I heard this data read on Mark Levin this afternoon, and picked it up from the CNN PoliticalTicker blog by way of Lucianne.
I’ll provide the nothing shy of jaw-dropping stats below… how you choose to absorb this ugly reality about election campaigns and negative advertising is, of course, completely up to you.
Me? To use the “he who dies with the most toys…” old saying, paraphrased, obviously he who has the most money for a campaign, combined with the least scruples, wins.
Statistics provided by the Campaign Media Analysis Group (CMAG).
“I spent much of my academic career telling reporters, ‘Relax, this is not the most negative campaign ever,'” CMAG President Ken Goldstein said. “Well, this IS the most negative campaign ever.”
Numbers from CMAG show a total of 11,586 television spots aired in Florida between January 23 and January 29. [Mata Musing: that’s 1655 per day, or close to one every minute of a 24 hour period… no wonder my relatives were complaining…] Of those spots, 10,633 were negative and 953 were positive.
Of the 1,012 spots Newt Gingrich’s campaign ran, 95% were negative. Mitt Romney’s campaign ran 3,276 ads and 99% were negative.
The two super PACs supporting the top candidates were more divergent in their ad strategies. Restore our Future, supporting Romney, ran 4,969 spots, all of which were negative. The Gingrich-backing Winning our Future ran 1,893 spots, and only 53% were negative.
Correspondingly, the bulk of ads in Florida – 68% – were negative toward Gingrich. Twenty-three percent were anti-Romney spots. Gingrich got support from 9% of ads while pro-Romney spots accounted for less than 0.1%.
With these stats, the lesson learned is that Romney never won by positive campaigning… only by tearing down his opponent. How Obama’esque of him…. I’ve already got a POTUS with this version of ethics. Do I really want to replace him with another, just because he fakes an “R” behind his name?
Romney, of course, was busy playing the victim, whining like a little kid to his Mom, pointing fingers saying “he started it!” in reference to Newt. Unfortunately, that’s not how it went.
It was Romney’s well timed onslaught of SuperPac spending in Iowa that crashed Newt’s momentum there. Romney also outspent Newt 2 to 1 in South Carolina. Florida? Well, the above tells the story.
Needless to say, Romney’s feigned innocence and cries of “victim”, after outspending Gingrich four to one, are somewhat disingenuous to put it mildly.
In fact, as of Jan 10th, 96% of the SuperPACs’ spending on negative ads were targeting Gingrich. It’s amazing the guy’s gotten as far as he has, vacillating between being the front runner and in second both in the state, and nationally. As of the 20th of January, the SuperPAC spending had clicked up to about $33 million (both positive and negative of all candidates), with Romney leading the pack with $11 million, or 1/3rd of all SuperPAC spending alone.
While Mitt’s busy spending money, hands over fists, to destroy his competitor, what will he have left to defend himself again Obama’s massive war chest in the general? If Romney is, today, gloating over a win based on buying a State Primary with negative ads, saying they served him well, he’s got little hope of out spending Obama in the general.
There’s no money back guarantee on a Mittens candidacy if or when he loses to Obama when cast as the heartless, soul’less capitalist pig. The man who is the epitome of everything that Obama rails against. We sure know that health care will be off the table, since Romney was the architect of Obama’care. Mandates that force citizens to buy a product, simply because they live and breathe, are no more Constitutional at the state level than they are at the federal. Our inalienable rights do not stop at State boundaries.
Meanwhile, for some primary return fun, the folks over at ABC have decided to publish their predictions of by just how much Newt would be losing to Romney in Florida, in percentages ranging from 7-8% to 28%. It’s 6:41PM PT, and the cable news has called the election for Romney at 47%/Gingrich with 32% with 81% of the vote in (ever changing). Guess they’ll have to wait to declare the winner.
