or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy - Page 5

post #161 of 328
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

He won't win the nomination but it wouldn't hurt to promise him a cabinet position and have him work to eliminate the need for that department.

You raise an interesting point, trumpt.

I might support a Romney presidency with Ron Paul as Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense.

Although I think it's unlikely Paul would accept such an appointment, as he would probably be able to make a bigger difference as a public speaker and writer.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #162 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

No really. They do. Did you watch the video? He's received more donations from active military than all his opponents combined.



I'm not denying anything, but keep repeating yourself. Maybe one of these times I'll suddenly "see the light".

Jazz, do you actually think that Ron Paul is going to win as a third party candidate?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #163 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

You raise an interesting point, trumpt.

I might support a Romney presidency with Ron Paul as Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense.

Although I think it's unlikely Paul would accept such an appointment, as he would probably be able to make a bigger difference as a public speaker and writer.

But you won't for Romney without Paul on the ticket, correct?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #164 of 328
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Jazz, do you actually think that Ron Paul is going to win as a third party candidate?

Probably no. But it's possible. I know several people like myself who only re-registered Republican to vote for him in their state primaries and will gladly support him on a third party ticket. He's got enough of a following that considerable buzz and support could be generated around a third party or independent bid for president.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #165 of 328
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

But you won't for Romney without Paul on the ticket, correct?

I would consider voting for Romney if Paul was on the same ticket, or if Romney committed to appointing Paul to a cabinet-level position and Paul accepted.

But even then I'd most likely end up voting third party.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #166 of 328
Well, I guess we're going to have leave this, finally. I still disagree with you on voting third party in this situation, given that Obama is running for re-election.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #167 of 328
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Well, I guess we're going to have leave this, finally. I still disagree with you on voting third party in this situation, given that Obama is running for re-election.

You've made your disagreement with me abundantly clear. Let's revisit this after Newt's popularity tanks.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #168 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

You've made your disagreement with me abundantly clear. Let's revisit this after Newt's popularity tanks.

I'm all for that.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #169 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

You raise an interesting point, trumpt.

I might support a Romney presidency with Ron Paul as Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense.

Although I think it's unlikely Paul would accept such an appointment, as he would probably be able to make a bigger difference as a public speaker and writer.

Why have him take the departments that need to stick around? Have him take a department that needs to go and put him to work making it irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

You've made your disagreement with me abundantly clear. Let's revisit this after Newt's popularity tanks.

That's not likely to happen because again, he moves the needle and inspires passion in the cause. Unlike Ron Paul who's ceiling has been clear for two presidential cycles and unlike Mitt who has never closed the deal either, he will seal the deal and get the nod.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I'm all for that.

So if Newt is the nominee you'll pull the trigger for him SDW?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #170 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Why have him take the departments that need to stick around? Have him take a department that needs to go and put him to work making it irrelevant.

That's not likely to happen because again, he moves the needle and inspires passion in the cause. Unlike Ron Paul who's ceiling has been clear for two presidential cycles and unlike Mitt who has never closed the deal either, he will seal the deal and get the nod.

So if Newt is the nominee you'll pull the trigger for him SDW?

I'm all for Newt tanking. That's what I meant.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #171 of 328
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Why have him take the departments that need to stick around? Have him take a department that needs to go and put him to work making it irrelevant.

No, we can't have Ron Paul working on anything to do with foreign policy. That would jeopardize our empire.

Quote:
That's not likely to happen because again, he moves the needle and inspires passion in the cause. Unlike Ron Paul who's ceiling has been clear for two presidential cycles and unlike Mitt who has never closed the deal either, he will seal the deal and get the nod.

Ron Paul doesn't inspire passion? Have you seen his supporters at these debates?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #172 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I'm all for Newt tanking. That's what I meant.

You still didn't answer the question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

No, we can't have Ron Paul working on anything to do with foreign policy. That would jeopardize our empire.

Ron Paul doesn't inspire passion? Have you seen his supporters at these debates?

I've seen his core support and nothing more. No one is claiming he doesn't have his 9% of the Republican voters. The problem is that doesn't win a general election.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #173 of 328
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I've seen his core support and nothing more. No one is claiming he doesn't have his 9% of the Republican voters. The problem is that doesn't win a general election.

You assume his supporters are all Republicans.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #174 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

You assume his supporters are all Republicans.

I assume they are all Republican in registration for at least brief periods of time. In short I assume they are much like yourself.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #175 of 328
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I assume they are all Republican in registration for at least brief periods of time. In short I assume they are much like yourself.

Well sure, because depending on the state they live in that's the only way they can support him in the Republican primaries.

But you said 9% of all Republicans, so thank you for clarifying what you meant.

I think he has the support of more than 9% of Americans.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #176 of 328
Thread Starter 
Speaking of last night's debate, I think Newt's explanation for receiving over a million dollars from Freddie/Fannie is weak at best, dishonest at worst. Ron Paul is right - Newt Received money from a GSE (Government Sponsored Enterprise) funded by tax money. Newt pocketed tax money from an organization that was at the heart of the housing bubble and our current economic troubles and that we bailed out with more tax money. That just doesn't sit well with me.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #177 of 328
Thread Starter 

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #178 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Speaking of last night's debate, I think Newt's explanation for receiving over a million dollars from Freddie/Fannie is weak at best, dishonest at worst. Ron Paul is right - Newt Received money from a GSE (Government Sponsored Enterprise) funded by tax money. Newt pocketed tax money from an organization that was at the heart of the housing bubble and our current economic troubles and that we bailed out with more tax money. That just doesn't sit well with me.

Are you being serious? Bachmann was left sputtering about how she was a serious candidate (and thus shouldn't have her assertions questioned) and was left asserting that it wasn't "technically" lobbying but darn it, he got paid for something.

By the way Gingrich must have had his story right from day one because this article states the same info and was written almost four years ago.


Ron Paul also pocketed tax money from an organization that was at the heart of the housing bubble because he works for the Federal Government and has since 1978. See how easy the guilt by association is to do there? Either someone did something wrong or they didn't. Newt didn't do anything wrong. Sputtering that it wasn't "technically" wrong or saying but he took money from a place and that place was government sponsored, did the government's bidding and screwed everything up because darn it, that's what government does. Doesn't mean he or anyone else associated with government is automatically wrong or bad.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #179 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

You raise an interesting point, trumpt.

I might support a Romney presidency with Ron Paul as Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense.

Although I think it's unlikely Paul would accept such an appointment, as he would probably be able to make a bigger difference as a public speaker and writer.

Maybe Paul can have an appointment as the Secretary of Defense where Iran can screw us with their nuclear weapons and he would say nothing to that effect.Let him go back to Texas and retire!
post #180 of 328
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Ron Paul also pocketed tax money from an organization that was at the heart of the housing bubble because he works for the Federal Government and has since 1978. See how easy the guilt by association is to do there? Either someone did something wrong or they didn't. Newt didn't do anything wrong. Sputtering that it wasn't "technically" wrong or saying but he took money from a place and that place was government sponsored, did the government's bidding and screwed everything up because darn it, that's what government does. Doesn't mean he or anyone else associated with government is automatically wrong or bad.

Yes, money is required to run our bloated government. But Ron Paul is so frugal with the government funds he receives that he returns the unused portion of his office budget to the treasury every year. This year he returned $141,580, which is just over 9% of the total office budget.

He has also refused to participate in the Congressional pension system, calling it "immoral".

Ron Paul is not perfect (nobody has ever claimed he is), but he "walks the walk" far better than most.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #181 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Speaking of last night's debate, I think Newt's explanation for receiving over a million dollars from Freddie/Fannie is weak at best, dishonest at worst. Ron Paul is right - Newt Received money from a GSE (Government Sponsored Enterprise) funded by tax money. Newt pocketed tax money from an organization that was at the heart of the housing bubble and our current economic troubles and that we bailed out with more tax money. That just doesn't sit well with me.

Agreed. I actually think that Gingrich's position is more defensible than he is making it out to be. He should just say he was paid as a consultant through his firm, and tried to advise them to follow a different course. Just say that and be done with it, then propose solutions to the Fannie and Feddie problem.



Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Yes, money is required to run our bloated government. But Ron Paul is so frugal with the government funds he receives that he returns the unused portion of his office budget to the treasury every year. This year he returned $141,580, which is just over 9% of the total office budget.

He has also refused to participate in the Congressional pension system, calling it "immoral".

Ron Paul is not perfect (nobody has ever claimed he is), but he "walks the walk" far better than most.

I'll agree with you there, too.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #182 of 328
Thread Starter 
Paul leads in Iowa

Quote:
Newt Gingrich's campaign is rapidly imploding, and Ron Paul has now taken the lead in Iowa. He's at 23% to 20% for Mitt Romney, 14% for Gingrich, 10% each for Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry, 4% for Jon Huntsman, and 2% for Gary Johnson.

Gingrich has now seen a big drop in his Iowa standing two weeks in a row. His share of the vote has gone from 27% to 22% to 14%. And there's been a large drop in his personal favorability numbers as well from +31 (62/31) to +12 (52/40) to now -1 (46/47). Negative ads over the last few weeks have really chipped away at Gingrich's image as being a strong conservative- now only 36% of voters believe that he has 'strong principles,' while 43% think he does not.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #183 of 328
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Agreed. I actually think that Gingrich's position is more defensible than he is making it out to be. He should just say he was paid as a consultant through his firm, and tried to advise them to follow a different course. Just say that and be done with it, then propose solutions to the Fannie and Feddie problem.

And see, if he had explained it the way you did - especially the part where he tried to advise Fannie and Freddie to follow a different course than they did (assuming that is indeed true) - I might just buy that.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #184 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Yes, money is required to run our bloated government. But Ron Paul is so frugal with the government funds he receives that he returns the unused portion of his office budget to the treasury every year. This year he returned $141,580, which is just over 9% of the total office budget.

Yes and Gingrich helped get the entire Federal Budget to balance. Paul can get himself to cut. Gingrich got everyone to cut.

Quote:
He has also refused to participate in the Congressional pension system, calling it "immoral".

Does he collect Social Security? It's no different.

Quote:
Ron Paul is not perfect (nobody has ever claimed he is), but he "walks the walk" far better than most.

I'm not interested in him walking the walk 5% better if he doesn't get anyone else to walk it better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Agreed. I actually think that Gingrich's position is more defensible than he is making it out to be. He should just say he was paid as a consultant through his firm, and tried to advise them to follow a different course. Just say that and be done with it, then propose solutions to the Fannie and Feddie problem.

Gingrich has already said this. He even said as a consultant that he advised them to do the exact opposite of what they were doing and that they didn't listen.

In last Wednesday's Republican presidential debate, Gingrich sought to explain his role at Freddie Mac as that of a "historian" sounding dire warnings about the company's future. He said company officials told him "we are now making loans to people that have no credit history and have no record of paying back anything, but that's what the government wants us to do." He said his advice was to tell them, "this is insane."

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Paul leads in Iowa

In 1980, Iowa choose George H.W. Bush over Reagan.
In 1988, Iowa choose Bob Dole over George H.W. Bush.
In 2000, Iowa choose George W. Bush.
In 2008, Iowa choose Mike Huckabee.

Iowa in the long view doesn't amount to much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

And see, if he had explained it the way you did - especially the part where he tried to advise Fannie and Freddie to follow a different course than they did (assuming that is indeed true) - I might just buy that.

So I guess you should buy it because he has said repeatedly that they ignored his advice and went in the exact opposite direction. You could say why would they pay him for so long but then we could ask why was Eric Schmidt ever on Apple's board and why is Al Gore still on Apple's board? Companies that hold $5 trillion in assets and pay their executives what these companies did clearly don't sweat paying someone like Gingrich for his expertise. People point at the total figure but Gingrich was paid it over almost a decade.

BTW, compare that consulting fee for several years worth of work to what the Fannie and Freddie execs were making per year or what Apple is paying top execs per year. You'll see it doesn't even compare. Does it seem massive compared to what you or I make? Of course but the reality is that it fell right in line for what he makes. Gingrich's speaking fee is $60,000 per appearance. That's actually cheap in comparison to say, Bill Clinton who charges $175,000 per appearance and has made over $65 million in speaking fees alone.

Here's a nice article where um....Snooki gets a $32,000 speaking fee.
Here's an article noting Ann Coulter would get paid $20,000 for a speech.

Hey does it suck that I'm not a drunk midget, former Speaker of the House, former CEO, President or anything else that would allow me to charge ridiculous amounts of money for a one hour speech? I guess I could say so but the reality is that at a speaker fee, Gingrich would have been paid for about 1 hr of time per month to earn that money. He's not lying at all when he said he could have easily made the money elsewhere. So do a lot of other people in his position.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #185 of 328
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Yes and Gingrich helped get the entire Federal Budget to balance. Paul can get himself to cut. Gingrich got everyone to cut.

I'm of the opinion that part of being a good leader is leading by example. And any credit owed to Newt for balancing the budget and other things - which I agree there is some owed to him - is overshadowed by his poor example.

Quote:
Does he collect Social Security? It's no different.

I don't know. But even if he does, he was forced under threat of violence to pay into the system. Why is it unreasonable to expect him to get some of his money back from it?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #186 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I'm of the opinion that part of being a good leader is leading by example. And any credit owed to Newt for balancing the budget and other things - which I agree there is some owed to him - is overshadowed by his poor example.

I don't know. But even if he does, he was forced under threat of violence to pay into the system. Why is it unreasonable to expect him to get some of his money back from it?

Wait...poor example...of what? He was a private citizen making money. It doesn't play well politically, but morally I see no problem with it. Or are you talking about his personal life?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #187 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I'm of the opinion that part of being a good leader is leading by example. And any credit owed to Newt for balancing the budget and other things - which I agree there is some owed to him - is overshadowed by his poor example.

Poor example of what? I understand it can be fun to repeat the same half-allegations but I've pointed to his explanation of the Fannie work and also showed how comparable to what he earns normally and what others (including drunk midgets) earn, it is paltry in comparison. What other claims do you believe have stuck that aren't related to sausage makings aka governing? As an example Newt noted his 98.5% pro-life record and declared how they scored welfare reform was his only negative mark.

You forgive Paul for working within the system while basically making zero change to the system. (I put in earmarks and vote against them. Yet you begrudge Gingrich the same treatment when he clearly had to do much more since he was the Speaker of the House. Getting a House majority to a position is very different than just your own personal vote. This "move the needle" idea is exactly what you refuse to acknowledge and deal with. There's a difference between being able to declare principle and do as you want as an individual and ceding the occasional compromise that gets 75-80% of people on board and moves everyone forward.
Quote:
I don't know. But even if he does, he was forced under threat of violence to pay into the system. Why is it unreasonable to expect him to get some of his money back from it?

It is unreasonable because first of all, he is worth a few million dollars and hardly needs it and secondly because everyone will take out of it much more than they put in which is why it is as he notes, a ponzi scheme. A scheme he declares unconsitutional but won't change except to charge the young double.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #188 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Poor example of what? I understand it can be fun to repeat the same half-allegations but I've pointed to his explanation of the Fannie work and also showed how comparable to what he earns normally and what others (including drunk midgets) earn, it is paltry in comparison. What other claims do you believe have stuck that aren't related to sausage makings aka governing? As an example Newt noted his 98.5% pro-life record and declared how they scored welfare reform was his only negative mark.

You forgive Paul for working within the system while basically making zero change to the system. (I put in earmarks and vote against them. Yet you begrudge Gingrich the same treatment when he clearly had to do much more since he was the Speaker of the House. Getting a House majority to a position is very different than just your own personal vote. This "move the needle" idea is exactly what you refuse to acknowledge and deal with. There's a difference between being able to declare principle and do as you want as an individual and ceding the occasional compromise that gets 75-80% of people on board and moves everyone forward.


It is unreasonable because first of all, he is worth a few million dollars and hardly needs it and secondly because everyone will take out of it much more than they put in which is why it is as he notes, a ponzi scheme. A scheme he declares unconsitutional but won't change except to charge the young double.


Absolutely agreed. Jazz and many others view Paul as being far above the fray when it comes to things like this (earmarks, taking money, etc). Yet, Jazz has stated that Gingrich is "corrupt." How does this add up?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #189 of 328
Thread Starter 
Newt Gingrich did play a role in balancing the budget.

But he ultimately became a liability to his party. They turned on him and he described them as "cannibals" when he quit.

Not to mention that he was sanctioned by Congress for ethics violations.

I don't believe for a second that he can unite the party for any significant amount of time in order to make any kind of positive difference.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #190 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Newt Gingrich did play a role in balancing the budget.

But he ultimately became a liability to his party. They turned on him and he described them as "cannibals" when he quit.

Not to mention that he was sanctioned by Congress for ethics violations.

I don't believe for a second that he can unite the party for any significant amount of time in order to make any kind of positive difference.

Hold on...moving the goal posts, aren't we? I thought he was "corrupt?"
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #191 of 328
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Hold on...moving the goal posts, aren't we? I thought he was "corrupt?"

Yes, Newt Gingrich represents the establishment wing of the Republican Party, which is about as corrupt as you can get.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #192 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Yes, Newt Gingrich represents the establishment wing of the Republican Party, which is about as corrupt as you can get.

No, you've said that Gingrich himself was corrupt. I don't agree with that.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #193 of 328
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

No, you've said that Gingrich himself was corrupt. I don't agree with that.

Okay.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #194 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Newt Gingrich did play a role in balancing the budget.

But he ultimately became a liability to his party. They turned on him and he described them as "cannibals" when he quit.

That is because the party believes you don't really have to engage Democrats and take them on under the same terms they use against us. An almost pure example of this was the last election between McCain and Obama. It is in my opinion the same thing we will see between Romney and Obama. The candidates put out their positions, buy their ads, show up to 2-3 debates and let same biased moderators attempt to ding or zing the Republican candidate and when it doesn't work we see where the cards fall. In the meantime the talking heads spends thousands of hours talking about how being a POW must make you crazy and ill-tempered, how your VP choice isn't historic but an idiot, etc.

That's the problem with principle, or a belief that America is exceptional or even a belief that Apple products are best. Many people believe you don't have to sell that at all. You don't have to make it fight in the arena of ideas because it will just automatically win or the conclusion is foregone or it will win simply because it is best.

I'm not of that view. I'm of the view that such things must be forcefully advocated for on all and every level and that you can't just sit back and presume people will understand and make the right choice, especially when the media is slapping them in the forehead with the wrong one everyday.

Quote:
Not to mention that he was sanctioned by Congress for ethics violations.

They filed 93 charges against him and one related to paperwork on teaching a college course managed to stick. Most of that turned on how you viewed the college course. The panel found the course was partisan. The course was about how to renew America based off the past of what made America geat. Apparently what makes America great is partisan. I watched that full course BTW, it was amazing.
Quote:
I don't believe for a second that he can unite the party for any significant amount of time in order to make any kind of positive difference.

If Newt can't for any period of time, then in my opinion no one can and we might as well toss in the towel. If great ideas delivered passionately, intelligently and with force on all levels can't move anything then we are screwed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Yes, Newt Gingrich represents the establishment wing of the Republican Party, which is about as corrupt as you can get.

I thought the establishment threw him out because he kept chaffing at them about balancing the darn budget and things of that nature. Most of what happened to Newt related to the government shut down to balance the budget. The Rockefeller wing of the party (Romney wing) simply believes they'd rather not have such fights and continue governing. It's not surprising that compassionate conservatism, neocons and unbalanced budgets came soon after members of the party like Newt left.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #195 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

That is because the party believes you don't really have to engage Democrats and take them on under the same terms they use against us. An almost pure example of this was the last election between McCain and Obama. It is in my opinion the same thing we will see between Romney and Obama. The candidates put out their positions, buy their ads, show up to 2-3 debates and let same biased moderators attempt to ding or zing the Republican candidate and when it doesn't work we see where the cards fall. In the meantime the talking heads spends thousands of hours talking about how being a POW must make you crazy and ill-tempered, how your VP choice isn't historic but an idiot, etc.

Agreed, though not on Romney vs. Obama. He'll take him on and not do damage to himself in the process. There is a risk that Gingrich goes off the reservation and goes back to his older, more acerbic and arrogant ways.

Quote:

That's the problem with principle, or a belief that America is exceptional or even a belief that Apple products are best. Many people believe you don't have to sell that at all. You don't have to make it fight in the arena of ideas because it will just automatically win or the conclusion is foregone or it will win simply because it is best.

Gingrich is very good at this, but I think Romney is just as good and delivers the message in more a appealing way.

Quote:

I'm not of that view. I'm of the view that such things must be forcefully advocated for on all and every level and that you can't just sit back and presume people will understand and make the right choice, especially when the media is slapping them in the forehead with the wrong one everyday.

Again, I agree in principle, but I think that you're implying Romney doesn't put these things "out there." He does, but he does so in a different way than Newt does. Gingrich is all intellectual. Romney is intellectual as well (not as much as Gingrich), but packages the message much better and much more optimistically.

Quote:

They filed 93 charges against him and one related to paperwork on teaching a college course managed to stick. Most of that turned on how you viewed the college course. The panel found the course was partisan. The course was about how to renew America based off the past of what made America geat. Apparently what makes America great is partisan. I watched that full course BTW, it was amazing.

According to your own logic, the public won't care because the media will be slamming him on it. They'll also go after him on Freddie Mac, his personal life and some of his grandiose statements/positions. Romney really has none of those negatives. They can go after him on healthcare, changing abortion positions, and being Wall Street. In my opinion he can counter those things much more effectively than Gingrich can counter the problems he's had. He can probably explain away the infidelity thing, but the ethics charges, the GOP turning on him, global warming, the moon mirror-type stuff and taking $1.2 million from Freddie...that's a tough road to hoe.

Quote:


If Newt can't for any period of time, then in my opinion no one can and we might as well toss in the towel. If great ideas delivered passionately, intelligently and with force on all levels can't move anything then we are screwed.

That's quite a statement...one that I'm surprised to read. No one doubts that Gingrich is a great thinker, a fountain of policy ideas, etc. But people in the party have serious concerns about his leadership style, his personal and political past, his positions on past issues (he makes Romney look like Plymouth Rock), and his overall likability. I'm not even saying I take issue with all of it, but that many people in the party do. Making the statement that he's the only one who can unify the party is pretty darn amazing, trump. I totally disagree with it.

As an aside, I don't frankly care about his personal past. I think the ethics charges are bogus. Overall he's been a consistent conservative. But I do find him to be somewhat erratic, arrogant and unlikeable at times. I would support him as the nominee and would enjoy watching him shred Obama in a debate. But elections are about much more than just debates, policy and even ideas.

Quote:

I thought the establishment threw him out because he kept chaffing at them about balancing the darn budget and things of that nature. Most of what happened to Newt related to the government shut down to balance the budget. The Rockefeller wing of the party (Romney wing) simply believes they'd rather not have such fights and continue governing. It's not surprising that compassionate conservatism, neocons and unbalanced budgets came soon after members of the party like Newt left.

Reasonable point, though I think it may have been simpler. Gingrich was too acerbic. He picked too many fights. Once he became The Gingrich that Stole Christmas, the GOP decided to part ways with him.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #196 of 328
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Reasonable point, though I think it may have been simpler. Gingrich was too acerbic. He picked too many fights. Once he became The Gingrich that Stole Christmas, the GOP decided to part pays with him.

That's exactly my point when I say I don't believe he will be able to unite the party - and even if he does, it won't be for a long enough period of time to make any difference. He has a tendency to tick the wrong people off at the wrong times and burn bridges.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #197 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

That's exactly my point when I say I don't believe he will be able to unite the party - and even if he does, it won't be for a long enough period of time to make any difference. He has a tendency to tick the wrong people off at the wrong times and burn bridges.

I don't disagree with that. That's why if it matters by then, I'll be voting for Romney in the PA primary. Of course, this has nothing to do with the general election, where I'd gladly support him over Obama
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #198 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Agreed, though not on Romney vs. Obama. He'll take him on and not do damage to himself in the process. There is a risk that Gingrich goes off the reservation and goes back to his older, more acerbic and arrogant ways.

You do realize that acerbic and arrogant are just how the media portrays someone crazy enough to get conservatives agenda items done. Someone is acerbic and arrogant when they presume they can cut the rate of spending growth and balance the budget without grandma dying. Where's the proof he is actually this way or is different from any other candidate in say, being arrogant enough to believe they should be president.

Quote:
Gingrich is very good at this, but I think Romney is just as good and delivers the message in more a appealing way.

If by appealing you mean bland and unmotivational, then you are right.

Quote:
Again, I agree in principle, but I think that you're implying Romney doesn't put these things "out there." He does, but he does so in a different way than Newt does. Gingrich is all intellectual. Romney is intellectual as well (not as much as Gingrich), but packages the message much better and much more optimistically.

I'd say Gingrich is very optimistic. However he is also forceful when the time calls for it. When someone is noting that rockets are launching at Israel daily or that Iran is trying to go nuclear, there isn't an optimism you want there. You want to advocate for clear force in a strong manner and if the media want to just make you sound like a warmonger, then you've got to forcefully make a clear case and Gingrich has done this. I'm not sure it can be done with a smile.

Quote:
According to your own logic, the public won't care because the media will be slamming him on it. They'll also go after him on Freddie Mac, his personal life and some of his grandiose statements/positions.

They've already been going after him on it. His statements have met the media onslaught pretty well. I don't Gingrich will win Iowa but I'm not sure he ever would have one Iowa. I foresee him doing second in Iowa, probably second in New Hampshire and the starting to take the lead as things move on to Florida and South Carolina.

Quote:
Romney really has none of those negatives.

Seriously? They'll say Newt made $1.2-1.6 million from Wall Street/Freddie Mac but somehow won't note that all the Romney family money and the entire private sector experience including a massive chunk of Romney's personal $250 million plus of personal wealth came from Wall St./Bain Capital?

I'm not saying they will ring completely true and I just don't think Americans hate on success the way Democrats believe. I think Obama's class warfare is a loser of an issue but the point remains that there's no way to bring up one and not seriously bring up the other as a negative.

Quote:
They can go after him on healthcare, changing abortion positions, and being Wall Street. In my opinion he can counter those things much more effectively than Gingrich can counter the problems he's had. He can probably explain away the infidelity thing, but the ethics charges, the GOP turning on him, global warming, the moon mirror-type stuff and taking $1.2 million from Freddie...that's a tough road to hoe.

I think he can turn them to strengths because the GOP brand is not completely untarnished. People are still looking for someone who can claim to be outside the problems even if Gingrich isn't a complete outsider. The point is that he left power in 1999 and hasn't been back since. That decade out of office happens to be when the GOP left some of their priorities he can say he will be bringing them back to them. No one claims the GOP is a completely united party and it is clear there's about 70% of the party that tea party/paleocon and the Rockefeller/establishment wing is what is attracted to Romney. As you noted part of what shut Romney down in 2008 was the division between him and Huckabee. That could well happen to Gingrich and Paul this time but the reality is that the majority of the party isn't what Romney promotes. They aren't North-Eastern Semi-Conservatives. The infidelity thing I believe has been addressed. The ethics charge (not multiple) was minor and he can show the partisan nature of them because he beat back I believe it was 97 other filed charges. American can understand that if you had a cop who had your number and who wrote you 98 tickets that if you beat 97 of them, you've really shown the motive of the cop and managed to have one minor thing stick rather than being a bad person.

As for the space stuff, I think America needs stuff like that. I think the nerd contingent (of which I count myself) is serious sad that we have to rely on Russia to get to space and that we have no vehicles to take people there ourselves right now. They don't want America's space capabilities to only be represented in a frigging museum. The Freddie stuff I've explained. It makes more than enough sense and is small potatoes compared to what others make for speeches, appearances or consulting.

Quote:
That's quite a statement...one that I'm surprised to read. No one doubts that Gingrich is a great thinker, a fountain of policy ideas, etc. But people in the party have serious concerns about his leadership style, his personal and political past, his positions on past issues (he makes Romney look like Plymouth Rock), and his overall likability. I'm not even saying I take issue with all of it, but that many people in the party do. Making the statement that he's the only one who can unify the party is pretty darn amazing, trump. I totally disagree with it.

You don't seem to remember that Newt was the whip before he was the speaker. Of course those who do nothing but sit on the sidelines and pontificate have reservations. Anyone can when they are an arm chair quarterback versus being in the trenches. That is why I used the anecdote about football and getting hit. Leadership means getting hit and Gingrich didn't have a problem with it. Who did was the party after the got the budget balanced, then lost a few seats in the midterms in 1998. It wasn't Gingrich though who backed away from conservative principles and from wanting to balance budgets and push legislation through, it was elements of the party who then had us deficit spending again in the early 2000's.

Quote:
As an aside, I don't frankly care about his personal past. I think the ethics charges are bogus. Overall he's been a consistent conservative. But I do find him to be somewhat erratic, arrogant and unlikeable at times. I would support him as the nominee and would enjoy watching him shred Obama in a debate. But elections are about much more than just debates, policy and even ideas.

I understand and it's been a blast in my opinion throwing all this out there and basically having us political wonks get our thoughts and opinions expressed to each other.

Quote:
Reasonable point, though I think it may have been simpler. Gingrich was too acerbic. He picked too many fights. Once he became The Gingrich that Stole Christmas, the GOP decided to part pays with him.

Hey those fights need to be picked. I've never claimed Gingrich was the man to lead the party forever. Much like Churchhill, he might just be the man for the moment. The man who bends the curve down and starts the discussion in a different direction. Hopefully this time the direction continues on the downward path. Before the revolution got a little comfortable in Washington and 4 years later decided they'd rather start letting spending inch back up and cave rather than fight.

You know who else Gingrich reminds me of in terms of leadership? Pat Riley. I love that guy as a coach and a GM. It's clear winning is going to happen wherever he is at and he absolutely makes the unpopular decisions and picks the fights when they need to happen. However remember that Pat Riley got tossed out of LA as a coach when Magic Johnson got a little too tired of the ever present extended practices, needling an cajoling to improve. Sure the Lakers had won back to back's and had won five in a decade, but Pat wanted more and Magic wanted to go home a little early.

That doesn't mean Pat Riley was wrong though. It just meant the team choose wrong and didn't care to win as much. I think that is much like the Republicans coming into 2000. They want from fighting to balance the budget, to gee...let's just let this little bit slide, stay in power and not have people hating on us continually in the media.

For now we need the former and not the latter. We need to fight.

Great discussion.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #199 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

That's exactly my point when I say I don't believe he will be able to unite the party - and even if he does, it won't be for a long enough period of time to make any difference. He has a tendency to tick the wrong people off at the wrong times and burn bridges.

You don't think any Republicans will desire to stop Paul's desire to chop a trillion, bring all the troops home (like the entire neocon/Rockefeller wing of the party will agree to that) and gut major areas of the budget?

I wish the party were unified on that and I haven't gotten over to the thread yet where you and SDW are mixing it up but you are right that they will not be kind or completely fair to Ron Paul. That is why I say Ron is too strident. Gingrich is indeed change and is less strident than Paul. That's the point. Paul has the bridges being burned before the first caucus for goodness sakes.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #200 of 328
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

You don't think any Republicans will desire to stop Paul's desire to chop a trillion, bring all the troops home (like the entire neocon/Rockefeller wing of the party will agree to that) and gut major areas of the budget?

You mean if Paul is President? Well, in that case, the fact that he got elected means most Americans agree with his approach.

Quote:
I wish the party were unified on that and I haven't gotten over to the thread yet where you and SDW are mixing it up but you are right that they will not be kind or completely fair to Ron Paul. That is why I say Ron is too strident. Gingrich is indeed change and is less strident than Paul. That's the point. Paul has the bridges being burned before the first caucus for goodness sakes.

People are starting to realize that kicking the can down the road isn't working and that Ron Paul is the only candidate proposing that we stop doing so. I think if he becomes the nominee, he will be able to unite the party far better than Gingrich. I mean, he's not even the most charismatic candidate, has mediocre debate performances, yet look how energized and excited his supporters are. It's not the man, it's his message. And once people understand it, they get excited about it.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy