View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently July 28th, 2014, 10:45 am



Reply to topic  [ 127 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next
 Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy 
Author Message
Post Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
Blueskies wrote:
Quote:
After withstanding the attacks from last night's debate, Newt is the GOP nominee. I'll be shocked if he isn't. Furthermore, the Obama Campaign has launched attack ads against him saying that he's the "Original Tea Partier" and the "Godfather of Gridlock". I personally think those are good things, which just goes to show you how out of touch with reality that Obama actually is.


And...he's gone. Just like Bachmann, Perry, Cain...etc. Now its Santorum, who will probably last 60 days.

The race will be Romney vs Paul vs Obama. (Paul as third party)

Quote:
Obama created all of these "Czars,"


Unfortunately not true. Federal Czars have been around since FDR days.

Quote:
Congress and implement his own socialist programs, and Obama spends money like he's going to take his dying breath in the next 6 weeks. He's literally mortgaging the future of our country, seeing how far he can push "socialism" and social welfare, and he's doing it in a fashion that creates new programs that aren't going to be easily undone once implemented.


What socialist programs? Obama care? It was a ripoff of Romney care in Massachusetts, it was a Republican idea. He spent crazy amounts of money, just like GWB before him, and while he doesn't want to cut anything, Republicans don't either (or they want to cut a paltry $100B as if that makes a difference whatsoever).



I know "Czars" have been around since FDR, but Obama created something like an unprecedented 32, and they had powerful positions distributing millions of "bail out" money.

I don't care if Obama Care is a "rip off" of a "Republican Idea" it wasn't a National program until a Democrat was voted into office, and it never would have been.


January 1st, 2012, 6:41 pm
Pro Bowl Player

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 2622
Post Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
Quote:
I don't care if Obama Care is a "rip off" of a "Republican Idea" it wasn't a National program until a Democrat was voted into office, and it never would have been.


We're arguing a counterfactual, which is a waste of time. Maybe it would've been passed, and maybe it wouldn't have.

IMO, I think a John McCain president would have had no problem passing Obamacare. The media would've spun it so that Republicans were OK with it (just as they were OK with the expansion of medicare under GWB) and the left would've complained that it didn't go far enough. As I said, Obamacare is based in a Republican idea and the idea of the individual mandate floated around Republican circles for years.


January 2nd, 2012, 2:39 am
Profile
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3710
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
Blueskies wrote:
Quote:
I don't care if Obama Care is a "rip off" of a "Republican Idea" it wasn't a National program until a Democrat was voted into office, and it never would have been.


We're arguing a counterfactual, which is a waste of time. Maybe it would've been passed, and maybe it wouldn't have.

IMO, I think a John McCain president would have had no problem passing Obamacare. The media would've spun it so that Republicans were OK with it (just as they were OK with the expansion of medicare under GWB) and the left would've complained that it didn't go far enough. As I said, Obamacare is based in a Republican idea and the idea of the individual mandate floated around Republican circles for years.



republicans...democrats......F'em all and let Ron Paul the Independant sort em out!

I know where my vote is going this election!

_________________
2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion


January 4th, 2012, 7:00 pm
Profile
Post Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
Blueskies wrote:
Quote:
I don't care if Obama Care is a "rip off" of a "Republican Idea" it wasn't a National program until a Democrat was voted into office, and it never would have been.


We're arguing a counterfactual, which is a waste of time. Maybe it would've been passed, and maybe it wouldn't have.

IMO, I think a John McCain president would have had no problem passing Obamacare. The media would've spun it so that Republicans were OK with it (just as they were OK with the expansion of medicare under GWB) and the left would've complained that it didn't go far enough. As I said, Obamacare is based in a Republican idea and the idea of the individual mandate floated around Republican circles for years.


With a 75% disapproval rate with the general public there is no way in hell that McCain would have signed that bill, period.


January 6th, 2012, 4:16 pm
Post Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
After this week I am more convinced than ever that Newt is the only person that has a shot at beating Obama. Romney is going to get destroyed over his Bain crap, AND over healthcare. He is going to get trotted out there and look like a fool. He's not strong enough to answer the same question over and over again without "Mr. Hyde" creeping out (see his reaction to Bret Behr if you don't know what I mean), and his answers aren't complete enough (like Newt's) to not bring the question about again. Newt is the ONLY possible candidate that can successfully debate and win against Obama, and he has the fewest amount of skeletons in his closet.


January 11th, 2012, 4:33 pm
Pro Bowl Player

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 2622
Post Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
Quote:
he has the fewest amount of skeletons in his closet.


I was somewhat agreeing with post until this part.

What?!

Just google "gingrich skeletons in closet"


January 11th, 2012, 9:10 pm
Profile
Post Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
Blueskies wrote:
Quote:
he has the fewest amount of skeletons in his closet.


I was somewhat agreeing with post until this part.

What?!

Just google "gingrich skeletons in closet"


Perhaps the others have dead bodies and Newt just has skeletons? Notice I didn't say that he didn't have any. I know he has a LOT. I just think he has the FEWEST and the EASIEST skeletons to overcome. On top of that, IMO, he is the only candidate that has the ability to differentiate himself, explain his views, and NOT be in conflict with some sort of Conservative/Republican ideas. I think he does a great job in explaining himself, sticking up for "main street," and still arguing for Capitalism at the same time.


January 12th, 2012, 1:05 pm
Online
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3113
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Post Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Blueskies wrote:
Quote:
he has the fewest amount of skeletons in his closet.


I was somewhat agreeing with post until this part.

What?!

Just google "gingrich skeletons in closet"


Perhaps the others have dead bodies and Newt just has skeletons? Notice I didn't say that he didn't have any. I know he has a LOT. I just think he has the FEWEST and the EASIEST skeletons to overcome. On top of that, IMO, he is the only candidate that has the ability to differentiate himself, explain his views, and NOT be in conflict with some sort of Conservative/Republican ideas. I think he does a great job in explaining himself, sticking up for "main street," and still arguing for Capitalism at the same time.

I think Newt doesn't so much have skeletons in his closet as he does a stack of dead bodies on the front lawn. Everyone knows what he did (or at least, anyone who is paying attention). Not saying if that's an advantage or not (I really don't know), but his stuff is out there. Others have more that is not fully known.

_________________
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson


January 12th, 2012, 1:51 pm
Profile
Post Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
Touchdown Jesus wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Blueskies wrote:
Quote:
he has the fewest amount of skeletons in his closet.


I was somewhat agreeing with post until this part.

What?!

Just google "gingrich skeletons in closet"


Perhaps the others have dead bodies and Newt just has skeletons? Notice I didn't say that he didn't have any. I know he has a LOT. I just think he has the FEWEST and the EASIEST skeletons to overcome. On top of that, IMO, he is the only candidate that has the ability to differentiate himself, explain his views, and NOT be in conflict with some sort of Conservative/Republican ideas. I think he does a great job in explaining himself, sticking up for "main street," and still arguing for Capitalism at the same time.

I think Newt doesn't so much have skeletons in his closet as he does a stack of dead bodies on the front lawn. Everyone knows what he did (or at least, anyone who is paying attention). Not saying if that's an advantage or not (I really don't know), but his stuff is out there. Others have more that is not fully known.



What I like most about him is is ability to explain his past problems and current stances without stuttering. He has an absolute and sensible way about him that is easy to understand, and hard to refute. He sees things clearly, and his vision for America is 1000Xs better than Obama's.


January 12th, 2012, 1:56 pm
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
I'm afraid that if Newt can't pull out a win in South Carolina, then we might as well hand the nomination to Mittens. Then, we'll have to watch the lamestream media relentlessly vilify Romney until the election and he'll lose to Obama due to low GOP enthusiasm. Of course, the media will do this to whomever the GOP nominee is, but Newt can handle them. I'm not so sure Willard can though based upon him getting flustered by Brett Baier of all people.

_________________
Image


January 12th, 2012, 3:45 pm
Profile
Post Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
slybri19 wrote:
I'm afraid that if Newt can't pull out a win in South Carolina, then we might as well hand the nomination to Mittens. Then, we'll have to watch the lamestream media relentlessly vilify Romney until the election and he'll lose to Obama due to low GOP enthusiasm. Of course, the media will do this to whomever the GOP nominee is, but Newt can handle them. I'm not so sure Willard can though based upon him getting flustered by Brett Baier of all people.



I agree 100%. I think Cain and Newt were the strongest candidates all along, which is why the media attacked them. Mitt is going to fall apart as soon as he is pressured. All you have to do is keep asking him the same question different ways, not allow him to dodge it, and he blows up. What a joke.

What really sucks is this presidential election is much more important than others. Unless the SCOTUS rules that the mandatory portion of the HC bill is unconstitutional the ONLY way that piece of garbage legislation is going to get over-turned is if a Republican is elected President. If I were the GOP or any right-wing leading group, I would re-incite the public's anger over that Bill right around September. That piece of legislation will be the straw that breaks the camel's back.


January 13th, 2012, 1:39 pm
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3710
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
my biggest issue with your opinion of Newt WJB is that you like him due to him being a good speaker...Like him or not Obama is one of the best speakers we've seen as a president. Hows that working out for us. I can't help but think you have to base a potential president off of what he has done in the past. you cant go by what they say they'll do....cuz too many of em lie.

My question is what has he done in the past that makes him a good candidate. I dont give a rats rear how articulate he is...we just got bit by a guy like that...gimmie something more.

_________________
2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion


January 13th, 2012, 2:56 pm
Profile
Post Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
regularjoe12 wrote:
my biggest issue with your opinion of Newt WJB is that you like him due to him being a good speaker...Like him or not Obama is one of the best speakers we've seen as a president. Hows that working out for us. I can't help but think you have to base a potential president off of what he has done in the past. you cant go by what they say they'll do....cuz too many of em lie.

My question is what has he done in the past that makes him a good candidate. I dont give a rats rear how articulate he is...we just got bit by a guy like that...gimmie something more.



No, I don't like him because he is a good speaker. I like him because he is articulate, he has the disposition to be a great leader (none of the other candidates do, IMO), and because he can meld conservative ideas with main street opinions. He is the ONLY candidate, IMO, that has a conservative view that will resonate with people on main street, and he's great at putting that view forward in an unarguable manner. That's huge! Republicans use to have a clear, simple message, and they were super successful with it. Newt is the only candidate that can boil his language down to simple, unarguable terms. He's damn good at doing it, and IMO because of this gift he is the only candidate that has the potential to beat Obama head to head.


January 13th, 2012, 3:01 pm
Online
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3113
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Post Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
wjb21ndtown wrote:
No, I don't like him because he is a good speaker. I like him because he is articulate, he has the disposition to be a great leader (none of the other candidates do, IMO), and because he can meld conservative ideas with main street opinions. He is the ONLY candidate, IMO, that has a conservative view that will resonate with people on main street, and he's great at putting that view forward in an unarguable manner. That's huge! Republicans use to have a clear, simple message, and they were super successful with it. Newt is the only candidate that can boil his language down to simple, unarguable terms. He's damn good at doing it, and IMO because of this gift he is the only candidate that has the potential to beat Obama head to head.

I think you're dead wrong on the bolded part. Throughout his time as a public figure (on the national stage) Gingrich has demonstrated the exact opposite. He has a notorious temper, and a ridiculously high opinion of himself. To me, it's a red flag that nearly everyone who has worked closely with him in the past does not want to work with him again, nor do they support his candidacy. Even people on the republican side who worked directly with him have said that he lacks the temperament to be president and is too quick to anger and can be absent-minded. Here's a few lines from an article Peggy Noonan wrote a month ago:

What is striking is the extraordinary divide in opinion between those who know Gingrich and those who don’t. Those who do are mostly not for him, and they were burning up the phone lines this week in Washington

Those who’ve known and worked with Mitt Romney mostly seem to support him, but when they don’t they don’t say the reason is that his character and emotional soundness are off. Those who know Ron Paul and oppose him do so on the basis of his stands, they don’t say his temperament forecloses the possibility of his presidency. But that’s pretty much what a lot of those who’ve worked with Newt say.

Former New Hampshire governor and George H.W. Bush chief of staff John Sununu told The Wall Street Journal this week: “Listen to just about anyone who worked alongside Gingrich and you will hear that he’s inconsistent, erratic, untrustworthy and unprincipled.” In a conference call Thursday, Jim Talent, who served with Mr. Gingrich in the House from 1993 through 1999, said, “He’s not reliable as a leader.” Sen. Tom Coburn, a member of the House class of 1994, called the former speaker’s leadership “lacking,” and according to a local press report, he told Oklahoma constituents last year that Mr. Gingrich was “the last person I’d vote for for president of the United States.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham told a reporter that Mr. Gingrich could be a historic president if he has “matured as a person and is, for lack of a better word, calmed down.” That is as close as most of those who’ve worked with him get to a compliment.


By no means is that article the end all be all, but I've seen similar sentiments spoken and written about Gingrich by a lot of people who worked both with and against him. That's not a good sign in my opinion.

_________________
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson


January 13th, 2012, 3:42 pm
Profile
Post Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
Touchdown Jesus wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
No, I don't like him because he is a good speaker. I like him because he is articulate, he has the disposition to be a great leader (none of the other candidates do, IMO), and because he can meld conservative ideas with main street opinions. He is the ONLY candidate, IMO, that has a conservative view that will resonate with people on main street, and he's great at putting that view forward in an unarguable manner. That's huge! Republicans use to have a clear, simple message, and they were super successful with it. Newt is the only candidate that can boil his language down to simple, unarguable terms. He's damn good at doing it, and IMO because of this gift he is the only candidate that has the potential to beat Obama head to head.

I think you're dead wrong on the bolded part. Throughout his time as a public figure (on the national stage) Gingrich has demonstrated the exact opposite. He has a notorious temper, and a ridiculously high opinion of himself. To me, it's a red flag that nearly everyone who has worked closely with him in the past does not want to work with him again, nor do they support his candidacy. Even people on the republican side who worked directly with him have said that he lacks the temperament to be president and is too quick to anger and can be absent-minded. Here's a few lines from an article Peggy Noonan wrote a month ago:

What is striking is the extraordinary divide in opinion between those who know Gingrich and those who don’t. Those who do are mostly not for him, and they were burning up the phone lines this week in Washington

Those who’ve known and worked with Mitt Romney mostly seem to support him, but when they don’t they don’t say the reason is that his character and emotional soundness are off. Those who know Ron Paul and oppose him do so on the basis of his stands, they don’t say his temperament forecloses the possibility of his presidency. But that’s pretty much what a lot of those who’ve worked with Newt say.

Former New Hampshire governor and George H.W. Bush chief of staff John Sununu told The Wall Street Journal this week: “Listen to just about anyone who worked alongside Gingrich and you will hear that he’s inconsistent, erratic, untrustworthy and unprincipled.” In a conference call Thursday, Jim Talent, who served with Mr. Gingrich in the House from 1993 through 1999, said, “He’s not reliable as a leader.” Sen. Tom Coburn, a member of the House class of 1994, called the former speaker’s leadership “lacking,” and according to a local press report, he told Oklahoma constituents last year that Mr. Gingrich was “the last person I’d vote for for president of the United States.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham told a reporter that Mr. Gingrich could be a historic president if he has “matured as a person and is, for lack of a better word, calmed down.” That is as close as most of those who’ve worked with him get to a compliment.


By no means is that article the end all be all, but I've seen similar sentiments spoken and written about Gingrich by a lot of people who worked both with and against him. That's not a good sign in my opinion.



TDJ - But do you agree with the rest of what I wrote?

I'll add... When I talk about Newt please understand that I'm not speaking in absolutes of character, and I'm not speaking in terms of "compared to the rest of the general population." I'm only suggesting that out of the likely Republican Candidates (or call them Republican Misfits if you'd like) he is the only viable candidate with the proper disposition to be a great leader. I'll agree that Newt has a HORRIBLE disposition when people vehemently disagree with him. Even recently when we said he wasn't going to "go negative," and when he was challenged on how he can be a "Capitalist" and argue against companies like Bain Capital you could tell he was super irritated and didn't like people defying his explanations. Still, when he is mad or "Mr. Hyde" if you will, he is still articulate, well spoken, and gets his point across. That's 1000X's better than Romney, who attacks the question poser instead of addresses the issue at hand.


I'd also like to add... In the mid-90's when Newt was Speaker he wasn't well liked and he wasn't known for compromise. That said, he got a DAMN LOT DONE, and IMO a lot of it was GREAT POSITIVE CHANGE. He led Congress for the last three budgets that were actually balanced, led Congress for what was a great time in economic prosperity, and he was successful in working with, not against Bill Clinton, the only rectum in the Country that he needed to kiss. I'll take that any day. Perhaps he could attract more bees with honey than vinegar, but I'd also pose that perhaps this is a point in time where compromise isn't an answer. Where Obama Care needs to be taken off of the table, and fiscal responsibility restored absolutely, rather than kicked down the road like the Democrats in Congress would prefer. Maybe his faults make him the best Candidate available? Maybe he'll be a one-term wrecking ball that sets us out on the right foot.


January 13th, 2012, 3:53 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 127 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.