Gingrich answers Rush Limbaugh

The Hill ^ | 1/10/2012 | Christian Heinze

[americanophile]

On Fox & Friends this morning, Newt Gingrich fought back against Rush Limbaugh's criticism of his rhetoric on Bain Capital.

FOX HOST STEVE DOOCY: I was driving around yesterday in my car, and I was listening to Rush Limbaugh, and he was talking about you and how you're going after Mitt Romney and Bain Capital.

And he said that you're using the language of the Left to beat up on Romney over Bain.

He said it makes him uncomfortable because that's what the Left will do if Romney is the nominee.

GINGRICH: Well, I don't think I'm using the language of the Left. I'm using the language of classic American populism.

Main Street has always been suspicious of Wall Street, small businesses have always worried about big businesses.... and I think people have a natural concern when they see financiers come in from out of town, take over a company, take all the profits, and then leave people who are unemployed behind.

[Mr.Unique]

Business should share there profits with the workers.

Da Comrade!

[Yosemitest]

If I have to chose between Newt and Rush, I'll chose Rush>
Hello Santorum.


"Establishment Republicans" Want to Redefine the Term "Conservative"

"DO CONSERVATIVES WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?"

DO CONSERVATIVES "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?

Palin was my first choice, but she dropped out.
Bachmann became my first choice,and she dropped out.
Cain was my second choice, but he dropped our.
Now ... Newt was my second choice, but he challenged Rush.
So now ... Rick Santorum, who use to be my third choice, is now my first choice.

But Romney, Perry, Ron Paul, Huntsman, and Johnson are NOT acceptable,
and if on the ballot for the general election for President or V.P., would cause me to do a write in.

There's no way in hell I can compromise my values.

Jack Kerwick wrote an article on May 24, 2011 titled The Tea Partier versus The Republican and he expressed some important issues that I agree with.

Thus far, the field of GOP presidential contenders, actual and potential, isn’t looking too terribly promising.

This, though, isn’t meant to suggest that any of the candidates, all things being equal, lack what it takes to insure
that Barack Obama never sees the light of a second term; nor is it the case that I find none of the candidates appealing.
Rather, I simply mean that at this juncture, the party faithful is far from unanimously energized over any of them.

It is true that it was the rapidity and aggressiveness with which President Obama proceeded to impose his perilous designs upon the country
that proved to be the final spark to ignite the Tea Party movement.
But the chain of events that lead to its emergence began long before Obama was elected.
That is, it was actually the disenchantment with the Republican Party under our “compassionate conservative” president, George W. Bush,
which overcame legions of conservatives that was the initial inspiration that gave rise to the Tea Party.

It is this frustration with the GOP’s betrayal of the values that it affirms that accounts for why the overwhelming majority
of those who associate with or otherwise sympathize with the Tea Party movement
refuse to explicitly or formally identify with the Republican Party.
And it is this frustration that informs the Tea Partiers’ threat to create a third party
in the event that the GOP continues business as usual.

If and when those conservatives and libertarians who compose the bulk of the Tea Party, decided that the Republican establishment
has yet to learn the lessons of ’06 and ’08, choose to follow through with their promise,
they will invariably be met by Republicans with two distinct but interrelated objections.

First,
they will be told that they are utopian, “purists” foolishly holding out for an “ideal” candidate.

Second, because virtually all members of the Tea Party would have otherwise voted Republican if not for this new third party,
they will be castigated for essentially giving elections away to Democrats.



Both of these criticisms are, at best, misplaced; at worst, they are just disingenuous.
At any rate, they are easily answerable.

Let’s begin with the argument against “purism.” To this line, two replies are in the coming.


No one, as far as I have ever been able to determine, refuses to vote for anyone who isn’t an ideal candidate.
Ideal candidates, by definition, don’t exist.
This, after all, is what makes them ideal.
This counter-objection alone suffices to expose the argument of the Anti-Purist as so much counterfeit.
But there is another consideration that militates decisively against it.

A Tea Partier who refrains from voting for a Republican candidate who shares few if any of his beliefs
can no more be accused of holding out for an ideal candidate
than can someone who refuses to marry a person with whom he has little to anything in common
be accused of holding out for an ideal spouse.
In other words, the object of the argument against purism is the most glaring of straw men:
“I will not vote for a thoroughly flawed candidate” is one thing;
“I will only vote for a perfect candidate” is something else entirely.



As for the second objection against the Tea Partier’s rejection of those Republican candidates who eschew his values and convictions,
it can be dispensed with just as effortlessly as the first.

Every election season—and at no time more so than this past season—Republicans pledge to “reform Washington,” “trim down” the federal government, and so forth.
Once, however, they get elected and they conduct themselves with none of the confidence and enthusiasm with which they expressed themselves on the campaign trail,
those who placed them in office are treated to one lecture after the other on the need for “compromise” and “patience.”

Well, when the Tea Partier’s impatience with establishment Republican candidates intimates a Democratic victory,
he can use this same line of reasoning against his Republican critics.
My dislike for the Democratic Party is second to none, he can insist.
But in order to advance in the long run my conservative or Constitutionalist values, it may be necessary to compromise some in the short term.

For example,

as Glenn Beck once correctly noted in an interview with Katie Couric,
had John McCain been elected in 2008, it is not at all improbable that, in the final analysis,
the country would have been worse off than it is under a President Obama.
McCain would have furthered the country’s leftward drift,
but because this movement would have been slower,
and because McCain is a Republican, it is not likely that the apparent awakening that occurred under Obama would have occurred under McCain.


It may be worth it, the Tea Partier can tell Republicans, for the GOP to lose some elections if it means that conservatives—and the country—will ultimately win.

If he didn’t know it before, the Tea Partier now knows that accepting short-term loss in exchange for long-term gain is the essence of compromise, the essence of politics.

Ironically, he can thank the Republican for impressing this so indelibly upon him.

I'm fresh out of "patience", and I'm not in the mood for "compromise".
"COMPROMISE" to me is a dirty word.
Let the RINO's compromise their values, with the conservatives, for a change.

The "Establishment Republicans" can go to hell!

[Finny]

If Newt has jumped the shark, a fair number of Freepers are on the trip. 60% of those polled, in fact. Wow. This is worse then when we settled for McCain in 2008. At least then there were already enough elections that it was clear we had no choice. Now we seem to be going willingly. In a race with 4 solid conservatives, to end up with Newt is like winning the booby prize. Four solid conservatives?

I wonder how many FReepers remember how aggressively pro-Romney you were on these boards back in '07-08?

Newt has a lot of flaws, deep ones -- but he's admitted he was wrong on the global warming hooey with Pelosi, and IIRC, the Scozzafava fiasco.

On the other hand, Newt HAS A TRACK RECORD of success with the Contract for America, he authored and fought for quite a lot of constructive change through Congress, and on the whole, has done more good than not in the cause of advancing conservatism.

Your guy Romney, on the other hand, has FAILED UTTERLY TO EVER ADVANCE CONSERVATISM. Romney CONTINUES to brag about RomneyCare. He has flip-flopped on all kinds of issues, whereas Newt, as far as I can see, has ADMITTED THAT HE'D BEEN WRONG and was correcting course.

Reagan wisely said it's better to vote for someone who agrees with you 75 or 80 percent of the time than hold-out for someone you can agree with 100 percent. Gingrich passes that test; Romney fails spectacularly; Romney has always betrayed conservative principle 100 percent of the time, whereas Newt has betrayed it maybe 25 percent of the time.

There's a chance with Newt. With Romney, it's GAME OVER. Romney FLUNKS Reagan's test, and Gingrich passes -- maybe with a C-, but he still passes, and he passes with a hell of a lot higher score than McCain ever could have.

[pogo101]

Would you please explain the difference between Romney and Obama?

One enormous difference is that Robert Bork isn't co-chair of Obama's judge-picking crew.

Bork is Romney's judge-picking committee's co-chair.

Not enough to make me a Romnoid (still pining for the probably-gone Perry myself), but makes me believe that Romney will pick Robertses, Alitos, Thomases and Scalias, not Souters, Kennedys or Brennans.

If you Google [Robert Bork Romney], you will see a bunch of leftist blogs pointing to Bork's appointment (to the Romney group) as proof of Romney's hard-right-ness. Heh. That's going way too far (RomneyCare, anyone?), but it's enough for me to hold my nose and vote GOP if Romney's the next McCain.

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

When the hell is it wrong to criticize a snake oil salesman like Romney! Look at all the lies Romney has been spouting.

Rush is right on this one and Newt has chosen the wrong issue on which to go after Romney.

Newt sounds like a Democrat selling his brand of populism with his class warfare.

Newt is doing the RATS job for them. If Newt can't find a legitimate issue on which to go after Romney then he needs to stop helping RATS.

Since when is it wrong for a company to make a profit?

[mamelukesabre]

You obviously have no clue what its like to run a business. No wage earner has any claim to any company profits. And for your information, it’s not uncommon for companies have a bad year now and then. In fact, very few companies make a profit EVERY year. you make a comment like a damn fool and I will call you one. Damn fool.

[tirednvirginia]

I agree. We have been disillusioned so much in this campaign by political talking heads and by Fox News who is in the tank for Romney.

Sometimes, I think all the right-wing media hope Romney is the nominee because they know he will lose to Obama.

And if Obama wins again, they have more to talk about and they have more listeners.

[jmaroneps37]

For all his talk about the Republican establishment trying to force Romney on us, Rush turned out to be just another huckster. He has put his wet finger in the air and decided he will back Willard. This guy is full of shiite.

It will now probably be Willard and those of us who want to save what's left of America will have to fight, Obama the media Karl Rove Ann Coulter the phonies at Faux and now Rush. How sad that last part it is, but it is what it is. Rush has joined THEM.

[9YearLurker]

Ha, yeah, I get that. But really, is his specific beef that Bain shouldn’t have bought these companies? Shouldn’t have laid people off? That he over-leveraged them? It’s really only in answer to that last question that he’s got something to hang on to.

[mamelukesabre]

This isn’t about bain capital. This is about Newt’s un-capitalistic character. He let us see into his true thoughts for a moment and it was not pretty.

[david1313]

I believe that rush and all of you who are going off half-cocked will walk back you comments once you see the 27 minute movie. If it is what I have seen you will change you tune in a hurry, and so will Mr. Rush. He could be very very wrong on this one. We will see how it unfolds in the next few days.

[RetSignman]

I started to make plans for what I'll do from noon to three after Rush said that.

[true believer forever]

The “average” voter knows very little about Newt’s past or hates him for it... There are an awful lot of young people, students, 30 year olds, many voting for the first time, who are just finding out about Newt for the first time. I only discovered him in May, and I have been working very very hard for him... I have had to acquaint myself with all the stuff in his past - and I found somethings I didn’t like - and a lot of stuff I did. And I would say I represent a lot of people who are average... I come from a military family - I learned from my father - a lot of times the bastards get the job done better than anybody else... Bastard or not, Newt can get the job done.

[CharlesWayneCT]

It was big in the south at one time, hence George Wallace doing so well in a presidential election.

But there is a reason for the label “conservative populism”. IT’s because “populism” is not conservative. It’s not particularly “liberal” either. It is more of an appeal to the majority opinion than a coherent political philosophy.

GIngrich’s statement is “populist” because at this moment, many people feel put out by rich people, and therefore it resonates with the “common man”. It doesn’t make it conservative.

It is also true that conservatives have had a populist streak, like Teddy Roosevelt, although he’s not held forth as a conservative icon. It is revealing that GIngrich likes him so much. And frankly, Sarah Palin is a bit of a populist in her conservatism, although in her case it is “at odds”, and creates a tension between her strong desire to take a solid conservative position, along with her inclination on the edges to appeal “to the masses”, to speak for the “ordinary folks”.

But the “ordinary folks” aren’t particularly conservative, or liberal, or anything. And OWS is a perfect example.

[jpsb]

Paul
“I think they’re wrong. I think they’re totally misunderstanding the way the market works,” Paul told me. “They are either just demagoguing or they don’t have the vaguest idea how the market works.”

[onyx]

You betcha!

I was reading through this thread, hoping to find mention of Sarah Palin and “crony capitalism”!

She’s repeatedly said that candidates have to be vetted -— and it’s Romney’s turn in the hot seat.

He’s the one who’s bragging that he’s the “job creator,” when in fact, he’s “Mr. Wall Street Billionaire, venture capitalist”, the very same entity and person the OWS are protesting!

Imagine the protests if Romney’s the nominee! Custom made for obama’s reelection campaign! The demonic-rat party for the working guy! The GOP, the party of the rich. Never mind that it’s not true. Just try to sell Romney to those “Independent” voters and to the TEA Party.

[sand88]

Rush has done more damage to Newt than Romney. For the second time Rush has lost me. I’m the kind of fighter that you constantly hit me and eventually I mop the floor with you. Newt is right and those of you that disagree with it apparently you have never been wronged over and over.

I couldn't focus 100% on Rush today, but Rush made my blood boil today. Rush calls himself a Conservative? Under no circumstance should any conservative ever praise Romney in any way.

Romney needs to be politically destroyed -- by smears and any other method. Romney is a scheming socialist hack who would have no problem smearing capitalism and his opponents in order to have the title of President.

Politics is a blood sport and Romney has been using every trick of the left to destroy Conservatives.

Rush was an idiot for offering praise of Romney and attacking Newt. I will never again order TwoifByTea again.

I will not support anyone who weakens the attacks on Mitt. The first order of business should be the political destruction of Mitt.

[Darksheare]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wu60ln1xj8

Arise Ye Russian People?

[david1313]

This is about Bain and Mitt Romney. Everyone want to shoot the messenger. You will change you tune when someone like Mitt, “comes to town.” You betcha

[Las Vegas Ron]

Great clip, thanks for posting. I had completely forgot about that movie, looks like I'll be making a visit to Amazon!

You really have to appreciate when reality trumps emotion and it is explained so well, DeVito hit that one out of the park!