Tag Archives: Newt Gingrich

Finally! A genuine case of voter fraud

In December of 2011 Newt Gingrich needed 10,000 signatures to get his name on the Virginia presidential primary ballot. Adam Ward, 28, collected more than 11,000 signatures according to prosecutors. More than 4,000 signatures could not be verified by investigators.

Tuesday night, Ward pleaded guilty to 36 counts of voter fraud and perjury in Augusta Circuit Court.

Sentencing is scheduled for December.

I didn’t know young people, college kids and blacks in Georgia were so enthused about Newt.

Newt Gingrich brought a sort of filth to Washington. And he left it there. And he moved on.

More from that Barney Frank interview in the NY Times Magazine Orhan posted about the other day.

Q: You recently said about Newt Gingrich: “He’s just one of the worst people I know of who didn’t commit violence on somebody.” Did he kill your dog? 

A: He transformed American politics from one in which people presume the good will of their opponents, even as they disagreed, into one in which people treated the people with whom they disagreed as bad and immoral. He was a kind of McCarthy-ite who succeeded.  

For those who don’t remember, this article was written in 1995,  after Gingrich became Speaker of the  House. Here are the words that Gingrich, in a memo, urged his fellow Republicans to use when referring to Democrats:

decay… failure (fail)… collapse(ing)… deeper… crisis… urgent(cy)… destructive… destroy… sick… pathetic… lie… liberal… they/them… unionized bureaucracy… “compassion” is not enough… betray… consequences… limit(s)… shallow… traitors… sensationalists…

endanger… coercion… hypocrisy… radical… threaten… devour… waste… corruption… incompetent… permissive attitudes… destructive… impose… self-serving… greed… ideological… insecure… anti-(issue): flag, family, child, jobs… pessimistic… excuses… intolerant…

Gingrich was never interested in cooperation - without which there is no possibility of governing in a democratic process. (Remember when he shut down the government? Twice? Such good times.)

As he exhibited yet again in his absurd presidential campaign, Newt is interested first in Newt, and in his place in history which he thinks he has earned. He’s right about that at least.

Farewell, Newt

POSTED BY ORHAN

Gingrich would have had the best chance of beating Obama in open debate…plus I particularly enjoyed watching him give the mainstream media the lambasting it so richly deserves.

Remember: he impreached Clinton

“Newt Gingrich signed a ‘no adultery’ pledge. Out of habit he signed it John Smith.” – Jay Leno

The ones he married

I know it’s silly to waste space on this – Gingrich is finished in this primary – but  his sanctimonious moralizing really annoys me.

Newt keeps a straight face. Lessons from Mrs. G the Third?

Gingrich’s characterization of his activities at his own lobbying firm is simply breathtaking. The media should be on the floor and laughing out loud at this one.

Just saw this at The Washington Examiner (new conservative paper in DC, headed by Micahel Barone and Byron York). Good for them. They took a look, stepped back and took another look, and then headlined their story:

Newt Gingrich was a lobbyist, plain and simple.

. . . we know he was paid consultant for drug makers. That’s the first criterion for being a drug lobbyist.

Here’s the second criterion: While some consultants simply provide strategy or advice, Gingrich directly contacted lawmakers in an effort to win their votes.

Three former Republican congressional staffers told me that Gingrich was calling around Capitol Hill and visiting Republican congressmen in 2003 in an effort to convince conservatives to support a bill expanding Medicare to include prescription-drug subsidies. Conservatives were understandably wary about expanding a Lyndon Johnson-created entitlement that had historically blown way past official budget estimates. Drug makers, on the other hand, were positively giddy about securing a new pipeline of government cash to pad their already breathtaking profit margins.

One former House staffer told me of a 2003 meeting Continue reading

Minnesota government shut-down a dress rehearsal?

Is shutting down government part of the GOP platform now? Perhaps, because it worked so well in the past.

Talks imploded Thursday between DFL Gov. Mark Dayton and Republican legislative leaders in the final hours before a midnight deadline, and Minnesota began a historic government shutdown.

“This is a night of deep sorrow for me,” Dayton said in an address at 10 p.m. that was punctuated by jeers and hisses from Republicans, including some lawmakers.

The governor said his last offer would have raised income taxes only on those earning more than $1 million a year — an estimated 7,700 Minnesotans, or 0.3 percent of all taxpayers, according to the Revenue Department.

