Gingrich campaign admits error

[witness23]

I'm sure many here in the soapbox probably hooted, hollered or maybe let out an enthusiastic dog bark, when the ole Newtster gave Mr. King(CNN moderator) a piece of his mind at the debate the other night.

Probably thinking to yourselves, "That'll teach you, you 'lamestream' media pukes you." How dare you ask a question about the Newtster's second wife that said he wanted an open marriage. Besides, he offered up those that knew him and his second wife at the time as character witness' to ABC News and they didn't want anything to with them. Because they have an agenda and that's all that matters, all they want to do is to make him look bad. He's the victim here.

What? His campaign didn't have anyone other than his daughters from his first wife say this was false?

Well, at least it only took him a week an half to come clean

What a douche!

Link: TRENDING: Gingrich campaign admits error – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Gingrich campaign admits error
Posted by
CNN Political Unit

(CNN) - Newt Gingrich's campaign admitted Wednesday night the former House speaker was inaccurate when he claimed his team offered several witnesses to ABC News to refute statements made by Gingrich's second wife in a controversial interview aired last week.

CNN Chief National Correspondent John King reported the campaign said it only recommended Gingrich's two daughters from his first marriage, who wrote a letter discouraging ABC to release the interview.

Marianne Gingrich claimed in the ABC interview that her husband asked for an open marriage while he was having an extramarital affair with his current wife, Callista Gingrich.

"The story was false. Every personal friend I have who knew us in that period says the story is false. We offered several of them to ABC to prove it was false. They weren't interested," Gingrich said at a CNN debate last week.

In an interview on Tuesday, King pressed Gingrich on those claims, saying ABC News insisted no such witnesses were put forward.

Gingrich said ABC's defense was "just plain baloney."

"If they're saying that, then they're not being honest," Gingrich said. "We had several people prepared to be very clear and very aggressive in their dispute about that, and (ABC News) wasn't interested."

On Wednesday, however, the campaign conceded the candidate was wrong, both in his debate answer and in his interview with CNN on Tuesday.

R.C. Hammond, the campaign's press secretary, told CNN the only people the campaign offered to ABC were the speaker's two daughters, Jackie Cushman and Kathy Gingrich Lubbers, who make regular appearances for their father on the campaign trail.

 

[cableguymn]

Please keep in mind..

He's better than Obama.

I don't care for his personal past. or a lot of his political past. But given the current front runners on the republican side, he's my first pick. Followed by Santorm, then Paul.

Romney is running in the wrong primary.

 

[layoutshooter]

Please keep in mind..

He's better than Obama.

I don't care for his personal past. or a lot of his political past. But given the current front runners on the republican side, he's my first pick. Followed by Santorm, then Paul.

Romney is running in the wrong primary.

Dead dogs and all other forms of putrid road kill are better than Obama. Dead dogs and road kill are NOT out to destroy the nation!

 

[greg334]

Please keep in mind..

He's better than Obama.

I don't care for his personal past. or a lot of his political past.

you should

His claim to helping Reagan with the soviets and building up the economy seems to be lies. This seems to be a story fox uncovered with reagan's sons help

 

[layoutshooter]

you should

His claim to helping Reagan with the soviets and building up the economy seems to be lies. This seems to be a story fox uncovered with reagan's sons help

OH shock of shock, a politician lied. Truly a news worthy event!

 

[witness23]

you should

His claim to helping Reagan with the soviets and building up the economy seems to be lies. This seems to be a story fox uncovered with reagan's sons help

Yes, indeed you should.

Oh there is a plethora of lies the ole Newtster is throwing around, I only brought this one up because his campaign actually admitted that it was false. Albeit, two and a half weeks later.

 

[RLENT]

Please keep in mind..

He's better than Obama.

LOL .......

Yeah ....... but better at what ?

I don't care for his personal past. or a lot of his political past. But given the current front runners on the republican side, he's my first pick. Followed by Santorm, then Paul. Romney is running in the wrong primary.

A corrupt tree always produces bad fruit, and brambles and thistles always produce thorns, rather than grapes or figs - American founding father Samuel Adams expounded on this Biblical principle when he explained:

"He who is void of virtuous attachments in private life is, or very soon will be, void of all regard of his country. There is seldom an instance of a man guilty of betraying his country who had not before lost the feeling of moral obligations in his private connections… [P]rivate and public vices are in reality … connected … Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust be men of [exceptional] character. The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men."​

And Noah Webster, in 1801, wrote an interesting essay on this very topic, explaining why a high level of morality was necessary in the Presidency:

[A]ll history is a witness of the truth of the principle that good morals are essential to the faithful and upright discharge of public functions. The moral character of a man is an entire and indivisible thing — it cannot be pure in one part and defiled in another. A man may indeed be addicted, for a time, to one vice and not to another; but it is a solemn truth that any considerable breach in the moral sense facilitates the admission of every species of vice. The love of virtue first yields to the strongest temptation; but when the rampart [resistance] is broken down, it is rendered more accessible to every successive assailant … Corruption of morals is rapid enough in any country without a bounty [an encouragement] from government.​

 

[layoutshooter]

I can't wait for that list of Obama's lies, starting with his lie with his hand on a bible, to protect and defend our Constitution.

How can you tell a politician is lying? ANSWER: He/She/It's lips are moving!

 

[greg334]

Well you know layout, it seems i am sitting in one of the cafes in Detroit listening to two old men talk about Obama and ignoring the reasoning of a younger person.

See the issue for me is we already know what we have with Obama ... I'll repeat that ... we already know what we have with Obama.

did you get that?

See the issue is clear, I know what Obama is like but I don't know what Gingrich is going to be like with the power he will have, I am thinking ... more or less convinced ... that his ego will run the country and we will have something worse than Obama and yes there can be worse.

Romney is about the same, he is a liberal and if I wanted a liberal to take over where Obama left off, I would not bother with Biden or Hillary or anyone in the democratic party but I would get Romney.

So it is simple, when someone is trying to act, speak and look like a "Reagan conservative" but the past quickly catches up with them by a discovery that he seemed to dislike Reagan, it may something to think that he will say and do anything to gain that power and may be like others who won't give up that power for any reason - maybe even push for a repeal of the presidential term limits - and this is where the problem is with our entire system to begin with. Should we take a chance with Gingrich again or should we actually fight to change it, maybe continuing down the path of the tea party people and start electing those who want to change thing by actually changing things?

 

[layoutshooter]

Well you know layout, it seems i am sitting in one of the cafes in Detroit listening to two old men talk about Obama and ignoring the reasoning of a younger person.

See the issue for me is we already know what we have with Obama ... I'll repeat that ... we already know what we have with Obama.

did you get that?

See the issue is clear, I know what Obama is like but I don't know what Gingrich is going to be like with the power he will have, I am thinking ... more or less convinced ... that his ego will run the country and we will have something worse than Obama and yes there can be worse.

Romney is about the same, he is a liberal and if I wanted a liberal to take over where Obama left off, I would not bother with Biden or Hillary or anyone in the democratic party but I would get Romney.

So it is simple, when someone is trying to act, speak and look like a "Reagan conservative" but the past quickly catches up with them by a discovery that he seemed to dislike Reagan, it may something to think that he will say and do anything to gain that power and may be like others who won't give up that power for any reason - maybe even push for a repeal of the presidential term limits - and this is where the problem is with our entire system to begin with. Should we take a chance with Gingrich again or should we actually fight to change it, maybe continuing down the path of the tea party people and start electing those who want to change thing by actually changing things?

You lost me when you said you were in a cafe in Detroit. NO one in their right mind would go to Detroit on purpose!

As I have ALWAYS stated, I have NO use for ANY candidate running today. PERIOD. This election, as in all others, I will vote against one candidate and not for any. I have no choice, other than not to vote. I don't like ANY of them, as per normal. They all suck.

 

[RLENT]

See the issue is clear, I know what Obama is like but I don't know what Gingrich is going to be like with the power he will have, I am thinking ... more or less convinced ... that his ego will run the country and we will have something worse than Obama and yes there can be worse.

So it is simple, when someone is trying to act, speak and look like a "Reagan conservative" but the past quickly catches up with them by a discovery that he seemed to dislike Reagan, it may something to think that he will say and do anything to gain that power and may be like others who won't give up that power for any reason - maybe even push for a repeal of the presidential term limits - and this is where the problem is with our entire system to begin with. Should we take a chance with Gingrich again or should we actually fight to change it, maybe continuing down the path of the tea party people and start electing those who want to change thing by actually changing things?

An excerpt from a good piece (if somewhat long) that touches on the aspects of what we might get with the Newter (as well as a host of other things re the present state of the GOP):

Sioux Center, Iowa. The Republican Party managed to accomplish three amazing things last week, in the course of two debates and one election. It revealed a bloodlust that easily trumps concern for personal character and social morality. It scorned a fundamental teaching of Jesus Christ. It showed that the only thing that really matters to the party is the perceived ability to beat Barack Obama in the November election. At least those were the messages sent by South Carolina Republicans. Not by all, but by many if not most. We can hope they are unrepresentative of the party as a whole.

The South Carolina primary was on the eve of National Sanctity of Human Life Day, commemorating the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. Ron Paul is the only pro-life candidate running for president this year. Mitt Romney’s flip-flops on the issue of abortion are common knowledge. Newt Gingrich had an anti-abortion voting record in the House, but, like Romney, his roots are in the pro-abortion Nelson Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party in the 1960s and he was considered a liberal Republican as late as the mid 1970s. There’s no reason to believe he cares about the social evil of abortion any more than did Dick Cheney during his eight years as the power behind the George II throne—which is to say, not at all. (If he’s elected, we can be certain it’s all pretense when Mrs. Gingrich reveals in an interview that she’s pro-choice. That’s the way powerful Republicans send the requisite mixed signals regarding Roe.)​

Rest of the article can be read at the link below:

The GOP in Limbo: How Low Can You Go?

 

[witness23]

I can't wait for that list of Obama's lies

Why wait for it? If you believe that he has told a lie, point it out, show references to said lie(s), include links, sources, and your opinion why you think it is a lie. Why wait? Do a little investigating for yourself. Who knows, you might just learn something and you might enlighten those here in the soapbox.

 

[layoutshooter]

Why wait for it? If you believe that he has told a lie, point it out, show references to said lie(s), include links, sources, and your opinion why you think it is a lie. Why wait? Do a little investigating for yourself. Who knows, you might just learn something and you might enlighten those here in the soapbox.

His FIRST lie was when he put his hand on the Bible and SWORE to protect and defend our Constitution. Obama care proves it was a lie. So does his move, behind the scenes, to out semi-auto shotguns.

But then again, who cares about the Constitution if you get your freebies, right?

 

[witness23]

Your speechifying is growing old and stale.

 

[layoutshooter]

Your speechifying is growing old and stale.

That's ok, so is yours. My stale just counteracts your stale. Ain't gonna change, get over it!

http://cheaperthandirt.com/blog/wp-...-study-on-importality-of-certain-shotguns.pdf

Just the beginning. Why has Obama not come clean on "Fast and Furious"? People DIED because of his actions.

 

[witness23]

http://cheaperthandirt.com/blog/wp-...-study-on-importality-of-certain-shotguns.pdf

In that study from the DOJ, what has you most concerned?

Just the beginning. Why has Obama not come clean on "Fast and Furious"? People DIED because of his actions.

Besides saying, "People DIED because of his actions." What are the facts behind your accusation? Besides the fact that he is currently our President. I mean, using that logic, we must then conclude that 9/11 was Bush's fault because it happened on his watch. I personally do not believe that, but using your logic that is what we must conclude.

 

[muttly]

Why wait for it? If you believe that he has told a lie, point it out, show references to said lie(s), include links, sources, and your opinion why you think it is a lie. Why wait? Do a little investigating for yourself. Who knows, you might just learn something and you might enlighten those here in the soapbox.

Here is one from Fox News regarding Obama's lie about taxes. He now wants it to be 30 percent for capital gains,but said back in 2008 when he needed votes to get elected that he agrees with Oreilly that it should be 20 percent.
Bill O'Reilly: President Obama's State of the Union address - Talking Points - The O'Reilly Factor - Fox News

 

[layoutshooter]

In that study from the DOJ, what has you most concerned?



Besides saying, "People DIED because of his actions." What are the facts behind your accusation? Besides the fact that he is currently our President. I mean, using that logic, we must then conclude that 9/11 was Bush's fault because it happened on his watch. I personally do not believe that, but using your logic that is what we must conclude.

Can't argue now. TRYING to get this new computer up. It is causing ALL kinds of problems, even on our other computer

It is, of course, Obama's fault!

 

[witness23]

Here is one from Fox News regarding Obama's lie about taxes. He now wants it to be 30 percent for capital gains,but said back in 2008 when he needed votes to get elected that he agrees with Oreilly that it should be 20 percent.

The President did say he would propose raising the cap gains tax to 20 to 28% levels from the current 15% during the interview. You have to take in consideration that the interview was back in 2008 and in the same interview Mr. Obama also was proposing raising taxes on those making over $200,000(single) and $250,000(joint). I guess you can say he lied their also If the President were able to put forth everything he wanted considering taxes, he may have worked with those opposing a 28% tax on the capital gains tax, where in which he may accept a change from15% to 20%. The whole conversation at the time with O'reilly was hypothetical in nature.

Here we are almost 3 and half years later and their hasn't been any changes to taxes except for the reduction in the payroll tax. The President has gone away from letting the Bush tax cuts expire for those making $200/250,000, he actually has allowed the extension of all the Bush tax cuts.

The President all along has said we have to cut spending and raise taxes.

Here's a question for you. Is capital gains considered income?

 

[witness23]

Can't argue now.

Who's arguing?