Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy - Page 6

I'm not talking about media spin. I'm talking about seeing him in debates, in extended interviews by non-lefty sources, watching him in public life, etc. There are a lot of examples out there of his grandiosity, his smartest guy in the room persona, etc. It's not a deal breaker for me, but it's there.


We just disagree. I really like Romney in that sense. 4 years ago I might have agreed, but he seems much looser now.


I really don't think he is. He's an intellectual who fiercely wants change for the better, who would be aggressive as you note at the right times. But I wouldn't call him optimistic. To me, he's always come off as the teacher that enjoys showing students how smart he is. It's like that teacher you may have had in college that was brilliant and effective, but kind of a d*ck, too. I had a guy like that as a choir director. He was a genius and got great results. But he was also a real a-hole at times.


I really doubt he'll finish second. He'll be third at best. Bachmann might even beat him if this trajectory continues. In other words, the attacks from Bachmann, the media and Romney's ads have damaged him badly. And if Romney wins Iowa and New Hampshire, it's probably going to be over really quick.


Surely you can see how these are different, especially politically and especially for the media. Romney made money as an investor and CEO who was truly in the private sector. Gingrich made $1.2 million to "advise" a corrupt, failing GSE that has taken billions in bailouts. It just looks bad. I'm not saying he did anything improper, but it just looks bad from a political standpoint.


They're just not the same. It's not Gingrich's net worth that is at issue, it's his ties to government and this particular GSE.


I don't know. I think he does represent the majority of the party. I suppose we'll find out.


Has it? It will come up...a lot.


It's still going to be something that the Dems beat him over the head with. Just watch. You yourself implied the voters don't know any better, partially because of the media.


I agree, but he's made some pretty looney statements. Moon mirror to light highways? OK then.


I'm talking about mainstream conservative Republicans...voters. It's their reservations that matter. We can debate whether they should or not, buy they do.


We need BR to attack someone to keep the thread entertaining


That is a good point.


Yeah...good points.

Hah! Amusing. For those of you who don't know, Ashley Madison is a dating website for married people. Their slogan is: "Life's short. Have an affair."

Perfect sign for Gingrich

The slogan is amusing. The sign is a despicable, egregious attack.

Yeah, a funny picture always takes the place of reasoning and thought for some people. I'm sure the Dailyshow will pick it up and run with it.

Well, it looks as if Gingrich's campaign might be toast. He lied about his first divorce.

How is that a lie? Who files and who requested is not the same thing?

It's great to see where the liberal media complex is working and how desperate they are growing. I'm sure they'll be finding plenty of info for our current president from 1980 as well right?

Oh wait, they can't find his grades, a single paper he has published or written, a single school mate or chum who ever heard or did anything crazy with him, etc.

I can see the bumper sticker now. Obama 2012- Newt filed first in 1980 while I was "experimenting" with Cocaine!

Exactly. The double stand is amazing. And what a coincidence...a divorce story. Hmmm. Where have we seen that before?

So let us get this straight. She requested the divorce, then later served court papers stating that she did not want the divorce? She sounds like Romney.

We only have that small bit reported of what was filed. It's no different than a quote out of context. A court case is nothing like a non-fiction story. Our court system is an adversarial one.

Let me ask you this though tonton, besides scoring political points, what is the issue? Was Steve Jobs a terrible CEO because he never married his first several girlfriends, had his first daughter out of wedlock, denied paternity to the point of having the daughter and mother on social services, and did all this while being a multimillionaire?

Did it make him a terrible person for that phase of his life in that area of his life? Absolutely! Did make him a terrible person forever in all areas of his life and did he lose his professional competence because of that? No.

I'm pretty sure your own personal life isn't a straight line with marriage and children all only with one partner for life. Does that mean you are a bad or unfit person for office? I'm exactly like Obama in that I met and married my wife, had two children and we've never divorced. Does that mean a voter should never consider you and only should consider me? Are all your leadership skills, ideas and plans suddenly not worth it because of something that happened in your personal life long ago?

I'm wondering where this puritanical strain of the Democratic Party came from and given the atheistic views of most our left meaning members, what the issue happens to be with divorce.

