Posted on 11/18/2011 1:32:48 AM PST by federal__reserve
And there is Gingrich the liberal. “The liberal revulsion toward him obscured how unorthodox — occasionally, how liberal — his conservatism was. The books then and now are full of heresy. He showed a willingness to criticize other Republicans, even Reagan at the height of his popularity. He advocated a health tax on alcohol to discourage drinking — social engineering, it’s called — and imagined government-issued credit cards that would allow citizens to order goods and services directly from the feds. He thought the government should run nutritional programs at grocery stores and give away some foodstuffs free. He was pushing cuts in the defense budget in 1984 and a prototype of President Obama’s cash-for-clunkers program in 1995.”What is noteworthy is not only how liberal are his prescriptions, but how mundanely statist they are.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
See tag line.
Conservatives can do better.
Newt knows that government is too big and intrusive, and he has ideas for hundreds of government programs to fix that.
“We are in real trouble.’
Your’s a glass half-empty sort. As Rush said yesterday, and I totally agree, ALL of the candidates have something of value to offer, and any of them would turn around our country from its current course of destruction.
I'm supporting Newt and I happen to agree with you on that.
Unfortunately, DeMint, Jindal, Barbour, Daniels, Ryan, Palin, and Rubio are not running.
If we conservatives want to beat Obama, we’ll have to do better than Newt.
Redux 2008, anyone? LOL
WTF. This is not breaking news.
then by all means ask your buds to put Newt in as a keyword
all we still have is Palin this and that as keywords and she didn't even run
Cain never got a keyword either
Imagine Breaking News bashing Palin...Fresno woulda zotted yer butt to the moon in a nanosecond
if We are to become a Cain only board I'd like to know cause right now it's odds Newt or Mitt and Cain trailing and the rest done for...and primaries are close...is FR gonna join the media to attack Newt and get Mitt nominated unintentionally?
if I ran a thread claiming Cain is a fake...do you really think the mods would leave it up
all this zotting and fighting is not going amongst a few hundred folks is not going to do anything but create hard feelings
we may have a DFU or buckhead moment but that is about the extent of our influence
but once...we did have some influence
"Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien(The perfect is the enemy of the good.)"
We're gonna lose.
Hear Hear.
My faith restored...thanks AM!
I hope and pray you are right. However Newt has made many turns in his career, so one never knows which Newt will show up.
All of the candidates have flaws, that is a given.
The question we all have to ask, how would those flaws translate into actions of the candidate if they were to become President?
In Newt's case, I see someone who is deeply entrenched in the Beltway mindset, more so than any other GOP candidate.
And someone who apparently doesn't even consider the 10th Amendment when proposing some new federal program.
I think Newt could beat Obama's fanny in debates, more so than any other candidate in the race - that is a given.
But how well will he run while carrying all of his years of baggage? His history to me shows a man who cannot control his appetites or his instincts. One thing I always felt about Reagan was that he was a very disciplined man. I get no such sense from Newt.
To me, outside of the RINO twins of Romney and Huntsman and the moonbat candidacy of RuPaul, Newt is the hardest sell - just because has, over the last 15 years, popped up continually shilling for DC to have more influence, at a time when we need someone who truly believes DC needs less.
I have zero hard feelings against those who bashed Cain and Palin and Bachmann, my preferred candidates. I am old and mature and I know we are in the primary season, and vetting is a natural part of the process.
In 2008, McCain was last on my list, yet I voted for him.
In 2012, I am going t vote for the nominee, even if he is on the bottom of my list.
My point is to poke a little fun at Newt. He’s by nature a tinkerer and a meddler, not the sort of person who understands the concept of limited government.
I think he’d be a lousy president — but that’s a completely abstract thought as he’d be an even worse nominee.
This thread was moved there, and not by me.
Point well taken.
mitt seems to have reached a ceiling of 20-30%, and the other 70-80% shifts from one candidate to another, shopping a bit, saying "hmmmm..." and then saying "no, I think I'll go with the other one". What this all could lead to is a contentious convention where no candidate is chosen on the first ballot. Many delegates are released from their vote after some number of ballots (I presume it varies, 3? 5? x?), whence they can vote for anybody, including beyond the current bunch now on primary ballots. Should be an interesting time if there is no one guy standing... but, of course, not a single vote has been cast YET, and no delegates are yet chosen.
Newt is much more of a talker -- a big talker -- than a deep thinker.
Surely nobody needed Jennifer Rubin and the Washington Post (or Andrew Ferguson and the Weekly Standard) to tell us that.
Sorry, Newtonians and Harry Turtledove, but the writers of counterfactual history novels are not serious intellectuals almost by definition (If that excludes MacKinlay Kantor and Winston Churchill from serious intellectualism so much the worse for them).
What I would have liked to see was an analysis in 2007 or 2008 of just how seriously intellectual Barack Obama was.
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.