It’s the same argument we’re hearing nationally with the same rancor and obstruction..

Talks may have also broken down because an earlier GOP offer asked Dayton to accept controversial policy positions the Republicans pushed for this year, including photo ID requirements at the polls and abortion restrictions. An offer sheet provided to the Star Tribune said the policy adoptions were in exchange for “new revenue in a compromise offer.”

Oh. Of course.

David Barton belongs in a tent in Tennessee in 1911. But he’s a right wing fav instead just like ‘Pastor’ John Hagee who says the Catholic Church is the anti-Christ. Oh I could go on . . . I do go on. And on.

(Oy. This post got away from me. It’s long and should probably be two posts. But do check out the photo below.)

Did you know Newt Gingrich is a fan of David Barton? Barton is the ‘historian’ made famous by Glenn Beck on his FOX show, and who’s now all the rage in conservative christian circles. If I ever see the likes of Romney with this guy, I may start believing that the End Times really are near. Whoops!  Too late. Already happened. Grab your children near . . .

Mother Jones tells us a bit about Barton today (h/t Kay at The Fifth Column). Juicylicious video there where he says things like :

BARTON: The Founders did not support slavery or engage in the practice.

Really? Washington, Jefferson, Madison were not the only slaveholders, but they were among the largest - owning hundreds of slaves each.

BARTON: The US fought the Revolutionary War because the Founders rejected the British Empire’s endorsement of slavery.

Really? The Founders were afraid or unable to deal with slavery when writing the US Constitution. They decided to let future generations deal with it.

BARTON:  the Founding Fathers “already had the entire debate on creation and evolution,” and sided with Creationism.

Really? The theory of evolution was presented in Charles Darwin’s seminal volume, The Origin of Species. It was published in 1859.

This is genuinely crazy stuff and should be laughed out a fourth grade classroom. It would have been 30 years ago.

But Barton is not a one-off just doing his thing on Beck’s show. He is a name in  the Christian Reconstructionism wing of the Republican Party. And there are a lot of them. The photo below was taken at Ralph Reed’s most recent  gimme-your-money-suckers event put together for the rubes by his Faith & Freedom Coalition (they use the ampersand in the logo see, cuz it’s more logoish). Feast your eyes upon those who would lead America into a new 18th century.

Christianists and profiteers together again

 Richard Lee – author of the American Patriots Bible, something the Twelve Apostles meant to get published but just didn’t get around to it.
Ralph Reed - first rate con man coordinated scam on Indian tribes with Jack Abrahmoff. Made them both rich.
Glenn Beck - Mormon. Megalomaniac. Got rich demagoging (seems to work every time).
Pastor John Hagee – Evangelical, preaches that the Catholic Church is the “whore of Babylon” as found in the Book of Revelations. McCain was ‘grateful’ for his support in ’08.
David Barton – da man
Jim Garlow – says gay marriage will lead to enslavement of Christians. Honest.
Tom Mullins - leader of Christ Fellowship church with a gajillion parishioners or whatever. Not crazy best I can tell.
Robert Georgeled boycott of this years’ RNC convention cuz they allowed gay Republicans to attend or something.
 
 

Newt is just annoying. Really.

Anyone who pays attention to this stuff already knows that Newt Gingrich has been complaining that he was bushwhacked in his appearance Sunday on Meet The Press by hard questions.

 “I didn’t go in there quite hostile enough, because it didn’t occur to me going in that you’d have a series of setups.”

He’s been on Meet The Press 35 times, but I guess that doesn’t count because he wasn’t running for the 2012 Republican nomination those 34 other times.

Ah Newt, they knew you too well . . .

Check out memorandum.com and set the page view time at 12:40pm today.

Wonder if he’ll pout like it’s 1999?

George Washington is not amused

Remember when Newt Gingrich said this?

 “What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?” Gingrich asks. “That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior.”

So I guess Americans are now stupid enough that you can get away with claiming that a colonized people trying to throw off the British yoke is in un-American. And to then run for President.

A lesson from history. I doubt it’s lost on Obama.

The video below is the panel discussion on a pending government shutdown from PBS’ Washington Week show broadcast on November 17, 1995. It’s a fascinating example of the old adage “the more things change, the more they stay the same”.

The arguments were very much the same as today. The debt was a huge issue for the public; the debt clock had just been erected in Times Square and Ross Perot ran for President on the problem of the debt – he got almost 20% of the vote, which for a third party candidate in this country is enormous.

In that debate fifteen years ago - as seen by politicians and pundits -  Clinton was seen as a compromiser and Gingrich as strong and unmovable. Gingrich’s House had made ‘compromise’ a dirty word which pleased the base in those days. The House Republican freshmen and sophomores were largely new and from outside government. They ran on standing firm about the budget and  social issues, which were more dominant than today - the Religious Right had serious power.

The final outcome? Clinton won the public’s vote; at the end of the battle, he was more popular than he’d been when it began. Republican numbers plummeted and the journey to Gingrich’s ultimate disgrace had begun. Of course, neither Newt nor his congress were done. They went on to impeach Clinton, but he came out of that one even more popular.

Bill Clinton not only bested Gingrich – he beat the national debt too.

Gingrich is just shamelss

He gets a lot of face time on TV pretending he’s running for President. Plus there’s the intellect. Also. He opines on Libya (h/t Dave Weigel at Slate):

Newt on FOX March 7 Newt on GMA March 23
WHAT WOULD YOU DO?Exercise a no-fly zone this evening! Communicate to the Libyan military that Gadhafi was gone and that the sooner they switch sides, the more like they were to survive, provided help to the rebels to replace him. WHAT WOULD YOU DO?I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi.
REASON TO GO? All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we’re intervening. REASON TO GO?The standard [Obama] has fallen back to of humanitarian intervention . . . This isn’t a serious standard. This is a public relations conversation.

Silly boys, try something new

This is funny. The GOP has now published their much heralded Pledge to America. They named it a ‘Pledge’, see, to make it different from the Contract with America. Which worked out so well that Newt Gingrich had to flee ahead of the ethics cops, but not before being celebrated as the new James Madison.

Glory days

(The full document draft is at the above link. I tried to link to the full PDF at the House Republican’s web site but it’s too slow and will crash your computer and your children will cry and blame you.)

Commentary is in full flower on both sides of course. I just stopped over to Red State, where uber-conservative rabble rouser and former trouble maker Eric Erickson (no doubt now reclassified as a RINO since he’s appeared on CNN) calls it Perhaps the Most Ridiculous Thing to Come Out of Washington Since George McClellan“. He goes on:

“It is dreck — dreck with some stuff I like, but like Brussels sprouts in butter. I like the butter, not the Brussels sprouts. Overall, this grand illusion of an agenda that will never happen is best spoken of today and then never again as if it did not happen. It is best forgotten.”

As for the original ‘contract’?

“A November 13, 2000 article by Edward H. Crane, president of the libertarian Cato Institute, stated, “… the combined budgets of the 95 major programs that the Contract with America promised to eliminate have increased by 13%.” [3] However, since the Contract only promised to “bring to the House Floor the following bills, each to be given full and open debate, each to be given a clear and fair vote and each to be immediately available this day for public inspection and scrutiny” [4], the Contract did accomplish its promises, even if some bills failed in votes or fell to presidential vetoes.”

So they kept their promise sort of. But the result was pretty empty because trying to turn high blown rhetoric into legislation doesn’t work. It didn’t then and it won’t now. Co-operation and compromise work, that’s what works. Oh, and change is incremental, which is something Progressives would be advised to remember as well (me included).

Those Dems never had to meet a payroll!

I heard that tired old talking point, a charge leveled against Rep. Mike Castle (who lost the  Delaware primary) – heard it on one of the talking head shows – to make the case that Christine O’Donnell was the  better candidate. Did the Dem challenge it? Of course not. But it would have been so easy – a cursory google or wikipedia check reveals that while O’Donnell listed herself as a self-employed marketing consultant there’s no evidence of that. All of her jobs, whether paid or unpaid (could have involved marketing activity as nebulous as that phrase is) have been with political organizations or conservative advocacy groups. Can’t find a single private sector (or for profit) job in her resume.

Here are some other Republicans who have never had to meet a payroll:

GOP presidential candidate 2008: John McCain  – never had to buy health insurance either. Grew up in military, served in military, went to Congress. Public tit all the way. Never had a private sector job or met a payroll.

Former Speaker of the House: Newt Gingrich - grew up military, taught at state college, went to Congress. After Congress, it’s all non-profit advocacy organizations along with ‘fellow’ status at conservative think tanks to pay the bill. He is lately peddling Newt Inc, so that’s private I guess. But government tit till he was bounced by his party from the leadership for being a bad, bad boy.

Senator from Kentucky and Senate Minority Leader: Mitch McConnell - military and Congress all the way. No private sector. No payrolls. Solid government tit.

There are no doubt plenty of Dems with the same resume. But they’re not accusing their opponents of ‘never having met a payroll.”

A genuine source

Here is someone who knows about what he speaks – he feels a need to challenge the postured spoutings of one of our policitcal giants.

Born to wear the yamulka, yes?

It seems that the thrice-married, newly-minted-Catholic and disgraced former Speaker of the House,  Newt Gingrich, is once again stoking the fear of the other among the constituency. Newt – reportedly once a history professor – has, according to this Medieval historian, gotten his history very wrong.

Newt said: The proposed “Cordoba House” overlooking the World Trade Center site – where a group of jihadists killed over 3000 Americans* and destroyed one of our most famous landmarks – is a test of the timidity, passivity and historic ignorance of American elites.  For example, most of them don’t understand that “Cordoba House” is a deliberately insulting term.  It refers to Cordoba, Spain – the capital of Muslim conquerors who symbolized their victory over the Christian Spaniards by transforming a church there into the world’s third-largest mosque complex. [...I]n fact, every Islamist in the world recognizes Cordoba as a symbol of Islamic conquest.  It is a sign of their contempt for Americans and their confidence in our historic ignorance that they would deliberately insult us this way.

(* Um, Newt – we got hurt that day in NY alright, but you do remember that  the victims weren’t all Americans and many were Muslims. Don’t you?  Just sayin’ fellow.) 

Via Andrew Sullivan, I found myself at a delightful little website called GOT MEDIEVAL which the author describes as “a tonic for the slipshod use of medieval European history in the media and pop culture“.  He gets a little fussy about it.

Mr. GOT MEDIEVAL says: So what should modern Christians think when they hear a Muslim use the word “Cordoba”?  Well, I know that Newt hasn’t been a Catholic for very long now, but maybe his priest ought to direct him to read a little thing called “The Catholic Encyclopedia“.  Allow me to quote from the 1917 edition (which has the virtue of being in the public domain and easily searchable) and its entry on Cordoba:

  • In 786 the Arab caliph, Abd-er Rahman I, began the construction of the great mosque of Cordova, now the cathedral, and compelled many Christians to take part in the preparation of the site and foundations. Though they suffered many vexations, the Christians continued to enjoy freedom of worship, and this tolerant attitude of the ameers seduced not a few Christians from their original allegiance. Both Christians and Arabs co-operated at this time to make Cordova a flourishing city, the elegant refinement of which was unequalled in Europe.

It’s getting very tiring, hearing public figures casually twist history and facts just to make trouble. Just to make trouble. And shame on them. And shame on Gingrich.

A legend in his own mind

Our old friend, Newt Gingrich, was, remember?, forced out of the House leadership by his own caucus in the 90′s after his strategic move to ‘shut down’ the Federal Goverment ended up exploding in the Republicans faces. Probably one of the most bizaarre and unsucessful of all Newt’s odd endeavors. (Let us neither forget his unique public itterations = remember ‘women having thier periods in foxholes will be how we’d lose wars’? Tell it to Joan of Arc!)

Well, Steve Benen at Washington Monthy, who does real reporting (unlike what I do here which is selective cutting and pasting) notes that Newt is back at it. He seems to have a short memory, Newt does. I think most people do remember their personal humiliations, but I guess that norm can’t stop a disgraced one. Even so, this one is hard to fathom.

“”When we win control of the House and Senate this fall, stage one of the end of Obamaism will be a new Republican Congress in January that simply refuses to fund anymore,” he said. “The Congress doesn’t have to pass the money. If EPA gets no money, it can’t enforce cap and trade.”

Benen goes on: That’s been the new line since the healthcare reform bill passed and Republicans realized they probably wouldn’t be able to repeal it. Gingrich, and some lawmakers, have instead been talking about simply not paying for it. But what Gingrich proposed Thursday went beyond just that — to refusing to pay for anything the (hypothetical) GOP Congress didn’t want to let President Obama do.”

So – let’s do it again. Because it’s bound to work out differently this time. Apparently this line got the biggest applause of the speech. So Newt does not forget alone.