Tag Archives: Newt Gingrich

Mitt wins Florida

Mitt Romney is the winner in Florida’s GOP primary today, the biggest GOP contest to date, and is projected to  get all 50 of the state’s convention delegates.

With 95% of precincts reporting, Romney led with 46%. Gingrich had 32%, followed by Rick Santorum with 13% and Ron Paul with 7%.

Yesterday, Jan. 30, Newt Gingrich visited Pensacola to drum up support for his candidacy. CBS affiliate WKRG, Channel 5 news, has a video of Newt and his supporters.

A loyal member and regular commenter of FOTM speaks his mind at the 0:38 mark. (Go here for the video)

You have three guesses as to who this highly intelligent and good looking dude is:  ;)

  1. Terry
  2. Terry
  3. Terry

~Eowyn & Steve

GOP candidates’ real positions on family and morality

SaveAmerica.com and SaveCalifornia.com teamed together to compile a report card on how the four remaining GOP presidential candidates (Gingrich, Paul, Romney, Santorum) stand on 10 family and moral issues.

To see the report card in PDF, go here.

Here’s the report card:

YES = Position in support
YES? = Position in likely support
? = Unknown, unclear, or inconsistent position
NO? = Position in likely opposition
NO = Position in opposition

1. Support protecting marriage licenses and marriage rights for only one man and one woman:

  • Gingrich: Yes
  • Paul: No?
  • Romney: No
  • Santorum: Yes

2. Oppose marriage substitutes, such as civil unions and domestic partnerships:

  • Gingrich: Yes
  • Paul: No?
  • Romney: No
  • Santorum: Yes

3. Oppose homosexual couples adopting children:

  • Gingrich: Yes
  • Paul: Yes
  • Romney: No
  • Santorum: Yes

4. Support repealing open homosexuality in military:

  • Gingrich: Yes
  • Paul: No
  • Romney: No
  • Santorum: Yes

5. Oppose forcing private business owners to support homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality:

  • Gingrich: Yes?
  • Paul: Yes?
  • Romney: No?
  • Santorum: Yes

6. Oppose establishing or expanding pro-“LGBT” “hate crime” laws:

  • Gingrich: Yes
  • Paul: Yes
  • Romney: ?
  • Santorum: Yes

7. Oppose supporting or commemorating “Gay Pride” or “LGBT Pride” events:

  • Gingrich: Yes
  • Paul: Yes?
  • Romney: No
  • Santorum: Yes

8. Will enforce federal laws against obscenity:

  • Gingrich: Yes
  • Paul: No
  • Romney: Yes?
  • Santorum: Yes

9. Support the Boy Scouts’ right to prohibit homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality:

  • Gingrich: Yes
  • Paul: Yes?
  • Romney: No
  • Santorum: Yes

10. Oppose teaching schoolchildren to support homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality:

  • Gingrich: Yes?
  • Paul: Yes
  • Romney: No
  • Santorum: Yes

As you can see, Rick Santorum is the most culturally conservative, with a perfect score: “Yes” on all 10 issues.

Next is Newt Gingrich, with 8 “Yes” and 2 “Yes?”

Next is Ron Paul, with 3 “Yes”, 3 “Yes?”, 2 “No?”, and 2 “No”.

Last is Mitt Romney, with only 1 “Yes?”, 1 “?”, 1 “No?”, and 7 “No”.

H/t our beloved Tina.

~Eowyn

Military Supports Ron Paul

Many conservatives do not support GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul because of his pacifist and isolationist foreign policy. Paul has said the following:

“Far from defeating the enemy, our current polices provide incentive for more people to take up arms against us.”

“We have an empire. We can’t afford it.”

“Acting as the world’s policeman and nation-building weakens our country, puts our troops in harm’s way, and sends precious resources to other nations in the midst of an historic economic crisis.

So the news that Paul has considerable support among members of America’s active-duty military is something of a cognitive dissonance.

Reservist Cpl. Jesse Thorsen, 28, is now in trouble with the U.S. Army for speaking at a Paul rally in Iowa, Jan. 3, 2012

Timothy Egan writes in the New York Times, Dec. 22, 2011:

Many of the service members returning from Iraq — where nearly 4,500 American lives were lost, 100,000 Iraqi civilians were killed and about 600,000 Christians were forced to flee the country with other refugees — are paying close attention to the campaign to decide who will be commander in chief. [...]

The men and women in uniform probably wouldn’t support [Ron Paul] this proponent of limited engagement. So goes the conventional wisdom, which holds that those in the military support a leader itching for a fight.

But in fact, Representative Ron Paul, the congressman who favors the most minimalist American combat role of any major presidential candidate and who said all of the above quotes, has more financial support from active duty members of the service than any other politician.

As of the last reporting date, at the end of September, Paul leads all candidates by far in donations from service members. This trend has been in place since 2008, when Paul ran for president with a similar stance: calling nonsense at hawk squawk from both parties.

This year, Paul has 10 times the individual donations — totaling $113,739 — from the military as does Mitt Romney. And he has a hundred times more than Newt Gingrich, who sat out the Vietnam War with college deferments and now promises he would strike foes at the slightest provocation.

What seems, at first blush, counterintuitive makes more sense upon further review. There’s a long tradition of military people being attracted to politicians with Paul’s strict interpretation of the Constitution.

Not even a full 1 percent of Americans are active-duty military. The troops have become props for politicians who shower them with fulsome praise, while dreaming up schemes to send them into harm’s way.

Yet, these soldiers, sailors, air men and women, and assorted boots on the ground know the cost — in trauma, in lives ruined, in friends lost, in good intentions gone bad — of going to war far more than the 99 percent not currently serving. Where they put their money in a campaign, paltry though it may be in comparison to the corporate lords who control a majority of our politicians, says a great deal.

And if the overwhelming service support for Ron Paul is any indication, the grunts of American foreign policy are gun-shy about further engagement in “useless wars,” to use Dr. Paul’s term.

“It’s not a good sign when the people doing the fighting are saying, ‘Why are we here?’” said Glen Massie, a Marine Corps veteran who lives in Des Moines, Iowa, and is supporting Paul for president. “They realize they’re being utilized for other purposes — nation building and being world’s policeman — and it’s not what they signed up for.”

Now that Obama has begun yet another war — this time against Iran — stretching our already over-stretched military even thinner, it is no wonder that our active-duty servicemen and women support Ron Paul.

Conservatives say we love and respect our soldiers. Maybe we should then listen to them and take another look at Ron Paul’s candidacy.

~Eowyn

Newt wins So. Carolina but is widely disliked

Based on exit poll data, ABC News is projecting Newt Gingrich the winner in today’s South Carolina primary. Mitt Romney is a distant second, Rick Santorum will place third, and Ron Paul fourth.

Gingrich’s win is all the more impressive because he had trailed Romney by double digits just days ago. But that changed quickly after Gingrich’s fiery performance in Thursday’s night debate.

But Gingrich and his supporters should be mindful that what he won is a GOP state primary. There are sobering polling data that point to Newt being widely disliked by the larger American populace.

In an article for the Washington Examiner‘s Beltway Confidential, Jan. 20, 2012, titled “America hates Newt Gingrich,” Conn Carroll writes:

“Unlike Mitt Romney, who occasionally beats President Obama in general election poll match ups, Newt Gingrich trails far behind President Obama in every survey. But just how bad are Gingrich’s unfavorable among the general public compared to Obama and Romney?

Not every poll releases their full results, so here are the most recent favorability results I could find for Obama, Romney, and Newt.

Fox News, 1/12-1/14:
Obama, fav/unfav, 51%/46%, +5
Romney, fav/unfav, 45%/38%, +7
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 27%/56%, -29

CBS/NYT, 1/12-1/17:
Obama, fav/unfav, 38%/45%, -7
Romney, fav/unfav, 21%/35%, -14
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 17%/49%, -32

PPP, 1/13-1/17:
Obama, app/dis, 47%/50%, -3
Romney, fav/unfav, 35%/53%, -18
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 26%/60%, -34

America does not love Romney, but boy do they hate Newt.”

Political pollsters and analysts have long observed that an important factor on which U.S. presidential elections hinge is the likeability factor: Americans have to like a presidential candidate to vote for him or her.

As Lowman Henry put it, writing in March 2007:

“We like to think Presidential campaigns are fought over issues, but in the final analysis the deciding factor is often the personality of the candidate. Voters have a basic need to feel comfortable with their President therefore the likeability factor of the candidates often trumps other considerations.

Ronald Reagan had the highest likeability factor of any recent President, and in some quarters the same can be said for Bill Clinton. Both attracted votes from people who disagreed with their policies — sometimes strongly — but who simply felt more at ease with them personally.”

Given that, I am curious what’s the main reason why some FOTM readers support Newt Gingrich. Is it his debating skills? His intellect? His repentance and conversion to Catholicism? His personality?

