aTxTIGER Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:I think Gingrich could win. If you don't, you've been listening to too many liberals.

did anyone here his speech in israel? i didnt and havent been able to find a transcript of it. my boss(religious right) paraphrased a quote about the us needing a temporary dictatorship to win the war on terror. id hate to make any judgements without actually reading or seeing the speech.

Is this the same Gingrich that was out fornicating around with the little zing on his arm before he divorced his 2nd or 3rd wife? Is this the same Gingrich that was doing this all the while impeachment proceedings were going on with Clinton and showed no leadership among the republicans whatsoever? The same Gingrich that when his country needed him the most, he was more concerned with poking this girl as much as possible behind his wifes back than conducting the business of the people? And how dare he prosecute Clinton. He was into illicit sex too. And he knew how those dims would get the goods on him if he accused Clinton of illicit sexual stuff. So, he sat on his hands and kept his mouth shut. How can you support a guy like this?

Why does he always get a pass on that?

Endzone2 Wrote:Is this the same Gingrich that was out fornicating around with the little zing on his arm before he divorced his 2nd or 3rd wife? Is this the same Gingrich that was doing this all the while impeachment proceedings were going on with Clinton and showed no leadership among the republicans whatsoever? The same Gingrich that when his country needed him the most, he was more concerned with poking this girl as much as possible behind his wifes back than conducting the business of the people? And how dare he prosecute Clinton. He was into illicit sex too. And he knew how those dims would get the goods on him if he accused Clinton of illicit sexual stuff. So, he sat on his hands and kept his mouth shut. How can you support a guy like this?

Why does he always get a pass on that?

I like to think of him as the architect of the plan to win back Congress in '94(The Contract with America)......but hey, whatever floats your boat.

aTxTIGER Wrote:did anyone here his speech in israel? i didnt and havent been able to find a transcript of it. my boss(religious right) paraphrased a quote about the us needing a temporary dictatorship to win the war on terror. id hate to make any judgements without actually reading or seeing the speech.

Here you go. I think this is the transcript you wanted.

Relevant quotes:
[quote]If two or three cities are destroyed because of terrorism both the US and Israel

Endzone2 Wrote:Is this the same Gingrich that was out fornicating around with the little zing on his arm before he divorced his 2nd or 3rd wife? Is this the same Gingrich that was doing this all the while impeachment proceedings were going on with Clinton and showed no leadership among the republicans whatsoever? The same Gingrich that when his country needed him the most, he was more concerned with poking this girl as much as possible behind his wifes back than conducting the business of the people?

No. I believe you're think of Livingston (Livingstone?)...the cat from Floriduh who was made Speaker when Gingrich resigned due to ethical concerns (something to do with his book and trips or some such thing).

I think that's right, but I could be wrong.

Quote:How can you support a guy like this?

He would energize the conservative base, likely bring the right-centers in, and might even have a chance of winning the Dems-that-are-dems-because-their-dad-was-a-dem.

Lethemeul Wrote:

Endzone2 Wrote:Is this the same Gingrich that was out fornicating around with the little zing on his arm before he divorced his 2nd or 3rd wife? Is this the same Gingrich that was doing this all the while impeachment proceedings were going on with Clinton and showed no leadership among the republicans whatsoever? The same Gingrich that when his country needed him the most, he was more concerned with poking this girl as much as possible behind his wifes back than conducting the business of the people?

No. I believe you're think of Livingston (Livingstone?)...the cat from Floriduh who was made Speaker when Gingrich resigned due to ethical concerns (something to do with his book and trips or some such thing).

I think that's right, but I could be wrong.

Quote:How can you support a guy like this?

He would energize the conservative base, likely bring the right-centers in, and might even have a chance of winning the Dems-that-are-dems-because-their-dad-was-a-dem.

No, I thought Gingrich resigned because of infidelity. I pointed that out to many liberals at the time that at least the Cons would admit they screwed up and then resign their position, unlike that other guy that mad us examine the definition of "is" and "relations" and things like that.

GrayBeard Wrote:No, I thought Gingrich resigned because of infidelity. I pointed that out to many liberals at the time that at least the Cons would admit they screwed up and then resign their position, unlike that other guy that mad us examine the definition of "is" and "relations" and things like that.

Wikipedia on Newt

Quote:The Republicans expected big gains from the 1998 Congressional elections. In fact, Gingrich predicted a 30-seat Republican pickup. Instead, the Republicans lost five seats, the poorest results in 64 years for any party not in control of the White House in a midterm election. Having led the GOP to focus on the impeachment project as a principal strategy, Gingrich took most of the blame for the defeat. Facing a rebellion in the Republican caucus, he announced on November 6 that he would not only stand down as Speaker, but would leave the House as well.

I remember Newt getting some heat for being unfaithful, but it was for something that happened in the '70's.

Wikipedia on Newt's successor, Bob Livingston

Quote:Robert Linlithgow Livingston, Jr., better known as Bob Livingston, (born April 30, 1943) is a Washington, D.C.-based lobbyist and a former Republican congressman from Louisiana. He is best known for being chosen as Newt Gingrich's successor as Speaker of the United States House of Representatives late in 1998, only to resign in the wake of his own sex scandal as what he said was an example to then President Bill Clinton.

Lethemeul Wrote:

GrayBeard Wrote:No, I thought Gingrich resigned because of infidelity. I pointed that out to many liberals at the time that at least the Cons would admit they screwed up and then resign their position, unlike that other guy that mad us examine the definition of "is" and "relations" and things like that.

Wikipedia on Newt

Quote:The Republicans expected big gains from the 1998 Congressional elections. In fact, Gingrich predicted a 30-seat Republican pickup. Instead, the Republicans lost five seats, the poorest results in 64 years for any party not in control of the White House in a midterm election. Having led the GOP to focus on the impeachment project as a principal strategy, Gingrich took most of the blame for the defeat. Facing a rebellion in the Republican caucus, he announced on November 6 that he would not only stand down as Speaker, but would leave the House as well.

I remember Newt getting some heat for being unfaithful, but it was for something that happened in the '70's.

Wikipedia on Newt's successor, Bob Livingston

Quote:Robert Linlithgow Livingston, Jr., better known as Bob Livingston, (born April 30, 1943) is a Washington, D.C.-based lobbyist and a former Republican congressman from Louisiana. He is best known for being chosen as Newt Gingrich's successor as Speaker of the United States House of Representatives late in 1998, only to resign in the wake of his own sex scandal as what he said was an example to then President Bill Clinton.

I stand (or sit) corrected.

Lethemeul Wrote:No. I believe you're think of Livingston (Livingstone?)...the cat from Floriduh who was made Speaker when Gingrich resigned due to ethical concerns (something to do with his book and trips or some such thing).

Gingrich took a 4.5 million dollar advance on a book he was writing. Democrats attacked him as unethical for doing so.

And FYI, Hillary got an 8 million advance for her book.

Well a quick Google search brought this up on Newt. Obviously this guy is a rabid Clinton fan, but he seems to have the goods on Gingrich:

http://www.realchange.org/gingrich.htm

Machiavelli Wrote:Read some glowing articles on Old Jeb when I was down vacationing in Fl. With the brother polling in the high 20's the name would hurt him, but he could be a guy that comes into play in 08'. The Corner is sur pushing for him. Thoughts???????

No way he ever runs for president, he'd lose because America doesn't want a true dynasty with three of last 4 presidents being named Bush.

RebelKev Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Machiavelli Wrote:According to Morris it's going to be Guilliani in a landslide..... for the GOP nom. Guilliani Clinton race. Better than even money at this time. We shall see.

I like Morris and he's a smart guy but it won't be Guilliani in a land slide. He's got little if any chance at the conservative vote. Without that, you don't get the nom, just like without the liberal one you don't get the dem.

Romney probably won't win either. No one knows who the hell he is. ....not to mention he's for nationalized healthcare.

No way a mormon gets the vote in the South where the republican base is, and it doesn't help he was governor of a New England state. He's dead in the water.

Personally I don't see anybody in the race I'm crazy about on either side. I sort of like Edwards but it's due to lack of options.

Edwards has already blew his pipe dream with not firing anti-christian bigoted bloggers then most recently claiming Israel was the biggest threat to world peace.


Newt is a one man think tank and he has a phd in History which is something I think is important especially with the dangers the world today. That said, he would need to "wow" the crowd in the debates which he could do and scare people enough about "President Hillary" to overcome what the media will do to him.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Lethemeul Wrote:No. I believe you're think of Livingston (Livingstone?)...the cat from Floriduh who was made Speaker when Gingrich resigned due to ethical concerns (something to do with his book and trips or some such thing).

Gingrich took a 4.5 million dollar advance on a book he was writing. Democrats attacked him as unethical for doing so.

And FYI, Hillary got an 8 million advance for her book.

As far as I know she wasn't in elected office at the time.

Basically Newt resigned because of the '98 midterms failure, the ethics stuff alone would not have brought him down.

GGniner Wrote:Edwards has already blew his pipe dream with not firing anti-christian bigoted bloggers then most recently claiming Israel was the biggest threat to world peace.


Newt is a one man think tank and he has a phd in History which is something I think is important especially with the dangers the world today. That said, he would need to "wow" the crowd in the debates which he could do and scare people enough about "President Hillary" to overcome what the media will do to him.

I respect Newt and think he's a bright guy and give him alot of credit for the republican revolution in 94, BUT he has an ego problem and he was all over the news and some of his programs like the "Contract with America" were losers from the get go and the people didn't like it. If he runs for election, he will surely get beat like a drum because mainstream people just don't find him likable. He would serve better as cheif of staff or sec of state.

JTiger Wrote:I respect Newt and think he's a bright guy and give him alot of credit for the republican revolution in 94, BUT he has an ego problem and he was all over the news and some of his programs like the "Contract with America" were losers from the get go and the people didn't like it. If he runs for election, he will surely get beat like a drum because mainstream people just don't find him likable. He would serve better as cheif of staff or sec of state.

Huh? First you say you give him credit for the Republican Revolution and then say the CwA was a loser? Those two statements are historically incompatible.