Newt Gingrich

[0zzy]

I know little of him since I am new to the political scene. What are your views about him? Quick research tells me he's pro-constitution? Sorta like Ron Paul? Not sure.

Is he good and could he be a good VP for Ron Paul, is basically what I'm trying to find out. :)

[Bradley in DC]

The conservatives/constitutionalists revolted against his House leadership for good reason. He is very smart, lots of ideas (sometimes they're even good), but thinks way too highly of himself and his importance and should NOT be trusted.

[Shink]

Does "regular Fox News contributor" raise any red flags for you, too? Avoid.

[SeanEdwards]

Does "regular Fox News contributor" raise any red flags for you, too? Avoid.

Andrew Napolitano is a regular Fox contributor too.

[ctb619]

He advocates an aggressive, interventionist foreign policy.

[hard@work]

He's an ex-powerbroker, obstructionist, and opportunist. You know typical republicrat.

[inibo]

He advocates an aggressive, interventionist foreign policy.

I agree that he is not what he pretend to be, but did anyone else see this today?

I'm sort of ripping some of these from the context in a way that makes him look better than he is. But there are most definitely some things in there that indicate that even someone as hardcore as Newt can start to get it. I dare say he is not winning himself any brownie points at the White House right now.

Gingrich says war on terror 'phony'

By BOB DEANS
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 08/03/07

Washington — Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Thursday the Bush administration is waging a "phony war" on terrorism, warning that the country is losing ground against the kind of Islamic radicals who attacked the country on Sept. 11, 2001....


"None of you should believe we are winning this war. There is no evidence that we are winning this war," the ex-Georgian told a group of about 300 students attending a conference for collegiate conservatives.

"We were in charge for six years," he said, referring to the period between 2001 and early 2007, when the GOP controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. "I don't think you can look and say that was a great success."

The whole thing is here: http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2007/08/03/newt0803.html

[ctb619]

I agree that he is not what he pretend to be, but did anyone else see this today?

I'm sort of ripping some of these from the context in a way that makes him look better than he is. But there are most definitely some things in there that indicate that even someone as hardcore as Newt can start to get it. I dare say he is not winning himself any brownie points at the White House right now.

Gingrich says war on terror 'phony'

By BOB DEANS
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 08/03/07

Washington — Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Thursday the Bush administration is waging a "phony war" on terrorism, warning that the country is losing ground against the kind of Islamic radicals who attacked the country on Sept. 11, 2001....


"None of you should believe we are winning this war. There is no evidence that we are winning this war," the ex-Georgian told a group of about 300 students attending a conference for collegiate conservatives.

"We were in charge for six years," he said, referring to the period between 2001 and early 2007, when the GOP controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. "I don't think you can look and say that was a great success."

The whole thing is here: http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2007/08/03/newt0803.html

That is an interesting article. Unfortunately it doesn't really give any information on why Gingrich thinks the "war on terror" has been poorly prosecuted -- why we are losing.

This quote is telling, "I believe we need to find leaders who are prepared to tell the truth ... about the failures of the performance of Republicans ... failed bureaucracies ... about how dangerous the world is," he said when asked what kind of Republican he would back for president.

From the recent interviews I have seen with Gingrich, he seems to be critical of the administration because they haven't been aggressive enough in pursuing the terrorists and challenging regimes that he believes are facilitating terrorist networks. He is very hawkish on Iran, Syria, and Venezuela.

This part of the above quote - "how dangerous the world is" - plus what I know already, leads me to believe that Ron Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy is pretty far from Gingrich's approach. Yes, he is criticizing the administration, but he understands that he'll need to distance himself from Bush to have any chance if he decides to jump into the presidential race.

[scrosnoe]

Newt is bright and sharp and a globalist and easy to listen to for most conservatives. Arrogant sums it up nicely. Trustworthy = NOT! Sharp = YES! He is actually a much more formidable opponent than any of the others so far and trust me if the others do not start making some progress soon, Newt will be sent in to take Ron out (or at least that will be their gameplan). They will stop at nothing to prevent Ron from getting the nod. Newt is organizing as he waits in the wings for the call. Fred and Guliani are much easier to take out and expose. than Newt. I am actually hoping Fred does jump in . . . and Guliani stays in and Romney stays in . . .(dividing the prowar vote) and Newt stays out . . .

