Reply With Quote
No thanks.
Newt Gingrich has been exposed!
SEE NEW WEBSITE HERE:
http://www.newtexposed.com/
No thanks.
Yeah... don't care to see him exposed.
You are not a true conservative.
Didn't Weiner already do that?
Gingrich the candidate? GOP lawmakers grapple with the idea
Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina once led a band of GOP rebels who tried to oust Gingrich, and hadn't spoken to him about those days of internecine warfare in the 14 years since.
"Some people are willing to reconsider him. I'm not," said Rep. Steven C. LaTourette (R-Ohio), one of the remaining members of the Class of '94, whose arrival in the House made Gingrich the first Republican speaker in 40 years. "His leadership skills back in the '90s were not consistent with what I would want to see in the president of the United States."
Budget fights with President Clinton led to two government shutdowns. Gingrich led the push to impeach Clinton for lying about infidelity, even as Gingrich was in the midst of his own extramarital affair. An ethics investigation found the speaker had mingled political and nonprofit enterprises — and then given false information to investigators. The House, in an overwhelming bipartisan vote, reprimanded Gingrich and fined him $300,000.
Almost 15 years later, Gingrich has garnered only a handful of congressional endorsements, most from his home state of Georgia. Interviews with more than a dozen lawmakers from the Gingrich era show the memories — or in some cases the tales — have left many queasy about embracing a revival.
"I'm not endorsing Newt," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach). "Those of us who served with him, who watched his leadership up close, aren't endorsing him. That says something."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...067,full.story
"historian" Noot's revisionist/lying "history" of Palestinians
Newt Gingrich: Palestinians are 'an invented' people
Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich, in an interview with the Jewish Channel, called the Israeli-Palestinian peace process “delusional,” and said Palestinians are “an invented” people.
Asked if he identifies as a Zionist, Gingrich said: “I believe that the Jewish people have the right to have a state.”
Referring back to the early 20th century, when the British government, in the Balfour Declaration of 1917, declared its support for “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,” Gingrich suggested that at the time, the occupants of that territory – the Palestinians – did not have a legitimate claim to the land.
“I believe that the commitments that were made at the time – remember, there was no Palestine as a state,” Gingrich said. “It was part of the Ottoman Empire. And I think that we’ve had an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs and were historically part of the Arab community. And they had a chance to go many places.”
That view is held by some Israelis, but is generally rejected by the rest of the world.
U.S. presidents from both parties have in recent history supported a two-state solution to the ongoing conflict, in which Palestinians would live in a state of their own alongside Israel.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...0,357727.story
========
Repugs groveling (no need to add "shamelessly") for AIPAC contributions.
Jew Jon Stewart's "Who Loves Jews The Most?" show is classic.
As debate approaches, Republicans, conservatives target Newt Gingrich
Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment – “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican” – will be tossed aside as the other candidates and their surrogates pile on like defensive linemen on a scrambling quarterback.
Gingrich will be the center of attention in a smaller group of six debaters, since Herman Cain is history and Jon Huntsman got disinvited because his poll numbers are so low.
The voices of criticism are numerous and growing.
John Sununu, former chief of staff to President George H.W. Bush: “Gingrich “is more concerned about Newt Gingrich than he is about conservative principle.”
Former Sen. Jim Talent, who served in the House when Gingrich was Speaker: “He’s not a reliable or trustworthy leader.”
Sen. Tom Coburn, who also served with Gingrich in the House: “I just found his leadership lacking.” (A year ago, Coburn was quoted as saying that Gingrich is “the last person I’d vote for president of the United States [because] his life indicates he does not have the character traits necessary.")
Former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum: “What presidents must inescapably do is respond to emergencies…. And there, what usually ends up mattering most is not the president’s philosophy, but his judgment, coolness and steadiness. Those are the grounds on which [Mitt] Romney reassures and Gingrich terrifies.”
ome evangelicals have said they’ve forgiven Gingrich for the adulterous relationships that ended his first two marriages.
But not The Rev. Cary Gordon of Cornerstone World Outreach church in Sioux City, Iowa. He’s sent a YouTube video slamming Gingrich as untrustworthy to one million cell phones in Iowa. Gingrich, it declares, is “The Kim Kardashian of the GOP.
“My vote is not connected to someone else’s repentance, it’s connected to their record,” Gordon told Politico.com. “I don’t trust him and I have no reason to trust him. He has done nothing to earn my trust.”
Meanwhile, the conservative commentariat has laid into Gingrich as well.
“He has every negative character trait that conservatives associate with ’60s excess: narcissism, self-righteousness, self-indulgence and intemperance,” writes New York Times conservative columnist David Brooks. “As nearly everyone who has ever worked with him knows, he would severely damage conservatism and the Republican Party if nominated.”
Like Brooks, Peggy Noonan at the Wall Street Journal says Gingrich’s temperament and character would be his (and likely his party’s) undoing.
“He's philosophically unanchored, an unstable element,” she writes. “There are too many storms within him, and he seeks out external storms in order to equalize his own atmosphere. He's a trouble magnet, a starter of fights that need not be fought…. He is a human hand grenade who walks around with his hand on the pin, saying, ‘Watch this!’”
Speaking on ABC, conservative Washington Post columnist George Will said Gingrich “embodies almost everything disagreeable about modern Washington.”
“Gingrich has a self-regard so immense that it rivals Obama’s – but, unlike Obama’s, is untamed by self-discipline,” charges Charles Krauthammer, Will’s fellow conservative on the Washington Post op-ed page.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Electio...=Google+Reader
Newt wants to ethnically cleanse greater Israel.
Government-Sponsored Sinner
Who would have thought that Republican voters would prove so accepting of sin? At least when it’s committed by a white guy, like the serial philanderer Newt Gingrich, who betrayed not one but two wives while they were enduring serious medical difficulties.
In the latest New York Times/CBS poll of Iowa Republicans, alleged philanderer Herman Cain’s once impressive support shifts to the new front-runner, Gingrich, whose richer history of marital deceit is not a problem even for the self-described evangelical Christian voters who favor him over Mitt Romney by a ratio of 3-1.
It is the first time that I have felt sympathy for a candidate experiencing the prejudice directed at a practicing Mormon. Clearly the ultimate of “squeaky clean” doesn’t cut it for a presidential contender of that faith among Republican Christian “values voters,” even when he is compared with a sexual roué of Gingrich’s considerable magnitude.
Or perhaps it is Newt’s peerless capacity to mask moral hypocrisy with the appearance of religious propriety, first as a Protestant and now as a Roman Catholic, that endears him to other Republicans who wear their religion on their sleeves. Many of those were willing to tear the country apart over the sexual wanderings of a Democrat in the White House, but now they are quite willing to send someone of Gingrich’s reputation to the Oval Office. We are speaking of a politician who was having an extramarital affair with a congressional staff member 27 years his junior, now more appropriately his third wife, during the very years when he was so energetically stoking the Clinton sex scandal.
But Newt did manage to cooperate closely with the Democratic president in passing the “welfare reform” legislation that in effect ended the main federal poverty program. Given that 70 percent of those covered by the gutted welfare program were children, it is at least consistent that the former House speaker now favors further aiding those children by wiping out the long-standing restraints on the exploitation of child labor.
Gingrich also cooperated successfully with President Clinton on the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, which legislated drastic cuts in the capital gains tax benefiting the wealthy. In addition, he was a great partner for Clinton in whipping up enthusiasm for a broader agenda of deregulation that set the stage for the housing mortgage bubble and resultant Great Recession. It is Gingrich’s hypocrisy concerning these economic matters that will prove more troubling as his chances of becoming president increase.
Given that Gingrich was on the payroll of Freddie Mac to the tune of $1.6 million, how in the world will he be able, in a one-on-one debate with Barack Obama, to logically make what has become the standard Republican case: that it was liberal do-gooders at the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who forced the banks to make bad housing loans?
The honest answer, politically awkward of course, would be to admit that those agencies were government sponsored only on the risk end, and as for profit en ies they were owned and traded by investors in the stock market. They got in trouble for the same reason Citigroup did, because the obscenely huge bonuses of their top executives were driven by their profit performance and not the quality of the home mortgages they backed.
The packaging of hugely profitable but eventually toxic mortgage securities, with the GSE seal of approval, that is at the heart of the economic crisis was the result of a Republican-engineered deregulatory mania that Newt abetted and Clinton supported. A mania that Sen. Obama criticized, but not Gingrich, who was a highly paid booster for Freddie Mac even as the housing market was imploding.
The private/public GSE model of the two housing agencies in which the risk but not the profits was carried by the public is the very arrangement that Gingrich is on record as celebrating as late as 2007 when the crisis was visibly under way. Gingrich favored it as a model not just for housing but even the space program. “I’m convinced that if NASA were a GSE, we probably would be on Mars today,” he declared in a post on the Freddie Mac website on April 14, 2007.
Although Gingrich now claims that when he was on the Freddie Mac gravy train he was simply giving objective advice as a “historian” that sought to improve the agency’s performance, the truth is quite the opposite. Obama will no doubt delight in quoting back to Gingrich his assertion that “while we need to improve the regulation of the GSEs, I would be very cautious about changing their role or the model itself.”
Gingrich, who ran into trouble with the House Ethics Committee when he was speaker and paid a $300,000 fine, is himself a variant of a GSE, having turned his government backing into a hugely profitable enterprise. After he left office, his various personal business enterprises had revenues of about $100 million. Last week in South Carolina, Gingrich scoffed at the idea that he needed to work as a lobbyist; after all, he noted, he is paid $60,000 a speech.
You would think that with a sorry personal and political record like Gingrich’s—and there is so much more—the Republicans would never nominate him as their presidential candidate if they expected to win. But I wouldn’t rule it out, for the driving faith of the GOP has become the notion that the toxic mixture of moral hypocrisy and unfettered greed is a formula for victory. Newt could be their man.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/print...nner_20111208/
====
Repugs and their "Christian" "family values voters" love s bags.
vs Willard Gekko, The Jobs/Company Destroying predatory capitalist.
Will be very entertaining to watch the flip-flopping battle royale, s bag vs moneybag.
FACT CHECK: Newt’s erroneous ethics alibi
Newt Gingrich falsely claimed the House ethics panel that voted to reprimand him in 1997 was “a very partisan political committee.” He was also off base when he said the inquiry was “a Pelosi-driven effort.”
In fact, the House Committee on Ethics is the only House panel evenly divided by party. And Pelosi was a relatively junior House member and not in a leadership position at the time. It’s true she was one of four members on the subcommittee that conducted the investigation, but she was just one of eight members on the full committee — which dismissed 83 of the charges that other Democrats brought against Gingrich.
The ethics panel was far from a “partisan” committee. Three of the panel’s Republican members joined all four Democrats in the 7-1 vote to recommend that the full House reprimand Gingrich — on a single charge of misleading the committee. On the day the committee released its final report, the Republican chairwoman praised Pelosi and other subcommittee members for working “in a collegial, nonpartisan manner in a difficult environment.”
And far from being “driven” by Pelosi, the case against Gingrich actually was pressed most prominently by Rep. David Bonior of Michigan, who was then the Democratic whip. Pelosi was still years away from joining the ranks of the Democratic leadership, which she did when she succeeded Bonior as whip in January 2002.
http://www.iwatchnews.org/2011/12/08...s-ethics-alibi
PLO Executive Committee Member Zahir Muhsein, told the Dutch newspaper Trouw in March 1977 that...
Multiple sources, google it."[t]he Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism."
"Palestinian" Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi's said during the 1937 Peel Commission par ion hearings,...
Again, multiple sources, google it."[t]here is no such country as Palestine! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented ... Our country was for centuries part of Syria!"
Newt, once again, knows his history; the "Palestinians" had no national iden y until one was invented for the purpose of fomenting hatred of Israel.
Last edited by Yonivore; 12-15-2011 at 04:38 PM.
lol yoni doesn't understand Pan-Arabism.
Anyone believing this is a stumbling block for Gingrich...
Americans Maintain Broad Support for Israel
PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans' views toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict held fairly steady over the past year, with a near record-high 63% continuing to say their sympathies lie more with the Israelis. Seventeen percent sympathize more with the Palestinians.
And trending up.
If there is one candidate that can eloquently and convincingly support his view on the illegitimacy of the "Palestinian" cause, that is Newt Gingrich.
Why do you kiss Israel's ass, yoni?
that dude in the back left resembles Ron Paul
It's obviously Lee Marvin.
I notice Lee died in '87, so since the pic is from '93, I'm sticking with Ron.
A little thing like death isn't going to stop Lee Marvin from meeting imagined people.
But the other guys a mormon!
Yoni hates all Muslims, therefore he loves Israel as Muslim ethnic cleansers.
::Bump::
PLO Executive Committee Member Zahir Muhsein, told the Dutch newspaper Trouw in March 1977 that...
Multiple sources, google it."[t]he Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism."
"Palestinian" Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi's said during the 1937 Peel Commission par ion hearings,...
Again, multiple sources, google it."[t]here is no such country as Palestine! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented ... Our country was for centuries part of Syria!"
Newt, once again, knows his history; the "Palestinians" had no national iden y until one was invented for the purpose of fomenting hatred of Israel.
:Bump::
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ...newts-travailsThe "invented people" schtick smacks of what Michael Gerson calls Mr Gingrich's penchant for "the passionate embrace of shallow ideas". Obviously the Palestinians are an invented people; so is every people. To quote Benedict Anderson quoting Ernest Gellner: "Nationalism is not the awakening of nations to self-consciousness; it invents nations where they do not exist." There was no American people before the American project of national self-invention began in the 18th century, no German or Russian peoples before the same process took place in the 19th. The Israeli people are the result of a fervent project of ideological self-invention between about the 1880s and the 1950s. As such, they were perhaps the last in the long period of self-invention by European nations that spanned the 19th century, making use of what Mr Anderson called the "toolkit" for nation-building provided by the French Revolution. The encounter with the Israeli nation-building project fed the Palestinian one, much as the French project fed the German one. It is fruitless to attempt to deny the reality of a nation once it has come into being, though it's also a typical strategy of imperial control. The French relied on differences in dialect and political fragmentation to deny there was any such thing as a Vietnamese people, breaking the country up into Tonkin, Annam, and Co hine. (That argument recently resurfaced in Mark Moyar's "Triumph Forsaken", an apologia for America's Vietnam War.) I've heard Turkish nationalists insist at great length that there is literally no such thing as Kurds, denying even the existence of the Kurdish language. Chinese will deny the existence of a separate Tibetan people. Serbs long insisted there was no such thing as a Bosnian. Some Russians used to insist that Ukrainians were simply Russians who spoke a difficult dialect. And had a few wars and other political events turned out differently, they might have been right.
But they weren't. In an alternate universe, the Dutch might be Germans, the Americans might be Canadians, and the Palestinians might be Jordanians. But we live in this universe, and presidential candidates, whatever their passion for sci-fi, better do so as well.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
