About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Media declare Gingrich GOP's "ideas man," ignore his frequent falsehoods

May 12, 2009 10:47 am ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: In designating Newt Gingrich the Republican Party's "ideas man" and suggesting that his ideas will rejuvenate the GOP, the media often ignore his frequent, and often egregious, falsehoods.

46 Comments

In recent months, media figures and reports have frequently labeled Fox News contributor and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich the Republican Party's "ideas man" and suggested that his ideas will rejuvenate the GOP. For instance, a March 1 New York Times Magazine feature asserted that Gingrich is "at the zenith of influence in conservative Washington" and "has always been considered a prospector in bold and counterintuitive thinking -- floating ideas, throughout his career." However, in touting Gingrich's ingenuity, the media often ignore Gingrich's frequent falsehoods about progressive politics and policy.

Falsehoods offered by Gingrich include:

  • During the May 10 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, Gingrich claimed that Democrats have "had control since January of 2007. They haven't passed a law making waterboarding illegal. They haven't gone into any of these things and changed law." However, the Democratically controlled Congress did pass a bill in 2008 that would have banned the use of waterboarding, had President Bush not subsequently vetoed the measure. Gingrich further suggested that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who according to a recently released CIA document was first briefed about harsh interrogation techniques in September 2002, could have threatened "to pass a law cutting off the money" for the techniques if she objected to them. But Democrats were not in power until January 2007; Pelosi was the ranking member of the House intelligence committee and a senior minority member of the House appropriations committee in 2002, and House minority leader from 2003 to 2006.
  • During a March 25 appearance on Fox News' Hannity, Gingrich falsely claimed that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner proposed to "take over non-bank, non-financial system assets" and that "Congress had passed the authorization in the stimulus bill" to pay bonuses to AIG executives. According to Gingrich, those policies "absolutely moves you towards a political dictatorship."
  • In a March 3 Twitter post, Gingrich wrote that his wife, Callista, "pointed out flying into [S]anta [B]arbara you can see the oil rigs off shore," and asserted, "Ironically they have had no spill since 1969." In fact, in just the few months preceding Gingrich's post, there had been at least two oil spills reported in or near the Santa Barbara Channel, according to the U.S. Coast Guard, including one spill in mid-February and another in December 2008 that required a coordinated cleanup effort by the Coast Guard, the California Department of Fish and Game Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR), and the company responsible for the spill.
  • In a February 22 New York Times article, reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg wrote that Gingrich "sees the stimulus bill as his party's ticket to a revival in 2010, as Republicans decry what they see as pork-barrel spending for projects like marsh-mouse preservation. 'You can imagine the fun people will have with that,' he said." In fact, the bill does not contain any language directing funds to the salt marsh harvest mouse, or its San Francisco wetlands habitat, a fact that the House Republican leadership aide who reportedly originated the claim has reportedly acknowledged.
  • During the January 22 edition of Fox News' On the Record, Gingrich referred to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) initial "analysis" of the recovery package and purported that it analyzed the entire bill, stating: "Look, the Congressional Budget Office has reported that less than 10 percent of the bill will be spent the first year. Some of it would not be spent for 10 years. This is a bill -- this is not a stimulus package, this is a bigger government, more bureaucracy, more powerful politician package in the guise of a stimulus." In fact, as the initial Associated Press report on the CBO "analysis" noted, it did not take into account all aspects of the recovery plan. While the CBO write-up found that "only $26 billion out of $274 billion in infrastructure spending would be delivered into the economy by the Sept. 30 end of the budget year," it did not "cover tax cuts or efforts by Democrats to provide relief to cash-strapped state governments to help with their Medicaid bills," among other provisions.
  • On the January 19 edition of Fox News' Happening Now, referring to President Obama's support for the Employee Free Choice Act, Gingrich claimed that Obama was "going to be for the labor unions taking away your right to a secret-ballot vote before being forced to join a union," echoing a common distortion employed by opponents of the legislation.
  • Gingrich has repeatedly criticized Pelosi for using a military jet to travel to and from her congressional district, and has also falsely claimed that former Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) "did not get a private plane" following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, following 9-11, the House sergeant-at-arms, the Defense Department, and the White House agreed that military planes should be made available to the speaker of the House for national security reasons, and Hastert was the first speaker to use one.
  • During the November 16, 2008, broadcast of CBS' Face the Nation, Gingrich said that Republicans "who are about to face this question of, how do you get the economy growing again" should ask Republican governors Mitch Daniels of Indiana and Jon Huntsman of Utah, "[H]ow did they get to the lowest unemployment rate in their respective regions?" However, the most recent Bureau of Labor Statistics records at the time showed that Gingrich's claim was false. In fact, neither Utah nor Indiana had the lowest unemployment rate in its region, and several states with lower unemployment rates were governed by Democrats.
  • During the July 31, 2008, edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Gingrich repeatedly mischaracterized Obama's energy policy, falsely suggesting that Obama's only "energy strategy" was to encourage people to keep the tires on their vehicles properly inflated and asserting that Obama "suggested if we all inflated our tires, that we would solve the problem."
  • On the October 10, 2006, edition of Hannity & Colmes, Gingrich falsely claimed that Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) "promise[d] to raise taxes" if Democrats were to take over the House of Representatives in that year's midterm elections. In fact, as Media Matters noted, during a September 26, 2006, interview with host Neil Cavuto on Fox News' Your World, Rangel, who was in line to become chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee if Democrats gained a majority in the House, stated that a House controlled by Democrats "would not raise taxes" and "would not roll back" Bush's tax cuts enacted by Congress and set to expire in 2010.
  • During Fox Broadcasting Co.'s January 31, 2006, special coverage of the State of the Union address, Gingrich falsely accused Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) of taking money from former lobbyist Jack Abramoff and asserted that this would compromise the ability of the Democrats to charge Republicans with a "culture of corruption." As Media Matters noted, a Center for Responsive Politics breakdown of Abramoff's donations shows that Abramoff made contributions only to Republicans, not Democrats.

Touting Gingrich as an intellectual force in the GOP, the media, including the following, overlook his frequent falsehoods:

  • During the May 7 edition of CNN Newsroom, A.B. Stoddard, associate editor of The Hill, commented that Gingrich "still sees himself as a real leader, as a problem-solver" and that "[h]e's an ideas man."
  • On the April 12 edition of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show, HDNet global correspondent Dan Rather said of Gingrich: "Whether you like him or not like him, he is an ideas person." CNN political analyst Gloria Borger responded: "Yep."
  • An April 14 Associated Press article stated, "With Gingrich, a former college history professor, the ideas sometimes come so fast and furious that even supporters say they can feel overwhelmed by a conversation with him." The article also quoted claims by Republican strategist and former Gingrich aide Rich Galen that Gingrich is the GOP's "intellect-in-chief" and "the idea man." The article continued: "If Gingrich has his way, those ideas will spawn a movement, something akin to what Barack Obama found himself leading in 2008 as he ran to replace President Bush."
  • During the February 26 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews described Gingrich as "the somewhat intellectual -- you know, the commissar of the right, you know, the intellectual idea man."
  • During CNN's January 4 post-New Year's special After Party, Christian Broadcasting Network's David Brody commented: "I think Newt Gingrich will be an interesting player to watch in the next year or two. He seems like the idea man. Or, at least, you know, he's positioning himself that way."
  • A November 18, 2008, Washington Times article on the contest for chairman of the Republican Party reported that Gingrich is "considered a one-man idea factory."
  • Similarly, a November 6, 2008, Washington Times article referred to Gingrich as "widely regarded as the best combination of idea man and successful insurgency leader in modern Republican history."

From the 3 p.m. ET hour of CNN Newsroom on May 7:

STODDARD: I thought it was amazing. He's bringing his greatest critic -- Newt Gingrich is doing everything that he can to prepare -- everything you need to do to prepare for a run in 2012, positioning himself as the face and voice of the party, blasting Barack Obama, as you mentioned, on TV day in and day out, on his domestic policy or, "He's a reckless deficit spender," on his foreign policy, saying he's endangering Israel and his, you know, effort to engage with Iran is a fantasy, day in, day out.

So, to bring him into a conversation and say, "Let's work together," and then put him next to Al Sharpton and someone who's, you know, an effective, independent leader like Michael Bloomberg, is the perfect -- it's just the perfect way to draw Gingrich in because Gingrich still sees himself, though he's a fierce partisan, he still sees himself as a real leader, as a problem-solver. He still loves to govern, if you know -- even though he might not be so talented at it. He's an ideas man.

So, it was sort of the perfect -- I think it was really a great trio, actually, and a good idea.

From the April 12 edition of The Chris Matthews Show, syndicated by NBC:

MATTHEWS: What about just -- Dan, you were suggesting if the Republicans just bet on failure, if they just assume Barack Obama's going to be a bollocks, that something's going to go really wrong --

RATHER: Right.

MATTHEWS: -- between now and the next election, bring in somebody who seems simply credible -- you know, a could-be-president type, like Romney -- and bet on him?

RATHER: Well, or Newt Gingrich. And I know that's going to get some laughter around because he's considered yesterday's man in the Republican Party. But this we knew about Newt Gingrich: Whether you like him or not like him, he is an ideas person --

BORGER: Yep.

RATHER: -- with a good sense of history. And again, I wouldn't rule it out if the Republicans are looking for -- saying, "Look, what we need is just somebody that can be fairly steady in case things go down and we have a real opportunity the next time around." And Gingrich will have the ideas to hold what's left of the Republican coalition together.

From the April 14 Associated Press article:

With Gingrich, a former college history professor, the ideas sometimes come so fast and furious that even supporters say they can feel overwhelmed by a conversation with him.

Rich Galen, a Washington-based Republican strategist and former Gingrich aide, called him the GOP's "intellect-in-chief."

"He's always been the idea man," Galen said.

If Gingrich has his way, those ideas will spawn a movement, something akin to what Barack Obama found himself leading in 2008 as he ran to replace President Bush. There are no signs that Gingrich has such a movement building yet. But some point to his history of rallying the Republican revolt in the mid 1990s.

From the March 1 New York Times Magazine article:

Now, as Republicans on the Hill begin to awaken from a November beating that left them semiconscious, Gingrich finds himself, once again, at the zenith of influence in conservative Washington. It is a fortuitous collision of man and moment. Having ceded the agenda to a Republican president for the past eight years (and having mostly obsessed over White House scandals for much of the decade before that), Republicans now find that they have strikingly little to say that isn't entirely reactive -- or reactionary. "It was like 'The Matrix,' when Keanu Reeves wakes up and his eyes hurt because he hasn't used them," David Winston, a pollster for House Republicans, told me recently, talking about the 2006 election that relegated Republicans to the minority for the first time since 1994. "We just didn't know how to do ideas anymore." Whatever else you think of Gingrich, he has always been considered a prospector in bold and counterintuitive thinking -- floating ideas, throughout his career, that have ranged from giving every poor child a laptop to abolishing the entire concept of adolescence.

[...]

Another frequent recipient is Paul Ryan, a young Wisconsin congressman and Gingrich protégé known for burrowing into budget issues. Ryan told me he was opening presents with his children on Christmas when his BlackBerry buzzed with a question about the tax code. "He's a total idea factory," Ryan said. "The man will have 10 ideas in an hour. Six of them will be brilliant, two of them are in the stratosphere and two of them I'll just flat-out disagree with. And then you'll get 10 more ideas in the next hour."

