Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy - Page 2

Whether it was what a good little Republican should do, it was better than Gore.


Yet this shows how you have to work within the system to change it sometimes. You have to register Republican to vote for Paul. Why not simply register as Libertarian and vote to help determine their presidential nominee? Ask why Paul himself sits within the big tent rather than leave it? Clearly he is strongly at odds with multiple positions within the Republican Party yet he feels he can affect more change from within than from outside.


2004 is indeed an interesting question to ponder. Kerry being president wouldn't have given the Democrats the case to make that they did in 2006, basically running as the party of restoring conservatism to Washington (We want PAYGO and a balanced budget, Oh dear God the hypocrisy there!) Failure helps bring change so whether this failure would have happened under him or Obama, it would still have happened in my opinion.


I can see where you are coming from for sure and it is easy for me to talk like this now because there is indeed a candidate or two there that I believe will get the nod and who can make a difference. I think as an example, Romney would seriously split the party and so I'll say upfront that all this talk is just that for now and the tables might be turned and I might be imploring you to advise me who to pull the switch for if there is a split due to a RINO like Romney getting the nod. You are correct that Bush badly damaged the conservative brand and we ought not damage it again. Our only disagreement is whether Gingrich would do that. His voting record suggests he wouldn't and his prior actions to me, show he wouldn't. I can't say that for Romney and there may not even be a big tent to join if that is indeed the case.

So take heart, it may be me on my knees begging you to let me into the split tent in the event that happens. Let's make sure to be cordial to each other then as well okay?

That might be why you voted for him, but that's not why I did.


You're asking the wrong question. It's who would be a BETTER president?


No way to tell, though I certainly don't blame Bush for most of it.



Let me get this straight: Knowing that your vote will help ensure Obama is reelected, you're going to vote that way so your conscience is clear? Isn't that...sorry..utterly selfish?


But he'll never get the chance.


Look, I hope I'm wrong. Maybe Paul will run as a third party candidate, be on the ballot in all states, and poll respectably enough to make one think he has a chance in hell. But I'd put money against that happening. And if it doesn't, you'll have to face facts about the choice to be made. Don't make me say "I told you so" when Obama gets sworn in the 2nd time.

The main point remains and that would be that even if some third party somehow managed to magically win the presidency, there won't be any support in Congress to move the agenda forward. People are human and have their human nature. Helping move Paul's agenda forward outside of the Republican Party helps destroy the Republican Party. Changing is different than destroying. You can change the party but once you are outside of it trying to move something forward then that says move this other party forward at the expense of the party to which you belong. Add to this people who have party rank, party seniority, who have worked within that system for years and I just don't see much happening.

Do I wish things could flip on a dime be it the country, party or whatever else needs to be addressed? Sure but you don't just say something like "Well we've got 40 million people on food stamps but we've decided to stop cutting checks tomorrow." Hell even the entire Federal budget process is delayed by a full year. It's sort of crazy how slow this stuff moves.

Excellent point. The election is only the first impossible hurdle.


Agreed again. I want change, too. I support cutting a trillion dollars in the budget. I support restructuring our military bases and deployments overseas. I support less regulation in general. Bernanke must go. The Fed must be contained in its nearly unlimited power (perhaps the one area I support more regulation, so to speak). I support welfare program reforms, entitlement reform, etc. But this isn't going to get done without some real political know how. Ron Paul being principled and consistent isn't enough. The President has to work with Congress and manage/work to reform the bloated bureaucracy. Perhaps most overlooked, the President needs to project the right image to the world...to our allies and enemies. Ron Paul comes off as erratic at times, and that is not what we need.

No, because Ron Paul has no realistic chance of winning. He's not a legitimate choice because, in part, of the system we have. I don't like the two party system either, but me voting for Ron Paul is not going to change that. It's a choice between two people and will be for a long time.


Yes, because that's exactly why I will support the GOP nominee, to "rub it in their faces." Come on, Jazz. That is a lazy argument you're making...you're better than that.


I understand perfectly. I just think you're wrong. In fact, I know you're wrong. This is in no way an endorsement of Gingrich, but:

• Gingrich is totally different on foreign policy. He supports Israel, Obama does not. Gingrich will not go on an apology tour, Obama did just that.
• Gingrich will not adjust troop levels overseas contrary to his top military advisor's opinions
• Gingrich will have a real policy on Iran.
• Gingrich supports energy independence including more domestic production
• Gingrich understands the workings of Congress and how to lead on an issue like entitlment reform, budgeting, etc.
• Gingrich supports far more limited goverment than does Obama. He opposes baseline budgeting.
• Gingrich supports tax reform and regulatory reform that will make the nation more competitve.
• Gingrich wants to repeal Obamacare and replace it with this

No different than Obama?


That's a pretty ridiculous comparison.


That view is just so out of touch with reality, and I say that as someone who'd prefer a different candidate. Newt does not give us everything we want (which, by the way, is closer than you might think), but he's most definitely a step in right direction. As I said, it will come down to who will make a better President. And Ron Paul is not going to be one of those choices. You'd be better off if you just worked your tail off to get him the nomination.

What you're doing here is pretending the two party system doesn't exist, because you don't like it. That's going to get you a clear conscience and ability to watch Obama one TV for four more years.

The issue though is that he has shown he can and will cut. So we are in disagreement here.


Yes so how many people do you know that would slit their own throat to get 10-15% more of what they want? It's akin to saying you'd just be out of debt if you murdered your wife and claimed her life insurance. Most people don't do that. Certainly an entire political party won't commit suicide to help one man advance his agenda.



Sorry but this is the sort of middling nonsense that you should be able to sense the bullshit within. There is no way to properly pay the retirement of the boomers with Social Security tax rates even at their present level. There is no way to keep that promise. It is impossible. The boomers promised themselves 60 trillion in benefits and left a nice 18-20 trillion dollar hole depending on who is calculating it and whether they are including the "bonds" the goverment owes itself.

So the generation after the boomers just has to pull 80 trillion out of their butt and then they might even try to find a little extra to pay for themselves and leave the system.

It isn't happening. It isn't even possible. It is part of why I know we are going to need someone to help to help in a paradoxical way. Before Steve Jobs returned to Apple he gave in interview in Wired Magazine. He was brutally honest. He declared that the Mac was dead and if he were at Apple he would milk it for all it was worth while moving on to the next great thing.

Clearly that has been what Apple has done but they couldn't be that forthright about it. You can't just say everything the company has previously been built on is now crap and let's just go get billions from these unproven or even non-existent markets. People would have their lost their minds if that had happend. The company would have gone bankrupt in a week. The man wasn't principled. He cut a deal with Microsoft and declared the Mac was back. He kept the desktop around and they've even managed to grow their market a bit but iOS and all devices associated with it were clearly the future.

What is true for the U.S. with the boomers is also true of the Western World with their Social Welfare systems. They are broke and unsustainable and the people benefitting from their are older and often exempting or creating a second tier for the new hires be they young, immigrant, muslim or whatever. They are already promising them to pay more to receive less. Now they want to tax them more on top of that often while they are semi- or under-employed. My mental short hand for this is they want to raise taxes and cut benefits on the kid living in their basement and on the man they pay to do their lawn and wash their car. It isn't a sustainable or workable model. It isn't even close.

The kid in the basement is making $15 an hr for the job Dad made $30 an hour for but the company needed to pay son less to help with their pension obligation for Dad who wants to retire at 60 years old. The kid in the basement also has to contribute some of that $15 an hr towards his 401k since he has no pension. Now the government will be coming back around and trying to renegotiate the Social Security Tax because Dad has two bad hips, knees and a clogged ticker and they can't afford for Medicare to pay for it when they are so deep in the hole to the tune of $20 trillion.

There isn't anyway to fix that generational transfer of wealth. It already amounts to generational theft. If Paul doesn't understand it or properly speak out or stand against it then he is worse than useless because it is the biggest problem out there.

Understand that I know Gingrich proposes much of the same thing. The difference is that I know Gingrich understands that it is unsustainable and that the true benefits being paid will likely need to be devalued via inflation. Someone claiming to bring us back to the gold standard clearly can't fudge in the corners that way. Someone claiming to stand only on principle can't allow such things.

The reality is the world is in a race to the bottom and bankruptcy and someone who can tell the looters little lies while stopping their theft will win the game. I'd love to just wander off to Galt's Gulch and live completely on principle but sadly it doesn't exist.

There isn't enough support to abolish the Fed at this stage. Reining it in would even be a major achievement. The best we could probably hope for is getting a better Fed Chairman the next round.


Obviously it is a rhetorical you and not a literal. The GOP became a third party and was born out of slavery. While debt in my mind certainly equals slavery, I don't think enough of the population will equate it that way and demand they be freed from their chains. Nor do I think they wish to give up their cars and big screens. I suspect an argument could be made along generational lines and you know I have in fact made it, but again I don't see Ron Paul demanding generational accounting and that the Boomers or anyone else stop these generational transfers of wealth.


It goes well beyond that. It goes into dynamics of people and groups as well. One man cannot move an entire nation. One man cannot force Congress to do his bidding. There are no saviors out there. If a man can't lead a party, how can he lead a nation? If he can't convince a primary to give him power, how can he convince a nation?

SDW Newt for president?

He represents everything that went wrong with the GOP in the 90's. He's Mr. Neocon. And really hasn't a snowball's chance in hell. So go Newt!

Like I said the best news for the Democrats is that the GOP can't come up with a good candidate.

Now you're moving the goalposts again! You said there was no difference. There is a clear difference on many points. You can't call them the same because you see a similarity on one point.


Where, when and why? I disagree we should reduce overseas troops for the sake of doing so.


Newt would have already attacked, or at least imposed more serious sanctions.


I don't know that they do contribute to the problems we're facing, but I agree with eliminating them.


Yes, until the Congress was divided. And even previously, he didn't get what he wanted...he got the worst of all worlds...and it barely passed.


That's not what he claims. That's not what his track record shows.


No one will abolish the Fed. Even Ron Paul. Get real.


He repudiated his position on mandates quite some time ago. Even if not, his plan was and is not the same as Obama's.


I'll grant that might be true.


But again, that's just not true. The real issue for you is that....he's not Ron Paul. He doesn't want to pull all the troops home, end the fed, end medicare and medicaid, end social security, deregulate everything or commit the armed forces except in case of self-defense and only with a declaration of war. Instead, he wants to do some of those things to a certain level. But what you're saying is you'd much rather have Obama. That's what I just don't understand. Again, I'm not a Gingrich supporter, but I'd take him over Obama. Hell, I'd take Hillary Clinton over Obama. I'd take Donald Trump over Obama. They are not great options, but they are better when compared to what we have.

What it really comes down to is that I don't understand what you hope accomplish by voting for Paul as a third party candidate. You're smart enough to know that there is almost no chance he can win. You're smart enough to know that if enough people do this, it will sap the GOP candidate of votes and likely deliver the election to Obama. Are you really telling me you're willing to have another Obama term so you can say you "stuck to your principles?" Really?

So now we're back to claiming that Romney/Gingrich are no different than Obama because they haven't proposed cutting as much as Ron Paul has. We're back to claiming there is no difference that matters. Let me ask you, then:

--Is capping government spending as a percentage of GDP different? Does it matter?
--Is replacing the Fed chairman and auditing it different? Does it matter?
--Is getting rid of Obamacare different? Does it matter?
--Is replacing Obama with someone that has chief executive and business experience different? Does it matter?
--Is restoring economic growth different? Does it matter?
--Is representing America as Head of State with dignity and strength different? Does it matter?
--Is doing away with class warfare rhetoric different? Does it matter?
--Is entitlement reform different? Does it matter?


What you're really saying is that no, none of these things matter. Correct? Let me ask another question: Do you think Ron Paul has any realistic chance of winning as a third party candidate?

Jazzguru, you have been arguing on this forum, repeatedly, that Barack Obama is a Marxist.

Are you now trying to argue that Newt Gingrich is a Marxist, for heaven's sake?

Or are they the same "in every way that counts" except Gingrich is a right wing populist and Barack Obama is a "Marxist"?

Jesus.

You keep repeating something that is demonstrably false.


Wait, aren't you voting for Ron Paul because he's not Gingrich and not Romney? No seriously...it's not a question of "good enough." It's a question of what there is. Bush was a better option than Kerry, and a better option than Gore. Clinton was a better option than Dole. Bush I was better than Clinton, but gee...a third party candidate delivered Clinton the election. It's a choice. That's all.


No way. If Gingrich gets the nomination, the GOP base will unite around him. He'll tap into the Tea Party folks and get the support of establishment Republicans who will vote almost anyone over Obama. And then there will be Ron Paul, who will take just enough of the people that have been "pushed away" to hand Obama his second term. This is Ross Perot all over again.


No way he'll get equal face time. Almost impossible given the money advantage of both parties and the corporate media.


I honestly hope for our country's sake that he doesn't run. As much as I disagree with him on certain issues, I would vote for him if he got the GOP nomination.


Virtually a certainty that will not happen (stand a chance).

Off the top of my head, I remember you comparing Obama to to the leader of North Korea in his cult of personality and calling his policies socialist and I remember you arguing over half a dozen pages that Democrats wanted to impose eugenics on America.

Eugenics. Jesus Christ.

You think that Newt Gingrich is going to be a tyrannical eugenicist?

Or were you just talking win-at-all-costs trumptman-style poison when you said these things?

Which is it? What world do you live in when Obama and Gringrich are the same? Because it seems to me that you must be completely insulated from the consequences of an election if you can think this.

Ah. You get your information from PrisonPlanet. You are lost to rationality.

I just read about the "poor kids in school" need to do "janitorial jobs" to "show up on Monday" or something like that. I'm paraphrasing because this is a typical impression or interpretation of what people know of Newt now. And this was in an Australian paper under World News, meaning it was probably a generic syndicated article travelling all around the newswires.

So, pretty much harakiri on Newt's part. Colossally idiotic.

Edit: Yes I'm slow on the uptake, I'm only now catching up with events of the past week after being bashed over the head every day by the media about the Eurozone bringing about the end of the world.

I'm still here! Just actually earning income now after a few months moving to a new city, so not as free as I used to be.

But I do like talking with you and a few others on AppleInsider PO. Maybe because I personally haven't been attacked as such, or not recently anyways.

But... More specifically, what's up? What do you want to discuss?

I'm just digesting this Newt Gin"Grinch" stuff:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-fRAQS--WM

*sigh* Looks like Mitt Romney's going to coast through the primaries.

Edit: Then again... *sigh*

"Go Get A Job Right After You Take A Bath"

It's now 'trolling' to attempt to hold you to account for your words?

You've compared Obama to the leader of North Korea, for fuck's sake, and said that the Democrats want to impose EUGENICS.

Now you say Gingrich and Obama are the same in 'every way that counts'.

And when I ask you to defend this absurdity, instead of sticking to your guns you pussy out.

I am absolutely unsurprised. It is an indefensible argument, and your previous statements were absurd, and you know it.

You wonderful Republicans are like Cain and Abel. Always destroying what is good for the middle class and poor.Selfish people and not caring at all except big corporations and banks and Wall Street.

But Abel was the good guy... I read it just the other day:

Genesis 4 KJV

4And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering.

5But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

6And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?

7If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

8And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.

Two questions... Why did Cain's offering suck? What did Abel do wrong (according to Marvfox?)

Gingrich suggesting that employment early teaches good skills is nothing controversial nor is it mean or "grinchy".

Government itself declares that people who have been on long term unemployment have troubles getting back into the job market because they forget how to do things like.....show up on time.

The dependency culture has many downfalls. This article hits pretty well at explaining why Gingrich says this.


The part where I'd go further is to note that most poor kids have no fire in their belly at this stage due to the nature of government assistance. As a teacher I have no problem teaching someone who is ignorant of how to do something. I have major problems teaching people who find no fault with their ignorance since it creates no shortcomings in their lives. People don't feel the desire to fix that which they can't see is broken and it isn't broken if there is no consequence or problems associated with that attribute.

So we have kids who chronically wander in late. They get fed two meals a day. They largely gossip and distract themselves and often others. They never bring homework, minimally attempt the classwork and even with incentives, do not feel any need to improve their lot. They are years behind at times but blissfully happy becaue that has no consequence in their lives. This percentage of kids grows larger every year.

Democrats are like Cain, envious of others and filled with murderous rage.

Republicans are like Abel, though they've caught on and are now packing heat for self-defense.




On the subject of Gingrich, it's funny how Pelosi totally sabotaged the White House a couple of days ago.

The WH was doing everything it could to build up Gingrich, and Pelosi opens her mouth about past ethical investigations that completely undid the entire 'elevate Gingrich' project the Democratic spinmeisters were working on.

We're not talking about Bush. If you'd like to do that, fine. But for now, you're saying that there will be no difference in result between Obama and Gingrich/Romney. That is totally false.



And you should...if he's the nominee or if you're voting in a primary. You should absolutely vote for him in those cases. In that case our debate would at least make sense. You'd be talking about principle and I'd be talking about nominating someone more electable. At least there are two sides to that issue.

But we're not talking about that situation. We're talking about you voting for Ron Paul as a third party candidate, despite your intense dislike of the current President, and despite the fact that you KNOW your candidate cannot win. It practically gives new meaning to "cognitive dissonance."

A couple great articles today I wanted to throw out there. The first one in particular hits many of the themes we've been discussing within this thread.


I want someone relentless in moving the needle back towards sanity.


The point is made so well there. The gloves need to come off. We need someone who will not passively defend conservative ideas and start from the presupposition given in the media that it is a wrong position and just try to work back from that. We need someone who can dismiss and deride the questions that presume an answer and replace them with a real agenda perfectly articulated and who will be on offense rather than defense.

The second article is about Newt answering questions about the general campaign and his first days if elected.


Yes toward the bolded part times one million please! Instead of letting this guy dance around while the media shields him and then picks apart the speeches or reading list, or campaign stops of his opponent, take it straight to his chest. (Last cycle they were critiquing the fact Palin and McCain spoke to...GASP....bikers.)


This is the guy not just with a plan but a proven desire to take that plan out there, explain it and defend it against all comers and in addition to that, to force the competing ideas to be explained as well.

This won't be the type of candidate that lets someone win on nonsense like HOPE and CHANGE.

He's definitely more substantive and conservative than jazz gives him credit for. I still think Romney is nearly as good on many of these issues, and would better represent us around the world. And as smart as Newt is, Romney is better debater and speaker. He also doesn't have the skeletons that Newt does. In my opinion Romney is still going to be the nominee.