Posted on 01/12/2012 2:23:40 PM PST by Slyscribe
He didn't "receive a fine." He was also the only Speaker or any member of Congress against whom 84(!) bogus ethics charges were filed by minority party and who was cleared on all 84(!) of them, including ruling by the IRS (under Clinton!).
Ref: Pelosi Fires Back at Gingrich - FR, post #27, 2012 January 09
85% of his GOP colleagues voted to reprimand him.
Exactly, instead of screaming at the top of their lungs about hypocrisy, political witch hunt and "railroading" of their leader, without whom so many 1995 freshmen Congress-critters would not see the inside of Capitol Hill, they preferred quiet existence under Speaker Hastert... What kind of hue and cry do you think would happen if one or two ethics charges were filed against Nancy Pelosi?
"If you have no enemies, you are not important enough to have made any" - Alexandre Dumas
If Newt gets the nomination, that will be one of the biggest issues in the general campaign along with his womanizing and multiple marriages.
Of course, that's what they call "baggage" (everyone has one). In the meantime, Newt will be talking about the problems that people experience every day, and his solutions to solve them and how to restore "the shiny city on the Hill" and turn back the encroachment of the social-political-financial model, which is now bankrupting Europe and which Obama and Democrats openly embrace.
You really think the majority of people care much, beyond a couple of days of laughs, about how many of his marriages failed? Some may even relate and sympathise, but most will care about the message.
Nobody cared about failed marriages of Reagan (the only President with more than one marriage), or multiple marriages of Bob Dole, John Kerry or John McCain's... Nor anyone cared or cares about "perfect one woman" marriages by Clinton or Obama, or Romney or Santorum.
You are smearing Gingrich, and it won’t work.
Eighty-four ethics charges were filed against Gingrich during his term as speaker. And yes, was sanctioned $300,000 by a 395–28 House vote. It was politcal payback against a Conservative!
All the charges, save one, were dropped. The one charge not dropped at that time was a charge of claiming tax-exempt status for a college course believed run for political purposes. The IRS later cleared the organizations connected with the “Renewing American Civilization” courses under investigation for possible tax violations.
The reason he was removed from Congress...his own members forced him out...one of whom was today’s Speaker of the House, Jon Boehner.
Oh yeah, and many of those Republicans are still in Congress. They are part of the ongoing problem of business as usual in Washignton, D.C. Under a Republican president, they added over $3 trillion to the federal deficit, shunned conservative policy in favor of Beltway influence-peddling, and so damaged the GOP brand that we lost the majority Gingrich had worked years to forge.
Do you really think I give a damn that Newt’s fabulous colleagues think his reemergence would be a disaster for Republicans? No.
The elections of 2010 were NOT a merit promotion; the Republicans were the only alternative in town!
If he really participated in Bain’s buying businesses and racking up debt while selling the companies equiptment turns out to be true, nothing Romney says to defend those actions is worth a cup of warm spit!
Good post!
Given the fact that most Americans have ADD and that it happened close to 15 years ago, I bet many voters don’t know anything about it. The Dems will make sure they do. Newt has a huge amount of baggage and this is just one of them.
And so does Romney.
Now what?
Who's more likely to be Conservative?
Romney or Newt?
Everyone has baggage. Wait till you see what they do to Romney if he wins like they want.
One of two things will happen.
He will fail to win the delegates necessary to get the nomination.
He will buy the nomination and permanently damage the Republican party.
The only sure thing at this point is that he will never be POTUS.
He was found guilty of one and acknowledged his guilt. He paid a $300,000 fine. The Reps controlled Congress. The Ethics committee voted 7-1 to issue a reprimand. That is just a irrefutable fact. There is a 137 page House report detailing what Gingrich was found guilty of.In the final tally, 196 Republicans supported the rebuke of their own speaker, while 198 Democrats backed it. Twenty-six Republicans and two Democrats opposed it.
Exactly, instead of screaming at the top of their lungs about hypocrisy, political witch hunt and "railroading" of their leader, without whom so many 1995 freshmen Congress-critters would not see the inside of Capitol Hill, they preferred quiet existence under Speaker Hastert... What kind of hue and cry do you think would happen if one or two ethics charges were filed against Nancy Pelosi?
I think their vote reflected the inability of Gingrich to get the loyalty and support of House Reps. And he admitted his guilt.
You really think the majority of people care much, beyond a couple of days of laughs, about how many of his marriages failed? Some may even relate and sympathise, but most will care about the message.
Yes, they will care and the Dems will help them to care. Women voters won't like someone who cheated on his first two wives. It speaks to his character and morality. Reps are judged different than Dems.
Nobody cared about failed marriages of Reagan (the only President with more than one marriage), or multiple marriages of Bob Dole, John Kerry or John McCain's... Nor anyone cared or cares about "perfect one woman" marriages by Clinton or Obama, or Romney or Santorum.
As far as I know, Gingrich is the first and only three time married candidate ever to run for President. Three times is not the charm.
Santorum is more conservative than either one of them. Why is the choice just between Newt and Mitt?
Newt has the most baggage.
That you know about.
Because at present....they are the big hitters.
Agree with your Newt and amnesty thought....
What I can't seem to figure out....is not many politicians are willing to take a FIRM stand on illegal aliens.
Why?
Are they listening to "advisors"? Are they out of touch...Or is something else going on?
I am just curious. What does the amount of money a man spends at a jewelry store have to do with an election? My husband has purchased me some nice pieces of jewelry, not Tiffany, but nice. What does that have to do with character? Did they not pay for these items? Did someone get burned on the transaction? What? Tiffany’s is such a strange complaint.
No. It has been covered already ad nauseam, but the problem was not with "ethics charge" which he was cleared by the IRS, but a mistake in one filing (inconsistent with two other filings, could easily have been a typo) by a junior lawyer from law firm representing him.
Still, the real fact is that the timid, shy Republicans didn't want to go against media and "rock the boat" about the witch hunt because they were already settled and comfortable in the position of power (which they would not have in the first place, without Gingrich Revolution). They failed to protect their quarterback, leader, when the unprecedented 84(!) bogus charges were filed against him.
He agreed to pay a reimbursement, not a "fine" (he vowed to fight a fine), but finally agreed to "reimburse" the committee for the expenses they incurred in the witch hunt against him! (Ref / background in: "Cain/Gingrich 2012"?)
I think their vote reflected the inability of Gingrich to get the loyalty and support of House Reps.
What it reflected was how cowardly and envious many Republicans in the Congress were of Newt's success, and how many wanted him out because he was competitor on their "way to power" and, instead of vigorously responding to "railroading" they would prefer not to have the "lightning rod" in their midst. He had enough "loyalty and support" to push through most of Contract With America and welfare reform.
I guess he has much in common with Winston Churchill, who was warning about the dangers of Hitler's fascism and Soviet communism, help win the World War, then was promptly discarded once again, for more "bread and circuses."
That entire "railroading" and witch hunt, as well as its resolution was a travesty, but he has already decided to leave Congress, formally finalize the divorce from Marianne (they were legally separated since 1987 and lived separately for years) and get married to Callista Bisek, whom he was dating since 1993, while financially supporting Marianne and having most of their assets (from his books and lectures) and accounts in Marianne's name.
Yes, they will care and the Dems will help them to care.
And while they keep talking about his failed marriages (he already inoculated himself from that line of attack, unlike, for example, Herman Cain) he will be talking about things that people can actually relate to. Besides, as he cleverly reminded Clinton's WH alumni Stephanopolous, he is a happily married grandfather, so it's unlikely that he would be embarrassing us with Clinton's behavior in the White House.
Is there any question that Reagan, Dole or Gingrich, who were married more than once, would be more likely to care about and uphold "family values" in private and in public policy than once-married Clinton, Al Gore, John Edwards or Obama?
If some can't let go of this particular "baggage," so be it - you can't please everyone, and other candidates' "baggages" will revolt other groups of constituents. Especially that we know now that much of the "baggage" is not true (like "served divorce papers to wife dying of cancer in the hospital") or that a second wife basically only cared about Newt being her "meal ticket on a gravy train". Not that he should or would talk about it, he's already humbly conceded "mistakes in his life" and moved on to a better and more fulfilling life.
As far as I know, Gingrich is the first and only three time married candidate ever to run for President.
And...? There is first time for everything. Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, Obama... As far as precedents go, this one is a mosquito-sized.
Three times is not the charm.
Seems like this has been his most successful marriage. Rush Limbaugh is on his fourth, he made some mistakes in his youth also. Is this really the one and only criterium for some of you?
For all the talk about class envy and class warfare, a lot of so-called "conservatives" don't like "rich people" (unless they go by the name Romney, it appears, then it's just "capitalism"). Tiffany is a symbol to them.
BTW, Callista was not buying $500K worth of jewelry, it was a line of high-limit credit that they may have needed at the time (it is a cheap insurance in case money is needed) which was untapped and has since been closed.
Ref: "Cain/Gingrich 2012"?
If Newt can put this stuff together so can Barry. Not to mention Barry will undoubtedly thank Willard for helping to formulate Obamacare for him.
The Democrats have used the rapidly changing demographics of this country, the product of immigration, to stampede many Republican politicians and elites to conclude that the party must “adapt or die” as Michael Barone stated on the issue of immigration. The leaders of extremist Hispanic ethnic groups trumpet their growing political power and cite the Bureau of Census projections that by 2050, one in 3 residents of this country will be Hispanic. The problem is that if the Republican Party does adapt to become more like the Democrat Party, it will die.
He’s not out of gas.
There is abortion
guns
gay marriage
taxes
lousy performance as governor
losing elections
An interspersed in all of the above can be a visit each week to another company destroyed by Mitt romney.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.