The Gingrich File

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Tiassa, Jun 9, 2011.

  1. Ivan Seeking Registered Senior Member

    Newt is still leading in the national polls

    I think his best line so far has been: Do you want to vote for the guy, who lost to the guy, who lost to Obama?

    I'm not sure of the source but heard a great quote about Newt the other day. And I think this plays into his popularity. Newt does have new ideas, Romney doesn't; at least he doesn't talk about them. But in regards to Newt's ideas, the quote was: Newt has about 100 ideas a day. 95 of them are great. The other 5 would destroy the world!
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. The Esotericist Getting the message to Garcia Valued Senior Member

    No. Wrong.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Ivan Seeking Registered Senior Member

    - Sarah Palin

    Yes, please do!!! :crazy:
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich would disagree:

    ... Democratic pundits, political advisers, officials and former officials are salivating over the possibility of a Gingrich candidacy. They agree with key Republicans that Newt would dramatically increase the odds of Obama's reelection and would also improve the chances of Democrats taking control over the House and retaining control over the Senate.

    I warn you. It's not worth the risk.

    Even if the odds that Gingrich as GOP presidential candidate would win the general election are 10 percent, that's too much of a risk to the nation. No responsible American should accept a 10 percent risk of a President Gingrich.

    I'd take a 49 percent odds of a Mitt Romney win – who in my view would make a terrible president – over a 10 percent possibility that Newt Gingrich would become the next president – who would be an unmitigated disaster for America and the world.

    The American people might be annoyed by the idea of Wall Street treating their pensions like a gambling reserve at Monte Carlo night, but in the end our political choices are often much the same. Is the risk of a Gingrich catastrophe worth preventing the greater "mere" risk of a Romney presidency?

    It's a hard question to answer. I'm of the position that Obama can beat Romney, but a Gingrich nomination would be a gift. If the great risk is that Obama or the economy will somehow flub Gingrich into the White House, I expect a midterm revolution will put an end to whatever nonsense the Great Gasbag might get up to. Still, though, the question would remain how much damage the Newtron Bomb could do in the meantime.


    Reich, Robert. "Why No Responsible Democrat Should Want Newt Gingrich to Get the GOP Nomination". January 26, 2012. January 31, 2012.
  8. Ivan Seeking Registered Senior Member

    I'm not a Democrat!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Point taken. As I've posted, George Will is quite concerned that Gingrich could have his finger on the nuclear button.

    Not sure of the source but I heard a great quote. One person was commenting that Gingrich is extremely creative. "He has about 100 new ideas a day. 95 are great. The other 5 would destroy the world."

    It sure says a lot about Palin though.
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member


    Fair 'nuff.

    The thing about that, though, is that any given president is supposedly held in check by Congress. Then again, the contrast of the Bush and Obama administrations is striking. As Steve Benen noted:

    Given that 2009 and 2010 really weren't that long ago, one would like to think Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would remember them. It was, after all, just one Congress ago.

    And yet, McConnell has begun arguing that White House officials have been "trying to pretend like the president just showed up yesterday, just got sworn in and started fresh. In fact, he's been in office three years. He got everything he wanted from a completely compliant congress for two of those three years."

    This is a popular claim in Republican circles. It's also demonstrably false. As Sahil Kapur explained, "It was McConnell, after all, who led Senate Republicans in serial filibusters—a record-setting number—successfully thwarting large chunks of Obama's agenda."

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The five that would destroy the world are unlikely to get through Congress. However, what we know about Gingrich in the realm of the likely is that he would prescribe lower taxes for the wealthy, deregulate industry and commerce, help private interests cook their books, and dismantle the social safety nets that protect the middle and working classes in the United States. The first question is whether or not he can muscle that sort of agenda through Congress. The second question is what the midpoint for compromise will be. As we saw during the hissy-cow about paying our bills, ninety-eight percent is the GOP's current starting point. By that precedent, the best Democratic opposition could hope for is that corporations are people and people are still allowed to be people.

    With a Democratic Congress, though, Newt would be impotent, unable to move the discussion past the usual "centrist" slop that makes for the ground on which Democrats and Republicans slay each other in the name of hearts and minds. What was once a mythic hill might well be nothing more than another trampled hole in the ground, but it is what we have. The question of a Gingrich presidency is nearly apocalyptic. Even those disappointed with Obama's centrist outcomes find themselves admitting that the alternative—the last desperate and cynical play of a trembling plutocracy—is self-condemnation.


    Benen, Steve. "McConnell's revisionist history". The Maddow Blog. January 31, 2012. February 1, 2012.

    Strauss, Daniel. "Boehner: I got '98 percent' of what I wanted in debt deal". Blog Brief. August 2, 2011. February 1, 2012.
  10. Ivan Seeking Registered Senior Member

    It struck me there is another interesting point here. In regards to the Tea Party and the extreme right wing, to include especially the Sarah Palin fans, consider that according to Palin, it would seem, George Will is now a liberal! For that matter, most of the Republicans in Congress, and almost all of those who knew him who either refuse to endorse Gingrich, or who express outright terror at the notion that he could get elected, are liberals.

    Not to mention that she wants you to cast your vote just to annoy someone else? How is that patriotic? How is this not degrading to the democratic process itself?

    I would hope this alone would end any doubt that Palin is just a nut; that her fans have been led down the garden path by a pretty face [allegedly], a Disney-like image of the "strong all-American woman", and a fantasy vision of our country.
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    And Reagan would be a far left wing communist by today's standards.
  12. Bells Staff Member

    Can you blame them though?

    The man is insane:

    The Newt Gingrich campaign has a robocall out in Florida claiming that Mitt Romney once took kosher food away from Holocaust survivors.

    The allegation made in the call, obtained by anti-robocall activist Shaun Dakin, is undoubtedly targeted at Florida's large Jewish and elderly populations.

    The text of the call:

    As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney vetoed a bill paying for kosher food for our seniors in nursing homes. Holocaust survivors, who for the first time, were forced to eat non-kosher, because Romney thought $5 was too much to pay for our grandparents to eat kosher. Where is Mitt Romney's compassion for our seniors? Tuesday you can end Mitt Romney's hypocrisy on religious freedom, with a vote for Newt Gingrich. Paid for by Newt 2012.


    Because yes, even the Nazis didn't force Jews to eat non-kosher foods apparently.. Anywho..

    The call itself is as laughable as it is untrue. Romney is a prat, but even this goes way too far. The truth:

    The call is referencing Romney's veto of a 2003 bill. It came at a time that some nursing homes were considering eliminating their kosher kitchens during a period of budget cuts. Their plan was to instead bus in kosher food from other locations. The bill Romney vetoed would have given an additional $600,000 in funding to nursing homes, therefore making it possible for them to continue cooking kosher food on site.


    Commentary magazine notes, "Whether you believe he was right or wrong to veto it, this was clearly a position that made Romney appear insensitive to the elderly and Jewish communities."

    The funding for kosher kitchens, however, was never actually eliminated.

    "In the end, the veto was overridden by the Massachusetts state legislature, and the facilities kept their kosher kitchens after all. But Romney’s decision was not, as Gingrich claims, a choice to 'eliminate kosher food for elderly Jewish residents under Medicare,'" added Commentary. "First of all, it was a choice made by the nursing homes themselves, not the Massachusetts government. Second, it was never actually going to prevent kosher residents from accessing kosher food. And third, Romney's decision wouldn't have cut anything -- he simply vetoed additional funds, keeping funding at the status quo during a budget crisis year."

    Quite different to how Newt's campaign robocall made it out to be, isn't it?

    Now here is the kicker! Mr Gingrich denied any knowledge of the call.

    At a campaign stop in Plant City, Florida, Gingrich denied any knowledge of the robocall, despite his campaign claiming responsibility for it.

    When asked if the call was "over the top," Gingrich said, "I have no idea what you're talking about."

    When pressed, Gingrich said he wouldn't comment about the call since it was "something I don't know about."


    When in doubt? Deny.. deny.. deny!

    He knew nothing of the call. However.. During a speech in Florida (which has a high portion of elderly voters and many Jewish voters at that), here is what good old Newt had to say to the public:

    "Governor Romney imposed activities on the Catholic hospitals against their opposition religious institution, refused them to allow right of conscience in Romneycare," Gingrich said. "Just as, by the way, he eliminated serving kosher food for elderly Jewish residents under Medicare. I did not know this, it just came out yesterday."

    He denies all knowledge of the robocall, after he went out and made the exact same and false claim. A complete and utter lie and fabrication. The crowd apparently groaned "at the plight" of these poor elderly Jews. What the crowd did not know of is that the alternative to preparing kosher food on sight at the hospitals and nursing homes would have been to cater it externally for them.
  13. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Newt's tactics are typical for any Republican candidate (e.g. the Swift Boat tactic used by Republicans in 2004). I expect Romney and his surrogates will be using similar tactics in the fall, if he gets the Republican nomination, against President Obama.

    Newt is a bit of a nut, I will grant you that. But then so are his followers and the loin's share of the Republican Party. These folks are very misinformed and easily manipulated by by the Republican Party media in this country. I am ever impressed by the crap that the Republican Party media can pass off and get these folks to believe - facts, evidence and reason not needed or even desired. Remember this is the party in which 75 percent of them believe healthcare reform means the creation of "Death Panels" and "Death Camps".
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2012
  14. Ivan Seeking Registered Senior Member

    What gets me about Gingrich and Romney is how much they lie. Almost everything they say about Obama is a distortion at best, if not an outright lie, as was Romney's commercial quoting Obama, who was actually quoting McCain.

    If Republicans could learn to tell the difference between real issues, and distortions of the facts, I would be wllling to consider their position. But I haven't seen a qualified Republican candidate in at least three or four election cyclels, who can tell the difference.

    Gingrich was just on MTP. Lie, lie, lie, lie. Jesus, and this man calls himself a Christian?

Share This Page