President Gingrich

IP is the place for boisterous political discussion, but please remember, the Rules still apply, especially with regards to Personal Attacks. These and other inappropriate posts will be removed without notification.

Moderators: Mick, TheGingerMan

Forum rules
IP is the place for boisterous political discussion, but please remember, the Rules still apply, especially with regards to Personal Attacks. These and other inappropriate posts will be removed without notification.

Re: President Gingrich

Postby Deuce Dropper » 28 Jan 2012, 13:11

TainanCowboy wrote:DD -

Newt / West 2012...refers to a Newt & Col. Allen West....his wickiwacki page -> Allen West.

Would make for an interesting ticket.

I also think a Cain / West 2012 would be a good one.


Image

interesting, yes, but only because they would get crushed. West would be a good choice if you want to give every female voter to Obama. And Cain, c'mon TC even a blatant right wing homer like yourself (said with love, please do not temp) knows that Cain's candidacy was only to raise his profile (read:fee) as a public speaker, and stump for a show on Fox News. Quoting Pokemon is proof enough of this.
Forumosan avatar
Deuce Dropper
Buxiban Laoban (bǔxíbān lǎobǎn)
Buxiban Laoban (bǔxíbān lǎobǎn)
 
Posts: 3844
ORIGINAL POSTER
Joined: 30 Nov 2008, 16:09
Location: 北市
93 Recommends(s)
466 Recognized(s)



Re: President Gingrich

Postby achdizzy1099 » 28 Jan 2012, 21:45

Fox wrote:
the last period of 4 year 'one and done' was Carter; and before anyone starts grandstanding on the accomplished of 'Saint Ronald', I remind those with selective memories that people in America were poor as shit in the 1980s.It really took up until the mid 1990s for the economy to bear fruit for the low feeders.


I thought it was George Bush senior. He was a single term president who presided over a similar economic mess and wars as his son. His son of course beats all comers as the worst American President ever. That's why his brother cannot run. The specter those guys left on the American psyche ain't gonna wash away in 4 years. Very many right wing Americans think Bush was responsible for the 911 attacks. That's Ron Paul's constituency.


Sorry Fox, I was referring to a party/president flip flop 'one and done', not just a 4 year president alone. For example a Republican being beaten by a Democrat, only to return back 4 years later to a Republican.

prior to Carter, the next most recent 4 year 'one and done' party/president was Garfield/Arthur(R) 1880 to Cleveland(D) 1884 to Ben Harrison(R) 1888 back to Cleveland(D) 1892 to McKinley(R) 1896. In fact, of the 44 presidents, there have only been 8 instances of 4 year party/president flip flops.

The first was Washinton(I) 1792 to Adams(F) 1796 to Jefferson(D-R) 1800

The next three were in a row and lead-up to the Civil War: Van Buren(D) 1836 to WH Harrison(W) 1840 to Polk(D) 1844 to Taylor(W) 1848 to Pierce (D) 1852 (of course two of these elections were following the death of the incumbent with WH Harrison and Taylor both dying in office)

*By the time Buchanan(D) took office in 1856 the country was ripe for war. *

of the 44 presidents, only 16 have been elected to two terms. (5 died in office before being able to run again with only 2 of their vice presidential successors later winning a term of their own. John Tyler, Millard Fillmore and Chester Arthur served, but never were president elect.)

8/44 = 18% chance Republicans unseat Obama.

16/44 = 36% chance Obama wins a second term.

I know that statistics are relative to the circumstance, but compared to each other, Obama has a 2x higher probability of winning than does the eventual Republican candidate.

Any way you chop it, Newt or Mitt or whoever has a tough road to unseat the incumbent.

T
Some people have a big mouth.....
Forumosan avatar
achdizzy1099
Chair-throwing Legislator (rēng yǐzi de lìfǎ wěiyuán)
Chair-throwing Legislator (rēng yǐzi de lìfǎ wěiyuán)
 
Posts: 304
Joined: 15 Aug 2010, 02:11
Location: Taipei
5 Recommends(s)
41 Recognized(s)



Re: President Gingrich

Postby Fox » 28 Jan 2012, 22:49

I know that statistics are relative to the circumstance, but compared to each other, Obama has a 2x higher probability of winning than does the eventual Republican candidate.

Any way you chop it, Newt or Mitt or whoever has a tough road to unseat the incumbent.


I don't think anyone can beat Obama because people simply don't have such short memories. Who in their right mind would put that bunch of lunatics back behind the wheel?

People get that Obama is something of a snow job but they also understand that plain crazy ain't gonna pay the bills here. At the very minimum with Obama there is a sense of steady as she goes. The Republicans cannot over come the mayhem of the Bush years. America still hasn't overcome it. I doubt there is a drum beat for bring back the madness. That is stuck in their craw.
"When liberty comes with hands dabbled in blood it is hard to shake hands with her." Wilde

"I don't know where the sun beams end and the star light begins. It's all a mystery." Flaming Lips

"a man's position here is not ruled so much by what he can earn as by what he can owe and still remain at large." Letters of a Shanghai Griffin

"It's called the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it." George Carlin

The American oligarchy spares no pains in promoting the belief that it does not exist, but the success of its disappearing act depends on equally strenuous efforts on the part of an American public anxious to believe in egalitarian fictions and unwilling to see what is hidden in plain sight.
redbubble
http://www.planetediting.com
Forumosan avatar
Fox
Retired President (tuì xiū de zǒng tǒng)
Retired President (tuì xiū de zǒng tǒng)
 
Posts: 5571
Joined: 11 Jun 2002, 16:01
Location: Taipei
63 Recommends(s)
80 Recognized(s)



Re: President Gingrich

Postby achdizzy1099 » 28 Jan 2012, 23:17

Fox wrote:
I know that statistics are relative to the circumstance, but compared to each other, Obama has a 2x higher probability of winning than does the eventual Republican candidate.

Any way you chop it, Newt or Mitt or whoever has a tough road to unseat the incumbent.


I don't think anyone can beat Obama because people simply don't have such short memories. Who in their right mind would put that bunch of lunatics back behind the wheel?

People get that Obama is something of a snow job but they also understand that plain crazy ain't gonna pay the bills here. At the very minimum with Obama there is a sense of steady as she goes. The Republicans cannot over come the mayhem of the Bush years. America still hasn't overcome it. I doubt there is a drum beat for bring back the madness. That is stuck in their craw.


Pretty much.

I still would be shocked if Newt were to get the nomination. Right now there is a little thing called money that will probably be the end of him when Super Tuesday hits just 5 weeks from now. He just doesn't have the cash for that push to the top. Clinton and Obama each had something like $25M at this point in their campaigns 4 years ago. Newt might have (at most) $10M. Romney essentially has limitless resources. And, If Newt loses Florida this week it's all over anyhow.

But as you stated Fox, America is not ripe for a return to the Republican machine. They'll win again someday, just not in 2012. Could anyone honestly imagine a President Gingrich? The guy is a Fox News pundit (no relation) for crying out loud! He makes money selling outrage and drama; two virtues not becoming to the Commander in Chief.

T
Some people have a big mouth.....
Forumosan avatar
achdizzy1099
Chair-throwing Legislator (rēng yǐzi de lìfǎ wěiyuán)
Chair-throwing Legislator (rēng yǐzi de lìfǎ wěiyuán)
 
Posts: 304
Joined: 15 Aug 2010, 02:11
Location: Taipei
5 Recommends(s)
41 Recognized(s)



