Democrats & Liberals Archives

Attacks on Newt Begin?

Gingrich’s closet door fell off the hinges years ago and his skeletons sit there exposed for all to see. I honestly think this excites some Republicans. Finally, a front running candidate who’s skeletons won’t be exposed 2 months before Iowa! They may be disappointed at the latest news.

Here we go:

Bloomberg Businessweek is reporting that Newt Gingrich "made between $1.6 million and $1.8 million in consulting fees from two contracts with mortgage company Freddie Mac," and that his work didn't involve lobbying.

So just how would one go about taking down a man who leads some polls even though everybody knows how big of a liability his past is? Why, you connect the dots between Newt and The Big Lie. Simple.

The right has spent the last 4 years demonizing Fannie and Freddie and exaggerating their role in the economic collapse. Now how will they react to growing evidence that one of their front runners took large sums of money for services to one of them? Denial? Deflection? Will they even care? I guess we'll see.

But here we go again. The same pattern repeats. A candidate bubbles to the top only to be hammered by the facts of their past life or political connections. It's a bit tougher with a guy like Gingrich but it's possible just the same. Expect more whining and crying about media bias from Republicans. Yes, everything would be fine if the media would just stop reporting all these facts about their candidates!

Posted by Adam Ducker at November 16, 2011 12:28 PM
Comments
Comment #332076


Freddie said that Newt was paid to lobby the Republican Congress in an effort to prevent them from placing further regulations on the company.

Posted by: jlw at November 16, 2011 1:07 PM
Comment #332078

Newt is such a fraud. He’s a colossal liar. It’s hard to take him seriously. I always figured his running for president was a vanity candidacy, a way to keep appearing on tv programs and make money selling his connections, much like Cain’s candidacy was a way to sell books and increasing fees for speaking engagements. Who would have ever imagined even the most rabid right wingers would take these guys seriously?

Well, in a kind of awful way, these clowns are pretty entertaining.

Caught a few minutes of Limbaugh on the radio this morning. Pretty wild stuff. Apparently there’s a conspiracy to report lower unemployment numbers. Everything is the media’s fault. Reporting Newt’s ‘problems’ will ‘innoculate him’ with the general electorate, because all the problems will already be out there. Just crazy stuff, one thing after another. Is it any wonder the right wing cannot function? They are living in an alternate reality, and facts keep interfering.

Posted by: phx8 at November 16, 2011 2:17 PM
Comment #332080

“They are living in an alternate reality, and facts keep interfering. “

On unemployment numbers for sure. We see it with conservatives on this site as well on that topic especially. I love writing about BLS numbers every month but I get hammered by folks repeating the Limbaugh style rhetoric about the government lying to us. I’d like to think if they were lying to us they’d make the values add up to less than 9% unemployment. That’s just awful.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at November 16, 2011 2:31 PM
Comment #332082

When people realize just how loathsome Gringrich really is, the GOP anybody-but-Romney group, consisting of about 75% of all Republicans, will need to find yet another alternative. Huntsman seems like a reasonable, competent man, but apparently he’s too moderate and reasonable, so no one in the GOP gives him the time of day. The Romney camp thinks they will win this one early, by the Florida primary, and they may be right. Romney does poorly in small states where people can actually meet him, because he’s such a dislikable phony, but in large media markets he should do better. People in those states won’t meet him in person. They only see ads on tv, or hear them on radio, or read manufactured articles in the paper. But it’s got to be in the back of the GOP’s mind that Romney will not win. No matter how much money Romney raises and spends- and it will be enormous- too many Republicans will not pull the trigger in the voting booth for this flip-flopper, and the people at the top know it.

This must be galling, and I’m sure a lot of Republican movers and shakers are working on the problem behind the scenes. The presidency is there to be had. Obama is very beatable. A lot of money and power is at stake, yet the GOP cannot find something as simple as a competent, likeable candidate that doesn’t turn off the base.

I still wonder… How plausible would it be to launch a draft movement? How difficult would it be to find a unifying, competent candidate and draft them?

Posted by: phx8 at November 16, 2011 3:09 PM
Comment #332083

When I think draft I think Tim Pawlenty. I knew several conservatives in my circle that were excited about him but then he dropped out so quickly.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at November 16, 2011 3:22 PM
Comment #332084

I’ve heard Pawlenty’s name floated too, but he did so poorly early on… He was a relatively moderate governor who started trying to please the far right, and it was patently lame and unbelieveable. His debate performances were not exactly the stuff legend is made of either.

Posted by: phx8 at November 16, 2011 3:32 PM
Comment #332085

If the goal is to find someone that the left won’t personally attack in despicable fashion there is no one that can fit that bill. Mother Teresa could run and be accused of associating with the dregs of society, unworthy of the office…

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 16, 2011 3:44 PM
Comment #332086

So let me get this straight. A person, in private practice, is offered money for his opinion and he gives it. That’s the essence of the story, right? No detail on what his advice was (we know what Newt said it was, but I see that was left out of the ‘article’) and this makes him unfit for office apparently?

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 16, 2011 3:53 PM
Comment #332087

Rhinehold,
“If the goal is to find someone that the left won’t personally attack in despicable fashion there is no one that can fit that bill.”

No one from the left ever attacked Pawlenty. Cain was accused by four different women of sexual harassment. In two of those cases, nondisclosure agreements were signed, and payments made in exchange for silence. That’s not an attack. It’s just a matter of fact. Gingrich is on record attacking others for accepting money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and Gingrich claimed to have only received $300,000 from them, but he actually received at least $1.6 million. That’s not an attack. It’s just a matter of fact. Bachmann’s popularity collapsed when she wrongly claimed a vaccine was harmful, based upon a comment from someone in a crowd. That’s not an attack. It’s just a fact.

These people are running for the leadership of the free world. They are running for the office of President of the United States. Questions are fair. Bringing up facts are fair. It’s a necessary part of the process, and a good thing. Obsequious fawning might work for some, but personally, I think the process is doing exactly what it is supposed to do.

Posted by: phx8 at November 16, 2011 4:02 PM
Comment #332088

Except when it is a Democratic candidate, then any ‘facts’ (Adam first used the word attack, not me) are racist, sexist, ‘right wing conspiracy’, etc.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 16, 2011 4:07 PM
Comment #332089

BTW, where are the links to Newt being on record of attacking someone in private life accepting money from Fannie and Freddie? I had not seen these before now, perhaps that would have been relevant in this ‘article’, I would be very happy to see such, do you have them?

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 16, 2011 4:09 PM
Comment #332090

“…perhaps that would have been relevant in this ‘article’”

What’s up with the scare quotes?

Posted by: Adam Ducker at November 16, 2011 4:57 PM
Comment #332091

Rhinehold,
Here is a link to a closet with a whole host of Gingrich skeletons. The relevant articles you asked about are second-to-last and last.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/newt_gingrich/

These various skeletons are well documented and all over the web, not just on this site. This site does a nice job of putting it together in one place, but if that bothers you, google away.

Posted by: phx8 at November 16, 2011 4:59 PM
Comment #332092

“Mother Teresa could run and be accused of associating with the dregs of society, unworthy of the office…”

An attack like that would only work if the Republican voters consider poor people to be dregs of society. Oh wait, they do. Sounds like a perfect attack to me. Your side loathes poor people.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at November 16, 2011 5:00 PM
Comment #332094

Adam, Republicans do not hate poor people, they just don’t want to keep them poor like Democrats do.

Posted by: KAP at November 16, 2011 5:37 PM
Comment #332097

KAP: Yes, Republicans would love poor people to get rich and be part of the club. Until then it’s all cat food.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at November 16, 2011 6:22 PM
Comment #332099


Conservatives concern for the poor would be heart warming if it wasn’t really a concern about their own taxes.

Posted by: jlw at November 16, 2011 6:34 PM
Comment #332102

Adam, It’s called the American Dream to make something of ones self and not be a stuck to the government teat like you Democrats want.

Posted by: KAP at November 16, 2011 9:57 PM
Comment #332105
The relevant articles you asked about are second-to-last and last.

Ah, just as I thought, the attacks that Newt had made were with current politicians taking money from Freddie and Fannie, not private citizens working as advisors.

What’s up with the scare quotes?

They aren’t scare quotes, they are qualifiers.

Your side loathes poor people.

My side? Which side do you think that is exactly?

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 17, 2011 12:51 AM
Comment #332107

“My side? Which side do you think that is exactly?”

Just right wing thinking in general. It’s not a fair argument though since I don’t know you outside of a few interactions in recent days.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at November 17, 2011 8:19 AM
Comment #332109

Rhinehold-
You might want to do yourself a favor and step back from the martyr-complex arguments Republicans use. In their view, it’s always a sign of persecution by the media and the left they often argue has it in the bag that something negative gets said about these fellows.

It creates a bias of its own, though, where Democrats get hit harder for the same peccadillos, and Republicans get away with being dumber, crazier, and more extremist than Democrats ever could. In fact, that’s the point of crying “bias” all the time: to play the referees.

So you, ostensibly a Libertarian, are playing defense for these people.

More to the point, I believe full disclosure is important. If I’m not mistaken, Newt was pulling the standard Republican attack line about Fannie and Freddie, saying it should be investigated. Can you give me a good reason, then, why the fact that he was in their employ, making millions of dollars from them, is not an important fact?

If Republicans are going to hold Democrats to high standards on their sex lives, demonizing them for infidelity, sexual harrassment, and other such offenses, is it not only fair that Republicans, with their divorces, diaper-wearing, and sexual harrassment claims should receive equal scrutiny for their behavior?

If you seek to judge, you shall be judged as you have judged others. It’s simple fairness. If association with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be a problem for Barney Frank or Chris Dodd, why should Newt Gingrich get a pass?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 17, 2011 8:43 AM
Comment #332117
Just right wing thinking in general. It’s not a fair argument though since I don’t know you outside of a few interactions in recent days.

If you are interested, I have years of posts on this site that you could peruse to see what my views are, but to put it simply, I am a classic liberal in the sense that I believe in the protection of individual natural rights for all citizens and the ideal that citizens in the US were to be governed by a limited, focused federal government to protect those rights.

Basically, what the Democrat Party was before embracing the opposite view of positive rights and the authoritarian belief that there was something noble in using the force of the government to make people work for others.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 17, 2011 2:39 PM
Comment #332119
You might want to do yourself a favor and step back from the martyr-complex arguments Republicans use. In their view, it’s always a sign of persecution by the media and the left they often argue has it in the bag that something negative gets said about these fellows.

I think I will continue to point out the hypocrisy of both sides and speak out against personal persecution and the politics of personal destruction that both parties engage in. The fact that you see it as a ‘one side is guilty’ issue is an example of that…

For example, I never thought Weiner should have resigned or that his personal life was any business of anyone’s. Of course, I believe that for most people as well, which is why as a member of the ACLU I fight for all individuals from government spying into their lives or telling them what they can and can’t do. From consentual sexual practices, poker playing, drug of choice, etc.

You can try to make the case that because the right speaks out against such things and then get caught up in them it makes them unfit for office. It doesn’t. It makes them hypocrites, that is all. But the same can be said of the left in many many instances. Perhaps enough hypocrisy may cause one to not want to vote for someone, but that is an individual voter’s decision to make, not something to destroy another for.

So you, ostensibly a Libertarian, are playing defense for these people.

Yes, I am, I am defending anyone from the disgusting attacks from either side, it is ruining our country. I think you remember the nonsense that went on on this very site the weekend after Palin was nominated VP, accusing her of not being the mother of her child as well as many other things that we found out later were completely beyond the pale and false. Sadly, too many people still believe that nonsense. There was enough to dislike about Palin to not have to make up such vicious lies, but all was fair according to many who wanted nothing other than to destroy her for political reasons. The same is, IMO, going on here by not being honest with many of the facts in Newt’s life.

If I’m not mistaken, Newt was pulling the standard Republican attack line about Fannie and Freddie, saying it should be investigated. Can you give me a good reason, then, why the fact that he was in their employ, making millions of dollars from them, is not an important fact?

Because he was an outside consultant, being asked his opinion. To this day you don’t know what he advised them to do or not to do, as he has said he told them that the things they were doing were wrong. How is that in opposition to his view that they should be investigated.

Now, if you can show me that he was advising them to do things that were wrong, then it can be an important fact. But since that has never been the subject of the ‘attack’ and instead people want to paint a picture that is made up with innuendo and accusations without any facts to back them up, the real goal is to destroy someone, not find out what the ‘full disclosure’ is.

If Republicans are going to hold Democrats to high standards on their sex lives, demonizing them for infidelity, sexual harrassment, and other such offenses, is it not only fair that Republicans, with their divorces, diaper-wearing, and sexual harrassment claims should receive equal scrutiny for their behavior?

Because you are then sinking to their level and validating those very things you suggest are wrong. You can’t say that the ‘other side’ is being despicible if you are going to participate in that behavior yourself. You are either then saying that you are both despicable or you are both doing what is right, you can’t have it both ways.

If you seek to judge, you shall be judged as you have judged others. It’s simple fairness. If association with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be a problem for Barney Frank or Chris Dodd, why should Newt Gingrich get a pass?

Because Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Barak Obama were taking money from them while elected to office, Gingrich never did that. They were supposed to be providing oversight to the organization, Gingrich was being asked his opinion. Are you telling me you don’t see the distinct difference here? It’s like a laywer accepting money to provide advice to an organization and the District Attorney’s office accepting money while investigating that organization…

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 17, 2011 2:55 PM
Comment #332138

Rhinehold-
A few things here: first, while you may consider your standards for judging a public figure’s private life and business conduct to be correct, others may not agree. Second, if we’re not judging by your standards, what should the compromise be? To my mind, it’s dropping the notion that it’s all just a conspiracy against him, and that he’s pure as the driven snow.

If Republicans are going to hold Democrats to a certain standard, as with Clinton, simple logic demands that they hold Cain to similar standards, or else the motivating factor for going after Clinton is revealed to be, rather than a moral uprightness Democrats are supposed to lack or aspire to, a simple partisan willingness to use a scandal against your political enemies.

As far as the Palin thing goes, I recall there being vociferous debate as to the morality and factual justification for accusing Palin of being the front for her daughter. Far from being unanimous in supporting it, the people on Daily Kos were in great disagreement on the matter.

Me, I took the side that unless real evidence came forward to support it, I would instead default to the assumption that Trig was Palin’s baby. There was plenty to nail Palin on, factually speaking, so it wasn’t as if we were reduced to having to pick nits and stretch things. Never hit somebody with a conjecture when you can knock them around with a cold hard fact.

Even if it’s just a pragmatic unwillingness to be caught ought on an iffy argument, many of us Liberals would rather get our facts right than take up a bad argument that blows up in our faces.

As for Newt?

I guess the Left’s amusement/annoyance with Newt on this count stems from the Republican’s willingness to flip-flop on just about every issue in order to be on the other side of it than the Democrats.

Newt’s played the game from both sides. If you want to talk about corruption, he was consulting for these people right up to the point the federal government took them over. That was his second contract, by the way, lasting from 2006 to 2008. His first was from mid 1999 to 2002.

The man had the nerve, after these two contracts, to talk about what lobbyists Frank and Dodd were close to. Long story short, Gingrich is jumping on a GOP bandwagon against the GSEs, having done insider Washington work for the same people

Why shouldn’t he be called on that? This is objectively bad. If a Democrat was badmouthing people over the GSEs, then turned out to have taken a ride on their gravy train just a few years before, I’d imagine he’d look bad, too.

Your counterarguments are flat-out naive, in part because that guy is now running for elective office, with his objectivity shot to hell. Either he’s going to be too gentle with them because he was buddy-buddy before, or he’s going to be too harsh with them, just to prove himself. More to the point, this wasn’t some contribution to a campaign fund, this was money paid to Gingrich as part of a business transaction, that he directly profitted from. The GSEs literally put money in his pocket, and he’s got the nerve to hit on Frank and Dodd for getting contributions to their campaign coffers.

Last, on the subject of standards? Maybe you can sit by while Democrats get hounded out of office for things that Republicans do, and get away with. Me? Being a Democrat, it’s in my interest to seek fairness. If Republicans want their people to walk when they get hit by these scandals, fine, walk them, but we get walked, too. If Republicans want us to get kicked out when we end up in the middle of a big sex scandal, fine, but their people should have the decency to resign, too, if their standards are going to get Democrats kicked out.

Does that seem unfair to you, that there be one set of consequences for both sides for the same bad behavior? Because that’s why I’m driving at. It might be hypocrisy from your perspective, but then you’re not thinking about a shared stage of behavior, rather than there being one for Republicans and another for Democrats.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 17, 2011 10:12 PM
Comment #332139
I guess the Left’s amusement/annoyance with Newt on this count stems from the Republican’s willingness to flip-flop on just about every issue in order to be on the other side of it than the Democrats.

If it wasn’t so blatantly hypocritical, you MAY have a point…

Need I remind you:

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation” — candidate Barack Obama, December, 2007

“No more ignoring the law when it’s inconvenient. That is not who we are… . We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers” — candidate Barack Obama, August 1, 2007

Compared to his actions while president, actions you defend?

I never said that Newt was ‘pure as the driven snow’, in fact I said the opposite if you go reread what I said. However, I also said that many of the things the left have been going after him for are irrelevant. (he’s been married 3 times, on my!)

A private citizen’s company giving advice to a company (not a public company btw) is not the same as sitting congressmen who are charged with oversight of those companies from accepting money from them.

I seem to recall Obama getting a lot of money from many Wall St companies and Healthcare companies, I didn’t see many on the left calling him out on his duplicity there…

As for your bringing up Clinton, the issue was not that he had sex while he was married, it was that he lied about having sex under oath during a sexual harassment lawsuit, something he was only allowed to be asked about because HE championed and signed the law into being that allowed prosecutors to ask those questions. To this date we have no factual information about whether or not Cain was guilty of sexual harassment, though I agree more information should be discovered about this (again, not a Cain supporter either).

Either you have to accept that certain things are no one’s business (personal life stuff) or you don’t. You can’t continue to claim the Republicans are bad for caring about personal foibles and then be the first to bring them up against your opponents when they are disovered about them. Sorry, but it just doesn’t work like that. Not if you are going to not be a hypocrite. And as I said, I call it out when I see it.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 17, 2011 10:51 PM
Comment #332148

Rhinehold-
Obama engaged the UN, the Arab League, and NATO, getting a mandate from those treaty organizations to do this. Congress already approved treaty obligations with them. The UN gave this intervention their mandate, which is one step further than George Bush ever got. I think that’s where Obama draws his main authority, that and the fact that the Libya mission had no troops on the ground, and after a few weeks, a much reduced role in the combat missions.

To compare it to Iraq, which is what Obama was talking about, is to miss the part where Bush fed a Congressional resolution’s “whereas” clauses back into a statutory requirement for a Congressional Finding, essentially, a report that backs his notion that Iraq was a real threat and involved with al-Qaeda. It’s also to neglect the fact that Bush took us into that war with the barest of fig leafs covering a war that had no real UN Mandate, nor any other treaty organization.

With treaty organizations bearing the brunt of the operations, and treaties being considered the law of the land, Obama did more to legally justify his military intervention than Bush did, and in fact had a legal justification for it.

I think it’s also good to point out here that we have a proven terrorist attack on Qadaffi’s record, the Pan Am 108 bombing, which killed hundreds. This proves that he is willing to engage in terrorist attacks to further his foreign policy. That, his aid to other rogue nations in Africa and elsewhere, and the rather destabilizing influence he could have on his neighbors if he won were all good reasons to perceive his holding onto power as a threat to our interests abroad, and our national security at home.

As for Newt? If you read about what his job involved, the whole point of what they were paying him for was to encourage representatives to more closely follow the interests. Even if you can say “he’s a private figure doing work for a private company”, his job for that private company was to encourage Congress to work more closely with the GSEs, and he was being paid that money right up until they went into conservatorship.

As for Obama? Obama got contributions from Wall Street, but that didn’t stop him from working against their interests when he saw fit, or the healthcare companies. Isn’t that how things are supposed to go, short of our getting money out of politics?

As for Clinton and Cain? Look, Clinton did wrong, and paid the price for it. Why is Cain to be held immune? The evidence is no stronger with Clinton than it was with Cain. Whatever your motives about defending Cain, it does not look good to have two cases settled with NDAs attached. They don’t do that for frivolous cases they can get thrown out. You can claim there’s no evidence, but there was enough to make these people nervous about taking it to trial.

Ah, but if you want to repeat our mistake, and bring a fellow to nomination that has a sordid past, please, be our guest. You’re already making things a lot easier for Obama than they should be, most circumstances taken in mind.

I am calling for an equal standard, whatever it is. I’m hoping that the Republicans finally realize that they don’t have the saintliness necessary to use morality as a bludgeon against others, but these days it seems like it takes rather painful object lessons to get Republicans to drop the holier-than-thou act.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 18, 2011 11:22 AM
Comment #332159


The Washington Post - Jan. 22, 1997.

“Many House Republicans said they had trouble reconciling their leaders’ characterization of Gingrich’s rules violations as tantamount to a jaywalking ticket and the magnitude of the penalty. “The argument loses its steam [when] you talk about $300,000” said Rep. Fred Upton(R-Mich.)”

“House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-Tex.) gave a spirited speech calling the penalty unwarranted. Answering those who said a speaker should be held to a higher standard of ethical conduct, Delay said: “The highest possible standard does not mean an impossible standard no American could possibly reach.”“

As we now know, Delay was ethically challenged as well.

“Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) said that had he know what was in the ethics committee’s report, he would not have voted for Gingrich as speaker. ” The gray area got grayer when you read the report,” he said. “When I think of my three boys and what kind of example I want to set for them for leadership in this country, gray is not the example.””

Posted by: jlw at November 18, 2011 5:22 PM
Comment #332203
Obama engaged the UN, the Arab League, and NATO, getting a mandate from those treaty organizations to do this.

Interestingly enough, they don’t run our congress and do not have power to authorize the use of US troops in offensive actions. The constitution is pretty clear on this. And no treaty can supercede the constitution. US Congressional approval is still needed for any use of the US military in offensive operations in another country. Just as it was when Senator Obama stated such.

At least George Bush actually did that.

I think that’s where Obama draws his main authority, that and the fact that the Libya mission had no troops on the ground, and after a few weeks, a much reduced role in the combat missions.

Troops on the ground is not a phrase I’ve seen in the constitution, can you show me where that makes a difference? Blowing brown people away from the air is not a military action then and is ok you are saying?

Interestingly enough, his own legal team disagreed with him, and he had to go to a junior member to get the ok he was looking for… Of course, had Bush done that…

and treaties being considered the law of the land

I think this is where you are making your mistake… As I stated before, a treaty cannot violate the US constitution in any way, else it is null and void.

“In giving to the President and Senate a power to make treaties, the Constitution meant only to authorize them to carry into effect, by way of treaty, any powers they might constitutionally exercise.” —Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:408

“Surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way.” —Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1800. ME 2:442

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 19, 2011 11:33 PM
Comment #332204
“Many House Republicans said they had trouble reconciling their leaders’ characterization of Gingrich’s rules violations as tantamount to a jaywalking ticket and the magnitude of the penalty. “The argument loses its steam [when] you talk about $300,000” said Rep. Fred Upton(R-Mich.)”

And from the panel who assigned the 300,000?

The hefty sanction imposed on Gingrich was described as a “cost assessment” and not a fine, and designed to reimburse the committee for prolonging the investigation.

I guess you can buy into what Fred Upton said or what the panel themselves said. I wonder which one you will want to use for your political purposes?

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 19, 2011 11:38 PM
Comment #332205

Again, since no one has been able to come forward and actually detail what it was that he was found guilty of, let’s discuss the actual details.

Gingrich was found in violation because he taught a class that he got pre-approval to teach (from the same ethics committee) and disclosed the donations used to pay for the class in all cases except one filing that was filled out incorrectly that didn’t mention the donations. The class was deemed to be ‘possibly political’ in nature.

That’s it. Unless anyone else has any other information?

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 19, 2011 11:41 PM
Comment #332218


I buy into what Rep. Mark Sanford said. Many of our elected officials, on both sides of the isle operate out of the gray area.

Newt faced several ethics violations. It is my understanding that when one was resolved with a $300,000 fine and a resignation, the other charges were not explored further.

The Newt/Fannie/Freddie connection is far more interesting and possibly more damning. Newt leased them his name at a time when Republicans were bashing them with everything, including the kitchen sink.

Since the housing collapse, the Republicans have denounced Freddie and Fannie as part of the left wing conspiracy determined to destroy America. And, Newt says the voters aren’t interested in Freddie and Fannie? I would think that many of the GOP voters would be very interested in Freddie and Fannie. Perhaps Newt’s forthright and upstanding Christian moral convictions will be his saving grace.

Posted by: jlw at November 20, 2011 3:01 PM
Comment #332225

The other violations were dropped because they were unfounded and there was no evidence. They were brought in retaliation for his efforts against Jim Wright.

Can you detail what those charges were? Or are you just operating under the assumption that a charge is good enough to be factual in our congress?

Of course you buy into what Sanford said, since it feeds into your partisanship. Not being a supporter of Newt OR a Republican, I can see the facts for what they are.

And your ‘understanding’ is wrong, it was not a fine as I have already detailed. They also did not result in a resignation, his resignation came years later after his re-election to the congress but accusations from his party that he was partially responsible for 5 seats being lost during that election.

If you want to hate Newt, be my guest. But at least try to get your facts straight on why…

http://brookesnews.com/070503wilson3.html

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 20, 2011 4:22 PM
Comment #332232


Rhinehold, yes, my personal belief is that Gingrich was and still is a corrupt politician. But, I have no doubt that, in part, he was railroaded for railroading Wright, another corrupt politician. We shouldn’t forget that he also led the assault on the Clinton’s, another pair of corrupt politicians.

IMO, Bill Frist’s political career was ended because he revealed that the politicians blind trust investments aren’t blind at all.

Dennis Hasert resigned because he was about to be railroaded.

Congress is getting better at railroading exposed corrupt politicians. After all, that route is far more appealing to them than actually cleaning up their lucrative act.

Posted by: jlw at November 20, 2011 6:06 PM
Comment #335265

HW-The barbour jacket with the fashion style is good. These coach bags are able-bodied fabricated with the new design. The coach madison sophia collection do attending actual timeless.Therefore,these Barbour mens jacket attending altered from the accustomed Shackelton Bracken Jacket in the market. The Coach handbags can wick damp abroad for your feet. You can get the coach outlet. It adds abundant absorption to the Appearance Barbour jackets online.

Posted by: coach classic field bag at January 29, 2012 4:52 AM
Post a comment