Internet Articles (2017)
hen House Speaker Newt Gingrich was running for Jack Flynt's US congressional seat (for the third time) in 1978, he was already having sex with soon-to-be wife number two, Marianne Ginther. His affair with Ginther began a year before he asked Jackie Battley Gingrich, his first wife, to construct a letter for him attacking his opponent for Flynt's seat for planning to leave her family in Georgia when she was elected and take a small apartment for herself in the District.
Running a series of print ads to make himself appear like a real "family-values" candidate, Newt declared, "...When elected, Newt will keep his family together." Did that include his mistress? Apparently it did. (Information I've seen suggests Newt's mistress in 1977 was Marianne Ginther, even though most Google references suggest they met in 1980, shortly before Jackie Battley Gingrich discovered he was having an affair with her.) Whether his 1977 lover was Ginther or someone else, Gingrich was, and still is, a hypocrite who condemned his primary opponent for deciding to separate herself from her Georgia family when Congress was in session by taking an apartment away from her familywhile Newt was sharing his bed with at least one other womanin his own Washington apartment.
Newt successfully duped the electorate from 1978 to 1998. He never was what he pretended to be in 1978a family values conservative. He was elected for the first time in 1978. In April, 1981 Newt's wife (who was described by one reporter as a big-busted high school geometry teacher when she seduced Newta jail-bait 17-year old studentwhen she was 24) discovered her husband had a mistress. One of Newt's biographers credited Jackie with leaving him. In reality, she didn't. Newt dumped Jackie when she was diagnosed with cancer. He would do the same to Marianne when she was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis. Newt apparently never learned the meaning of the phrase "...in sickness or in health, 'til death do us part..." On Mother's Day in 1999, Newt called Marianne who was visiting her mother in Ohio. He spoke to her after wishing his 84-year old mother-in-law a Happy Mother's Day. What did he wish Marianne? A divorce.
In an interview on ABC News just before the South Carolina primary, Marianne Ginther Gingrich said that Newt asked her for an open marriage. When he told her he wanted her to share him with Callista, she said she "...just stared at him as he said, 'Callista doesn't care what I do....He wanted an open marriage, and I refused." Marianne also said she learned "...that he conducted his affair in my bedroom in our apartment in Washington. He always called me at night," she added, "and always ended with 'I love you..."while Callista was listening. Of course Callista didn't mind sharing. She was the "odd woman out" in the triangle. She was the one looking for a way in. Ask her today if she would mind, or object, if Newt wanted an open marriage now, and you would likely hear shrill screams from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other. Callista does not appear to be the timid church mouse wife that wives #1 and #2 were. She strikes me as a woman who will fight to protect her turfwhich suggests when Newt trots home a new trollop, she won't walk away silently in the night. She will more likely demand a sizeable chunk of Newt's non-lobbyist lobbying wealthand write a tell-all book to end all political tell-all books.
Callista, who supposedly will play a key role in Newt's run for the roses this fall, was partially responsible for his fall from grace in 1998. Newt's critics in the Houseon both sides of the aislesaw Newt as a hypocrite for pushing for the impeachment of Bill Clinton over an infidelity with Monica Lewinsky while he was engaged in the same type of conduct with Callista. His sexual indiscretions were only part of the reason the GOP turned on him. There were two other reasons.
First, most freshman members of the 105th Congress wanted Clinton impeached over Chinagate, not Monicagate. They viewed the Clinton Administration's taking what appears to be about $600 million in campaign contributions from the People's Liberation Army of the People's Republic of China as treason. They wanted him charged with high crimes and misdemeanors since taking money from an enemy of the United States is nothing short of treason. Had the Freshman Class of 1994 gotten its way, and waited on the documents compiled by Judicial Watch founder and then chairman, attorney Larry Klayman, who proved that the Clintons used White House offices to host fundraising functions in violation of federal campaign laws; and that they solicited illegal contributions from foreign nationals who cannot legally donate money to US political campaigns, Clinton would have been successfully removed from office and probably charged with treason. Before the midterm election, Newt helped contain the mess and minimized the damage to the Clinton White House as well as any good "Democratic" caretaker Speaker would have done. Clinton was charged with perjury and not treason. Nor were about 20 of social progressive Democrats who were also guilty of the same crime. Which is why they needed Clinton charged with pig-wallowing in the White House and not in China.
Those Democratic Congressmen and Senators who had also been taking Chinese money since 1988 breathed a sigh of relief. That was one they owed to Newt. Chinagate could haveand should havebeen a bigger scandal than the Credit Mobilier Scandal (the Union Pacific scandal) in 1872) when the wholesale buying of politicians in the United States began. The Credit Mobilier Scandal ended the political careers of some 30 House and Senate members. Among them was the 29th Speaker of the House and 17th Vice President under President Ulysses S. Grant, Schuyler Colfax, who was forced to resign to avoid impeachment and likely imprisonment.)
In July, 1998 it was Speaker Gingrich who almost undid the efforts of Congressmen Ron Paul [R-TX], Bob Barr [R-GA] and Mac Collins [R-GA] to defund the Nazi-style national identity card that was adroitly, and very unconstitutionally, enacted in patchwork fashion when it was left in the Immigration Reform Act of 1996 (Senate version only) because they House refused to vote on it; and the Omnibus Budget Bill of 1996 (where the House version was hidden a few months later). In a rare midnight session (thieves always work best at night) while American slept, Speaker Gingrich ordered the amendment to defund the National ID Card that had now been reassembled by the NHTSA, stripped from a Transportation bill being voted on that night. Barr went to then Majority Whip Tom Delay and told him what was happening with Congressman Lamar Smith's Transportation Bill. Delay told Gingrich if he stripped the rider from the legislation (which Gingrich assured Smith he would do) Delay, Ron Paul and Bob Barr would be on every talk show in the country the next day telling the American people how the Speaker of the House of Representatives stuck them with a national identity card. Gingrich backed down, and Barr-Collins-Paul Amendment remained in the bill. Implementation of a national identity card was returned to Limbo.
Those three catalysts brought Newt Gingrich down at a time when Newt believed he was going be the 43rd President of the United States. The GOP leadership told Newt that not only was there no support for his election as Speaker, there was none for his election to any leadership post in the Republican Party. Newt won reelection in Georgia, but within a few days of his victory, he resigned from the United States House of Representatives.
Speaking out about Marianne Gingrich, Newt's openly gay lesbian sister, Candace Gingrich-Jones, said during an interview on Sinius XM radio's "OutQ" that she understood why Marianne came forward. Candace Gingrich said she knew it would come out sooner or later, and that Marianne just wanted to be in control of it when it did. She chose a time that she thought it would impact her ex-husband most, although Gingrich was able to defuse it. "People who are adjacent to those people in the spotlight," she said, "have decisions to make every single day about coming forward, speaking up, not speaking up...People are saying that she's doing it to get the spotlight [to] somehow benefit from it. I'm sure people are wondering if she's writing a book."
Candace has pointed out the flaws in her brother's campaign and said she endorsed Barack Obama's reelection several months ago. You have to wonder about the worthiness of a candidate for president when his own sister is voting for the other guy.
Because what we now know about the personal history of Newt Gingrich, his proclivities suggest he would have been looking for a sexual diversion from Callista as soon as the newness of that marriage wore offand maybe even before it did. We have the right to assume he did because, historically, that's what Newt does. He's a serial philanderer. We know about the mistresses Newt married (all three of his wives), but we don't know how many times he cheated on his mistresses with either one night stands, afternoon dalliances or quasi-long term secondary romances, but its a safe bet that zebra hasn't changed his stripeseven with Callista's statement that Newt no longer likes sex. Perhaps she has scared the lust out of him. Or, perhaps his libido surrendered to an enlarged prostate.
According to Dr. Stanton Peele, Ph.D., JD, in a Psychology Today article, the "new" Newt hates sexand he has the wife to prove it. Peele said it was Callista's six year illicit relationship with Gingrich that contributed to Newt's political downfall, his ousting as Speaker and his decision, days after the 1998 mid-term election which he won, to resign from the House of Representatives. (And, while Newt's midnight battle with House Majority Whip Tom Delay and House members Barr, Dr. Paul and Collins to defund Bill Clinton's National ID Card was, and still is not commonly known, it played a key role in the universal loss of support for Gingrich's playing any leadership role in the House of Representatives.) Gingrich was replaced by another serial womanizer, Congressman Robert Livingston [R-LA] who also resigned and was replaced by Dennis Hastert [R-IL].
Now a K-Street lobbyist, Livingston was the very powerful Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee when Gingrich was forced out of the Speakership. Both House Majority Leader Dick Armey and Majority Whip Delay wanted to become the Speaker, but when Livingston decided to challenge them for the job, they both opted not to contest it since the Republicans, while in control of the House, did not have enough of a majority to win the Speakership if Armey, Delay, and Livingston were all fighting for the jobparticularly if there was no GOP agreement when it came time for a floor vote for Speaker.
It could have been the first GOP Congress ever to have a Democrat Speaker. With a leadership feud on the right, Dick Gephart [D-MO] could have become the Speaker of the GOP-controlled House of Representatives.
Ironically, someone leaked a story to the media that Speaker-elect Livingston suffered from "Gingrich Disease." On Dec. 19, 1998 Livingston acknowledged that he had an affair and resigned as Speaker-elect. He said he would resign from the House of Representatives in May, 1999. He used the disgrace to challenge President Clinton to do the honorable thing and resign as well.
Livingston's 1st Congressional District seat was won by David Vitter who went on to become the first popularly elected Republican Senator from Louisiana since before the Civil War. Vitter was also involved in a sex scandal. Around July 9, 2007 Hustler Magazine revealed that in the phone records of Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the "DC Madam," was Senator Vitter's cell-phone number. Hustler contacted Vitter's office. Vitter issued a statement to Hustler, admitting his indiscretion. A week later, on July 16, 2007 the Vitters held a press conference. The Nation predicted that the GOP would "forgive" Vitter because if they forced him to resign the far left governor of Louisiana, Kathleen Blanco would appoint a Democratperhaps herselfto fill his seat.
When New York Democrat Congressman Anthony Weiner was forced to resign in June, 2011 for posting pornographic photos of himself on his website, the far leftwhich saw no pressing reason for him to resignrenewed their demands for Vitter's resignation. The social progressives' seemingly indifference to infidelity committed by Democrats goes back to Bertrand Russell's anti-Victorian societal views. Russell, in 1929, wrote Marriage and Morals in which he postulated that illicit sex between a man and a woman is not immoral. (Interestingly, while even social progressives were repulsed by homosexual sex, Russell was a supporter of the Homosexual Law Reform Society). Russell advocated trial marriages where young couples could legally experiment with sex without being expected to remain coupled if they wanted to "dos-si-dos" and then change partners. The book suggested that since marriage is supposed to be a lifetime commitment, and that cuckolded spousesif they have childrenare supposed to tolerate the infidelities of their mates and remain married. That view came from Russell's personal life experience. His second wife, Dora, who was openly having an affair, became pregnant by her lover. Because Russell was concerned how divorce would affect his son and daughter, he remained married to Dora. Republicans, on the other hand, have traditionally eschewed infidelity and are quick to distance themselves from philandering Republicans. Democrats, for some reason, are guided more by Russell's social progressive moral code.
As Newt Gingrich hammered both CNN's Jan. 19 GOP debate moderator, John King, and Fox News' Juan Williams on Jan. 21 for questioning his infidelities, in what the media called "the best thing that ever happened to Newt Gingrich," the reality is that Gingrich cannot escape the toxic combination of his own multiple infidelities and his sermonizing that he is the Christian alternative to Mitt Romney.
Publiclyand only publiclyGingrich ascribes to the patriotic tenets of the Founding Fathers because his shrinking audiences believe in limited government. Privately, like the rest of the social progressives, Gingrich's lifestyle suggests he believes in a class system in which the rich and powerful rule the subservient human capital in a society where the middle class is being systematically blended into a classless working class society, ruled (not led) by what the Islamlofascist protesters around the world call the "One Percent."Thd rest of us are the 99% they ruleglobally. Those building Utopia are forging a new type of socialism. Unlike Soviet-style communism, the new form of Utopian elitism is called Islamofascist socialism. Make new mistake about it, Gingrich is a member of this new global elite.
When 19-year old Newt married to his first wife, Jacqueline Battley, age 26who, today, would have been labeled a 24-year old registered sex offender at the time for having a sexual relationship with her 17-year old student, Newton Leroy McPherson. Newt was not anyone people who met him would have thought would be destined for greatness. He was the stepson of a US Army officer, Robert Gingrich and Kathleen Daugherty. She gave birth to him at age 16 after his birth father, Newton Searles was forced to the altar with his child bride. The marriage lasted 3 days and prevented Newt from being born a bastard. That was a title he could claim later in life as a womanizerat least from wives #1 and #2..
On the day that Newt won the US House seat previously occupied by 10-term Congressman John James "Jack" Flynt, his annual earnings were $10,000.00. By the time he was named Speaker of the House in 1994, he was earning $675,000.00. When he resigned from Congress in 1998, his earnings totaled $7,500,000.00. Eighty-four ethics complaints were filed against him during the time he was the Speaker. Before leaving office, Gingrich was forced to pay a $300,000.00 fine for lying.
Since leaving office, Newt became what we are asked to "tongue-in-cheek" refer to as a "non-lobbying lobbyist," earning some $350 million not lobbying Congressmen as he "lobbied" (used for the lack of better adjective to describe what he was doing) his peers on behalf of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae during the subprime housing crisiseven though his contract with both organizations included a phrase saying he would not lobby members of Congresswhich, of course, we know solidly affirms that he never asked members of Congress to funnel even more money to Fannie and Freddie. Scouts' honor.
On Feb. 8, 2012, Bloomberg News uncovered Gingrich quid pro quo ties to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac going back to 1995 when he was Speaker of the House. Bloomberg said the ties existed from 1995 to 1999, questioning the relationship Gingrich might have had with the home mortgage companies as a historian.
The New York Times reported that in 1995 Speaker Gingrich, a supporter of Barack Obama's subprime mortgages that welfare recipients who received them would never be able to pay off, traveled to Atlanta in 1995 to lend his presence to the opening of a Fannie Mae office promoting home ownership for underprivileged minoritieswho were, according to the far left, "denied to the right" to own their own home. In 1998, before he left Congress, Gingrich visited Ireland on a trip that was in part sponsored by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. When he returned and resigned from Congress, Fannie and Freddie were snugly tucked in his money pocket. He was their new "non-lobbyist" lobbyist. According to Newt, he filled them with reports about the history of the United States and they filled his pockets with money. Newt's "history reports" netted Fannie and Freddie about $153 million in taxpayer dollars at a time when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were hemorrhaging taxpayer dollars.
Bloomberg News was the first to report that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac paid Newt Gingrich at least $1.6 million for his "history reports" from 1999 to 2007. While former Gov. Mitt Romney has disparaged Gingrich as a "Washington influence peddler," Gingrich still insists he was hired because of his training as a historian and a strategist.
Once again: the American people need to understand that the US Congress is bought and sold legally 24/7 by laws enacted by Congress that allow themselves to be bribed by the princes of industry, the barons of banking and business and the special interest groups they employ to funnel taxpayer dollars into their pockets in the form of grants, contracts, and waivers that Mom and Pop America are not eligible for. Campaign donors who give candidates hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars are not supporting the electoral process out of patriotism or the goodness of their hearts. They are buying accessand results.
When you see presidential candidates amassing campaign war chests in the hundreds of millions of dollars, you need to ask yourself what the donor gets for his money. Barack Obama amassed a war chest in 2007-08 that reportedly reached an unheard of billion dollars. You can see from how money from Obama's "stimulus plans" benefited only those who campaigned for, and supported, his election that the quid pro quo is always at play when donors financally support candidates, or when unions "lend" the candidate thousands of union members to "get-out-the-vote."
That's why the princes of industry and the barons of banking and business donate to political candidates. It's a simple business investment. They expect to receive far more than the gave from that candidate if he prevails in November. Take California-based solar panel manufacturer Solyndra, LLC for example. According to media reports, Solyndra, a green company that was failing worse than Hillary Clinton's 2008 run for the White House. Solyndra was a major Obama donor. And George Kaiser, whose family owned a majority interest in Solyndra, was a major Obama-bundler who reported raised over a half million dollars for Obama. Solyndra's post-campaign payoff? A $535 million stimulus loan to make solar panels. Even aafter getting the money, the company was in such dire financial straits that it still went belly-up, declaring bankruptcy.
And, while Solynda officials made no less than 20 visits to the Obama White House between March 12, 2009 and April 14, 2011, Kaiser insists that Solyndra did not participate in any discussions with the US government about a loan. The week before the $535 million loan was granted, four separate visits to the West Wing were logged. Political corruption is a byproduct of government. The more government, the more corruption. Political corruption and cronyism began during the reign of the Jacobin Republicans between 1854 and 1896 when the Jacobins jumped ship and left the GOP, taking over the Democratic Party (which they still control to this day).
Because of the political history of the United States, voters have the impression that the Democratic Party is the party of the working class and the Republicans are the party of the political bosses. That illusion lives today, but that's all it isan illusion. The princes of industry and the barons of banking, at least since 1912, have leaned towards social progressivism even though they still insist they support the free enterprise system.
The "Grand Ol' Party" lost its grip on power in 1896 when the Republicans fell into disfavor with the voters. In the 19th century the Rockefeller clanthe founder of Standard Oil, and the major stakeholder of the seven oil companies created by US District Court Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis on Aug. 13, 1907 when he broke up Standard Oil. Landis also fined Standard Oil $29.24 million. Because of the fine, John D. Rockefeller, Sr. who was 68 at the time, appealed the case to the US Supreme Court. The fine was thrown out at the appellate level, but the US Supreme Court upheld Landis' breakup of Standard Oilallowing the shareholders of Standard Oil to own the shares of the breakup companies. Which, of course, negated the value of breaking up the company. Nothing changed except that there were now seven giant oil companies owned by the Rockefeller family instead of one. Overnight on May 15, 1911, the Rockefeller family's wealth increased sevenfold.
America lives with the illusions that are painted by the left-owned media and social progressive historians from the far left academic centers who, strangely, have become the "trusted" caretakers of America's past. The first illusion the left maintains is that the GOP is the party of the rich "fat cats." The second illusion is that the Democrat Party is the party of the working class. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In the 19th century, the Rockefellers were Republicans. So were the money managers at JP Morgan & Company, like the family of J.P. Morgan power broker Thomas Lamont. Today, the Rockefellers are Democrats. So is the scion of the Lamont wealth: Ned Lamont. Lamont, if you recall, challenged US Senator Joe Lieberman [D-CT] for his seat in the Senate in 2006, easily sweeping the primaries and becoming the Democratic candidate for Lieberman's seat. Lieberman was forced to run as an Independent, and handily won reelection. Most of what we believe about politics in this country is myth and urban legend. The princes of industry and the barons of banking who controlled the GOP with an iron fist in the 19th century jumped ship at the turn of the 20th century, and now control the Democratic Party. Granted, money has no party affiliation, so the money of the princes of industry and the barons of banking and business wears no party labels. It's just money. It spends as well in the pocket of a Repubican as it does in the pocket of a Democrat. And the division of the dollars from K Street are based almost entirely on who controls the Committee chairs in Congress. The Party in power gets the lion's share of the campaign loot. If the Party in power does not give the princes of industry what they wanted, the money barons simply pull the campaign funding and dole it out to the other side in the next election cycle.
Politics in America is a stealth game that plays out far away from the view of the public. It is a world in which no one has clean hands because politics is a dirty business that takes place in the pigsty known as Congress or along the pubic feeding trough on K Street where the lobbyists fill the trough dailynot to feed the poor, but for those in Congress to enrich themselves. The only players with clean hands are those who come to Washington with enough personal wealth that they are not tempted to sell out the American people for a stipend from the rich. In the Election of 2012, in the GOP field, there is only one such candidate. His name is Mitt Romney.
Most Americans believe what the media tells them is true, or what they have pieced together like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, splicing together half-truths from innuendoes leaked by vague sourcesbut never confirmed over the Internet. And, they believe what the candidates say about themselves in the form of mea culpas. For example, Romney unabashedly admits that when he ran for the US Senate in 1994 and for governor in 2002, he was pro-choice. That, the blogsphere believes. However, that he could repent and become ardently prolife, is unfathomable to many because they know, in their whole stubborn life, they've never reversed their own views on anything. And, they know if f they couldn't change; Romney couldn't, either.
However, during his one term in office as governor of Massachusetts, Romney had what can only be described as a "pro-life epiphany" early in 2004 when he met with a Harvard embryonic stem cell researcher who inadvertently radically altered Romney's views on abortioneven though his wife, Ann, suffers from multiple sclerosis and would have benefited greatly from stem cell research from aborted fetuses.
The left and the 40-watt light bulbs on the right who choose to ignore that fact when they debate whether Romney's 'conversion" was real or not, instead point out that Ann Romney attended a Planned Parenthood fundraiser on June 12, 1994 and donated $150 thousand. Anyone who takes the time to check Romney's pro-life bonafides with the pro-life groups across the country will find all of them rate him highly, and all of them support him. Romney's pro-life views are the real deal. But his political distractersNewt Gingrich and Rick Santorumstill insist he's lying because they have reams of leftwing or far right propaganda that says he is. And, of course, the reams of leftwing garbage that is plastered like cheap wallpaper about themwell, they will assure you, is all lies.
What are these lies? Santorum claims to be the true conservative who will fight to limit government spending. Yet, as a US Senator, after promising his constituents that he would fight for a balanced budget amendment, he voted to raise both the Clinton and Bush-43 debt ceiling five times. Remember Sarah Palin's "bridge to nowhere?" (H.R. 3, July 29.2005) Santorum voted for it. What was it? It was a bridge that was supposed to link the town of Ketchikan, Alaska [pop. 7,000] with an airport on sparsely populated Gravina Island [pop. 50] which, strangely is the only airport in the area. Wonder which Congressman, Senator or State legislator lived on Gravina Island? Pork barrel spending at its worst. According to Club for Growth, in one session of Congress Santorumthe self-professed true conservative who favors limited government and limited spendingsponsored 51 spending bills. How did he offset the spending? He didn't. In fact, at that time in 2002, he voted to increase his own pay. He did not vote for a single bill to cut spendinganywhere.
Claiming to be a constitutionalist, Santorum, who usually looks like a deer in headlights, is just not quite ready for prime time. He talks like he is when he speaks to Christian conservatives who he's convinced that the office of President is a theological position. During his first term, Santorum signed on to a Sen. Hillary Clinton measure to allow convicted felons to vote. If he was in the Senate today, would he be championing the left's fight to prevent voters from being forced to prove who they are before being handed a ballot and access to vote?
Just as Newt Gingrich became a "non-lobbyist" corporate lobbyist when he left the House, Santorum did the same thing when he left the Senate. In 2006, shortly after Santorum lost his seat, on Oct. 22, 2006, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that "...Santorum exemplifies the worst of Washington." His votes added trillions to the debt. When questioned in 2003 about the leftwing voting habits of a self-professed "deficit hawk," Santorum told The Hill (Feb. 5, 2003) "...I am no longer a deficit hawk...I had to spend the surpluses." When the Right To Work Act was being debated in Congress, Santorum promised to stand with the workers against the labor unions. In the end, he stood with the union bosses and voted against the people. Santorum campaigned on a pledge to fight the special groups on K Street. Instead, he was among those who grabbed handfuls of lobbyist money according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in an article they wrote about him after he lost his Senate seat to Pennsylvania State Treasurer Robert Casey in 2006. The important question is, why did Santorum lose that race? Because that's the frosting on the cake that should convince every conservative in America that they cannot afford to cast their vote for Santorum.
When the Tea Party wanted political turncoat Sen. Arlen Specter gone in 2004, they backed Congressman Pat Toomey in the Republican primary. Santorum campaigned for Specter over Toomey because he was asked to do so by then President George W. Bush. Toomey lost the primary battle by 1.7% of the vote. Had Santorum endorsed the conservative, Toomey would have won that contest. And Toomey would likely have taken Specter's seat in 2004, holding it for the GOP when the social progressives grabbed control of both the House and Senate in 2006at a time when one more Senate vote may have meant the difference between getting or killing Obamacare. Thanks Rick, we may owe the euthanizing of our mom and dad, or our grandparents under the regulations implemented by the Obama Dept. of Health and Human Services, to you.
Santorum would not have been there to vote against Obamacare in 2009 because the Tea Party dumped him in 2006. Nor would Toomey who lost to Specter who cast his Democratic vote for Obamacare. The question is: why is the Tea Party backing Santorum now? What makes "true conservatives" think a man they couldn't trust in 2004 is suddenly more trustworthy in 2012 when the stakes are even greater?
Or, is the Tea Party content with candidates who talks the talk but, once elected, fails to walk the walk? Anyone who votes for Rick Santorum, like those who voted for Barack Obama in 2008, deserve what they get. The problem with that is, the rest of the nation gets the same thing. That's why the Post-Gazette said Santorum "...has a black belt in hypocrisy." On Jan. 4, 2012, ABC News said that the "...Santorum surge brings up ethics questions," adding that he "...was one of the most corrupt members of Congress." In other words, as long as Santorum was dragging his heels in the root cellar, he wasn't worth the printer's ink or air time to expose. Now he's a threat because even the left realizes that a man who will lie to gain power is a man who can't be trusted with power.
Newt Gingrich came to Washington preaching a "higher standard for politicians." Newt, who brought down former House Speaker Jim Wright for ethics violations, was himself found guilty of 84 ethics violations by his peers in Congress. They fined him $300 thousand. Many on both sides of the aisle raised questions at that time about Gingrich's future effectiveness in the United States government. At that time, the Republicans mutinied against him in an attempt to oust him from any position of leadership in the GOP after Gingrich staged a midnight attempt to impose a Nazi-style Internal Passport on the American people. (Here is a hyperlink that will lead you to the PLAIN TALK article detailing that attempt.) Gingrich became the poster child for Republican excess in Washington. When he was censored, one member of Congress said, "We don't need people in the Speaker's chair who lie to Congress." Remembe this if you forget everything else in this article: a man who will lie to gain power is a man who can't be trusted with power.