Shady Posted January 30, 2012 Report Posted January 30, 2012 Hey, has anybody seen this? Around the time of this debate Nancy Pelosi came out with a statement that Newt would not be president as she has 'something' on him. I don't think I've ever seen that kind of attempt to influence the voting public before. You're right about this situation being somewhat different than just regular dirt. I believe that revealing anything from the sealed ethics investigation would violate the law in this respect. There's actual legal implications for Ms. Pelosi should she decide to go forward with her threat. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 30, 2012 Report Posted January 30, 2012 ..... There's actual legal implications for Ms. Pelosi should she decide to go forward with her threat. She has already backed down...isn't going to say anything after all. Somebody else can leak that later! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Guest American Woman Posted January 30, 2012 Report Posted January 30, 2012 She has already backed down...isn't going to say anything after all. Somebody else can leak that later! Well, she said she doesn't have any "secret" dirt, but that doesn't mean she isn't going to say anything. She's said right along that it's a matter of public record, but with all the pages and pages of information, the public may not be aware of. I don't know why she wouldn't just come out and say it, though - this makes her look bad, imo. Quote
sharkman Posted January 30, 2012 Report Posted January 30, 2012 If I go to the trouble of finding one, will it make any difference to you? Let's start with Senator Tom Eagleton's comments about candidate George McGovern, revealed secretly to Robert Novak in 1972. "Amnesty, abortion, and acid". Hm, perhaps I am looking for standards that do not exist. I still feel that what Pelosi did was over some kind of line, and since she's apparently backed down, maybe some advisors talked her out of it. Quote
Guest Manny Posted January 30, 2012 Report Posted January 30, 2012 maybe some advisors talked her out of it. Or maybe she decided it's better to let the chips fall where they may, and if Gingrich does get the nomination, it'll be all to easy to have him defeated. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 30, 2012 Report Posted January 30, 2012 Hm, perhaps I am looking for standards that do not exist. Not in the United States of America. 1884 - "Ma, Ma, Where's My Pa?" Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Shady Posted January 30, 2012 Report Posted January 30, 2012 Well, she said she doesn't have any "secret" dirt, but that doesn't mean she isn't going to say anything. She's said right along that it's a matter of public record But it actually isn't a matter of public record. That's the thing. Anyways, I loved Newt's response! First of all I’d like to thank Speaker Pelosi for what I regard as an early Christmas gift. If she’s suggesting she’s gonna use material she developed while she was on the ethics committee, that is a fundamental violation of the rules of the House and I would hope members would immediately file charges against her the second she does it. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted January 30, 2012 Report Posted January 30, 2012 But it actually isn't a matter of public record. That's the thing. Yes, according to her, it actually is. She has quite clearly said she has no intention of revealing anything from confidential files. Even Newt says, in your quote, "If she's suggesting...." He's speculating. Quote
fellowtraveller Posted January 30, 2012 Report Posted January 30, 2012 Yes, according to her, it actually is. She has quite clearly said she has no intention of revealing anything from confidential files. Even Newt says, in your quote, "If she's suggesting...." He's speculating. I strongly suspect Pelosi got told to shut her face by Obamas handlers. He would be delighted to face any of the Republcian gong show, and would demolish Newt with more ease than he'd defeat Romney. There is no need to open a front when the battle is essentially won already. Quote The government should do something.
The_Squid Posted January 30, 2012 Report Posted January 30, 2012 Yes, according to her, it actually is. She has quite clearly said she has no intention of revealing anything from confidential files. Even Newt says, in your quote, "If she's suggesting...." He's speculating. A presidential candidate that was run out of office and fined for ethics violations? Obama will eat him alive!! So I guess he is a reformed man now? No more seedy scams? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/12/gingrich-faxes-doctors-in_n_759871.html Gingrich, it should be noted, is seemingly a fan of the blast-fax, fake award fundraising method. He's used it in the past. In September 2009, Gingrich's group sent alerts out to an unknown group of businessmen and women alerting them that they had been named "2009 Entrepreneur of the Year." Embarrassingly, a Dallas topless club owner was among the recipients, forcing American Solutions to retract the invitation. Scamming doctors? This is his day-job and now he wants to be POTUS? The Republican field of candidates is pathetic!! On an ironic note, I noticed the Huffington Post is running an ad for some BS botox beauty product with the headline "57 year old looks 27". hmmm... the newspaper writes an article about scamming doctors with spam faxes and then has some sham beauty products that make outrageous claims... it doesn't make the article untrue.... but it is rather goofy. Quote Science flies you to the moon, Religion flies you into buildings.
Guest American Woman Posted January 30, 2012 Report Posted January 30, 2012 I strongly suspect Pelosi got told to shut her face by Obamas handlers. He would be delighted to face any of the Republcian gong show, and would demolish Newt with more ease than he'd defeat Romney. There is no need to open a front when the battle is essentially won already. Makes sense. As I said, it made Pelosi look bad, imo - if someone has something to say, say it. I seriously doubt if Gingrich has any chance of getting the Republican nomination, so I'm not sure why she's so determined to be on him. She can be a bit a bit extreme, imo; I think she flies off the handle at times. Quote
August1991 Posted January 31, 2012 Author Report Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) Parliament should matter...to you. Americans...not so much. You will probably watch President Obama's State of the Union speech tonight, but I don't watch throne speeches. There are still 9 months to go and lots of campaign money to be raised and spent. That's just how we roll... Hey, our federal Parliament is back in session. We Canadians see these kind of debates every day for several months of the year. For the most part, no one cares - except when a big issue takes centre stage. Then, the routine of Question Period matters.And what do you Americans have? When was the last time Obama faced a debate, or serious questions? Heck, in Canada, the PM doesn't even read the Throne Speech. ---- I generally find modern US debates to be boring. They are serial press conferences. Gingrich offered to hold Lincoln-Douglas style debates with Obama. If I understand correctly, such debates are closer to the Canadian style. For a few brief moments, this Tampa debate was a direct Canadian style debate. IMHO, that makes for a better democracy. Individuals like Obama, Putin, Trudeau, Harper, Nixon deserve regular, direct one-on-one confrontation before a crowd. ---- If Romney wins the nomination, and Obama accepts a debate, and Romney has the guts, Romney will turn to Obama in late October and ask him directly why he spent a trillion dollars or so. IOW, before the nation, Romney will argue directly with Obama - one on one, without a moderator. To me, that's democracy. And if Romney has any hope of winning, that's what he'll do. Edited January 31, 2012 by August1991 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.