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

Skip to comments.

Dem. Senator Traces Partisanship To “1994 and Newt Gingrich”
Cybercast News Service ^ | December 26, 2012 | Eric Scheiner

Posted on 12/26/2012 11:30:11 PM PST by Olog-hai

When asked about the roots of political partisanship in Washington, retiring Senator Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) traces the issue to Newt Gingrich.

“I can see it very directly going back to 1994 and Newt Gingrich,” Conrad told C-Span in an interview. “He had a view, to take over the House of Representatives one had to bring down the institution and things have never been the same since.” …

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


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia; US: Georgia; US: North Dakota
KEYWORDS: 1994; brilliant; congress; conrad; contractwithamerica; gingrich; gingrichrevolution; kentconrad; lbj; newt; newtgingrich

1 posted on 12/26/2012 11:30:22 PM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

It was Vietnam.


2 posted on 12/26/2012 11:35:28 PM PST by RC one (From My Cold Dead Hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Conrad has always been a typical douche bag Democrat. it is all good as long as we are in control of the House and the Leftist agenda is pushed. There was no partisanship in the Bork nomination, in stopping so many Bush appointees or any other Democrat inspired Tom Foolery. Only Conservatives are partisan.
3 posted on 12/26/2012 11:40:46 PM PST by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

So, when the Democrats ran congress, there was no political partisanship. Ah, those were the days.

When Repubs pushed back, though, that was a bad thing. It upset the natural balance of the universe. In Democrat-world, not agreeing with them is bad. Its “partisan”.

They are half right. It is partisan, but that is not bad.

Its sort of like “grid-lock”. If half the congress wants to go in the wrong direction, which they always do, “gridlock” is the lesser of evils. Defeating them, Gingrich-style, is better though. Even if it is “partisan”.


4 posted on 12/26/2012 11:41:18 PM PST by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RC one

Oh, the creeps were playing fifth column long before Vietnam.


5 posted on 12/26/2012 11:42:52 PM PST by Hardraade (http://junipersec.wordpress.com (Vendetta))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Conrad has been there since the 80’s ... and, yet, it the fault of other people (some who have not been in Congress for over 10 years) . That’s the personal responsibility that Democrats are famous for.


6 posted on 12/26/2012 11:45:09 PM PST by BookmanTheJanitor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

It was clearly in evidence during Watergate....why hypocrites given Daley, Kennedy, LBJ, et al stealing elections.

It ramped up during the Bork Hearings. That’s when I really began to notice the partisanship and hatred, an increasingly divided nation ever since, save for a brief few months after 911 and Gulf War I.


7 posted on 12/26/2012 11:52:47 PM PST by A_Former_Democrat (Elections do have consequences, young people of America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

When asked about the roots of political partisanship in Washington, retiring Senator Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) traces the issue to Newt Gingrich.

“I can see it very directly going back to 1994 and Newt Gingrich,”
When asked what he had for breakfast he said “ Tuesday”.


8 posted on 12/26/2012 11:53:14 PM PST by Mastador1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marron
It's quite obvious the esteemed senator could not possibly be as stupid as he sounds. Equating "partisanship" with his side losing is simply disingenuous.

All nonsense aside, partisanship is a function of party politics; it exists when there are sides in an issue and any attempt to separate it is an attempt to deceive.
It transcends time and history.

9 posted on 12/26/2012 11:53:32 PM PST by stormhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BookmanTheJanitor

To democrats, EVERYTHING is personal EXCEPT responsibility.


10 posted on 12/26/2012 11:56:03 PM PST by MestaMachine (It's the !!!!TREASON!!!!, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
just move-on ppl...Sinister Conrad making another head-up-his-@$$ comment.

11 posted on 12/27/2012 12:06:30 AM PST by skinkinthegrass (Who'll take tomorrow,spend it all today;who can take your income & tax it all away..0Bama man can :-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

What an idiot, with zero grasp of history.


12 posted on 12/27/2012 12:12:38 AM PST by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hardraade

You could go back to the civil war or Eugene Debbs perhaps, but when trying to understand our modern differences, I think you need to start with Vietnam, Richard Nixon, and the hippies. We’re all still alive and not forgetting things.


13 posted on 12/27/2012 12:17:02 AM PST by RC one (From My Cold Dead Hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
“I can see it very directly going back to 1994 and Newt Gingrich,”

He is absolutely correct.

The House of Representatives was the birthright of the Democrat Party. It had been that way since FDR and it was understood by everyone.

Then along comes Newt and upsets the apple cart and opens his can of Whoop-ass and spoils that long standing understanding between Democrats and Republicans that the Republicans will always be the Minority Party. The Republicans in return get collegial treatment by the Democrats and get invited to the best Washington parties.

Things were so nice and friendly like until Newt showed up.

Well the House could use another man like Newt again only this time maybe a true Reagan conservative.

14 posted on 12/27/2012 12:38:10 AM PST by Pontiac (The welfare state must fail because it is contrary to human nature and diminishes the human spirit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
What an idiot, with zero grasp of history.

If he had a true grasp of history he wouldn’t be a Democrat.

15 posted on 12/27/2012 12:40:42 AM PST by Pontiac (The welfare state must fail because it is contrary to human nature and diminishes the human spirit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RC one

Partisanship started when communism began to infest the liberal left.


16 posted on 12/27/2012 12:43:49 AM PST by lwoodham (I am Andrew Breitbart. Don't doubt me on this.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

I know liberals who ignore their hostile partisanship and point fingers at Republicans for having the nerve to push back. At least Gringrich is still pissing off liberals.


17 posted on 12/27/2012 12:47:12 AM PST by RginTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Oh, yes, indeed, Senator - that’s when it started - in 1994. It never happened under the bi-partisan Dem leadership before that when they did things such as completely shutting Republicans out of hearings.


18 posted on 12/27/2012 12:57:09 AM PST by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lwoodham
Partisanship started when communism began to infest the liberal left.
hmmm..all the way back to Woodrow Wilson..
Amendment XVI & XVII added during his tenure.

19 posted on 12/27/2012 1:02:51 AM PST by skinkinthegrass (Who'll take tomorrow,spend it all today;who can take your income & tax it all away..0Bama man can :-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: lwoodham

Blame Jane Fonda.


20 posted on 12/27/2012 1:06:57 AM PST by RC one (From My Cold Dead Hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

What an idiot. It goes way back, at least to Nixon vs. Hiss, which the Rats never forgot until Watergate gave them their chance.


21 posted on 12/27/2012 1:08:58 AM PST by rfp1234 (Arguing with a liberal is like playing chess with a pigeon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BookmanTheJanitor

Yes, 1780’s


22 posted on 12/27/2012 1:43:31 AM PST by exnavy (Got ammo, Godspeed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Screw this sick scumbag Conrad. He knows better.
The hyper-partisanship began with Ted (the Swimmer) Kennedy’s “borking” of Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork.
That was a few years before Gingrich.


23 posted on 12/27/2012 1:55:00 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
When asked about the roots of political partisanship in Washington, retiring Senator Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) traces the issue to Newt Gingrich.

Conrad made a good point. Maybe it was about that time that the hard working people of this country started to wake up to the insane, self destructive "progressive" policies of the lemming Democrats. More and more, but not enough, people started to become aware of the "stealth socialism" being practiced by the far leftist leaning Democrats.

Stealth socialism was expressed in the housing bubble caused by Dodd/Frank policies. The current administration has launched a direct attack on the Christians of this country with forced subsidy of abortions, same sex marriage, and other threats.

The Democrats constant drum beat of attacks on free enterprise are carried out with budget-less wildly uncontrolled spending, constant whining about "fair share" of taxes (only directed to those who pay taxes), to provide more benefits to those who pay no taxes, more and more borrowing, and constant steps toward one world government.

Maybe Conrad continues to be blissfully unaware of the economic (and cultural) collapse facing the USA and other countries practicing destructive socialistic policies. Maybe he and other progressives cannot connect the dots, but many people have been connecting the dots, and they are frightened.

24 posted on 12/27/2012 3:51:36 AM PST by olezip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Yes I remember the good old days of comity-like that shared between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton.


25 posted on 12/27/2012 4:30:20 AM PST by almcbean
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mastador1
"When asked..."

Haha, when I read it was Conrad I was thinking that he probably wears loafers because he hasn't quite puzzled out that shoe lace thing.

Man we have got some commie dummies in DC.

I might add that if Conrad thinks that partisanship is something new he has no sense of American history.

26 posted on 12/27/2012 4:50:56 AM PST by Proud_texan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Proud_texan

I watched this doosh on C Span yesterday. He said if the tax rates stayed the same as in the Clintonista era we would be looking at trillion dollar surpluses every year.

I thought I was watching SNL for awhile.


27 posted on 12/27/2012 5:15:22 AM PST by shelterguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Yeah, too bad we can’t have back the good old days when we viciously attacked Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan and taxed and spent the the compliant republicans went along with our schemes. Things have never been the same since Gingich and his conservatives took over the House!!


28 posted on 12/27/2012 5:34:09 AM PST by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
"Partisanship" occurs whenever Democrats don't get their way.
29 posted on 12/27/2012 5:37:20 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum ("Democracy is indispensable to socialism. The goal of socialism is communism." --Vladimir Lenin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Ya and Newt will still get up in front of the camera and say that the republican party needs to move left.

These GD politicians are as worthless as the “Ts” on a boar hog.


30 posted on 12/27/2012 6:10:02 AM PST by crz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
He's right...sorta.

Alternative media was already having an impact. Rush had 2 NYTimes bestsellers and Newt had a following on his “special orders” CSPAN broadcasts...all before the ‘94 “tantrum”. Conservatives were finally getting their opinions unabashedly articulated, and the MSM still had no clue about the tsunami headed their way.

Before ‘94, as long as Dems ran DC and Brokaw, Jennings and Rather could promote the more enlightened Rockefeller Republicans, people did get along because it was one party rule.

And sometime after '94, the internet blew up...and the Dems are no longer in charge of messaging, no matter how hard they try.

Now if we can just get a Speaker more testicular than a Ken doll, maybe we can start talking about conservatism again.

31 posted on 12/27/2012 9:42:31 AM PST by Tex-Con-Man (<-------currently working through post-election anger issues.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

In the 20th c it was Wilson, FDR, Truman (who was bitterly partisan, whatever else he was), LBJ, and Carter — and of course, the Partisan Media Shills. Thanks Olog-hai.


32 posted on 12/29/2012 12:34:10 PM PST by SunkenCiv (Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | 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