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 ...
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.”