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
________________________________________________________________________
“After seeing the Ryan budget’s approval rating tank in the polls for a month, Newt came out in mid-May stating he didn’t find ‘right-wing social engineering’ any more palatable than ObamaCare’s ‘left-wing social engineering’. The former House Speaker then attempted to nuance that criticism of Ryan’s Path to Prosperity in the days following, only to sound a bit more defensive of the initial statement again later: flop-flip-flop?”
No, that would be, if we assume that he changed his position from A to B and then back to A, a flip flop. Arlen Spectre did not flip flop when he converted from Dem to Rep, it was only when he went back to Dem that he completed the maneuver.
“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).”
What does “Road to Serfdom” have to do with it? Are you trying to say Ryan is a rightwing socialist? Because that’s the only way Newt’s and your point makes sense. But Ryan was only proposing we do a little less engineering. If ceasing to engineer is itself a form of engineering, and maybe it is according to a certain , fine. Then there’s no way out of social engineering without social engineering, and I really have no idea what Newt’s point is.
Just Newt blowing hot air, per usual. He, like every lifelong politician ever, paints the do-nothing middle as the only reasonable position. Socialist if you do socialism, and socialist if you ease up on it, too. Somehow, though, keeping on doing as we’ve done, with a perpetual upward motion on a gradual enough curve, isn’t socialist. Makes no sense whatsoever, but doesn’t have to because the power of political inertia is on his side, and no one pays too much attention to words.
You give Newt far too much credit (i.e. - balanced budget/strong-arm Bubba).
In fact, you kind of backed up my premise - that a strongly Republican Congress (BOTH houses) would keep Obama in check. A RINO in the WH would get their way even with a Repub Congress (lest we forget the do-nothing years of GW Bush’s first 6 years....).
Am I for somebody worse? Right now, I am “for” NONE OF THE ABOVE, as far as the press/George Soros choices for the Republican nomination. I personally am sick and tired of being told who I can vote for. I am fed up with holding my nose and voting for someone who I cannot even pretend to trust. Here we are, pretending to be “Conservatives”, yet we are willing to compromise on every major conservative principal to “get elected”? You have to be nuts to think that is a better plan.
What is the point of claiming to be Conservative if we are willing to throw it all away just to win an election? What does that do? It shifts the politics of the entire nation further to the Left.. It’s far beyond time to pull things back to the RIGHT. As the Dems continue to fly WAY off to the Leftist/Marxist wing, the last thing we need to do is elect a “moderate/fake Conservative”. If your ship is veering hard towards an iceberg, do you straighten out the wheel (thus sending you directly into the iceberg), or do you turn the wheel to the right to correct the course and get back in the shipping channel (responsible, Constitutional government).
I have been called naive before for saying that we need to stand our ground and quit “Holding our noses” to vote... “thats just not how Washington works”.... That is because we have tolerated “how it works” for far too long. The ONLY hope this nation has (on top of turning to Jesus in masses) is electing real conservatives.
My expectations in a candidate are not “superhuman”. Heck - even Ronald Reagan had his faults (after all - he WAS a Democrat before he came to his senses). But when we begin to compromise core/key values - then we have gained absolutely nothing by getting a candidate elected.
Maybe comparing Newt to Jimmy Carter was a bit unfair - but I just don’t see him being significantly less LEFT than Clinton... and I believe that is a valid comparison.
Just watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hCTM2hzMvrY
“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.”
No, wrong. That’s just the way he talks. Newt’s an academic, remember, and “social engineering” is a very common term among them, if not everyone else. And it’s no surprise that “social” happens to appear both in that phrase and as part of our name for the federal old age pension program, if you know what a buzzword that has become.
Then again, maybe Newt is a crafty politician and it was a codeword. Only it didn’t whatsoever work, from what I’ve seen. And if he’s such a crafty politician, why put it in such a way as to ensure to conservative alienation? Either he’s not as careful with his words as you suggest, or he actually believes them and doesn’t care what we think.
“It can’t be disassembled in a single piece of legislation, you have to chip away at it”
Fine, then say THAT. It’s not as if whether or not something is social engneering depends on how sudden it is.
“Newt knows how to play politics. That makes a lot of people here very uncomfortable, but it is a useful skill for a POLITICIAN.”
Coming out against Ryan would be playing politics. Doing so with language that persuaded absolutely no one in the middle while alienating the base is playing politics badly. What actually happened was that Newt said what he thinks, and what he thinks is that reforming the welfare state in any manner other than the unsuccessful lilly-livered 90s model (and that probably only because he was involved personally) is just as bad as leftwing social engineering. Someone who thinks that, along with everything else Newt thinks, doesn’t deserve the Republican nomination.
“he’ll jump out the pot if you turn the heat up too fast”
I have no doubt you’re right. But if we try Fabian anti-socialism, and especially if people like Newt lead and people like you make excuses for them, I have absolutely no doubt that one day we will wake to headlines shouting that we have to cut the government 50% by noon or else, and it’ll be too late.
In the interests of the article you posted, you might also appreciate the video I linked Tublecane: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hCTM2hzMvrY
“The reason I know that is Gingrich is the most conservative
ELECTABLE”
I kinda sorta understand the anybody but a democrat mindset and the nomination of liberals or psuedo-conservatives following from it. But I’ll never understand why people think Newt is electable. What, just because he’s moderate and has hung around Washington long enough? That was the only argument for McCain, as I recall, and see how well that worked. Newt will never do better.
“Just watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hCTM2hzMvrY";
That explained nothing. Newt tries to bundle discussion of social engineering with the issue of whether Congress should pass unpopular legislation. Which admittedly was the context for his putting his foot in his mouth. But the issues then as much as now shouldn’t be confused with eachother, and his point is as off-subject and wrong as ever. If you want to criticize Ryan’s plan as too radical, fine. Just don’t characterize it as social engineering when all Ryan’s plan would do is lessen the amount of government interference in society.
Behold the dark heart of Republican progressivism and Newtonian moderacy: less government is itself a form of social engineering because society has so grown used to cradle to grave state intrusion that it is now its normal condition. Any rightist deviation from that is just as bad as leftist deviation, and must be condemned. Yuck.
The nub, if I have it right, is that Newt incorrectly classifies anything relatively sudden and sweeping as “social engineering,” and therefore bad. Letting the welfare state grow at somewhat slower rate than Democrats, I take it, is not “social engineering,” and therefore good. What a load of bunk.
The Hayek thing is an empty name-drop, nothing more. Because the point of “The Road to Serfdom,” or part of it, was that Nazis and Commies, rather than on opposite poles of the political spectrum as lefties would have us believe, were both socialists. The only relevance this would have is if Ryan, or specifically the Ryan plan, is socialist, too. Which means Newt thinks standing in the way of socialism is socialist.
What a travesty, to pull Hayek into this sordid discussion. He was infinitely more libertarian than Newt or Ryan, and ff anyone’s proposals constitute dangerous rightwing social engineering, it would be his.
Because Gingrich is a moderate playing far right.No wonder Clinton likes him.
“...classifies anything relatively sudden and sweeping as “social engineering,” and therefore bad. Letting the welfare state grow at somewhat slower rate than Democrats,”
And therein lies the reason Ron Paul even can have a campaign...
We can agree to disagree. First, the Ryan plan had zero chance of getting passed. Second, Newt is running against Ryan’s dad. Third, your take on what Newts thoughts about reform are your opinion, and nothing more. FYI, I personally like the Ryan plan.
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.