how is it........

[blt2ski]

Hopefully one of you political pundits can explain this with out going into persona bias on a candidate.

If Newt as part of stepping down as Speaker, was told he could not run for public office, how is it, he can run for president? did a law/rule/sentence get changed after the fact?

I have seen it brought up, but no one seems to have pro sued it, or he in reality CAN run due to a change. not sure which it is.

marty

[Sailormon6]

Originally Posted by blt2ski

Hopefully one of you political pundits can explain this with out going into persona bias on a candidate.

If Newt as part of stepping down as Speaker, was told he could not run for public office, how is it, he can run for president? did a law/rule/sentence get changed after the fact?

I have seen it brought up, but no one seems to have pro sued it, or he in reality CAN run due to a change. not sure which it is.

marty

Your question assumes that he was prohibited from running for office. I just did a quick search and didn't find any articles that reported that it was a condition of his penalty. In fact, the proposal was to censure him, and the House declined to do so. Instead, they took a much less severe course of issuing him a "reprimand". I wasn't able to find anything in the articles that said he was either required to resign from the House, or that he was prohibited from running for any office in the future. In fact, the header on many of the articles said Washington was "stunned" by his decision to step down. Apparently, he was not expected to step down from political office at the time, or to get out of politics.

I had forgotten the details of that so-called "scandal," but having reviewed it, he certainly stepped on many tender Washington toes, and it's understandable that much animosity lingers, even among former leaders of his own party. It's an example of Washington's tit-for-tat mindset. In the eyes of those who are disgusted by the shennanigans of both political parties, that might be seen as one of the best reasons to support him. Personally, I'll have to think about that some more.

[PBzeer]

Newt chose to give up the Speakership (he had lost support), he wasn't forced out by some ruling.

[blt2ski]

sailormon,

I am assuming that as part of the stepping down, and the charges against him at the time, also were delt to him etc etc. part of the punishment if on would, was he could not hold a public office any more.......

I could not figure out where to look, no one I knew could explain the why or how he was running..... So if he did step down, before full punishment given, a something still allowing him to run and hold public office may still be ok.

With that in mind, considering IIRC he had some 700 corruption charges, or something significant in number brought up against him, Surprised it is not a bigger issue than it is frankly. Then again Clinton has some womanizing issue IIRC as governor of Arkansas......still played out in the WH as Pres.......who is to say that newt might not still be corrupt and do the same as pres vs house job.....another Nixon?!?!?

so at the end of the day, it sounds like it is ok for him to be running from what I was hearing reading etc......probably on par with some of the folks and Obama's BC issue.......lets not go there

marty

[Sailormon6]

Eighty-four ethics charges were filed against Gingrich during his term as Speaker, all but one of which were eventually dropped. (For those who aren't familiar with "the American Way," that means he is presumed innocent of 83 of those charges.)

The one charge not dropped was a charge of claiming tax-exempt status for a college course run for political purposes. I have heard, but can't confirm, that the IRS later ruled that that same conduct did not constitute a tax law violation. In addition, the House Ethics Committee concluded that inaccurate information supplied to investigators represented "intentional or ... reckless" disregard of House rules.

If that's all true, it sounds like a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. He was reprimanded for making a false statement about something that did not constitute a violation of tax law. It sounds to me as if his biggest mistake was in pissing off a lot of powerful members of both parties who were in a position to run him through a political meat grinder, and his own party participated in it. I don't like to see a member of Congress violate his oath, but I also don't like to see the mechanisms of government misused to settle political scores.
I'm glad you raised the issue, because the reprimand concerned me, but, having taken a fresh look at the whole affair, it doesn't reflect on him nearly as adversely as I had remembered.

My reservation about him now, as a candidate, is whether he can withstand the gross misrepresentations being made about the reprimand, the basis of which was apparently wispy at best.

[blt2ski]

Wasn't some of the misrepped charges brought up by McDermott? He got ahold of a recording of some sort, I seem to recall it came about in a rather scrupulous way?!?!? so yeah, newt probably did PO a few folks. Yeah things were dropped, but if he resigned sooner than the charges could be brought against him, could the house still charge him etc? I would assume so, but being as he was no longer a house rep/speaker.......maybe not, and as punishment for the 83 some charges dropped, that was probably one of the sentences for this issue, ie the could not run for public office in the future. But since not charge, convicted etc......it comes down to a "why does it get brought up from time to time?"

any way.....off to bigger and better things I suppose. To me, newt looks and acts like the penquin in the original Batman series with Adam West and Burt Ward........something about him I have a hard time trusting. At least I have the one question answered, in that he probably can run for office, which if he could not, why was it not being brought up?

Thank you

Marty

[SloopJonB]

Originally Posted by Sailormon6

It sounds to me as if his biggest mistake was in pissing off a lot of powerful members of both parties who were in a position to run him through a political meat grinder

His biggest mistake was having the morals of an alley cat and ZERO ethics. IMO of course.

I've been watching Gingrich for about two decades now and everything I've seen tells me he fits the classic definition of a psychopath.

Factor 1: Personality "Aggressive narcissism"

Glibness/superficial charm
Grandiose sense of self-worth
Pathological lying
Cunning/manipulative
Lack of remorse or guilt
Shallow affect (genuine emotion is short-lived and egocentric)
Callousness; lack of empathy
Failure to accept responsibility for own actions

Factor 2: Case history "Socially deviant lifestyle".

Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
Parasitic lifestyle
Poor behavioral control
Lack of realistic long-term goals
Impulsivity
Irresponsibility
Juvenile delinquency
Early behavior problems
Revocation of conditional release

Traits not correlated with either factor

Promiscuous sexual behavior
Many short-term marital relationships
Criminal versatility


By my calculation he's batting at least 850 (I don't know about his childhood activities)

When I'm right, I'm right.

[sck5]

My impression was that he was forced out by his own party in the House - i.e. the guys who, when in the majority, elect the Speaker. I do remember an ethics charge but that wasnt (as far as I remember) what forced him out - It was that his own troops lost faith in him as a leader

Joe Scarborough seems to support this in stuff he says on tv and he ought to know, having been one of those Repub members back in the day.

And as for ethics charges, I have no idea if the ones against him were real or not, but I have been trying to think of a recent speaker who DIDNT have ethics charges and have been coming up dry. Dont know if Boehner does or doesnt have such a thing but I would bet you a lot that if he stays long enough he will. They all do nowadays.