or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy - Page 6

post #201 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

You do realize that acerbic and arrogant are just how the media portrays someone crazy enough to get conservatives agenda items done. Someone is acerbic and arrogant when they presume they can cut the rate of spending growth and balance the budget without grandma dying. Where's the proof he is actually this way or is different from any other candidate in say, being arrogant enough to believe they should be president.

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.

Quote:

If by appealing you mean bland and unmotivational, then you are right.

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

Quote:

I'd say Gingrich is very optimistic. However he is also forceful when the time calls for it. When someone is noting that rockets are launching at Israel daily or that Iran is trying to go nuclear, there isn't an optimism you want there. You want to advocate for clear force in a strong manner and if the media want to just make you sound like a warmonger, then you've got to forcefully make a clear case and Gingrich has done this. I'm not sure it can be done with a smile.

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.

Quote:


They've already been going after him on it. His statements have met the media onslaught pretty well. I don't Gingrich will win Iowa but I'm not sure he ever would have one Iowa. I foresee him doing second in Iowa, probably second in New Hampshire and the starting to take the lead as things move on to Florida and South Carolina.

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.

Quote:

Seriously? They'll say Newt made $1.2-1.6 million from Wall Street/Freddie Mac but somehow won't note that all the Romney family money and the entire private sector experience including a massive chunk of Romney's personal $250 million plus of personal wealth came from Wall St./Bain Capital?

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.

Quote:

I'm not saying they will ring completely true and I just don't think Americans hate on success the way Democrats believe. I think Obama's class warfare is a loser of an issue but the point remains that there's no way to bring up one and not seriously bring up the other as a negative.

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.

Quote:

I think he can turn them to strengths because the GOP brand is not completely untarnished. People are still looking for someone who can claim to be outside the problems even if Gingrich isn't a complete outsider. The point is that he left power in 1999 and hasn't been back since. That decade out of office happens to be when the GOP left some of their priorities he can say he will be bringing them back to them. No one claims the GOP is a completely united party and it is clear there's about 70% of the party that tea party/paleocon and the Rockefeller/establishment wing is what is attracted to Romney. As you noted part of what shut Romney down in 2008 was the division between him and Huckabee. That could well happen to Gingrich and Paul this time but the reality is that the majority of the party isn't what Romney promotes. They aren't North-Eastern Semi-Conservatives.

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

Quote:


The infidelity thing I believe has been addressed.

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

Quote:
The ethics charge (not multiple) was minor and he can show the partisan nature of them because he beat back I believe it was 97 other filed charges. American can understand that if you had a cop who had your number and who wrote you 98 tickets that if you beat 97 of them, you've really shown the motive of the cop and managed to have one minor thing stick rather than being a bad person.

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.

Quote:

As for the space stuff, I think America needs stuff like that. I think the nerd contingent (of which I count myself) is serious sad that we have to rely on Russia to get to space and that we have no vehicles to take people there ourselves right now. They don't want America's space capabilities to only be represented in a frigging museum. The Freddie stuff I've explained. It makes more than enough sense and is small potatoes compared to what others make for speeches, appearances or consulting.

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

Quote:

You don't seem to remember that Newt was the whip before he was the speaker. Of course those who do nothing but sit on the sidelines and pontificate have reservations. Anyone can when they are an arm chair quarterback versus being in the trenches. That is why I used the anecdote about football and getting hit. Leadership means getting hit and Gingrich didn't have a problem with it. Who did was the party after the got the budget balanced, then lost a few seats in the midterms in 1998. It wasn't Gingrich though who backed away from conservative principles and from wanting to balance budgets and push legislation through, it was elements of the party who then had us deficit spending again in the early 2000's.

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.

Quote:

I understand and it's been a blast in my opinion throwing all this out there and basically having us political wonks get our thoughts and opinions expressed to each other.

We need BR to attack someone to keep the thread entertaining

Quote:

Hey those fights need to be picked. I've never claimed Gingrich was the man to lead the party forever. Much like Churchhill, he might just be the man for the moment. The man who bends the curve down and starts the discussion in a different direction. Hopefully this time the direction continues on the downward path. Before the revolution got a little comfortable in Washington and 4 years later decided they'd rather start letting spending inch back up and cave rather than fight.

That is a good point.

Quote:

You know who else Gingrich reminds me of in terms of leadership? Pat Riley. I love that guy as a coach and a GM. It's clear winning is going to happen wherever he is at and he absolutely makes the unpopular decisions and picks the fights when they need to happen. However remember that Pat Riley got tossed out of LA as a coach when Magic Johnson got a little too tired of the ever present extended practices, needling an cajoling to improve. Sure the Lakers had won back to back's and had won five in a decade, but Pat wanted more and Magic wanted to go home a little early.

That doesn't mean Pat Riley was wrong though. It just meant the team choose wrong and didn't care to win as much. I think that is much like the Republicans coming into 2000. They want from fighting to balance the budget, to gee...let's just let this little bit slide, stay in power and not have people hating on us continually in the media.

For now we need the former and not the latter. We need to fight.

Great discussion.

Yeah...good points.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #202 of 328
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."

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #203 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

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
post #204 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

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."


The slogan is amusing. The sign is a despicable, egregious attack.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #205 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

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."


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.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #206 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

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."


Well, it looks as if Gingrich's campaign might be toast. He lied about his first divorce.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #207 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

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!

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #208 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

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?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #209 of 328
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.
post #210 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

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.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #211 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

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
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #212 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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.
post #213 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

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

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #214 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post



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 can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #215 of 328
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.
post #216 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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

Would you be saying that if it was oh say Clinton?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #217 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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 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.
post #218 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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

Maybe the attack is true regarding Gingrich with his marriage history confronting him. Three marriages not that great!
post #219 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

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

You've shown that not to be the case.

Quote:

But you have to admit, if Rick Santorum gets caught in a bathroom with someone's dick up his ass,

Love the way you stated that.

Quote:
it should cause a bit more outrage than if Barney Frank were to do the same.

Obviously. Mostly because Santorum is a tight-ass.

Quote:

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.

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.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #220 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

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.

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

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

Not so much.

Quote:
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.

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.

Quote:
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.

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.

Quote:
You don't get it. I know.

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!


Quote:
How complete was the airwave pile-on against Newt Gingrichs surge in Iowa this month?

Half the ads in Iowa had a Gingrich focus. And the vast majority were negative, per a new analysis from the private Campaign Media Analysis Group (CMAG). It calculated that 45 percent of the political ads aired in Iowa were anti-Gingrich.

Only one in five negative ads was directed at Mitt Romney. One in 10 ads promoted Romney, according to Goldstein.

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....

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #221 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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.

You will never get it. We know.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #222 of 328
Thread Starter 
Pets with Newt 2012

Newt's getting desperate. Surely there are better ways to spend campaign cash?

And oddly enough, I don't see any pet newts.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #223 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Pets with Newt 2012

Newt's getting desperate. Surely there are better ways to spend campaign cash?

And oddly enough, I don't see any pet newts.

That's actually real? It appears to be. LOL.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #224 of 328
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."
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #225 of 328
Thread Starter 
So after tonight's results in NH, I think it will boil down to Paul vs Romney for the nomination.

Gingrich mustered 10%, and Santorum has fallen back down to earth placing below Newt.

Huntsman did quite well, but doesn't have much of a campaign beyond NH.

Only Paul and Romney have the structure and support to carry the momentum forward beyond South Carolina and Florida.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #226 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

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.

The truth always prevails in life.
post #227 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Pets with Newt 2012

Newt's getting desperate. Surely there are better ways to spend campaign cash?

And oddly enough, I don't see any pet newts.

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.
post #228 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

So after tonight's results in NH, I think it will boil down to Paul vs Romney for the nomination.

Gingrich mustered 10%, and Santorum has fallen back down to earth placing below Newt.

Huntsman did quite well, but doesn't have much of a campaign beyond NH.

Only Paul and Romney have the structure and support to carry the momentum forward beyond South Carolina and Florida.

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.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #229 of 328
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.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #230 of 328
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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.

Mmkay.

Quote:
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.

I seriously doubt Paul would agree to be on a ticket with Romney. Although he hasn't really committed to anything beyond running in the primaries at this point. He's obviously keeping his options open, I just don't know if being on another GOP candidate's ticket is one of them.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #231 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

So after tonight's results in NH, I think it will boil down to Paul vs Romney for the nomination.

Gingrich mustered 10%, and Santorum has fallen back down to earth placing below Newt.

Huntsman did quite well, but doesn't have much of a campaign beyond NH.

Only Paul and Romney have the structure and support to carry the momentum forward beyond South Carolina and Florida.

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.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #232 of 328
Thread Starter 
Gingrich Lacks Moral Character to Be President, Ex-Wife Says

Quote:
In her most provocative comments, the ex-Mrs. Gingrich said Newt sought an "open marriage" arrangement so he could have a mistress and a wife.

She said when Gingrich admitted to a six-year affair with a Congressional aide, he asked her if she would share him with the other woman, Callista, who is now married to Gingrich.

"And I just stared at him and he said, 'Callista doesn't care what I do,'" Marianne Gingrich told ABC News. "He wanted an open marriage and I refused."

Marianne described her "shock" at Gingrich's behavior, including how she says she learned he conducted his affair with Callista "in my bedroom in our apartment in Washington."

"He always called me at night," she recalled, "and always ended with 'I love you.' Well, she was listening."

All this happened, she said, during the same time Gingrich condemned President Bill Clinton for his lack of moral leadership.

Serial hypocrisy, indeed.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #233 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Gingrich Lacks Moral Character to Be President, Ex-Wife Says

Serial hypocrisy, indeed.

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.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #234 of 328
Thread Starter 
The timing is, of course, suspect. But such has been the nature of politics from the beginning.

That he was cheating on his wife at the same time he was calling out Clinton for cheating on his wife illustrates his serial hypocrisy and ever-shifting morals (or entire lack, thereof).

I think most people still want a President who honors his commitments and keeps his word.

He has done some impressive things in the past, no question. But he has also clearly demonstrated - in both private and public life, that he just cannot be trusted.

Trumpt, I know you've claimed that for all his faults, Newt's personality is exactly the kind we need in Washington to navigate the bureaucracy and at least point us in the right direction.

But I think many are starting to realize that people like Newt are the very reason Washington is the way it is, and sending Newt back there would only serve to perpetuate the mess they've made.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #235 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

The timing is, of course, suspect. But such has been the nature of politics from the beginning.

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.

Quote:
That he was cheating on his wife at the same time he was calling out Clinton for cheating on his wife illustrates his serial hypocrisy and ever-shifting morals (or entire lack, thereof).

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.

Quote:
I think most people still want a President who honors his commitments and keeps his word.

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.

Quote:
He has done some impressive things in the past, no question. But he has also clearly demonstrated - in both private and public life, that he just cannot be trusted.

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.

Quote:
Trumpt, I know you've claimed that for all his faults, Newt's personality is exactly the kind we need in Washington to navigate the bureaucracy and at least point us in the right direction.

But I think many are starting to realize that people like Newt are the very reason Washington is the way it is, and sending Newt back there would only serve to perpetuate the mess they've made.

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.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #236 of 328
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

The point is allegations about accusations that break no law should be exactly what someone like yourself should stand against Jazz.

Whether Newt broke the law or not is beside the point. His personal and public record show he can't be trusted, but that sometimes he'll do something really cool if you're lucky. I'd rather not take the risk.

And I really don't get how you can openly admit that Newt is an unprincipled scoundrel, and then turn around and criticize Ron Paul on the points where you believe he is unprincipled.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #237 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Whether Newt broke the law or not is beside the point. His personal and public record show he can't be trusted, but that sometimes he'll do something really cool if you're lucky. I'd rather not take the risk.

And I really don't get how you can openly admit that Newt is an unprincipled scoundrel, and then turn around and criticize Ron Paul on the points where you believe he is unprincipled.

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.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #238 of 328
Thread Starter 
But it's not about the sex. It's about whether or not you honor your commitments in private and public life. Marriage is (or was) a pretty serious commitment. If you can't take that seriously, how seriously will you take your oath to the Constitution?

Also, Newt's plan for Social Security does nothing to address your concerns. So beating Ron Paul over the head with it is really quite pointless.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #239 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

But it's not about the sex. It's about whether or not you honor your commitments in private and public life. Marriage is (or was) a pretty serious commitment. If you can't take that seriously, how seriously will you take your oath to the Constitution?

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.

Quote:
Also, Newt's plan for Social Security does nothing to address your concerns. So beating Ron Paul over the head with it is really quite pointless.

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.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #240 of 328
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

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

Wrong. Ron Paul has repeatedly stated that Social Security is unconstitutional. He has never said it's "fine" or that we should keep it.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy