Every politician has made decisions against their liberal or conservative ethos. Compromise is the art of politics. You don't list what deals were made and what legislation passed as a result of Newt's decisions. In fact... without being a fly on the wall... we might not know unless he tells us. And anyone with as much time in leadership as Newt will have plenty of dirt from deals to dig up.
You're NOT focusing on Newt's current proposals. Things we'd have to look forward to should he be elected.
He had a conservative record decades ago, but what most tea party and other conservatives are concerned about is his record in this last 10 years.
I am focusing on his third wave progressivism in the past 10 years - the big government candidate he supported - Dede Scozzafava in New York (trashing conservatives who were questioning his support for liberal agenda). His big government couch moment with Nancy Pelosi. Running around with Al Sharpton and Arni Duncan in the last two years promoting Obama's educational agenda.
It is hard to view him as taking a right turn unless politically motivated.
I don't have to worry about that with Governor Perry. Just a few things that he has done:
He never bought into the global warming.
He has appointed strict constructionist judges,
De-funded Planned Parenthood's abortion business in Texas
Passed voter ID
Passed a Bill to get around the Federal Light Bulb Law
Passed a law exempting disabled Veterans from paying property taxes, Passed a law giving Vets college credit for their time served in the military
Signed an Eminent Domain Bill
He has a competent recovery plan
On the Immigration issue:
He has helped localities near the border put more boots on the ground.
Gave the Texas Border Sheriffs Association $6 Million (2005) to hire more people to patrol the Mexican Border.
When that didn't meet it's objective, he opted for a larger investment in 2008, i.e. Operation Border State which has been effective in capturing illegal aliens from Syria, Jordan and Iraq. It has also resulted in significant seizures of narcotics, and gang members from notorious criminal organizations such as MS-13. Perry basically views illegal immigration as most Americans - you are welcome here if you come legally, work hard and stay out of trouble.
These are some of the reasons that Sheriff Arpaio endorsed him because, even though it is a very tough issue and much involved, Gov. Perry is doing something about it.
Jim Gilchrist the Founder of the Minuteman Project (a Tea Party-aligned activist group that monitors activity along the U.S.-Mexico border) has this to say about Governor Perry - “Of all the Republican candidates he’s the one who stands out the most on wanting to deal with this issue and put it to bed and resolve the problems,”
We can talk about corrupt Border Agents in another discussion as part of the ongoing immigration problem.
Last edited by Pressing-On; 12-02-2011 at 10:34 AM.
One of the issues that have aroused concern among conservative Republicans is that of amnesty for illegal immigrants, especially after Gingrich said that it would not be "humane" to deport someone who has been living and working here for years.
Let's go back to square one. The purpose of American immigration laws and policies is not to be either humane or inhumane to illegal immigrants. The purpose of immigration laws and policies is to serve the national interest of this country.
There is no inherent right to come live in the United States, in disregard of whether the American people want you here. Nor does the passage of time confer any such right retroactively.
When you import people, you import cultures, including cultures that have been far less successful in providing decent lives and decent livelihoods. The American people have a right to decide for themselves whether they want unlimited imports of cultures from other countries.
I also agree with Sheriff Arpaio when he said he doesn't agree with Newt's 25 year criteria. He said, "They are still here illegally. That could very easily turn into 10 years or 5 years."
He had a conservative decades ago, but what most tea party and other conservatives are concerned about is his record in this last 10 years.
Actually, the Tea Party is starting to embrace Newt quite well. I am aware that some have concerns, but for the most party, Newt is benefiting from their coming into his fold.
Quote:
I am focusing on his third wave progressivism in the past 10 years - the big government candidate he supported - Dede Scozzafava in New York (trashing conservatives who were questioning his support for liberal agenda). His big government couch moment with Nancy Pelosi. Running around with Al Sharpton and Arni Duncan in the last two years promoting Obama's educational agenda.
Why do you think Newt did these things? Don’t you realize that the very nature of politics requires you to rub shoulders with people you don’t agree with? I’m willing to wager that Newt and Dede Scozzafava agreed on a specific piece of legislation that Newt obviously felt was important. So, put yourself in a politicians shoes. You have a political enemy representing a constituency that you need to support a specific bill. Maybe another candidate of your own party that you typically agree with is running against him. However, this candidate from your own party has another agenda. Maybe some lobbyists have him on their agenda. Who do you support??? The candidate that you may not always agree with and happens to be a political enemy. That’s called politics and it separates the true leaders from the ideologues who grid lock everything, hiding behind some philosophy so they don’t have to make a real decision. So I wander what the story is behind Newt’s support of Scozzafava. It’s not enough to say Newt supported someone… we need to know why. You had Democrats supporting President Bush because they agreed on various pieces of legislation and wanted it passed. Newt and Pelosi… what was the common bond behind the scenes? And as far as education goes… Newt is big on education, he’s a professor. So he supports the current educational agenda to keep in the game and keep relationships with those who have some clout in this political climate. Newt already stated he believes the system needs far more reform. Again, that’s politics. Stop listening to the pithy slander against Gingrich. You paint him as some big government liberal. But the truth is… Pelosi and the rest of her party hate him. Why? Because he’s a conservative.
