Posted on 12/04/2011 6:04:20 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
On Friday, I suggested that Republicans “could pull a name out of a hat and find a more consistent and personally stable conservative” than Newt Gingrich. Many smart conservatives seem to agree. (VictorDavisHanson points out that with Gingrich as the nominee the GOP would forfeit the “crony capitalism” issue; No one has been a bigger crony than he.)
The latest and perhaps brightest warning flare to the right is sent up by GeorgeWill. There are too many delicious lines in his column from which to choose a favorite. (e.g.,“There is almost artistic vulgarity in Gingrich’s unrepented role as a hired larynx for interests profiting from such government follies as ethanol and cheap mortgages”; “Gingrich, who would have made a marvelous Marxist, believes everything is related to everything else and only he understands how.”) George patiently explains to those who think the conservative movement began with the Internet and is defined by those who can burnish the most withering rhetoric: “Conservatism inoculates against the hubristic volatility that Gingrich exemplifies.” Yes, Gingrich is what conservatism aims to save us from.
Now, George would choose TexasGov Rick Perry or Jon Huntsman. RameshPonnuru would take MittRomney. There is also RickSantorum to consider. Reasonable conservatives differ on the alternative, but other than sheer contrarianism and temporary amnesia it is hard (for those who want to maintain the ideological health of the conservative movement and win the WhiteHouse) to justify embracing Gingrich. That he is more “gregarious, upbeat” than he used to be is no reason to choose him as president or to declare he has turned over new leaf.
For those conservatives who are not systematically averting their eyes, Gingrich every day gives Republicans further reason to conclude there is no “New Newt,” only the same disorganized egomaniac who drove his House caucus to revolt.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Newt is EASILY rolled. Flakey, and unpredictable is his real history. As Mark Levin cryptically said on his show the other night, “I know all there is to know about Newt.”
People need to pay attention to Levin, and other well-known, respected, down the line small government, Constitutional conservatives.
The best candidate forum we’ve had yet (with three solidly conservative State’s Attorneys General asking HARD questions of substance), was last night on Huckabee’s 2-hour show. VERY REVEALING. It will be re-aired on FNC again tonight at 8PM eastern.
bttt
Thank you for the heads-up!
Newt always folds, like he did in the debate when Romney reminded him that it was the health care mandate Newt had touted that was the inspiration for the MA and Obama healthcare mandates.
Newt turned and shut his mouth. It was true.
Responding to your insulting comment would compound the injury - so I pass.
Yep. The Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac revelations, as well as Newt's long time lobbying efforts for an Individual Mandate should dispel the notion that he's changed. Newt's willing to do simply anything to advance his ambitions and enrich himself personally.
Yep. The Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac revelations, as well as Newt's long time lobbying efforts for an Individual Mandate should dispel the notion that he's changed. Newt's willing to do simply anything to advance his ambitions and enrich himself personally.
Wanna bet?
Are you challenging her right to post articles here on FR? If so you are out of line! If you don't want to read the Perry threads don't click on them. Or did that not occur to you?
I suppose you haven't noticed the thousands of pro Cain and Pro Gingrich threads that have been posted, have you?
No; but it's a huge volume; seemingly several times per day.
Good. As far as I'm concerned, the more the better!
Hopefully there will be many more in the months ahead.
Bump!!
Newt supporters need to be REMINDED of this, over and over again.
May 18, 2011 The Newt of the '80s Wouldn't Get Tangled Up in This Mandate Mess
RUSH: "....Then it all came to fruition when we won the House in 1994 and all these guys are sworn in, and they're in the leadership of the House of Representatives. And all of us familiar with what had gone on in the eighties, the special orders, we'd blown the place up with the House bank and the House post office. We had exposed that, some of the most profound corruption around on the Democrat side. And it seemed like there would be nothing stopping this conservative advance. And then, fast forward to a couple, three years ago and Newt Gingrich is among those saying the era of Reagan is over, and I can't tell you how that devastated me. The one man who was single-handedly leading a movement to defend Reagan to the American people, who understood Reaganism as much as Reagan did, the economics of it, the social issue side, cultural side. Somebody like Newt who had once been able to articulate from the heart all those things he was saying, to say that the era of Reagan was over, it did not compute with me, because it's never been over as far as I'm concerned. ...."
<>
September 14, 2010 The Limbaugh Rule: Vote for Most Conservative Candidate in Primary
RUSH: ".....Let me expand a little bit here on the Limbaugh Rule, which needs to take over from the Buckley Rule. You know, some of these people on our side -- who all of a sudden now -- lovingly invoke the Buckley Rule are the same people who told us, "The era of Reagan is over." Well, Bill Buckley and Ronald Reagan were inseparably good friends. Isn't the era of Buckley over? Isn't it amazing how selectively these people call up some of our heroes and use little slivers of what they've said or believed? Buckley ran against a RINO Republican for mayor of New York knowing full well he had no chance of winning. He violated his own rule then! "Buckley says you vote for the Republican most likely to win." ..." bttt
Yes. I used to like Newt a lot, until he PROVED to me that he is just another run-of-the-mill- OPPORTUNIST.
As Bachmann said on Fox earlier(paraphrased), "...Newt may not have been "lobbying" in the strict sense of the word, but he WAS "peddling influence."
Yes mam’n...all the way through next November!
That is basically my position—going with Newt is like having been dealt 2-3—5-6-K in draw poker with five other players and not having the option to fold. Tossing four and knowing that you will be at least King high with about a 20% shot at a pair of Kings is the “safe” option in that it will likely give you a better result than drawing to the inside straight—but you will loose nearly every time. Tossing the King will, about two thirds of the time, result in a sure looser, and about two thirds of the remaining times, result in a nearly sure looser, but one time in twelve or so one will draw the inside straight and usually win.
The other candidates may have what it would have taken to be President at some other time, and Newt may mess things up badly, but of the remaining candidates he it the only one I see as willing to make the fundamental changes necessary to possibly save us from irreversible decline. I’d rather go with some one else who I saw as more solid, but he looks to be the best that we have. Nice people who will do enough to slow us down somewhat as we pass the point of no return aren’t an option if your goal is success, as opposed to loosing while winning points for technical performance.
That is basically my position—going with Newt is like having been dealt 2-3—5-6-K in draw poker with five other players and not having the option to fold. Tossing four and knowing that you will be at least King high with about a 20% shot at a pair of Kings is the “safe” option in that it will likely give you a better result than drawing to the inside straight—but you will loose nearly every time. Tossing the King will, about two thirds of the time, result in a sure looser, and about two thirds of the remaining times, result in a nearly sure looser, but one time in twelve or so one will draw the inside straight and usually win.
The other candidates may have what it would have taken to be President at some other time, and Newt may mess things up badly, but of the remaining candidates he it the only one I see as willing to make the fundamental changes necessary to possibly save us from irreversible decline. I’d rather go with some one else who I saw as more solid, but he looks to be the best that we have. Nice people who will do enough to slow us down somewhat as we pass the point of no return aren’t an option if your goal is success, as opposed to loosing while winning points for technical performance.
Then you need to learn about Rick Perry because he is the Conservative you mistakenly believe Newt to be. Be diligent and do your homework.
"What would you say to Sen. Inhofe and others in the Senate who are resisting even science? What's your message to them here today?" Kerry asked.
"My message, I think is that the evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading in the atmosphere —"
And do it urgently, now?" Kerry interrupted.
"Urgently, yes," Gingrich said.
But Gingrich also said that up to now, conservatives have been slow to loathe with environmental policy because, he said, "For most of the last 30 years, the environment has a been a powerful emotional tool for bigger government and higher taxes. And therefore if you're a conservative, if you hear these arguments, you know what's coming next."
"So even though it might be the right thing to do, you might end up fighting it because you don't want the bigger government and the higher taxes."
Gingrich said there must be a "green conservatism."
Dec 2011: Gingrich on Cap-and-Trade “At the forum hosted tonight by Fox News host Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich said this about cap-and-trade:
”But if you notice, I never favored cap-and-trade. I – in fact, I actively testified against it. I was at the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee the same day Al Gore was there to testify for it. I testified against it. And through American Solutions we actively fought it in the Senate, and I think we played a major role in defeating it. “
Both the Perry and Paul campaigns e-mailed media this quote from Gingrich in 2007 on PBS after he made the claim that he had “never favored cap-and-trade”: “I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there’s a package there that’s very, very good. And frankly, it’s something I would strongly support.”
There is no one in the list of candidates that he and they fear more in a debate then Newt. Respect for the title of the presidency and the person will be gloriously separated in the first debate. Im afraid the rest will not take on the man because of the respect for the title giving this fraud a lead and an advantage.
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.