Posted on 12/14/2011 4:27:23 PM PST by Halfmanhalfamazing
Looking at Newt's record: From his love of the transnationalist Tofflers to the Department of Education, global warming(Pelosi/couch), "The Era of Reagan is dead", the fairness doctrine, GATT, and a few other things that I'm currently forgetting, it's safe to say that Newt is a big government guy.
Yet, as speaker of the house(94) he did some good things, many things that I agree with and like.
So Newt was big government before the 1994 sweep, and big government afterwards, then isn't it safe to say that his years as speaker of the house - his years as a "conservative" speaker of the house are the fluke? If he is big government before being speaker, small government for the time as speaker, then big government again, then triangulation seems like the perfect word to use.
Would Newt govern like he did previous to speakership?(fairness doctrine, department of education, Tofflers)
Would Newt govern like he did post speakership? (pelosi/couch/global warming)
Or would we "get lucky" and get the Newt that we saw as speaker? I don't know if this is a bet I'd consider a safe one to take.
To: fightinJAG; AllPlease view this video series where Newt expresses his principles, his understanding of our founding principles and ideals, his ideas on running against Obama and the socialist left, and notice the stark differences in knowledge, understanding and grasp of domestic and world affairs, freedom vs socialism, contrasting viewpoints, substance, style, even speaking ability (no notes, no teleprompter, etc) as compared to Obama (or even McCain, Romney, establishment GOP, et al).
It'd be a great pleasure for me to campaign, support and vote for someone I can really agree with on most issues, respect, appreciate and get excited about rather than holding my nose and just voting against the lesser of two weevils.
In Part 1, Newt challenges the Wake County GOP to do all it can in 2012 to make Barack Obama a 1 term president. He discusses energy policy, our debt crisis, the president's failure to lead on Libya, one nation under God, the Declaration of Independence and unalienable rights.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpa4aCiP1CwIn Part 2 Newt addresses the way left wing government erodes American Exceptionalism, why religious freedom is opposed by dictatorships, the work ethic, unemployment compensation, economic growth, 2+2=4, and government barriers to job creation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y42oQgOb7OEIn Part 3, Newt discusses the importance of litigation reform, a more favorable tax code for job creation including abolishing the capital gains and death tax, and executive orders that should be signed on the first day the new president takes office. [Abolish all W/H czars, reinstate Reagan bans on taxpayer money for abortion, etc].
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMFV5h-wi7kIn Part 4, Newt confronts the sobering fact that ten years after 9/11 we are not yet winning in our conflict with radical Islamists. He draws analogies with the Cold War about how we need to rethink our strategies. He also discusses the Libyan engagement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BBxe24DwPI46posted on Monday, December 12, 2011 12:15:27 AMby Jim Robinson
Jim shows Newt is a pretty good fit to the Tea Party values: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2818986/posts?page=38#38
The word “opportunistic” does come to mind.
Newt Gingrich is a dirty rotten scoundrel. However, barring someone more conservative rising to beat Romney, if he’s good enough for Jim Robinson, he’s good enough for me.
After watching Newt for about 25 years, I think it is fair to say that; Newt is anybody's dog that will hunt with him.
I just do not trust that the Newt we have today is the Newt we will have in 2013.
I am having a very big difficulty getting over the Newt/Toffler thing.
While I fully understand the difference, it does smack of Bill Ayers. Obama has Bill Ayers, Newt has the Tofflers. To me, a radical is a radical. Ayers is every bit the radical, and from what I’ve seen, so are the Tofflers.
As Bill Ayers himself learned, books are better than bombs anyways.
>> Or would we “get lucky” and get the Newt that we saw as speaker? I don’t know if this is a bet I’d consider a safe one to take. >>
That’s the question, isn’t it? Not that I could guarantee it, cause of course I cannot, but I think it’s worth the chance for the following reasons:
A: he seems animated by the current enemy, and that is clearly to Newt Obama and the liberal media and the Reid Pelosi wing of congress.
B: with a GOP House (and likely Senate) he will govern conservatively in almost any case. He would not veto conservative bills and might lead on some as he did as Speaker.
C: Most of his conservatism is stuff he DID. Most of his weirdness is stuff he SAID or WROTE.
-—————That’s the question, isn’t it? Not that I could guarantee it, cause of course I cannot, but I think it’s worth the chance for the following reasons:-—————
It is.
But why is it worth the chance? We still have conservatives in the running!
Why is everybody selling themselves short? It makes no sense. Screw the media. Santorum can win. Bachmann can win. Heck, I’d bet Perry could win too.
>> Why is everybody selling themselves short? It makes no sense. Screw the media. Santorum can win. Bachmann can win. Heck, I’d bet Perry could win too. >>
Personally, I am not selling their chances short. I just don’t think any of them “have game” frankly. Ability matters, and I just don’t see it. I like them all as far as ideology goes. I certainly assume that Perry must have more game than he shows, but on this stage he MUST learn how to show it. It is just part of the gig.
My .02 on that subject.
I’ve been reading this for so long, yet no one has ever DEFINED triangulation. Would someone please explain it to me??? Thank you.
You consistently define Newt and his positions better than anyone on this board. People keep comparing Newt against perfect memories. Tragic. I really feel he’s our last hope to pull out of this nose dive. The other candidates don’t have a fricken clue what it takes, other than Bachmann or Palin. His upside far outweighs his downside.
I thought they were tough on Cain, but they are coming after Newt from all corners.
They want Romney bad. But Romney does not have the ability to beat the media, Hollywood, tv, the unions, Acorn, Soros, the Muslim Bortherhood, a completely corrupt Justice Department, and the Democratic party. There are about 1000 other organizations out there that owe their living on the backs of taxpayers that are coming out in force as well, along with the international socialists. Sorry, Romney is not up to a 10th of the battle that is ahead.
Newt would be better than Romney because he has a history of actually acting conservative in power.
Perry is more trustworthy than Newt.
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.