Newt Gingrich on the issues

[dross]

You seem to make a distinction between his positions and his character, but I see none.

His stated positions are meaningless, the only thing with meaning is what he actually does.

So far his deeds show me that he doesn't have enough philosophical motivation to join up and fight in a war. A war somewhat similar to the wars he is now supporting with other peoples' lives. So it makes me question his real motivation for supporting these wars.

I don't think that's completely irrelevant, nor do I believe it's 'sloppy thinking'. It's taking the information at hand and selecting the most likely outcome, then weighing it against the likely outcomes of the other candidates.

Having something be important to you isn't sloppy thinking. Making the best choice you can based on limited information isn't sloppy thinking.

Thinking you know something there is no way you can know is sloppy thinking.

 

[steveh_131]

Thinking you know something there is no way you can know is sloppy thinking.

I don't think I know it.

It's an educated guess.

ETA: You don't know that Ron Paul is unelectable. It's an educated guess. You still weigh it into your decision making.

 

[rambone]

Political Chameleon

How can we ever trust this guy? He shape-shifts his position to suit his audience. The only real indicator we have is to look at his record, which is chock full of support of globalist policy. He's a genius alright.... he's a master of deception.


FLIP:
“But on balance, the Reagan administration has not done the job it needs to do and as a consequence we are today at the beginning of our first retreat from what was a brief, 6-month surge of defense spending.”
-– Gingrich, House floor, 11 September 1981.

FLOP:
“If President Reagan and Secretary Weinberger will not cut the defense budget decisively, then Congress will have to do that job for them.”
–- Gingrich, House floor, 14 Sept 1981.

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

FLIP:
"Washington is a city built upon the fact that 'power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.'"
-- Gingrich press release, 26 Aug 1983

FLOP:
"I represent real power . . . I can hold a press conference and that's a form of real power."
-- Gingrich, Wash Post, 3 Jan 1985

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

FLIP:
"There are a lot of politicians who live and die on political power. There are probably lots of power groupies who read their name in the Washington Post and think they're important."
-- Gingrich, Times Free Press (Carroll County, GA), 25 Sept 1979

FLOP:
"'I mean last night's dinner' -- at the National Press Club -- 'made no sense, except that the news media could see me walking through the crowds.'"
-- Gingrich, Atlantic Monthly, May 1985

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

FLIP:
"I have always said we should develop every other source of power before nuclear power."
-- Gingrich, News Daily (Jonesboro, GA), 3 April 1979

FLOP:
Nuclear power "is one of the better ways of producing electricity and remarkably clean short of a [reactor] breakdown."
-- Gingrich, Atlanta Journal, 17 April 1979.

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

The all-time Gingrich flip-flop speed record, in the same interview:

FLIP:
In an interview with outspoken hawks who did not serve in Vietnam, Gingrich said that the Vietnam War was "the right battlefield at the right time."
-- Gingrich, Wall Street Journal, 11 Feb 1985

FLOP:
When asked why he deferred serving when he was drafted, he replied that "'no-one felt this was the battle-line on which freedom would live or die.'"
-- Gingrich, Wall Street Journal, 11 Feb 1985 (same interview)

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

FLIP:
When asked what he would do about Libya: "Exercise a no-fly zone this evening, communicate to the Libyan military that Gadhafi was gone and that the sooner they switch sides, the more like they were to survive, provided help to the rebels to replace him."
-- Gingrich, interview with Greta Van Sustren, 7 March 2011

FLOP:
Asked again about Libya, said, "I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi. I think there are a lot of other allies in the region we could have worked with. I would not have used American and European forces. "
-- Gingrich, interview with Matt Lauer, 23 March 2011

 

[88GT]

FLIP:
“But on balance, the Reagan administration has not done the job it needs to do and as a consequence we are today at the beginning of our first retreat from what was a brief, 6-month surge of defense spending.”
-– Gingrich, House floor, 11 September 1981.

FLOP:
“If President Reagan and Secretary Weinberger will not cut the defense budget decisively, then Congress will have to do that job for them.”
–- Gingrich, House floor, 14 Sept 1981.

Maybe I'm reading it incorrectly, but I don't see how it's a flip-flop. Isn't he saying in the first comment that cutting the defense spending it about to commence and in the second comment that if the executive branch doesn't do anything to get there, Congress will? What am I missing?

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

FLIP:
"Washington is a city built upon the fact that 'power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.'"
-- Gingrich press release, 26 Aug 1983

FLOP:
"I represent real power . . . I can hold a press conference and that's a form of real power."
-- Gingrich, Wash Post, 3 Jan 1985

Context? It's easy to manipulate meaning out of context. And anytime someone introduces an ellipses into the quote, I automatically suspect the intent was less than honest.

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

FLIP:
"There are a lot of politicians who live and die on political power. There are probably lots of power groupies who read their name in the Washington Post and think they're important."
-- Gingrich, Times Free Press (Carroll County, GA), 25 Sept 1979

FLOP:
"'I mean last night's dinner' -- at the National Press Club -- 'made no sense, except that the news media could see me walking through the crowds.'"
-- Gingrich, Atlantic Monthly, May 1985

Again, context? What was said before and after those quotes? Even if you take it at face value, there isn't anything contradictory in them. Perhaps a little less than completely honest if he's not going to admit he's talking about himself in the first comment. But it's not a flip-flop. It can't be. He's not taking a position on anything in either one of those.

 

[KG1]

How can we ever trust this guy? He shape-shifts his position to suit his audience. The only real indicator we have is to look at his record, which is chock full of support of globalist policy. He's a genius alright.... he's a master of deception.


FLIP:
“But on balance, the Reagan administration has not done the job it needs to do and as a consequence we are today at the beginning of our first retreat from what was a brief, 6-month surge of defense spending.”
-– Gingrich, House floor, 11 September 1981.

FLOP:
“If President Reagan and Secretary Weinberger will not cut the defense budget decisively, then Congress will have to do that job for them.”
–- Gingrich, House floor, 14 Sept 1981.

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

FLIP:
"Washington is a city built upon the fact that 'power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.'"
-- Gingrich press release, 26 Aug 1983

FLOP:
"I represent real power . . . I can hold a press conference and that's a form of real power."
-- Gingrich, Wash Post, 3 Jan 1985

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

FLIP:
"There are a lot of politicians who live and die on political power. There are probably lots of power groupies who read their name in the Washington Post and think they're important."
-- Gingrich, Times Free Press (Carroll County, GA), 25 Sept 1979

FLOP:
"'I mean last night's dinner' -- at the National Press Club -- 'made no sense, except that the news media could see me walking through the crowds.'"
-- Gingrich, Atlantic Monthly, May 1985

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

FLIP:
"I have always said we should develop every other source of power before nuclear power."
-- Gingrich, News Daily (Jonesboro, GA), 3 April 1979

FLOP:
Nuclear power "is one of the better ways of producing electricity and remarkably clean short of a [reactor] breakdown."
-- Gingrich, Atlanta Journal, 17 April 1979.

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

The all-time Gingrich flip-flop speed record, in the same interview:

FLIP:
In an interview with outspoken hawks who did not serve in Vietnam, Gingrich said that the Vietnam War was "the right battlefield at the right time."
-- Gingrich, Wall Street Journal, 11 Feb 1985

FLOP:
When asked why he deferred serving when he was drafted, he replied that "'no-one felt this was the battle-line on which freedom would live or die.'"
-- Gingrich, Wall Street Journal, 11 Feb 1985 (same interview)

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

FLIP:
When asked what he would do about Libya: "Exercise a no-fly zone this evening, communicate to the Libyan military that Gadhafi was gone and that the sooner they switch sides, the more like they were to survive, provided help to the rebels to replace him."
-- Gingrich, interview with Greta Van Sustren, 7 March 2011

FLOP:
Asked again about Libya, said, "I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi. I think there are a lot of other allies in the region we could have worked with. I would not have used American and European forces. "
-- Gingrich, interview with Matt Lauer, 23 March 2011

Mind numbing. All these snippets are pretty much meaningless and have no relevance to each other without knowing the context of each individual conversation.

 

[rambone]

Maybe I'm reading it incorrectly, but I don't see how it's a flip-flop. Isn't he saying in the first comment that cutting the defense spending it about to commence and in the second comment that if the executive branch doesn't do anything to get there, Congress will? What am I missing?

That's a hard one to find. I can't find the rest of the quote. I tried.. sorry.

Context? It's easy to manipulate meaning out of context. And anytime someone introduces an ellipses into the quote, I automatically suspect the intent was less than honest.

Newt Gingrich Wants You To Know He Is A Very Important Person

I have an enormous personal ambition. I want to shift the entire planet. And I'm doing it. Ronald Reagan uses the term 'opportunity society' and that didn't exist four years ago. I just had breakfast with [Richard] Darman and [David] Stockman because I'm unavoidable. I represent real power. And I can also, as an elected official, I can hold a press conference and that's a form of real power. The ambitions that this city focuses on are trivial if you're a historian. Who cares? [Washington Post, 1/3/85, via Nexis]
​

Again, context? What was said before and after those quotes? Even if you take it at face value, there isn't anything contradictory in them. Perhaps a little less than completely honest if he's not going to admit he's talking about himself in the first comment. But it's not a flip-flop. It can't be. He's not taking a position on anything in either one of those.

This article doesn't give the full quote, but cites the context in which it was given.

Good Newt, Bad Newt | The Long March Of Newt Gingrich

Even for a town not populated by self-effacing people, Gingrich has said some pretty memorable things, such as his observation to The Atlantic that his attendance at a National Press Club dinner "made no sense except that the news media could see me walking through the crowds."​

 

[88GT]

That's a hard one to find. I can't find the rest of the quote. I tried.. sorry.

Well, thanks for trying. Though without something else I'm gonna have to say that he's not flip-flopping at all. I think in both comments he was saying the end of unfettered defense spending was on the horizion.

Newt Gingrich Wants You To Know He Is A Very Important Person

I have an enormous personal ambition. I want to shift the entire planet. And I'm doing it. Ronald Reagan uses the term 'opportunity society' and that didn't exist four years ago. I just had breakfast with [Richard] Darman and [David] Stockman because I'm unavoidable. I represent real power. And I can also, as an elected official, I can hold a press conference and that's a form of real power. The ambitions that this city focuses on are trivial if you're a historian. Who cares? [Washington Post, 1/3/85, via Nexis]
​

This article doesn't give the full quote, but cites the context in which it was given.

Good Newt, Bad Newt | The Long March Of Newt Gingrich

Even for a town not populated by self-effacing people, Gingrich has said some pretty memorable things, such as his observation to The Atlantic that his attendance at a National Press Club dinner "made no sense except that the news media could see me walking through the crowds."​

Okay, so the guy's a pig (and now we know why his ex-wife wanted the divorce). But is this really evidence of a policy/position flip-flop? I don't think so.

I'm not defending the guy. He's never been my horse in the race (though I do think he has some strengths not present in any of the other candidates) so it's not like I care one way or the other. If I didn't know a thing about Newt the Grinch and had to rely solely on what you've presented in this most recent post, I would say there's nothing there to convince me that he's a flip-flopper at all, and certainly not one that rises to the level of creating legitimate concern with regards to his candidacy and governance should he be elected.

 

[KG1]

That's a hard one to find. I can't find the rest of the quote. I tried.. sorry.

Newt Gingrich Wants You To Know He Is A Very Important Person

I have an enormous personal ambition. I want to shift the entire planet. And I'm doing it. Ronald Reagan uses the term 'opportunity society' and that didn't exist four years ago. I just had breakfast with [Richard] Darman and [David] Stockman because I'm unavoidable. I represent real power. And I can also, as an elected official, I can hold a press conference and that's a form of real power. The ambitions that this city focuses on are trivial if you're a historian. Who cares? [Washington Post, 1/3/85, via Nexis]
​

Alot of what Newt Gingrich says is a bit tongue in cheek and sometimes his dry sense of humor comes off as being arrogant. Also this quote was from a Media Matters piece and they have thier own biased agenda and they would have a vested interest in portraying Gingrich in a bad light. I will admit if someone does'nt have a full grasp of Gingrich's mannerisms that he can tend to be a bit stand offish and that turns some people off which is probably part of the reason why he has a hard time garnering the support he needs.

 

[rambone]

If I didn't know a thing about Newt the Grinch and had to rely solely on what you've presented in this most recent post, I would say there's nothing there to convince me that he's a flip-flopper at all, and certainly not one that rises to the level of creating legitimate concern with regards to his candidacy and governance should he be elected.

The Libya and Vietnam ones were the most striking in the list. But there are ay more flip-flops.

Consider what he said in his book about climate change, then the way he panders to conservatives as if he doesn't really buy into all that.

Or his long support of the United Nations and then his lip-service against it?

His support of Bush's mandatory carbon caps and then his supposedly principled stance against Obama's Cap & Trade.

On and on...

 

[dross]

Well, thanks for trying. Though without something else I'm gonna have to say that he's not flip-flopping at all. I think in both comments he was saying the end of unfettered defense spending was on the horizion.



Okay, so the guy's a pig (and now we know why his ex-wife wanted the divorce). But is this really evidence of a policy/position flip-flop? I don't think so.

I'm not defending the guy. He's never been my horse in the race (though I do think he has some strengths not present in any of the other candidates) so it's not like I care one way or the other. If I didn't know a thing about Newt the Grinch and had to rely solely on what you've presented in this most recent post, I would say there's nothing there to convince me that he's a flip-flopper at all, and certainly not one that rises to the level of creating legitimate concern with regards to his candidacy and governance should he be elected.

Okay, but why do you hate Ron Paul so much?

 

[88GT]

Okay, but why do you hate Ron Paul so much?

Because he has fake eyebrows

I can never trust a man with fake eyebrows.

 

[KG1]

Because he has fake eyebrows

I can never trust a man with fake eyebrows.

I wonder if he has an endorsement from the "Fake Eyebrow Institute"?

 

[hornadylnl]

Having something be important to you isn't sloppy thinking. Making the best choice you can based on limited information isn't sloppy thinking.

Thinking you know something there is no way you can know is sloppy thinking.

Why are these standards only applied to those who dare question the repub party? Someone here can say that Obama is a goat fornicator and nobody would apply these standards to that poster.

I firmly believe that if Democrats were the target of Rambone's ire here, nobody would be saying the same things about Rambone that they do now. Hell, he'd have rolled the rep odomoter over at least 10 times by now.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Why are these standards only applied to those who dare question the repub party? Someone here can say that Obama is a goat fornicator and nobody would apply these standards to that poster.

I firmly believe that if Democrats were the target of Rambone's ire here, nobody would be saying the same things about Rambone that they do now. Hell, he'd have rolled the rep odomoter over at least 10 times by now.

Because Republicans expect a higher moral foundation in their candidates than Democrats do theirs?

 

[Expat]

Because he has fake eyebrows

I can never trust a man with fake eyebrows.

If true, I am shocked and dismayed by this.

 

[hornadylnl]

Because Republicans expect a higher moral foundation in their candidates than Democrats do theirs?

You totally missed my point. Anyone on this board can state any opinion they want of Obama or any democrat with almost zero backlash. Actually, you'll get tons of rep and atta boys. But if someone states an opinion of a republican, now all of the sudden, the poster must provide absolute proof to back their opinion or they have zero credibility.

Replace Newt Gingrichs name with a hated democrat and this thread would have headed 180 degrees from where it has. 90% of the posts in general political are based on opinion and yet only the opinions of a select few are held to such scrutiny. I'd say there's mass Rambonophobia up in this place.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

You totally missed my point. Anyone on this board can state any opinion they want of Obama or any democrat with almost zero backlash. Actually, you'll get tons of rep and atta boys. But if someone states an opinion of a republican, now all of the sudden, the poster must provide absolute proof to back their opinion or they have zero credibility.

Replace Newt Gingrichs name with a hated democrat and this thread would have headed 180 degrees from where it has. 90% of the posts in general political are based on opinion and yet only the opinions of a select few are held to such scrutiny. I'd say there's mass Rambonophobia up in this place.

I disagree. Romney and Perry get spanked mercilessly, both by conservatives and libertarians. Paul gets commupins from conservatives, and Gingrich and Cain and the rest of the Republicans from libertarians. I'd say it's pretty even.

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

 

[steveh_131]

He's right. Rambone gets a lot of hate around here. He goes against the grain and challenges a lot of preconceptions and that's going to **** people off.

I don't remember seeing these high standards of proof applied to that picture of Ron Paul shaking hands with a white supremacist.

Now personally, I like having my assumptions challenged at times. Dross made me think a little more deeply than I would have otherwise.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

He's right. Rambone gets a lot of hate around here. He goes against the grain and challenges a lot of preconceptions and that's going to **** people off.

I don't remember seeing these high standards of proof applied to that picture of Ron Paul shaking hands with a white supremacist.

Now personally, I like having my assumptions challenged at times. Dross made me think a little more deeply than I would have otherwise.

Rambone [STRIKE]lies[/STRIKE] embellishes a lot. It has nothing to do with challenging preconceived notions or going against the grain, unless the grain is [STRIKE]the truth[/STRIKE] reality.

This is a freaking gun board. Democrat politicians are the sworn enemy of gunowners. Of course there are going to be more conservative and libertarian minded people at this watering hole than at HuffPo, and most conservatives and libertarians recognize the most evil, progressives. It's silly to even try to compare.

 

[steveh_131]

That is precisely why ranting about liberals is so pointless here. We're all in agreement on that. He could post another "Obama did this or that" thread with a link and a "Obummer is such an idiot" commentary and accomplish nothing.

I'm glad to have a new perspective on my own beliefs rather than patting each other on the back all day over our perfect conservatism.