Posted on 12/14/2011 7:18:11 AM PST by Reaganite Republican
Scheming progs were planning to beat the Republicans over the head with it for years... right through 2012 at a minimum.
As for Gingrich, it appears he was carrying water for the RNC from where I'm standing (not the first time that's caused him major grief)... and thus now not in a position to be so brutally frank with 'it was politics': alas, primary opponents from the same Republican Party he was working in the service of as-a-whole now get to paint Newt as a RINO, flip-flopper, or worse- and there's really not much he's able to say in his defense, effectively gagged on this one.
As for the flipping and flopping, imo he had to walk a fine line not to hurt Mr Ryan's political capital any more than necessary, in addition to keeping all real options open for Republicans in the dealing with entitlement spending over the long-term.
You don't think so? Note the careful choice of words in that pointed criticism of social engineering. Although the budget featured dramatic across-the-board cuts, it is clear to me that Gingrich was attempting to abate any fears regarding the Social Security/Medicare portion of the plan in a very targeted manner and thereby dilute the Democrats' ability to turn the issue against us.
Everybody on our side seems to be aware that Social Security is job #1 in any realisitic attempt to tackle out-of-control entitlement spending... yet regrettably, it's also the Left's favorite issue to frighten voters with as they tell people whatever they want to hear, stick their lying heads in the sand, and pretend that the well will never run dry.
While I have no way of knowing if Paul Ryan has learned anything from all this, Ron Paul apparently has not: never what you'd call a 'team player', Mr Paul surely sees himself as too messianic a figure to be bothered with trivial practical priorities like ridding this country of Barack Obama... to me the most vital task, one this unsettling old crank is manifestly not up to.
Not that anyone will ever have to worry about a Paul nomination: with "There's no Medicare in the Constitution!" just yesterday it appears he's still doing his damndest to try and scare-off any 2012 GOP voters the Ryan plan missed. Alas, as is so typical of cults, the fate of 'outsiders' don't seem to matter much to the paulbots (they're all bad and inferior to The Leader- so screw em), and in this case, that includes 90% of the Republican Party -along with pretty much all the rest of the country.
So quit egging RP on, Iowa... time to get serious already.
Noot in the Nooz: Newton Leroy Gingrich continues to hold a double-digit lead in Iowa, and up ten points nationally. And while iffy-outlyer PPP has Ron Paul closing within one point in Iowa... they also show Newt now pulling away from the entire GOP pack in California, Virginia, and Pennsylvania.
Pics/RP humor/more at Reaganite Republican
________________________________________________________________________
Paul’s supporters and future voters had better look to his unrealistic ideas regarding the actions of Iran.
My #1 concern, that I can assure you SPV
And Gingrich’s remark that he’d like to bring Bolton on board was all I needed to see from him- that would be just perfect
Nest analysis I’ve seen on Newt and his skill.
Much obliged~
Newt knows how to play politics. That makes a lot of people here very uncomfortable, but it is a useful skill for a POLITICIAN. A skill Cain (who I liked) lacked.
All Newt said was that social-engineering from either the right or the left, is fundamentally incompatible with liberty (read Road to Serfdom by F. A. Hayek to understand why).
I wish people would stop pulling a contextomy with this statement.
This analysis is way too deep for most of the anti-Newts around here. They think they are smarter than Newt and prefer to think he stupidly stepped in it rather than believe he was way ahead of them in attempting to undo the damage Ryan’s bold plan was doing in NY 9 and elsewhere. I assume someone will come along and make my point for me here soon enough...
Newt went after Paul Ryan for two reasons:
1) His plan is the conservative free market plan, which Newt does not believe in. Remember, he is the progressive kind.
2) Newt’s ego is too big to accept someone else can come up with a good plan.
Starting a ping list for any interstested pls
FReepMail @ Reaganite Republican
TIA!
Newt went after Paul Ryan for two reasons:
1) His plan is the conservative free market plan, which Newt does not believe in. Remember, he is the progressive kind.
2) Newt’s ego is too big to accept someone else can come up with a good plan.
Nobody will beat Obama who can’t debate and WIN at politics
Only Newt has that AND the fire to whip Obama’s bony rear end... not to mention thick skin
Wow- that didn’t take long lol
Wow, that was fast. There is a reason why you turn up the heat on the boiling frog slow...he’ll jump out the pot if you turn the heat up too fast. That’s what Ryan’s plan did and it cost the R’s in NY 9 and elsewhere. There’s a reason why it took 100 years for the left to gradually install socialist underpinnings. It can’t be disassembled in a single piece of legislation, you have to chip away at it.
This is demonstrably false AND petty. Didn't I read he supported the ideas of Alvin Toffler, for one?
Possibly, though there's no real great evidence pointing to this.
2) Newt’s ego is too big to accept someone else can come up with a good plan.
LOL...yeah, that must be it. That's the ticket.
“It can’t be disassembled in a single piece of legislation, you have to chip away at it.”
By just chipping away at it you accept and enforce the very premise upon which it is based. You can gradually work your way toward total government control/socialism but not toward freedom. Our problem is that the GOP accepts the liberal premises.
The Republican Party spends most of its effort promoting the Democrats and their agenda. No matter who is in power, the federal government, its power and expenditures, continue to grow with little chance of reversal.
The Democrats propose a “generous” increase in the minimum wage. The Republicans either oppose an increase and opt for staying at the current level or counter with a more modest increase. The Democrats say that we need to increase the school lunch program by x million dollars. The Republicans answer by offering an increase of one third x. Democrats say that the government needs to spend a lot more subsidizing housing and Republicans say that the current level is adequate. Democrats say that more people should be made eligible and Republicans defend the status quo.
So the predictable dynamic is that the Democrats fight for an increase in spending for some government program and the Republicans either oppose any increase or counter with a proposal for more modest growth. What impression of the Republican Party does this give? What is the one principle that people are able to discern from Republicans’ policies as stated above? That the Republicans are cheap and uncaring. Some may manage to construe it as fiscal responsibility but what it comes down to is withholding funds from worthwhile programs. Thus ultimately withholding help from those who need it.
If the Republicans agree to spend two billion dollars on a program they are inherently saying that it is good and just and worthwhile. Why else would they agree to spend such a massive amount of money on it? If people who position themselves as fiscally responsible spend that kind of money, it has to be for something good. Something right. Something necessary. And here they cede the moral high ground to Democrats, liberals, leftists by validating their policies, programs and agenda. It’s Democrats who are fighting for all of these good and righteous schemes and the Republicans who are dragging their feet.
Every time Republicans say yes but not so much. They are saying that the Democrats are right and they, the Republicans, are cheap. The Democrats are looking out for the needy and the Republicans are looking out for the cheap and stingy. We are cheap! Hardly an inspiring philosophy. Hardly a winning strategy.
We all know that the best defense is a good offense. The GOP has turned that truism on its head. Their only offense is a pathetic defense. And no matter how good your defense if you have no offense you will eventually lose. It’s inevitable. After the 1994 elections swept the Republicans t control of Congress, many anticipated the extinction of a few federal agencies. Many even a department or two. Dare to dream. Then we were told that Rome was not built in a day so don’t expect it to be dismantled in a day. Well we are still waiting for those first few bricks to be knocked loose.
Sure the left has moved us to a gargantuan and ever-growing welfare state on step at a time, or make that one billion a time. That is the only way it could have happened. Anyone who one hundred years ago tried to propose what we have now would have been run out of town. Any American town. As per the above it may be impossible to move in the opposite direction by increments. When you propose to spend less than the left wants the only principle that you are standing on and promoting is cheapness. Not a very compelling platform. Rather a recipe for long term defeat.
Being second-rate Democrats has been a disaster. Even when Republicans win elections. Agreeing to spend a fortune on Democrat social programs and wealth transfer schemes only validates those schemes. And makes conservatives-or what passes for conservatives these days-look bad. So virtually everything the Republicans do validates Democrats and make themselves look bad. A guaranteed formula for disaster.
So what’s the alternative? How about taking a stand. How about acting on principle? A principle other than cheapness. Will it be easy? The question is what are your principles and what do you want to achieve. If you want to be liked by the establishment intelligentsia then you definitely need to keep up with leftists. Just keep in mind that you will have to go further and further year after year. They keep raising the bar, moving the goal line. What “moderates’ are advocating and supporting now would have been radical a few decades ago. Trying to keep up will always mean that you will always be second-rate and always fall short.
The only was to go, which makes it the easy way, is to stand on principle. Without compromise.
Newt is the consummate politician - he will say ANYTHING, and DO Anything (or in his case, “sign” anything) to get votes. He is also about as “conservative” as Jimmy Carter.
Election of Newt is not much removed from 4 more years of Obama. AT this point, I would rather have a large majority in the House and Senate and keep Obama in the WH (if the Repubs then could grow a “set” and hold the line), than I would like either of the “frontrunners” for the Republican ticket to wing he WH.
Gingrich has a plan for SS. It is a plan that is VOLUNTARY and allows for younger people, s well as anyone that wants to, to put their 6.25% of the SS tax into a private investment account that they would own and builds equity.
It is voluntary, as any plan will have to start out as. You will find that it would be impossible to pass a mandatory plan of ANY type through the Legislature.
Ryan's plan was reasonable, but would NEVER pass the Senate. Why bring it up at all? Pound the Senate leaders and Obama to win the future and pass a plan when you are in control.
Suffice to say you’re for somebody worse lol
The reason I know that is Gingrich is the most conservative
ELECTABLE candidate imho- ALL the rest are worse for one reason or another
Noot strong-armed Bubba into four years of balanced budgets and you call him ‘not far removed’ from another Obama term
That’s fair, lol
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.