Posted on 12/18/2011 5:17:58 AM PST by Alas Babylon!
Just for grins I did 15 minutes last Thursday whle gettingmy hair cut.We got the electric shaver noise in and everything it was a blast.
The gal who cuts my hair has a deep sexy voice as well. It was really a good segment.
That's why Newt has the best of ideas. Lets attack zero not ourselves. Its worked for him.
I agree, he needs to be given the boot, and the people of SC will try to vote him out. However, they tried in 2008, but the SC GOP establishment backed him, and his primary challengers never came close.
This is sheer speculation, but gaming this out a bit further, if the GOP nominee defeats Obama next year, that same SC GOP establishment is still going to be in power and they'll still back Lindsey. I just don't believe that it's a slam dunk that the SC Tea Party will be able to defeat him.
However, should Obama be re-elected, the SC GOP's fortunes take a steep dive, and Graham think he's in trouble, my speculation is that he's quite capable of pulling a Jim Jeffords cross-the-aisle switch and helping the Dems in exchange for a place in the Obama administration, all in the spirit of "bi-partisan co-operation" and all that.
Regarding the czar positions, You'd think that if Zero is out they'd be gone, but the precedent for their existence has been set, and I wouldn't underestimate the tenacity of entrenched bureaucracies for self-preservation. Power without accountability is like a highly addictive drug to both the DEM and GOP elites.
I was never on the air, even though I have “the voice” for it. I was in production, concepts and programming syndication services and sales. Had the pleasure of working with the great Tom Merriman at TM in Dallas, plus several of the other players in the industry.
It was a cool gig - I got to travel most of the US and Canada. (And did some business in Mexico, too - learned real quick about the entree and mordita... /g)
The only third party I want to hear about is the Green Party Candidate.
Well, and the DSA Socialist Party Candidate, and the CPUSA Candidate.
I’m getting discouraged, is there no way to stop them?
We just need an endless parade of candidates who are willing to sequentially sacrifice themselves until the RATagandists run out of time.
We also need to vigorously point out to the public exactly what the partisan "media" is doing, blow-by-blow, as they continue to do it.
"Exactly one month before yesterday's vote, Gingrich admitted that he brought discredit to the House and broke its rules by failing to ensure that financing for two projects would not violate federal tax law and by giving the House ethics committee false information."
"Newt has done some things that have embarrassed House Republicans and embarrassed the House," said Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.). "If [the voters] see more of that, they will question our judgment."
"House Democrats are likely to continue to press other ethics charges against Gingrich and the Internal Revenue Service is looking into matters related to the case that came to an end yesterday."
There was a hiatus in the debates after 1960 until 1976. Since then, there have been Presiential debates every election.
Facts are stubborn things. Newt was censured by a Rep controlled House. The vote was 395-28 to uphold the findings of the ethics committee, which voted 7-1 against Newt. It was chaired by a Rep, a former CIA officer. Newt carries plenty of baggage and if he is the nominee, the other side will be sure to expose it.
The FBI ended up calling off the operation in June 1997. It decided there was no evidence that Gingrich knew anything about the conversations the arms dealer was secretly recording with a man who said he was acting on behalf of Gingrich’s then-wife, Marianne, according to people with knowledge of the investigation.
But details of the case, which became public this week in an article and documents posted online by a nonprofit journalist, show how a series of second- and third-hand conversations alleging that the top man in Congress might be for sale caught the attention of federal investigators.
“There are so many falsehoods,” Marianne Gingrich said Thursday. “The FBI, they should have been protecting me, not going after me. This is scary stuff.”
A witch hunt? By whom? His own party? Gingrich admitted his guilt. He paid a $300,000 fine. The vote in the House was 395-28. The ethics committee voted 7-1. You are defending the indefensible.
No. I'm giving you the specific facts of the case. You're citing opinions.
As somebody pointed out up thread -- ah I think that was you -- one is entitled to their own opinion, not their own facts.
"Exactly one month before yesterday's vote, Gingrich admitted that he brought discredit to the House and broke its rules by failing to ensure that financing for two projects would not violate federal tax law and by giving the House ethics committee false information."
You're citing old propaganda. Newt was cleared on tax charges.
"House Democrats are likely to continue to press other ethics charges against Gingrich and the Internal Revenue Service is looking into matters related to the case that came to an end yesterday."
Ubelievable. Why are you citing ancient quotes? Further ethics charges were never filed and the IRS found NOTHING!
76 totals charges were filed against Newt. In the end all they got was one charge of false information, information that Newt repeatedly told the truth about, and then mistakenly answered the opposite one single time.
Do you understand what that means??
The facts are quite clear. Newt admitted his guilt and the overwelming majorities of the ethics committee and the House voted to reprimand him and fine him $300,000. It was a totally non-partisan decision. He accepted the reprimand and paid the fine. Those are not opinions. Gingrich is the first and only sitting Speaker of the House to be given a reprimand.
I never said he was convicted of the tax charges. Those charges were not part of the reprimand decision. He was later exhonorated of those charges by the IRS.
76 totals charges were filed against Newt. In the end all they got was one charge of false information, information that Newt repeatedly told the truth about, and then mistakenly answered the opposite one single time. Do you understand what that means??
LOL. In understand what a 7-1 vote in the Ethics committee and a 395-28 vote in the House means in terms of Newt's guilt, which he admitted to. He paid the $300,000 fine. 196 Reps voted for the reprimand and 28 against. How is this a partisan witch hunt? J. Randolph Evans, Gingrich’s attorney, said his client "has apologized to the subcommittee, to the House and to the American people."
You can believe in anything you want about the legitimacy of the charges against Gingrich, but the facts are the facts. Do you understand what that means?
Ethics panel votes and House votes are of course opinions, in this case about an ethic charge. They are not facts about the ethics charge. I specifically gave you the facts surrounding the one ethics charge they pinned on Newt and the one ethics charge he finally broke down and agreed to.
You ignore those facts and instead give me vote counts and fine totals. So what is the point of further discussion?
BTW, in the interest of accuracy, Newt never admitted to doing anything illegal or unethical. Your comment above implies otherwise, and you are wrong. Go and read his direct statement after they found him guilty of the one charge.
Or you can continue to believe what you want.
BTW, 85 ethics charges and investigations over four years that lead nowhere is a witch hunt. It's absurd to think such futility isn't. How embarrassing for you to think those were legitimate investigations that weren't grounded in the politics of that time.
You appear to have forgotten the endless propaganda fight the Democrats and the left waged against Newt. And you appear to have forgotten how the House Republicans cut and ran for the own political lives, instead of supporting what was right.
I haven't.
Newt Gingrich has been cleared!!
Remember the uproar regarding Newt's "ethics violations?" People can refresh their memory by reading an article I wrote in 1997 about these charges. In brief, David Bonior brought 75 ethics charges against Newt, 74 which were found to have no merit whatsoever (and people say that Ken Starr is on a "witch hunt?"). The last charge, whether Newt funded his college class "Renewing American Civilization" properly, was too complicated a tax issue for the committee to investigate on its own, so they brought in an outside tax expert to investigate. Two charges arose out of this investigation.
The first 'charge' from the ethics committee is that he "may have" violated tax law by using tax-deductible contributions from nonprofit organizations to teach an allegedly partisan college course.
The second 'charge' from the committee is that, in the course of the investigation, 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. I could really get into the hypocrisy of this in light of the fact that people want to excuse Bill Clinton for lying under oath, (maybe if the course Newt had taught was about SEX the Democrats would feel differently) but that's not the point of this article.
Well, after a 3.5 year probe, after Newt paid the $300,000 fine, the IRS announced on February 3, 1999, that it found NO IMPROPRIETIES IN THE TAX FILINGS of Gingrich and the sponsoring Progress and Freedom Foundation. 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."
Well isn't that nice - and isn't that what Newt had been saying all along?
In other words, the ethics charges David Bonior filed against Newt were ALL bogus. Every single one of them. In the end, what was Newt's "ethics problems"? One of the papers filed by his lawyers had an error and Newt didn't catch it. That little oversight cost $300,000.
Some might say "vindication is vindication" and Newt should just be tickled about this. . . but would YOU feel better if you've already lost $300,000 and your job in the process?
Where are the cries about how long and how much money was spent on this investigation? Where are all the news stories about this vindication? Granted, there have been some news stories but certainly not that many. Perhaps the news isn't quite as big when it's Newt who is the one in the right and his accusers are the ones in the wrong.
Merry CHRISTmas to you as well, Onyx! I always enjoy your posts.
Like I told you, he will never give it up.
Evidently he likes to help spread the propaganda against our people.
I was alive and kicking during Newt’s era. The number they did on him made me ill. and this was loooooong before FreeRepublic or other alternate media was around, save Rush, to get out the truth.
To find one of our own doing this, just because he or she doesn’t like the candidate, is nauseating.
Newt was turned on by his co-Republicans because at the time they were new to having any power. They were being hounded to death day and night and they wanted Newt to just go along with the one stupid charge. WAIT! Maybe some don’t believe the House Repubs were too lily-livered. I know it’s a stretch, but go with me. Remember Hillary was orchestrating the attack against Newt. And to Newt’s credit, HE DID TRY TO DEFEND HIMSELF!
It’s deja-vu all over again, only this time a Freeper is doing the nasty.
Are you serious? The Ethics committee and the House had access to the "facts" in this case and they made their decision in a bipartisan manner. If your objective is to retry the case, then why didn't Newt appeal the case? Why did he admit guilt? I am sure Charlie Rangel could make similar protestatiions and call his reprimand political. You can disagree with the decision, but you can't disagree with the fact that Newt was judged guilty.
Here is the 137 page report from the Ethics committee
You ignore those facts and instead give me vote counts and fine totals. So what is the point of further discussion?
I really don't know what your issue is. Newt said recently, "In a recent interview with Van Susteren, Gingrich that the investigation against him was itself conducted by "a very partisan political committee" in a way that "related more to the politics of the Democratic Party than to ethics." This is an outright lie given the facts. 196 Republicans voted for the reprimand. It was bipartisan.
BTW, in the interest of accuracy, Newt never admitted to doing anything illegal or unethical. Your comment above implies otherwise, and you are wrong. Go and read his direct statement after they found him guilty of the one charge.
You appear to have forgotten the endless propaganda fight the Democrats and the left waged against Newt. And you appear to have forgotten how the House Republicans cut and ran for the own political lives, instead of supporting what was right.
I also remember House Republicans forcing him out of his leadership position.
Embarrassing if true and a sorry excuse, which was disputed by Newt's first lawyer, Jan Baran. "I wish to make clear that my firm did not submit any material information to the ethics committee without Mr. Gingrich's prior review and approval," Baran told the Washington Post, adding that he believes "that is the committee's view as well."
You can believe what you want to believe, but in the court of public opinion, Newt will lose this case once again. If Newt tries to make this a case of a witch hunt by partisan Dems, the votes in the Ehtics committee and the House where 90% of his Rep colleagues voted against him will give the lie to this assertion. You can bet if Newt becomes the nominee, this case will be brought front and center along with his womanizing and infedelity. Newt is the ultimate Washington insider who has a ton of skeletons in his closet. I am sure the Dems are hiding the most damaging stuff until after the nomination process. We need to make this election about Obama, not a flawed Rep.
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.