Posted on 11/13/2011 2:48:36 AM PST by jenk
What are we to believe about Newt Gingrich's recent admission that his commercial with Nancy Pelosi in 2008 was the, "dumbest single thing," he has done in years.
Conservatives agree that it was dumb, in fact, infuriating. Gingrich has for years suggested that he is a staunch, combative conservative.
This week, the Daily Caller reported on a segment on Fox News where Newt was a guest and said,
“First of all, that is probably the dumbest single thing I’ve done in years,” Gingrich said. “It is inexplicable that somebody used to say, ‘You know, there aren’t enough hay wagons to stand on to get people to understand that.’ You just need to relax and go, that was dumb.”Panelist Charles Krauthammer asked Gingrich if he was being held hostage when the ad was filmed. Gingrich responded that he just made a mistake.
“No, that was dumb,” Gingrich said. “I was trying to do something I failed to do. I do think it’s important for conservative to be in the middle of the debate over the environment.”
With that explanation, for many conservatives, Newt saved himself. But what did he actually say? He did not apologize for stepping off the platform, he did not tell us he had a change of heart. Krauthammer asked if he was held hostage, presumably to point out that Gingrich was giving the impression he did not agree with the commercial. When Newt speaks, you have to very carefully listen to his words.
He did not say that he thought the commercial was a waste of time, nor did he say that he disagrees with the message from the couch, "we do agree that our country must take action to address climate change." Instead he responded, "I was trying to do something I failed to do."
What did he mean by that?
Newt, "ran for Congress in 1974 against Jack Flynt, an eleven-term incumbent. Gingrich went door-to-door with a new brand of progressive conservatism, emphasizing environmental issues and the need to end corruption in government. Gingrich charged that the Democrats had been in power so long that it had led them to become arrogant and unresponsive to the needs of their constituents. Although Gingrich lost the 1974 race against Flynt and another one in 1976, he gained strength with each campaign and began to be recognized as a formidable opponent. In 1978 Flynt chose to retire rather than run again against the energetic Gingrich, who was at last successful in getting elected to Congress."
Perhaps the progressive conservatism that began his career has always been part of his agenda. He has written a book, "Contract With The Earth" which, according to him is a, "pro-market, pro-entrepreneur, innovative environmentalism." That description of his own book could be why he said, "somebody used to say, ‘You know, there aren’t enough hay wagons to stand on to get people to understand that.’ You just need to relax and go, that was dumb."
What Newt told Fox News is that he does still believe government has a role in addressing climate change, and that he took somebody's advice to call the commercial dumb.
He did not tell us that his progressive conservatism has ended.
Aside from an inability to adhere to marriage vows and his woefully bad choices in teaming with adversaries, Newt’s basic problem is the intellectual arrogance which is borne from his academic background.
I believe Newt would tell you if you asked him that he would go against the will of the people (i.e., will not voiced in a single purely democratic style vote, but in a collective mind-of-the people everyday belief) if the issue were one he believed in intellectually.
Franklin Roosevelt did this with getting the US into WWII. If Newt were President, he’d come down on the side of amnesty for illegals. In short, I don’t trust him one bit.
You are correct. I heard Newt talk about his view on the environmental issues of Global Warming and he is still of the opinion that more “experts” agree with it than the small minority if scientists who call it a scam, so he is one of those consensus people and that is unnerving to me.
To be as smart as he is and always use references to people or groups to support his argument, he refuses to consider one of the very best and brightest in our country who took on the chance to study the issue as a hobby. That person was Burt Rutan and he did his annual presentation at Oshkosh based on his desire to learn more about it and what was and was not scientifically credible. The presentation is quite stunning and I have sent this information to the Speaker’s campaign and also intend to deliver it to him personally soon.
If he follows his form of citing expert work of others, then he just might change his tune after digesting this info, if he is an honest player.
Here is a link to the presentation in PDF and Powerpoint formats.
http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm
The goal is to win an election. No matter who wins the republican slot, I will back them 100%. I don’t care if our candidate is ideologically impure, it is the cost defeating tyranny.
That happens with all of them. Even Nancy Pelosi has to do that although she usually choses to stick to whichever decision will put more money in the pockets of her rich campaign backers.
Newt is a bright guy and he really, really, really wants to be elected President. He will tell us anything and do anything to get the job. He will also tell everybody everything and do everything to keep the job if he gets it.
Newt will attempt to be all things to all men when it comes to keeping the job.
At the same time, unlike Obama and Pelosi and Romney, and people of their kind ~ he will not see it necessary to stand in the way of people in this country getting rich and having a good time at it.
He is clearly not in this game to control us, or trick us out of our wealth.
Same with Mr. Cain, and probably Representative Bachmann. I cannot say the same for Huntsman, nor Paul, nor Santorum. They may well have some popular policies they'd like to advance, but they also have a personal agenda.
At the moment I tend to dislike the candidates (like Carter, like Obama, like Johnson, like McGovern, like Lurch, etc.) who put their personal agendas first ~ like Fascist Obamakkare, like Fascist Hillarykkkare, like "bring the troops home from everywhere" (as if forward deployment was not a proven strategy for homeland protection), and so on.
We are a great nation with worldwide interests. We want to work. We want to progress. We want to do good.
We need Presidents who understand the terms "nation", "great", "worldwide", and "jobs". Telling us that our biggest concern should be focused on the bowels of our banks just ain't cutting it, nor is it bright to limit our horizons to whether or not the taxpayers or the insured should pay for amputations ~ really now, we have other major issues ~ price of beer, is our neighborhood safe, do I have money leftover after taxes, can my kids go to school without getting beat up by queers,...... a wide variety of issues that loom large and it'd be nice to have a President who didn't think our concerns over those issues were somehow beneath his dignity or care.
Agree with every word, and am already tired of the inevitable arguments this will cause.
Those who won't vote for anyone but a pure conservative will never vote again, if they're honest about that. Who was/is a pure conservative? Reagan? Palin? Both had multiple non-conservative actions and positions.
So here's your choice--don't vote against Obama, and Obama wins.
What's that going to do? Make the RNC say, "Gee, we'd better get a conservative to run next time!"
LOL! Yeah, right!
The only logical choice is to support a conservative for the nomination, and vote for the Republican in the final election. Then support people like Palin in trying to change the party itself.
I suspect the 'I ain't voting for anyone not a conservative' sorts don't vote in local elections, don't even know anything about their local Republican party, and don't seem to understand the only way we're going to get a conservative nominee is by creating a conservative party.
Pouting because some imaginary perfect candidate isn't running won't do it. So help, or get out of the way.
So, what you’re saying is, you trust mob rule over the person you hired to make these calls from the best information available to him?
yeah, he talks down to people in typical professorial manner
If you don’t care, then why comment?
I don’t think he is saying that. I don’t see mob rule anywhere in his post.
Within the current crop of GOP candidates, I don’t see *ANY* of them that are “ideologically-pure”. Rather, each and every one of them has at least one aspect that stinks to high-heaven to me. I don’t have a preferred candidate yet.
But make no mistake: I am voting GOP in the general election. Period. I don’t care who it is.
Why? Given that NO MATTER WHAT the GOP candidate may or may not do once elected as president — let’s assume overwhelming majorities in both houses of congress for the sake of argument — the Supreme court can undo it with the stroke of a pen. That decision is veritably *permanent* and there’s not a darn thing anyone can do about it. Who knows how many *LIFETIME* SCOTUS appointments will be made during the next presidential term. I don’t want Obama making those appointments.
Hence: I will vote for whichever GOP candidate opposes Obama, no matter how ideologically impure. My only requirement is that their name is on the general election ballot opposite Obama’s.
Conservatives would be well advised to settle on a single candidate as soon as possible and then push that candidate as hard as possible — even if half of us have to hold our nose to do it.
I’ve no intent to single out this post by “jenk”, but jenk’s post just happened to tip the scales for me. This rant has been building for awhile...
Tearing down any of the GOP candidates, instead of singing the praises of *YOUR* chosen candidate, is a recipe for disaster. Every time someone posts a “hit-piece” on a given GOP candidate, you should automatically presume there are DEM researchers harvesting every delicious little bullet-point to potentially use against us.
I hate to think that somewhere, there may be some huffpo or DU surfer quietly thanking each freeper who posts some talking points for them. They even get near-immediate feedback from the comments to see how well it resonates.
I’m not saying shut-up. I’m saying “We should know better by now”. If you are incapable of elevating a candidate, at least try not to drag another one down.
well I disagree with you. We need to vet each candidate. You can complain all you want, but if you don’t care about who you vote for, you may as well be a lemming.
You don't make sense, we all have to settle for one? That runs contrary to individualism. If you don't like the mess of a primary, stay out of it.
I thought his speech when he took over the speakership, in which he worshiped FDR, was equally as “dumb.” I never trusted him after that, and his handshake with Toon on healthcare only deepened my mistrust. Will he “melt” in BO’s presence, the way he did in Toon’s?
I simply don’t trust the man. its that simple.
I won't mistake superficial confidence in conversation and communication for a deep malignant desire and obsession to control every living souls life. That is arrogance. Obama and the machine he sells is fascist and a stealth political dictatorship meant to "rule the ignorant masses", not govern. So it is with Romney. I won't be governed by anyone who has to make all of their "governing" decisions in a dark room away from the prying eyes of "mere mortals".
As clumsy as Newt may be in his loyalties, he is still intellectually transparent. I've had enough of what loyalties to a hidden agenda has produced. When the rubber meets the road, I'll take a flawed, honest human over an obsessive, sneaky, self proclaimed G-d any day.
BEWARE THE ELECTABLE REPUBLICANS!
Remember Nixon? He opened the door to China, gave us the EPA, the BATF, and he or Ford gave us Baseline Budgeting that is killing us today with automatic increases in spending across the board. Of course, Ford wasn’t that electable, or conservative!
Old Teddy started a bunch of this progressive agenda, setting up “control” of Western lands under the guise of conservation, attempted universal health care, and started bully little wars.
As for GWB, the open borders, rampant spending and more concern spent on winning hearts and minds rather than winning wars laid the foundation for the current fiasco we call the federal government.
We need Calvin Coolidge, not another Hoover.
Honestly, this nation is so far in the toilet it probably doesn’t matter who is elected other than affecting how soon the crapper gets flushed.
duh
Newt is no where near Calvin Coolidge.
The goal is to elect a conservative. If someone like Romney wins the nomination I will not hold my nose and vote. Liberal republicans do more damage than liberal democrats because liberal democrats are opposed.
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.