Posted on 01/10/2012 1:23:20 PM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at gop12.thehill.com ...
Da Comrade!
Both of these criticisms are, at best, misplaced; at worst, they are just disingenuous.
At any rate, they are easily answerable.
Lets begin with the argument against purism. To this line, two replies are in the coming.
As for the second objection against the Tea Partiers rejection of those Republican candidates who eschew his values and convictions,
it can be dispensed with just as effortlessly as the first.
Every election seasonand at no time more so than this past seasonRepublicans 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 Partiers 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,
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
You really have to appreciate when reality trumps emotion and it is explained so well, DeVito hit that one out of the park!
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.