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.

[giotto]

I think you’re right. The debates are always rigged in some way, to put the Republican at a disadvantage. But even if they weren’t, the mere contrast between the old, short, pudgy, pasty white guy with the face of an ornery elf, and the younger, taller, thinner, tanner man with the giant toothy grin, would be enough to tip millions of superficial, attention-deficient “independents” into Obama’s corner.

[Grunthor]

“Can anyone seriously say they trust Newt or romney?”

No one can.

[Matchett-PI]

Sorry for the late reply. Somehow I overlooked your post to me.

Anyhow, this is what you wrote (excerpted):

“Got news for you , Rush, and all the other folks who are so wrapped up in self-righteous anger over Newt saying “the Era of Reagan is over.” He’s absolutely correct. .....

“What Newt said was absolutely true:

“I think if Governor Reagan were here today, and he were looking at where America should go, he wouldn’t be saying, “Let’s go back to 1980.” He’d be saying, “Here are the solutions, here are the policies, here’s what will carry us into the future.” And I think we’ve watched these guys run around saying, “I’m like Reagan. I’m like Reagan.”

“Reagan was a unique one-time personality whose great achievement in eliminating the Soviet empire was historic.

“Now we have a different world with a different set of problems. I don’t think it can be, “Here’s how you go back 28 years to reinvent Reagan.” It’s gotta be, “Here’s how you apply conservatism to solve America’s problems today.”

Where is he wrong? ....”

You can’t tell where he -— in his own words above -— is wrong, and why what he said upset Rush so much?

Notice how I separated out Newt’s statement to show you plainly that Newt merely views “Governor”?? Reagan as a “personality” and GLARINGLY omits the “timeless principles” Reagan lived by.

Here is just a small sample of the way Rush talks about “The Era of Reagan”. See if you can detect the difference between him and Newt:

Timeless Principles of Freedom
http://drdonnacampbell.wordpress.com/2009/10/30/timeless-principles-of-freedom/

........On October 28th on his syndicated show Rush Limbaugh commemorated the 45th anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s Goldwater speech – ...
Limbaugh further said:

The era of Reagan is the era of our founding. It is never over.

Ronald Reagan is not being held up as somebody whom every candidate must be like. That’s not possible. People like me who love and appreciate Ronald Reagan have no cultlike appreciation for Reagan.

This is not an attachment to a personality.

It’s an attachment to leadership and ideals and principles, ideals and principles which will never die because freedom will never die. Therefore, the era of Reagan will never be over. .......”

GET IT???

More:

The New Reagan Revolution: How Ronald Reagan’s Principles Can Restore America’s Greatness
http://www.amazon.com/New-Reagan-Revolution-Principles-Greatness/dp/0312644558
Michael Reagan

“Ronald Reagan brought America back from the brink of economic ruin and tossed the Evil Empire into the dustbin of history. That is why I call him, with true reverence and the highest of esteem, Ronaldus Magnus. Now his elder son, Michael Reagan, has written the definitive book on Ronald Reagan’s vision and achievements. He writes from a close-up perspective no other conservative can match.

My friend, Michael Reagan has given us the blueprint for a new Reagan revolution­and he has given Ronald Reagan back to us again. Read it, learn it, live it, love it!” ­Rush Limbaugh, the #1 radio talk show host in America

NEED MORE? bttt

[Sudetenland]

I think you are reaching if the fact that he said "Governor Reagan" has you upset. He's taking a far more comprehensive look at Reagan. Reagan built his vision for where America should be headed early on then went about figuring out how to bring it about. He didn't just spring up full blown in 1976 or 1980.

Look at his early speeches, look at his great speech supporting Goldwater in '64. Look at where he came from. I think Newt is right when he says "Governor Reagan." Newt is precise in what he says and he takes a far more strategic look at these issues that most--even Rush.

It is a legitimate point of view if you choose to say we are still in the "Era of Reagan" if by that you mean the step change which occurred over the past 30 years . . . the debate in general during Bush's administration was over how large the tax cuts should be, not whether they should occur at all, but even there, that debate has moved all the way back to a battle over whether or not tax cuts work and we face a constant battle just to keep what Bush got.

Remember too that Newt was an integral part of the "Era of Reagan" and much of the progress conservatives achieved occurred under his leadership in the House.

But, the pendulum swings--it always swings--and where we are now is almost a mirror of where we were in 1980--at the outset of the "Reagan Era."

I think much of the disagreement is semantics and chimerical. To me it looks very much like picking nits to pluck out a comment like Newts and use it as the basis for a dismissal of everything he has accomplished and spent his life fighting for.

The man is "a Reagan Republican" and if you heard Rush today, he was back defending Newt and singing his praises.

[mmichaels1970]

but he had a period right after the 2006 election losses where he has become significantly squishy on many issues.

No argument from me there. He's had his share of contradictions. I'm only being careful to make sure I'm reading HIS words and not somebody else's (MSM/Blogs) opinions of what he's said or meant.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Today he finally confirmed what many of us had speculated — he had that back operation in the beginning of July, and it was still bothering him during the first debates, making him tired and he was in pain.

He wishes he had done the operation back in January.

[Eagle of Liberty]

And to add to what you posted, I will be posting a thread in just a few minutes of a great Rush rant from October 2, 2007. Look for it.

[Matchett-PI]

Will do! Ping me to it, will you?

[Matchett-PI]

You wrote: “...But, the pendulum swings—it always swings—...”

Yes, it does, and that’s what concerns Rush (and me):

Wednesday, May 18, 2011
The Newt of the ‘80s Wouldn’t Get Tangled Up in This Mandate Mess
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2721974/posts?page=6#6

More: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2819755/posts?page=43#43