Posted on 11/13/2011 6:54:05 PM PST by fightinJAG
[snip]Gingrich is perhaps best-known for his foibles, including his spectacular fall from power in the late 1990s. ... Gingrich also holds some views that do not fit the conservative mold. He has partnered with Hillary Clinton to advocate health-care IT legislation, with Al Sharpton and Arne Duncan to promote President Barack Obama's education reforms, and with Nancy Pelosi in an ad stressing the importance of taking action on climate change.
Gingrich angered Republicans by criticizing Paul Ryan's plan to reform Medicare, prompting the American Conservative to accuse him of never really having been a conservative in the first place. [snip]
A self-described "ideas man," Gingrich is the author of 23 books....His earlier books are filled with rapid-fire streams of ideas for bettering society, often without details about how to implement them.
"Gingrich's vagueness was always a problem," wrote Ferguson. "But the books show something more: a near-total lack of interest in the political implementation of his grand ideas—a lack of interest, finally, in politics at its most mundane and consequential level."[snip]
Gingrich is also known for having had a six-year affair with his now-wife, then-House staffer Callista Bisek, while he was married to his second wife, Marianne Ginther. Esquire has an interesting profile of Gingrich based on interviews with his second wife. Ginther describes how Gingrich told her about the affair right after giving speeches about family values, and says that he initially asked her if she could just tolerate the affair.
Gingrich also runs the Center for Health Transformation, a for-profit group whose members are health insurers and drug companies. According to the Wall Street Journal, the companies pay big membership fees, and "in return, they get access to Mr. Gingrich, interaction with other group members, and marketing and research support."
(Excerpt) Read more at alaska-native-news.com ...
Of course I didn’t mean it that way.
All I am saying is what I said: a person has to be informed, however they choose to do that, and not simply tune out the discussion of a candidate’s record.
As I posted at the top, there were things in this article that I did not know about Newt’s record. So this article informed me. Doesn’t mean I then have to accept the author’s take on the facts he informed me of.
Finally, the Undefeated DVD was nothing but another form of media presentation that some people chose to rely upon without question and others chose to fact-check and others chose to ignore. No different than the decision made about ALL the articles that come our way every day.
Maybe you already knew all the points the author brought up in this piece.
But, for me, reading articles from many different sources is the way I inform myself, first, by learning what’s out there and, then, fact-checking it for myself.
P.S.
Just curious:
Assuming this article is accurate, did you know Newt partnered with Al Sharpton and Arne Duncan on Obama’s education reforms?
Did you know that Newt’s Center for Health Transformation is not a think tank, but an organization in which insurers and others pay large membership fees for access to Mr. Gingrich?
These were a couple of the things I had not heard or had forgotten that reading this article informed me of. Now I can fact-check those items for myself. And, of course, I don’t have to accept any analysis the author made on these points.
What do I think about that? I don’t really give a damn...
Every one of these candidates have warts. What are you going to do? It’s the hand we’ve been dealt. Ronald Reagan will not be resurrected this time around.
Fact is - unless somebody better decided to jump in, which they didn’t - the likely nominee has always only been two or three people. Romney, Perry, and - maybe stretching it here - Newt. Perry imploded. So what’s that leave us? You can draw your own picture...
In my view - not one of the other candidates are going to make it and never where. Cains had his moment in the sun but the shade is slowly going to set upon him. How soon? Who knows - he might do a Huckabee and snag Iowa, but I doubt it. Even if he does it will likely fracture the base and ensure McCain II.
Hey look... You don’t like “Circular firing squad”? How about “Let the self-immolation begin” then? Can I bring marshmallows?
Thank you for substantively addressing the issues brought up in the article!
The problem with what Newt did was, as is so often the case with him, HOW he did it. Even if he was completely in the right, and had every conservative reason to back up his conclusions, at that precise moment going on the Sunday shows and calling Ryan’s plan “right-wing social engineering” was just about the maximum damage to the plan that Newt could have done.
And this is what Newt does. He not only fumbles out of the blue, he fumbles when it’s third and goal.
(BTW, have you listened to Mark Levin’s takedown of the “right-wing social engineering” remark?)
What do you think about the other points the author brings up?
You said: "Gingrich also holds some views that do not fit the conservative mold."
I asked: "What mold? The mold called the US Constitution?"
I will ask again: What mold? The mold called the US Constitution?
Thanks for the substantive discussion. NOT.
Oh... I should have noted... I especially don’t care about all the “baggage” about Newt that will now get trotted out. It’s old news. Newt is a known quantity. He is what he is. Warts and all. Warts just like the rest of them.
You posted to me. I don’t understand your question.
The author is simply saying that Gingrich holds some views and has taken some positions that don’t fit in with what is commonly recognized as conservatism.
Good - glad you found out what works for you. Remember - there are two sides to every story. Of course, of course, you already know that.
OK, that’s all I wanted to know, thank you.
I’d still like your reply to #42, if you’re so inclined. Thanks.
More than welcome!
I heard him on more than one of those shows and he explained that mandate before he said he was not in favor of mandates whether they were from the left or the right. He did that just fine.
He explains in detail his opinions and his plans. I find no fault with him to be president as I have kept up with his agenda since he left congress and been in audiences when he spoke.
If he isn’t our candidate, Obama wins.
This is the basic problem — you don’t give a damn about anything bad about Newt’s record and other people do.
Why not just respect the fact that that’s a legitimate point of disagreement, especially since, as you profess, you don’t care AT ALL — that makes for a pretty wide gap between your approach and the approach of people who do have concerns about Newt’s record.
Why not try to make the case that none of these things should preclude Newt from being President? It’s not really persuasive to just say you don’t give a damn, everybody has warts.
How do you suppose any "think tank" exists? They get paid by their clients. As far as his comment on Paul Ryan's budget, do you know what he meant and why he said it? Might be relevant.
What I like best is the part about how Newt doesn't get anything done--like win a GOP House majority for the first time in a lifetime. Write 23 books (but who's counting). Fulfilled the Contract with America. Passed Welfare Reform and got Clinton to sign it. Balanced the budget for the first time in forty years. Naw, he never did nothin'.
Good for you - you stayed informed on your own and are capable of making up your own mind. Unfortunately, that mindset doesn’t appear to be the ‘flavor of the week’ for some.
It the shoe fits...
If you want to invest your time researching backgrounds for pedagogical reasons (or whatever) that’s fine. Nothing wrong with that.
But at the end of the day this contest is coming down to a simple question: Romney or Newt? Who’s it going to be? If it isn’t going to be Newt, then it will be Romney. That’s why I say it’s a all a circular firing squad scenario. Conservatives are going to continue screwing around with their impossible dream alternatives and ensure that it ends up being McCain II.
Ok Caniacs... I’ll throw you a bone. There’s still the possibility that you can replace Newt with Cain in the above but that will even more likely result in McCain II.
So when it’s all done, tells us whose warts where worse. In my book, that’s an easy one... Romney’s.
Most think tanks are funded through private donors, not dues-paying members, with the purpose of their membership being to obtain access to the front man. Basically, payment to lobby Gingrich on health insurance matters.
My point is that Gingrich has name-dropped this organization as if it's devoted to finding health care solutions, when on paper it can be construed as a pay-to-lobby Gingrich gig.
Yes, the input of industry members is invaluable, but it seems to me that making this a for-profit venture based on large membership fees makes it too easy to question Gingrich's bias on proposals coming out of this Center. It's not Heritage Foundation, that much is clear.
As for the mandate discussion, yes, I am aware of what he said and why he said it. I have repeatedly said the problem is HOW he made his statement. If you recall, it was the fact that he used the ill-advised and Lib-pandering term "right-wing social engineering" that caused his entire campaign to drop dead in its track right then and there -- so a LOT of conservatives were troubled by HOW he stated his case.
I don't think it will be enough to remind people that Newt's criticism may have had a good basis or whatever. This was too much like "more Newt shooting his mouth off."
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.