next »

[johngsteel]

IS being divorced an anti-family value?

Sometimes, there are problems where two can not stay together.  To me, that is a simple bad choice in the first place to get married (thread hijack?)

We should work through our issues.  It take two to fix it, one to break it and keep it broken.  To me, it is a lack of commitment to the other person.  If you really were committed to each other, you would find a way to work though the issues. 

But Newt has a history that is definitely not in any form of association of family values.  As does/did FDR, JFK, LBJ, Clinton, Eisenhower, Edwards, and many others who have been in public office.  That family value is cheating on your loved one.

[sly fox]

The Newt announces his two worst mistakes, no, nothing about fidelity or hypocrisy:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/10/humbled-gingrich-to-launch-2012-bid/?page=all#pagebreak

... The most striking thing about Mr. Gingrich’s re-entry into politics after a 10-year absence is his willingness to talk about his own foibles, from his backbencher strategist days after his first congressional election in 1978 through his House speakership in the mid-‘90s - topics rarely raised, even by his friends.

“My two biggest mistakes were being undisciplined and that I didn’t listen enough,” Mr. Gingrich said. “I am working very diligently to be part of a team and to be sure that the team leaders have a lot of input, along with me.”

Combative and confident, he was one of the most often-quoted House speakers in either party. He paid the price.

“I would talk to the press as a political analyst, instead of as speaker of the House,” said Mr. Gingrich, 67.

He was also one of the most headstrong politicians in either party, his closest friends confided at the time. He now says he has come to terms with that fact.

“There were a lot of people giving me constructive feedback, and I wasn’t listening,” he said, adding that he made major decisions without consulting all of his House leadership team. ...

[Russ White]

Boy, talk about misdirection working. Helloooo.... Newt paid the largest ethics violation fine in the history of the nation.. His hypocrisy on family values issues, while monumental, pale in comparison to his ethical challenges. And yet, nobody is even mentioning them. Yet, anyway.

[ronkny]

Boy, talk about misdirection working. Helloooo.... Newt paid the largest ethics violation fine in the history of the nation.. His hypocrisy on family values issues, while monumental, pale in comparison to his ethical challenges. And yet, nobody is even mentioning them. Yet, anyway.

Gingrich got caught doing something politicians do all the time in different creative ways.  He's not any different than most other politicians.  You're naive if you think otherwise.  Most are ethics crooks to one degree or another.

[sly fox]

now Russ are you trying to hijack this thread?  

you could start a new one entitled "The Newt who paid the largest ethical fine ever wants to be President"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/011897.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/012297.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/gingrich123198.htm

 

[sly fox]

Gingrich got caught doing something politicians do all the time in different creative ways.  He's not any different than most other politicians.  You're naive if you think otherwise.  Most are ethics crooks to one degree or another.

Grinrich admitted to giving the Ethics Committee false information. not many politicians admit to that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/012297.htm

... Exactly one month before yesterday's vote, Gingrich admitted that he brought discredit to the House and broke its rules by failing to ensure that financing for two projects would not violate federal tax law and by giving the House ethics committee false information. ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/011997.htm

Files in Gingrich Case Detail Misstatements
By Charles R. Babcock and John E. Yang
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, January 19 1997; Page A01

In his final opportunity to defend his client Friday night before the House ethics committee, an attorney for Newt Gingrich conceded that the speaker had made "glaringly inconsistent" statements to the panel's investigative subcommittee about a politically oriented college course financed with tax-exempt funds.

The concession was among the most dramatic of any Gingrich representative. The speaker in December admitted to having provided inaccurate information to the ethics panel. The full ethics committee on Friday voted 7 to 1, just two hours after the comments by Gingrich attorney J. Randolph Evans, to recommend a $300,000 penalty and a formal reprimand of the Georgia Republican, concluding a week of partisan wrangling that convulsed the Capitol. The committee vote is likely to be followed by approval of the sanctions by the full House when it votes on the recommendation Tuesday.

The ethics panel's subcommittee originally accepted special counsel James M. Cole's proposal that Gingrich be charged with submitting information he "knew or should have known" was false. But in exchange for Gingrich admitting his guilt, the panel altered the charge, deleting the word "knew," in what amounted to a plea bargain.

A review of the committee's toughly worded 214-page report and of a six-inch stack of investigative documents released yesterday shows that Gingrich repeatedly declined to acknowledge the inaccuracies in statements he made to the ethics subcommittee until last November -- weeks after the panel had announced publicly that it was expanding the inquiry to include the veracity of his answers to investigators.

The documents released yesterday also contain new references to the importance Gingrich placed on using a college course he taught, called Renewing American Civilization, to further his grand plan to win a Republican majority in the House. And they disclose that one foundation used to fund an earlier televised town meeting transferred to GOPAC, the political action committee Gingrich then headed, $42,500 more than it had borrowed. The subcommittee was unable to interview the accountant involved because she asserted "a constitutional privilege," the committee report said.

[ronkny]

Grinrich admitted to giving the Ethics Committee false information. not many politicians admit to that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/012297.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/011997.htm

Then he's re ethical than most politicians.   

[sly fox]

Then he's re ethical than most politicians.   

                                                    

 "Rolling rolling rolling, keep those rocks a rolling Raw Hide"

[ronkny]

                                                    

 "Rolling rolling rolling, keep those rocks a rolling Raw Hide"

So 1+1=3?  Whatever. 

[sly fox]

just saw the Newt's ad for President,

I think he is for the return to the Clinton tax rates

he talks about what he and Bill were able to accomplish, change medicare, erase the deficit, here see for your self:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/video-gingrich-announces-for-president/?partner=rss&emc=rss

strange he didn't talk about the credit due Pres WJC, must have run out of time.

So 1+1=3?  Whatever. 

I hope, for your family's sake, you have a good accountant, your math skills are worse than your reading comprehension skills.

wonder how the rest of the GOP will think about this call to go back to the Clinton tax rates

[johngsteel]

Boy, talk about misdirection working. Helloooo.... Newt paid the largest ethics violation fine in the history of the nation.. His hypocrisy on family values issues, while monumental, pale in comparison to his ethical challenges. And yet, nobody is even mentioning them. Yet, anyway.

Are you talking about the book that he wrote that the Dems raised hell over?  To stop the insanity, according to the stuff that I herd, he did not get a majority of the profits away.

Now when Hillary wrote a book, no squeaks from anybody.

So, from what I was told, there had to be more to it than just the Speaker of the House writing a book and making a bundle.

[BGuttman]

The problem is the Speaker of the House writing a book about his transgression and making a bundle to pay his legal expenses.  We make criminals who write books turn over their profits, and that should go for Newt as well.

If you manage to convict Hillary Clinton of some misdoing, you can get the profits from her book too (and they tried -- remember the Rose Law Firm scandal?  The Vince Foster scandal?).

[sly fox]

john

don't stop with what you were told, read the links I posted, better yet, do the research yourself and form your own opinion.

Remember what did the Newt in was the admission that he provided false info to the ethical investigation against him, that broke the Republican party line which was trying to protect him.

[johngsteel]

Allen,

Interesting reading.  Tks for the links.

He has the character to stand up AFTER the fact.  That is much more than most of the elected officials.  I do not think that he would get my vote...

He should remain focused on public speaking and not running for public office.

[sly fox]

Allen,

Interesting reading.  Tks for the links.

He has the character to stand up AFTER the fact.  That is much more than most of the elected officials.  I do not think that he would get my vote...

I have always urge everyone to read multiple sources and not to rely on what someone tells them about an issue or candidate.

did anyone else catch this?:

... After the Georgia Republican lost two runs for Congress in the 1970s, his third attempt in 1978 was successful. He was aggressive and rose to the second spot in the House Republican leadership. He was instrumental in helping to craft the 1994 Contract with America, a blueprint that helped the Republicans take control of the House. He was elected speaker but, after a disappointing GOP showing in the House elections in 1998, he decided to retire in 1999. ...

the above summary is truthful, he was speaker, he did resign  after a disappointing election cycle and he did retire in 1999.


however, it left out the ethic charges, the admission he supplied false information to the ethics committee and he was found to have violated ethical standards and receive the largest fine ever.

the source of the above was not Fox (Faux) or even News Max, but instead CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/05/11/gingrich/index.html

so much for liberal  bias in the media

[johngsteel]

He resigned as it was a historical act that when the party who was the majority, the then Speaker of the House would retire.

This was broken by Nancy Pelosi.

It is also a historical fact that former presidents would not speak out openly and those that followed them.  It was Jimmy Carter who broke that action, followed by Bill Clinton.  When I mean speak out, I mean talk about it by using a 2x4 or baseball bat to the public and the media of displeasure or disagreement.

[sly fox]

Nancy Pelosi never resigned while the House was held by a Democratic majority.  John you better check your sources, you are being misled.

[ronkny]

Nancy Pelosi never resigned while the House was held by a Democratic majority.  John you better check your sources, you are being mislead.

I think what he means is that when the majority loses, the speaker, of the former majority, resigns. Like Gingrich, Hastert, etc.

[sly fox]

if that is what he meant, he again was wrong b/c the Newt resigned while the GOP still had the majority.  He was replaced by a Republican as Speaker. 

The Newt resigned in disgrace.

[SensitiveJohn]

Newt and his third wife are going to bring moral leadership to our country.  The Mormon is the only one with only one wife.