Skip to comments.Newt Gingrich and His Record
Posted on 11/13/2011 6:54:05 PM PST by fightinJAG
[snip]Gingrich is perhaps best-known for his foibles, including his spectacular fall from power in the late 1990s. ... Gingrich also holds some views that do not fit the conservative mold. He has partnered with Hillary Clinton to advocate health-care IT legislation, with Al Sharpton and Arne Duncan to promote President Barack Obama's education reforms, and with Nancy Pelosi in an ad stressing the importance of taking action on climate change.
Gingrich angered Republicans by criticizing Paul Ryan's plan to reform Medicare, prompting the American Conservative to accuse him of never really having been a conservative in the first place. [snip]
A self-described "ideas man," Gingrich is the author of 23 books....His earlier books are filled with rapid-fire streams of ideas for bettering society, often without details about how to implement them.
"Gingrich's vagueness was always a problem," wrote Ferguson. "But the books show something more: a near-total lack of interest in the political implementation of his grand ideasa lack of interest, finally, in politics at its most mundane and consequential level."[snip]
Gingrich is also known for having had a six-year affair with his now-wife, then-House staffer Callista Bisek, while he was married to his second wife, Marianne Ginther. Esquire has an interesting profile of Gingrich based on interviews with his second wife. Ginther describes how Gingrich told her about the affair right after giving speeches about family values, and says that he initially asked her if she could just tolerate the affair.
Gingrich also runs the Center for Health Transformation, a for-profit group whose members are health insurers and drug companies. According to the Wall Street Journal, the companies pay big membership fees, and "in return, they get access to Mr. Gingrich, interaction with other group members, and marketing and research support."
(Excerpt) Read more at alaska-native-news.com ...
His record is one of a Progressive. His method is that of a snake oil salesman, and he is damn good at talking people into anything. But it simply does not hold up to scruitiny. I worked on the Hill when Newt was “king”. I have watched him for years. To those who are being seduced by who you see in the debates: don’t trust it. It isn’t real.
Just out of curiosity, who are you backing?
I can’t get excited about Newt.
Sorry for the over-bolding in the post. Bad, bad BOLD!
That said, now that Gingrich has started a mini-surge, no doubt his record is going to be scrutinized more closely. Again. This article from mid-September had a few things I either never knew or had forgotten about Mr. Gingrich’s various adventures — including partnering with Al Sharpton on Obama’s education reform.
And the whole set-up of the Center for Health Transformation sounds a little fishy from what the WSJ says. Newt has name-dropped this organization he started several times in the debates. I assumed it was a think tank on health care reform. But with insurers, etc. paying big membership fees . . . well, it starts to look like something else.
I’ve posted repeatedly that I’d vote for Gingrich if he became the nominee and that I think he could make a very substantial contribution as VP if Cain were elected President.
Circular firing squad
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Actually, you did a good job of highlighting his fraud.
I’m not all in for anyone yet, but I’m leaning toward Cain because I think he’s a very inspirational leader with the right kind of experience for the times. I also like his 999 plan in concept (after hashing it out in depth).
I would gladly vote for Newt if he became the nominee. And, as I said, I think he and Cain would make a formidable team with Newt as VP (so long as Newt acts honorably toward his boss, President Cain).
Just not sure I want to support Newt at this time. I was there in the 90’s. I love what Newt is bringing to the debates and to the discussion. But I hope people don’t fall too much in love with his debate persona because he could never act that way as President. It would just be unpresidential.
Like everything I post, I post it for honest discussion of points that need to be talked over thoroughly at the grassroots level — because they are going to be way bigger once the LSM focuses on them (again).
What mold? The mold called the US Constitution?
Bringing up a candidate's record for honest discussion is not a circular firing squad.
Do you not realize that if Newt becomes more popular, the LSM will be bringing up these points and more?
They must be discussed so that people can reach their own conclusions about how various things affect their support for a candidate and their insight into the media analysis of the candidate's record.
Absurd hypocrisy coming from the Freeper who spends all his time posting character assignation attacks at Cain. You people were warned. You punch at people, they will punch back. Don't pout now that you are reaping the whirlwind.
Don’t waste you time. TBBT spends all his time posting snide personal attacks at Cain. NOW when the facts are told about HIS candidate, he whines. Pure hypocrisy
You seem to have a problem with discussing a candidate’s record and how it is perceived by some.
Do you think these matters will never see the light of day if we just ignore them here on FR?
What is your basis for impugning my integrity?
And, oh btw, who are you supporting?
Gingrich Backs Obamacares Individual Mandate Requiring Health Insurance (May 2011)
In response to a follow-up question from Charles Krauthammer about whether he opposed the mandate as a matter of policy or constitutionality, Gingrich replied, I believe that it is unconstitutional for the Congress to require you to buy something
because then the Congress could require you to do anything.
Ah, the media is like clockwork since he has risen in the polls recently.
They had Mitt as #1 since the beginning so WHEN will they start with smear tactics on Mitt. NEVER!
I’m not interested in their telling me how ‘bad’ Newt is.
You are the people who formed the firing squad. Don't pout now that people are shooting back
He basically said the individual mandate was okay. That was not what puzzled me; I "know" Gingrich could come up with some college professor reasoning to get there on the mandate.
What puzzled me was how in Hell's Bells did Gingrich miss the fact that the American people, in particular all conservatives, absolutely hated Obamacare and especially the individual mandate?
As I posted upthread, the whole set-up of the Center for Health Transformation sounds a little fishy from what the WSJ says. Newt has name-dropped this organization he started several times in the debates. I assumed it was a think tank on health care reform. But with insurers, etc. paying big membership fees . . . well, it starts to look like something else.
Interesting that which ever Republican candidate rises to the top or close to it the smear machines go into high gear. During the off-season the target of the smear machine was Sarah Palin.
I don’t see anything to be skeptical about here, as far as the media stories go. (And, btw, this one was written well before Gingrich was anything but deaderthanadoornail.)
No one is going to write stories about a candidate who is not popular or not in the hunt. Mainly because it’s an indication that no one will read them.
And I don’t see this as the media telling you how bad Newt it. His record is what it is. It’s up to each person to evaluate if he thinks his record, personal and professional, is bad or not. But a person can’t do that if he won’t read what is being said about the candidate’s record.
Yes, it is what it is.
As you said, what would be really helpful is for people to focus on the substantive points of the article.
If the author claims Newt’s record in one way and there’s information that that is not correct, then by all means get the truth out there.
If Newt’s record is stated accurately, but there are different ways to view whether or not a particular thing he did or has supported, then by all means get those analyses out there for discussion.
To simply claim that a particular candidate cannot be scrutinized is absurd.
What's your thinking on this point?
It makes sense. No one is going to write stories about a candidate that has no chance or that no one is interested in.
That said, this story was written in mid-September and Newt was still a dead man walking then.
The article states that Newt partnered with "Al Sharpton and Arne Duncan to promote President Barack Obama's education reforms."
What are your thoughts on that and how it will play to (1) the conservative base and (2) in the general election?
What's your take on this?
Why, thank you.
Instead of engaging in that schtick, how about answering the legitimate questions I posed to you? I’m sincerely interested in your answers.
Potential VP or cabinet member as he is excellent speaker who can defend policies of a conservative president.
We need good and inspirational speakers. We must win media war, too.
Paul Ryan’s plan had a mandate in it. Newt was against any mandate, even one from the right and that is what he addressed. Voting for Newt, sending money to Newt, working for Newt.
Of course I didn’t mean it that way.
All I am saying is what I said: a person has to be informed, however they choose to do that, and not simply tune out the discussion of a candidate’s record.
As I posted at the top, there were things in this article that I did not know about Newt’s record. So this article informed me. Doesn’t mean I then have to accept the author’s take on the facts he informed me of.
Finally, the Undefeated DVD was nothing but another form of media presentation that some people chose to rely upon without question and others chose to fact-check and others chose to ignore. No different than the decision made about ALL the articles that come our way every day.
Maybe you already knew all the points the author brought up in this piece.
But, for me, reading articles from many different sources is the way I inform myself, first, by learning what’s out there and, then, fact-checking it for myself.
Assuming this article is accurate, did you know Newt partnered with Al Sharpton and Arne Duncan on Obama’s education reforms?
Did you know that Newt’s Center for Health Transformation is not a think tank, but an organization in which insurers and others pay large membership fees for access to Mr. Gingrich?
These were a couple of the things I had not heard or had forgotten that reading this article informed me of. Now I can fact-check those items for myself. And, of course, I don’t have to accept any analysis the author made on these points.
What do I think about that? I don’t really give a damn...
Every one of these candidates have warts. What are you going to do? It’s the hand we’ve been dealt. Ronald Reagan will not be resurrected this time around.
Fact is - unless somebody better decided to jump in, which they didn’t - the likely nominee has always only been two or three people. Romney, Perry, and - maybe stretching it here - Newt. Perry imploded. So what’s that leave us? You can draw your own picture...
In my view - not one of the other candidates are going to make it and never where. Cains had his moment in the sun but the shade is slowly going to set upon him. How soon? Who knows - he might do a Huckabee and snag Iowa, but I doubt it. Even if he does it will likely fracture the base and ensure McCain II.
Hey look... You don’t like “Circular firing squad”? How about “Let the self-immolation begin” then? Can I bring marshmallows?
Thank you for substantively addressing the issues brought up in the article!
The problem with what Newt did was, as is so often the case with him, HOW he did it. Even if he was completely in the right, and had every conservative reason to back up his conclusions, at that precise moment going on the Sunday shows and calling Ryan’s plan “right-wing social engineering” was just about the maximum damage to the plan that Newt could have done.
And this is what Newt does. He not only fumbles out of the blue, he fumbles when it’s third and goal.
(BTW, have you listened to Mark Levin’s takedown of the “right-wing social engineering” remark?)
What do you think about the other points the author brings up?
You said: "Gingrich also holds some views that do not fit the conservative mold."
I asked: "What mold? The mold called the US Constitution?"
I will ask again: What mold? The mold called the US Constitution?
Thanks for the substantive discussion. NOT.
Oh... I should have noted... I especially don’t care about all the “baggage” about Newt that will now get trotted out. It’s old news. Newt is a known quantity. He is what he is. Warts and all. Warts just like the rest of them.
You posted to me. I don’t understand your question.
The author is simply saying that Gingrich holds some views and has taken some positions that don’t fit in with what is commonly recognized as conservatism.
Good - glad you found out what works for you. Remember - there are two sides to every story. Of course, of course, you already know that.
OK, that’s all I wanted to know, thank you.