Newt Gingrich Praised SEIU Head Andy Stern's Forward-Looking Vision

Newt Gingrich's own book "Real Chance: From the World That Fails to the World That Works" | Newt Gingrich

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

Newt Gingrich Praised SEIU Head Andy Stern's Forward-Looking Vision

In his book "Real Chance: From the World That Fails to the World That Works," Gingrich praises the SEIU head, who remains a close adviser of the President Obama. Pitching the need for conservatives to respect organized labor, while simultaneously pushing back against some of Labor's more cherished legislative goals, he wrote the following:

Conservatives cannot cheer unions overseas and then be blindly anti-union here at home. There are legitimate historic reasons for workers to organize together, and there is a strong need for a healthy, competitive, union, movement that helps improve the lives of its members and the competitiveness of our country.

Andy Stern, the head of the Service Employees International Union, is the union leader who probably best understands the challenge of the world market and the need to make American union members productive in the face of world competition. Sadly, he is a distinct minority among union leaders.

[Eagle of Liberty]

“Accept the progressive” should have been “Accept the progressive premise”

[KeyLargo]

December 13, 2011 12:00 A.M.

The Myth of the New Newt

The Old Newt isn’t a relic of history yet.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/285596/myth-new-newt-rich-lowry

[SuperSonic]

"The Four Freedoms still work. [Woodrow] Wilson's speeches still work. I'm frankly a realpolitik Wilsonian." -Newt Gingrich

FDR's Four Freedoms:

1. Freedom of Speech and Expression
2. Freedom of Worship
3. Freedom from Want
4. Freedom from Fear

[SuperSonic]

Bachmann is not ready for prime time

By what standard is she not ready for prime time?

[Hoodat]

Romney has zero chance of winning the nomination. If the only two candidates left in the race are Ron Paul and Mitt Romney, Romney will carry his 25% of the vote and Paul will get the rest. Romney’s numbers have not changed since 2008. And the sooner we realize that, the sooner we can forget about Progressive McNewt, and the sooner we can nominate an actual real live conservative. This lesser-of-two-evils BS is ruining the GOP.

[Hoodat]

I will support Newt over Romney, but don’t ask me to be happy about it.

Yes, but will you support a conservative over Newt?

[giotto]

It comes down to Romney vs Newt, the socialist vs the RINO. I’ll take the RINO any day of the week.

Well, so will I. I'll even take the socialist RINO over the communist Muslim. The question is, will more than 50% of the voters do the same?

[mmichaels1970]

That is my issue and has been my issue with Newt for a while now. Applying conservative solutions to progressive legislation. Accept the progressive

He actually writes to the contrary on page 4 of the book cited here.

Meanwhile, the Republicans have been so lacking in backbone and conviction that they have accepted these myths-but tell themselves that they can manage big government better than Democrats (which really means managing decline and managing failure).

There is a clear distinction between what the populace thinks the priorities should be and what the elected officials think the priorities should be. Right now, the populace does not want to ACCEPT THE PROGRESSIVE PREMISE!

He also points out in the first chapter of his book that "Red White and Blue" America are united on almost every important issue in the country. That the real division is between those 85% and the 15% of leftist elitists, and that the media helps perpetrate the myth that we are a divided country.

[Sudetenland]

Are you saying that we don’t face any problems except those that liberals want to address? That’s what your comment implies; that there aren’t any problems that can be solved using conservative principles.

[umgud]

Yes, but will you support a conservative over Newt?

You betcha. My reference referred to it coming down to Newt or Romney. Something I don’t relish.

[erlayman]

That is why I am voting Jon Huntsman. Successful governor, ambassador, the most principled, consistent conservative, strong family man, scandal-free, excellent moral values...Absolute quality and the strongest challenger to Obama.

