Gingrich Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TMC said:
An era that began around 1790, although I agree that likability is somewhat more important today than in the past.
Click to expand...
I think Newt’s likability has increased. I met him at a book signing (maybe 2005-2006?), and my impression that he was incredibly arrogant (not to mention, had a humongous head), but I think he’s shedding that stigma.

Me, I’m looking for a curmudgeon for a candidate. No more of this McCain-esque “My good friend” stuff.
 
Semper_Zelare said:
  1. Newt Gingrich already has many endorsements from people. They’re listed on his Presidential campaign page on wikipedia. So, he has enemies in politics… everyone does, he also has a lot of friends. A lot of ppl he’s worked with in Congress, and a lot of the old “Reagan Coalition” of Republican politicians out there. Just check the endorsements.
Click to expand...
He has some fans, sure, but a lot of top GOP leaders are opposed to him holding any position of power within the party ever again. That is a big obstacle to overcome.
  1. People don’t have to agree with a candidate 100%. Mike Huckabee made a talking point out of that “if you agree with me 100% on everything, that’s kind of creepy, if you’re normal you’ll disagree with me on some things”. When did all of the Republicans have to believe the same things? Shouldn’t there be a MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS? Nixon, Reagan, and both of the Bushes had some un-orthodox GOP positions as well. [and so did McCain].
Click to expand...
You may feel that way, I feel that way, but the current mood in the GOP doesn’t agree. The dig on Romney is that he is not acceptable because he has taken arguably moderate positions on a few issues. Gingrich has taken moderate positions on far more issues, but is trying to run to Romney’s right. That will be a big problem as more of his actual past positions come to light.
  1. We don’t know if he was “an advocate” for Fannie and Freddie. That’s like saying Cain WAS treating women bad. We don’t know on either charge… yet. Let’s wait for the facts to make a guilty verdict.
Click to expand...
OK, believe that if you want. Taking millions of dollars to be a high-level consultant speaks volumes. Do you suppose they were paying him to be against them?
4.-6. Ehh. Americans can forgive him. I think all of that is nit-picky. Who is the better Anti-Romney candidate? Gingrich is the first one to actually have a substantive campaign.
Click to expand...
Americans, maybe. The tea party and the evangelical right? I don’t think so.
l employ statistical evidence to refute this claim. I will destroy this argument with the irrefutability of numbers. Numbers don’t lie, here they are sir:
Click to expand...
Numbers don’t lie, but people do. Polls are what they are, but the reality is that his conversion will dampen enthusiasm in the evangelical core of the far right. I stand by my comments.
  1. We’ll see if he does have gaffes. Personally, I’d say he has “straight-talk”. Remember who else “straight-talked” the American people? John McCain, our nominee.
Click to expand...
His “straight-talk” has not been helpful to him in the past, and I’m not sure pointing out his similarites to McCain will endear him to the GOP primary voters. We’ll see how it goes in the future.
  1. Republican Revolution. First conservative speaker in like forever. I think that plainly, a lot of people disagree. Newt is a solid conservative.
Click to expand...
In the 90s he was a solid conservative. Unfortunately for Newt, the definition of conservative has moved quite a bit to the right, and what were once considered to be conservative positions (e.g. insurance mandates, cap and trade, etc) are now considered by some in the GOP to be leftist heresies (while conveniently forgetting where those ideas came from).
  1. Newt Gingrich had the second highest likeability in a recent poll. Again, you’re assertion with words stands no match to cold, hard, and unbiased facts: In June his favorability nationally with Republican voters plummeted all the way to 36/49. Now he’s at 68/23, representing a 58 point improvement in his spread since then.
Click to expand...
Favorable is not the same as likable. Obama’s likable numbers remain high, but his favorables are way down. A successful politician needs both.
**Now, that I’ve refuted your 10 points, more or less. Please, if you want to go into a specific point, I’d be more than willing. But, let’s not keep quoting and posting on 10 different points and clutter the thread.
**
I would be much obliged :tiphat:
Click to expand...
You have far from refuted anything I said, and posting thoughts on Newt’s electoral chances is certainly not “cluttering” a thread on Newt’s electoral chances. You are obviously a fan of his. I suggest we wait a few weeks and see whether he is still the flavor of the week. I think he will be the same as the others–a brief run as the “not-Mitt” until the voters get a good look at him, then back in the basement with the others.
 
AlwaysCurious said:
Ron Paul. 🙂
Click to expand...
Well, I would like them a little less doddering.

I would vote for Paul, if he won the nomination, and just pray that Congress can block some his more controversial ideas (decriminalizing drugs and prostitution, Taft era foreign policy, etc.).
 
TMC said:
You have far from refuted anything I said, and posting thoughts on Newt’s electoral chances is certainly not “cluttering” a thread on Newt’s electoral chances. You are obviously a fan of his. I suggest we wait a few weeks and see whether he is still the flavor of the week. I think he will be the same as the others–a brief run as the “not-Mitt” until the voters get a good look at him, then back in the basement with the others.
Click to expand...
I’m not even a Newt fan, and I can see that he refuted all your points. 🤷

Regarding the GOP leaders not wanting him in power…so? FYI…the voters elect people, not the leaders. Besides, if he wins the nomination, how much do you want to bet that the “leaders” will back him 100%?
 
rlg94086 said:
I’m not even a Newt fan, and I can see that he refuted all your points. 🤷

Regarding the GOP leaders not wanting him in power…so? FYI…the voters elect people, not the leaders.
Click to expand...
Ha ha ha… Oh wait, you were serious about that?
 
TMC said:
Ha ha ha… Oh wait, you were serious about that?
Click to expand...
That’s right, the unbiased observer airs on my side. Looks like I won the debate.

When you’re going to split hairs over somehow a difference between Favorability and Likability… I mean give me a break. He wins the polls on this, he gets the most applause at every multi-candidate event and debate… what more do you want from me? :hypno:

And, you can’t conceede that Newt Gingrich doesn’t have a problem because he’s Catholic? There are WAY more evangelicals than 7% in this country. Yet, that’s the amount of people who are HESITANT to vote for a Catholic. That number isn’t even based off "they’d never vote for a Catholic, they’re hesitant. Like 22% of people are hesitant to vote for a mormon, including me.

You said it yourself, “he was a solid conservative”. Just because that was in the 90’s, is really arguably relevant. Are you referring to the Tea Party, I mean, you claimed the Tea Party won’t forgive him for his marital infedility… well I forgave him, I’m a part of the Tea Party.
According to this article based off the Metrics of a Fox News poll:
Article:
But a dig deeper into findings does provide an interesting window into why Gingrich is surging and Romney is stagnant.

Much of it appears to be Tea Party-driven. According to the poll’s crosstabs, 35 percent of self-identified Tea Partiers now support Gingrich, 15 percent back Romney, 20 percent back Herman Cain, 7 percent back Texas Gov. Rick Perry and 8 percent back Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.). This is just one demographic, to be sure, but it’s the most enthusiastic.
Click to expand...
It looks like 35% of Tea Partiers don’t give a rotten banana about Newt’s personal baggage. Considering the Tea Partiers are a disparate group, consolidating 35% of their support is impressive. Even more so in a field of 8 candidates.

So, I’m wrong about everything? I haven’t changed your mind on any single thing of the 10 things you mentioned? I have FAR from refuted ANYTHING you said? Really? I’m not even close? I’m completely out of the ball park? Am I really? :ehh:
40.png
TMC:
You are obviously a fan of his. I suggest we wait a few weeks and see whether he is still the flavor of the week. I think he will be the same as the others–a brief run as the “not-Mitt” until the voters get a good look at him, then back in the basement with the others.
Click to expand...
  1. Once more, there was nothing more to Rick Perry than his gaffes. There was nothing more to Herman Cain than 9-9-9, a wierd commercial, and sex harassment allegations. These candidates had so few positives, that once a negative emerged, there was little reason for people to continue to support them.
    That’s not the case for Gingrich. He has a lot of positives: he PWNS the debates, he has very substantive solutions and actually talks policy and issues, as opposed to negative attack ad campaigning. Those positives have the power to keep people to the campaign despite negatives. When he says things like
“I have the most experience dealing with these problems on a national level, and my campaign is the most substantive in modern history” He’s right.
  1. That leads us to my 2nd point on that. Yes, I am a firm supporter of Newt Gingrich. I’ve donated to his campaign, I’m hoping I’ll get to volunteer for him in Alabama. It is A LOT EASIER to criticize someone than to support them. It is a lot easier to criticize a problem than to offer an alternative solution. Who do you support?
If you support no one right now, yet post a 10+ point thing criticizing 1 candidate, it would appear you are an idealist. Hoping for Mr. Generic Republican to come walking down the pipe, he votes the party line every time, he has no ideas of his own he simply does what his handlers/ superiors tell him to do. He has never sinned, so the media can’t use one thing from his personal life to attack him. :rolleyes:

Surely you actually support one of the 8 people running though… surely you’re not that out of touch with reality in the realm of politics. And, I’m sorry I called you Surely 😃
 
Semper_Zelare said:
  1. Newt Gingrich already has many endorsements from people. They’re listed on his Presidential campaign page on wikipedia. So, he has enemies in politics… everyone does, he also has a lot of friends. A lot of ppl he’s worked with in Congress, and a lot of the old “Reagan Coalition” of Republican politicians out there. Just check the endorsements.
  2. People don’t have to agree with a candidate 100%. Mike Huckabee made a talking point out of that “if you agree with me 100% on everything, that’s kind of creepy, if you’re normal you’ll disagree with me on some things”. When did all of the Republicans have to believe the same things? Shouldn’t there be a MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS? Nixon, Reagan, and both of the Bushes had some un-orthodox GOP positions as well. [and so did McCain].
  3. We don’t know if he was “an advocate” for Fannie and Freddie. That’s like saying Cain WAS treating women bad. We don’t know on either charge… yet. Let’s wait for the facts to make a guilty verdict.
4.-6. Ehh. Americans can forgive him. I think all of that is nit-picky. Who is the better Anti-Romney candidate? Gingrich is the first one to actually have a substantive campaign. That simply matters more than these points. Gingrich is the best candidate other than Romney, who up to this point 75% of Republicans cannot get behind.
  1. I will employ statistical evidence to refute this claim. I will destroy this argument with the irrefutability of numbers. Numbers don’t lie, here they are sir:
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com...roduction/Cms/POLL/9p7nhjxj-kupd4mgpthyfa.gif

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com...roduction/Cms/POLL/ujw139swq0ak9tyl1izmrg.gif

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com...roduction/Cms/POLL/0vkr7-iygkcnq9k6r45mqg.gif
As of June 2011, Catholics are about as electable as Blacks and Women. In the 1960s that might’ve been a bad thing. Today, there aren’t very many racists or sexists. And apparently there aren’t very many anti-Catholics either.
  1. We’ll see if he does have gaffes. Personally, I’d say he has “straight-talk”. Remember who else “straight-talked” the American people? John McCain, our nominee.
  2. Republican Revolution. First conservative speaker in like forever. I think that plainly, a lot of people disagree. Newt is a solid conservative.
  3. Newt Gingrich had the second highest likeability in a recent poll. Again, you’re assertion with words stands no match to cold, hard, and unbiased facts: In June his favorability nationally with Republican voters plummeted all the way to 36/49. Now he’s at 68/23, representing a 58 point improvement in his spread since then.
36 favorable, 49 unfavorable June 2011
68 favorable, 23 unfavorable November 2011

**Now, that I’ve refuted your 10 points, more or less. Please, if you want to go into a specific point, I’d be more than willing. But, let’s not keep quoting and posting on 10 different points and clutter the thread.
**
I would be much obliged :tiphat:
Click to expand...
Well said.
 
I just saw a replay of Mitt Romney in one of the earlier debates saying he got the idea of an individual insurance mandate from the Heritage Foundation and Newt Gingrich. And Newt Gingrich agreed he had supported an indivdual mandate. Yet conservatives so opposed to a mandate are contributing to the the surge of Newt Gingrich.
 
A lot of news coming out of the left leaning press on all this Newt is a flip flopper stuff. Not sure why. Something to be afraid of about Newt going against Obama?

It looks like he once thought the individual mandate was a good idea and then came to not trust it. See:

Gingrich also addressed the individual mandate. He explained that “a mandate doesn’t work in part because it means more and more and more government definition of, ‘What are you mandating?’”

In response to a follow-up question from Charles Krauthammer about whether he opposed the mandate as a matter of policy or constitutionality, Gingrich replied, “I believe that it is unconstitutional for the Congress to require you to buy something…because then the Congress could require you to do anything.” Krauthammer asked, “So, you’re saying, in principle, it’s a terrible idea, even if [as a matter of policy] it might work.” Gingrich replied, “Yes.” He added, “A lot of us, in ’93, as opposed to Hillarycare, thought [the individual mandate] was a less destructive alternative. The longer we dealt with it, the more we concluded it was hopeless.”

weeklystandard.com/blogs/gingrich-obamacare-and-individual-mandate_607924.html

I think this is surely to come up in the debates
 
I love Newt.

But… then I would vote for a ham sandwich over Obama.
 
TMC said:
I don’t see how Newt can ever be the nominee.
10. He is acerbic and unlikable, which might be excusable if not for all the other problems.
Click to expand...
I’m not really comparing Gingrich to John Adams, but history tells us that Adams wasn’t well liked either, compared to his contemporaries:
“It’s been said that Adams wasn’t as likeable a person as the other notable founders. That he wasn’t a flowery orator or a handsome general whose hearty physical constitution and iron nerve commanded the respect of his subordinates is unquestionable. He was a very plain looking man whose excitable disposition seemed to rub his contemporaries the wrong way. But he was man of unyielding integrity, thrift, and enterprise who dedicated his life to preserving the freedom of his countrymen.”
wintersoldiers.com/john-adams.html

Newt isn’t good looking like Romney and isn’t a “flowery orator” that flatters other people to get what he wants. In this regard he’s more like Gov.Christie. A rather overweight, kind of “plain looking” guy who doesn’t sugar coat what he says. As another poster said, I’d rather have this a thousand times over instead of Obama and his smooth, empty speeches.
 
mary_bobo said:
Please check up on how much money we are talking about here. Raines got some 9M for helping run the entity into the ground. Gorelick got a potful also. Newt got approximately 17,000 a year for telling them to watch what they were doing. They were on a precipice. Large difference, I think.
Click to expand...
What is Newt’s baggage? Might have lobbied. Denies it. But, might have lobbied for Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, one of the two.

He did take some money from them.

Gave them advice.

Received a little over a million dollars.

Doesn’t compare to the $90 million that Franklin Raines took out of there.

It doesn’t compare to $26 million that Jamie Gorelick, an approved Democrat, like Franklin Raines, took out of there.

It doesn’t compare to the $24 million that Jim Johnson took out of there.

AND, I would even bet that if you found an accountant somewhere and added up all the total actual dollars, year after year … and the current year as well … that those wonderful Fannie and Freddie executives made a lot more in bonuses than that.

AND those guys and gal signed sworn certifications that all of the Fannie and Freddie finances were on the up and up.

And who knows how many other Democrats have gone over to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and scored big time.

No, no, no, we are going to focus on Newt and his one million, he’s got some 'splaining to do, but none of these other Democrats did.

Up until now, Fannie Mae’s been wonderful. Any effort to stop them, any effort to balance them, any effort to make them behave responsibly was looked upon as an assault on the concept of affordable housing.

Any attempt to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, any attempt to bring them in line and make them behave in a standard, common-sense business way was looked at as an assault on the poor.

And the left did everything they could with their media to stand up and defend Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as great institutions helping the poor, the great unwashed. Now all of a sudden Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are toxic, worthless scum because they paid Newt Gingrich a million dollars.
 
Gingrich Answers Attacks on His Web Site

After a week of revelations about his business dealings after he left Congress, the former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has added a new page to his Web site answering the new questions, and some old ones, too.

The Web page, “Answering the Attacks,” has 16 headings including “Ethics Investigation” and “Personal Life” and “Relationship with Freddie Mac.”

He promises to answer other attacks, and let the page grow as the campaign receives more feedback.

Mr. Gingrich joins a long list of national political figures to employ such a site, among them Sarah Palin and Barack Obama.

=====================

Setting the Record Straight:
Newt’s Positions on the Issues and His Record

Now that our campaign to rebuild the America we love is gaining momentum, those who want to see us fail are on the attack, digging through Newt’s past to try and stop us.
Newt, Callista and our campaign welcome the opportunity to tell the truth about Newt and set the record straight about Newt’s positions on the issues as well as his record in public life and as a private citizen.

We’ve set up this page to arm you with answers to the attacks.
See an attack that is not answered? Let us know here. This page will grow as we receive more feedback to help you answer the attacks.

Menu

Ryan Medicare Plan – Health Insurance Mandate – Ethanol – Fairness Doctrine – Global Warming/Cap and Trade – Immigration/DREAM Act – Agriculture Subsides - TARP - Zero-Based Budgeting in Foreign Aid/Inclusion of Israel - Vote for Department of Education - Dede Scozzafava Endorsement – Government Shutdown – Ethics Investigation - Lobbying –Relationship with Freddie Mac - Personal Life

more here
newt.org/answers
 
Monte_RCMS said:
What is Newt’s baggage? Might have lobbied. Denies it. But, might have lobbied for Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, one of the two.

He did take some money from them.

Gave them advice.

Received a little over a million dollars.

Doesn’t compare to the $90 million that Franklin Raines took out of there.

It doesn’t compare to $26 million that Jamie Gorelick, an approved Democrat, like Franklin Raines, took out of there.

It doesn’t compare to the $24 million that Jim Johnson took out of there.

AND, I would even bet that if you found an accountant somewhere and added up all the total actual dollars, year after year … and the current year as well … that those wonderful Fannie and Freddie executives made a lot more in bonuses than that.

AND those guys and gal signed sworn certifications that all of the Fannie and Freddie finances were on the up and up.

And who knows how many other Democrats have gone over to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and scored big time.

No, no, no, we are going to focus on Newt and his one million, he’s got some 'splaining to do, but none of these other Democrats did.

Up until now, Fannie Mae’s been wonderful. Any effort to stop them, any effort to balance them, any effort to make them behave responsibly was looked upon as an assault on the concept of affordable housing.

Any attempt to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, any attempt to bring them in line and make them behave in a standard, common-sense business way was looked at as an assault on the poor.

And the left did everything they could with their media to stand up and defend Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as great institutions helping the poor, the great unwashed. Now all of a sudden Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are toxic, worthless scum because they paid Newt Gingrich a million dollars.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top