• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Who knows?

Thorgasm

Thorgasm

Bus Driver to Hell
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
69,534
Reaction score
15,450
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Who knows why Newt Gingrich stepped down as Speaker of the House?
 
Thorgasm said:
Who knows why Newt Gingrich stepped down as Speaker of the House?
Click to expand...

Several things led directly to it, which in particular are you referring to?
 
Redress said:
Several things led directly to it, which in particular are you referring to?
Click to expand...

I think a complete list is in order. :mrgreen:
 
Thorgasm said:
I think a complete list is in order. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Ethics violations. It should be noted however that this did not force him out, but was only the first big issue.

He took blame for the poor showing in the 1998 house election

The impeachment of Clinton was a failure on pretty much every level, politically, legally and popularity and Newt got alot of the heat

The shutdown of government was largely blamed on republicans and again Newt was given most of the blame.

He originally threatened to not step down and force a vote which would have led to the very real chance of Gephardt winning the speakership even though democrats did not have the majority.

He finally relented and stepped down.

Did I miss any?
 
Redress said:
Ethics violations. It should be noted however that this did not force him out, but was only the first big issue.

He took blame for the poor showing in the 1998 house election

The impeachment of Clinton was a failure on pretty much every level, politically, legally and popularity and Newt got alot of the heat

The shutdown of government was largely blamed on republicans and again Newt was given most of the blame.

He originally threatened to not step down and force a vote which would have led to the very real chance of Gephardt winning the speakership even though democrats did not have the majority.

He finally relented and stepped down.

Did I miss any?
Click to expand...

Remember when Larry Flint had a video of a prominent figure he would release if they didn't step down? I'm not saying it was Newt, but I'm not saying it wasn't.
 
This is the most popular republican candidate right now. And we have not even begun to scratch at the surface of all his misdeeds.
 
Thorgasm said:
Remember when Larry Flint had a video of a prominent figure he would release if they didn't step down? I'm not saying it was Newt, but I'm not saying it wasn't.
Click to expand...

Thank you Glenn Thorgasm
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
This is the most popular republican candidate right now. And we have not even begun to scratch at the surface of all his misdeeds.
Click to expand...

Which tells you how much the base loathes the thought of Romney being the nominee, and yet we keep hearing he's got the best chance to beat Obama. I understand you need independents and moderates to win an election, but you need a base to raise your money, run your ground campaign in states, and actually provide the majority of the vote that independents and moderates get ADDED to. I'm beginning to seriously consider whether or not the extreme displeasure with Obama felt by the base is going to be sufficient enough motivation to sizably overcome the Bases significant dislike and unhappiness with Romney to a point where it is a competitive race.

An article I recently read compared it to Truman vs Dewey.
 
I'm wondering if it's Romney himself and his views on politics...or if the foot stomping at the possibility of him being the candidate is due to his religion.
 
Zyphlin said:
Which tells you how much the base loathes the thought of Romney being the nominee, and yet we keep hearing he's got the best chance to beat Obama. I understand you need independents and moderates to win an election, but you need a base to raise your money, run your ground campaign in states, and actually provide the majority of the vote that independents and moderates get ADDED to. I'm beginning to seriously consider whether or not the extreme displeasure with Obama felt by the base is going to be sufficient enough motivation to sizably overcome the Bases significant dislike and unhappiness with Romney to a point where it is a competitive race.

An article I recently read compared it to Truman vs Dewey.
Click to expand...

The comparison I saw recently was Johnson vs Goldwater. The point was that all of the GOP candidates, including Romney, have staked out such extreme positions that whoever wins will have a problem appealing to independents. It's especially a problem as the leading candidates have already switched so many positions. Hard to switch yet again without becoming the object of serious ridicule.
 
Last edited:
I was like 7 years old at the time so I'm honestly curious. What were Newt's "ethics violations" people keep speaking of?
 
Dav said:
I was like 7 years old at the time so I'm honestly curious. What were Newt's "ethics violations" people keep speaking of?
Click to expand...

You're young enough to know what Wikipedia is, right?

Eighty-four ethics charges were filed against Speaker Gingrich during his term, including claiming tax-exempt status for a college course run for political purposes. Following an investigation by the House Ethics Committee Gingrich was sanctioned US$300,000.[66] Gingrich acknowledged in January 1997 that "In my name and over my signature, inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable statements were given to the committee". [67] The House Ethics Committee concluded that inaccurate information supplied to investigators represented "intentional or ... reckless" disregard of House rules.[68] Special Counsel James M. Cole concluded that Gingrich violated federal tax law and had lied to the ethics panel in an effort to force the committee to dismiss the complaint against him. The full committee panel did not agree whether tax law had been violated[69] and left that issue up to the IRS.[70] In 1999, the IRS cleared the organizations connected with the "Renewing American Civilization" courses under investigation for possible tax violations.[71][72]
Click to expand...
 
Enola said:
I'm wondering if it's Romney himself and his views on politics...or if the foot stomping at the possibility of him being the candidate is due to his religion.
Click to expand...

In regards to the foot stompings, at least on this forum and in real life (so admittedly anecdotally) the only people I have ever hear suggest Romney's religion may be an issue tends to be liberals. I can't remember a single Republican I've seen on the boards or that I met that have actually ever stated to me or given an indication that Romney's religion is why they wouldn't vote for him. I see liberals theorize how its going to hurt him time and time and time again, but I've never actually seen it HAPPEN.

The only evidence I've ever seen even suggesting it is extremely specious at best, and that's polls finding that Republican voters who view Mormonism as something other than a Christian sect are more likely to have a negative opinion about Romney. However, that doesn't actually show proof that his religion is what is causing those people to not vote for him. Most writers talking about the poll seem to simply leap to that logic, but there are other realistic reasons why such a group could potentially be less inclined to vote for Romney. For example, it would likely be reasonable that a large amount of your evangelicals would fall in the group that suggests Mormonism isn't a subset of Christianity than in the camp saying it is. That camp is more likely to be STAUNCHLY pro-life and Romney has a history of flip flopping on that issue. Therefore its reasonable to suggest that an equally likely possabiliy is they're less likely to vote for him due to their pro-life stance and not necessarily because he's a Mormon.

If someone has a poll actually showing a decent number saying they won't vote for him BECAUSE he's a Mormon that'd be another thing. As it stands now, I actually think that's a relative minority of voters.
 
Zyphlin said:
Thank you Glenn Thorgasm
Click to expand...

Hey, I'm just asking questions. :2razz:

That wasn't the reason that I started the thread. It was the only other thing I could think of.
 
Zyphlin said:
In regards to the foot stompings, at least on this forum and in real life (so admittedly anecdotally) the only people I have ever hear suggest Romney's religion may be an issue tends to be liberals. I can't remember a single Republican I've seen on the boards or that I met that have actually ever stated to me or given an indication that Romney's religion is why they wouldn't vote for him. I see liberals theorize how its going to hurt him time and time and time again, but I've never actually seen it HAPPEN.

The only evidence I've ever seen even suggesting it is extremely specious at best, and that's polls finding that Republican voters who view Mormonism as something other than a Christian sect are more likely to have a negative opinion about Romney. However, that doesn't actually show proof that his religion is what is causing those people to not vote for him. Most writers talking about the poll seem to simply leap to that logic, but there are other realistic reasons why such a group could potentially be less inclined to vote for Romney. For example, it would likely be reasonable that a large amount of your evangelicals would fall in the group that suggests Mormonism isn't a subset of Christianity than in the camp saying it is. That camp is more likely to be STAUNCHLY pro-life and Romney has a history of flip flopping on that issue. Therefore its reasonable to suggest that an equally likely possabiliy is they're less likely to vote for him due to their pro-life stance and not necessarily because he's a Mormon.

If someone has a poll actually showing a decent number saying they won't vote for him BECAUSE he's a Mormon that'd be another thing. As it stands now, I actually think that's a relative minority of voters.
Click to expand...

Like racism, it's a hard thing to prove. I think that most people who discriminate won't admit it if you ask them point blank.
 
Zyphlin said:
Which tells you how much the base loathes the thought of Romney being the nominee, and yet we keep hearing he's got the best chance to beat Obama. I understand you need independents and moderates to win an election, but you need a base to raise your money, run your ground campaign in states, and actually provide the majority of the vote that independents and moderates get ADDED to. I'm beginning to seriously consider whether or not the extreme displeasure with Obama felt by the base is going to be sufficient enough motivation to sizably overcome the Bases significant dislike and unhappiness with Romney to a point where it is a competitive race.

An article I recently read compared it to Truman vs Dewey.
Click to expand...

You know my feelings on corruption. I simply could not support a candidate who had ever been found guilty of corruption, even by a house internal investigation. I find the idea that electing some one like him is preferable to any other candidate revolting and wonder at the mindset.
 
Zyphlin said:
In regards to the foot stompings, at least on this forum and in real life (so admittedly anecdotally) the only people I have ever hear suggest Romney's religion may be an issue tends to be liberals. I can't remember a single Republican I've seen on the boards or that I met that have actually ever stated to me or given an indication that Romney's religion is why they wouldn't vote for him. I see liberals theorize how its going to hurt him time and time and time again, but I've never actually seen it HAPPEN.

The only evidence I've ever seen even suggesting it is extremely specious at best, and that's polls finding that Republican voters who view Mormonism as something other than a Christian sect are more likely to have a negative opinion about Romney. However, that doesn't actually show proof that his religion is what is causing those people to not vote for him. Most writers talking about the poll seem to simply leap to that logic, but there are other realistic reasons why such a group could potentially be less inclined to vote for Romney. For example, it would likely be reasonable that a large amount of your evangelicals would fall in the group that suggests Mormonism isn't a subset of Christianity than in the camp saying it is. That camp is more likely to be STAUNCHLY pro-life and Romney has a history of flip flopping on that issue. Therefore its reasonable to suggest that an equally likely possabiliy is they're less likely to vote for him due to their pro-life stance and not necessarily because he's a Mormon.

If someone has a poll actually showing a decent number saying they won't vote for him BECAUSE he's a Mormon that'd be another thing. As it stands now, I actually think that's a relative minority of voters.
Click to expand...


In U.S., 22% Are Hesitant to Support a Mormon in 2012
 
Thorgasm said:
Hey, I'm just asking questions. :2razz:
Click to expand...

Zyphlin's Law

cartman_11-12b.jpg


Redress said:
You know my feelings on corruption. I simply could not support a candidate who had ever been found guilty of corruption, even by a house internal investigation. I find the idea that electing some one like him is preferable to any other candidate revolting and wonder at the mindset.
Click to expand...

I can understand that. I wasn't so much making an argument for Newt over Romney as much as stating my thoughts on beginning to personally question the legitimacy of the notion that Mitt is the most "electable" Republican in the field.
 
nonpareil said:
In U.S., 22% Are Hesitant to Support a Mormon in 2012
Click to expand...

Interesting. And surprisingly enough actually suggests that the typical storyline...that the fundamentalist evangelicals of the Right would be who his Mormonism hurt him with...may actually be wrong since more Democrats and Independents would not vote for a Mormon then Republicans. Its also interesting that non-Christians (22%) are almost as likely as Protestants (23%) and more likely than catholics (16%) to not vote for a Mormon.

Still, we're looking at 18% Republicans, 19% independents, and 27% Democrats. While a decent sized number, that's still roughly 1/4th to 1/5th of the country. I'd still say that's a relative minority.

Thanks for the great link though! I appreciate it and its the most concrete data I've seen.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
This is the most popular republican candidate right now. And we have not even begun to scratch at the surface of all his misdeeds.
Click to expand...
I'll be looking for your Romney anal exam thread. I'll start combing through the thread now, no doubt it's there. Like to see you gave him the same treatment you'll be giving Newt. ;)
 
AdamT said:
Like racism, it's a hard thing to prove. I think that most people who discriminate won't admit it if you ask them point blank.
Click to expand...

It's more like: John's great...for an Asian/Black/Homosexual/Jew/Mormon/etc. I like John, I would hire him...if he doesn't have the work ethic/beliefs/habits of an Asian/Black/Homosexual/Jew/Mormon/etc.
 
Zyphlin said:
Interesting. And surprisingly enough actually suggests that the typical storyline...that the fundamentalist evangelicals of the Right would be who his Mormonism hurt him with...may actually be wrong since more Democrats and Independents would not vote for a Mormon then Republicans.

Still, we're looking at 18% Republicans, 19% independents, and 27% Democrats. While a decent sized number, that's still roughly 1/4th to 1/5th of the country. I'd still say that's a relative minority.

Thanks for the great link though! I appreciate it and its the most concrete data I've seen.
Click to expand...

1/5 of the country would kill most people's chance to win the Presidency without strong support from other substantial group to offset it like with Obama and the black vote. Mormons are not that big a group to offset it.
 
American said:
I'll be looking for your Romney anal exam thread. I'll start combing through the thread now, no doubt it's there. Like to see you gave him the same treatment you'll be giving Newt. ;)
Click to expand...

Huh? I have not much more use for Romney than I do Gingrich. If you want to start a thread, I will happily explain why. The one thing Romney has over Gingrich is to the best of my knowledge he has no ethics convictions.
 
American said:
I'll be looking for your Romney anal exam thread. I'll start combing through the thread now, no doubt it's there. Like to see you gave him the same treatment you'll be giving Newt. ;)
Click to expand...

Maybe Romney's ass is clean enough that there's no need for long and detailed examination, unlike Newt's. Other than the flip-flopping, Romney maintains a good personal and professional history. He's married to one women, with well adjusted family that supports him. He has held private and public position without needing to resign over ethic charges. Can't say the same for Newt. Plus he doesn't act like a dick in public which seems to come naturally to Newt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom