In 1996, Gingrich admitted he violated House rules by providing "inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable testimony" to the ethics committee as it was investigating whether he used funding from tax-exempt organizations to finance two college courses he taught and to pay for a televised town hall meeting.
I guess that is a polite way of saying he was lying. Newt has been using tax exempt money from charitable organizations to fund his political activities all the way back to 1984.
And oldDog, just because the Ethics panel negotiated to drop the other 83 charges, does not mean there was no truth to any of them. Kind of like getting stopped for running a stop sign and getting a DUI. They sometimes drop the stop sign charge and give you the DUI. Does that mean I didn't run the sign?
Look back at the things Newt wanted under the Contract for America.
Legislation proposed by the 104th United States Congress included term limits for Congressional Representatives, tax cuts, welfare reform, and a balanced budget amendment, as well as independent auditing of the finances of the House of Representatives and elimination of non-essential services such as the House barbershop and shoe-shine concessions. Following Gingrich's first two years as House Speaker, the Republican majority was re-elected in the 1996 election, the first time Republicans had done so in 68 years.
I can vote for a guy who is in favor of the above actions..
What is the right "temperament" to be President? Who decides this?
Are we being led to believe you need to be more like Obama to be President?
We NEED a non establishment President One who has a disinclination to submit to conventional rules or restraints. That would be Newt.
We keep electing people who spend 4 or 8 years in office do maybe 20 major things and then they are gone. We need a president who will get in and do 200 or 300 major items and turn America LOSE! Let America get back to being what it was and not regulated into a Socialist Country.
It will take Romney 2 years just to find the bathroom let alone accomplish anything..
If Gingrich is the nominee, the Republicans will lose this election. Just because someone talks tough and can be a pitbull in a debate, with an adoring audience cheering him along, does not mean that he can be a good president. Gingrich does not have the temperment to be president. He's unbelievably arrogant and egotistical...He's actually worse in those areas than Obama,and that's some accomplishment. The independents will not support Gingrich in sufficient enough numbers to defeat Obama...The independents are crucial to winning the election. Whoever gets the majority of the indie vote, wins.
Did you know one of the reasons the House hated Newt was because he was trying to force them into term limits.. He wanted to close the Congressional barbershop and make them pay their own way.. I see nothing wrong with either of those.. I would vote for the guy in a heartbeat.. He wants smaller Government and less bull crap in the Congress and Senate and less "old folks" sitting out years in the house and Congress. he has my vote all the way.. If its Romney I will hold my nose and vote for the guy who got beat by the guy who couldn't beat Obama.. Now Romney would be a shoe in for a loss..
Newt went after Clinton for lying to the Grand Jury..not for having sex.. So that comment is not true.
And yes I would take Newt with all his baggage over the dunce we have in office now.. Obama or Newt? Now which way do you think the Republicans will vote..
Get a clue Shelia..
Newt resigned TWO years after the ethic violation charges were filed.. They filed 84 against him and the Ethics committee found 83 of those to be NOT TRUE!! The 84th one he was given a $300,000 fine which he later after going thru it with lawyers got it dropped. It too was false..
OldDog, so you're saying that since Clinton cheated on his wife with a lot of women that it's okay for Newt? I'm sorry. I don't see it that way.
The way I see it is that his going after Clinton was a case of the pot calling the kettle black. He has no room to speak on the matter, since he's no better.
What's worse, he's crooked too. He's quite possibly the lyingest politician America has ever had, and he is 100% morally bankrupt. Is that really who you want representing your party and the government of your country?
He got fired for ethics violations. He was asked to resign as speaker and he was fined. He was a lobbyist for an industry which has brought our economy to its knees. I don't much fancy the idea of electing him to commander in chief so that he can finish us off.
OK hereandnow if you cannot read matmans comments from Jan 22 at 2;19 then I guess you can just skip up to my comment.. Here I thought you were brighter then that..
Doesn't anybody remember Newt being fined for ethics violations and being forced to resign as speaker for it? How could anyone seriously consider this man for POTUS? He clearly has no ethics at all.
hereandnow if you read the WHOLE blog you will find I was challenged by other readers..Matman made a comment I responded.. then I was also challenged by Shelia.. Both people were looking to comment on my comments from a few days ago.. So they strayed off this topic and reverted to an older topic..
Maybe you should get on the people who provoked the need for answers..
Unlike many people I will not let you pounce on my comments without answering back. I stand up for what I believe..
So herandnow do us all a favor and read the entire blog to see where it went of course then place YOUR BLAME where it should be..
I see Heinrich Kramer...oops, I mean Olddog is at it again, showing his true regard towards women. Can't stay on subject to save your life can you? Always straying off to expound on the 'evils' we women perpetuate on your perfect society.
According to FBI records, back in 1995 – 96, Marianne Gingrich had a secret meeting in Paris where she attempted to make $10 MILLION by selling her influence on her then husband to the highest bidder in order to help lift the Iraq arms embargo and for backing the Florida bullet train an behalf of interested parties willing to pay, specifically, HER!!!
(Mrs. Gingrich) “stated that her relationship with her husband was purely a relationship of convenience. She told the source that she needed her husband for economic reasons, and that he needed to keep her close because she knew of all his “skeletons.” Source stated that after requesting (Mrs.) Gingrich’s assistance in the above matter, she told him that her organization needed money. She also told source “It’s time for me to make money using my husband, and after we get started doing this, it will be easy.”
“Bennett stated that Mrs Gingrich wanted for herself up front, in addition to the $550,000.00 that Bennett mentioned earlier,
Old dogs can't learn new tricks. Newt's an example of that. Say what you like about loose women, but old Newt has been the town pump for a while. I would think any self-respecting woman would decide not to touch him, because nobody knows where he's been.
What? Newt's on his third marriage. He's admitted to cheating on his first two wives. Do we need forensic evidence on top of that to prove it when he's said so from his own lips that it's true, disgusted?
Let's face it, it really is down to two candidates for the nomination now and both have issues. You have Mitt, too moderate for conservatives and he's Mormon which won't sit well with the evangelical crowd. Then you have Newt, the marriages and the affairs won't sit well with a family values voter and he has been involved in his share of ethics investigations. Interesting choices.
I thought that when Clinton was President we were told that private life and sex life had nothing to do with public life and office. That came from the Democrat Party. why are they now up in arms over the private lives of Newt or Cain? None of the stories were even validated, but again it only needs to be alleged, not proven when it comes to Republicans.
matman
Speaking of the Ethics Panel, who do you think appoints the Ethics committee? Yep, the Speaker of the House.
0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
matman
In 1996, Gingrich admitted he violated House rules by providing "inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable testimony" to the ethics committee as it was investigating whether he used funding from tax-exempt organizations to finance two college courses he taught and to pay for a televised town hall meeting.
I guess that is a polite way of saying he was lying. Newt has been using tax exempt money from charitable organizations to fund his political activities all the way back to 1984.
And oldDog, just because the Ethics panel negotiated to drop the other 83 charges, does not mean there was no truth to any of them. Kind of like getting stopped for running a stop sign and getting a DUI. They sometimes drop the stop sign charge and give you the DUI. Does that mean I didn't run the sign?
2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
OldDog
Look back at the things Newt wanted under the Contract for America.
Legislation proposed by the 104th United States Congress included term limits for Congressional Representatives, tax cuts, welfare reform, and a balanced budget amendment, as well as independent auditing of the finances of the House of Representatives and elimination of non-essential services such as the House barbershop and shoe-shine concessions. Following Gingrich's first two years as House Speaker, the Republican majority was re-elected in the 1996 election, the first time Republicans had done so in 68 years.
I can vote for a guy who is in favor of the above actions..
2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
OldDog
What is the right "temperament" to be President? Who decides this?
Are we being led to believe you need to be more like Obama to be President?
We NEED a non establishment President One who has a disinclination to submit to conventional rules or restraints. That would be Newt.
We keep electing people who spend 4 or 8 years in office do maybe 20 major things and then they are gone. We need a president who will get in and do 200 or 300 major items and turn America LOSE! Let America get back to being what it was and not regulated into a Socialist Country.
It will take Romney 2 years just to find the bathroom let alone accomplish anything..
1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
magnolia
If Gingrich is the nominee, the Republicans will lose this election. Just because someone talks tough and can be a pitbull in a debate, with an adoring audience cheering him along, does not mean that he can be a good president. Gingrich does not have the temperment to be president. He's unbelievably arrogant and egotistical...He's actually worse in those areas than Obama,and that's some accomplishment. The independents will not support Gingrich in sufficient enough numbers to defeat Obama...The independents are crucial to winning the election. Whoever gets the majority of the indie vote, wins.
2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
OldDog
Did you know one of the reasons the House hated Newt was because he was trying to force them into term limits.. He wanted to close the Congressional barbershop and make them pay their own way.. I see nothing wrong with either of those.. I would vote for the guy in a heartbeat.. He wants smaller Government and less bull crap in the Congress and Senate and less "old folks" sitting out years in the house and Congress. he has my vote all the way.. If its Romney I will hold my nose and vote for the guy who got beat by the guy who couldn't beat Obama.. Now Romney would be a shoe in for a loss..
2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
OldDog
Lets fact check you Shelia
Newt went after Clinton for lying to the Grand Jury..not for having sex.. So that comment is not true.
And yes I would take Newt with all his baggage over the dunce we have in office now.. Obama or Newt? Now which way do you think the Republicans will vote..
Get a clue Shelia..
Newt resigned TWO years after the ethic violation charges were filed.. They filed 84 against him and the Ethics committee found 83 of those to be NOT TRUE!! The 84th one he was given a $300,000 fine which he later after going thru it with lawyers got it dropped. It too was false..
So there is another fact you have wrong..
2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Sheila35
OldDog, so you're saying that since Clinton cheated on his wife with a lot of women that it's okay for Newt? I'm sorry. I don't see it that way.
The way I see it is that his going after Clinton was a case of the pot calling the kettle black. He has no room to speak on the matter, since he's no better.
What's worse, he's crooked too. He's quite possibly the lyingest politician America has ever had, and he is 100% morally bankrupt. Is that really who you want representing your party and the government of your country?
He got fired for ethics violations. He was asked to resign as speaker and he was fined. He was a lobbyist for an industry which has brought our economy to its knees. I don't much fancy the idea of electing him to commander in chief so that he can finish us off.
2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
hereandnow
Nope, they had problems keeping their zippers up also, and every bit of trouble that came their way because of it is on them and no one else.
3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
OldDog
If Newts got a Zipper trouble then the Democrats.. Clinton, JFK, Wiener, Ted Kennedy and the likes must wear velcro right?
2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
hereandnow
Olddog I read it. Does not change the fact that you go off on women whenever possible. Newt's zipper problems are of his own making.
4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
OldDog
OK hereandnow if you cannot read matmans comments from Jan 22 at 2;19 then I guess you can just skip up to my comment.. Here I thought you were brighter then that..
1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Sheila35
Doesn't anybody remember Newt being fined for ethics violations and being forced to resign as speaker for it? How could anyone seriously consider this man for POTUS? He clearly has no ethics at all.
4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
hereandnow
Read the whole blog, it is You who went off on a tangent about the morals of young women, when the real issue is nasty newt and his zipper trouble.
3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
OldDog
hereandnow if you read the WHOLE blog you will find I was challenged by other readers..Matman made a comment I responded.. then I was also challenged by Shelia.. Both people were looking to comment on my comments from a few days ago.. So they strayed off this topic and reverted to an older topic..
Maybe you should get on the people who provoked the need for answers..
Unlike many people I will not let you pounce on my comments without answering back. I stand up for what I believe..
So herandnow do us all a favor and read the entire blog to see where it went of course then place YOUR BLAME where it should be..
2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
hereandnow
I see Heinrich Kramer...oops, I mean Olddog is at it again, showing his true regard towards women. Can't stay on subject to save your life can you? Always straying off to expound on the 'evils' we women perpetuate on your perfect society.
2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
dakkratt
The more Fox news you watch the less you know.
5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
OldDog
According to FBI records, back in 1995 – 96, Marianne Gingrich had a secret meeting in Paris where she attempted to make $10 MILLION by selling her influence on her then husband to the highest bidder in order to help lift the Iraq arms embargo and for backing the Florida bullet train an behalf of interested parties willing to pay, specifically, HER!!!
(Mrs. Gingrich) “stated that her relationship with her husband was purely a relationship of convenience. She told the source that she needed her husband for economic reasons, and that he needed to keep her close because she knew of all his “skeletons.” Source stated that after requesting (Mrs.) Gingrich’s assistance in the above matter, she told him that her organization needed money. She also told source “It’s time for me to make money using my husband, and after we get started doing this, it will be easy.”
“Bennett stated that Mrs Gingrich wanted for herself up front, in addition to the $550,000.00 that Bennett mentioned earlier,
1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
OldDog
Yes Shelia and Clinton cheated on only ONE wife but with LOTS of different women.. Soooo.. Whats your point?
No one disputes he had affairs.. he has said so with his own voice.. You deaf or something?
Walrus I think their middle names were both Shelia..
2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Walrus
Maybe Newt's first two wives were named Sheila...or someone like her?
2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Sheila35
Old dogs can't learn new tricks. Newt's an example of that. Say what you like about loose women, but old Newt has been the town pump for a while. I would think any self-respecting woman would decide not to touch him, because nobody knows where he's been.
3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Sheila35
What? Newt's on his third marriage. He's admitted to cheating on his first two wives. Do we need forensic evidence on top of that to prove it when he's said so from his own lips that it's true, disgusted?
4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
disgusted
And that is ALL we use to select the President?
3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Cutperfect
Let's face it, it really is down to two candidates for the nomination now and both have issues. You have Mitt, too moderate for conservatives and he's Mormon which won't sit well with the evangelical crowd. Then you have Newt, the marriages and the affairs won't sit well with a family values voter and he has been involved in his share of ethics investigations. Interesting choices.
7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
disgusted
I thought that when Clinton was President we were told that private life and sex life had nothing to do with public life and office. That came from the Democrat Party. why are they now up in arms over the private lives of Newt or Cain? None of the stories were even validated, but again it only needs to be alleged, not proven when it comes to Republicans.
4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »