Do you know what he said or wrote?
Posted on 11/01/2011 5:47:30 AM PDT by shatcher
After his presidential campaign got off to a bumpy start, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich says the campaign's on solid footing, and it appears to be showing in the polls.
Just days after his May entry into the race, Gingrich took heat for referring to Rep. Paul Ryan's Medicare overhaul plan as "right-wing social engineering." Then there were the questions about at least one six-figure credit line at Tiffany's.
In early June, most of Gingrich's staff resigned. At the time, sources said staffers disagreed with Gingrich's strategy of maximizing social media and debate performances instead of traditional campaigning. Of those who departed, Gingrich now says, "They were wrong, making assumptions that just were not right."
Fox News polling may vindicate the plan. In July, when potential GOP primary voters were asked who they'd like to see as the nominee, 9 percent picked Gingrich. He has steadily crept to 12 percent in polling released just days ago. "Every week we do a little better," Gingrich says.
During the same time period, AP-GfK polling measuring the candidates' favorability has been shifting to Gingrich's advantage as well. Since July, the number of people who view him favorably has moved from 26 percent to 35 percent, while his unfavorable rating has dropped from 59 to 51 percent.
Despite progress for the campaign, the candidate still faces significant hurdles. GOP strategist Karen Hanretty says the first is financial.
"It takes a lot of money to get your message on the air, to reach as many voters as possible," she said.
It's a challenge Gingrich acknowledged while campaigning in South Carolina over the weekend. "I need your help," Gingrich said, adding, "I don't have the kind of money my major competitors have."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
If you know its a snake when you pick it up......
Newt’s gain in momentum is a direct result of the elite’s inability to get the “dog’s” to like the Romney dogfood or get them to stay away from Cain.
He’s Vice President material or Secretary of State material.
So, what outstanding event signals that Gingrich is a snake?
How Freddie Mac Splashed Cash to Halt Regulation (Flashback Newt Gingrich sold out for $300,000)
Pushing back, Freddie Mac enlisted prominent conservatives, including Gingrich and former Justice Department official Viet Dinh, paying each $300,000 in 2006, according to internal records.
Gingrich talked and wrote about what he saw as the benefits of the Freddie Mac business model.
So Newt sold out to be part of the machine pimping the broken housing bubble, as others in the GOP were trying to enact Freddie and Fannie reforms.
Very, very bad IMO.
The fact that he supports saving the world from global warming with taxpayer dollars is a good place to start.
Gingrich is running for president?
...
...
Do you know what he said or wrote?
I know he did that stupid add with Pelosi, but does anyone have a link to what he currently says about Global WArming, and what he wants to do about it?
Let's review Speaker Gingrich's foreign policies.
"I am just saying that we need to be honest about the fact that we are transferring from the United States at a practical level significant authority to a new organization. This is a transformational moment. I would feel better if the people who favor this would just be honest about the scale of change.
"I agree ... this is very close to Maastrict [the European Union treaty by which the EU member nations have surrendered considerable sovereignty], and twenty years from now we will look back on this as a very important defining moment. This is not just another trade agreement. This is adopting something which twice, once in the 1940s and once in the 1950s, the U.S. Congress rejected. I am not even saying we should reject it; I, in fact, lean toward it. But I think we have to be very careful, because it is a very big transfer of power."
—Newt Gingrich, House Ways and Means Committee hearings during June 1994.
Newt Gingrich pushed for a vote on the GATT/WTO legislation in s aspecial lame duck session of Congress after the 1994 elections because he knew it would not pass a republican majority.
As Speaker of the House of Representatives, Congressman Newt Gingrich was instrumental in the passage of NAFTA. It is fair to say that NAFTA would not exist without Congressman Gingrich's support and efforts as Speaker. He strongly supported the legislation, and was critical of those who claimed it would result in jobs moving from the US to central America.
In 1993, Congressman Gingrich spoke on the House floor and stated that the idea that Mexico will hijack our industrial base is a myth. He stated that any impact on US jobs would be small and if whatever effects were felt would be beneficial. He also stated that the US could see large financial benefits from NAFTA in 10-15 years (from 1993). He asserted that a prosperous, stable and democratic Mexico would simply be a better neighbor than a poor, unstable and undemocratic Mexico as higher economic growth would ultimately reduce illegal immigration into the United States. Mexicans could stay home and get jobs.
In a 1995 speech to the Center for Strategic and International Studies Gingrich proposed that NAFTA be expanded to all of Central and South America.
CNN July 3, 1998
Congress has 30 days to respond to the presidents recommendation for an MFN waiver. But amid growing concern about the presidents involvement with another waiver that possibly led to the disclosure of sensitive national security information to China, reaction from Congressional leaders is mixed.
House Speaker Newt Gingrich welcomed Clintons recommendation for renewing MFN status for China, and vowed to work in a bipartisan manner to ensure that China receives it from Congress.
Gingrich, joined by Reps. Bill Archer RTexas and Philip Crane RIll., made his comments in a letter to Clinton.
But back in 2005, Gingrich was singing a different tune. He co-chaired a task force on how to improve the United Nations with former Senate majority leader and recently departed Special Envoy for the Middle East George Mitchell, and issued a report written with the help of the United States Institute of Peace.
"The American people want an effective United Nations that can fulfill the goals of its Charter in building a safer, freer, and more prosperous world," Gingrich and Mitchell wrote in a joint statement at the top of the report. "What was most striking was the extent to which we were able to find common ground, including on our most important finding, which was ‘the firm belief that an effective United Nations is in America's interests.'"
The task force featured a bipartisan set of foreign policy leaders, including Anne-Marie Slaughter, Thomas Pickering, Danielle Pletka, Wesley Clark, and James Woolsey.
The report did include a great deal of criticism of the United Nations, the U.N. Human Rights Council, and its ineffectiveness in protecting victims of genocide around the world. But Gingrich and Mitchell saw the answer to these problems as increasing funding for U.N. institutions, not withholding U.S. contributions from the United Nations.
They called for more staffing and funding for peacekeeping operations, more funding for the international mission in Darfur, a doubling of the budget for the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, and more funding for the World Health Organization.
Speaker Gingrich is a great debater. But don't let him anywhere near power.
I don’t see anything specific, either. I did see it was in his own writings and lectures. I would imagine that anything Newt controlled regarding content was scrubbed a long, long, long time ago. And I see nothing from Newt that denies that he took Freddie monies.
After the way his campaign exploded on the launch pad, it has nowhere to go but up.
Thanks for the info. I appreicate a good dialogue using facts. As of yet, my opinion has not changed.
Yeah, I’d be interested to see what he wrote and how it related to what subsequently happened.
Newt is gaining momentum because at the end of the day, he’s probably the most credible “mostly” conservative guy in the race. Romney upsets too much of the base. Perry is not going to win a national race. Cain is not credible - he just isn’t, and I know people have hopped on the bandwagon because he’s the flavor of the moment, he ain’t credible as a PRESIDENTIAL candidate....no way.
That leaves Newt.
I completely agree.
I completely agree.
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.