Don't Be Fooled In 2012!!
Keep Up With The REAL News
Conservatives Need From FR
Help Keep It Going !!
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!
Posted on 01/22/2012 6:23:48 AM PST by Texas Fossil
They claim Newt is too angry to win nationally but shall we talk about petty?
Romney is a plastic, petty man. He doesn't appeal to his base and if he can't win over his base, he can't win period!
I was wondering if anyone would remember that the whole thing was a smear manufactured by the libs - partly in retaliation for Jim Wright’s being forced out (Wright was a crook)- and that the craven GOP tried to buy peace with the MSM by throwing Newt under the bus. He was vindicated, but the damage was already done.
By the way, the coward-in-chief in charge of the “ethics” committee was Nancy Johnson, an R rep from Connecticut.
I think Newt should keep the cake and bring it to the debates tomorrow night and confront Romney about it nationally.
Sleazebags! Does aromney’s people realize that they can’t win the general without conservatives if they end up with the nomination?
Mittens is just another word for mac daddy light.
What is really interesting about that piece of C—p on his site is using the LSM for Documents instead the actual WORDS by the House....
House Rep’s statement on Newt Gingrich’s Non Fine...
Numerous statements from elected officials and other individuals associated with the Committee’s investigation make it clear that the sanction levied against Speaker Gingrich was nothing more than a cost assessment. In presenting the Report to the Members of the House, former Congresswoman Nancy Johnson (R-CT) characterized the Speaker’s payment in the following manner:
“Likewise in past cases where the committee imposed monetary sanctions on a Member, the committee found that the Member had been personally enriched by the misconduct. The committee made no such finding against Representative Gingrich, yet recommends that a cost reimbursement of $300,000 be paid to the House by him.”
Likewise, Democrat Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA), a member of the Investigation Subcommittee, described the Report findings in the Congressional Record as follows:
“Based upon the allegation, the violations we found, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct on a 7-to-1 vote, full committee now, entire committee, recommended the following penalty. It recommended a reprimand and a cost assessment of $300,000. . . . We set $300,000 as the estimated costs of that portion of the investigation that dealt with clearing up the misstatements that we received, which may be begun to be prepared in Mr. Gingrich’s law firm, but for which he is responsible as Member of the House.”
Indeed, even Democrat Congressman (now Senator) Ben Cardin (D-MD) agreed on the proper classification of the Speaker’s $300,000 payment. In his remarks to the House urging adoption of the Ethics Committee Report and Resolution, then-Congressman Cardin described the proposed sanction against Speaker Gingrich in the following manner:
“It provides a reprimand plus a required $300,000 contribution by Mr. Gingrich to the cost of these proceedings.”
Moreover, in the transcript of the sanctions proceedings before the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Special Counsel to the House Ethics Committee James Cole could not have made it more clear when he responded to questions from Congressman Thomas Sawyer (D-OH) as follows:
“In addition, this is not a fine that we are recommending. The rule book says that a fine is an appropriate sanction when a member has received personal gain. And as Mr. Smith had asked and as I told him, no, we did not find that.”
In sum, there was never any fine levied against Speaker Gingrich as a result of the findings of the House Ethics Committee Report referenced in the subject advertisements. Any statement to the contrary in any broadcast communication produced on behalf of Governor Romney, any other presidential candidate, or any SuperPAC is all at once false, misleading, and defamatory.
''There is no doubt in my mind he had the votes to win the Speakership, but I'm not sure he had the votes to govern,'' said Kenneth M. Duberstein, a former White House chief of staff .... from the article (drum roll please) .....
"What I believe desperately needs to take place is to heal the alienation that currently exists," said Representative Steve Largent of Oklahoma, a 'conservative' football Hall of Famer who announced his own challenge today to Mr. Gingrich's second-in-command, Representative Dick Armey of Texas.
The heart of the Speaker's problems, many Republicans said, is that he had never made an adequate adjustment from being the minority to being the majority, from intense backbench opposition to governing.
The hard-edged partisan bite that worked for Mr. Gingrich in the minority came across as stridency in power, Republicans said. ''Whenever we try to go on the offensive, the White House tries to make Newt the issue and whenever that happens we lose,'' said Peter T. King, a Republican from Long Island.
...... AND the "piste de résistance" ...
When Mr. Gingrich allowed Representative John R. Kasich of Ohio, the budget committee chairman, to try to rally House Republicans around a conservative blueprint for more than $100 billion in new savings [in 1998!], the moderates refused to back it.
Please also NOTE within the article who else is also called (multiple times) a Firebrand!!!
Ping.
Good idea but romney will say I have no control what the superpak does. That’s what he hangs his deceptive hat on.
But when asked does he ever look at what they put out under his name? He answered ‘no’. He never sees anything they put out, never checks and only heard one thing about Santorum that night. What a liar!
But if he wants to play that game - Newt’s response should be what kind of president would you make? Those representing you and you take no interest? Truly it would be a White House run amuck!
Newt addressed a lot of this with Candy Crowley today.
Newt was being pilloried by the democrats with 94 different ethics charges. Sarah Palin went through the same thing - one bogus ethics charge after another - before she stepped down as governor of Alaska.
Newt wanted to get it all behind him and told his colleagues to vote against him on one of those ethic charges for which he was cleared later by the IRS, etc.
After the democrats got their taste of blood, Newt went on to balance the budget four straight years. Newt took the hit, knew it was just politics, and then went to work.
Not the way Santorum presented it. Thanks.
I heard they sent it.
I like Rick Santorum. I believe he is an honorable man. I have met him twice. Hopefully, he will spurn SlickMitt and the GOP Establishment and do the right thing and endorse Newt. It would put an end to Willard right now.
Ping to #67.
Ethics investigation and resignation
In 1988 Wright became the target of an inquiry by the House Ethics Committee. Their report in early 1989 implied that he had used bulk purchases of his book, Reflections of a Public Man, to earn speaking fees in excess of the allowed maximum, and that his wife, Betty, was given a job and perks to avoid the limit on gifts. Faced with an increasing loss of effectiveness, Wright tendered his resignation as Speaker on May 31, 1989, the resignation to become effective on the selection of a successor.[12] He was the first Speaker to resign because of a scandal. On June 6, the Democratic Caucus brought Wrights’s Speakership to an end by selecting his replacement, Tom Foley of Washington, and on June 30 Wright resigned his seat in Congress.
The incident itself was controversial and was a part of the increasing partisan infighting that has plagued the Congress ever since. The original charges were filed by Newt Gingrich in 1988 and their effect propelled Gingrich’s own career advancement to the Speaker’s chair itself.
Michael Parenti, critic of the national security state, attributed Wright’s forced resignation to the critical questions he was raising in the late 1980s with regard to CIA covert actions in Nicaragua.[13] Wright had not only criticized Reagan’s policy, but taken the extremely unusual step of entering into negotiations with the Nicaraguan government as speaker.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Wright
This really takes the “cake” pun intended...
Wright had not only criticized Reagan’s policy, but taken the extremely unusual step of entering into negotiations with the Nicaraguan government as speaker.
No wonder Newt was after him.
Rick Santorum is the kind of guy that everyone would have liked to beat up in High School.
Given the crap he and the democrats have pulled and labelled "policy", this is akin to crying "Newt got sent to the principal's office in 3rd grade..."
How childish, but children can be mean.
Newton is an equal opportunist 7.1 A$$ Kicker…
He pisses off the left, center and right and the subs for grins!
My kinda guy.
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.