Posted on 03/30/2009 10:21:04 AM PDT by Pellegrino
Newt's warning about N.Korea's threatened "satellite" launch and "criminal negligence" of Obama's dismantling and defunding of our missile defense systems.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Wow, the attacks here on Newt Gingrich clearly validate Breitbart’s point. What the halfwit liberals don't realize is that their comments will only galvanize opinion against them. We are not concerned with personalities but with what is true and right. They never address the issues. Rather, they attempt to support their position by appealing to emotion, and by seduction to either hate or worship someone. Their “arguments” seem to fall within one of two categories: either they worship personalities they agree with, or hate personalities they disagree with. They are either deceived or in love with death or both. We are in love with Truth. Probably there are also some conservatives here who have been fooled by this way of “thinking.”
Thanks for a simple, appropriate and common sense response to this article.
Don't worry dude, there's nothing to see here. Obama will keep you safe.
:)
People who call Newt or Hannity RINO is out of their mind. Or better - they show dictatorial state of mind, more often displayed by Dems, but not reserved exclusively to them. What about difference of opinion? Should we all march lockstep? I don’t want to be in a crowd shouting one word in unison.
So Newt made some mistakes and expressed opinions not 100% that I support. So far I did not see Mark Steyn called some names and Thomas Sowell. That’s it. I agree they are great. But if you require a perfection that only few people can withstand, you will stand by yourself, alone. Its one thing to want clarity that an accidental co-traveler like Powell is not really a conservative. Another thing all-together to cast out people like Newt or Hannity - its counterproductive to say the least.
Newt hasn’t gone RINO.
Paying lip service to “being green” doesn’t classify one as a RINO. An opportunistic politician, yes. But not a RINO.
Newt is dead set against carbon taxes and cap and trade.
KMA
“So if he’s been wrong on certain things we should ignore him on everything else, and advance Obama’s national death wish. Good idea.
___________
I agree. Why don’t we just crucify everyone who has done one thing we don’t like. Then we will have NOBODY to speak out except for bloggers on the internet. Eventually they will go away and then we can live under the rule of the evil Kenyan POS dictator for the rest of our lives.”
*sigh* Went through this during the whole nominating process. If we don’t get the PERECT, ABSOLUTELY 100% PURE CANDIDATE, we’ll be nominating the infamous RINO, and hence, cannot win.
Beyond his little dabble with Global Warming, Newt’s plenty conservative enough for me.
As I said....
...don't worry dude, there's nothing to see here. Obama will keep you safe.
There are more than a few ideologue on this site who would and have done just that. It allows them to continue to live in their own little political fantasy world where everybody votes as a perfect, in their eyes, conservative.
They have never understood Voltaire’s simple admonition, “The perfect is the enemy of the good”
some of these wasteful anti-Gingrich comments warrant the “Ah, Geez, not this s*it again” reaction.
Gingrich is one of the most articulate and knowledgeable people of the American constitution and government we have.
Some folks just can’t quit beating a dead horse.
Like I said, KMA obot
Physics for Future Presidents, by Richard A. Muller
Also, the full report referenced at the above link is quite educational, for those with the time and technical background to understand it. I suspect that Newt is not among those...
As do I.
However, he is beyond his depth in technical areas beyond politics.
Newt: Hillary shows courage, integrity
By: Kenneth P. Vogel
Jan 12, 2008 12:22 PM EST
Gingrich’s fawning over Clinton stands out more than McCain, given their history.
Newt Gingrich’s on-again, off-again adulation of Hillary Rodham Clinton appears to be back on.
The leader of the 1994 Republican revolution — who as House speaker in the mid 1990s clashed fiercely with then-first lady Clinton and her husband, Bill Clinton — attributed her surprise victory in New Hampshire to the Democratic presidential candidate’s courage, integrity and openness.
After Clinton’s third-place finish in the Jan. 3 Iowa Democratic caucuses, “it would have been very easy for her to have broken, accepted defeat,” Gingrich said in a weekly podcast e-mailed to supporters.
“Instead, starting on Saturday night, she fought back with greater and greater intensity, and she opened herself up,” Gingrich went on. “She talked as a person, without all the protection, without all the discipline, and she became more and more appealing.”
Gingrich said that shift demonstrated “the courage to learn” and enabled the New York senator to grow “in the space of three or four days to a much more attractive, much more aggressive and much more appealing candidate.”
As a result, he posited, New Hampshire voters who made up their minds at the last minute “were going to Sen. Clinton, were affected by her campaign, by her integrity, by her openness.”
Gingrich’s podcast, one of many products cranked out by his political groups, also had similarly high praise for Arizona Sen. John McCain, who won New Hampshire’s Republican presidential primary.
But Gingrich’s fawning over Clinton stands out more, given their history.
After Bill Clinton became president in 1993, Gingrich, then a Republican congressman from Georgia, orchestrated the defeat of one the new Democratic administration’s signature initiatives: a universal health care plan led by Hillary Clinton.
Headed into the 1994 elections, Gingrich seized on the failed plan to highlight the excesses of a Democratic-led government. And his message, manifested as the Contract With America, was credited with driving the Republican takeover of Congress that year.
Gingrich then became speaker and the public face of the GOP’s often bitter opposition to the Clinton administration, culminating in the 1998 impeachment of the president.
Gingrich’s relationship with Hillary Clinton warmed, though, after he resigned from the House and she was elected to the Senate. They worked together on a health care plan and a military readiness panel, and each had kind words for the other.
Since she became a presidential candidate, his public comments have vacillated between admiration and contempt.
Gingrich, an analyst for Fox News, has repeatedly voiced his respect for Clinton’s political acumen and organization. But he has also called her “a nasty woman,” asserted she looked “foolish” in calling for repealing congressional authority for the Iraq war and branded one of her campaign ads “dishonest,” “destructive,” “fundamentally false” and “the height of hypocrisy.”
When he briefly flirted this fall with running for president himself, he justified it by warning of dire consequences of a second Clinton presidency.
“I love the stuff I do, in terms of writing books, and giving speeches. ... It’s a wonderful life,” he told Fox’s Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes. “But I am very worried about the future of the country, and I do think we have to offer a change-oriented conservative alternative to Sen. Clinton if we’re going to be able to keep this country from going very far to the left.”
At one point last year, he handicapped Clinton’s chances of becoming president at 80 percent. But in November, he predicted a big win for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama in the Iowa Democratic caucus. And last month, in an interview on ABC’s “This Week,” Gingrich downgraded that to 50 percent, “because she has really underperformed in a way that surprised me.”
He went on to advise her not to attack Obama but instead to counter his message of change by launching “the strongest possible appeal to women” on the grounds that “electing a woman president is in and of itself is the real change.”
Clinton did almost precisely that after her disappointing Iowa finish.
And in his podcast this week, Gingrich said Clinton was able to defeat Obama in New Hampshire “by arguing that her 35-year record of fighting for change was better than his immediate promise of future change.”
The Iowa and New Hampshire results, Gingrich said prove “the American people are certainly committed to real change.” Which got him to his next point: a book he wrote titled ... “Real Change,” which he told listeners is scheduled for release next week and will “outline exactly what we need to be doing.”
Newt’s one of the few in Warshington who actually discuss SOLUTIONS to problems. For that, he merits my respect. I don’t agree with him on everything, but he’s right far more than he’s wrong.
www.americansolutions.com
Dumbass.
You're spamming the thread.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.