Spread this everywhere! People need to know that Newt is completely dishonest and supports the federal mandate on healthcare! Romney, though he enacted a state-level healthcare, will repeal Obamacare on day one!!
"I know Newt Gingrich at the end of the ad says I approved this message, well let me just say, I didn't approve that message," Huckabee said in an interview Friday on Fox News.
The former governor of Arkansas said his words were "taken out of context" and were also " deceptive" because he was not referring to Romney, one of his 2008 primary rivals.
"That spot, which was back in December of 2007, never mentioned Mitt Romney by name, it never said anything about Mitt Romney. It was a general statement," Huckabee, has not endorsed anyone so far in the 2012 presidential race, and says he doesn't plan to do so.
Earlier in the week, the Gingrich campaign ran into trouble with another campaign ad. U.S. Senator Marco Rubio, who has also not endorsed a candidate in the presidential primary, told The Miami Herald's Marc Caputo, that Gingrich should take down a Spanish language radio ad that described Romney as " anti-immigrant." The Gingrich campaign soon pulled the ad to edit out that line, out of "respect" for Rubio.
But that won't happen with the ad featuring Huckabee. Gingrich spokesperson R.C. Hammond says the campaign does not plan on pulling the Huckabee clip.
"Huckabee has said he hasn't endorsed anybody but that doesn't change what he said," Hammond told reporters.
"Speaker Gingrich and his political cronies are desperate to distract from his record of failed and unreliable leadership, and voters won't be fooled." said Andrea Saul, a Romney spokesperson, said in an earlier statement.
|Gingrich trying to teach Reagan a few things on being presidential.|
National Review Online: Gingrich and Reagan
[A]t the height of the bitter struggle with the Democratic leadership Gingrich chose to attack . . . Reagan.Read the entire enlightening article here.
The best examples come from a famous floor statement Gingrich made on March 21, 1986. This was right in the middle of the fight over funding for the Nicaraguan contras; the money had been cut off by Congress in 1985, though Reagan got $100 million for this cause in 1986. Here is Gingrich: “Measured against the scale and momentum of the Soviet empire’s challenge, the administration has failed, is failing, and without a dramatic change in strategy will continue to fail. . . . President Reagan is clearly failing.” Why? This was due partly to “his administration’s weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail”; partly to CIA, State, and Defense, which “have no strategies to defeat the empire.” But of course “the burden of this failure frankly must be placed first on President Reagan.” Our efforts against the Communists in the Third World were “pathetically incompetent,” so those anti-Communist members of Congress who questioned the $100 million Reagan sought for the Nicaraguan “contra” rebels “are fundamentally right.” Such was Gingrich’s faith in President Reagan that in 1985, he called Reagan’s meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev “the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with Neville Chamberlain in 1938 in Munich.”
Gingrich scorned Reagan’s speeches, which moved a party and then a nation, because “the president of the United States cannot discipline himself to use the correct language.” In Afghanistan, Reagan’s policy was marked by “impotence [and] incompetence.” Thus Gingrich concluded as he surveyed five years of Reagan in power that “we have been losing the struggle with the Soviet empire.” Reagan did not know what he was doing, and “it is precisely at the vision and strategy levels that the Soviet empire today is superior to the free world.”
Seriously, is Newt really the man we want representing our ideology?
New York Sun: William Jefferson Gingrich
Washington Post: Time to Bring Back Bill Clinton
LA Times: Newt's Debt to Clinton
The hypocrisy of values that is Newt Gingrich is now starting to be applied to conservatives as a whole. And rightly so! How can we call ourselves the party of family values when we criticize reporters for asking Gingrich about his many infidelities? How topsy-turvy will the political world become if we have the serial-adulterer Newt Gingrich going up against the faithfully wedded and family man Barack Obama? How can we ever be taken seriously as a political ideology again?
As long as Republicans continue to flirt with the idea of nominating Gingrich for the presidency, be ready for this line of searing satire of the right:
Jon Stewart Flips Out At Gingrich’s Nerve In Attacking John King’s ‘Open Marriage’ Question
GINGRICH: “When I was speaker, we had four consecutive balanced budgets.”
THE FACTS: Actually, two.
The four straight years of budget surpluses were 1998 through 2001. Gingrich left Congress in 1999, so he only had a hand in surpluses for his last two years. The budget ran deficits for his first two years as speaker.
The highest surplus of that four-year string came in budget year 2000, after Gingrich was out of office.
Overall, the national debt went up during the four years Gingrich was speaker. In January 1995, when he assumed the leadership position, the gross national debt was $4.8 trillion. When he left four years later, it was $5.6 trillion, an increase of $800 billion.
ROMNEY: “I don‘t think we can possibly retake the White House if the person who’s leading our party is the person who was working for the chief lobbyist of Freddie Mac. Freddie Mac was paying Speaker Gingrich $1.6 million at the same time Freddie Mac was costing the people of Florida millions upon millions of dollars.”
THE FACTS: While going after Gingrich forcefully on the issue, Romney did not mention his own earnings from the government-backed lender and its sister entity, Fannie Mae, which came to light in his most recent financial disclosure report.
The report shows he has as much as $500,000 invested in the two lenders. GOP presidential hopefuls almost across the board have blamed the two institutions for contributing to the housing crisis that helped to drag the nation into recession. Among Romney’s ties: a mutual fund worth up to $500,000 that includes assets from both lenders among other government income, and separate investments in each of the lenders in Romney’s individual retirement account, each worth between $100,000 and $250,000.
Romney campaign officials said Monday the investments were handled by a trustee with no direction by the candidate.
GINGRICH: “I left the speakership after the 1998 election because I took responsibility for the fact that our results weren’t as good as they should be. I think that’s what a leader should do. I took responsibility. And I didn’t want to stay around, as Nancy Pelosi has. I wanted to get out and do other things.”
ROMNEY: “He had to resign in disgrace.”
RON PAUL: “I think the reason he didn’t … run for speaker, you know, two years later – he didn’t have the votes. That was what the problem was. So this idea that he voluntarily reneged and he was going to punish himself because we didn’t do well in the election, that’s just not the way it was.”
THE FACTS: Gingrich didn’t exactly resign in disgrace after he became the first speaker reprimanded and fined for ethics violations, slapped with a $300,000 penalty, in January 1997. He limped to re-election as speaker after that. But his number was soon up.
Within months, he was fending off a revolt from fellow Republicans weary of his antics and mercurial ways.
Paul‘s recollection now is supported by some of Gingrich’s words back then. He told Republicans, “I‘m willing to lead but I’m not willing to preside over people who are cannibals,” sounding less like a man interested in a career change than one intent on escaping a boiling pot.
ROMNEY: “Our Navy is now smaller than any time since 1917. And the president is building roughly nine ships a year. We ought to raise that to 15 ships a year. Under this president, under prior presidents, we keep on shrinking our Navy.”
THE FACTS: Romney is correct about the size of the Navy, but the numbers alone don’t tell the story.
At 285 ships the Navy is small by its own historical standards but still larger than the navies of the next several nations combined. These days, it’s not how many ships but what they can do. There is a longstanding trend toward smaller numbers of more complex and expensive vessels.
Still, the Navy has noted the smaller size of the current fleet and plans to add 28 ships over several years. The shrinking of the fleet size has spanned Republican and Democratic administrations, as the Navy restructures and plans for the addition of new platforms.
RICK SANTORUM: “One of (my proposals) would be to be able to deduct losses from the sale of your home. Right now you can’t do that. You have to pay gains, depending on the amount, but you can’t deduct the losses, as other capital losses can be.”
THE FACTS: For a brief description, it was accurate. What Santorum did not explain, in appealing to Floridians who have one of the worst housing markets in the country, is that the tax code is already stacked in favor of home ownership.
Homeowners get many tax breaks from the government, most notably mortgage interest and property tax deductions. Under federal law, when you sell your private residence, you can make up to $250,000 in profit – $500,000 if you are married – and not owe any capital gains taxes. That’s a large tax break. There’s no such break if you have such a profit in selling stocks or works of art.
But there is a trade-off: You can’t claim a loss when you sell your private residence.
ROMNEY: President Barack Obama’s $814 billion economic stimulus program “didn’t create private-sector jobs.”
THE FACTS: There is no support for that assertion. Between 1.2 million and 3.7 million full-time-equivalent jobs were created last year because of the stimulus, according to an August 2011 report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
Meanwhile, another government report found the stimulus program has paid $34.5 billion in tax incentives to businesses, including $260 million to hire younger, unemployed war veterans.
Economists debate whether the stimulus lived up to its promise or was worth the cost, but no one seriously argues that it created no jobs. Many believe it helped to end the recession even while falling short of its employment goals.
