Skip to comments.Ron Paul To Laura Ingraham: I Wouldn’t Put Newt Gingrich In The ‘Conservative’ Category
Posted on 12/01/2011 7:18:05 PM PST by Free ThinkerNY
On her show this afternoon, radio host Laura Ingraham asked GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul an intriguing question: Is Newt Gingrich a conservative?
Paul did not beat around the bush:
I wouldnt put him in that category. You know, he was known to be from the left-wing of the party, especially early in his years, you know he would come up with conservative viewpoints and all, but that doesnt make him a conservative. No, I dont put him in that category.
When asked about the recent surge in popularity Gingrich has experienced, Paul put it all in perspective, opining it has more to do with people thinking about who will be the next to beat Romney and the way polling works (and, thus, the subsequent media attention candidates receive after a surge in the polls) than on any real facts.
Hes not Herman Cain, though, right? said Ingraham. I mean hes quite a bit different from Herman Cain or even Michele Bachmann. I mean, hes been through the fire, has he not?
(Excerpt) Read more at mediaite.com ...
Have to agree with him on that.
For once, I agree with Ron Paul.
Heard Ann on the Beck show today and she still has a crush on Romney plus Paul should be running on the libertarian ticket as he is more liberal on social issues and some foreign issues than most liberals.
Newt is more liberal than Mittens, yet for some reason many FReepers give him a free pass.
Ron Paul is a libertarian.
Mighty strange thing to say when Gingrich had a 90% conservative rating as a congressman.
Yes, Newt probably shouldn’t be in the Conservative category.
But that still does not take Ron P out of the Nut category on many things...
Yes, but that was not the topic at hand.
As others point out, Gingrich had a 90% conservative rating. And Ron Paul is a libertarian.
The only reason Paul is attacking Newt is because of the lead that Newt obtained. For Paul to be relevent. He needs a close race and ultimately a split convention.
Funny, I would have said the same thing about Ron Paul.
Obamma vs. Gingrich, who would you choose?
Yeah, but just read the comments here...a lot of people are pissed that it's not 99%.
Yes, I see that and keep thinking “Beat Obama, win senate majority and increase majority in house”.
Neither would any thinking principled conservative.
His words and actions betray him.
I never said Mitt was a conservative, I said Newt is even more liberal than he is.
Why in Hell would anyone take anything that the libertarian loon R-U-N Paul says as worthy of any attention? R-U-N Paul needs to drop out of the GOP primary and go join one of the turd party platforms.
I wouldn’t put Ron Paul is the sane category. Newt has done far more for conservatism than Ron Paul will ever do
Ron Paul is a liberal based on his actual statements - He criticized the flat tax as being “horribly regressive” during the Herman Cain pile on debate back in October.
What a jerk this guy is.
He is a liberal.
Up next to Ron Paul nobody is a conservative. LOL!
Actually it is a lifetime ACU rating of 94%, and a perfect Pro-Life record, to boot.
That’s just the voting record - it doesn’t include engineering the Republican Revolution and creating the Contract With America or balancing a budget.
Of course, to read the anti-Newt folks, we are to use the following parameters:
1.) Anything positive he has done, like killing Hillarycare and the Contract with America, no longer counts.
2.) Everything he did that is disagreeable - even though it might just be words and not legislation - must be permanently held against him. ABSOLUTELY no possibility of redemption.
3.) Everything prior to his disagreeable statements doesn’t count, but the disagreeable stuff does. Also, anything said or done after the disagreeable stuff doesn’t count, no matter how much effort he put into pleading the Conservative case after catching the error (Global Warming). So we have to use a specific time window of what counts: only after date X and before date Y.
In other words, we must give him no credit for anything positive he’s done, but total blame for everything disagreeable he’s ever said. Things like his perfect Pro-life record and 94% ACU rating should be discarded as fast as they are pointed out. Just because we want someone else. That’s the way it’s done now.
I have said it before, and I will say it again: Ronald Reagan would have been an apostate to many of these folks. He really would not have been NEARLY good enough for them to support.
Thank you for confirming my earlier suspicions regarding your policital “insight”. LOL
That's right. Historically and traditionally, the Speaker does not vote on ordinary issues of legislation. Your attempt to disparage Newt by showing that he merely followed traditions of the House as Speaker, reveals only that you are an ignorant and incompetent observer.
I think we had that thread last weekend...only it was more about Tebow.
First time I’ve agreed with Ron Paul....
It's the whole "lesser of evils" thing so long as their is an "R" after the name.
So what. Paul's 2010 ACU rating was 96%.
Paul / Bachmann.
Yoda and the HellCat.
Not that Ron Paul would recognize an actual conservative if one should smack him up side the head with a 2 by 4. Neville Chamberlain was no conservative. Margaret Sanger was no conservative. Lavender supporting enemies of our military are not conservative. Neither is paleoPaulie.
When you said that Newt was more liberal than the Mittwit, you were flatout wrong. When you make the claim that he paid for his mistress to have an abortion, you crossed the line unless you can back that up with something other than your fantasies. Stormfront or Infowars are not documentation either. The rest of your claims are largely nonsense as well but let’s stick to your over the top claim about the abortion. What have you got? If nothing, I won’t be surprised. Nor will I be surprised if it turns out that you are a Paulistinian, Newbie.
Promised to be more pro-abort than Ted Kennedy, more "gay friendly" than Ted Kennedy, presided over Massachusetts when its state supreme judicial court purported to find a state constitutional excuse for forcing "gay""marriage" down the throats of the Massachusetts voters without any known response of Mittwit against the decision, has never cared about the gun issues (and likely does not know which end of the gun to aim), and cares about nothing but money issues and, even there, not to save normal taxpayers from being raped by spenders but to protect his own class of comfy trust fund babies at the expense of everyone else.
Whatever Newt's imperfections, he does not begin to compare with Mittwit's despicable record and career of evasions and of being an ideological flip-flopping weather vane. Newt led the GOP back into control of the House after an extremely long drought.
I wouldn’t either.
Unless you define “conservative” as “slightly to the right of Romney.”
I don’t agree with that at all. Newt has his flaws no doubt, but at least he can fight. I don’t trust Mitt to stand up and fight for us.
And yes, Newt IS more liberal than Romney in my opinion. That does mean I'm advocating Romney, FYI; I don't like either of them.
And no, I'm not a Ron Paul fan, because HE is pro-open borders, pro-gayness, pro-legalizing marijuana, and I believe pro-abortion in that he thinks the government has no right to ban the pratice thereof.
In short, I like NONE of them.
I don’t trust either of them.
Does = does NOT
Tom Brady, but it's wicked, wicked close. 1A and 1B. I give the nod to Brady only because his decision making seems to be better than Manning's. Manning's an incredible quarterback, and he thinks he can make the unreal happen sometimes when it can't, and that leads to more turnovers than you'll get with Mr. Bundchen.
RuPaul is not a Conservative.
Therefore, it doesn’t matter what s/he claims to think.
RuPaul is not a Conservative.
Therefore, it doesn’t matter what s/he claims to think.
“Why in Hell would anyone take anything that the libertarian loon R-U-N Paul says as worthy of any attention?”
Just out of curiosity....what exactly has Ron Paul said/done that makes him a loon? I’ve done some reading on him and his stance on some issues. Seems to be a straight shooter, Calls it as he see’s it kinda guy. He doesn’t seem like the type who’s in anyone’s pocket, that’s for sure.
So, you missed his 2008 debate performances? You didn’t listen to him blame America and Americans for 9/11/01? You haven’t heard R-U-N Paul state during the 2012 campaign that he believes Iran should be allowed to complete their nuclear weapons program? These are just the most glaring problems with R-U-N Paul. He also is a liar and hypocrite when it comes to pork.
Thank you for a gracious response. Many here ignore criticisms of their opinions and will not look for documentation. You did not ignore and you did your research. Good for you. I did call you a Newbie but you look like a promising Newbie even when we disagree. Good for you and welcome.
It WAS Barr who paid for his paramour's abortion. I think she was a staffer and not his wife but I may be wrong about her status. If she was his wife, he is even more despicable in degree but not in kind.
Newt is often reported as having had wife #1 served with divorce papers when she was hospitalized on her deathbed with cancer. Their daughter, Jackie, who gets along with both of them, has (this year in the American Spectator) refuted this tale (which originated in a 1984 article in the quite radical Mother Jones magazine) has recently refuted this apocryphal tale in numerous ways. First, Newt's wife had a tumor removed back then but is still quite alive and simply non-political. Second, it was the first Mrs. Gingrich who requested the divorce BEFORE she was hospitalized. She and Newt sat the children down at home to explain what was about to happen. Third, as you may not know, the first Mrs. Gingrich was Newt's cradle-robbing high school math teacher. Personally, I hate divorce but I can also make room for the possibility that Newt married wife #1 under undue influence of her seniority and status. I don't know but I also don't doubt that Newt was having an affair with wife #2 while still married to wife #1.
That wife #2 and he were carrying on while he was still married, undermines any claim by her of being abandoned for wife #3 since wife #3 and Newt were simply doing to her what she and Newt had done to wife #1. All of this is verrrry ugly nonetheless and our society would be a lot better off if such misbehavior were far rarer than it apparently has become.
You and I are probably separated in age by many years since I am almost as old as Newt and your homepage indicates that you are a college student.
In the movie Dr. Zhivago which I strongly recommend to you and to anyone despite its being the product of Boris Pasternak (a Marxist) and spirited to publication in the west by Gramscian communists in Italy, there is a relevant scene.
Boy revolutionary Pavel Antipov is seeking the approval of the utterly corrupt Komarovsky to marry the compellingly delicious 17-year-old Lara (Komarovsky's lover who is determined to be done with him and with adultery). Her father is dead and Komarovsky is also Lara's mother's lover (he is a busy guy). Pavel Antipov is painfully naive (having no idea of Lara's submissions to Komarovsky) but utterly dedicated as a Bolshevik and ohhh sooooo earnest. Lara urgently asks Komarovsky in Antipov's presence at a working class cafe what he thinks. Komarovsky says cynically: I think he is very young. Antipov: If people do not bring youth to their marriage, what can they bring. Komarovsky (contemptuously): A certain measure of experience! ..... Komarovsky again: The young are intolerant! Antipov (standing up suddenly in offended dignity): The young are intolerant because we have so much less to tolerate in ourselves!!! There is more to the scene but you get the drift. Antipov's response beats the hell out of Rhett Butler's: Frankly, Scarlett, I don't give a damn, as the greatest line in cinematic history.
I saw that scene when I was eighteen and imagined that Dr. Zhivago was an anti-communist movie. I soooo admired Antipov for standing up to Komarovsky. It was a damn right moment. Now I am aging and aged and I also appreciate Komarovsky in a different light. He is not admirable but revolutionary WWI era Moscow does not make principle a comfortable guide to life. He has been making compromises for a very long time (as have many of us who have reached senior status). He describes himself as "an ignoble Caliban." We compromised seniors are not unreservedly admirable in that respect either.
Nor is Newt. OTOH, we have to elect somebody as POTUS in 2012. I have never compromised so far as to find the likes of Romney supportable. Bob Barr is also not acceptable for the stated reasons. I would prefer that he refrain from public life altogether although he is more conservative than Romney. We obviously cannot voluntarily re-elect Obozo.
We are stuck with a POTUS candidate field in which Sarah Palin might have been a star but apparently was reluctant to catch any more slime from the Demonrat slime machine. Michelle Bachmann looked like she might be a star but she has faltered repeatedly on a bigger stage than a couple of terms in the Minnesota State Senate and a couple of terms in Congress qualified her. The Slime Merchants could not touch her with scandal so they claimed that her long-time husband is a lavender queen. No one believed them and they shut up.
Rick Perry, Texas's longest serving governor in its long history, could not make the transition to the national media context. The Demonrats were offering money for anyone willing to come forward as a potential bimbo eruption against Perry, straight or particularly lavender. Surprisingly, no one apparently tried to get the money. I had fully expected that some lavender queen with a yen for cash would have been happy to slime Perry while dialing for dollars. Of course, Perry would have been innocent but that does not seem to matter to the media or the Demonrats any more.
Herman Cain has impressive business credentials (much better for political purposes than Romney) but has been the target of classic Axelrod autoslime. He will probably withdraw by 12/5/11, and we will lose the first math major to run for POTUS. I don't care for 9-9-9 but Cain deserved a better fate. He is too old for a 2016 re-run (as is Newt) but tough talking Secretary of Commerce sounds right as does Axelrod apologizing on national TV to Mrs. Cain.
Rick Santorum would have made a good candidate in many ways. I regard him as one of the best senators of this era. I am prejudiced as a Catholic but I also think he is one of the best Catholics in public life. He lost his Senate seat by supporting pro-abort Arlen Spector in a GOP primary in about 2004 against the previously pro-abort ex-Congressman Tuomey who changed his mind on abortion as easily as Mittwit did and, it seemed, for the same reason of improving electability. Spector, we now know paid for that endorsement by promising and delivering on his promise to support Dubya's pro-life nominations to SCOTUS and other courts as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Many in Pennsylvania and elsewhere so hated Spector that they have treated Santorum as a pariah. That is unfortunate but it is what it is and Santorum is getting no traction.
Opposing Huntsman needs little explanation since he apparently supports gay everything, apparently voted for Obozo, served him as envoy to Red China, has yet to become a blip on the radar screen and is probably Mother Jones's favorite "Republican." Nice looking daughters are not enough of an excuse. Else, I might run which I won't.
Gary Johnson must have been smoking his favorite herb to think he had any business in this race. Buddy Roemer was a lying opportunistic governor of Louisiana (in the Jurassic era and never heard from since) who changed from Demonrat to Republican as a "pro-lifer," got elected and then governed as a pro-abort and was rightfully thrown out after that one term. He made Edwin (Laissez bon temps roullez) Edwards look like a moral and honest man.
Finally, we have Dr. Ron Paul. Personally, I will shock you by saying (in an extreme minority around here) that I do not get moved by bordermania. I know a lot of Mexicans here in Northern Illinois, some entered legally and others did not. I am happy that they are all here and I look forward to them voting their generally conservative principles (socially, militarily, economically, etc.). They are natural born Republicans and conservatives. Give them some time to settle in and the less they are threatened with deportation the sooner they will be our voters (like early Italian-American immigrants in my native New England).
That issue aside, Ron Paul is a two-faced liar who CLAIMS to be pro-life, pro-family, pro-marriage, fiscally conservative, pro-gun rights. He may well be pro-gun rights. That is important but not enough. Only the Mittwit would evade declaring on guns and probably would be bad on the subject. Ron Paul's exotic love affair with the otherwise ignored 10th Amendment leads him to be operatively a pro-abort, and an enemy of marriage as being for one man and one woman only. He claims Christianity while resisting its two most important issues. He packs every budget with pork for Galveston while posing for holy pictures at press conferences as a "fiscal conservative," votes against each budget bill but rests assured that his corrupt liberal colleagues will vote his pork into law anyways. He consorts with the likes of David Duke and the proprietors of neo-Nazi Stormfront though he is no neo-nazi but he IS a collector of embarrassingly exotic voters. Having had three kids, I am no longer favorable to any "right" to use recreational drugs. Paul's "foreign policy" and "military policy" is an embarrassment to rational humanity. When Israel (or parts of the USA) is/are incinerated by Iranian nukes, Ron Paul will be blaming America first along with Alex Jones, Infowars and his fellow 9/11 Troofers.
You like none of the GOP candidates. That is understandable and certainly your right. I suspect that you are also no fan of Obozo. This nation does have an election in November, 2012. Someone will be elected. Newt has many sins but seems better than this inadequate field either by an admittedly flawed governing philosophy or electability or both. He will not make my generation forget Ronaldus Maximus (for whom I worked on staff at the 1968 GOP convention and for whom I was a state chairman in 1976 when he challenged feckless Ford).
If someone has a rational path to nominating Michelle Bachmann or Rick Santorum or Sarah Palin (in spite of her determination to the contrary), they can count on me but right now it looks like its Mittwit or Newt and I'll take Newt and urge others to do so. If I and others like me get him elected, it will be up to your generation to hold his feet mercilessly to the fire on all the issues that count.
I disagree with your assessment that Newt is somehow more liberal than the Mittwit but that is a somewhat separate issue. The length and tone of this post mean that I respect you nonetheless and express to you every good wish for success in your future as a conservative. I would swap ages with you gladly to get the chance to do it all over again. God bless you and yours.
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.