Democrats & Liberals Archives

Will Cain Endorsement Help or Hurt Gingrich?

Cain is set to indorse Gingrich today if the reports are to be believed. If I’m Gingrich I really have to stop and question whether being associated with the Cain fallout is worth picking up few more percentage points of support. Gingrich is trying to tighten up the race in New Hampshire but Cain wasn’t doing too well there last time it was polled.

Things look great right now for Gingrich in Iowa, South Carolina, and Florida. But of course this lead should not comfort anyone one bit considering the up and down nature of this primary so far before voting has even begun.

The GOP primaries are coming up on us quickly. Here are the current RCP averages for Gingrich:

Gingrich really has to be worrying about New Hampshire where he trails by an average of 16.5% but there's still plenty of time to close that gap. Cain was polling an average of 6.2% and as low as 2% in the latest poll. Can Gingrich take on Cain's endorsement without taking on Cain's baggage?

The truth is Cain quit the race after being dogged by allegations of marriage infidelity. Newt Gingrich is already associated with infidelity but has been trying to gloss over it for months. I wonder if Gingrich fears this will ramp up the conversation about Newt's past marriage issues simply because he's being linked to Herman Cain. Maybe not.

I think with this endorsement we'll see the beginning of the Anti-Romney snowball. Gingrich will go in to Iowa with Cain's supporters and he could be holding a big advantage there before the doors open. After Iowa we could see Bachmann and Perry drop out and throw their support his way as well to try and solidify Gingrich's standing in New Hampshire. You could probably expect Jon Huntsman to finally endorse Romney if he does name someone. Santorum might lean toward Gingrich.

I listen to American Family Radio a lot in the car and the movement on there to build support for Gingrich and gloss over his past issues that might turn off values voters has really picked up lately. What AFR and other talk radio networks say about Gingrich will hold a lot of weight with many listeners. I expect Mike Huckabee to throw his support toward Gingrich after Iowa as well.

What Romney has to do in the next four weeks is try and damage Gingrich in some way to try and stave off any wave of endorsements for Gingrich should Gingrich win Iowa. He has to make Gingrich seem less reliable as a candidate and perhaps emphasize his standing as the only one polled that is neck and neck with President Obama.

The conversation this year has always been about the anti-Romney vote if the conversation even involved Romney. He's just not getting much love from the media who would rather report the asinine things the other GOP candidates are doing and saying. Time is running out for Romney to convince conservatives that he's good enough for them, deserves to stay in front in New Hampshire, and deserves support from the Christian right that is going to be weird about his Mormonism.

Posted by Adam Ducker at December 5, 2011 8:54 AM
Comments
Comment #332711

Adam,
It’s hard to see why Cain’s endorsement would matter. Gingrich’s candidacy is a lot like Cain’s candidacy. Gingrich was never really serious about running for president. His entire staff quit a few months ago because they knew he was not serious. The campaign only started organizing in Iowa and New Hampshire a few days ago because, up until now, there was no reason to be organized. Gingrich was never serious about running for president. He wanted to stay in the game, lobby, pontificate on tv, and give speeches for money.

He’s a terrible candidate and a terrible person. Romney’s campaign manager is an oppostion researcher by profession. If Gingrich doesn’t self-destruct through his usual asinine bombastic pontifications, or simple inability to organize a campaign, it won’t take much for Romney to push him over the edge and destroy him.

Perry should have been the man, but he turned out to be so colossally stupid that no one could stomach him. However, Perry does have some funds, and with any luck, the GOP will forget his horrible performance to date and reconsider him.

Posted by: phx8 at December 5, 2011 12:20 PM
Comment #332714

Until a couple of days ago I was thinking Newt was just winging this. Then some people on this site and on other sites I read made statements about Newt’s campaign being one of design and not just slapped together. It got me thinking.

As you said his campaign quit because he wasn’t that serious. And his cash flow hasn’t been that great. So what kind of campaign is he forced to run and how is it helping get him to the top of the polls? I mentioned listening to AFR and hearing them praise Gingrich so when I saw this statement from blogger Bob Cesca today I realized he was right:

Campaigning has gone national — with all-important outreach to nationally syndicated radio shows. Gingrich, for better or worse, figured it out.

This will crumble if he loses Iowa but for now he’s riding high a wave of national attention in the media and supported by talk radio networks and blogs. I think he’ll win Iowa because evangelical support matters there. If you asked me 3 weeks ago if I thought evangelicals would get behind Newt I’d have laughed but now I’m noticing a shift and it’s ridiculous. They don’t want Mitt Romney but they’ll vote for him if they have to. They’ll just take as many other options as they can get until then.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at December 5, 2011 2:27 PM
Comment #332716

There’s just no way Newt’s campaign is by design. Some suggest just being in televised debates will provide enough exposure, but it’s exposure that can be measured in minutes, and Newt’s basic debate message has been to blame media for any and everything. His ascendance in the polls is accidental. It’s as if someone guttered a bowling ball, and all the clown pins fell over by themselves anyway, or knocked down the one next to them, leaving a Newt/Romney split.

Winning caucuses without a ground organization is very difficult. Winning NH without being on the ground is also difficult. Winging it might work in the states with big media markets if Newt raises a lot of money fast, but I find it very hard to believe anyone with a lick of sense would give Newt money, which brings the far right stupidity of the Tea Party into the discussion. Maybe they will make Newt a richer man.

I would really, really like to see Newt become the GOP nominee. It would make me very happy. But it’s just too good to be true. Romney will use his money and Newt’s horrendous baggage to crush him.

Posted by: phx8 at December 5, 2011 3:32 PM
Comment #332729

“Romney will use his money and Newt’s horrendous baggage to crush him.”

We’ll see. I think the anti-Romney vote is growing more powerful by the day. I was more excited about a Herman Cain nomination than Newt Gingrich but ever since Perry screwed up in the debate I’ve been pretty excited about Newt as well.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at December 5, 2011 10:52 PM
Comment #332734

Maybe Hillary will get in the race as the GOP nomination….

The GOP generally plays it safe and nominates the “next in line candidate.” That’s Mitt. This looks like 1996 all over again:

Mitt as Bob (Bob Dole would…) Dole
Rick as Lamar
Herman as Alan Keyes
Huntsman as Pete Wilson

Newt is sort of different this year as he’s the has been who mostly enjoys hearing himself talk. I’m going to peg him as the Pat Buchanan candidate although their politics are different.

Posted by: George at December 6, 2011 10:42 AM
Comment #332735

Perhaps you socialist liberals on the left could tell us; just who do you want us to run on the Republican ticket? I’m sure we would love to vote in the candidate that meets the approval of the left. On second thought, why don’t we just not run a Republican candidate against the messiah Obama; he is almost guaranteed re-election with approvals in the low 40’s? In fact, why don’t we just ban all votes from anyone unless they are part of the 20% of liberal socialist in America?

Posted by: Frank at December 6, 2011 11:13 AM
Comment #332740

Simmer down Frank. It’s not our fault your side is having a clown car primary.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at December 6, 2011 12:46 PM
Comment #332741

If a Republican clown stands in a media spotlight in the middle of a three ring circus and his pants drop to his ankles, the audience is going to laugh. And the more the clown tries to blame the spotlight for the trousers around the ankles, the harder the audience will laugh.

Frank,
Please do everything in your power to support Newt Gingrich. Please. That would be awesomesauce. Please please please nominate Newt. I’m begging you, guy, get behind Gingrich. Pretty please? C’mon, be a pal. Let’s all chant- Newt, Newt, Newt, Newt!

Posted by: phx8 at December 6, 2011 1:18 PM
Comment #332747

phx8 you cracked me up with the gutter ball line, but I don’t see Newt as the pushover you do. His women issues are so old news that nobody cares. He’s the only one who can debate Obama toe to toe.

Posted by: Schwamp at December 6, 2011 2:36 PM
Comment #332748


Of course Cain’s endorsement will help Gingrich. Both are innocent conservative lambs that have been viciously and unjustly mauled by the liberal MSM and those wicked liberal politicians.

It is not just the conservative voters that have been hopping from candidate to candidate. In it’s total commitment to stopping Romney, much of the right wing media has been doing the same.

When Newt’s staff quit, he was at the bottom of the polls, the last person conservatives wanted, besides Romney. But, newt was smart enough to consider that most of the conservative candidates were jokes and he hung around long enough that conservatives have no other choice if they are going to stop Romney.

Conservatives don’t just want a Republican president, they want a conservative that will be their champion. Like Obama is the champion of progressives, ha ha.

Posted by: jlw at December 6, 2011 3:05 PM
Comment #332749

I believe the only politician to stand around with his pants down was Weiner, tring to show off his weenie.

phx7 1/2, I think we are on the same page; Newt will get my support, but if Romney wins the primary, he will also have my 100% support.

How come we don’t have any more articles written by the socialist left, supporting the OWS protestors? Have they fallen by the way side?

Posted by: Frank at December 6, 2011 3:40 PM
Comment #332752

Schwamp,
I doubt Newt’s newfound supporters know just how bad it was with him. He had his second wife served with divorce papers while she was undergoing chemotherapy and dying of cancer. That’s bad. In the meantime, he was having an affair with his intern, while simultaneously attacking the character of the president because of an affair with an intern. How much worse can it get? The hypocrisy is bad, but treating a dying spouse that way seems almost incomprehensibly cruel.

And that’s not even starting to address the other issues, and there are a lot of them.

Maureen Dowd wrote a terrific satirical article on Newt. It starts with this:

“NEWT GINGRICH’S mind is in love with itself.

It has persuaded itself that it is brilliant when it is merely promiscuous. This is not a serious mind. Gingrich is not, to put it mildly, a systematic thinker.

His mind is a jumble, an amateurish mess lacking impulse control. He plays air guitar with ideas, producing air ideas.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/opinion/sunday/dowd-out-of-africa-and-into-iowa.html?_r=1

And remember, all we are seeing right now are debates and polls and television appearances. Gingrich has no organization to speak of, not much money, and not much discussion about his… uh… checkered past.

The thing that just amazes me is how Perry messed it up. It was his to lose. He lost it. I dunno. Maybe he’ll somehow come back.

Frank,
Generally speaking, I support the goals of the OWS protestors, and they seemed to have succeeded in changing the public focus, and bringing attention to income inequality and the excesses of Wall Street. That counts. But that’s about it. It’s an expression of anger and frustration without presenting a solution. What are you looking for progressives to say?


Posted by: phx8 at December 6, 2011 4:55 PM
Comment #332757

phx8, might I suggest you do a little study about the life of Newt Gingrich. You are either purposely spreading the liberal lie, or you are ignorant on the facts. Since statistics show that 2 out of every 3 marriages in America end in divorce; I am sure many Americans can identify with the problems and reasons for divorce.

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

Posted by: Frank at December 6, 2011 6:44 PM
Comment #332760

What does it matter about Newt’s past; as a supporter of Clinton, I felt his sexual life was nobody’s business. There were many on WB that thought Clinton’s private life was his own affair, and I agree, but isn’t it kind of hypocritical to now bring up Newt’s? I am no supporter of Newt Gringrich, but this appears to be double standards. If Newt hasn’t broken any laws, I don’t see where his personal life means anything.

As per the subject of the post; I don’t believe Cain’s endorsement will help or hurt Newt. Whoever has had second thoughts about Cain have already moved their support.

To be honest about the election, I believe Gingrich poses the greater threat to President Obama. Gingrich cannot be identified with Obamacare or WS; both of which Romney can be.

Posted by: Steve at December 6, 2011 7:17 PM
Comment #332762

Steve,

“Gingrich cannot be identified with Obamacare or WS; both of which Romney can be.”

Really?

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/gingrich-health-care-insurance/2011/05/15/id/396426

“Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Sunday that he strongly supports a federal mandate requiring citizens to buy health insurance – a position that has been rejected by many Republicans, including several who likely will be running against him for the Republican presidential nomination.

Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Gingrich told host David Gregory that he continues to advocate for a plan he first called for in the early 1990s as a Congressman, which requires every uninsured citizen to purchase or acquire health insurance.


Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at December 6, 2011 8:06 PM
Comment #332765

Steve,
It’s hypocritical to notice hypocrisy? Ok.

What some people may not recall is the Republican mantra from the late 1990’s. They hated Clinton.
When Clinton and the Democrats raised taxes in the 1993-1994 Omnibus Bill, Newt Gingrich denounced the raise, declaring it would make the economy worse. You don’t get much more wrong than that. Because of that strong economy and a strong foreign policy performance, Republicans were reduced to attacking Clinton over so-called ‘character issues.’ The idea was that, since Clinton was a philanderer, he did not have a good enough character to be president. This charge was led by none other than Newt Gingrich.

Frank,
I notice the Wikipedia article does not present the wife’s perspective.

Is a divorce an acceptable part of a presidential candidate’s past? I suppose. Is denouncing that behavior in others while engaging in it at the same time acceptable; in other words, is hypocrisy acceptable? How about rank hypocrisy? How about rank hypocrisy performed on a national stage?

Personally, I do not find that acceptable. That’s just me. But by all means, please feel free to defend Gingrich.

Posted by: phx8 at December 6, 2011 9:24 PM
Comment #332774

Frank,
Btw, an Iowa evangelical group is running an ad about Gingrich saying some of the same things as me. Numerous conservatives oppose Gingrich, including George Will and Karl Rove. Or has it reached the point where Iowan evangelicals, Will, and Rove have become RINO’s in the eyes of the Tea Party, or even liberals?

Progressives are calling the possible nomination of Gingrich a dream come true. Surely that gives you pause.

Posted by: phx8 at December 7, 2011 12:00 AM
Comment #332785

At what point did you enter a love affair with Carl Rove? A few years ago, he was the lowest scum on the earth, but now, all of a sudden his words hold weight. Carl Rove is a supporter of Romney and why would I give a shit what Carl Rove, George Will, or anyone else think of Gingrich? Your cries of “Numerous” conservatives opposing Gingrich don’t mean crap. The left has no respect for anything the conservative evangelicals believe, and yet now you assume to tell us what they believe. If Gingrich is so hated, perhaps you could explain why he is so far ahead in the polls, and even gaining on Romney in NH. You are not giving us facts; you are giving us your wish list. But as I said before, it doesn’t really matter who is on the Republican ticket, because Obama is going back to his corrupt Chicago. So dream on…

Posted by: Frank at December 7, 2011 11:01 AM
Comment #332786

Rocky Marks; you are being disingenuous when you make a blanket statement that Newt Gingrich supports requiring all US citizens to purchase health insurance. This is what you failed to include from your link:

“I am for people, individuals — exactly like automobile insurance — individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance. And I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy so we insure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.”

A voucher system is not what President Obama gave us under obamacare.

phx8, I voted for Clinton and Obama and I am a registered Democrat; but I am not a stupid Democrat. Clinton was impeached for lying to a Grand Jury and not for sex. Yes, Gingrich was having an affair at the same time he was the Speaker of the House, and Barney Frank was poking little boys in the butt, and Anthony Weiner was showing his wiener; so what’s your point? I would venture to say, at any given time in history, half of the Congress is committing immoral acts. But none of this has anything to do with Clinton lying under oath.

It is hypocrisy to make statements about Gingrich’s infidelity and yet defend Clinton’s. I was a defender of Clinton, but I am not so mind dumb as to be guilty of double standards. If I defended Clinton for his many infidelities, why would or could I now condemn Gingrich for the same thing? In my opinion, people like you and other left wing liberals have hijacked the party of my father. Where do I go from here; I am a Democrat who has a party who no longer represents me. Should I be like many other Democrats and register as an independent. The far left has put me in a very difficult position.

Posted by: Steve at December 7, 2011 11:26 AM
Comment #332789

Steve,
The Democratic Party of your father had former members of the KKK, like Byrd, serving in the Senate. The party changed with the Civil Rights movement. In many respects, the Democratic Party of your father was replaced with the Republican party of today and their Southern Strategy.

You should become a Republican. You already repeat their talking points. Get behind Gingrich or Romney. Rally to Newt’s call to repeal child labor laws. Cheer the way he took over $1.6 billion from Freddie Mac. Demand- DEMAND!- tax cuts for the wealthiest of the wealthy. Insist unemployment benefits end for all those lazy dead-ender Americans. Be sour grapes about Osama bin Laden’s death, refuse to acknowledge success in Libya, and point out how much torture helped the War on Terror. Call for abolishing the departments of Energy and Education, as well as the EPA. Become a Global Warming denier. Denounce evolution as ‘just a theory.’ Smile when Romney says “corporations are people, my friend.”

Go for it, Steve.

And don’t forget- Obama is a socialist Marxist communist anti-colonial Indonesian Kenyan Mao-Mao Muslim follower of Reverend Wright. He is weak. He is a tyrant. He can’t do anything in Congress. He rams through legislation. He pals around with terrorists.

Clinton lied under oath. About sex. Btw, most of those House Republicans supporting impeachment were voted out the next election. The American people overwhelmingly opposed what the GOP did to Clinton.

Despite Clinton’s immoral acts, he remains married to Hillary to this day.

Frank,
I detest Rove. However, I recognize he is an extremely powerful person within the GOP. His PAC controls an unbelievably huge amount of money- $240 billion, probably more. No one else comes close to his influence within the GOP. He is scum, and his words hold weight.

Posted by: phx8 at December 7, 2011 2:11 PM
Comment #332793

correction, Rove controls a lot of money through the super PAC American Crossroads, but it’s not in the billions!

Posted by: phx8 at December 7, 2011 3:06 PM
Comment #332820

“A voucher system is not what President Obama gave us under obamacare.”

Steve,

Seems to me to be a distinction without a difference. The essence of Gingrich’s health proposal is exactly the same as Obamacare: mandatory coverage with government subsidy on the basis of income. Whether that is in the form of a voucher or a direct subsidy for purchases on an insurance market exchange seems rather meaningless.

Posted by: Rich at December 8, 2011 10:10 AM
Comment #332821

Steve,

“A voucher system is not what President Obama gave us under obamacare.”

Except for the fact that Obama was for the “single payer” option before the political reality reared it’s ugly head. Obama pushed what he thought would pass.

“…and Barney Frank was poking little boys in the butt…”

So now who’s being disingenuous?

You’ve made this statement several times, in several different threads, and you just blithely throw it out there as if it were the truth.

Barney Franks is an admitted homosexual, and apparently you have a problem with that. Continuing to repeat the lie that he likes “little boys” says more about you than it does about him.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at December 8, 2011 10:27 AM
Comment #332822

Rocky Marks, phx8, and Rich; so you are telling me, the things I read in the news and read on the internet news are nothing more than Republican talking points. You are also telling me, the Democratic party of my father (a lifetime AF-CIO union member) and the party I have always voted for (also a lifetime member of the AFL-CIO union) no longer exists because it has been taken over by those on the extreme left? And your best advice for me is to become a Republican? You are saying I longer have a voice in the party I have supported for the past 45 years?

Rocky Marks; my comment was to phx8 concerning sexual immorality. And my comment about Wiener, Clinton, or Franks was “who cares”. Why would Democrats hammer on the infidelities of Gingrich, when most of the politicians in DC are guilty of the same or worse and yet haven’t been caught? The only people slamming me on WB are supposedly fellow Democrats. When I voice my opinion about what is right or wrong, or what are double standards or hypocrisy, I am attacked by my own party as a want to be Republican. Am I not allowed to think for myself, and am I not allowed to analyze double standards. I guess I just come from the old school of actually thinking for myself and not allowing party to dictate my thoughts or beliefs. This is a sad day for the Democratic Party. There is no room for individual thought.

Posted by: Steve at December 8, 2011 11:20 AM
Comment #332825

Steve,

“…my comment was to phx8 concerning sexual immorality. And my comment about Wiener, Clinton, or Franks was “who cares”.”

No, actually comparing Franks’ homosexuality to pedophilia is immoral.
Franks asked for, and received a House Ethics Committee investigation into the “scandal”. The investigation found no evidence that he was involved in any illegal activities.
Curiously enough, the attempt to censure Franks was led by Larry Craig. That fact alone is enough to push my irony meter off the charts.

You say “who cares” but you continue to repeat this lie.


“The only people slamming me on WB are supposedly fellow Democrats.”

Except that nobody is slamming you, they are slamming your opinion. You’re the one that’s taking it personally.
I am not a Democrat. I have never registered as a Democrat. There are some things I am conservative on, and some things I am liberal on.

I don’t believe they are mutually exclusive.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at December 8, 2011 12:11 PM
Comment #332827

Steve,
“The only people slamming me on WB are supposedly fellow Democrats.”

Perhaps that is because the Republicans agree with you. Oops.


As you know, there are a wide variety of views in the Democratic Party. If most of your views match one party or another, it makes sense to affiliate with that party. If there aren’t enough matches, there are a wide variety of third parties, and many people are simply independents. I usually vote for a Democrat, but occasionally I will vote Green or even Libertarian. Personally, I don’t see political affiliation as an inherited position. I would rather see people think for themselves.

As you are undoubtedly aware, the GOP is profoundly anti-union, and the Democratic Party strongly supports working people being organized. If you are a union member (I understand your father was in the AFL-CIO, but based on the last comment, I’m not clear whether you belong to the union), that along may be a deciding factor for you.

Posted by: phx8 at December 8, 2011 12:47 PM
Comment #332833

My father was an AFL-CIO member and I have also been a lifelong member, at least for 45 years.

Rocky marks said, “Except that nobody is slamming you, they are slamming your opinion. You’re the one that’s taking it personally.
I am not a Democrat. I have never registered as a Democrat. There are some things I am conservative on, and some things I am liberal on.”

So it’s ok for you to form your own opinion, but it’s not ok for me to form my own opinion?

Listen buddy, I don’t give a rats behind who pork’s who; but Barney Frank is an embarrassment to the Democratic Party. Sorry, but I come from an older generation that is not very PC, so I consider Frank to be nothing more than a queer who would pork a little boy as fast as he would a congressional intern. He is probably one of the nastiest people I have ever heard or seen. Of course, that’s just my opinion, and as you have already said, I’m not allowed to have an opinion.

But what you guys fail to understand (because you are so bent on defending Frank) is that both parties are guilty of having immoral politicians. My question is why do you condemn Newt and defend Clinton, Wiener, or Frank? Is this fair treatment? I have come to the conclusion the question is too difficult for you. It has nothing to do with political parties, but does have to do with fairness, right, and wrong.

Posted by: Steve at December 8, 2011 3:30 PM
Comment #332840

Steve,

“So it’s ok for you to form your own opinion, but it’s not ok for me to form my own opinion?”

Sure, but it doesn’t mean I have to agree with it, or that you’re right, or that you should get away with what I perceive as an obvious bias.

“Listen buddy, I don’t give a rats behind who pork’s who…”

Apparently from the tone of your comments you do.
I am not defending Franks, however, just because you don’t like the guy doesn’t mean you are speaking the truth about him. It is far too easy to prove your opinion about him wrong.

Franks has done nothing illegal, and his constituents, except for the last election, have repeatedly voted him into office, by wide margins. It would seem that they would disagree with you as well.

This is a debate site. We are allowed to critique the message.
Everybody has an opinion, and you are quite welcome to yours, but don’t be surprised if people who disagree with you land on that opinion with both feet.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at December 8, 2011 4:48 PM
Comment #332841

Well, I certainly disagree with your opinion. In fact I will go so far to say; if the left is the future of the Democratic Party, the party is doomed. It goes back to what I said before, my father’s Democratic Party has been hyjacked by people who do not represent Democrats. Thus, an exodus from the party. And the words from those radicals to me is, “if I don’t like what is happening, perhaps I should register as a third party or independent”. Why should I? I have always been a democrat and a proud union member, but I don’t like what I am seeing and frankly it scares me.

Posted by: Steve at December 8, 2011 4:57 PM
Comment #332850

Steve,

“Well, I certainly disagree with your opinion.”

And I am cool with that.

“It goes back to what I said before, my father’s Democratic Party has been hyjacked by people who do not represent Democrats.”

And my dads Republican party has been hijacked by folks that want it their way or no way. There was a time when Goldwater and Rockefeller could coexist within the same party, and work for the good of the country.
That’s not true anymore. If you aren’t a conservative you’re a RINO.

You can’t seem to accept this isn’t the ’50s or ’60s anymore.

Time and tide.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at December 8, 2011 8:11 PM
Comment #332851

Steve,

It seems to me that Phx8’s point about Newt is that he isn’t even honest with himself. He’s capable, he’s bright, but he’s dishonest.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at December 8, 2011 8:42 PM
Comment #332853

Rocky,
Exactly. He’s a hypocrite. He denounces others while doing the same thing himself.

Posted by: phx8 at December 8, 2011 9:27 PM
Comment #332857
Personally, I don’t see political affiliation as an inherited position. I would rather see people think for themselves.

I’m not sure I agree with assuming that someone being a member of a party is them not ‘thinking for themselves’. Usually members of a party have a specific principle that guides them when coming to politics. That doesn’t mean one doesn’t do their own thinking, only that for the most part, since they have similar principles, they come to similar conclusions.

For example:

Republicans - There are right and wrongs and we should be making sure people are adhering to those societal norms so that we aren’t taken off track by the fringe. In addition, a limited government intrusion into the marketplace helps those who further the economy and should be allowed to continue to do so.

Democrats - A lot of people get raw deals and the government should be used to try and fix those inequities. Making people adhere to not harming those who can’t help themselves can only be done through laws.

Libertarians - Force is abhorrent and should only be used to ensure that people’s individual rights are protected. People should be free to live their lives, succeeding or failing, without government interference or punishment. Those that need help should be taken care of though voluntary means, not through the use of force which most often makes the problems worse.

Chances are, agreeing with one of those three principles will steer you towards agreeing or disagreeing with one of those three parties.

The problem I see is when people are led to believe that those in other parties or who have other principles that guide them are ‘mean, selfish, evil, cruel, etc’ and stop thinking of them as humans with their own opinions and instead as unthinking drones working for ‘the man’ to harm others…

But, maybe that’s just me…

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 9, 2011 12:34 AM
Comment #332858
the GOP is profoundly anti-union

See, this is a great example. The GOP is not ‘anti-union’, they are just not ‘pro-union’. Not understanding that difference and labeling an entire group of people with that same attitude makes it easier for you to feel a certain way about all members of that group…

This is how hate groups work. It’s really not that much different.

See, I never really disliked Clinton, Bush or Obama (or any previous president that I knew of in my day), but I can disagree with them on policies and their views. I always knew that what they were doing, though I might often disagree, they were doing because they thought it was the right thing for the country. When you start falling into that mindset of labeling, it’s not a far walk to hate and despise, dehumanizing and blocking your mind from being able to think about issues objectively. Emotion starts to win the day.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 9, 2011 12:44 AM
Comment #332861

Rhinehold,
The GOP has been profoundly anti-union since Reagan broke up the Air Traffic Controllers strike. In the 2010 midterms, on the state level, GOP governors in the Midwest made union-busting their first priority. Most Republicans routinely use phrases like “union thugs” anytime unions are discussed. The US Chamber of Commerce is one of the biggest contributors to the GOP. Unions are among the biggest contributors to the Democrats.

I’m surprised you would consider this an example of stereotyping or labeling or appealing to emotions by painting with a broad brush. The Republican attitude towards working people is no secret. I’m sure most Republicans will agree. They freakin’ hate unions.

Posted by: phx8 at December 9, 2011 2:07 AM
Comment #332862

Again, you miss the point. Wisconsin was not trying to ‘break the unions’, they wanted to take away some of their power. If you recall, these are unions working for the government, not private industry.

And do you really think there are no such things as ‘union thugs’? I’m surprised you have a blind eye to the other side of the point…

Most republicans don’t care much about unions as long as they are not trying to have more power than they should have. The government has been providing them more and more power at the hands of the Democrats for decades. They are now wanting to allow for intimidations in union elections just to get more unions in place… That isn’t for the ‘working guy’, that is for the unions, straight and simple.

Show me where Republicans ran on ‘braking up unions’ in 2010… I think that the actual issues were a bit more nuanced than you are led to believe.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 9, 2011 2:43 AM
Comment #332869

The Air Traffic Controller’s union violated the rules of their contract. They were not allowed to stike and when they did, they placed their jobs in jepardy. I was a uion member for almost 45 years and I worked a job that was considered to be part of national security. We had a no-stike clause in our contract and if we did stike, we could have been dismissed.

This is part and parcel of what I have been trying to say about the Democratic Party. We are a nation of laws; if we don’t like the laws, there is a process by which they are changed. But until the laws are changed, we are bound by them. A no-stike means you can’t strike and when the ATC union workers walked off the job, they caused their own dismissal. The Reagan administration simply enforced the laws. The ATC union workers knew the consequences of their acts. Even as a Democrat and lifetime union member, I do not accuse Reagan or the Republican Party of union busting. Sometimes you have to look at events through the eye of logic.

What would a Democrat administration have done if a union strike affected the national security of the nation. If Clinton hadbeen the President; how would he have handled the Controller’s strike? And how would the Democratic Party have responded?

The Obama administration has openly supported the OWS protestors, but when the OWS protestors began to protest in DC last week, they were imediatly removed. Not much was said in the media about this, but it happened. Does that mean that the President no longer supports the OWS, or does it mean he does not support them in his own back yard?

Posted by: Steve at December 9, 2011 11:22 AM
Comment #332871

Rhinehold,
Taking away a union’s ability to bargain destroys the union.

Steve,
So you think it was necessary for the ATC union to have been pushed so far, that they willingly risked their jobs with a strike?

Posted by: phx8 at December 9, 2011 11:26 AM
Comment #332872

By the way, I belong to a union, and I have never met or seen a “union thug.”

Posted by: phx8 at December 9, 2011 11:27 AM
Comment #332874
Pricing is complex? They’ve got accountants for that.

Couple of things you ignore…

First, these were unions for public sector, those are different than private sector, however much you want to ignore that.

In fact, Wisconsin was the first state to allow public unions to have collective bargaining in 1959. I guess they didn’t have any power in any public sector area in the country before 1960 according to you?

WHY they are different is that the public sector is not supposed to be ‘making profits’ that union members needed collective bargaining rights to get a piece of. As a private company does well, the collective bargaining gets them better pay (and in bad those can be lowered through the same bargaining). In public sector that is a different situation.

Wisconsin was facing shortfalls and the public sector unions had more benefits than anyone could imagine. Some examples:

The Wisconsin state pension plan requires a 6.8% employer contribution and 6.2% from the employee. However, according to collective-bargaining agreements in place since 1996, the districts pay the employees’ share as well, for a total of 13%. One district also contributes an additional 4.2% of teacher salaries to cover a second pension and teachers contribute nothing. Under some current collective-bargaining agreements, the school district pays the entire premium for medical and vision benefits, and over half the cost of dental coverage. This is partly because some districts purchase insurance through the teachers union. The district’s contributions for health insurance of active employees total 38.8% of wages. For private-sector workers nationwide, as of 2011, the average is 10.7%. This is especially the case for teachers in many states, because the eligibility rules of their pension plans often induce them to retire in their 50s, and Medicare does not kick in until age 65.[35] According to David Cay Johnston, Wisconsin state employers currently pay 5% of employee wages into their pension under the principle of “deferred compensation”

Basically, the Wisconsin unions were living high on the hog, at a time when the state was facing severe deficit issues, meaning that the people of the state were the ones on the hook. You want to claim that Wall Street is getting rich off of the backs of the workers, what the heck do you think the public sector union members were actually doing? They were getting better benefits than the majority of the workers in the state at their expense.

That’s the real problem with public sector unions, and it is why it was a mistake to allow them that power in the 60s which resulted in the out of whack situation Wisconsin was faced with.

Defending unions is one thing. Defending all unions, even ones who are in the wrong and have been destroying the well being of the rest of the state for their own personal power is another. You act as if there was never a bad union or unions who had obtained too much power?

(and by the way, the move has been working, Wisconsin is getting back to better fiscal health since this took place…)

Now, are you saying that Wisconsin having to deal with this tough budget issues is proof that all GOP members want to destroy all unions? Are you really going to try to argue that lame stance?

As for union thugs, you telling me you haven’t heard of the teamster’s past? Do you really live in such a shell that you know nothing of the dirty despicable things that some unions have done in order to gain power?

Let me guess, you are for ending secret ballots for union organization, right?

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 9, 2011 12:12 PM
Comment #332876

“Steve,

So you think it was necessary for the ATC union to have been pushed so far, that they willingly risked their jobs with a strike?”

Posted by: phx8 at December 9, 2011 11:26 AM

phx8, did the union break the law? By your logic, if a person pushes another person far enough and the person being pushed murders the person doing the pushing, it is legal. If another person cannot get a job and feed his family, then he is justified when he robs another person at gun point.

We have laws for a reason, and if the ATC union did not like the laws, they could have fought, through legal means, to change them.

If everyone did what the ATC union did; we would have a nation of chaos.

You try to change the reasons for the firing of the ATC union workers from breaking the law, to a non-law self imposed moral reason.

Rhinhold is correct; public sector unions can affect national security. The union I belonged to, and the work I did fell under national security and I could not strike. If I had, I would have expected to be fired.

In any case, the ATC union workers were given the opportunity to return to work and they refused. So, even as a union member, and one who would willingly place blame on corporations or Republicans, I find it disingenuous to blame Reagan for the sins of the union leaders. The leadership caused the loss of the jobs.

Posted by: Steve at December 9, 2011 2:16 PM
Comment #332879


While public sector union workers are growing, public sector union workers have been declining.

The GOP has targeted the public sector unions and hopes very much to destroy them.

Tough times? Both the Wisconsin and the Ohio public sector unions offered to meet with and negotiate concessions with their respective Republican Governors and both rejected the offers; and instead have tried to destroy the public sector unions with draconian legislation and a propaganda blitz aimed at turning the general public against them.

The left goes after the wealthy, the right goes after the middle class and the poor.

Example, Republicans say they will accept an extension of the middle class tax break and an extension of unemployment benefits in return for the Keystone pipeline.

It is this middle class tax break and the unemployment benefits that have kept this economy afloat, not the extension of the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy.

What this economic downturn has shown is that it is the demand side that drives the economy not the supply side.

Does anyone remember how anal retentive the right got with Justice Souter over an eminent domain case a while back? To hell with those Nebraska farmers, we will role this pipeline right over them if they don’t get out of the way.

Posted by: jlw at December 9, 2011 3:07 PM
Comment #332880


Sorry folks, that would be private sector unions that are on the decline, but they will make a come back if this trend in liberal economics continues.

Posted by: jlw at December 9, 2011 3:12 PM
Comment #332881

jlw said:

“The GOP has targeted the public sector unions and hopes very much to destroy them…Example, Republicans say they will accept an extension of the middle class tax break and an extension of unemployment benefits in return for the Keystone pipeline.”

Actually jlw, the unions are in support of the Keystone Pipeline:

“TransCanada Corporation (TransCanada) (TSX, NYSE: TRP) today is pleased to announce a Project Labor Agreement for a significant portion of U.S. construction of the proposed US$7 billion Keystone Gulf Coast Expansion Pipeline Project (Keystone XL). The agreement will provide TransCanada with a capable, well-trained and ready workforce in the U.S. to construct Keystone XL. During construction, the project is expected to create over seven million hours of labor and over 13,000 new jobs for American workers.

The Project Labor Agreement is with the Laborers International Union of North America, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, the International Union of Operating Engineers and the Pipeline Contractors Association.

“The proposed Keystone XL pipeline will have a significant impact on the North American economy through the thousands of manufacturing and construction jobs it is creating,” says Russ Girling, TransCanada president and chief executive officer. “This project is entirely paid for with private sector dollars and is shovel ready.”

“It’s our job to weld sections of Keystone Pipeline that will extend miles underground, across several states and transport hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil daily for decades to come,” said William Hite, General President of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO. “It’s the vision and competence of TransCanada in the U.S.that provides our skilled local workforce with the means to perform the trade they have been taught while contributing to their communities. We are proud to be a part of the collaboration that is Keystone Pipeline.”

http://www.transcanada.com/5493.html

December 1, 2011, “Keystone XL: ‘WE CAN’T WAIT’
American Labor Unions Are Demanding The Pipeline, Saying It ‘Will Unequivocally Help Remedy The Struggles Of Our Country’s Working Families’


AFL-CIO: “…it is America’s workers who are clamoring for the expedited approval of this important project. As President Obama has rightfully declared when it comes to the creation of jobs,‘WE CAN’T WAIT.’” (Mark H. Ayers, President, Building And Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, “For The 99% Of Americans, Keystone = JOBS,” Huffington Post, 11/3/11)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-h-ayers/for-the-99-of-americans-k_b_1073705.html

“November 24, 2011

Construction unions support TransCanada Pipelines Keystone XL

OTTAWA

The Building and Construction Trades Department (BCDT) of the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) announced Thursday its Canadian affiliate “unreservedly” supports the Keystone XL pipeline, which TransCanada Corp. (TSX:TRP) of Calgary claims will create 20,000 construction jobs in the United States.”

http://dcnonl.com/article/id47707/—construction-unions-support-transcanada-pipelines-keystone-xl

“Some unions showed their support for TransCanada’s Keystone XL Pipeline during Omaha’s Labor Day parade on Monday.

Nebraska governor Dave Heineman, who also marched in the parade, has made it clear that he wants a different route for the pipeline. But some labor leaders say the governor’s request to move the route could cost thousands of jobs.


The Laborers International Union Local 1140 represents the workers who would build the pipeline. Robert Jones, vice president of TransCanada, walked the parade with the laborers.

“These qualified trained workers can do it safely,” said Jones. “We can build a pipeline as safe as any pipeline that’s ever been built. And there’s over 22,000 miles of pipelines in Nebraska.”

http://www.wowt.com/news/headlines/Unions_Show_Pipeline_Support_At_Labor_Day_Parade_129269068.html?ref=068

Jlw, we have a quandry, does Obama create jobs by supporting the unions and building the pipeline; or does he support the GW environmental crowd? My guess is, he is trying to appease both: a promise of a pipeline to the unions, after his election, and a promise of no fossle fel to the environmentalists before the election. One group gets shafted before the election and one after.

In any case, your comment is false. It appears the Republicans want to create work for union workers and the Democrats want the unin workers to remain unemployed.


Posted by: Mike at December 9, 2011 4:01 PM
Comment #332891

“It appears the Republicans want to create work for union workers and the Democrats want the unin workers to remain unemployed.”

Mike,

The principal roadblock is the State of Nebraska, led by a Republican governor and legislature, that has recently passed bills requiring that the proposed pipeline be rerouted and any alternative route pass strict state environmental review.

So, while the national Republican party is making some hay on the jobs aspect, it is throwing its state Republican brethren under the bus on states’ rights issues.

What do you think? Do the people of Nebraska have a right to delay this pipeline approval on the basis of their environmental concerns? Is it fair to frame the issue as one of Republicans favoring jobs and Democrats as opposing jobs when one of the principal opponents to the pipeline is a Republican governor and legislature?

Posted by: Rich at December 9, 2011 7:03 PM
Comment #332892

So you are saying Obama is in favor of the pipeline?

Rich, you are using liberal talking points to defend Obama. The alternate root has already been agreed to, but because of the envionmentalists, Obama has decide to postpone the building of the pipeline until after the 2012 election. Why, because he don’t want to upset his base.

By the way, no comment on the unions being in favor of the pipeline? You accused the Republicans of tryng to destroy unions, and yet we find it is the opposite.

Posted by: Mike at December 9, 2011 7:18 PM
Comment #332895

Mike,

The Republican governor of Nebraska just signed the Republican supported legislative bills requiring an alternate route through Nebraska and a full state environmental study just a few weeks ago (November 22, 2011). The alternate route through Nebraska hasn’t been agreed to.

I don’t doubt that unions are in favor of the pipeline. Because unions and the Republican party, excepting Nebraska Republicans, are in favor of the pipeline means what about Republican efforts to destroy unions? I am sure both like chocolate ice cream too. That doesn’t mean anything about their mutual relationship.

Posted by: Rich at December 9, 2011 8:34 PM
Comment #332900

phx8:

I doubt Newt’s newfound supporters know just how bad it was with him. He had his second wife served with divorce papers while she was undergoing chemotherapy and dying of cancer. That’s bad. In the meantime, he was having an affair with his intern, while simultaneously attacking the character of the president because of an affair with an intern. How much worse can it get? The hypocrisy is bad, but treating a dying spouse that way seems almost incomprehensibly cruel.

Actually, it’s a bit worse than this. Newt served divorce papers to his first wife the day after she was operated on for uterine cancer. At that time he was having an affair with mistress/wife number 2 — and as you say, this happened while he was hypocritically grilling Bill Clinton over his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Newt’s Mistress/Wife number 2 got her own divorce papers from Newt shortly after she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis — and naturally at that time he was already having an affair with the Tiffany-loving mistress/wife number 3.
What an incredible Christian conservative family-values hero he is!
I’d be willing to bet that Newt is already having yet another affair — and if or when wife 3 becomes ill enough, she’s history.

Generally speaking, I support the goals of the OWS protestors, and they seemed to have succeeded in changing the public focus, and bringing attention to income inequality and the excesses of Wall Street. That counts. But that’s about it. It’s an expression of anger and frustration without presenting a solution.

Mic Check! Come on and admit it — what OWS has already managed to do is pretty HUGE. This movement is a reaction to fact that the Dems failed to actually address too many problems that poor and middle class people have been facing for far too long a time. And with hardly any money at all, the OWS movement has already been far more effective at getting out a populist message for much needed change than the both the President and Congressional Democrats have been.
The repeated demands for “OWS solutions” is something that I consider to be a lot of empty BS because this movement is just barely four months old. But not to worry, solutions will undoubtedly be forthcoming. Because the fact is, people have been squeezed so damn hard they’re actually faced with no other choice than to seriously dedicate themselves to making change happen — and they do so in the face of totally ineffective political leadership on both sides of the political aisle.
Despite all the hostile, desperate attempts to discredit these people and the movement they’ve started (right and left), they’ve already created enough pressure to start making things happen politically in ways that our so called “progressive leadership” had been trying to ignore, up until now.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 10, 2011 12:16 AM
Comment #332901

Oh yeah, almost forgot to mention a couple of other details about Newt’s big family values mountain of hypocrisy.
Before Newt divorced his second wife he tried asking her to “tolerate” his affair with his current wife. But Wife 2 refused, yet the affair with the current wife continued — for six whole years. Now he tells reporters they he and wife 2 had an “understanding” about that six year affair, but wife 2 denies this and claims Newt is flat out lying about this to the public. Also, following his divorce to wife 2, Newt converted to Catholicism to please wife 3, then turned around and actually tried to have the 19 year marriage to MS-stricken wife #2 annulled! And the reason he asked for that annulment? Because wife 2 had been married once before!
No, seriously! I kid you not.

What did Adam say about the GOP candidates again?
Oh yeah,

a clown car primary.

Too true. And Newt ‘n’ all his Wives is a three ring circus unto itself! I’m now actually wondering if the frothy Santorum could be the next clown of the month…?

Posted by: Adrienne at December 10, 2011 1:14 AM
Comment #332905
Actually, it’s a bit worse than this.

You should really stop believing rumors…

In 1984, Battley told the Washington Post that the divorce was a “complete surprise” to her. According to Battley, in September 1980, Gingrich and their children visited her while she was in the hospital, recovering from surgery, and Gingrich wanted to discuss the terms of their divorce. Gingrich has disputed that account. In 2011, their daughter, Jackie Gingrich Cushman, said that it was her mother who requested the divorce, that it happened prior to the hospital stay, and that Gingrich’s visit was for the purpose of bringing the couple’s children to see their mother, not to discuss the divorce.

It never ceases to amaze me the things that people will believe when they WANT to believe something…

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 10, 2011 4:59 AM
Comment #332907

Rhinehold,

“It never ceases to amaze me the things that people will believe when they WANT to believe something…”

“In 2011, their daughter, Jackie Gingrich Cushman, said that it was her mother who requested the divorce…”

Since Jackie is a political writer for “Town Hall”, it is not surprising that this remains a “he said, she said”.

I doubt seriously that we will ever know the truth about what went on in that hospital room.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at December 10, 2011 9:48 AM
Comment #332908

SD writes for the kos, does that mean he is a liar when he writes on WB? Just saying…

Posted by: TomT at December 10, 2011 10:04 AM
Comment #332909

LOL, ok, so a hurt ex-wife says one thing, the ex-husband and their daughter says another, that makes it a ‘he said she said’ thing?

Whatever, if it’s a ‘he said she said’, using it as an attack against someone sort of makes my point then, doesn’t it?

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 10, 2011 10:58 AM
Comment #332914

Rhinehold, even if what the daughter says is the truth, it doesn’t change Newt’s history as a family values hypocrite and serial adulterer very much. Publicly attacking Clinton over his affair with an intern while he was having an affair with a Congressional aide? Trying to annul a 19 year marriage? Face it, this guy is a complete jerk who would clearly have to have some serious issues when it comes to women.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 10, 2011 1:14 PM
Comment #332915

Sorry, I didn’t realize Newt was lying during a sexual harassment lawsuit, can you point me to that information since you think there is some hypocricy here?

Trying to change history to attempt to smear someone you disagree with isn’t the best way to go about your politics IMO. Disagree with him all you want, there is plenty to disagree with, but quit trying to make things up like the left did with everyone else that they wanted to crush…

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 10, 2011 1:32 PM
Comment #332920
Sorry, I didn’t realize Newt was lying during a sexual harassment lawsuit, can you point me to that information since you think there is some hypocricy here?

I don’t even know what you’re talking about here. Was there sexual harrassment lawsuit Newt involved in? If so I haven’t heard about that.

Trying to change history to attempt to smear someone you disagree with isn’t the best way to go about your politics IMO.

How am I trying to change history? Whether Newt asked for the divorce just before or just after her surgery actually seems like a pretty minor detail. It doesn’t change the fact that Newt was divorcing his wife when she had cancer — and that he was already having an affair with his second wife at the time.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 10, 2011 2:53 PM
Comment #332921


The facts are that Newt’s first marriage ended after he had a long affair with another woman. He married his mistress and that marriage ended because he was having another affair and decided to marry that mistress.

Tweaking the facts to put Gingrich in the worst light possible is perfectly acceptable behavior in the American election process. Romney, Perry and Bachmann will attack Gingrich on this issue.


Posted by: jlw at December 10, 2011 3:41 PM
Comment #332922
I don’t even know what you’re talking about here.

Clinton’s issue, the one that many people including Newt, were prosecuting him for was not that he had an affair. It was that he lied about the affair under oath during his sexual harassment suit.

You are trying to change what the issue with Clinton was about to attempt to show hypocrisy with Newt.

Tweaking the facts to put Gingrich in the worst light possible is perfectly acceptable behavior in the American election process.

Being soulless humans in a lust for power is ‘perfectly acceptable’? Maybe that shows a much greater problem than that Newt is not a perfect person.

The fact that Romney, Perry and Buchmann are soulless humans in a lust for power doesn’t mean that we all have to be, does it?

I guess I am just out of touch for expecting more from people…

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 10, 2011 3:47 PM
Comment #332934

Rhinehold:

Clinton’s issue, the one that many people including Newt, were prosecuting him for was not that he had an affair. It was that he lied about the affair under oath during his sexual harassment suit.

You are trying to change what the issue with Clinton was about to attempt to show hypocrisy with Newt.

Oh, so you were talking about Clinton, not Gingrich. Let’s just get Clinton out of the way first: He’s as big of a cheater and horndog as Newt is, and yes, he lied under oath about his sex life. Happy now?

But this thread is not about Bill Clinton. It’s about Newt Gingrich. And Newt IS a giant hypocrite because he was having a long-term extramarital affair with a congressional aide at the very same moment that he was making public statements of utterly false moral outrage about the president’s extramarital affair while leading the charge for Impeachment. And in fact, Newt’s hypocrisy and fake moral outrage didn’t just end there, because even after the failed impeachment, he also authorized a bunch of truly nasty GOP attack ads based entirely on conservative family-values moral outrage over what Bill had done with Monica.

Which just so happens to have been the exact same thing he was doing at that same moment. However, Newt wasn’t just getting a few hummers from an intern like Bill did. No, for years he had been having lots of sex with his congressional aide-mistress. Although he did eventually marry her after leaving his previous mistress/wife with multiple sclerosis.

But anyway, I guess all of Newt’s serial adultery and fake moral outrage is now considered perfectly acceptable with the Conservative family values crowd since he’s now become their front runner.
Oh — and I guess it must also be fine with them that when Newt was Speaker of the House he had to be reprimanded and fined $300,000 for violating federal tax law by using tax-deductible money for political purposes, and then also tried to lie about that to the House Ethics Panel in an attempt to get the committee to dismiss the complaints against him.

Yeah, it’s pretty clear that it’s just so much easier to summon intense moral outrage over marital infidelity and lying whenever it can be found happening on the political left. When it happens on the right, all they have to do is talk about their deep love and belief in God, and how hard they now pray for forgiveness — and almost any serious character flaw instantly becomes dismissible and totally forgiven.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 11, 2011 12:26 AM
Comment #332935
I guess it must also be fine with them that when Newt was Speaker of the House he had to be reprimanded and fined $300,000 for violating federal tax law by using tax-deductible money for political purposes, and then also tried to lie about that to the House Ethics Panel in an attempt to get the committee to dismiss the complaints against him.

Again, you should really look into the rumors you hear in your zeal against Newt and find the actual facts.

1) He was not fined 300,000. He was sanctioned 300,000 to repay the cost of the investigation. This was clearly stated in the sanction itself.

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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/011897.htm

2) He did not violate federal tax law. His foundation was cleared by the IRS of any wrongdoing

In a case involving the ethics violations that led the House of Representatives to reprimand former Speaker Newt Gingrich in 1997, the Internal Revenue Service has cleared a private foundation close to Mr. Gingrich of breaking tax laws.

The I.R.S. ruling, in favor of the Progress and Freedom Foundation, does not directly exonerate Mr. Gingrich. But it suggests that he did not illegally use tax-exempt money for political purposes, one of the main accusations against him.

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/04/us/irs-clears-foundation-linked-to-gingrich-s-ethics-dispute.html

3) He didn’t use the money for political purposes. He used it to teach a class that was approved by the ethics committee, but some (who were looking to go after him for his part in finding the violations of Jim Wright) tried to construe it as ‘possibly political’.

The IRS, concluding a three-year investigation, ruled that the Progress and Freedom Foundation’s donations to Gingrich were “consistent with its stated exempt purposes,” and Gingrich’s course and course book “were educational in content.”

In its ruling, the IRS said the content of Gingrich’s course “was educational and never favored or opposed a candidate for public office.”

It said the foundation “did not intervene on behalf of candidates of the Republican Party merely by promoting” themes in the course.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/gingrich020499.htm

The IRS said the principles taught in the course were not of use only in political campaigns. “The … course taught principles from American civilization that could be used by each American in everyday life whether the person is a welfare recipient, the head of a large corporation, or a politician.”

http://www.rightgrrl.com/carolyn/newt.html

the Ethics Committee itself approved the course Newt taught

http://www.gargaro.com/newtmoney.html

4) Newt didn’t make a dime off of the class.

Newt wasn’t even paid for the course.

http://www.gargaro.com/newtmoney.html

5) Newt paid for the cost of the investigation with his own personal money, he was authorized to use campaign funds but chose not to.

Under an arrangement worked out last year, Gingrich agreed to pay the penalty out of his own pocket.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/06/08/cq/gingrich.html

6) Newt didn’t hide the class or attempt to mislead the panel, the issue was that one filing, out of many, failed to mention the class. (ie, he made a mistake).

charge had to do with contradictory documents prepared by Newt’s lawyer supplied during the course of the investigation. Newt took responsibility for the error and agreed to reimburse the committee the cost of the investigation into that discrepancy. The agreement specifically noted the payment was not a fine.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2011/12/06/why-nancy-pelosi-is-attacking-newt-gingrich-on-eithics

Newt provided false information to the committee. And what was this “false information?” Newt testified that the above contributions were in fact made by those organizations to “Renewing American Civilization.” He filed papers that stated the very same thing. This is never a fact that anyone was trying to hide. But one paper filed with the committee stated that those groups did not make the contributions. For this, there was an uproar about Newt’s ethics, and he was fined.

Basically, Newt was fined $300,000 because he didn’t read his lawyers’ documents carefully.

http://www.rightgrrl.com/carolyn/newt.html

————-

Those are the facts of the situation. Newt and the foundation in question were cleared of any wrongdoing, yet the left still wants to make this something. It’s the old ‘say a lie often enough and it becomes the truth’ tactic that both parties have used over the years. Heck, some people still believe that Obama wasn’t born in the US or that Bush had something to do with 9/11. So many lies, too many people eagerly willing to believe them… :(

Newt was not out of line for aggressively pursuing the conviction of Clinton, Clinton was guilty of perjury during a sexual harassment lawsuit. If the issue was not political charged he would have been found guilty and removed from office. But alas, that is not the situation in these cases.

Newt WAS guilty of hypocrisy in his statements concerning Clinton’s ‘moral fiber’. Politicians tend to be soulless in this area as I have mentioned before. No one is perfect and people’s personal love life’s should really not be an issue for either party (provided those interactions are legal). Had he kept his attacks to the facts about the issue, he would have avoided that hypocrisy.

Newt did not serve his wife divorce papers while she was in the hospital, this has been backed up by his daughter. The divorce was her idea (most likely after finding out about his infidelity).

BTW, if the left wants the right to not care about the personal failings of their politicians, shouldn’t they afford the right the same? Or is the hypocrisy shared by both parties in this area?

If you are going to go after him for hypocrisy, are you also going after Obama for his hypocrisies? Or is your outrage only saved for your opponents?

If we want to end the path we are going down, we have to take the first step, not ‘do as I say, not as I do’.

Or you can continue making this type of nonsense part of our political process, it isn’t going to get any better. Win by all costs, it seems… :/

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 11, 2011 4:24 AM
Comment #332940

Rhinehold:

Those are the facts of the situation.

No, actually these are the facts of the situation.
Reading that ethics report is like reading about everything that’s gone so wrong with Congress.

Basically, Newt was fined $300,000 because he didn’t read his lawyers’ documents carefully.

From the above link [emphasis mine]:

In responding to the complaints filed against him concerning the Renewing American Civilization course, Mr. Gingrich submitted several letters to the Committee. His first letter, dated October 4, 1994, did not address the tax issues raised in Mr. Jones’ complaint, but rather responded to the part of the complaint concerning unofficial use of official resources. In it Mr. Gingrich stated that GOPAC, among other organizations, paid people to work on the course. After this response, the Committee wrote Mr. Gingrich and asked him specifically to address issues related to whether the course had a partisan, political aspect to it and, if so, whether it was appropriate for a 501(c)(3) organization to be used to sponsor the course. The Committee also specifically asked whether GOPAC had any relationship to the course. Mr. Gingrich’s letter in response, dated December 8, 1994, was prepared by his attorney, but it was read, approved, and signed by Mr. Gingrich. It stated that the course had no partisan, political aspects to it, that his motivation for teaching the course was not political, and that GOPAC neither was involved in nor received any benefit from any aspect of the course. In his testimony before the Subcommittee, Mr. Gingrich admitted that these statements were not true.

When the amended complaint was filed with the Committee in January 1995, Mr. Gingrich’s attorney responded to the complaint on behalf of Mr. Gingrich in a letter dated March 27, 1995. His attorney addressed all the issues in the amended complaint, including the issues related to the Renewing American Civilization course. The letter was signed by Mr. Gingrich’s attorney, but Mr. Gingrich reviewed and approved it prior to its being delivered to the Committee. In an interview with Mr. Cole, Mr. Gingrich stated that if he had seen anything inaccurate in the letter he would have instructed his attorney to correct it. Similar to the December 8, 1994 letter, the March 27, 1995 letter stated that the course had no partisan, political aspects to it, that Mr. Gingrich’s motivation for teaching the course was not political, and that GOPAC had no involvement in nor received any benefit from any aspect of the course. In his testimony before the Subcommittee Mr. Gingrich admitted that these statements were not true.

The goal of the letters was to have the complaints dismissed. Of the people involved in drafting or editing the letters, or reviewing them for accuracy, only Mr. Gingrich had personal knowledge of the facts contained in the letters regarding the course. The facts in the letters that were inaccurate, incomplete, and unreliable were material to the Committee’s determination on how to proceed with the tax questions contained in the complaints.

D. STATEMENT OF ALLEGED VIOLATION

On December 21, 1996, the Subcommittee issued a Statement of Alleged Violation stating that Mr. Gingrich had engaged in conduct that did not reflect creditably on the House of Representatives in that by failing to seek and follow legal advice, Mr. Gingrich failed to take appropriate steps to ensure that activities with respect to the AOW/ACTV project and the Renewing American Civilization project were in accordance with section 501(c)(3); and that on or about December 8, 1994, and on or about March 27, 1995, information was transmitted to the Committee by and on behalf of Mr. Gingrich that was material to matters under consideration by the Committee, which information, as Mr. Gingrich should have known, was inaccurate, incomplete, and unreliable.

On December 21, 1996, Mr. Gingrich filed an answer with the Subcommittee admitting to this violation of House Rules.

You should really look into the rumors you hear in your zeal against to protect Newt and find the actual facts.

Btw, one of the links you provided was entitled “Why Nancy Pelosi Is Attacking Newt Gingrich On Ethics” as if Newt’s ethics violations meant nothing at all, and that bringing the fact up is only something a nasty partisan would do.

But the fact of the matter is, the House Ethics Committee is always a completely bipartisan entity, and the Republicans controlled the House at the time of the investigation. Just because Nancy Pelosi was on the subcommittee at that time does not make her mean and nasty for mentioning that the ethics investigation took place. In fact, at the time, Nancy Pelosi and others were commended by the ethics committee’s chairman, Representative Nancy L. Johnson — a Republican.

[From the link above] Rep. Johnson said:

“I particularly want to commend the members of the subcommittee for their ability to carry out their responsibilities in a collegial, nonpartisan manner in a difficult environment.”

After the investigation, three of the Republican members joined all four Democrats in a 7-1 vote to recommend that the entire House reprimand Gingrich for intentionally misleading the committee.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 11, 2011 12:26 PM
Comment #332947

Adrienne,

You should really look into the rumors you hear in your zeal against to protect Newt and find the actual facts.

I did, and I presented those facts. Nothing you pasted counters anything that we have come to find about the situation.

I really didn’t expect you to examine the evidence presented. Yes the title of the that article was what you said, and is irrelevant, the FACTS are still presented and you ignored them. “I don’t like the title of that article so I won’t accept anything in it”. That’s a reasonable stance to take, I guess… :/

The ‘misleading’ was that one of the reports filed by Newt’s lawyer was incorrect.

The IRS cleared him and he organization in question of all charges in the ethics committee’s findings.

I never mentioned Nancy Pelosi or called her into question. Your attempt at deflection is predictable though.

And yes, Newt admitted that the report was wrong and took responsibility for the error that his lawyer committed. No one is denying that. Seems the reasonable responsible thing to do, not throwing his lawyer under the bus, the final report was his responsibility.

You find that error an ‘ethics violation’? Interesting.

You’ve pasted and quoted a lot of leagalese, do you even understand what it was that he did? Can you detail to me exactly what Newt did wrong in your own words and how does it differ with ANY of the facts I provided to you?

As of yet, you have done nothing to counter them. All you’ve done is paste from the original ruling and a quote from some republicans saying that the dems did a good job. Something I never suggested they didn’t do…

Go ahead, give it a try. Tell me exactly what Newt did in this case that was so terribly wrong.

As for the political nature of the course, the IRS in their 3 year examination found that the course was NOT political in nature and that Newt gained nothing from it. The letter that the lawyer provided, which was wrong, had an inaccuracy in it (about the funding of the class), but one of them was not that the course was political, that was Cole’s interpretation.

As I have said, since this was released, Newt has been cleared of any and all wrongdoing, yet you and the left seem to want to ignore that. I can only imagine why.

As for ‘defending Newt’, as I don’t agree with much of his politics and will certainly not be voting for him, what motivation do I have in ‘defending’ him other than being tired of smear jobs by political hacks trying to gain power? I’ve defended Obama from similar attacks, and other Democrats as well, but when I defend a Republican, I’m just a zealot trying to throw whatever I can up in defense?

Please, I thought you knew me better than that.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 11, 2011 2:30 PM
Comment #332950


Both the partisans of the left and the right have a right to ignore the personal, moral failings of their respective politicians as well as the bipartisan corruption, and often do.

What is the difference?

The right has a large contingent that consider themselves moralists. Who, just a few short years ago, took pride in calling themselves the ‘Moral Majority’.

They are, for the most part, anti women’s right to choose, anti gay, anti immigrant, with a contingent of isolationist, and are often resolute in describing the left as immoral.

Newt’s Palestine statements were totally racist, historically accurate only in the context of that region once being controlled by the Ottoman Empire, as it was controlled by many empire’s, from the Egyptians to the British; and totally appealing to many on the right.

Apparently, corruption and adultery are low on the morality list when it comes to their politicians, which suggests that their concerns about morality is a political ploy based on a flexible belief system.

Imagine if Newt had been caught performing a toe tapping event. It certainly would not discourage Newt from running.

Posted by: jlw at December 11, 2011 3:06 PM
Comment #332958

Oh please, Rhinehold.

You put up a bunch of newspaper, media and website articles. Were you expecting me to read through them assuming all the while that none of them had a political slant? Of course, I could have responded in kind with a bunch of slanted articles and webpages — but I chose not to do that.
Instead, what I gave you was a link to the bipartisan House Ethics Committee Ruling itself — a document outlining exactly what Newt did, and how the Speaker of the House was indeed found to be in violation of House Ethics Rules. Violations he committed but attempted to lie about, yet was ultimately forced to admit to.

No other House Speaker in American history had ever needed to be reprimanded in this way before or since. All the other Speakers have had enough sense and respect for their position not to be so disgustingly, flagrantly corrupt and dishonest.

As for the IRS “investigation”, go ahead and cheer it simply for partisan reasons if you like, but I think you know as well as I do that that ruling was utterly pathetic.

The Progress and Freedom Foundation clearly DID violate its tax-exempt status by donating to Gingrich’s college course.
The special counsel had found that this was “substantially motivated by partisan political goals.” Yet the IRS eventually overruled that by claiming that Newt’s college course “was educational and never favored or opposed a candidate for public office” and “did not intervene on behalf of candidates of the Republican Party merely by promoting” GOP themes in the course.
This was the IRS choosing to use an extremely narrow reading of the law. It’s like they were saying: So What if Newt used the course to recruit for the GOP, and organize for the GOP, and groom candidates for the GOP? As long as the course didn’t come out and say “Vote for GOP Candidate X” it shouldn’t be considered partisan. But we all know that isn’t the truth.
The IRS “investigation” chose to let Newt off the hook — and this is nothing new. They’ve chickened out and given special treatment with other political and high-profile cases before. Aside from this particular ruling, another perfect example would be the way they also chose to let the Church of Scientology (criminal cult) completely off the hook.

Now I know you’ll continue to go on and on here, berating me and defending Newt no matter what — but you should understand that Newt’s defenders can’t fool everyone. This man has proven over and over that he is utterly corrupt, dishonest and rotten to the core. Both in his personal life and all throughout his entire political career.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 11, 2011 5:39 PM
Comment #332971
You put up a bunch of newspaper, media and website articles.

Yes, it’s called sourcing.

Were you expecting me to read through them assuming all the while that none of them had a political slant?

No, I expect everyone to assume everything has a political slant, because it does. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t factually correct.

If a newspaper were to post that the sky was blue and it was because god was a commie, do you throw that whole article out? Was the sky blue or not? They may draw a conclusion that is inacurate or politically slanted, but that doesn’t mean that the facts presented aren’t facts. BTW, I like how you are now apparently tossing out the NY Times and CNN, as they were in those links I provided…

What you are displaying is a perfect example of The Echo Chamber and Poisoning the Well (attempting to throw out everything that someone says because one thing they say is wrong).

Of course, I could have responded in kind with a bunch of slanted articles and webpages — but I chose not to do that.

