Showing posts with label Newt Gingrich. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Newt Gingrich. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 23, 2022

Thank Newt Gingrich for the Republicanism of Today

 

Think back to 1995 when Newt Gingrich took over a Republican House as the new Speaker. You might remember that he was the architect and co-author of the "Contract with America," introduced six weeks before the 1994 Congressional election. Republicans gained 54 House and 9 U.S. Senate seats, flipping both chambers. The "contract" represented significant changes to policy...
"They mainly included a balanced budget requirement, tax cuts for small businesses, families and seniors, term limits for legislators, social security reform, tort reform, and welfare reform."

So much for GOP intentions but at least there were some actual goals in Gingrich's lunacy. Well, he's back and is dealing with a wanna-be Speaker, Kevin McCarthy. The big problem is the Republican Party has no agenda, and apparently Gingrich was sought out to create one, or at least something that would pass for a new plan. Dana Milbank of the Washington Post says...

"the choice is perfect, in a way unintended by the upwardly failing McCarthy. Gingrich, leader of the Republican Revolution of 1994, bears a singular responsibility for precipitating the ruin of the American political system. So it’s appropriate that he is returning for what might be American democracy’s final act." 

This is how Milbank sees Newt Gingrich's tenure as Speaker...

"Before and during his four-year reign as speaker of the House, Gingrich pioneered much of the savagery we see today: treating opponents as criminals, un-American and subhuman; using shocking language; perpetrating a grinding attack on the press; and sabotaging government operations and institutions."
In his new role Gingrich started with a warning to the House lawmakers on the Jan. 6 investigative committee accusing them for the "kind of laws they are breaking" and threatening jail time. Paul Waldman, also of WaPo, says the new "contract" will end up a "Myth" just like the old one where Gingrich claimed people voted for Republicans which resulted in a sweep of Congress. And the myth endures...
"when Republicans decide they need an agenda, it means trotting out some new version of the “Contract With America.”
Here with another WaPo vewpoint, Jeff Stein and Laura Meckler, the GOP claims it

does have an agenda, albeit coming from two morons like Kevin McCarthy and Steve Scalise...
"Republicans are expected to focus their new platform on education policies aimed at tapping into parental discontent; countering the rise of China with new economic measures; and “oversight” of the Biden administration. They are also looking at invoking other traditional GOP goals such as cutting taxes, restricting immigration, criticizing Silicon Valley and repealing environmental rules."
It is no doubt likely the American public can count on “oversight” of the Biden administration, cutting taxes and restricting immigration, mixed with the typical Republican lies and corruption. But absolutely nothing constructive. Hopefully the well-informed voter will see through all this bullshit and save us from the radical right carnage of our country.

 

  

Sunday, March 5, 2017

Trump Congress speech doesn't fact check-What's new?


Donald Trump at his best
Donald Trump in a more presidential mode talked to Congress last Tuesday and while Presidents in the past have realized the importance of such a speech and refrained from "stretching the truth," as The Washington Post put it, Donald John performed his usual feat of slaughtering it. Here they are...
Harking back to boasting of forcing Ford's hand on Mexico, T-rump takes responsibility for Fiat Chrysler, General Motors, Sprint, SoftBank, Lockheed, Intel, Walmart and many others have announced that they will invest billions of dollars in the United States and will create tens of thousands of new American jobs.”
Turns out all these plans had been made long before his election. 
T-rump takes credit for the lowered cost of the F-35 program.
The Pentagon had earlier announced budget cuts for this very same project which covered what he was taking credit for, but at times in his rantings Donald John not even sure if "he" saved $600 or $700 million.
T-rump makes the statement, “Ninety-four million Americans are out of the labor force.”
The Washington Post gives this 4 Pinocchios for absurdity. There are only 7.6 million people actively looking for a job that cannot find one, an unemployment rate of 4.8%, inherited from Barack Obama.
Claims we spent $6 trillion in the Middle-East, when we should be spending it at home. 
The truth is we spent $1.6 trillion. 
There's much more that deserves more serious reading to understand just how the President of the United States can stand before a group of people, the U.S. Congress, no less, and lie to them and the American public. Read it here.



At least there was an upside; however, for Republicans only. Politico reports the GOP was "...relieved there were no embarrassing moments." How does it look before the entire world for the American party in power in both Houses of Congress, and also in control of the White House, to feign relief just because their President didn't embarrass them and the rest of the country? And I question whether anyone is in control at the White House. The general consensus is among Democrats and Republicans that the speech was less vitriolic but full of the same generalities that is T-rump' boilerplate message.

But suck up Newt Gingrich had to put in his two cents, worth not anywhere near that, saying, “It would have been very ineffective had you been involved in some kind of long, detailed step-by-step laundry list.” Interpreted: Donald Trump hasn't the slightest idea what he is doing, which translates into the fact that he has no plan where to lead this country. And there was yet even more comfort taken by a senior Republican aide, “He didn’t alienate anybody." We have already seen the damage this man can do offending the heads of Mexico and Australia. Who is next?

Tuesday, December 27, 2016

Newt Gingrich: Just another has-been running off at the mouth


Newt Gingrich with his skeletons
Here is a recent quote from Newt Gingrich, a politician that should have been relegated to just cutting the yard a long time ago, re. Barack Obama's legacy...
"His legacy is like one of those dolls that, as the air comes out of it, shrinks and shrinks and shrinks. He's in this desperate frenzy."
Politico describes Gingrich's personal life as, "...a hot mess." As an example, "In April 1980, Newt filed for divorce while his wife, Jackie, was in the hospital fighting uterine cancer. "As far as politics goes, Politico says he is, "...The man who poisoned Washington." Further...
"More than anyone else in the modern history of Congress, it’s Gingrich who observers credit for bringing the hyperpartisan, obstructionist approach to Washington that we associate with the capital to this day."
And all this time we blamed Karl Rove. But enough about Newt Gingrich who should put out to pasture like Arizona Senator, John McCain, both of which outlived their usefulness--if it was ever there to begin with--years ago. But Gingrich has the nerve to question President Obama's legacy when his own will read like an empty book. Apparently, the outdated Gingrich forgot....

  • President Obama rescued an economy trashed by former President Geo. W. Bush
  • He gave health insurance to millions who did not have it
  • Obama has led the global push for climate change to save the environment
  • Struck the landmark nuclear deal with Iran, slowing down the nuclear race
  • President Obama passed the legalization of same-sex marriage
There's more but you get the idea...this is a man with a legacy. And what I don't really understand is why the media continues to give voice to completely outmoded politicians like Gingrich and McCain. But I guess we'd rather see another blast about the two of them than anything else from T-rump.

Thursday, January 26, 2012

Can Newt Gingrich beat President Obama?

James Carville, Mary Matalin
James Carville is the political genius that got Bill Clinton elected President in 1992 and has hung around for years now advising other Democratic candidates.  I think he has an edge being married to expert Republican consultant, Mary Matalin.  Nothing like bouncing ideas off your opponent.  Carville recently said to the GOP re. its primary candidates: “You have a disaster on your hands.”  It was actually sent to the Republican establishment naming such members as Bill Bennett, Karl Rove and Bill Kristol.

In my book, that covers the bottom of the barrel.  But former White house press secretary for George W. Bush, Ari Fleischer, proceeds to tell us what Carville doesn’t get about Republicans.  He does have a good point about the missed prediction by Democratic National Committee Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Florida) in underestimating the Tea Party appeal in the 2010 election.  In another instance, Reagan’s 1980 win unexpected by Dems because they didn’t think he appealed to mainstream voters.

However, it’s Fleischer who is completely out of touch with reality when he says, “…Democrats are so bent on seeing Republicans as a bunch of angry, right wing, intolerant, unreliable extremists that they have a track record of missing the mood of the country…”  Come on, everyone knows that Republicans are a bunch of angry, right wing, intolerant, unreliable extremists: even some Republicans admit it.  Although Fleischer doesn’t endorse Gingrich, he says he could win the nomination or he could simply “blow up his chances.”



Carville thinks that Mitt Romney is only in the beginnings of explaining his tax returns indicating as a seasoned politician, he should have known this was coming.  This is only on the surface and he wonders if there is anything else volatile yet to come.  If there is you can bet Gingrich’s people will find it.  Of course, the latter has to explain his $1.6 consultancy with Freddie Mac and the fact that he has been married three times.  But if he got through the So. Carolina religious right with that baggage, he is probably home free.

And then David Frum, former special assistant to Geo. W. Bush, comments on CNN that GOP leaders don’t trust Gingrich and tells us why.  There were 4 primary reasons: 1) His grandiose enthusiasm for divisive rhetoric; 2) Using talking points that go over big on talk shows but do not address issues; 3) Many of the man’s co-workers think he shouldn’t be trusted with executive power; 4) His opinion that Gingrich is one of the most disliked people in politics.  There was also the advice to Bush in 2004 that turned out to be irrelevant to the election.

According to Frum, the irrelevancy of these 5 points (see them in the CNN article above) that Gingrich urged Bush to focus on was not because he didn’t think that there were substantive issues then like the inflating housing bubble, but rather because his 5 points were designed to define the opponent John Kerry as “alien, hostile and dangerous.”  In other words, campaign politics as usual and doesn’t this remind you of the hate advertising approach created by Karl Rove?


Newt Gingrich

Frum is probably right about Gingrich but gets an “F” on his assessment of Obama re. being a President out of touch with the world, who was able to con himself into the White House.  Pretty pathetic, in view of the fact Frum’s former boss, GWB, seems to fit perfectly into that profile.

Gingrich is an insider and still seems to weigh in heavily when it comes to GOP ideology.  Case in point is his Contract with America which swept Republicans into control of the House in 1994 for the first time in 40 years.  But recently the right has done little to whet the appetite of the American public, except for the radical fruitcakes in the Tea Party who have some mystical control over the GOP and who have succeeded in blocking almost everything Barack Obama has tried to accomplish in the last three years.

In summary, against Gingrich, Obama will win more electoral votes this November than he did in 2008.

Monday, January 23, 2012

Where were the evangelicals in So. Carolina when Santorum needed them?

Who knows?
Former senator Rick Santorum of Penn. finally won the Iowa caucuses over Mitt Romney with 34 votes when the folks in Iowa did their final count.  Sounds reasonable to me considering the high evangelical population in the state but also appears much too close when you consider Romney is a Mormon.  Like JFK’s Catholicism in the November 1960 election for President, Romney’s Mormonism has been a barrier for the religious right from the beginning.

Apparently there were missing votes in eight Iowa precincts that for some reason or other were never received and counted, blamed on the “state’s old-fashioned primary process.”  The missing votes were spread across five Iowa counties and in 2008 that area accounted for a total of 298 votes.  In one such precinct GOP chair, Karen Zander, said about the volunteers, “They had no training.  They didn’t know what they were doing.”

Pretty pathetic for an election that screams to the rest of the country each year that they are the first, and one of the most important votes in the primaries leading up to the primary nomination.  I have never understood the importance of these caucuses, and maybe the rest of the country and future presidential candidates will come to agree after this year.  But Romney’s close second does speak well of evangelical voters in that they were apparently able to put religion aside and vote with reason.



Did the same situation occur in South Carolina?  In the 2008 Republican primary there, 60 percent of the Republican voters defined themselves as “born-again-Christians,” compared with a national average of 44 percent.  Another 69 percent said that the candidate’s religious beliefs mattered in their vote.  In 2012 B-A-Cs jumped to 65 percent.  Also in 2012, religious beliefs of the candidates differed in that 59 percent said they mattered a great deal or somewhat, followed by 19 percent who said not much, 21 percent not at all.

In 2012, 97 percent were worried about the economy in South Carolina; 63 percent thought it was the most important issue compared to 8 percent for abortion.  However, 64 percent did think abortion should be illegal.  Winner Newt Gingrich was helped by the fact that 64 percent of So. Carolinians support the Tea Party and he was apparently able to garner their vote according to exit polls.  But it still isn’t clear if Gingrich can win TPers in less conservative states.

You can see the entire So. Carolina CNN Election Poll results here.

This is all somewhat perplexing since a meeting of the Christian conservative leaders in January of this year in Texas voted to back Rick Santorum, reported Family Research Council president Tony Perkins.  Some of those involved were Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, Perkins, National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference president Rev. Samuel Rodriguez and former presidential candidate Gary Bauer.  Members of the media were not allowed at the meeting. 

Newt Gingrich
Although the Christian conservative majority vote was for Santorum, individuals voted for other candidates, such as American Family Assn. founder Don Wildmon who voted for Gingrich.  For those of you who haven’t heard, Gingrich took So. Carolina with 41 percent of the vote, followed by Romney with 27 percent and Santorum trailing with 17 percent.  The winner of the So. Carolina primary has gone on to win the GOP nomination in each election since 1980.

The big question is, if Newt Gingrich wins the Republican nomination, will he be a more formidable candidate against President Barack Obama than Mitt Romney?  He is an excellent debater, but so is Obama.  Gingrich has personal life baggage with his ex-wife that doesn’t play well with religious conservatives where the President is squeaky-clean.  Both men are highly intelligent and there is no doubt in the separation of ideologies.

Like they have been saying for over a year now, 2012 is going to be one hell of an election!

Friday, December 9, 2011

Iowa attacks Romney on religion, Obama on being socialist

Outwardly, social conservatives in Iowa have labeled Mitt Romney as a “flip-flopper,” while others challenge his Mormon faith.  These people are scrambling for a candidate they can endorse that will beat Romney in the upcoming first-in-the-nation caucus on January 3, 2012.  So far it looks like Newt Gingrich is in the lead with Ron Paul following and Romney coming in third.  Perry, Bachmann, Santorum and Huntsman pretty much out of the race.  So what are they worried about?

Actually this was all happening before Gingrich’s recent surge in the polls that many wonder if it is for real or just another phase in the republican race of candidates no one really wants.  There was skepticism, however, whether or not the Iowa social conservatives could support any of the candidates.  These include groups like the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition, The Family Leader, the group Iowa Right to Life, and a representative for the Iowa chapter of Concerned Women for America.

This anti-Romney movement appears to be located only in Iowa, which is known for having its religious preferences.  What is most disturbing is the fact that having the first election in 2012 on January 3 draws a lot of attention to the state, and so far all we are hearing is a religious bias toward the Mormon Church.  This sounds very similar to the critics of John F. Kennedy running for president in 1960 when they questioned whether a Catholic should be elected to the office.



There was also an official cloak of secrecy over the meeting with participants agreeing not to divulge what took place.  A Marshalltown church minister claims social conservatives are really not sure of Mitt Romney’s positions on marriage between the same sex and abortion.  Same-sex marriage in Iowa became legal on April 3, 2009.  The latest year I could find a record for abortions, 2007, there were 6,637.  Either the social conservatives are not keeping up with the facts or they are fighting a losing battle.

And then there’s the radical, in another world, Iowa Tea Party and their continued fight against President Obama.  Hey you lunatics, he won in 2008 and he’ll win again in 2012.  Ryan Rhodes, a member of the Iowa Tea Party Revolution, and from Decorah, complained to Mr. Obama that the Democrats have accused the Tea Party of being terrorists.  As far as I am concerned TPers are just simple minded people with double-digit IQs, no matter what part of the country they come from.

As the President was leaving the event, Rhodes was quoted as saying he believes Obama is a Socialist.  I am surprised this fruitcake didn’t ask him for his birth certificate.  Pathetic.

Donald Trump Says He Will Be Indicted On Tuesday

  THAT'S TODAY... Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has brought the case to this point, now looking at a possible indictment. Trum...