Gingrich

Newt Gingrich To Conservatives: ‘What Would You Have Done?’

newt gingrich nelson mandela

I don’t often view Newt Gingrich in a favorable light, but this time is an exception…

The AtlanticTa-Nehisi Coates

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said Sunday he was “very surprised” at people who were critical of his decision to praise Nelson Mandela this week, standing by his admiration for Mandela’s “very long, deep commitment to freedom.”

On Thursday, upon hearing of the former South African president’s death, Gingrich put up a post on Facebook, expressing his condolences.

“President Nelson Mandela was one of the greatest leaders of our lifetime,” he wrote. “When he visited the Congress I was deeply impressed with the charisma and the calmness with which he could dominate a room. It was as if the rest of us grew smaller and he grew stronger and more dominant the longer the meeting continued.”

Gingrich’s statement, however, was met with backlash from many of his followers.

“Newt, I was rooting for you to win the primaries and become the next president; please tell me your joking!! Mandela was a commie murderer!!” read one comment that was popular with other users.

“You’re forgetting Mandela’s extreme racism! There are YouTubes of Mandela singing songs about murdering the white man. I spit on his grave….,” read another.

When asked about the criticism in an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday, Gingrich replied, “I was very surprised by it. [My wife] Callista posted my statement on her Facebook page and was amazed at some of the intensity — some of whom came back three, four and five times repeating how angry they were.”

In response, on Saturday, Gingrich put out a new statement and video to his supporters, challenging critics to put themselves in Mandela’s shoes.

“I was surprised by the hostility and vehemence of some of the people who reacted to me saying a kind word about a unique historic figure,” he said. “So let me say to those conservatives who don’t want to honor Nelson Mandela, what would you have done?”

Responding to conservatives who dismiss Mandela as a communist, Gingrich added, “Actually Mandela was raised in a Methodist school, was a devout Christian, turned to communism in desperation only after South Africa was taken over by anextraordinarily racist government determined to eliminate all rights for blacks.”

As Ta-Nehisi Coates at the Atlantic pointed out, Gingrich’s support for Mandela is not new or an attempt to rewrite history.

“Newt Gingrich was among a cadre of conservatives who opposed the mainstream conservative stance on Apartheid and ultimately helped override Reagan’s unconscionable veto of sanctions,” he wrote, adding, “When Gingrich compliments Mandela on his presidency he doesn’t do so within the context of alleged African pathologies, but within the context of countries throughout the world. It’s a textbook lessons in ‘How not to be racist,’ which is to say it is a textbook lesson in how to talk about Nelson Mandela as though he were a human being.”

Watch Gingrich’s video:

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) also encountered a fair amount of vitriol last week when he honored Mandela in a Facebook post, writing, “Nelson Mandela will live in history as an inspiration for defenders of liberty around the globe… Because of his epic fight against injustice, an entire nation is now free.”

When CNN host Candy Crowley asked Gingrich if he believed his and Cruz’s critics were fellow conservatives, the former House speaker said they were people who bought into “a rationale that defined everybody who was in any way in rebellion against the established system in the third world as anti-American.”

 

Gingrich: Elections ‘rigged’ for the rich

Former U.S. House Speaker and GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich said elections are rigged for the wealthy.

What surprises me about Newt Gingrich’s statement is the fact that a politician on Gingrich’s level would admit that the election is rigged for the rich…period.

Alanta Journal Constitution

Elections are “rigged” for the rich, according to former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Gingrich, talking to the Rev. Al Sharpton on the minister’s MSNBC television show Tuesday, said campaign finance rules should be changed to allow any American to donate any amount of after-tax personal income they want to give a candidate as long as the donation is reported “every night on the Internet.”

Gingrich, who sought the GOP nomination before dropping out of the race last month, was asked about his Florida primary loss to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney just after beating Romney in South Carolina. Sharpton suggested Gingrich would have won Florida had Romney not outspent him by millions of dollars and if Gingrich had not been the target of relentless attack ads.

