Posted on 05/16/2011 6:06:53 PM PDT by Virginia Ridgerunner
Remember, if you see somebody saying something you take to be decidedly NON Conservative, or at least inconsistent with our current theological underpinnings, and there's a Leftwingtard in the midst, that's where your attention should go first.
Why was Newt bowing low before the evil NBC/DNC/SOROS toady?
That right there should have been enough to tank his candidacy ~ but you have these people all caught up in breaking balls over the bifocus of the clavical.
Remember, Newt has friends who let him down by sending him on his way to his doom ~ we certainly don't want them advising in any campaigns where we have an interest do we?
So, who are the Doufouses he employed?
Got Names?
It has, so to speak, festered, and now you have Democrats proposing to just whack it and kill the elderly ~ only solution they can imagine.
They are so terribly uncreative.
No way he wins the primary...
As an academic I'm afraid that I must agree with you!!
Voters have had it with the BS, from all sides.
Levin was making the point we have elections, representatives, town halls, letters/calls/emails/faxes/tweets/facebook posts, and asking why we need the extra process Newt is talking about. This was a softball!
Newt wants to more directly involve the American People in large entitlement reforms. That's fine: it's the only way the press is forced to provide "equal time" rather than adopt the Democrat's demagoguery wholesale or giving that party cover to oppose any necessary reform. I can't believe Newt couldn't articulate a cohesive answer.
Newt is trying his hand at a bit of centrist populism: I'll involve you, not just tell you how it's going to be like Obama or (stereotyped) extremist Republicans. Newt obviously wants to sound inclusive and non-threatening to "independents" and disaffected Democrats but in doing so he sounds indecisive and confused.
Clearly Newt sees passing the Ryan plan outright as "right-wing social engineering" because it'd be done by the usual dysfunctional constitutional process of representative government. Again, Newt failed on articulating his message which is to involve more Americans in entitlement reform, not just the lobbyists and partisan extremists in Washington.
The problem is Newt sounded weak, like a mushy parliamentarian with no defined message and no alternative plan. It was embarrassing.
He offered no time table (now, campaign cycle, post-election), no list of participants (congress, president, candidates, who?). This was a SOFTBALL.
He failed to articulate his case. I ended up almost feeling bad for him!
Pared to the bone, he's not necessarily wrong on process, but he's inept in articulating why and THAT is not presidential material.
;)
Oh, by the way, how do you propose we get rid of Gaygory?
Vote against him in the next election or something?
And, he delivered the George Soros sponsored "confuse Gingrich" question so well
Later comments from Gingrich showed he wasn't confused at all. He revised and extended his remarks.
Interesting.
There was NO THERE THERE.
Now, how to get rid of Gregory ~ you can complain of course.
Better yet, we have wordsmiths ~ they could certainly wrap Gregory's racist insult around the implication that "Gregory suggested that only black people get foodstamps" ~ Olberdork is outta MSNBC even and he had been a perfect match for them. Then, there was "Special Ed" Schulz. Gregory is just another of the same kind, paid higher maybe, and on broadcast, not just cable ~ but I think we could do it.
If so, it's only because the Right is full of paranoids bent on sawing off the limb they're standing on.
He took the very American position: imposition of entitlement reform is bad when done by decree whether from the Left or Right. No statist central planning. No monarchy. Just good old fashion American debate, dialog, brainstorming and ultimately accomplishment.
Even before any ideas are put on the table, Newt's clear problem is in articulation. Maybe he's too out of practice to play on the field, too gun shy after the 90s battles and too much a legislator to make a president.
I thought he could add to the debate, now I'm not sure he won't hurt it.
Nonetheless, it gives lie to your thesis that Gaygory somehow 'confused and befuddled' Newt.
Olbermann killed his own career -- only on the surface was it about his comments. In reality, insiders tell me that it was because he was an insufferable prick in real life. Shultz nearly lost out for the same reason, but he barely hung on.
Gaygory should be removed, but it isn't up to us. I'd be willing to try, but I wouldn't hold your breath for results.
They really have to be dealt with separately else you run the risk of categorizing a number of formerly private, but now government controlled pension plans as welfare, and that's just a start.
The fact folks believe they paid FICA for some reason is another hurdle for reformers ~ to date an unsurmountable hurdle. Medicare carries some of that burden as well.
You'll notice the old tax cheat Geithner turned first to ripping off the federal employee pension system to cover his cost overruns. The law allows that and it's been done before ~ and by Republicans ~ but on the drawdown side, when those federal employees get their pensions, most of them would need to live to 200 years of age before they needed to tap into anything but their own deposits and the interest they earned over time.
No, retired government employees don't live that long, so they never get those agency matching funds also required by law.
Geithner knows this, but he has the natural inclinations of a street thug so he just steals it.
The Obamista Regime has no intention of reducing the deficit, nor of paying back the borrowings from the federal employee retirement funds ~ and a lot of you sit around laughing sayng "See, let those federal employees suffer" but what are you going to do when this same Geithner comes around and tells you "Well,we tapped out the federales so you are next" and he begins looting private pensions, and 401 (k) plans, and IRA accounts, and savings accounts, and even checking accounts?
That's what's coming.
Lots of our money has already been shipped overseas to Geithner's buddies in European banks. It isn't coming back. He has no intention of paying for it.
Of course oberdork was pretty obnoxious anyway, but there you have it. The method does work.
Again, Gregory's question was well thought out and it did befuddle Gingrich. It's not Gingrich's answer that's a problem ~ it's that he was easily befuddled. And, as usual, Gregory's question befuddled a number of people here.
I was not befuddled about Newt's problems. Been trying to figure out why he would even try to run for President. I hit that issue with him and "The Huck" over a year ago. Huck wasn't running ~ but there are people who want him to.
Hey, I want Ruthy and Sotomayor OFF THE COURT FOR HEALTH REASONS. Let 'em hang on until the next Republican takes office ~ but it's ridiculous to have a Supreme Court justice who can't walk across the marble floors without breaking her ankle ~ she has a brittle bone condition from 45+ years of insulin injection. Time for her to go. Same with Ruthy.
So, you have to ask yourself, is it better to try an impeachment to see if we can get a Democrat run Senate to convict Obama, and end up with Joe Biden as President, or should we simply hold out for wholesale removal of all the Democrats?
And to give seniors "more choices". How inane is that? Seniors would choose the plan that gave them the most benefits at the least cost to them. How does that solve our crisis?
And to give seniors "more choices". How inane is that? Seniors would choose the plan that gave them the most benefits at the least cost to them. How does that solve our crisis?
Newt, like a lot of long-time career politicians, has simply not caught up with the fact that the Democrat network newsrooms and big city newspapers no longer hold a monopoly on the selection, spin, and dissemination of the daily news.
As the Great One would say, “Thank me very much!”
I do get the impression that Newt is jealous of Ryan.
Newt spent many years thinking about how to change health care. He may have thought that it would be his resurrection. Then Ryan gets all the attention because Ryan is in the game and Newt is in the audience.
I listened to the Mark Levin interview and he had a great point, “What the Hell are you talking about “We need a national conversation and shouldn’t have the Ryan plan shoved down our throats.” Newt had no good answer. It then occurred to me that the only one NOT in the conversation is Newt.
Tonight Sarah Palin reiterated my position ~ which all of you have heard several times over the last few days ~ that we should be more concerned with David Gregory’s vicious game than in attacking Newt Gingrich.
I’m not sure why you directed the post to me so I looked up the page.
“I was not befuddled about Newt’s problems. Been trying to figure out why he would even try to run for President.”
Newt likes to hear himself talk almost as much as he likes to see the expressions of wonderment on the face whoever is listening to him.
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.