Quote:
It is hard to view him as taking a right turn unless politically motivated.
He’s a politician and politics is the game of power and influence. Find me a politician who says his decisions aren’t politically motivated and I’ll show you a bold faced liar.
Quote:
I don't have to worry about that with Governor Perry. Just a few things that he has done:
He never bought into the global warming.
He has appointed strict constructionist judges,
De-funded Planned Parenthood's abortion business in Texas
Passed voter ID
Passed a Bill to get around the Federal Light Bulb Law
Passed a law exempting disabled Veterans from paying property taxes, Passed a law giving Vets college credit for their time served in the military
Signed an Eminent Domain Bill
He has a competent recovery plan
There are some important issues that you’ve listed above. First, Perry is a lap dog. Of course he’ll go as 100% conservative as possible. Being Gov. of Texas, no doubt he had his eyes on running for the Presidency. Give Perry a list of what conservatives believe in and he’ll pass conservative bills to get the conservative vote. He doesn’t think for himself. For example, climate change. Newt admits that he believes that climate change is real. Its cause is still debatable to Newt. Newt, being a conservative, would like to see innovative laws and tax breaks aimed at allowing the private sector to address the issue without heavy big government regulation. See this… Newt reviewed the information and came to his own conclusion (rather you agree with him or not)… something Perry doesn’t do. Newt also applied conservative ideals to addressing the issue. That takes critical thinking skills. Perry doesn’t have to think about applying conservative values to climate change. Why? Perry simply denies that climate change exists. Easy out! LOL
Quote:
On the Immigration issue:
He has helped localities near the border put more boots on the ground.
Gave the Texas Border Sheriffs Association $6 Million (2005) to hire more people to patrol the Mexican Border.
When that didn't meet it's objective, he opted for a larger investment in 2008, i.e. Operation Border State which has been effective in capturing illegal aliens from Syria, Jordan and Iraq. It has also resulted in significant seizures of narcotics, and gang members from notorious criminal organizations such as MS-13. Perry basically views illegal immigration as most Americans - you are welcome here if you come legally, work hard and stay out of trouble.
These are some of the reasons that Sheriff Arpaio endorsed him because, even though it is a very tough issue and much involved, Gov. Perry is doing something about it.
As Governor… this is expected of Perry. Big whoop. He’s the Governor. Of course he’ll do more to secure the boarders in his state. Lol
Quote:
Jim Gilchrist the Founder of the Minuteman Project (a Tea Party-aligned activist group that monitors activity along the U.S.-Mexico border) has this to say about Governor Perry - “Of all the Republican candidates he’s the one who stands out the most on wanting to deal with this issue and put it to bed and resolve the problems,”
We can talk about corrupt Border Agents in another discussion as part of the ongoing immigration problem.
Again, let’s salute Perry for being a good Governor. Ah…but beware of the Peter Principle. Just because a man makes a good Governor, it doesn’t mean that he can beat the United States Congress into compliance and get things done. It also doesn’t mean that he can balance the national budget, orchestrate a Republican take over of Congress, and generate 200 million jobs through aggressive tax cuts and deregulation. Guess what… Newt’s already led the charge on those issues and pulled it off. Newt was good in Washington… Perry is good in Texas. I have an idea… Let’s help them with what they are good at. Why don’t we get Newt to Washington and keep Perry in Texas. Lol
Actually, the Tea Party is starting to embrace Newt quite well. I am aware that some have concerns, but for the most party, Newt is benefiting from their coming into his fold.
Yes, many conservatives and tea party members have their concerns with him. In Newt's latest interview he states that he is the nominee. I agree, for once, with Chris Matthew's - "There's Newt Gingrich saying how great he is in front of a Christmas tree. He's his own Christmas present to himself, this guy. He's the happiest egomaniac I've ever seen in my life."
That has always been my perception of Newt overall. Even though there are things I have agreed with him on, I have always been very skeptical about where he actually stands.
