You make my point professor(I see why you like Newt) If you consistantly don’t like who enters and emerges from Repub. process change parties. Or start a new Conservative Party.It’s been done before.
Re Newt. The man totally lacks the personality and charisma of Reagan.I believe Obama beats him fairly easily.Good news.You get Rubio in 2016.He’ll be tough to beat
@Aqua – show me indisputable evidence that the first marriage was religious? If marriage was only for the religious how come those who don’t believe in God (or whatever incredulous myths) can marry? I’m an atheist and I’m married. So your statement is patently false – now as it has been in history. You don’t need to go to a church to get married. You are confusing what you wish to be the case with reality.
@Missy
I didn’t say he resigned because he was an adulterer. That’s only one part of his hypocrisy when it comes to ethics.
Now I wonder why he lost five House Seat in the election and why his speakership was challenged?
Reckon this might have anything to to do with?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/012297.htm
So before Gingrich’s supporters starts throwing dirt, complaining about the ethics of his opponents and the media they should take a good long hard look at his ethics – or lack of. As I say – sheer hyprocrisy.
When sundry governments decided to tie marital status to central government handouts and benefits, what was once a religious rite… celebrated by uniting before God… became, you might say, akin to being in a tax bracket. Prior to that, those who were religious married before their Gods, and those who didn’t believe just communed together. Didn’t matter because there were no licenses necessary, no government hoops to jump thru, and nothing to be gained for any particular status. People just lived. Still do to this day… it’s called a common law marriage or relationships. But again, that’s all tied to legal benefits in the form of civil lawsuits in the event of divorce… not tax benefits. So “marriage” isn’t even necessary for that.
You are a product of a government benefit, and that’s why you’re married. If your government didn’t give you perks for your marital status, and you are an atheist, you and your wife would just skip the religious nuptials, live together and raise a family. (Assuming, of course, she felt comfortable you wouldn’t abscond with everything if you split up…) The various churches could care less if you’re not married before God since you don’t believe. What do you think they’d do? Paint a big red “A” on your shirt in these modern times?
Why reinvent the wheel, rich? Much more productive to switch the leadership to conservative leaders, and put the moderates (currently enjoying that position) back in the masses. We don’t need a Dem’lite party, which is all it is at the moment, based on the leadership. The reason they don’t get the blessing from the conservatives is because they refuse to recognize that the conservatives outnumber the moderates in the voting body.
But there is a dichotomy in agenda for a political party, and an ideology. As one pundit wisely (if not annoyingly) stated, the job of the Republican Party is to win elections, not push a conservative ideology. Thus they look for what they think they can slide thru indy’s and disgruntled Dems as a candidate.
I don’t consider that “winning”, myself. But that’s the mentality of the party’s tasks… to get party members into office. Trouble is, they do not place the ideology as high in import as the actual voting membership. But they’re figuring out that there’s a lot out there that aren’t pushovers any more.
What you know about American history wouldn’t fit in a thimble, Gaffa. Gee… wonder if the election issue of the Clinton impeachment… where the Republican party was portrayed as petty for the duration… had anything to do with losing seats? Naw… couldn’t be. The Ken Starr investigation had been ongoing and it was a big midterms election point. The House, however, didn’t want to officially impeach Clinton until after the election… not that it did them any good. They made the formal impeachment charges a couple of weeks before Newt resigned.
Newt was exonerated of all ethics charges. The sanctions are a financial penalty that is achieved by a vote in the House and was part of a agreement to put the issue at rest. The committee didn’t agree to the investigation’s findings of guilt, and so what was negotiated (instead of a long, drawn out fight in an election year) was the sanctions/penalty. Since the Dems had been beating up on the GOP over Clinton and Newt for a year, they figured if they politically lynched him, that would be the end of it and they’d look good… aka they wanted the scapegoat.
What you don’t know is that Newt was always an unpopular, but very effective Speaker. Many didn’t like him personally, and others didn’t like that he’d wheel and deal in compromise to get the best deal he could. Sarah Palin and Newt are very much alike that they were equally disdained by those in both parties because they worked to accomplish what they wanted, which sometimes included trade offs. Newt got the Dems to agree to the tax cuts and a balanced budget in exchange for children’s health insurance, for example. Oddly enough, this is exactly what most the lib/progs say they want now from a Congress – compromise – yet they demonize Palin and Gingrich for doing just that in their careers. AND doing it very well with positive results.
Between the Republicans, appearing petty over Clinton’s impeachment, and a Speaker who wasn’t guilty of the charges, but not liked enough for his turncoat party members to have his back, Newt resigned. But the loss of the seats is not an onus you can rightly place solely on Newt. The behavior of his cohorts, plus the charged impeachment era played mightily into that election loss for the GOP. I’m just surprised it was only five seats…
@GaffaUK:
Um……..no. I work around 60 hours a week and working on another degree. I do enough research thank you. I’ll give you some places to start though if you would like to look at it yourself. There are probably earlier references to unions, but Genesis 2:24 is a good start:
This is probably one of the oldest references, but there are some that date back around 4000 years to Mesopotamia. But all of these are still considered unions. The Romans are credited with the engagement/wedding ring. But these unions were contract unions between families and love was not really involved. The whole idea behind marriage as an act of love can be traced to the Roman Catholic Church and the Sacrament of Marriage. Pope Nicholas I declared in 866, “If the consent be lacking in a marriage, all other celebrations, even should the union be consummated, are rendered void.” This is the modern definition of marriage. I know…….you are probably puking all over you Christopher Hitchens PJs right now.
Then just prior to the signing of the Constitution in 1769, the American colonies based their laws on the English common law, which said, “By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in the law. The very being and legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated into that of her husband under whose wing and protection she performs everything.”
So, do some digging for yourself. I said earlier that I’m ok with civil unions.
@Mata & Aqua
So Mata doesn’t offer any evidence at all and Aqua tries but fails to find ‘ indisputable evidence that the first marriage was religious’, The reason is that marriage pre-dates recorded history. The Bible isn’t a reliable historical document, doesn’t reflect all cultures and the institution of marriage predates when the Bible was written! I’m not sure how your quote from Pope Nicholas I is relevant – that’s about consent – who on here is doubting that should be a prequisite for marriage? (although I’m sure plenty of people have been and continue to be married against their consent). None of this proves that marriage belongs only within religion.
See…
http://atheism.about.com/od/gaymarriage/a/MarriageCivil.htm
The fact is that what defines marriage and what must be done to be considered married varies throughout history and cultures. In the same way historically religion has played a big part in western art but that doesn’t mean all art is exclusively religious. What we can say that in the US, the UK and most western countries is that today marriage is not exclusively a religious rite. Therefore to say two gay people can’t marry because marriage is a religious institution is bogus. It’s a fig leaf for those who are homophobic and like social conservatives who want government to say who we can and cannot marry based on sexuality which runs counter to any claims they have to less government interference in our personal lives. People marry for lots of reasons – indeed in the UK a small minority of people don’t marry because they will lose financial benefits from the state!
And I’ll ask again – Mata Why did you marry? Did you marry only because of federal monetary benefits?
@Mata
Gee…I wonder if Newt had any part in Clinton impeachment?
Right so he’s innocent and yet he is fined and he pays$300,000! Why pay something if you are innocent? lol
So not only is Gingrich unpopular with his opponents – he’s unpopular with his colleagues! Hardly ingredients for a good president don’t you think? Just look at that vote again 395 to 28 votes. So not may of his fellow Republicans voted not to fine him did they? Of course it must be that the problem is them….and not his bad leadership skills. Or the old tactic of blaming the media. It’s okay for Gingrich to hound Clinton over infidelity -which included using the media – but when the tables are turned suddenly he’s outraged….lol…and his supporters fall for this bs? Now that’s hypocrisy.
GAFFAUK
what are you trying to insinuate and stain the reputation of NEWT,
WHAT IS YOUR POINT,
NEWT is not PRESIDENT AND CLINTON was adulterer while being PRESIDENT,
To Gaffa’s remarks:
Less Newt than DeLay, who was leading the charge. Since the Republicans were gung ho on the impeachment, Newt figured that it may help get more seats. However the Dems and a willing media, fawning over Clinton, spun the impeachment charges as all about sex, and nothing to do with a POTUS who committed perjury. The advantages of having a doting press. Thus it’s not hypocritical for any of the Congressional members (of either party) that have a penchant for having relationships with interns to go forth with impeachment. That would be like saying you and I each respectively have children out of wedlock, therefore I can’t prosecute you for lying to the social workers about beating yours.
Newt wasn’t around during the impeachment since he resigned less than two weeks after the impeachment charges were officially brought. However, as the soon to be gone Speaker, he warned the House members not to be personally inflammatory and disrespectful of the POTUS during the inquiry process.
Apparently you don’t know how reprimands and fines happen. Tried to explain this to you before, Gaffa… and it apparently whistled thru the ears and out the other side. All charges but one – that Newt claimed tax exempt status on a college course conducted for political purposes – were dropped. INRE the last charge, the House committee didn’t think Newt was guilty, in opposition to the investigator. Part of this stems from the documents itself, prepared by an attorney and not Newt. He agreed that he was responsible for any errors that the attorney may have made, thus the charges reflecting “intentional or reckless misreporting”. Clinton’s own IRS confirmed that there were no violations of federal tax law a year later.
The House, embroiled in a relentless ethics assault (not unlike Palin in Alaska), voted to reprimand Newt with a healthy fine to show they were tough on what was perceived as (and actually wasn’t) corruption within the pary. (Remember this was also during the time of the banking scandal, where members could overdraw their official checking accounts from the clearinghouse) As I explained, they didn’t like him anyway. Couldn’t stand that he would wheel and deal to get things thru, even tho they moved the Congress to the right. And some just didn’t like his personality.
As to why pay something if you are innocent? Well gee, Gaffa… let me think a minute. duh…. Why do many individuals and businesses settle out of court instead of dragging mud thru the courts? W Because the penalty/fine is less damaging and shorter term over all than the court mud that will be slung, and dragged out for years. It was an election season, after all. Newt fighting to prove his innocence (which only the IRS could ultimately decide) would have further dragged down the GOP.
Personally, I think the scum bags in the Republican party put their personal feelings above backing a colleague who did no wrong doing. But then when their political careers are at stake, loyalty flies out the window.
That is actually the best combination. One of the reasons that Newt was unpopular was because he would wheel and deal… aka COMPROMISE… with the Dem Senate and Dem POTUS. Under these same conditions, Newt led a reluctant House majority thru negotiations with a reluctant Dem Senate majority, and went head to head with Clinton. The two often hammered out problems on their own in private meetings. Someone has to find a middle ground that is not only successful in action, but is a bonus when it is more beneficial to your party’s platform. Newt did that.
When you have a partisan chamber and a stiff partisan arse in the WH (as we do now), nothing gets done. But this is exactly what Obama wants because his campaign for another term is based on two major themes… that the Republicans are evil, heartless, soul’less capitalist pigs that are killing the middle class, and the Republicans are creating a do-nothing Congress.
Obviously, if Obama and Reid – who lost their monopoly power to shove everything thru despite the Republicans in the 2010 midterms (a “Parliament” in your world) – start cooperating this year, that blows the do-nothing Congress strategy. Mittens is required to implement the first evil capitalist pig strategy.
I find it odd that so many Dems demand “compromise”, then criticize Newt for doing just that… albeit to the GOPs advantage most of the time. I don’t find it surprising that some Republican’s find compromise distasteful. Unless it’s a complete left-right chasm of beliefs, the only way to get anything done is to either seize all branches of power with substantial majorities (as the Obama/Pelosi/Reid years), or get a veto proof majority in both chambers to counter an opposition POTUS. Then you have the opportunity to throw compromises and negotiations out the window.
And I believe that Missy gave you a fine lesson in facts about the government shut downs. The Speaker of the House generally refrains from House debates, and voting. And since all required the willing participation of the House members who *did* vote, it would be impossible for Newt to single handedly shut down the federal government for the personal reasons you suggest.
Facts doth become quite inconvenient to your arguments, don’t they?
Gaffa, you attempting to pry into my personal life – an example of one individual – doesn’t change the fact that the only reason there is a definition of marriage by government is to assign and dole out benefits. But I’ll give you a hint… unlike you, I’m not an atheist. Additionally, which also supports my argument about government and benefits, and I also had a British husband.