You forgot the part where that puritanical strain only focuses on Republicans. IOKIYAD

It's about hypocrisy. The republican message and the republican behavior are incompatible.

Indeed.

So Democrats get to cheat, lie and steal...because they don't preach that these things are wrong. Unless they are done by Republicans. Then it's wrong because they oppose cheating, lying and stealing. Got it.

I'd like to remind you what the title of this thread is. I'd also like to remind you that it's extremely accurate.

Would you be saying that if it was oh say Clinton?

I call out any democrats who lie, cheat and steal.

But you have to admit, if Rick Santorum gets caught in a bathroom with someone's dick up his ass, it should cause a bit more outrage than if Barney Frank were to do the same.

If Newt Gingritch, who crucified Clinton for Lewinsky, turns out to be a serial adulterer, it's a hell of a lot more disgusting than Clinton's action.

You don't get it. I know.

Maybe the attack is true regarding Gingrich with his marriage history confronting him. Three marriages not that great!

You've shown that not to be the case.


Love the way you stated that.


Obviously. Mostly because Santorum is a tight-ass.


I disagree completely. He didn't crucify him on moral grounds, he crucified him on legal grounds. And it's only an issue because Gingrich is a Republican. You don't get it. I know.

Democrats can't be hypocrits. They'd have to have principles to by hypocritical about. They don't so they can't. They just use lying, cheating and steal as default states.


Not so much.


Why should it cause more outrage? Where's the outrage when Barney Frank was found to have a prostitution ring running out of his house and it doesn't appear because you don't want to make people who like dicks up their asses look bad? That is a much deeper level of hypocriticalness because it moves it from actions and into intentions and values. Frank has the right values regarding tolerance towards homosexuality, so a prostitution ring can be run out of his house. Santorum doesn't like penis in his butt so if he does engage, put the screws to him with regard to your outrage.

You should just admit you only get outraged when it is Republicans because you are hopelessly bias and a massive team player with blinders on.


It doesn't because Gingrich never crucified Clinton for Lewinsky. He crucified him for LYING UNDER OATH. It's called PERJURY and OBSTRUCTION of JUSTICE.

You remember that little thing called justice? It is what Paula Jones was seeking while Clinton was getting blown and then threatening and manipulating everyone and everything related to the Jones trial.

Speaking of that trial, Clinton settled out of court for $850,000, not the corporation he worked for, not the board, no one but him settled. We all know what you think about people that settle and if they did wrong related to settling.


Actually we kind of do get it. For you, it is GO TEAM GO! You'll cast your vote for Obama in 2012 and you'll endorse trillions in deficit spending, billions spent on needless wars, the continuation of Gitmo, the continuation of the Patriot Act, the extension of the Bush tax cuts, the gutting of Social Security via this election year tax cut gimmick, and you'll do with a smile and claims of moral righteousness because everyone else around you is such an idiot and a hypocrite.

In the meantime, talk about your piling on!


Gingrich was doubtful to ever win Iowa in my opinion. He strength begins past New Hampshire and all the second tier candidates hoping to become first tier will be out of cash and gas by then.

It's getting interesting....

You will never get it. We know.

That's actually real? It appears to be. LOL.

Gingrich, after complaining of a negative campaign by Romney, is now going scorched Earth. In the past week, Gingrich has called Romney a "liar." He's claimed Romney "likes firing people." He's said Romney would "buy the election if he could." His PAC has gotten a $5 million donation from casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, much of which will be used to fund a 30 minute anti-Romney "documentary."

Of course, the desperate and dishonest attacks aren't exclusive to Gingrich. Hunstsman deliberately took Romney out of context today when he said "I like to fire people" in relation to Americans' ability to switch health insurance companies. Hunstman said "He likes to fire people...I like to create jobs."

The truth always prevails in life.

He is losing and he knows it. No matter what money he spends on his ads and campaign he will never be president of the U.S.

You're right...and Paul did well. But Paul's chances are still miniscule. Even before yesterday's vote, Romney held a double digit lead in SC in most polls. The RCP average for Romney before yesterday was 10.6 percent. It's over.

In other news, I'm hearing talk about Romney putting Paul on the ticket. While I don't think it would happen, it would explain how Paul hasn't gone after Romney directly, and how he even defended him the other day.

Oh, and back to Gingrich (and Perry). It's clear that their tactic of going after Romney has not only failed, it's earned them pretty universal condemnation. Well done, fellas.

Gingrich was never projected nor did he poll in a manner that suggested a great result in Iowa and New Hampshire. Someone other than Romney has to do well in South Carolina and Florida and then the next real point in the campaign involves most of the South and Super Tuesday. The amount of ground to cover there is far too large for the candidates to hit in a manner similar to Iowa and New Hampshire. At that point organization, money, name recognition and positions come more into play.

The thing I believe is helping Paul and Romney at this point are the head to head polls with Obama. It also looks like Paul and Gingrich could end up taking each other out throughout the South on Super Tuesday allowing Romney to go through much like what happened with McCain.

As someone who has never been divorced, I'll admit that the discussions, arrangements and understandings that occur from such arrangements are a bit beyond me. I'm aware of them and certainly I am exposed to them. but the lack of clean breaks is always a bit confusing to me.

That said, this sounds like that to me and it sounds more emotional than some ill intent. I have friends who are divorced yet still keep their auto insurance together. They go through profoundly amicable times, times where you almost seem to think they will end up together again and then times where they practically end up calling the cops on each other or go back to court. I'm not talking about one couple but several and over a decade or so of watching things move on from the initial divorce.

I really don't know what more Gingrich can do in this area. I mean he admits to the messiness of divorces and even the cleanest divorces I've seen don't appear to be much better or different than his have been. I've seen half a dozen friends and co-works be elated about something an ex has done for them and curse their existence in the same week.

It's interesting the media take on this though and the timing of course is rather convenient.

No it is the nature of the liberal media. They questioned the birth status of McCain right after he crossed the delegate threshold. They did the forged documents on Bush and then conveniently dropped the drunk driving bit on the weekend before the general election. They brought out the anonymous claims regarding Swarchenegger right before the election as well. The point is allegations about accusations that break no law should be exactly what someone like yourself should stand against Jazz. Gingrich never broke a law here. When he was no longer in love with his wife it got messy but what isn't messy about a divorce. That is my point.


The Republicans did not go after Clinton for cheating. They went after him for a couple reasons. One he clearly had a history of harming women and rather than dealing with it, he smeared them publicly as how Carville used to term it, "nuts and sluts." When these women went after him, it wasn't so much in the media (because the media would rather protect than harm Clinton.) It was in the courtroom. Paula Jones sued Clinton. Clinton lied during the course of that trial and used classic, textbook sexual harassment with Lewinsky to get her and others to lie as well. Lewinsky was threatened, offered jobs and favors, etc.

Second, the man obstructed justice. That is a big deal. Sex doesn't have to be a big deal. Divorce certainly isn't a huge deal in this day and age. Lying to a court and taking powerful steps to make others lie as well has consequences.


Of course everyone would like that, but since I've never met the utopian candidate and I don't live in a utopian world, I'm going to pick the person who I believe will move the ball the most down the field toward better solutions. I've never seen a perfect candidate, and I certainly don't see one this cycle. Even if you think they end up being the perfect candidate, that is hardly proof they will be a great president.


He has never had a problem in public life and his private life settled but of course people are people and life is a bit messy there. Again, we can just look at Steve Jobs as someone who professionally was top notch, but took a while to become a decent human being on the private side of things.


I'd say the area we disagree the most is of course the belief that the "people" out there got something different than what they wanted or voted for in terms of candidates. I'm of the view that they didn't and don't get something different. If there's a lie. They bought the lie. If there's a shortcut, they picked the guy who would take it. I'm reading CrashProof 2.0 right now by Peter Schiff and holy crap does the dude tear the Baby Boomers a new one. You don't go from the world's biggest creditor to the world's biggest debtor because one guy told some lie in one place at one time.

Washington represents America and America needs to change if we want Washington to change.

This is a society that bought the lie the real estate never goes down, nor does the stock market. The government can replace your husband and you're not getting fatter from all the food you eat but if you just exercise your abs and buy these DVD's you'll be rich and thin.

When you are looking for someone to start you back on the right path, telling them it is going to be incredibly hard, require loads of sacrifice and that they need to alter everything just makes most of the population quit. Also when you are acting against a completely UNETHICAL person or parties, then you can't deal with ethical absolutes and that is what frustrates me to no end about guys like Ron Paul.

If a murderer walks into the room and asks Ron Paul if I'm in the closet, I want someone who will lie to the murderer. I don't want someone who will say, I never lie, he's in the closet and then declare the guy who would have saved my life isn't ethical enough. Lying to a murderer is ethical. So if someone pisses off a bunch of looters, a bunch of hypocrites and a bunch of liars by beating them at their own game and they win the game, I'm good with that because they were playing by a different set of rules to begin with in the first place.

We both talk about how our country is dangerously close to the sinking point with regard to the number of people who are dependent or who just no longer care to think about rule of law or even where the things they are going to loot or rail against are going to come from. The complaints about Gingrich involves those the principled people who never got anything done and the liars who wanted to loot. Newt was the guy in the middle who made sausage but it was conservative sausage and it just happened to balance the budget.

That plus in the areas where Ron Paul is unprincipled, they are the worst areas of all. I don't need someone who caves on Social Security because entitlements are what are bankrupting the nation. Sure I want America as empire to end and would love to save the money that goes into the military for that but it is PEANUTS compared to the $60 trillion the boomers have promised themselves. I don't need someone who is going to cave and ramble on in some weird area trying to reclaim and assign some sort of racial victim status as Paul seems prone to do. It profoundly undermines the case for his entire platform and it is the worst type of pandering imaginable.

The point is Newt hits back at the rules and at the people playing their games. Are some of those people going to complain about the rules afterwards when they are sore losers? Of course. But Newt is the guy out there, the ONLY guy I see out there say, you want to discuss bigotry, discuss what the state does to churches. You want to discuss jobs, and what sort of modeling kids see in poor neighborhoods, stop with the bullshit about schools that are graduating 55% are somehow going to send everyone to college and the solution is more $80k a year custodians.

Newt is going to get over this bump in the road and he will have no problem beating the man who the media does not care, snorted cocaine, had gay sex, smoked a bunch of pot, has no academic or printed record, worked with a domestic terrorist, had someone ghostwrite his book, had a radical preacher that taught racial hate and who has a complete record of failure for the last four years.

What we don't need when the deck is this slanted is someone who will sit patiently, take their 89 seconds out of the entire debate and to explain the Constitution as an answer to a slanted question from a slanted media and then will go back behind the podium and wait to be called again.

It's really simple. I've seen some of the greatest professional people I know, some of the most amazingly smart, athletically talented, rich what have you people fuck up in their private life with regard to love, lust or sex. I've also not said he is a "scoundrel."

That isn't the same as ceding the need to reform the very entitlements that will bankrupt the entire country. It isn't even in the same league.

Suppose tomorrow a story broke saying from 1982 to 1985, some crazy woman alleges Ron Paul slept with her. Suppose it even ended up being true or as is often the case with Republicans, is just a conveniently timed smear. Does it change anything about what he wants to do or can accomplish?

It doesn't in my mind.

Also here is another example. Let's talk about the Fed as an example. Would I love to see unlimited printing end? Of course. Would something other than a central bank be preferable, yes.

It doesn't change the fact that every other country in the world is using a central bank and fiat currency. That is the same scenario as the murderer and the person in the closet. Are we going to exchange our gold backed currency for worthless paper from other countries? It's more credible to do what the Fed is doing now, basically beatng currency manipulators at their own game by being the ultimate currency manipulator than it would be to give them real gold so our truth can back up their lies.

First what public commitments do you feel Gingrich has not honored?

Second it is about sex because that is how we measure whether that private commitment has been broken. Second when a marriage is broken, I blame both parties not just one and I don't believe I've seen Gingrich, even with my standard there assign an iota of blame or problem to his ex-wife.


I'd say you are wrong there. Newt wants to clearly move it to an IRA type program. I have no doubt that selling people on converting from a system where they get about 400% more out than they put in and thus will bankrupt the country to a program where they get out what they put in plus matching or growth will indeed require some sausage making.

Paul says that the program is fine and the problem is Congress borrowing from it. It isn't fine. It isn't even close.