Gingrich agreed with Sharpton and used New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg as an example of how difficult it is to win elections in which a very wealthy person is a rival. He said Bloomberg, a billionaire, has spent “an extraordinary amount of personal money to buy the mayor’s office for the third time.”

“It’s very hard to compete with a billionaire if they get to spend all the money they want and the middle-class candidate’s raising money in $2,500 units,” Gingrich told Sharpton. “So, I think the current system is rigged, frankly, in favor of the wealthy.” Individuals are limited to $2,500 donations in federal campaigns.

The former Georgia congressman said reforming how campaigns are financed would help reduce negative attack ads and increase accountability.

“You would have more accountability and middle-class candidates could balance off rich candidates,” Gingrich told Sharpton.

According to Bankrate.com, an analysis of Gingrich’s latest financial disclosure forms shows his net worth (excluding his primary home) is between $6.7 million and $30.1 million.

Last month, Forbes magazine placed Gingrich, a former congressman from Georgia, at the top of its list of “America’s Most Indebted Politicians,” saying he left the GOP race for the White House on May 2 owing campaign consultants and vendors $4.3 million.

Forbes said more than $1 million of the debt was for private jet service and $271,775.58 was to Gingrich himself for travel expenses.

Newt Gingrich ‘teetering on the edge of becoming a laughingstock,’ jumps off

(Caricature by DonkeyHotey)

In my opinion, Newt Gingrich has always been a laughingstock…

Daily Kos

If you ever had any doubt about Newt Gingrich’s talent for grift, doubt no more:

Desperate times in the Newt Gingrich camp have called for desperate measures.Scrambling to dig himself out of a $4.5 million hole, the former House speaker has resorted to renting his presidential campaign’s most valuable asset – its donor list – for as much as $26,000-a-pop.

The initial thrust of the linked article is the political risk involved in diluting the donor list of a campaign that’s still technically active.

But I just wanted to point out that a while back, the Gingrich campaign was paying Gingrich himself, to rent his donor list.

Funny, too, that Gingrich, who’s famously insisted that his “campaign” make stops at his personal bucket list of zoos and museums along the way, has according to his spokesman, loaned the campaign “thousands, primarily toward travel and lodging expenses.” But you’ll all be relieved to know that “the campaign intends to reimburse” the loans.

Whew! And here I thought Newt was going to have to pay the expenses of his personal travel and private jet rental himself! Thank God his broke-ass campaign is going to do it! By renting out the list it paid him to buy.

You see how that works? Gingrich spends years running variations on his “Entrepreneur of the Year” scheme, then sets up a “presidential campaign” whose job it is to raise money to buy the product of the previous schemes.

Nice!

Actually, Politico’s lengthy piece does a respectable job of taking you down all the side streets and seamy alleyways of Newt, Inc. I recommend it, and not just for salacious nuggets like this one:

Campaign insiders attribute the problems partly to Gingrich and his wife Callista’s, asserting that the couple was unwilling to downgrade from private jets and security details even as the campaign floundered. Insiders say Callista Gingrich required an entourage of at least two staffers – including one who dressed in an elephant costumeto promote her children’s book – and a contracted security guard who followed her even on non-campaign trips.

Not that I could resist including it, of course.

As an added bonus, though, let me include this link, for yet another deep dive into the Gingrich grift legacy: Newt Gingrich Leaves 30-Year Trail Of Debts, Lawsuits And Bankruptcies In His Wake

Seriously. If you learn the history (and what “historian” would discourage you from doing that?), you’ll see there’s no “teetering” here. Gingrich took a flying leap off the laughingstock cliff years ago. If I had to pin it down, I’d say it dates from, oh, let’s say, the time he was forced from the nation’s third highest Constitutional office under a cloud of… well, pretty much exactly this same thing.

Keep puttin’ him on the Sunday shows, though! It’s workin’ out great!

Newt Gingrich Dismisses Birther Question From Orly Taitz

It’s my firm believe that the cockroach will not be the only survivor of a nuclear holocaust. It’s possible that  Orly Taitz will be among the surviving species as well.

No matter how many times the Court has knocked her down by dismissing her cases before them, she gets back up and continues her frenetic attempts for someone in a judicial capacity to not only hear what she has to say, but to adjudicate her findings.

She came close, here in the state of Georgia, but ultimately ended up with egg on her face for the umpteenth time…

The Huffington Post

Orly Taitz took her anti-Obama birther crusade to GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich on Monday, only to come up empty-handed. Again.

At a campaign event in Pasadena, Calif., Gingrich took questions after delivering a stump speech blasting , among other things, “President Obama’s war on the Catholic Church” and the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which recently overturned California’s same-sex marriage ban.

After answering concerns about the state of his campaign following a slide in recent polls and primary contests, Taitz came forward, suggesting that the birther issue could provide a “boost ” to his candidacy if he made it a hallmark issue.

“Somebody who wouldn’t be good enough, who wouldn’t be certified to pick tomatoes or clean bathrooms is sitting in the White House,” Taitz told Gingrich, reportedly to a mixed reception  from the largely Tea Party audience.

“That’s a project you should pursue,” Gingrich responded. He went on to say that with ongoing economic issues and other mismanagement he saw in the president’s agenda, he had “enough issues to debate Obama about.”

Taitz, a California attorney and dentist, is one of the most outspoken members of the birther movement, whose adherents claim that Obama is ineligible to serve as president because he isn’t actually a U.S. citizen. (In fact, the White House has released  the president’s long-form birth certificate, in hopes of quelling the conspiracy theories.) Taitz, who specifically believes that the president has forged his official documents, made something of a stir in Georgia last month when a judge subpoenaed Obama in a case her clients had filed attempting to bar Obama from the state’s primary ballot. Obama’s legal team ignored the judge’s order, however, and the case proceeded without him. It was eventually dismissed  by the judge, who determined that Obama was eligible to be on Georgia’s primary ballot in March.

Virginia State Officials Confirm: Gingrich Campaign Being Investigated for ‘Illegal Acts’

Everything old is new again…

Addicting Info

Have you ever known Newt Gingrich to identify a flaw or fault with a politician, the President, the Democratic Party (etc), that he didn’t turn into the gravest, most evil transgression that humanity have ever been subjected too? When it comes to making proverbial mountains at of molehill, employing hyperbolic rhetoric to embarrass and humiliate his enemies, the-Newt, is king of the demagogues.

So if this story happened to Mitt Romney, Barack Obama or any other political enemy of the former House Speaker, how do you think he might handle it?

The BRAD BLOG  is reporting that Virginia State officials have confirmed that a criminal investigation of the Gingrich for President Campaign is now underway in what investigators are describing as, massive “voter fraud.”

You may recall, that the Gingrich campaign failed to turn in enough signatures  on petitions this past December, to qualify the candidate to appear on that state’s upcoming Republican primary ballot. In fact, by Gingrich’s own admission, his campaign turned in 11,100 signatures when only 10,000 were needed. The problem? 1500 of those signatures were quickly identified as fraudulent.

Of course Newt wants us to believe that this was “just a mistake” made by person his campaign had hired to collect signatures. Who was this one person who made the mistake? The campaign won’t say. Why not? Wouldn’t it be easier to scape-goat a lazy, minimum wage signature collector that let the entire campaign get black eye?

The Virginia State Attorney General’s  office doesn’t view voter fraud on this scale as being “just a mistake.” In fact, an official in the Virginia State Board of Elections (SBE) described it as, “definitely an illegal act.”

Brian J. Gottestein, Director of Communication for the Office of the Attorney General confirmed to The BRAD BLOG that there is “an investigation underway.” Other than stating that fact, Gottestein refused to comment further and declined to indicate how much cooperation the AG’s office is getting from Gingrich’s Virginia campaign organization.

Only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul campaigns turned in enough signatures to be on the ballot. Surprisingly, Rick Santorum’s  campaign also failed to collect enough signatures to insure that his name would be on the ballot in the southern, socially conservative state.

In the last presidential election, the grass-roots progressive organization ACORN , was put out of business when it was determined that some of the people they had hired to do voter registration, had turned in fraudulent forms.

At the time, The BRAD BLOG points out, Newt Gingrich wrote in an op-ed column that “ACORN has a long history of engaging in voter fraud.”

Really? Based on that logic, can we assume from the Virginia incident that this was not the first time the Gingrich campaign has engaged in illegal acts and voter fraud?

It will be interesting to see how the conservative media handles this scandal in light of the incessant coverage given to the “mistake” ACORN made.

Gingrich threatens to boycott debates without applause

Wow, Newt Gingrich is a cry baby!

The Raw Story

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich on Tuesday warned that he might not participate in future debates if moderators didn’t allow his fans to cheer.

NBC News had asked the audience at Monday night’s debate in Florida to hold their applause until the commercial breaks — and Gingrich was perceived to have done significantly worse than in previous debates.

“I wish in retrospect that I had protested when [NBC moderator] Brian Williams took them out of it,” Gingrich told Fox News Tuesday. “I think it’s wrong. And I think he took them out of it because the media is terrified that the audience is going to side with the candidates against the media, which is what they’ve done in every debate.”

“We’re going to serve notice on future debates. We’re just not going to allow that to happen,” he added. “That’s wrong. The media doesn’t control free speech. People ought to be allowed to applaud if they want to.”

Gingrich’s performances at debates in South Carolina were thought to have contributed to his landslide victory over former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in that state’s primary.

survey  (PDF) released Monday by the Democratically-affiliated Public Policy Polling (PPP) firm showed Gingrich leading Romney, 38 percent to 33 percent. Gallup’s daily tracking poll  on Tuesday indicated that the two GOP candidates were in a virtual tie nationally.

But it could be advisable for Gingrich to get used to debating without the comfort of audience reaction. In all three of the 2008 general election debates between then-Democratic nominee Barack Obama and then-Republican nominee John McCain, audiences were asked to refrain from making noise.

Newt Gingrich Owes African Americans an Apology

This article says it all and says it well…

Candid Observations

Newt Gingrich owes African-Americans an apology.

He absolutely knows what he is doing.

His constant calling President Obama “the food stamp president” is nothing more than racial politics, no less reprehensible or excusable than when Lee Atwater and the GOP used the image of Willie Horton to take down Michael Dukakis in 1988.

Gingrich has settled into the language that “liberals” or “elite liberals” are the only ones who “despise making money.” That is incorrect, but it isn’t a morally and ethically reprehensible statement or behavior.

But going to South Carolina and using language that feeds into the racial fears and misconceptions that come up in conversations with far too many white people, is a moral and ethical outrage.

Can you not get the votes, Mr. Gingrich, without putting black people down and feeding into the misconceptions of way too many white people?

Statistics released by the United States  Department of Agriculture show that 35 percent of all food stamp recipients are white, compared to 22 percent black, and 10 percent Hispanic. If  you, Mr. Gingrich, would saythat, or something to that effect, the insult you have heaped upon the descendants of African slaves who built this country would be non-existent.

I wonder if Gingrich, or any candidate, has the chutzpah to tell people part of the reason that the unemployment rate amongst black men, especially young black men, is that too many white employers still refuse to hire them? I wonder if Gingrich, a historian, has the courage to talk about the fact that black people have lived through an era where at one time, there were blatant signs put up, “Black (or Colored) people need not apply,” as African-Americans sought to find work?

The signs are gone, but the emotions, feelings and beliefs that made people feel justified in putting such signs up are far from being gone.

I wonder if Gingrich has the courage to stand up and say, since he is wanting to be president of ALL of the people of this nation, that the undercurrent racism of this country will be met with and dealt with in his administration if he is elected president, so that the course of this nation will be turned, finally, away from post-Civil War and Reconstruction white resentment of black people which has never died, to a 21st century,Christian endeavor to deal with our racism honestly, for the good of the nation.

Many, too many, white people say, and believe, that “this is a white man’s country.” In her book Rising Sun, author Sharon Davies gives an account of a young white girl who is appearing before a grand jury because she has converted to Catholicism, against the wishes of her parents. In the 1920s, the Ku Klux Klan was not only against black people and Jewish people, but it also hated Catholics. This young girl’s parents were amongst the Catholic-haters, and, enraged that his daughter had married a Catholic boy in secret, her father had shot and killed the priest who married them.

In her testimony before the Grand Jury, the young girl was asked if her husband was a white man (he was from Puerto Rico and was allowed, by Alabama state law, to say he was “white.”) When the girl said he was a Spaniard, the Grand Jury members scoffed, and one juror said, just remember, “this is a white man’s country…always has been and always will be.”

A young Hugo Black, who would become a member of the United States Supreme Court, was one of the girl’s defense attorneys …and he was also a member of the Klan, as were many of the jurors.

That feeling has not gone away and Newt knows it, and he thus knows that saying President Obama is “the food stamp president” feeds right into that belief and the sentiment that there is a need to “take the country” back. The charge is that Mr. Obama is the most liberal president in history. Say that. True or not, it’s fair. It is fair political rhetoric.

Say that it is true that more people are on food stamps than at any other time in our history, but that  statistics say  that more white than black people are on those food stamps, and they needed to do it because the economic mess that Mr. Obama inherited from the GOP was so horrible that had he not made a way for more people to get food stamps, a lot of Americans, black, white and brown, would have not been able to eat!

Make the argument against President Obama openly about economics, and not sneakily about race.

Americans who have found themselves not only using but needing food stamps for the first time in their lives are ashamed for having to use them, but at the same time are grateful that this president did what he thought would best help them.

It is true that some people, black and white, who receive government assistance, are abusing the system. Say that, Mr. Gingrich, and nobody will be able to accuse you of playing the race card or indulging in racial politics. When you say that President Obama is “the food stamp president,” say that his policies have resulted in more  black and white and brown people getting food stamps than ever before. Then your statement will not be racially charged and racially polarizing.

I know that politics, or the game of politics, is not supposed to be fair, but it is high time that racial politics stop being the trump card for politicians reaching for the White House. African-Americans, and indeed all Americans, deserve better.

African-Americans have provided the labor upon which the economy of this nation was built. It is high time white politicians say that out loud, and stop the craziness and stop using words that only make the decay in our nation caused by racism worse.

You, Mr. Gingrich, owe African-Americans an apology. It is NOT all right to insult us, even if you are trying to kick Mitt Romney out of contention for the presidency. What you are saying and are now defending, is morally and ethically wrong. We deserve better.

A candid observation …

Newt Gingrich’s marriage(s) problem

Newt, Newt the marriage brute…

The Washington Post – Chris Cillizza

It’s no secret to anyone who has paid even passing attention to the 2012 Republican presidential race that Newt Gingrich has been married three times.

But, revelations today from his second wife, Marianne, that Gingrich wanted an “open marriage” have the potential to pick the scab off of the former House Speaker’s personal life less than 48 hours before the South Carolina presidential primary.

“I think it opens up the portal more widely on the whole character issue,” said one senior Republican strategist granted anonymity to speak candidly. “If this were one incident of domestic strife it would one thing but this demonstrates a pattern so I think it could be really bad.”

Throughout the race, Gingrich has been open about his personal foibles, which include an extramarital affair with his current wife, Callista, while still married to Marianne.

Asked today about the allegations made by his second wife, Gingrich called them “tawdry and inappropriate”. And, in a statement released by the campaign, Gingrich’s two daughters from his first marriage said: “The failure of a marriage is a terrible and emotional experience for everyone involved. Anyone who has had that experience understands it is a personal tragedy filled with regrets, and sometimes differing memories of events. …We will not say anything negative about our father’s ex-wife. He has said before, privately and publicly, that he regrets any pain he may have caused in the past to people he loves.”

Polling done last month suggested that most voters didn’t care much about Gingrich’s personal life. Almost three-quarters (72 percent) in a December Washington Post-ABC News poll said Gingrich’s “marital history” made no difference in their vote; four percent said it made them more likely to vote for him, 19 percent said it made them less willing to cast a ballot for the former House Speaker.

At issue is whether voters will regard Marianne Gingrich’s comments as largely old news delivered by someone with whom the former Speaker has no relationship or whether her allegations will lead to a re-examination of his personal life.

The former analysis could actually help Gingrich, turning him into something of a sympathetic figure. We saw that sort of scenario play out in South Carolina in 2010 when gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley was hit by allegations of an extramarital affair . She fought back aggressively and instead of it hurting her campaign, it strengthened it.

Continue reading here…

Gingrich: I would call Palin for advice

English: Former Speaker of the House Newt Ging...

Now it’s been confirmed, Newt Gingrich is a dumb, ignorant racist and a lap-dog for other ignorant people who are more powerful than him…

The Raw Story

During an appearance Wednesday on CNN, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich suggested he would ask former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be member of his Cabinet if he was elected President of the United States.

“I don’t want to suggest anything,” he said. “We haven’t talked about anything at all. Gov. Palin is somebody who I think was a very good reform governor, she was extraordinarily effective negotiating with big oil, she did a good job in the state of Alaska, I think she is a very articulate leader of the tea party conservative movement.”

“Certainly, she is one of the people I would call on for advice,” Gingrich continued. “I would ask her to consider taking a major role in the next administration if I am president, but nothing has been discussed of any kind and it wouldn’t be appropriate to discuss it at this time. I’m just delighted that she and Todd have both been so supportive of my candidacy.”

During a tele-town hall in December, Gingrich said he would consider picking Palin as his vice president. Republican presidential nominee John McCain lost in 2008 after selecting Sarah Palin as his running mate.

Gingrich also previously said he would ask former Bush administration U.N. ambassador John Bolton to be U.S. Secretary of State if he were elected. USA Today  and other news outlets said the comment were illegal under U.S. law, which prohibits candidates from “directly or indirectly” promising or pledging the appointment of any person “for the purpose of procuring support in his candidacy.”

But Talking Points Memo reported that Gingrich had in fact not broken the law  because he had not made the remark for the purpose of getting Bolton’s endorsement in return.

Watch video, clipped by Talking Points Memo, below:

Gingrich’s Delusional Politics

Mario Piperni

In the contest to determine the winner of the Far-Right Politics gold medal, rack up a few more points for Newt Gingrich.

English: Former Speaker of the House at CPAC in .

“I think an intelligent conservative wants the right federal employees delivering the right services in a highly efficient way and then wants to get rid of those folks who are in fact wasteful, or those folks who are ideologically so far to the left, or those people who want to frankly dictate to the rest of us.”

Is there no extreme position these people are not willing to adopt to satisfy their rabid base?  And that includes positions which are in direct contravention of the law.

OSC [U.S. Office of Special Counsel] has the authority to investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute claims of “prohibited personnel practices.” There are twelve prohibited personnel practices…which are defined by law at § 2302(b) of title 5 of the United States Code (U.S.C.). [...] Generally stated, § 2302(b) provides that a federal employee who has authority over personnel decisions may not:

(1) discriminate against an employee or applicant based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicapping condition, marital status, or political affiliation;

Combine the above with Gingrich’s call to have U.S. marshals arrest certain (liberal) judges and force them to explain their decisions in front of Congress, and what you have is an out-of-control politician who has lost sight of the Constitution and its intent.  And he’s not alone in that regard.  Perry and Santorum also called for abolishing the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for being too liberal.

Fortunately, Gingrich, Perry and Santorum will never have the opportunity to implement their proposals.  Romney has a lock on this race.  But the fact that such radical positions are being adopted and spoken openly by high profile Republicans is another clear sign that this party has completely lost its grip with reality.