PDA

View Full Version : Newt Gingrich’s Folly (endorsing liberal Dede Scozzafava)




FrankRep
11-03-2009, 11:30 PM
Newt Gingrich’s Folly (http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5562-newt-gingrichs-folly)


Ann Shibler | John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/)


Newt Gingrich is getting some exposure as he moves from anointed conservative to far-left Republican, with his latest endorsement of liberal Dede Scozzafava to fill a New York congressional seat.

Dede Scozzafava is not known as a conservative, but instead for her liberal positions. She has received the “Maggie Award,” from Planned Parenthood, supports gay marriage, is supported by NARAL and SEIU, plus ACORN, is iffy on cap-and-trade legislation, and happy with Obama’s stimulus, among other things.

Gingrich endorsed the liberal Scozzafava, turning his back on a viable Conservative Party candidate — Doug Hoffman — by saying, in essence, Scozzafava’s reach is broader than Hoffman’s, that a purge of the Republican Party across the board (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/64921-gingrich-calls-gop-support-for-hoffman-a-purge) will have no good effects, and that the election of Hoffman would somehow ensure Obama’s reelection while guaranteeing Nancy Pelosi as “Speaker for life.” He said this quite arrogantly while extolling her supposed conservative virtues on Greta Van Susteren’s show:



Dede Scozzafava is endorsed by the National Rifle Association for her 2nd amendment position, has signed the no tax increase pledge, voted against the Democratic governor’s big-spending budget, is against the cap-and-trade tax increase on energy, is against the Obama health plan, and will vote for John Boehner, rather than Nancy Pelosi, to be Speaker.

Now that’s adequately conservative in an upstate New York district. And on other issues, she’s about where the former Republican, McHugh, was. So I say to my many conservative friends who suddenly decided that whether they’re from Minnesota or Alaska or Texas, they know more than the upstate New York Republicans? I don’t think so. And I don’t think it’s good precedent. And I think if this third party candidate takes away just enough votes to elect the Democrat, then we will have strengthened Nancy Pelosi by the divisiveness. We will not have strengthened the conservative movement.


YouTube - Newt Gingrich Doubles Down - Attacks Conservative Doug Hoffman & Defends D-Kos Candidate Scozzafava (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6rNDBXl0nY)


However, Gingrich's endorsement of Scozzafava proved to be embarassing for him (if he is capable of being embarassed) when she suddenly dropped out of the race and endorsed Democrat Candidate Bill Owens.

In response to this action, Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser issued the following statement:



By her actions today Dede Scozzafava has confirmed why it was so important for conservatives and people who care about the GOP to get involved in this race.

Doug Hoffman's candidacy is based upon the core principles of limited government, lower taxes and strong family values.

When a GOP candidacy is not based on fundamental conservative values, the party and the principles are inevitably betrayed at critical moments.


Glossing over the problem areas with the specific endorsement, Gingrich’s brand of being “adequately conservative” is not in line with the conservative movement across the country. George Stephanopoulos labeled Gingrich’s plan “pragmatic.” But the current plight of the Republican Party is not attributed to there being too many conservatives, but too many liberals in the party, so the pragmatic defense goes out the window.

It is Gingrich and other party leaders — Pete Sessions’ (R-Texas) National Republican Congressional Committee also endorsed Scozzafava dumping $567,000 into the campaign (http://race42008.com/2009/10/17/dc-based-republicans-put-650000-toward-candidate-backed-by-daily-kos-acorn-afl-cio-sieu-planned-parenthood-and-naral/), with the Republican National Committee reportedly contributing a six-figure sum as well — who are clearly out of step and are introducing divisiveness among conservatives, weakening the effectiveness and chances of candidates dedicated to real change, thereby continuing the socialist agenda of the current congress. Clearly, party bosses learned nothing from the 2008 election.

Michelle Malkin blogged (http://michellemalkin.com/2009/10/26/newt-for-2012-no-thanks/), “The conservative base is wising up and pushing back. And constantly invoking Reagan isn’t going to erase the damage Gingrich has done to his brand over the years by wavering on core issues and teaming up with some of the Left’s biggest clowns.”

In a RedState post came this: “I don’t take kindly to being lectured to by a man who has just endorsed a flaming-liberal candidate, precisely the kind of Republican I don’t give a d*%# for and would not give a dime to support.”

Over on Hot Air (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/25/rogue-stars-rising/) the comments on what could be Gingrich’s folly, as well as the Republican Party’s, were also interesting: “The Republican Party of Gingrich dies, unloved and irrelevant.”

If these and other comments are any indication of the grasp that many are experiencing over Newt Gingrich’s policies and agendas, there will be more bolting from the Republican Party and crossing over to third party candidates, making those candidates seriously electable.


SOURCE:
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5562-newt-gingrichs-folly

FrankRep
11-03-2009, 11:31 PM
The Real Newt Gingrich

The Real Newt Gingrich on Vimeo (http://www.vimeo.com/6445068)

Zippyjuan
11-04-2009, 12:35 PM
What I think Newt is trying to do is to move the Republican Party more towards the middle where they have a better chance of actually winning some things instead of pulling back further to the right where they have much less public support. Moving to the right may help stir up the base but it will turn off more moderate voters who are the majority of the electorate. You cannot win without them.

kahless
11-04-2009, 12:45 PM
The more I hear about Newt Gingrich the more I considering bailing out of the Republican party. I have yet to find any Republican that has a favorable view of him other than his friends at Foxnews.

Brian4Liberty
11-04-2009, 01:24 PM
Gingrich sounded reasonable and convincing in that interview. Scozzafava's defection to the Democrats proved him wrong though, which probably means that his characterization of her positions was "exaggerated".

Krugerrand
11-04-2009, 01:35 PM
What I think Newt is trying to do is to move the Republican Party more towards the middle where they have a better chance of actually winning some things instead of pulling back further to the right where they have much less public support. Moving to the right may help stir up the base but it will turn off more moderate voters who are the majority of the electorate. You cannot win without them.

The GOP needs to pull closer to the Constitution.

Middle-aiming is what drives the fringes of the parties. Let's start out on a 1-10 scale with middle at 5. If the Left is at 4 and the right is at 6 - middle lands on 5. So then, if the Left moves towards 2 and the rights stays at 6 - the middle is now 4. The right has to move to 8 to keep the middle at 5 - otherwise, left wins. The more extreme you start your bargaining position, the more more you get in negotiations.

Start at the Constitution and don't negotiate.

Zippyjuan
11-04-2009, 01:42 PM
Where does the Constitution lie on the political spectrum?

Brian4Liberty
11-04-2009, 01:59 PM
The GOP needs to pull closer to the Constitution.

Middle-aiming is what drives the fringes of the parties. Let's start out on a 1-10 scale with middle at 5. If the Left is at 4 and the right is at 6 - middle lands on 5. So then, if the Left moves towards 2 and the rights stays at 6 - the middle is now 4. The right has to move to 8 to keep the middle at 5 - otherwise, left wins. The more extreme you start your bargaining position, the more more you get in negotiations.

Start at the Constitution and don't negotiate.

This is what kills us:


Doug Hoffman's candidacy is based upon the core principles of limited government, lower taxes and strong family values.

We all know that "family values" is code for legislating sexual preferences and abortion. That turns off the middle of the road independents, some libertarians, and some fiscally conservative Democrats that might vote GOP.

The worse part, it's a red herring! It was injected into the American political debate to distract us from real issues. They want you to ignore limited government and vote based on family values, which is why both Rep and Dem parties happily implemented big government. And for the most part, nothing changes in regard to "family values". They have all of America voting and getting upset about something that doesn't matter, won't change, and that they have no desire to change.

thasre
11-04-2009, 02:22 PM
I don't have the problems with Newt Gingrich that everyone else seems to. It's true that he's more "center" than "right" on the center-right side of the American political spectrum, but I think there's a difference between being a closet progressive who hides behind the "moderate" label to win elections, and a genuine centrist who acts as a moderating force against extremism. I see Gingrich as much more of the latter.

I think we need people like Gingrich who may be a little wishy-washy but tend to be fairly accepting and open-minded. Let's not forget that he refrained from Ron Paul bashing when the rest of the Republican establishment was attacking Ron Paul as a "lunatic on the fringe" who "hates America". If I recall correctly, he even made a point of complimenting Ron Paul on his service as a congressman a handful of times when pundits were being especially vitriolic in their coverage of his Presidential bid.

Gingrich, as I see things, genuinely wants to see a wide coalition of diverse right-wing perspectives that are mutually enriching. He seems to take the approach of "we all have something to learn from each other" which is INFINITELY better than the McCains and Bushes of the Republican Party who can't stand that anyone would think differently from them, and it's better than the Romneys and Palins who don't seem to think much at all.

I'm not trying to totally exonerate Gingrich from what have been some bad decisions and actions on his part, but I really do think he's pretty much the consummate "moderate" Republican. We shouldn't be so quick to write him off for his "ideological impurities".

Krugerrand
11-04-2009, 02:33 PM
This is what kills us:
We all know that "family values" is code for legislating sexual preferences and abortion. That turns off the middle of the road independents, some libertarians, and some fiscally conservative Democrats that might vote GOP.

The worse part, it's a red herring! It was injected into the American political debate to distract us from real issues. They want you to ignore limited government and vote based on family values, which is why both Rep and Dem parties happily implemented big government. And for the most part, nothing changes in regard to "family values". They have all of America voting and getting upset about something that doesn't matter, won't change, and that they have no desire to change.


What I find interesting ... my recollection has Gingrich as the person who really captured the idea of getting ballot questions such as banning gay marriage or parental notification onto the ballot to strategically increase the GOP vote. The strategy was successful (from a GOP turnout perspective.)

What is a fiscally conservative Democrat? I know more democrats that are more prone to buying into "family value" issues but vote Democrat anyway because it isn't a high-priority issue for them. When they do vote GOP it is because they do not particularly like the DEM candidate - which is often because they go too far left.

