Because of the harrumphing?
Because of the harrumphing?
In reply to Curmudgeon: Nah, just cause of the op.
...and here I thought it was because I compared political pundits to howler monkeys. 
Howler Monkeys make more sense.. and throw less poo
Curmudgeon wrote: Gingrich is as big a crook as any of them. $1.6 million from Fannie Mae for work as a 'historian'? Oh, please. A $300,000.00 ethics violation fine? Ethics reprimand? Well, that came from Congress which is, if you think about it, laughable.
Just thought I'd ask if you actually know what that Ethics violation was?
I do actually know, and because of that, I'm not bothered by it.
The real short version:
'The House ethics committee recommended that Gingrich face an unprecedented reprimand and fine after concluding that he violated congressional rules by using tax-deductible money for political purposes and providing inaccurate information to investigators.'
And that's why I said that when you consider the source of the reprimand it became laughable.
So how about the Fannie Mae $1.6 million payout? He said it was for his services as a historian. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/15/news/la-pn-gingrich-freddie-20111115
According to indeed.com, the average salary of a historian is either $77k or $89k a year. They could have hired a $89k version for 18 years for that.
http://www.indeed.com/salary/Historian.html
It was payola for influence, plain and simple. As I said, a crook.
But what did that stem from?
His soliciting donations from corporations to fund a course he was teaching at Kennesaw college.
Recent news article about that: http://kennesaw.patch.com/articles/kennesaw-state-course-central-to-ethics-investigation-against-gingrich
As I said, he was doing the same thing the rest of Congress does which makes it laughable. Still, he is the ONLY Speaker of the House to have an ethics charge stick. Just like Richard Nixon was the only President to be run out of office for campaign iirregularities because he's the only one who got caught. Being the only one caught doesn't make it right.
Perfect example likely for us low folk: if you are in a pack of cars doing 90 in a 70 and you are the only one who gets pulled and gets a ticket, try telling the cop 'but everyone else is doing it'. Good luck with that one.
Curmudgeon wrote: Perfect example likely for us low folk: if you are driving a Rosso Corsa Red Ferrari in a pack of cars doing 90 in a 70 and you are the only one who gets pulled and gets a ticket, try telling the cop 'but everyone else is doing it'. Good luck with that one.
FTFY............
You're position towards Newt is understable, but some opinions are skewed by missing facts and biased reports.
Gingrich was found in violation of only one of the 85 accusations brought against him. The ethics committee reprimanded him - much less than an actual censuring. Rather than further pursue that issue, the comittee decided to defer the case to the IRS. The IRS ultimately found no violation. The fine levied against Gingrich was to re-pay the committee for expenses incurred during the investigation.
That's not to defend a politician who deserves close scrutiny, but it's probably better to perform a deeper investigation instead of relying on the reports you're reading.
YMMV.............
The guy is just too underhanded for me to trust. The ethics violation can be spun any which way and once again (I believe that's five times in this thread so far) I say in view of where it came from it's laughable.
Still.
Then the Fannie Mae fees thing, plus his penchant for steppin' out on his wife, well like my old grammy always said 'where there's smoke there's fire' and 'ya lay down with dogs ya get up with fleas'.
Then Romney gets all cagey about his taxes, according to Bloomberg the way he gets paid off the Bain investments is a pretty well known tax dodge, it's merely moving money from one type of account to another for the express purpose of lowering taxes. It may be legal but it's not available to the Schmucky McSchmuckingtons of the country, you gotta be where he is to even have that type of thing available to you. That doesn't sit well with me either. Every time he dodges straight answers on the subject I keep hearing an echo of Al Gore saying 'no controlling legal authority'.
It doesn't matter which party is up for a vote, they are both full of crooks.
Curmudgeon wrote: It doesn't matter which party is up for a vote, they are both full of crooks.
On this we agree.
The more irksome issue (for me) is that one of those guilty parties gets more exposure for it's proclamations of the other's improprieties and dubious behaviours than it does for its' own.
It's not that hard to figure out which is which.
I'd be more comfortable with Romney income tax transgressions if he just came out and said "this is what I do, and I think it illustrates whats wrong with our tax structure," but instead he's all dodgey on the topic.
Come on, Mitt, we all knows your rich, and we all know you've made some good investments. Just let us in on your secrets and you'd make us all much more comfortable.
I have a dream that one day there will be substantive campaign finance reform. What's more, they will pass legislation that forbids a candidate to mention any of his opponents or say anything about them. A candidate's campaign message will be "this is what's good about me and why you should vote for me"
I also have this dream where I answer the door and there's this supermodel. And she's naked. She invites herself in and we play table tennis and do some other stuff.
I wonder which one of these dreams will come true first?
It is my understanding that Newt has no chance of winning the nomination outright since he isn't on the ballot in some key states. The only way he can win is if the nomination is decided by brokered convention.
The whole thing about Romney's transgressions is they actually aren't. They are completely legal. But you have to have ENOUGH skin in the game to be able to make it work, the 99% don't and there's not a lot of chance they ever will. He knows that and obviously his handlers do too, that's why he's so closemouthed about it.
PHeller wrote: I'd be more comfortable with Romney income tax transgressions if he just came out and said "this is what I do, and I think it illustrates whats wrong with our tax structure," but instead he's all dodgey on the topic. Come on, Mitt, we all knows your rich, and we all know you've made some good investments. Just let us in on your secrets and you'd make us all much more comfortable.
The problem with putting the message that way is that you are screaming that you are planning on increasing taxes. that does not exactly go well in this current Conservative version of the future.
It's a major double edged sword, and IMHO, there's no way Romney can win on this subject. Moderates/liberals will point out how unfair and out of touch on one hand, conservatives will point out that taxes will be raised on the other. How can you win that?
www.fairtax.org
http://www.examiner.com/county-conservative-in-milwaukee/why-newt-is-doing-so-well
"Let’s face it. Newt Gingrich had a very good week, hitting dingers in two consecutive debates and coming from way behind to win the South Carolina primary by double digits.
And the Beltway Republican insiders are going apoplectic over it. “But Newt can’t win against Obama,” is their rallying cry for Mitt Romney.
Really?
According to Ben Domenech of ricochet.com, South Carolina has voted for every Republican nominee since 1980. That historical record makes it all the more stunning to think that Gingrich, who came in fourth in Iowa and fifth in New Hampshire, could pull off a win (t)here.
Sure, Newt is a great debater, and he was effective in dressing down the media types in the last two debates, but those aren’t the only reasons why he is doing so well. Ben Domenech lists several deeper reasons for Newt’s rise in the polls.
The Media Battle.
Any Republican candidate will have to endure a barrage of attacks from the liberal mainstream media, who will be dedicated to Obama’s reelection. Gingrich is known for his historic bouts with moderators and journalists, but voters are aware that the issue is much greater than the sum of his skills. The issue is that the voters aren’t convinced that Romney can withstand similar media pressure.
Because conservatives think that the media shill for the liberal left, they also believe that for conservatives to govern the media must be co-opted. When Newt Gingrich puts the proverbial hurt on a journalist, he’s demonstrating some of the skills required for a Republican President to effectively govern after the election in the face of a negative press corps.
The Importance of the Debates.
Gingrich's performances in the past two debates have impressed everyone who attended either in person or by watching them on TV. At the same time Romney turned in two of his worst performances. Both candidates had to be aware of the line of questioning that was coming; Gingrich on his ex-wife, Romney on his tax returns. Gingrich was locked and loaded, lying in wait to defend himself and Romney wasn’t. Instead he stumbled and stammered to the point of embarrassment.
Exit polls showed that as much as people cited the positives from Gingrich's strong performances, there was even more voter concern about Romney's negative performances. So the question has to be asked, “What if Romney can't hack it in a debate with Obama?”
Conservative voters have trouble believing that Romney is a true conservative. After all, he governed Massachusetts like a left-leaning moderate and there is strong evidence that he birthed the model for Obamacare, legislation that conservatives hate. It’s not unreasonable for voters to see Romney as cut from the same cloth, and maybe even left of George H.W. Bush or John McCain.
Since 1964 the GOP's national losses have all come from the party's moderate wing. Newt isn’t the perfect conservative but he has a record of some significant conservative accomplishments at a time when he was the Left's primary target.
According to Domenech , most members of the political elite (like Carl Rove and Ann Coulter), view the arrows in Newt's back as problems of electability. But to the conservative base those battle scars are viewed as an asset, not a liability; a sign that there's principle behind Newts words, not just poll-testing.
Questioning Mitt's Message.
While Newt Gingrich speaks off-the-cuff to raucous crowds, Mitt Romney merely gives his standard stump speech at more subdued rallies which lack any real energy. That speech is honed to perfection, practiced, delivered flawlessly, and … boring.
Newt is like a speedboat, able to change direction at a moment’s notice to address the diverse challenges of each state or the direction of the political wind as it blows. Romney’s campaign is like a huge ocean liner with a small rudder trying to change course.
What if, by chance, the economy starts to improve before the election thanks to modest improvement in the numbers in spite of Obama's policies? How would a wooden, lumbering campaign address that event?
That question was asked recently by Laura Ingraham during an interview with Romney: “Okay, (Obama) inherited this recession, and he took a bunch of steps to try to turn the economy around, and now we're seeing some more jobs, but vote against him anyway? Isn't that a hard argument to make? Is that a stark enough contrast?”
Romney’s answer: Have you got a better one, Laura? It just happens to be the truth. At some point it's going to get better, but I don't think President Obama's helping it.
So is that going to be Romney’s message? Pay no attention to improving numbers and vote for me anyway?”
Contrast that response to the kind of message being delivered by Gingrich. When he talks about jobs he expresses what a real job means in terms that anyone can understand: "Elect us and your kids will be able to move out because they’ll have work." Now that’s an argument that the parents of a college-aged kid living in their basement can relate to.
Can Romney turn things around and win the nomination. I don’t know, and I no longer have a dog in the hunt. But I desperately hope that any of the GOP contenders can defeat Obama.
But I do know one thing. I get excited when Newt speaks and right now, he’s the only one out there with the kind of passion that appeals to the true conservative base of the GOP.
Can Newt beat Obama? The more important question is, “Can Romney?”
For the record the IRS exonerated Newt......
You'll need to log in to post.
