Gingrich Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
From which she was later exonerated IIRC.
According to the IIRC, the Communists stopped issuing membership cards as their panache proved to be negative in the long run.

However, Ms. [they weren’t called Ms. back then] Gahagan Douglas, voted closely with Vito Marcantonio, who closely followed Joseph Stalin:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vito_Marcantonio

excerpt:

** In 1940, he helped form the American Peace Mobilization, identified as a communist front group, to keep the U.S. from participating in World War II, and served as its vice-chair. He appeared in a newsreel in 1940 denouncing ‘the imperialist war’, (the line taken by Joseph Stalin and his supporters until the invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941). Marcantonio was also a Vice President of the International Workers Order, a fraternal benefit society unofficially affiliated with the Communist Party.[3]**

AND, by voting with him, Helen Gahagan Douglas opposed opposition to the Soviet Union’s expansionary policies.

I mean … gimme a break.

Try as they might, even Wiki can’t conceal the obvious:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_California,_1950

conservapedia.com/Helen_Gahagan_Douglas

So, I’m not so sure the IIRC exonerated her.
 
According to the IIRC, the Communists stopped issuing membership cards as their panache proved to be negative in the long run.

However, Ms. [they weren’t called Ms. back then] Gahagan Douglas, voted closely with Vito Marcantonio, who closely followed Joseph Stalin:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vito_Marcantonio

So, I’m not so sure the IIRC exonerated her.
My apologies for having inadvertently misled you:blush:

IIRC is a contractio for If I Recall Correctly.

But as it happens I checked out my suspicion and indeed she was never proved to have any link with the communist party and indeed was honoured posthumously in congress.

Based on Richard Nixon’s track record, I am afraid that we are forced to conclude that Nixon had run a smear campaign. This would fit in rather well with the red scare at the time.

I am not saying that there weren’t communists in DC. However, according to the principles which form the basis of US law, without proof one must assume innocence.

Peace

ETA; since you updated your post, I will try to respond to your other points briefly; I am sorry but guilt by association is invalid and finding a tenuos correlation between one group or figures voting and her own on one issue is inconclusive to say the least.

As for suggestion a wikipedia conspiracy, I am sorry but I put such ideas of conspiracy on that level away with superstition and astrology and the like.

I urge you to avoid such fanciful notions, as they can easily lead to one being manipulated by demagogues.

God bless you:)
 
My apologies for having inadvertently misled you:blush:

IIRC is a contractio for If I Recall Correctly.

But as it happens I checked out my suspicion and indeed she was never proved to have any link with the communist party and indeed was honoured posthumously in congress.

Based on Richard Nixon’s track record, I am afraid that we are forced to conclude that Nixon had run a smear campaign. This would fit in rather well with the red scare at the time.

I am not saying that there weren’t communists in DC. However, according to the principles which form the basis of US law, without proof one must assume innocence.

Peace

ETA; since you updated your post, I will try to respond to your other points briefly; I am sorry but guilt by association is invalid and finding a tenuos correlation between one group or figures voting and her own on one issue is inconclusive to say the least.

As for suggestion a wikipedia conspiracy, I am sorry but I put such ideas of conspiracy on that level away with superstition and astrology and the like.

I urge you to avoid such fanciful notions, as they can easily lead to one being manipulated by demagogues.

God bless you:)
Your apology is accepted.

God bless you, also.

Like I said, the Communist Party quit giving out membership cards.

Here’s an interesting quote from Wiki … quoting some Republican, quoting JFK, quoting his father:

The weekend after the primary, Nixon campaign officials held a conference to discuss strategy for the general election campaign. They decided on a fundraising goal of just over $197,000 (today, about $2,400,000). They were helped in that effort when Democratic Massachusetts Congressman John F. Kennedy, a political opponent of Nixon’s, came to Nixon’s office and gave him a donation of $1,000 on behalf of Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr., his father.[65] John Kennedy indicated that he could not endorse Nixon, but that he would not be heartbroken if Douglas was returned to her acting career.[66] Joseph Kennedy later stated that he gave Nixon the money because Douglas was a communist.[65]

[JFK and Nixon were not merely “political opponents” … they hated one another’s guts. Really.]

I know we are getting wayyy off topic [Newt], but I found this while surfing; it appeared in a bio sketch of Ronald Reagan:

In 1960, with the election of the Democratic President John F. Kennedy, the black and gray lists went into eclipse. J.F.K. appointed Helen Gahagan Douglas Treasurer of the United States. Very strange … it’s not in her Wiki bio, but this is:

Senator Alan Cranston of California eulogized her on the floor of the Senate, on August 5, 1980, saying: “I believe Helen Gahagan Douglas was one of the grandest, most eloquent, deepest thinking people we have had in American politics. She stands among the best of our 20th century leaders, rivaling even Eleanor Roosevelt in stature, compassion and simple greatness.”[12]
 
I know this is wayyy off topic, so I won’t excerpt it, but just click on the link and read this astonishing short item on that Kennedy contribution to Nixon’s Senate election campaign.

mcadams.posc.mu.edu/progjfk1.htm

Even Nixon was astonished.
 
I know this is wayyy off topic, so I won’t excerpt it, but just click on the link and read this astonishing short item on that Kennedy contribution to Nixon’s Senate election campaign.

mcadams.posc.mu.edu/progjfk1.htm

Even Nixon was astonished.
This is going to my last entry on Helen Gahagan Douglas on the Newt page.

There is some kind of history/ bio page on a Barnard College Web site.

barnard.edu/archives/history/notable

and scroll down.

The section on Helen Gahagan Douglas omits a few useful things, but does state she was a board member of SANE and visited the Soviet Union during the peak of the Cold War:

Douglas never again ran for a public post after her defeat in 1950, but she did not retire from political life. She went on study tours to the Middle East and Latin America in the 1960s; headed the U.S. delegation to Liberia to celebrate the inauguration of President William Tubman in 1964; visited the USSR that same year as part of a group of prominent American women; served on the boards of numerous organizations, including the National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy (SANE) and the Peace Pledge Campaign; lectured extensively on foreign affairs issues; and lent her support to many Democratic candidates. The last major election that she was involved in was George McGovern’s presidential campaign in 1972. In the meantime, Richard Nixon abandoned his California constituents after serving only two years of his six-year Senate term in order to run for the vice-presidency in 1952, ultimately making his way to the White House in 1969.
 
I’m not an expert in canon law, but I’m pretty sure converts have to have previous marriages annulled.
If he wanted to be married in the Catholic church he would. But he was already married to Calista when he converted. They werent married in the Catholic church.
 
If he wanted to be married in the Catholic church he would. But he was already married to Calista when he converted. They werent married in the Catholic church.
It depends. It’s not as simple as that. The Church recognizes the validity of marriages in other Christian churches, but that means the first marriage he had would be the valid one. Annulments would still be needed.

Also, Calista is Catholic correct? Did she get proper dispensation to get married outside the Catholic Church? If not, then they would need to have their marriage blessed. That is what happened with me and my wife, when I converted. Actually, the priest made a mistake, so we didn’t make things right until years later. When we were baptizing our third child, the priest who handled the baptism pointed out that our marriage was not valid due to the lack of a dispensation.

Again, I’m not a canon lawyer, so I don’t know all the ins and outs. Neither my wife, nor I had a previous marriage, so I don’t know if we would have had to get annulments.
 
I dont think Gingrich would have had to get an annulment. He converted. He wasnt married in the Catholic church to his previous wives.
Well he wouldn’t need an annulment from his wife that died, as any marriage he had with her ended with her death, if his second wife is still living he absolutely would have needed an annulment unless he agreed to live chastely. All marriages are presumed to be valid, even those of non Catholics.
 
Well he wouldn’t need an annulment from his wife that died, as any marriage he had with her ended with her death, if his second wife is still living he absolutely would have needed an annulment unless he agreed to live chastely. All marriages are presumed to be valid, even those of non Catholics.
He wasn’t Catholic until a couple years ago.
 
Gingrich is too rehearsed and pompous, on stage. Very self-serving, and I don’t see him speaking from the heart.
His debate performances which may impress some biased conservatives – leave me cool, to thinking this is an opportunist who loves the “applause” and wants all the credit. Wants credit to his name. Thinks of himself in viewpoint of "how can I go down in history books?? "

Don’t know how far he would go, in a General Election setting. Since he’s not that likable. No charisma.
Disconnected, diplomatically.

And he only plays to a partisan crowd. Don’t know how that would translate to independents and apoliticals who don’t like Obama. But aren’t into “beating their chests for the Republican Partisanship”

I also have a concern for Gingrich. Because if he’s sincere from his conversion and changed. I don’t think it’s wise for him to thrust himself since at the beginning of his campaign he wasn’t serious about running to win. Just to participate and whatever self interests (Many reports have said his organization seemed he was more into book signing, and not fundraising)

By a change of events , i n the election. Here is facing a possibility to vie for the highest office in the land and a seat of power again.
“It seems to me,” Professor Beckwith wrote, “that a man whose sins arose as a consequence of the pursuit of political power and the unwise use of it after he became Speaker of the House should not be seeking the most powerful office in the world.”
But friends who attended Mr. Gingrich’s baptism ceremony, performed by Cardinal Donald W. Wuerl, archbishop of Washington, say they see a changed man.
“I think it was a genuine conversion,” said Robert L. Livingston, a lobbyist and former Republican legislator who tangled with Mr. Gingrich in Congress but is now supporting him for president. “I’ve heard him talk about how it’s given him a lot of peace. He’s getting hammered these days, and I think he’s been able to absorb the onslaught a lot better than he might have 10 years ago.”
nytimes.com/2011/12/17/us/politics/newt-gingrich-represents-new-political-era-for-catholics.html?_r=1&ref=politics
 
Santorum & Gingrich spoke at the South Carolina Tea Party Convention - 1/16/12
c-span.org/Campaign2012/South-Carolina-Tea-Party-Convention/10737427148-1/

Hispanic GOP group endorses Gingrich
cnn.com/2012/01/16/politics/gop-hispanics-gingrich/index.html?eref=rss_politics&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_allpolitics+%28RSS%3A+Politics%29
(CNN) – Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has received the endorsement of the
nation’s largest Hispanic Republican group.

FoxNews/WSJ/SCGOP Presidential Debate in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina - 1/16/12
electad.com/videos/republican-presidential-debate-foxnews-wall-street-journal-scgop-january-16-2012/
 
He was great in the debate last night as usual.
Yep. To anyone who thinks another candidate, (God forbid Obama, again) would actually fix this country the way Gingrich would, tell me why, please.
 
Gingrich is too rehearsed and pompous, on stage. Very self-serving, and I don’t see him speaking from the heart.
Actually, he is the author or co-author of at least 25 books since 1982. If you add up the non-fiction books, the historical novels, etc. Plus at least one film.

And because of that, he has spent a LOT of time researching and thinking and writing about these various issues.

So, it’s not that he is rehearsed or not speaking from the heart.

It’s that he knows the issues intimately.

Because he is so familiar with them.

He just happens to be very competent.

He actually knows his stuff.

Here is a list from Wiki:

Books

Nonfiction

Gingrich has authored or co-authored 17 non-fiction books since 1982.

The Government’s Role in Solving Societal Problems, Associated Faculty Press, Incorporated. January 1982 ISBN 978-0-86733-026-7

Window of Opportunity. Tom Doherty Associates, December 1985. ISBN 978-0-312-93923-6

Contract with America (co-editor). Times Books, December 1994. ISBN 978-0-8129-2586-9

Restoring the Dream. Times Books, May 1995. ISBN 978-0-8129-2666-8

Quotations from Speaker Newt. Workman Publishing Company, Inc., July 1995. ISBN 978-0-7611-0092-8

To Renew America. Farrar Straus & Giroux, July 1996. ISBN 978-0-06-109539-9

Lessons Learned The Hard Way. HarperCollins Publishers, May 1998 ISBN 978-0-06-019106-1

Presidential Determination Regarding Certification of the Thirty-Two Major Illicit Narcotics Producing and Transit Countries. DIANE Publishing Company, September 1999. ISBN 978-0-7881-3186-8

Saving Lives and Saving Money. Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, April 2003. ISBN 978-0-9705485-4-2

Winning the Future. Regnery Publishing, January 2005. ISBN 978-0-89526-042-0

Rediscovering God in America: Reflections on the Role of Faith in Our Nation’s History and Future, Integrity Publishers, October 2006. ISBN 978-1-59145-482-3

The Art of Transformation, with Nancy Desmond. CHT Press, November 29, 2006, ISBN 978-1-933966-00-7

A Contract with the Earth, with Terry L. Maple. Johns Hopkins University Press, October 1, 2007. ISBN 978-0-8018-8780-2

Real Change: From the World That Fails to the World That Works, Regnery Publishing, January 2008. ISBN 978-1-59698-053-2

Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less: A Handbook for Slashing Gas Prices and Solving Our Energy Crisis, with Vince Haley. Regnery Publishing, September 2008 ISBN 978-1-59698-576-6

5 Principles for a Successful Life: From Our Family to Yours, with Jackie Gingrich Cushman, Crown Publishing Group, May 2009 ISBN 978-0-307-46232-9

To Save America: Stopping Obama’s Secular-Socialist Machine, with Joe DeSantis. Regnery Publishing, May 2010 ISBN 978-1-59698-596-4

Fiction
Gingrich co-wrote the following alternate history novels and series of novels with William R. Forstchen.


1945 : Baen Books, August 1995 ISBN 978-0-671-87739-2

Civil War Series

Gettysburg: A Novel of the Civil War Thomas Dunne Books, June 2003 ISBN 978-0-312-30935-0

Grant Comes East Thomas Dunne Books, June 2004 ISBN 978-0-312-30937-4

Never Call Retreat: Lee and Grant: The Final Victory Thomas Dunne Books, June 2005 ISBN 978-0-312-34298-2

Pacific War Series

Pearl Harbor: A Novel of December 8th Thomas Dunne Books, May 2007 ISBN 978-0-312-36350-5

Days of Infamy Thomas Dunne Books, April 2008 ISBN 978-0-312-36351-2

Revolutionary War Series

To Try Men’s Souls: A Novel of George Washington and the Fight for American Freedom, October 2009, ISBN 978-0-312-59106-9

Valley Forge: George Washington and the Crucible of Victory, November 2010, ISBN 978-0-312-59107-6

Films

Nine Days that Changed the World, Gingrich Productions, April 2010[170]
 
Well he wouldn’t need an annulment from his wife that died, as any marriage he had with her ended with her death, if his second wife is still living he absolutely would have needed an annulment unless he agreed to live chastely. All marriages are presumed to be valid, even those of non Catholics.
His first wife is alive and well. She did not die, nor was she deathly ill. Another myth propagated by the MSM.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top