Replies

He didn't bad-mouth Reagan, he simply said the marketing pitch for the campaign has to be "something new" not "continuing the last decade." Describing this any other way is pure Romorrhoid spin. This reasoning is exactly why Newt came up with the Contract with America. He thought the party needed a new marketing pitch and he proved to be absolutely right. Newt said the exact same kind of thing about needing to come up with new ideas in the interview a few years a go that got recently spun by his enemies (and by idiot sheeple conservatives) as Newt proclaiming "the era of Reagan was over." These lies about what his remarks mean are absolutely unconscionable. What we have here are people who DESPISE Reagan and do want to see everything he stood for come to an end SLAMMING the man who worked with Reagan and wants to continue Reagan's policies by accusing him of the very thing they're guilty of. I believe this is one of Alinsky's tactics...accuse your opponent of what YOU are guilty of before they get a chance to accuse you of it. This is the interview where Newt discussed trying to create a new agenda based on conservative principles: http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=4128020&page=1#.Tw3KmoEeW9x TRANSCRIPT Newt Gingrich Talks with George January 13, 2008 Look, I think there are dramatic changes we need in this country. We produced a platform of the American people at American Solutions. And it’s at the back of our book “Real Change.” It’s also at Americansolutions.com. Every single item on the list has a majority of Democrats, majority of Republicans, majority of independents favoring. The easiest one is making English the official language of government. Look, I think the first two things the president and the Congress can do on the economy is cut spending. If you’ll notice, you have a primary in Michigan, a state which artificially had a recession, because its government is so bad, its taxes are so high, its unionized work rules are so destructive, that Michigan was in a recession when the rest of the country was growing. Part of — real change focuses — a long section on Detroit. The truth is, large bureaucracies are destructive. High taxes are destructive. The system we’ve built discourages any business from opening up in Detroit. The schools don’t deliver. They do deliver paychecks. They do take care of the union. But they don’t deliver for the kids. And this is at a time when if you’re an African- American male and you drop out of high school, you have a 73 percent chance of being unemployed and a 60 percent chance of going to jail. So I think we need dramatically deeper and more fundamental change. So — but let’s take things the American people agree on. The American people agree you ought to make it easier to build oil refineries in the United States if you want to bring down the price of oil. The American people agree that you ought to set up prizes for major breakthroughs. And that would be very different than the system we’ve used since World War II. The American people, in fact, agree that we ought to have tax credits for people who are willing to go to greater conservation for their homes. I mean, far beyond just how do I subsidize your heating oil, how do I make it unnecessary for you to buy as much heating oil? The Congress and the president do have an opportunity to listen to the American people, who are saying that real change does matter, and the real change is what they want. The way the McCain/Feingold law currently discriminates against the middle class, is it sets up a system by which, you know, if you’re the mayor of New York and you’re Bloomberg and you’re worth $11 billion, you can contemplate buying the presidency and get away with it. If you are a self-, you know, a multi-millionaire governor and you want to, you can buy a nomination. And so, I just think there’s nothing unhealthy about the Republican Party having a serious discussion. We are at the end of the George W. Bush era. We are at the end of the Reagan era. We’re at a point in time where we’re about to start redefining — as a number of people have started talking about, we’re starting to redefine the nature of the Republican Party in response to what the country needs.

Screwed up the last post, let me try again...

He didn’t bad-mouth Reagan, he simply said the marketing pitch for the campaign has to be “something new” not “continuing the last decade.” Describing this any other way is pure Romorrhoid spin. This reasoning is exactly why Newt came up with the Contract with America. He thought the party needed a new marketing pitch and he proved to be absolutely right.

Newt said the exact same kind of thing about needing to come up with new ideas in the interview a few years a go that got recently spun by his enemies (and by idiot sheeple conservatives) as Newt proclaiming “the era of Reagan was over.”

These lies about what his remarks mean are absolutely unconscionable. What we have here are people who DESPISE Reagan and do want to see everything he stood for come to an end SLAMMING the man who worked with Reagan and wants to continue Reagan’s policies by accusing him of the very thing they’re guilty of. I believe this is one of Alinsky’s tactics...accuse your opponent of what YOU are guilty of before they get a chance to accuse you of it.

This is the interview where Newt discussed trying to create a new agenda based on conservative principles:

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=4128020&page=1#.Tw3KmoEeW9x

TRANSCRIPT Newt Gingrich Talks with George

January 13, 2008

Look, I think there are dramatic changes we need in this country.

We produced a platform of the American people at American Solutions. And it’s at the back of our book “Real Change.” It’s also at Americansolutions.com. Every single item on the list has a majority of Democrats, majority of Republicans, majority of independents favoring.

The easiest one is making English the official language of government.

Look, I think the first two things the president and the Congress can do on the economy is cut spending. If you’ll notice, you have a primary in Michigan, a state which artificially had a recession, because its government is so bad, its taxes are so high, its unionized work rules are so destructive, that Michigan was in a recession when the rest of the country was growing.

Part of — real change focuses — a long section on Detroit.

The truth is, large bureaucracies are destructive. High taxes are destructive. The system we’ve built discourages any business from opening up in Detroit. The schools don’t deliver. They do deliver paychecks. They do take care of the union. But they don’t deliver for the kids. And this is at a time when if you’re an African- American male and you drop out of high school, you have a 73 percent chance of being unemployed and a 60 percent chance of going to jail.

So I think we need dramatically deeper and more fundamental change.

So — but let’s take things the American people agree on. The American people agree you ought to make it easier to build oil refineries in the United States if you want to bring down the price of oil.

The American people agree that you ought to set up prizes for major breakthroughs. And that would be very different than the system we’ve used since World War II.

The American people, in fact, agree that we ought to have tax credits for people who are willing to go to greater conservation for their homes. I mean, far beyond just how do I subsidize your heating oil, how do I make it unnecessary for you to buy as much heating oil?

The Congress and the president do have an opportunity to listen to the American people, who are saying that real change does matter, and the real change is what they want.

The way the McCain/Feingold law currently discriminates against the middle class, is it sets up a system by which, you know, if you’re the mayor of New York and you’re Bloomberg and you’re worth $11 billion, you can contemplate buying the presidency and get away with it. If you are a self-, you know, a multi-millionaire governor and you want to, you can buy a nomination.

And so, I just think there’s nothing unhealthy about the Republican Party having a serious discussion. We are at the end of the George W. Bush era. We are at the end of the Reagan era.

We’re at a point in time where we’re about to start redefining — as a number of people have started talking about, we’re starting to redefine the nature of the Republican Party in response to what the country needs.