Wonder if they’re running a pool for cash…
AMY WALTER – ABC News Political Director
Romney- 45%
Newt- 29%
Santorum- 14%
Paul- 12%JONATHAN KARL – ABC News Senior Political Correspondent
Romney – 41%
Gingrich – 28%
Santorum – 16%
Paul – 11%RICK KLEIN – Senior Washington Editor
Romney – 45%
Gingrich – 27%
Paul – 15%
Santorum – 11%Z. BYRON WOLF – Politics Editor for ABC News.com
Romney – 37%
Gingrich – 27%
Santorum – 12 %
Paul – 12 %Eric Noe – ABCNews.com Deputy Managing Editor
Romney: 43%
Gingrich: 29%
Santorum: 16%
Paul: 12%SHUSHANNAH WALSHE – ABC News Digital Reporter
Mitt Romney – 36 %
Newt Gingrich – 29 %
Rick Santorum – 15%
Ron Paul – 13%GEORGE SANCHEZ – ABC News Washington, DC Assignment Editor
Romney – 49%
Gingrich – 21%
Santorum – 16%
Paul – 12%ELIZABETH HARTFIELD – ABC News Political Unit
Romney- 41%
Gingrich- 28%
Santorum- 14%
Paul- 11%CHRIS GOOD – ABC News Political Unit
Romney – 38%
Gingrich – 30%
Santorum – 12%
Paul – 11%MATT NEGRIN – ABC News Political Reporter
Romney – 36%
Gingrich – 29%
Paul – 17%
Santorum – 15%AMY BINGHAM – ABC News.com Reporter
Romney- 43%
Gingrich- 28%
Santorum- 12%
Paul- 9%SARAH PARNASS – ABC News Intern
Romney – 46%
Gingrich – 27%
Santorum – 16%
Paul – 11%ALEXA KEYES – ABC News Intern
Romney -44%
Gingrich – 29%
Santorum -14%
Paul – 11%
We have a problem, folks. While I support the voters’ right to choose via elections, even if not my candidate of choice, the amount of money and the sleazy tactics that have permeated our process are beyond alarming. So you’ll forgive me if I don’t celebrate the primary results, as it’s going now.
It turns out that all we feared may be true, as it plays out before our very eyes and with documented facts… that offices of our central government are, indeed, for sale to the highest bidder with those with the most creative lies.
A “must read” … C. Edmund Wright’s American Thinker article 2/1/12 – “Mitt’s Scorched Earth Win”.
Another “must”…Thomas Sowell’s primary day column, “The Florida Smear Campaign”
George Neumayr’s American Thinker article, “Romney’s Cheap and Empty Win”… tho I might disagree as to how “cheap” it was in a monetary perspective.
Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
Nan G
HI,
I found another one you might like; Every woman should have four pets in her life:
a mink in her closet, a jaguar in her garage, a tiger in her bed, and a jackass who pay for everything.
bye
@MataHarley:
Would you consider it to be a ‘flaw’ if you lost your land?
Insults are the hallmark of someone who can’t back up their bs. (Like I wrote earlier, Newt’s not a conservative)
What fallacy do you think this falls under?
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
@Minarchist Freedom Fighter: Do you even understand the “realpolitik Wilsonian” quote which you use to deride Newt?
If so, explain.
~~~~~~~~~~
Edited to ad:
So RPIR, I already cleaned your clock on another thread, now you tangle with Mata and get slapped down yet again.
But I will ask again, do you even understand the “realpolitik Wilsonian” quote that you assume is a derogatory term about Newt?
I can almost guarantee you do not.
@MataHarley: You go, girl!
Um, okay I got that out of my system, but the sentiment remains – You know how to kick ass, Ms. Harley!
@anticsrocks:
Not really, but by all means go with it if it helps you to sleep at night.
Yeah, she’s kicks ass….She kicks ass in the same way that her hero Newt shrank the government and paid down our debt while he was Speaker and Whip.
@Minarchist Freedom Fighter/RPIR: LOL!!
THAT’S your comeback???
Hahahahhahaha
Odd how you avoid answering questions no matter what silly name you use.
Anticrocks, the funny thing is this sock puppet persona of RPIR isn’t any brighter than the original. I have to laugh at the below statement it made about the Endangered Species Act.
No clue what conspiratorial site RPIR/AFF is haunting, but they sure are incredibly naive… no, make that stupid… about property ownership in the US. With such a statement, I can only conclude that our latest sock puppet has always been in his Mom’s basement, and never been a landowner who’s exposed to and familiar with the police powers of zoning and land use regulations. Those that suck up the most hyperbole, and have little real life experience, tend to be the most hysterical.
The only way the government can seize land, “taking” ownership against the private owner’s will, is via eminent domain – one of the four government powers for land ownership. The others are property taxes (obviously the govt’s right to tax), Police Power (zoning and land use regulations) and Escheat (vested property where the owner dies and there is no heir).
Designating an area a habitat for an endangered species doesn’t automatically change the vested ownership of the land… and only the most ignorant would say that it does. In most instances, it simply uses police powers to mandate the limited uses and preservation of a particular area until the species moves to a different area, or falls off the list. Hey… it’s the price any landowner pays when they choose to own land. With the purchase comes those four powers. If you don’t like it, don’t buy land with or without improvements.
It rarely falls on something the size of a city lot. But as a parallel, even in a subdivision that has a riparian area, there are generally distances from water streams that are off limits, and are required to remain indigenous. And they aren’t even an endangered species area.
As a rule, the larger endangered species are more often found in our rural acreage acres.
Wetlands, not necessarily an endangered species habitat, also fall under this same type of land use mandate, and can be imposed by States.
In other words, police power zoning/land use regulations are nothing new.
Generally these are things you research prior to a purchase (that caveat emptor bit), since overlays are available at the local and state level for all parcels. But the “taking” of land.. i.e. eminent domain.. is not common. But if an owner finds himself caught up in a newly designated area, there are many programs for financial aid and/or incentives for affected owners… and in other cases, compensation for loss… i.e. harvest timber than can no longer be taken, etc. Unlike eminent domain, which takes ownership, compensation for loss of the crop or farm use is compensated without any change in ownership of the land.
Thus the “losing your land” observation is generally hype for the hysterical.
Zoning and land use can be a b*#Tch, that’s for sure. But it’s also part and parcel (pun intended) of any land ownership. And while zoning and land use battles wage constantly all over the country, some of them are frivolous (the owners really never intended to do anything with that habitat area, but see the possibility to raise a stink and get cash). For those that genuinely experience a lose of income for the limiting regulations, there are also those that play the system.
It’s a fact of life for all property owners…. something that apparently goes over the head of the current sock puppet. But the ESA is hardly a new concept of zoning and land use regulations.
Minarchist Freedom Fighter
you should back up your negatives remarks about NEWT GINGRISH, with a proof,
because MATA has the knowledge about it, and can refute your attacks as fast,
@ilovebeeswarzone: That’s just it Beezy, MFF/RPIR is just like our President, an empty suit with no substance.
@MataHarley: The images conjured of MFF/RPIR are just like what Mark Levin is always saying – sitting in boxer shorts, munching Cheetos in their Mom’s basement.
LOL
On the land rights issue, I agree and it brings to mind how much I abhor property taxes. I mean crap, I bought the damn land/house and Uncle Sam sure had his hand out when I did. But every year, he comes a’knockin’ asking for more…
Okay, off my soapbox. lol
@MataHarley:
So is this what passes for intelligent discussion here? (Name calling, logical fallacies, groupthink high-fiving…is this Usenet?)
Note: not one personal attack from me.
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
Minarchist Freedom Fighter
you are in the twilight zone here, it’s a labyrinth to make you find the exit the hard way.
every stranger has to go through that screening,
bye
@Minarchist Freedom Fighter: And you still avoid answering my question…
Interesting.
Evidently you don’t know the origins of the “realpolitik Wilsonian” quote that you think is an insult towards Newt Gingrich.
I didn’t think you did.
@anticsrocks:
You continually insult me…And you expect me to continue carrying on a conversation with you? (Giant cojones)
@Minarchist Freedom Fighter: There’s no shame in admitting you don’t know.
And I hate to brag. Giant? Hmm, at least well above average…
😀
@MataHarley:
At first it didn’t mean anything to me, but the more I thought about it, it’s kind of disturbing to have someone who represents this site releasing info about my past names….Tell me something Mata, if you had found my real name, would you have released that too? Where I work? My address? Pictures of my family? Is their any anonymity when it comes to this site, or if you get really mad can I expect anything and everything to be used?
And this isn’t the first time you’ve pulled this stunt?!?!? =-O
I live in a city where a guy was recently shot dead because somebody didn’t like what they had to say in a chat group, just like this, and decided to do something about it. I really don’t want to be next. Should I be afraid?
@MFF/RPIR: Ah, c’mon. You ain’t so ugly as to scare lil’ chilluns, are ya?
Tough guy uses different names – “sock puppets” – to be dishonest about who he is and what his agenda is. But when called out on it, the tough guy starts whinin’ about Mata pickin’ on him.
Priceless.
I’ve had my fair share of insults on “teh interwebz” and I ain’t never cried foul. Oh well, when you’re a liberal nut job who cannot even answer the simplest of questions, I s’pose all you got left is to cry and whine about being called a sock puppet.
Sad.
@Minarchist Freedom Fighter: You are using the same IP and same email address as Ron Paul Is Right. So you have changed your username. Now choose one and stay with it or I will assume you are trying to be a sockpuppet and you will be banned. Up to you, first and last warning.
With author access, I already know your IP, the area of the country you reside, and your email. I trust that should answer your question as to what I divulge about your multiple personae and true identity. But frankly, you – or your family or friends – don’t interest me that much.
What does interest me is that you intentionally and wantonly choose to deceive our FA community by masquerading as different people. Did you feel your first personality was so discredited that you needed to invent a new fake personality?
Needless to say, in a face to face circle of social interaction, this is pretty low behavior.
This is a community of regular visitors who comment and interact, MFF/RPIR. Sock puppetry is designed to solely deceive who you are for debate purposes, lend support to your opinion by pretending you have support from others, or distance yourself from what you said as the other personality. No one asks that you use a real name, nor do we care who you really are. Only that you pick a cyber handle and stick with it. Otherwise it’s like carrying on a discussion with Sybil – a person who changes their principles as easily as they change cyber handles.
Curt generally gives a single warning about such deception, and if it’s continued to be abused, you’re 86’ed. Our archives are peppered with those who’ve been dumped from the site for these same games. You are not singled out for your differing viewpoint, as we all get a kick out of engaging in heated debate with opposing views. But for your chosen behavior of disrespect for the rest of us in the community is an insult.
And I assure you, all of we authors have been involved in discovering those playing the game you attempt to play in the past. And I also assure you that there is no history of anyone showing up at your front door. Paranoid much?
That you find it appalling, and feel violated because your deception using fake names… none of which lead to you, nor are your real name… has been exposed is hilarious. Funny that you have no shame in your own sham of deliberate deception of us, and instead choose to scream victim. I suggest that your cyber societal priorities are misplaced.
You have heard of the legal phrase, expectation of privacy, yes? Little is private on the Internet. Yet there is nothing revealed about you, as a real person, except that you like to deliberately lie to those with whom you carry on a debate, for whatever questionable motive.
But it’s quite revealing of your personality that you choose to practice to deceive… and you know how that Sir Walter Scott saying goes.
Mata,
Your expertise in home and property loans an mortgages makes this a “must read” for you:
Armageddon at the Strip Mall
I cannot begin to tell you all how much I dislike when people engage in devious behaviour meant to deceive, and yet, when they are caught out in the lie they weaved, by their own hands, they then immediately start crying foul and playing the victim card.
The liberal/progressives population is littered with people famous for doing this. I believe it’s because they have no foundation upon which to build their moral principles of right and wrong, and because of that, they have no compunction about falsely accusing those who have outed them.
I’d go further into what I perceive the conscious mindset of these people is, and why they are failures in life, but I don’t really want to start a book here.
@Nan G, my commercial friends and I have been expecting this reset of the commercial loans for over a year now. It’s not a new, or unexpected event.
There is a solution, but it requires more cash equity/down payment for a refinance. Since most of those who are carrying these investments are those also vested in stocks… which is doing well… they’ll have to pull money out of investments to shore these up. But that is also something they have to closely examine as a wise financial move. It does, after all, assume that there will be minimal vacancy rates in a times when consumer spending is flat.
@MataHarley: @Curt:
First off, I enjoy your site. As for the name change, with the constant drip of racism and the like coming out of the Paul camp, I was actually planning on using “Minarchist Freedom Fighter” permanently. I didn’t want to be associated with that. Now….Hell, I don’t want any trouble so I’ll just stop posting to this site. (Could you please delete all my post off this site? ODIDC)
@johngalt
I wasn’t trying to deceive anyone. I had no problem with people knowing that I was RPIR. If anyone had asked I would have told them. I have no problem with it being released. (I have a problem with it coming out over a trivial disagreement over a candidate. It makes me wonder what’s next)
I live in a true blue state where the freedom of speech is free so long as they agree with you. I don’t need unbalanced libs showing up at my house. It’s just not worth it.
Minarchist, if you enjoy the site, why not stick around and join the community as who you prefer to be known.. and stick to it. We all associate with certain aspects of some of the candidates (i.e. Paul’s fiscal policies) and can’t abide other aspects (i.e. the racist tinged association with some of Paul’s publications and his foreign policies). None of us are happy with the political menu selection, are are forced to look over meatballs when we’re craving steaks.
Sock puppetry is not a written cyber society rule in FA’s posting notes to my knowledge – it’s just a general sign of respect for the community. I’ll assume you didn’t know that we have a low tolerance of anyone donning a different hat to disassociate yourself from your other personalities. We have, in fact, had people that have changed their name, and let us know so that we know who we’re still speaking with. Relationships, and adversaries, are pretty long standing here. Consider it known now, and just start over.
But if you prefer more like kind sites, have at it. No one will plead for you to stay, nor encourage you to go. But if you want to be a part of this community, at least give us all the respect of remaining the same person so that relationships can be developed over time.
I live in blue Oregon myself, and I’m well aware that that political beliefs can cause problems in these contentious times. It can even carry over into business. However no one here is going to show up at your door, and in fact don’t even want to know which door is your’s, to give you face to face problems. Yeah… we’ll hassle you here, and you’ll do the same. If you characterize a political stand of candidates with generalities and opinions which aren’t factual, most of us are going to come back with links to straighten you out. That’s not blind devotion or “hero” worship… it’s just correcting revisionist history. The quest at FA is to be well informed with facts, not talking points, to cast an intelligent vote. So we tear into the details of history often.
As far as personal insults, please note that your references to “losing property” was not directed at you, but at the reading material you chose that erroneously framed common police powers as akin to eminent domain, where the vested ownership of property does actually change. I specifically said that with my phrase, “No clue what conspiratorial site RPIR/AFF is haunting, but they sure are incredibly naive… no, make that stupid… about property ownership in the US.” It’s obvious that I was referring to where you were getting your facts, not to you. You wouldn’t be the first person mislead by such misrepresentation.
As far as personal insults, most of the time we match the tone someone sets in their commentary. When you address the rest of us as imbeciles, without using the word “imbecile” specifically, it’s still personally insulting. The tone will be returned as perceived. Buck up. It’s going to get far uglier than this in the general.
@Minarchist Freedom Fighter: Don’t rush off in the heat of the day without a blanket…
If you ever get your “Cajones” up to size and come back, I will gladly educate you about that little Wilsonian quote you don’t understand.
MATA
very well said, no ambiguity there, and fair for all, including Minarchist Freedom Fighter,
who could be a good debater as the election advance, any opinion is good because we are on the same side, all hard head CONSERVATIVES, TOGETHER FOR THE SAME GOAL, DEFEATING OBAMA IN 2012,
AND MANY DIFFERENT OPINIONS ARE COMMENTED, THERE IS NO TIME TO QUIT AT THIS TIME.
BYE
Bees……. just 8 more posts ’til we’re at the 200 mark… now where the hell’s that dingo with my stick?
Donald Bly
the dingo is beating on a libtard with the stick,
I have your back for the 200. I’m alert and not afraid,
let’s get it, no time to waste, no mercy.
bye
@ Richard Wheeler.. did you change E-mails?? Got SRV ready to send, but the e-mail I sent got no response?
Hankster How are ya? rjwheeler22@yahoo.com. Keep rockin.
Donald Bly
I see the dingo’s coming, with the stick, and the libtard,
what do I do now? do you still have the boomerang?
Donald Bly
report to command post at once, emergency on the post, require action now,
move it, on the double, 1 2 3
198…
anticsrocks
hello there , I’m the 199
anticsrocks
hello there, anyone , it’s early, so I’ll take the 200 too,
if you don’t min
bye thank you
@ilovebeeswarzone: Go for it Beezy. Grats. I had to work, so I hit 198 before I left and 201 when I got home.
anticsrocks
yes thank you for the 198, it help me, and I took the other one, ,because I knew you where at work or sleeping at my time, and didn’t want a wheellr rolling in to take it, bye
anticsrocks
what do you think of what I’m thinking now; RON PAUL AND SANTORIUM, IF AT ONE TIME GET BEHIND FURTHER,
could give NEWT THEIR followers votes, that would propel NEWT IN FRONT TO WIN THE PRESIDENCY,and I’m sure they would get in close to NEWT IN THE DUTY OF PREVENTING AMERICA TO BE DESTROYED AGAIN , and play a good positive role in GOVERNMENT WHICH WILL HAVE THE NEED OF THE RIGHT AMERICANS , BECAUSE OF THE GIGANTIC REPAIRING JOBS NEEDED IN THE NEW PRESIDENCY
@ilovebeeswarzone: Well there is no doubt that Santorum’s voters would go to Newt in the event Santorum were to drop out.
Not all of Ron Paul’s votes would go to Newt, but he would definitely get a portion of them.
@Mata
Wow – what weak excuses you use in defending Gingrich…
Apparently he’s not hypocritical in using negativity in his campaigns and bitching about himself being a target…because…he was trying to ‘differentiate himself from his opponents’ and because his …well…opponents also use negative campaigning…and…and…(this is a great one) he’s not the worst negative campaigner in modern US political history! Lol weak. If you don’t believe in negativity campaigning then don’t do it. Simple. Has Gingrich used negative campaigning in the past? Yes. Is he using it now? Yes. As I say – hypocrite.
Apparently someone who served as the Speaker of the House, has a 20 year record in Congress plus time spent as a Washington consultant is an ‘outsider’. He wants to parade his experience, his endorsements from notable Republicans from previous administrations and the deals he has cut (fine) but he then tries to make out he’s an outsider – drawing on that hoary old cliché. If everyone in politics considered themselves an outsider when they fall foul of their colleagues then the place would be awash with outsiders. Being an insider who isn’t liked doesn’t make you an outsider. As Jon Stewart put it to Gingrich ‘When Washington gets its prostrate checked, it tickles you’. LOL
As for the ethics charge –
And
So he was found guilty of a charge which he admitted to and he got let off another one. But that’s okay because apparently it’s more important the number of charges which don’t stick that the ones that do. Lol. So he was guilty of that charge and it wasn’t fake. He led a witchhunt against Clinton and he got impaled upon a witchhunt aimed at him. Sounds like he got his just desserts there. He led the charge against Clinton and he went too far – hence why his colleagues turned on him. He only has himself to blame there.
I don’t complain about Gingrich for compromising with Democrats – quite the opposite. The fact he compromised in some areas and was instrumental in balancing the budget is to his credit. And if he was a straight forward honest fiscal conservative then I would think he was the best thing for the US. But he isn’t. Even in politics – his dishonesty is quite breathtaking.
Why do people Gingrich expect he will clean up Washington when he was part of the problem!
Encouraging Earmarks
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/289425/newt-and-earmark-era-katrina-trinko
Howabout the House banking scandal which Gingrich drew attention to despite him hypocritically having kiting 22 checks including $9,463 to the IRS? I guess that’s ok because as long as he wasn’t the worst offender…lol
Here’s an example of negativity from Gingrich’s Superpac
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/four-pinocchios-for-king-of-bain/2012/01/12/gIQADX8WuP_blog.html
Gingrich was clearly hypocritical in his effort to get Clinton impeached over his infidelity whilst committing infidelity himself was and preaching about moral standards.
With Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae – Gingrich was paid by them and duly defended them – until after he was paid and politically it was expient to
Gingrich even praised Romney’s healthcare plan at the time
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204296804577123043147395330.html
lol
@Gaffer: Oh Gaffer, you really do like to stick your nose into things you cannot even participate in. How sad.
Newt was found not guilty by Clinton’s IRS.
CNN: IRS Exonerated Gingrich in 1999
This is audio from Neil Boortz’ radio show in which he explains step-by-step the entire ethics “scandal” that you seem unable to understand, Gaffer. It is 12 or so minutes, but it is well worth the time if you are interested in the truth. If you just want to nurse your hate on for Newt, then don’t bother.
Then you twist reality to find Newt liable for the content of ads put out by a SuperPAC.
As much as I abhor citing wikipedia, it does have the rules correct in this case:
Then you dredge up the Fannie/Freddie Democrat talking points INRE Gingrich.
He released his contract with the GSE, which clearly showed he did not lobby.
Additionally J.C.Watts, a Republican House member from Oklahoma (1995-2003) was on the House Banking Committee and has publicly testified that Newt Gingrich’s name never came up at all as a lobbyist for the GSE’s.
Really Gaffer, you ought to at least do a little homework before you spout off like this. It is rather tiresome, you know.
Gaffa, an “insider” or “outsider” status is not achieved simply by holding a seat or office in Washington DC. Ron Paul, Sheila Jackson Lee, Dennis Kuchinich are all just a few examples of others considered “outsiders” despite their Congressional status. Meaning their views, or even personalities, are not considered within the general trend and norm of their peers. Washington DC is truly a bastion of elitism and snobbery. A collection of Ivy League types who tend to look down on others that either don’t fit the Ivy League mold, or don’t follow the heinie of the dog in front of them on the trail.
Newt was despised in Congress by most. Some didn’t like his personality. Others didn’t like the idea that he compromised with the “enemy”, the Democrats and Clinton. In fact, if you ever read the Vanity Fair article in 1989, you’d see that the “outsider” status bothered Newt very much. He really wanted to be accepted by these snobs. They ostracized him, then used him as a scape goat to try and bolster their own failing approval numbers.
Seems you suffer from the same affliction as Greg, Gaffa… the inability to retain facts, or to outright block them. The “charge” of $300K isn’t a “charge”. It was a vote by the House membership as a “reprimand” which carried a penalty. Newt could have fought it, but since the Party was already being viewed negatively by the media and public during the election year, and their quest to impeach Clinton … as well as the perception by those (like you) who pronounced the Speaker “guilty” without investigations and authorities, Newt just paid it so that it would not be a campaign issue that hurt the Party.
What he was reprimanded for, and paid a lot of cash for, was the very charge that he was exonerated for a year later by the IRS. You might liken this fake reprimand as similar to this: I accuse you of violating an equal opportunity employer federal law. You don’t’ want to fight it out in court because it’s expensive and can damage your reputation, so you just settle out of court. But a federal investigation ensues anyway, and finds later on that you weren’t guilty of the accusation I made.
But you still paid the settlement. Are you now guilty because you paid the settlement?
Newt was innocent of all charges. Period. You can do the backstroke all day long, and you’ll still be wrong.
My heavens, revealing your Wiki history dependence, aren’t you? Let’s see if we can help you learn the real story instead.
If you bother to read real history of the step by step uncovering of Clinton’s questionable alliances and behavior during his terms (transparent.. .not) – you’d learn two things…
1: That the charge was for perjury – lying under oath, not having an affair. (duh…) and
2: That the genuine “leader” of the charge was GA’s Bob Barr, and the Speaker, along with a few others who constructed the Contract With America, were trying to hold Barr back.
My my… does that sound like a Speaker “leading the charge”, when they were sitting on the resolution, and the fellow penners of the Contract with America were urging others to restrain from using the word impeachment?
Not a single hearing was held before Henry Hyde’s House Judiciary Committee prior to the midterms. They impeached Clinton Dec 19, 1998… 12 days before Newt formally resigned.
A bit hard for Newt to “lead the witchhunt” when he wasn’t on the House Judiciary Committee, was resisting the impeachment resolution, nor was even a member of Congress during the proceedings, don’t you think?
As far as you demonstrating Newt’s negative advertising… the original post I wrote has the amount of cash in negative ads by each candidate. Therefore no one suggested that Newt hasn’t engaged in negative advertising. Newt, however, was the receipient of a tsunami first, and then only responded with a bucket of water in Romney’s face. Hardly comparable, and all campaigns have negative ads. That’s not the point. The point here is the absolute volume run thru, and out of the candidate’s personal control.
Romney and his PACs swamped Newt in negative advertising first in Iowa, and Newt did not respond until SC. Even at that, the volume and percentages of the Gingrich advertising is minimal compared to Romney’s, so was not a quid pro quo.
Now Santorum, with his three state sweep – putting Romney on alert that the coronation has been postponed – will be facing Romney’s negative war chest. He’s the new threat… today, at least.
Consider yourself debunked, and rebuked for your deplorable knowledge of American History. But then, you’re a foreigner. Even many of our own citizens are as ill-informed as you.
Gaffa…. you seem to OBSESS over the USA…. I can see US doing it, it’s out home. What’s YOUR deal??? You know, YOUR nation, has become such a tangled up Socialist clusterpluck of what it ONCE was.. I’d think, you’d focus, on trying to SAVE the (once) Great Britain!! Instead of huffing and puffing over the Colonies… just saying!
(unless you are considering US a place to refuge too, once England goes completely mad with Social Utopitis, thus are worried about OUR health)
ALL nations of the world, would do much better, if that managed their OWN back yards, before obsessing, and interfering in the backyards of OTHERS……. US INCLUDED!
@MataHarley: Well said Mata. You addressed points I neglected to discuss.
@Hankster58
Do you know what socialism is?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
Here’s a list of companies that have been privatised – almost all during or after Thatcher…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_privatizations#1970s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization#United_Kingdom
Doesn’t take a genius to see that the UK has gone from nationalised socialist policies to privatised, market solutions. Even the bank buy outs in 2008 under a Labour government was done partially and with reluctance – echoing the similar US but outs under Bush. But still don’t let that stop your misconceptions. lol
Typical Brit…. Socialism HERE, is when the Government basically Controls everything… Basically Communism, WITHOUT the “Equality” of Nothingness TRUE Communism espoused. Note, there has NEVER been a Completely Communist nation, ever. Even Russia, and Red China, have never been Textbook Communist nations. The “gov types lived WELL ABOVE the “Citizen subjects”,.. thus not true Communism.
And. your “Dictionary” definition is cute, but doesn’t use the word, as it has come to be in modern parlance today, Sorry, “chap”!
Modern day England, is about as “socialized” as a nation can be! You have socialized Medicine, Retirement, etc etc.. PARLIAMENT tells you to JUMP, and you only ask.. HOW HIGH!! And, you’ve surrendered your RIGHT, to guns for self protection, and, your Government, now will prosecute YOU, for defending yourself!! YOU have no individual rights to self defense anymore…. that’s not how it is, in a FREE nation, is it?? A “god given” right over here…. You want to stay deluded.. knock yourself out.
But it REAL TERMS… I stand by my statements… and, as to what do I KNOW, about YOUR country?? One of my best friends, is a Former British “subject”, and Former British COP as well.. so i have GREAT INSIGHT into YOUR system….. by the way, My friend here, HAS his own Gun, and CCW permit as well… Something, a SOCIALIST Nation.. doesn’t issue to it’s SUBJECTS… like you! Have a nice, deluded day.. go back to sleep now…LOL!!
I have a Misconception?? OR you’re so blind, you don’t see what’s been done to you?? Think about it…. that’s why WE LAUGH, when YOU try to preach to us , on how we should do things etc… YOU are, what WE are trying.. TO AVOID becoming!! Get it NOW?? We’re fighting it.. you surrendered, and now HAVE IT. that makes you, a loser….. sorry once again. Looks as if, the sun HAS SET, on the “British Empire”…..
Slash and burn Hankster…. two thumbs up!
Hankster
they are escalating the rhetoric, you have made an unquestionable point, rendering the opponent
speechless,
can you believe the pension fund to pay for home mortgage loan, 25 billion to those who
past their mortgage payment,
what will happen to the pensioners? are they taking from
PETER later, to pay now to PAUL?
Hankster
hi,
what do you think of Santorum picking PAUL RYAN FOR HIS TEAM if he get the job
@Hankster
Bad luck old chap but I’ll think you’ll find Merriam-Webster is an American dictionary so that’s the definition used in the US. Unless went you meant over HERE as being in your household or in the warped reality and parlance of conservative wireless propagandists. But maybe you see dictionaries as cute and don’t tend to use them? So socialism is just like communism in that in controls everything but in reality it doesn’t. Sorry old boy but I’m afraid you’ll find that vague meaningless claptrap. Although I must say, you rather do seem to confuse left and right with authoritarianism and libertarianism. Look it up some time.
And modern day England (and don’t forget the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish whilst you’re at it) is about as socialized as a nation can be eh? So her Majesty government runs and controls British Airways, British Gas, British Telecom, British Petroleum etc do they? And is this England of yours therefore more ‘socialized’ than say China, Cuba or North Korea? Of course I thought us Brits with our stiff upper lips weren’t that good at socializing at parties etc. But may you confused socialize with socialism with your funny mangled version of the Queen’s English?
It’s true we have a universal health care system – which our current conservative led government is trying to partially privatize – like almost all western countries (I guess they’re all commies too eh?) and indeed you yankies have VHA & Military Health System – and what’s this Medicare & Medicaid– government health insurance?! Sounds like a pinko plot to me. Heaven forbid – I hope you don’t have a ‘socialized’ police force, armed services, firefighters, social security, libraries, road system, airport security, postal service as well!?
I also see you have social security, state schools and unemployment benefits, comrade…and unlike us Brits I see to become a citizen all you need is for your mother (illegal or not) to drop you on the right side of the border. Wow that is a socialist’s paradise there – equality for all – no matter where your parents are from – Lenin would be proud:D
Yes when Her Majesty’s parliament makes laws we tend to follow them – I believe you over there in the colonies do the same? Indeed didn’t you base your legal system largely on ours? Although I think you’ll find we don’t have a right enshrined in our constitution about gun rights – partly as we don’t have a written constitution and mainly because we don’t give a hoot about waving guns about down the high street as if it was the Wild West. All very vulgar.
And I think you’ll find that Englishmen and ladies are entitled to self defence by common law and the Criminal Law Act 1967. But why let facts get in the way.
I don’t think the British Empire was sank somehow by socialism. Rather it was economics dear boy. After fighting two world wars and running the empire on a shoestring – we simply didn’t have the cash to run the wretched thing. It’s a shame though because at its height of the Empire – all British subjects really had so much freedom – well beyond most all the males and all females not being able to vote, an inflexible class system, religious persecution and so on. I’m sure good old Rick Santorum will bring lots of individual freedom to the US – unless you happen to be a woman or gay or generally fall outside what he considers to be accepted norm. Is that socialized conservatism? What, what:D
I guess if you base your ideas on jolly old England by some bloke over there who was an ex-subject of her majesty then it’s no wonder you are confused. Or maybe you see snippets in the media (possibly through our disreputable rag The Daily Mail) about exceptional cases and exaggerate that somehow believe that is the norm. We have dumb Brits like that over here that think the US is just Dallas wear you all wear 6 Gallon cowboy hats or the US is where everyone gets shot because some Yankie said so. Maybe you think Downton Abbey is a current affairs documentary? Lol It sounds like you have never been to England – where the streets are cobbled, and we all wear Bowler hats and cor blimey the London fog is a real pea souper. I suspect that’s explains your ignorance and dull cliches. Tally ho!
You confuse “socialized” with “public service”.. as most deluded leftist types do…. enjoy your utopia then. Question is, why do you bother then, with us??? LOL.. BORED ?
You know where you expose yourself?? When YOU say, you are DE_SOCIALIZING.. via the Government, PRIVATIZING itself…. Lets see… didn’t YOU SAY…
“Doesn’t take a genius to see that the UK has gone from nationalized socialist policies to privatized, market solutions. “???
Let me ask YOU then, genius…. didn’t you fight, in the LAST WW…. AGAINST the “Nationalist Socialist Workers Party?? then why did you allow yourselves, to BECOME that way?? OOPS!!
@ bees… that could be an interesting mix.