One of the interesting sidebars of last night’s debate was the fiery exchange between Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich over the latter’s “grandiose” ideas and unstable leadership style. During the course of this rhetorical dustup during which Gingrich took Santorum’s bait and took credit for the Reagan presidency, the defeat of the Soviet Union and the 1994 Republican Congressional victory. While the first two claims are the stuff of self-satire, Gingrich is surely entitled to puff his chest at the memory of his role in the GOP’s taking back the House for the first time in 40 years.
Alexander Burns of Politico recals that in 1992 the New York Times reported about Gingrich’s involvement in the banking scandal. Apparently, Gingrich was kiting checks along with the worst Democratic scofflaws. His 22 overdrafts including a $9,463 check to the IRS was a major issue in his re-election campaign that year and nearly cost him his seat which the then House Republican Minority held by a razor-thin margin of 982 votes that fall.
Santorum was wrong to imply that the Georgian didn’t get involved in exposing the House Bank scandal because he lacked the moxie to mix up with the Democratic poobahs. In fact, as Gingrich pointed out, he had already played the lead role in taking down former House Speaker Jim Wright. The real reason for Gingrich’s silence was far worse: conflict of interest.
Gingrich said nothing about the bank while Santorum stuck his neck out because he was as guilty as any of the Democrats who were caught bouncing checks at the bank at the taxpayers’ expense. That information leaves us wondering why, if Santorum was going to bring up the scandal in the course of an attack on Gingrich, he pulled his punch. Wouldn’t it have been far more devastating to rightly accuse Gingrich of complicity in the scandal instead of wrongly accusing him of cowardice?
House speaker John Boehner is set to sign an offer from Obama to accelerate negotiations.
Republicans in the House of Representatives have capitulated in the showdown over the payroll tax, handing Barack Obama an important victory going into election year.
Under pressure from other senior Republicans for blocking a bill that would extend tax cuts to millions of Americans, the House speaker, John Boehner, is backing away from his insistence that any deal must cover a full year.
A deal agreed by Republicans and Democrats in the Senate on Saturday covers two months, to allow further negotiations in January. It appears that Boehner will sign up to an offer from Obama to accelerate these negotiations.
The deal means that, after a year of humiliation at the hands of congressional Republicans who have repeatedly threatened to close down the federal government, Obama is close to a much-needed victory.
The decisive moment came when ther Republican leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, after days of silence, lined up behind Barack Obama and the Democrats.
Boehner was blocking passage of a bill that would extend tax breaks to 160 million Americans, a measure introduced by Obama last year to help stimulate the US economy. If the bill is not passed by 31 December, American taxpayers face cuts in their pay of an average of $40 every two weeks. About 1.3 million people stand to lose unemployment benefit.
Freshman Tea Party Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) is incensed that Republicans caved in the payroll-tax debate, and is putting the blame squarely on Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
“I don’t think there’s a revolt with respect to Speaker Boehner,” Gowdy said Thursday night on Fox’s “Your World With Neil Cavuto.”“I think the license tag of the truck that just ran over us has Kentucky license tags. For the life of me, I cannot understand when the Senate is going to find something they care enough about to stand on policy and principle.”
Last week, the Senate overwhelmingly passed a bill to extend the payroll tax cut for two months to give Republicans and Democrats additional time to negotiate how to pay for a full-year extension, which both sides say they want. McConnell seemed to have an understanding with House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) that the bill would pass the House.
However, House Republicans, led by some freshman representatives who were voted into office on the strength of the Tea Party movement, revolted against the Senate-passed bill, saying the negotiation over a full-year tax cut should happen now.
But the conservative establishment, led by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the Wall Street Journal editorial board and former Bush adviser Karl Rove, turned strongly against House Republicans and said they were botching the politics by picking the wrong fight.
On Thursday, McConnell dropped a lifeline to Boehner, saying publicly that the House should pass the bill if Democrats agreed to name conferees to negotiate the full-year extension early next year.
The bill passed the House Friday morning by unaninimous consent.
“We can blame Speaker Boehner if we want to, but we were fighting an uphill battle,” Gowdy continued. “To have the Senate pass a two-month extension with the number of Republican votes that they got — I’ve taken naps that lasted longer than two months.”
Some have speculated that the payroll tax debate has irreparably harmed Boehner’s Speakership, and that he has lost control of his caucus to a Tea Party faction.
Gowdy did not dispute that notion, and he paused for a few seconds before answering Cavuto’s question as to whether Boehner should maintain his Speakership.
“We didn’t have a comment section to our conference call,” Gowdy said, referring to a Thursday conference call in which Boehner informed Republicans they should concede to the Senate-passed bill. “We typically do, where we can ask questions and register complaints. That wasn’t an option this afternoon. It probably means we’d still be on the phone call, if he’d opened it up to questions.”
Posted on Tuesday, December 27, 2011 11:06:53 AM bySmokeyblue
To this day, Barack Hussein Obama remains a man of mystery. Copious amounts of documentation from his early life and academic career have never been released. It took years of pressure, plus Donald Trump as the ringmaster of a media circus, just to see his birth certificate.
When the L.A. Times obtained a potentially embarrassing videotape of Obama laughing it up at a party for Arafat minion Rashid Khalidi, the paper pursed its lips and fastidiously hid the tape from public view. Their newspaper account of the part didn’t even mention that domestic terrorist Friends of Obama Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn attended the event. Another important connection from Obama’s past, his long attendance at Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s church of racial hatred, was carefully buried by the media until conservative radio hosts and bloggers dragged it into the open.
The rules for “vetting” are very different for Republican candidates. We’ve already seen murky allegations from Herman Cain’s past assigned a level of instant credibility that would never have been granted if he were a black Democrat. Even after a much more serious accusation of a long-running consensual affair caused Cain to suspend his campaign, we still don’t know exactly what the initial “sexual harassment” accusers complained about.
Now CNN has magically obtained the sealed records of Newt Gingrich’s first divorce. Here’s the wonderful story of how this Yuletide journalistic miracle came to pass:
Shazam! Those papers just popped right out of a clerk’s drawer, where they were supposedly tucked over fifteen years ago, to keep people from nosing around in them! Oh, the irony! Who knows what CNN might be able to discover about Barack Obama, if they bothered to look for some of his records with the intensity reserved for Republicans’ sealed divorce papers?
1 posted on Tuesday, December 27, 2011 11:07:00 AM bySmokeyblue
Gosh, never thought that would happen, after you folks destroyed Cain.
No sympathy from me. What goes around, comes around.
3 posted on Tuesday, December 27, 2011 11:10:40 AM byBenKenobi (You know, you really need to break free of that Catholic mindset.- metmom)
>> after you folks destroyed Cain.
Who are “you folks”?
7 posted on Tuesday, December 27, 2011 11:11:45 AM byGene Eric (C’mon, Virginia — are you with us or against us?!)
You know – the ones who are eating themselves.
Looks like another Republican front runner has been foiled.
By now you probably already know that Michele Bachmann’s Iowa campaign chair, Kent Sorenson, suddenly turned round and endorsed Ron Paul last night. And I have to tell you, I’m disgusted.
I know Kent Sorenson. We have each other’s private phone numbers and I also have to tell you that I texted him last night and for the first time ever, he has not returned my text. I have left him voicemail — no return call.
Did he originally back Bachmann because he thought she could win? What does this say about him?
The campaigns in question don’t matter. He could have gone from Perry to Romney and I would be saying the same thing.
By now you probably already know that Michele Bachmann’s Iowa campaign chair, Kent Sorenson…
This speaks more about Bachmann than it does this nobody Sorenson.
Remember a few months ago when her national campaign director defected on her? What was his name?
Who cares. It doesn’t matter.
It sure mattered to Dan Quayle.
When he got the Munoz Rivera School, Quayle spoke with some women involved in the program, saw a drill team perform and looked in on some self-esteem classes before his aides started hustling him off to another classroom for a staged spelling bee.
“What are we supposed to do?’ I asked Keith Nahigian, the advance man who had prepared this little photo op,’ Quayle wrote.
“Just sit there and read these words off some flash cards, and the kids will go up and spell them at the blackboard,’ the handler told the VP.
“Has anyone checked the card?’ another aide asked.
Maybe you twatwaffles should start worrying about who vets the vetting vetters.
If she can’t keep from picking losers like these butt nuggets, then she doesn’t deserve to win.
4 posted on Thursday, December 29, 2011 12:42:39 PM byResponsibility2nd (NO LIBS! This means liberals AND libertarians (same thing) NO LIBS!)
Po-tay-to, po-tah-to…and “picking butt nuggets” is probably a metaphor you want to avoid – it just leads to “Star Trek” and “clingon” jokes.
Question! Where does the Paul organization get the money to buy such persons including all the street workers?My guess is that considering his hatred for Jews/Israel and coziness with Muslims he is getting Muslim money, possibly even from Saudi Arabia.
Posted on Monday, January 02, 2012 10:06:07 PM byMariner
MARSHALLTOWN, Iowa (AP) – Struggling to reverse a slide in his standing, Republican presidential contender Newt Gingrich said Sunday he’d been “Romney-boated” in Iowa and suggested his GOP rival would buy the presidency if he could.
The sharp words against Mitt Romney, a multimillionaire many times over who is in strong contention to win Iowa, come two days before voters here weigh in on the Republican field. It was part of a stepped-up effort by Gingrich to contrast himself with Romney, and the candidate said he would adopt an even more aggressive strategy when the race moves to New Hampshire, the former Massachusetts governor’s backyard.
Gingrich’s nautical attack was a reference to a 2004 TV ad campaign by a group called the “Swiftboat Veterans for Truth” that bloodied Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. This year, Gingrich has faced an onslaught of negative TV advertisements by a group aligned with Romney.
Asked Sunday whether he felt that he had been “swiftboated,” Gingrich replied, “I feel Romney-boated.”
It was his second swipe of the day at the Republican frontrunner.
Speaking to reporters after attending morning Mass at the St. Ambrose Cathedral in Des Moines, Gingrich said the amount Romney will eventually spend on his various campaigns will rival the spending of billionaire New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has poured at least $261 million of his own money into his mayoral campaigns.
“Romney would buy the election if he could,” Gingrich said.
A new Des Moines Register poll put Gingrich in fourth place, after leading the field a few weeks ago.
1 posted on Monday, January 02, 2012 10:06:11 PM byMariner
Initially, the Newties are all over this in agreement :
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
Romney-boat establishment types for lies!
2 posted on Monday, January 02, 2012 10:09:50 PM byHalfmanhalfamazing ( Media doesn’t report, It advertises. So that last advertisement you just read, what was it worth?)
I agree, Newt learned a valuable lesson, and is going to hit back hard now, and unlike Perry, Gingrich is articulate enough to destroy Romney oratorically with half his brain tied behind his back.
I’m not sure comparing himself to John Kerry is a good thing for Newt Gingrich to be doing, especially since he had that disastrous “debate” where he esstentially agreed with Kerry about Global Warming and how we needed to stop it.
And is Gingrich saying he disapproved of the swift boat veteran’s pointing out John Kerry’s record? Is he telling us he thought the Swift-Boating was false?
While there may be something to “one person’s negative campaigning is another person’s fact-checking” distinctions must be made between genuine information of importance and interest to voters and mere “smear” attacks (however hard to define impartially).
I vehemently reject all attempts to use the “*****-boating” expression to compare any negative campaigning with what happened in 2004.
In 2004 the country was saved from the lies of the progressive left, and that involved the “Swiftboat Veterans for Truth” exposing John Kerry.
No conservative should allow the media theme of “****-boating” to be a generic term for “unjustified negative campaigning.”
6 posted on Monday, January 02, 2012 10:19:02 PM byEnchante
How exactly are you gonna stop him? I suggest the direct approach. Just break through Security at Newt’s next appearance and confront him.
“I vehemently reject all attempts to use the “*****-boating” expression to compare any negative campaigning with what happened in 2004.”
8 posted on Monday, January 02, 2012 10:20:28 PM byMariner (War Criminal #18)
Last week, he was Pearl Harbored.
When Mitt isn’t going after Newt, I guess Admiral Yamamoto’s grandson is.
17 posted on Monday, January 02, 2012 10:37:50 PM bybwc2221
Newt using this rhetorical device of the left, show once again he is a creature of Washington. Unless Newt is trying to say that Romney is spreading the truth about him? After all Swift Boat Veterans for Truth told the truth about Kerry.