Before Any of You Pull that Lever...

[Jeremy Roenick]

For Newt....  Let this image burn like fire into your brain.  With the recent surge in Newt's popularity after his big SC win and likely FL win to come, just remember when he talks about Romney in the shade of "the establishment", and that he's the anti-establishment candidate...

DON'T BE FOOLED

Instead of reaching across the aisle, he's been french-kissing Pelosi across the aisle.  Instead of, as RP puts it ignoring lobbyists and not talking to them, Newt has been one and has no problem dealing with them.  Instead of being true to conservative principles, Newt blows with the wind and has no problem back tracking on multiple issues.  Instead of someone with family values, Newt seems to have no problem titillating is own personal desires with abandon.

This one picture sums up "anti-establishment" Newt, and don't dare forget it on election day.

[MRM]

It amazes me that none of the other candidates, except for Santorum, has even brought up Newt's fall from grace as Speaker. I believe in redemption and people can change their course in life. But that was a big deal back then and no one has thrown it in Newt's face.

[Flummoxed Lummox]

It amazes me that none of the other candidates, except for Santorum, has even brought up Newt's fall from grace as Speaker. I believe in redemption and people can change their course in life. But that was a big deal back then and no one has thrown it in Newt's face.

MRM,

Romney did so this morning. Here's the quote:

“Speaker Gingrich has also been a leader,” the former Massachusetts governor said. “He was a leader for four years as speaker of the House. And at the end of four years, it was proven that he was a failed leader and he had to resign in disgrace. I don’t know whether you knew that, he actually resigned after four years, in disgrace."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71802.html

The GOP is going nuclear on Gingrich. Former Republican Florida Congressman Joe Scarborough (current political talk show host) vilified him yesterday (following the South Carolina results) as did Ann Coulter. They all brought up his baggage. This is just the beginning.

[Dementia_Madness]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/01/nancy-reagan-ronnie-turned-the-torch-over-to-newt-gingrich-video/

[NCVol]

So, St. Reagan laid his hand on Newt!  Well, there you go - the anointed one! 

 

[MRM]

Even when asked about it, Newt has not been very clear about the ending of his tenure as Speaker. Newt is supposedly a redeemed person, but rarely says anything about it. That really bothers me.

[Dementia_Madness]

So, St. Reagan laid his hand on Newt!  Well, there you go - the anointed one!  

 

No but it does paint a very different picture of Newt than the portrayal of him by the MSM and his opponents. Granted just as Newt's sins of the past can be forgiven just because he was "anointed" as you say by RR then doesn't not mean he upheld that which was expected of him, nor maintains that trust today. I am amused at how so much is being argued about the long ago past of the candidates in the GOP race, while Obama's more recent past and socialist leanings are not evidence of his socialism. Seems some judge by different standards depending on the party of the people considered.

Even when asked about it, Newt has not been very clear about the ending of his tenure as Speaker. Newt is supposedly a redeemed person, but rarely says anything about it. That really bothers me.

I can understand that, but then again it's kinda like I told my son the other day before a basketball game...."if you mess up, it's okay to feel bad about it, but the important thing is the play you are about to make, not the play you just made...focus on the next play, and don't let the last play interfere with this play, move forward and do your best."

 

Ethics charges, reprimand and fine

Eighty-four ethics charges were filed against Gingrich during his term as Speaker, all but one of which were eventually dropped.[68] After an extensive investigation and negotiation by the bipartisan House Ethics Committee, Gingrich was reprimanded and fined $300,000 by an overwhelming 395-28 House vote, with both Republicans and Democrats speaking in favor of those sanctions. It was the first time in the history of the House that a Speaker was disciplined for an ethics violation.[69][70]

The last three charges were dropped because although it was found that he had violated a House rule in the past, there was no evidence that Gingrich was still violating it at the time of the investigation.[68] The one charge not dropped was a charge of claiming tax-exempt status for a college course run for political purposes. In addition, the House Ethics Committee concluded that inaccurate information supplied to investigators represented "intentional or ... reckless" disregard of House rules.[71]

The Ethics Committee's Special Counsel, James M. Cole, concluded that Gingrich had violated federal tax law and had lied to the ethics panel in an effort to force the committee to dismiss the complaint against him. The full committee panel did not agree whether tax law had been violated and left that issue up to the IRS.[71] In 1999, the IRS cleared the organizations connected with the "Renewing American Civilization" courses under investigation for possible tax violations.[72]

In January 1997, Gingrich said "I did not manage the effort intensely enough to thoroughly direct or review information being submitted to the committee on my behalf. In my name and over my signature, inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable statements were given to the committee, but I did not intend to mislead the committee."[73] But he also apologized, saying "I brought down on the people's house a controversy which could weaken the faith people have in their government."[73]

Leadership challenge

In the summer of 1997 several House Republicans attempted to replace him as Speaker, claiming Gingrich's public image was a liability. The attempted "coup" began July 9 with a meeting of 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. However, Armey balked at the proposal to make Paxon the new Speaker, and told his chief of staff to warn Gingrich about the attempted coup.[74]

On July 11, Gingrich met with senior Republican leadership to assess the situation. He explained that under no circumstance would he step down. If he was voted out, there would be a new election for Speaker, which would allow for the possibility that Democrats—along with dissenting Republicans—would vote in Dick Gephardt as Speaker. On July 16, Paxon offered to resign his post, feeling that he had not handled the situation correctly, as the only member of the leadership who had been appointed to his position—by Gingrich—instead of elected.[75]

Resignation

Republicans lost five seats in the House in the 1998 elections—the worst midterm performance in 64 years for a party that didn't hold the presidency. Polls showed that the attempt to remove President Clinton from office, by Gingrich and the Republican Party, was deeply unpopular among voters.[76] Gingrich suffered much of the blame for the election loss. Facing a rebellion in the Republican caucus, he announced on November 5, 1998, that he would not only stand down as Speaker, but would leave the House as well.[77]

Gingrich made this announcement only a day after being elected to an 11th term from his district. Commenting on his departure, Gingrich said, "I'm willing to lead but I'm not willing to preside over people who are cannibals. My only fear would be that if I tried to stay, it would just overshadow whoever my successor is."[77]

Hardly seems as disgraceful as people try to make it sound, sure he did face ethics violations (all of which were dropped except for one, which he was punished for, but ultimately was just smoke based on the IRS conclusion that cleared the organization) In the end he was re-elected and CHOSE to resign to protect the party....very different from the reaction of Clinton, whose crimes were much more serious and who did not resign because in truth his party don't really care about crimes by their leaders...but sees them as badges of honor... WE can compare Newt to Clinton, how many of us doubt that even today many liberals would still vote for Bill for president if he ran for office, and he has NEVER repented his sins....while Newt is another story altogether and somehow libs want to sit in sanctimonious judgment over him, or the people who might vote for him, ridiculous.

[NCVol]

No but it does paint a very different picture of Newt than the portrayal of him by the MSM/Fox/Weekly Standard/Drudge/National Review and his Republican opponents.

Edited that a bit for completeness.....  "The Memo" is out and the right wing propaganda outfits are stepping in line.  I must say GOP message discipline is impressive when there is a pressing issue, like tanking the Newt candidacy. 

Granted just as Newt's sins of the past can be forgiven just because he was "anointed" as you say by RR then doesn't not mean he upheld that which was expected of him, nor maintains that trust today. I am amused at how so much is being argued about the long ago past of the candidates in the GOP race, while Obama's more recent past and socialist leanings are not evidence of his socialism. Seems some judge by different standards depending on the party of the people considered.

There's plenty of Newt's recent past to point out.  It isn't as if he responded to being fired as Speaker by working for charities or something - he became a well paid influence peddler and consummate Warshington insider who now runs as an radical reformer outsider. 

[Dementia_Madness]

http://religiopoliticaltalk.com/2012/01/history-vs-romney-taking-drudgereport-to-task/

It should be clear by now that the elites in the Republican Party will do and say anything to destroy Newt Gingrich or anyone else who challenges the Romney machine. Drudge, Coulter, Britt Hume, the folks at National Review, Jen Rubin etc. are just a few of the prominent conservatives trying to not only persuade you that Romney is some sort of conservative, but that Newt Gingrich, Reagan’s Young Lieutenant, is some kind of squish.

For several days Drudge has been running almost around-the-clock negative banners against Newt, hyping negatives and burying news which contradicts the Romney campaign narrative that Newt was anti-Reagan.

Against the anti-Newt crusade stands a wealth of counter-viewpoints of people who were in a position to know and who share very differenct recollections of Newt and Reagan

Newt shared the frustrations of many conservatives, including, from time to time, me, that the President permitted the bureaucracy to prove persistently feckless, undermining his program–as you’ll recall if you’re of a certain age, conservatives were always insisting that the President’s staff should “let Reagan be Reagan.”  If Newt mouthed off, giving vent to these frustrations, so be it.  He was in Congress.  That was, in a sense, his job.  And at one time or another, every conservative of any standing felt exasperated or worried–and urged the President not to go soft either on Communism or on our own bureaucracy.  Newt’s comments here place him in the company of William F. Buckley, Jr.–WFB vented his frustrations more artfully, but he vented them–and I’d have thought that for our friends at NR that would be quite good enough.

Read more: http://religiopoliticaltalk.com/2012/01/history-vs-romney-taking-drudgereport-to-task/#ixzz1kg3hLjGM

Ncvol do you not comprehend what I said, there is REALLY no reason to CHANGE what I said in order make it more factual in fact you lessen ti by doing so....

No but it does paint a very different picture of Newt than the portrayal of him by the MSM and his opponents.

FOX is part of the main stream media....and his opponents are not JUST republicans....though they include Republicans...in fact IF the alphabets arent running negative stories about Newt you might be true but who was it that had that had the "ex-wife" story...ABC...so while you try and narrow down the subject you do it little justice...and show your prejudices..while what I said, in fact covers his enemies both Republican and Democrat..thank you.

Question, why are we not talking about Cain and his "scandal" today?

[MRM]

I can understand that, but then again it's kinda like I told my son the other day before a basketball game...."if you mess up, it's okay to feel bad about it, but the important thing is the play you are about to make, not the play you just made...focus on the next play, and don't let the last play interfere with this play, move forward and do your best."

My point was more about this sense of faith Gingrinch has implied that he now has, but he never mentions it. Santorum stands up there and tells people he's a Christian. Romney stands up there and tells people he's a Mormom. Paul doesn't say much about it either. If you can't proclaim the faith you have for fear of not getting more votes, that says a lot about a person too.

[NCVol]

Ncvol do you not comprehend what I said, there is REALLY no reason to CHANGE what I said in order make it more factual in fact you lessen ti by doing so....
 FOX is part of the main stream media....and his opponents are not JUST republicans....though they include Republicans...in fact IF the alphabets arent running negative stories about Newt you might be true but who was it that had that had the "ex-wife" story...ABC...so while you try and narrow down the subject you do it little justice...and show your prejudices..while what I said, in fact covers his enemies both Republican and Democrat..thank you.

Question, why are we not talking about Cain and his "scandal" today?

I left MSM in there, which would cover ABC, but Fox isn't generally considered part of it by GOPers.  They're fair and balanced, the rest of the media is librul and obviously biased. 

And you're right, I could have left "opponents" alone, but it's just fact that the big push against Newt is coming from republicans - the left would be more than happy for Newt to be the nominee, with his 28-56 favorable/unfavorable ratings and polls showing Obama winning 45 states or so with Newt at the top, which could explain the GOP panic over his sudden leadership and their all out attacks on him.  You sure don't see or hear left wingers in panic mode about Newt - laughter is more like it.  Disbelief maybe.  Not panic or concern.   

And I suppose we're not talking about Cain because he's gone back to selling books and speaking tours.  Not sure why we'd be talking about Cain any more than we're talking about Palin or Bachmann.  They ain't running anymore.... 

[NCVol]

My point was more about this sense of faith Gingrinch has implied that he now has, but he never mentions it. Santorum stands up there and tells people he's a Christian. Romney stands up there and tells people he's a Mormom. Paul doesn't say much about it either. If you can't proclaim the faith you have for fear of not getting more votes, that says a lot about a person too.

I understand your point, but Gingrich did in fact address his adultery: “There’s no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate.”

I'm certainly convinced!   

And when it comes to people in general, and politicians especially, proclamations of faith have an inverse relationship to my perceptions of their actual faith.   If they say they're a good Christian outside the context of a discussion specifically about religion, my first thought is "What are they hiding" and then reach to my back pocket to make sure my wallet is safe.  And if they say it often, then you will win money betting on them being corrupt.