Newt Gingrich Controversies

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1327038829' post='2371893']
even catholics arent normally in the habit of saying politicians are good and moral just because they are catholic, see the Kennedy's for example.
[/quote]

I never said he was moral because he was Catholic. If I said that, I should take a look at some pretty interesting Catholic political figures we have today. I said he had evidence of living a moral Catholic life, never that he was moral just because he was Catholic.

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='BG45' timestamp='1327066081' post='2371954']
Not so off the rails, considering points 3-10 have actual quotes from Newt at OnTheIssues.org

---

I realize now that the intent of this thread is to deify Newt Gingrich as the paragon of all that is good and holy in politics and to try and silence any opposition to that ideal because people aren't being "charitable". I don't think I've ever seen a "charitable" politics thread on Phatmass...that said, I have seen a number of wonderful debates on Phatmass where people express their opinions on issues, such as Gingrich's qualifications morally and politically to lead.

I refuse to hold him to a different standard than I hold others though, simply because he is a Catholic. If anything, I should hold him under more of a microscope because he claims to Rep my Church. If people still accuse Bill Clinton of being an adulterer, I should have no issue with people accusing Newt of it as well. Do I think both men have learned from their past mistakes? I hope so. Do I pray that they really have changed? Of course.
[/quote]

There's a difference between sharing your views with each other and calling someone scum. If there's yet to be a charitable political debate on PhatMass, why not make this the first one?

The intent of this thread is not to portray Newt as a Saint. It's to talk about his controversies, which have been proven to be somewhat false, charitably, and with respect, without name-calling. Newt is not perfect. I've yet to find a major problem with him, but I'm sure I could find one if I looked. However, I don't want to look for one. He's the best candidate between him and Romney, he's the current front-runner, and I want to support him. If there's a major problem like he changes his stance on abortion, then yes, I will complain. However, he's yet to do this, so I'll support him until he does.

Yes, I'm aware I don't have control on these threads. However, just like many do, I said what I didn't want to be on this thread. For instance, people will have a thread on Franciscans, and will say "Don't mention Dominicans", because they just want to talk about Franciscans. Well, I just want to talk about these controversies, without uncharitable posts, without name-calling, and without serious allegations, such as him being immoral, without proof. I don't mean to come off as angry, because I'm not. I've simply been in many threads on places such as Catholic Answers Forums where you make a simple, innocent thread about something that's not controversial, and one thing is said and the entire thread explodes into an argument, off-topic, and everyone ends up either with infractions, or with getting banned. I simply don't want that anymore. I'm sick of the unnecessary arguing. I'm sure you can understand that.

[Amppax]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1327067840' post='2371961']
Yes, I'm aware I don't have control on these threads. However, just like many do, I said what I didn't want to be on this thread. For instance, people will have a thread on Franciscans, and will say "Don't mention Dominicans", because they just want to talk about Franciscans. Well, I just want to talk about these controversies, without uncharitable posts, without name-calling, and without serious allegations, such as him being immoral, without proof. I don't mean to come off as angry, because I'm not. I've simply been in many threads on places such as Catholic Answers Forums where you make a simple, innocent thread about something that's not controversial, and one thing is said and the entire thread explodes into an argument, off-topic, and everyone ends up either with infractions, or with getting banned. I simply don't want that anymore. I'm sick of the unnecessary arguing. I'm sure you can understand that.
[/quote]

Like we said, if you have a problem with what anyone says, report it to the moderators, and they can decide. It fine to ask people to avoid being uncharitable as you did, but its not your job to police the thread.

Then again, we keep beating this dead horse, and its derailing the thread. So instead of arguing about arguing, lets get back to arguing.

Personally, I wouldn't vote for Gingrich. Although I would love to believe that he is a devout Catholic who incorporates his faith into his pubilc life, I ultimately can't know. What I do know is that he has violated the ethics rules of the senate, and is a serial adulterer. He may have truly changed, and that is great. But ultimately, I'm going to judge him on his stance on the issues, and use the other character issues to help supplement that judgment. As per the 10 points BG pointed out (specifically the policy points) there are points where I don't agree with him. I also don't feel that I necessarily have to support the Republican front runner.

Edited January 20, 2012 by Amppax

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1327069546' post='2371963']
Like we said, if you have a problem with what anyone says, report it to the moderators, and they can decide. It fine to ask people to avoid being uncharitable as you did, but its not your job to police the thread.

Then again, we keep beating this dead horse, and its derailing the thread. So instead of arguing about arguing, lets get back to arguing.

Personally, I wouldn't vote for Gingrich. Although I would love to believe that he is a devout Catholic who incorporates his faith into his pubilc life, I ultimately can't know. What I do know is that he has violated the ethics rules of the senate, and is a serial adulterer. He may have truly changed, and that is great. But ultimately, I'm going to judge him on his stance on the issues, and use the other character issues to help supplement that judgment. As per the 10 points BG pointed out (specifically the policy points) there are points where I don't agree with him. I also don't feel that I necessarily have to support the Republican front runner.
[/quote]

I never supported the Republican front-runner either. I was telling people that Romney was a Massachusetts Moderate before it was razzle dazzle. I just believe that Newt has the experience. I've given my reasons, but I'll re-state them: He balanced the budget, lowered unemployment to 4.2%, made the first Republican majority in Congress in forty years, basically saving the Republican party and making it worth something again, he made eleven (Or was it thirteen?) million jobs, got three million people off welfare and working again, and I'm sure there's other things I can't remember. Whether you like him or not, you must agree that his idea with getting the unemployed an associates degree is far better than our current plan, as well as making cards for immigrants, so if one doesn't have a card they are recognized as an illegal immigrant and escorted out of the country.

[Maggyie]

I don't see how you can say any of it has been "proven to be somewhat false." Can you point out to me where it has been proven false? Other than the Gingrich campaign denying it. The Clinton Administration denied the Lewinsky affar until the bitter end. Thanks, I eagerly await your documentation.

Here we have somebody who by his own admission cheated on his first wife and married his mistresss, then cheated on his second wife and married his mistress. This was not a one-time mistake. All politicians who get caught are "sorry." If he's truly sorry, then good for him, but I'm not voting for him as POTUS.

Also, I find it interesting that you keep saying "he is friends with a Priest!" So what? First of all it should be lower case p, because it is not being used a title, secondly, why does hanging out with a priest indicate anything about your lifestyle? You do realize that priests are supposed to hang out with the worst sinners of all in order to help them? Ted Kennedy was VERY good friends with a couple of priests, does that mean he was on the straight and narrow? Would you vote for him?

If all that does not give you pause, here is one major issue: Ethics violations to the tune of hundreds of thousands in fines. He lost his job because of it. There were four Republicans on the Ethics Committee and three of them voted against him. It was pretty damning stuff apparently.

[dominicansoul]

this thread is depressing...


if only America was not handicapped with its two party political system....

the guy sitting in the white house now, and all those others vying for his position don't seem to fit the bill...well, maybe except for Ron Paul....but his chances look grim...

America can't elect a worthy candidate anymore....


...America is screwed...

[Amppax]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1327070031' post='2371966']
I never supported the Republican front-runner either. I was telling people that Romney was a Massachusetts Moderate before it was razzle dazzle. I just believe that Newt has the experience. I've given my reasons, but I'll re-state them: He balanced the budget, lowered unemployment to 4.2%, made the first Republican majority in Congress in forty years, basically saving the Republican party and making it worth something again, he made eleven (Or was it thirteen?) million jobs, got three million people off welfare and working again, and I'm sure there's other things I can't remember. Whether you like him or not, you must agree that his idea with getting the unemployed an associates degree is far better than our current plan, as well as making cards for immigrants, so if one doesn't have a card they are recognized as an illegal immigrant and escorted out of the country.
[/quote]

1) Politician don't create jobs.

2) Newt didn't do any of this on his own. He was a leader, yes. But politics is a team sport. I find that its too easy to both give too much credit or too much blame to a single individual.

2) I actually don't think that there is a simplistic solution to our immigration problems. I think the system is pretty broken, and needs an overhaul. And education is a great thing, and probably would help the unemployed. But again, solving these problems involves many factors, not just a few good ideas.

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1327070069' post='2371967']
I don't see how you can say any of it has been "proven to be somewhat false." Can you point out to me where it has been proven false? Other than the Gingrich campaign denying it. The Clinton Administration denied the Lewinsky affar until the bitter end. Thanks, I eagerly await your documentation.

Here we have somebody who by his own admission cheated on his first wife and married his mistresss, then cheated on his second wife and married his mistress. This was not a one-time mistake. All politicians who get caught are "sorry." If he's truly sorry, then good for him, but I'm not voting for him as POTUS.

Also, I find it interesting that you keep saying "he is friends with a Priest!" So what? First of all it should be lower case p, because it is not being used a title, secondly, why does hanging out with a priest indicate anything about your lifestyle? You do realize that priests are supposed to hang out with the worst sinners of all in order to help them? Ted Kennedy was VERY good friends with a couple of priests, does that mean he was on the straight and narrow? Would you vote for him?

If all that does not give you pause, here is one major issue: Ethics violations to the tune of hundreds of thousands in fines. He lost his job because of it. There were four Republicans on the Ethics Committee and three of them voted against him. It was pretty damning stuff apparently.
[/quote]

He's stated that all of their friends at the time say that her story is false. He tried to get some of them to get interviewed at ABC, but ABC wouldn't take them because they don't want him to actually be right.

Actually, you're wrong. If I was saying priest as a title, then yes. However, I was referring to a specific Priest. You don't use a capital D if you say "I don't like doctors". But if you say "I don't like Doctor Howard" you do. Plus, I always use a capital P for Priests, because I feel there is a need for it. It emphasizes the importance of them.

Again, that was in the nineties. If you can't give me something that's happened in the past three years, than I'm going to disregard it. I need something recent. If you don't have any then that is all the more proof for my position.

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1327072482' post='2371977']
1) Politician don't create jobs.

2) Newt didn't do any of this on his own. He was a leader, yes. But politics is a team sport. I find that its too easy to both give too much credit or too much blame to a single individual.

2) I actually don't think that there is a simplistic solution to our immigration problems. I think the system is pretty broken, and needs an overhaul. And education is a great thing, and probably would help the unemployed. But again, solving these problems involves many factors, not just a few good ideas.
[/quote]

Well, you're right in saying that they don't create jobs. However, politicians create the environment to have a positive or negative effect on jobs. Newt Gingrich made a positive effect, while Obama has made a negative one. So, you're right in saying they don't make jobs personally, but you're wrong in another sense. Newt Gingrich made jobs by not making regulations, taxes, or ridiculous laws.

Indeed. But there wouldn't have been a team without Newt. He rebuilt the Republican party. Without him, Bill Clinton would've had a terrible presidency, because he wouldn't have had the house to stop him from doing what he wanted to do. He would've been able to roam around freely and do what he wanted, and we probably would've had nationalized health care, without any Republicans that had any weight to get angry about it and change it. We wouldn't have been able to stop Obama's health care plan if it hadn't been for Newt Gingrich. Whether you like his personal life or not, he saved the party.

Of course there's a simplistic solution. It's a delicate and complicated one, but every complicated situation can be solved with a simple solution. We can get all of the legal immigrants cards, and if someone doesn't have one, and doesn't have proof that he ever got one, and doesn't have any case at all, he will be escorted out of the country to wherever he's from. I agree with Santorum on this one, that although we welcome immigrants, we also love America, and if the first thing an immigrant does is commit a crime against America, he doesn't deserve to be here.

[kujo]

[quote name='StMichael' timestamp='1327026607' post='2371786']
I agree with Newt's statement 100%. Not stopping freedom of religion for any group, but the football spiking near where 3,000 Americans were killed by islamists. move along, thanks..
[/quote]

There any chance that there were some Muslims in the Twin Towers on 9/11? Just a question...

[kujo]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1327035565' post='2371872']
First, it seems that a lot of the things that his wife said are untrue, as actual facts are coming out. It seems that, once you build up anger and resentment towards a man for more than a decade, when you say things about him, your anger comes out and you lie to make him a worse person than he really is. As Newt stated in the debate tonight, all of their friends at that time state that it was not as she said it went. So, that card is thrown out of the deck.[/quote]

"Actual facts" according to whom?

[quote]Secondly, he is definitely not a progressive, or for big government. [/quote]

He is one and he is definitely for the other. The fact is that he, like all progressives, views the federal government as a legitimate "arm" into the public sphere. The difference is that he views it as only "legitimate" in terms of doing things that he, as a neo-conservative, finds appropriate, which is really no different than what the Democrats believe.

[quote]He is a real Conservative, while Romney is a Massachusetts Moderate, that believes in nationalized health care, put tax-payed abortions in his grand invention "Romney-Care", while Newt has never supported these things. When Newt says he's pro-life, he really is, while Romney is not.[/quote]

First off, what are you, Gingrich's press secretary?

Secondly, Romney doesn't believe in "nationalized health care," but he does believe that a healthcare program requested by the citizens of Massachusetts and only applicable TO the citizens of Massachusetts, is in no way unconstitutional. If you think about it, it is absolutely in line with federalist thinking--each state should be in charge of creating and administering their own healthcare plan for the citizens of their state. The major difference between "Romney-Care" and "Obama-care" is that one is a state-level program (Constitutional) and the other is a federal intrusion (un-Constitutional).

[quote]Third, he balanced the budget...[/quote]

So did Romney, as governor of Mass.

[dominicansoul]

gingrich really knocked one out of the ballpark in last nite's debate....


[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VwV14NZrsQ&feature=player_embedded[/media]

[dominicansoul]

politicians use double standards...

more than a decade ago, conservatives attacked prez. clinton as not suitable for the presidency over the sexual scandal with lewinsky... liberals, democrats defended him saying, his personal life was no one's bizznezz..

...today, let's turn those tables over...





...sheesh...we sure have a lot of whorin' going on in both parties.....

[Lil Red]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1327035565' post='2371872']He just recently made a documentary on Pope John Paul II's visit to Poland[/quote]

that's a great documentary.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1327071305' post='2371973']
this thread is depressing...


if only America was not handicapped with its two party political system....

the guy sitting in the white house now, and all those others vying for his position don't seem to fit the bill...well, maybe except for Ron Paul....but his chances look grim...

America can't elect a worthy candidate anymore....


...America is screwed...
[/quote]
thanks Debbie Downer