-
U.S. News: Obama-Kelley Meeting
May 20, 2013 | 0 comments
-
The SPLC: Big Bucks, the FRC, and Jimmy Carter
May 7, 2013 | 6 comments
-
Mark Levin Talks to the NRA
May 7, 2013 | 0 comments
-
POLITICO: RUSH LIMBAUGH MAY PART WITH CUMULUS
May 5, 2013 | 13 comments
-
The Problematic Frank Luntz’s Stockholm Syndrome
April 25, 2013 | 11 comments
The Spectacle Blog
It’s always amazing that there are those who think by boldly accusing others of X, the fact that the accuser is a repeat offender who does X habitually will somehow go unnoticed.
The latest example of this is the Ron Paul attack on Newt Gingrich for what Paul calls “serial hypocrisy.” The essence of the attack, as seen in this much-noted Paul web commercial here, is that Newt is a hypocrite, saying one thing publicly while profiting from doing the opposite.
Whoa! This is Ron Paul saying this?
Congressman Paul has made much of his opposition to Washington “special interests.” But when it comes to funding his political career —where has Congressman Paul gone?
Yes indeed. Hat in hand — and hand out — Paul is not a whit different from Newt Gingrich.
Take a spin through these contributions Paul has taken over the years as formally listed by the Federal Elections Commission here.
Interesting, no? Talk about political profiteering! Right there in black and white candidate Ron Paul is recorded as taking money from the Bigs.
The Bigs? Yes, the Bigs:
Big Insurance
Big
Banking
Big
Medicine
Big Financial
Services
Big Beer
And so on and on and on and on through every Big Money special interest out there. Ron Paul takes money from the Builders and Contractors, from AFLAC, from AT&T, from milk producers and Bank of America and… well… take a gander at the very long list yourself.
Now, it needs to be said. There is nothing “wrong” with this. This is the system. And if the pitch is to change the system — fine and dandy. But for Ron Paul to accuse Newt Gingrich of “serial hypocrisy” while campaigning as Mr. Outsider Who Fights the Establishment — when in fact Congressman Paul — Mr. Outsider Who Fights the Establishment — is in reality the Congressman Paul the Mr. Insider Who Takes The Big Money From The Establishment… that is clearly the mark of… well…
What this Ron Paul Gingrich commercial does, surely unintentionally, is call considerable attention to the fact that no less than Ron Paul himself has been caught with his hands in The Establishment cookie jar. You might call this a case of…
Serial hypocrisy.
View all comments (145) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Jeffrey Lord
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/12/02/ron-pauls-serial-hypocrisy
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
somnolence| 12.2.11 @ 10:48AM
It may be the "system", but that doesn't mean I have to tolerate it any further, and the way I, and I would suggest, my fellow Americans should deal with it is saying our vote is not for sale, we aren't duped, and we don't HAVE TO vote-----we can withhold our PRECIOUS vote unless all these people immediately refrain from receiving monetary props. Your immediate response is that is not reality. I beg to differ. There is the capacity within ALL of us to make it real, if we only would, and we would have them all at OUR mercy.
Jack in Wi| 12.2.11 @ 11:10AM
Ron Paul has been consistant in his positions for decades. He stands up for them on numerous forums and has for years. Gingrich has personally profitted from his graft and corruption. He was kicked out of the house leadership in part because of that. Now Ron Paul gets much support from all kinds of honest people in business. Newt Gingrich has a moutain of personal bagagge to his credit. Mr. Fannie May and Mr tool of the insurance companies is a dead duck Jeff. You are just going to have to get over your paranoia.
Ron Paul's number one contributor is the active military, more then all the rest combined. They know who to support when the their lives are on the line. Nobody has more small contributors then Ron Paul or even comes close. Ron Paul refuses to even belong to the Federal pension program because he believes it is nothing but graft. Gingrich gets a huge Federal pension and has feathered his nest with influence peddling and as a fixer to the tune of 38 million since he left office.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 12.2.11 @ 11:20AM
Consistent TALK. Not Consistent Action.
He rails against earmarks, yet he still puts them into bills that he votes no against.
If earmarks are bad, don't put them into the bill.
Kevin | 12.2.11 @ 1:33PM
As Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas said years ago, if there were a vote on a project to produce cheese on the moon, he would vote "nay." If -- as is entirely likely -- the project passed anyway, he would do everything in his power to see that the rockets, the fuel, the astronauts, the feed, and the cattle were all from Texas.
Besides that obvious point, you nit-wits who criticize Ron Paul for earmarking miss his constitutional argument: the alternative to earmarking is just to give Obama a big check and tell him to spend it however he wants. Either Congress says exactly how money will be spent (earmarks) or it gives Obama 100% discretion (non-earmarks).
Like virtually every other argument against Ron Paul, this one is stupid.
Red Phillips | 12.2.11 @ 3:43PM
Ron Paul DOES NOT "rail against earmarks." Find me the quotes. In fact, he defends earmarks to a degree as a better way to allocate funds than some departmental functionaries dividing up the pie as they see fit. Again, show me the quotes.
Matt| 12.2.11 @ 8:46PM
Washington will spend the money somewhere else. He represents a district and is going to get them money that is his job. Your a Moron.
mzk1| 12.3.11 @ 5:08PM
Not if he is such a strict constitutionalist as he says. And yes, there were people who refused to join in. Bill Buckley's brother was Senator from New York on the Conservative ticket (not Republican). He was known for not trying to get money. Of course, they tend to get replaced.
Fitz| 12.15.11 @ 2:55PM
Do your homework Phil. Earmark funds are already appropriated. If Paul didn't put them into the bills at the request of his constituents then those funds would be spent by the executive on other American taxpayers. He's simply trying to give his constituents some of their tax dollars back. You and Lord are complete hacks.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 12.2.11 @ 12:37PM
So when Newt takes money, its from corrupt people, but when Ron Paul takes money, its from Honest Businessmen.
Okay.
Interested Conservative| 12.2.11 @ 12:44PM
Noticed that too Phil CP. Admirable discretion by Rep. Paul.
tenToesUp | 12.2.11 @ 1:45PM
There is a difference between taking campaign contributions and being a paid lobbyist!!!
This article fails to mention that.
Interested Conservative| 12.2.11 @ 2:58PM
Thanks for that clarification.
Andrew| 12.3.11 @ 11:20AM
exactly.
Inhibited Capitalist| 12.2.11 @ 2:08PM
Definitely. It's not as though the policies of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in bed with government, played any significant part in the housing bubble or the housing crisis.
Oh yeah, wait...
JohnM| 12.2.11 @ 2:33PM
It's not the taking of money from special interests that's the main problem here, it's altering your votes based on who gives you how much money. The public will usually lose that battle in favor of wealthy industries.
RONPAULPREDICTEDCRISIS2001| 12.2.11 @ 7:14PM
...This article Gives no sources in Ron Paul's Video NEWT IS ACTUALLY SAYING IT AND TAKING IT HARD CORE FROM THE MEDIA! yeah right Ron Paul is not getting 37 million from the health care bill he is getting maybe 100 bucks from people who work for the big's.. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT! NAME ONE SCANDAL RON PAUL HAS BEEN IN!
