Posted on 11/20/2011 4:52:34 PM PST by fightinJAG
No, that history, even if accurately stated, does not make all else irrelevant.
In fact, if you are right, it makes my question to you -- which you have yet to answer -- HIGHLY relevant. Because if Newt always does what he says he's going to do, then what was it he was going to do on AGW and Obama's education policies and is he going to do so or not?
And, no, I am not avoiding your "main point." You offered this point in response to my question about pandering to v. agreeing with the Democrats and your "main point" is not responsive to the question.
I get that you think my question is irrelevant because you think Newt always does what he says he's going to do.
But that is not an answer. And I would like one. Do you think he was pandering to or agreeing with Democrats or what when he took the actions in my two examples?
Newt’s time will pass, I think. He suddenly seemed like Mr. Right, or at least Mr. Possible after Cain faded, but he’s just not conservative enough.
I did go to the Palin criticism and even though it was from last May, it was valid. Why criticize Ryan’s plan as social engineering? It didn’t seem so to me.
Again, I believe the odds are better w/ Newt. Who do you believe has better odds, given no one is a SURE bet?
My point is that that ALL depends upon how big a threat "Bad Newt" is to "Good Newt." If you don't know what I'm talking about, please google it.
You assert that Newt has the best chance of getting what he says he will do done because he does what he says.
I disagree that there is not a substantial risk that Newt will get off track spectacularly and shoot himself in the foot, as he has a history of doing (even recently and even in this race).
To evaluate the risk, I'm asking what about these two incidents -- was this Bad Newt, Dumb Newt, PanderBear Newt, Bipartisan Newt or WHAT? That is all.
Mainly, at this point, I think it’s very important to understand what we’d be getting with Gingrich, the nominee, and Gingrich, the President.
It’s not often there is a candidate who has such a long history with voters, but who has also been out of the limelight long enough to be somewhat “new” as well.
Like someone who called Rush said, it’s like Newt is the old boyfriend you broke up with over and over because he cheated on you, then years and years later he shows up with flowers and candy and you take him back.
The next step is often WHAT THE HELL WAS I THINKING?? (I added that.)
Palin was write and that Paul Ryan incident was vintage Bad Newt. While Ryan’s plan may deserve constructive criticism, to play right into the Left’s hands by using the words “right-wing social engineering” — think about it! “RIGHT-WING,” as if there’s something wrong with that — just at the time the plan was gaining some traction was just inexplicable and, seemingly, unforgivable.
In the case of AGW, I think he was agreeing w/ the Dem.’s, not pandering to. When he did that ad w/ Nancy, many Republicans agreed w/ AGW as it was widely (not universally) accepted as science. He has since admitted the science was faulty while saying there is still dispute as to man’s role. That’s a whole lot different than saying man IS responsible.
He has also said he would drastically reform the DOE. He knows more about education than anyone else in the field & has stated his disgust w/ it’s current state.
As a CANDIDATE, I like what he has said about the areas that concern you. His views while sitting on the couch w/ Nancy were not recent, nor as a candidate.
What will he do now? I believe good things. BTW, who is your dog in the race? How does he hold up to your scrutiny?
yes!
Newt is the enemy because he has always been the enemy of conservatives and Christians.
Paying attention to what is happening is important.
Watch what they do, forget what they say.
As for the rest of your confusion, I can’y help you.
It’s weird around here. I was just on a thread that was totally trashing Newt.
We’re playing musical chairs here.
Obviously, I’m still hoping Perry makes a breakthrough.
Oh, well. We shall see what we shall see.
Disagree totally!
This ad was in 2008, for Pete's sake, and it was for the purpose of promoting DEMOCRAT LEGISLATION, to wit, a national energy tax if not cap and trade.
As Krauthammer says:
“What he’s saying now is, unlike then when he thought global warming was real, he now is an agnostic,” Krauthammer said. “And he would not, obviously, have the government spend trillions on it, as he appeared to be advocating in the past.”
When asked where he stands on the issue of global warming, Gingrich admitted that he does not know if global warming is occurring. Science, he added, is also inconclusive on the issue.
By 2008, the vast majority of Republicans, including all of talk radio, had been raising vehement objections to the conclusions on AGW. Anyone who was the least tuned in to the conservative zeitgeist in America would have known that there was deep skepticism, if not outright ridicule of the theories of AGW by 2008 -- and that that skepticism was about to lead to a complete rejection of the AGW agenda, including epic failure of the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change summit and total conservative revolt against Cap and Trade.
Even in Europe, which was behind Americans in coming to reject AGW, by 2008 the signs were everywhere that the "science" was likely fraudulent and, in any regard, had not convinced anyone of the need, as Gingrich advocated, to spend TRILLIONS on addressing climate change.
For example:
2008: The Year Man-made Global Warming Was Disproved.
To the extent Rush is an indicator of what's being discussed among conservatives, Limbaugh had been bashing AGW since around 2006. In Feb. 2008, before Gingrich made his ad with Pelosi, Rush stated: The manmade global warming hoax thrives on faith, not facts.
And I don't buy any distinction between what Gingrich says as "not a candidate" and as a "candidate."
First of all, there should be no difference!
Secondly, someone like Gingrich knows he's always open to run for political office if the opportunity presents -- he's a politician!
So, whether he's a candidate or not, what he says and does matters because he means it or matters because it shows what types of things he'll pander to.
And, oh btw, the Al Sharpton tour was in 2009!!
Cain, I'll have to see how he responds to this recent rough patch. I'm very concerned about his lack of knowledge on a lot of subjects, but I think his conservative instincts are much better than Newt's. If Newt even has conservative instincts (as opposed to being only an "intellectual conservative") -- that's an open question, in my view.
I think Santorum has a lot to offer, except he has trouble making that connection with people and, unfortunately, that is a big part of what the country needs now. (I think that's part of Newt's problem, too -- sure, conservatives are a-twitter now because Newt is whupping up on people and they are getting a big kick out of it, but Newt has never had any sustained likeability over the years. So when Attack Newt has to go away, as he would if Gingrich becomes President, people should wonder what they'll be left with.)
I'd have no problem voting for Perry if he somehow became the nominee. His record has some horrible spots, too. And, really, since he sank so fast, his record has never really gotten the scrutiny that Newt's, as the frontrunner, is going to get. So, I reserve that caveat.
The others -- let's just hope we don't go there.
But why are you implying that it's pure bias, not the facts, that are driving my evaluation of Newt's or any other candidate's record?
That is not the case. Moreover, that's often just an excuse to justify blowing off an evaluation of the facts that one disagrees with.
You have finally answered my question and said that, in your opinion, Gingrich AGREED with the Democrats on global warming and on the need for legislation to address it.
I mostly agree with you. (I do think there is the chance that Gingrich was pandering and trying to up his "bipartisan" Democrat street-cred prior to a presidential run.)
And in my view, that was NOT a conservative position in 2008, and it shows a stunning lack of understanding of where conservatives were on the issue in 2008, and it demonstrates a lack of conservative political instincts.
Again, this is a gut problem for Newt. He certainly is an "intellectual conservative," but, imo, that is not enough to keep Bad Newt at bay.
I t would seem as though you have misunderstood what I was saying & maybe it’s due to the whole cyberspace thing that I’m not really that good at, at least in relation to face to face.
As I’ve stated, I actually agree w/ some of the points you make. They’re valid points. The reason I indicate the seeming bias is that I don’t seem to see you going after the other candidates, some of which have been front runners from time to time, as you have Newt. Maybe I just haven’t followed your posting history enough, but it seems you spend an inordinate amount of time on Newt.
Both Romney & Cain are current front runners as well & yet I don’t seem to see the same scrutiny, even though both of them have significant baggage themselves. It just give the appearance of a bias whether real or not.
As far as the whole AGW argument is concerned, don’t interpret talk radio & talking heads’ treatment as consensus among OVERALL Republican’s. True blue conservative & political junkies like you & I have known the truth for some time, but the public overall, including many Republicans, have just come around, & really only after the email scandal.
Listen, I’m not thrilled w/ his decision. It’s one of the things that really pissed me off. But again, Reagan really pissed me off w/ amnesty, gun control, etc. Pragmatically, we’re just not always going to agree w/ even the most conservative of our elected officials.
Much like you & I. I suspect if you & I were to sit down for a lunch, we would find agreement on vastly more than what we disagree with. Yet here we are hammering out Newt. That’s ok in my book. At least we’re having a reasonable conversation, unlike others here.
You may very well be right in your assertions. I think the odds are in my favor however. Absolutely nothing is a given for any of these candidates. As I stated, it’s a crap shoot for any of them.
Once again, I’m looking forward to the debates tomorrow. I’m sure we’ll be touching base again here. Have a great week.
>> “Both Romney & Cain are current front runners as well & yet I don’t seem to see the same scrutiny” <<
.
Romney is like Newt, likes Cap&Tax, so will support it.
Cain has completely rejected AGW and Cap&Tax.
One thing I thought you might find interesting.
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/21/videos-newts-latest-greatest-hits/
Watch the second video which is only about 8 minutes long. It might give you some better insight as to who Newt was & who he is today. Enjoy
Simply because I disagree with you about the risk of Bad Newt compared to Good Newt doesn’t mean I need “better insight as to who Newt was and who he is today!”
There is no dispute about the facts, only about their interpretation as to the predictive value of those facts vis-a-viz a Gingrich presidency.
You don’t need to try to keep convincing me that Gingrich offers some good things. I’ve agreed with that from the beginning. You seem to be the one with the absolutist position, arguing that he’s changed so much that you now believe that he’ll do everything he says as a candidate and nothing he hasn’t said.
This is a matter of degree and I call it differently than you do.
Why aren't you talking about them? For the same reason I'm not, I suppose. There is nothing left to say at this point while we are waiting to see where their campaigns go from here. And at the same time Newt is the new frontrunner and his campaign has yet to be vetted at all.
This only makes sense. It's not evidence of bias.
As far as the whole AGW argument is concerned, don’t interpret talk radio & talking heads’ treatment as consensus among OVERALL Republican’s. True blue conservative & political junkies like you & I have known the truth for some time, but the public overall, including many Republicans, have just come around, & really only after the email scandal.
Even if true, it's a problem when a conservative politician doesn't get what the conservative base is thinking. This is no different than when Bad Newt endorsed Dede in New York. He seemed shocked and blindsided by the fact that the conservative base got extremely angry at him over that.
As I see it, you're arguing that there's NO risk of Bad Newt showing up and I'm saying there's at least some risk and, if Bad Newt shows up, it won't be pretty. Let's leave it at that and see what rolls out here in the next weeks and months.
And, yes, I do appreciate the civil discussion. Except for the fact that you imply I'm spending all my time posting on Newt when you are the one inviting me to engage in extended debates on Newt's fine points! :) Which invitation, of course, I have accepted because that's the best of FR: civil debate on substantive points.
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.