Krugerrand
11-04-2009, 02:42 PM
. And for the most part, nothing changes in regard to "family values".

I disagree with that. Changes do happen. Among Clinton's and Obama's first actions were to open US funds to foreign abortions. Among Bush's first actions were to block those funds. I certainly don't want this to get into an abortion discussion - but Planned Parenthood is a big time player in a big money industry. They put serious money into campaigns to be sure that they get serious money from the government. Completely leave aside whether abortion should be legal or illegal - Planned Parenthood sucks at the government tit in a big way. If you choose to ignore the issue as a red herring - that will never change.

Krugerrand
11-04-2009, 02:45 PM
Where does the Constitution lie on the political spectrum?

On different issues of today it falls on different sides. In general, I'd put it more to the right since its underlying premise is a distrust of government - and the right is generally the side of smaller government.

Zippyjuan
11-04-2009, 03:20 PM
Neither side seems to truely favor smaller government. Both the left and right like more spending- just on different things. Prior to Obama, government spending grew much more under Republican presidents than under Democratic ones. Granted it is Congress, not the president who authorizes spending. Government actually grew the least under Clinton. Adjusted for inflation, GW Bush spent twice as much as Clinton. TARP and a lot of the bailout money was issued under Bush. http://www.mercatus.org/PublicationDetails.aspx?id=26426

Brian4Liberty
11-04-2009, 03:28 PM
I disagree with that. Changes do happen. Among Clinton's and Obama's first actions were to open US funds to foreign abortions. Among Bush's first actions were to block those funds. I certainly don't want this to get into an abortion discussion - but Planned Parenthood is a big time player in a big money industry. They put serious money into campaigns to be sure that they get serious money from the government. Completely leave aside whether abortion should be legal or illegal - Planned Parenthood sucks at the government tit in a big way. If you choose to ignore the issue as a red herring - that will never change.

I would say that had probably no effect on the number of abortions. How much money are we talking (that Bush blocked)? Good job from Bush on that. But I bet it was a relatively small amount, especially compared to what he spent!

A true small government fiscal conservative wants to free everyone from the slavery of the government tit, including Planned Parenthood. Red herrings can still be ignored.

CapitalistRadical
11-04-2009, 03:51 PM
Where does the Constitution lie on the political spectrum?


Right in the middle. We are centrists. The Left ignores half the Constitution, the Right ignores the other half.

catdd
11-04-2009, 03:56 PM
We don't need to reach farther to the left; we need to stand our ground and defend the platform on which the GOP was founded.
If the left keeps reaching right and the right keeps reaching left, what will be the result?
Nothing but a muddled clusterfuck.

klamath
11-04-2009, 05:04 PM
What I think Newt is trying to do is to move the Republican Party more towards the middle where they have a better chance of actually winning some things instead of pulling back further to the right where they have much less public support. Moving to the right may help stir up the base but it will turn off more moderate voters who are the majority of the electorate. You cannot win without them.

That's right he is trying to move the party to the left of where it was even under Bush. McCain is part of the same movement. If that is the way we wanted it we should have voted McCain.
Bush pushed through medicare part D, no child left behind and a whole line of budget increases then to top it off, him, McCain and Newt along with the majority of the democrats and a MINORITY of the republicans pushed the bailouts through.
Bush and McCain were running the country from the middle and that is why they lost. It was the spending and a no end war that killed the republican majority.

Krugerrand
11-05-2009, 07:18 AM
Neither side seems to truely favor smaller government. Both the left and right like more spending- just on different things. Prior to Obama, government spending grew much more under Republican presidents than under Democratic ones. Granted it is Congress, not the president who authorizes spending. Government actually grew the least under Clinton. Adjusted for inflation, GW Bush spent twice as much as Clinton. TARP and a lot of the bailout money was issued under Bush. http://www.mercatus.org/PublicationDetails.aspx?id=26426

I can only agree in so far as politicians understood as the "right" has increased government significantly. Still, the rhetoric of the right is for smaller government - even if they fail to implement that ideology. So, I will stand by my assertion that because the Constitution was written to limit government and with a distrust of government - that is more in line with the rhetoric of the right than that of the left.

I agree with klamath:

Bush and McCain were running the country from the middle and that is why they lost. It was the spending and a no end war that killed the republican majority.

The GOP is losing not because it walked away from the middle but because it walked away from the right - with the right being understood as smaller government.

I don't see independent voters as "middle ground" voters. They are whimsical voters that are generally off the Left-Right paradigm. A small-government advocate need not abandon those principles to attract independent minded voters.

LibertyEagle
11-05-2009, 08:03 AM
What I think Newt is trying to do is to move the Republican Party more towards the middle where they have a better chance of actually winning some things instead of pulling back further to the right where they have much less public support. Moving to the right may help stir up the base but it will turn off more moderate voters who are the majority of the electorate. You cannot win without them.

Newt is a one-world government, globalist, piece of scum. His efforts are to promote same.