Oh yes, I do indeed remember that, and I for one, railed against Newt when the Tea Parties first began to back him. But while that was a few short months ago, it might as well be a million years ago now, because now we are down to four.

Of the four, one is a fiscal conservative who does like pork interestingly enough, who also believes our enemies will leave us alone if we just keep to ourselves - another is a political chameleon who will say ANYTHING/PAY anything in order to become the the next POTUS - another is a strong social conservative who believes just as strongly that government should be involved in our everyday lives, right on into our homes and “bedroom(s)”.

***Rick Santorum - “One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a Libertarianish right. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep out taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.”

Then there is Newt for whom no introduction to his history/baggage is necessary or desired, shakes head. We know it ALL. BUT, it is Newt who the Left really does NOT want, (insert wild eyed dog pic here ;) and who the RepubElite do not want, and who in the end, just might surprise us all, and himself for that matter, by being able to put his considerable skills to good use in order to beat back the Left for America.

No shortage of memory here, surfer, just a shortage of options my FRiend.

May God guide our course.
Tatt

“Remember Napolitano wants Ron Paul...”

Heck of a mess that we are in is it not? But as I said waaaay back upthread, time will tell FRiend, time will tell.

Prayers up for this once great nation, built upon that most radical of concepts, that all men are born free.
Tatt

Excellent post.

BTTT #641

Good endorsement. My vote in the general election will be = NO more Obama.
(We all need to vote pro-life = without life we have nothing.)

“...I for one, railed against Newt when the Tea Parties first began to back him. But while that was a few short months ago, it might as well be a million years ago now, because now we are down to four.”

Likewise. I have to eat my words about saying I could never vote for Newt. That was a couple months ago. Since then, I’ve learned a lot more about him, watched the debates, etc. and concluded he is the only one I can vote for. I was highly skeptical of his remorseful, “changed man” sentiments over his past indiscretions and initially didn’t buy it. However, watching and hearing him over time, and being old and remorseful myself, I see sincerity there. I didn’t care much for Santorum, but finding out his wife lived with an abortionist for 6 years sealed that coffin. He’d be another Bush 2 that talks tuff to get elected, does nothing of significance, until we all get the light bulb moment when he’s out of office and find out wifey is pro abortion and he was PW. To quote “My Big, Fat, Greek Wedding”- The man is the head, but the woman is the neck. And she can turn the head any way she wants.

Thanks much, but mostly thanks to surfer for being willing to deal with me sorting things out, and of course, for JimRob for giving us the place to do it.

May God give us the courage to act.
Tatt

“Wasn’t it the GOP themselves that heavily fined Gingrich for ethics violations when he was in control? What kind of ethics do you think we will have when he is in the WH?”

It’s a meme being pushed, but isn’t true so you might want to do some research on that. Newt was accused but not found guilty, and even the IRS found no wrong doing.

Tatt btw I so appreciate your faith in God - it is very refreshing - thank you for reminding me at the end of your posts - it is a wonderful practice.

I have some additional thoughts to share I decided to take some time and organize them. Here they are - hope they provide some more insight to why I feel the way I do.

Now I am definitely concerned with how far Rick would go with the government. These are the things that I know for sure.

I don't have to worry about Rick trying to take a liberal idea (individual mandate) and try to spin it as some conservative principle like Newt has done for 20 years. Major progressive tenant.
I don't have to worry about Rick sitting down on the couch with Nancy Pelosi and promoting cap & trade. Another major progressive tenant.
I don't have to worry about Rick publishing a book with entire chapter dedicated to man-made global warming - oh yeah Newt just decided to remove that chapter for HIS LATEST book coming out in February.
I don't have to worry about Rick getting fined by his own party for ethics violations.
I don't have to worry about Rick cheating on his wife with a staffer.
I don't have to worry about Rick not making clear and transparent decisions based on a clearly defined set of principles.
I don't have to worry about Rick lying to us.
I don't have to worry about Rick stating Andrew Jackson had the right approach to his enemies - kill them - Who were Andrew Jackson's enemies - the native American indian - remember manifest destiny?
I don't have to worry about Rick claiming to be a progressive like Teddy Roosevelt http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qi314LJ6uwM
I don't have to worry about Rick stating Woodrow Wilson or FDR should be admired http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJDgEPzHII4

These past presidents were horror shows for American freedom and liberty. These are the villains that had all work together and cast the net that has caused our country to decline. How come Gingrich never talks about Calvin Coolidge?

You just can’t say these things over and over again and not really believe in this crap. Gingrich will be another president that says...it depends on what you definition of "is", is?

I know exactly how Rick Santorum feels about the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution and I agree with him (excerpt below):

Ron Paul has a libertarian view of the Constitution. I do not. The Constitution has to be read in the context of another founding document, and that’s the Declaration of Independence. Our country never was a libertarian idea of radical individualism. We have certain values and principles that are embodied in our country. We have God-given rights.

The Constitution is not the why of America; it’s the how of America. It’s the operator’s manual. It’s the rules we have to play by to ensure something. And what do we ensure? God-given rights.

And so to read the Constitution as the end-all, be-all is, in a sense, what happened in France. You see, during the time of our revolution, we had a Declaration of Independence that said, We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, [that they are] endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

So we were founded as a country that had God-given rights that the government had to respect. And with those rights come responsibilities, right? God did not just give us rights. He gave us a moral code by which to exercise them. See, that’s what Ron Paul sort of leaves out. He leaves out rights and responsibilities that we have from God that this Constitution is to protect. And he says, No, we just have rights, and then that’s it. No, we don’t. America is a moral enterprise.

My understanding of our founding documents and the purpose of this country is different. I would argue that [Paul’s] understanding of the Constitution was similar to the French Revolution and the French understanding of the Constitution. The French had 21, I think, constitutions, but their constitutions were initially patterned after the American Constitution. Gave radical freedom, like ours does. But their founding document was not the Declaration of Independence. Their founding watchwords were the words, liberty and fraternity. Fraternity. Brotherhood. But no fatherhood. No God. It was a completely secular revolution. An anti-clerical revolution. And the root of it was, whoever’s in power rules.

http://www.reveresride.net/2012/01/18/rick-santorum-claims-the-constitution-and-declaration-of-independence-are-not-libertarian/

Now people want to criticize Santorum over this. He is absolutely 100% correct about this. We have to be very careful of the path we choose. Even Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine got the French Revolution wrong just like Bill Crystal was dead wrong about the Arab Spring.

We only succeed because of an underlying moral code, not just free-for-all individuals doing anything they want to do.

This is the decision we face. Continue down the GOP we have to vote for this guy road or do we actually take the time to become informed, educated and choose a candidate based on morals, ethics and principles. Obama will easily make the case that Gingrich has NONE of those. Obama will paint Gingrich as another Bush which America WILL believe. Obama will destroy Gingrich with negative ads the debates will not be enough to sway the Ron Paul supporters, the independents and the Reagan democrats...all which we need to win back the WH.

At least Santorum can use truth in his campaign.

This isn’t rocket science, the facts are all there. Gingrich’s record is all there. If people are foolish enough to believe a "Realpolitik Wilsonian". We are going to get exactly what we deserve. This isn't the time to cave into the establishment - haven't we been doing that since Reagan? How has that worked out for us so far?

I know the facts. Nancy Johnson a republican was in charge of the investigation.

Gingrich admitted he mislead them about the truth. He was fined $300,000.00 for ethics violations - which include not telling the truth! That is AN ETHICS violation that he admitted to.

Let’s not get into the definition of “is” game.

Gingrich admitted he mislead them about the truth. He was fined $300,000.00 for ethics violations - which include not telling the truth! That is AN ETHICS violation that he admitted to.

Let’s not get into the definition of “is” game.
___________________________________________________________

I am not trying to make this an “is” game. From my reading / research, the $300,000 was the cost of the hearings, and not a fine. Misleading is also a little different to me than an out right lie, and he was man enough to admit to the wrong doing of it.

Ok let me get this right.

300k was the cost of the hearings and Gingrich was FORCED to pay for them - but that isn’t a fine to you?

A sum imposed for punishment???

Now on to misleading...

To lie is to hold something which one knows is not the whole truth to be the whole truth, intentionally.

How is misleading not a lie? Misleading includes lying, withholding the truth when asked to give the truth under oath (and Gingrich was under oath) is a lie.

I certainly hope you didn’t criticize Clinton when he did these things...

and I circle back...this is most definitely the definition of “is” is...

How about we all just say it like it is? We know Gingrich is a narcissistic, liar and cheater - just like Clinton!!!

BTW that doesn’t mean they can’t be POTUS and do some good things...but let’s all be really clear who we are supporting here.

Thought you'd like to see this, Jim.

Let’s Bump Plans: A Comparison of Gingrich and Romney’s Tax Plans

	Gingrich	Romney	Verdict: Gingrich Plan Better
Personal Income Tax	Choice of current system or 15% flat tax with personal, homeowner, and charitable deductions	Maintain current tax rates	The Gingrich plan gives Americans a choice to continue to file under the existing system, or to eliminate compliance costs and hours of paperwork by filing with a flat rate of 15%. The Romney plan hopes to make taxes “flatter” in the future, but offers no immediate choice and no immediate relief.
Capital Gains Tax for Individuals	Eliminate tax completely	Depends how much money the taxpayer makes. Romney’s plan eliminates capital gains taxes for those making less than $200,000/year, but maintains the current system, with rates of up to 35%, for the rest.	The Gingrich plan maximizes the capital investment and job creation that will accompany the elimination of this tax, and acknowledges that a tax reform is only fair if all Americans receive relief. The Romney plan determines that some Americans should pay no taxes on a particular investment, while other Americans should pay taxes of up to 35% on the same investment.
Capital Gains Tax for Corporations	Eliminate tax completely	Maintain current system	The Gingrich plan is modeled on the success of the 1997 capital gains cut, which spurred job creation and a 500% increase in venture capital in just 3 years. The Romney plan maintains the corporate capital gains tax, an unequivocal burden on American job-creators who need to be freed to grow, prosper, and compete in a 21st century global economy.
Corporate Income Tax	12.5%	25%	The Gingrich plan will create a boom of new American entrepreneurship by dramatically cutting the corporate tax rate to one of the lowest in the developed world. The Romney plan will still be average-to-high compared to the rest of the developed world, and still over 50% higher than our closest economic competitor Canada, which has a rate of only 16.5%. Gingrich rate makes U.S. more competitive than Canada.
Payroll Tax	Eventually replace payroll tax with personal accounts, financing better results	No information	Gingrich supports personal savings investment and insurance accounts that would eventually be expanded to finance all of the benefits now financed by the payroll tax, allowing that tax ultimately to be phased out altogether.
Medicare reform	Choice between the traditional system or opportunity to purchase private insurance with premium support	No information	Under the Gingrich Plan, any American who wants to enjoy the existing Medicare system will be able to do so. Americans can also opt to transition to a more personalized system in the private sector with greater options for better care, where they would receive premium support to purchase private insurance.

You're FOS. The ethics panel did not conclude that Gingrich lied. The ethics panel didn't impose a fine on Gingrich.

Words mean things. Court costs aren't fines and neither are costs to run an investigation in the House.

Talk about misleading...what you've written is an attempt to portray these hearings as having concluded what they never concluded.

You won't be rewriting history here.

Add these facts to your list: http://tinyurl.com/78tmn5m

Right.

Did Gingrich offer to pay that or was it imposed?

Gingrich admitted to misleading the panel under oath - he just lacks the courage to actually say yep he deliberately lied.

Was Gingrich lying when he claimed for almost 2 decades that the individual mandate is actually a conservative principle?

If a Democrat were running with all of Newt’s baggage you would be ripping him a new one.

Let’s just be honest who Newt really is.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/corrupt-politicians-lists/washingtons-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians-for-2011/

Nice group of people. Look at what they have in common...

But let’s keep rationalizing who we want to get into bed with!

Or let’s be honest about the candidate and if you can’t get by all the baggage of this man...then fine but let’s not rationalize who this man is. He is just like Clinton.

Gingrich admitted to misleading the panel under oath

Bullshit.

In it to win it. Go Newt!!

“Newt is our only chance in 2012 to contrast a Reagan conservative with Obama’s European’ styled socialism.” - Michael Reagan

To reiterate, he admitted what he did was wrong. I think we should move past this.