Camp David
New member
SecDef said:
He rode around Washington in a limosine as Speaker and he got a divorce! Shold I get the rope or do you have one?
What "transgressions"? Signing the Contract with America?
Would you vote for Newt?
- Thread starter 1BadF350
- Start date
He rode around Washington in a limosine as Speaker and he got a divorce! Shold I get the rope or do you have one?
What "transgressions"? Signing the Contract with America?
I think PlayboyPenguin put it rather well previously as to what his immoral transgressions were.
However, I was thinking more along the lines of the REASON he resigned. He had a 28% approval rating and based the 1994 elections on the impeachment of Clinton and lost power. The majority of the country felt that impeachment was going too far since congress knew it wouldn't convict. Basically, the big transgression being that he lost control of the party.
In this day and age of needing to show leadership, losing control of the party is a problem to have on the resume.
On the positive side Newt is an historian, not a lawyer. He is a conservative through and through. No one could hold a candle to him in a debate.
Character flaws are like posterior regions; everyone has them. The gene pool for candidates for high office seems to be a bit thin these days. Perhaps it always has been.
The question should rather be, which candidate would be best to serve the broad interests of our nation given the reality we are experiencing these days?
One wonders where the danger is greater: Terrorism on the one hand. Crazy, shallow left wing statists on the other.
Character flaws are like posterior regions; everyone has them. The gene pool for candidates for high office seems to be a bit thin these days. Perhaps it always has been.
The question should rather be, which candidate would be best to serve the broad interests of our nation given the reality we are experiencing these days?
One wonders where the danger is greater: Terrorism on the one hand. Crazy, shallow left wing statists on the other.
Camp David
New member
SecDef said:
Wow! Sounds like he should have gone to prison and the chair!
Lincoln's popularity in 1864 was in the single digits and 620,000 died as a result of a war he started but he ended up with primo space on the National Mall!
I judge Newt based on what he's saying now... did you catch the debate he had with Cuomo recently at Cooper? Excellent political theory! Newt has real plans for nation rather than business as usual! He is clearly the most intelligent politician and pol close to running for president but he has yet to announce.
And if the Newt name bothers you consider the alternative: Obama Hussein....
Newt has a good strategy. Let the other guys overexpose themselves and then jump in late in the fall. In my opinion he is broadly electable. The majority of Republicans and not a few Democrats are conservative in outlook. Newt is the only conservative out there. The rest are Rino's.
Ronald Reagan's appeal was conservative and visionary. Newt is cut from the same mold, politically. Giulliani sounds like a compassionate conservative, but he is a statist. McCain is too blase' and is not well spoken, if elected would let the democrats run all over him, just like W. Romney is...well..ahh..
from Ma. None of the last 3 bode well for the 2A.
Americans like underdogs, especially if they are charismatic. Newt's charisma is in the fact that he has fresh ideas based on history and America's niche in that history. He understands the value of American power and I believe he'll wield it like T. Roosevelt did. The rest of the world needs to respect America's power. That power is expressed in Amerrica's will. I think Newt might just be able to re energize that will.
Ronald Reagan's appeal was conservative and visionary. Newt is cut from the same mold, politically. Giulliani sounds like a compassionate conservative, but he is a statist. McCain is too blase' and is not well spoken, if elected would let the democrats run all over him, just like W. Romney is...well..ahh..
from Ma. None of the last 3 bode well for the 2A.
Americans like underdogs, especially if they are charismatic. Newt's charisma is in the fact that he has fresh ideas based on history and America's niche in that history. He understands the value of American power and I believe he'll wield it like T. Roosevelt did. The rest of the world needs to respect America's power. That power is expressed in Amerrica's will. I think Newt might just be able to re energize that will.
I didn't see that dialog yet -- it is available online at American Solutions for those of you that are interested.
No doubt as to his intelligence, however when reading his new 21st Century Contract With America, I don't see HOW he plans on implementing the contract.
I do find his statement regarding 1st amendment offputting [taken directly from newt.org]:
And, my prediction to you is that ether before we lose a city, or if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people before they get to reach out and convince young people to destroy their lives while destroying us.
The thing is, he completely ignores this fact: the technology is out there, and is being used, to encrypt all critical communication. It just won't work, and in the process makes the government bigger and puts them inside our houses. He also skips, as far as I can tell, presenting a strategy on Iraq. Without a position on this, a candidate stands no chance of being elected. He talks about terrorism, but not Iraq...
I want to suggest those interested in asymmetrical war read this WaPo article. It is interesting, and the results are counterintuitive:
Two political scientists recently examined 250 asymmetrical conflicts, starting with the Peninsular War. Although great powers are vastly more powerful today than in the 19th century, the analysis showed they have become far less likely to win asymmetrical wars. More surprising, the analysis showed that the odds of a powerful nation winning an asymmetrical war decrease as that nation becomes more powerful.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
I am afraid I judge a man on his actions and not his words. Lip service is easy and too many politicians are good at talking but not doing.
And based on Newt's past actions I find him to be a morally bankrupt person with only his own personal self intersts in mind. He does what is best for Newt and Newt only.
tony pasley
New member
Would have to know who he is running against to say for sure. He is much more knowledgable than most running in either party at present. The only exception now is Ron Paul.
Old Gaffer
New member
I'm a life-long registered Republican - and I'm reasonable sure that my life has been longer than many (but by no means all) of the rest of this forum.
I was absolutely horrified when Gingrich came out with his "Contract for America" and thought then, as I do now, that he had no business proposing that when we haven't even fully implemented the first contract - the US Constitution to see if that one really works.
Newt may - or may not - be a brilliant historian, but I have no desire, nor intention for that matter, of living under his view of history as a jumping off point for our future.
Newt will not get my vote.
I was absolutely horrified when Gingrich came out with his "Contract for America" and thought then, as I do now, that he had no business proposing that when we haven't even fully implemented the first contract - the US Constitution to see if that one really works.
Newt may - or may not - be a brilliant historian, but I have no desire, nor intention for that matter, of living under his view of history as a jumping off point for our future.
Newt will not get my vote.
Silver Bullet
New member
They don't compare to burning kids to death in a compound.
Can you imagine the liberalMedia reaction if the Koresch debacle had occurred with Bush in office ?
So I watched it. It's pretty long. Refreshing view of Newt.. He's a great speaker. However, two things I came away with: 1) Cuomo easily mashed Newt's health care statements with the simple fact that 48 million people in the US don't have health care and can't afford it, and the plan Gingrich discussed wouldn't do a thing about it. (Yes, health care is very very broken.) 2) He couldn't resist taking a jab at "liberals". If he is to be taken seriously in his goal to fix politics in america THAT KIND OF CRAP NEEDS TO STOP!
Absolutely a better speaker than Cuomo. Better political theory? No.
Blaming 22,000 people in the ninth ward for not being educated enough to get out of the way of a hurricane was a very weird thing to say. What was the point? Was it a shot at the education system, FEMA, or just at common people? I can't even be critical of the statement, because it doesn't make any sense so I can't begin to guess at his intent.
He was looking for a mandate from the electorate and he came damned close to getting it... he couldn't pass the "contract" without a deciding majority and he was fighting an uphill battle with the liberal left...
The contract would have politically destroyed the power base of the left, and thereore, they undermined it fiercely every inch of the way, the people's desires be damned.
I said that the 21st Century Contract with America doesn't have implementation details.
Why are you talking about the 1994 Contract with America?
According to exit polls only 30% had even HEARD of the contract with America, and of those only 7% said they were more likely to support Republicans due to it, and 6% said they were less likely. How exactly is that "damned close" to a mandate?
Why are you talking about the 1994 Contract with America?
According to exit polls only 30% had even HEARD of the contract with America, and of those only 7% said they were more likely to support Republicans due to it, and 6% said they were less likely. How exactly is that "damned close" to a mandate?
Marko Kloos
Inactive
Oh, please.
Witness how well the Conservative crowd can tolerate (and even vociferously defend!) stuff like USA PATRIOT, National Security letters, warrantless wiretaps, and suspension of habeas corpus, just because their Chosen Boy sits in the Oval Office.
Stuff like federal tax police hosing a bunch of religious nuts would be almost trivial in comparison, and equally tolerated and supported by the Conservatives, as long as we can find some sort of terrorism angle. If we had another Waco tomorrow, and the new Branch Davidians were Muslims, we'd hear nary a peep in opposition from the right side of the aisle, children burned or no.
Of course the liberal media would be up in arms about it, and rightfully so. It's shameful that they weren't up in arms about it when it happened back when Bubba was POTUS. But don't kid yourself for one second into thinking that Conservatives are any better when it comes to tolerating or cheering the government boot on someone's throat, as long as it's the right guy underneath.
allenomics
New member
Turns out Newt admits having an extramarital affair at the same time he was criticizing Clinton for doing the same thing. Say what you will about cheating, but his double standard speaks to values, elitism and character. Of couse, he is unqualified to be president.