Bush is on the verge...
- Thread starter Larry Gude
- Start date
Larry Gude
Strung Out
He was the...
...leader and driving force behind the GOP takeover of the House in 1994. The House of Representatives is THE place of power and patronage in this country; it's where the spending starts and it had been considered the private property of the Democratic party for 40 years; 20 straight, consecutive election cycles.
Now, if Newt took away your keyboard, how would you feel?
vraiblonde said:
...leader and driving force behind the GOP takeover of the House in 1994. The House of Representatives is THE place of power and patronage in this country; it's where the spending starts and it had been considered the private property of the Democratic party for 40 years; 20 straight, consecutive election cycles.
Now, if Newt took away your keyboard, how would you feel?
I see.Larry Gude said:
I've also heard Democrats foam at the mouth over the Contract With America, but nobody can tell me which part of it they disagree with.
http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html
My suggestion is that they don't really know what the Contract says, and are just doing the Yellow Dog Dance.
I thought I missed something while I was in college and not paying much attention. :shrug:
Toxick
Splat
vraiblonde said:
Not only is he a Republican: he's an unapologetic, gung-ho Republican who stands fast behind his beliefs, and is willing to push his agenda aggressively with a no-compromise attitude.
He was the helmsmen of that whole Contract With America thing.
I think the Contract with America scared the living piss out of the media, and Democrats as a whole. That caused a dramatic Rightward shift in congress. (I remember Ted Kennedy looking like he drank a whole bottle of tequila, and Bill Clinton looked like he was beaten about the head and shoulders with a pillow laced with a low-grade drug.)
What's worse is that they took that contract seriously, and after Election '94, they proceeded to fulfill their promise, and they drove hard for a vote on each and every item they said they would.
There was no way in Hell that anybody could compete with that, so the only viable retailiation was relentless character assassination, and merciless unabated anti-GOP cacophony. I remember Dan Rather scolding America for voting all those EVIL Republicans into Congress, and I remember they started coining phrases like "Soccermoms" and "Angry White Males"
I remember that it was then that I felt the first tendrils of contempt for the media. Those tendrils have taken root and flourished into the seething disgust that I feel towards them today.
Anyway, after a while, that was enough to suppress Gingrich and his crew, if not silence them. You can only defend yourself against the media juggernaut for so long before simple fatigue sets in.
FromTexas
This Space for Rent
Toxick said:
That is the best part. In a race against Hillary most of the character assasination they had on him becomes moot. Do you think Hillary wants to attack his infidelity? :bzzzzt: Do you think she wants to argue about ethics? :bzzzzt: How about slightly improper ways to raise funds (which is also the ethics bit for him)? :lincolnbedroombzzzzt: How about him being a real Republican? I'm all for her attacking him on that.
Let her at him. I want to see the Hillary vs Newt debate. He would shred her.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
They have a problem...
...with this part;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Revolution
specifically;
It's that simple; beat me fair and sqaure and I hate you.
vraiblonde said:
...with this part;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Revolution
specifically;
It's that simple; beat me fair and sqaure and I hate you.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
ylexot said:NEWT! NEWT! NEWT! NEWT! NEWT! NEWT! NEWT! NEWT!
Newt's already throwing conservatives under the bus as fast as the opportunity arises. He's no leader of the party anymore... he's a sellout striving for that much heralded center.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
I'd pay money...
..to see that.
FromTexas said:
..to see that.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
Man! I can't believe all this support I'm hearing for Newt based on the assumption that he's still a true-blue conservative! Don't you people watch the news or listen to his interviews of late? Our hero from 1994 is long, long, gone if he ever really existed at all. As had been pointed out, he constructed the Contract With America, then ensured that many aspects of it died a quiet death. I think his "I only promised a vote on these things... not that we would actually pass them" ranks right up there with Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman... Ms. Lewinsky" comment on the top ten list of statements by political leaders with no backbone.
Newt can't get enough air time right now, and he's willing to go on any talkshow that'll have him to bad mouth Bush, Republicans, Conservatives, Iraq, or any other topic. He's whoring himself out to the Liberals to get face time for a presidential bid rather than sticking to any conservative ideals to rally the base. Guys like that we don't need.
Newt can't get enough air time right now, and he's willing to go on any talkshow that'll have him to bad mouth Bush, Republicans, Conservatives, Iraq, or any other topic. He's whoring himself out to the Liberals to get face time for a presidential bid rather than sticking to any conservative ideals to rally the base. Guys like that we don't need.
FromTexas
This Space for Rent
Bruzilla said:
You mean throwing conservatives under the bus for not being real conservatives. I have no problem with that. Just because they are the same party does not mean he should support their excess spending and other non-conservative issues. He has also attacked pro-illegal immigrant conservatives. There were statements around the war that were taken out of context, but the media loves to do that to get their headlines of any Republican disagreeing with the war. His philosophy was different on the execution after the war, but he believes in the war. That was what was taken out of context. The same as some General saying more troops would be nice, but that they had the troops they needed (of course, more troops is always better but it was not necessary), but that is not how the media portrayed it.
Bruzilla said:
While I know that he's really not electable - he has really no charisma, no Presidential leadership material - and that he's always been a lightning rod for Democrats who managed to use his name practically as a curse word, in issues that didn't even remotely INVOLVE him - I never got the idea that the Contract With America was going to be a done deal. I only remember the promise to bring it all to a vote in the first 100 days - which they did (mostly). I think we were all falsely under the impression that things like a balanced budget amendment, term limits and line item veto would be slam dunks - but they didn't happen.
Newt has his own skeletons, as well. And not just the idiotic slush fund thing which amounted to nothing. He managed to bump off Jim Wright for doing something that he essentially did, himself. He's got his own skeletons regarding women and adultery. (To his credit, he was MOSTLY silent during the Lewinsky matter, even though no one noticed this; at the time, I knew a guy who'd been his driver and knew all about his girlfriend - so I watched to see what he'd say and do). The government shutdown and the crybaby Air Force One thing. The fact that the press ate him alive the first year or so as Speaker (I didn't realize this; he was speaker for just four years - yet aside from Tip O'Neill, he's the most famous Speaker in recent history) - he even wrote a book called something like "Lessons Learned the Hard Way" because he learned that if you don't learn to parse your words carefully in front of the press, they'll edit them and your face to make you look as stupid as possible.
And he's old school. It's rare in politics you can dredge some icon from the past and succeed. Nixon's the only one I know of where it worked. Generally, you get one run during your lifetime. Gore's done it twice. Kerry's done. Dole did it twice and lost both times - and he was definitely the wrong guy the second time - jeez, they had to reach twenty years into the past to find a candidate.
Newt's done. Like him or not, America is too fickle to vote for him.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
Sorry... the "out of context" defense doesn't apply. I'm a news junkie and I watch the actual interviews. I don't need to read excerpts or quotes from Lib papers playing up his comments to know exactly what he said. Everything that anyone needs to know about Gingrich they can learn from the Contract With America. He used it to get the Speaker position, then put no effort into making changes that didn't benefit him. Rush has pointed out many times, and I agree with him, that Conservatives win when they stick to Conservative principals, and are at risk when they try to play both sides of the field. Liberals win when they don't stick to their Liberal principals and play both sides of the field.
But let's take a second to dust off the old CWA and see what it says...
"As Republican Members of the House of Representatives and as citizens seeking to join that body we propose not just to change its policies, but even more important, to restore the bonds of trust between the people and their elected representatives.
"That is why, in this era of official evasion and posturing, we offer instead a detailed agenda for national renewal, a written commitment with no fine print.
"This year's election offers the chance, after four decades of one-party control, to bring to the House a new majority that will transform the way Congress works. That historic change would be the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public's money. It can be the beginning of a Congress that respects the values and shares the faith of the American family.
"Like Lincoln, our first Republican president, we intend to act "with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right." To restore accountability to Congress. To end its cycle of scandal and disgrace. To make us all proud again of the way free people govern themselves.
"On the first day of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority will immediately pass the following major reforms, aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their government:
FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;
SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;
FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public;
SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting."
And in all the time he was Speaker, before he had to bail for maintaining the "cycle of scandal and disgrace", how much of that contract was even marginally implemented? Yeah, we had an audit and found lots of fraud waste and abuse... like we really needed to spend millions on an audit to determine that! Gingrich specifically stated that he was offering "... a written commitment with no fine print.", then went on to say "well, in the fine print it says we'll just vote... not pass."
What we need in a Presidential candidate who can stick to their guns, maintain their dignity, and tell their enemies "no", no matter how much criticism they take, and I see only one person who can claim that title, and her name is Condi Rice. Newt, McCain, and Clinton all fall into the same category: Self Serving Weasel.
But let's take a second to dust off the old CWA and see what it says...
"As Republican Members of the House of Representatives and as citizens seeking to join that body we propose not just to change its policies, but even more important, to restore the bonds of trust between the people and their elected representatives.
"That is why, in this era of official evasion and posturing, we offer instead a detailed agenda for national renewal, a written commitment with no fine print.
"This year's election offers the chance, after four decades of one-party control, to bring to the House a new majority that will transform the way Congress works. That historic change would be the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public's money. It can be the beginning of a Congress that respects the values and shares the faith of the American family.
"Like Lincoln, our first Republican president, we intend to act "with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right." To restore accountability to Congress. To end its cycle of scandal and disgrace. To make us all proud again of the way free people govern themselves.
"On the first day of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority will immediately pass the following major reforms, aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their government:
FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;
SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;
FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public;
SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting."
And in all the time he was Speaker, before he had to bail for maintaining the "cycle of scandal and disgrace", how much of that contract was even marginally implemented? Yeah, we had an audit and found lots of fraud waste and abuse... like we really needed to spend millions on an audit to determine that! Gingrich specifically stated that he was offering "... a written commitment with no fine print.", then went on to say "well, in the fine print it says we'll just vote... not pass."
What we need in a Presidential candidate who can stick to their guns, maintain their dignity, and tell their enemies "no", no matter how much criticism they take, and I see only one person who can claim that title, and her name is Condi Rice. Newt, McCain, and Clinton all fall into the same category: Self Serving Weasel.
Last edited by a moderator:
ylexot
Super Genius
FromTexas
This Space for Rent
Bruzilla said:
I would vote for Condi in the primary over Newt. It doesn't change that I feel you are off base in your opinion of Newt. However, I have given up hope on a Condi run. I believe Newt would actually do the better job of getting things to happen on the Republican side. I believe Condi would be more Presidential. I believe both would strive for what they said they would achieve... but the reality is things don't always work out that way. They have to get a majority vote in Congress, too.