Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 19, 2017, 07:09:40 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Election Archive
| |-+  2012 Elections
| | |-+  90's GOP House Insider: Romney Lied
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: 90's GOP House Insider: Romney Lied  (Read 3309 times)
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4862
View Profile
« Reply #25 on: February 05, 2012, 12:33:59 am »
Ignore

Charles Krauthammer, normally friendly to Romney, has said Mitt's accusation that Newt left in disgrace was no true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cuNkI7pzLM

Gingrich fans should be fighting revisionist history by leftists, not trying to create their own revisionist history...
« Last Edit: February 05, 2012, 12:37:14 am by Politico »Logged

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."

- Bastiat
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2401
View Profile
« Reply #26 on: February 06, 2012, 02:26:25 am »
Ignore

Lay off the pious baloney, BSB. You find it "galling" you say? I find it "galling" the amount of self-righteous pontificating, hypocrisy and dishonest faux outrage, exhibited by Newt Gingrich and his supporters. Regardless of what happend in November 1998, is anyone seriously going to argue that Speaker "I shut down the government because [ole Bill] put us at the back of the plane" Gingrich wasn't a disgrace period?

Please, Clinton vetoed an appropriation bill that he publically stated he supported solely for the purpose of shutting down more of the government. Stating that it was Republicans whom shutdown the government is more than a bit disingenuous.

I never said Republicans were to blame for the shutdown. Read what I said, not what you want me to have said. Strike 1.


We can back and forth at length about what you didn't say. More relevent is what you did say:[Gingrich] shut down the government. That simply isn't true. The government is funded by 13 appropriation bills. The Republicans passed all 13 on time. Clinton signed six, vetoed six due to disagreements, and vetoed the thirteenth solely for the reason of shutting more of the government than what was necessary. You simply can't say that Gingrich shut down those agencies funded by the thirteenth appropriation bill since he presented Clinton an appropriation bill Clinton found completely satisfactory in a timely manner.

I'm not merely noting Clinton is "to blame." I am noting Clinton shut down those agencies.

Strike one.
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2401
View Profile
« Reply #27 on: February 06, 2012, 02:48:58 am »
Ignore


Quote from: Senator North Carolina Yankee
When Gingrich left the position, he didn't have the votes because he was such a disgrace.

In exactly the same way GHWB didn't win reelection because he was such a "disgrace," and GWB lead the party to humiliating defeats in 2006 and 2008 because of the "disgraceful" nature of his Presidency.

The situation is different. Newt was so counterproductive that he ran to change things and ended up creating a situation far worse then what was there before. He created a situation that hadn't existed in 40 years, and thus created a ton of good will and tolerance for his shortcomings. He blew through all of that in only 2 years. And was one step away from being removed in a coup that included everyone of his subordinates and a bunch of low ranking conservative freshmen.

No matter how you change the subject, Romney claimed "Gingrich resigned in disgrace." That was a lie. Romney did not say that Gingrich resigned because he had done a bad job, and, as a result lost the confidence of his peers. Had Romney said that, I might have some disagreements, but, I wouldn't have accused him of lying. I am accusing Romney of lying because it is simply not factual that Gringrich "resigned in disgrace." Gingrich resigned because, as Ron Paul noted, he didn't have the votes to be reelected, and, he didn't want to hang around as a backbencher.


Quote
Quit dwelling on 1998 and the post election fallout. Newt was already in big trouble long before that.

Romney lied when he stated Gingrich resigned in disgrace in 1998. It was Romney whom lied about the events that occurred that day in November of 1998. Yes, there was post election fallout. But, no, there was no "disgrace" that forced Gingrich to resign. Gingrich merely preferred not to be a backbencher, as Hastert did later.


I would note that Romney did not stand for reelection as Governor because he knew he didn't have the votes. Applying Romney's own standard to himself, apperently, he must have slinked away in disgrace.
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2401
View Profile
« Reply #28 on: February 06, 2012, 03:08:20 am »
Ignore

As to Gingrich resigning as a House member, so did Denny Hastert when he wasn't chosen as Minority Leader in 2007 like Pelosi was in 2011. Having the old leader in the background of the new leader can be a distraction. Whatever the merits, or demerits, of Hastert's decision, noone says he "resigned in disgrace."

Gingrich resigned as a House member the day after his own re-election.

Hastert resigned as a House member eleven months after his own re-election.

But your logic seems to be that since both men left the Speakership in somewhat comparable circumstances, that if Gingrich was considered to have resigned in disgrace, then so must Hastert.  Given that the circumstances were in fact quite different, your logic doesn't really work out.

Unless, of course, the circumstances were in fact remarkably similar. That Denny Hasert took the same decision as Gingrich eleven months later is a distinction that doesn't make much of a difference. The essential fact is neither man was retained as leader, and, both men, subsequently, resigned rather than completing their terms as back-benchers.

Standing for reelection as leader and losing is not "disgraceful." Certainly, it no less "disgraceful" than Romney or Perdue not running for reelection because they knew they would lose. Resigning is not, per se, "disgraceful."  Maybe, a case can be made for saying Gingrich resigned in the face of a humiliating defeat, while Romney abandon reelection in the face of a humiliating defeat, but neither man's actions were "disgraceful."

Romney has been both a hypocrite and a liar on this issue.

You are a trip. You don't even know what you are talking about. And how can you ponitificate about Romney not running again when Newt didn't run either? Rather then run for speaker and let his caucus vote, he dropped out of contention and resigned the position and declined to take his seat. And just for your information, I wan not talking about him having resigned him his House seat in disgrace, I am talking about his leadership position. The decision to leave the House or not was irrelevant to this discussion, which is centered around why he couldn't have won another term as Speaker.

But, I simply am not "pontificating about Romney not running again." I am pontificating about the hypocrisy and gall of Romney denouncing Gingrich's resigning from the House. Gingrich resigned because he didn't have the votes to be reelected as Speaker, and Romney left office because he didn't have the votes to win reelection. If bowing to such political realities is "disgraceful," then Romney "disgraced" himself.

Romney did accuse Gingrich of "resigning in disgrace." Romney did not accuse of Gingrich of "resigning his speakership in disgrace." Even if Romney had said the latter, it still would have been a lie.

I'm only interested in calling Romney on the lie he did make. I'm not interesting in debating notions that he could have meant something else. Romney has had two weeks to "clarify" his statement, but hasn't.
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2401
View Profile
« Reply #29 on: February 06, 2012, 03:17:17 am »
Ignore

Charles Krauthammer, normally friendly to Romney, has said Mitt's accusation that Newt left in disgrace was no true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cuNkI7pzLM

Gingrich fans should be fighting revisionist history by leftists, not trying to create their own revisionist history...

Brokaw was speaking "revisionist history" when he characterized Newt reimbursing the government for the cost of the investigate as a "very large financial penality."

Nor, can I omit the fact that being cleared on every "ethics" charge but one was listed in the plural. Nor, can I omit the fact that the substance of ethics charge Newt settled was ruled to be without merit by the IRS.

The fact is Krauthammer told the truth that Romney lied.
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4862
View Profile
« Reply #30 on: February 06, 2012, 08:29:21 am »
Ignore

Charles Krauthammer, normally friendly to Romney, has said Mitt's accusation that Newt left in disgrace was no true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cuNkI7pzLM

Gingrich fans should be fighting revisionist history by leftists, not trying to create their own revisionist history...

Brokaw was speaking "revisionist history" when he characterized Newt reimbursing the government for the cost of the investigate as a "very large financial penality."

Dude, that broadcast is from January 1997. That was reporting the news, documenting history, not pushing revisionist history. And Brokaw is a Dakota Republican who was incredibly fair/balanced, so you can't chalk that up to liberal bias.

Everybody who followed politics in the late 1990s knows what kind of embarrassment Gingrich was, especially after Monica-gate backfired.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2012, 08:31:09 am by Politico »Logged

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."

- Bastiat
Scabr
Rookie
*
Posts: 44


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: February 06, 2012, 09:08:26 am »
Ignore

Charles Krauthammer, normally friendly to Romney, has said Mitt's accusation that Newt left in disgrace was no true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cuNkI7pzLM

Gingrich fans should be fighting revisionist history by leftists, not trying to create their own revisionist history...

Brokaw was speaking "revisionist history" when he characterized Newt reimbursing the government for the cost of the investigate as a "very large financial penality."

Dude, that broadcast is from January 1997. That was reporting the news, documenting history, not pushing revisionist history. And Brokaw is a Dakota Republican who was incredibly fair/balanced, so you can't chalk that up to liberal bias.

Everybody who followed politics in the late 1990s knows what kind of embarrassment Gingrich was, especially after Monica-gate backfired.

...and anybody who followed politics in Massachusetts in 2006 knew that Mitt Romney left the governorship incredibly unpopular after a liberal, failed administration. Instead of building up a network in MA to possibly retain his governorship. he decided to run for president as a Reagan Conservative instead, and it was best not to remind voters of his record as governor.

I noticed you didn't quote the rest of Bob's post where he talked about Gingrich being cleared of all but one ethics charge (which was misrepresenting legal paperwork), and that Brokaw certainly exaggerated the term "Large financial penalty."

I suppose that like your candidate, it's best just to leave certain things unknown.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2012, 09:11:09 am by Scabr »Logged
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2401
View Profile
« Reply #32 on: February 06, 2012, 01:37:47 pm »
Ignore

Charles Krauthammer, normally friendly to Romney, has said Mitt's accusation that Newt left in disgrace was no true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cuNkI7pzLM

Gingrich fans should be fighting revisionist history by leftists, not trying to create their own revisionist history...

Brokaw was speaking "revisionist history" when he characterized Newt reimbursing the government for the cost of the investigate as a "very large financial penalty."

Dude, that broadcast is from January 1997.


Politico, how is intellectually dishonest contemporaneous "spin" by the liberal media in 1997 any more valid than intellectually dishonest revisionist "spin" by Romney in 2012?
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4862
View Profile
« Reply #33 on: February 06, 2012, 04:06:08 pm »
Ignore

Charles Krauthammer, normally friendly to Romney, has said Mitt's accusation that Newt left in disgrace was no true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cuNkI7pzLM

Gingrich fans should be fighting revisionist history by leftists, not trying to create their own revisionist history...

Brokaw was speaking "revisionist history" when he characterized Newt reimbursing the government for the cost of the investigate as a "very large financial penality."

Dude, that broadcast is from January 1997. That was reporting the news, documenting history, not pushing revisionist history. And Brokaw is a Dakota Republican who was incredibly fair/balanced, so you can't chalk that up to liberal bias.

Everybody who followed politics in the late 1990s knows what kind of embarrassment Gingrich was, especially after Monica-gate backfired.

...and anybody who followed politics in Massachusetts in 2006 knew that Mitt Romney left the governorship incredibly unpopular after a liberal, failed administration. Instead of building up a network in MA to possibly retain his governorship. he decided to run for president as a Reagan Conservative instead, and it was best not to remind voters of his record as governor.

I noticed you didn't quote the rest of Bob's post where he talked about Gingrich being cleared of all but one ethics charge (which was misrepresenting legal paperwork), and that Brokaw certainly exaggerated the term "Large financial penalty."

I suppose that like your candidate, it's best just to leave certain things unknown.

Even Mitt Romney considers $330,000 to be a large financial penalty. Maybe you don't?

Mitt achieved what he set out to achieve: Balance the budget throughout his tenure without raising taxes, and keeping hardcore liberalism at bay with his veto pen. Mitt did the best he could considering the state of Massachusetts' legislative branch.
Logged

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."

- Bastiat
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4862
View Profile
« Reply #34 on: February 06, 2012, 04:07:20 pm »
Ignore

Charles Krauthammer, normally friendly to Romney, has said Mitt's accusation that Newt left in disgrace was no true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cuNkI7pzLM

Gingrich fans should be fighting revisionist history by leftists, not trying to create their own revisionist history...

Brokaw was speaking "revisionist history" when he characterized Newt reimbursing the government for the cost of the investigate as a "very large financial penalty."

Dude, that broadcast is from January 1997.


Politico, how is intellectually dishonest contemporaneous "spin" by the liberal media in 1997 any more valid than intellectually dishonest revisionist "spin" by Romney in 2012?

Liberal media? Again, Brokaw is actually a Dakota Republican. That's why Team Mitt chose his broadcast instead of one of the thousand other, even more harsh, reports on the issue.
Logged

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."

- Bastiat
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2401
View Profile
« Reply #35 on: February 06, 2012, 05:03:14 pm »
Ignore

Charles Krauthammer, normally friendly to Romney, has said Mitt's accusation that Newt left in disgrace was no true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cuNkI7pzLM

Gingrich fans should be fighting revisionist history by leftists, not trying to create their own revisionist history...

Brokaw was speaking "revisionist history" when he characterized Newt reimbursing the government for the cost of the investigate as a "very large financial penalty."

Dude, that broadcast is from January 1997.


Politico, how is intellectually dishonest contemporaneous "spin" by the liberal media in 1997 any more valid than intellectually dishonest revisionist "spin" by Romney in 2012?

Liberal media? Again, Brokaw is actually a Dakota Republican. That's why Team Mitt chose his broadcast instead of one of the thousand other, even more harsh, reports on the issue.

Whether, or not, they were even more false media characterizations than Brokaw's doesn't alter the fact that his characterizations were false. "Large financial penalty" is not an accurate characterization of what was a "reimbursement." "Penalty" has too punitive a connotation to be considered anything over than a revision of what actually happened.

Again, the outcome of the ethics complaints against Gingrich was that Gingrich was cleared on every count but one, which was deferred to the IRS whom subsequently vindicated Gingrich. That is why he remained Speaker after the conclusion of the complaints.

Gingrich simply did not "resign in disgrace." Gingrich didn't have the votes for reelection as Speaker of the House. He resigned because he didn't want to be a backbencher. Romney refused to run for reelection because he knew he would lose.

Your attempts to label Brokaw a Republican for the day aren't going to be taken seriously by me, or, I suspect, many actual Republicans here, or in the rest of the country.
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2401
View Profile
« Reply #36 on: February 06, 2012, 05:21:12 pm »
Ignore

Charles Krauthammer, normally friendly to Romney, has said Mitt's accusation that Newt left in disgrace was no true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cuNkI7pzLM

Gingrich fans should be fighting revisionist history by leftists, not trying to create their own revisionist history...

Brokaw was speaking "revisionist history" when he characterized Newt reimbursing the government for the cost of the investigate as a "very large financial penalty."

Dude, that broadcast is from January 1997. That was reporting the news, documenting history, not pushing revisionist history. And Brokaw is a Dakota Republican who was incredibly fair/balanced, so you can't chalk that up to liberal bias.

Everybody who followed politics in the late 1990s knows what kind of embarrassment Gingrich was, especially after Monica-gate backfired.

...and anybody who followed politics in Massachusetts in 2006 knew that Mitt Romney left the governorship incredibly unpopular after a liberal, failed administration. Instead of building up a network in MA to possibly retain his governorship. he decided to run for president as a Reagan Conservative instead, and it was best not to remind voters of his record as governor.

I noticed you didn't quote the rest of Bob's post where he talked about Gingrich being cleared of all but one ethics charge (which was misrepresenting legal paperwork), and that Brokaw certainly exaggerated the term "Large financial penalty."

I suppose that like your candidate, it's best just to leave certain things unknown.

Even Mitt Romney considers $330,000 to be a large financial penalty. Maybe you don't?

Mitt achieved what he set out to achieve: Balance the budget throughout his tenure without raising taxes, and keeping hardcore liberalism at bay with his veto pen. Mitt did the best he could considering the state of Massachusetts' legislative branch.

1) I will note that $330,000 would be a "large financial penalty." I, also, have no doubt that a $330,000 reimbursement is a large chuck of change.

I, also, have no doubt that if Bain had entered into a "settlement" in some lawsuit,  Romney would vigorously dispute any characterization of that payment as a "penalty." That would be doubly true if the lawsuit was frivolous, but, cheaper to settle than defend.

2) I hope you seriously don't want to run on Romney's record as Governor. He was so unpopular he didn't even bother to seek reelection. Do you really want a GOP candidate with a such track record?

The more you spin Romney's tenure as a winner on substance, the more you are implicitly denouncing him as a political failure. If he couldn't translate his "successful" tenure as Governor  into political popularity then he is as politically inept as you accuse Gingrich of being.
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines