Posted on 12/27/2011 7:11:24 PM PST by bimboeruption
Newt Gingrich has finally found a politician he considers even worse than the president he calls socialist, anti-colonialist and radical. That would be his fellow Republican Ron Paul.
"I think Barack Obama is very destructive to the future of the United States. I think Ron Paul's views are totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American," Gingrich said Tuesday in a CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer.
Could he vote for Paul? "No." If it came down to Paul vs. Obama? "You'd have a very tough choice at that point."
Gingrich's fencing with Mitt Romney seems like an afternoon at a gentleman's club compared with his slams on Paul. "As people get to know more about Ron Paul, who disowns 10 years of his own newsletter, says he didn't really realize what was in it, had no idea what he was making money off of, had no idea that it was racist, anti-Semitic, called for the destruction of Israel, talked about a race war - all of this is a sudden shock to Ron Paul?" he asked. "There will come a morning people won't take him as serious person."
Right now in Iowa, the week before the state's Jan. 3 caucuses, Paul is a very serious person - in the top tier along with Gingrich and Romney and playing aggressively to win. "If Dr. Paul will have to soldier on without Newt's vote, then so be it," Paul campaign manager Jesse Benton said in a statement. He called Gingrich "a divisive, big-government liberal who is unelectable" and his attack on Paul a "childish outburst."
Paul's supporters have complained for months that Paul wasn't getting the attention he deserved. Now that he's within reach of an early-state victory, the media scrutiny and attacks from rivals are escalating rapidly.
Michele Bachmann piled on Paul in an interview Tuesday with Rodney Hawkins of National Journal and CBS News. She cited "racist statements" in Paul's newsletters and said he is indifferent about the prospect of Iran having a nuclear weapon. "Ron Paul would be dangerous for the United States on foreign policy," she said.
Gingrich unloaded on Paul after Blitzer showed a tough Paul attack ad accusing Gingrich of "serial hypocrisy." Gingrich said Paul's "total record of systemic voidance of reality" makes him unthinkable as a president. He is, Gingrich said, "a person who thinks the United States was responsible for 9/11, a person who ... wrote in his newsletter that the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 might have been a CIA plot, a person who believes it doesn't matter if the Iranians have a nuclear weapon."
Gingrich declared twice during the interview that Paul won't get the GOP nomination. Benton countered with the rhetorical equivalent of "neither will you."
Conservatives and tea party activists are fleeing Gingrich due to his support for TARP and an individual insurance mandate (which he has since renounced), Benton said, while independent voters "are horrified by Newt's history of ethics violations, insider pay-to-play politics and influence peddling."
It isn't New Year's Eve yet, but it's safe to say the holiday season is over.
Reading old diaries of my family genealogy, I see that part of the American idea was NOT to be the police that go fixing every small countries civil disturbances. Time to let nations fix their own messes, I’d vote for Ron Paul, in a New York minute.
A poll taken a year before the actual election is absolutely meaningless. I like Santorum but he just doesn't have what it takes to stand up against the Obama lie and hate machine. Newt on the other hand is the only candidate who has the brains, toughness, courage and experience to defeat the ugliness that's headed toward the Republican candidate.
I'm a pragmatist and realist. I want a Republican who will win against the Communist totalitarian in the White House. If it takes bare knuckles so be it. I'm sick and tired of sending naive, ineffectual candy-asses into battle with Mafiosi.
Newt's conservative credentials speak for themselves if anyone cares to look at them objectively. I think any real Christian would try to forgive his worldly trespasses.
I think of Benjamin Franklin who fathered an illegitimate son before he was 20 and lived for years in a common law marriage. He spent years in debauchery while serving in France and England but was a powerful creative and brilliant force in the formation of the American ideal. In my mind Newt and Ben share a lot of traits in common.
I understand the ideological purity of your position. I don't agree with it. Newt is as conservative as either Bachman or Santorum, neither of whom can win against Obama.
Another Obama term will destroy America. I can't believe that's what you want to gamble on. I'll take Newt with all his warts and combative brilliance.
[ Newt is as conservative as either Bachman or Santorum ]
Newt is proudly a progressive as he brags about.. he sees nothing wrong with being progressive..
The thing you are missing is that Obama is also progressive..
as are most all elected democrats and many republicans..
Evidently you and most other american have no idea of what it means to be a (so called)”progressive”..
President Wilson and both Rooseveldts were progressives..
All versions of socialists and Marxists are progressives..
The progressive agenda is 180 degrees out of sync from the American Constitution..
Im not a fan of the inside job theory. But as an engineer I do question how a building can fall at near free fall speed without it being a controlled detonation(lower floors begin to fall before upper floors resulting in free fall speed). The explanation given was a pancake effect which means that upper floors hit lower ones and made them fall from the weight, which means alot of resistance and would take alot longer than freefall speed to come crashing down.
Alot of people are either too naive or just dont want to believe it that black bag operations are done and have been done in the past to further international efforts.
Im speaking from an engineering stand point,and there are many engineering and architechtural professionals that agree with the assessment that the buildings were taken down via controlled demolition. This doesnt mean that the attacks didnt happen by the perpetrators, simply that the buildings had to have had critical support colums destroyed at specific intervals so as to have lower floors give way before the upper floors came crashing down.
Do you honestly have any idea what’s required for a controlled detonation? There would have had to be teams of explosives experts all over those two buildings for weeks to set up such a thing. Do you really believe no one would have noticed that? If you do, you’re as looney as all the other conspiracy theorists, “speaking from an engineering stand point” or not.
I disagree that Newt's a "progressive" in your definition. I have a very good idea of the term's meaning and its history in U.S. politics going back to Teddy Roosevelt.
TR believed in empowering labor unions. Newt doesn't.
TR sought to raise taxes on the rich and erect a centralized bureaucracy. Newt doesn't.
TR hated the old constitutional republic, believing it to be a relic of the past. Newt understands and believes in the constitution and works to keep it functional. Recent case in point, his constitutional view of keeping the judiciary in balance via separation of powers with the Executive and Legislative branches.
TR was an imperialist who favored the warfare state and nation building. I don't see any evidence that Newt is in that camp.
TR was a racist who believed that "inferior" races -- Eastern and Southern Europeans, blacks and asians -- were destined to be absorbed by Northern European Anglo-Saxon civilization. He paved the way for Margaret Sanger, the Eugenics movement, and ultimately Hitler's genocide of the Jews.
Obama, not Newt Gingrich, is the direct descendant of TR's progressivism. He even acknowledged that recently with his speech in Osawatomie, Kan., the same place Roosevelt made the case for what he called the New Nationalism in a speech in Osawatomie, Kansas, on August 31, 1910.
My point was that the explanation that they gave does not match with the physics of what happened.
Bachmann has not campaigned on a platform, but instead has only torn down other candidates and platforms. She is very good at saying what she is against, but not what she is *FOR*.
And you can’t win anything without laying out a vision of where you want to go.
Until she learns that, she won’t win.
Pardon.
Forgot to add:
Campaigning against something as opposed to for something has already been a proven failure. Just look at the Kerry campaign of 2004.
He campaigned as the anti-Bush, only saying that he found everything Bush did to be wrong... but never coming out and saying what *HE* was for. And he lost.
From where I stand, Bachmann has adopted Kerry’s tactics (but not his beliefs).
Newt never really wanted to win—it was, like Trump—a book deal—trying to sell books. Its going to be Mitt—like it or not. Newt will endorse Mittens in the end.
You have a point. Why else would he fail to gather the necessary signatures for Virginia?
I know a lot of Paul’s supporters too. Many are rather important grassroots organizers I have worked with on a lot of Republican campaigns over the past 20 years. These are folks who will work 80 hour weeks on the phone and organizing teams of precinct walkers. They are not stoned college students. I think they are wrong to support a guy who is so wrong on defense issues. But I do not want to drive them out of the party.
I hear ya there!! I can’t say I know a lot, but I do know more than several! And I don’t even appreciate them being called outside the realm of decent Americans!!, I can imagine how they will feel when they read/hear it.
Don't forget the first dog. Gots to know if it craps on the carpet or the lawn.
.Oh, and the cat, does it catch the mice or just sit around getting fat?
I want a First Lady like Anita Hill, as pure as the wind driven snow.
And, if the dog is not a yellow lab, I will be sitting this one out, and that is final.Harumph
Heres video of Newt saying what I said himself.. (repeatedly)
He simply loves the arch-progessive FDR..
Both Willard and Newt are progressives.. as is Obama..
Next question.. WHAT ARE YOU?...
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.