Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy - Page 7

We are in disagreement then but much like how he votes against earmarks while inserting them, there's another side here.



http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-10-19/ro...eful-agencies/


Ma'am can't you see that bankrupting the future of the nation stinks even if all the other nice people will lie to you about that fact. Let's hold our noses and vote for something beyond boomer selfishness.

He believes that if the surplus that it used to generate (but no longer does) isn't spent or is repaid, that it will be fine. That simply isn't so. The reason Social Security is unconstitutional, is a lie, is a ponzi scheme and must be altered is because it is nothing more than welfare for the elderly. It is welfare that has no means testing, no limit, that automatically adjusts for inflation and that takes from the youngest and poorest to give to the wealthiest class of people.

It is everything that is wrong with the federal government and if he cannot clearly and stridently declare what he will do to it in his principled manner, then while he is still better than Obama, he is much, much worse than Gingrich.

Speaking as someone that has some experience in this area (divorced and remarried), I think this issue is a significant one, even if the timing is suspect. Not all divorces are like this (mine wasn't, fortunately). In fact, I know of several people that have had relatively "clean" divorces. I can't imagine any of their ex-spouses (nor mine) essentially testifying against the other person on a national stage.



Politically, that matters. To me, it's not really the same thing. They weren't investigating Clinton for cheating on his wife. But morally, he does lose credibility with people on this.


I agree.


I disagree with that. Gingrich is a problem-solver and a thinker. I think he'd be able to make some very substantial and needed changes. The problem is that as a leader and person, he's somewhat erratic.

Knock on wood about that clean divorce there SDW. Life is a curious thing at times. Newt has clearly made several million more dollars and of course is vying for the presidency since their divorce. If both parties after a divorce continue on similar paths, things are seldom revisited but if one path were to radically diverge, I suspect one party often will require a revisit on the matter.


The sort of debt that is being foisted upon our kids is far less moral than anyone sticking their penis into a second or third vagina.


Erratic how? The 24/7/365 news cycle that wants to pick off Republicans for whatever reasons they can imagine caught him making a frownie face or having bit of edge or tone in his voice one day?

Note to many conservative voters.


There are a lot of accounts of outrageous ideas, statements, shifting positions, etc. He's brilliant and experienced, but I don't think most people would describe him as "steady."

Then those voters, much like what we've argued with Jazzy are cutting off their nose to spite their face. At the rate Obama is spending and borrowing, we will be at 140-150% of GDP if he gets a second term. The kids will be trying to pay back $18-20 trillion dollars. To say I don't care to address that because this man put his penis in another woman, hell to say it ought not be addressed because he put his penis in another MAN, is just a ridiculous position to take. Debt of that nature is akin to lifetime financial slavery and that is much worse than any sort of infidelity in my view and I think in the view of most reasonable people.


He certainly thinks out loud and can come up with some amazing stuff just thinking on his feet. I think those who cannot try to spin that strength into a weakness. Clearly he marched the House through passing the entire Contract with America and went the distance the get the budget balanced. If that isn't steady then I don't know what is steady and I'll take his "erratic" over the "steady" of another candidate if that is the result I can expect.

Closing the Gap!

Recent polls actually have Gingrich ahead, BUT those were taken before Wed and Thursday's ex-wife revelations and Thursday's debate (and after Monday's debate where Gingrich was great).

I still feel that Romney will win SC. He's got a much better ground operation, better ads (he has the money), and had a very good debate performance last night.

As for Gingrich, understand that I'm comparing him to Romney, not Obama. Clearly he's the better option if we're comparing him with Obama. I don't think, however, that he has anywhere near as good a chance to beat Obama. Polling bears this out. He's simply not likable enough.

America Hates Newt Gingrich

Going forward, I still think Romney has a very clear advantage. He may end up losing SC, but I really don't think it will matter.

Romney thought his speaking fees didn't amount to all that much. I suppose if you are so obscenely wealthy and so out of touch with 99% of America, you'd think that $350,000 was basically nothing, as well.

We will have to see but SC and Florida are the last place Gingrich can build some momentum in my opinion. If he doesn't do anything there, then the push towards and past Super Tuesday will probably be too hard to overcome Romney.

I've really been glad to see the Republicans do all these debates. I really came away with Rick Perry in the last third of them. In the beginning he was obviously terrible but quite comfortable with them in the end. I very much appreciate his timing and endorsement with regard to when he decided to quit the campaign. He was a single digits guy and they may help decide something in the first tier. He bowed out with grace and class.

I thought Romney had a pretty decent debate as well. He's borrowed a few pointers from Newt in that he complements and isn't afraid to acknowledge and agree with his fellow Republicans when up there now. I didn't see that early on. It is a smart debate tactic.

The only thing that really bugs me is the smile/stammer as I mentally term it and the whole inability to get a handle on certain issues related to his finances. It's almost become like a blind spot for him. He's had multiple debates now to get his head together about releasing his taxes and what is going to happen related to it.

That said he was, outside of that, very focused, brought the issues back to Obama often in terms of current failed solutions, and generally gave good answers.

Santorum just needs to go. He clearly is like Michelle Bachmann at this stage. He is going to get his single digits, he is a candidate of limited appeal largely related to social issues and he can go home and do his taxes now in my opinion.

Ron Paul was Ron Paul.

Newt, the thing that made what he did so powerful was the contrast to Romney and how he handled the tax release bit across multiple debates. Here the media was going to pitch their curveball and they wanted to watch him squirm, stammer and stumble around on it. He did just the opposite of course. The answer was forceful, clear, exposed the media hypocrisy and really showed the importance of proper issues for a presidential debate to be addressing.


His performance was probably second best on the stage and was better than his earlier performances.


I think one of the reasons Gingrich swings so much in polls is that the talking heads go after him quite strongly in part because they outright hate him. They do their gossipy school girl thing. However as the actual voting date comes near and they have to GASP actually speak to the candidate himself, the debates happen, and the airtime has to be filled with the actual news of the election, people actually get to see and hear Newt himself instead of talking head mean girls. His numbers tend to swing pretty dramatically once that happens.

I think it is all going to be pretty quick and progressive at this stage. The non-Romney's are clearly putting pressure on the second tier candidates. I believe if Santorum is a clear forth he goes home and that alters the dynamics going into Florida. If Romney loses SC it will alter the dymanics badly because the prior narrative being pushed has already started to blow apart. It turns out he did lose Iowa. He won NH but if he loses SC then instead of being the guy who had won three elections in a row, he becomes the guy with a ceiling who only won his neighboring state.


This has been addressed in the past but you've got your blinders on. Go eat your oats.

Ahh, next talking point. Check.

Agreed.


I considered Perry before I saw him debate. The more he spoke, the less I liked him. He really does come off as dumb. And his positions on immigration are not conservative at all.


Agreed, though I thought he did better than "pretty decent." He had some great lines and was focused, clear and relatively aggressive when he needed to be. He let Santorum and Gingrich kill each other, ignored Paul, and then nailed Santorum in his retort "if you want to be Governor of Mass, that's great...I want to be President." I also thought he came off very well talking about how he didn't inherit money, but that he earned it.


Yeah, he hasn't handled that well. Then again, it's fellow Republicans that are screaming "we" need to see them. It's just political for them. I think it's pretty shameful, actually...especially coming from Gingrich who claims to follow Reagan's "never speak ill of a fellow Republican" mantra.


Santorum annoys me. He comes off as whiny, then a prosecutor, then boring, then a guy who is just out of touch with modern America. His presence probably helps Romney at this point, however.


Who was better....Santorum? Newt didn't look at all. Paul was a joke.


I agree, but the media has to be dealt with. They are not going away, and Romney is much better equipped to deal with them. They don't hate him, which helps.


I don't think it matters. Romney will still win Florida, then Nevada...and then it's over. Gingrich can't compete with Romney money-wise and organizationally, especially in Florida.

Or they don't think their god lives on the planet Kolob?

It's more likely they just wanted to mess with CNN.

I'm extremely surprised. Romney was up by double digits on MONDAY. I do think that a lot of it is a reaction to the media. All that said, I hope we don't nominate Gingrich. I really don't think he stands a chance against Obama.

They called Reagan too old and a warmonger who would blow up the planet.


The fact that all the talking heads are saying "Sure Romney has more money, more organization and more of everything that should win an election, but dear God, there's two debate between now and the time they pull the lever" shows exactly why Newt should win. When people have to engage him and his explanation of conservative ideas, they lose.... badly. He moves the needle. Newt is the real person who terrifies the status quo in Washington.


It's more likely they see that Ron Paul will stand and wait his turn behind the lectern while the media ask him a bunch of loaded questions and then politely explain something while the media help Obama attack him.

It is more likely they see that Mitt Romney comes across as dispassionate, disconnected and keeps wondering why checking the right boxes isn't always the right answer.

I'm sure Obama will run on tax reform. He will run on slimming down government. He will run on hope and change just like he did before. In 2008 Obama was promising a tax cut, paygo, balancing the budget, peace dividends from ending wars, etc. None of that will change and none of the media will care to bother with his prior promises or to even look at the outcomes of his leadership. He has the right intentions and he is HISTORIC.

Mitt doesn't counter that. He doesn't fight back against it with passion. He doesn't pop the presuppositions in the nose. Mitt plays right into the narrative Obama wants to run against. Voters see that and they'd rather go hail mary than just go home.

The,

Pelosi prediction- No Newt Presidency- "I know something,"- http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=e7VHjYIcaII

Gingrich < Reagan. But really, I'm not concerned that he'll do that. I just don'tt hink he's as strong a candidate.


I don't disagree with that. But he's also prone to pop off. Not good for a President.


I think Romney has done more than check the right boxes. I think he's Presidential. He's got the right message and the experience to do the job.


Those are reasonable points, but I also think Romney is well equipped to slam Obama on class warfare. He's the ultimate contrast...a Washington outside, a businessman, a governor...vs. a community organizer with failed policies. Romney has promised an "unapologetic defense" of capitalism. That's what we need.

Here is exactly the kind of problem I have with Gingrich.



Read the full article. Granted, it's a hit piece on Gingrich and this is political season, as GWB used to say. But I do think that it shows Gingrich is prone to "pop off" so to speak. He's brilliant, but he's not methodical. He's creative, but also impulsive. This is what I mean when I talk about lack of "steadiness," a quality I consider to be important in a leader. Romney wins this comparison, hands down.

The problem you have is that you don't think he can win over Obama. I think Romney won't have a walk in the park either.

That is odd attack. The implication that is my only concern. It is not, as I have repeatedly stated.


I agree with you on that, actually. But I do think in the absence of major economic/geopolitical change, Romney will win. He's definitely got the best chance of the GOP candidates.

Of course you would.

Make the case that I'm wrong. I've asked to you do this multiple times, and all you do is call the GOP candidates "a joke" while linking to a multi-state electoral map that doesn't show what you say it does.

No I don't mean he will be rash in war, but the point is that this "electability" point has some validity when we are talking single digits and or perhaps low teens for support. If they garner majority support of a major party then electability becomes the means the media uses to beat up on conservatives.


Pop off is what the people getting popped like to use to deflect the valid criticism. It is no different than the double standard on gaffes where they prove every Republican is an idiot and every Democrat is just tired.


We need much more than that. We need someone who can put the media on their heels. We need someone who can quickly explain the crony-capitalism that Democrats are substituting for real capitalism while arguing against the very excesses they created. We need someone who can quickly clarify items as to cause and effect. Romney has NOT done this. He has had well over a dozen debates without a single clarifying moment, phrase or even memorable quote. When Newt argued with Juan Williams, he didn't just debate whether Williams was being a hack. He got people talking about and arguing for a work ethic. The fact that we have even discuss such matters shows how dire the problems really are out there.


I read those and they sound like strong policy disagreements. Pop off, to me sounds like that nonsense going on with the mayor and taco's that is pretty wrong and embarassing. Certainly it is no worse than "typical white person" or claiming a law officer acted "stupidly."

Now I very much like this Larry Elder piece.


This advantage is real. It is part of why in a country that is 40% conservative and 20% liberal in terms of identification is even competitive for President. Whoever is going to win with the most slanted media coverage likely to ever be seen in modern times is going to have to hit that head on and be able to counter it effectively.

All I have to say is just watch. That and oh yeah! Go Newt!

And they are a joke. One is Mr. Neocon himself from the 90's and the other is uber rich. What connection ( or motivation to help ) to the common man out there would he have?

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...y-trails-obama


And a moon base in every pot! http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-if-ele...,1031226.story

Now if any of you here know me you know I'm a big advocate of space exploration. However this is all about votes in Florida.

He sounds just like Obama's grandmother.

Beyond that, do you dispute the contention? He is talking about bilingual education which often does not create fluency in English. Do you doubt that when students are not taught English to fluency while living in the United States, that the chances for the to live in an ethnic enclave go up pretty dramatically?

Not to mention that their chances of being successful in the U.S. take a pretty steep nosedive.

You might not have noticed, or you might think the distinction isn't important, but Obama's grandmother isn't running for president.

You fail to get the joke. Obama claimed his own grandmother was a "typical white person" and he was indeed running for president when he said it.

Go back to reading your Obama compliant media sources now where he is just brilliant and never makes a gaffe.

Oh, I get it now. I'm really really surprised that I didn't see that calling your grandmother a "typical white person" and saying that Spanish is the language of the ghetto is exactly the same thing.

That's not an argument. I'm asking WHAT you see that leads you to the conclusion you make.


I don't support Gingrich, though I don't think I'd describe him as a "Neocon." And why does being rich preclude one from pursuing policies that help the middle class? If anything, Romney's proposals are more directed at the middle class than his less "well off" opponents.


The moon base thing is the kind of erratic Gingrich comment I'm talking about, and it's one reason I don't support him over Romney. That said, I don't think it's "just for votes." He's been talking about stuff like that for a long time.

Back to the real topic: Why is Obama better than Romney?


How is it different? In fact, the Gingrich quote should be far less offensive. Spanish is OFTEN the language of the ghetto. "Typical white person" is highly subjective and shows true racial bias.

Gingrich's full remarks were related to bilingual education and how if one lives in an ethnic enclave and the public schools there do not teach them English, that they won't learn it outside of school and thus are likely to remain in said ethnic enclave.

Little things like context aren't really important though. It's not important to discuss things like that though. It's more important to just label anyone you disagree with as a racist because they think crazy thoughts like learning English gives you upward mobility.