GOP Hypocrisy: Obama’s “Un-American,” “Pro-Poverty” But Newt’s Over The Top?

By
January 25, 2012

There's no such thing as "almost" un-America. Boehner's just using empty rhetoric because he thinks it leaves him room. My only point in citing this is, I'm sick of the GOP hypocrisy. If Gingrich said this, we'd be hearing how unelectable he is because it's reckless, or over the top. But apparently it's fine for the current Republican Speaker of the House to throw the word "un-American" around. Meanwhile, Mitch Daniels, who some want to backdoor into the nomination, said Obama's "pro-poverty" in the GOP response. You mean like, the "Foodstamp president"?

Washington (CNN) – House Speaker John Boehner Tuesday forcefully denounced the Democrats' campaign theme that they are for the middle class and Republicans are for the wealthy – saying the politics the president is running on are "almost un-American."

"This is a president who said I'm not going to be a divider, I'm going to be a uniter, and running on the politics of division and envy is – to me it's almost un-American," said Boehner.

The Speakership is a nation GOP position, the GOP response is national positioning by definition. It seems to me, Newt is more in-step with the GOP, than is the milquetoast, Romney. Speaking of Romney, Byron York has the real story of Newt's past ethics issues. You can see how much Romney is lying about that.

Given all the attention to the ethics matter, it's worth asking what actually happened back in 1995, 1996, and 1997. The Gingrich case was extraordinarily complex, intensely partisan, and driven in no small way by a personal vendetta on the part of one of Gingrich's former political opponents. It received saturation coverage in the press; a database search of major media outlets revealed more than 10,000 references to Gingrich's ethics problems during the six months leading to his reprimand. It ended with a special counsel hired by the House Ethics Committee holding Gingrich to an astonishingly strict standard of behavior, after which Gingrich in essence pled guilty to two minor offenses. Afterwards, the case was referred to the Internal Revenue Service, which conducted an exhaustive investigation into the matter. And then, after it was all over and Gingrich was out of office, the IRS concluded that Gingrich did nothing wrong. After all the struggle, Gingrich was exonerated.



AdSense 300×250
NewsMax Trending Now
Comments:
  1. Ragspierre says:

    The congressional staffs, both Democrat and Republican, have started functioning as an entrenched legislative branch bureaucracy both doing what they think best for the country even when the voters want otherwise.
    In fact, the entrenched legislative bureaucracy has a great deal to do with congressional disapproval in the public. Republican staffers want to inch the ball down the field instead of fighting. Democrat staffers are far more aggressive.
    If a Republican gets into the White House and does not sweat blood trying to repeal Obamacare in its entirety, I predict the end of the Republican Party legitimately. It won’t be worth fighting for if the party itself does not think it worth fighting for its voters.
    –Erickson
    Will there even be a recognizable America in a few years if ObamaCare is not repealed?
    I doubt it very, very much.
    Yet, Romney Ranger Norm Coleman assures us that there will be no repeal.
    This election is not about palliatives applied to laws that were wrong from there inception.
    It HAS to be about defining and deciding two fundamentally incompatible and irreconcilable visions for how Americans will live.
    Will we be a nation of free, responsible adults, capable of governing ourselves, who authorize our national government to do a few, very limited, things?
    Or will we be cogs in a Collectivist super-state, some productive but tied to others who are consumptive, with an all-powerful, illimited Federal government overseeing all?

  2. Ragspierre says:

    When asked about Romney’s position on immigration, Gingrich said that deporting all undocumented immigrants is unrealistic.
    “You have to live in a world of Swiss bank accounts and Cayman Island accounts and making $20 million for no work, to have some fantasy this far from reality,” Gingrich said.
    While that kind of crap may play well with Dan’s understanding of “Reagan Democrats”, I strongly disapprove.
    Newt can be WAY better than that, and still be VERY effective.

  3. EBL says:

    http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2012/01/mark-steyn-on-gop.html Mark Steyn praises (in part) and (mostly) takes apart all the GOP candidates.

  4. Ragspierre says:

    Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s office on Wednesday said the minority leader doesn’t have any dirt on Newt Gingrich.
    Pelosi has suggested in two interviews that she knows something that could prevent Gingrich from becoming president, but her office said the California Democrat doesn’t have any secrets about Gingrich, who has shot to the top of national Republican polls after winning the South Carolina primary.
    “The ‘something’ Leader Pelosi knows is that Newt Gingrich will not be President of the United States. She made that clear last night,” Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said in a statement.
    –The Hill
    Walk. Back.
    After a pure slime attack.

  5. tired of the b/s says:

    Remind me again why Newt Gingrich, who professes his innocence on the “ethics” charges, paid a $300,000.00 fine, that is, according to inflationdata.com equal to over $430,000.00 in today’s dollars, and resigned as the third in line for the presidency.
    Sorry, but the lame excuse that his lawyers made a mistake when he had access to the finest lawyers in the nation, just doesn’t gel.
    And OMG, rags finally gets one right. Ironic how all the panty wetters were so apoplectic when Rick Perry said you didn’t have a heart if you wanted to punish kids for the crimes of their parents (virutally the same thing the SCOTUS said in Plyler) but now have no problem with Newt’s plan that if you have managed to avoid the ICE agent for 25 years, you can stay with no repercussion except a $5,000.00 fine that will never be paid and will be waived for all those “poor” illegals.

  6. Ragspierre says:

    “Remind me again why Newt Gingrich, who professes his innocence on the “ethics” charges, paid a $300,000.00 fine.”
    ‘K.
    The Gingrich case was extraordinarily complex, intensely partisan, and driven in no small way by a personal vendetta on the part of one of Gingrich’s former political opponents. It received saturation coverage in the press; a database search of major media outlets revealed more than 10,000 references to Gingrich’s ethics problems during the six months leading to his reprimand. It ended with a special counsel hired by the House Ethics Committee holding Gingrich to an astonishingly strict standard of behavior, after which Gingrich in essence pled guilty to two minor offenses. Afterwards, the case was referred to the Internal Revenue Service, which conducted an exhaustive investigation into the matter. And then, after it was all over and Gingrich was out of office, the IRS concluded that Gingrich did nothing wrong. After all the struggle, Gingrich was exonerated.
    –Bryon York
    http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/what-really-happened-gingrich-ethics-case/336051
    Read it. If you can refute it, do that.

  7. Ragspierre says:

    Give your insight into…
    1. how we could effect a mass deportation of millions of people IN REALITY
    2. how that could be politically supported IN REALITY
    I don’t think that there would be the political support to effect such a MASSIVE undertaking.
    That does not suppose that there are not EFFECTIVE ways to actually…
    1. control our borders, and
    2. induce self-deportation, AND
    3. get dangerous illegals out immediately

  8. tired of the b/s says:

    rags, you seem to not understand that “ethics” charges brought by the Congress and violation of IRS laws are not one and the same. Would you pay such a high fine and quit the third best job in the nation when you were innocent of the charges? I don’t think anyone would do that. I understand you are looking for reasons to exonerate Gingrich, but it just doens’t pass the smell test. Innocent people, with access to the finest lawywers in the nation, don’t just cop a plea and walk away.
    As to the immigration issue: how is saying that you will grant them basically what is amnesty from their crimes because they have outlasted the ICE agents a winning plan. And no, amnesty doesn’t provide citizenship, it just allows for the application for citizenship.
    And where was Newt on the pourous border when he was Speaker of the House? Or do you think that the border states did not have a problem with illegals in 1995? Funny, the IL-legal immigration issue never held much importance as long as it was limited to those fly over states on the border. When IL-legals started committing crimes against the northerners, well golly gee, we can’t have that now, can we?
    Illegals will self deport if there is no reason to be here:
    enforce the laws against employers who knowingly hire illegals
    clean up E-Verify so that it is more than just 45% acurate
    refuse federal funding to any municipality that offers sanctuary and refuses to enforce federal immigration laws
    refuse federal funding to any state that gives social welfare benefits to illegals
    Last night I was watching a program called “Border Wars.” The BP agent was telling how they go to the fence, or to certain known illegal crossings, and try to talk the illegals out of crossing the border into the U.S. If the illegals tells the BP that they are going to try anyway, the BP has been ordered to tell them how to remain safe by telling them what they will need, say, when they are crossing over the desert. This is nothing more than aiding and abetting.
    If you can’t get a job, can’t get monitary social welfare benefits like food stamps, public housing, TANF, why would you stay?

  9. Ragspierre says:

    I see. You are just going to keep repeating the same crap.
    No effort to refute the factual assertions in the York piece. You just “Don’t think…”.
    As to the immigration issue, I note you substantially agree with me.
    I don’t…and didn’t when Reagan tried it…support any form of “amnesty”.
    Current immigration law FORBIDS any application for citizenship if you are here illegally. You have to return to your nation of origin.
    Now, it might be really reasonable to make applications to come to the U.S. more available. But that is a prospect we could debate when there were actual proposals to consider and study.
    We agree on incentives, in large part. I often speak of “gradients”, and there are HUGE reasons people would want to flee Mexico and other Central American states to come here, not all of which are economic. It might behoove us (as a people, not necessarily as a government) to help stabilize those nations.
    But we totally agree that our southern border is out of control.
    I think we agree that there are too many interests who want to keep it that way, and they are not of one political party or the other, or that they are motivated by the same interests.
    I hope we agree that this is a really complex Gordian Knot, and that nobody has a simple slam-bang solution (i.e., build a fence). AND that…whatever we do…it will have to be supported by the American people OVER THE DURATION.

  10. ltw says:

    It seems, more than anything, that the establishment doesn’t want discussion of anything..period. Gingrich is the only GOP person I know that has the intellectual insurgency to discuss how screwed up the American federal government is, and lead reform. He doesn’t have some image that he has to uphold, because after all, as Chris Christie said….he’s an embarrassment to the GOP. Heck, the whole federal government is an embarrassment and disgrace to the American people.
    How about the establishment shuts up and lets start discussing housing, reaching all the way back to all these agencies being set up in particular HUD. The establishment doesn’t know what to do with the mess they have made…on either side. Interestingly enough, George Romney was Nixon’s HUD secretary….an compelling, personable, successful man….a person of big ideas…but definitely was using big government to try and fix everything, and the legacy is solved nothing.
    http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/lamb605.htm
    I don’t see any way except eliminating whole federal agencies to reform. The endowment by our Creator of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness deserves a lifelong tax exemption right about now.
    Taking the kids to school, I heard my Representative, Cathy McMorris Rodgers being asked this morning, talking about the State of the Union and then who she supported. She himmed and hawed for a few seconds, then said Gov. Romney. She’s a good hearted representative, but she just doesn’t get it that it can’t be fixed without reform.
    Going to have to get out there and figure out how to be get into the structure of the local GOP election process before our state votes to start neutralizing the good hearted representatives that can’t get their minds and hearts around sudden and relentless reform. It’s not just go along to get along, it’s go along spending money no one has for absolutely nothing, simply afraid. It’s tyranny.

  11. Ragspierre says:

    It’s tyranny.
    Yep. Soft tyranny…that bids to get a lot harder before it can be swept away.
    I think we have this one last chance this election cycle. That may be too pessimistic…or too optimistic.

  12. tired of the b/s says:

    rags, you cannot deny the hypocracy of Newt Gingrich, any more than you can deny the arrogance of Mitt Romney. Newt went after Clinton for an “affair” at the same time he was carrying on with his third wife. He pled guilty to two charges of ethics violations. And remember, there was an equal number of Rs and Ds on that committee. The fines were the highest ever, and there had to be a reason that the Congress levied such a excessive amount. Democrats hated him and conservative Republicans wanted him out.
    Now Newt offers his own version of the chain of events, and we are all supposed to just not question him and accept what he says? Sorry, I don’t place that kind of trust in any elected official.
    And what did Gingrich leave us with? Dennis Hastert, one of the most corrupt politicians to have evern walked the halls of Congress. But at least Hastert had the decency to fade into the sunset.

  13. Ragspierre says:

    You didn’t bother to read the York piece. You make no effort to deal with the facts, most of which were reported years ago.
    Gingrich, and LOTS of others, went after Clinton for high crimes and misdemeanors…not an affair.
    Nobody even SUGGESTED you should not question. I’ve offered you reason to question your own suppositions, which you refuse to do.
    You seem also to forget that one reason Gingrich was HATED (and still is) is that he brought down Jim Wright, brought in a GOP majority, and MADE Clinton fiscally responsible…greatly against his will.

  14. tired of the b/s says:

    Yes, rags, I read it.
    What York does not say is that the Ethics Committee is make up of an equal number of members from both parties. But the chair is always from the party in control. So that there is, in reality, an equal number of votes, plus one, from the majority party.
    Ginging, and later Hastert, was Speaker because the Republicans held the majority in the House. That means that all through the long Ginginch ordeal, the Republicans were in the majority and held the largest amount of sway.
    The excuse that York is trying to sell you is that the Democrats, while the minority party, held so much power and sway that they could not only force a Republican Speaker to pay an unheard of fine, but force him to resign as well. If that is the case, and the Republicans are so inept even when the majority power, what is the point of electing Republicans? And correct me if I am wrong, but would not the fine have to be decided by the majority who held control of the Ethics Committee?
    Still, we learn that although the IRS totally exonerated Gingrich in ’99, he still resigned.
    People are lining up and taking sides. Some favor Mitt, who is unacceptable in my mind, and Gingrich, who is also unacceptable in my mind. If these two, one a priviledged son of a very wealthy man who thinks he is owed the nomination because a) his daddy and b) because he is part of the 1%, and Gingrich, who is now running as an anti-elite, anti-establishment outsider when he was an elite, establishment insider for 20 years.
    I guess you will just have to pick your poison. Either way, you get the shaft.

  15. Neo says:

    Under the 1974 Congressional Budget Act, the President is to submit his budget request on the first Monday in February – a deadline Presidents have consistently met – except this year. This week the White House said it will be a week late.

  16. Ragspierre says:

    How MANY times on these threads have people…including me…noted how fickle and weak-kneed members of the GOP have been and ARE…???
    Sometimes, that is because the GOP has the capacity to blush…as with Nixon. More conservative people will not support a Clinton in office, as demonstrated in Watergate.
    It is a common refrain with LOTS of Conservative observers that many GOP office-holders run scared from adverse press…which is ALWAYS adverse.
    “It received saturation coverage in the press; a database search of major media outlets revealed more than 10,000 references to Gingrich’s ethics problems during the six months leading to his reprimand. It ended with a special counsel hired by the House Ethics Committee holding Gingrich to an astonishingly strict standard of behavior, after which Gingrich in essence pled guilty to two minor offenses.”
    How many times have we noted prosecutors that seemed MUCH more concerned with getting a scalp than their duties under the law? You did get the part about Gingrich being accused of something that was NEVER considered “unethical” until AFTER Gingrich had been doing it for years?
    I understand you have never been enmeshed in the meat grinder of an investigation, or even a civil trial. They OFTEN produce results that are awful. People OFTEN become so sick of the costs…which only INCLUDE money…they just act to get the nightmare over.
    Now, I am NOT sanguine about Newt’s personal conduct, but I am willing to allow him the chance to show he has reformed.
    Again, I don’t think Mittens is the anti-christ. I think he’s likely a fine fella, BUT he is not the guy we need now.
    I have written here MANY times that I consider our mode of selecting a POTUS candidate about the worst that could be contrived.
    We seem to have the choices we have. Of those, Newt seems the best.

  17. Rags, precisely 28 Republicans voted to keep Newt as Speaker. Were there really just 28 troo bloo conservatives in all of Congress, or was Newt an unpopular fuckup?
    If Newt was exonerated, did he ask for a refund of his $300K? If not, why not? And please don’t repeat the “reiumbursing expenses” tripe. The House Ethics Committee has a budget, it was doing exactly what it was supposed to do with the money it was given.
    Or do you pay for the time of the Judge and the traffic cop when you beat a ticket?

  18. Ragspierre says:

    “Were there really just 28 troo bloo conservatives in all of Congress, or was Newt an unpopular fluckup?”
    Or was he cynically considered a spent force, and radioactive?
    You’re kidding with the “refund” thing, right? The fine was, as I recall, paid out of campaign funds (perfectly legal, btw). The IRS exoneration (there is no ‘if’) came three years after the fact. It was a dead letter, and, as a procedural matter, essentially a plea bargain to make the whole fiasco just stop.

  19. tired of the b/s says:

    Ok, rags, then why did Gingrich resign the year of the IRS exoneration?
    He was relieved of most of the ethics charges, found to be innocent of any wrong doing by the IRS, yet he still quit?
    Explain that one.

  20. tired of the b/s says:

    rags, if Gingrich was considered “radioactive” in 1996, when he resigned, how will he not be just as equally “radioactive” in 2013?

  21. Ragspierre says:

    Are you and I and American voters congresscritters bent on keeping their butts in their office?
    Is our analysis DIFFERENT than theirs would be?
    Hmmm….???
    I expect Gingrich quit because he was sick and tired. Not necessarily in that order. But I dunno.
    You’d really have to ask him. You seem very happy to speculate. I’m not.

  22. Zelsdorf Ragshaft III says:

    There seems to be some form of stupidity aflicting many who read the facts of the ethics charges against Gingrich. The charges, after being investigated by the IRS, which included EVERY word spoken by Gingrich in the classroom, determined the charges against Newt were BASELESS. This investigation took place over three years. He was not only not guilty, the charges were baseless. Only an idiot can fail to grasp that.

  23. A Stephens says:

    People, this story cannot be told in a vacuum. We need to keep in mind the scorched earth tactics used by Dems and their crony media. York says there were 10,000 references when searching “Newt ethics charges” in the 6 months leading to the reprimand. 10,000! This is what they do and how they do it. Regardless of actual guilt/innocence, the charges become the narrative.
    Newt should absolutely be vetted but any current discussion of ethics violations should be with these caveats 1) he was Exonerated, Not Guilty -of anything, Zero Nada 2)that looking at how it all played out, one sees the Alinsky playbook, “pick a target, freeze it”.
    To the question of why R’s didn’t defend him more, simple, 1) Beltway R’s almost always cower from Dems and establishment media, 2) they’d rather “get along” than fight. And what happened to Newt, and in a more recent example, to Sarah Palin, is why. It’s why a Mitch Daniels, in a SoU rebuttal, throws US under the bus, hoping it buys him favor, and provides him some cover, with establishment and beltway media.
    Watch the 1999 CNN video on the IRS findings. If you don’t accept the part that says he did nothing wrong, fine, focus on the tactics demonstrated by the Dems in the video. Look familiar?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qMpBBRUCMd8

  24. Ragspierre says:

    And we are hit with “Newt’s negatives”.
    Any wonder, when so many of us keep these BS narratives alive?
    I STILL hear people speak of the ABSOLUTE LIE that “Newt served divorce papers on his dying wife”.
    “Accepted wisdom” is very often the opposite.
    Maybe we owe it to simple integrity to investigate very narrowly when people say things that seem calculated to smear someone.
    I find that the smear is all you have after the investigation.
    See Pelosi, Nancy.

  25. tired of the b/s says:

    rags, you are dodging. Since Newt was exonerated from all wrong doing (except for that small matter of the two charges that stuck) why did he give up being third in line for the presidency?
    And you are hypothesizing he was tired then, but will not be tired by the most difficult job in the world?
    If he was too damn tired to fight back then, he hasn’t gotten any younger.
    Either way, Newt, or No-Newt, conservatives are screwed again, just like they were in 2008 with the nomination of McLame.

  26. Ragspierre says:

    There is nothing more I can provide you, and I haven’t “dodged” a FLUCKING thing.
    You are obdurate. There were NO “charges that stuck”. He ended the WITCH-HUNT because of the damage the on-going witch-hunt was causing.
    See Palin, Sarah.
    Good grief.

  27. Ragspierre says:

    “He was relieved of most of the ethics charges, found to be innocent of any wrong doing by the IRS, yet he still quit?
    Explain that one.”
    OK. You have the timing BACKWARDS.
    WATCH THE FLUCKING CONTEMPORANEOUS CNN VIDEO.
    I see why people named you “tired of the b/s”.

  28. tired of the b/s says:

    OK, rags, and what happens when another Democrat encouraged witch hunts happens when he is POTUS? Does he pull a Sarah Palin and quit? HE QUIT, FOR GOD’S SAKE WHEN HE WAS EXONERATED. Can that not sink into your skull? And he gave us Dennis Hastert, crooked as hell.
    Maybe Gingrich should talk to Scott Walker about those witch hunts, and how much time they take up as Iran is closing the Straits and we currently have UK, French and US war ships headed there.

  29. Ragspierre says:

    “HE QUIT, FOR GOD’S SAKE WHEN HE WAS EXONERATED”
    No. Again, since you really have a LOT of trouble with FACTS…
    you have it backwards.
    “And he gave us Dennis Hastert, crooked as hell.”
    REALLY…??? He…alone…”gave use Dennis Hastert”…???
    I think you have become a waste of time.

  30. Ragspierre says:

    This is what integrity looks like, b/s…
    From the Club For Growth…
    “Newt Gingrich says he’s a student of history, but he must have gone to the same school as Barack Obama if he is reaching the same wrong conclusion about economic freedom, “said Club for Growth President Chris Chocola. “Mitt Romney made his money from putting capital to work to create jobs and economic growth. We should encourage, not criticize, such behavior. Newt Gingrich’s comment that Mitt Romney made money from ‘no work’ is ridiculous and continues his poisonous attack on economic freedom.”
    Newt was WRONG, and he needs to stop that kind of crap. (I hope Dan is taking note, too!)

  31. Ricky says:

    What A Stephens said!
    I heard on Cunnigham show that Boehner was one of those that was very unhappy with Gingrich during his time as speaker. He said it as if it was a good thing.
    Now remember in 2010 when Boehner wrote a letter to threaten a Teaparty freshman in the House of Reps because he did not go along with something that Boehner and the establishment were doing at the time.
    That is the kind of people Newt was up against in his own party. They are quick to discipline conservatives while they allow Obama and his party to get away with murder.
    If Newt was Speaker, by now Obama would have been impeached, or at least he would have tried, to the horror of the GOP.

  32. Ricky says:

    I am one that is not happy with Newt’s immigration policy and the way he tries to sell it.

  33. Ragspierre says:

    Agreed, Ricky.
    We ALLLLLLLLLLLLL agree, I HOPE, that whoever we elect, they have to be pushed in Conservative directions when needed, and patted on the head AND SUPPORTED when they take them on their own.

  34. Want to thank all of you, for your Powerfull stand against Oboma & His Corrupted political partners.
    But
    there is so much more we can do. Being aggressive and focusing on the facts and truth is only the first step.
    We musT follow Up with more details standing by our convictions and dont back down.
    Oboma has NOT brought CHANGE, In fact ~! ~ THE ONLY real THING needing CHANGE !….Was Barack Hussein Obama II.
    HIMSELF
    Barack Hussein Obama II ( Who hates American Values ) who is A ” SELF PROCLAIMED Enemy” ~of responsible, Morally Conscious HARD WORKING Americans.
    oBOMAS Irresponsible & DRUG MAFIA and reckless supporters KNOW~ that Barack Hussein Obama II, WILL FORCE YOU to paY THEM, out of your PockeT .{ FOR all of their UNCHECKED Vices and THRILLS/
    { All on YOU | /
    At your COST & Sacrifice
    …This UN~CHANGABLE fraud, has done His VERY BEST to Inspire VIOLENCE. For THESE ARE OBAMAS Very OWN WORDS.. saying ………To his supporters.
    Saying “Get ready for hand-to-hand combat with your Fellow Americans”
    – Obama has ALSO DECLARED to his Supporters….“I want all Americans to get in each others faces!– Obama demands !
    “You bring a knife to a fight pal, we’ll bring a gun” –
    THESE ARE OBAMAS OWN WORDS.. /and ANGER VIOLENCE and more taxes….. THIS IS OBAMAS Change for america
    /“Hit Back Twice As Hard”. He commands !*Obama on the private sector: ~~ “We talk to these folks…~ / so I know whose a*$ to KICK.“ OBOMA wants to KICK your a*$ /
    Shouting THAT Republican victory would mean ~ “hand to hand combat”
    HE IS EXPECTING people to be on Edge and BORDERLINE killing MODE, VIOLENT / and STAND up for their immoral CAUSES
    THIS IS WHAT HE LIVES FOR ./ ./ ./ THESE ARE OBAMAS OWN WORDS.. !
    * Obama Tells democrats: “ I’m itching for a fight.” !
    ….PLEASE…. go to reXes NEW WebsiTe ~ ! Oboma *( Just like Adolf Hitler~~\oBOMA~~~ Demands ! — [ THE FINAL SOLUTION – for Un~Wanted Children
    Barak Obama is A MURDERER .~Torturing UNWANTED babys on DEATH ROE
    CLICK HERE http://obomlnation.webstarts.com/index.html
    OBAMA TAKES a little NEW BORN innocent child. BORN. ALIVE sTabS it iN the head SUCKs ITS BRAINS OUT.
    This is just to wrong and horrible. Please stand for Loving Children and the USA

  35. palmyra says:

    I agree with Dan. But I’m a little concerned tonight that Romney may be making gains in FL. The picture on Drudge with Marco standing behind Mitt gives me a queasy feeling in my stomach. The Cuban community may be swayed by that photo. I’m disappointed in Marco, too. I guess it doesn’t take long for the establishment to make inroads. Dear Lord, please don’t let it be Romney.

  36. EBL says:

    I think Newt and Nasty Nancy got drunk one night and…Palomino.

  37. ljm says:

    Tired of the B/S,
    As reality sinks in about a possible Newt nomination…You’re arguments are getting a much more civil response than have mine.
    I previously attempted to assert the case that it was not the crime but the attempted cover-up with regards to the ethics charge.
    My understanding is that Newt originally told the ethics committee that GOPAC was not involved (in an effort to have the charges dismissed) and backed that up with a letter signed by Gingrich from his attorneys.
    This is one of the two charges that still sticks to Gingrich and that he now dismisses as a “mistake by his attorneys.”
    I believe this is the something that Pelosi is talking about and that York all but ignores in his article.
    PS. Cooter brought down Gingrich. Have you read his story? You can’t make this stuff up.

  38. Ragspierre says:

    “My understanding is that Newt originally told the ethics committee that GOPAC was not involved (in an effort to have the charges dismissed) and backed that up with a letter signed by Gingrich from his attorneys.”
    Support?

  39. Ragspierre says:

    “And if something was wrong, you thought he would bring it to our attention. But he did not. . . . Instead he sends us a letter repeating what he said before. He doesn’t see anything wrong. Well, that makes it tough for us to understand that in fact this is as innocent as some people would have us believe.”
    –Special Prosecutor Cole
    “He doesn’t see anything wrong.”
    Duh.

  40. Ragspierre says:

    “House Speaker Newt Gingrich agreed on Dec. 21 to accept the House ethics investigative subcommittee’s finding that he should have sought legal advice [which he DID] on the propriety of using tax-deductible donations to fund two college courses that he taught [and his advice WAS SOUND]. He also admitted to providing inaccurate information to the ethics committee in two instances.”
    Standard negotiated settlement (or plea bargaining) language. You don’t make it go away without giving them something.
    Note the SEVERAL BS assertions in your ’97 piece, ljm.
    Teaching Americans correct FACTS and IDEAS concerning our nation is not a violation of any FLUCKING thing, regardless of who funds the course.
    As the IRS noted.
    “GOPAC did not create, fund, or administer ‘Renewing American Civilization.'”
    — Gingrich, in a 1996 letter to the House Ethics Committee
    That was true. The course was funded via the Progress and Freedom Foundation.
    But WHO FUNDED the course was not material…in ANY WAY…to the issue of a tax code violation.
    The issue was the use the funding was put to, and the IRS found it was PROPER.
    I have shown you lying SEVERAL times to support your unhinged hatred campaign here. This appears to be yet another time.

  41. ljm says:

    “As the IRS noted” ???? Where is this statement made by Gingrich “noted” by the IRS?
    “GOPAC did not create, fund, or administer ‘Renewing American Civilization.'”
    — Gingrich, in a 1996 letter to the House Ethics Committee
    The statement was made by GINGRICH to the ethics committee and it is UNTRUE. GOPAC WAS involved. The statement made TWICE by Gingrich was seen by the committee and independent counsel James Cole as an effort by Gingrich to MISLEAD them to DISMISS the charges against Gingrich.
    Ultimately Gingrich agreed to plead guilty to recklessly or intentionally providing false information to the committee.
    His attorney, Jan Baran, dropped him as a client after he blamed him for the false statement. From timeline in link below: Baran issues statement saying his firm “did not submit any material information to the ethics committee without Mr. Gingrich’s prior review and approval.”
    Maybe this timeline will help you understand the reality of the ethics charges and Gingrich’s responsibility that he now calls a “mistake.”
    http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/gen/resources/infocus/gingrich/index3.html
    Hoping to convince us I, suggest, to throw it under the umbrella of all of his other “mistakes” for which grandchildren, conversion to the Catholic Church and Calista have made it unlikely he will ever repeat.
    The only thing unlikely is that the American people would believe him.

  42. Ragspierre says:

    “Teaching Americans correct FACTS and IDEAS concerning our nation is not a violation of any FLUCKING thing, regardless of who funds the course.
    As the IRS noted.”
    Liar.

  43. Ragspierre says:

    “GOPAC did not create, fund, or administer ‘Renewing American Civilization.'”
    — Gingrich, in a 1996 letter to the House Ethics Committee
    The statement was made by GINGRICH to the ethics committee and it is UNTRUE. GOPAC WAS involved.
    ——————————————
    Did GOPAC create, fund, or administer the classes?
    No.
    The course was funded via the Progress and Freedom Foundation.
    Liar.

  44. Ragspierre says:

    Was WHO provided the funding MATERIAL…in ANY WAY…to the issue of a “massive violation of tax law”…???
    No. And there wasn’t any.

  45. ljm says:

    This is going to require some reading comprehension.
    Here is the report:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/gingrich/report/part_i.htm
    If you would rather skip to the pertinent part concerning GO
    PAC’s involvement go here:
    Scroll down to item C
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/gingrich/report/part_iii.htm

  46. Ragspierre says:

    Funny that you link to a report that is full of lies.
    As shown by the IRS investigation.
    But, par for you.

  47. ljm says:

    concerning section III ITEM C Please point out the lies.

  48. Ragspierre says:

    C. SUMMARY OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE’S FACTUAL FINDINGS
    The Subcommittee found that in regard to two projects, Mr. Gingrich engaged in activity involving 501(c)(3) organizations that was substantially motivated by partisan, political goals. The Subcommittee also found that Mr. Gingrich provided the Committee with material information about one of those projects that was inaccurate, incomplete, and unreliable.
    and
    2. Renewing American Civilization
    The second project utilizing 501(c)(3) organizations involved a college course taught by Mr. Gingrich called Renewing American Civilization. Mr. Gingrich developed the course as a subset to and tool of a larger political and cultural movement also called Renewing American Civilization. The goal of this movement, as stated by Mr. Gingrich, was the replacement of the “welfare state” with an “opportunity society.” A primary means of achieving this goal was the development of the movement’s message and the dissemination of that message as widely as possible. Mr. Gingrich intended that a “Republican majority” would be the heart of the movement and that the movement would “professionalize” House Republicans. A method for achieving these goals was to use the movement’s message to “attract voters, resources, and candidates.” According to Mr. Gingrich, the course was, among other things, a primary and essential means to develop and disseminate the message of the movement.
    That is just for starters.
    The IRS found the OPPOSITE to be true.
    See…????
    No. Because you won’t see.
    Note that you are taking the side of people who persecuted Gingrich for creating and teaching a neutral American history and culture course as being “partisan” and “political”.
    You really are a piece of hate-twisted work.

  49. I just hope Obama can make sure that there won’t be any personal injuries that may happen to these people.