Posted on 12/21/2011 11:22:52 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
I have yet to see a smart move by the Republican party since they squandered their majority in a drunk with power spending binge.
Boner is exactly what I predicted he would be, McConnel is worse. We send young fresh minds there to represent us and they are ground up in the wheel of corruption that pervades the DC Elite.
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.
Note he added but extend it from 2 mos to one year. I agree with Newt on this one. It would take us through the election
He noted the president's communication advantage and that Presidents often win. He stated that he favored the House's 1 year extension, not the Senate's 2 month extension. He even called the Senate's bill an “absurd dereliction of duty”.
I don't conclude that he meant what is “right” is to pass the “dereliction of duty” bill.
Politico has been Newt bashing central for weeks. I don’t believe a word I read on that site about Newt.
That's as far as I needed to go to know the article was a steaming pile of crap. I do appreciate them putting it in the first half a sentence to save time.
Well, at least there’s a pair of us.LOL.
First sentence - TRUE.
Second sentence -TRUE.
Third sentence -TRUE.
Now how does this say that the house pubbies should lay down their arms and pass the 2 month extension especially since Newt specifically said that the 2 month extension is a joke and he is in favor of the full year?
You will go to any depth to throw crap on Newt, but you try to appear to be reasonable.
You are a true snake, you must be a lawyer.
I’m not ranting. I’m discussing the quotes. I can’t control the headline — I put what I thought was important in a parenthetical statement in the headline, which is all I’m allowed to do.
I also don’t agree that the quotes “don’t match” the headline, just that the headline is not a quote. If my interpretation of his words is correct, and his words are accurate, he is telling them to stop fighting now and pass the Senate bill.
At least that’s what I see. Maybe I’ll change my mind after I read the other comments in this thread.
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.”
I'd like to see the video.
As I said in another thread, there were many people at the end of the civil war who thought the south was right, even as they were saying the should surrender.
Another analogy — a police officer confronted with a hostage situation might well put down his gun and back off, even though the officer clearly thinks the hostage-taker is wrong.
The problem with any other interpretation of “what is right”, is that no other interpretation really fits with the “do it nicely”. If you are going to confront the president and the senate, you don’t do it nicely and with a smile, you do it by standing up to them. The second part of the quote makes more sense if you assume he’s saying “give in for now, and come back later to fight another day”.
Also, it would be odd (not unexpected, but odd) for two different reporters to both mis-interpret what is being said; we don’t have the whole transcript, and I assume Newt had other words, but I don’t know how I can PRESUME that those other words would make the story false. I don’t know if they asked him what he meant by the quote, and if so what he said. One would presume that if there was follow-up questions, they led the reporter to the words they used.
Or one could presume that the reporter wanted to lie about it. I’d prefer to see evidence so I can make my own mind up about it.
But everything he said about presidents always winning sounds exactly like what I’d expect Newt to say if he was making a political calculation that they should give in.
It makes little sense to see all those words and then say he told them to fight on. There’s no “But” in the quotes, for example. “Presidents almost always win, BUT the house should do what is right”.
There would be many ways Newt could have said “they should fight the President tooth and nail”. None of them would sound anything like the quotes.
It looks to me that people are wanting to read a better interpretation into what was said, and are willing to overlook the more obvious and clear meaning of the words in order to believe something different.
Or, it could be that those who don’t want Newt are just using an opportunity provided by Newt being inept at communicating in order to put their own spin on what he said — except when has Newt been inept at saying exactly what he means?
And here is a different article with a completely different quote which would also suggest Gingrich wouldn't attack Boehner: Romney, Gingrich blast Obama and Dems over Payroll Tax Flap:
Gingrich declined to second-guess his former lieutenant Boehner, saying, "I have no idea how I would try to handle it if I was in John Boehner's position because he's got a Senate majority leader who is totally destructive, and he's got a president who just thinks he's the campaigner-in-chief [and] who has no interest in trying to solve America's problems."
On the other hand, that isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of Boehner's approach either "I have no idea" isn't a "He's doing exactly what is right".
Of course, I have no problem believing that Gingrich would say one place that the House should give in, and then realize that was stupid to say and spend the rest of the day saying he stood with Boehner. I don't understand why others believe that pointing out Gingrich saying he supports Boehner precludes him having first said they have lost this battle. Gingrich does that sort of thing somewhat regularly.
Did you comprehend anything from my post #33???
You CAN NOT WIN THAT ARGUMENT IN THIS POLITICAL ENVIORNMENT!!!
Forget about your disgust with the peronalities involved and tell me how you actually prevail on this issue!!!
You do EXACTLY what Boehner did and take the club out of Obama’s hand and beat him over the head with it!!!
He pointedly did not criticize Mr. Boehner for rejecting the Senate compromise and indicated Republicans would not be punished by voters.Doesn't contradict the quotes, but suggests he didn't think it was politically necessary for them to give in, which would be a different take.But Mr. Gingrich conceded that the spectacle on Capitol Hill did not look good.
“I think this is an example of why people are sick of Washington and sick of politics,” Mr. Gingrich said, noting that it was another example of why a change in leadership is needed in the next election.
I'd love to see a full transcript of this exchange, there are pictures from the meeting, maybe someone has video.
This is what I like about FR, when we can delve into stories and figure out what really happened.
You don’t remember 2005 and the government shutdown? Or is it that you think it was a conservative Gingrich victory.
Totally agree.
Boehner and McConnell are out of their league.
Here is another story where they didn't come to the same conclusion as the WSJ did: Gingrich Dives In:
"It's game-playing," added the former U.S. House speaker, who stopped short of criticizing House Republicans and their leader Ohio Rep. John Boehner. Their rejection of the Senate's two-month tax-cut extension plan set up the stalemate a little more than a week before taxes are set to go up on millions of workers Jan. 1So he doesn't criticize Boehner, which some say means he must support what he's doing. But he also didn't criticize McConnell, who pushed the 2-month plan. Gingrich actually followed his practice of not attacking republicans.Gingrich also did not criticize Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate leader who signed off on the short-term extension.
I have no doubt that if asked now, he would say the house should stick to their guns. I just don't see any evidence that the WSJ mis-interpreted what Gingrich said the first time.
Gingrich is certainly smart enough to know when to correct his statements.
Thanks for the info. I too would love to see the whole interview uncut. LOL.
Given the quotes that were in the article, and what I remember about Newt’s congressional leadership, Give In and pass the “absurd dereliction of duty” bill just isn’t what I would conclude, but I could be wrong. LOL.
It’s fact. Gingrich was mischaracterized by the liberal media.
Newt sent an email to Limbaugh saying he supported the house GOP leadership, Rush read the email on the air.
There you have it.
Very wise! But let me help you with the spelling. It's Plotico!!!
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.