Political Crossfire Forums

blockhead · Joined: 29 Oct 2006 Posts: 597 Location: SouthWest

It makes me cringe when impeachment and investigations are somehow off the table. I like how he had a secret meeting with lobbyists. Watch the video.

Newt in ‘94 vowed to investigate Clinton for 2 years as his platform

Gingrich went nuts over Clinton and his new-found subpoena power, yet if Democrats want to hold hearings on oversight and Iraq war profiteering that's supposed to hurt them.

Gingrich: I do not know of any administration in modern times with as many different potential scandals all around it.

Watch it here:

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/1994-newt.wmv

Anti-Federalist · Joined: 04 Sep 2005 Posts: 776 Location: Texas

I'm not quite sure what you're grasping for.

I thought it was a pretty good video.

blockhead · Joined: 29 Oct 2006 Posts: 597 Location: SouthWest

Anti-Federalist wrote: I'm not quite sure what you're grasping for.

I thought it was a pretty good video.

Not grasping at anything. I find it funny that the Republicans are worried about impeachment and investigations and that's what their hero, Newt, ran on in 1994. Not only that but he followed through on his promise.

Anti-Federalist · Joined: 04 Sep 2005 Posts: 776 Location: Texas

I'm trying to think if Newt has even one thing in common with the current "Republicans" in office. I can't think of one. I doubt he is their hero. George W Bush, steering ever more billions into the Military Industrial Complex is their hero.

Newt is a limited government guy. Young people might not even know what this means. But basically, all of the things that Clinton took credit for, such as the budget surplus, were the work of Newt and other good Republicans.

Mr. Sunshine · Joined: 06 Oct 2006 Posts: 1324

Republicans aren't worried about Impeachment and neither are Democrats. Nancy knows she doesn't have the votes and so do the Republicans. She needs to keep things looking as moderate as possible to the Clintonistas, except for the Wham Bam thank you ma'ams on the liberal left wing base. It will be quite a balancing act. For her base, she'll do stuff like back Murtha for Majority leader and seem like "at least she's trying." It's okay. We love you Nancy. :lol:

blockhead · Joined: 29 Oct 2006 Posts: 597 Location: SouthWest

Mr. Sunshine wrote: Nancy knows she doesn't have the votes and so do the Republicans.

The House of Representatives must first pass "articles of impeachment" by a simple majority.

Currently, in the house.

232 (D)

203 (R)

She doesn't have control of the Senate, where you need 2/3 vote to convict.

cool_chick · Joined: 26 Dec 2004 Posts: 21295 Location: Chicago

blockhead wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: Nancy knows she doesn't have the votes and so do the Republicans.

The House of Representatives must first pass "articles of impeachment" by a simple majority.

Currently, in the house.

232 (D)

203 (R)

She doesn't have control of the Senate, where you need 2/3 vote to convict.

If there if proof to convict, why would the republicans vote against it? How can anyone know there's "not enough votes to convict?"

They think investigations is just "partisan" but they KNOW the republicans ARE partisan and will vote against it because of their party? Is that what they're saying?

blockhead · Joined: 29 Oct 2006 Posts: 597 Location: SouthWest

cool_chick wrote: blockhead wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: Nancy knows she doesn't have the votes and so do the Republicans.

The House of Representatives must first pass "articles of impeachment" by a simple majority.

Currently, in the house.

232 (D)

203 (R)

She doesn't have control of the Senate, where you need 2/3 vote to convict.

If there if proof to convict, why would the republicans vote against it? How can anyone know there's "not enough votes to convict?"

They think investigations is just "partisan" but they KNOW the republicans ARE partisan and will vote against it because of their party? Is that what they're saying?

Exactly, if it comes out that there is proof Bush lied us into a war or a number of other possible charges, why would an honest Republican vote against it? Remember, a 1/3 of the Senators will be coming up for re-election in '08.

Divinity11 · Joined: 14 Oct 2004 Posts: 4484 Location: The Dirty

Newt is a hypocritical partisan hack. He's nothing more than a footnote in the GOP's Most Respected List.

If memory serves correctly, didn't he predict the GOP would maintain control of Congress? :lol: Was he lying to himself, a la El Rushbo, to keep a strong face for the GOP, or was he just as clueless as all the other neo-nuts who predicted the same thing?

Alizard

blockhead wrote: It makes me cringe when impeachment and investigations are somehow off the table. I like how he had a secret meeting with lobbyists. Watch the video.

Newt in ‘94 vowed to investigate Clinton for 2 years as his platform

Well, you have to understand: Newt holds the institution of marriage sacred like the Good Book says.... except when he is cheating on his wife with his secretary. :shock:

Anti-Federalist · Joined: 04 Sep 2005 Posts: 776 Location: Texas

Divinity11 wrote: Newt is a hypocritical partisan hack. He's nothing more than a footnote in the GOP's Most Respected List.

If memory serves correctly, didn't he predict the GOP would maintain control of Congress? :lol: Was he lying to himself, a la El Rushbo, to keep a strong face for the GOP, or was he just as clueless as all the other neo-nuts who predicted the same thing?

Have you actually ever listened to Newt? Not what is said about him, but the man himself. I think you would like him if you did.