Voted to create the Federal Dept of Education under Carter

[sailingaway]

I thought it must already be here, so I didn't get the links but I will.

[sailingaway]

Socialist of the Week: Newt Gingrich

http://www.unelected.org/socialist-of-the-week-newt-gingrich

[low preference guy]

That gives us one of the best attack ad lines: Ron Paul wants to eliminate the Department of Education. Newt Gingrich voted to create it.

[LisaNY]

Here's a link to the actual vote:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1979-468

And of course our Dr. Paul voted No :)

[MJU1983]

Here's a link to the actual vote:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1979-468

Cool!

Aye GA-6 Gingrich, Newton [R]
Nay TX-22 Paul, Ronald [R]

:)

[LibertyEagle]

Maybe something like... Newt Gingrich wants the federal government to dictate what your children should learn. Ron Paul believes parents and teachers should be making that decision.

Not perfect, but you get the idea.

[singe22]

that vote link is awesome, you can see The Boss Ron Paul voting Nay!!! Wonder how Newt will talk his way out of this one.

[MJU1983]

This is also interesting:

Newton Gingrich

BILL SPONSORSHIP & COSPONSORSHIP


Newton Gingrich has sponsored 26 bills between Jan 6, 1987. and Oct 9, 1998 of which 23 haven't made it out of committee and 1 were successfully enacted. Gingrich has co-sponsored 871 bills during the same time period. (The count of enacted bills considers only bills, and not resolutions, actually sponsored by Gingrich and companion bills identified by CRS that were themselves enacted, but not if they were incorporated into other bills, as that information is not readily available.)

Rep. Ronald (Ron) Paul [R-TX14]

BILL SPONSORSHIP & COSPONSORSHIP


Ronald Paul has sponsored 420 bills since Jan 7, 1997 of which 417 haven't made it out of committee and 1 were successfully enacted. Paul has co-sponsored 2,382 bills during the same time period. (The count of enacted bills considers only bills, and not resolutions, actually sponsored by Paul and companion bills identified by CRS that were themselves enacted, but not if they were incorporated into other bills, as that information is not readily available.)

[Sola_Fide]

Got to love the internet for quick access to old votes. It makes Ron's consistency even that much more special.

[rambone]

His campaign called my house asking me for money. I started turning the tables on the staffer and asking questions about Newt's campaign. After listening to his recorded message about being such a principled conservative, I asked the caller what Newt's position was on Education. She (reading) said that Newt wants to shrink the Federal Dept. of Eduction. I said that's pretty funny being that he is one of the founding fathers of the DoEd. And he also voted for the largest budget increase in the Department's history during the 1990s.

What a laugh. I took up about 20 minutes of their time quizzing her about Newt's hypocritical stances.

[Brett85]

Very bad vote on his part.

[GopBlackList]

He may spin this and say that he has changed his mind or that the Department of Ed was intended to be something other than what is today. I have to admit he's a better bullshitter than Cain.

[Sola_Fide]

Very bad vote on his part.

Come on TC. You can't even be thinking about voting for this liberal.

[Brett85]

Come on TC. You can't even be thinking about voting for this liberal.

I'm voting for Ron Paul in the Kansas caucus, just like I did in 2008. What makes you think I would vote to make Gingrich the nominee?

I've donated money to Ron as well, and I've been a big fan of his and of Rand. But looking at this objectively, I think that Gingrich will be the GOP nominee. He's surging in the polls at just the right time. That's just my objective opinion. It's not what I want to happen.

[Brett85]

But also, I don't really like the fact that you "aren't allowed" to make comments here without absolutely trashing the other nominees. Does the fact that I support Ron mean that I have to hate all of the other candidates? I criticize candidates like Gingrich where they're wrong, such as his pushing for more intervention and possibly war with Iran, his vote for the DOE, his support for the Medicare Prescription drug bill, his support for spending on federal research, etc. But I always like to praise different candidates when they're right, and criticize them when they're wrong.

[Agorism]

Maybe we need a consistent ad part 2 comparing and contrasting to Gingrich?

[Sola_Fide]

No, no, I see that you are trying to be objective. That's fine. I just sensed a little willingness on your part, that's all:). But I disagree that Newt will be the nominee. No way. Our main focus should be taking out Romney, I think.

[Brett85]

No, no, I see that you are trying to be objective. That's fine. I just sensed a little willingness on your part, that's all:). But I disagree that Newt will be the nominee. No way. Our main focus should be taking out Romney, I think.

I just think that Newt will stay high in the polls, because he does so well in the debates. But I could be wrong. We'll see.

[MJU1983]

I think that Gingrich will be the GOP nominee. He's surging in the polls at just the right time.

No way Gingrich is the GOP nominee. If he is, I lose all hope for this country and its citizens.

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

Gingrich was defending the department of eductation last debate as I recall.

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

But looking at this objectively, I think that Gingrich will be the GOP nominee. He's surging in the polls at just the right time. That's just my objective opinion. It's not what I want to happen.There's 6 weeks left to go. The most intense weeks of the nomination process. Everybody's paying attention now.

Plus, national polls don't mean much if you don't have the organization in Iowa to get your people to the caucuses. He's so far in debt, I don't see how he's going to make anything happen on Jan. 3rd. When he does bad in Iowa, he's done.



Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:30pm EST

The new Republican front-runner has only a fraction of the people he needs to deal with the mounting demands and attention - his 30 staffers across the country are well below the 120 or so many campaign strategists say is the minimum a team with national aspirations.

...

As of this week, Gingrich had no paid staff in Iowa, a state whose bellwether Jan. 3 caucuses require a small army of volunteers to bring out voters to meetings in school gyms and private homes across 1,700 precincts on a cold winter night.

"They're the ones who are going to stand up and advocate on your behalf on Jan. 3. So if you don't have anything cooking in that department, I think it's going to be very difficult," said Craig Robinson, former political director of the state Republican Party.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/18/usa-campaign-gingrich-idUSN1E7AH1ME20111118