From the February 26 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

MATTHEWS: This party includes obviously people on the foreign policy right, the so-called neoconservatives, who have been somewhat -- Richard Perle's denying the other -- there is such a thing as neoconservative. Joe the Plumber, sort of the populist, angry anti-taxer. Huckabee, the Christian right -- modified form in his case. But it is all -- and then Gingrich, the somewhat intellectual -- you know, the commissar of the right, you know, the intellectual idea man -- all coming together. Is this an electoral force or just a --

[laughter]

MATTHEWS: -- a complaint group, a complaint desk?

From the January 4 CNN post-New Year's special After Party: Where We Go From Here:

BRODY: I think Newt Gingrich will be an interesting player to watch in the next year or two. He seems like the idea man. Or, at least, you know, he's positioning himself that way. It'll be interesting to watch him.

From the November 18, 2008, Washington Times article:

Mr. Gingrich, considered a one-man idea factory who had wanted to be drafted for the top party post, would not give up his leadership of two other organizations he already heads, and that pretty much took him out of the running, interviews with Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, his fellow GOP governors and several influential state GOP chairmen indicated.

From the November 6, 2008, Washington Times article:

"We are looking for energy innovation and someone who can win the argument," said former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, widely regarded as the best combination of idea man and successful insurgency leader in modern Republican history.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by IRONY 101 (May 12, 2009 11:08 am ET)
      5  
      Gingrich's idea for the past 15 years has been to divide America along pre-determined, focus group tested, contrived fault lines...and then parlay that divisiveness into a permanent Repulican majority. But his party has already demonstrated how ineptly and irresponsiblly it governs. The Republican Party's hollow "ideas" are directed solely to winning elections.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by dexteritas0071418 (May 12, 2009 12:53 pm ET)
          6
        VS what alternative offered by progressives? Bipartisanship? Tolerance of conservative viewpoints?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (May 12, 2009 1:02 pm ET)
          5  
          Why should anyone tolerate viewpoints that, when acted upon, have proven to be failures?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by dexteritas0071418 (May 12, 2009 1:08 pm ET)
              3
            1. Because "viewpoints" don't fail, action or inaction does, and the judgement should remain with those, as those with differing viewpoints have both had miserable failure examples.

            2. Because you don't want to be an ignorant ogre.

            3. Because you don't want to ostracize a large group of people in our democratic republic, thereby forever losing their support on some important issues they may have otherwise agreed with you on.

            There are a lot of others, but I'll let you absorb these.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by RABBITLUVR (May 12, 2009 1:17 pm ET)
              3  
              I'll take a stab at Numero Tres... I have no problem ostracizing ignorant, uneducated, racist people who do not possess the intelligence to vote with their own interests in mind such as those found at Palin rallies and teabagger orgies.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by dexteritas0071418 (May 12, 2009 1:21 pm ET)
                  7
                I was about to agree with you in that I wasn't talking about the fringe folks when I posted #3, but then I realized you're just a typical pseudo-intelligent elitist (unless you're a loser, the other major contributor to the militant progressive cause) who knows what's in people's best interest more then they do themselves.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by RABBITLUVR (May 12, 2009 1:25 pm ET)
                  4  
                  Struck a chord, didn't I?

                  Yes, Virginia, there really are people who do not know what is better or best for them. Such people include those who would vote hard right based on a candidate's stand on gay marriage even if it doesn't affect them in the slightest. There are other examples of this but we'll start with that one.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by dexteritas0071418 (May 12, 2009 1:35 pm ET)
                      6
                    That's an odd choice..I don't think gay marriage affects others in any real way, good or bad. If you said healthcare or international relations policy or something..
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by RABBITLUVR (May 12, 2009 1:51 pm ET)
                      4  
                      Ideally, it shouldn't affect others but the reality is that apparently it does. How many 'straights' voted against the gay marriage props that have been proposed? How many of those people voted against their own economic interests by voting in a hard right social conservative who is anti-gay marriage and what does that tell you about those voters?
                      Report Abuse
              • Author by jamesB (May 12, 2009 1:31 pm ET)
                  8
                you sound like a typical liberal elitist for sure. You think you know better than someone who happens to disagree with you. you don't.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by RABBITLUVR (May 12, 2009 1:53 pm ET)
                  3  
                  Oh, and there are NO reichwing elitists who think that way, Tommy? None? Does Bush saying "a dictatorship would be easier" ring a bell to you... meaning that Bush, The Decider, knows what's best?

                  Gimme a break, man, you're not scoring any points with that cheap shot.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by sambo (May 12, 2009 2:48 pm ET)
                  2  
                  maybe you should stop trying to pick an arguement, and give some serious thought to what he is desperately trying to tell you
                  Report Abuse
        • Author by RABBITLUVR (May 12, 2009 1:13 pm ET)
          4 1
          You know better than to play that card. We all know the Republican idea of 'bipartisanship' is for the Dems to roll over and blindly agree with the Republicans and that 'tolerance of conservative viewpoints' means to never criticize anyone on the Right EVER no matter how wrong and/or outrageous the issue is.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by dexteritas0071418 (May 12, 2009 1:15 pm ET)
            1 5
            I wasn't arguing with that at all, I was looking for confirmation that progressives are drastically different in that way.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by einreb (May 12, 2009 11:14 am ET)
      5  
      He's an "idea guy" all right. He spouts a dozen bad ideas every day.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by dexteritas0071418 (May 12, 2009 12:54 pm ET)
        1  
        I think this should've been MMfA's point in the posting. Well done.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by pete592 (May 12, 2009 11:22 am ET)
      7 1
      They tried Sarah Palin, then they tried Piyush Jindal, but in the end, the Grouchy Old Paleface party ends up with McCain, Cheney and Gingrich leading their campaign to put a fresh new face on the Republican party.

      Let's do the Time Warp again!!!!!!!!!!!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Brabantio (May 12, 2009 11:26 am ET)
      4  
      I'm not seeing the connection here. How does his honesty reflect on his status as the GOP's "ideas man"? I can see making the statement "Gingrich is trying to revitalize his party and become their ideas man", and his record of statements about political opponents doesn't contradict that. It's not relevant to the point, as far as I'm seeing.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Meremark (May 12, 2009 12:28 pm ET)
        1 1
        "How does his dishonesty reflect on his status as Giver Odious Putrid 'ideas'?"

        That's a softball question. His STATUS is LIAR LIAR LIAR.

        "... point, as far as I'm seeing."

        The light comes in better when you open your eyes.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by westla (May 12, 2009 12:45 pm ET)
          4  
          You're not addressing Brabantio's point, which is a valid one. Just because Gingrich is being anointed as the GOP's "ideas man" is not necessarily a reflection on his frequent falsehoods about Democratic positions and policy.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by dexteritas0071418 (May 12, 2009 12:57 pm ET)
          1 5
          Mere is just the progressive version of OReilly/Cheney/Hannity; there's no critical thinking allowed.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Brabantio (May 12, 2009 1:09 pm ET)
          3  
          I'm not a Gingrich fan. If they want to argue that he doesn't actually have any ideas, that's one thing. But if that's the role he has, whether by personal choice or by popular demand, then that's his role. Whether he's honest or not is really not relevant to that. Are objective people supposed to preface every single mention of Gingrich's name with "LIAR", or what?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (May 12, 2009 2:00 pm ET)
            3  
            You are right. The argument can certainly be made it is a non-sequitur. Perhaps their point is NOT that it is contradictory but that the information about his propensity for falsehoods is RELEVANT information that SHOULD have been reported when making such a claim. Not sure it is a strong argument though you make a very good point
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mary59 (May 12, 2009 4:55 pm ET)
              4  
              The framing of his ideas as "bold" or "fresh" should leave one naseous.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by dexteritas0071418 (May 12, 2009 12:55 pm ET)
        1 2
        Good point Brab, I made the same before I got around to reading the thread. Not endorsing Gingrich by any means...not sure what any association with the current GOP leadership could do but hurt one's reputation.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (May 12, 2009 11:35 am ET)
      3 1
      The last time Gingrich had an idea was in 1992. He's trying to relive his former glory by having another "Contract With America." How is that being an ideas man?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Meremark (May 12, 2009 12:37 pm ET)
        1 1
        'Contract On America' FAILED to pass Congress.

        The open Floor revealed abyss and }bzzzt{ went down the chute Newt.

        It is NOT "being an ideas man."

        It's being a mainstream Media-TRAITORS darling.

        Attack Media-TRAITORS.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by ewl94232 (May 12, 2009 1:18 pm ET)
          3
        I don't mean to pick on you shaggles, Your question isn't actually so bad. That the only thing you know about Newt is the "cContract with America" is itself evidence that you haven't been going to very good sources for your information, but that's not what I want to address. The thing is, a few reporters might refer to newt as the GOP's "Idea Man" but that doesn't give him that title any more than the Left pronouncing Limbaugh as "the Leader of the Conservative Movement" makes it so. Conservatives seldom have leaders. We don't much like them. Most people will grant that this or that person provided leadership at some point in time or on some issue, but our problem is more a case of having too many leaders and not enough followers.

        Last election and every other one are good examples. McCain votes with some faction or another of Conservatives 90+% of the time. But a whole lot of Conservatives don't think he's conservative enough or he's conservative in the wrong issues or he's just not a guy that gives them confidence. And he failed to unite a big chunk of the Conservatives behind him. Any of these people are only Conservative Leaders if and when they are prominent spokesmen for something most Conservatives agree with. Some, because they're in the spotlight a lot, get to sort of lead a lot. But it's not that anyone is following them, we're just all headed that way and they happen to be visible near the front.

        Even Reagan, who most Conservatives identify with, only became an icon after the effects of his leadership were seen. At various times during his Administration many of us had significant differences with some of his policies and actions.

        To be a capital 'C' Conservative, (vs. a conservative-Progressive), requires some study of the importance of individual self-determination in the founding of our political system. You can't very well believe that individual self-determination is the goal of society and the better approach to dealing with issues and be enthusiastic about following someone else's lead. (I know most Liberals thisnk we all get all of our ideas from Rush, but ... I can't help what they think.) So the upshot is, a title like "Leader" or even "Intellectual Leader" is really a misnomer. So to answer your question, this is a misidentification. Newt is respected for his Congressional insight and Historical knowledge, but that's about it. If he ran for office, we'd have to see what he says first.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by RABBITLUVR (May 12, 2009 2:12 pm ET)
          3  
          "The thing is, a few reporters might refer to newt as the GOP's "Idea Man" but that doesn't give him that title any more than the Left pronouncing Limbaugh as "the Leader of the Conservative Movement" makes it so."

          Interesting. So why do those on the right who speak out against Limbaugh quickly apologize? Why do that if he isn't a 'leader'? Would you apologize to someone who isn't your boss or leader if you spoke critically of him?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by shaggles (May 12, 2009 2:38 pm ET)
          4  
          Gingrich is right now calling for a new Contract With America. What else do I need to know about him to know that he is merely rehashing an idea from 16 years ago? What other ideas is he presenting? Anything new and fresh? I'm all ears. Oh wait. You're saying he's not actually an ideas man. Ok then we agree.

          As for conservatives not liking leaders much. Well I'm not a con so I can't really say what they like or don't like but the Republican party certainly seems to stay on the same message most of the time. Often using eerily similar words. It seems evident that they are getting their language from somewhere. Does that mean they have a "leader?" Not necessarily but then I never mentioned con leaders or leadership in the first place.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by ewl94232 (May 12, 2009 12:45 pm ET)
        5
      This is pathetic. Out of all of his statements in all of this time this is the worst you could do? There isn't a Democrat in anything close to a similar public exposure that we couldn't generate a comparable list for. Not one. Unable to challenge matters of substance you snip away at a Republican for making occasional mistakes in either his memory of facts or in repeating things he's heard that may not be factual. Big deal! Not one Democrat in a comparable position will stand up any better.

      It is a common belief of Conservatives that the Left is unable to challenge them on issues of substance. I think they're wrong. But the bulk of these MMFA articles provide no evidence to support my opinion.

      You all go right ahead though. Enjoy agreeing that your good and the other guys are bad.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (May 12, 2009 2:06 pm ET)
        3  
        Not ONE?

        Cough up a similar list for Dennis Kucinich. I am not even a Democrat but I think your argument a bit simplistic. Your argument is a false dichotomy. That Gingrich is a proven liar is a fact it is shown. That doesnt mean ALL Republicans are the bad guys and all Democrats are the good guys. I am without doubt you COULD find a Democrat that has a similar or even worse record of lies and then name a Republican we could NOT make a corresponding list for. The difference is Dems have to be more careful. Reagan showed there is no downside for republicans to lie. No matter how often Reagan was shown to be lying the next thing out of his mouth was STILL gospel to his faithful followers. Even a whole lot of Dems liked him and his lying didnt stop that. If a DEM starts lying to me he is going to lose my support.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by dexteritas0071418 (May 12, 2009 12:52 pm ET)
      1 3
      I don't see why Gingrich's position as a philisophical leader in the GOP has anything to do with MMfA's assertion that tells falsehoods.

      Would anybody here take the label "GOP ideas man" or "leader of the GOP" as a compliment or an endorsement? Didn't think so.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mikehuck1976 (May 13, 2009 12:04 am ET)
           
        I agree. In fact, Gingrich has had alot of ideas in his time. Most of them were bad ideas, but he does have ideas. He is also much more poltically astute than Limbaugh. I think the right could do better to have a voice like this helping them shape some form of coherent policy agenda. Certainly, Limbaugh is failing them miserably.

        Also, I have to admit that I was turned away from the Republican party because of the Clinton investigations. However, I did always appreciate that after Gingrich attempted his coup and failed he did do the right thing and resign in defeat.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by anotheramerican (May 12, 2009 1:29 pm ET)
      1 10
      I had to stop at the first bulleted paragraph when MMFA said Gingrich falsehoods included saying the Dems had not passed a law regarding torture since they took control in 2007.

      Ahh... note to MMFA. Passing a bill is not passing a law. Gingrich was telling the truth. The Dems haven't. MMFA is parsing, substituting the term "passing a bill" for "passing a law".

      Secondly, when MMFA quoted Gingrich where he said Pelosi could threatened "to pass a law cutting off the money" as being a false statement from Gingrich.

      Ahhh... note to MMFA. Threatening to pass a law is not actually passing a law. Again Gingrich is telling the truth as Pelosi never even tried to limit the EITs after she found out about them. MMFA is parsing, leaving out the word "threatened". That has to be one of the lamest leftist arguments I've seen in a long time here.

      Ahhhhhh... Finally. Note to MMFA. Putting forth obviously parsed and ridiculous arguments like those two you tried to pass off here only make you look like you are on the fringe radical left. I know you are tossing red meat to the group here, but c'mon.

      Thanks for the laugh.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by dexteritas0071418 (May 12, 2009 1:38 pm ET)
           
        You're right on the ones you mentioned, but there's a lot in there that are in fact falsehoods from Gingrich, like the oil spill, etc.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Brabantio (May 12, 2009 1:46 pm ET)
        5  
        "Passing a bill is not passing a law. Gingrich was telling the truth. The Dems haven't. MMFA is parsing, substituting the term "passing a bill" for "passing a law"."

        Criminy, not this stupid argument again. What was Gingrich's point, exactly? If they passed a bill, then they made the effort to make waterboarding illegal. The fact that they didn't have a veto-proof majority doesn't change that. You and Gingrich are being intellectually dishonest.

        "Secondly, when MMFA quoted Gingrich where he said Pelosi could threatened "to pass a law cutting off the money" as being a false statement from Gingrich."

        If she wasn't in a position of power at the time of the briefing, what threat could she possibly make with any effectiveness at all?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by anotheramerican (May 12, 2009 4:23 pm ET)
            6
          Brab,
          I find it funny that you think me pointing out the truthfulness of Gingrich's statement is being intellectually dishonest. You must like pretzels!

          As for the second point, we both know that Pelosi has never been shy about criticizing Bush. Why the sudden reticence? She needn't have used Gingrich's words, but as ranking minority person, she could have offered up a bill had she wanted and made great political hay over it.

          Not so strangely she did not. It only shows she is a political opportunist of the worst kind and a hypocrite to boot.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Brabantio (May 13, 2009 12:22 am ET)
            2  
            "What was Gingrich's point, exactly? If they passed a bill, then they made the effort to make waterboarding illegal."

            "I find it funny that you think me pointing out the truthfulness of Gingrich's statement is being intellectually dishonest. You must like pretzels!"

            Later:

            "Gingrich's clear implication is that the Dems have lacked the political will or desire to do anything about waterboarding. He said "They haven't gone in to any of these things and changed law." So while it's true they haven't changed law they have "gone in to these things.""

            "You make a good point."

            I honestly do not see a marked difference between the two posts directed at you. The "clear implication" is exactly what I was referring to when I asked what Gingrich's point was. "They made the effort" is the same as "while it's true they haven't changed law..." I do appreciate that you've figured out that Gingrich is the one who was playing word games here, not MMfA.

            "She needn't have used Gingrich's words, but as ranking minority person, she could have offered up a bill had she wanted and made great political hay over it."

            We've gone from threatening to pass a law to just making a stink. So you think that in response to classified briefings, where one is not allowed to take notes or consult staff members in regards to the information relayed, she should have made a huge political scene regarding that classified information?

            I'm sure you would have found a great amount of respect for that action. Seriously, Republicans impeach a popular president for lying about sex, and you don't think that a Democrat would expect to face severe consequences for betraying the nature of classified briefings during a time of heightened national security concerns and with Republicans controlling both the Executive and Legislative branches of government? I'm just not sure how you see that working out.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by shaggles (May 12, 2009 2:43 pm ET)
        3  
        So Gingrich gets to blame Dems for not passing a law because Bush vetoed it? That's a pretty weak argument.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by anotheramerican (May 12, 2009 4:27 pm ET)
            4
          You may argue that point but that is not the issue. Which is the disingenuous statement by MMFA that Gingrich was not telling the truth. He was and MMFA isn't.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by shaggles (May 12, 2009 7:08 pm ET)
            3  
            That isn't the point actually. Gingrich's clear implication is that the Dems have lacked the political will or desire to do anything about waterboarding. He said "They haven't gone in to any of these things and changed law." So while it's true they haven't changed law they have "gone in to these things." The statement is a half truth at best.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (May 12, 2009 7:28 pm ET)
              5  
              Don't waste your time Shaggles. You're trying to explain the subtleties of GOP propaganda to a guy who's the target demographic for it.If he was capable of understanding it, he wouldn't be swallowing it.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by anotheramerican (May 12, 2009 8:19 pm ET)
                5
              Shaggles,

              You make a good point.

              Contrary to what you read by so many who have nothing to say, and prove it by only spouting invective and hateful comments, I enjoy a good discussion.

              While we might not agree, it is the disagreement that is interesting, not the personalities who are doing the writing.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (May 13, 2009 1:43 am ET)
                5  
                So your earlier post, full of invective and hateful comments, was just based on your not understanding the item? Congratulations on your momentary enlightenment.

                Because Shaggles' point(the one you described as "good")was that you missed the point.

                But I'll give you credit for going quite a while without referring to Obama as the NOTUS.Good job!
                Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.