Friday, Dec. 9, 2016    Login | Register        

Westmoreland endorses Gingrich for GOP nomination

Third District U.S. Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, a former Fayette County resident, has endorsed Newt Gingrich for president.

“Newt is a true conservative and a proven leader who has focused his campaign on the issues, presenting real solutions to the problems facing our country today,” Congressman Westmoreland said. “He is uniting conservatives across the country and I believe he is the best man to defeat President Obama. I’m proud to put my support behind Newt and look forward to helping him win back the White House.”

“I’m delighted to have the support of my friend Lynn Westmoreland, a true conservative leader for Georgia,” Gingrich said today. “Our campaign continues to build momentum and enthusiasm, as voters increasingly understand that we are the conservative choice in this election.”

Westmoreland (R-3rd District) was first elected to Congress in 2004 and currently serves on the House Financial Services Committee and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. He lives in Grantville.



An empty suit endorses an over stuffed turkey.

the less they do in Washington, the better off we all are. They should meet 30 days a year.

And yes, I voted for Westmoreland.

respect for Westmoreland it went out the window with the endorsement of that horses rear end. Newt hasn't changed and he will never change because he thinks he is better than perfect now. Of course he may get a little more devious--but what can you expect. God help us if he ever becomes president.

kevink's picture

I couldn't have put better words to my thoughts.

Vote Mytmite in 2012!

Gort's picture

he may become known as the “Toilet Bowl President” and you may just have a shot at becoming the first “Secretary of Child Labor!” Well played sir.

Remember: If you think Social Security and Medicare are worth saving, vote for the Democrat.

Cal, you should warn us that this jacka$$ would be the first image we would have to see when we pulled up your web page. This guy was a jerk when he was peddling real estate and he's an even bigger jerk now. HAIR DYE'S NOT HELPING YOU LYNN, YOU STILL LOOK OLD!

Rather see his picture then that of thief in the White House right now..

President Obama has been called many things--non-American, Muslim, Socialist, Communist and so on. But a thief??? What did he steal? Jewelry from Tiffanys before Newt (the common man's candidate) had a chance to buy it on his charge account?


He is stealing money from children in order to pay for the 'me' generation and their social security and medicare.

Mr. Obama is so far the worst president of the 21st century and that says a lot keeping in mind the two bozos who were ahead of him. Won't have to worry much longer as I personally believe a cotton ball could beat him 2012. I doubt we will see a Ronald Reagan style butt whippin' but it should be ugly (for the democrats)

FYI, I don't support Newt either nor will I vote for him in the primary but if he is the Republican candidate, I'll vote for him in a heart beat.

that you may not be in touch with reality. Do you order a lot of things from the Home Shopping Network?

Falcons win! Broncos still God's Team!

You are probably right, Iam out of touch with YOUR IDEA of reality. I don't have time to sit at home watching TV and griping about everything. See, I have to work for a living in order to have to put on my table, meet the needs of my family, and pay for all of Mr. Obama's idiotic ideas. My husband and I have worked for our money and have no desire to share it with those who do not want to work. Neither one of us came from wealthy families, received government handouts, or had any kind of help instead we were willing to work to improve our lives and see no reason why I should have to pay out for someone who wants to be a leech on the system. I remember when Mr. Obama was elected, a local TV station interviewed a woman who was so happy because she was not going to have to work anymore because Obama was going to take care of her.

Recently, i was at a holiday party and bumped into a neighbor who I discovered was let go from her job last winter. When I told her how sorry I was, she told me not to feel bad as she had been trying to get let go for some time. Thanks to Mr. Obama, she was able to spend much of the year sitting on her backside at home watching TV and collecting unemployment.

As for Social Security, I am sick of investing money into a system which more than likely will nto exist in another 30+ years (when I am finally able to collect it) thanks to the 'me' generation.

At least you are not as bad as some other democrats I know who think all the bad in the world was caused by the right. Vikings loss? It's Rush Limbaugh's fault. Power outage was obviously orchestrated by Bill O'Reilly in order to prevent people from watching Keith Olberman. Increase in the cost of milk was planned to hurt the poor by George W. Bush.

Like I said, I fear you are not in touch with reality. Did you fail 8th grade Civics Class, where they explain how there are three branches of government? And, you do know that unemployment insurance was around long before President Obama was even born, right? Sorry your life has not turned out the way you want. Perhaps some nice, sparkly earrings from the Home Shopping Channel will make you feel better.

Vikings lose because of Leslie Frazier!

I don't know a thing about football just reciting you a comment made by my husband's uncle, a devoted democrat at the dinner table one evening a few years back.

My life has turned out rather well, Thank You. My husband and I own several businesses, property, investments, and make a considerable amount of money but none of that was due to handouts or help from the government but hard work. We also are well prepared for our retirement no thanks to the 'me' generation and there sucking up SSI and Medicare. I'll go and get my earrings from HSN but only after you get yourself some new Depends as it is clear you filled your last pair.

I am quite well aware Unemployment Insurance has been around for a long time. My complaint is not with Unemployment benefits but with the continued extension after extension of those benefits. There are some out there who believe that as long as the government wants to dish out to free money, why go to work and that is something we can thank our current president for.

What is sad to discover you did not pass your civic class until the 8th garde. My 1st grader is already learning about the government and can tell me all about the 3 branches of government. He also knows that the president has additional powers which can influence legislation and in some cases does not need approval from the other branches to enact.

Rather than cutting benefits of an unemployed single parent, why not put more effort in cutting out the fraud. You stated earlier you have friends who are aware of fraud, why doesn’t someone turn them in. They are the real reason we all want benefit programs reduced. I'm all for helping those who need it, not all will be able to pull themselves up by their boot straps. Focus on weeding out the fraud and apply stiffer penalties for those who are caught. The gap between the working population and jobs available is still vast. Not extending the benefit would put more in poverty and reduce job growth since those without any money will not be buying anything.

I have no objection to Unemployment benefits for a certain amount of time but these extensions and extensions are what I do not like. There are some who actually find it more profitable to sit on their butts at home thanks to all of these extensions.
I am sure you know people who fudge a little on their taxes or break the rules in some small way or even stop to ask someone on side of the road if they needed help because you don't want to get involved. This is the same reason why someone is not going to turn someone in for committing unemployment fraud. They feel that it is none of their business and should not get involved.

It appears you are mad at the world for whatever reason or is it just Democrates?

I don't think I'm mad at the world but rather protective of my wallet.
When it comes to Mr. Obama, keep your eye on the man and hand on your wallet.

Not sure how much he stole from you but I agree keep your eye on him. Also we need to make sure we get the truth on how our money is spent. Currently we don't and maybe blaming Congress or our Prez. for no reason.

What new expenditures do you associate with the current Prez.?

You might want to temper your language some or you might have the Secret Svc knocking on your door--they're pretty serious about that stuff.

If the Secret Service knocked on everyone's door who made a derogatory remark about him, it would take them a couple of hundred years. Since there was no threat of any kind in my comment, I still go ahead and plan for my Christmas dinner.

Lynn Westmoreland's endorsement is about as good as buying a ticket on the Titanic. Ask Ken Steele and Jack Smith.

G35 Dude's picture

The problem that I see is that everybody seems to think that Newt will just go away for some reason. I've seen people out here say he's not very smart. There are problems with this line of thinking. While I don't trust the man he is nothing short of brilliant. I don't want another 4 years of Obama and bailouts. And I don't want Romney the original socialized medicine man. So who is left? I expect most of the Repubs to back Newt as their candidates drop out of the race. In a current Rasmussen poll when likely Repub primary voters were asked who has the best chance to beat Obama, 49% picked Gingrich. 24% picked Romney. Then the rest of the field. Romneys support has held steady at 20 - 25%. I think that's all he has. I don't think the real Repub base wants Romney. I don't look for his level of support to change much as we go through this process. If my theories are correct that will place Newt as the Repub candidate.

Interesting enough that is who the Dems seem to want as their opponent. Seems that even they are underestimating this guy. But they need to remember that in 1980 they wanted Reagan too. My fear is that the way things look at this moment Newt has a very good shot.

You may be right as time is running out and that helps Newt.

I have a hard time supporting Newt or Romney. People really need to do some research before voting for either one of them. Both are big government little "r" republicans. Glenn Beck had a show on Newt tonight and highlighted many of Newt's positions from the past 30 years, it is hard to tell what his true positions are now as he has been all over the place!
I have watched Newt since the late 70's and he definitely has progressive, big government tendencies.
That leaves small government conservatives with two lawyers....Bachmann and Santorum, both of which are polling very low. Maybe this Thursday's debate will help one of them but as I mentioned before time is starting to slip away.
Where's George Washington? Our country needs him again. -GP

Robert W. Morgan's picture

If elected he will certainly be better than Obama and will have a Republican House and Senate to get some things done (pipeline from Canada) and some troublesome regulations overturned and some tax relief for businesses - all of which should create some jobs and get the country back on track. Certainly things will improve just because Obama, his attitude, his AG, his Obamacare and his Czars will be gone. Supreme Court would get at least 2 thoughtful and conservative appointments over the next 8 years.

However, his intellect and personality and iron grasp on history will probably lead him into an extreme hands-on micromanagement of government. While on the surface that seems a refreshing change from Obama's hands-off, mind-off approach, I can see Newt with his fingers in everything and actually making government bigger and more complicated. I can see him up at night in the White House writing legislation and regulations and redoing the tax code. It would be hard for him to delegate since he actually is the smartest person in the room. Last President to micromanage was from Georgia, I seem to remember. Didn't work out very well.

Of course I could live with this if Obama is gone and Republicans control the House and Senate. And I could live with Romney under the same circumstances, of course, but I doubt Romney can win and that is really the most important thing. That's really, really important.

Live free or die!

kevink's picture

In the GOP alternate universe you guys have created :-). If u can get a repub congress, senate, and potus, government will shrink and we'll get the budget heading towards balance? Mind sharing any historical data which supports that fantasy? I just don't know how they'd pay for the war they'd start with iran.

Vote Mytmite in 2012!

If you've got some spare time, try "The Tehran Initiative" by Joel Rosenberg. Maybe even a plausible scenario! I got it from the Fayette County Public Library.

kcchiefandy's picture

...also wrote a nice piece in the Atlantic Monthly (June or July?) called 'The Coming War with Iran'. In summation he basically quoted numerous US & Israeli officials as believing it was inevitable, with quite a bit of world-wide support.

Also, check out this month's lead story by him, 'The Ally From Hell', about Pakistan & their nukes. Hate to quote this mag so much, but it does have some really excellent contributors & articles.

Mike King's picture

Let's dispense with this war with Iran crap. Some of us still remember Desert One and a Democratic President's foibles in Iran. Neither had/have the confidence of the military, and neither possess(ed) the wisdom to remedy the problem.

kevink's picture

But Mitt Romney and John Bolton, the man Newt said he'd make Secretary of State, have very publicly put military action in Iran as a desire. Very foolish statements, IMHO. Right up there with calling Palestinians an "invented people." Do these guys not realize the world is listening?

Vote Mytmite in 2012!

Mike King's picture

...With an Iranian nuke on the table, or likely to be sold to the highest bidder, no one has taken the military option off the table. This does include our current POTUS. I do agree that statements like those you mention are foolish indeed.

Regarding the Palestinians being an 'invented people', are they any more disenfranchised now than say prior to 1948? Perhaps since they now are lobbing rockets into Israel much like their forebears did in Jordan and Syria, could it be that they've simply changed their targets to placate their former adversaries?

carbonunit52's picture

War is not inevitable and it is not a supernatural force. Iran is not as backward as Afghanistan or anywhere near as helpless as Iraq, and look at what we accomplished with those two wars, with a crippled world economy for a booby prize. Iran probably has enough sleeper cells established to make us spin around in circles if they are activated, not to mention shutting off the oil shipments in the Straight of Hormuz. In Iran's position, given their history with Britain, our CIA, our wars on two of their borders, and having the ongoing experiment called Israel for a neighbor, the fact that they act belligerent is understandable to the point of being a grand understatement.

