Replies

I was on the way out the door when I read your extremely long critique of my reply to your remark.

Frank, while you were reading my response, did you happen to notice I addressed every issue you raised? I posted what you had written, and responded on point. That in an of itself is a respectful way of showing that I was taking your thoughts into consideration in a serious manner. I expressed a thought on all of what you were saying. Your posting style is to provide a lot of commentary in a long paragraph or two. To respond on point I have to break that out. This creates a much longer response. Your words are reposted, and my thoughts are then posted behind them.

I admit this makes for a long post, but I think it's the best most respectful way to address your thoughts. If you disagree, that's your right.

I addressed part of it before I left.

Okay, thank you.

...and most of yours was not only an attack on Newt but I also believe on me as you have seen fit to speak for me and then tell me where I’m wrong.

I complimented you on the level of your presentation. If I disagree with the conclusions you came to, that's about all I can state that is complimentary. That's the nature of a posting of disagreement. I tried to make that clear up front out of respect.

Did I make disparaging remarks about you. Did I call you names? Did I challenge your Conservative credentials? I did my best to disagree with your conclusions, and at times the meanings I thought were reasoned to extrapolate from your commentary. At one point I did ask you if you thought you were being consistent, but I don't believe I made any definitive statements of fact about you, other than I thought you made a good presentation.

I said two things about Santorum, three if you count that I said I don’t think he can beat obama.

I am willing to address any instances where you think I put words in your mouth. The ones you address here, I will do so now. If you would like to give other examples, I will address them too. Don't be shy about it. If I think you've got a point, I'll agree with you and alter my comments.

I said he was Socially Conservative but that his voting record on Social issues was no better than Newt’s and possibly not as good.

Here is what I read in your post: (I broke this thought in two, so I could address the social and fiscal issues separately. I don't believe that is unreasonable, as it doesn't alter your views in any perceptible way that I could discern.)

Rick Santorum’s voting record on Socially Conservative issues is at best no better than Newt’s...

As I said, I addressed this portion of the statement separately. Do you see any mention of, "...and possibly not as good." there? I don't.

I viewed these two comparisons to be an attempt to marginalize Rick Santorum's record. I don't believe that perception is flawed. You were comparing him to Newt. I didn't see the comparisons as being presented in a positive light. That's why I asked you why you didn't address Ricks voting record on Socially Conservative issues the same way you did Newt's later on. You yourself admit here that his record may actually be as good as Newt's. So why not give him accolades for it? Here is how you addressed Newt's Socially Conservative voting record later on. "His voting record has been consistently “Conservative” whether you are speaking in terms of “Social”... You seem pretty proud of Newt for his Socially Conservative voting record. I'm just wondering why you weren't proud of a man that may have voted just as Socially Conservative as Newt. Why marginalize him this way? "...at best, no better than Newt's..." Is that an unfair question?

This is the statement I responded with.

But later on here you praise Newt's voting record on Socially Conservative issues. I don't see any such praise here. You state yourself, it may even be as good as Newt's (paraphrased), so why no praise for Rick's voting record on Socially Conservative issues? Is that consistent?

Did I put words in your mouth there? No. I merely addressed the implications of your comments.

...then there is the matter of “Fiscally Conservative” issues.

This is how I responded on this matter.

I'll admit that I view this as one of Santorum's weaknesses. I will also admit to suspecting that a number of issues along these lines, have been leveled somewhat unfairly. It's quite easy to find a number of things a guy has voted for, when they've been chained onto other legislation that he was compelled to vote for with other Conservatives. Is Santorum as bad as we have been led to believe by the supporters of other candidates, or is he marginally worse than other people we respect? I believe he is marginally worse, but by no means disqualified by his actions. I will weigh this with other evaluations of the candidates.

I should think you would find this rather agreeable.

I am a Conservative and to me that includes being Fiscally Conservative and I pointed out that Santorum’s voting record on Fiscal matters was not as good as Newt’s.

