• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Newt's flip-flops and lies

Puppycow

Penultimate Amazing
Puppycow
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
32,038
Location
Yokohama, Japan
There's a lot of these, depending how far back you want to go, but I'll start the bidding with this recent one:

Here's flip-flop with a denial that he ever took the opposite position:
Republican AGs Grill GOP Candidates At Mike Huckabee’s Forum

“I’ve said publicly, sitting on the couch with Nancy Pelosi is the dumbest single thing I’ve done in the last few years - but if you notice, I’ve never favored cap and trade, and in fact I actively testified against it,” Gingrich said in the forum.

In fact, Gingrich talked up a cap on carbon in interviews at the time.

“I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there’s a package there that’s very, very good,” he said in a PBS interview. “And frankly, it’s something I would strongly support.”
Click to expand...

So he was for cap and trade before he was against it, and furthermore he's lying about the fact that he was ever for it (or maybe he just doesn't remember). How much more blatant can you get?
 
He was against politicians having marital infidelities before he was for it. Or the other way around. Depends on if you mean his public statements or his actual behavior.
 
The thought of being exposed to the sight of Gingrich's nasty old feet in flip-flops...ugh. Turns my stomach. The man can never be president, there are limits on electable ugliness. Especially with today's increasingly fancy televisions.
 
You media elites are all the same. Making a spectacle and all that. *Grumble Grumble*
 
TragicMonkey said:
The man can never be president, there are limits on electable ugliness. Especially with today's increasingly fancy televisions.
Click to expand...

There's something about "high definition" that just doesn't suit Newt Gingrich. . . and I'm not talking his appearance.
 
Here's another one. I started a thread on it at the time, but it's worth mentioning again for those who missed it the first time or forgot about it.

Gingrich Criticized Obama For Not Intervening In Libya, But Now Criticizes Him For Intervening In Libya

Earlier this month, former Speaker of the House and current presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich was hammering President Obama for not intervening in Libya. Asked, “what would you do about Libya?” Gingrich responded:

Exercise a no-fly zone this evening. … We don’t need to have the United Nations. All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we’re intervening.​

. . .
Now that Obama has initiated a no-fly zone over Libya, Gingrich has completely reversed his position with no apparent explanation. He told Politico over the weekend — less than 24 hours after Obama took action — that “it is impossible to make sense of the standard for intervention in Libya except opportunism and news media publicity.” This morning on the Today Show, he said plainly, “I would not have intervened”:

GINGRICH: The standard [Obama] has fallen back to of humanitarian intervention could apply to Sudan, to North Korea, to Zimbabwe, to Syria this week, to Yemen, to Bahrain. … The Arab League wanted us to do something. The minute we did something, the Arab League began criticizing us doing it. I think that two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is a lot. I think that the problems we have in Pakistan, Egypt — go around the region. We could get engaged by this standard in all sorts of places. I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi. I think there are a lot of other allies in the region we could have worked with. I would not have used American and European forces.​
Click to expand...

So first he said that he would have "intervened" because "slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable" and then when Obama did intervene for that very reason, he turned around and said that he "would not have intervened" for those same reasons. Note that the "no-fly zone" Gingrich originally called for would have required "American and European forces" because no one else in the region has the capability to enforce a no-fly zone.

And here's a video of that:
 
Last edited:
Yeah Sarah Palin seemed to do a similar thing on Libya. I doubt there is anything she could criticize Obama about on Libya without looking a complete tool. That doesn't mean she won't or isn't doing so. Although I have no idea what she's saying these days.

Although this might not be a "flip-flop", Gingrich apparently called for Barney Frank to be jailed for taking money from Fannie Mae or something and yet he took something like a million and a half dollars from the same people, allegedly.
 
angrysoba said:
Although this might not be a "flip-flop", Gingrich apparently called for Barney Frank to be jailed for taking money from Fannie Mae or something and yet he took something like a million and a half dollars from the same people, allegedly.
Click to expand...

Indeed, there's a flip-flop there too. Here's an article on that:

Gingrich praised Freddie Mac model in 2007

In an interview placed on Freddie Mac's website, the Republican presidential candidate said the government-sponsored enterprise, or GSE, could serve as a guide for rebuilding the hurricane-ravaged Gulf of Mexico, improving health care and funding space exploration. For decades, Freddie Mac collected profits while benefiting from an implicit taxpayer guarantee of its debt.

"I'm convinced that if NASA were a GSE, we probably would be on Mars today," Gingrich said in the April 24, 2007, Web post.
Click to expand...
Classic Gingrich hyperbole.

"While we need to improve the regulation of the GSEs, I would be very cautious about fundamentally changing their role or the model itself," he said.

Gingrich was an adviser to Freddie Mac when the company published his comments. His consulting company, the Gingrich Group, received between $1.6 million and $1.8 million in fees from the mortgage company.

"I recognize that there are times when you need government to help spur private enterprise and economic development," he said in the 2007 interview, which was previously reported by the blog Verum Serum.
Click to expand...

The thing I really wonder about though is not his public statements in support of the GSEs, but what he said and did behind closed doors in Washington for that $1.6 to $1.8 million. Although not a registered lobbyist, he was a Washington insider with access to the halls of power.
 
Puppycow said:
So he was for cap and trade before he was against it, and furthermore he's lying about the fact that he was ever for it (or maybe he just doesn't remember). How much more blatant can you get?
Click to expand...

That was not intended to be a factual statement.
 
Frankly, I'm not sure I want to see Newt in flip flops. I can only imagine what kind of grody toes the man has. . . .
 
Here is another lie; http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ingrich/Gingrich-says-use-food-stamps-Hawaii/

"Remember, this is the best food stamp president in history. So more Americans today get food stamps than before. And we now give it away as cash -- you don't get food stamps. You get a credit card, and the credit card can be used for anything. We have people who take their food stamp money and use it to go to Hawaii. They give food stamps now to millionaires because, after all, don't you want to be compassionate? You know, the Obama model: isn't there somebody you'd like to give money to this week. That's why we're now going to help bailout Italy because we haven't bailed out enough people this week, the president thought let's write another check. After all, we have so much extra money."
Click to expand...

:dl:
 
Well Newt did tell us this:
"Any ad which quotes what I said Sunday is a falsehood,"
Click to expand...
Therefore, we can't use his words against him. It is kind of like "notagbacks".

Daredelvis
 
Hmm.... Let us see what Ms. Pelosi has up her sleeve. I notice that Newt is already threatening to sue if she releases it, rather than saying, "I'm not worried about anything she has to say." Newtie had some big problems with the ethics committee and he was lucky just to get fined and reprimanded. These are some of the skeletons in Mr. G's closet that are clamoring to get out, and this is why Democrats are eager to have him as the Republican candidate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom