Newt must be thinkin’ that it means to be a forward thinker who embraces reform.
Perhaps he needs a lesson or two:
Progressive: One who believes in taxation and spending without limits.
Progressive: One who advocates a progression of a capitalist society to a socialist one.
“It depends upon what standard you’re using”. WTH?
Okay Newt, you lost me. I can never, ever in a million years support anyone who makes a statement that is so utterly stupid and radical.
Perrybots: are you still out there?
Count me in!
“It depends what standard you’re using” pretty plainly means, “it depends how you define ‘progressive.’”
To some people, “progressive” means simply that society or government must adapt to a changing world, and continue to advance justice. To liberals, the presumption is that “progressive” means that “justice” means socialism and modernism. Many conservatives have picked up on the code words. But to accept that “progressive” in the 21st century means to relapse into the totalitarianism and central control of dead 20th-century regimes is as wrong-headed as to accept that an “economic liberal” is one who favors state control.
Recognizing competing meanings, Gingrich was clear that he accepted one meaning, but not another.
Seriously: If you want to intelligently critique Newt, rather than proof-texting his comments, or engaging, as others do, in calumny, how about attacking his actual position when they are liberal?
Newt supports an “amnesty,” and seems purposefully vague on whether it would apply only (reasonably) to those whose presence here predates the Reagan amnesty, and who have jobs, dependents, etc., in America, or one which would apply broadly to most immigrants.
Newt caves to what he believes is inevitable. He now says he opposed an individual mandate. Fine, I’ll believe him. The problem is that I don’t want a “leader” who will buckle under to evil the moment he believes evil is winning. Saying, “Oh, wait, we’re winning now? Let ME grab the flag!” is no trait of leadership.
On the other hand, his statements about the right to life lead me to conclude he will pick excellent Supreme Court justices. And for this reason, I support him over Mitt Romney, who has appointed tyrrants to the bench, Ron Paul who is bat-shot insane, and will probably appoint bat-shot insane justices, and Rick Perry, who seems to think that tyranny and oppression are fine as long as its the states, not the federal government.
I’d’ve been happy with Cain or Santorum (although Santorum shares Gingrich’s flaw of buckling.) I’d love to see Gingrich adopt certain of Paul’s libertarian beliefs, but it’s too bad that Paul is, yes, I’ll say it again, bat-shot insane.
I’m not a “Perrybot”...unless you’re into mindless namecalling.
We who support him never went anywhere...well, a few did to escape the scorched earth brigade on every thread...that’s why we’re still here.
Depends on the meaning of “Progressive”, eh?
Is that anything like, depends on the what the meaning of “is”, is?
Perry will take a wrecking ball to overwhelming, out of control, Washington DC.
That doesn’t mean a mindless wrecking ball, but a well thought out plan.
Newt the Flip-Flopper:
Five months after refusing to sign an Iowa conservative group’s controversial “Marriage Vow,” GOP presidential front-runner Newt Gingrich has endorsed the pledge by promising to push a sweeping conservative social agenda, Politico reported.
In a lengthy email to the group, The Family Leader, Gingrich vowed to fight for a host of key right wing issues, including a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage and a Reagan-era policy that would stop tax dollars from funding abortions overseas.
The former House Speaker also vowed to remain faithful to his wife, Callista.
“I also pledge to uphold the institution of marriage through personal fidelity to my spouse and respect for the marital bonds of others,” Gingrich said in the message.