Talk About Gigantic Flip Flops

[Guest]

I know there's another thread on Newt Gingrich here, but I think recent news reports on his inconsistency on a couple of issues important to conservatives need to be aired. Some of the candidates have been criticized for taking changing positions on a couple of issues, but none worse than these gigantic flip flops by Mr. Gingrich.

Shortly after the near failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Gingrich made an impassioned speech criticizing the administration and the Congress, GOP-controlled at the time, for not only failing to oversee the agencies, but also changing their lending standards resulting in their near insolvency. He has since asserted that some members of Congress should be put in jail for their too-close relationship with Fannie and Freddie. What's now become clear is that up until only a month before that speech, Gingrich was being paid a $300,000 per month retainer by Fannie Mae as part of the $1.7 million he was being paid for "strategic and historical advice".

Now, in today's Washington Post, it's been reported that Gingrich formed a consulting firm that collected $37 million from various healthcare companies for "access to Newt Gingrich" and "direct Newt Gingrich interaction". Although Gingrich continues to assert that he has never done any lobbying, what the healthcare companies for the huge fees paid to Gingrich has never been explained. Here's a link to the article...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gingrich-think-tank-collected-millions-from-health-care-industry/2011/11/16/gIQAcd72VN_story.html

It also seems to have escaped everyone's attention that Gingrich was charged with 84 separate ethics violations during his four-year term as Speaker of the House, a period when the House was controlled by his own party!. Gingrich is the only Speaker of the House to have been actually disciplined for ethics violations. On January 21, 1997, the then Republican-controlled House voted 395 to 28 to reprimand Gingrich, including a $300,000 "cost assessment" to recoup money spent on the investigation of the ethics charge for which he was convicted.

In the summer of 1997 several House Republicans, who saw Gingrich's public image as a liability, attempted to replace him as Speaker. The attempted "coup" began July 9 with a meeting between Republican conference chairman John Boehner of Ohio and Republican leadership chairman Bill Paxon of New York. According to their plan, House Majority Leader Dick Armey, House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, Boehner and Paxon were to present Gingrich with an ultimatum: resign, or be voted out.

Gingrich refused to step down, but facing a more widespread rebellion in the Republican caucus, he announced on November 6, 1998 that he would not only stand down as Speaker, but would leave the House as well.

Now this guy is "flavor of the week" as a leading contender for the Republican presidential nomination? Are you kidding me? Isn't anyone paying attention? Does anyone believe that with this kind of record, he could win a general election for President?

There seem to be only a few primary candidates untainted by eithics or moral baggage. And only one of them appears to be able to actually beat Barack Obama in a general election. Why are we going thru this agonizing process of elevating candidates damaged in one way or another, avoiding getting behind a candidate who might actually win?

[Guest]

"Why are we going thru this agonizing process of elevating candidates damaged in one way or another, avoiding getting behind a candidate who might actually win?"

I don't think any of us are "avoiding" getting behind "a candidate who might actually win". We have to work with the choices we have, among those who actually declare they are running and file to get onto the ballot!

If you have a candidate that's actually running, that we could promote and support, it would be good to hear that name.

I've always like Pat Buchanan, but he is not running!

As for Newt's involvement in "consulting fees" from Fannie and Freddie, here's another perspective on the "equal opportunity employer" (for both parties) that it has been......
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/18/usa-campaign-freddie-idUSN1E7AG1S420111118

[Guest]

I know there's another thread on Newt Gingrich here, but I think recent news reports on his inconsistency on a couple of issues important to conservatives need to be aired. Some of the candidates have been criticized for taking changing positions on a couple of issues, but none worse than these gigantic flip flops by Mr. Gingrich.

Shortly after the near failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Gingrich made an impassioned speech criticizing the administration and the Congress, GOP-controlled at the time, for not only failing to oversee the agencies, but also changing their lending standards resulting in their near insolvency. He has since asserted that some members of Congress should be put in jail for their too-close relationship with Fannie and Freddie. What's now become clear is that up until only a month before that speech, Gingrich was being paid a $300,000 per month retainer by Fannie Mae as part of the $1.7 million he was being paid for "strategic and historical advice".

Now, in today's Washington Post, it's been reported that Gingrich formed a consulting firm that collected $37 million from various healthcare companies for "access to Newt Gingrich" and "direct Newt Gingrich interaction". Although Gingrich continues to assert that he has never done any lobbying, what the healthcare companies for the huge fees paid to Gingrich has never been explained. Here's a link to the article...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gingrich-think-tank-collected-millions-from-health-care-industry/2011/11/16/gIQAcd72VN_story.html

It also seems to have escaped everyone's attention that Gingrich was charged with 84 separate ethics violations during his four-year term as Speaker of the House, a period when the House was controlled by his own party!. Gingrich is the only Speaker of the House to have been actually disciplined for ethics violations. On January 21, 1997, the then Republican-controlled House voted 395 to 28 to reprimand Gingrich, including a $300,000 "cost assessment" to recoup money spent on the investigation of the ethics charge for which he was convicted.

In the summer of 1997 several House Republicans, who saw Gingrich's public image as a liability, attempted to replace him as Speaker. The attempted "coup" began July 9 with a meeting between Republican conference chairman John Boehner of Ohio and Republican leadership chairman Bill Paxon of New York. According to their plan, House Majority Leader Dick Armey, House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, Boehner and Paxon were to present Gingrich with an ultimatum: resign, or be voted out.

Gingrich refused to step down, but facing a more widespread rebellion in the Republican caucus, he announced on November 6, 1998 that he would not only stand down as Speaker, but would leave the House as well.

Now this guy is "flavor of the week" as a leading contender for the Republican presidential nomination? Are you kidding me? Isn't anyone paying attention? Does anyone believe that with this kind of record, he could win a general election for President?

There seem to be only a few primary candidates untainted by eithics or moral baggage. And only one of them appears to be able to actually beat Barack Obama in a general election. Why are we going thru this agonizing process of elevating candidates damaged in one way or another, avoiding getting behind a candidate who might actually win?

I bet you didn't use your magnifying glass for the twirp in Chief that you voted for, HUH?

[Guest]

I know there's another thread on Newt Gingrich here, but I think recent news reports on his inconsistency on a couple of issues important to conservatives need to be aired. Some of the candidates have been criticized for taking changing positions on a couple of issues, but none worse than these gigantic flip flops by Mr. Gingrich.

Shortly after the near failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Gingrich made an impassioned speech criticizing the administration and the Congress, GOP-controlled at the time, for not only failing to oversee the agencies, but also changing their lending standards resulting in their near insolvency. He has since asserted that some members of Congress should be put in jail for their too-close relationship with Fannie and Freddie. What's now become clear is that up until only a month before that speech, Gingrich was being paid a $300,000 per month retainer by Fannie Mae as part of the $1.7 million he was being paid for "strategic and historical advice".

Now, in today's Washington Post, it's been reported that Gingrich formed a consulting firm that collected $37 million from various healthcare companies for "access to Newt Gingrich" and "direct Newt Gingrich interaction". Although Gingrich continues to assert that he has never done any lobbying, what the healthcare companies for the huge fees paid to Gingrich has never been explained. Here's a link to the article...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gingrich-think-tank-collected-millions-from-health-care-industry/2011/11/16/gIQAcd72VN_story.html

It also seems to have escaped everyone's attention that Gingrich was charged with 84 separate ethics violations during his four-year term as Speaker of the House, a period when the House was controlled by his own party!. Gingrich is the only Speaker of the House to have been actually disciplined for ethics violations. On January 21, 1997, the then Republican-controlled House voted 395 to 28 to reprimand Gingrich, including a $300,000 "cost assessment" to recoup money spent on the investigation of the ethics charge for which he was convicted.

In the summer of 1997 several House Republicans, who saw Gingrich's public image as a liability, attempted to replace him as Speaker. The attempted "coup" began July 9 with a meeting between Republican conference chairman John Boehner of Ohio and Republican leadership chairman Bill Paxon of New York. According to their plan, House Majority Leader Dick Armey, House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, Boehner and Paxon were to present Gingrich with an ultimatum: resign, or be voted out.

Gingrich refused to step down, but facing a more widespread rebellion in the Republican caucus, he announced on November 6, 1998 that he would not only stand down as Speaker, but would leave the House as well.

Now this guy is "flavor of the week" as a leading contender for the Republican presidential nomination? Are you kidding me? Isn't anyone paying attention? Does anyone believe that with this kind of record, he could win a general election for President?

There seem to be only a few primary candidates untainted by eithics or moral baggage. And only one of them appears to be able to actually beat Barack Obama in a general election. Why are we going thru this agonizing process of elevating candidates damaged in one way or another, avoiding getting behind a candidate who might actually win?

Oh, I remember all of this quite well. This is the basis for my calling him dispicable. I did add that one of the reasons for the resignation was that how could he champion an impeachment when he knew it would come out that he was having his own affair? You are right....supporting Newtie makes no sense.

I recently wrote a post about how vicious this champaign cycle will be...doesn't matter who is up...it will be horrible on both sides. No one will benefit from it...least of all us, the ones these folks are supposed to be working for. I think other countries have the right idea...limit the political season to a short period of time and then go vote. And if you don't vote, you have no right to complain afterwards.

[Guest]

inconsistency on a couple of issues ...........???

Just a couple? LOL - Newt changes positions like Kim K changes husbands.

Which is why it is always a laugh when I hear or read that Newt is the "smartest one in the room". Guess it depends on who else is in the room at the time.

[Guest]

I think other countries have the right idea...limit the political season to a short period of time and then go vote. And if you don't vote, you have no right to complain afterwards.

Exactly. These campaigns go on and on ad nauseum because the 24-hour "news" networks need a free script for a soap opera style scandal.

The memory of the public is really short, i.e. Joe Biden's statement that knocked him out of the primary race in a flash....when he said Obama is "clean and articulate" (for a black man candidate). It ended his run and he was whisked off the stage.....but then he was deemed "presidential" enough to be V.P. and a heartbeat away from the office of President.

[Guest]

inconsistency on a couple of issues ...........???

Just a couple? LOL - Newt changes positions like Kim K changes husbands.

Which is why it is always a laugh when I hear or read that Newt is the "smartest one in the room". Guess it depends on who else is in the room at the time.

:a20:

[Guest]

The reality of the situation is that intelligent well meaning people enter public service and ae quickly corrupted in a system where quid pro quo, pay offs insider trading, etc is done in the normal course of business. Say what you will about Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann both have risk scorn speaking out against this type of political corruption. Palin had an article published in the WSJ the other day demanding congress not be immuned from Freedom of Information Act, insider trading conflict of interes tlaws, etc.

All that aside I'm taken into account that pointing a spot light on any candidate is going to reveal some warts and blemishes, some big, some samll but being spun as being big. With that thought in mind one can only gather as much information on each candidate and make you best choice.

For me there is one certainty and that is no matter who the opposing candidate I will vote for him/her. Obama cannot be elected for four more years the country won't survive him

[Guest]

The thing that drives me crazy, as a moderate, is how our leaders are selected. Basically, the most fanatical, intense, politically tuned in people vote in the primaries. The politicians know this and therefore are aware that in order to survive they must play to that constituency. The voters in the primaries are heavily skewed to the extremes, to the right for the republicans, and to the left for the democrats. So who is most likely to survive the primaries? the most conservative republican and the most liberal democrat. Thus we end up with these ideological extremists governing our country, and we've all seen how well that works.

[Guest]

The thing that drives me crazy, as a moderate, is how our leaders are selected. Basically, the most fanatical, intense, politically tuned in people vote in the primaries. The politicians know this and therefore are aware that in order to survive they must play to that constituency. The voters in the primaries are heavily skewed to the extremes, to the right for the republicans, and to the left for the democrats. So who is most likely to survive the primaries? the most conservative republican and the most liberal democrat. Thus we end up with these ideological extremists governing our country, and we've all seen how well that works.

Yes we have. Ronald Reagan VS Barack Obama. The candidate with the moral convictions of Reagan will steer this country in the proper direction.

[Guest]

The reality of the situation is that intelligent well meaning people enter public service and ae quickly corrupted in a system where quid pro quo, pay offs insider trading, etc is done in the normal course of business. Say what you will about Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann both have risk scorn speaking out against this type of political corruption. Palin had an article published in the WSJ the other day demanding congress not be immuned from Freedom of Information Act, insider trading conflict of interes tlaws, etc.

All that aside I'm taken into account that pointing a spot light on any candidate is going to reveal some warts and blemishes, some big, some samll but being spun as being big. With that thought in mind one can only gather as much information on each candidate and make you best choice.

For me there is one certainty and that is no matter who the opposing candidate I will vote for him/her. Obama cannot be elected for four more years the country won't survive him

Here's that great column published in the WSJ by Gov. Palin about Congressional insider trading.

No matter what you think about her, forget about that and just read this article. It'll open the eyes of those who are not in the loop.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204323904577040373463191222.html

[Guest]

Yes we have. Ronald Reagan VS Barack Obama. The candidate with the moral convictions of Reagan will steer this country in the proper direction.

I would add a little to that. I'd add that he had the ability to communicate his message with inspiration along with the humility to compromise in areas for the greater good.

We don't get inspiring leaders these days. And, let's face it, that is one of the more important jobs for the President. I mean, who is going to give the country a better attitude and get them working better - Carter's "malaise" speech or Reagan's "new dawn" speech?

Before you CAN do something, you have to believe it's POSSIBLE.

[Guest]

Here's that great column published in the WSJ by Gov. Palin about Congressional insider trading.

No matter what you think about her, forget about that and just read this article. It'll open the eyes of those who are not in the loop.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204323904577040373463191222.html

I think that's the most articulate, intelligent and just-plain-excellent thing I've ever seen come from her.

[Guest]

Here's that great column published in the WSJ by Gov. Palin about Congressional insider trading.

No matter what you think about her, forget about that and just read this article. It'll open the eyes of those who are not in the loop.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204323904577040373463191222.html

She can point that finger because she's not running for a high public office. I believe that lots of skeletons would be coming out of her closet if she were. I really can't disagree with the content of this opinion. It makes me wonder who wrote it.

Xavier

[Guest]

I think that's the most articulate, intelligent and just-plain-excellent thing I've ever seen come from her.Agreed.