We’ll leave you with one last flub, as yet another noteworthy moment occurred when Gingrich claimed he supported Barry Goldwater over Nelson Rockefeller in the 1964 presidential campaign. During the debate, he said (watch here):
“I went to a Goldwater organizing session in 1964. I met with Ronald Reagan for the first time in 1974. I worked with Jack Kemp, and Art Laffer and others to develop supply side economics in the late ’70s. I helped Governor Reagan become President Reagan. I helped pass the Reagan economic program and worked with the National Security Council on issues including the collapse of the Soviet Empire,” Newt Gingrich said at tonight’s debate.”But in 1988, he said just the opposite. “I was a Rockefeller state chairman in the south,” Gingrich proclaimed in an interview. So, which was it?
(Source: AP and The Blaze)
|Clinton and Gingrich with their |
mistresses, circa 1995.
Are Republicans about to elect Clinton's
Republican equivalent to the White House?
It is amazing how far the Republican party has come in just a decade and a half. Rewind to the mid 90s and conservatives were decrying then-President Clinton’s many extra-marital affairs and the subsequent cover-ups, declaring that such an immoral, undisciplined man had no business being the leader of the free world. Newt Gingrich, then speaker of the house, joined the chorus of moral distain, despite the fact that he had skeletons of his own. For while Gingrich was self-righteously excoriating Clinton for the Lewinsky affair and preaching the values of the moral Christian life, he was carrying on another of his own many affairs. This one was with a young libertine staffer named Callista, who later became his third wife.
Gingrich later defended his own incredible hypocrisy by claiming that he was rebuking Clinton for his lying, not his adultery, but even then it was clear to many that Gingrich had a lot in common with his arch-nemesis Clinton. Even with his marital infidelities yet unknown, reporters in the mid 90s described both powerful politicians as believing themselves above the morals and rules of the common man. (See article) Both were described as ego-maniacs with a tendency to act upon impulse with little thought for consequence. It was no surprise to people at the time that Gingrich became the first and only Speaker ever to be disciplined by the House for ethics violations. He was thrown out of politics by his own party for his many fiscal ethics scandals that threatened to bring down the whole Republican party. Gingrich has smoldered in the background since then, subsisting on lobbying and speaking fees, nursing his great ambition to be president some day; an ambition that until South Carolina lived only in his own egomaniac head. Gingrich currently has a national approval rating at 26% (compare with Obama at 46%).
What has changed in these 15 years? Has the “rebellion” of the Tea Party movement led us to value sticking it to Obama with an attack dog over electing a moral man? Have we abandoned civic duty to “reality show” political entertainment? Or have we joined the Democrats in thinking that a long history of moral and ethical corruption has no relevance to the performance of a leader? Seriously? South Carolina, you are heavily church-attending Christians. Seriously, it doesn’t matter?
In her book “Demonic” Ann Coulter explained one of the major differences between liberals and conservatives as thus: Liberals vote for a president based on their “rock star” popular effect while conservatives vote based on the candidate's values and experience. This hypothesis was certainly confirmed in 2008 when Democrats elected the charismatic and articulate, yet inexperienced and frankly unknown Barack Obama. In 2012 Republicans have a choice between a religious conservative with a long career as a politician and lobbyist in Washington, another career politician and lobbyist plagued with a history of moral and fiscal misbehavior, and a business-leader outsider with a history of working in the free market. Who will we choose? Morals with political experience, morals with free-market experience or no morals with political infamy?
Or do we just choose the guy who puts on the best show?
Ann Coulter: "South Carolinians Would Rather Have Snotty Remarks Than Beat Obama."
Chris Christie: Gingrich ‘Has Been an Embarrassment to the Party’
P.com mods suck
From his 2006 Senate re-election campaign (which he lost).
Rick Santorum touts having partnered on legislation with Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer and then Sen. Hillary Clinton.
If you’ve had the displeasure of searching Rick Santorum‘s name on Google, you know about his so-called “Google problem.” It’s a sticky situation that has dogged Santorum since 2003.
It started when he answered a question about gay marriage in an interview with the Associated Press. Sex columnist Dan Savage, who is gay, took offense and started a contest to redefine “Santorum.” The winning definition was gross and it remains the top Google search result for the candidate’s last name.
In an interview with the Huffington Post his eldest child, 20-year-old Elizabeth, commented on the issue.
“That just makes me sad. It’s disappointing that people can be that mean,” she said. “That’s really the first thing that comes to mind, it’s hurtful. But it’s okay, we just try and focus.”