Gingrich On The Obama Agenda

The Hope For America ^ | March 24, 2009 | Newt Gingrich

[nathanbedford]

Newt Gingrich describes the budget process, observes that Obama is winning his objectives among which are "redistributing wealth, creating a huge government, and transferring power to a radical, secular left." Watch the video and see why Newt Gingrich ought to be chairman of the Republican National Committee.

[nathanbedford]

[thecabal]

Am I mistaken, or didn’t Newt say it was crazy to hope that Obama fails?

[tsmith130]

Listening to Newt will give you whiplash.

[angkor]

>>>>> Am I mistaken, or didn’t Newt say it was crazy to hope that Obama fails? <<<<<<

Provide the exact precise quotation, along with the contextual sentences before and after.

Stop playing Democrat opposition research.

[angkor]

>>>> Listening to Newt will give you whiplash. <<<<<

The Newt haters have arrived.

[nathanbedford]

No!

Gingrich is saying that Obama is trying to so jigger the system that it will be irretrievably lost to democracy and capitalism. Whether this means Obama would be a Hugo Chavez or pass from the scene after he is term limited out, Gingrich does not say. The clear implication of his remarks is that Gingrich gets it: if Obama succeeds, and Obama thinks he is succeeding now, there is no getting our country back.

[digger48]

[carmody]

Probably (hopefully) said he disagrees with Rush because he knew that the media would pay no attention to him otherwise. Then of course they come to him and he says the same thing as Rush in a different way.

[paulycy]

Am I mistaken, or didn’t Newt say it was crazy to hope that Obama fails?

Maybe we ought now to talk about derailing zer0's bankruptcy agenda rather than hammering away with the blunt trauma "fail" phrase.

I support Newt, by the way, as being RNC chair and active in shaping our message, but I don't think he'd be a successful president.

Keep Newt in the intellectual sphere and keep him surrounded by solid conservatives so that he doesn't "drift" off on RINO tactics like his pelosi couch moment.

[thecabal]

Provide the exact precise quotation, along with the contextual sentences before and after.

Calm down. If I knew it, I wouldn't have asked. It was a sincere question, not sarcasm. I thought I saw someone on FR who recently quoted him as saying something similar, but couldn't remember the exact quote.

People like you are part of the reason why I've given up on the GOP. Have fun with your dying party.

[tsmith130]

Paleeease. That's the first negative thing I've EVER posted about Newt. I'm just getting tired of his schizophrenia.

[kindred]

[...Newt Gingrich ought to be chairman of the Republican National Committee.]

Pipe dream. The GOP is dead because it is full of liberals who decide who will run and stack the deck against conservatives. The RNC and GOP deserve to die the death of all traitors.
Conservatives can not clean up the liberal run GOP and the sooner we band together into one grassroots party the sooner we can run real conservative candidates for political office. Liberals like Bush and McCain are not conservatives. And neither is Steele.
The GOP is a dog and pony show anymore.

[Jim Noble]

Once again, my brother, you are right on target.

Some compromise needs to be found so that leaders on the right may be slightly-less-than-perfect.

All the entirely perfect people around here, unfortunately, do not form a majority. And they are finding finger-pointing and holier-than-thou moralizing a poor technique for attracting supporters.

NEWT GINGRICH TOOK OVER THE FREAKING CONGRESS! And he did it with ideas (he's not exactly a charismatic figure).

Newt to the front!

[maggief]

Here you go:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29581959/

MR. GREGORY: Mr. Speaker, yeah.

REP. GINGRICH: Let me just—both—I thought Mort Zuckerman got it exactly right. This president has popularity, although the fact is his current approval rating’s about the same as George W. Bush at the same point in 2001. Fifty-eight percent for a new president is very normal because, I mean, look, you’ve got to want the president to succeed. You’re irrational if you don’t want the new president to succeed. Because if he doesn’t succeed, the country doesn’t succeed. So 50—I mean, that’s not—he’s...

MR. GREGORY: Do you think Republicans are discordant on that point about whether they want him to fail or succeed?

REP. GINGRICH: I don’t think anyone should want the president of the United States to fail. I want some of his policies to be stopped, but I don’t want the president of the United States to fail.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

REP. GINGRICH: I want him to learn new policies. So I—but I think Mort’s distinction between popularity and credibility is very important, because what he’s doing is undermining his credibility while retaining his popularity.

But let me disagree, I guess, directly, about two things. This is not a moderate budget. This is a radical budget. This budget has a $1300 per family tax increase for energy, which means electricity, it means heating oil, it means gasoline. That will be massively unpopular. And then to try to do that in the middle of a recession—they haven’t decided if their number one job is get economic growth, or their number one job is redistribute America. Second...

[Jim Noble]

One of the most important things in choosing leaders for positions of influence is DEMONSTRATED EFFECTIVENESS IN WINNING.

I'm so sick of the Duncan Hunter for President people. For all I know, Congressman Hunter is a perfectly perfect guy.

But he's a demonstrated loser.

We have to insist on a Darwinian process for choosing the leaders who will compete in the electoral arena. You have to demonstrate the ability to win in competitive elections, or you have to disappear.

Even you, Sarah Palin.

[OH4life]

Isn’t he also the guy that has been married 3 times (and married the last 2 wives 6 months after divorcing the previous ones)? Yeah, real moral authority right there.

[nathanbedford]

Thanks Jim.

I know that most Freepers get it. Most Freepers understand that we are in a death struggle for the soul of America. "Death struggle" means that if we lose, we die. If conservatism dies so does the whole meaning of the nation.

The problem is that most of the rest of the country doesn't even understand that there is a struggle much less that the consequences of Obama winning means the end of their way of life as they know it. They do not get it. The times cry out for a man who can carry the message and carry it in a way that it will be heard by the people who normally do not pay attention but whose votes always decide elections. If we do not get through now, there will be no reason to get through later.

[cbkaty]

Isn’t he also the guy that has been married 3 times (and married the last 2 wives 6 months after divorcing the previous ones)? Yeah, real moral authority right there.

This is a weakness.... I agree with much of what Newt professes.....

I too have been married 3 times.... Some of us finally get it right....still, the stain remains.

He can never be a leading front-man again....

[nathanbedford]

Newbie:

I don't advocate Newt Gingrich for Husband of the Year I advocate him as a spokesman for the conservative movement. I do not even advocate him as candidate for the president of the United States, although he would certainly have been a better candidate than McCain or Dole.

Americans are getting very angry, an anger born out of fear. They believe their politicians have deceived them and brought them to financial ruin. Do you really think that the mushy middle is going to fail to vote its pocketbook because Newt Gingrich couldn't keep it zipped?

See my post number 17

[Jim Noble]

What do you make of post #16?

[Jim Noble]

Yeah, he is - but I don’t give a crap about that.

[myself6]

Never advocate someone with the name Newt as a spokesman for your cause.

The mere mention of his name brings to mind an ingredient in a witches concoction.

[nathanbedford]

Number 16 was an absolutely brilliant post!

Who wrote it?

[OH4life]

We need someone fresh though, we need to stop digging up people that weren’t that great the first time. Besides, putting someone that grandstanded so much about Clinton’s moral failings when they obviously suffer from the same reeks so much of that “do as I say, not as I do” crap I’m tired of.

[Sudetenland]

I remember when Freepers jumped on what Newt said. I was left scratching my head wondering if I had heard him wrong or if they had been watching a different interview than me.

Newt was (and always is) very careful in what he says...very precise...and he in no way "disagreed" with Rush. He just was more politic in how he stated it; a move with which I agree.

Where Rush can be a blunt instrument, Newt is a scalpal. They both attack the same thing, but Newt has the knowledge and background to do so with precision.

The most appalling thing of all is that Rush himself chose to interpret Newt's statemtent as an attack on him. There are days when Rush just needs to get over himself.

Thanks for digging up the original-in context-quotation.

[Sudetenland]

IIRC, you are in error.

Newt was scrupulous in not attacking Clinton for his moral failings. He attacked him for his leadership failures and his criminal behavior, but he avoided ever condemning him for his infidelities.

[Getsmart64]

Uh...I forget...are we for or against Newt this week?

[myself6]

wtf?!

Im just shocked that anyone could call whats going on a “Death struggle” then offer up Newt Gingrich and the republican party as the only hope of survival...

Just give up now, you have already lost.

You define the end of our way of life and then say if newt cant save us we are doomed.

Again.. I just gotta say, W T F?!

[nathanbedford]

I've offered up the name of a spokesman and I am prepared to defend him. Obviously, Gingrich can defend himself.

Whom do you recommend? Do you have a solution or only negativism to offer?

Perhaps you don't agree that the need is dire? If you do agree, whom do you recommend?

[stockpirate]

Dah-Newt lost ALL creds with me on two issues, global warming and his recent move to the left.

He is a money grubing left-wing republican.

[myself6]

Honestly, I believe your beating a dead horse. in fact, your actually just slapping at the greasy stain left in the dirt.

Your assessment of the seriousness of current events was correct but understated. You lamented the fact that people need to “wake up” but you too seem to have a little sleep in your eyes.

This has gone beyond political parties and spokesmen. We currently have MARXISTS in full control of a federal government that has, for years, been corrupted and bloated into something monstrous by BOTH parties. These marxists are doing what marxists do, they are consolidating power and building their infrastructure while destroying the infrastructure of their adversaries.

Welcome to the revolution brother, but it aint ours...

Im not sure why so many REFUSE to see what is right in front of their face. Cowardice? laziness? or is it just shock and disbelief that freezes them in place?

It just seems kinda silly, when faced with this marxist threat to throw newt gingrich and the republican party at them... Lol... see, it made me laugh to even think about it...

Concentrate on the states. They are the key to winning this war.

[Norman Bates]

I agree.

[ontap]

There are days when Rush just needs to get over himself.

I don't think so! Rush is the one voice that never waivers. I love Newt but he threw us under the bus because of his sexual proclivities. He can present a very good argument or he can completely blow it. Remember he also bought into the global warming morass. Newt is not someone we can completely trust he has long ago shown us that.

[ontap]

Newt was scrupulous in not attacking Clinton for his moral failings. He attacked him for his leadership failures and his criminal behavior, but he avoided ever condemning him for his infidelities.

Gee! I wonder why?

[Sudetenland]

I knew someone would bring up his AGW stance. I never said he was perfect, only that he was correct in his comment and that Rush was wrong. Rush constantly berates Republicans and Conservatives for falling into the Liberal trap of using their arguments, but he is guilty of doing precisely the same thing on occasion.

Rush fed the Left a perfect "hanging curve ball" when he made the statement he made. He has been in business long enough to know how they would react and how it would be portrayed by the press. He said it precisely to generate the reaction it got.

Newt is not perfect, but neither is Rush. I like Rush, and there is much to admire about him, but he can become quite tiresome and his endless sexual deviancy excursions, like his 20+ minute discussion of "animal husbandry" last week, are disgusting. He doesn't need to indulge his infantile juvenile mentality about sexual perversion. It is unbecoming and is the antithesis of Conservative values.

Because he has such a loud voice among Conservatives, he should exhibit some responsibility.

[Sudetenland]

We all know why, I was merely reacting to the comment. Newt's behavior was inexcusable, but it doesn't automatically invalidate everything he says. He is a brilliant man who has a better grasp of history than most politicians.

I don't believe I want him as President, but he would be a fantastic Secretary of State. IM(NSH)O

[ontap]

Rush is a radio entertainer. He does things to raise his ratings. He does however express the conservative mantra better than most. He generally is right on. The left is going to intentionally misrepresent him at every opportunity. Their little ploy though seems to have backfired on them in that he has become more popular than ever which gives him the opportunity to change a lot of minds. Pointing out RINO's is not a bad thing. We just ran one for president and his only redeeming quality was choosing a conservative for VP.

[ontap]

I have no problem with that but he needs constant vigilance.

[angkor]

>>>>> Isn’t he also the guy that has been married 3 times <<<<<<

Let’s put your personal and private life to scrutiny under the public microscope, shall we?

Let’s start with your marriage.

[angkor]

>>>>>> Remember he also bought into the global warming morass. <<<<<<<<

Which statement proves that your understanding of Newt’s policy positions can be cataloged on the back of a postage stamp.

No he did not “buy into the global warming morass”. Not by a long shot.

And don’t throw the leftist Boston Globe’s propaganda or the picture of Pelosi over here to “prove it”.

[angkor]

No surprise here.

The Newt haters on FR spread their filthy demented propaganda once more, stating that “Newt said it would be crazy to want Obama to fail,” (which he did not say) thus once more deliberately, maliciously, and with total contempt for the truth spreading preposterous lies and twisted rumor.

The brazen and contemptible lying about Newt on FR never fails to amaze me.

Actual quote with actual context: “I don’t think anyone should want the president of the United States to fail. I want some of his policies to be stopped, but I don’t want the president of the United States to fail.... I want him to learn new policies..... This is not a moderate budget. This is a radical budget.... That will be massively unpopular.... they haven’t decided if their number one job is get economic growth, or their number one job is redistribute America.”

[angkor]

>>>>> That’s the first negative thing I’ve EVER posted about Newt. I’m just getting tired of his schizophrenia. <<<<<

I think you can see that I am tired of the mindless and malicious Newt bashing on FR.

It is disgusting, and you should be ashamed.

[ontap]

Simple Google search maybe you should at least try to find out some of this stuff!

The Boston Globe
Gingrich drops skepticism on global warming
But he and Kerry differ on solutions

By Alan Wirzbicki, Globe Correspondent | April 11, 2007

WASHINGTON — In a Capitol Hill debate about global warming touted by its moderator as a “smackdown” between former House speaker Newt Gingrich and Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, Gingrich praised Kerry’s recently released book about environmentalism, acknowledged that global warming is real, and offered what amounted to an unexpected apology for his party’s inaction on curtailing greenhouse gas emissions.

“I’m not going to stand up here and defend our failure to lead,” said Gingrich, who is considering a run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008 and plans to release a book in the fall burnishing his environmental credentials. “There has to be a green conservatism.”

The standing-room-only debate, staged yesterday in an ornate Senate hearing room, offered an indication that even diehard conservatives like Gingrich, who stepped down as speaker in 1998, are abandoning their skepticism on global warming. As recently as two years ago, Gingrich ridiculed the notion that humans are causing the earth to warm, but yesterday he said the evidence was “sufficient.”

“We have now passed the tipping point of that argument,” he said yesterday. The former Georgia congressman even allowed that he agreed with “about 60 percent” of “This Moment on Earth,” a recently published book Kerry co wrote with his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry.

But if the debate was proof of the emerging political consensus that global warming is for real, it also showed that profound disagreements remain over how to tackle the problem. In his remarks, Gingrich proposed giving polluters tax incentives to reduce their carbon emissions voluntarily, an approach Kerry derided as inadequate.

“That’s like saying, ‘Barry Bonds, go investigate steroids,’ “ shot back Kerry, who favors a government-imposed limit on emissions and a system that would allow businesses to buy and sell credits entitling them to release a certain amount of carbon pollution into the atmosphere.

“There is no single environmental crisis that has been met in the United States voluntarily,” Kerry said.

Both men agreed the problem was increasingly urgent, citing a new report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that said rising temperatures and sea levels were linked to the growing quantity of greenhouse gases emitted by cars, power plants, and factories. Without a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, the panel warned, 20 percent to 30 percent of plant and animal species could face extinction.

Gingrich criticized the limit proposed by Kerry and said the senator’s policy was to create a “level of pain” to compel businesses to cut their emissions, whereas he said he wanted to create a “level of pleasure” through tax breaks that would give incentives to polluters to develop new carbon-reducing technologies.

Among conservatives yesterday, reaction to Gingrich’s performance at the debate ranged from puzzled to outraged, and several bloggers accused the former speaker of betraying the GOP by caving to the environmental lobby. A critical post on the website of the conservative magazine National Review was titled, “There goes Gingrich ‘08?”

Gingrich is due to publish a book called “A Contract with the Earth” in the fall, outlining his environmental beliefs.

Jim DiPeso, the policy director of Republicans for Environmental Protection, a group that seeks to steer the GOP toward more eco-friendly positions, said Gingrich’s conversion “shows that the broader climate debate may have crossed a significant threshold.”

“Here you have the leader of the Gingrich revolution up against the prototypical Boston liberal, and they did not disagree on the fact that human-induced climate change is happening,” DiPeso said.

The criticism from conservatives, he said, was predictable because many Republicans have come to see climate change as a partisan issue. “They think that Gingrich has become an apostate, drunk the Kool-Aid, and gone over to the dark side. If I were Newt Gingrich, I would wear that criticism as a badge of honor,” he said.

For his part, Kerry said he was cautiously encouraged that more prominent Republicans are beginning to accept climate change as a serious issue.

“It’s important to have a conservative leader saying, ‘I accept the science and I accept the urgency and we need to do something,’ “ Kerry said after the debate.

Still, he questioned whether the newfound willingness by some conservatives to address global warming is sincere.

“Words can come fast and furious in Washington,” he said.
© Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company.
Ads by Google what’s this?
Emissions
Air Check Texas - Qualify for up to $3500 Toward Replacing Your Vehicle
www.vandergriffhonda.com
UPS Hybrid Trucks
UPS, has the Largest Fleet of Low Emission Shipping Vehicles.
www.sustainability.ups.com
Help Save The World
Proven by EPA 511 Test Protocol Go Green Go Green Go Green For 199
BladeToSave.com
More:

* Globe Nation stories |
* Latest national news |
* Globe front page |
* Boston.com

* Sign up for: Globe Headlines e-mail |
* Breaking News Alerts

Advertisement
More:

*
More national news
|
* Globe front page |
* Boston.com

* Sign up for: Globe Headlines e-mail |
* Breaking News Alerts

BOSTON.COM’S MOST E-MAILED

* Raise-the-roof sweet potato vegetable lasagna
* Pension plan choices may shrink
* State seeks to gauge whether students or teachers are lagging
* Bush’s ‘folly’ is ending in victory
* Doctor dozed during surgery, report says

See full list of most e-mailed
SEARCH THE ARCHIVES

All Globe stories since 2003 are now FREE
Today
Yesterday
Past 30 days
Last 12 months
Since 1979
More search options
Advertisement

* PRINTER FRIENDLYPrinter friendly
* E-MAILE-mail to a friend
* RSS FEEDSNation RSS feed
* RSS FEEDSAvailable RSS feeds
* MOST E-MAILEDMost e-mailed
* REPRINTS & LICENSINGReprints & Licensing
* Share on DiggShare on Digg
* Share on Facebook
* Tag with Del.icio.us Save this article
* powered by Del.icio.us

Click to learn more about our special rates to Nova Scotia.

Find ways to make a difference

Let your new home find you with email alerts

feedback form | help | site index | globe archives | rss
© 2009 The New York Times Company
Click to learn more...

[angkor]

As I said in post #22, “Don’t throw the leftist Boston Globe’s propaganda or the picture of Pelosi over here to “prove it”.”

The article you posted from America’s most slanted left-wing “newspaper” is propaganda that is clearly refuted by actually watching the Kerry/Newt debate with your own two eyes. Which I have done twice.

How many times have you actually watched the debate in question? It’s on C-SPAN, but I’ll bet $100 you’ve never taken the time in preference to regurgitating this slander and leftist propaganda on FR.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Finally, look at the next to last line of the silly propaganda (”proof”!!) you’ve posted:

© 2009 The New York Times Company

I think that says it all.

[ontap]

Have it your way, if you want to shill for Newt be my guest. I have seen Newt on numerous programs say pretty much the same thing. He believes in man made global warming whether you agree or not.

[angkor]

Newt .... believes in man made global warming whether you agree or not.

Izzat so.

Unlike you and the other Newt-haters who proffer Boston Globe/New York Times socialist propaganda along with 13 words from a TV ad as "proof" of Newt's position, I will give you a link and an actual written quote by Newt.

If you disagree that he wrote what he wrote, and said what he said then you should take it up with him in order to make it consistent with your fantasies.

http://newt.org/EditNewt/FeaturedBloggersDB/tabid/193/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3392/Default.aspx

"I do not know if the climate is warming or not. There is some evidence the larger impact of the sun may be about to send us into a long cooling period."