Clint| 12.2.11 @ 11:22AM
Dr.Ron Paul,
" I have never voted for an earmark. I voted against all appropriation bills. So, this whole thing about earmarks is totally misunderstood.
Earmarks is the responsibility of the Congress.
If you cut off all the earmarks, it would be 1 percent of the budget. But, if you vote against all the earmarks, you don't cut one penny. That is what you have to listen to. We're talking about who has the responsibility, the Congress or the executive branch?
I'm saying, get it out of the hands of the executive branch. Just listen again about what I have said about the TARP funds. We needed to earmark every penny. Now we gave them $350 billion, no earmarks, and nobody knows..."
Dr.Ron Paul Gets It About Earmarks & Congress Having It's Responsibility Usurped By The Executive Branch.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 12.2.11 @ 11:26AM
Drug addicts always justify their usage of their favorite vice as well..
Just because one wrong is worse than the other, doesnt make the other wrong "good".
Clint| 12.2.11 @ 11:37AM
Asked & Answered Israel Firster Propaganda Squad Flunkie Stooge Agendist.
Dr.Ron Paul's Plan To Restore America
SPENDING:
Cuts $1 trillion in spending during the first year of Ron Paul’s presidency, eliminating five cabinet departments (Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and Education), abolishing the Transportation Security Administration and returning responsibility for security to private property owners, abolishing corporate subsidies, stopping foreign aid, ending foreign wars, and returning most other spending to 2006 levels."
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the.....e-america/
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 12.2.11 @ 12:22PM
I judge action. Not "plans". Obama has "plans" too.
Back to the Constitution| 12.2.11 @ 2:26PM
If you really judge only actions, was there anything wrong with Newt Gingrich calling himself a "conservative" and yet...
1. Voting to create the Department of Education in 1979?
2. Voting for a $1 billion increase in federal mortgage subsidies in 1982?
3. Voting in favor of the Chrysler Bailout in 1979?
4. Voting "Yea" to permit the Federal Reserve to purchase Treasury Debt?
5. Voting "Yea" to create the 19M-Acre Alaska National Wildlife Refuge in 1979, to create the 2.3M-Acre Idaho River of No Return Wilderness in 1980, to expand the 1.5M-Acre Mark Twain National Forest in 1982, to expand the Sipsey Wilderness, to designate wilderness areas in Wisconsin, and in North Carolina, and in Virginia, and another 2.3M-Acre national forest in California in 1983?
6. Voting "Yea" on gasoline rationing?
7. Voting "Yea" on Jimmy Carter’s Emergency Energy Conservation Act.
8. Voting "Yea" for Jimmy Carter’s “Energy Mobilization Board.”
9. Voting against a 1984 bill that required the President and Congress to submit a balanced budget.
Commendable actions? Bear in mind that this isn't an exhaustive list at all.
(Ron Paul voted against every single one of these, by the way.)
Thomas Conway| 12.4.11 @ 6:42AM
yeah... i noticed, no answer to "back to the constitution".... and you were saying? if you don't like paul and aren't going to vote for him no matter what, then just say so... don't act as if you are on the fence with your decision wasting everyone's time trying to convince you. The fact that we need to produce every fact that shows that both you and the author are skewing the facts in your favor shows that you are either ignorant of the facts (in which case you should go back and study up on the facts before returning to this thread) or worst, you are willfully misrepresenting then to suit your argument - in either case - you're wasting our time and are completely wrong in your suggestion as well as formative logic
WORD| 12.2.11 @ 12:34PM
So you prefer the executive branch to be able to allocate all the money at their will?
nate| 12.2.11 @ 10:50AM
I am an Rn. I have doctor friends who have donated to Paul. We are not lobbyists. We give our own money. Fuck off.
Paul Bot| 12.2.11 @ 12:26PM
Thank you nurse Nate for your typical Ron Paul like argumentation. You will build a coalition by insults.
ktr| 12.2.11 @ 1:00PM
I am an independent. I would pick R Paul 1st also. If you do not cut the depts in the governement, how do you balance the budget? Also, I support a gold standard. I beleive he is the only one who does. Without a gold standard, this money printing hyprocacy will ruin the dollar. Obama and Bush were too fond of it.
Typical Rontard| 12.2.11 @ 12:57PM
"Basically all you fucking jews can all go fuck off and die. We, the entire world, are sick and tired of all your shit. Because you can trace all the worlds ills to these reprehensible people and their piece of shit stolen country that acts as a base for crime and evil. Hey why don't you go and harvest some more organs from disaster zones under the guise of "helping people". Yeah, helping jews only is their moto. Well call us anti semitic all you want. It has no effect anymore. You people are the fucking extremist racists. Everything and every label you aliens put on other people, is what you are. The world is waking up to this. Better get ready to run, AGAIN! Oh but that is because the world is anti semetic though right? That slur is a fucking badge of honor now. So sling away terrified, trembling maniacs.
megaphonie power, ACTIVATE!"
(Now watch as a gazillion Rontards bombard this site with posts about how they're not anti-semites just because they hate Israel and wish all the Jews there would die... Some of our best friends are Jews and--and-- why don't you support the Constitution you Zionazis!?!?1/1!?!?!1/1/1?!?!11?1/!?1/1/!?!?1/1/11!!?!?!?11/1//1!?!?!?1/!?1/1/1/!?!)
(I say this with confidence because this is exactly what they did to a "Reason Magazine" article recently. See: http://reason.com/blog/2011/12.....u#comments for 450 or so comments saying "Yes, we're Nazis and proud of it" and "No we're not! You all must be Zionist sockpuppets!")
Amy| 12.2.11 @ 1:53PM
What? I'm not Jewish, but my grandpa is--and we're both voting for Paul.
Isn't running around slinging "YOU'RE RACIST" epithets at anyone and everyone a leftist strategy to try to shut down debate?
Why yes, it surely is.
tbrookside| 12.2.11 @ 10:51AM
Paul has always stood for the 1st amendment rights of free speech and free association and has even imposed the restrictions on those rights the SCOTUS allowed in Buckley v. Valeo.
It's really difficult to accuse someone who doesn't believe the federal government possesses the legitimate power to regulate campaign finance of being a hypocrite for accepting campaign contributions.
Paul's voting pattern is absolutely predictable and has been since the end of his first year in the Congress. Everybody knows going in exactly how Paul is going to vote on any issue, and exactly what sort of legislation he will sponsor on his own. That being the case, it's a little specious to claim that his contributors are "buying" anything. It's literally impossible to bribe someone whose behavior never changes based on outside circumstances.
And Paul's ad isn't damning Gingrich for taking Freddie's money. It's damning him for pretending NOW that he always opposed the GSE's and that he saw the financial collapse of 2008 coming ahead of time - when the record doesn't show that, and shows instead that he was lobbying for Freddie and writing advocacy pieces on their behalf.
Constitutional Republic| 12.2.11 @ 11:10AM
Agreed. Lord disingenuously misses the point in an attempt to muddy the waters of distinction. Me thinks his foreign policy preferences are threatened by Dr. Paul's willingness to consider ending "endless war."
Jeffrey Lord| 12.2.11 @ 11:12AM
Methinks you are a leftist.
And if one opposes the system...don't take the money. Period.
Merry Christmas!
nate| 12.2.11 @ 11:15AM
Methinks? Is that a word?
Jeffrey Lord| 12.2.11 @ 11:16AM
Youthinks you dodge?
nate| 12.2.11 @ 11:20AM
In your own words....Methinks you illiterate?
Jeffrey Lord| 12.2.11 @ 11:23AM
I is not sure...what a liter?
nate| 12.2.11 @ 11:27AM
Was that a rejoinder? Pathetic.
Jeffrey Lord| 12.2.11 @ 11:32AM
Actually, Nate, I think if one is going to peg Newt as guilty of "serial hypocrisy" for taking from the system...while busily taking from the same system...that's not much of a rejoinder.
And by the way..."F***k off" isn't exactly a stellar discussion point either.
Fred| 12.2.11 @ 6:16PM
There is a difference between taking campaign contributions and money going into your personnal bank account.
Interested Conservative| 12.2.11 @ 12:47PM
Methinks? Shakespeare, Nate. Google your Shakespeare - always helps with literacy.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 12.2.11 @ 11:22AM
Hey Jeffrey, you are completely out of line saying that Ron Paul should practice what he preaches. This is D.C., you only have to TALK a good game.
Thomas Conway| 12.4.11 @ 6:45AM
Lord brings up all of Ron Paul's donations from the Bigs (Big Insurance, Big Banking, Big Medicine, Big Financial Services, Big Beer) as if Ron Paul garners large donations from these organizations. What he neglects to tell us is that these donations are by and large from small donors employed by these corporations. (They do exist, Mr. Lord.) What Lord also doesn't tell us is the percentage of donations from these Biggies versus donations from the little guy. If you look at candidates other than Ron Paul, you'll see that by and large, the lions share of their donations come from Biggies, while Ron Paul's donations are spread out amongst hundreds of thousands of small donors. I think this detail was overlooked, too, wasn't it, Mr. Lord?
Solo| 12.2.11 @ 12:55PM
"Endless war", eh, "Constitutional Republic".
I've heard it said that "only the dead have seen an end to war". I think that's right, unfortunately.
So...if true, then, once we come home to "bunker America", then the "endless war" will follow us back here.
And won't that be pretty?
Just think...if The RuPaul actually realizes his preferred Republic, we can throw our Bongs at the enemy.
Andy | 12.7.11 @ 12:02PM
Right we would throw our bongs. Not millions of bullets fired from the almost 200,000,000 guns that are in this country. "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." Or so Yamamoto thought when he didn't invade the United States. Even if this quote isn't real and he never said it all, it still rings true to the ear because it is true. How would we know what would happen if Ron Paul's republic came to fruition? We have not given it a chance in over a 100 years. You can't actually think what we are doing right now is working worth a hell do you?
Dai Alanye | 12.2.11 @ 11:51AM
Matters have come to the point where I begin to dislike Ron Paul more for his supporters than for himself. Their adoration is cult-like, quite similar to that of Obama's followers in '08.
Right now I'd even vote for Huntsman in order to keep Pixie-Paul from getting the nomination.
Clint| 12.2.11 @ 11:59AM
Ronald Reagan,
"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
"I strongly support Ron Paul. We very badly need to have more Representatives who understand in a principled way the importance of property rights and religious freedom."
- Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize Economist
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Ryan| 12.2.11 @ 12:09PM
How does cutting and pasting quotes disprove his point?
Clint| 12.2.11 @ 2:28PM
Take It Up With Ronald Reagan And Milton Friedman When You See Them Next.
Ryan| 12.2.11 @ 12:08PM
This is the #3 on my objection list (behind foreign policy and drug legalization), and I'm still thinking about voting for him.
9thID| 12.2.11 @ 12:09PM
This is not surprising as Liber-als and Liber-tarians come from the same root stock of Libertinism. That is why they basically agree on national security and social issues, but differ mainly on fiscal policy. Libertines generally look to cult-of-personality figureheads for guidance, e.g. Obama & Ron Paul. They also proclaim to be intellectuals and vulgarly attack everyone who disagrees with them as stupid and uneducated. Is is any wonder that some prominent Libs have come out in support of Paul along with the dope heads? Both are also revisionists of history and what original intent meant to our Founders. Paul doesn't truly embrace the 10th Amendment and technically advocates a return to the uber-states rights chaos of the Articles of Confederation. Scary thing is Liber-als move towards totalitarianism and Liber-tarians towards anarchy...
Clint| 12.2.11 @ 12:30PM
Ronald Reagan,
" If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
WORD| 12.2.11 @ 12:31PM
Very crafty attempt to disparage libertarian thinking by FALSELY associating it with libertinism. The latin root they both come from is "liber" which literally means FREE. Libertarians believe in POLITICAL FREEDOM, i.e. being free from aggressive use of force. Libertines believe in moral "freedom" or freedom from having morals. These are two TOTALLY DIFFERENT CONCEPTS. To try to compare them because they sound the same is either really dumb or really deceptive and WRONG. Now that you are educated, I am assuming you won't prove yourself to be ill and will refrain from posting this nonsense.
Solo| 12.2.11 @ 1:18PM
"Word"....."POLITICAL FREEDOM", in the libertarian sense, necessarily means freedom FROM having morals, if that's the path one would choose.
Gambling, whoring, opium addiction, pornography......it's all good. Children are property. Abortion is nothing more than disposal of an unwanted body part. Etc.. Essentially: Social Anarchy.
"9thID" characterized it precisely.
And...as far as "libertarian thinking"....? LOL! That's rich!
Libertarian philosophy is nothing more than an attempt to lend the appearance of objectivity to: "I like this but I don't like that". Which pretty much explains that consistent 1% to 2% support the party gets at each election cycle.
Amy| 12.2.11 @ 2:01PM
We're staunch social conservatives here--but I don't believe that I should try to force everyone else to be the same. Does that make me a "libertine" or a "liberal?"
I take responsibility for myself and my family--I don't want to take responsibility for you or your family. The government should not either.
And in regards to being a "dope head," I am not. However, if there is merit to hemp as a crop that could help the economy and bring back some manufacturing--why not? The founding fathers used it. If there is merit to medical marijuana, then the government is intentionally causing suffering, which is also unethical.
Andy | 12.7.11 @ 12:07PM
Show me one libertarian that supports Obama or his agenda? You can't? No surprise there. Your lips move and nothing but brainwashed idiocy comes out.
You are damn right libertarians attack people who disagree with them as uneducated, and stupid. They must be. How else could you disagree with absolute logic unless you were a moron, or a woman?
Jack in Wi| 12.2.11 @ 10:56AM
More lies and nonsense from Jeffrey Lord. Well that is all he writes. Paul has been a been fighting the banksters for decades. Mr. Lord thinks that all bankers are criminals. There are lots of honest bankers who agree with Ron Paul. There are lots of goernment contractors and other government workers who see all the mismanagement and corruption around them and give to Ron Paul as well. I used to be a big government contractor as well. I know of what I speak. There are also lots of other honest business people who give to Ron Paul.
Ron Paul gets by far the largest amount of support from members of the active military than all the other candidadtes combined, including Obama. They know who to trust when their lives are on the line. A pair of old chickenhawks like Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney will never get the military vote. Obama will be running as the guy who got Bin Laden and is bringing the troops home.
Mike| 12.2.11 @ 11:07AM
By John E. Yang
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 22 1997; Page A01
The House voted overwhelmingly yesterday to reprimand House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and order him to pay an unprecedented $300,000 penalty, the first time in the House's 208-year history it has disciplined a speaker for ethical wrongdoing.
The ethics case and its resolution leave Gingrich with little leeway for future personal controversies, House Republicans said. Exactly one month before yesterday's vote, Gingrich admitted that he brought discredit to the House and broke its rules by failing to ensure that financing for two projects would not violate federal tax law and by giving the House ethics committee false information. Enough Said!!
David T| 12.2.11 @ 1:08PM
Let’s review the ethics case against Newt, shall we? He was charged with 75 violations, 74 of which were dismissed. The remaining charge was that he improperly funded a college course he taught. The House Ethics Committee determined that he violated tax law by using tax-deductible contributions from non-profit organizations to teach a “partisan” course, even though Gingrich was given the OK for the class by an Ethics Committee lawyer. Gingrich was also charged with lying to Congress by providing false information. He testified truthfully that the contributions were made by non-profit, non-partisan organizations, but a document he had submitted to the Ethics Committee contradicted his statement. For this he resigned under a cloud and was forced to borrow money to pay a $300,000 fine. To sum up, it was a simple case of political retribution--the Democrats wanted revenge against Newt for his role in impeaching Clinton.
mysoc| 12.2.11 @ 11:14AM
after reading his list of blog posts he obviosly has a bug up his arse for Ron Paul and has NO PROBLEM gushing spin. a dinosaur fighting for survival, whether he likes it or not his kind is about to be extinct. they will keep shoveling sh*t untill we refuse to swallow.
mysoc| 12.2.11 @ 11:17AM
not a lick of difference between Ron Paul and Newt? calling BS on that one. i think this guy writes crap about RP because it generates traffic to his columns, otherwise who would read or comment?
Solo| 12.2.11 @ 11:55AM
Well...one way to drive traffic to a column's comments section is to say something negative (or even less than gushing) about The RuPaul.
This article could post 300 comments before it through.
As far as "differences" between Paul and Gingrich:
I agree. They couldn't be more different.
Newt has made a ton of mistakes as a legislator and the RuPaul has made none. In fact....that's the very reason why the RuPaul got his nick-name in the House: "Dr. No".
You can't make a mistake if you're not doing anything, huh?
WORD| 12.2.11 @ 12:26PM
That is cute to call Ron Paul RuPaul. Real cute.
Amy| 12.2.11 @ 2:05PM
Oh, it changed my mind. Now I'll vote for a philandering, unethical career politician who's so full of himself that he's on the verge of exploding, over a consistent, principled man.
It's funny how Solo's the type who groans and whines about Paul's enthusiastic support, and how rude Paul supporters are--while being so obviously disrespectful himself.
C Bowen | 12.2.11 @ 5:13PM
Solo thought Iraq was a threat and still posts on the Internet--all we need to know about his character.
Sky Walker | 12.2.11 @ 12:48PM
What can you expect from a rag that also features Ben Stein? NeoCon pandering methinks.
aware| 12.2.11 @ 2:55PM
Yes.
Clint| 12.2.11 @ 12:09PM
" The New Hampshire Gazette
The Chickenhawk Hall Of Shame.
name:
Newton Leroy "Newt" Gingrich
rank:
Chickenhawk First Class with Distinguished Fleeing Cross
date-of-birth:
June 17, 1943
home state:
Georgia
missed opportunity:
Vietnam War
preferred activity:
Attending grad school
occupation:
Congressman
A virtuoso in the art of hypocrisy, the former Speaker of the House now claims the Vietnam War was a splendid idea, but at the time he opposed going himself. Newtie also speaks highly of morality, but as a serial adulterer he doesn't want to get too close."
VERSUS
" Dr. Ron Paul served in the United States Air Force as a flight surgeon for several years (1963-1965). While in the air force, Paul reached the rank of Captain. Directly after his service in the air force, Paul worked again as a flight surgeon for the United States Air National Guard (1965-1968)."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Interested Conservative| 12.2.11 @ 12:52PM
Here's a teeny little question - In Rep. Paul's bio it notes he "reached" the rank of Captain. Aren't professionals (Dr., DDS, JD, etc.) commissioned as Captains? And, was he later promoted?
His service is admirable, but you don't want to overpraise it. I don't think he enlisted and then worked his way up the ranks while going to Med. School - but I could be wrong.
Clint| 12.2.11 @ 1:44PM
Dr.Ron Paul took his residency under an Air Force program.
Apparently, he was promoted to Captain, after completion of their residency program.
james Rieckmann| 12.2.11 @ 12:13PM
Give it a rest mate. You are grasping at straws and being a disservice to your readers. Of the 8 remaining candidates left in the Republican field, Dr. Paul has a 30 year voting record that remains consistent to this day (go check it out). Lobbyists do not bother contacting him as they know he is "squeaky clean." I wonder if the rest of the candidates are able to say the same thing? Nice attempt at spin. Whatever happened to fair and balanced journalism?
Paul Bot| 12.2.11 @ 12:34PM
If they are not contacting them then that leaves he is contacting them because the money is changing hands mate. That would be maybe a shakedown.
Paul Bot| 12.2.11 @ 12:36PM
Them would be the new anointed, Ron Paul.
Clint| 12.2.11 @ 12:56PM
TARPSTER Gingrich Donor Wells Fargo.
Wells Fargo TARP Money: $25 Billion.
Paul Bot| 12.2.11 @ 1:10PM
Shakedown victims of Ron Paul:
Big Insurance
Big Banking
Big Medicine
Big Financial Services
Big Beer
Since they didn't contact him, he's contacting them and extracting money.
Clint| 12.2.11 @ 1:33PM
" Public Citizen’s Craig Holman said this was the first time he’d heard the “ambiguous term ‘strategic consultant’ replaced with an academic term ‘historian,’” but that regardless of the terminology, Gingrich “was hired as a lobbyist for his rolodex built while being a public servant.”
Gingrich, Holman told TPM in an email, “represents the worst of revolving door abuse. Gingrich cashed in on his status as a former public official, taking in $300,000 in salary from Freddie Mac to promote the lender’s business model one year as a ‘strategic consultant’ rather than a registered lobbyist in order to avoid disclosure, and then switched sides when the winds of political opportunity shifted.”
Holman continued: “This clearly shows that those who swing through the revolving door to promote the business interests of whoever can afford their price tag rarely do so on principle, but merely for self-profit and opportunity.”
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here & In Iowa.
Clint| 12.2.11 @ 2:08PM
Shakedown victims of RINO-CINO Newt Gingrich:
Big Insurance
Big Banking
Big Medicine
Big Financial Services
Big Beer
They Know What Gingrich Wants & Assume The Position.
Clint| 12.2.11 @ 1:48PM
" In this campaign, Paul is getting more donations from people who work for the military than either President Obama or any of the other Republican presidential candidates. That analysis comes from Paul's campaign and was confirmed recently by Politifact, the fact-checking project of the St. Petersburg Times.
"Our fighting men and women take an oath to protect America, defend our Constitution and defend our borders," Paul campaign chairman Jesse Benton said. "They look at Ron Paul and see a leader who takes their oath seriously and who will fight to ensure that we don't misrepresent that oath by sending them off to police the world, instead of defending our country."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Paul Bot| 12.2.11 @ 12:32PM
ARAB AMERICAN LEADERSHIP COUNCIL PAC
Wow, this group is getting its money's worth. America first indeed.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
Can you say housing bubble?
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR THE REFORM OF MARIJUANA LAWS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
Wow, man!
POKER PLAYERS ALLIANCE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
Ron Paul is a gamble and a hypocrite.
Clint| 12.2.11 @ 1:36PM
" With the intense search for a conservative alternative to Mitt Romney producing popularity “bubbles” for Rick Perry and Herman Cain, “Who’s next?” has been the recurring question. In an ironic twist, the consensus answer seems to be: Newt Gingrich.
I say “ironic” because the opposition to Romney has been led by conservative grassroots writers and activists, as well as groups like FreedomWorks. Gingrich isn’t much more popular among that contingent than Romney. In May, when Gingrich sharply criticized Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform plan, FreedomWorks Chairman Dick Armey reminded National Review that Gingrich had been a serial offender:
Citing Gingrich’s support of Dede Scozzafava in the 2009 congressional election in New York’s 23rd district, his backing of Medicare Part D and TARP, and his commercial with Nancy Pelosi about climate change, Armey observes that “Newt entered the race with serious ground to make up with these 2 million Tea Party activists.”…
Brendan Steinhauser, director of Federal and State Campaigns for FreedomWorks, reports that the Tea Partiers he’s talked to are “irate” at Gingrich… “I never met a single Tea Party activist that supported Newt Gingrich for president,” he adds."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
WORD| 12.2.11 @ 12:41PM
@Paul Bot
- Your first comment is blatantly racist.
- Who cares if realtors donate to Paul. It shows that some actually have scruples as Paul has clearly been railing against the housing bubble inducing policies for years. Should Paul reject donations from realtors with scruples?
- Anyone with a whit of sense on the marijuana issue would see the outright failure of prohibition. Of course big government violent paternalists are against reforming federal marijuana laws.
- Oh no, poker players support Ron Paul! Run for the hills!
Come on man, you gotta be able to do better than this.
Paul Bot| 12.2.11 @ 1:05PM
Hypocrite. You guys are so much fun.
I was just noticing the obvious neocon parallel. You have been very quiet when people with names Goldstein get called out by Paul supporters for sounding Jewish. Hypocrite!
Real estate agents made huge money off the housing bubble. As usual when the government gets involved things have went to hell but real estate agents made a bet that the increase in prices would go on forever. We need to investigate Ron Paul is all I am saying. Hypocrite!
Why stop at pot? Meth, crack cocaine, etc. can use the same argument. Lets admit that Ron Paul is taking money from potheads. In other words he is taking money from people that are wasting their lives so he can get elected. Hypocrite!
I love the poker mentality. Make money with absolutely no productivity. I am not surprised that Ron Paul takes money from these fellows. Hypocrite!
I really like Ron Paul's approach to building a coalition.
Clint| 12.2.11 @ 1:53PM
Real Estate Company Richardson Properties, A Top Gingrich Campaign Donor.
Clint| 12.2.11 @ 1:57PM
Top Campaign Donors To Gingrich:
Number 3: Real Estate
Number 4: Lawyers/Law Firms
Sky Walker | 12.2.11 @ 12:44PM
What a bunch of crap! I'll vote for Obama before I vote for Newt (I won't be doing either).
Paul Bot| 12.2.11 @ 12:50PM
This is another mark of an ideologue, the inability to make distinctions.
WORD| 12.2.11 @ 12:58PM
Your post makes no sense. Sky Walker did not say anyone was the same. And even if he did, Obama and Newt agree on 80%+ of policy anyway. They are both roundly in the statist sector of the political spectrum.
Paul Bot| 12.2.11 @ 1:06PM
Exhibit B.
Solo| 12.2.11 @ 1:23PM
Exactly! All who are not part of "The RuPaul" are part of "The Other" and are thus evil incarnate.
Kevin | 12.2.11 @ 1:36PM
Let me get this straight: Ron Paul criticizes Newt Gingrich for taking $1.6 million from Fannie and Freddy for his personal bank account, and Jeffrey Lord's response is that Ron Paul takes campaign contributions? Really?
Not only does Ron Paul not participate in the corrupt revolving-door process that has made Newt Gingrich, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, and Dick Cheney very, very rich, but Ron Paul isn't even going to take a congressional pension.
Jeffrey Lord raises these idiotic arguments because HE HAS NO VALID ARGUMENT AGAINST RON PAUL.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.2.11 @ 2:00PM
You Paul-bots need to check out American Thinker today..then go ahead and drink your deadly koolaid.
Back to the Constitution| 12.2.11 @ 2:16PM
James Madison wrote in 1795:
"Of all the enemies to public liberty, WAR is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people..."
He added:
"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare..."
lk| 12.2.11 @ 2:13PM
Ron Paul in third quarter had over 100,000 individual donors who WORKED FOR about every industry there is. What you list are their employers, not 'influencing' funds ultimately paid by the tax payers as with bailed out Freddie Mac paying Gingrich.
Brian Brady | 12.3.11 @ 2:22AM
I"m a mortgage broker and I think I'm up to $120.72 to the Ron Paul 2012 campaign for President. I guess Mr. Lord caught us.
Back to the Constitution| 12.2.11 @ 2:14PM
Newt Gingrich calls the climate change ad with Pelosi "the dumbest mistake I ever made."
Was that really the dumbest, or was it Gingrich voting "Yea" to establish the Department of Education in 1979? Or maybe it was his remarks in 2007 that "making homeownership more accessible and affordable is a policy goal... conservatives should embrace," and that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae's policies of easy credit - which led to the housing crisis - were perfectly fine, even preferable.
Sure, those things might be dumb. But what a man among men he is!
Clint| 12.2.11 @ 2:19PM
Kenny The Squirrel And His BibiBot Girlfriends Are Scared Of The Tea Party And Our Co-Favorite Presidential Candidate Dr.Ron Paul.
Republican in Heart Only| 12.2.11 @ 2:35PM
Ron Paul's top 3 contributors in 2011 have been members of the U.S. Army, Air Force, and Navy. He must have a lot of "defense lobbyist" ties, huh? http://www.opensecrets.org/pre.....=N00005906
martin j smith| 12.2.11 @ 3:20PM
I would never vote for Ron Paul but I feel the big thing that has been missing are attacks not only on Obama but the Socialist Communist policies that are destroying this nation. And, coupled with an alternative plan to right our Nation back from the brink. I am getting very annoyed with the Establishment RINO Republicans as seen for example in recent disagreements over the payroll tax matter and other issues. The label Republican has absolutely no meaning because you have Colin Powell,John Huntsman and Ron Paul neither of which I would support claiming t be "Republicans". We need Hope and Change only not the Obama type.
Brunot| 12.2.11 @ 3:32PM
I notice you didn't comment on how Paul VOTED. But then you know you don't really have to do that to win over your target audience, do ya?
aware| 12.2.11 @ 3:39PM
Jeffery you have managed to surpass even my estimate of the depths of your conformist stupidity.
If you are trying to allude that "Big Banks", among others, somehow bought Paul and his vote with contributions, I'm afraid the actual record, the facts, and history itself say you are lying. But you know this, so you only allude to it. Slimy.
Do you suppose you could try and just name the specifics of policy and proposals you don't like and maybe give a reasonable outline of your counterview with facts for a change? Name calling, innuendo, and character assassination are no grounds for a debate.
Dennis| 12.2.11 @ 3:44PM
Jeffrey Lord,
Did you even watch the video? The charge of serial hypocrisy has nothing to do with campaign contributions, and as someone else already mentioned, Ron Paul opposes any restrictions on campaign financing, so how it's hypocritical still isn't terribly clear. When did Ron Paul condemn anyone over campaign contributions?
The charges against Newt Gingrich are that:
1 - He has spoken on both sides of many major issues, both for and against on topics like climate change, use of military in Libya, the healthcare mandate, bailouts, federal housing programs, etc.
2 - In a few notable cases, his active support for some of these was when he was hired by these particular interests to, by all accounts except his own, work as an unlicensed lobbyist. 1.6+ million from Freddie & Fannie, 37 million from drug companies pushing for Bush's Rx Drug plan.
3 - While Ron Paul takes the high road and doesn't tackle it in the ad, another obvious instance of Newt's hypocrisy would be his attacks on President Clinton over his infidelity while Newt was already on his second go around of cheating on his wife before leaving her to be marry his mistress.
You really think campaign contributions are the same as all of this?
Jeffrey Lord| 12.2.11 @ 4:05PM
Dennis...
Of course I watched it - and linked to it.
1. Ron Paul supported Ronald Reagan - and then opposed him. Ron Paul was a Republican - before he left the GOP for a Libertarian party nomination for president. Now he's a Republican again. He cites the Founding Fathers as the standard - unless, of course, he opposes them. So if being on both sides of an issue for political profit is the issue, Congressman Paul has been there and done that as well as Newt Gingrich.
2. I disagree with Gingrich on his Fannie Mae doings. But if the objection is to people profiting off of their political careers - unless Ron Paul has donated 100% of his book and any speech earnings to charity, it's safe to assume he has profited from his being a once and now again holder of political office. Just like Newt.
3. The last point reveals you as a liberal, since this is the standard liberal attack (or part of it) on Gingrich. While what Gingrich did may have been wrong (ya think?) it most assuredly was not illegal - the charge against Bill Clinton. It was never about the sex. It was the lying in a federal court. For which, by the by, Clinton lost his license to practice law. The fact that you seem unable to discern the difference between a moral wrong and a quite bright illegal action says you must be yet another Ron Paul liberal.
Doctor Elefant| 12.2.11 @ 5:46PM
C'mon, Jeffrey...
1- What you wrote here has nothing to do with Ron Paul changing his views. Reagan and the GOP didn't deliver as promised. Paul only came back once new people were elected. He merely gave the GOP a second chance.
2-Everybody prospers from being elected to Congress. Just the popularity alone has value. Newt's Fannie Mae doings are a horse of another color.
3-I just brushed my teeth. I'm certain some liberals brush their teeth too. Does that make me a liberal?
I'm really surprised at you.
aware| 12.2.11 @ 6:37PM
Pitiful.
Red Phillips | 12.2.11 @ 4:02PM
Lord, is someone paying you for all these anti-Paul hit pieces or are you really just that obsessed?
Jeffrey Lord| 12.2.11 @ 4:06PM
Red...
So when I criticize Romney or Gingrich or Huntsman I'm being paid by Ron Paul?
Gee, if only I'd known!
aware| 12.3.11 @ 6:49AM
Why don't you write one of these "criticisms" and we'll find out.
C Bowen | 12.3.11 @ 6:36PM
Yes, he goes to his bosses and says: look how many hits I got!
Lord is a guy who worked for an Administration that armed, via dubiously legal means through the Export/Import Bank and BCCI, the Iraq and Saddam regime, and then supported the Iraq invasion because Saddam did something to the Kurds while he was working for the administration that 'appeased.'
Hell is where is he is going, we can only ask him to repent.
Java McPhearson| 12.2.11 @ 4:23PM
The charge against Newt is being a paid lobbyist while he denies being an insider and denies being a lobbyist. This is wholly different from campaign contributions. Pauls contributions went to Paul's campaign, Newt's contributions went to his campaign, but Newt's lobbying payments went into Newt's pockets.
Paul, on examination, has without exception voted his views on every piece of legislation over his 12 terms. Paul has never been accused of lobbying and never been accused of voting under persuasion other than his own conscience.
Tom| 12.2.11 @ 4:49PM
Hypocrisy; thy name is spelled R-O-N P-A-U-L!
Omaleta| 12.2.11 @ 4:57PM
My goodness Mr Lord! Your chart shows only very small campaign contributions over a ten year period ranging from $40 to $5000, which funds never influenced any vote by Dr. NO. Somehow you compare that to INCOME of over 32 MILLION paid to Newt in exchange for his influence in congress, sometimes known as "Lobbyist" Shame on you, get your facts straight!
Doctor Elefant| 12.2.11 @ 5:03PM
I donated more to Ron Paul than any of those "big money" PACs. LOL. And I'm no 1%er either! If I had Newt's money, I'd throw mine in the street.
Doctor Elefant| 12.2.11 @ 6:03PM
I typo-ed "any." I meant "many." I didn't have 5 grand to give. But if I did I would have donated it to Ron Paul.
Charles| 12.2.11 @ 8:36PM
Bahahahaha are you guys kidding me? Newt took millions from Wall Street firms and you try to compare him to Ron Paul? Who took from such terrible committees as:
"YOUNG VOTERS"
"THE NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK COMMITTEE PAC"
"TEXAS FREEDOM FUND"
"REPUBLICAN PARTY OF TEXAS"
"REPUBLICAN LIBERTY CAUCUS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE"
"NATIONAL PRO-LIFE ALLIANCE PAC"
"LIVE FREE OR DIE"
"LIBERTY PAC"
"LIBERTY LEAGUE"
"JUSTICE-PAC"
"FUND FOR A FREE MARKET AMERICA"
"FREEDOM WORKS PAC"
"COMMON SENSE LEADERSHIP FUND"
"CAMPAIGN FOR WORKING FAMILIES"
"AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE"
"AMERICAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION PAC"
"CRNA PAC"
God forbid a candidate get contributions (over the course of more than a decade) from terrible committees like these. You guys are desperate to find something on him.
Jeffrey Lord| 12.2.11 @ 10:32PM
Charles....
If you are out there condemning the system...don't take the bucks. What you seem not to understand is that the list you quote above is part of the system...every bit as much as Fannie Mae.
Just Say No. It's not hard. Really. Newt said yes. And so did Ron Paul. Is it disappointing? Sure. But it's fact.
aware| 12.3.11 @ 6:59AM
Like how you were part of the "system" and now you pretend to be against it? Like Newt? You really just can't see it for what it is, a vast criminal conspiracy regardless of who "runs" it.
Here, even a car guy gets it but you don't: http://epautos.com/2011/12/01/the-wolf-pack/
thesquareglobe| 12.3.11 @ 8:03AM
I must say, as is evident from all the above and all the comments posted at 3:00 A.M. in the morning on all various sites, it is now evident that Ron Paul's greatest negative isn't his foreign or drug policy, or racist ties but in fact is his supporters.
He's on a slippery pavement here and it's all disguised as a sort of black ice in a thick clog of smoke masquerading as some sort of predictable or unpredictable future crash who are all blinded by their thick own clog of smoke.
Paul's biggest negative, just as in 2008, are his supporters; It's almost if their all virtual Lee Atwater's on cyber-space steroids from an anonymous world residing in an alternate universe.
thesquareglobe| 12.3.11 @ 8:20AM
I forgot to write my main point. While Newt isn't certainly my favorite candidate of choice, the very notion that mainstream (or any other media format) haven't considerably criticized Gingrich on the issues addressed in the Ron Paul web ad is absurd.
Just Google Newt Gingirch and hit up on "news".
Or hell, just turn on your television...
aware| 12.3.11 @ 9:05AM
So let me see if I have this correct, Lord says Paul should say no to all contributions and you say he should disavow all his supporters, right?
Well, if Newt did this he'd still have the tens of millions he took for gaming the system at least. In the Plunderer State the plunderers always do well don't they.
I'll make a bet with you, if Newt loses within a year you will see him much sought after(and highly paid) for his "lobbying" prowess and by the "interests" he is "attacking" to hoodwink you out of your vote now.
Career politicians are the very cream of the criminal class. Nothing petty about them.
Great Argument| 12.3.11 @ 10:02AM
You forgot the minor detail that receiving paychecks and receiving campaign contributions are completely different, but other than that this was a stroke of brilliance! Keep the impeccable arguments coming.
Gkm| 12.3.11 @ 10:26AM
Geez this is a weak argument. If a mafia boss gave Paul a contribution , does that make him a supporter of the mob? In politics it's always about the actions and not the words. Gingrich is an adulterer and "worked" for Freddie as an "historian" by choice, and you're going to hold him up against Paul using that argument? Wow.
ron will save us| 12.3.11 @ 11:44AM
Newts money was his private earnings, Ron's money was for his campaign. This article is complete non-sense
thesquareglobe| 12.4.11 @ 7:15AM
I think that's kind of Newt's point...
EMF| 12.3.11 @ 11:47AM
This article is a huge FAIL....I can't even say nice try. Totally weak. If thats all you got, you shouldn't write it. Makes you as an author and media source look dumb as hell.
Joe| 12.3.11 @ 11:51AM
thesquareglobe- I havent made up my mind on who I am voting for, however, ron paul is predicting a future crash and he DID predict the dot-com crash and the housing crash, si I would say he knows what he is talking about and his principles are solid as steele. Look for your self:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8XYF0LLrk
thesquareglobe| 12.4.11 @ 7:24AM
I was 13 starring at the Internet daily and nightly and wondering what the hell was going on. I remember all the dot com commercials in 97 and 98 and thought to myself this certainly can't last.
Later on in life, I wondered how a double-wide mobile home in Seattle could cost $400,000 and also pondered, how and why?
I predicted these events also in history at 13 and 23 respectively, but I'm not running for president.
Again, I like Paul but his supporters drive me crazy with all their bullying on sites like Facebook and Youtube.
Nat| 12.3.11 @ 5:04PM
This is about the stupidest article ever. None of the "corporations" he took money from are known as corrupt and he did not do it through dishonest means. Half of the organizations on the list were Ron Paul and Ron Paul related pacs anyway. Tell me when he takes 1.6 million from the organizations that ruined the housing market or hundreds of thousands from drug companies.
H.A.A.R.P| 12.3.11 @ 5:51PM
This article is retarded. Grinch was caught saying whatever he could to get elected, whereas Ron Paul has stood fast for 30 odd years. He can't pick and choose who wants to fund him. Terrible article.
jazzola| 12.3.11 @ 7:21PM
Jeffrey Lord, writing in The Spectator, defends Newt Gingrich, by attacking Ron Paul's attack on Gingrich. Paul, pointing out Newt's "serial hypocrisy", is accused on being hypocritical himself. Lord brings up all of Ron Paul's donations from the Bigs (Big Insurance, Big Banking, Big Medicine, Big Financial Services, Big Beer) as if Ron Paul garners large donations from these organizations. What he neglects to tell us is that these donations are by and large from small donors employed by these corporations. (They do exist, Mr. Lord.) What Lord also doesn't tell us is the percentage of donations from these Biggies versus donations from the little guy. If you look at candidates other than Ron Paul, you'll see that by and large, the lions share of their donations come from Biggies, while Ron Paul's donations are spread out amongst hundreds of thousands of small donors. I think this detail was overlooked, too, wasn't it, Mr. Lord?
What's also not pointed out is the fact that Ron Paul never stumped for Biggies like Freddie Mac, whereas Newt Gingrich has been an effective lobbyist for Freddie, garnering $1.6 Million over several years of beltway persuasion, despite the fact that he claims to be against what Freddie was trying to do! But what takes the cake in Newt's serial hypocrisy are the flip flops, the taudry affairs, the in-your-face lies spinning off this silver-tongued beltway bandit.
So I ask you, Jeffrey Lord, what is Ron Paul's hidden agenda that supports your contention that he garners all this money from Biggies? It's simple, there is none. Ron Paul wants small government, and by implication, a lesser role for big, international corporations in control of that government. Ron Paul is a man for the people against the special interests in Washington.
The emperor has no clothes, Jeffrey Lord, and we're now watching you join Newt in a naked parade down 5th Avenue.
SteveC| 12.7.11 @ 12:12AM
Very well put, my friend!
Thomas Conway| 12.4.11 @ 6:46AM
Lord brings up all of Ron Paul's donations from the Bigs (Big Insurance, Big Banking, Big Medicine, Big Financial Services, Big Beer) as if Ron Paul garners large donations from these organizations. What he neglects to tell us is that these donations are by and large from small donors employed by these corporations. (They do exist, Mr. Lord.) What Lord also doesn't tell us is the percentage of donations from these Biggies versus donations from the little guy. If you look at candidates other than Ron Paul, you'll see that by and large, the lions share of their donations come from Biggies, while Ron Paul's donations are spread out amongst hundreds of thousands of small donors. I think this detail was overlooked, too, wasn't it, Mr. Lord?
Aaron Moate| 12.6.11 @ 12:07PM
I looked through the link, and the largest contribution per year that I saw was $5000.00, and this is Ron Paul's official campaign committee treasury (not his personal wallet). Newt received fees from big banking for his "consulting" services, the nature of which have yet to be disclosed (most assume it to be unofficial lobbying). I hardly consider this to be an example of Ron Paul being in the pocket of "big" anything. I'm about to be flippant, though I take the issue of buying off politicians quite seriously: If a congressman is changing his congressional votes for a measly $5000.00 per yer into his/her campaign fund, then he or she must like giving it to big business for free, because there is so much more scrilla to be made from selling a vote. Can you even run a single campaign television commerical for $5000.00? My guess is that if you looked at individual contributions vs big business contributions, there would be a pretty big tilt towards the former. I find the subject matter of this article to be extremely misleading, although to some degree factually accurate. I've got no problem with Ron Paul receiving campaign money from big business, as long as the contribution doesn't exceed the legal contribution limit that an individual can make (which is $2500 now, I believe).
Integrity Matters| 12.6.11 @ 1:27PM
Trying to attack Ron Paul's integrity??? None of those contributors are Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac!!! Regardless of what one thinks about Paul's ideology, he is not lacking in integrity!!! I can't believe how stupid this Jeffrey Lord guy is!!!
Nobama 2012| 12.6.11 @ 3:03PM
This article is very slanted. After less then 5 minutes of research I found out how wrong the author is. Yes Bank of America did contribute to RP, BUT it was an employee committee, not the company itself. Here is a clip from the BoA website regarding the donations: "Bank of America maintains a political action committee (PAC) program. As permitted by federal law, Bank of America underwrites the costs of administering the PAC program, but is prohibited from directly contributing to the PACs. The PAC program is funded through associates’ voluntary personal contributions. " Gotta love how people twist everything around to get the story they want rather then the facts. The sorry part is that so many sheeple out there will believe this article without looking into it....
A.C.| 12.6.11 @ 7:51PM
I'd rather be working the night shift at Mickey D's for LESS than minimum wage than to be the oh-so obvious token for a establishment-required position of dishonest attack dog at a supposedly intellectual magazine the way Lord has so been on Ron Paul the last few months. I'd maybe rather be shot in the face.
O.K. I guess I wouldn't rather be shot in the face. But, still, you couldn't pay me enough. Don't let your career look in the mirror, Jeffrey.
SteveC| 12.7.11 @ 12:10AM
That's funny, I didn't see $2,000,000 from Goldman Sachs or JPM Chase on Ron Paul's list. Now, we all know that big business, pharma, and defense and the Fed are behind Gingrich, and Romney, and Obama, so what kind of boloney are you trying to sell?
Joe From Jersey| 12.7.11 @ 4:30AM
Take the cable out the back of your heads people...
Ron Paul's top 3 contributors:
1. Big Army
2. Big Air Force
3. Big Navy
... so much for this buffoon Lord and his claim of Dr. Paul being bought out by special interests. Actually, I take that back. He is being bought out by special interests. The MOST special interests of all. Those of our brave service men and women. And he is hearing them loud and clear.
As far as earmarks...
The House of Representatives is the chamber of Congress that represent the people, or at least it was until everyone's favorite president Teddy Roosevelt bent the States over. If someone in Dr. Paul's district requests an earmark, it is his Constitutional duty to pass on that request. What these holier-than-thou-fake-phoney-fraud-conservatives would have you believe is that he supports kickbacks and special favors. This could not be further from the truth seeing as how Dr. Paul has voted against every budget for the past 30 years that was not balanced, which would be just about every single one.
Put down the kool-aid, please.
Joe From Jersey| 12.7.11 @ 4:31AM
And I always cite my resources:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pre.....=N00005906
JC| 12.7.11 @ 10:57AM
I saw the title and could not resist to read, just to find out what did he actually did wrong. Taking money to campaign?! That's it?! You have to take it so you can finance the campaigns - period. nothing wrong with that!
'Serial hypocrisy' is related to Newt's (adn Mitt's) non-stop flip-flopping, as youi never know which one will show up: flip, or flop. You can't find anything like it on RonPaul.
I am 'disapointed' that this is just another failed hit-piece on RonPaul.
TheEmptyHead| 12.7.11 @ 11:45AM
The author has completely missed the point. Gingrich was not criticized for taking money from big business; that in itself is harmless. What Ron Paul was criticizing about him is that he CHANGES HIS OPINION based on who pays him.
Jeffery, with all due respect, you are trying way to hard. First of all, you didn't give any sources, so we are just taking your word for it (not that I doubt your info). Second of all, you are really jumping the gun on criticizing Paul. I really don't believe you lack the critical thinking skills to understand a simple criticism, so I can only assume this article is an emotional knee-jerk reaction. And that's all right, as long as you've got a good point you're trying to put out there. Needless to say, you are not stimulating critical thought; this article is completely misleading and shows how uninformed the writer is.
I'm sure there are some good, solid points to be made about Ron Paul and his campaign, but this is not one of them.
Colram| 12.7.11 @ 3:05PM
So not giving people money makes you their enemy? Then what kind of friend are they? Besides, isn't it the conservative stance that we should not make people dependent on the US government for subsistence, that it enslaves them? Shouldn't this apply to Israelis and people from other countries as well as our own citizens?
Ron Paul states that “the borrower is servant to the lender, and America should never be the master of Israel and its fate. We should be her friend."
devinesara| 12.7.11 @ 3:23PM
If he takes their money and doesn't do their bidding, I say good for him. If you can prove he did them favors in return for the money, then there's a problem--and only then is he a hyprocrite. I won't hold my breath on your exhaustive follow-up.
Rael| 12.7.11 @ 4:23PM
Our country is on the brink of diaster... A decent principled consistant congressman tries to defend the constitution and all the media pinheads like Jeffrey Lord can do is cut him down for a lying cheating crook like Newt? Shame on you Lord of Hype!
brendon| 12.15.11 @ 10:58PM
I think you miss the point on the hypocrisy, Newt's hypocrisy is on key issues, not taking campaign contributions.