~Eowyn

Obama stonewalls college transcripts

The media bloodhounds are going after Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. As in 2008, however, they’re giving Obama the hands-off kid-gloves treatment.

Except for Fox News’ Ed Henry, who actually managed to ask the Mouth of Sauron Obama’s spokesman Jay Carney about Obama’s college records. But the Mouth, erh, Carney simply stonewalled the question.

Why isn’t this all over the news?

WorldNetDaily reports, Jan. 18, 2012, that at the daily news briefing in the White House, Fox News’ Ed Henry asked Jay Carney about Obama’s college records and transcripts:

“Now, I don’t know how many years – maybe you do – Romney released of his college transcripts, but Republicans like to complain the president has not released his college transcripts. What is the stated reason for that?”

Carney’s response was to pretend that the reporter was asking about Obama’s tax records.

He said:

“Sure. I think we’ve answered this a bunch. I think that the tradition of releasing income tax records for presidential candidates, for serious potential nominees and nominees of the two parties is well established. It’s not a law, but it’s well established. And it’s one that this president abided by when he was a candidate as senator. It’s one that numerous Republicans and Democrats have abided by, and we just think it’s a good idea.”

A video of the 50-plus minute briefing was posted on the government’s White House website.

Les Kinsolving, WND’s correspondent at the White House, previously has raised the issue of documentation for Obama several times, but was shut down each time, starting with Robert Gibbs when he was Obama’s press secretary the Mouth of Sauron.

Read rest of WND article here.

H/t our beloved Tina.

To date, these are the Obama records which have not been released:

  • Passport records
  • Kindergarten records
  • Punahou School records
  • Occidental College records
  • Columbia University records and senior thesis
  • Harvard Law School records
  • Harvard Law Review articles, if any.
  • Illinois State Bar Association records
  • Illinois State Senate records/schedules (said to be lost).
  • Medical records
  • Marriage license of Obama Sr. and Stanley Ann Dunham
  • Divorce documents of Obama Sr. and Dunham
  • Marriage license of Stanley Ann Dunham and Lolo Soetoro
  • Adoption records of Barack Obama Jr. by Lolo Soetoro; and of course –
  • Barack Obama Jr.’s original hard-copy long-form Certificate of Live Birth

~Eowyn

Media bloodhounds go after Mitt & Newt, but not Obama

It was all over the news yesterday. You couldn’t turn on the TV or radio without hearing about it, ad nauseum.

Mitt Romney – GASP! — acknowledged that his tax rate is probably about 15% — lower than what most Americans, including even many high-income families, pay!!!!

Moreover – GASP! – Romney has a net worth estimated to be $200-250 million!!!!

The media went apoplectic over the news, never mind the fact that Romney’s 15% tax rate is entirely legal, because most of his income comes from investments instead of a salary.

Funny how in 2004, the media didn’t make any fuss over the fact that Democrat presidential nominee John Kerry and his über-rich wife Teresa Heinz paid an effective federal tax rate of only 13% on their 2003 $5.5 million income. Nor did the media make a fuss over their 2004 net worth of $236-312 million. Nor did anyone in the media ask — as they do about Romney — whether John Kerry’s über wealth made him “out of touch” with ordinary Americans.

That was yesterday.

Today is Newt Gingrich’s turn as the hare in the media fox hunt.

At 11:35 p.m. tonight, ABC Nightline will air an “explosive” interview with Newt’s former second wife, Marianne, who promises what she has to say could end his presidential campaign.

Marianne Gingrich

Newt and Marianne were married from 1981 to 2000, after his divorce from his first wife Jackie. In the last 6 years of his marriage to Marianne, Newt carried on an adulterous affair with legislative aide Callista, who is now his current (3rd) wife.

In the ABC interview, Marianne claims that Newt did not want a divorce but instead proposed an open marriage — an arrangement to which lifelong Catholic Callista did not object, according to Newt. But Marianne refused. Shortly after she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, Newt moved for a divorce — just as he had divorced his first wife Jackie while she was being treated for cancer.

But don’t feel too sorry for Marianne for, like her successor Callista, Marianne had carried on an adulterous affair with Newt while he was still married to Jackie.

Newt and Callista today. Both say they are now devout Catholics!

Here’s Brian Ross, the ABC reporter who’s doing the story on Marianne, giving a preview about her Nightline interview:

watch?v=cMfrqqUIaVw&feature=player_embedded

No matter how distasteful or painful, I always prefer the truth over lies and deception. Therefore, I have nothing against the media digging up “the dirt” on Mitt, Newt, or any presidential candidate. This is the necessary process called “vetting a candidate.”

My only problem is this:

Why didn’t the media “dig up the dirt” on presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama Jr. in 2008? And why aren’t the media “digging up the dirt” on 2012 presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama Jr.?

To date, these are the Obama records which have not been released:

  • Passport records
  • Kindergarten records
  • Punahou School records
  • Occidental College records
  • Columbia University records and senior thesis
  • Harvard Law School records
  • Harvard Law Review articles, if any.
  • Illinois State Bar Association records
  • Illinois State Senate records/schedules (said to be lost).
  • Medical records
  • Marriage license of Obama Sr. and Stanley Ann Dunham
  • Divorce documents of Obama Sr. and Dunham
  • Marriage license of Stanley Ann Dunham and Lolo Soetoro
  • Adoption records of Barack Obama Jr. by Lolo Soetoro; and of course –
  • Barack Obama Jr.’s original hard-copy long-form Certificate of Live Birth

UPDATE (1.20.2012):

Newt denies his ex Marianne’s allegations, calling them “false.”

~Eowyn

Mitt Romney, job creator or corporate raider?

Now that Mitt Romney is the front runner in the race to be the GOP’s presidential nominee, his Republican rivals are piling on with attacks.

Mitt touts himself as a super-capitalist who “created” 100,000 jobs while he was CEO of Bain Capital. Wikipedia describes Bain as:

“a Boston-headquartered alternative asset management and financial services company that specializes in private equity, venture capital, credit and public market investments…. Beginning in 1989, the firm, which began as a venture capital source investing in start-up companies, adjusted its strategy to focus on leveraged buyouts and growth capital investments in more mature companies.”

In 1977, after graduating cum laude with an MBA and a J.D. from Harvard University, Mitt began working for Bain & Company, a management consulting firm in Boston, and became vice president a year later. In 1984, Romney left Bain & Company to co-found the spin-off private equity investment firm, Bain Capital, which began with fewer than 10 employees. Romney headed Bain Capital as its general partner and CEO for 14 years. (Read more here).

Here is how Wikipedia describes Romney’s time at Bain:

“In 1991, Mitt Romney temporarily left Bain Capital to rejoin and lead Bain & Co. as interim CEO. Bringing along two executives from Bain Capital, Romney began a traveling campaign to rally employees at all Bain offices globally. Romney also negotiated a complex settlement between the Bain partnership and the firm’s lenders, including a $10 million reduction in the $38 million Bain owed the Bank of New England. Although in the role for just one year before returning to Bain Capital, Romney’s work had three profound impacts on the firm. First, ownership was officially shifted from the owners to the firm’s 70 general partners. Second, transparency in the firm’s finances increased dramatically (e.g. partners were able to know each other’s salaries). Third, Bill Bain relinquished ownership in the firm that carried his name. Within a year, Bain & Company bounced back to profitability without major partner defections and the groundwork was laid for a period of steady growth.”

But Rick Perry says what Romney practiced at Bain was “vulture capitalism” instead of venture capitalism. Though she’s not running, Sarah Palin too says criticism of Romney‘s record at Bain Capital is fair game and that voters should get “proof” of the 100,000 jobs Romney said he had helped create while he headed the private equity firm. Sarah’s husband, Todd, recently endorsed Newt Gingrich.

Here’s a video created by WinningOurFuture.com, which claims the video is “Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.” However if you go on its website, you’ll see that’s it’s a pro-Newt Gingrich SuperPAC.

Assuming this video is true, it’s a case of a pot calling a kettle black because Newt not only can’t claim to be a “job creator,” he actually contributed to the tanking of the U.S. economy. After he left Congress, between 2001 and 2010, Newt was a consultant to the government-sponsored home mortgage company Freddie Mac, netting a total $1.6 million in remuneration. Freddie Mac, together with its twin, the similarly cutsey-named Fannie Mae, recklessly extended mortgage loans to people who were unqualified. In so doing, Freddie and Fannie contributed much to the housing bubble and the disastrous bursting of that bubble which began America’s plunge into the Great Recession in 2008.

Newt is going after Mitt with a viciousness that verges on a personal vendetta. So much for Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment: “Thou shalt not attack a fellow Republican.” Earlier in the Iowa campaign, Newt had also declared that he would not vote for Ron Paul should the latter become the GOP nominee.

~Eowyn

Quiz: Which Candidate Is Most Like You?

USA Today has a quiz you can take to find out which presidential candidate’s views on 11 issues are most similar to yours.

The candidates are, in alphabetical order, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, Barack Obama, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum. The issues are:

  1. Afghanistan
  2. Energy
  3. Health care
  4. Medicare
  5. Immigration
  6. Experience
  7. Social Security
  8. Climate change
  9. Taxes
  10. Defense spending
  11. Gay marriage

I took the quiz and must admit I was surprised by the results. Ron Paul’s views are the best fit with mine (66.7% agreement), with Rick Perry being the next (53.4%), followed by Michele Bachmann (46.8%).

But then, like all social science measuring instruments, this quiz is methodologically flawed/inadequate:

  • The quiz gives equal weight to every one of the 11 issues when, in real life, some issues are more important to us than others. And so, although I may agree with Candidate X on a greater number of issues, we are on opposing sides on an issue about which I’m passionate. Whereas, although I may agree with Candidate Y on a fewer number of issues, on the one or two issues about which I care greatly, we are in agreement.
  • The quiz’s scope is 11 issues, leaving out many others, such as education, abortion, the national debt and government spending. Moreover, it’s USA Today who selected those 11 issues because they deem those 11 issues to be important. You or I may disagree.

To conclude, I suggest you take your quiz results with a grain of salt. In the last analysis, you know best which candidate you like, that is assuming you’ve done the homework on the candidates — their qualifications, policy positions, values, and moral character.

To take the quiz, click here.

~Eowyn

Final Iowa Poll Before Tuesday’s Caucuses

From Des Moines Register, 7:30 pm, Dec. 31, 2011:

Mitt Romney tops the latest Des Moines Register Iowa Poll in the closing days before the Iowa caucuses, but Ron Paul and Rick Santorum are poised within striking distance.

The poll, conducted Tuesday through Friday, shows:

Mitt Romney: 24%

Ron Paul: 22%

Rick Santorum: 15%

Newt Gingrich: 12%

Rick Perry: 11%

Michele Bachmann: 7%

But the four-day results don’t reflect just how quickly momentum is shifting in a race that has remained highly fluid for months. If the final two days of polling are considered separately, Santorum rises to second place, with 21%, pushing Paul to third, at 18%. Romney remains the same, at 24%.

“Momentum’s name is Rick Santorum,” said the Register’s pollster, J. Ann Selzer.

Another sign of the race’s volatility: 41% of likely caucusgoers say they could still be persuaded to change their minds.

Selzer & Co. of Des Moines conducted the poll of 602 likely Republican caucusgoers, which has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. In the final two days of polling, 302 likely caucusgoers were interviewed, with a margin of error of plus or minus 5.6 percentage points.

The first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses, which take place Tuesday evening, kick off voting in the presidential nominating process. The Iowa Poll, a Register exclusive since 1943, is a much-watched indicator of how candidates are faring in the leadoff caucus state.

~Eowyn

Newt is a Big Govt RINO

Politicians will tell you anything in order to get your vote.

The yardstick we should use to take the measure of a politician who now swears he’s changed his ways and is repentant about his past behavior, is his past behavior, not his present words.

Did you know that:

  • Newt Gingrich was instrumental in the creation of the Department of Education?
  • Newt was listed as a member of the “one world government” Council on Foreign Relations?
  • Newt led the way for the United States to form NAFTA, and join GATT and the World Trade Organization?
  • Newt said he’s a “big fan” of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who began the U.S.’s road to socialism?
  • Newt said in a speech in July 1995 that “The American challenge in leading the world is compounded by our Constitution” and that we would have to “rethink” our Constitution?

Please take the time to watch this half-hour video on Newt’s voting record.

Please note that I’m not endorsing the last part of the video when McManus, the narrator, seems to be extolling Ron Paul.

I haven’t decided which GOP candidate I’ll vote for. I can’t even say there’s a candidate I really like. I’m in the information-gathering phase and, frankly, am puzzled by the passionate and indignant outrage of some conservatives toward any information that may be critical of their candidate.

The Iowa caucus is next Tuesday, but that is only the first event of the long GOP primary process. History also shows that the winner of the Iowa caucus is not necessarily the actual GOP presidential nominee. No one now remembers that in 2008, Mike Huckabee (who’s he? LOL) won the Iowa caucus.

H/t LTG.

~Eowyn