Posted on 01/25/2012 3:53:39 PM PST by Nonstatist
I read some assertion on Twitter that Ann is dating a Romney staffer who was slipping oppo research, presumably on Newt, to drudge, IIRC.
In that case, he's worth consideration (again).
...This information was never publicly revealed by Hyde to my knowlege but passed on by David Schippers who was the head counsel to the House Managers. I think he wrote a book called Sellout.
...Republican Senator Phil Gramm of Texas stands out, in my estimation, as our most loyal and courageous supporter. He talked personally with the Managers a number of times, always giving encouragement and even advice on procedure. Had he been the Majority Leader, things might have been radically different...
Don't you just love these brown-nosers who ping JR to posts they disagree with? Can you believe that FR has come to this? FReepers trying to get others zotted because difference of opinion is no longer tolerated!
You are kind to call this one a hall monitor...It's more playground tattling!
I stand corrected.
I appreciate your research.
Obviously it was not Schippers that was the source of my assertion.
It is in my memory that Gramm was mentioned as the one who set the rules and the rules set the course of the trial which some saw as a show trial.
Whether that was in fact the case or I am suffering from a faulty memory I cannot say for sure, it was such a long time ago.
I do appreciate that this forum has those such as you who are willing to do the homework necessary to hold posters like myself accountable.
That is my intention, thanks.
I intend to continue zotting trolls, liberals and liberal supporters, as always.
From what I was reading as I surfed around was that Gramm was in an unenviable position of having to negotiate between the honest Repubs (I’m discriminating between the good Repubs and the Trent Lotts) versus the Dems trying to work out agreements. He wasn’t forcing the rules as much as playing moderator. And even though he was playing moderator he was still trying to get the best deal for the Managers. Meanwhile, Lott was mucking it up.
Thank you for letting me know what you "am have".
Carry on "am have" no more interest.
Yes, some were. Oddly, I never noticed a similar reaction on FR when Netanyahu was elected last time, in spite of his two divorces, three marriages and an adulterous affair (that he had to admit to because his political adversaries knew of it) in the early 90s.
Well, maybe some are applying the soft bigotry of low expectations to the Israelis . . . ;-)
I know it's just a typo, but this is a funny truth in a way I'm sure you didn't intend. America was on a “bring me this, bring me that, I don't wanna work, just bring it to me” mentality before workfare and similar policy changes that Reagan either began or created a climate to make politically possible.
Jim Robinson is perfectly capable of speaking for himself, but as someone who also has serious concerns about the same issues of marital infidelity, I haven't been “zotted” once I made very clear my goal is **NOT** to trash Gingrich.
I don't think the point is that we can't have problems with extramarital affairs, but rather that we need to avoid being used as tools to enable the nomination of Mitt Romney.
Related to that, please read this article posted on Free Republic by the pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church of San Diego regarding Newt Gingrich's personal faith. I found it helpful.
A Pastoral View of Newt Gingrich
By Rev. Jim Garlow
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2822096/posts
As an evangelical Christian, I believe the short-term goal needs to be defeating Romney, and the long-term goal is to defeat Obama.
However, there are people whose sole reason for attacking Gingrich is to get Romney nominated. After the “document dump” over on Drudge Report attacking Gingrich, I think I now have a better understanding of Jim Robinson's reasons.
But even if I didn't agree, it's his site and his rules. I respect that.
For whatever it's worth, PaMom, we also need to deal with the fact that in our own conservative Christian circles, large numbers of people are voting for Newt Gingrich. What happened in South Carolina shocked me — Gingrich won, and won in the most conservative parts of one of the most conservative Bible Belt states, and he didn't just win by a narrow margin but by a huge margin.
When this election is over, we've got some really hard work to do in our churches no matter who wins. A fair number of people in the left-wing media have been claiming that the Tea Party has replaced Christian conservatives as the driving force in the conservative movement. They're wrong, but this election does risk enabling some very dangerous libertarian trends in the Republican Party.
If Gingrich's faith is sincere — and Rev. Garlow’s article gives me reason to be hopeful — a President Gingrich will conduct himself in office as a repentant sinner, and will give evangelical Christians and conservative Catholics a place at the table.
I think it's clear that's far more than we can expect from Mitt Romney, let alone a re-elected Barack Obama.
I'd rather see a better Republican candidate than either Gingrich or Santorum, but right now, those are the only two choices we have left, and since it doesn't look like Santorum is going anywhere, we'd better get prepared to explain to people in our churches why the other alternatives are much worse.
This self indulgence serves no one but the "saints" of Salt Lake City andif that is your goal, then bring on the ZOT.
Yeah it was a typo.... sometimes my fingers do not pay attention to my brain.
Glad I could bring (or should I say brink) amusement to a serious subject. Thanks for your gentle nudge
Yep, have a good day!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.