[Hoodat]

I’ve got no problem with Huntsman. He was a solid governor of Utah. Very conservative. Unfortunately, many here will label him a liberal simply because he worked for the Obama State Dept. Contempt prior to investigation. Although I currently support Santorum, I will take Huntsman any day over Mitt or McNewt.

[aruanan]

No, it means returning to something that cannot be recaptured. Adults don't try to relive the past, they remember the past and move forwards [sic] and apply the lessons of the past to the present and the future.

Oh yeah, and the "[sic]" was unnecessary. You are clearly not as smart as you think.

You had an error, actually more of a regionalism. I was showing that I was quoting it exactly as found. If you think that when people want "a return to Reagan" they mean something other than "a return to the principles espoused by Reagan," then you've got some serious perceptual error. Everyone who wants a return to Reagan wants at least as much as we got then and a whole lot more (such as the full tax cut all at once, not part of it phased in over three years, a conservative dominated Republican House and Senate, and actual deconstruction of the federal government and a reconstruction of it according to the Constitution, to name a few).

[Eagle of Liberty]

Are you saying that we don’t face any problems except those that liberals want to address? That’s what your comment implies; that there aren’t any problems that can be solved using conservative principles.

Really? Is that what it implies? Hmmm. Let me try again then. When is the last time that you heard every news outlet describe legislation that was before Congress as "How will Republicans fare with this new legisation"? And I don't mean Republican politicians. I mean American populace Republicans. I would venture to say that your response will be "never".

The populace thinks in terms of Democrat pros and cons because that is how the MSM delivers the "news". So when we discuss a topic such as climate change, if you believe that humans are responsible, then you are a good American. If you do not, then you are a denier, a fool, a Big Oil lover. So, because that is how the two sides of the coin are established, politicians on our side feel the need to talk about climate change in such a way that they are not perceived as a fool. And that is what I mean by accepting the progressive premise.

And to your other point, do I believe that we face problems besides those that liberals address? I sure do. President Bush ran on the campaign platform of the Ownership Society. ONE MONTH after he won and desired to make some big changes to SS, politicians of his own Party not only abandoned him during the debate, but they stabbed him right in the back.

Conservatives have GREAT solutions, but our solutions are mocked, laughed at and ridiculed not just by the progressives, but by politicians on our own side. I expect the progressives not to agree with my positions, but the elected officials that are supposed to speak for me as well?

[Eagle of Liberty]

He actually writes to the contrary on page 4 of the book cited here.

Okay, then which are we to believe? The one who complements progressives for their good ideas or the one who doesn't? Or the one who bashes conservatives and then retracts?

I don’t think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering. I don’t think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate… I’m against Obamacare, which is imposing radical change, and I would be against a conservative imposing radical change.

Six weeks before that:

At that time, Gingrich was full of praise for the Ryan budget. “Paul Ryan has stepped up to the plate,” Gingrich said. “This is a very, very serious budget and I think rivals with [what] John Kasich did as budget chairman in getting to a balanced budget in the 1990s, just for the scale and courage involved…Paul Ryan is going to define modern conservatism at a serious level,” Gingrich continued. “You can quibble over details but the general shape of what he’s doing will define 2012 for Republicans.”

Newt Gingrich calls the Ryan Plan "Right-Wing Social Engineering"

I like Newt and he has some really good ideas, but he had a period right after the 2006 election losses where he has become significantly squishy on many issues.

[indianrightwinger]

Perry comes to mind!!

[GlockThe Vote]

Can anyone seriously say they trust Newt or romney?

[indianrightwinger]

So cheering them protesting communism is the same as “cheering” for unions in general and the thugs that lead them? Really?

We get you are a Newtie. But, don’t accuse us of being union shills.

[VanDeKoik]

So you didnt follow that conversation at all, right?

[indianrightwinger]

Those problems don’t prevent conservatives from dreaming big that Newt will make mince meat out of Obama in debates and that will do the trick of assembling a majority coalition for Newt. That is simply a pipe dream. Won’t happen.