OFFLINE

Just saw an interview with Rand Paul denouncing Newt Gingrich.  I cant find the video online, but in the interview, he said Newt Gingrich supported Fannie May and Freddie Mac.

While searching for the video, I came across an article where his father (Ron Paul) said the following:

"Gingrich supported TARP and individual mandates for healthcare. Trump gave big money to Rahm Emanuel and Harry Reid, and used to advocate for single payer socialized medicine. They both support Liberal ideas and crony capitalism," he added."

This is 1 example of the type of dirty tactics and outright lies that the Paul campaign dishes out.  for the record, Newt Gingrich wrote (in his book 'To Save America" 2010)

Terminating Tarp and ALL bailouts and repealing all unspent stimulus would be a good start. (He was talking about ways to cut Federal Spending).

He also said:

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac...are so thoroughly politicized and preside over such irresponsible lending policies that they need to be replaced with smaller, private companies operating without govt guarantees, who's leaders focus on making a profit, not manipulating politicians.

Does this sound like a man who agrees with what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did?

Dod said this would be one of the dirtiest campaigns, but I really thought the dirt would be coming from Obama...not so-called Republicans.

Other republicans have tried to sling mud and paint Newt as a liberal. Karl Rove (former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush) wrote an article on FOX News website with the headline:  Newt Gingrich's Campaign Is Poorly Organized and That Could Be Critical Come January 2012

Peggy Noonan (columnist for the Wall street Journal) pronounced Gingrich all but dead in May, noting “I have yet to meet a Gingrich 2012 supporter.”  (Odd, since he's leading all the polls.  Maybe she needs to get out more.).

Republican Washington just knows Newt failed as Speaker of the House, despite the welfare, capital gains tax and balanced budget reforms that bear his fingerprints.

I was listening to local talk radio a couple of nights ago and they were talking about all of this.  They said that the only people who DON'T seem to want Newt as the nominee are the GOPers currently in congress.  Its a good example of what I was talking about a few days ago...how the GOP has become so watered down with RINOs and are the cause of many of the problems our country is having today.  

It is my belief that these liberal (yes, liberal) Republicans who love to spend money and make big money deals behind doors that weaken our economy, are desperately trying to sink the Gingrich campaign by trying to paint NEWT as a liberal and a flip flopper.

And I love this line (Penned by Christian Whiton, a former U.S. State Department senior adviser and a principal at DC International Advisory).

Gingrich has the audacity to imagine that Washington can be run without his own party’s establishment. Their assumption of dominating the next Republican administration is not safe if it is Gingrich. He is not proposing to replace the Democratic piano player at the brothel that is Washington with a slightly sterner-sounding Republican. Instead, he claims he will close the brothel. And the establishment of his own party just knows that can’t happen. In their lives, it never has. And where are they then to go for their pork and porking?

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/12/09/why-washington-is-shocked-shocked-by-newt-gingrichs-rise-over-mitt-romney/#ixzz1g3fu7ZK2

OFFLINE

Newt did plenty of talk shows during the early discussions about TARP.  Most have him saying his personal amendments...mainly differing on the terms of 'bailout' and 'loans'.  He was at first opposed to any of the bills as written...but in the 24-48 hours before the actual vote...he decided to support it.

His justification:  http://theiowarepublican.com/2011/newt%E2%80%99s-justification-for-supporting-tarp/

Newt has been around a long time.  In the 90s, the Republican stance became 'Individual Mandates' for healthcare.  It was their primary stance against what they deemed "HillaryCare".  Why make business or government pay when you can make everyone responsible for themselves?  They even tried to develop some kind of voucher system, similar to the school voucher reform system they were pushing.  Most Republicans were still declaring individual mandates were the best solution to the healthcare system, well, until Obama took office.  So, if you're looking for a Republican that has always been against those mandates you have to have someone much much newer to the scene.  Of course, Paul is older too, but he still talks about medical care and costs when he was actually practicing medicine in the 1960s.

OFFLINE

I didnt know that about TARP.  But as of tonight, Newt's stance on Freddie and Fannie remain clear.  He still thinks we should break up those groups.

Yeah, the GOP seems to have changed over the years.  I think they did this because they were getting hammered in elections back when Clinton was president.  I remember the talk was that the GOP needed to be "kinder...gentler".  So I think that's why we got away from our Conservative values and the result is a watered down brand of conservatism.

I remember when Newt was the Speaker.  There were some problems, to be sure.  I had always thought most of it was centered around his affairs.  And I think he did have some affairs in those days.  

I expected him to become a target once he moved to the front.  But the field is ignoring Reagan's mandate to never speak ill of another Republican.  And by doing this, they are giving the billion dollar Obama machine more ammo to fire at the eventual nominee.  All Obama has to do is sit back and let the candidates destroy one another themselves.  Cant they see this?  (Yeah...they just dont care).

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:
I didnt know that about TARP.  But as of tonight, Newt's stance on Freddie and Fannie remain clear.  He still thinks we should break up those groups.

Yeah, the GOP seems to have changed over the years.  I think they did this because they were getting hammered in elections back when Clinton was president.  I remember the talk was that the GOP needed to be "kinder...gentler".  So I think that's why we got away from our Conservative values and the result is a watered down brand of conservatism.

I remember when Newt was the Speaker.  There were some problems, to be sure.  I had always thought most of it was centered around his affairs.  And I think he did have some affairs in those days.  

I expected him to become a target once he moved to the front.  But the field is ignoring Reagan's mandate to never speak ill of another Republican.  And by doing this, they are giving the billion dollar Obama machine more ammo to fire at the eventual nominee.  All Obama has to do is sit back and let the candidates destroy one another themselves.  Cant they see this?  (Yeah...they just dont care).

This is why I think Romney's strategy, as basic as it is, is so brilliant.  All he has to do is be just visible and sane enough to maintain the lead (but otherwise stay below the radar) and then just sit back and watch his rivals implode.  Newt may be a bright individual, however his past and his inclination for making radical, stupid statements will do him in soon enough.  As for primary mud-slinging giving the Democrats ammunition for the primaries, just remember that most of the personal attacks the Obama campaign used against McCain were invented by the Bush campaign (ake Rove).

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:

I remember the talk was that the GOP needed to be "kinder...gentler".  

Wow, they sure screwed up on that one didn't they? :-P

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Kieran Colfer:

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:

I remember the talk was that the GOP needed to be "kinder...gentler".  

Wow, they sure screwed up on that one didn't they? :-P

You took the words right outta my mouth.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:

I remember the talk was that the GOP needed to be "kinder...gentler".  

Dennis, I love you man, but sometimes you say the weirdest things.  

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Mark Simmons:

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:

I remember the talk was that the GOP needed to be "kinder...gentler".  

Dennis, I love you man, but sometimes you say the weirdest things.  

You mean you arent old enough to remember that???  Lol!

(God am I the oldest one here?)

*Sigh*  Ok, there was a movement within the GOP called Compassionate Conservatism.  It was coined by U.S. historian and politician Doug Wead who used it as the title of a speech in 1979. The label and philosophy has been strongly associated with former U.S. President George W. Bush who commonly used the term to describe his personal views.

Compassionate conservatism has been defined as the belief that conservatism and compassion complement each other. A compassionate conservative might see the social problems of the United States, such as health care or immigration, as issues that are better solved through cooperation with private companies, charities and religious institutions rather than directly through government departments.

Bush could be seen as espousing the philosophy with his refusal to close our borders and actually proposing plans that amount to amnesty.  He absolutely refused to tackle the issue head on and seemed to be in bed with Vincente Fox.  I never understood why.  Also the 'No Child left behind' is another example.

I happen to agree with critics that "compassionate conservatism" as simply sugarcoating; an empty phrase to make traditional conservatism sound more appealing to moderate voters.  And imo, it has watered down the strong Conservatism of the Old GOP.  Moderates have found their way into the GOP and Congress and today you find very few real conservatives anymore.

Herman Cain criticized compassionate conservatism as leading to the Bush administration's increased government spending, saying that it "completely betrayed conservative voters and their decades of grassroots activism," and "alienated the party's conservative base," noting Bush policies such as the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act, which increased the size of the Medicare program by around $500 billion.  (He's right).

Similarly, conservative commentator Fred Barnes has described Bush's version of conservatism as "big-government conservatism".

It was the result of the GOP getting hammered by the Dems back during the Clinton Years. Karl Rove and Bush Jr felt that people wouldnt elect a real conservative anymore (due to Clinton) and so they got wishy washy on a variety of topic.  And thats a fact, Jack.

Had it not been for the Twin Towers falling, I daresay we'd never have gone to war and Bush would have spent most of his presidency on funneling money to minorities and education.  No Patriot Act.  No electronic surveillance, no waterboarding, no GITMO.  He would probably have spent billions on wind power and pushed for laws law obliging electric retailers to buy a certain amount of energy from renewable sources like he did in Texas.  (Who's that sound like?)

OFFLINE

FWIW, Traditionalist (Traditional Conservatism) rejects the notions of individualism, liberalism, modernity, and social progress, promoted cultural and educational renewal, and revived interest in the Church, the family, the state, local community, etc. Patriotism is seen as a key concept.

I fall more into this category, but since there are few of us in politics anymore, its why I became an independent.  The Tea Party MIGHT evolve into the old tradional conservatism one day.  I think it is trying to become that.  But the problem with the Tea Party is that (imo) it is eat up with Libertarians right now.  

Barry Goldwater and later, Ronald Reagan are fair examples of Traditionalists.  And NOBODY (imnsho) running for election today can hold a candle to either of these figures.

Izzat clearing things up a bit.  

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:

As for primary mud-slinging giving the Democrats ammunition for the primaries, just remember that most of the personal attacks the Obama campaign used against McCain were invented by the Bush campaign (ake Rove).

Exactly.  This will come back to haunt the GOP in time.

Are you leaning toward Romney?  

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:

As for primary mud-slinging giving the Democrats ammunition for the primaries, just remember that most of the personal attacks the Obama campaign used against McCain were invented by the Bush campaign (ake Rove).

Exactly.  This will come back to haunt the GOP in time.

Are you leaning toward Romney?  

Romney leaves a bad taste.  I find little redeeming with that man (although I do feel sorry for him, he's suffering some disgraceful religious discrimination within the GOP).

I plan to vote Huntsman on June 5th, assuming he can hang in there that long.  He's the only one that has the ability to appeal to reasonable, moderate voters.  If he doesn't survive long enough I'm not sure who I'd vote for, perhaps Ron Paul (I'm not a big fan of libertarian economics or his cult, however I like him a heck of a lot more than the Newt, Romney, Santorum, Perry, and Bachmann).  

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:
FWIW, Traditionalist (Traditional Conservatism) rejects the notions of individualism, liberalism, modernity, and social progress, promoted cultural and educational renewal, and revived interest in the Church, the family, the state, local community, etc. Patriotism is seen as a key concept.

What do you mean when you say 'traditionalists' oppose individualism, liberalism, and modernity.  Are not individualism (the antonym of collectivism) and economic liberalism the heart and soul of conservative thought?  I'm not familiar with your use of modernity.  

As for the later part, the renewed emphasis on the Church as a political entity is what scares many of us (Christian or not).  We don't want to live in the Christian States of America, yet conservative revisionist groups like Wall Builders and Discovery Institute keep trying to turn our public schools into churches.  Does it not seem wrong to you that church groups should be able to filter out your choices for GOP presidential candidate (I'm starting to suspect many churches are violating the terms of their not-for-profit status)?  

Finally, patriotism is a key concept for all political groups.  Even the Green Party folks love America, that's why they elect to stay in the USA and seek reforms that they believe would make America even greater (they may or may not be misguided, however that's scarcely an issue when gauging patriotism).  If you don't love your county, why would you put so much energy into 'defending' it?

I fall more into this category, but since there are few of us in politics anymore, its why I became an independent.  The Tea Party MIGHT evolve into the old tradional conservatism one day.  I think it is trying to become that.  But the problem with the Tea Party is that (imo) it is eat up with Libertarians right now.

I disagree with your characterization of the Tea Party.  As I've often debated with Mark, I think the TP consists much more of the fundamentalist Christians than true libertarians.  They may be economically conservative, but ask most of them about social policy and you'll see they still want the government in their neighbor's bedroom.  They live up to Ayn Rand's criticism of libertarian movements all too well.

Barry Goldwater and later, Ronald Reagan are fair examples of Traditionalists.  And NOBODY (imnsho) running for election today can hold a candle to either of these figures.

Izzat clearing things up a bit.  

Reagan was way less conservative than a couple of the wild-eyed, psychopathic GOP presidential candidates you've been presented with.

OFFLINE

Dennis, in response to the gist of your last several posts:

I do think the Republican Party is moving in the direction you want it to.  I also think that's dangerous not only for the GOP, but for the political health of our nation.  What do you think the consequences of this drift will be?  

So far as I can see, if kept on this trajectory the GOP's only destination will be gridlock and eventual obscurity.  The kind of conservative thought you're advocating for hasn't been seen since Hoover (as much as it pains me to degrade a fellow geologist, look at how much good his policies did our nation).  Worse yet, this drift is the primary reason for they hyper-polarity that makes it next to impossible for our government to do its job (this at a time when it needs to be able to maneuver nimbly).

As the Republican Party sails to the far right, they leave the moderate voters (who've traditionally decided elections) with little recourse but to vote blue.  Most Americans are not interested in your 'true conservative' views and as such would not vote to support them.  This not only reduces voter choice, but also stifles the exchange of political ideas.  In doing so, it hurts everyone.

When I first entered the myspace forums all those years ago, my views were fairly 'conservative.'  As you all have witnessed, my views have shifted to what would now be considered fairly liberal compared to what the GOP is selling.  While some of that is due to changes in views over the years, much of it is due to the shift in the political spectrum over the last several years (as they say, all movement is relative).  I voted for McCain in 2008, but I couldn't imagine voting for any current Republican candidate in 2012.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:

And imo, it has watered down the strong Conservatism of the Old GOP.  Moderates have found their way into the GOP and Congress and today you find very few real conservatives anymore.

Well, the moderates definitely didn't make it into the presidential candidate list anyway. Only one who could be called even semi-moderate would be Huntsman and he hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of getting it. All the candidates that are there seem intent on trying to out-crazy each other in the extremism stakes. That was one of the things that sunk McCain in '08, he was fairly moderate near the beginning of the race but then as time went on he had to pander more to "the base" (i.e. the far right wing) and scared off the undecided/centre voters - near the end of the race he was sounding more like a caricature than anything else.

Had it not been for the Twin Towers falling, I daresay we'd never have gone to war and Bush would have spent most of his presidency on funneling money to minorities and education.  No Patriot Act.  No electronic surveillance, no waterboarding, no GITMO.  

And that's a bad thing?

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
Dennis, in response to the gist of your last several posts:

I do think the Republican Party is moving in the direction you want it to.  I also think that's dangerous not only for the GOP, but for the political health of our nation.  What do you think the consequences of this drift will be?  

Good question.  I suspect what we are witness is a battle for the heart and soul of the GOP.  The winner will remain in the GOP and the losers will split off at some point.  If the Christian Conservatives leave the GOP they may wind up solidifying the Tea Party and make that a legitimate party.  (Right now they claim only to be a movement).

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
So far as I can see, if kept on this trajectory the GOP's only destination will be gridlock and eventual obscurity.

Do you mean within Congress?  If so, it wont be the first or last time for gridlock.  That will all depend on who gains control and how much control they have.  IF one party gains enough seats to be filibuster-proof, there will be much less chance of gridlock.  (That's how the Dems pushed Obamacare and other programs onto the country).

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
As the Republican Party sails to the far right, they leave the moderate voters (who've traditionally decided elections) with little recourse but to vote blue.

I dunno if the GOP is actually sailing to the far right.  Again, it appears there are very very few right wind Republicans around anymore.

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
Most Americans are not interested in your 'true conservative' views and as such would not vote to support them.  This not only reduces voter choice, but also stifles the exchange of political ideas.  In doing so, it hurts everyone.

Most Americans are Center-Right.  What 'True Conservative Views' do you claim are mine?  

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
When I first entered the myspace forums all those years ago, my views were fairly 'conservative.'  As you all have witnessed, my views have shifted to what would now be considered fairly liberal compared to what the GOP is selling.  While some of that is due to changes in views over the years, much of it is due to the shift in the political spectrum over the last several years (as they say, all movement is relative).  I voted for McCain in 2008, but I couldn't imagine voting for any current Republican candidate in 2012.

Eh...a shift in one's views are usually natural.  My own have shifted back and forth over time.  I used to be a hard-core republican.  But I do have (some) rather moderate beliefs as well.  And I, btw, did not vote for McCain last time.