There are defijnitely inaccuracies in the piece.

http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/9504.pdf

However, I am not sure that banning is the appropriate remedy.

He probably just made an honest mistake. He didn’t even know that Constitutional Amendments needed to be ratified by the States.

He seems like an energetic, good guy who just makes mistakes sometimes. I don’t get the vibe that it’s Newt-paid propaganda. There would be a different vibe, and anyway it would be more polished than this.

But I remember you, RO, as one of the few people that understood that we needed a brokered convention before a lot of other people understood that we did.

So I’m not coming down on you either. You’re a good & intelligent poster.

This obsession with a guy who can’t beat Obama – hell, he can’t even get ahead of Paul in many states, has got to dry up and come to its senses. Now they’re posting Redstate diaries full of lies? Who knows how far this thing spread with the credibility of Redstate underwriting it.

your reaction to the errors in WillWong’s diary is an extreme overreaction IMO. If WillWong was intentionally trying to mislead the readers, he would not have provided a direct link to the piece that proves ‘Wong got his facts mixed up. To me, this reflects maybe some carelessness on his part but nothing more. While not making excuses for the errors, it is easy to see how it happened given the many characters involved in the story.

Hopefully, ‘Wong will come along soon and admit the errors and edit the diary.

The problem here is that “WillWong” couldn’t be bothered to read the article he was busy ripping extended quotes from.

The author of the paper, linked to on the original blog, is someone named “Ben Hart.” The same guy who wrote this piece that was damned near plagiarized in this post.

Personally, even though Newt is more my kind of guy, I think Santorum is the more electable of the two…and certainly has the easier path against Romney, if only in the sense that a Newt drop out would almost certainly net him MI and maybe even AZ. Or at least the dynamic clearly changes in a way that favors Santorum..

But beyond the fact that I like Newt, even if I didn’t, like you don’t, I still couldn’t blame him for not dropping out when we’ve simply seen these historic comebacks. Even people who say it’s over if Mitt wins MI or does well on Super Tuesday…see, they don’t know that MI is proportional…yeah, it saves Mitt from having horrible publicity, but Santorum could get almost as many delegates.

Then the later States are winner take all, and it could all blow up for MItt…it really could. And Newt is looking at that too.

Really, the people who are calling on Mitt to drop out are making a different point…it’s not that he can’t win…even someone who despises Mitt as much as me knows he’s still the Favorite. It’s that it’s so clear without all of his advantages, he’d just be dead in the water…just gone weeks if not months ago. And I don’t want to hear about his fundraising and work. Money makes money…

The donors know he can self-fund, so they think “he’s more serious, I’ll donate”. All this maggot’s advantages have ultimately come from the fact that he was the son of a governor and a millionaire. He’s got a work ethic, yeah, and there’s no doubt he’s highly intelligent…but basically he’s just a maggot born into the right corpse.

“The guys on the tractors…”.

I agree w/ you. People who think it’s more controversial that Santorum doesn’t think gays should be in combat than that Romney has a Swiss Bank Account are in for a rude awakening in the General. Romney appeals to swing voters, but not ones in States Republicans can actually win.

The Rust Belt…especially PA and OH…yeah, there’s no question Santorum has a better shot than Romney…or, frankly, Newt. Maybe Romney only loses CT to Obama by ten instead of Santorums 15 or Newt’s 20…so what?

People need to remember this isn’t a popular vote thing. It’s State by State. Romney simply doesn’t play in the swing States we need. And even the Red States, he’s gonna have to devote extra resources because they can’t stand him….whereas Obama will breeze in the Blue States, and be able to concentrate on the swing States.

That’s why when I tell people Romney will be out-spent 3,4,5 to 1, I don’t necessarily mean he’ll rack in that much more money. But he’ll be able to use it better because Romney’s electoral vote map is such a mess as compared to Santorum’s or maybe a brokered convention candidate.

But the Romney people (who aren’t being paid) honestly believe he’s more electable, and even the Newt people don’t completely get what’s about to happen…

Anyway…say high to the guys on the tractors for me.

I am sorry to have to crush your bubble…..Santorum does not have it in his entire DNA any ability, tools, and experience to turn this country around. And please do not start another debate here on why you think he does. This is about clearing up the intentional smearing of Newt’s great loyalty and support for Reagan’s vision.

And since Santorum clearly jumped onto the bandwagon by trying to smear Newt during one of the debates, he cannot claim innocence either.

You are a product of the pablum. Newt has been constantly smeared as he was smeared by Abrams, by constant untrue assertions and misconstructions of his record and his statements. What needs changing is the unbending nature of people who have made up their mind because of invalid data.

Even when the vitriol is proven untrue, many continue to think, oh yeah but…. Not just this but many such falsehoods have been widespread in order to defeat this conservative hero of America. What Newt did with his contract with America and balancing the budget in the 90′s could have saved us the now unavoidable suffering of huge over-spending government control.

Newt is still there. Still conservative. And the best man for POTUS. If those who have read and listened to the drivel were to actually read Newt’s plan and discover the truth of his record, he would be our obvious choice.

Rick is talented and sincere and conservative. Rick would make a great VP. After service under a master, as VP, Rick could make a fine POTUS. I don’t think he is ready yet and I think Obama would defeat him. Newt is our obvious candidate. Will we let the lies and more lies of the press dissuade us from a hugely talented, candidate who represents our conservative pro-American views? I hope not. For the sake of our Nation I hope those of like mind who should be supporting Newt, will look again and see the gold shining through.
Best, dlc

all Santorum supporters. Good job.

Just as in 2008, Huckabee’s supporters hated Romney for his millions of $$$ of negative ads, Newt’s supporters are feeling the same.

Santorum’s supporters have no reason to hate Newt. Instead, they have every reason to be grateful that their candidate was the beneficiary of millions of $$$$ of smears.

So rather than spewing hate, try showing some gratitude!

that really isn’t a realistic cause for concern.

@Creedo, you wrote: …”I live by a simple code when forgiveness is concerned: fool me once, shame on you-fool me twice, shame on me.” Allow me to say making the assumption that someone who may be a ‘church-going Christian’ that this type of ‘creed’ that one may have adopted is no where in scripture. The scripture clearly say that if one is not willing to forgive another that the Father in Heaven will not forgive them. It also says, “Let God be the truth…and every man a liar.” With that said, it would be best that if one is a “church-going Christian” that perhaps it would be wiser to become a “Bible-believing Christian” and discard one’s own opinion or made up ‘code’ because ultimately it will be to one’s own demise not to speak what the truth is. Now, if one makes a decision to vote for Santorum; I personally don’t have a problem with that at all. However, I DO have a problem with someone not looking at something circumspectly to determine what is to be forgiven and what is not to be forgiven. Let’s turn that ‘code’ around and then make the assumption that now Jesus Christ is saying this to someone “…simple code when forgiveness is concerned: fool me once, shame on you – fool me twice, shame on me.” So therefore Jesus Christ has basically said to someone, you are only allowed a couple of times ‘being fooled’ and you have now exceeded that so therefore there will be no forgiveness from me. Well, now with Jesus Christ now ‘saying’ this then we are ALL doomed. Does it not say in the scriptures that one is to be forgiven 490 times for the same offense? So, in Newt’s defense, he has been forgiven and one who believes something that isn’t scripture also have been forgiven by me for making such a ‘code’ up in the first place.

Newt is the true Statesman within this whole race in my estimation and is clearly the one person who has achieved what needs to be done as far as policies and Newt isn’t just talking about it on the campaign trail. It is always wise to do full research on everyone rather than making conclusions. It is very highly unlikely that Ron Paul will end up with the nomination because the majority of the people do not agree with Ron Paul’s foreign policy. After researching all of the candidates fully I have found that Newt is the only one to support. I don’t want someone who just ‘talks’ about doing something but has actually done it. I would like for the country not to get worse but to come to a stop in its trajectory toward socialism. In order for this to happen there is a need to have someone who can do this. Not someone who is going to be the President using ‘one the job training’ which would be what Santorum would be. Romney’s ‘business experience’ isn’t enough because if that would be true then with my years of ‘business experience’ then I could be president. But, I am smart enough to know that this country needs someone who really knows what they are doing.

I could offer innumerable reasons why that’s false. However, Senator Santorum’s
bold faced lie on Meet the Press yesterday is enough to say “It’s time to step aside Rick.”

http://www.justin.fm/2012/02/senator-santorum-flat-out-lies-about.html

in the way that you imply. Fighting the Cold War was *always* given more priority than Israel’s interests — that is how it should have been, and that is how it played out. There was nothing “anti-Israel” about State under Reagan, but neither were there cloying attempts to further their interests at our expense.

If we have mittens as the nominee, we’ll have the GOP-establishment to thank. Them, and their lackies in the media, particularly FoxSnooze. Newt’s been a good troop throughout all this. I agree with willwong and although I haven’t posted in support of his enthusiasm for Newt, I’m just as committed to his campaign as WW is. I’m giving big bucks to Newt partly because he enrages The Beltway so much, and partly because he’s the only one who’s offered any substantive solutions. It’s one thing to talk in generalities, sound bites and platitudes, but quite another to actually suggest solutions to fix the problems. Newt’s the only one who’ve done this.

I’ve been following Newt for decades, and he’s definitely got what the other clowns don’t: VISION. Only small men with small minds and small plans can possibly feel threatened by Newt Gingrich.

It is without a doubt that Conservatives do believe that there is a HUGE difference in the belief system of the Conservative and the “Establishment”. The “Establishment” wants assurance of their job. The “Establishment” wants to ‘manage the mess’. The “Establishment” doesn’t want any change. Well, there are many folks out here who are Conservatives do not believe at all that Romney can be in any way a person who will “unite” the Republican party much less the entire country. Romney is a definite ‘divider’ and does not care what anyone thinks as long as he ‘wins the nomination’. Romney will do anything that the “Establishment” out there wants him to do because he has ‘dreamed’ of being President since he was a child and he believes it is ‘his turn’. The “Establishment” has also subtly behind the scenes that it is Romney’s ‘turn. This is ludicrous to We, The People. That we are so ‘dumb’ that we can’t make our own decision and that who is the most ‘electable’ based on some biased media driven ‘poll’. Santorum isn’t going to be elected by touting his social issues. I care about social issues as much as the next person but the social issue isn’t going to change the economy or provide jobs in and of itself so to concentrate on ‘social issues’ is the wrong way to go for him. So, to say that Newt should drop out of the race for me is about as ridiculous as Romney dropping out of the race is palatable for the “Establishment”. The saddest part of this whole 2012 race is folks don’t do their own full research and are persuaded by ‘polls’ and by ‘electability’ when there is very little truth to this aspect.

You know, folks need to do their own research. Asking another person to provide a list of ‘lies’ is saying that one can’t do their own research. It isn’t my place to do another’s research. If someone wants a list…do it themselves, I say. It is evident that the poster believes that RDS has done no wrong but my own research has proven otherwise. It hasn’t been research of one or two minute snippets put out by the printed/internet/media driven aspects that have brought about the facts. All one has to do is to spend some time –considerable time say on Cspan researching the truth. After a few days of looking up all of the candidates some resilient facts will come forth. You say that “Newt is about Newt” well, this can be clearly be stated about RDS as well. Rick is about Rick as was Bachmann for Bachmann. As to saying that one should ‘Wake Up”. I am very much awake and I am fully informed. I will be voting for Newt. As for answers about all that you have mentioned why not begin by doing some research yourself: http://www.newt.org/answers/ Oh, but then that would mean that one may have to also, “Wake Up”

nt

1) claiming that Newt was paid $35K an hour for his work at Freddie Mac. Fact is Newt’s company was paid $35K a month by Freddie Mac most of which goes towards overhead. On the average, Newt spends an hour a month on Freddie Mac and Romney’s people erroneously claimed that the entire $35K was based on 1 hour of Newt’s time. Washington Post gave this ad four pinocchios.

2) Newt was sanctioned and fined $300K. Fact is 84 politically motivated charges were filed against Newt related to tax exemption for a course Newt was teaching in college called Winning America’s Civilisation. All except one were dismissed for having no grounds. The other one was related to some misleading statements by Newt’s lawyer provided during the investigation. Newt took responsibility for that by agreeing to reimburse the cost of the investigation in the amount of $300K. In 1999, Clinton’s IRS exonerated Newt of any wrong doing. Romney’s PAC continued to used a clip of Tom Brokaw on NBC talking about Newt being sanctioned and fines with no mention of the dismissal of the charges and the exoneration by the IRS.

