Posted on 12/02/2011 11:47:37 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
...Since Gingrich had taken control in January 1995, Republicans in the House had held together. Focused on fulfilling the Contract with America, they passed a flurry of legislation, which kept them occupied and their divisions concealed for the first two years.
By July 1997, however, the contract was finished, and conservatives, particularly those elected in the Revolution of 94, were growing frustrated with Gingrichs leadership.
The speaker was disorganized. He knew nothing about running meetings and nothing about driving an agenda, DeLay writes in his memoir, No Retreat, No Surrender.
He was erratic. On Monday, we would say were not going to give a $500 child tax credit to people who dont have tax liabilities, Graham tells National Review Online. On Wednesday, hed meet with President Clinton, and that position would change.
In May 1997 . . . Newt declared the GOP willing to separate tax cuts from other items in a balanced-budget deal that we were negotiating with Bill Clinton, writes former speaker Denny Hastert (R., Ill.) in his memoir, Speaker. That was news to us and represented a huge change in policy in less than twenty-four hours.
He was hyperbolic. Hed call something the single most corrupt act in the history of Western civilization . . . always these Armageddon-type announcements, says Rep. Pete King (R., N.Y.).
The congressman still remembers that fateful trip on Air Force One in November 1995, when Clinton made Gingrich sit in the back. Miffed, the speaker later asked the press, You just wonder, where is their sense of manners? Where is their sense of courtesy?
I still think its the main reason we lost [the government-shutdown] debate, King says.
Before the government shutdown we thought Newt Gingrich was invincible, writes Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) in his memoir, Breach of Trust. After the shutdown, however, he was like a whipped dog who still barked, yet cowered, in Clintons presence....... Continued
Newt has a list of major accomplishments that advanced conservatism.
When Newt was at the peak of his power in the House, he used it to advance conservative ideas.
That he is willing to consider all manner of ideas is a good sign - it means he actually thinks about what will actually solve a problem. It means that he actually wants to hear what progressives have to say because SOME of what they say is based upon kernels of truth that can be helpful in creating a solution.
Please give a list so we can assess. Thank you.
Thanks.
Do you have a link to a source on that?
I want to be able to post it when the subject comes up.
That a guy with a 90% ACU rating could become the Speaker speaks volumes about how savvy Newt is about how Washington works and how to work behind the scenes to get things done.
That a guy with a 90% ACU rating could become the Speaker speaks volumes about how savvy Newt is about how Washington works and how to work behind the scenes to get things done.Good point.
A willingness to consider all ideas is not the problem w Newt. It’s embracing and advancing some of the worst and farthest leftist crap, like individual mandates, that is the problem.
Yours is a flawed premise in my estimation. First off, you do realize that Newt’s marriage had been on the rocks for some time before the affair. In fact, at one point they had been separated for 6 years before they gave reconciliation a go. I’m not excusing the affair, just saying there’s always more to the story than meets the eye.
Also, you mention Newt’s baggage. He’s got a lot. OBAMA HAS A LANDFILL OF BAGGAGE! A lot of what constitutes Obama’s baggage has criminal implications. You really think Obama want’s to get into a pissing contest over who has more baggage? Maybe. That’s why the debates will be so crucial this go around. Newt is very skilled at dissecting his opponent, & in this case it would be in front of a national audience.
Game, set, match. Regardless of the baggage. The audience will choose between a record of balanced budgets & low unemployment while working w/ the opposition, vs. a record of the exact opposite. Is it really that hard? People will make it out to be, but it’s really not.
You know as well as I do, that there is no way that Romney can win against Obama. The base will be so disheartened that they will just stay at home and give up.
Your loser candidate Perry will certainly remain a loser. But we know your logic, destroy Newt, the base will gladly support Perry by default. Well you may as well forget that pipe dream. Perry has been forever labeled an idiot who can't even remember his own name. Look at the polls. That is the reality of what the voting public is thinking.
And Rick Perry is forever stuck below 5%.
On November 18, 2010, Gingrich delivered a speech before the Republican Governors Association Conference in San Diego outlining 12 steps for what he called a “Replacement of the Left” strategy. In his speech, Gingrich said that the Republican election day victories of 2009 and 2010 should be followed by further victories over the next two years that would give his party a large enough majority to replace what he called an increasingly leftist political system that has dominated American politics since 1932, largely through the influence of unelected bureaucracies. According to Gingrich, the strategy would be best pursued at the local level by lawmakers and activists in all 50 states rather than relying on leaders in Washington, D.C.[6]
The 12 steps cover economic issues and entitlement reform, as well as education reform from K-12 through the collegiate level, including a “parents right to know” standards in education notifications.[7] Specific steps address tying unemployment compensation to job training programs, replacing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) with state-based healthcare solutions and implementing ideas from business leaders to reduce the overall cost of government.[8]
In December 2010, Gingrich began hosting the first of five scheduled Internet seminars to educate state lawmakers across the country about how to begin implementing the strategy before the 2012 elections.[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Newt_Gingrich
1 “Replace The Left”
2 Domestic policy 2.1 Abortion
2.2 Child labor laws
2.3 Climate Change
2.4 Campaign finance regulation
2.5 Drug policy
2.6 Education
2.7 Energy policy
2.8 Entitlement reform
2.9 Environment
2.10 Free speech
2.11 Health care
2.12 Jobs
2.13 Lean Six Sigma
2.14 Prison reform
2.15 Religion
2.16 Same-sex marriage
2.17 Space exploration
2.18 State bankruptcy option
2.19 Taxes
2.20 TARP
3 Immigration
4 Foreign policy 4.1 Middle East 4.1.1 Egypt
4.1.2 Israel
4.1.3 Libya
4.2 Islamic issues
4.3 Promoting democracy
4.4 Torture
4.5 United Nations
5 Criticism of Obama Administration
Thanks again. Much appreciated.
You've never heard what he got on the receiving end. Why is that, you think?
Perry has been forever labeled an idiot who can't even remember his own name. Look at the polls. That is the reality of what the voting public is thinking. And Rick Perry is forever stuck below 5%.And when you are below 5%, your poll percentage is within the margin of error of the poll.
When your poll percentage is within the margin of error of the poll, your candidacy is an exercise in self-delusion.
He blew his wad the last 2 months trying to sell himself after a fairly average, but far from notable debate performance, thinking that the money would start coming in again.
Instead, he has gone steadily down and the money is almost gone. Now that Cain has hit the ditch, that support is not going to Romney or the other 2% er’s, it is going to Newt.
Perry needs to drop out and lend his effort to beat Obama and bury Romney.
Newt is playing the game that he is so above it all that he refuses to attack his opponents.
The only reason he doesn’t is because he has no room at all to attack anyone else. He flips and flops as much as Romney.
If he did, he would get all of his lapses in principle and faith slapped back in his face.
1998 was the last year that Gingrich, Paul and Santorum were all in Congress, and the Gingrich’s annual and lifetime ACU ratings were far better than both of the others:
100% - Gingrich: Annual 1998 ACU Rating (90% Lifetime Rating as of 1998)
88% - Paul: Annual 1998 ACU Rating (19% Lifetime Rating as of 1998)
84% - Santorum: Annual 1998 ACU Rating (83% Lifetime Rating as of 1998)
Like the Newt/Pelosi Global Warming Love clip LOL
I think Paul’s lifetime rating has a typo on the source page - in 1998 it would be closer to the lifetime rating listed in 1999 which is 88%.
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.