Okay, but in light of what I stated on this issue, I'm not sure what disagreement we have here. At the very worst, it would have to be a disagreement by degrees. We both see Santorum as having problems in this area.

I have NEVER said that Santorum or another candidate should not espouse Christian values, that is what you said I said. never used the term “GOODY TWO SHOES” you did, what I said is still posted go back and read it.

Here is what you said.

The difference is being Presidential, not wanting to denigrate Rick but I’ve heard him described as an “over zealous hall monitor” and I believe that is how he will come across and be portrayed.

What aspect of Rick Santorum's nature is this supposed to address, if not his statements based on Christian ethics? If you have some explanation other than that, I'd be glad to hear it. You stated that you have heard him described a certain way, and that you (more or less agree, and) believe that is how he will come across and be portrayed. And saying this, I have to conclude that it is your premise that this would cause him to be seen as non-presidential, non-viable, and therefore not qualified to represent us in a run for the presidency.

How am I supposed to interpret this other than the same as, "I have heard him described as overly focused on Religious convictions, and I believe that is how he will come across and be portrayed. And if that is true, we can't take a chance on nominating him."

Is that an unfair extrapolation? What other meaning could your comments have? I honestly don't see any other reasoned explanation. That's why I responded with...

So what you're saying here is that a Christian man with strong beliefs and isn't afraid to voice them, should be immediately disqualified for the presidency? I don't believe you think that. People say lots of things, and it's our duty to weigh them and dismiss them if they are juvenile.

Next you started to move on into the list of accolades that Newt was deserving of being noted for. What bothered me about his, is that you had just taken Santorum to task for being a hall monitor, being too heavily influenced by Christian ethics, but you were then prepared to go ahead and list Newt's positives. So here is that next comment of yours, and my response.

Social Conservative issues are important to me but that is not all that’s on the table. We need an extraordinary individual for these times and I can’t think of any, anywhere better suited for the task ahead than Newt Gingrich whether they are in the race or not. Below are some of the reasons I’m for Newt.

Okay, I'll take you at your word, but you just told me you were disqualifying a good Christian man based on the idea he may be seen as a goody-goody two shoes. There are a lot of things I respect about Rick Santorum, and when you start eliminating him for one of the most important, I'm somewhat baffled that you now think I'd be interested in hearing about some of the virtues of your guy. Why shouldn't I simply dismiss your guy's finer points too?

One of the things I find interesting about commentaries on the forum, is that there are times when people post things that can only be taken one way, but are worded so craftily that they can deny having ever said what was undeniably implied. You state that you never used the term 'goody-goody two shoes', and I acknowledge that is the truth. You merely stated that you had heard Santorum called a hall monitor, and that you agreed he would be seen that way. If you don't see that as him being the same as a "goody-goody two shoes", then you and I have different ways of interpreting reality.

I did say that Rick Santorum comes across as an “OVER ZEALOUS HALL MONITOR” I regret using it and don’t want credit for it but it did resonate with me and helps define that NOT-PRESIDENTIAL concern that many have about him but don’t really know how to describe.

Okay look, I'm not attaching any austere intent with regard to these comments. I do think it's clear you wanted to express a concern you had, that amounted to pretty much what I took away from it, but I don't think you stayed up nights to come up with the commentary in a clever way that would imply what you did. Even at this point the comments still make sense to you. I think they convey a worry that it's is a buzz-kill to have a Christian express his moral views in public.

IMO, we need more, not fewer men expressing good morals in public. Good morals should be seen as an indicator of a good man. The fact that addressing good morals in public is now seen as something of a negative, makes it clear how important it is, that we begin to see more people pushing high morals, not less.

I'm not looking for a guy who is out to damn others. I do think it's good for an acknowledged sinner to state that there are some standards we as a people should seek to try to live by.

You yourself said Santorum’s voting record on Fiscal matters was one of his weaknesses, that is a MAJOR weakness.

It is a weakness to be taken into consideration and evaluated in relation to other candidate's weaknesses. It has never been my premise that Santorum was without blemish. It has been that Santorum has a set of problems, and other candidates have theirs. It just seems to me that I'm supposed to acknowledge Santorum's weaknesses, but the supporters of other candidates only want us to talk about their candidates positives. It doesn't work that way.

After the full court press of trashing and burning Rick Santorum in these parts, I now get the message that we shouldn't talk bad about candidates anymore.

Are you aware that I wouldn't even be defending Santorum here, if he wasn't under constant viscous attack. I can't even get folks to stop posting proven lies about him.

If Newt's folks and Santorum's folks were just pumping their guys up here, I wouldn't be posting anything about Santorum. I wouldn't be posting anything about Newt either. Frankly, neither of them are my cup of tea, but I don't like seeing one guy's supporters go vicious with long lists and such, and the other guy's supporters pretty much refrain from it.

I could go on and on...

Yes I'm certain you could, but I can't go on and on without folks almost passing out in these parts. Good grief folks, buck up.

...but I really try to promote Newt instead of denigrating others but I must admit I have failed miserably when it comes to Romney and Paul.

To be honest, I think it would be a whole lot more healthy if we focused on the details when it comes to Romney and Paul. I'm guilty of taking Romney to task quite often, and yet I don't address the specifics. I think we need to do that, and I'm one of the offenders here. I think it's best to quantify exactly what Romney and Paul's views are, so people seeing us talk negatively about them, can understand why.

Of course you do recall what prompted me respond to your original post. Earmarks and spending both dropped when Newt became Speaker, they parallel each other on graphs they drop when he came in and remained at a stable level until he left office and then the spending under Speaker Hastert and the Republicans went through the roof.

I addressed these matters in detail in my response to you. I took the time to look things up, provided links, verified some of what you implied and set the record straight about other parts of it.

The spending did go down under Newt, but it didn't go back up until about four years after he resigned. That was the time when the big spending focused on the War on Terrorism really began to rise. You gave Newt too much credit, but I did give him accolades for what he did accomplish. I believe I was rather even handed about it.

Please don't make me have to go over the same ground time after time.

If you were to look at the tenets and the platform of the modern day Tea Party you will see that it appears to be about the same as the 1994 Contract with America, I didn’t say NEWT founded the Tea Party again that is what you said I said.

This is what you said.

His original “Contract with America” led to CONSERVATIVE Republicans taking the US House of Representatives and appears to be the basis for the modern day Tea Party.

Don't you think it is fair to say that it is your opinion that the Tea Party wouldn't be what it is without Newt's Contract? Why mention it if you didn't want to give Newt Gingrich some credit for the form the Tea Party was developed in. You do want to give him accolades, you don't want to give him credit. Which is it?

This is what I responded with.

His Contract did lead to the Republicans regaining control of the House. I have given him credit for that for a long time. I have even argued against folks whose premise was that the development of the contract was actually a group effort. Either way, he played a highly visible positive role, and deserves credit for that.

Again for you to deny that Newt was involved in the writing of the Contract with America and the leader of the group and it is most likely that it would not have been written and equally as possible that the Republican victory of 1994 would not have occurred.

With all due respect, what possible connection to reality does this comment of yours have? Read what I had written to you in my earlier response just above, and tell me this makes sense at all.

Here's another comment from that prior response to you. It touches on the issue of Newt and the Tea Party.

Sorry, I'm not going to join you in giving Newt credit for the Tea Party. If we're going to give Newt the credit for that, then we need to delve into where Newt came up with his idea for a contract, and give others credit too. Newt gets credit for the Contract. Tea Party members get credit for the Tea Party.

It may be seen as a flawed premise, but I happen to think the Tea Party would have still been formed without Newt's Contract.

Here, since this is so important to you, lets look at the contract and the Tea Party tenets.

I marked the items in red that seemed close enough to count them as being the same idea
(I more or less gave you one, since one was limited to Congress, and the other addressed all levels of government)

Contract with America LINK

01. require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply to Congress;
02. select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
03. cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
04. limit the terms of all committee chairs;
05. ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
06. require committee meetings to be open to the public;
07. require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
08. guarantee an honest accounting of the Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.

Tea Party Contract From America LINK

01. Identify constitutionality of every new law
02. Reject emissions trading
03. Demand a balanced federal budget
04. Simplify the tax system
05. Audit federal government agencies for waste and constitutionality
06. Limit annual growth in federal spending
07. Repeal the health care legislation passed on March 23, 2010
08. Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy
09. Reduce Earmarks
10. Reduce Taxes

While we're at it, take a look at who came up with the Contract With America. LINK

The Contract with America was a document released by the United States Republican Party during the 1994 Congressional election campaign. Written by Larry Hunter, who was aided by Newt Gingrich, Robert Walker, Richard Armey, Bill Paxon, Tom DeLay, John Boehner and Jim Nussle, and in part using text from former President Ronald Reagan's 1985 State of the Union Address, the Contract detailed the actions the Republicans promised to take if they became the majority party in the United States House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years. Many of the Contract's policy ideas originated at The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

By the way, do you still maintain that the tenets of the Contract With America were the Basis for the modern day Tea Party?

Fact of the matter is, I was much more willing to give Gingrich credit for the Contract than I should have been. Once I looked it up, I was somewhat surprised myself. I appreciate you causing me to look the Contract up.

You appear to go out of your way to diminish Newt’s accomplishments,...

After watching Newt's supporters go after Santorum tooth and nail, I found myself compelled to wish to see Newt's accomplishments to be recognized for being no more or no less than what they actually were. When talking about his and the Congress' efforts to cut spending, I tried to be as even handed as possible. I gave him credit, but tried to do it in a more even handed way, cutting his actual positive impact from $5 trillion to $1.5 trillion, but still addressing the savings as something he and Congress deserved accolades for. I know that didn't match your glowing descriptions, but it wasn't my attempt at all, to deny him just recognition.

...and to put words in my mouth.

Okay. Let me ask you this. Do you still think this statement is reasoned?

His original “Contract with America” led to CONSERVATIVE Republicans taking the US House of Representatives and appears to be the basis for the modern day Tea Party.

It wasn't really HIS Contract with America was it. It was a group effort, that led to the Conservatives retaking the House. I still maintain that he deserves credit for utilizing that Contract in a skillful manner. Now, was it his efforts that the modern Tea Party copied? First of all, I don't think they copied anything, and second of all it wasn't really his intellectual property in the first place.

No you didn't outright state that the Tea Party was founded by Newt Gingrich. What you sought to do was make it seem that the Tea Party would not have been formed if he hadn't developed an intellectual property in 1994. Heck you didn't say that either directly. That seems to be a pattern. You don't say stuff directly. You just hope folks will put that together in their own minds for you.

Because of this I don’t take your remarks as respectful but as condescending,...

Okay, but I guess you'll have to accept that I don't find it very respectful when folks try to pass stuff off to imply things they can deny having ever said.

...having read some of your comments on this thread I doubt this is the first time someone has intimated that you may be condescending.

I encourage folks to come to their own conclusions about me. I am who I am, and some folks won't find me to be their cup of tea. Others will. I'm not going to ruminate over it, and I don't wish anyone ill who doesn't particularly care for me.

My screen name, duffee, is the name of my ten year old, not very bright scottish terrier,

That's nice.

I sometimes wonder about the screen names some choose, not being critical but if someone really wants to be reffered to as excellant why not just call themself the excellant one?

When you run into someone whose last name is Excellent, I suggest you run that by them.
#336666