Myth will fold like a cheap suit in debate !
Posted on 03/10/2012 1:25:20 AM PST by Marguerite
Thomas Sowell explains why Gingrich is the best to take on Obama
(Excerpt) Read more at video.foxbusiness.com ...
Newt Gingrich Q & A from Iowa Faith & Freedom Coalition
The Des Moines Register wrote, “Simply put, Newt Gingrich was on fire, Iowa conservatives said after the Iowa Faith & Freedom Coalition banquet Saturday night. The crowd interrupted his address with at least two standing ovations and storms of large applause.”
Peter Hamby of CNN tweeted, “Newt gets the loudest reception at Faith and Freedom forum so far” and a local reporter for Patch.com said “Newt Gingrich stole the show.”
Actually, I believe the real problem is how "fair" the debate would be:
"Mr. Obama, how would you grade the remarkable job you've done in getting us out of the horrendous recession you inherited from the Republicans?"
"Mr. Gingrich, can you explain what was your thinking when you brought the country to the brink of ruin by shutting down the government while you were Speaker of the House?"
For much of the Lame Stream Media, the above would be valid questions to raise at such a debate, IMHO.
Myth will fold like a cheap suit in debate !
The Santorum-fan version of that list:
666 AD: spawned from the depths of Hell
666-2010: ate babies, kicked puppies, divorced 100% pure-as-the-driven snow wife #1, divorced 100% pure-as-the-driven snow wife #2, failed to roundhouse-kick Bill Clinton or to stop the economic crisis singlehandedly
2010-2012: spread vicious lies about Saint Rick. Ate more babies.
I can't imagine why any republican would not support this man for the Presidency. The other candidates are mental pigmies compared to this guy.
Get out of your comfort zones and support Newt Gingrich for President.
I didn’t see the video but I usually agree with dr. Sowell. It could be true that newt might fight Obama the best. I am not sure newt’s pugilism is quite what we need. For example, newt is the best debater. So he comes to the debate armed with his rapier sharp skills. The Chicago team brings a GUN. Obama brings some embarrassing thing no one knows about Gingrich and slyly MOCKS him at the debate. Even better if Obama adds to the true thing by embellishing it. Knocks Gingrich for a loop, makes his chubby face screw up in anger, which is not a pleasing sight, and it’s what is talked about the next day, NOT gingrich’s command of facts.
Also, Gingrich might be the best Obama-fighter, but when he wins, he will be president. His disorganized visionary narcissism is not the careful stewardship of the nation I want or we need right now.
“His disorganized visionary narcissism”
What’s that? Please, explain. I think I’ve already read that in a leftie paper ...
LOL
Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN): “I believe that Republicans did not just lose our majority on Election Day 2006 – we lost our way. We are in the wilderness because we walked away from the limited-government principles that minted the Republican Congress.
After 1994 (under the leadership of Speaker Gingrich) , Republicans committed to a balanced budget, entitlement reform and the principles of a limited federal government. We delivered on all of these and responded to a national emergency with common-sense defense spending, homeland security and tax cuts that put our economy back on its feet. However, in recent years, to the chagrin of millions of Republicans, our majority also voted to expand the federal government’s role in education by nearly 100 percent and created the largest new entitlement in 40 years. We also pursued domestic spending policies that created record deficits, national debt and earmark spending that has embarrassed us and caused many Americans to question our commitment to fiscal responsibility.
This was not in the 29th Century Contract with America, written by Gingrich. Democrats will say that the American people rejected our Republican vision. I say the American people did not quit on the Contract with America, our caucus did. In so doing, we severed the bonds of trust between our party and millions of our most ardent supporters.”
Former Rep. Dick Armey: "The Republican takeover in 1994 was the culmination of years of agitation by a relatively small group of political entrepreneurs in the House. Before we could beat the Democrats and their “culture of corruption,” we had to beat the old bulls of our own party. They too were driven by a parochial vision, and had grown complacent with the crumbs offered them by the majority. It is often said that Newt Gingrich and I “nationalized” the election in 1994, but what the Contract with America really did was establish a national (as opposed to a parochial) vision for the Republican Party. When we took control, that positive Reagan vision of limited government and individual responsibility provided a great deal of discipline and allowed us to govern accordingly. Our primary question in those early years was: How do we reform government and return money and power back to the American people?
Eventually, the policy innovators and the “Spirit of ’94 were largely replaced by political bureaucrats driven by a narrow vision. Their question became: How do we hold onto political power? The aberrant behavior and scandals that ended up defining the Republican majority in 2006 were a direct consequence of this shift in choice criteria from policy to political power."
Frank Luntz: “The future must be better than the past. The 1994 Contract With America wasn’t a political gimmick. It was a clearly articulated agenda that addressed the day-to-day problems and concerns of average Americans. It was tough on spending, tough on taxes, tough on welfare, tough on crime–tough on all the things Americans wanted less of so that they could have more of what they really wanted: freedom and security. Several dozen members begged their leadership to offer a new Republican contract in 2006 because they sensed, correctly, that the party had lost its focus on the future and was interested only in defending the present. The response? Silence. The next leadership team needs to remember that no vision means no votes.”
Cal Thomas: “In the end, the Republican ”revolution” ran out of gas and out of vision. Too many congressional Republicans appeared to care more about maintaining power than using power to implement an agenda, which they also abandoned.
The problem for Republicans is their loss of revolutionary zeal. When Newt Gingrich was forced out as speaker, Republicans lost the best idea man they’d had in years.”
The Santorum-fan version of that list:
You know, that is not fair. I haven’t found Santorum fans to be so vicious to newt. They (we) tend to be kinder than that.
I will vote for whichever one has the best chance at stopping Romney, if there is still a chance in June. Right now I prefer Santorum. And right now, he has the best chance. Coalescing around Santorum right now could knock Romney out.
Gingrich is a complicated guy. He’s a genius with facts and knowledge at his fingertips, but not the social skills to know when to apply them sometimes. I love him at the debates. But his personality, shaped by probably some kind of neglect in his childhood, influences his behavior, and religious conversion doesn’t appear to have changed it. He may choose priorities according to selfish needs as he sometimes does.
I’d rather those risks than Romney. What’s good about Gingrich is great. I thought out my own priorities rationally, and decided that Santorum has the best, most humble attitude about the representative position that is potus, and would, Hippocrates style, first, do no harm.
I hope you understand my choice of Santorum over Gingrich even if you feel differently.
Brilliant. Sowell-worthy brilliant.
- Mitt: The east coast progressive-liberal masquerading as a republican. Even some democrats look like strong conservatives compared to this guy. I feel that if he wins the election, he will move so far to the left, he will make his supporters look like goats, but first he has to win the election which would be hardest for him as liberals and "moderates" will go for BO, and many conservatives will not even bother to vote for him.
- Rick: A big government republican who is good social conservative... reminds me of George W. I like his social conservatism, and he speaks well on that platform. However, his economic and foreign policy discussions are just.. well.. ho-hum. He is a safe choice compared to MR and BO. He spent a good deal of time as a Senator, however just one among many. A lot of his supporters go for him because he feels a safe choice. He would just be a mediocre president at best, but better than BO or MR. However, we are in a time of very difficult problems, and I don't think he has the horse-power, leadership or experience to tackle those problems.
-Newt: The Reagan conservative with profound ideas and solutions based campaign. He is a leader and a thinker, and he has experience with a record of accomplishments. He is also the fighter to deal with the libs and the media as they throw everything including the kitchen sink at him. His private life has been a failure with regards to his marriages, however, he has come around and changed his ways. His personal problems started with his relationship and eventual marriage to a much older adult when he was just a child. Newt Gingrich has the right combination of leadership, experience, and intellect to be a good president for these times.
Clearly you haven’t encountered the same fans I have. Even here on FR, the anti-Newt flames get nasty.
Santorum’s problem is that he’s unable to keep on message. He constantly makes the campaign about his own social positions, and every second that the media can focus the “debate” on, for instance, the “war on women,” American voters will be that much more ignorant about Obama’s horrific record on jobs and the economy. Remaking this country into a theocracy is not gonna fly.
I wasn't convinced until I got to that one! :)
Regarding the above, your problem is actually with Bob Dole and the feckless GOPe, not Gingrich.
Disorganized visionary narcissism — oh my gosh, did I say that? Sounds terrible. Sorry. I meant it but I explained it badly.
I think newt is disorganized. He’s a forest guy, not a trees guy, and I share that trait with him.
I know he is visionary. Sometimes grandiose.
I don’t find him as narcissistic actually (I’d have to know him personally to truly dx him) as just plain emotionally needy. Like Clinton and Obama. Missing something from childhood, seeking love and importance of the biggest kind. Imagine the decision making that goes on when you choose to have affairs as the speaker of the house. It’s not wise. It’s not careful. It’s not taking your responsibilities seriously.
I completely agree with you. Santorum is not adept yet at holding back on the social and refocusing the interviewer on more pertinent issues. He needs to stay on message.
Great session.... the man is on top and has full command of every important issue of our time.
It confounds me that there are those that call themselves “conservatives”, yet fail to recognize the importance of electing this man.
** President Newt Gingrich-”Our beloved republic deserves nothing less.”
More psychobabble b!tchery.
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.
