So glad we have the learned professor to lecture us on what is best. Heck, he couldn't stand up to Bill Clinton, so of course he assumes nobody can stand up to Barack Obama?
Posted on 12/21/2011 11:22:52 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who famously lost budget battles to President Bill Clinton amid two government shutdowns, had some advice to House Republicans at loggerheads with another Democratic president: Give in.
“Incumbent presidents have enormous advantages. And I think what Republicans ought to do is what’s right for America. They ought to do it calmly and pleasantly and happily,” Mr. Gingrich said...
...
Mr. Gingrich made it clear he favored a one-year extension of the two-percentage point payroll tax cut, which expires Jan. 1, not the two-month extension that passed the Senate with bipartisan support. He called the Senate bill “an absurd dereliction of duty.”
“Obama is so inept as a president, and the Congress is so dysfunctional as an institution, that we are lurching from failure to failure to failure,” Mr. Gingrich said.
...
But he said resistance was doomed.
“It’s very hard for the legislative branch to outperform the president in communications,” he said. “He has all the advantages of being one person. He has all the advantages of the White House as a backdrop, and my experience is presidents routinely win.”
In 1995 and 1996, President Clinton successfully used the bully pulpit to paint his budget fight with then-Speaker Gingrich as a battle over Medicare and environmental protection, not a fight over runaway government spending. The two government shut-downs badly hurt the Republican Party and helped Mr. Clinton get off the mat and cruise to re-election.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
And if he thinks the senate bill is horrible, why does he say the the GOP should do "what's right for America." by passing the 2-month bill? How can passing a bill that is an "absurd dereliction of duty" be "what's right for America."?
Thanks a lot Newt, for saying that the House GOP's approach is WRONG FOR AMERICA.
Gingrich loves to send messages to the House GOP. Remember THIS one?
Gingrich to House GOP: Drop Dead
So, for those who thought Gingrich would stand up to Obama, stand up to Reid and Pelosi if he had to, would be the guy who could explain our positions and win the day -- well, maybe not so much. The President is just "too powerful".
So glad we have the learned professor to lecture us on what is best. Heck, he couldn't stand up to Bill Clinton, so of course he assumes nobody can stand up to Barack Obama?
According to Rush, New just emailed him stating, “I am with Boehner and the House on this.” (Or some such language)
So, why is he QUOTED as saying otherwise?
Is he hoping that two different messages to two different audiences won’t be noticed, or did he already realize his initial “learned” position wouldn’t go over well, and is trying to walk it back like he does so many things?
And if so, what is going to make him “walk back” is non-conservative ideas once he actually WINS the nomination?
Hey, “Mav”...
Unless you’re in the tank for Hussein and itching to give a fawning “concession” speech next November, learn a little something from your PREVIOUS betrayals of conservatives.
Bogus story,according to an email sent to the live Rush Limbaugh show. I never put much stock in anything I read on Polotico.
Papers, even liberal ones, RARELY make up quotes. Sometimes they remove context, so I’ll wait for someone to explain under what context the QUOTES in this article would actually mean the opposite of what Newt is quoted as saying.
BTW, you could say from the article that Newt “backs” Boehner — he says he agrees with the House position after all, and sympathizes with them. He just thinks the “right thing for the country” would be for the House GOP to give up.
You know, many people at the end of the civil war still stood with the south, even while they signed the surrender papers.
WSJ LIED.
Rush devoted a lot of his show to the WSJ "article".
Newt E-mails Rush, Stands by House, WSJ & Politico Lie About Him
“Give in,” would be the official motto of the Gingrich administration.
None of Gingrich’s quotes in the article support the headline bait of “Give In”. In fact, it explicitly points out he’s on the House GOP’s side in going for a full-year cut instead of the two-month gimmick.
Granted, the payroll tax cut is a gimmick in any form, but again, the WSJ (and Politico) are fabricating stories.
What words in this quote may one read and conclude that Newt believes the House should "give in"?
How can passing a bill that is an “absurd dereliction of duty” be “what’s right for America.”?
Because is fundamentally right for America and when it comes to adjectives “Fundamentally” trumps “Absurd”.
You expect people to read the article? Who’s got time for that? It’s the internet age don’t ya know...no time to read (let alone think)...must click, click, click to the next article or post.
Rush Limbaugh said that Gingrich sent an mail saying he is backing the House Republicans. This report is just wrong and intended to wreak havoc.
But that doesn’t matter, because the anti-Newt crowd would rather believe the lies and settle for another 4 years of Obama.
This, of course, is why headline bait like “Give In” is used — the vast majority of people will respond to it as if Gingrich actually said it, even though it is an over-broad and incorrect interpretation of his actual comments.
It’s a shame that FR, which is normally so adept at spotting and calling out journalistic malpractice, has a tendency to start accepting whatever the MSM has to say at primary time... as long as it validates what we want to believe.
MSM is so bent on nuking Gingrich to help Romney. I am glad Newt emailed Rush and got it straigtened out, but it still does damage.
This lie won’t fly.
Of course it does. Just look at this thread (and the related ones). We have nominally intelligent FReepers believing the narrative of this selective and likely out of context use of quotes, and acting as if Gingrich actuall said "give in" which is only headline bait used by the WSJ and not supported by the article.
The media lies. Why does this simple fact get forgotten at primary time?
Note that despite not having settled on a candidate yet, I have found myself repeatedly forced to defend Gingrich from shoddy, lying media several times in the last few days.
The Newt quotes don't match the headline. You are ranting based on misinformation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.