AI
Friday, December 02, 2011 8:48:07 PM
Gingrich: Poor kids don't work, only get cash illegally
Published on Dec 1, 2011 by CBSNewsOnline
At a campaign stop in Des Moines, Iowa Thursday, GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich said children in poor neighborhoods have "no habits of working" and no one around them works.
===
Newt Gingrich’s disgusting remarks about ‘really poor children’
By Jonathan Capehart
Posted at 04:46 PM ET, 12/01/2011
Newt Gingrich, the know-it-all former Speaker of the House who now rides atop the polls for the Republican nomination for president, has been shooting his mouth off lately. He called himself a celebrity who makes $60,000 a speech. Another favorite is, “I helped Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp develop supply side economics. I helped lead the effort to defeat communism in the Congress.” I didn’t realize communism in Congress was an issue, but I digress.
Then, a tweet from Charles Blow of the New York Times piqued my interest.
RT @foxnewspolitics Gingrich: Poor kids don’t know work unless it’s crime: politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/12/01/new… < Oh HELL no! What?! Somebody get
Surely, the Fox News report [ http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/12/01/newt-poor-children-have-no-habits-working ] was referring to something from Gingrich’s end-welfare past. Would that were so.
GOP hopeful Newt Gingrich defended his stance against certain child labor laws during a campaign stop in Iowa Thursday, saying that children born into poverty aren’t accustomed to working unless it involves crime.
“Really poor children, in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works so they have no habit of showing up on Monday,” Gingrich claimed.
“They have no habit of staying all day, they have no habit of I do this and you give me cash unless it is illegal,” he added.
That was today, folks! A lot can be said about the plight of families unlucky enough not to make $60,000 for a half-hour of bloviation or about their equally unlucky children who are deprived delightful cruises through the Greek isles [ http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0611/Gingrich_found_between_Greece_and_Turkey.html ]. But Gingrich’s blanket condemnation of “really poor children, in really poor neighborhoods” is unbelievably disgusting. And it’s disrespectful of the overwhelming majority of those children and their families who live their lives with far more integrity and far less cash than Gingrich ever will.
© 2011 The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/newt-gingrichs-disgusting-remarks-about-really-poor-children/2011/03/04/gIQASoLpHO_blog.html [with comments]
===
Newt to 'Really Poor Children': Buy Your Own Damn Ice Cream
by Ramona 12/2/2011 - 5:07 pm
Newt Gingrich is obsessed with the plight of poor kids these days. He's been all over the place talking about them, and I have to confess, the jollier he gets about his remedies for their plight, the more nervous I become. It's an odd turn of events and one rife with suspicion. It's Newt we're talking about. Newt, who eats mean for breakfast and swallows the seeds.
Newt, who put a contract out [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America ] on an entire nation, namely ours, and is still fretting over the insistent existence of a labor movement that was scheduled to die circa Reagan. (He's got another, bigger contract [ http://www.newt.org/21st-century-contract-america ] ready to roll on Day One. Fair warning.)
Newt, who sings "Only I can make this world seem right [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9r2pEdc1_lI ]. Only I can make the darkness bright. Only I and I alone can thrill me like I do and fill my heart with love for only me."
And encores with the stirring, "For what is a man, what has he got [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNeKxSaWJa0 ]? If not himself, then he has naught. To say the things he truly feels and not the words of one who kneels. The record shows I took the blows and did it my way!"
That Newt.
(Let the record show Newt has so far ignored the first lines of the above tune. The part where it says, "And now the end is near and so I face the final curtain...". Yesterday, in fact, Newt told ABC's Jake Tapper [ http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/gingrich-tells-abc-news-im-going-to-be-the-nominee/ ] he WILL BE THE NOMINEE. I guess that means all debates are off now?)
Ordinarily I wouldn't care about Newt's $60,000 per speech [ http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2011/11/30/gingrich-60000-to-hear-me-talk/ ] blabbings about stupid child labor laws and how really poor kids from really shiftless families will resort to stealing unless he steps in and puts them to work, but after some lengthy and intense investigation, I find I have barely an ounce of faith in this current century's sanity. That dimpled nasty man could very well be running things come January, 2013.
There are some who defend him by reminding us that there's nothing wrong with kids doing a little work. The kids feel good about themselves and the upside is that, as Newt says, they can buy their own ice cream someday. Nice, really, that. In a sane world we might actually picture our sweet darlings helping out and getting paid a tiny reward, leaving everybody happy, happy, happy.
But that's not what Newt means and that's not how he put it. This is how he put it:
“Start with the following two facts. Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works, so they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday. They have no habit of staying all day. They have no habit of ‘I do this and you give me cash’ unless it’s illegal.
I come around to this question. You have a very poor neighborhood. You have kids who are required under law to go to school. They have no money. They have no habit of work. What if you paid them part-time in the afternoon to sit at the clerical office and greet people when they come in? What if you paid them to work as the assistant librarian? What if they became assistant janitors and their job was to mop the floor and clean the bathroom?”
That's not helpful, that's hateful. And full of hidden meaning. What does it mean when Newt says, "You have kids who are required under law to go to school"? Will there be an addendum to Newt's 2ist Century Contract on America [ http://www.newt.org/21st-century-contract-america ] abolishing school attendance for "really poor kids" so they'll have more time to do all that rewarding work?
When the kids take over as assistant clerks and assistant librarians and assistant janitors, what does that do to the work hours of the real clerks, librarians and janitors? I'm reading between the lines and seeing part time jobs with no bennies for everyone as part of Newt's grand plan. He's Newt, after all, clearly not Mr. Empathy. If you've followed Newt at all you know how strongly opposed he is to equality of the masses -- the kind of thing any signs of empathetic weakness might very well lead to.
Lots of kids work after school and weekends now, even amongst the "really poor". It's what kids do when they get old enough. They baby-sit, they do paper routes, they cut lawns, they wash cars, they run errands. What they don't do any longer is work in sweatshops under conditions that could maim or kill or rot the spirit.
From Utata Tribal Photography: Lewis Hines, photographer, 1906 [ http://www.utata.org/salon/19582.php ] "Hines kept detailed notes on the children he photographed, including comments they made as he interviewed them. The twelve year old boy in the [above] photograph was unable to read or write. He'd been employed by a textile mill in Columbia, South Carolina for four years, since the age of eight. He told Hines, 'Yes, I want to learn, but can't when I work all the time'."
Any student of history will tell you the reason we aren't allowed to work kids like that any more is because the laboring masses organized and put a stop to the exploitation of children by the privileged few. Newt the Historian seems to have forgotten that.
But on to other things Newt, because, again, there's a mighty strangeness afoot: The Great One told Sean Hannity over at Fox, apropos of nothing, that, "I helped lead the effort to defeat communism in the Congress.”
And, okay, I have to ask: How many communists were there in congress? Were they as hard on us as the teabaggers in congress today? Can you give us a few tips on how to get rid of subversives?
Copyright © 2011 dagblog
http://dagblog.com/politics/newt-really-poor-children-buy-your-own-damn-ice-cream-12387 [with comment]
===
Gingrich's hand ‘always six inches from the self-destruct button’
By Alexander Bolton - 12/01/11 05:15 AM ET
Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill are nervous about Newt Gingrich’s rise in the polls, with one member saying, “Newt’s hand is always six inches from the self-destruct button.”
The legislator, who served with Gingrich in the House, is one of many who are concerned the Georgia Republican will capture the 2012 presidential nomination.
The member requested anonymity to avoid finding himself crosswise with a candidate now considered to have a real shot at facing President Obama in the general election.
Despite being in Washington for decades and leading the 1994 GOP revolution, Gingrich only has garnered six endorsements from Republican House members, and none in the Senate. Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who has sunk in the polls, has 13 (including from one senator) while former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has 46 (including from 8 senators).
Some of Gingrich’s former colleagues attribute the scarce endorsements to the former House Speaker’s leadership style.
Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), who served in the House from 1995 through 2004, said that sentiment is true from a certain standpoint.
“Any time you throw a thousand ideas out there, you got a great likelihood that a great majority of them are not very good,” he said.
“He was the right person to flip the U.S. House. He was not the long-term manager you needed to run the agenda,” Burr said, adding that Gingrich in the White House “might be a tough fit.”
A spokesman for Gingrich did not respond to a request for comment.
Gingrich this spring infuriated many Republicans in Congress when he blasted Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) Medicare reform plan.
Ryan, who has not yet backed a candidate for president, responded, “With allies like that, who needs the left?”
Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), who served in the House from 1981 through 1996, said he always got along with Gingrich. He added that the former Speaker had an “ability to get people together and settle an issue by sheer will or intellectual dominance.”
But Roberts acknowledged Gingrich has a “very strong personality, so maybe he rubbed somebody the wrong way.”
Gingrich, who was first elected to the House in 1978 and held the post of minority whip from 1989 through 1994, had trouble keeping his own troops in line once he took over the Speaker’s gavel.
In the summer of 1997, his deputies — including former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas), former House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and then-House Conference Chairman John Boehner (R-Ohio) — met secretly to plan a coup to replace Gingrich as Speaker.
Then-Rep. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who now serves in the Senate, was also involved in the scheme. Coburn earlier this year said he would not support Gingrich for president.
Gingrich found out about the plot and quashed it, but it damaged him politically.
He faced another internal insurrection just over a year later when then-Rep. Bob Livingston (R-La.), a longtime friend, announced plans to run for Speaker after House Republicans surprisingly lost five seats in the 1998 midterm elections.
Gingrich was unable to withstand the second challenge and retired.
Republicans at the time worried that Gingrich’s controversial leadership style had hurt the party’s brand. The decision to pursue impeachment proceedings against then-President Clinton had left a bad taste with voters and was credited with helping Democrats defy historical trends and pick up seats during Clinton’s second midterm election.
One instance of when Gingrich’s personality overshadowed the Republican message was in November of 1995, when Gingrich complained about Clinton banishing him to the back of Air Force One during a flight to Israel for the funeral of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.
His comment prompted a strong backlash, epitomized by a New York Daily News cover, depicting Gingrich as a diapered baby throwing a tantrum.
Republicans also lamented that Clinton outmaneuvered Gingrich during the 1995-1996 government shutdowns.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who overlapped with Gingrich in the House for only two years in the late ’70s, said Romney is considered a more dependable candidate.
“I don’t think it should surprise you because he had just a fall in June and he’s just gradually climbing his way back and Romney has been a ‘Steady Eddie’ and people look to him as some one who isn’t going to explode and Gingrich did in June,” Grassley said of the disparity in endorsements.
Gingrich’s campaign manager and senior staff members resigned earlier this year after questioning his focus on the nuts and bolts of the race.
Grassley, meanwhile, has not endorsed a candidate in the GOP primary.
Recent polls show Gingrich leading Romney in Iowa, Florida and South Carolina.
There’s some evidence that Romney’s campaign might be getting nervous — it pressed Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), who represents Iowa’s neighbor to the west, to announce his endorsement early. Thune said he was thinking about waiting until closer to the caucuses.
Thune, who served with Gingrich in the House in 1997 and 1998, said his endorsement of Romney was not a statement against the former Speaker.
“It wasn’t like I was deciding against anybody, I just decided for Romney,” Thune said. “My view was that at certain times in the nation’s history you need certain styles of leadership. Right now we need somebody who knows what it’s like to turn failing enterprises around. Romney’s done that in business, he did that with the Olympics.”
Thune is the only GOP leadership member in Congress who has backed a candidate in the presidential primary.
© 2011 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/196441-newts-hand-always-six-inches-from-the-self-destruct-button [with comments]
===
(linked in):
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=69557932 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=69554416 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=69543169 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=69542776 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=69430038 and following
from earlier this string, http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=69272971 and preceding and following
Published on Dec 1, 2011 by CBSNewsOnline
At a campaign stop in Des Moines, Iowa Thursday, GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich said children in poor neighborhoods have "no habits of working" and no one around them works.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqFvAyoaEoY [also at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1bQkk7NL-Y ]
===
Newt Gingrich’s disgusting remarks about ‘really poor children’
By Jonathan Capehart
Posted at 04:46 PM ET, 12/01/2011
Newt Gingrich, the know-it-all former Speaker of the House who now rides atop the polls for the Republican nomination for president, has been shooting his mouth off lately. He called himself a celebrity who makes $60,000 a speech. Another favorite is, “I helped Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp develop supply side economics. I helped lead the effort to defeat communism in the Congress.” I didn’t realize communism in Congress was an issue, but I digress.
Then, a tweet from Charles Blow of the New York Times piqued my interest.
RT @foxnewspolitics Gingrich: Poor kids don’t know work unless it’s crime: politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/12/01/new… < Oh HELL no! What?! Somebody get
Surely, the Fox News report [ http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/12/01/newt-poor-children-have-no-habits-working ] was referring to something from Gingrich’s end-welfare past. Would that were so.
GOP hopeful Newt Gingrich defended his stance against certain child labor laws during a campaign stop in Iowa Thursday, saying that children born into poverty aren’t accustomed to working unless it involves crime.
“Really poor children, in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works so they have no habit of showing up on Monday,” Gingrich claimed.
“They have no habit of staying all day, they have no habit of I do this and you give me cash unless it is illegal,” he added.
That was today, folks! A lot can be said about the plight of families unlucky enough not to make $60,000 for a half-hour of bloviation or about their equally unlucky children who are deprived delightful cruises through the Greek isles [ http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0611/Gingrich_found_between_Greece_and_Turkey.html ]. But Gingrich’s blanket condemnation of “really poor children, in really poor neighborhoods” is unbelievably disgusting. And it’s disrespectful of the overwhelming majority of those children and their families who live their lives with far more integrity and far less cash than Gingrich ever will.
© 2011 The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/newt-gingrichs-disgusting-remarks-about-really-poor-children/2011/03/04/gIQASoLpHO_blog.html [with comments]
===
Newt to 'Really Poor Children': Buy Your Own Damn Ice Cream
by Ramona 12/2/2011 - 5:07 pm
Newt Gingrich is obsessed with the plight of poor kids these days. He's been all over the place talking about them, and I have to confess, the jollier he gets about his remedies for their plight, the more nervous I become. It's an odd turn of events and one rife with suspicion. It's Newt we're talking about. Newt, who eats mean for breakfast and swallows the seeds.
Newt, who put a contract out [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America ] on an entire nation, namely ours, and is still fretting over the insistent existence of a labor movement that was scheduled to die circa Reagan. (He's got another, bigger contract [ http://www.newt.org/21st-century-contract-america ] ready to roll on Day One. Fair warning.)
Newt, who sings "Only I can make this world seem right [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9r2pEdc1_lI ]. Only I can make the darkness bright. Only I and I alone can thrill me like I do and fill my heart with love for only me."
And encores with the stirring, "For what is a man, what has he got [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNeKxSaWJa0 ]? If not himself, then he has naught. To say the things he truly feels and not the words of one who kneels. The record shows I took the blows and did it my way!"
That Newt.
(Let the record show Newt has so far ignored the first lines of the above tune. The part where it says, "And now the end is near and so I face the final curtain...". Yesterday, in fact, Newt told ABC's Jake Tapper [ http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/gingrich-tells-abc-news-im-going-to-be-the-nominee/ ] he WILL BE THE NOMINEE. I guess that means all debates are off now?)
Ordinarily I wouldn't care about Newt's $60,000 per speech [ http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2011/11/30/gingrich-60000-to-hear-me-talk/ ] blabbings about stupid child labor laws and how really poor kids from really shiftless families will resort to stealing unless he steps in and puts them to work, but after some lengthy and intense investigation, I find I have barely an ounce of faith in this current century's sanity. That dimpled nasty man could very well be running things come January, 2013.
There are some who defend him by reminding us that there's nothing wrong with kids doing a little work. The kids feel good about themselves and the upside is that, as Newt says, they can buy their own ice cream someday. Nice, really, that. In a sane world we might actually picture our sweet darlings helping out and getting paid a tiny reward, leaving everybody happy, happy, happy.
But that's not what Newt means and that's not how he put it. This is how he put it:
“Start with the following two facts. Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works, so they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday. They have no habit of staying all day. They have no habit of ‘I do this and you give me cash’ unless it’s illegal.
I come around to this question. You have a very poor neighborhood. You have kids who are required under law to go to school. They have no money. They have no habit of work. What if you paid them part-time in the afternoon to sit at the clerical office and greet people when they come in? What if you paid them to work as the assistant librarian? What if they became assistant janitors and their job was to mop the floor and clean the bathroom?”
That's not helpful, that's hateful. And full of hidden meaning. What does it mean when Newt says, "You have kids who are required under law to go to school"? Will there be an addendum to Newt's 2ist Century Contract on America [ http://www.newt.org/21st-century-contract-america ] abolishing school attendance for "really poor kids" so they'll have more time to do all that rewarding work?
When the kids take over as assistant clerks and assistant librarians and assistant janitors, what does that do to the work hours of the real clerks, librarians and janitors? I'm reading between the lines and seeing part time jobs with no bennies for everyone as part of Newt's grand plan. He's Newt, after all, clearly not Mr. Empathy. If you've followed Newt at all you know how strongly opposed he is to equality of the masses -- the kind of thing any signs of empathetic weakness might very well lead to.
Lots of kids work after school and weekends now, even amongst the "really poor". It's what kids do when they get old enough. They baby-sit, they do paper routes, they cut lawns, they wash cars, they run errands. What they don't do any longer is work in sweatshops under conditions that could maim or kill or rot the spirit.
From Utata Tribal Photography: Lewis Hines, photographer, 1906 [ http://www.utata.org/salon/19582.php ] "Hines kept detailed notes on the children he photographed, including comments they made as he interviewed them. The twelve year old boy in the [above] photograph was unable to read or write. He'd been employed by a textile mill in Columbia, South Carolina for four years, since the age of eight. He told Hines, 'Yes, I want to learn, but can't when I work all the time'."
Any student of history will tell you the reason we aren't allowed to work kids like that any more is because the laboring masses organized and put a stop to the exploitation of children by the privileged few. Newt the Historian seems to have forgotten that.
But on to other things Newt, because, again, there's a mighty strangeness afoot: The Great One told Sean Hannity over at Fox, apropos of nothing, that, "I helped lead the effort to defeat communism in the Congress.”
And, okay, I have to ask: How many communists were there in congress? Were they as hard on us as the teabaggers in congress today? Can you give us a few tips on how to get rid of subversives?
Copyright © 2011 dagblog
http://dagblog.com/politics/newt-really-poor-children-buy-your-own-damn-ice-cream-12387 [with comment]
===
Gingrich's hand ‘always six inches from the self-destruct button’
By Alexander Bolton - 12/01/11 05:15 AM ET
Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill are nervous about Newt Gingrich’s rise in the polls, with one member saying, “Newt’s hand is always six inches from the self-destruct button.”
The legislator, who served with Gingrich in the House, is one of many who are concerned the Georgia Republican will capture the 2012 presidential nomination.
The member requested anonymity to avoid finding himself crosswise with a candidate now considered to have a real shot at facing President Obama in the general election.
Despite being in Washington for decades and leading the 1994 GOP revolution, Gingrich only has garnered six endorsements from Republican House members, and none in the Senate. Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who has sunk in the polls, has 13 (including from one senator) while former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has 46 (including from 8 senators).
Some of Gingrich’s former colleagues attribute the scarce endorsements to the former House Speaker’s leadership style.
Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), who served in the House from 1995 through 2004, said that sentiment is true from a certain standpoint.
“Any time you throw a thousand ideas out there, you got a great likelihood that a great majority of them are not very good,” he said.
“He was the right person to flip the U.S. House. He was not the long-term manager you needed to run the agenda,” Burr said, adding that Gingrich in the White House “might be a tough fit.”
A spokesman for Gingrich did not respond to a request for comment.
Gingrich this spring infuriated many Republicans in Congress when he blasted Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) Medicare reform plan.
Ryan, who has not yet backed a candidate for president, responded, “With allies like that, who needs the left?”
Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), who served in the House from 1981 through 1996, said he always got along with Gingrich. He added that the former Speaker had an “ability to get people together and settle an issue by sheer will or intellectual dominance.”
But Roberts acknowledged Gingrich has a “very strong personality, so maybe he rubbed somebody the wrong way.”
Gingrich, who was first elected to the House in 1978 and held the post of minority whip from 1989 through 1994, had trouble keeping his own troops in line once he took over the Speaker’s gavel.
In the summer of 1997, his deputies — including former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas), former House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and then-House Conference Chairman John Boehner (R-Ohio) — met secretly to plan a coup to replace Gingrich as Speaker.
Then-Rep. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who now serves in the Senate, was also involved in the scheme. Coburn earlier this year said he would not support Gingrich for president.
Gingrich found out about the plot and quashed it, but it damaged him politically.
He faced another internal insurrection just over a year later when then-Rep. Bob Livingston (R-La.), a longtime friend, announced plans to run for Speaker after House Republicans surprisingly lost five seats in the 1998 midterm elections.
Gingrich was unable to withstand the second challenge and retired.
Republicans at the time worried that Gingrich’s controversial leadership style had hurt the party’s brand. The decision to pursue impeachment proceedings against then-President Clinton had left a bad taste with voters and was credited with helping Democrats defy historical trends and pick up seats during Clinton’s second midterm election.
One instance of when Gingrich’s personality overshadowed the Republican message was in November of 1995, when Gingrich complained about Clinton banishing him to the back of Air Force One during a flight to Israel for the funeral of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.
His comment prompted a strong backlash, epitomized by a New York Daily News cover, depicting Gingrich as a diapered baby throwing a tantrum.
Republicans also lamented that Clinton outmaneuvered Gingrich during the 1995-1996 government shutdowns.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who overlapped with Gingrich in the House for only two years in the late ’70s, said Romney is considered a more dependable candidate.
“I don’t think it should surprise you because he had just a fall in June and he’s just gradually climbing his way back and Romney has been a ‘Steady Eddie’ and people look to him as some one who isn’t going to explode and Gingrich did in June,” Grassley said of the disparity in endorsements.
Gingrich’s campaign manager and senior staff members resigned earlier this year after questioning his focus on the nuts and bolts of the race.
Grassley, meanwhile, has not endorsed a candidate in the GOP primary.
Recent polls show Gingrich leading Romney in Iowa, Florida and South Carolina.
There’s some evidence that Romney’s campaign might be getting nervous — it pressed Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), who represents Iowa’s neighbor to the west, to announce his endorsement early. Thune said he was thinking about waiting until closer to the caucuses.
Thune, who served with Gingrich in the House in 1997 and 1998, said his endorsement of Romney was not a statement against the former Speaker.
“It wasn’t like I was deciding against anybody, I just decided for Romney,” Thune said. “My view was that at certain times in the nation’s history you need certain styles of leadership. Right now we need somebody who knows what it’s like to turn failing enterprises around. Romney’s done that in business, he did that with the Olympics.”
Thune is the only GOP leadership member in Congress who has backed a candidate in the presidential primary.
© 2011 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/196441-newts-hand-always-six-inches-from-the-self-destruct-button [with comments]
===
(linked in):
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=69557932 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=69554416 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=69543169 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=69542776 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=69430038 and following
from earlier this string, http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=69272971 and preceding and following
Greensburg, KS - 5/4/07
"Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty."
from John Philpot Curran, Speech
upon the Right of Election, 1790
F6
Join the InvestorsHub Community
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
