Good Morning Michael, PlainOl' and all of the PF Group who might take the time to read this thread;
I'm running out of time here, I am leaving back for Germany today, so I will be out of pocket probably for a couple of days, and I know I have been hit or miss the last week or two....Just too much to do before I leave to go back to Europe (and I will probably be not only in Köln, but also in Zurich, London as well as going over to the Middle East on this trip....this one is going to be at least a three month trip) but I digress.
I didn't start this thread, nor did I even mean for this thread to get so focused on Newt Gingrich. It was your comment that Gingrich was somehow flip flopping on Romney now that the Republican nomination is pretty much sealed, where I took issue. Couple this with Plain Ol's hatred of anyone that is a Republican, and yes, I decided to point out several of the both of your foibles, (fallacies, choose whichever word you want).
Below, is just a few short articles that you may (or may not) find interesting.....
I'll be back, everyone have a great week/weekend!
KeithInTampa (right now)
========
January 31, 2012 12:00 A.M.
The Florida Smear Campaign:Mitt Romney's fraudulent attacks on Newt Gingrich.
By Thomas Sowell
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/289700/florida-smear-campaign-thomas-sowell#
The Republican establishment is pulling out all the stops to try to keep Newt Gingrich from becoming the party's nominee for president of the United States — and some are not letting the facts get in their way.
Among the claims going out through the mass media in Florida, on the eve of that state's primary election, is that Newt Gingrich "resigned in disgrace" as speaker of the House of Representatives as a result of unethical conduct involving the diversion of tax-exempt money. Mitt Romney is calling on Gingrich to release "all of the records" from the congressional investigation.
But the Wall Street Journal of January 28, 2012, reported that these records — 1,280 pages of them — are already publicly available online. Although Speaker Gingrich decided not to take on the task of fighting the charge from his political enemies in 1997, the Internal Revenue Service conducted its own investigation which, two years later, exonerated Gingrich from the charges. His resignation was not due to those charges and occurred much later.
Do the Romney camp and the Republican establishment not know this, a dozen years later? Or are they far less concerned with whether the charges will stand up than they are about smearing Gingrich on the eve of the Florida primaries?
There are also charges made about what Congressman Gingrich said about Ronald Reagan on March 21, 1986. But this too is a matter of public record, since his remarks are available in the Congressional Record of that date, so it is remarkable that there should be any controversy about it at this late date.
On that date, Gingrich praised Reagan's grasp of the foreign-policy issues of the day but later questioned whether the way the actual policies of the Reagan administration were being carried out was likely to succeed. Gingrich was not alone in making this point, which such conservative stalwarts as George Will, Charles Krauthammer, and others made at the time.
Since a column of my own back in the 1980s suggested that the administration's policies seemed to be to "speak loudly and carry a little stick," I can well understand the misgivings of others. But that is wholly different from saying that all who expressed misgivings were enemies of Ronald Reagan.
One can of course lift things out of context. But if you want to read the whole context, simply go online and get the Congressional Record for March 21, 1986. Among the other places where the smears are exposed are the Wall Street Journal of January 29, Jeffrey Lord's article on the American Spectator's blog of January 27, and an article by Heather Higgins on Ricochet.com of January 29.
Unfortunately, there are likely to be far more people who will see the smears than will have time to get the facts. But, if nothing else, there needs to be some understanding of the reckless accusations that have become part of the all-out attempt to destroy Newt Gingrich, as so many other political figures have been destroyed, by non-stop smears in the media.
Gingrich is by no means above criticism. He has been criticized in this column before over the years, including during the current primary season, and he will probably be criticized here again.
But the poisonous practice of irresponsible smears is an issue that is bigger than Gingrich, Romney, or any other candidate of either party.
There have long been reports of people who decline to be nominated for federal judicial appointments because that means going before the Senate Judiciary Committee to have lies about their past spread nationwide, and the good reputation built up over a lifetime destroyed by politicians who could not care less about the truth.
The same practices may well have something to do with the public's dissatisfaction with the current crop of candidates in this year's primaries — and in previous years' primaries. Character assassination is just another form of voter fraud.
There is no law against it, so it is up to the voters, not only in Florida but in other states, to punish it at the ballot box — the only place where punishment is likely to stop the practice.
http://ronpaulexposed.wordpress.com/
the best thing about Newt is that he is unelectable
On Jun 5, 9:52 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> the transgressions of Dr.
> Paul
> ---
> can't compare to the lies and deceit of Newt "The Hatchetman"
> Gingrich, who was having an affair while poking his finger at Clinton.
>
> yes ... he's a liar
>
> On Jun 5, 9:22 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Michael cites Moonbats, who, in typical Moonbat fashion, distorts the
> > truth.
>
> > Plain Ol cites a few Romney supporters who literally lied, and somehow this
> > makes Gingrich a liar.....
>
> > I've become bored with this. You both forget the transgressions of Dr.
> > Paul, continuously voting against earmarks that he even submitted for his
> > own district after he was assured that the measure would pass.
>
> > On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 10:00 AM, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > You mean those REPUBLICANS in the House and their spending? :) *Debt
> > > Up $1.59T Under GOP House -- More in 15 Months Than First 97 Congresses
> > > Combined* By Terence P. Jeffrey June 1, 2012
> > >http://cnsnews.com/news/article/debt-159t-under-gop-house-more-15-mon...
> ...> > > guess (without looking) is that spending is an 'upward' curve from the
> > > outset (1789). There may be a blip or two 'downward', but the trend must be
> > > 'upward'.
> > > *Do you have the Mr. Bill versus W numbers?
> > > *Republicans (establishment certainly, but their apparatchiks by default)
> > > demonstrate that they, too, want to spend with impunity ... ONLY the
> > > recipients are slightly different.
>
> > > This is WHY Paul, for instance, has been impugned, cheated, distorted,
> > > smeared, etc. (read the Ron Paul's GOP Battle Reveals Some Truths piece).
>
> > > Regard$,
> > > --MJ
>
> > > The record of the 105th Congress, Republican controlled in both houses, is
> > > an abomination. Spending is up. No major program or agency has been
> > > significantly cut, much less eliminated. The tax code is more complex than
> > > ever, loaded down with new conservative social engineering initiatives. The
> > > balanced-budget agreement is an excuse not to cut taxes and, with the
> > > 'surplus' an excuse to increase spending. The GOP has seemed intent on
> > > federalizing every crime on the books, indifferent to the Constitution's
> > > clear direction that crime is a state and local responsibility….The federal
> > > government is a machine designed to increase its control over the lives of
> > > average Americans. It is constantly probing here, pushing there, and
> > > generally increasing its control. Without a philosophically sound,
> > > constitutionally based political party opposing that process, it is going
> > > to continue to do so with impunity. The philosophical leadership vacuum at
> > > the top of the GOP should be a source of major concern to all
> > > freedom-loving Americans. -- Edward H. Crane
>
> > > At 09:41 AM 6/5/2012, you wrote:
>
> > > And let's compare the alternative:
>
> > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 8:18 AM, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>
> > > At 11:25 PM 6/4/2012, you wrote:
>
> > > As MJ says, the fallacy never ceases with you. Again, we've been here,
> > > gone over this, and you can't name one, purported lie.
>
> > > "The Republican revolution is a failure, a dismal failure. Despite the
> > > Republican rhetoric about the virtues of conservatism, the benefits of the
> > > free market, and the need for less government intervention in the economy
> > > and society, the Republican majority in both houses of Congress did nothing
> > > but further increase the size and scope of government."
>
> > > What Republican Revolution? By Laurence M. Vance November 11, 2006
> > > Since the Democrats took control of the Congress in the recent midterm
> > > elections, we have heard and seen numerous references to the Republican
> > > victory in the 1994 midterm elections as the Republican revolution of 1994.
> > > What Republican revolution?
> > > We can see the results in history of revolutions like the American
> > > Revolution, the French Revolution, and the Russian Revolution, but what
> > > evidence is there of a Republican revolution?
> > > When the 104th Congress began in January of 1995, it was the first time
> > > since the 83rd Congress of 1953-1955 that the Republicans had control of
> > > both the House and Senate. They had never controlled the House during the
> > > forty-year period of Democratic rule, and only briefly controlled the
> > > Senate, during the 97th through 99th Congresses of 1981-1987. After forty
> > > years of being out of power, a revolution was certainly in order. True, the
> > > Republicans did not yet also control the White House as they did during the
> > > 83rd Congress when Dwight Eisenhower was president, but it is Congress that
> > > writes the laws, not the president. And unlike the Congress under
> > > Eisenhower, which reverted to Democratic rule in the next election, the
> > > Republican control of the Congress under Bill Clinton continued unabated
> > > through the end of his second term.
> > > When what looked like a Republican revolution seemed to stagnate under
> > > Clinton, excuses began to be made for the fact that the Republicans were
> > > acting like anything but the conservatives who voted them into office.
> > > Republican control of the White House, we were told, and a larger
> > > Republican majority in Congress, were needed to complete the revolution.
> > > After all, Clinton could veto any bills passed by a Republican Congress,
> > > and the Republicans did not have a veto-proof majority. It turns out that
> > > in eight years Clinton only vetoed seventeen bills, making Republican fears
> > > unfounded.
> > > And then came George W. Bush.
> > > Republicans were ecstatic. A Republican president was once again elected.
> > > This time, however, things were different. When George Bush was inaugurated
> > > in 2001, he had a Republican-controlled Congress. This is something a
> > > Republican president had not had for forty-five years. The millennium was
> > > now here. The Republican revolution was now ready to be completed.
> > > Enter Jim Jeffords.
> > > The Republican controlled 107th Congress (2001-2003) had a weak link: the
> > > Senate. Jeffords was a Republican senator from Vermont. Early in Bush's
> > > first term, Senator Jeffords switched from Republican to Independent,
> > > changing the 50/50 balance of power in the Senate. Although the House
> > > remained in Republican hands, those hands were tied, so we were told,
> > > because the Republicans no longer controlled the Senate. The Republicans
> > > always seem to have an excuse. Big government, intrusive government it is
> > > always the fault of those evil Democrats.
> > > But then, finally, no more excuses. The midterm elections of 2002 gave us
> > > a new Congress (the 108th, 2003-2005) that was once again solidly
> > > Republican. This gave the Republicans an absolute majority for the last two
> > > years of Bush's first term. This scenario was confirmed by Bush's
> > > reelection and the further increase of the Republican majority in the 109th
> > > Congress. Republicans could no longer blame everything on the Democrats
> > > like they did for so long before they gained their absolute majority.
> > > So, now that the Republicans have controlled the House since 1995, now
> > > that the Republicans have controlled the Senate for the same period except
> > > for about a year and a half, now that a Republican president has been
> > > elected and reelected, and now that we have had several years of an
> > > absolute Republican majority, a simple question needs to be asked: What
> > > Republican revolution?
>
> > > Jacob Hornberger<http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger108.html>,
> > > the president of the Future of Freedom Foundation <http://www.fff.org/>,
> > > recently asked some pertinent questions about the Republicans: How many
> > > departments were abolished when Republicans controlled the presidency and
> > > both houses of Congress? How many agencies? How many spending bills were
> > > vetoed? How many pork-barrel projects were jettisoned? How much was
> > > federal spending reduced? The answer to every question is, of course, a
> > > big fat zero. No egregious legislation was repealed, and the
> > > welfare/warfare state is bigger and more intrusive than ever. Some
> > > revolution.
> > > Although many Republicans who claim to believe in a limited government can
> > > talk a good conservatism, especially when it comes time for an election,
> > > one statistic is all it takes to see that there has been no limit to the
> > > growth of government under the Republican Party.
> > > On the eve of the new Republican-controlled Congress in 1995, the national
> > > debt was just under $5 trillion. At the time of Bush's first inauguration
> > > in 2001, the national debt stood at $5,727,776,738,304.64. At the time of
> > > his second inauguration in 2005, the national debt stood at
> > > $7,613,772,338,689.34. On the day of the recent midterm elections, the
> > > national debt was up to $8,592,561,542,263.30.
> > > The Republican revolution is a failure, a dismal failure. Despite the
> > > Republican rhetoric about the virtues of conservatism, the benefits of the
> > > free market, and the need for less government intervention in the economy
> > > and society, the Republican majority in both houses of Congress did nothing
> > > but further increase the size and scope of government.
> > > This, of course, comes as no surprise, since the history of the Republican
> > > Party is not one of real conservatism at all; it is the history of
> > > interventionism, big government, the welfare state, the warfare state,
> > > plunder, compromises, and sellouts, as Clyde Wilson<http://www.lewrockwell.com/wilson/wilson20.html>and Thomas
> > > DiLorenzo <http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo84.html> have
> > > showed us in great detail.
> > > Those who voted for a third party candidate for Congress in the recent
> > > election are not the ones who wasted their vote. Republicans who voted for
> > > Republican
>
>
> read more »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment