1. Painterman says:

    Matt, You’ve been spending too much time with Liberals. “we’re in a Bad Economy” you say??? Well if we are, which the economic reports don’t support, then the very thing to do is cut capital gains to stimulate the economy. It is never an bad time to reduce taxes, unless your a bureaucrat and your head is in the tax trough.

  2. GAWire says:

    Towery never ceases to amaze me in how absurdly ameteurish he can be. He wants to be respected so bad. He’s like Ralph Reed in that they want so much attention but can’t ever seem to break that image of being a joke that they’ve earned so well.

    There are so many things wrong with Towery’s “analysis” that I don’t know where to begin. I need a transcript of his monologue of idiocy to respond in a coherent manner, b/c I couldn’t keep up with his outragious assertions (emphasis on first three letters) by just taking notes.

    I will leave it at this … Towery concluded that either this was a hoax or someone figured out the law didn’t work for them. Wow, Matt, you’ve really figured it out there. Isn’t that what Newt has said for the past three days … that the law (McCain-Feingold) doesn’t work and as a result will be a restricting component of his decision to run? He said that as a result of the law, he would have to make a choice: run for POTUS or run AmSol. He made his choice. He showed great integrity by standing up for what he thought was best for the nation and not best for his political career or bringing limelight to himself … and as a result, the guy who attempts to get so much credit from his past association with Newt is making crazy assertions that it was all a hoax and it was a bad week for Newt.

    And what’s Matt talking about regards to Cap Gains??? His claims about no one caring about Cap Gains b/c its a bad economy (which is another crazy claim) is absurd.

    During Ralph Reed’s implosion, the day where Towery claimed Reed was leading and said Reed would win by 10 in the afternoon (I will NEVER let him live that one down), I called Towery a douchebag. Later, I thought that might have been a little harsh … idiot would have sufficed. Now, I’m returning to my gut instinct and re-instating his previou status.

    Matt Towery is not only a douchebag, he is a sham, folks. He’s the one who is in charge of a big hoax. He pretends like he’s some amazing media mogul and political handicapper and/or forecaster. He wants people to like him, listen to him, and respect him so much. Trust me, I know Matt Towery.

    Towery claims to be a friend of Newt … whenever it gets him credit. But, now he’s trying to get attention by calling Newt out on the fact that he made a decision based on integrity and leadership.

    Towery … what a joke.

  3. Just out of curiousity, are there people who actually believe that it took Newt Gingrich until Saturday, September 29, 2007 to figure out the ins-and-outs of McCain-Feingold?

  4. GAWire says:

    Goodness gracious, Doug, that is so true. How’s that for creative commenters, Spacey?

    Andisheh, I see what you’re saying and yes, they probably did know on the surface level that it would be tough, but the decision was not necessarily about the law. Look at Newt’s statement from this morning … he said that legally it would work – he could run, use the funds pledged, raised or whatever. However, the problem was how it would be perceived and how the media would spin in to make it look like he did something unethical.

  5. LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

    Newt WHO??????
    I don’t know whe we’re talking about?

    I mean come on people, the guy left office in 1998. That’s almost TEN years ago. Why do people think he’s still relevant?

    People, stop being so nostalgic.

  6. Old School Politics says:


    Well put regarding Towery!


    You also could not be any more true.

    Why is Newt continuing to attract such attention? The guy is a joke. Lets move on.

  7. Federalist says:

    Thank you old school politics. This goes to show how much b/s stalwart gopers will put up with. Is this any suprise people? No. Honestly, many people run for office just to get their names on the minds of people. Newt is no different. We are talking about a guy who tenaciously over drew his congressional accounts, cheated on another wife while impeaching a pres. for the same thing, and cheated an npo. He is not an honest person. The past has proven this, why should anyone expect more? Because they do not think…like most of the people that tend to vote the party ticket.

  8. GAWire says:

    Federalist, your claims … they are unfounded. All have been disproven. Doesn’t help with the media coverage, but basically you have absolutely no clue what you are claiming or talking about.

    Also, I didn’t realize Clinton was impeached for cheating on his wife. Is that what it was? Come on, Federalist, was it??? Why don’t you read, listen, watch or whatever you need to do to find out why Clinton was impeached and then come back to clarify if it was for cheating on his wife.

    Let me give you a hint: See what the penalty is for lying under oath to a federal grand jury.

  9. Federalist says:

    gawire, if clinton was really impeached for lying under oath, than the gop would have never sought to press charges. in addition, like griftdrift mentioned, he was acquitted… but that does not give newt immunity. His cohorts even declared that the intention was to seek revenge for what the dems did to Nixon. Newt did over draw his accounts. The Npo incident I spoke of happened at kennesaw state college (now university). Newt used to teach (not profess) there. He videotaped his lectures to make more money (because he cares nothing about academics) and sold the tapes through a npo’s account. Taxes were not charged to the profits, and newt claimed all of the money for himself. call up the university yourself and ask about it…they will tell you the same thing. They are not unfounded. Get off of the box and investigate. You bloggers seem to all be the same. You think if it is not on the ‘net then it did not happen.

  10. Federalist says:

    just because you are embarassed for falling for another lie from the gop is no reason to get angry. hopefully you learn learn from many mistakes

  11. GAWire says:

    Federalist, first of all, I am not a blogger. And I know good and well what happened with Newt and Kennesaw … wanna know why? Because I WAS THERE. Talking about getting off the box and investigate – I couldn’t be closer to the situation. So, something tells me I know a little more about what exactly happened with Newt during that time.

    Acquittal has nothing to do with anything, unless you are attempting to refer to the fact that any official charges for a lack of better word claimed against Newt were deemed unfound legally. The point was not what happened to Clinton, but the fact that Federalist claimed Newt impeached Clinton for cheating on his wife while Newt cheated on his own wife. That simply is not true and clearly didn’t happen that way.

    Federalist, you really want to know. You wish you knew, but when it comes right down to it, you know nothing about which you speak. Unless you were there or have been closely involved, I will assume you are another Monday morning quarterback complaining about everything and everyone. Do something, then talk.

  12. rugby_fan says:

    “Federalist claimed Newt impeached Clinton for cheating on his wife while Newt cheated on his own wife. That simply is not true and clearly didn

  13. GAWire says:

    Whoa whoa whoa … back up a second. I never said anythingn about the politics around the impeachment. I’m talking facts. A claim was made that Newt supported Clinton’s impeachment for cheating on his wife (while Newt did the same thing). This is a false claim. Clinton was impeached for lying to a federal grand jury while under oath. The topic he lied about just happened to be on the subject of “that woman.” So, I guess you could say that actually Clinton made this about cheating on his wife, not the GOP.

    I’m not saying that process was absent of politics. That would admitedly be like saying that MoveOn.org is just a non-partisan activist group and is not politically motivated. Clearly not that case. But the politics behind it have nothing to do with the legal components that drove it.

    The point, though, has nothing to do with Clinton’s impeachment. The point is that claims were made against Newt that have been completely proven wrong and are utterly false.

    Does this have anything to do with the events as of late? Of course, not, but it goes to show you how difficult of a time Newt would have if he did run. What I do not like are people that simply make up claims as if they know what they are talking about or as if they were there, privy to the details.

  14. Federalist says:

    Well…Newt admitted to cheating on his wife during the impeachment. He admitted to over drawing his accounts. He also admitted to evading taxes by funneling the funds from his taped lectures. He paid the taxes back to the gov’t after he got caught! So what is unfounded? The prospect that he might have run for pres to draw attention to amateur (american) solutions is relatively unfounded…but that is the only thing, gawire, that is in this entire thread. Everything I mentioned…he came clean about after getting caught. Why would you still support this crook?

  15. Federalist says:

    like i said before gawire, get off of the box. when you seach newt and kennesaw about the scandal…the record is sealed. Go to the university and poke around.

  16. GAWire says:

    Again, Federalist, you’re getting off the point. This has nothing to do with who I support or why. Your facts are unfound. In fact, he did not admit to what you are claiming. He paid fines and admitted that some things could have been handled differently. Ok, if he was at fault, that’s fine. I guess I could ask who your preferred candidates are and see how perfect they are. But again, this is not about that.

    In terms of your scandal, I don’t need to Google it, because like I said, I saw first hand what happened and what the details were. Further, if you talked to Kenessaw about this, they will confirm Newt’s argument.

    You can poke fun and criticize all you want, but the fact is, you really have no clue what you’re talking about. You get your information from searching on the internet and media reports. My information is more reliable than that, so let’s leave it at that. Further, we can disagree on who we support. I realized a long time ago I am smarter then people like you. I have moved on. Perhaps you should too.

  17. Federalist says:

    yeah…and larry craig did not try to solicit sex…even though he admitted it.
    I actually have a first hand account of what happened at KSU. I former colleague of mine from the University of Oregon worked there at the time and told me about what happened at an alumni gathering the year newt became the speaker. You obviously overestimate yourself and think me to be a simpleton. You sir, could not be further from the truth. If you really moved on you would not support an opportunist like newt. he is what is wrong with america. another charlatan in the gop seeking to manipulate the blinded masses with talk of morality and correctness. Just because you used the internet for something does not mean i do. I have human contacts and know many things that you will never want to hear about your heroes. I am full of stories of unethical behavior of candidates and elected officials seeking contributions and policy advise that will never be published on your precious internet.

  18. Federalist says:

    I seriously doubt you are very smart at all, Gawire. Especially considering the policies and candidates you back. One must have a strategic mind about such things and ample justification. You are just an unfocus ideologue who does as he is told

  19. Federalist says:

    I have met quite a few people at kennesaw state. I can not think of anyone who has taught there for 15 year or more and is a republican though. are you an administrator gawire? i do not know every professor there, but I know enough that i would have complaints about an ignorant republican teaching there…i heard plenty about newt and his jaw flapping,…who are you?

  20. rugby_fan says:


    There are 607 faculty members at KSU (according to Wikipedia).

    I’m sure there is at least one in that group who matches your description.

  21. GodHatesTrash says:

    Oh come on SpaceGirl – it takes nothing to trick these yahoos. We’re talking the superstitious undereducated hatemongering idiots of the Georgia GOP – hello!

  22. Federalist says:

    you are correct, right of center. I suppose it is secondary. nonetheless, what newt did was very wrong and shows that he does have ill intentions in regards to many things…particularly promoting his influences. Unless newt eventually feels guilty about this, we will never really know if his presidential intentions were for publicity. I do know, however, that his candidacy only really mattered in georgia though. it was not even a topic of discussion up north or out west. people like newt, and those that blindly support him and those other crooks make me a bit embarrassed to live in GA. What can I say though…the appalachian mountains in north georgia are much more beautiful than the cascades or sierra nevada.

  23. DoubleDawg3 says:

    What’s wrong with Towery’s analysis? …Given what we all know now, that Newt didn’t run b/c of the impermissible conflict does anyone out there REALLY believe that Newt didn’t know this ahead of time? …Either Newt’s really stupid and doesn’t look into “minor legal issues” before he does something like run for President OR he set all of this up to draw attention to American Solutions …now, we KNOW Newt isn’t stupid, so that rules the first choice. …Towery’s video didn’t criticize Newt for choosing American Solutions over the Presidency…it just stated what seems to be a pretty obvious question as to the true intention.

    As for the Capital Gains…I completely agree with Towery’s view (sans the “bad economy” comment). The average citizen in this State and the US doesn’t really give a whole lot of though to the Capital Gains tax…it’s not a very pressing issue for most middle class working voters who aren’t exactly rolling in extra investment property & income.

  24. DoubleDawg3 says:

    Note – I don’t know Matt Towery and if I did know him personally, might like him or might hate him…so I can’t judge if he is a “douchebag” or not…but I can judge that his point of view on the Newt issue is certainly plausible

  25. Federalist says:

    Same thing with the estate tax. for some reason my daughter-inlaws parents (who are faily poor) complain about it. They do not even have an estate.

  26. Bill Simon says:

    Hold it, hold it, hold it…you folks are missing a HUGE point here. The fact that Randy Evans made a HUGEgoof should be noted. Randy doesn’t make too many mistakes, or lose too many times.

    Towery can implicate Newt, but it’s Newt’s advisors that didn’t notify him of the intricacies of the law early enough in the game.

  27. BubbaRich says:

    Bill: I’m still not convinced Newt’s legal advisors mis-advised him to stay in to this point. It is more likely that he has been using his flirtation with the presidency to generate more advertising and donations. With, likely, no intention to run for president and abandon the $millions of fun unless Congress passed a law to draft him into the presidency. Which I think is unlikely.

  28. Federalist says:

    Again, though,…for a potentially serious candidate like Newt Gingrich…who is not some nut-job like Ray McKinney, a presidential bid is a long term commitment. I am pretty sure he did not think to start up am(etuer) solutions overnight. He was probably notified about this at the get go. I am not stating that newt lied, but it is not out of character for him…or any other opportunist in politics.

  29. SpaceyG says:

    Wow, go to soccer practice or bed, you miss all the fun. Next time I post anything about Newty, then I too will stay up to 2am to catch every moment of such blazing, biting commentary.

Comments are closed.