Posted on 12/27/2011 2:54:17 PM PST by TBBT
Newt Gingrich on Tuesday lit into Ron Paul over extremist newsletters he once published, saying that he would not vote for him if he were the Republican nominee.
Asked by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer about tough attack ads Paul has been running against him, Gingrich slammed his rival, who he said “disowns ten years of his own letter, says he doesn’t really realize what was in it, had no idea that he was making money on, that it was racist, anti-Semitic.”
“He’s attacking me for serial hypocrisy and he spent ten years out of earning money off a newsletter that had his name that he didn’t notice,” he said. “He’s got to come up with some very straight answers to get somebody to take him seriously. Would I be willing to listen to him? Sure. I think the choice of Ron Paul or Barack Obama would be a very bad choice for America.”
Gingrich flatly said “no” when asked if he would vote for Paul himself.
“There will come a morning people won’t take him as a serious person,” Gingrich said, saying he was a “reasonable candidate” as a protest vote.
“As a potential president, a person who thinks the United States was [responsible] for 9/11, a person who believes, who wrote in his newsletter, that the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 might have been a CIA plot, the person who says it doesn’t matter if the Iranians have a nuclear weapon — you look at Ron Paul’s record of systemic avoidance of reality, his ads are about as accurate as his newsletter.”
(Excerpt) Read more at 2012.talkingpointsmemo.com ...
What the childish libertarian purist isolationist mind will not compute is that most conservatives would LOVE to be libertarian with regard to foreign affairs - but are simply smart enough to know that no one can be libertarian until everyone is libertarian (think about it).
The notion that every one who supported some sort of action in Iraq supported everything we did or is a globalist or a neocon or was filled with ‘glee” when the Towers went down is simply some sort of sick disease that’s a combination of perpetual childishness and a sick self loathing of American greatness and a total naivete.
(1) I am quite sure I learned in college (where I majored in political science) that a “classical liberal” or a “reform liberal” or a “libertarian” are ALL liberals.
(2) “Conservatism” is not liberalism. If you are a classical liberal, you are just a liberal having an argument with another type of liberal over which liberal value (liberty or equality) is more important.
(3) I’m not a Ron Paul supporter. I just refuse to vote for someone who calls himself a “conservative,” but who sounds more like Kweisi Mfume or Jesse Jackson.
No, I don’t.
- I disagree with Ron Paul on immigration. Dealbreaker.
- I disagree with Ron Paul on DADT.
- I disagree with Ron Paul on Wikileaks.
- I am not a libertarian by any stretch of the imagination.
You are barking up the wrong tree here. I’m more of a Pat Buchanan guy, not a Ron Paul guy.
There's a straight line ripe for a punchline, if there ever was one.
**Newt: I Would Never Vote For Ron Paul**
Neither would I!
First little boy, let me assure you that flaunting college poli sci around here as cred is the same thing as starting all of your posts with the statement “I HAVE NO REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE.”
Second, “classical liberal” as understood outside the walls of academia nuts is largely the same thing as “conservative” as understood in the modern political parlance. It is based on the economics of Adam Smith and the idea generally of limited government. That has nothing to do with today’s “political liberal” movement at all.
If you want to speak in esoteric and outdated terms to try and project a false useless academic sophistication then go ahead. But you’ll not find much audience around here or on other conservative message boards or in the tea party movement or in the talk radio universe.
“I’m more of a Pat Buchanan guy, not a Ron Paul guy.”
Right, except he is not running...so you support?
(1) I’m not a libertarian.
(2) There is no such thing as an “isolationist.” There was never a point in American history where the United States was “isolationist.”
(3) There are “anti-imperialists” and “anti-colonialists” in America: people who believe that it is not the responsibility of the United States to coddle foreigners, who oppose taking under our wing foreign dependencies like Puerto Rico and Iraq, who oppose intervening in other parts of the world to promote liberal causes like “democracy,” and who oppose “nation building” or “policing the world” and so forth.
(4) The Iraq War really was fomented by neocon globalists in the Bush administration who believed that “democracy” could be transplanted there.
The country agrees that it was the worst mistake of the last decade and is relieved to be rid of the neocons who started it.
(5) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Bin Laden was in Pakistan, not Iraq.
“The Iraq War really was fomented by neocon globalists in the Bush administration who believed that “democracy” could be transplanted there.”
Like most conspiracy theorists you are wrong about this...why don’t you google and find out why there was a war in Iraq.
(1) Apparently, your “real world experience” consists in the false belief that classical liberalism is conservatism, when it is actually just a variant of liberal political theory.
(2) There is nothing “conservative” about classical liberalism. It is “conservative” only in the sense that it is an older version of liberalism than the predominant version that exists today on the Left.
(3) The only difference between “classical liberals” and “progressive liberals” is that the former value liberty more than equality and the latter value equality more than liberty - it is an argument within the liberal tradition, between liberals, which has nothing to do with authentic conservatism.
(4) The real conservatives were not classical liberals and were strongly opposed to the idea that “speculative philosophy” (as opposed to religion, custom, experience, and tradition) could provide a sound foundation for human society.
Judging by the degenerate state of contemporary America (where “liberty” and “equality” have been taken to unimaginable extremes), it is clear they were right.
Geez, where to start. I should get a rebate on your tuition for this. And remember, you have stated at least twice now that liberals and classical liberals are the same because all liberals are the same - showing a blithering ignorance right off the bat: but here I go nontheless:
(2) There is no such thing as an “isolationist.” There was never a point in American history where the United States was “isolationist.” ((( You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say there are “globalist and neocons” but there’s no such thing as isolationist. There are certainly shades of both and you are a shade of isolationist)))
(3) There are “anti-imperialists” and “anti-colonialists” in America: people who believe that it is not the responsibility of the United States to coddle foreigners ((( only modern liberals coddle)))
who oppose taking under our wing foreign dependencies like Puerto Rico and Iraq, ((( equating those two says it all)))
who oppose intervening in other parts of the world to promote liberal causes like “democracy,” and who oppose “nation building” or “policing the world” and so forth.((( all of which is well and good, but what if there are actual dangers to the US in foreign lands? Oh wait, you’d rather fight them here. How will taht work out with an Iranian Nuke. )))
(4) The Iraq War really was fomented by neocon globalists in the Bush administration who believed that “democracy” could be transplanted there. ((( My name is William, and I spout mind numbed sound bytes I cannot explain))))
The country agrees that it was the worst mistake of the last decade and is relieved to be rid of the neocons who started it. (((I don’t think the country agrees on much of anything, but if I concede that point for the sake of argument, it would not preclude that something much worse might have happened had we not done it. But I don’t necessarily concede the point but I will say it was poorly carried out in many respects.)))
(5) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Bin Laden was in Pakistan, not Iraq. (((Hitler was in Berlin, but we started in North Africa to get him. Tojo was in Tokyo, but we started in Guadalcanal and other such places to get him. And besides, do you think Bin Laden’s influence was limited to that little compound? )))
Immigration is my number one issue. Thus, I am supporting Michele Bachmann over Ron Paul, even though I incline toward Paul’s views on foreign policy.
>>> (1) Apparently, your “real world experience” consists in the false belief that classical liberalism is conservatism, when it is actually just a variant of liberal political theory.
(2) There is nothing “conservative” about classical liberalism. It is “conservative” only in the sense that it is an older version of liberalism than the predominant version that exists today on the Left. >>>>>
I am done with you. You are too obtuse and stubborn and ignorant and you simply refuse to deal with reality. Go back to your bong. I am done with you for good. And your stunning blithering ignorance is on display for all to see here at FR.
Newt’s playing chess again. The more he can get the OWS crowd to harass him on camera, the more the American public will rally to his side.
I’m with you. Not only is he on his third wife, she’s one of the two mistresses he has married. This guy has so much baggage, Obama’s people won’t have to lift a finger to find material to smear him. And that schtick about debating Obama a la Lincoln-Douglas? He’s proposed that before years ago with some other political figure he disagreed with. He must have Walter Mitty fantasies that he’s a reincarnation of Abraham Lincoln. He’s already compared himself to Churchill.
What if Obama would say no, that he’s too busy being president to debate Newt? Newt’s left high and dry. And I notice he doesn’t like being criticized. He’s looking more and more like a sourpuss old grump. Not the best thing to be when you’re going up against a charming con artist pretending to be president who has a toothy grin and the MSM in his corner.
(1) This is a straw man. I haven’t claimed that classical liberals, progressive liberals, and libertarians are the same. They are more like species of the genus “liberalism.”
(2) Japan was “isolationist” before the 1850s. The United States has never been “isolationist.” There was never a point in American history where the United States was not actively involved in the world.
No one who is called an “isolationist” is really advocating an “isolationist” foreign policy. They are more accurately called “nationalists.”
(3) Bush justified both the Iraq War and Afghanistan on the grounds that women’s rights and democracy would be promoted through American intervention.
There is no difference between a neocon like George W. Bush and a “duty to protect” liberal like Bill Clinton or Barack Hussein Obama on that subject.
(4) Like Puerto Rico, Iraq is an albatross that we acquired through imperialism, where we have remained long after the war ended, on the basis that “we broke it, so its ours.”
(5) Mexico is invading the United States, not Iran. Why don’t you attack North Korea? Unlike Iraq, North Korea developed real nuclear weapons. Maybe it is because North Korea is a real threat and can defend itself whereas Iran doesn’t possess that capability.
(6) No, I am not afraid of “Iranian nukes.” Iran has no capacity to attack the United States. It was Sunni terrorists who where behind 9/11, not Shiites.
(7) The idea that Saddam Hussein was anything like Adolf Hitler or Tojo is risible. Thanks for the lulz.
Let me name some classical liberal thinkers who “conservatives” look to for inspiration
1) Adam Smith - Read his “Theory of Moral Sentiment” to get the true measure of this man not just “The Wealth of Nation”. Bu do read “Wealth of Nations”!
2) Edmund Burke
3) John Locke
4) Algernon Sydney - My favorite, John Adams said if he had only one think to leave his sons it would be the collected works of Algernon Sydney!
5) David Hume
6) James Madison
7) Alexander Hamilton
etc ( I could throw in some French but I won't!)
Of the modern era
1. Frederick Hayek
2. Ludwig Von Mises
3. Milton Friedman
and yes for me Ayn Rand!
I’m not electing Miss America or Mother Teresa. What we need now is a fighter who can win a war. If you were looking for the next General Patton would you worry about how the guy gets along with his wife or how white his teeth are? Politics isn’t tiddly winks.
Newt already said if Obama doesn’t agree to the debates, he will follow him around the country and give a speech 4 hours after every Obama speech. It would become a media sensation. The media loves to interview Newt and cover Newt, a big advantage in getting our message out. “Bomb-throwers” get ratings. They also draw blood, which is what we need in this election. Pretty boy Barack needs to get his smiling puss bloodied up real bad (in the rhetorical sense of course). Romney plays by the standard Massachusetts-style Marquess of Queensberry Rules. People will walk away liking Obama just as much as they did before, if not more when he’s done. He will be nice to Obama and reinforce that Obama is a nice guy. Newt will severely undermine Obama’s credibility and impugn his motives until people aren’t sure if they can trust that pretty face anymore.
If you let Obama get away with the sales pitch that he’s the “nice” guy trying to help Americans, you lose. He needs to be smeared and smeared bad by someone with the spirit and lack of scruples of a street fighter. Newt is a bastard, but he’s OUR bastard.
Let me name some classical liberal thinkers who “conservatives” look to for inspiration
1) Adam Smith - Read his “Theory of Moral Sentiment” to get the true measure of this man not just “The Wealth of Nation”. Bu do read “Wealth of Nations”!
2) Edmund Burke
3) John Locke
4) Algernon Sydney - My favorite, John Adams said if he had only one think to leave his sons it would be the collected works of Algernon Sydney!
5) David Hume
6) James Madison
7) Alexander Hamilton
etc ( I could throw in some French but I won't!)
Of the modern era
1. Frederick Hayek
2. Ludwig Von Mises
3. Milton Friedman
and yes for me Ayn Rand!
It is good to see somebody...finally
take on Paul and his nuttering bong puffers.
The guys is not only a joke but the Supreme embarrassment to the Republican Party.
Gingrich throughout the debates kept the focus on the enemies of conservative America. Initially, Obama...and now Ron Paul.
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.