No, you didn’t. Nothing really to back up your views at all, other than the original conclusions by the ethics committee which are, apparently, infallable according to you. Yet when a similar body finds conclusions about Democrats, then they are apparently all politically motivated. You even suggest the 3 year IRS investigation was ‘utterly pathetic’ without giving the least bit of evidence or substantiation for that assertion other than ‘well, it is so because I say it is’.

a document outlining exactly what Newt did, and how the Speaker of the House was indeed found to be in violation of House Ethics Rules.

So my request should have been simple, when I asked you to tell me exactly what it was that Newt did, in your own words, right? This is important to make sure that we are both understand what the original ethics violations were in order to have a starting point. So, please I’ll ask one more time, what exactly, in your own words (not a cut and paste from the findings) did Newt do?

As for the IRS “investigation”, go ahead and cheer it simply for partisan reasons if you like, but I think you know as well as I do that that ruling was utterly pathetic.

I most certainly do NOT ‘know this’. Any evidence to back up this wild accusation?

The Progress and Freedom Foundation clearly DID violate its tax-exempt status by donating to Gingrich’s college course.

I would have to disagree here. Why do you find it this is ‘clearly’ the case? Tell me, what about the course was political in nature any more than say a course in US History is?

So What if Newt used the course to recruit for the GOP, and organize for the GOP, and groom candidates for the GOP? As long as the course didn’t come out and say “Vote for GOP Candidate X” it shouldn’t be considered partisan. But we all know that isn’t the truth.

“we all know that it was”? Sorry, when you make accusations, you have to back them up. What evidence do you have that the courses were to ‘recruit, organize and groom candidate for the GOP’? You have to provide evidence, not make accusations.

But, I did save the best for last… Here is the comment that nearly made me pee myself laughing about.

No other House Speaker in American history had ever needed to be reprimanded in this way before or since. All the other Speakers have had enough sense and respect for their position not to be so disgustingly, flagrantly corrupt and dishonest.

I am going to provide you with a link. Now, I know that the source may be ‘slanted’ since it mentions some negative information about a Democrat and all, but I think it might help counter this one…

http://articles.latimes.com/1989-04-18/news/mn-1990_1_chairman-julian-c-dixon-public-man-wright-s-conduct

See, before him Jim Wright was found by a bipartisan ethics committee to have violated 69 charges against him (Newt was charged with 2 violations) including pocketing money for himself and his family. He resigned.

In an unprecedented action, the House Ethics Committee Monday unanimously accused Speaker Jim Wright (D-Tex.) of 69 violations of House rules for allegedly accepting $145,000 in improper gifts from a Texas businessman and using sales of a 1984 book to evade limits on outside income.

While leaders of the panel emphasized that Wright is yet to be proved guilty of any wrongdoing, the 12-0 bipartisan vote to bring serious charges against the Speaker was a heavy blow to his chances of retaining his leadership post.

I’m assuming that you are just ‘forgetting’ about this part of the story when you say that ‘All the other Speakers have had enough sense and respect for their position not to be so disgustingly, flagrantly corrupt and dishonest’?

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 12, 2011 1:09 AM
Comment #332972

BTW, I know you all hate slanted sources, but I thought that this might help you when trying to figure out between rumors and facts…

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/12/the-gingrich-divorce-myth/

Q: Did Newt Gingrich ask his former wife to sign divorce papers on her deathbed?

A: No. Jackie Battley is still alive, and the couple had agreed months before the 1980 hospital visit to seek divorce. But she was recovering from surgery to remove a tumor, and the former House speaker admits that they “got into an argument.”

So, what do we know for certain? One, Battley and Gingrich were already separated and in the process of getting a divorce when he visited her in the hospital. And two, Battley wasn’t dying of cancer. Also, the “yellow pad” and handwritten list of divorce terms mentioned in the original Mother Jones story aren’t mentioned in the accounts given by Battley, Gingrich or Cushman, who all were present.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 12, 2011 1:28 AM
Comment #332978


Yes, it’s called sourcing.

Yeah okay, I can certainly play the newspaper article game too. Here’s one for you:

Gingrich House Ethics Complaint Echoes in Criticism Lodged Today

Nothing really to back up your views at all, other than the original conclusions by the ethics committee which are, apparently, infallable according to you.

Well, that article above backs up what I’ve said, but answer me this: do you seriously think the House Speaker would have overwhelmingly lost the support of so many members of his own party if it wasn’t very clear he was corrupt and dishonest?
There were Republicans demanding he step down as Speaker over the embarrassment his corruption and lies caused them (Jim Wright was a crook who at the very least had the sense to step down, while Newt’s incredible ego and arrogance made him think doing so was unnecessary). You’re attacking me for thinking that the ethics committee was “infallible”, but it wasn’t just three Republicans on the ethics committee who acknowledged Newt’s corruption and dishonesty. The entire House ended up voting 395-28 in favor of punishment for Gingrich — comprised of two reprimands and a $300,000 penalty — and of that 395 number, 196 Representatives were Republicans.

No, the fact of the matter is that Newt’s guilt was more than clear, and personally, I think the House of Representatives as a whole was actually being very generous to allow him to stay at all.

By the way, earlier you wrote:

Newt admitted that the report was wrong and took responsibility for the error that his lawyer committed. No one is denying that. Seems the reasonable responsible thing to do, not throwing his lawyer under the bus, the final report was his responsibility.


This was absolutely incorrect. Gingrich needed two lawyers for this ethics probe. He did indeed throw his first lawyer under the bus. When Newt’s first lawyer realized that he’d lied to the House Ethics Committee and then tried to blame him for misrepresenting the facts, the lawyer promptly fired Newt as a client and informed the committee that Gingrich had indeed reviewed everything he’d submitted to them. This appears to be why Newt was finally forced to admit to his guilt. And it’s definitely why the second lawyer who Newt got to represent him was forced to state that what Newt had told the ethics committee had been: “glaringly inconsistent.”
So much for Newt’s sense of “responsibility.”

As far as the IRS investigation goes, those comments are my own opinions. I think it’s very obvious that the IRS totally took a pass when the facts were more than clear — the way they so often do for those of the 1%. This is how crooked politicians like Newt Gingrich, and crooked religious enterprises like The Church of Scientology, and crooked financiers like Bernie Madoff are allowed to get away with truly glaring and despicable crimes.

The article I linked to above agrees with my assertion:

The IRS “just blinked,” said Frances Hill, a University of Miami law school professor. “It was a signal that the IRS didn’t intend to enforce, certainly if it involved people with political power.”

As for Newt’s first wife here is what she has said about it:

“He can say that we had been talking about it for 10 years, but the truth is that it came as a complete surprise,” she told Lois Romano of The Washington Post. “He walked out in the spring of 1980…By September, I went into the hospital for my third surgery. The two girls came to see me, and said, ‘Daddy is downstairs. Could he come up?’ When he got there, he wanted to discuss the terms of the divorce while I was recovering from my surgery.”

Btw, I think it’s totally creepy that his first wife was his high school geometry teacher, and that they secretly dated until they got married. I also think it’s creepy that she put him all the way through school until he got his P.h.D without him ever working. And it’s also creepy that Gingrich refused to pay any alimony and child-support payments after divorcing her and that they ended up so broke that The First Baptist Church in his hometown was forced to take up a collection to support Newt’s family.
But that’s Newt Gingrich for you — a Big Creep in every way possible.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 12, 2011 1:49 PM
Comment #332983
do you seriously think the House Speaker would have overwhelmingly lost the support of so many members of his own party if it wasn’t very clear he was corrupt and dishonest? There were Republicans demanding he step down as Speaker over the embarrassment his corruption and lies caused them

Like?

Remember, the reason he stepped down was because of the loss of support he got, after reelection, when the GOP lost what they considered ‘too many seats’ during that election. This was some time after the ethics ruling was handed down. His stepping down had little to nothing to do with the ethics ruling and much more to do with what was perceived as a weakness in leadership during the election cycle. Trying to merge the two separate things together doesn’t stand up to historical accuracy.

As for Newt’s first wife here is what she has said about it:

And both Newt and their daughter disagree with that version of events. You want to believe her because it fits your narrative and preconceived notions. I have none and find that it makes much more sense to believe the daughter here.

Finally, you still haven’t done what I asked, tell me what the violations were in your own words.

You ignore the fact that the class he taught was approved by the ethics committee before he taught it and they found that it was not ‘political’ in nature.

You also ignore the fact that the filings all stated that the organization was helping pay for the class (of which he received *NO* money from personally) except for one.

What Newt is guilty of is not reading the documents prepared for him by his lawyer before signing them and handing them over to the ethics committee. The class was non political as determined by both the ethics committee when he sought approval and after by the IRS after a three year investigation. You dismiss anything that doesn’t back up your preconceived notions about Newt.

And again, as I’ve stated before, I have a lot of problems with Newt that are policy/governmental view related and would never support him or vote for him. But I feel comfortable rejecting him on those factors, I don’t need to turn him into evil incarnate, ignoring anything that doesn’t support that view, just to feel superior to him…

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 12, 2011 4:02 PM
Comment #332984


Gingrich could be the poster guy for the sad state that our political system has fallen into. A Congress that is overflowing with quid pro quo. A 12% approval and many of them are in safe seats. As long as the people aren’t willing to challenge this two party party they deserve the worst. Flipping a coin to decide elections couldn’t produce worse results.

Posted by: jlw at December 12, 2011 4:20 PM
Comment #332985
I think it’s very obvious that the IRS totally took a pass when the facts were more than clear — the way they so often do for those of the 1%.

I’ll let Willie Nelson and Wesley Snipes know how easy they got it.

BTW, can you guess what the biggest handouts to the 1% that the government gives them?

Using IRS data, IBD found that the top 1% of income earners claimed approximately $7 billion in Social Security benefits in 2009. That year, the program paid super-rich seniors — those with adjusted gross incomes exceeding $10 million — an average of $33,000 each.

Medicare, meanwhile, paid roughly $2.6 billion in health care subsidies for the richest 1% of enrollees, based on calculations using Medicare enrollment, overall Medicare spending and premium data. (Medicare does not track spending by enrollee income.) And if you consider that 5% of Medicare enrollees have more than $1 million in savings, the amount taxpayers spend to subsidize retiree health benefits skyrockets.

The richest 1%, for example, claimed a total of about $400 million in jobless benefits in 2009. The reason for these billions in payments to the wealthy is that many federal transfer programs don’t have income limits on benefits.

“This is not an accidental loophole in the law,” Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., noted. “To the contrary, this reverse Robin Hood-style of wealth distribution is an intentional effort to get all Americans bought into a system where everyone appears to benefit.” In November, Coburn issued a report focused on federal subsidies going to millionaires.

In addition to direct payments, the top 1% claimed about $31 million in tax credits for buying electric cars, $469 million in home energy credits, and $111 million in child care credits, according to IBD’s analysis of IRS tax return data….

“Shifts in the distribution of government transfer payments (since 1979) contributed to the increase in after-tax income inequality,” according to a recent study by the Congressional Budget Office. The rapid growth in Medicare, for example, “tended to shift more transfer income to middle- and upper-income households.”

The CBO also found that while the poorest fifth of households got 54% of federal transfer payments in 1979, they received just 36% in 2007. Several political leaders and policy groups have proposed changes to reduce federal payments to the super rich.

For centuries, wealth flowed from the old and relatively rich to the young and relatively poor. Nowadays, the direction has been reversed. Via FICA taxes, the young and relatively poor give money to the old and relatively wealthy (you not only make more money when you’re older, you’re sitting on all sorts of assets accrued over time). Every study of Medicare and other entitlements that are not particularly means-tested shows that we can’t have both a safety net and an entitlement system that sucks in huge amounts of cash and then gives it to people regardless of need. I think it would be a better world and a fairer world - and a richer world - if the government took in enough money to help the poor and indigent (whatever their age) and let the rest of us keep more of our money and make more of our choices for our futures.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 12, 2011 4:26 PM
Comment #332989

Rhinehold:

Like?

Remember, the reason he stepped down was because of the loss of support he got, after reelection, when the GOP lost what they considered ‘too many seats’ during that election. This was some time after the ethics ruling was handed down. His stepping down had little to nothing to do with the ethics ruling and much more to do with what was perceived as a weakness in leadership during the election cycle. Trying to merge the two separate things together doesn’t stand up to historical accuracy.

Like:
When Gingrich held power, his GOP lieutenants tried to topple him
Back in 1996, Republican Representatives Steve Largent, Chris Shays and Peter King all very publicly came out and asked Newt to resign over the disgrace of the ethics investigation — but Newt refused to do so. Rep. Michael Forbes, Jim Leach, Tom Campbell, Mark Neumann and Linda Smith a others came out and said they would not support his reelection as speaker.
As the link above indicates, there seems to be lingering embarrassment about what he did while House Speaker:

If congressional endorsements are any indication, there appears to be little affection for Gingrich on Capitol Hill. He’s received endorsements from just seven of the House’s 240 Republicans, according to CQ-Roll Call, which tracks endorsements.

And only two of Gingrich’s seven endorsements come from the 50 House Republicans who were in office during Gingrich’s speakership.

Getting only 7 endorsements out of 240 House Republicans? That speaks volumes, IMO.

And both Newt and their daughter disagree with that version of events. You want to believe her because it fits your narrative and preconceived notions. I have none and find that it makes much more sense to believe the daughter here.

Like I said earlier, I don’t think the he said/she said details change too much about the whole scenario. The fact remains that Newt walked out on his wife during a time when she was having multiple surgeries for cancer, and afterward he refused to pay alimony and child support. This is obviously very cold-hearted behavior, and shows a serious lack of character.

Finally, you still haven’t done what I asked, tell me what the violations were in your own words.

I’m wondering why you keep asking this? I gave you a good link to the ethics committee report and I quoted and highlighted what Newt admitted to. If I haven’t been clear enough, you should read the whole report, because it spells out what they were investigating very clearly.

You ignore the fact that the class he taught was approved by the ethics committee before he taught it and they found that it was not ‘political’ in nature.

You also ignore the fact that the filings all stated that the organization was helping pay for the class (of which he received *NO* money from personally) except for one.

The problem was, the information Newt had provided about his college course to the ethics committee was really very sketchy in the first place. When the investigation looked into the many serious issues and questions with the way he had raised money for the course, they told him he didn’t but should have sought out legal advice on the propriety of using tax-exempt funds for his courses — something which the committee found to be supporting Gingrich and GOPAC’s goals.
To raise funds for his course Newt used GOPAC, a political action committee that Newt himself ran that trained Republican activists to run for political office. There was the Kennesaw State College Foundation, and Reinhardt College, and the Progress and Freedom Foundation, and all of those were all tax-exempt organizations. Also, there was Abraham Lincoln Opportunity Foundation, that was supposed to be a charity to benefit urban youths, but in reality it was a front for GOPAC, since it urged their donors to contribute “dues” to this Foundation, which were then forwarded to GOPAC, and which in turn contributed them directly to Republican political candidates.
Basically Newt was pushing all the boundaries and skirting the laws here — and he has long done this. Also, the committee found that Gingrich provided “inaccurate, incomplete, and unreliable” information to the committee about GOPAC’s relationship to his college course.

What Newt is guilty of is not reading the documents prepared for him by his lawyer before signing them and handing them over to the ethics committee. The class was non political as determined by both the ethics committee when he sought approval

Bullsh*t. And Newt was forced to admit to his guilt. He totally disgraced himself.
You’re clearly trying to give him a pass, and it’s ridiculous.

after by the IRS after a three year investigation. You dismiss anything that doesn’t back up your preconceived notions about Newt.

The IRS decided to let Newt and his GOPAC off the hook over whether he had been in violation of federal tax law. Cheer this fact if you wish, but I cannot.

And again, as I’ve stated before, I have a lot of problems with Newt that are policy/governmental view related and would never support him or vote for him. But I feel comfortable rejecting him on those factors, I don’t need to turn him into evil incarnate, ignoring anything that doesn’t support that view, just to feel superior to him…

Well, I think you’re protesting a bit too much to be completely disinterested.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 12, 2011 5:32 PM
Comment #332990

jlw,
Well said. I couldn’t agree with you more!

Posted by: Adrienne at December 12, 2011 5:56 PM
Comment #332995


Gingrich has signed his fourth no adultery pledge and By God, he means it this time.

Posted by: jlw at December 12, 2011 6:57 PM
Comment #333006

jlw,
Lol! At first I thought you were joking — but it’s actually true! Newt has signed a “No Adultery Pledge”!!! The staggering hypocrisy of this repulsive man is perpetually surreal!

But wait, there’s more: Newt once suggested that people who bring two ounces of marijuana into the country should get the death penalty — even though he admitted he smoked pot himself!

Ha ha! I just love the quote:

See, when I smoked pot it was illegal, but not immoral,” Gingrich reportedly told Wall Street Journal reporter Hilary Stout in 1996. “Now, it is illegal AND immoral. The law didn’t change, only the morality… That’s why you get to go to jail and I don’t.”

Of course — there always are and always will be special rules just for Newt Gingrich.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 13, 2011 12:36 AM
Comment #333013
I’m wondering why you keep asking this? I gave you a good link to the ethics committee report and I quoted and highlighted what Newt admitted to. If I haven’t been clear enough, you should read the whole report, because it spells out what they were investigating very clearly.

It shows whether or not you understand at the basic level what the issues they were addressing were. You have yet to show that. The ‘lying’ came from documentation provided to the committee that his lawyer prepared and he did not go over well enough to verify the accuracy. The one document was contradictory to the others that were presented, he never once hid what was going on with the class, what it’s purpose was and who was paying for it EXCEPT in one of the documents which was wrong. This is the source of the ‘lying to the committee’ charge. He was guilty in that he was responsible for those documents to be correct. But there is no evidence that he was PURPOSELY trying to hide anything. As I have stated, he had sought and received preapproval for the class by the same committee.

By the letter of the law, his not being accurate on the document he was responsible for was ‘lying to the committee’ about the class, but taken in the whole of the actions it was clear he never attempted to hide anything about it. That’s the real issue, you want to use the repayment of investigation time as proof of something, the legalese of the charge as proof of something, but in reality when you understand what was going on, it didn’t rise to the level of trying to steal money from the taxpayers, defraud the government, purposely hide what he was doing, etc.

Which is why I wanted you to tell me exactly what he did and when, because it is clear you don’t really know the details, only enough to add this to your list of ‘reasons to hate Newt’.

Well, I think you’re protesting a bit too much to be completely disinterested.

Well, since you believe a charge against someone you disagree with unless it is proven otherwise, it must be true, right?

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 13, 2011 4:49 AM
Comment #333014
Like I said earlier, I don’t think the he said/she said details change too much about the whole scenario. The fact remains that Newt walked out on his wife during a time when she was having multiple surgeries for cancer, and afterward he refused to pay alimony and child support. This is obviously very cold-hearted behavior, and shows a serious lack of character.

Again, both Newt and his daughter assert that the divorce was her choosing, not his.

Most likely, as I stated before, because she was fed up with his affair.

The thing is, there are many things that he did that I don’t agree with. But reality of situations are hard to determine without being in them. I’ve been divorced once before, it was a disaster of a marriage and a mistake all around. I even found myself having cheated on my wife once (admitted to her, we tried to work through it). I was also very young. But those are things that were between her and me, no one else knew or could understand the issues between the two of us and the reasons for what happened. I am also a much different person than I was 20 years ago and learned much from that that many who have never been in the same situation could have learned.

But that doesn’t make me a bad person or unfit to be an effective leader/president/etc. There are many other things that would make me unfit, none of it having to do with the mistakes and emotional issues that take place during a tumultuous relationship. Nor do those things have anything to do with Newt’s ability to be a president either. Continuing to drag people’s personal lives through the mud to discredit them is a trend in US politics that I am disgusted of and tired of beyond belief.

That being said, you have touched on many other aspects of Newt’s views and positions that I *do* disagree with and could never support him in that role for. But we should be focusing on THEM, not the torrid soap opera of a life he has created for himself. It doesn’t matter, it has no effect on his ability to be president and it certainly is no one else’s business but their own.

I know I am wasting my breath here with you but perhaps someone else will look in the mirror and see what kind of terrible gossipy process they are participating in and we can try to put an end to this nonsense.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 13, 2011 5:00 AM
Comment #333019

Cain? Who gives a rat’s tucus about Herman Cain or his endorsement?

The Ethically Barren Great Philanderer nailed that all-important Gary Busey endorsement!

What else could he possibly need?

Posted by: Gary St. Lawrence at December 13, 2011 11:44 AM
Comment #333026

Rhinehold:

It shows whether or not you understand at the basic level what the issues they were addressing were. You have yet to show that.

Okay, since you’ve made it clear that you refuse to read the link to the ethics committee report I gave you earlier, I’ll post a good portion of it and highlight the issues to show that I do “understand at the basic level what the issues they were addressing were.”

On September 26, 1996, the Subcommittee announced that, in light of certain facts discovered during the Preliminary Inquiry, the investigation was being expanded to include the following additional areas:

1) Whether Representative Gingrich provided accurate, reliable, and complete information concerning the course entitled “Renewing American Civilization,” GOPAC’s relationship to the course entitled “Renewing American Civilization,” or the Progress and Freedom Foundation in the course of communicating with the Committee, directly or through counsel (House Rule 43, Cl. 1);

2) Whether Representative Gingrich’s relationship with the Progress and Freedom Foundation, including but not limited to his involvement with the course entitled “Renewing American Civilization,” violated the foundation’s status under 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and related regulations (House Rule 43, Cl. 1);

3) Whether Representative Gingrich’s use of the personnel and facilities of the Progress and Freedom Foundation constituted a use of unofficial resources for official purposes (House Rule 45); and

4) Whether Representative Gingrich’s activities on behalf of the Abraham Lincoln Opportunity Foundation violated its status under 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and related regulations or whether the Abraham Lincoln Opportunity Foundation violated its status with the knowledge and approval of Representative Gingrich (House Rule 43, Cl. 1).

As discussed below, the Subcommittee issued a Statement of Alleged Violation with respect to the initial allegation pertaining to Renewing American Civilization and also with respect to items 1 and 4 above. The Subcommittee did not find any violations of House Rules in regard to the issues set forth in items 2 and 3 above. The Subcommittee, however, decided to recommend that the full Committee make available to the IRS documents produced during the Preliminary Inquiry for use in its ongoing inquiries of 501(c)(3) organizations. In regard to item 3 above, the Subcommittee decided to issue some advice to Members concerning the proper use of outside consultants for official purposes.
C. SUMMARY OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE’S FACTUAL FINDINGS The Subcommittee found that in regard to two projects, Mr. Gingrich engaged in activity involving 501(c)(3) organizations that was substantially motivated by partisan, political goals. The Subcommittee also found that Mr. Gingrich provided the Committee with material information about one of those projects that was inaccurate, incomplete, and unreliable.
1. AOW/ACTV

The first project was a television program called the American Opportunities Workshop (“AOW”). It took place in May 1990. The idea for this project came from Mr. Gingrich and he was principally responsible for developing its message. AOW involved broadcasting a television program on the subject of various governmental issues. Mr. Gingrich hoped that this program would help create a “citizens’ movement.” Workshops were set up throughout the country where people could gather to watch the program and be recruited for the citizens’ movement. While the program was educational, the citizens’ movement was also considered a tool to recruit non-voters and people who were apolitical to the Republican Party. The program was deliberately free of any references to Republicans or partisan politics because Mr. Gingrich believed such references would dissuade the target audience of non-voters from becoming involved.

AOW started out as a project of GOPAC, a political action committee dedicated to, among other things, achieving Republican control of the United States House of Representatives. Its methods for accomplishing this goal included the development and articulation of a political message and the dissemination of that message as widely as possible. One such avenue of dissemination was AOW. The program, however, consumed a substantial portion of GOPAC’s revenues. Because of the expense, Mr. Gingrich and others at GOPAC decided to transfer the project to a 501(c)(3) organization in order to attract tax-deductible funding. The 501(c)(3) organization chosen was the Abraham Lincoln Opportunity Foundation (“ALOF”). ALOF was dormant at the time and was revived to sponsor AOW’s successor, American Citizens’ Television (“ACTV”). ALOF operated out of GOPAC’s offices. Virtually all its officers and employers were simultaneously GOPAC officers or employees. ACTV had the same educational aspects and partisan, political goals as AOW. The principal difference between the two was that ACTV used approximately $260,000 in tax-deductible contributions to fund its operations. ACTV broadcast three television programs in 1990 and then ceased operations. The last program was funded by a 501(c)(4) organization because the show’s content was deemed to be too political for a 501(c)(3) organization.

2. Renewing American Civilization

The second project utilizing 501(c)(3) organizations involved a college course taught by Mr. Gingrich called Renewing American Civilization. Mr. Gingrich developed the course as a subset to and tool of a larger political and cultural movement also called Renewing American Civilization. The goal of this movement, as stated by Mr. Gingrich, was the replacement of the “welfare state” with an “opportunity society.” A primary means of achieving this goal was the development of the movement’s message and the dissemination of that message as widely as possible. Mr. Gingrich intended that a “Republican majority” would be the heart of the movement and that the movement would “professionalize” House Republicans. A method for achieving these goals was to use the movement’s message to “attract voters, resources, and candidates.” According to Mr. Gingrich, the course was, among other things, a primary and essential means to develop and disseminate the message of the movement.

The core message of the movement and the course was that the welfare state had failed, that it could not be repaired but had to be replaced, and that it had to be replaced with an opportunity society based on what Mr. Gingrich called the “Five Pillars of American Civilization.” These were: 1) personal strength; 2) entrepreneurial free enterprise; 3) the spirit of invention; 4) quality as defined by Edwards Deming; and 5) the lessons of American history. The message also concentrated on three substantive areas. These were: 1) jobs and economic growth; 2) health; and 3) saving the inner city.

This message was also Mr. Gingrich’s main campaign theme in 1993 and 1994 and Mr. Gingrich sought to have Republican candidates adopt the Renewing American Civilization message in their campaigns. In the context of political campaigns, Mr. Gingrich used the term “welfare state” as a negative label for Democrats and the term “opportunity society” as a positive label for Republicans.

As General Chairman of GOPAC, Mr. Gingrich decided that GOPAC would use Renewing American Civilization as its political message and theme during 1993-1994. GOPAC, however, was having financial difficulties and could not afford to disseminate its political messages as it had in past years. GOPAC had a number of roles in regard to the course. For example, GOPAC personnel helped develop, manage, promote, and raise funds for the course. GOPAC Charter Members helped develop the idea to teach the course as a means for communicating GOPAC’s message. GOPAC Charter Members at Charter Meetings helped develop the content of the course. GOPAC was “better off” as a result of the nationwide dissemination of the Renewing American Civilization message via the course in that the message GOPAC had adopted and determined to be the one that would help it achieve its goals was broadcast widely and at no cost to GOPAC.

The course was taught at Kennesaw State College (“KSC”) in 1993 and at Reinhardt College in 1994 and 1995. Each course consisted of ten lectures and each lecture consisted of approximately four hours of classroom instruction, for a total of forty hours. Mr. Gingrich taught twenty hours of each course and his co-teacher, or occasionally a guest lecturer, taught twenty hours. Students from each of the colleges as well as people who were not students attended the lectures. Mr. Gingrich’s 20-hour portion of the course was taped and distributed to remote sites, referred to as “site hosts,” via satellite, videotape and cable television. As with AOW/ACTV, Renewing American Civilization involved setting up workshops around the country where people could gather to watch the course. While the course was educational, Mr. Gingrich intended that the workshops would be, among other things, a recruiting tool for GOPAC and the Republican Party.

The major costs for the Renewing American Civilization course were for dissemination of the lectures. This expense was primarily paid for by tax-deductible contributions made to the 501(c)(3) organizations that sponsored the course. Over the three years the course was broadcast, approximately $1.2 million was spent on the project. The Kennesaw State College Foundation (“KSCF”) sponsored the course the first year. All funds raised were turned over to KSCF and dedicated exclusively for the use of the Renewing American Civilization course. KSCF did not, however, manage the course and its role was limited to depositing donations into its bank account and paying bills from that account that were presented to it by the Dean of the KSC Business School. KSCF contracted with the Washington Policy Group, Inc. (“WPG”) to manage and raise funds for the course’s development, production and distribution. Jeffrey Eisenach, GOPAC’s Executive Director from June 1991 to June 1993 was the president and sole owner of WPG. WPG and Mr. Eisenach played similar roles with respect to AOW/ACTV.

When the contract between WPG and KSCF ended in the fall of 1993, the Progress and Freedom Foundation (“PFF”) assumed the role WPG had with the course at the same rate of compensation. Mr. Eisenach was PFF’s founder and president. Shortly after PFF took over the management of the course, the Georgia Board of Regents passed a resolution prohibiting any elected official from teaching at a Georgia state educational institution. This was the culmination of a controversy that had arisen around the course at KSC. A group of KSC faculty had objected to the course being taught on the campus because of a belief that it was an effort to use the college to disseminate a political message. Because of the Board of Regent’s decision and the controversy, it was decided that the course would be moved to a private college.
The course was moved to Reinhardt for the 1994 and 1995 sessions. While there, PFF assumed full responsibility for the course. PFF no longer received payments to run the course but, instead, took in all contributions to the course and paid all the bills, including paying Reinhardt for the use of the college’s video production facilities. All funds for the course were raised by and expended by PFF under its tax-exempt status.
3. Failure to Seek Legal Advice

Under the Internal Revenue Code, a 501(c)(3) organization must be operated exclusively for exempt purposes. The presence of a single non-exempt purpose, if more than insubstantial in nature, will destroy the exemption regardless of the number or importance of truly exempt purposes. Conferring a benefit on private interests is a non-exempt purpose. Under the Internal Revenue Code, a 501(c)(3) organization is also prohibited from intervening in a political campaign or providing any support to a political action committee. These prohibitions reflect congressional concerns that taxpayer funds not be used to subsidize political activity.

During the Preliminary Inquiry, the Subcommittee consulted with an expert in the law of tax-exempt organizations and read materials on the subject. Mr. Gingrich’s activities on behalf of AOW/ACTV and Renewing American Civilization, as well as the activities of others on behalf of those projects done with Mr. Gingrich’s knowledge and approval, were reviewed by the expert. The expert concluded that those activities violated the status of the organizations under section 501(c)(3) in that, among other things, those activities were intended to confer more than insubstantial benefits on GOPAC, Mr. Gingrich, and Republican entities and candidates, and provided support to GOPAC.
At Mr. Gingrich’s request, the Subcommittee also heard from tax counsel retained by Mr. Gingrich for the purposes of the Preliminary Inquiry. While that counsel is an experienced tax attorney with a sterling reputation, he has less experience in dealing with tax-exempt organizations law than does the expert retained by the Subcommittee. According to Mr. Gingrich’s tax counsel, the type of activity involved in the AOW/ACTV and Renewing American Civilization projects would not violate the status of the relevant organizations under section 501(c)(3). He opined that once it was determined that an activity was “educational,” as defined by the IRS, and did not have the effect of benefiting a private interest, it did not violate the private benefit prohibition. In the view of Mr. Gingrich’s tax counsel, motivation on the part of an organization’s principals and agents is irrelevant. Further, he opined that a 501(c)(3) organization does not violate the private benefit prohibition or political campaign prohibition through close association with or support of a political action committee unless it specifically calls for the election or defeat of an identifiable political candidate.
Both the Subcommittee’s tax expert and Mr. Gingrich’s tax counsel, however, agreed that had Mr. Gingrich sought their advice before embarking on activities of the type involved in AOW/ACTV and the Renewing American Civilization course, each of them would have advised Mr. Gingrich not to use a 501(c)(3) organization as he had in regard to those activities. The Subcommittee’s tax expert said that doing so would violate 501(c)(3). During his appearance before the Subcommittee, Mr. Gingrich’s tax counsel said that he would not have recommended the use of 501(c)(3) organizations to sponsor the course because the combination of politics and 501(c)(3) organizations is an “explosive mix” almost certain to draw the attention of the IRS.
Based on the evidence, it was clear that Mr. Gingrich intended that the AOW/ACTV and Renewing American Civilization projects have substantial partisan, political purposes. In addition, he was aware that political activities in the context of 501(c)(3) organizations were problematic. Prior to embarking on these projects, Mr. Gingrich had been involved with another organization that had direct experience with the private benefit prohibition in a political context, the American Campaign Academy. In a 1989 Tax Court opinion issued less than a year before Mr. Gingrich set the AOW/ACTV project into motion, the Academy was denied its exemption under 501(c)(3) because, although educational, it conferred an impermissible private benefit on Republican candidates and entities. Close associates of Mr. Gingrich were principals in the American Campaign Academy, Mr. Gingrich taught at the Academy, and Mr. Gingrich had been briefed at the time on the tax controversy surrounding the Academy. In addition, Mr. Gingrich stated publicly that he was taking a very aggressive approach to the use of 501(c)(3) organizations in regard to, at least, the Renewing American Civilization course.
Taking into account Mr. Gingrich’s background, experience, and sophistication with respect to tax-exempt organizations, and his status as a Member of Congress obligated to maintain high ethical standards, the Subcommittee concluded that Mr. Gingrich should have known to seek appropriate legal advice to ensure that his conduct in regard to the AOW/ACTV and Renewing American Civilization projects was in compliance with 501(c)(3). Had he sought and followed such advice — after having set out all the relevant facts, circumstances, plans, and goals described above — 501(c)(3) organizations would not have been used to sponsor Mr. Gingrich’s ACTV and Renewing American Civilization projects.

Above, I gave you Gingrich’s statements to the Committee where he admits that everything he was doing was partisan and political and that the facts in the letters were inaccurate, incomplete, and unreliable and that the goal of those letters was to have the complaints dismissed against him. He also admitted that he had engaged in conduct that did not reflect creditably on the House of Representatives, and that he failed to seek and follow legal advice and take appropriate steps to make sure his activities were in accordance with the law regarding the use of 501’s and in doing so had violated House Rules.

From there it had been up to the IRS to investigate Newt and GOPAC — and despite the fact that this bi-partisan House ethics committee had done a great deal of the investigative work, and had called in experts to weigh in on the illegality of what Gingrich had done as regards 501’s, and was basically handing them proof that Gingrich had been guilty of breaking the law, the IRS still chose to let him off.

The ‘lying’ came from documentation provided to the committee that his lawyer prepared and he did not go over well enough to verify the accuracy. The one document was contradictory to the others that were presented, he never once hid what was going on with the class, what it’s purpose was and who was paying for it EXCEPT in one of the documents which was wrong. This is the source of the ‘lying to the committee’ charge. He was guilty in that he was responsible for those documents to be correct. But there is no evidence that he was PURPOSELY trying to hide anything. As I have stated, he had sought and received preapproval for the class by the same committee.

By the letter of the law, his not being accurate on the document he was responsible for was ‘lying to the committee’ about the class, but taken in the whole of the actions it was clear he never attempted to hide anything about it. That’s the real issue, you want to use the repayment of investigation time as proof of something, the legalese of the charge as proof of something, but in reality when you understand what was going on, it didn’t rise to the level of trying to steal money from the taxpayers, defraud the government, purposely hide what he was doing, etc.

This is just a big pile of BS — and I’m done here.
But I want to thank you for the discussion, Rhinehold! Because I think it is really important for people to understand exactly what kind of a slimy and dishonest guy Newt Gingrich truly is.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 13, 2011 2:55 PM
Comment #333030

But I want to thank you for the discussion, Rhinehold! Because I think it is really important for people to understand exactly what kind of a slimy and dishonest guy Newt Gingrich truly is.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 13, 2011 2:55 PM

Adrienne, are you planning to vote republican in 2012 or are you just trying to tell republicans who they should run in order to beat Obama?

I believe you show an example of the fear of democrats to run against Gingrich.

Posted by: Mike at December 13, 2011 4:46 PM
Comment #333032

Mike,
For all of the reasons I’ve explained above, if Republicans actually choose to let Gingrich become the winner of their Clown Car Primary, I very much doubt that Democrats are going to fear the 2012 election.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 13, 2011 5:06 PM
Comment #333053
Okay, since you’ve made it clear that you refuse to read the link to the ethics committee report I gave you earlier, I’ll post a good portion of it and highlight the issues to show that I do “understand at the basic level what the issues they were addressing were.”

Thing is I have read it. Unfortunately, you still are unable to ‘in your own words’ detail the exact actions. You highlight charges as proof of something so I’m not sure if you just don’t get that they were unproven charges or that the 1 tax ‘expert’ that they consulted was giving testimony on what his advice would be, not on what was legal or not (since he would be unable to do so). It is also interesting that you take this one ‘expert’ as more knowledgeable on what is a violation of tax law over the IRS, but since you made up your mind a LONG time ago, you are right, trying to have this conversation is not going to prove to be very fruitful.

I had started to go through the areas you thought were important and show you how you how you completely have missed what is going on, but really I’m getting tired of this… My main goal had been to try and bring logic and reason to the discussion and take emotion/hate/superiority out of the destruction of our candidate (and then maybe better ones would run without fear of being treated this way) but the comment right after my last one and your comments through the thread have proven to me that we are far too gone than I had hoped in this regard. It worked so well in the past to destroy people that lying, exaggerating, soap opera Jerry Springer gossiping is all that people care about these days and facts and reason be damned.

It’s all worth it for the cause, isn’t it?

Posted by: Rhin at December 13, 2011 11:30 PM
Comment #333064

Rhinehold,

facts and reason be damned.

Right back at you, sir.
Of course, you’re free to think whatever you want. However I must admit that I find it pretty amazing that someone would doubt that Gingrich was guilty after he himself was forced to admit to his guilt over the findings of that ethics committee, and was then required to pay out 300,000 dollars in order to hold onto his position.

It’s all worth it for the cause, isn’t it?

Absolutely. I’m sick to death of so many utterly dishonest and unethical people of weak character holding the reins of power in America. (And that goes both Right and Left.) I do think people need to know a presidential candidate’s history, rather than just automatically accept all the campaign whitewashing and BS that is always sold to us. And the truly horrible facts and history about what kind of man Newt Gingrich is are very important for the voters of this country to know.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 14, 2011 12:40 PM
Comment #333068


When an institution like the U.S. Congress becomes known as a place to enhance ones financial lot in life, it attracts candidates of weak character. Candidates whose vote is for sale.

One aspect of Newt that hasn’t come to light is his support for, the supposedly now defunct PNAC, and this week, he received the endorsement of several, supposedly former members of PNAC, Dick Cheney being the most prominent.

How on earth could Newt not be the right man for the job if he has the endorsement of Cheney. All he needs now is the Bush endorsement.

Posted by: jlw at December 14, 2011 1:42 PM
Post a comment