Reply To This Post         Return to Posts Index           VegSource Home

From: soooright (
Subject:         Hey, even Ann Coulter (who has never been wrong) dislikes Newt.
Date: December 14, 2011 at 3:48 pm PST

In Reply to: Any Dr. Seuss fans out there? posted by Mark on December 12, 2011 at 9:04 pm:

Fellow right-wingers: Is our objective to taunt
Obama by accusing him of "Kenyan, anti-colonial
behavior," of being "authentically dishonest" and a
"wonderful con" -- and then lose the election -- or
is it to defeat Obama, repeal ObamaCare, secure the
borders, enforce e-verify, reform entitlement
programs, reduce the size of government and save the

If all you want is to lob rhetorical bombs at Obama
and then lose, Newt Gingrich -- like recent favorite
Donald Trump -- is your candidate. But if you want
to save the country, Newt's not your guy.

Gingrich makes plenty of bombastic statements, but
these never seem to translate into actual policy

After becoming the first Republican speaker of the
House in nearly half a century, for example, Newt
promptly proposed orphanages and janitorial jobs for
children on welfare.

It was true that welfare had destroyed generations
of families shorn of the work ethic and led to
soaring illegitimacy rates, child abuse and neglect.
Maybe orphanages and child labor would have been

But we didn't get any orphanages. We didn't get jobs
for children in families where no one works.

What we got was the cartoonish image of Republicans
as hard-hearted brutes who hated poor kids.

Ronald Reagan was also accused of waging a war on
the poor. But that was on account of his
implementing historic tax cuts that produced not
only record revenues for the government, but decades
of prosperity for the entire nation.

With Newt, you get all the heat, blowback and
acrimony, but you don't get the policy changes.

To the contrary, his pointless bloviating about
orphanages and child janitors harmed the chances for
welfare reform, despite the fact that the American
people, the Republican Congress and the Democratic
president (publicly, at least), supported it.

Indeed, when it came time to make vital changes to
welfare policy, such as work requirements and anti-
illegitimacy provisions, Gingrich tried to scuttle
them. He denounced such provisions -- the very heart
of welfare reform -- as, yes, "social engineering of
the right" (e.g., Republican Governors Conference,
Williamsburg, Va., Nov. 22, 1994).

The guy who wanted orphanages for children on
welfare suddenly called work requirements for adults
on welfare right-wing "social engineering."

Gingrich went on to lose almost every negotiation
with Bill Clinton -- and that was with solid
Republican majorities in both the House and Senate.
His repeated capitulation to Clinton led former Vice
President Dan Quayle to remark that the Republican
"Contract With America" had become the "Contract
With Clinton." (Not to be confused with Newt's book,
"Contract With the Earth.")

Perfectly good policies are constantly being
undermined by Newt's crazy statements -- such as his
explanation that women couldn't be in combat because
they get infections, whereas men "are basically
little piglets," who are "biologically driven to go
out and hunt giraffes."

Hunt giraffes?

With Gingrich we get the worse of all worlds. He
talks abrasively -- offending moderates and
galvanizing liberals -- but then carries a teeny,
tiny stick.

We want someone who will talk softly and
unthreateningly while implementing vital policy
changes. Even when Gingrich doesn't completely back
off conservative positions, his nutty rhetoric
undermines the ability of Republicans to get
anything done.

By the time of the 1996 Republican National
Convention, Gingrich was so widely reviled that the
Democrats' main campaign strategy against all
Republican candidates for office was to link them
with Gingrich.

Gingrich was forced into a minor speaking role at
the convention, which he used to promote ... beach

That's right, Republicans were trying to defeat
Clinton and Newt was talking about beach volleyball,
which is apparently the essence of freedom -- as
well as evidence of Newt's cuddly side!

(During the House ethics investigation of Gingrich,
he produced notes in which he reminds himself to
"allow expression of warm/smiling/softer side.")

After Gingrich had been speaker for a brief two
years, the Republican House voted 395-28 to
reprimand him and fine him $300,000 for ethics

(Sen. Bob Dole loaned Gingrich the money in what was
called the first instance of an airbag being saved
by a person.)

It's true that Newt has had some good ideas -- but
also boatloads of bad ones, such as his support for
experimentation on human embryos, cap and trade,
policies to combat imaginary man-made global
warming, an individual health insurance mandate,
Dede Scozzafava (Romney supported the tea party
candidate), amnesty for illegal aliens, Al Gore's
bill to establish an "Office of Critical Trends
Analysis" to prepare government reports on
"alternative futures" (co-sponsored by Gingrich),
and thinking he could get away with taking $1.6
million from Freddie Mac without anyone noticing.

During the ethics investigation, the committee also
found among Newt's personal papers a sketch of
himself as a stick figure at the center of the

On one page, Newt called himself: "definer of
civilization, teacher of the rules of civilization,
arouser of those who fan civilization, organizer of
the pro-civilization activists, leader (possibly) of
the civilizing forces."

This is not a small-government conservative talking.
It is not a conservative at all.

Reply To This Post         Return to Posts Index           VegSource Home

Follow Ups:

Post Reply

E-mail: (optional)


Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: