Beth Reinhard reports that Marco Rubio’s former campaign chief, Jose Mallea, will be Newt Gingrich’s new state director in Florida.
The Miami-based campaign strategist has longstanding ties to powerful Republicans in the state, which will hold one of the nation’s earliest primaries on Jan. 31.
Mallea’s move is likely to fuel speculation that Rubio will endorse Gingrich, though the freshman senator has said he would stay neutral in the primary.
…. Rubio had an autographed picture of Gingrich on his desk when he served in the Florida Legislature and brought it with him to Washington, Mallea said.
In its write-up of the signing, The Miami Herald also notes Mallea’s ties to big-time Republicans in the state.
[Mallea] has ties to former Gov. Jeb Bush’s political machine as well as Miami City Hall, brings Gingrich’s campaign a wealth of connections to Florida Republicans and Miami-Dade’s Hispanic community.
Saturday, November 07, 1998
WASHINGTON House Speaker Newt Gingrich architect of the 1994 Republican Revolution and Tuesday’s GOP election debacle yesterday said he will quit Congress in the face of a party rebellion.
The controversial Georgia Republican, who was just reelected, stunned friend and foe alike by abruptly ending his 20-year congressional career in a hastily arranged conference call with GOP colleagues last night.
Gingrich said he recognized that he’d become a lightning rod for the party and feared that if he didn’t step down at the end of the year, Republicans could lose the House in 2000.
“I spent literally 40 years of my life getting us to here literally,” Gingrich said. “The idea that I would be the excuse for jeopardizing the majority was so sickening that I couldn’t risk it.”
House Republicans lost five seats in Tuesday’s mid-term elections, the first time since 1934 that the party in power in the White House has scored gains in the sixth year of a presidency. Only recently, Gingrich had boasted that the GOP would pick up 40 House seats as a result of the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal.
During the 15-minute phone call, Gingrich cautioned that the only way to succeed, given the party’s six-vote margin in the House, was to insist on party discipline something impossible to achieve if he clung to office.
“If you’re going to function,” he cautioned, “you’re going to need every member every day, or you’ll be torn to shreds by this White House and the Democratic leadership. I’m incapable of leading that kind of unity that’s obvious.”
Speaking from his Georgia home in a controlled, subdued voice, Gingrich was at times bitter particularly toward a handful of rebellious junior members “five or 10 willful people” who he accused of trying to “blackmail” the party.
He said that those members should be now told, “Okay, he’s gone. Now what’s your excuse for not being a team player?”
Gingrich said he and his wife, Marianne, “could use a break. We’re tired.”
He vowed to remain active in party affairs, adding, “I’ve done this now since I was 15 years old. I think Marianne and I will probably take six months off and go collect dinosaurs or something.”
In 1998, Newt said he was planning to “collect dinosaurs” after retirement. But less than a year later, it was someone else who had pick up an old dinosaur.
Newt Plays House With New Squeeze
Thursday, August 12, 1999
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who railed against President Clinton for his affair with Monica Lewinsky, is playing house with a willowy blond Congressional aide 23 years his junior, according to a published report.
Star Magazine is reporting in its upcoming issue that Callista Bisek, 33, a House Agriculture Committee staffer, has been spending her nights at Gingrich’s soon-to-be bachelor pad near the Capitol.
Gingrich, 56, filed for divorce last month from his second wife, Marianne.
Bisek told the Daily News recently that she had no comment about Gingrich’s breakup and her rumored relationship with the former speaker. She referred all calls to Gingrich’s office.
Hmmmm…..after these accomplishments, I bet Newt had earned some well deserved time off from the Washington DC craziness.
Gingrich-led Republicans….the result:
* Four consecutive balanced budgets
* Over $400 billion of debt paid off
* Bipartisan welfare reform
* 11 million new jobs
* Unemployment falling to under 4%.
Craigfer, you baffle me, friend. Weren’t you for the cleanly and happily married pastor-cum-10.5-year governor four years ago? Haven’t your standards slipped just a mighty bit?
His attacking Romney for his private sector success and defending the fees he got for lobbying for Fannie and Freddie will be his undoing. I guess Newt thought he did so good at the debate that he could say anything he wants and not be taken down. He is sorely mistaken.
Definitely not for the timid (you know who) though.
You’re right, Newt isn’t timid at all. He wasn’t timid at all to sit down and get cozy with Pelosi on the couch, cheat on his wives, or stop to think that calling the Palestinian PEOPLE were, “made up”. He also wasn’t timid to call RyanCare, “Right wing social engineering”, or take millions from taxpayers at F&F.
You got that right, he’s not timid at all, he’s bold enough to stick his foot in his mouth every time he can.
Valid counterattack by Newt.
They were both successful in the private sector.
After leaving public office, Newt Gingrich founded a number of very successful small businesses. One of these small businesses, a consulting firm called The Gingrich Group, offered strategic advice on a wide variety of topics to a very “wide range of clients.” One of these clients was Freddie Mac. At no time did Gingrich lobby for Freddie Mac, or for any client, and neither did anyone in Gingrich’s firm. This prohibition against lobbying was made clear to all Gingrich Group clients. Nor did Gingrich ever advocate against pending legislation affecting Freddie Mac, as some articles have incorrectly alleged. In fact, recent reporting from Bloomberg News on the Gingrich Group’s consulting services for Freddie Mac confirms that Gingrich and his firm were not paid to lobby and that Gingrich never acted as an advocate to stop any legislation or regulation affecting Freddie Mac.
* Four consecutive mistresses
* Over $1.5 Trillion debt racked up from supporting Fannie & Freddie
* Bipartisan welfare <b?creation
* 11 million lobbied from F&F and speaking fees.
* Unemployment raised to 10% for his creation of the Housing bubble.
* Four consecutive balanced budgets
* Over $400 billion of debt paid off
* Bipartisan welfare reform
* 11 million new jobs
* Unemployment falling to under 4%.
Newt, former(?) serial adulterer, signed the ‘No Adultery Pledge,’ but has so far failed to sign the ‘I Won’t Take $1.8 Million From Freddie Mac Pledge.’
Mitt Romney, meanwhile, has suggested that Newt should either return the $1.8 Million to Freddie Mac, which obviously needs the money, or stop declaring that any politician who has taken Freddie Mac money should be thrown in prison.
Newt Gingrich single-handedly brought about the Housing collapse and the economic recession we are having right now. He did this by supporting the very organizations that were giving out loans that weren’t able to be paid back. He was doing his best to fool Republicans in Congress to ignore the problem. Newt Gingrich new that a crash was imminent, but his goal was to keep making his millions for a little while longer so he could live well while the rest of America suffered.
Why would we put in office, Newt Gingrich, the very man who caused our recession today? That just seems like a very foolish idea.
25. Because it is the duty of the citizen to question their government, and Gingrich’s head is so big that it could indeed be the government. For Gingrich, big government reforms means getting a haircut.
Your ability to manipulate the English language makes me think it must be your first language. It’s almost impossible to be that witty in a second language.
Gingrich planning announcement in Ga. Capitol (Tomorrow @ 1pm)
ATLANTA — Republican presidential candidate front-runner Newt Gingrich has scheduled an announcement inside the Georgia State Capitol on Tuesday, officials confirmed to Channel 2 Action News.
Gov. Nathan Deal’s office told Channel 2 political reporter Lori Geary that Gingrich is expected to hold a news conference in the north wing of the Capitol at 1 p.m. Deal is chairman of Gingrich’s campaign in Georgia.
The Gingrich campaign would not release the purpose of the trip to his home state, however an endorsement from fellow Georgian Herman Cain could be a huge boost to the Gingrich campaign.
OMGoodness – I didn’t think I’d see the day that Craig for Rejects who touted his all too holy pastor in chief Huck as being such an upstanding guy that could do no wrong living such a great life with a great family is now trying to justify Newts actions.
Hmmmm…..after these accomplishments, I bet Newt had earned some well deserved time off from the Washington DC craziness.
1. Craig thinks that his fellow house members wanted him out because he had worked so darn hard – (last I checked that was also part of Newt’s rationale for cheating on his wife……hmmmm…makes complete sense)
I think anyone who has lusted should be banned from running or voting! No exceptions! Taliban!
And now we are going to state that somebody who lusts and somebody who is a serial adulterer are one in the same. Gotta love the “everybody is a sinner” argument to make all the sting of the past feel better.
The man was kicked out of the House, he was convicted on one of the unethical actions he took (doesn’t matter that he got away with the others – he did get caught on at least one), he felt that his infidelity, while a “bad thing”, had some sliver of justification because he was…….well…..just too patriotic. I hate it when patriotism drives me into the arms of another younger version of my wife. As per Newt – DAMN YOU PATRIOTISM!!!
If you’re Jon Huntsman, you really, really, desperately need an amazing performance full of hard but reasonably clean hits on Newt. Gingrich going mono y mono with Huntsman is probably just about the biggest gift J-Hunt could get at this point, but it’s going to take a really good afternoon to kick-start Huntsman into relevance. Meanwhile, I can’t see that Newt has much to gain here, but unless Huntsman is spectacular, probably not much to lose. For the sake of my friend MWS, hope Huntsman gets his mojo…
“He was doing his best to fool Republicans in Congress to ignore the problem.”
Not one member of the House has come and said Newt lobbied them to keep them from reforming Freddie Mac.
It’s getting comical here at RACE42012!
At first I read all the posts under the worthless ARG Iowa poll…then I read these posts in this thread…and all I got to say is you all are having a nervous breakdown.
41. I think there’s a much greater chance that this is a love fest, ala Gingrich/Cain. Gingrich needs the free media, and Huntsman needs to blast away at Romney. They aren’t going to need to cross swords much. My guess is that they both go after Romney, leave each other alone, and call it a day well spent.
Gingrich has some accomplishments – to deny that would be foolish, but lets review:
- Married three times, including two divorces and an affair…while criticizing a President for his own misdeeds
- Balanced budgets were largely the product of a tech boom neither Newt nor Clinton had any hand in creating
- Balanced budgets also left our military significantly weakened, leading to our trouble in fighting the WoT
- Shut down the government based on a petty complaint, and cost the GOP the 1996 election in the process
- Has been described as something of a tyrant by those who served with him, uninterested in other’s ideas
- Became a very public shill for Global Warming Alarmism with Nancy Pelosi
- Supports Amnesty for those who managed to evade the law long enough
- Supported a federal health insurance mandate, then reversed himself to claim being a conservative hero
- Is a loose cannon, who would be of questionable effectiveness in international diplomacy
- No real executive experience to compete with his Republican rivals
Should I go on?
There might be elections where Newt would be the best candidate, but this ain’t one of ‘em.
MWS, I was born in Germany, came here at 7, went back to Germany for lengthy time spans after around 17. I’m a modestly proud American semi-Kraut who still struggles to grow up. You should see me in the swimsuit competition.
42. I just say it would be nice to have Gingrich give us all a sample of the historical/consulting work he did for Freddie Mac. Had to have been written. Surely it wasn’t oral history work he was involved in.
Just a sample. What’s he producing for $30k an hour? That’s got to be some very impressive history.
Let’s not call it lobbying or anything. Let’s just see a sample.
Huntsman has everything to gain here and nothing to lose.
Newt has nothing to gain and everything to lose.
Why would Newt do it?
If I were on top and knew that I had a tendency to shoot myself in the foot, why risk it all? And, on Huntsman? Really?
The only explanation is that Newt sees himself in gradiose ways and seeks to be regarded by history as Lincoln-like which fits into another narrative of himself that his ego is monsterous and he is prone to over-the-top behaviors seemingly without rational fear of consequences.
We’ll see how it turns out but I expect Huntsman to be out to knock Newt off his pedestal and if he tries hard enough, he just might do that.
42. Newt was calling for prison time for Dems who accepted money from Freddie Mac, not that long ago.
Perhaps his logic was something like this?
Fiercely protective of his employer.
Knows how badly they need the money.
Doesn’t appreciate the competition.
Not part of a good business model.
Cheap historians should go to jail.
45 Watch: I don’t think Huntsman attacking Romney helps him here. Everybody pretty much knows he’s not Mitt’s biggest fan already. He’s got to give a reason he’s a better potential nominee than Newt. And given his actual record, he’s got a real shot at getting to Newt’s right.
My observation is that this format is ideal for egghead professors like Gingrich. Too bad that only 500 nerds like those on R4’12 and C-SPAN are/will be watching this.
C-SPAN is replaying this debate tonight……the NH newspapers and Talk radio will be talking about this debate…..this is good for Jon….bad for Mitt….which makes it good for Newt.
Mitt declined a 1-on-1 debate with Newt, Jon stood up and said yes.
Newt is too strong on foreign affairs, and in this type of format. The risk to him is negligible compared to the potential gain if Mitt loses ground to Hunstman among the moderate wing of the NH primary electorate.
Smack: here’s the thing though: If you’re Newt, would you rather face Mitt Romney, who everyone expects to win NH, whose negatives are known and exploitable and who already has pretty high unfavs, or Jon Huntsman, who has probably the best pro-life record aside from Rick Santorum, the most conservative economic plan outside of Ron Paul, and can contrast his own early and vocal support of the Ryan plan with your…less than stellar response thereto? Particularly if Huntsman just upset expectations by winning New Hampshire?
(Seriously, if not for his foreign policy, I’d give Huntsman a second look, but I’m too much of a hawk for him. Well, that and his absolutely abysmal campaign).
Now, I obviously want Mitt to win NH, because I’m backing him for President. But I think Newt, if he can’t win it himself, probably wants Mitt to win, because Mitt’s negatives are high and known.
We either win with Romney or it’s on to 2016. There is no President Gingrich happening.
Unless Obama is caught having molested kids at Penn State, Gingrich has zero chance of being president.
I won’t go that far – I think if I were to put it on percentages I’d give Newt a 45-55 shot at winning if he is the nominee – I just think the chances increase by a large margin w/ Romney as the nominee – closer to 65-35. I’m a bit risk averse when it comes to the nomination because of how much I want Obama out of the WH – some will cut off their nose to spite their face.
82. Smack – can you show me proof that he worked as a “consultant” to try his best to stop the things that they were doing? If not then he was getting a good chunk of change from a corrupt group that absolutely destroyed the housing market. But I’m sure they paid a guy and his consulting firm that much coin just to reject everything he had to say. Come on Smack – I want to respect your views more – but trying to say there was absolutely nothing questionable and/or wrong with this deal…….it makes it so difficult.
Great points being made between the Speaker and Ambassador..so far.
By doing these one-on-ones with his less timid opponents, Newt’s demonstrating that he is playing nice with the rest of the party and is not going to start tearing apart other candidates, unless struck first.
Newt’s deal with Freddie Mac was ethical…why wasn’t it?
Newt did no lobby work ….just ask Freddie Mac…just ask the current House members.
===============================================
Depends on your meaning of “Is” is, or in Newts case, Lobbying.
“Seek to influence (a politician or public official) on an issue”
Sounds like he was Lobbying to me…. but then again, I don’t try to change the definition of words.
Am I imagining this, or is it the case that whenever Huntsman says “there are three main things we can learn from x,” Gingrich finds four lessons? Or if Huntsmn says “two lessons,” Gingrich names three?
But that also begs the question, what was Newt getting all that dough for? Because he’s the country’s preeminent historian?
Or perhaps, (and I’m just spitballing here) it had something to do with the fact that Newt is a former Speaker of the House with friends and connections in Washington?
Smack – can you show me where I have said Newt was lobbying? I agree that he was “consulting” – just what was he consulting on and why would he keep getting consulting fees if the agency was not going to use any of the advise…er…..history – that he was giving them? Does that make any sense at all??
Like Bill Clinton would say “It depends on what the meaning of the words ‘is’ is”. Gingrich is using the definition of lobbyist is registered lobbyist that are allowed to participate in writing of the legal language of law suggestions and regulation suggestions. But there is lots lobbying activities that don’t require participating in writing of the legal language of law, as it should be obvious. Two thirds of lobbyists are non-registered lobbyists. It’s like saying that non-registered car is not a car.
So it’s kinda like Gingrich’s former lover said: “We had oral sex. He prefers that modus operandi because then he can say, ‘I never slept with her,’”
Gingrich never lobbied, just like he never slept with her.
111. Yeah, but when asked if they had hired Newt as a historian, the Freddie Mac folks laughed. Hard. And it’s not just the inordinate amount of money paid to a guy who claims he was hired as a historian, it’s the audacious and over-the-top call for the imprisonment of Democratic politicians who received campaign contributions from Freddie Mac that paled in comparison to Newt’s income stream from the same source.
If you are missing this, if you still want to look at me like I’ve got two heads, that’s fine. Think of one of them as my “historian” head.
Why is this debate spending SOOOO much time on foreign policy when 95% of the average voters don’t give a hoot? When are we going to start talking about jobs and the economy?
This debate so far is totally irrelevant to the voting public.
“touche. Now please give us an example of what makes a Romnot, a Romnot.”
Mitt’s lack of core principles. His pandering. And his habit of saying or doing whatever it takes to get elected.
More accurately, a misunderstanding of who Mitt is and instead believing the lies of other men. Bigotry and a sense that a Mormon in the WH would validate the religion. A complete misunderstanding and distrust of the religion in general leading people to be by default distrusting of someone like Mitt and more willing to believe the negative than believe the positive. His own personality and squeaky clean image causing people to think him “too perfect” and “too plastic”. His no nonsense business personality doing the same.
116 No Smacks has only two criteria for President:
1) They can’t be dumb or crazy (rules out Bachmann, Perry, Cain)
2) They have to be leading the polls (Romney when he was leading, then Gingrich).
Smacks then uses cognotive dissonance to ignore any warning signs about how said candidate would actually perform once in office. Its all about the polls. In that respect, he’s not much different from Criag for Losers. Craig just takes a longer path to get to the same place. At least Smacks screens out the crazies.
I’m thinking Lincoln and Douglas must be smiling at Newt for having given them a new lease on life…
Instead of arguing back and forth about human liberty, people as property, and the theosophical aspects of moral, just government, we’re getting, “I just want to say that I agree with the Speaker/Governor on that point, and allow me to add that…”
Who was it that wanted to know why the commercial broadcasters don’t clamor for these aimless, meandering bull sessions with all their prolixity and glibness?
I assume you’re not promoting the logical fallacy that “If Reagan was sincere, then Mitt must be sincere.”
But even if you are, you must realize that Reagan gave us 2 of the 5 votes that saved Roe v Wade in the 90s.
Clearly, the record of “converts” in picking SCOTUS nominees is pretty sloppy, and you trying to convince informed pro-lifers that Mitt must be just like Reagan is not helping your cause.
No. I’m pointing out that the standards for Romney has been raised to a level that no other GOP candidate has ever been held to. Gingrich is getting a pass on a number of the same “problems” Mitt has, as have numerous other candidates throughout our party’s history.
141. Yeah, except where J-Hunt got to demonstrate his fluency in the Cantonese vernacular, or something. I hope your energy drink didn’t give out causing you to miss that momentous instant of excitement.
Matt – as I have stated before – I can believe him and feel reassured because I had a similar change of thought on the government’s role in the issue. I, like Mitt, have always been personally pro-life.
However, I also struggled with the govermental side of it because before I looked at it from a religiously moral view point and questioning if it was within my rights to put my moral values on a person’s choice.
Yes I understand the whole argument over the baby’s life etc. – but that in and of itself becomes a religious/moral view – because you have to tell the person who is making that choice that they have to believe that they are killing a “life” and then we get into the political football of “when does life start?”
As I became more involved in politics (via my wife) I discovered, more and more, that it would be within my rights as a potential public servant (politician) to make that judgement call in my voting because of primarily a) the fact that it does not matter if I feel that somebody believes when life starts or stops – I have an obligation to that life that I would be protecting – but also because of b) the effect it has on society as a whole.
No – I do not think that Romney is the ultra conservative that purists are longing for. But I also do not feel that Regan was that either. He was a right of center president – and I believe that Romney would be much the same coming from OUTSIDE of DC.
142. I caught that moment. And was thinking at the time, “how in the world does he think that spouting off some phrase in Chinese is going to win over a single voter?”
Except maybe the Chinese language class at the middle school he visited yesterday. Oh wait, those kids can’t vote yet because they’re not 18 (or 21 if you’re a Dingle-Perry) yet.
Normally, I read the comments before commenting myself….but in this case there wasn’t any way to comment while watching the debate since it was broadcast via the internet.
I was impressed by both men, and by the quality of the format….which is Newt’s favorite. The issues were dealt with substantively. There was comity and seriousness, but without much in the way of grandstanding. And aside from the closing statements, there were no cheap shots taken at other candidates, and there wasn’t much in that regard even then.
I’m pleasantly surprised to say that I’m glad I watched.
BTW, This, of course, is despite the fact that it wasn’t a debate, lacked political content, and doesn’t change that Mitt is still my preferred candidate with Huntsman still a distant second….or the fact that Newt should be kept as far away from the Oval Office as politically possible.
Hey, Lincoln and Douglas traveled around the Country doing these debates, then as every historian knows, the shared a bed at the local Inn. Has Newt already broken his no more affairs pledge?????
“No. I’m pointing out that the standards for Romney has been raised to a level that no other GOP candidate has ever been held to.”
Or…… maybe the pro-life community is tired of being duped?
Could that be?
I can respect the confused fanatics like yourself who cannot accept converts to the prolife cause. However, people who argue such and then support Gingrich are hypocrites. Over at Redstate right now for example Streiff, aka world class hypocrite, is echoing Newt’s absurd attack on Romney’s wealth while not even mentioning fannie. Oh and when called out on his hypocrisy he argued Gingrich’s lobbying was also part of the free market and fine. The stench of hypocrisy on the right is everywhere among RomNots.
Newt wants to spout off and show anyone who will listen how “brilliant” he is. That makes this type of debate perfect for him, and adding to his alleged “brilliance” is the side-by-side comparison with lightweight Huntsman, just like it was with lightweight Cain.
After the debate (Nov 2011), the Gingrich campaign put out a statement titled: “The Truth About Newt’s Relationship with Freddie Mac.” Here is the full statement:
Speaker Gingrich’s consulting firm, The Gingrich Group, was retained in 2006 by Freddie Mac. To be clear, Speaker Gingrich did no lobbying of any kind, nor did his firm. This was expressly written into the Gingrich Group contracts. Instead, the Gingrich Group was hired to offer strategic advice to Freddie Mac on a number of issues. Speaker Gingrich has always believed that America should have programs to help low income people acquire the ability to buy homes. However, as a conservative, he also believed they have to be within a context of learning how to budget and save which makes it possible for the poor to afford what they were purchasing. Therefore, on numerous occasions in meetings with Freddie Mac, Speaker Gingrich advised that a business model that involved lending money to people with bad credit and no money down was unsustainable and a bubble, and that it was dangerous to buy securities made up of these mortgages. The Gingrich Group also offered advice on how Freddie Mac could lower their health costs. One piece of advice offered was that Freddie Mac had the resources to adopt a Travelocity model website for prescription drugs that would inform their employees of lower cost drug alternatives. In addition, Freddie Mac was interested in advice on how to reach out to more conservatives. The Gingrich Group stressed that Freddie Mac must be open to reform of their lending practices but that by stressing the historical success of public-private partnerships in achieving public goods at a minimum of taxpayer money and bureaucracy.
We think this statement actually buried the news in the last paragraph: “Freddie Mac was interested in advice on how to reach out to more conservatives.” While Gingrich takes great pains to stress he was never registered as a lobbyist, he clearly appears to have provided advice on how to influence the thinking of conservative members of Congress. Note also that the “historian” claim had been dropped.
Indeed, Bloomberg News reported on Wednesday that Gingrich’s “primary contact inside the organization was Mitchell Delk, Freddie Mac’s chief lobbyist, and he was paid a self- renewing, monthly retainer of $25,000 to $30,000 between May 1999 until 2002, according to three people familiar with aspects of the business agreement.” Delk told Bloomberg that he took one of Gingrich’s ideas and even pitched it to the George W. Bush White House.
So Newt didn’t do any lobbying himself, but he offered advice to the ones who were lobbying.
And he thinks that federal government-run enterprises are valuable and useful. I expect him to create a lot more if he becomes president, including the federal moon mining corporation and federal child janitorial service.
But I would not expect him to shrink the size of government.
#1 Any of these folks are likely to win.
#2 Any of them would be able to reverse our national decline.
I’m pulling for Ron Paul at this point as a vehicle to popularize the concept of liberty and responsibility. I hope he could get across the idea that government can’t solve unfairness and poverty, because life is intrinsically unfair and difficult. The struggle of life is best left to free men, we suffer when governments attempt to solve problems that are just facts of life.
If you could get that idea across to a few million people then Ron Paul could accomplish more in defeat than any other candidate could in victory.
[...] more than a century.The last time Illinois was honest was probably when Honest Abe was alive.P.S. Gingrich Huntsman Lincoln-Douglas style debate rebroadcast tonight on [...]
December 12th, 2011 at 2:34 pm
Should be fun. I LOVE this style of debate.
Definitely not for the timid (you know who) though.
December 12th, 2011 at 2:36 pm
Mr. Rogers versus Sir Shagsalot. Profound.
December 12th, 2011 at 2:38 pm
Powerful organization created..
December 12th, 2011 at 2:40 pm
Dateline 1998:
http://articles.nydailynews.com/1998-11-07/news/18083750_1_gingrich-speaker-house-republicans
December 12th, 2011 at 2:41 pm
MG,
Dinosaur collecting???
Don’t tell Max Twain!
December 12th, 2011 at 2:43 pm
In 1998, Newt said he was planning to “collect dinosaurs” after retirement. But less than a year later, it was someone else who had pick up an old dinosaur.
http://articles.nydailynews.com/1999-08-12/news/18121795_1_callista-bisek-house-speaker-newt-gingrich-election
December 12th, 2011 at 2:45 pm
Hmmmm…..after these accomplishments, I bet Newt had earned some well deserved time off from the Washington DC craziness.
December 12th, 2011 at 2:46 pm
Newt got a divorce? Who knew?
December 12th, 2011 at 2:47 pm
vander plaats had to castrate newtered. Who knew?
December 12th, 2011 at 2:48 pm
6.
“We can’t have any of that EVER!” -Ronald Reagan, John Kennedy, and Bill Clinton each shouted
December 12th, 2011 at 2:49 pm
Craigfer, you baffle me, friend. Weren’t you for the cleanly and happily married pastor-cum-10.5-year governor four years ago? Haven’t your standards slipped just a mighty bit?
December 12th, 2011 at 2:50 pm
MG,
Doing some opposition research for the 20 year married Obama, are ya?
Cool. Whatever.
December 12th, 2011 at 2:51 pm
12/12/12- The day the Newt bubble burst-
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/285482/newt-problem-avik-roy?pg=4
His attacking Romney for his private sector success and defending the fees he got for lobbying for Fannie and Freddie will be his undoing. I guess Newt thought he did so good at the debate that he could say anything he wants and not be taken down. He is sorely mistaken.
December 12th, 2011 at 2:51 pm
Yes it’s me.
Just checking out things today in the blog world.
Happy Holidays to all.
December 12th, 2011 at 2:52 pm
I think anyone who has lusted should be banned from running or voting! No exceptions! Taliban!
December 12th, 2011 at 2:53 pm
14.
Hi, Sarah. You are waved from #15, of course
December 12th, 2011 at 2:54 pm
1
You’re right, Newt isn’t timid at all. He wasn’t timid at all to sit down and get cozy with Pelosi on the couch, cheat on his wives, or stop to think that calling the Palestinian PEOPLE were, “made up”. He also wasn’t timid to call RyanCare, “Right wing social engineering”, or take millions from taxpayers at F&F.
You got that right, he’s not timid at all, he’s bold enough to stick his foot in his mouth every time he can.
December 12th, 2011 at 2:54 pm
Where’s the blogging about the debate going on? That’s what this is about.
December 12th, 2011 at 2:56 pm
13.
Valid counterattack by Newt.
They were both successful in the private sector.
After leaving public office, Newt Gingrich founded a number of very successful small businesses. One of these small businesses, a consulting firm called The Gingrich Group, offered strategic advice on a wide variety of topics to a very “wide range of clients.” One of these clients was Freddie Mac. At no time did Gingrich lobby for Freddie Mac, or for any client, and neither did anyone in Gingrich’s firm. This prohibition against lobbying was made clear to all Gingrich Group clients. Nor did Gingrich ever advocate against pending legislation affecting Freddie Mac, as some articles have incorrectly alleged. In fact, recent reporting from Bloomberg News on the Gingrich Group’s consulting services for Freddie Mac confirms that Gingrich and his firm were not paid to lobby and that Gingrich never acted as an advocate to stop any legislation or regulation affecting Freddie Mac.
December 12th, 2011 at 2:56 pm
Thanks Craig you are a sweety pie.
December 12th, 2011 at 2:57 pm
Just doing a little preliminary historical review on one of the storied debate contender’s storied and profound past. That’s all.
December 12th, 2011 at 2:57 pm
7
Fixed for ya, Craig.
December 12th, 2011 at 2:58 pm
3 minute warning to Newt/Jon’s debate…….
Btw, a headline this morn:
Glenn Beck threatens to bolt if Gingrich wins
December 12th, 2011 at 3:00 pm
Gingrich-led Republicans….the result:
* Four consecutive balanced budgets
* Over $400 billion of debt paid off
* Bipartisan welfare reform
* 11 million new jobs
* Unemployment falling to under 4%.
===
CF Rombot, fixed it back
December 12th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
Why does Beck fighting so hard against our front runner?
December 12th, 2011 at 3:02 pm
Newt, former(?) serial adulterer, signed the ‘No Adultery Pledge,’ but has so far failed to sign the ‘I Won’t Take $1.8 Million From Freddie Mac Pledge.’
Mitt Romney, meanwhile, has suggested that Newt should either return the $1.8 Million to Freddie Mac, which obviously needs the money, or stop declaring that any politician who has taken Freddie Mac money should be thrown in prison.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:03 pm
Newt Gingrich single-handedly brought about the Housing collapse and the economic recession we are having right now. He did this by supporting the very organizations that were giving out loans that weren’t able to be paid back. He was doing his best to fool Republicans in Congress to ignore the problem. Newt Gingrich new that a crash was imminent, but his goal was to keep making his millions for a little while longer so he could live well while the rest of America suffered.
Why would we put in office, Newt Gingrich, the very man who caused our recession today? That just seems like a very foolish idea.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:05 pm
25. Because it is the duty of the citizen to question their government, and Gingrich’s head is so big that it could indeed be the government. For Gingrich, big government reforms means getting a haircut.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:06 pm
22:
To add further:
*$16 trillion present and future debt from Medicare Part D
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/2423/how-newt-gingrich-added-16-trillion-national-debt
December 12th, 2011 at 3:07 pm
“Knock knock!”
“Who’s there?”
“Gingrich”
“Gingrich who?”
“Gi’ng rich off the taxpayers with the help of Freddie Mac!”
“Knock knock!”
“Who’s there?”
“Newt Gingrich.”
“Newt Gingrich who?”
“I’m newt gi’ng rich fast enough to afford all this dang jewelry!”
December 12th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
So much for the live stream…
December 12th, 2011 at 3:09 pm
Marque,
Is English or German your first language?
Your ability to manipulate the English language makes me think it must be your first language. It’s almost impossible to be that witty in a second language.
Either way, a tip of the cap.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:09 pm
WSBTV now reporting:
Gingrich planning announcement in Ga. Capitol (Tomorrow @ 1pm)
====
Newt and the 999 and Fair Tax folks unite!!
December 12th, 2011 at 3:09 pm
It’s on now.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:10 pm
It seems they’ve finally ironed out the Livestream glitches. It was either video or audio for a while there…
December 12th, 2011 at 3:11 pm
“Newt Gingrich single-handedly brought about the Housing collapse and the economic recession we are having right now.”
LOL!!!!!!!!
This, boys and girls, is an excellent example of what makes a Rombot, a Rombot.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:12 pm
This stream works at the moment
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/live-blogging-the-gingrich-huntsman-debate/2011/12/12/gIQA1X9EqO_blog.html
December 12th, 2011 at 3:14 pm
MWS, I started out bilingual but lost the German at around age 7 and had to relearn it later.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:15 pm
Marque,
American growing up in Germany? German growing up in America?
December 12th, 2011 at 3:15 pm
OMGoodness – I didn’t think I’d see the day that Craig for Rejects who touted his all too holy pastor in chief Huck as being such an upstanding guy that could do no wrong living such a great life with a great family is now trying to justify Newts actions.
1. Craig thinks that his fellow house members wanted him out because he had worked so darn hard – (last I checked that was also part of Newt’s rationale for cheating on his wife……hmmmm…makes complete sense)
And now we are going to state that somebody who lusts and somebody who is a serial adulterer are one in the same. Gotta love the “everybody is a sinner” argument to make all the sting of the past feel better.
The man was kicked out of the House, he was convicted on one of the unethical actions he took (doesn’t matter that he got away with the others – he did get caught on at least one), he felt that his infidelity, while a “bad thing”, had some sliver of justification because he was…….well…..just too patriotic. I hate it when patriotism drives me into the arms of another younger version of my wife. As per Newt – DAMN YOU PATRIOTISM!!!
December 12th, 2011 at 3:16 pm
If you’re Jon Huntsman, you really, really, desperately need an amazing performance full of hard but reasonably clean hits on Newt. Gingrich going mono y mono with Huntsman is probably just about the biggest gift J-Hunt could get at this point, but it’s going to take a really good afternoon to kick-start Huntsman into relevance. Meanwhile, I can’t see that Newt has much to gain here, but unless Huntsman is spectacular, probably not much to lose. For the sake of my friend MWS, hope Huntsman gets his mojo…
December 12th, 2011 at 3:18 pm
“He was doing his best to fool Republicans in Congress to ignore the problem.”
Not one member of the House has come and said Newt lobbied them to keep them from reforming Freddie Mac.
It’s getting comical here at RACE42012!
At first I read all the posts under the worthless ARG Iowa poll…then I read these posts in this thread…and all I got to say is you all are having a nervous breakdown.
HA!
December 12th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
31.
Right Wingnut,
I’m on here:
http://wwww.jon2012.com/livestream
December 12th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
Matt –
Fixed it for you.
I don’t know too many of the Rombots that would go as far as CF does in his/her posts.
Not with a straight face – I torment Sojo about his satan following – but that is all in jest.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
41. I think there’s a much greater chance that this is a love fest, ala Gingrich/Cain. Gingrich needs the free media, and Huntsman needs to blast away at Romney. They aren’t going to need to cross swords much. My guess is that they both go after Romney, leave each other alone, and call it a day well spent.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
AJ,
Thanks. But I’ve already mentally moved on to Karl Habsburg.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
Gingrich has some accomplishments – to deny that would be foolish, but lets review:
- Married three times, including two divorces and an affair…while criticizing a President for his own misdeeds
- Balanced budgets were largely the product of a tech boom neither Newt nor Clinton had any hand in creating
- Balanced budgets also left our military significantly weakened, leading to our trouble in fighting the WoT
- Shut down the government based on a petty complaint, and cost the GOP the 1996 election in the process
- Has been described as something of a tyrant by those who served with him, uninterested in other’s ideas
- Became a very public shill for Global Warming Alarmism with Nancy Pelosi
- Supports Amnesty for those who managed to evade the law long enough
- Supported a federal health insurance mandate, then reversed himself to claim being a conservative hero
- Is a loose cannon, who would be of questionable effectiveness in international diplomacy
- No real executive experience to compete with his Republican rivals
Should I go on?
There might be elections where Newt would be the best candidate, but this ain’t one of ‘em.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
This is a friendly debate, basically just setting forth their views. No attacks or antagonism.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:20 pm
MWS, I was born in Germany, came here at 7, went back to Germany for lengthy time spans after around 17. I’m a modestly proud American semi-Kraut who still struggles to grow up. You should see me in the swimsuit competition.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:21 pm
42.
Smack,
No worries…I’m Doctor Craig for them
December 12th, 2011 at 3:21 pm
Ben,
No, I’ve decided you have to answer for CF.
One of the advantages of rooting for the Habsburgs… I’m not responsible for any other commenters.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:22 pm
42. I just say it would be nice to have Gingrich give us all a sample of the historical/consulting work he did for Freddie Mac. Had to have been written. Surely it wasn’t oral history work he was involved in.
Just a sample. What’s he producing for $30k an hour? That’s got to be some very impressive history.
Let’s not call it lobbying or anything. Let’s just see a sample.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:23 pm
I think this debate shows how reckless Newt is.
Huntsman has everything to gain here and nothing to lose.
Newt has nothing to gain and everything to lose.
Why would Newt do it?
If I were on top and knew that I had a tendency to shoot myself in the foot, why risk it all? And, on Huntsman? Really?
The only explanation is that Newt sees himself in gradiose ways and seeks to be regarded by history as Lincoln-like which fits into another narrative of himself that his ego is monsterous and he is prone to over-the-top behaviors seemingly without rational fear of consequences.
We’ll see how it turns out but I expect Huntsman to be out to knock Newt off his pedestal and if he tries hard enough, he just might do that.
Dangerous move, Newton.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:24 pm
Marque,
So is your citizenship US or Germany?
I’m about 75% Illinois Kraut myself, but about all the German I know is “Achtung Baby” and “schadenfreude”.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
53,
It elevates Huntsman, which has the potential to hurt Romney in NH.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
Ambassador Huntsman and Speaker Gingrich truly respect each other as adults.
Doubt there will be any childish, “You wanna bet me??? C’mon, bet me $10,000!!!”
December 12th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
#47 Matthew Kilburn,
Those are minor concerned compared to others that have been raised. Have you read the articles below:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_big_idea/2011/12/is_newt_gingrich_nuts_consider_the_symptoms_.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newt/vanityfair1.html
December 12th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
Having this debate is great strategy for Newt. If Jon gains from this debate, it will be out of Mitt’s hide in NH.
I’m really surprised how people here don’t see that.
This debate is a win-win for Newt.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
MWS, both.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
I bin ein Berliner…….
December 12th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
I spent eight years in Lutheran school forced to learn German…so I’m on to MG
December 12th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
Michael Reagan just told Cavuto that the 10k bet may cost Romney the nomination.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:29 pm
Talking about childish? Like Huntsman Jr. boycotting Nevada for moving their primary date?
December 12th, 2011 at 3:30 pm
42. Newt was calling for prison time for Dems who accepted money from Freddie Mac, not that long ago.
Perhaps his logic was something like this?
Fiercely protective of his employer.
Knows how badly they need the money.
Doesn’t appreciate the competition.
Not part of a good business model.
Cheap historians should go to jail.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:30 pm
45 Watch: I don’t think Huntsman attacking Romney helps him here. Everybody pretty much knows he’s not Mitt’s biggest fan already. He’s got to give a reason he’s a better potential nominee than Newt. And given his actual record, he’s got a real shot at getting to Newt’s right.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:31 pm
Maybe Newt will tell Jon about his great colonizing the moon ideas.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:31 pm
My observation is that this format is ideal for egghead professors like Gingrich. Too bad that only 500 nerds like those on R4’12 and C-SPAN are/will be watching this.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
59. oops – supposed to be Ich
December 12th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
Thoughts on the debate itself, so far?
December 12th, 2011 at 3:33 pm
watchinitall,
I didn’t know getting paid as an Consultant by a paying customer was this horrible.
Thanks for educating me.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:35 pm
53. I don’t think Newt realizes he has a tendency to shoot himself in the foot.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:35 pm
C-SPAN is replaying this debate tonight……the NH newspapers and Talk radio will be talking about this debate…..this is good for Jon….bad for Mitt….which makes it good for Newt.
Mitt declined a 1-on-1 debate with Newt, Jon stood up and said yes.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:35 pm
These silly Newtards, they really don’t get it.
We either win with Romney or it’s on to 2016. There is no President Gingrich happening.
Unless Obama is caught having molested kids at Penn State, Gingrich has zero chance of being president.
So it’s win/win for the sane wing of the party, either Mitt now or Christie later. There is no Gingrich part of this equation.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:36 pm
70. Smack –
I guess if we want to play it in hyperbole – would it be OK if I was to be a consultant to the Aryan Nation up in N. Idaho?
Just because somebody is going to pay you doesn’t make the deal ethical. Or do they not teach that course material where you learned about promotions?
December 12th, 2011 at 3:37 pm
72
Jon would say yes to a dunk tank contest on the evening news for some free NH press.
NH is over, Mitt’s winning here. Then it’s a 5 month war of attrition between Newt, Mitt, and Paul.
Something tells me Newt can’t last until California.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:38 pm
Newt is too strong on foreign affairs, and in this type of format. The risk to him is negligible compared to the potential gain if Mitt loses ground to Hunstman among the moderate wing of the NH primary electorate.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:39 pm
Newt: “We must be ready to invade Iran. Bombing them won’t work.”
December 12th, 2011 at 3:39 pm
Smack sounds stressed, old hasbeen Newt is getting hit on all sides, and not a single big donor is coming to his rescue.
Poor Newt, having to run a primary and general election with nickels and dimes because most people have brains and remember what a fool he is.
Too bad!
December 12th, 2011 at 3:39 pm
Smack: here’s the thing though: If you’re Newt, would you rather face Mitt Romney, who everyone expects to win NH, whose negatives are known and exploitable and who already has pretty high unfavs, or Jon Huntsman, who has probably the best pro-life record aside from Rick Santorum, the most conservative economic plan outside of Ron Paul, and can contrast his own early and vocal support of the Ryan plan with your…less than stellar response thereto? Particularly if Huntsman just upset expectations by winning New Hampshire?
(Seriously, if not for his foreign policy, I’d give Huntsman a second look, but I’m too much of a hawk for him. Well, that and his absolutely abysmal campaign).
Now, I obviously want Mitt to win NH, because I’m backing him for President. But I think Newt, if he can’t win it himself, probably wants Mitt to win, because Mitt’s negatives are high and known.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:39 pm
73. Bill
I won’t go that far – I think if I were to put it on percentages I’d give Newt a 45-55 shot at winning if he is the nominee – I just think the chances increase by a large margin w/ Romney as the nominee – closer to 65-35. I’m a bit risk averse when it comes to the nomination because of how much I want Obama out of the WH – some will cut off their nose to spite their face.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:39 pm
Yay! More war! Invade Iran. There’s a great Newt bumper sticker.
Congrats Barack on your second term!
December 12th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
Ben,
Newt’s deal with Freddie Mac was ethical…why wasn’t it?
Newt did no lobby work ….just ask Freddie Mac…just ask the current House members.
You want this to be a big story…you want it so bad….but it doesn’t make it so.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:41 pm
J-Hunt: “All options on the table” — This HAS to imply invasion with ground forces; no other way to interpret it. He’s the same as Newt on this one.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:42 pm
Tim,
Stressed?
Delighted is the word.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:43 pm
I’m waiting for Jon and Newt to diverge on something.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:44 pm
Gingrich (Multiple times, thus far): “I agree with Gov. Huntsman…..”
December 12th, 2011 at 3:45 pm
Looks like more than half of the viewers have said these guys are lame and checked out.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:45 pm
Is it all going to be foreign affairs?
December 12th, 2011 at 3:45 pm
82. Smack – can you show me proof that he worked as a “consultant” to try his best to stop the things that they were doing? If not then he was getting a good chunk of change from a corrupt group that absolutely destroyed the housing market. But I’m sure they paid a guy and his consulting firm that much coin just to reject everything he had to say. Come on Smack – I want to respect your views more – but trying to say there was absolutely nothing questionable and/or wrong with this deal…….it makes it so difficult.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:46 pm
Wingnut,
Sorry about Sarah. Do you have a new candidate?
December 12th, 2011 at 3:47 pm
Great points being made between the Speaker and Ambassador..so far.
By doing these one-on-ones with his less timid opponents, Newt’s demonstrating that he is playing nice with the rest of the party and is not going to start tearing apart other candidates, unless struck first.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:47 pm
Note to ROMBOTS:
Have you been paying attention to what Mitt has been saying about Iran?
Mitt has said the exact same things that Jon & Newt has said in this debate….exactly the same.
You guys need to relax.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:47 pm
I thought it was supposed to be a debate. Can a debate be called a debate if there is no debate going on? Or does it then just become a chat session?
December 12th, 2011 at 3:47 pm
90,
No, but I prefer the candidate not be Mitt.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:49 pm
matt,
Wingnut’s new candidate is “NotRomney” just like craig for losers and others who have lost any identity other than opposition to Romney.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:50 pm
Ben,
I don’t care if you respect my views or not.
Vin Weber made big bucks for Consultant work for Freddie Mac and others for years…he works on TEAM Mitt.
Is he a bad guy?
Nope.
Companies…agency’s pay Consultants all the time. Give me proof Newt did something wrong….no need for me, or TEAM NEWT to prove innocent.
You have nothing……….there is nothing to have.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
I used to like Huntsman. It’s ironic that he has the same problem as his cousin, the more I hear from him the less I like.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Smack
Delighted? Why? Because we may nominate the worst general election candidate since McGovern?
December 12th, 2011 at 3:53 pm
Smack1968 Says:
December 12th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
Ben,
Newt’s deal with Freddie Mac was ethical…why wasn’t it?
Newt did no lobby work ….just ask Freddie Mac…just ask the current House members.
===============================================
Depends on your meaning of “Is” is, or in Newts case, Lobbying.
“Seek to influence (a politician or public official) on an issue”
Sounds like he was Lobbying to me…. but then again, I don’t try to change the definition of words.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:54 pm
Tim,
You are correct, we may……..Mitt could still win.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:54 pm
Am I imagining this, or is it the case that whenever Huntsman says “there are three main things we can learn from x,” Gingrich finds four lessons? Or if Huntsmn says “two lessons,” Gingrich names three?
December 12th, 2011 at 3:56 pm
Thunder,
Give me one name of a House member that was lobbied by Newt….give me one name.
Give me one name.
One name.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:57 pm
Ben,
You to.
Give me one name.
One name.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:58 pm
LOL! Newt just bailed out the Huntsman girl(s) for dozing off while their dad spoke just now.
Go Newt!
December 12th, 2011 at 3:58 pm
Smacks,
But that also begs the question, what was Newt getting all that dough for? Because he’s the country’s preeminent historian?
Or perhaps, (and I’m just spitballing here) it had something to do with the fact that Newt is a former Speaker of the House with friends and connections in Washington?
December 12th, 2011 at 3:58 pm
HA!
Go Newt!!
December 12th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
touche. Now please give us an example of what makes a Romnot, a Romnot.
December 12th, 2011 at 4:00 pm
From this point forward, It will be Newt, Huntsman, Perry, and Santorum vs. Mitt, Paul and Bachmann.
December 12th, 2011 at 4:01 pm
jarvis,
“touche. Now please give us an example of what makes a Romnot, a Romnot.”
Mitt’s lack of core principles. His pandering. And his habit of saying or doing whatever it takes to get elected.
December 12th, 2011 at 4:01 pm
105.
Thank you Matt – That is my point.
Smack – can you show me where I have said Newt was lobbying? I agree that he was “consulting” – just what was he consulting on and why would he keep getting consulting fees if the agency was not going to use any of the advise…er…..history – that he was giving them? Does that make any sense at all??
December 12th, 2011 at 4:01 pm
Matt “MWS”
You would have to ask Freddie Mac that question.
Freddie Mac has said Newt did no lobby work for them, and refused to write a White Paper for the agency.
We have hundreds of Newt speeches over the years to look at….and not one of them has Newt defending the currect F&F model.
Crazy huh?
December 12th, 2011 at 4:03 pm
Like Bill Clinton would say “It depends on what the meaning of the words ‘is’ is”. Gingrich is using the definition of lobbyist is registered lobbyist that are allowed to participate in writing of the legal language of law suggestions and regulation suggestions. But there is lots lobbying activities that don’t require participating in writing of the legal language of law, as it should be obvious. Two thirds of lobbyists are non-registered lobbyists. It’s like saying that non-registered car is not a car.
So it’s kinda like Gingrich’s former lover said: “We had oral sex. He prefers that modus operandi because then he can say, ‘I never slept with her,’”
Gingrich never lobbied, just like he never slept with her.
December 12th, 2011 at 4:03 pm
Newt takes the infidelity pledge of Vander Plaats:
“Read my lips. No new exes.”
December 12th, 2011 at 4:05 pm
This debate is boring.
Newt: “I agree with the Governor, and would add…”
Huntsman: “I agree with the Speaker, and would add….”
December 12th, 2011 at 4:05 pm
Excellent strategy for Newt, he:
1. Shows himself to be MORE conservative than a competitor
2. Boosts Huntsman to split Romney’s vote
3. Gets more exposure in NH while still holding on to Iowa
December 12th, 2011 at 4:06 pm
Smacks,
So does it bother you that Newt was getting paid for…… nothing?
Doesn’t that make you go “Hmmmmmmmm……”?
December 12th, 2011 at 4:08 pm
Yay a debate between 2 guys who will never be president.
December 12th, 2011 at 4:08 pm
111. Yeah, but when asked if they had hired Newt as a historian, the Freddie Mac folks laughed. Hard. And it’s not just the inordinate amount of money paid to a guy who claims he was hired as a historian, it’s the audacious and over-the-top call for the imprisonment of Democratic politicians who received campaign contributions from Freddie Mac that paled in comparison to Newt’s income stream from the same source.
If you are missing this, if you still want to look at me like I’ve got two heads, that’s fine. Think of one of them as my “historian” head.
December 12th, 2011 at 4:10 pm
Questioner: Please don’t pick on me, Newt. I’m a volunteer, not the MSM! [Crowd laughs]
December 12th, 2011 at 4:10 pm
Why is this debate spending SOOOO much time on foreign policy when 95% of the average voters don’t give a hoot? When are we going to start talking about jobs and the economy?
This debate so far is totally irrelevant to the voting public.
December 12th, 2011 at 4:11 pm
More accurately, a misunderstanding of who Mitt is and instead believing the lies of other men. Bigotry and a sense that a Mormon in the WH would validate the religion. A complete misunderstanding and distrust of the religion in general leading people to be by default distrusting of someone like Mitt and more willing to believe the negative than believe the positive. His own personality and squeaky clean image causing people to think him “too perfect” and “too plastic”. His no nonsense business personality doing the same.
December 12th, 2011 at 4:11 pm
Huntsman is doing NOTHING to differentiate himself. Total failure so far.
December 12th, 2011 at 4:12 pm
116 No Smacks has only two criteria for President:
1) They can’t be dumb or crazy (rules out Bachmann, Perry, Cain)
2) They have to be leading the polls (Romney when he was leading, then Gingrich).
Smacks then uses cognotive dissonance to ignore any warning signs about how said candidate would actually perform once in office. Its all about the polls. In that respect, he’s not much different from Criag for Losers. Craig just takes a longer path to get to the same place. At least Smacks screens out the crazies.
December 12th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
Ha! Buddy Roemer is commenting on the debate on the Jon Huntsman website. his last tweet:
BuddyRoemer Tonight’s Gingrich/Huntsman #LDdebate needs a new hashtag –> #LFDebate (Love Fest Debate)
December 12th, 2011 at 4:14 pm
“Capital is a coward which flees risk, says Huntsman.”
December 12th, 2011 at 4:14 pm
Newt’s first general election ad: “I AM NOT A WITCH”
December 12th, 2011 at 4:14 pm
I’m thinking Lincoln and Douglas must be smiling at Newt for having given them a new lease on life…
Instead of arguing back and forth about human liberty, people as property, and the theosophical aspects of moral, just government, we’re getting, “I just want to say that I agree with the Speaker/Governor on that point, and allow me to add that…”
Who was it that wanted to know why the commercial broadcasters don’t clamor for these aimless, meandering bull sessions with all their prolixity and glibness?
December 12th, 2011 at 4:14 pm
121,
More “bigot” baiting….
Have you ever noticed that Mitt’s supporters are always the ones who inject religion in to the debate?
December 12th, 2011 at 4:15 pm
mcon,
Nobody who has attended a Planned Parenthood fundraiser would ever be considered by me to be “squeaky clean.”
I would never consider someone who swore on his sacred honor to “protect and preserve a woman’s right to choose” to be “too perfect.”
“Too perfect”? That’s the fantasy of Rombots who have a poster of a shirtless Mitt wearing skinny jeans, in their locker.
December 12th, 2011 at 4:16 pm
[...] From News Source : http://race42012.com/2011/12/12/race42012%E2%80%B2s-gingrichhuntsman-lincoln-%E2%80%93-douglas-debat… [...]
December 12th, 2011 at 4:17 pm
109.Matt “MWS” Says:
“Mitt’s lack of core principles. His pandering. And his habit of saying or doing whatever it takes to get elected.”
===
D. All of the Above
December 12th, 2011 at 4:17 pm
asparagus,
#123
You realize Smacks was the biggest booster of Tim Pawlenty on these boards, don’t you?
And he jumped from Mitt to Newt when Mitt was still beating him 3-1.
So no, I don’t think Smacks is a bandwagon man.
December 12th, 2011 at 4:18 pm
129
You’re right, screw Mitt, we need someone who was pro-life always like Reagan…….uh…oh wait…….nevermind.
December 12th, 2011 at 4:19 pm
116.
Matt – no it doesn’t make the Newtron Dancers go Hmmmmmmm.
Newt said he didn’t do anything wrong and that was enough for them. And they call us Rombots mindless robots. Oi vey!
December 12th, 2011 at 4:21 pm
Tim,
I assume you’re not promoting the logical fallacy that “If Reagan was sincere, then Mitt must be sincere.”
But even if you are, you must realize that Reagan gave us 2 of the 5 votes that saved Roe v Wade in the 90s.
Clearly, the record of “converts” in picking SCOTUS nominees is pretty sloppy, and you trying to convince informed pro-lifers that Mitt must be just like Reagan is not helping your cause.
December 12th, 2011 at 4:21 pm
Savage offers Gingrich $1 million to drop out.
http://www.michaelsavage.wnd.com/2011/12/savage-offers-gingrich-1-million-to-drop-out-of-the-race-will-announce-on-show-today/
Not the most subtle approach, but the point is still dead on. Newt is a disaster in the general election. McGovern/Goldwater style.
December 12th, 2011 at 4:23 pm
MWS
No. I’m pointing out that the standards for Romney has been raised to a level that no other GOP candidate has ever been held to. Gingrich is getting a pass on a number of the same “problems” Mitt has, as have numerous other candidates throughout our party’s history.
December 12th, 2011 at 4:27 pm
The moderator just tweeked Romney’s 10k bet.
December 12th, 2011 at 4:28 pm
The three silliest arguments Rombots make to reassure pro-lifers…..
1. The President who gave us O’ Conner and Kennedy on the bench converted, so Mitt must be pro-life.
2. Mitt campaigned pro-choice in MA, but he governed pro-life, AND he keeps all his campaign promises.
3. Mitt’s Mormon and used to be a bishop and stake president, so he can’t be pro-choice. (he just appeared to be Mormon in his two MA campaigns).
December 12th, 2011 at 4:30 pm
Tim,
“No. I’m pointing out that the standards for Romney has been raised to a level that no other GOP candidate has ever been held to.”
Or…… maybe the pro-life community is tired of being duped?
Could that be?
December 12th, 2011 at 4:31 pm
Worst. Debate. Ever.
December 12th, 2011 at 4:33 pm
141. Yeah, except where J-Hunt got to demonstrate his fluency in the Cantonese vernacular, or something. I hope your energy drink didn’t give out causing you to miss that momentous instant of excitement.
December 12th, 2011 at 4:35 pm
Did they debate if newts pledge to vander plaats was more important than his pledge to his first two wives?
December 12th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
139.
Matt – as I have stated before – I can believe him and feel reassured because I had a similar change of thought on the government’s role in the issue. I, like Mitt, have always been personally pro-life.
However, I also struggled with the govermental side of it because before I looked at it from a religiously moral view point and questioning if it was within my rights to put my moral values on a person’s choice.
Yes I understand the whole argument over the baby’s life etc. – but that in and of itself becomes a religious/moral view – because you have to tell the person who is making that choice that they have to believe that they are killing a “life” and then we get into the political football of “when does life start?”
As I became more involved in politics (via my wife) I discovered, more and more, that it would be within my rights as a potential public servant (politician) to make that judgement call in my voting because of primarily a) the fact that it does not matter if I feel that somebody believes when life starts or stops – I have an obligation to that life that I would be protecting – but also because of b) the effect it has on society as a whole.
No – I do not think that Romney is the ultra conservative that purists are longing for. But I also do not feel that Regan was that either. He was a right of center president – and I believe that Romney would be much the same coming from OUTSIDE of DC.
December 12th, 2011 at 4:43 pm
142. I caught that moment. And was thinking at the time, “how in the world does he think that spouting off some phrase in Chinese is going to win over a single voter?”
Except maybe the Chinese language class at the middle school he visited yesterday. Oh wait, those kids can’t vote yet because they’re not 18 (or 21 if you’re a Dingle-Perry) yet.
December 12th, 2011 at 4:43 pm
Normally, I read the comments before commenting myself….but in this case there wasn’t any way to comment while watching the debate since it was broadcast via the internet.
I was impressed by both men, and by the quality of the format….which is Newt’s favorite. The issues were dealt with substantively. There was comity and seriousness, but without much in the way of grandstanding. And aside from the closing statements, there were no cheap shots taken at other candidates, and there wasn’t much in that regard even then.
I’m pleasantly surprised to say that I’m glad I watched.
BTW, This, of course, is despite the fact that it wasn’t a debate, lacked political content, and doesn’t change that Mitt is still my preferred candidate with Huntsman still a distant second….or the fact that Newt should be kept as far away from the Oval Office as politically possible.
December 12th, 2011 at 4:44 pm
Hey, Lincoln and Douglas traveled around the Country doing these debates, then as every historian knows, the shared a bed at the local Inn. Has Newt already broken his no more affairs pledge?????
December 12th, 2011 at 4:49 pm
Ben,
Except, unlike you, Mitt got politically active before his “conversion” and presumably, thought about things before that.
December 12th, 2011 at 4:49 pm
#147 – Actually, Lincoln and Douglas held all seven of their debates in Illinois.
December 12th, 2011 at 4:49 pm
Huntsman was too stiff.Newt was obviously very comfortable.
December 12th, 2011 at 4:51 pm
I can respect the confused fanatics like yourself who cannot accept converts to the prolife cause. However, people who argue such and then support Gingrich are hypocrites. Over at Redstate right now for example Streiff, aka world class hypocrite, is echoing Newt’s absurd attack on Romney’s wealth while not even mentioning fannie. Oh and when called out on his hypocrisy he argued Gingrich’s lobbying was also part of the free market and fine. The stench of hypocrisy on the right is everywhere among RomNots.
December 12th, 2011 at 4:53 pm
Huntsman was surprisingly strong in this format. He certainly proved that he belonged on the stage with Newt.
December 12th, 2011 at 4:54 pm
Newt came across as both knowledgeable and comfortable.
Jon sometimes seemed stuck to his prompter sheet, rather than engaging with Newt
Newt interacted warmly with Huntsman. Jon did too with Newt, but to a much more limited extent.
Too prepared. Not enough relaxed improvisation from Huntsman.
December 12th, 2011 at 4:55 pm
149
That maybe true, but they did share a bed.
December 12th, 2011 at 4:58 pm
It ain’t over till the fat man (Gingrich) sings.
December 12th, 2011 at 4:59 pm
149. all their debates were in Illinois b/c they were both running for Senate, not President.
December 12th, 2011 at 5:04 pm
Huntsman record is actually fairly conservative, and his economic plan is top notch. Why is he campaigning as a liberal Republican?
December 12th, 2011 at 5:10 pm
53. Ci2Eye,
Newt wants to spout off and show anyone who will listen how “brilliant” he is. That makes this type of debate perfect for him, and adding to his alleged “brilliance” is the side-by-side comparison with lightweight Huntsman, just like it was with lightweight Cain.
December 12th, 2011 at 5:15 pm
154. Was it at a Holiday Inn Express?
December 12th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
158- lightweight Huntsman?
December 12th, 2011 at 5:26 pm
158,
Hunstman is light years ahead of Cain….especially on foreign policy.
December 12th, 2011 at 5:53 pm
From fact checker:
After the debate (Nov 2011), the Gingrich campaign put out a statement titled: “The Truth About Newt’s Relationship with Freddie Mac.” Here is the full statement:
Speaker Gingrich’s consulting firm, The Gingrich Group, was retained in 2006 by Freddie Mac. To be clear, Speaker Gingrich did no lobbying of any kind, nor did his firm. This was expressly written into the Gingrich Group contracts. Instead, the Gingrich Group was hired to offer strategic advice to Freddie Mac on a number of issues. Speaker Gingrich has always believed that America should have programs to help low income people acquire the ability to buy homes. However, as a conservative, he also believed they have to be within a context of learning how to budget and save which makes it possible for the poor to afford what they were purchasing. Therefore, on numerous occasions in meetings with Freddie Mac, Speaker Gingrich advised that a business model that involved lending money to people with bad credit and no money down was unsustainable and a bubble, and that it was dangerous to buy securities made up of these mortgages. The Gingrich Group also offered advice on how Freddie Mac could lower their health costs. One piece of advice offered was that Freddie Mac had the resources to adopt a Travelocity model website for prescription drugs that would inform their employees of lower cost drug alternatives. In addition, Freddie Mac was interested in advice on how to reach out to more conservatives. The Gingrich Group stressed that Freddie Mac must be open to reform of their lending practices but that by stressing the historical success of public-private partnerships in achieving public goods at a minimum of taxpayer money and bureaucracy.
We think this statement actually buried the news in the last paragraph: “Freddie Mac was interested in advice on how to reach out to more conservatives.” While Gingrich takes great pains to stress he was never registered as a lobbyist, he clearly appears to have provided advice on how to influence the thinking of conservative members of Congress. Note also that the “historian” claim had been dropped.
Indeed, Bloomberg News reported on Wednesday that Gingrich’s “primary contact inside the organization was Mitchell Delk, Freddie Mac’s chief lobbyist, and he was paid a self- renewing, monthly retainer of $25,000 to $30,000 between May 1999 until 2002, according to three people familiar with aspects of the business agreement.” Delk told Bloomberg that he took one of Gingrich’s ideas and even pitched it to the George W. Bush White House.
So Newt didn’t do any lobbying himself, but he offered advice to the ones who were lobbying.
And he thinks that federal government-run enterprises are valuable and useful. I expect him to create a lot more if he becomes president, including the federal moon mining corporation and federal child janitorial service.
But I would not expect him to shrink the size of government.
December 12th, 2011 at 10:55 pm
It takes a lot of optimism to assume:
#1 Any of these folks are likely to win.
#2 Any of them would be able to reverse our national decline.
I’m pulling for Ron Paul at this point as a vehicle to popularize the concept of liberty and responsibility. I hope he could get across the idea that government can’t solve unfairness and poverty, because life is intrinsically unfair and difficult. The struggle of life is best left to free men, we suffer when governments attempt to solve problems that are just facts of life.
If you could get that idea across to a few million people then Ron Paul could accomplish more in defeat than any other candidate could in victory.
December 13th, 2011 at 6:37 am
[...] more than a century.The last time Illinois was honest was probably when Honest Abe was alive.P.S. Gingrich Huntsman Lincoln-Douglas style debate rebroadcast tonight on [...]