Obama's Favorite Republican : Liberal Newt Gingrich
62
If President Barack Hussein Obama could pick his opponent for 2012, liberal-minded Newt Insane Gingrich would have to be a top contender for the honor. After all, ithe incumbent could then say to voters (without even cranking up his lie-machine), "Hey, that guy is at least as liberal as I am! Better the Devil you know than the Demon you don't! Four more years!"
Huh? Oh, you're doubting Eye of Newt is truly all that liberal?
Well, maybe you're right. I've been painting walls in the house all day; maybe the fumes got to me. Let's see what the record shows....
1. Socialized medicine, specifically the hated individual mandate, key Obamacare component.
His Newtness: 1993...supported individual mandate. 2011...still supports individual mandate. Grade: LLL for Liberal, liberal, liberal!!!
2. Paul Ryan's budget plan: Aprreciated by most of us on the right, hated by Obama, slammed vicously by the Newterizer as "right wing social engineering". Grade: LLL.
3. Environmental issues: From making a commercial with Nancy Pelosi shilling for Al Gore's green money making machine initiatives to getting himself hired as a lobbyist for ethanol subsidy recipients, Sir Gingivitis has nailed himself to the green wall on this one. Grade: LLL.
Besides all these "Triple LLL" grades, do you know what's even scarier? It's pretty obvious Ginga Din is actually ultra-liberal Democrat Barney Frank's long lost brother--take a look!
Okay, so how did this guy start out in politics? As a young Republican, perhaps?
Hardly. His first major foray into the arena, back when he was a mere grad student, was as the Southern regional director for the (brief) Presidential campaign of (ahem!) liberal Nelson Rockefeller.
Not exactly rock-ribbed Reagan type credentials for the early Newt Gingrich, eh? But wait! There's more! Let's take a look at his character--not something that seems to matter much if you're name is Bill Clinton, but definitely an issue for a supposed conservative. I don't care one bit about his divorces--got six of 'em myself--but leaving two wives when they were critically ill?
Man. He's not only Barney Frank's long lost brother; he's also the evil uncle who taught John Edwards.
The good news is that I have enough faith in my fellow conservatives to believe we'll blow this hypocrital, conservative-bashing Socialist in Waiting out of the water long before the Republican Convention in 2012. The bad news is that if he actually got the nomination, I'd have to seriously consider voting for a third party candidate.
Elmer Fudd? Absolutely! I'd vote for Elmer over Obama in a heartbeat. Maybe even Daffy Duck.
But not Obama Light.
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (6)
- Funny (5)
- Awesome (5)
- Beautiful (1)
- Interesting
CommentsLoading...
He claims he's not, but his policy positions--and especially his recent rant--say he is.
Though I did have a chuckle because of the way this was written, the content really isn't a laughing matter. Newt needs to hit the road and not come back. Newt the Conservative is an oxymoron.
An oxymoron indeed. And if We the People vote for this guy in the primary, we're just plain morons without any oxy.
Just came across another statement he made TODAY in which he said Alzheimer's disease is likely to cost the government $20 trillion over the next 40 years--and suggesting we boost federal research money (REGARDLESS of what's available in the budget) as a "wise investment".
Sounds like Obama to me; does it to you? "SPEND" now equals "INVEST", damn the debt ceiling and full speed ahead!
Plus: Please note, "cost THE GOVERNMENT", rather than cost the taxpayers. They clearly don't count.
Triple LLL!
WELL DONE " OH GHOSTLY ONE "....YOU WOULD BE 111% CORRECT ! Do not panic " Oh Sage of the Southwest Desert " . Newt doesn't stand a snow balls chance of survival in Tucson in July. His walking away from the wives will kill ( just an analogy Liberal readers )his chances of any Southern States. Herman Cain is the answer to defeat the Obamanation in the Big House. I have been saying it now for months....Come on troops, get on the Cain train....Thumbs up my Border Warrior !
Gingrich sees himself as the bastion of conservatism. I see him for the idiot he always is and always will be. He doesn't stand a Chinaman's chance of winning the nomination but he does like to hear himself talk.
He sealed his fate with his Meet The Press babble.
The Frog
I'm on your side Ghost Daffy Duck for sure. As long as Daffy doesn't pick Sarah as a vice presidential running mate of course. Good work as usual. Peter
Maybe he'll run against Obama as a Democrat!
BPOP - What a splendid idea. One boob running against another. Twins maybe?
Not signed in here right now, but did vote up and awesome. Very informative and totally interesting as always. Who needs the news when we can get the truth here?? Great job once again, and do get some fresh air ... those paint fumes will fry the nose hair out of your nose as well. Have a great day!!
I agree that Newt stands no chance to beat President Obama. The pendulum has swung to left for a reason. The people are tired of the republican'ts trying to divide and conquer the people.
Will C - So now it's the Democrats turn? Is that what I hear you saying? If not, better start paying attention - closely.
Ken: No argument there. Herman's main need would appear to be name recogniation. He surely blew everybody else out of the water in that first debate, anyway.
Frog: To my delight, he sealed it even further in Dubuque, Iowa, where a voter asked him why he slammed the Paul Ryan plan. Newtie tried to say he didn't do that (!), where upon the Iowan told him, "Yes, you did," and then followed up with, "Why don't you leave before you make a fool of yourself?" Love it!
Peter: As you know, we're on opposite sides when it comes to Sarah...BUT I did come across an interview with Jim Palin (Todd's Dad) which might indicate she'll take a pass. Jim was saying Todd could handle another campaign if he had to...but would definitely suffer, cooped up in the White House, if Sarah became the President.
On the other hand, of course, it's Sarah and Todd making that decision, not Jim--so we can only wait and see.
BPop: That's what would scare me. If he ran as a pretend Republican, we WOULD have two Democrats running. Or as Frog puts it, "one boob running against another". I'm encouraged to see more and more anti-Gingrich flak out there, though.
Wil: Sorry, Wil. You've got this one dead wrong. Of course, you're definitely free to form your own opinion AND to voice it. But Obama is going to be catapulted from the White House by the vote of the people in 2012.
And it's not that Newt couldn't beat Obama. This time around, a broomstick with a hat could beat Obama. My fear is that if he got the nomination and won, he would BE Obama--as every policy position he's indicated since announcing his candidacy, along with much of what he's done in the past, indicates just that.
One point, though: The establishment Republicans and the Democrats act pretty much the same in D.C. What most of us on the right want to see is a continuing ascendancy of actual conservatives...which is a whole 'nother kettle of fish. Think "Tea Party".
What I'm saying is, that it doesn't matter who the republicans nominate. We had 8 years of republican rule with King George II which is what got us into this mess. Now all the republican governors are trying to steal away collective bargaining rights in their states. I can honestly say, with the utmost confidence, that Barrack Obama will be re-elected simply because he is a democrat. Is that how it should be? I never said that. People may not know what will happen with the democrats leading, but with the republicans, we already know. They will defund as much as they can because they don't want to pay taxes, get rid of the consumer protection agency(so they can rip more people off), take away our civil liberties and sell us out to more corporations.
Wil: Ah, but it DOES matter who we (yes, I'm a registered Republican) nominate. And you have to realize, you're discussing these issues with a hardcore, Tea Party type, right wingnut wack-job fellow (me) who has zero use for unions (most especially unions for teachers and other public employees, but no love for ANY unions).
However, all you're saying is a parroting of standard Democrat-issue pablum. If we go to specifics, let's (for starters) talk about the taking away of civil liberties.
It is not the Republicans who constantly seek to gut the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Without arms, there would soon BE no civil liberties except those "allowed" by the federal governmenty...and liberties like that, since they can be taken away on a whim, are no liberties at all.
However, we could discuss these matters endlessly and (I strongly suspect) accomplish exactly nothing. You've clearly hopped happily onto the "Blame Bush for everything" bandwagon.
You're right about one thing, though. We surely will defund as much as we can. About $10 trillion worth of defunding "yesterday" would be extremely helpful.
Will - You must be awfully young to spout off that in 8 years GWB got us into this mess. Do some serious research and reading son. They, collectively, have been doing this dance for decades on end now.
Please try not to be so politically naive. Politics is what it is, regardless of party. You may not remember Jimmie Carter. He was the last Progressive to occupy the Oval Office. He sounded good on paper but lacked the necessary leadership skills to lead the nation. Now we are experiencing JC II, only compounded quite severely.
I respect your stance, on gun control. I do believe in our 2nd ammendment rights. The example of civil liberty violation I spoke of was the Patriot Act enacted by George Bush Jr. I don't blame George Bush for everything, but his cronyism with big oil and with military contractors definately did not help our economy. I do realize that bad housing loans did a substantial amount of damage to economy as well which I know is mostly the democrats push on getting people into homes. So to say I am a democrat would not be true. I believe both these parties need a serious attitude adjustment. But I can't sign on with a group that would take such a darwinistic approach to community, i.e., the TEA party. There has to be a more moderate approach that combines fiscal responsibility with social compassion. But like you said earlier, everyone has the right to an opinion and to express it.
Frog: I'm liking a lot of what Wil says, the more he expresses himself. And I REALLY like YOUR reference to Obama as "Jimmie Carter II". That does sum it up pretty well.
Wil: I'm with you absolutely on the Patriot Act--that has always smelled to high Heaven in my book.
The cronyism (such as with Halliburton), yeah, you've got a point--though when it comes to a lot of oilfield work, there's simply no other company on the planet capable of doing everything they do as well as they do it. (I speak as a one time low-level Halliburton employee who's also worked in and around the oilpatch in other capacities for a number of years.)
However, that is actually a solid argument SUPPORTING the need to select our (Republican) nominee with care. I'm a Sarah Palin backer from the get-go; if she does decide to run, she's my candidate as long as she stays in the race. Period. BUT I don't back her without serious reasons, and one of those reasons involves energy companies.
During Sarah's mere half-term as Governor of Alaska, she did what no other Governor had been able to do for 30 years: She took on Big Oil head-on, including Exxon, requiring that they actually DRILL on massive Alaskan leases instead of just sitting on those leases without producing anything. They fought her (the State) in Court...and she WON. The went to work, jobs were produced, oil started flowing.
That's a hint: There's a HUGE difference from candidate to candidate.
About the TEA Party: Interesting that you feel the Tea Party has a Darwinistic approach. I suppose in one sense that would be correct--we do believe that if there is NO money in the till, you don't start robbing Peter to pay Paul, even if Paul dies for lack of medical care because of your refusal. That much is true enough.
Still, a true Darwinistic approach would mean we favor ignoring Paul when he tells us he needs a tourniquet before he bleeds to death. Not quite so. We simply believe that charity is best done via the private sector, that government involvement means both theft of taxpayer dollars before they get back to the needy AND more control of our lives by said government.
If you're saying that the Tea Party will choose Freedom and Liberty over the appearance of Security every single time--yeah, then you're exactly right.
Ghost, you always stir up a bunch of folks with your obsrvations. One thing I would like to mention is that the differences between your Rpublican stand and their Democratic babble is not very distinct. In other words, they are the same. Just like you've pointed out Newts Democratic leanings I could point to Obamas love for big Corporations. They are all the same, maybe Sarah might shake things up a bit until she folds and quits under the pressure like she did in Alaska. My idea is put every registered voters name in a hat and draw winners like the draft and each servs for 6 years form the lowest appointee to the president and including both houses of congress. Then we would have a true democracy.
Might Work?
True enough, Peter--except, of course, I already count Newt as a Democrat. Many (okay, most) Republicans to date have indeed exhibited much the same failings as the Democrats, though I do believe the Dems have amped 'em up more than a bit.
My #1 gripe with Obama, specifically, is Obamacare. Anyone who favors the individual mandate is "on my list", so to speak.
My #2 concern is spending per se (out of control spending), and yes, Bush did indeed crank that up a dandy notch or three. Obama just parlayed that into his own exponentially expanded version.
Then, #3, the border. You might think that would be #1 in my book, since we live just a mile from the fence and witness illegal immigrants trekking northward through our property on a regular basis, but no. The other two still burn my buns the most.
Your true democracy by lottery? LOL! Might even work, yes...IF you could figure out how to eliminate the entrenched bureaucrats who would be waiting to subvert each new batch of "winners", just like now.
Hi Ghost,
Newt is caught between a rock and a hard place. The old Newt was so bombastic in his presentation of conservatism he even scared some conservatives. So he has to compensate to have a prayer to capture some centrists, without whom he can't win. But he's overcompensating, and alienting his potential core conservative base, which he also needs.
Instead of changing his old right wing ideology, he needs to preserve it, but present it in a more civil manner. His current tactics will torpedo him if he keeps them up.
Stu
So he's not the best candidate overall but Newt is among the best so far. If Mitch Daniels don't get in, then Mitt Romney will be the new President in 2012. He's raised
$10,0000,000 in the last 3 days. He's decent and the best qualified to defeat BHO.Hukabee out and Romney in.Too Bad Huk got out but Romney will do well.
Stu & Jurgy: Sorry guys; can't go with Newt (in the primary) no matter what. As far as I'm concerned, he's already eaten his own torpedo. I don't consider him decent, either; some of his bullying tactics from when he was Speaker of the House fit right in there with the thuggiest of them.
But then, I don't like Romney or Huckabee either,
So what do I know, eh? You guys gotta remember, I'm a fan of Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, maybe Herman Cain, and just about nobody else who seems even a possible candidate this year.
And Romney? I don't much care if he's raised the gold standard.
I will say, this is one time I'm glad we still have a long primary campaign season ahead of us. Whoever rises to the top, rises to the top.
Ghost,
I totally agree with you. Even though Newt put himself into an impossible position, he still should have stuck by his guns, but just with less bombastic speech. Changing the underlying ideological position was a sellout for votes. The guy is worthless.
Bachmann in 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Stu
Bachmann is on definitely on my very VERY short list; that's for sure.
My biggest problem with Sarah Palin is her half-term as Governor. I am be worried that she would melt down again and leave the country in the lurch. She has some great ideas and she has the guts to go toe to toe with big oil and big business but I don't know that I can trust her to stay president if she gets elected. Do you know something I don't about that?
Becky: Probably I do. Have you read her book, Going Rogue? In that publication, she explains her departure from the Governor's position very clearly--and it was in no way a meltdown.
Briefly stated, the AP and other liberal attack dogs followed her back to Alaska after the 2008 campaign and effectively shut down the Governor's office so that it became, until she left, utterly dysfunctional. They did this by filing 86 ethics violation lawsuits against her as Governor. She settled one simply to get it out of the way--not because she didn't believe she could beat it, but in order to stop the hemorrhaging of State time, effort and money required to endlessly defend in court.
The others were all dismissed.
But they (the opposition) were using Alaska's very own ethics law against her, and state government was being literally paralyzed by their unceasing efforts.
So she did the statesmanlike thing, drawing the enemy fire away from the Governor's office so that her successor, Sean Parnell, could get Alaska moving again.
At the time she left, she had no clue whether or not she'd ever have a voice in politics again--but she sacrificed herself for the good of the people of Alaska.
Of course, we've now seen that her "political death" was short-lived indeed. But on the day of her resignation, she had NO way to know that would be the case.
I believe every word she had to say on the subject and consider her resignation to be not a negative, but actually one of the strongest positive items on her entire resume.
No, I have not read the book. Unless it is free or at a yard sale, I can not afford to buy books. I will if I get the chance to though. With your explanation I will think some more on her though. I definitely will be voting Obama out though. Lesser of two evils and he is as bad as they come type thing. I have a Kindle that was given to me for Christmas and it is amazing how many places and how much variety of books you can get free. I still read constantly even though most of my reading is text books.
I get your point on the price of books. With our finances on the short side at the moment, I'm in one of my periodic reread-whatever-I've-still-got-lying-around phases.
Pam and I each want a Kindle of our own...when we can pay for 'em.
Becky,
While I'm not a micro-level expert on the details, Ghost's answers are consistent with what I've read. There were literally dozens of completely unproven allegations against Palin, and Palin was scared she couldn't govern effectively if she had to spend her entire workday defending against the allegations. So she took the practical move of simply resigning. I have to believe most if not all of the allegations are baseless; if they had merit, merely resigning wouldn't have made them go away. Provable ethics violations would most likely have been pursued with investigations and criminal charges, regardless of whether she remained in office.
Stu
Thanks, Stu.
Hi Ghost, YW, Stu
There are all kinds of books free that you can get on the internet to download onto your computer. Check out baenbooks.com for sci-fi. Writers will put 1 or 2 of their older books of a series for free to get people interested in the new one coming out. Or just search for free books.
I will keep looking at Sarah Palin. Do you know what her views are towards veterans and specifically disabled veterans? I would hate to cut off my nose... etc. I do have to live on a disabled vets income. I am constantly worried about what the politicians are going to do to his healthcare or benefits.
Becky, for those concerned about disabled veterans--or any veterans, for that matter--Sarah Palin is the ONLY candidate. As Governor of Alaska, she and/or her then-Lt. Governor, Sean Parnell, attended every military funeral possible in their state, often putting state government business momentarily on hold to do so.
During that same time (as Governor) she traveled to visit troops in both Kuwait and Iraq and also visited wounded warriors in hospital in Germany.
During the 2008 V.P. campaign, her son Track was on active duty in the U.S. Army (deployed to Iraq), making her the only White House candidate (Prez or V.P.) in the history of the nation to be the parent of active duty offspring at the time of candidacy.
Vets get it, too. There are any number of "vets4Sarah" type websites out there, and you can even see one tee shirt verifying that in a photo on my most recent Hub:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Sarah-Palins-Bus-Tour-Shak
I haven't said so on that page, but she finished up the motorcycle leg of her tour kickoff by visiting injured soldiers at Walter Reed.
I'm not disabled, but I'm definitely a vet--no combat, Viet Nam era only (never sent in-country)--and AS a veteran, I'm going to be sighing with sincere regret if I end up needing to vote for any other Presidential candidate in 2012.
Run, Sarah, Run!
Your wrong about Newt's record
On which point(s) specifically?
I do realize he's singing a different tune now (October 2011).
Kathryn, you indicated you were unable to post your defense of Newt, so I did attempt to do it for you. But when I tried, I also get a message--mine states, "Your comment contains prohibited links."
I'm not always sure what those are, but I've had to rework a few of my own pages (according to the rules laid down by the host site where I write). But I can say this:
1. Where you referred to Newt's explanation of his anti-Ryan comment on Meet the Press claiming he wasn't talking about the Ryan Plan, I must respectfully disagree. I watched that program, he was definitely talking about the Ryan plan, and then when he got heat for it, he flip-flopped like a spawning salmon running into a dam on the river.
2. I'm satisfied with my own level of research on Gingrich and have come to believe absolutely nothing that comes out of that man's mouth when it comes to "things he claims he never said or at least never meant". He can reverse course faster than a piston in an internal combustion engine.
3. On the one and most important question of "did he or did he not leave his ill wife", I will do some additional research--NOT accepting what you found (saying he didn't) at face value but checking out a number of resources. IF I find I was "sucked in" on that one, I'll definitely (as you put it) "set the record straight".
But for the rest of it, I believe you're severely mistaken in your conclusions favoring Newt.
Note: If your are this passionate in his defense, you might consider joining up at HubPages and writing your own articles promoting your viewpoint of his integrity. It's free and a solid platform for writers.
Okay. Kathryn, as promised, I did some more checking--including your link, which turned out to be a vigorous defense of Newt by his daughter, Jackie. Which is cool.
According to Jackie, her parents (Newt and Jackie-Mom) had already told the kids about the coming divorce at some time PRIOR to the hospital stay. Also, the "critically ill" aspect turned out to be overblown, as the tumor removed from her mother's stomach turned out to be benign, not cancerous.
Score one for "setting the record straight" in favor of Newt. :)
Old Poolman Level 7 Commenter 12 months ago
I knew if I kept this computer running I would learn something new today. I had no idea he was a Lib. Thanks for the education.