3) the lies mentioned in this post about taking some clips of Newt’s Special Order Speech out of context to support the lie that Newt had spewed anti-Reagan rhethorics.

3)

Would you rather base your support on what someone did while in office, or what someone has said?

I’m no big supporter of Gingrich, but he’s far more conservative than Romney and Santorum, as a whole. To argue otherwise would just be embarrassing yourself.

This makes Newt unique compared to most other politicians.

Newt probably has a better conservative record of directional change in DC than anyone else.

He also has diarrhia of the mouth.

People weigh these things differently, but Newt’s detractors are more myopic in my view than his supporters.

How can you in all good conscience put a video up that is completely repleat with false information. This video contains short snippets taken completely out of context. Does one put a video up within this format to do what? It certainly doesn’t lend any truth. If one did the FULL research (which I have) on all of these videos with Newt in them and they are taken completely out of context and do not mean what the poster of the video has tried to imply. What that means is that this video has defamed the character and integrity of Newt Gingrich and has been reported to YouTube for this. I can only hope that more and more of these ‘snippet videos’ that are complete lies will be removed from YouTube and will no longer be allowed. It is evident to this poster that complete and full research has not been done by “Dave”. Newt has made mistakes as you have by posting this lying video. I am so glad that your life has been lived without sin. Newt isn’t going to ‘exit stage left’ but it could be said that Santorum or Romney might could be effective in a Gingrich administration.

You have stated the facts, WillWong, when you say that the more you did into Newt’s past the better he gets. The reality is that because Newt is such a threat to the MSM, GOP Establishment and yes, even FoxNews then he is receiving the heaping effects of folks who do not want change or they want what they want and they will throw a ‘hissy fit’ if they don’t get. That ‘hissy fit’ has resulted in tons of ‘news’ reports, blogs, video snippets and anything else they can to keep him from getting to the top. I am encouraged, however, that there will be many, many folks that will realize that these things are not true. The false advertising done by his opponents both in the Republican party and by the left are done for their own reasons. I read Rush’s article many years ago. I can’t recall where now but I do remember it being very long.

I agree – the more I learn about Newt’s past, the more evidence I find that he is a true leader and one that will try to change things in DC. OTOH, the more I study both Romney & Santorum, I find even worse progressive records than I thought. I tried, really tried, to like Romney when everything seemed to be pointing to him as the “inevitable” candidate – couldn’t do it – he’s just a closet progressive who wants to be elected more than anything, no intention to actually serve the country. I tried, really tried, to like Santorum because he seems to really love his family and God, and is unashamed to be pro-life – couldn’t do it – he’s a socially conservative whiner and a not-so-closet big-government progressive. I finally just decided that the three wives issue is just not near as important for this country as having a good, effective leader that is committed to shrinking the size of the federal government and expanding our domestic energy policies. And somebody – anybody – HAS to defeat Obama!

And if you notice he did that to the Japanese Emperor and just the other day when the Chinese Vice President came into Washington, I saw a picture of Obama bowing while they were sitting next to each other.

I wish he would just bow OUT.

It’s truth, my man. It’s factual. What part of it escapes you? I’d be glad to help.

He can’t articulate conservatism, and he’s a horrible representative of it.

Rather than continue to bash Newt, why don’t you tell us all the ways Romney is a champion for conservatism? Oh, that’s right, you can’t.

Newt certainly has baggage in his personal life. No doubt about it, but his record in government is solid conservative. What he does in his personal life is unlikely to affect me. What he did/does in government will. Contract with America.

Mitt appears to be a good husband and father. Good for him, but that’s unlikely to affect me. What he did/does in government will. His record includes Romneycare, liberal judicial appointsments and overturning the conscience exemptions to providing birth control (abortifacients) to rape victims. Not a conservative record.

As for being a changed man, Romney would have us believe he’s changed as well. Voted for Tsongas, pro choice, self-described progressive, doesn’t want to return to Reagan years. Why shouldn’t I give Newt the same benefit of the doubt regarding his change as Mitt expects?

And the rest is history as they said.

I think it should be promoting Newt and defending his record as needed!