Re-Evaluating Newt..

[Amelia]

Well if you must condemn Newt, please at least hang him for the right crimes. Most of the stuff being quoted here has been pulled off leftwing "I hate anything Republican" sites and a whole lot of it has been made up but repeated so often it sounds like the truth.

Anyhow, Newt was not going after Clinton on infidelity charges but rather on perjury and obstruction of justice charges.

And those who condemn Gingrich for infidelity but give Clinton a pass are simply not being fair.

It wasn't his affairs which turned me off of him in the 1990's, coz I didn't know about them until recently. What got me was something he said which made me think he was heartless. But because of his great reputation as a thinker I tried to give him another chance these last couple of years and he turned me newly against him, all on his own, without help from any Republican-hating sites.

I can't remember the details of what turned me off. I just remember that it was enough for me to close the book. The last straw was something he said about the ground zero mosque. One day I'll look it up again because I'm getting tired of hearing myself say I don't remember the details.

But I just haven't needed to remember the details. I gave him a chance. He convinced me not to pay much attention to him anymore. So I moved on.

If he were to receive the GOP nomination, I would vote for him over Obama, but he's far from my first choice.

 

[SAT]

Joe likes to ask questions, but he can't be bothered to read the answers.

Newt's wife had cancer.

He spoke publicly of her uterine cancer.

After she had cancer treatment, she went back into the hospital to have another tumor removed, which turned out to be benign.

At that time, Newt told her about the divorce, which she says came as a complete surprise.

The links to all of this have already been provided.

You mean except no one was charged with outing an agent and her name was in the public domain and half of Washington knew who she was.... I guess "covert" is one of those words that doesn't mean what it actually means. NEXT---

I'm grabbing you by the collar and jerking you back.

She was known. That she was a covert agent was not.

Libby obstructed the investigation. That's why he was charged with obstructing justice, because he kept Fitzgerald from getting to the bottom of the case.

Duh.

1) So what?
2) The Boland Amendment, which was what was broken here, had no criminal penalty or enforcement procedures.
3) Bonus cut- The Boland Amendment only forbade budget funds from going to the contras. It did not forbid the profits of other ventures from going to them.

Which is why no one was actually ever charged with sending arms to the Contras. They were charged with things like "lying to Congress" when Congress knew damned well what was going on.

Oh, once again, Joe reads minds.

The Congress went to the trouble to pass the Amendment. The executive branch exceeded the bounds of its authority.

And if my dad was the guy who had a gun held to his head by a crazed Jihadi, I wouldn't care that Reagan did something "illegal" to save his life. Nor would you.

And we're back in the movie in your head.

And the Congress was free to impeach. Oh, but wait, they didn't do that! Because they weren't going to go out and impeach a president for not letting the commies win.

Because there was no political will for an impeachment.

Except half of Washington knew she worked at the CIA and she was pulled out of Russia because the Russians knew who she was.

The CIA is the authority on who is covert. The judge on the case accepted the CIA documentation.

The famous 16 words were correct. The British did have evidence the Iraqis were trying to buy uranium. MI-6 stood by that statement. So it was an accurate statement. they didn't get it, but they asked for it.

No. The documents were forgeries. The claims didn't even make sense. This is why the documents were immediately questioned.

In his January 2003 State of the Union speech, U.S. President George W. Bush said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."[2] This single sentence is known now as "Sixteen Words".[3] The administration later conceded that evidence in support of the claim was inconclusive and stated, "These sixteen words should never have been included." The administration attributed the error to the CIA.[4] In mid-2003, the U.S. government declassified the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, which contained a dissenting opinion published by the U.S. Department of State stating that the intelligence connecting Niger to Saddam Hussein was "highly suspect," primarily because State Department's intelligence agency analysts did not believe that Niger would be likely to engage in such a transaction due to a French consortium which maintained close control over the Nigerien uranium industry.[5]

According to The Washington Post, when occupying troops found no evidence of a current nuclear program, the statement and how it came to be in the speech became a focus for critics in Washington and foreign capitals to press the case that the White House manipulated facts to take the United States to war. The Post reported, "Dozens of interviews with current and former intelligence officials and policymakers in the United States, Britain, France and Italy show that the Bush administration disregarded key information available at the time showing that the Iraq-Niger claim was highly questionable." [6] With the release of the 2002 NIE report, the Bush administration was criticized for including the statement in the State of the Union despite CIA and State Department reports questioning its veracity.

Niger uranium forgeries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JoeB131]

Joe likes to ask questions, but he can't be bothered to read the answers.

Newt's wife had cancer.

He spoke publicly of her uterine cancer.

After she had cancer treatment, she went back into the hospital to have another tumor removed, which turned out to be benign.

At that time, Newt told her about the divorce, which she says came as a complete surprise.

The links to all of this have already been provided.

Links to moonbat sites don't count, guy. Come on. Newt's own daughter has said that her mother requested the divorce and it was relatively amicable.

Libby obstructed the investigation. That's why he was charged with obstructing justice, because he kept Fitzgerald from getting to the bottom of the case.

Fitzgerald was at the bottom of the case week one. Armitage identified Plame. Armitage was against the war. Novak was against the war. Wilson and Plame were against the war. This whole "outing" thing was one big anti-war circle jerk. So why wasn't Armitage charged, he's the one who actually identified Plame publically.

Duh.

The Congress went to the trouble to pass the Amendment. The executive branch exceeded the bounds of its authority.

And the Legistlative branch didn't have the balls to call them on it. In fact, later the authorized aid to those same Contras. "We're going to impeach you for doing what we just authorized you to do..." Oh, yeah, that would work.

And we're back in the movie in your head.

Yeah, the truth hurts, don't it.

Because there was no political will for an impeachment.

Exactly. Because they knew they were wrong and Reagan was right.

The CIA is the authority on who is covert. The judge on the case accepted the CIA documentation.

Great. So, um, why wasn't Armitage prosecuted again?

The famous 16 words were correct. The British did have evidence the Iraqis were trying to buy uranium. MI-6 stood by that statement. So it was an accurate statement. they didn't get it, but they asked for it.

No. The documents were forgeries. The claims didn't even make sense. This is why the documents were immediately questioned.

Except Bush didn't reference those documents, which were being promoted not by British MI-6, but by Italy's SIS.

The bottom line was that the CIA, MI-6, the Mossad, and a dozen intelligence agencies of allied nations all believed Saddam actually had these weapons. They were wrong. Completely. Everything else is fingerpointing and recrimination, and frankly, don't waste my time with it.

 

[zonly1]

Newt is the best candidate to clean obumers clock...obumer's record is a failure ...and is a debt man walking

The only way to handle a leo is to get in there face...newt can handle this adolescent in his sleep.

When obumer is tied to acorn , OWS, fast and furious, solyindra, sun power, green vehicles, franklin raines, eric holder, soros, move on etc, Patrick Gaspard​, Bertha Lewis​, Wade Rathke, OWS, cronie capitalism,etc.....going to come to light, he will loose in a landslide.

MAKE A DIFFERENCE ON URGENT CAMPAIGNS! GET PAID!
MAKE A DIFFERENCE ON URGENT CAMPAIGNS! GET PAID!

 

[Lumpy 1]

Well .. even on Newt's stupid days he's far more knowledgeable than Obama...just sayin..

It still gets me that Democrats can criticize Republicans on personal lives with a straight face...on one hand saying it's a personal issue and the other swinging the bludgeon of morality...

 

[JoeB131]

Well .. even on Newt's stupid days he's far more knowledgeable than Obama...just sayin..

It still gets me that Democrats can criticize Republicans on personal lives with a straight face...on one hand saying it's a personal issue and the other swinging the bludgeon of morality...

Well, first, Republicans are the ones who insist that "family values" are an issue. They are the ones who want to tell people who they can or can't marry, how they should deal with unwanted pregnancies, etc. If you are going to be holier than thou, you really need to be holier.

My (Republican) complaint with Newt was that he insisted on going all in on Impeachment, knowing at the end of the day, he would lose. 67% opposed impeachment, and there was no way he was going to get 12 Democrats to vote to impeach, even if he could keep all 55 Republicans on the Reservation. (Which they didn't do, either. Even Fred Thompson voted to acquit.)

So he threw all in on a sucker's bet, and at the end of the day, he not only didn't remove Clinton, but had to step aside himself.

Do you really want that kind of judgment or hubris dealing with Putin or Hu or Ahmadihijad during a crisis? I don't.

 

[SAT]

Links to moonbat sites don't count, guy.

You're dodging. The sites are not "moonbat sites", and the links to the information are embedded in the stories.

Come on. Newt's own daughter has said that her mother requested the divorce and it was relatively amicable.

And Newt's own wife says that his request was a surprise. You know this, I showed you this, you are dodging.

Fitzgerald was at the bottom of the case week one. Armitage identified Plame. Armitage was against the war. Novak was against the war. Wilson and Plame were against the war. This whole "outing" thing was one big anti-war circle jerk. So why wasn't Armitage charged, he's the one who actually identified Plame publically.

Armitage spoke to Novak, but Novak had two administration sources, not one. Rove shopped the story about Plame to Russert and Matthews, for no reason except political gain. Some of this should be sinking into you at this point.

And the Legistlative branch didn't have the balls to call them on it. In fact, later the authorized aid to those same Contras. "We're going to impeach you for doing what we just authorized you to do..." Oh, yeah, that would work.

Do you ever back up a claim, or do you just post these imaginary conversations?

Yeah, the truth hurts, don't it.

It hurts you.

Exactly. Because they knew they were wrong and Reagan was right.

Reagan was right to negotiate with terrorists while claiming that we don't negotiate with terrorists? Reagan was right to mine a harbor in peacetime? Reagan was right to violate the express will of Congress and ignore the Constitution? Be serious.

Except Bush didn't reference those documents, which were being promoted not by British MI-6, but by Italy's SIS.

The bottom line was that the CIA, MI-6, the Mossad, and a dozen intelligence agencies of allied nations all believed Saddam actually had these weapons. They were wrong. Completely. Everything else is fingerpointing and recrimination, and frankly, don't waste my time with it.

Here's the bottom line: The UN weapons inspectors were not finding the evidence that you claim. Iraq agreed to weapons inspections in 2002, Bush forged ahead with his allegedly God given mission of war. The CIA doubted the quality of the intelligence. Powell went to the UN with DRAWINGS provided by a SINGLE SOURCE instead of mult-sourced intelligence. You are wasting your own time, fighting a battle with facts and with reality.



Yes, those documents are what Bush referenced, and they were known to be frauds by 2002.

Niger uranium forgeries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

French intelligence informed the United States a year before President Bush's State of the Union address that the allegation could not be supported with hard evidence.[9

In early October 2002, George Tenet called Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley to ask him to remove reference to the Niger uranium from a speech Bush was to give in Cincinnati on October 7. This was followed up by a memo asking Hadley to remove another, similar line. Another memo was sent to the White House expressing the CIA's view that the Niger claims were false; this memo was given to both Hadley and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.[18] [19] [20

 

[JoeB131]

And Newt's own wife says that his request was a surprise. You know this, I showed you this, you are dodging.

YOu actually heard her say that? Or are you just repeating what you saw on HuffPo. Since you think Anita Hill was a law clerk, I can't take your veracity very highly.

Armitage spoke to Novak, but Novak had two administration sources, not one. Rove shopped the story about Plame to Russert and Matthews, for no reason except political gain. Some of this should be sinking into you at this point.

Political gain, or just answering a reporter's question? Like, "how did a house husband get a junket to a foreign country?". And if that were the case, why wasn't Rove charged with anything? Sweet Evil Jesus, man, you can't have five years of investigation and then admit you can't get a grand jury of DC Welfare Queens to indict a Republican if there is nothing to your accusations.

moving past your whining....

Reagan was right to negotiate with terrorists while claiming that we don't negotiate with terrorists? Reagan was right to mine a harbor in peacetime? Reagan was right to violate the express will of Congress and ignore the Constitution? Be serious.

Well, technically, he wasn't negotiating with terrorists, he was negotiating with the government of Iran- a sovereign state. As for the Contra stuff, since Congress reversed itself, so, yeah... I guess he was right.

Yes, those documents are what Bush referenced, and they were known to be frauds by 2002.

No, the Niger Documents came from the Italians. He was citing reports by the British.

The British STILL stand by their claims..

 

[Claudette]

Save your breath Joe.

SAT will believe what he wants to believe. Facts don't enter into it.

I think Newt would be a good Prez but he will never make it. His personal baggage whether true or not will not endear him to any right winger.

He's still the smartest guy in the room but it won't matter. He will never get the Nom.

 

[JoeB131]

Save your breath Joe.

SAT will believe what he wants to believe. Facts don't enter into it.

I think Newt would be a good Prez but he will never make it. His personal baggage whether true or not will not endear him to any right winger.

He's still the smartest guy in the room but it won't matter. He will never get the Nom.

SAT strikes me as someone who thinks he's entitled to his own facts.

As I stated above, I think that Newt is a smart guy and he gets a bad rap for things he doesn't deserve to get a bad rap for.

But I think he has also shown appalling judgment at times, and I'm not sure I would want him to be the nominee.

But all the other choices are equally bad or worse.

 

[Claudette]

I think it will be either Romney or Perry.

I think Cain rocks but don't think he will get the nom either. All the others are non starters.

Guess I'll just have to see who the last man standing is. LOL

 

[Foxfyre]

I think it will be either Romney or Perry.

I think Cain rocks but don't think he will get the nom either. All the others are non starters.

Guess I'll just have to see who the last man standing is. LOL

And right now nobody is attacking Newt and even the media is leaving him alone. If the others rip each other apart, as the media intends for them to do, so that they are all too damaged goods to be appealing, and voila! Newt is the last man standing. . . .

I wouldn't have to hold my nose to vote for him with a clear conscience. And I bet neither would you.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well if you must condemn Newt, please at least hang him for the right crimes. Most of the stuff being quoted here has been pulled off leftwing "I hate anything Republican" sites and a whole lot of it has been made up but repeated so often it sounds like the truth.

Anyhow, Newt was not going after Clinton on infidelity charges but rather on perjury and obstruction of justice charges.

And those who condemn Gingrich for infidelity but give Clinton a pass are simply not being fair.

It wasn't his affairs which turned me off of him in the 1990's, coz I didn't know about them until recently. What got me was something he said which made me think he was heartless. But because of his great reputation as a thinker I tried to give him another chance these last couple of years and he turned me newly against him, all on his own, without help from any Republican-hating sites.

I can't remember the details of what turned me off. I just remember that it was enough for me to close the book. The last straw was something he said about the ground zero mosque. One day I'll look it up again because I'm getting tired of hearing myself say I don't remember the details.

But I just haven't needed to remember the details. I gave him a chance. He convinced me not to pay much attention to him anymore. So I moved on.

If he were to receive the GOP nomination, I would vote for him over Obama, but he's far from my first choice.

Fair enough. You don't know WHY you dislike Newt, but now the evidence is out there. You don't like Newt and that's why you won't support him. That's legitimate so long as we are honest about it.

Lumpy illustated the Democrats' hypocrisies on these things up there. But sometimes the Republicans are worse choosing the one thing that irritated or hit them wrong to judge the whole person. I hope most of us consider the whole person and what he or she can bring to the table. There isn't any one of us who at one time or another hasn't said something for which we needed to be forgiven. And there isn't any one of us who at one time or another hasn't said something that was misunderstood or misinterpreted and it really feels good to be given a chance to clarify and explain our actual intent. And there isn't any one of us who, after receviing additional information and/or giving a concept serious consideration, haven't changed our mind about something and that too needs to be acknowledged.

We need a lot more of that kind of intellectual honesty in politics. And it needs to be applied to Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich and all the rest.

 

[Claudette]

I think it will be either Romney or Perry.

I think Cain rocks but don't think he will get the nom either. All the others are non starters.

Guess I'll just have to see who the last man standing is. LOL

And right now nobody is attacking Newt and even the media is leaving him alone. If the others rip each other apart, as the media intends for them to do, so that they are all too damaged goods to be appealing, and voila! Newt is the last man standing. . . .

I wouldn't have to hold my nose to vote for him with a clear conscience. And I bet neither would you.

You wouldn't be wrong. If Newt is the last man standing I would have no problem voting for him. He has a world of know how and can get things done.

Like I said. The smartest guy in the room.

 

[Amelia]

Well if you must condemn Newt, please at least hang him for the right crimes. Most of the stuff being quoted here has been pulled off leftwing "I hate anything Republican" sites and a whole lot of it has been made up but repeated so often it sounds like the truth.

Anyhow, Newt was not going after Clinton on infidelity charges but rather on perjury and obstruction of justice charges.

And those who condemn Gingrich for infidelity but give Clinton a pass are simply not being fair.

It wasn't his affairs which turned me off of him in the 1990's, coz I didn't know about them until recently. What got me was something he said which made me think he was heartless. But because of his great reputation as a thinker I tried to give him another chance these last couple of years and he turned me newly against him, all on his own, without help from any Republican-hating sites.

I can't remember the details of what turned me off. I just remember that it was enough for me to close the book. The last straw was something he said about the ground zero mosque. One day I'll look it up again because I'm getting tired of hearing myself say I don't remember the details.

But I just haven't needed to remember the details. I gave him a chance. He convinced me not to pay much attention to him anymore. So I moved on.

If he were to receive the GOP nomination, I would vote for him over Obama, but he's far from my first choice.

Fair enough. You don't know WHY you dislike Newt, but now the evidence is out there. You don't like Newt and that's why you won't support him. That's legitimate so long as we are honest about it.

Lumpy illustated the Democrats' hypocrisies on these things up there. But sometimes the Republicans are worse choosing the one thing that irritated or hit them wrong to judge the whole person. I hope most of us consider the whole person and what he or she can bring to the table. There isn't any one of us who at one time or another hasn't said something for which we needed to be forgiven. And there isn't any one of us who at one time or another hasn't said something that was misunderstood or misinterpreted and it really feels good to be given a chance to clarify and explain our actual intent. And there isn't any one of us who, after receviing additional information and/or giving a concept serious consideration, haven't changed our mind about something and that too needs to be acknowledged.

We need a lot more of that kind of intellectual honesty in politics. And it needs to be applied to Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich and all the rest.

Well, that's not exactly right but I don't think we're going to get a better summary.

I DID know why I didn't like him. I just don't remember all the triggers well enough to present them intelligibly NOW. I didn't like him in the 1990's because he came across as a heartless bastard on matters unconnected to his marital issues. He and a couple of other prominent Republicans made the party look something like "evil" - don't like to say that - but they made the Republican party look very bad. If GWB hadn't come along with his "compassionate conservative" idea I would have voted Dem in 2000.

I gave him a fair chance again in the last coupla years and he blew it. I so thoroughly washed my hands of him after that I didn't even let him occupy space in my brain anymore. That's why I don't remember the details now.


I googled to refresh my memory about what he said about the ground zero mosque and was reminded that his statements contradicted the image of him as a reasonable thinker. Comparing the people who wanted to build their cultural center two blocks away from the WTC site to Nazis. He sounded like a hater and a panderer, someone willing to turn off his brain if that's what it took to get strokes from the hard right.


I still don't recall what all else my triggers were so if you want to characterize that as me not knowing why I dislike Newt, fair enough. I gave him a chance and he messed up so until he looks like he might actually have a chance in this race he remains not worth taking up space in my brain, so I'll bow out of the thread now.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Denial is not just a river in Egypt. That's not just from the ex-wife. It's from people who worked with him. Newt has admitted to most of what you would deny. And he came up with a wacky excuse for it. He just loved the country too much.

Newt is not stable.

Perhaps you'd like to show me where Newt admitted to anything other than having an affair on his second wife. See if you can do it using REAL news sources, rather than blogs. Amazingly enough, just because someone says it on the Internet, that doesn't make it true.

Does he have a "One Free Affair" card?

I believe I have already stated that I think anyone who's focusing on personal shit that's between him and his ex-wife is a dumbfuck who deserves to have the nation crumble around him while he pretends the President is just another celebrity to paparazzi to death.

Of course, I think you're a dumbfuck no matter what happens, so feel free to carry on your inane drivel indefinitely.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm sorry, I am usually much more careful. Ask Lone Laugher. I'm aware that Calista is his third wife.

Please stop the pretense that you can dismiss the messy details of Newt's life by attacking the sources.

Newt is a serial adulterer. He left his first wife when she had cancer. She had financial problems because Newt failed to pay her child support. He left his second wife after she was dx with MS. He's on his third marriage. He is not a moral man.

His first wife never had cancer, dipwad. She had a benign growth removed. And they had already agreed to divorce some time BEFORE she went in for her surgery.

And that's just for starters.

Maybe if you read something other than the Internet equivalent of Jerry Springer, you'd know something real.

Moron.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newt/vanit...

"It was a very, very bad period of my life," Newt has admitted. "It had been getting steadily worse. I ultimately wound up at a point where suicide, or going insane, or divorce were the last three options." In April 1980, he told Jackie, who was suffering from uterine cancer, that he was filing for divorce.

He was soon having an affair with a woman known to a member of his staff as "the mystery lady."
...
For some time, Jackie tried to hold on. "He can say that we had been talking about it for 10 years, but the truth is that it came as a complete surprise," she told Lois Romano of The Washington Post. "He walked out in the spring of 1980...By September, I went into the hospital for my third surgery. The two girls came to see me, and said, 'Daddy is downstairs. Could he come up?' When he got there, he wanted to discuss the terms of the divorce while I was recovering from my surgery."

I note that 1) you're citing PBS, which is not an improvement in the "biased, leftist garbage" category, and 2) you're still quoting his ex-wife. Tell me, if you had ever actually known the touch of a woman long enough to have a relationship with one and then break up, how positive and unbiased a source of info do you think she'd be?

Now, I realize that your illiteracy is such that you think that following a direct quote from Newt with exposition somehow constitutes Newt himself saying the exposition, but that's not actually how the English language works. HE said it was a bad period in his life. PBS said that Jackie had cancer and that he asked for a divorce while she had it. Unfortunately for you, both of his daughters remember the time quite clearly and say - very politely and circumspectly, because she IS their mother - that their mother is full of shit. Who's more likely to be biased? His bitter ex-wife, or the children who love BOTH parents?

There's an easy solution to this. Rather than hauling out misquote after misquote from leftist hacks and stubbornly insisting that everyone view them as gospel the way you do, just get some lazy leftist journalist up off his dead ass to go investigate. Divorce filings are usually matters of public record, and I've certainly never heard that Gingrich's first divorce is sealed. Go look and see who the plaintiff was, and when the papers were filed. And here's a thought: REAL journalists would demand that Jackie PROVE she had cancer and was on the verge of death, rather than just taking her word for it. If she wants to attack a Presidential candidate, seems fair to me that she be asked to produce the medical records to back her story up.

Or would that be too factual for your tiny mind to handle?

 

[Foxfyre]

Perhaps you'd like to show me where Newt admitted to anything other than having an affair on his second wife. See if you can do it using REAL news sources, rather than blogs. Amazingly enough, just because someone says it on the Internet, that doesn't make it true.

Does he have a "One Free Affair" card?

I believe I have already stated that I think anyone who's focusing on personal shit that's between him and his ex-wife is a dumbfuck who deserves to have the nation crumble around him while he pretends the President is just another celebrity to paparazzi to death.

Of course, I think you're a dumbfuck no matter what happens, so feel free to carry on your inane drivel indefinitely.

Newt has absolutely, unequivocably, and without qualifying his remarks admitted he has screwed up personally and has not attempted in any way to excuse himself for that or blame anybody else or deny that. So while I in no way commend his infidelities, I won't presume to judge what is in his heart and assign that period of his life to the "all have sinned and fallen short' category. It is not entirely irrelevent to who he is, but it is certainly not all that he is.

George W. Bush indeed campaigned as a 'compassionate conservative' and he has absolutely lived his life as one. As a person I admire him about as much as anybody on the public scene. As a President, however, I don't think many if any of us conservatives can excuse, condone, or support his inability to rein in excessive spending that was unacceptable despite being a fraction of what the current President not only condones, but promotes. I don't think many if any of us conservatives can excuse, condone, or support his expansion of the federal government and promotion of new entitlements. His immigration policy proposals were indefensible and he supported an energy policy that only a leftwing environmental wacko could love.

So being the greatest guy on Earth does not necessarily make somebody a great President. Nor does being a sinner make somebody a terrible President.

I want somebody with the knowhow, smarts, guts, and ability to seriously reverse the damage the current occupant of the White House is causing and we will need to elect a good support team in Congress for him or her too.

 

[Foxfyre]

I just received this in my e-mail from a Kansas friend, and thought it appropriate to share it here. The man is awesome as a teacher and this clip gives you a good insight as to how he views the role and power of government. He is speaking extremporaneously, rarely referring to notes and not using a teleprompter. He did have one misspeak when he inadvertently substituted 'German' for "British' but this is really good:

Newt Gingrich: Impeach judges - Crush and Replace the Left - 2012 "Victory or Death!" Pt.5 - YouTube

 

[SAT]

SAT strikes me as someone who thinks he's entitled to his own facts.

Well, no. I'm interested in facts, I've posted facts and the links to back them up.

You attempt to rebut them by imagining conversations and motives that suit your bias. In almost every post, you put words into people's mouths, and have them act out scenes based on your suspicions and dislikes. That is not anything resembling a debate. That's you in a fight with reality.

Quoting Cecille:

I note that 1) you're citing PBS, which is not an improvement in the "biased, leftist garbage" category, and 2) you're still quoting his ex-wife. Tell me, if you had ever actually known the touch of a woman long enough to have a relationship with one and then break up, how positive and unbiased a source of info do you think she'd be?

[Now, I realize that your illiteracy is such that you think that following a direct quote from Newt with exposition somehow constitutes Newt himself saying the exposition, but that's not actually how the English language works. HE said it was a bad period in his life. PBS said that Jackie had cancer and that he asked for a divorce while she had it. Unfortunately for you, both of his daughters remember the time quite clearly and say - very politely and circumspectly, because she IS their mother - that their mother is full of shit. Who's more likely to be biased? His bitter ex-wife, or the children who love BOTH parents?

There's an easy solution to this. Rather than hauling out misquote after misquote from leftist hacks and stubbornly insisting that everyone view them as gospel the way you do, just get some lazy leftist journalist up off his dead ass to go investigate. Divorce filings are usually matters of public record, and I've certainly never heard that Gingrich's first divorce is sealed. Go look and see who the plaintiff was, and when the papers were filed. And here's a thought: REAL journalists would demand that Jackie PROVE she had cancer and was on the verge of death, rather than just taking her word for it. If she wants to attack a Presidential candidate, seems fair to me that she be asked to produce the medical records to back her story up.

Or would that be too factual for your tiny mind to handle?

First, calm down, and read what I'm actually saying.

Newt spoke in speeches about his wife's cancer. Both she and Newt say that she had cancer. This is not something you need to debate, because it's been established that she had cancer. She had surgery for uterine cancer, and then later went in to have a tumor removed. The tumor removed in the second surgery was benign. That doesn't make her not have cancer earlier. She still had uterine cancer.

I'm not sure where the "verge of death" comment comes from, but it isn't from me. Perhaps your let your imagination, or your anger, get the best of you.

Newt's wife said the divorce came as a surprise. Newt said that it didn't. We have both of them on the record making these statements. They do not agree. There's no point in you and I trying to figure out which of them is right, because they are the two people in the discussion, and they are not in agreement.

Newt has admitted that he cheated on both of his wives. This is not up for debate. He admits it.

Newt's second wife says that he dumped her a few months after she was diagnosed with MS.

PBS is a reputable source. The other sources are reputable as well.

You can't spend your life ignoring inconvenient facts and expect to get anywhere.