Re: President Gingrich

Postby TainanCowboy » 29 Jan 2012, 12:42

"Pardon him, Theodotus; he is a barbarian and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature" --- "Caesar and Cleopatra"...G.B. Shaw
-----
Kid Rock - Born Free
-----
"The big sisters are usually hot, but the dads smell of alcohol and tobacco....and have dirty feet with dead toe nails in blue slippers. "...Bob_Honest on "The Culture"
------
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes
------
Isaiah 40:31
Forumosan avatar
TainanCowboy
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 16234
Joined: 18 Jun 2004, 17:50
Location: Tainan - The Original Taiwan
103 Recommends(s)
49 Recognized(s)



Re: President Gingrich

Postby ChewDawg » 29 Jan 2012, 13:54

In this article, neo-conservative Elliott Abrams correctly points out that perhaps Gingrich is using Reagan's name a little too much, which is interesting because he used to criticize Reagan quite a bit! :lol: :lol: Gingrich seems to always be criticizing--even those within his own party. Perhaps that is why he has such low Congressional support amongst House Republicans who remember his behavior in the 80s and 90s.

Gingrich's criticism against Reagan and Bush Jr. reminds me of an old Sam Rayburn quote: Any jackass can kick down a barn, but it takes a carpenter to build one."

I don't think Gingrich is a carpenter.


National Review wrote:In the increasingly rough Republican campaign, no candidate has wrapped himself in the mantle of Ronald Reagan more often than Newt Gingrich. “I worked with President Reagan to change things in Washington,” “we helped defeat the Soviet empire,” and “I helped lead the effort to defeat Communism in the Congress” are typical claims by the former speaker of the House.

The claims are misleading at best. As a new member of Congress in the Reagan years — and I was an assistant secretary of state — Mr. Gingrich voted with the president regularly, but equally often spewed insulting rhetoric at Reagan, his top aides, and his policies to defeat Communism. Gingrich was voluble and certain in predicting that Reagan’s policies would fail, and in all of this he was dead wrong.

But the most bitter battleground was often in Congress. Here at home, we faced vicious criticism from leading Democrats — Ted Kennedy, Christopher Dodd, Jim Wright, Tip O’Neill, and many more — who used every trick in the book to stop Reagan by denying authorities and funds to these efforts. On whom did we rely up on Capitol Hill? There were many stalwarts: Henry Hyde, elected in 1974; Dick Cheney, elected in 1978, the same year as Gingrich; Dan Burton and Connie Mack, elected in 1982; and Tom DeLay, elected in 1984, were among the leaders.

But not Newt Gingrich. He voted with the caucus, but his words should be remembered, for at the height of the bitter struggle with the Democratic leadership Gingrich chose to attack . . . Reagan.

The best examples come from a famous floor statement Gingrich made on March 21, 1986. This was right in the middle of the fight over funding for the Nicaraguan contras; the money had been cut off by Congress in 1985, though Reagan got $100 million for this cause in 1986. Here is Gingrich: “Measured against the scale and momentum of the Soviet empire’s challenge, the Reagan administration has failed, is failing, and without a dramatic change in strategy will continue to fail. . . . President Reagan is clearly failing.” Why? This was due partly to “his administration’s weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail”; partly to CIA, State, and Defense, which “have no strategies to defeat the empire.” But of course “the burden of this failure frankly must be placed first on President Reagan.” Our efforts against the Communists in the Third World were “pathetically incompetent,” so those anti-Communist members of Congress who questioned the $100 million Reagan sought for the Nicaraguan “contra” rebels “are fundamentally right.”

In Afghanistan, Reagan’s policy was marked by “impotence [and] incompetence.” Thus Gingrich concluded as he surveyed five years of Reagan in power that “we have been losing the struggle with the Soviet empire.” Reagan did not know what he was doing, and “it is precisely at the vision and strategy levels that the Soviet empire today is superior to the free world.”

He did the same to George W. Bush when Bush was making the toughest and most controversial decision of his presidency — the surge in Iraq. Bush was opposed by many of the top generals, by some Republican leaders who feared the surge would hurt in the 2008 elections, and of course by a slew of Democrats and media commentators. Here again Gingrich provided no support for his party’s embattled president, testifying as a private citizen in 2007 that the strategy was “inadequate,” contained “breathtaking” gaps, lacked “synergism” (whatever that means), and was “very disappointing.” What did Gingrich propose? Among other things, a 50 percent increase in the budget of the State Department.

Presidents should not get automatic support, not even from members of their own party, but they have a right to that support when they are under a vicious partisan assault. Today it is fair to look back and ask who had it right: Gingrich, who backed away from and criticized Republican presidents, or those chief executives, who were making difficult and consequential decisions on national security. Bush on the surge and Reagan on the Soviet empire were tough, courageous — and right. Newt Gingrich in retrospect seems less the visionary than the politician who refused the party’s leader loyal support on grounds that history has proved were simply wrong.


http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/ ... ott-abrams

I'm also thoroughly entertained when Gingrich calls Romney a "Rockefeller Republican." Let's look into Gingrich's past:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich yesterday compared the candidacy of former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass., to that of the moderate (or liberal) Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, R-NY, who ran for president during every presidential cycle of the 1960s.

"Romney has a huge problem," Gingrich said on CNN's State of the Union, in that "he is a Massachusetts moderate Republican." Gingrich defined it as "the Nelson Rockefeller problem" of there being "a natural ceiling" for such moderates in a Republican primary. "And if you go back and look at the race last time [Rockefeller ran], he ran into a natural ceiling."

Gingrich should have the perspective to make Romney-Rockefeller comparisons. He reportedly worked on that last Rockefeller presidential campaign in 1968 as "southern regional director." The late Robert Novak memorialized Gingrich as a "Rockefeller Republican" in his memoir, The Prince of Darkness.

Novak apparently knew Gingrich during that campaign, but after serving eight years in the House during the 1980s, "Gingrich was not the Rockefeller Republican I had met in the late sixties." Novak added that Gingrich "had adopted . . . the maxim that the business of the opposition was to oppose," a plan Gingrich pursued with ethics charges against the incumbent Democratic Speaker of the House. When that congressman had to resign, the success propelled Gingrich up the Republican leadership ranks.

Gingrich's conversion away from Rockefeller moderation, Novak recalls in his book, did not last long into his term as Speaker of the House after the Republican wave election of 1994.

"Gingrich never seemed that comfortable as a right-wing radical," Novak wrote - an odd line to read, given Gingrich's recent book about President Obama's "secular-socialist machine" - adding that Gingrich "was regressing to his Rockefeller Republican roots after less than seven months as Speaker" and "abandoning the Republican base."

The result, Novak wrote, was "a do-nothing Republican congress, as far as landmark conservative legislation was concerned."


http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer. ... republican
So I got an expresso and a hot burrito!
Forumosan avatar
ChewDawg
Gravel Truck Driver (suìshí chē sījī)
Gravel Truck Driver (suìshí chē sījī)
 
Posts: 1369
Joined: 06 Sep 2011, 10:27
110 Recommends(s)
94 Recognized(s)



FRIENDLY REMINDER
   Please remember that Forumosa is not responsible for the content that appears on the other side of links that Forumosans post on our forums. As a discussion website, we encourage open and frank debate. We have learned that the most effective way to address questionable claims or accusations on Forumosa is by engaging in a sincere and constructive conversation. To make this website work, we must all feel safe in expressing our opinions, this also means backing up any claims with hard facts, including links to other websites.
   Please also remember that one should not believe everything one reads on the Internet, particularly from websites whose content cannot be easily verified or substantiated. Use your common sense and do not hesitate to ask for proof.
Previous




Proceed to International Politics



Who is online

Forumosans browsing this forum: No Forumosans and 3 visitors

Remember you must die whether you sit about moping all day long or whether on feast days you stretch out in a green field, happy with a bottle of Falernian from your innermost cellar -- HORACE