On the other hand, it could be fun (specially with folks like are found here:) . . .)

[Shatterhand]

I know little of him since I am new to the political scene. What are your views about him? Quick research tells me he's pro-constitution? Sorta like Ron Paul? Not sure.

Is he good and could he be a good VP for Ron Paul, is basically what I'm trying to find out. :)

Didn't Newt support the guy running against Ron Paul for Paul's congressional seat? I could be wrong. Maybe someone has a source? :o

[freelance]

Smart, wily, dangerous: Another authoritarian who wants to take total control of us.

"We now should be impaneling people to look seriously at a level of supervision that we would never dream of if it weren't for the scale of the threat."

http://www.nysun.com/article/44302

Newt Gingrich called for a reexamination of free speech at the Loeb First Amendment Award Dinner in New Hampshire this week, saying a “different set of rules to prevent terrorism” are necessary.

Gingrich’s call to restrict free speech is mainly focused on the Internet.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15951435/

[Ed W]

...

[ape]

Americans for Better Immigration gave Newt a big fat D. He is an open borders globalist who will say anything for a vote. A NAFTA supporter.

http://grades.betterimmigration.com/testgrades.php3?District=GA06&VIPID=217&retired=1

I wish he would go away. CFRed has a better immigration record than him.

[ButchHowdy]

Vannity's gonna rip him a new one for that statement. I hope I get to hear it live!

[Henry]

A neo-con in the purist sense!!!

Henry

[beermotor]

The conservatives/constitutionalists revolted against his House leadership for good reason. He is very smart, lots of ideas (sometimes they're even good), but thinks way too highly of himself and his importance and should NOT be trusted.


That about sums him up. We should also note that the guy is most definitely a globalist. I.e. US Hegemony or bust.

[Ed W]

...

[specsaregood]

Only good thing I can say about Newt at this point is that he created the term:

"Ron Paul exemption" in regards to republican congresscritters being forced to vote the party line.

[Bradley in DC]

Didn't Newt support the guy running against Ron Paul for Paul's congressional seat? I could be wrong. Maybe someone has a source? :o

Yes, absolultely. When Dr. Paul was challenging Laughlin (incumbent elected as a D and switched parties) in the primary in 1996.

[inibo]

Vannity's gonna rip him a new one for that statement. I hope I get to hear it live!

That's what I thought when I read it. Yeah, Newt's a snake, but I really want to see the neocon pundits having apoplectic fits over that article.

[ButchHowdy]

That's what I thought when I read it. Yeah, Newt's a snake, but I really want to see the neocon pundits having apoplectic fits over that article.

Snake yes, and Savage pegged him as 'The Tick' in his Political Zoo book.

[guntherg16]

Newt Gingrich had a golden opportunity to turn this country around with the Republican Revolution. He squandered that opportunity and saddled us with NAFTA.

For more on the Newt click the link below.

http://www.jbs.org/search/node/gingrich

[MozoVote]

Newt was an effective bomb thrower as a minority leader. He was able to use public anger at the check kiting scandal in 1992 to discredit the Democrats, for example.

But he himself *bombed* as a majority leader. He is a polarizing pundit, and not someone who can bring people together. Pat Buchanan has this problem too, I think.

I really wish people would stop making these threads. Newt is even more of a paper tiger than Fred Thompson is! He tried running for president once before and his support was so shallow he did not even stay in to New Hampshire, (IIRC).

In fact, I'd say that Hunter, Huckabee and Tancredo have better chances at winning the nomination than Newt Gingrich. At east they don't have all his baggage and high negatives.

[james1906]

Only good thing I can say about Newt at this point is that he created the term:

"Ron Paul exemption" in regards to republican congresscritters being forced to vote the party line.

since the GOP campaigned for Ron's opponent, he owed them nothing. Ron really created the term, Newt coined it.