Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gingrich says Bill Clinton's speech is actually an Obama critique
LA Times ^ | September 9, 2012 | Neela Banerjee

Posted on 09/09/2012 6:43:23 PM PDT by presidio9

Onetime Republican presidential primary contender Newt Gingrich said that former President Bill Clinton’s rousing defense of President Obama last week was an implicit indictment of Obama’s record, a new attack Republicans are making to blunt any momentum that Clinton’s backing might give Obama.

The Clinton speech at the Democratic National Convention was “eerily anti-Obama, if you just listen to the subtext,” the former House speaker said on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday morning.

He added: “Here's Clinton saying, ‘I reformed welfare because I worked with Republicans; you didn't, Mr. Obama.' He didn't say it that way, but think about it: 'I had the longest period of economic growth in history; you didn't, Mr. Obama. I got to four balanced budgets by working with Republicans; you didn't, Mr. Obama.’”

The comments follow recent efforts by GOP candidate Mitt Romney to use the economic success of the Clinton years as a counterpoint to the lackluster job growth during Obama’s tenure. On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Romney said Clinton “really did elevate the Democrat convention in a lot of ways and, frankly, the contrast may not have been as attractive as Barack Obama might have preferred.”

The Romney campaign has also launched ads that say Clinton is backing Obama because the former president is “a good soldier.”

The ad then scrolls back to Clinton’s comments during the 2008 Democratic primary, when Obama ran against the president’s wife, Hillary Clinton. Said Clinton then of Obama, “Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."

Though Gingrich was a bitter political opponent of Clinton’s when he served as speaker,

(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: brilliant; gingrich; gingrichrevolution; newt; newtgingrich

1 posted on 09/09/2012 6:43:26 PM PDT by presidio9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Well, if you can believe some of the chatter, the Clintons would like Obama to lose this year, so that Hillary would be running against an incumbent Republican in Romney in 2016.

The reasoning is that, if Obama is re-elected, more and more voters will be turned off by Democrats, and that the country will trend Republican in 2016. And, Hillary or any Democrat would be running in 2016 having to defend eight years of Obama.


2 posted on 09/09/2012 6:51:23 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

The reason I watched Clinton’s speech was to see how he would undermine 0 while appearing to praise him. In addition to Newt’s good points, Clinton gave hefty praise to Hillary’s State Department, and he indulged in a policy wonkathon that unnecessarily extended the speech and left 0 cooling his heels backstage for 15-20 minutes.


3 posted on 09/09/2012 6:53:40 PM PDT by ntnychik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

The easiest way to blunt Clinton’s “support” for Obama is to use his words (during the 2008 primary) and during other times against Obama. For example, “He isn’t fit to carry our bags.” Throw together an ad and air it in every battleground.


4 posted on 09/09/2012 6:54:26 PM PDT by abercrombie_guy_38
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

I didn’t watch Clinton, I listened to him and I agree.


5 posted on 09/09/2012 6:54:33 PM PDT by DocRock (All they that TAKE the sword shall perish with the sword. Matthew 26:52 Gun grabbers beware.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

I believe Clintons message to the Rat faithful that they will remember, was: “I know Bill Clinton. Barack Hussain Obama is no Bill Clinton!”


6 posted on 09/09/2012 6:54:38 PM PDT by Batman11 (We came for the chicken sandwiches and a Sweet Tea Party broke out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
The Los Angeles Slimes ran this?!

Odumbo is sunk.

7 posted on 09/09/2012 7:00:01 PM PDT by SCalGal (Friends don't let friends donate to H$U$, A$PCA, or PETA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
Well, if you can believe some of the chatter, the Clintons would like Obama to lose this year, so that Hillary would be running against an incumbent Republican in Romney in 2016.

Hillary Clinton will be 68 years old in 2016 after she was a heavy favorite in 2008 and lost the nomination to an unknown and inexperienced challenger. Always expect the Clintons to play EVERY possible angle:

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right?" Clinton said. "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California." -HRC May 22, 2008

But her time is past. I welcome the stark contrast of this thoroughly unlikeable old woman against Mitt Romney, who will presumably have a positive economic record to point to. That being said, Israel WILL attack Iran at some point in the next four years. Russia WILL side with Iran. Look for the press to criticize every response Romeny makes to this escalation, teeing it up for Hillary to reintroduce herself as a foreign policy superstar. You better believe she made sure she was front and center for that famous WH Situation Room photo the night the Navy Seals used George Bush's intelligence to kill Osama bin Laden.

8 posted on 09/09/2012 7:16:00 PM PDT by presidio9 (Islam is as Islam does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ntnychik
The reason I watched Clinton’s speech was to see how he would undermine 0 while appearing to praise him.

It's a tactic called "Damning with Faint Praise". (The Irish are skilled at it BTW.)

9 posted on 09/09/2012 7:36:40 PM PDT by Rapscallion (A successful Obama will be a tyrant over America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Wishing don’t make it so Newt.


10 posted on 09/09/2012 8:13:56 PM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
I understand Newt's thinking and maybe he's right, but the average obamanoid is too obtuse to be affected by subtle implications. I mean, these people get their news from the Cartoon Channel.
11 posted on 09/09/2012 8:18:09 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

Not just for 2016, but Clinton wants control of the D party back, and he’ll get it. He left every delegate wishing Bill Clinton was their nominee, not the inept Obama and national joke Biden.


12 posted on 09/09/2012 8:43:45 PM PDT by bigbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

I agree. Zipper-Boy Clinton gave his Convention Speech in a bid to take over the Democrat Party, ASAP!


13 posted on 09/09/2012 8:46:33 PM PDT by Graewoulf ((Traitor John Roberts' Obama"care" violates Sherman Anti-Trust Law, AND the U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard
I understand Newt's thinking and maybe he's right, but the average obamanoid is too obtuse to be affected by subtle implications. I mean, these people get their news from the Cartoon Channel.

The "average obamanoid" will not decide this race. Like an earlier poster, I read and listened to Clinton's speech but did not watch it, and I agree with Newt. Clinton damned Obama with faint praise.

14 posted on 09/09/2012 8:48:43 PM PDT by Always A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

It was one of the greatest insults to have the previous President Clintoon try to get people to vote for Obama on Clintoon’s record while Obama sat in the corner sucking his thumb not knowing what to do. Even worse: Peanuthead Carter chimed in as well! Ouch! So much for the empty chair standing up for himself!


15 posted on 09/09/2012 8:53:34 PM PDT by CodeToad (Be Prepared...They Are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Photobucket
16 posted on 09/09/2012 9:04:51 PM PDT by CodeToad (Be Prepared...They Are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Romney refused Palin because she was bringing the Tea Party with her and she would have been to competitive with Ryan, but the rats brought Clinton in and he basically did the best speech.

An ex-POTUS that was disgraced upsets Obama, and that was my overall impression, the very fact that its Bill Clinton speaks all in itself.

So I would say that actually Clinton will in the final analysis brought more ruin than gain upon Obama, which isn’t such a bad thing.


17 posted on 09/09/2012 9:04:59 PM PDT by Eye of Unk (OPSEC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eye of Unk
Romney refused Palin because she was bringing the Tea Party with her and she would have been to competitive with Ryan, but the rats brought Clinton in and he basically did the best speech.

Sounds to mke like you are so head over heels with Governor Palin that you go out of your way not only looking for slights against her, but also hypotheticals of how she could still come in on her white snow machine and save the day. Allow me to break it to you: The Democrat Convention was all about stirring up THEIR base. They have looked at the math, given up on swing voters, and decided that the best way for them to win is to repeat or even build on the record turnout they got in 2008. If you listen to their talking heads, they are all repeating the same thing right now: There are no swing voters anymore. I don't know whether they believe that or not, but that is their story, and they are sticking to in.

The Republican convention, meanwhile, was about wooing swing voters. Sure, there was some red meat, and the Ryan nomination was an early Christmas present to the Tea Party. But, at the end of the day, if the thought of four more years of Obama doesn't get the base riled up, even a Palin nomination wouldn't have had enough of an effect to put Red back in the winner's column. The RNC strategy is to get a repeat of 2010. We'll see who's right. I like Palin, but Romney was right to tell her to stay away. Her approval rating is 20%, and she has a 60% negative. Again, the thinking is that those of us in the 20% were going to jump at the chance to vote against Obama. And it is correct.

18 posted on 09/09/2012 10:24:58 PM PDT by presidio9 (Islam is as Islam does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

If they cant beat Obama this year, why do you think they stand a chance against Hillary in 2016?

If Republicans dont win this year, then Hillary will be close to be undefeatable in 2016, she has far more support than Obama does and she will peel off a sizeable number of white voters.


19 posted on 09/09/2012 10:36:00 PM PDT by GregH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

I agree with your analysis BUT ...

“The RNC strategy is to get a repeat of 2010.”

Can I suggest the obvious:
IF YOU WANT A REPEAT OF 2010, DO WHAT WAS DONE THERE!

They SHOULD have brought in the Tea Party energy, and other than the Rand Paul slot, Ted Cruz and maybe Rubio, they didnt have much. It wouldn’t have hurt to have Palin there, maybe not in prime time, but sometime.

More importantly, bring the themes, messages and policies from 2010 to bear. We won in 2010 because of Obamacare. They needed to make the case again as to why its bad and wrong for America.


20 posted on 09/09/2012 10:58:54 PM PDT by WOSG (REPEAL AND REPLACE OBAMA. He stole America’s promise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: WOSG

Your assessment on why moderates broke right in 2010 is faulty. For them it was never about attractive candidates. It was about anger over the stimulus and Obamacare.


21 posted on 09/09/2012 11:06:42 PM PDT by presidio9 (Islam is as Islam does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

“Your assessment on why moderates broke right in 2010 is faulty. For them it was never about attractive candidates. It was about anger over the stimulus and Obamacare.”

We are in violent agreement. 2010 was never about candidate but about the spontaneous energy of the Tea party rising up to challenge both parties.

if independents voted against the stimulus and obamacare in 2010, then the 2012 campaign should reprise those themes.

... hmmm, so why didnt the RNC focus more on laying out the list of horrible decisions and policies under Obama? Obamacare, stimulus, debunking the auto bailout, solyndra, fast and furious, attack on the the catholic church, taxpayer funding for abortions, ending mexico city policy, social experiments in military, undermining the constitution with pseudo-amnesty. etc.

Other than Ryan’s excellent speech, the content was a bit thin. “yes I built it” was a great line, but is not a great campaign strategy.

Romney and Ryan are correct to focus on economy. they are not doing enough to nail Obama’s specific policies to that bad economy. JMHO.


22 posted on 09/09/2012 11:17:46 PM PDT by WOSG (REPEAL AND REPLACE OBAMA. He stole America’s promise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Newton Gingrich said years ago that B. Clinton makes him wobbly or something to that effect. Even if Newton is right on his analysis of Clinton, the American people still believe in Clinton though 50 percent of voters never voted for him. It must be that the other 50 percent minus a few would like to atone for their “sin” of not being for their bill.


23 posted on 09/10/2012 6:42:23 AM PDT by Theodore R. ( Who among us has not erred? Akin's the One!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

That “unlikeable old woman” you mention may not be running against Romney, but against Jebbie in 2016. Never overestimate the power of Republican primary voters to pick a good nominee.


24 posted on 09/10/2012 6:48:59 AM PDT by Theodore R. ( Who among us has not erred? Akin's the One!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Everyone here likes to rail against the GOP-Elite. But Joe or Jane Average GOP voter is just as much as a problem. The readers of this site do NOT represent the average GOP voter let alone the conservative leaning independent. That's a huge problem. It proves we haven't made the sale on this brand of conservatism. There is large educational challenge ahead of us there and an ever larger one for the public at large.
25 posted on 09/10/2012 6:59:22 AM PDT by Reily (l)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson