He will unveil a list of 200 Executive Orders he will sign into law on Inauguration Day.
He will dismantle 40% of Obama's bureaucracy on Day One, including Dodd-Frank.
Posted on 12/21/2011 11:40:08 AM PST by true believer forever
Gingrich's alleged "baggage" and doubts about his electability don't fully explain why, despite his high standing in the polls, the GOP establishment has been shunning the former Speaker of the House, when not showing outright hostility toward him...
The current Speaker of the House, John Boehner, must be considered a prominent opponent, behind the scenes so far. Boehner, it will be recalled, led the rebellion to remove Gingrich from his post as Speaker back in 1998...
Boehner is hardly alone in fearing a Gingrich presidency. A true insider, Gingrich knows who among his fellow politicians (from his day and since) stands for what -- the real deal not the sort of palaver politicians offer up when they are on their best behavior on TV for the sake of keeping up appearances knowing that it's on the record and that constituents are watching...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
You said it - perfectly!!
oh, no, oh no, oh, no, I LOVE THIS... I JUST LOVE IT... You are very talented (and politically astute)... I love it! thanks for posting this.
No doubt in my mind, that of all the candidates currently running, he is the most qualified, articulate, and best understands how to move things along in Washington. I am very happy that he has given notice that there are constitutional checks to reign in Judicial overreach that the Congress and Presidents have not been utilizing.
I have a natural distrust of any long-term politician, so I don't “trust” him like I trusted Reagan. I think he's the only one that has what it takes to get the job done. The others are lite weights. I support him but will keep both eyes open, if you know what I mean.
You can take comfort in the fact that today is rare for me to have time to express my beliefs and opinions. I haven’t posted or commented in months and FR is the only one I’ve ever posted at.
I’ve input my two cents. I just hope whomever ends up on the ballet opposite Obama is just not another huge compromise. We could do better and I have a hard time accepting the lesser of two evils option.
Thank you for the platform:)
Thank you for the info. I’ll digest it as time allows. If I haven’t considered him fairly, I certainly welcome learning more.
I’d like to be as well informed as a normally busy life will allow.
And if you could only see my fingers!! It’s been a long time since they could be called pristine or little.
Thanks!!
I hear you, but I said the same thing about Bozell’s piece. It was so lame in its fundamental analysis that I felt like I was listening to my teenager trying to convince me to let him do something stupid.
Here’s where I think the real sticking point is for me:
It’s just not enough to say someone “fears” Gingrich or whatever other psychoemotional reaction one wants to try to pin on his opposition.
The key is that, even if true, that does NOT in any way, shape or form provide any evidence, much less proof, of anything about Gingrich.
IOW, there’s is way too much (in my view) psychoanalysis of the motives of those opposing one’s candidate. Then after the psychoanalysis is done and it has been concluded that the opposition “fears” the candidate or whatever, that is taken to PROVE that, in essence, those “fears” are well-founded!
IOW, in this case, PROVING that Gingrich will govern as a solid and reliable conservative, who is also inspiring and steady as a leader.
And that’s just lame.
There’s no justification in using the presumed or perceived motive of someone in opposing a candidate as proof that the candidate will govern in a certain way if elected.
For example, let’s say this author is correct and Boehner does indeed “fear” that Gingrich will cause him to lose his job and does indeed “feel threatened” that Gingrich will push him out of leadership or some such thing.
SO WHAT?
While we’re doing psychoanalysis, let’s concede that there could be a MILLION reasons — none of which have anything to do one way or the other with Gingrich’s prospects of governing conservatively — why Boehner may feel this way.
Boehner could think, hey, Gingrich will be out to get me because I was part of pushing him out as Speaker. Okay. How does that prove that Boehner is “afraid” of Gingrich’s conservative principles? It doesn’t.
So, a long way to say what I said at the beginning: this type of blithe analysis is not helpful. In fact, it is harmful.
It gives people the impression that they really can divine the motives of others without proof, and then it deludes them into thinking they can take those presumed motives and use them as PROOF that their candidate is going to govern the way they think he will. It’s nothing but an exercise in self-congratulation.
And my comments were not directed at you, but at the author. Even Rush Limbaugh is guilty of this type of sloppy, adolescent reasoning when he goes on and on about who he believes is afraid of whom. Again, even if “A” is afraid of “B,” that proves nothing about how “B” would govern.
Yes, Gingrich and Boehner have quite a history together. People seem to forget, or not know, that the GOP-E and those in office now are not forming their opinions of Gingrich out of thin air.
They actually worked for him or with him.
They actually had to deal with his behaviors and the fallout therefrom.
They are in a position to say whether or not the boss was a jerk, etc.
Doesn’t mean people have to agree with them. But at least give them credit that they have a basis for their opinion — that is, personal, up-close, working every day in politics together EXPERIENCE.
The question is WHY don’t they want to deal with Newt as President?
It’s not enough for these authors to write articles claiming that so-and-so doesn’t want to deal with Newt as President, without asking:
(1) WHY don’t they want to deal with Newt?, and —
(2) Does anyone ever consider that they possibly have a GOOD reason they don’t want to deal with Newt as President?
The author, and others pursuing the same line of “reasoning,” stupidly swallow the thinking that if any Republicans don’t want Gingrich (fill-in-the-blank) as President, it must be 100% because that candidate is the greatest, most reliable conservative that ever walked God’s green eath.
As I said, maybe they just think Gingrich is a jerk and they don’t want to put up with his bullcrap as President. I mean, these are people who have worked with and for Gingrich and know him very well. Isn’t that completely possible?
Of course it is.
I sincerely considered your points, but this remains my bottom line: boehner and the boehner republicans are bastards, and they will support and enhance any republican - from john mccain - to olympia snowe - to lindsay graham as long as they help keep their positions of power and their place at the trough. I’m sorry, I just don’t think anything else enters into it. You made some points that really would be applicable with normal human beings, these are political mutations, addicted to power and enamored of living in the DC bubble.
Thank you for considering my points.
And, actually, you did all I was saying should be done: you evaluated, and did not assume things.
Thanks.
You’re welcome. I actually learned a little. If you’d like to donate to Newt’s campaign, I can post the link...
>> I have a hard time accepting the lesser of two evils <<
With all due respect, one might infer from your statement that you’d have a easier time accepting the GREATER of two evils.
Just curious, what leadership have either Bachmann, Paul or Santorum shown in congress what leadership position have they been in?
What have they accomplished to advance any conservative issues in congress?
If they couldn’t accomplish anything while in congress why do you think they will accomplish anything as President?
Bachmann is a lying POS based on his campaign thusfar (see the serial slash and burn attacks on Palin, Perry, Cain and now Gingrich as Romney’s surrogate(?)
Santorum is an entirely decent person but has zero charisma how lost a Senate bid.
Paul is a wack job, with his foreign policy and 9-11 truther nonsense.
It’s a fair question. I don’t know that every member of congress can stand out as a leader as the speaker has. The three mentioned seem very principled from my perspective.
It seems logical that the opportunity for impact is much greater for the President than the average member of Congress.
We need a principled person in the Presidency, the position has even more power than originally intended. We would be foolish to limit our selection to the few whom have held leadership positions in Congress.
I hope I’m not wasting a sincere response on someone who has no interest in honest debate. If you can only respond wildly without logic or objectivity, don’t bother.
Thank you for your respect although none is due. If I ever were to prefer the greater of two evils (although I hate having someone else force me into the choice) it would only be to accelerate the necessary change.
Not at this time, thanks!
In simple language why was Gingrich tossed out?
Well, come to think of it, every choice we make as mere mortals is in a sense a choice between/among the lesser of evils -- except maybe the choice to accept Jesus as Saviour.
That is, I can hardly think of any choice other than perhaps the latter that doesn't have some kind of downside, some kind of undesirable trade-off, some kind of opportunity cost. Call it, if you will, an immutable aspect of the human condition.
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.