Mike King's picture

Your points are well taken and understood. Now, are you advocating sitting back and waiting for the eventual use of a "rogue" nuke?

carbonunit52's picture

I very much appreciate your respectful style. No, I do not advocate waiting on the use of a "rogue" nuke, but I consider the fact that a nuclear tipped missile comes with a return address . Given that their sworn enemies have nukes, who can blame them for wanting the capability, or at least the rumor of it. We can not bet more that we can afford to lose. Toning down the talk of war will go a long way to defusing the situation and at a minuscule fraction of the cost. Long before the ordinance starts to fly the war rages in the hearts of misguided leaders.

kcchiefandy's picture

...what has Iran's 'sworn enemy' (and I assume you mean the 'experiment' Israel?) done to them to make them such?

carbonunit52's picture

Would threatening a military strike on a sovereign country's facilities count in your estimation? My request to leaders of all countries is simple: take responsibility for the results of your actions. Of course this leaves no room for Denial, the neo-conservative's staple for their addiction to the Bush Doctrine.

Mike King's picture

"The security environment confronting the United States today is radically different from what we have faced before. Yet the first duty of the United States Government remains what it always has been: to protect the American people and American interests. It is an enduring American principle that this duty obligates the government to anticipate and counter threats, using all elements of national power, before the threats can do grave damage. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction – and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. There are few greater threats than a terrorist attack with WMD.

To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense. The United States will not resort to force in all cases to preempt emerging threats. Our preference is that nonmilitary actions succeed. And no country should ever use preemption as a pretext for aggression."

A most substantial amount of leeway for our national leaders, indeed. All the more reason for those leaders with hawkish intent to have a blood interest before authorizing a hostile act. Just my take.

carbonunit52's picture

Other countries can also use this doctrine now that its objective has been broached. As I see it, the threat that we face is not from weapons of mass destruction, it is from weapons of mass hysteria, encouraging people to throw rational risk analysis out of the window and employ myopic and specious solutions, proposing to elect nitwits in the process in order to incorporate them.

All those logical reasons you state point to why we should be in lockstep with Israel, who perhaps faces the most danger from a nation who has sworn to wipe them off the face of the earth.WE, howeveer, have already (as has Israel) suffered many casualties as a result of Iranian interference and direct action. And we've done little or nothing to convince them that maybe, just maybe, they shouldn't be doing that. As soon as the proven existence of a nuc wpn in Iran exists (they can't hide testing), Israel will have all the more reason for direct action--all they will need is some solid proof of intent with a timeline (they haf vays!) and I'm convinced they'll act.

Mike King's picture

In this day and age no aggressor can act without being caught, but in any scenario the most costly of consequences will be the collateral damage that results. We only need to reintroduce ourselves to the orphans of WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, or Afganistan to see and understand the consequences.

Seldom do the policy making 'hawks' have a vested or personal stake in our conflicts, and perhaps if they did it might be discovered that a more agreeable solution could be found. The same logic applies to the other side as well.

I too remember Desert One and in fact was personally responsible for one individual being tagged to go. I also have a good feeling about how and why we had/have issues with Iran. Read the book Mike and you'll see what I mean when I say "a plausible scenario".

kevink's picture

I'll have to Google "spare time" when I get a chance. Not familiar with the term.

Vote Mytmite in 2012!

kcchiefandy's picture

...I've seen all the earned praise for and by Obama taking out OBL. I haven't seen him taking responsibility for losing an extremely sensitive intelligence-collecting drone to Iran, though. Will he have a press conference to do that? We're waiting...I assume as being the C-in-C, he authorized that action, too.

kevink's picture

Are you seriously comparing the historical significance of a drone crash to OBLs death? The beast who provoked wars that have killed thousands of our service men and women?

Vote Mytmite in 2012!

kcchiefandy's picture

...just the character of the man who'd profit from the former and not take responsibility for the latter...i.e. a politician, the current POTUS. What's your current 'beast' going to do about Iran? Ignore it and pass the buck to the UN or others, I suppose. Kind of like what Clinton did with OBL & Al Qaeda, and the radical Islamic threat.

kevink's picture

Start with 9/11, and tell us the GOP successes in the current battle on extremism that Newt or Mitt can use to show they'll be better international "politicians" than Obama has been. I seem to remember your team screwing both the reason for war in Iraq up (WMD) as well as the duration (cake walk? Greeted with flowers?) Not trying to be partisan, but you'll have to try floating that B.S. with someone less familiar with reality. BTW: I don't consider our current president a "beast". Hard to take you seriously really, when you exhibit written diarrhea such as that.

Vote Mytmite in 2012!

kcchiefandy's picture

...9/11 was a direct result of Clinton's foreign policy failure (or failure to engage/recognize our enemy), leaving Afghanistan as Bush's mess to clean up. Iraq was a known concern that Bush rushed into; I'm not thrilled with how that was planned and executed but it is now one less Middle East state w/o nuclear assets, like Iran now has. 'Newt Romney' will not turn our back our ally in the Middle East - Israel - and side with the terrorist Palestinian state. They will support Israel and not let Iran run amok in their EMPLOYMENT of nuclear weapons. Hard to take you seriously, really, when you exhibit written, ignorant, diarrhea such as this. Maybe the UN will make everything ok...

kevink's picture

Why didn't Clinton receive the August "Presidential Daily Bulletin" titled "al Qaida determined to attack within the United States using airplanes?" I'll answer for you: Because Clinton was not the POTUS in August of '01 or September. George Bush was. George Bush received that bulletin, yet never lost his focus on Iraq. And, kcchiefandy, Iraq is not one less country with nukes because they have NEVER HAD NUKES. Get your delusions straight. You are beginning to sound borderline senile. Not trying to jab you. You really do sound as if you are clouding up. Pop a couple aspirin and head to the nearest medical facility if your mind is still telling you Clinton was in the White House in August or September of 2001. Afghanistan was a mess Bush had to clean up? I hope Gingrich tries to use that in his first debate with President Obama.

Vote Mytmite in 2012!

kcchiefandy's picture

...Clinton had several opportunities to take our or capture the known terrorist UBL/OBL - he didn't, period. Saddam - as stated here SEVERAL times - was bent on getting a nuke; he SAID he would have never stopped until he got one. Get your head out of the sand, Kev, there are bad people in the world. I imagine the POTUS gets lots of those bulletins each and every day; hindsight is 20-20 (oh, of course - the current Admin has been using that since 2008). I've never been the POTUS so I don't know how daily events play out in the Oval Office; apparently you do.

kevink's picture

of yourself.

So you "don't know how daily events play out in the Oval Office." But you DO know that "9/11 was a direct result of Clinton's foreign policy failure."
So Clinton had, in your words, "several opportunities to take our[t] or capture the known terrorist UBL/OBL-he didn't, period."

But no mention of the republican president who initiated war on two fronts, unpaid for, yet failed to kill or capture "UBL/OBL."
And you are still clinging to the WMD argument, the admittedly empty Iraq war justification which well respected Army General Colin Powell calls his darkest day.

Let's cut to the chase scene Kcchief. You have train wreck Gingrich leading in the GOP polls currently. The repubs that served with Gingrich don't even support him. Mike Savage is trying to bribe him out of the race. This does not bode well for you so you are reaching for drone crash stories, fully realizing that you have nothing when the character (as you say you are revealing) of YOUR candidate is lacking.

A serial cheater on his third marriage with his last cheatee.
Dead beat dad after cheating divorce #1.
Profiting from sham charities he set up for "education."
Over $300,000 in ethics violations.
Forced to resign as Speaker by his own party.
PAID $1.6-1.8 million by Freddie Mac, yet claiming Barney Frank should "go to prison" for his work with the same agency.
Million dollar credit line at Tiffany's while calling himself an ordinary guy.
Calling Palestinians an "invented people" while wanting to be a central figure in the Israeli peace process........

Kcchief andy........ tell us more about that drone we lost.

Vote Mytmite in 2012!

JeffC's picture

What would you have Newt/Romney do? Are you advocating that we start a war with Iran?


Ad space area 4 internal