May 29 2007

Gingrich The Grinch

Published by at 12:56 pm under 2008 Elections,All General Discussions

Gingrich is a class A bufoon. His idea to gain personal fame and glory is to destroy a man who many conservatives respect and admire:

Newt Gingrich is one of those who fear that Republican have been branded with the label of incompetence. He says that the Bush Administration has become a Republica version of the Jimmy Carter Presidency, when nothing seemed to go right.

Funny, Bush never resigned in disgrace, nor did he screw up a mandate with America by trying to impeach a President over nonsense. Gingrich took the GOP majority and almost lost it all after the first year. Personally I would prefer the man would just shut up and go look for the next ex-Mrs. Gingrich. What we really don’t need now our anymore turncoat GOPers.

18 responses so far

18 Responses to “Gingrich The Grinch”

  1. Retired Spook says:

    I admire Gingrich’s intellect and communications skills, but ask any member who served with him during his tenure as Speaker — he’s not a leader. He’s lousy at solving problems, jumps from task to task, and has an ego as big as the Grand Canyon. He’s well suited to being a news/talk show talking head and writing history books.

  2. roonent1 says:

    I personally have little respect for Gingrich since this immigration debate has evolved. Gingrich has slammed the GW adminstration and other republicans over the immigration debate. What did Newt do when he had his chance in Congress as the the speaker of the house about immigration? Newt did NADA, ZILCH, NOT A THING.

    Newt, you had your chance and chose to ignore the problem. You did not pass a sweeping immgration reform or go on tv to hammer Clinton for not building a wall along the southern border, did you?

    I remember, so I will not let you rewrite history. Newt you failed. You were too busy chasing skirts instead of solving our immigration problem. You and Clinton have one thing in common, you were both more worried about getting some tail, then solving our real problems we face as a nation.

    You kicked the can down the road for someone else to deal with. GW has your can to deal with now. Go away Newt because I have zero respect for you and care little for what you say, and I am a lifetime republican and proud to be a conservative.

  3. kathie says:

    Republicans need to stop criticizing Republicans. NEWT that means you and McCain too. A line from “24″, the acting president said, “until you have sat in this chair, you have no idea”, I think a few want to be’s need to think about that.

  4. MerlinOS2 says:

    RS

    I have always heard that about him.

    It is almost legend among those who have served on his staff that he would come up with an idea and say make it so and then walk away to the next waystop on his path to enlightenment and left them holding the bag working on yesterday’s news that he was no longer interested in.

  5. lurker9876 says:

    Everyone’s talking negatively about yesterday’s talks but I’m guessing that Bush still has an ace up his sleeve as always.

    As for Newt, would his leadership style have anything to do with the failure to adhere to the 1994 Contract With America?

  6. lurker9876 says:

    OT: I see that Robert Zoellick has been nominated to replace Wolfowitz. Anyone know anything about Zoellick?

  7. For Enforcement says:

    While I like Newt on the tv shows etc, he didn’t do a good job as speaker and he doesn’t need to bash Bush. I’m fairly sure he’ll enter the Pres race, but he won’t have much impact. He could’ve solved or at least help the illegal alien situation, but he didn’t and I wouldn’t trust him to now. We’re not going to get a solution to that.

  8. The Macker says:

    AJ,
    My take is that Gingrich is meaningless now, both as a candidate and as a source of new ideas. He just excels as a glib TV regurgitator

  9. retire05 says:

    While all of you critique Newt Gingrich, I would remind you that no one, and I do mean no one, has a greater knowledge of our nation’s history. I do not think he will run. He says he will not make a decision until September and that will be too late to drum up the kind of big bucks that it will take to run a campaign.
    So Gingrich doesn’t have a right to free speech? He doesn’t have a right to citicize the administration? Why not? It is a right we give to Obama, Shillary and Edwards? Does it make a difference because Gringrich is a conservative?
    As to a man that many conservatives admire, the admiration held for our President by many conservative is tanking as more and more of the back room deal he made with Teddy (drown ‘em) Kennedy on immigration becomes known.
    What have we learned? We have learned that if you hear the term “compassionate conservative” it really means borderline liberal. If you hear “comprehensive immigration reform” it really means amnesty.
    Bush had deserted his base and now they will desert the Republican Party.

  10. Retired Spook says:

    Well, if the annecdotal opinions here are any indication, Newt’s presidential aspirations are TOAST. Now if Fred would just announce, we could get on to more important things.

  11. DubiousD says:

    Long before BDS became a hallmark on the Left, Newt proved to be a frequent spewer of LDS (Liberal Derangement Syndrome) on the Right. One case among many: when he blamed the Susan Smith child murders on the Great Society. The Kos Kids and others have been Mad-Libbing his approach ever since.

  12. crosspatch says:

    Jimmy Carter gave us:

    1. The Revolutionary Islamic Republic which lead to
    a: Hezbollah in Lebanon
    b: Russian invasion of Afghanistan
    c: Iran/Iraq war

    Had Iran remained a strong US ally Russia would not have invaded Afghanistan and there would have been no rise of al qaida. Saddam would have been kept in check and there would have been no invasion of Kuwait.

    Add to that the fact that Carter dismantled nearly 100 percent of our human intelligence and decided to focus on technical means and you have a situation where nearly all the problems in the middle east today can be placed squarely in Jimmy Carter’s lap. Carter left a little bomb out there that exploded on 9/11. There would have been no Osama bin Laden as we know him today if not for Jimmy Carter.

    There are thousands of dead. Perhaps hundreds of thousands of dead thanks to Carter.

  13. Terrye says:

    Comparing Bush to Carter? I voted for Bush, but when Gingrich was Speaker of the House I had a very negative opinion of the Republican leadership. Newt did not include border security in the Contract with America and if we are going to blame the Democratic administration of Bill Clinton for not dealing with Saddam and Osama and finishing that job, we can also Newt. It seemed he was more interested in alienating people and trying to go after Clinton than he was in dealing with the important stuff.

    Besides, Carter was a one termer…Bush has won two terms as President which is two terms more than Gingrich has a chance of winning.

  14. Terrye says:

    retire:

    I know a lot of paleos do not like to even think of compassionate conservatives, but most Americans do not want to see a return to the days before the New Deal. Right now Obama is out there drumming up support for universal health care. Most Americans do not want small government, they want effective government. I think conservatives need to face that.

    I know in my business, I never hear anyone say they get too much from the government, just the opposite. And these people are not people who have spent their lives living on charity.

  15. ivehadit says:

    25 cents of every tax dollar is wasted-payments to dead people, etc.

    Less taxes and more effective government would be a definite winning combination, imho. George has been doing this and thus turning this mammoth ship in a new direction. Congress on the otherhand….

  16. CatoRenasci says:

    There is no question Newt Gingrich is a very bright man, and that the Contract with America was brilliant. However, as Speaker, Gingrich was – at his best – mediocre, and was responsible for the debacle of the “government shutdown” that handed the initiative back to the Clintons. On that basis alone, one might decide he was not a viable candidate for the Presidency.

    Add to that his utter contempt for Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment (“Thou shalt not speak ill of any other Republican” — I’d combine it with what we called the “Thumper Rule” [from Bambi] “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all” and suggest Newt shut the h*ll up) and he looks worse and worse.

    One should never discount atmospherics, and his are truly terrible, from his “doughboy” look through his nasty divorce/affair all the way to his names (not his fault and shouldn’t be an issue, but….). “Newt” and “Gingrich” simply don’t sound presidential.

    Then add his general media persona as the “Grinch” (to which his name lends itself) and the way he was effectively labelled as mean.

    No Reagan ‘morning in America’ optimism in our Newt!

    It truly surprises me that anyone would actually take him seriously as a potential President.

    As a high level advisor, perhaps, but in the back ground. But, no way does he seem remotely presidential.

  17. The Macker says:

    Crosspatch,
    thanks for the Carter memories.

    05,
    I think the word “compassionate” is to differentiate from libertarian type conservatives. And if Gingrich were so bright, he would recognize the positive and historic accomplishments of this president.

  18. retire05 says:

    “Most Americans do not want small government. They want effective government. I think conservatives need to face that.”

    Face what, Terrye, that the two are not mutually exclusive? Yes, most Americans want SMALL government. And in case you haven’t noticed, most of Americans are CONSERVATIVES. So it is not they that need to do the “facing”. We are a top heavy system. Too many chiefs and not enough Indians. Senators and Congressmen that toe the party line and turn their backs on the very people who elected them. We could eliminate 2/3 of federal employees and still get the same amount of work done. Ever watched people in federal offices work? Efficiency and the “git r done” attitude does not prevail. Yes, there are some federal employees that do their jobs and do them well, but they are the exception, not the rule. You average worker in an average federal office (like the welfare offices) should be fired.

    “I know in my business, I never hear anyone say they get too much from the government, just the opposite.”
    Sounds to me like you work in some taxpayer funded agency or for some leftist thinking group or maybe a agency that provides services for illegals. They seem to be excellent at demanding more from our government. They may not have made their living on charity, but it sure sounds like they would like to.
    Do you ever remind these leeches that the “government” owes them nothing? Perhaps you could hand out copies of the Constitution and ask them where in that document they are promised anything other than the pursuit of happiness? And then you could ask them just exactly what business the government is in that would generate the revenue to give them any social benefits.