Quote:
Why do you think Newt did these things? Don’t you realize that the very nature of politics requires you to rub shoulders with people you don’t agree with? I’m willing to wager that Newt and Dede Scozzafava agreed on a specific piece of legislation that Newt obviously felt was important. So, put yourself in a politicians shoes. You have a political enemy representing a constituency that you need to support a specific bill. Maybe another candidate of your own party that you typically agree with is running against him. However, this candidate from your own party has another agenda. Maybe some lobbyists have him on their agenda. Who do you support??? The candidate that you may not always agree with and happens to be a political enemy. That’s called politics and it separates the true leaders from the ideologues who grid lock everything, hiding behind some philosophy so they don’t have to make a real decision. So I wander what the story is behind Newt’s support of Scozzafava. It’s not enough to say Newt supported someone… we need to know why. You had Democrats supporting President Bush because they agreed on various pieces of legislation and wanted it passed. Newt and Pelosi… what was the common bond behind the scenes? And as far as education goes… Newt is big on education, he’s a professor. So he supports the current educational agenda to keep in the game and keep relationships with those who have some clout in this political climate. Newt already stated he believes the system needs far more reform. Again, that’s politics. Stop listening to the pithy slander against Gingrich. You paint him as some big government liberal. But the truth is… Pelosi and the rest of her party hate him. Why? Because he’s a conservative.
Stop painting him? He needs to stop painting himself! He doesn't have a "consistent" record and that bothers me and a whole lot of other people.
Quote:
"So I wander what the story is behind Newt’s support of Scozzafava."
I'll tell you what was behind it. He said he didn't want to lose the seat for the Republican Party. He didn't give a flip what she stood for. He only wanted to win. He didn't care that the most conservative man was running. He didn't care about rebuilding anything - he cares about winning!
Quote:
There are some important issues that you’ve listed above. First, Perry is a lap dog. Of course he’ll go as 100% conservative as possible. Being Gov. of Texas, no doubt he had his eyes on running for the Presidency. Give Perry a list of what conservatives believe in and he’ll pass conservative bills to get the conservative vote. He doesn’t think for himself. For example, climate change. Newt admits that he believes that climate change is real. Its cause is still debatable to Newt. Newt, being a conservative, would like to see innovative laws and tax breaks aimed at allowing the private sector to address the issue without heavy big government regulation. See this… Newt reviewed the information and came to his own conclusion (rather you agree with him or not)… something Perry doesn’t do. Newt also applied conservative ideals to addressing the issue. That takes critical thinking skills. Perry doesn’t have to think about applying conservative values to climate change. Why? Perry simply denies that climate change exists. Easy out! LOL
As Governor… this is expected of Perry. Big whoop. He’s the Governor. Of course he’ll do more to secure the boarders in his state. Lol
You're leveling ridiculous charges against Perry that you have no founded reason to level. When Texas was largely a Democratic state, you would have been hard pressed to find a Republican represented on local ballot, Perry was a Conservative Democrat. When the Democratic Party began to change, he left the party and became a Republican. It wasn't a hard transition for him. He has always been and is down on record as being a consistent conservative.
You WILL NOT find that in Gingrich's record. You won't find consistency. He wouldn't be apologizing for everything he's done in the past if that was the case. His worst mistake, he says, was sitting on a couch with Pelosi. That wasn't his worst mistake. You won't every find Gov. Perry apologizing for these things.
Quote:
Again, let’s salute Perry for being a good Governor. Ah…but beware of the Peter Principle. Just because a man makes a good Governor, it doesn’t mean that he can beat the United States Congress into compliance and get things done. It also doesn’t mean that he can balance the national budget, orchestrate a Republican take over of Congress, and generate 200 million jobs through aggressive tax cuts and deregulation. Guess what… Newt’s already led the charge on those issues and pulled it off. Newt was good in Washington… Perry is good in Texas. I have an idea… Let’s help them with what they are good at. Why don’t we get Newt to Washington and keep Perry in Texas. Lol
Just because a man makes a good Governor, doesn't mean... Just because he is the longest running Governor in the State of Texas doesn't mean....Just because he has the best jobs records in the country doesn't mean....Just because he has always balanced the budget in Texas doesn't mean....
Let me also add to his great record - cutting funding for clean air programs and suing the EPA for over regulation which stifles job growth.
He not only talks the talk, he walks the walk.
Now I am laughing! Keep Newt on his book tours or at Tiffany's. Give us Governor Perry!
Last edited by Pressing-On; 12-02-2011 at 11:46 AM.
“Mr. Gingrich said it’s not enough that he is the smartest guy in the room, he also has to be wise,” Will said. “Now you can associate many things with Mr. Gingrich, but wisdom isn’t one of them. Surely the Republican nominating electorate should understand the fact that people have patterns. Don’t expect the patterns to go away. Expect the patterns to manifest themselves again. If Newt Gingrich has any pattern at all, and he does – it is a pattern of getting himself into trouble because he thinks he is the smartest guy in the room.
Ask yourself this: Suppose Gingrich or Romney become president and gets re-elected – suppose you had eight years of this,” Will said. “What would the conservative movement be? How would it understand itself after eight years? I think what would have gone away, perhaps forever, is the sense of limited government, the 10th Amendment, Madisonian government of limited, delegated and enumerated powers – the sense conservatism is indeed tied to limitations on federal authority and the police power wielded by Congress – that would all be gone. It’s hard to know what would be left.
Newt Gingrich was a willing, rented spokesman for the housing crises that we are now living through” - George Will
Newt Gingrich threw himself into backing liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava while conservatives and tea party groups were rallying around Conservative Doug Hoffman.
While Gingrich was speaker, he and the NRCC were notorious for backing liberal Republicans over conservatives. For example, in 1997, Gingrich recruited liberal state Assemblyman Brook Firestone and supported him over conservative Tom Bordonaro in a special congressional election. Primary voters in the district rejected Firestone as well as Gingrich and company’s attempts to play kingmaker.
You arent telling the whole story here. He backe Scasafava because she was the republican in the race and for no other reason.
Also, he tried to get a republican in a liberal district elected in California. Bordonaro LOST the race because he was too conservative for the district.
What Newt understands is that it is better to have a less than conservative REPUBLICAN back bencher than it is to have any kind of democrat.
Because in congress what matters is who the leadership is. a liberal republican back bencher votes party line for speaker of the house and for majority leader. Taking away a democrat from the house even with a liberal is vastly better than electing even the most conservative person who will caucus with the people that get the Nasty Nancy's of the world elected Speaker of the House.
I utterly reject this line of attack on Newt.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
You arent telling the whole story here. He backe Scasafava because she was the republican in the race and for no other reason.
Also, he tried to get a republican in a liberal district elected in California. Bordonaro LOST the race because he was too conservative for the district.
What Newt understands is that it is better to have a less than conservative REPUBLICAN back bencher than it is to have any kind of democrat.
Because in congress what matters is who the leadership is. a liberal republican back bencher votes party line for speaker of the house and for majority leader. Taking away a democrat from the house even with a liberal is vastly better than electing even the most conservative person who will caucus with the people that get the Nasty Nancy's of the world elected Speaker of the House.
I utterly reject this line of attack on Newt.
Ferd,
I heard Newt say that he backed Scozzafava because he didn't want to lose the seat.
This game and line of thinking is what I am against - "Because in congress what matters is who the leadership is. a liberal republican back bencher votes party line for speaker of the house and for majority leader. Taking away a democrat from the house even with a liberal is vastly better than electing even the most conservative person who will caucus with the people that get the Nasty Nancy's of the world elected Speaker of the House."
Nothing is ever going to change because we won't stop playing the game. I would have preferred to lose the Scozzafava Republican seat than to champion a liberal Republican. It doesn't make sense to me. We've lost our way in this country.
By putting up the likes of Gingrich as our candidate after the Tea Party bombarded Washington? Are you kidding me? What was it all about? To say that Newt is our Conservative candidate for the White House? Good grief!
And another thing, LOL, if Newt is our nominee, the GOP will NOT be able to attack Obama on:
the housing crisis (due to Newt's ties to Freddie Mac and his touting the virtues of Freddie Mac in 2007)
on Obamacare (since Newt supported the individual mandate)
on the bailouts (since Newt said he would have supported them)
on our out-of-control spending (since Newt's long record proves he is a big spender)
on our government corruption (since Newt was slapped with a $300,000 penalty for ethics violations)
on our being part of the Washington Problem (since Newt is the ultimate Washington insider and was even a lobbyist)
on the bloated size of government (since Newt consistently voted to increase the size and scope of government)
We won't even be able to hang the unpopular Nancy Pelosi around Obama's neck since Newt made that infamous commercial with her
So, if we nominate Newt we are taking away most of our potential attacks on Obama. And yet the folks supporting him are now stating that they are doing so because their top priority is to beat Obama.
And another thing, LOL, if Newt is our nominee, the GOP will NOT be able to attack Obama on:
the housing crisis (due to Newt's ties to Freddie Mac and his touting the virtues of Freddie Mac in 2007)
on Obamacare (since Newt supported the individual mandate)
on the bailouts (since Newt said he would have supported them)
on our out-of-control spending (since Newt's long record proves he is a big spender)
on our government corruption (since Newt was slapped with a $300,000 penalty for ethics violations)
on our being part of the Washington Problem (since Newt is the ultimate Washington insider and was even a lobbyist)
on the bloated size of government (since Newt consistently voted to increase the size and scope of government)
We won't even be able to hang the unpopular Nancy Pelosi around Obama's neck since Newt made that infamous commercial with her
So, if we nominate Newt we are taking away most of our potential attacks on Obama. And yet the folks supporting him are now stating that they are doing so because their top priority is to beat Obama.
Go figure!
Newt can attack Obama's job performance. Even many Democrats have strongly criticized Obama's job performance and have voiced that they'd rather see Hillary run instead. Many registered Democrats aren't thrilled with Obama's job performance either. Frankly, another Democrat, who believes in the same things as Obama, could challege Obama and give him a strong run for his money.
Lol
Linear Mode
