« BACK | PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

(UPDATE) Glenn Beck’s Reckless Race Card Comment May Re-Elect Obama

By: BigGator5 (Diary) | December 11th, 2011 at 01:18 PM |

RESIZE: AAA

Update: This post is not about Newt Gingrich. This post is about Glenn Beck calling Tea Party supporters of Newt Gingrich, racists, because there is no difference between Obama and Gingrich. While there can be an honest debate if Gingrich is a progressive Republican, there is a clear choice between Obama and Gingrich. Calling those Tea Party people racists who believe that Gingrich is the best close-to-conservative-as-we-can-get to defeat Obama, is also beyond dumb.

Anyway, I was just listening to Glenn Beck and he is completely unapologetic. He is also blaming the GOP Establishment for this story, taking no personal responsibility whatsoever. I am far from the GOP Establishment as I can be. Beck has gone completely over the deep end and I will no longer listen to him on the radio. Whoever called it first, gets 15 Trillion Internets.

(Via TheRightScoop) Wow. And here we are told Gingrich’s big mouth might cost us the election. Who ever thought it would be Glenn Beck?

Talk about your all time dumb comments. I mean, it is one thing to say this and that about Gingrich. This whole Republican love of Theodore Roosevelt and Richard Nixon also escapes me, these were not conservative presidents. However I just normally roll my eyes when I see or hear conservatives name them as their “conservative” heroes. I just don’t get it. My favorite conservative hero is George Washington.

However I am currently supporting Newt Gingrich because I think he’s the best conservative to carry the banner for us in 2012 since Herman Cain dropped out. Does that make me less of a conservative? Or, in Beck’s newest opinion, a racist?

Steve Flesher at Conservatives4Palin.com breaks this down for us:

Glenn Beck decided to “challenge” the Tea Party. Calling the GOP frontrunner a “progressive,” Beck then asserted that if faced with a choice between two “progressives” (Obama and Gingrich), the only difference then becomes the race of the candidate.

So basically, if Tea Party members vote for Newt Gingrich instead of Obama in 2012, it’s because they must have a problem with Obama’s race.

The left has been dying for someone on the right to make such a remark. This is the type of thing that will show up ten months from now on the eve of the most important election of our lifetimes to prove that Tea Party members are racists — especially if Obama is down in the polls and our candidate just happens to be Newt Gingrich.

I can see the ad now:

Glenn Beck: -ask yourself this Tea Party. Is it about Obama’s race, because that’s what it appears to be to me. If you’re against him [Obama] but you’re for this guy [Newt], it must be about race.

I don’t care if it is out of context, they can still use it. Hell, I’d use it if I was making ads for Obama. I’m not dumb. It is bad enough that they have Newt Gingrich’s “Right-wing Social Engineering” comment, now this comment from Beck?

I’ve been a defender of Glenn Beck for some time now. However this is indefensible. Newt Gingrich and Barack Obama can’t be further apart. Steve Flesher also notes that they are nothing a like:

I realize … that Newt Gingrich has a checkered past. But to infer there being no difference between Obama and Gingrich is a bit of a stretch.

Despite noted concerns and policy statements which are concerning, Newt’s record shows that he passed welfare reform and got the Democrats on board to do it. Obama on the other hand rolled that reform back with the failed stimulus. Newt’s policies helped to give us 4.2% unemployment. Under Newt’s leadership, he gave us the first balanced budget since 1969 and did it for four years. Obama’s policies have skyrocketed unemployment with job-killers like Obamacare and continue to grow our budget.

Further, and most importantly, Gingrich was able to get bipartisan support from a liberal White House because he knew how to articulate the proposals in a way that works. I believe this a very authentic quality he has which is lacking among some of the others. … It’s a quality that only a very few possess. Reagan had it as well. As we see, Obama does not.

Ladd Ehlinger Jr. also takes excetion to Glenn Beck along the same line of thought as Andrew Breitbart:

Don’t ever call people racist unless you have cold hard facts. That’s what progressives, liberals, socialists, and marxists do.

David Duke? He’s a racist. I know, because as a kid I fought hard to help keep him out of the Louisiana Governor’s mansion (and got my car trashed as a result).

Ma and Pa in Iowa who supported Herman Cain, then went to Newt Gringrich? Not racist.

But those progressives, liberals, socialists, and marxists are already taking full advantage:

Glenn Beck: Newt Gingrich Supporters Who Oppose Obama Are Racist

And that was just the headline from the Puffington Host.

Glenn Beck has just made every Tea Party person’s life, and the 2012 election, that much more difficult. I hope he is happy with himself.

I still can’t believe he leveled such a personal attack. I will be tuning into Beck’s show tomorrow for a personal apology to that personal attack on my character. If I don’t get it, I will call the local station that carries him and ask if they could take him off the air.

Tags: 2012, Glenn Beck, Newt Gingrich, Race Card, TEA Party

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES | LOGIN TO COMMENT | REGISTER TODAY

jstjoan

If an apology does not come tomorrow.

http://twitter.com/biggator5 BigGator5

I do not support boycotts. I do support voting with your dollars and remote button.

papabear

I vote w/my wallet.

dajeeps

He twisted everything Gingrich said, pasted the persona of Teddy Roosevelt on top – and then he had Bachmann on to help him smear Gingrich further. It’s all quite an abuse of his platform and deserves to have market discipline imposed on him. I took all of his books off my wish list, and will continue to boycott everything Beck until he apologizes and corrects the record.

center77

how ironic, now I understand the whole I’m boycotting thing, but Beck does what he is good at, telling the truth, and Newt fans are wanting to believe something other than the truth, so you slammed the messenger. In Meets own word he is who he is, all the big gov Republican say they a Teddie Repubs, don’t you thinks its kind of odd that Obama and Newt channel teddy Roosevelt in the same week, it down right scary to me, yes maybe Newt is a tad more conservative than Obama and Romney, but who cares, he is not a tea party kind of guy, he is a fraud who has tricked so many, the same way Obama did the other side, they are both professors after all.

JSobieski

That the only difference between Newt and Obama is skin color?

Is that the “truth”? Really?

The ability to distinguish A from B is a key component of judgment.

Any person or candidate who thinks Republican Presidential candidate X is no different than Obama is severely lacking an ability to make common sense assessments.

The ocean and the contents of a coffee cup are both “wet” but that doesn’t make them indistinguishable from each other.

Call the tea party people supporting Newt misguided. Call them unprincipled. But calling them racist is just acting like a leftist to attack someone who is right of center.

“Tad”conservative than Obama? Really? The guy who led the effort to cut spending, pass a balanced budget amendment, reform welfare, etc.?

This country is even more screwed up than I realized when people can only paint with the broadest of brushes and can’t distinguish between a miniature toy plan and Boeing 747.

center77

and that at some point one has to ask themselves is it about values,small government or is it about just putting someone else in office instead of Obama. WHy replace one progressive for another, and Obama as been center left his first term, and that is what Beck is saying, they will be the same.
JSobieski

Spending under Newt was better than it has been since, and that was with a D president.

“No reason” is a silly statement. You may say inadequate, but the facts are pretty clear that government spending during Newt’s time as Speaker was the best that we have done in my lifetime.

That is much more than “NO” reason.

dajeeps

The context in which Gingrich talked about his positions. He doesn’t believe we can just pull the rug out from under people over night. He wants to reform many programs to where they provide choice between market solutions or government straightjackets that come complete with death panels. Which would you choose? It’s not progressive or Teddy Roosevelt. It’s rational considering everything Democrats have done to themselves by shoving things we don’t want down our throats. If the mass majority of the people are not on board with any given solution, then it might as well not be one and pushing it isn’t going to get us anywhere in the end.
forfreedom

Newt is a progressive, and it’s right from his own mouth.

http://the-classic-liberal.com/newt-gingrich-progressive-tea-party-candidate/

Gingrich To Glenn: ‘I’m a Theodore Roosevelt Republican’

I’m a Theodore Roosevelt Republican. In fact, if I were going to characterize my ? on health where I come from, I’m a Theodore Roosevelt Republican and I believe government can lean in the regulatory leaning is okay. ? Newt Gingrich (the gibberish too).

To some?perhaps many?Republicans, to be a Theodore Roosevelt Republican is quite respectable. Therein lies the rub. If you’re the type of (Robert) Taft Republican who values your life, liberty and property ? then Teddy Roosevelt, “the guy who started the Progressive Party,” and was a proponent of “progressive ideals” ? is bad news.

If you didn’t already know Newt was bad news; then Glenn Beck makes it abundantly clear.

center77

Two things matter on you post, I think you even admit that you are taking beck out of context, but then claim that it will be used by the left, then you are using the left wing method of using something out of context. I am thinking you are mad that Newt got hit by Beck, but this country should be happy Beck is using his show HIS SHOW, to tell the trust about Newt, because out let?s are not doing it. Here is why it matters, and Why I think your anger at Beck is not justified.

They care little about conservative values because Newt does not care about it. What cracks me up about Newt is that he is in many ways much worse than Mitt Romney when it comes to flip and past baggage that makes it very hard to attract anybody in the middle of the voter spectrum, I think there are a few things that attract the middle, one is a person?s character, if they do not have that then they will find it very hard to even get these people to even take their message serious, then the second thing is record, which included personal things. It is safe to say that what a person has done in the past will give us the best glimpse in how they will act in the future. The problem with Newt being the nominee is that we cannot take the risk that he will be the worst thing for the party just because we think he would out debate Obama, but that would be the only part of Newts campaign that would dominate. The country as a whole says in poll after poll they like Obama and trust him, if the Republicans want to beat Obama they have to run someone that the country knows they can trust, I don?t think Newt can be trusted, how in the world can I expect the rest of the nation to trust him once they get the full view of him.

Here is what Beck said, which I am not claiming was the right thing to say, but what he said about Newt is true, this man is a Republican progressive.

ling him “the only candidate I cannot vote for,” Beck dubbed Gingrich’s support for Theodore Roosevelt “ridiculous,” and said that he had issued a “challenge” to any Tea Party supporters of the former House Speaker.

“You read this guy’s record,” he said. “You read his words…see what he believes. This man is a progressive. He knows he’s a progressive. He doesn’t have a problem with being a progressive. So if you’ve got a big government progressive [in Gingrich] or a big government progressive in Obama, one in Newt Gingrich, one Obama, ask yourself this Tea Party. Is it about Obama’s race?

Because that’s what it appears to be to me. If you’re against him but you’re for this guy, it must be about race.”

“It must be about race,” the host, Andrew Napolitano, said. “I mean, what else is it about, Judge?” Beck said. “It’s the policies that matter.”

ripusa32110

It isn’t because Obama is black and Ginrich is white that causes Tea Party people to “support” Gingrich. It is that Gingrich has an (R) in front of his name and Obama has a (D) in front of his name. Since Gingrich and Obama share so very many of the same views on healthcare, climate change, and corporate cronyism that is the logical answer to why Obama/bad and Gingrich/good.
ripusa32110

It isn’t because Obama is black and Ginrich is white that causes Tea Party people to “support” Gingrich. It is that Gingrich has an (R) in front of his name and Obama has a (D) in front of his name. Since Gingrich and Obama share so very many of the same views on healthcare, climate change, and corporate cronyism that is the logical answer to why Obama/bad and Gingrich/good.
JSobieski

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1903_2010USp_13s1li0181280_840cs_F0t_US_Government_Spending_As_Percent_Of_GDP

Like reforming Medicare so that HCFA withers on the vine?

Do you really think Newt is the same as Obama? Really?

and you accuse others of not thinking straight.

Newt was in favor of private accounts to reform Medicare before it was cool to support them.

His record as you can see from the graph above is of a decrease in government spending as a percentage of GDP.

I don’t agree with everything he says or does, but when you fail to see ANY difference between Newt and Obama besides race, its time to question the ability to discern reality.

boonerdan

If you are willing to take things out of context and run with them, then I assume you are a closet MSM subscriber and defender. SO, when it comes time for your “favorite” candidate or pundit to be taken out of context, I am sure we can expect you to blame your candidate for opening their mouths, not the attack media (sarcasm fully intended).

Anyone with half a brain knows what Beck meant. Those missing more than half a brain should not be allowed to vote.
bzip

Glenn Beck was totally right in his claim about Newt being a progressive. What he was wrong in was bring the race issue into it. That just muddied up the actual point of Newt being progressive. I do understand what Beck was saying in that regard but he didn’t have to go there to make the point.

The record is clear of Newt being progressive, it is well documented and has been talk about. If you doubt it, I can clearly post well documented evidence that shows Newt supporting big gov’t ways. I have before, then again the denial supports will just try to sping it any way they can.

As much as I dislike Bachmann her Newt-Romney hit last night only reaffirmed that both Newt and Romney are the two most progressives.

It was brought up in the Huckbee forum last week by Ken the moderator – the concerns of Newt’s past history big gov’t ideas and solutions.

So yes, if you still honestly believe Newt isn’t a progressive then you are either blind or in denial:

Michele Bachmann Simultaneously Takes On The Two Frontrunners: “Newt Romney” (ABC News Debate)
http://youtu.be/tX2nEx6gqFU

Ken Cuccinelli Is Not Satisfied with GOP Candidates’ Answers!
http://youtu.be/B8Jzd-c_ZjU

JSobieski

First, most Newt supporters are quite reluctant—lesser of other evil assessments abound. I hope to not have to vote for him, so please Gov. Perry!!!!! Make something happen.

Second, if Glenn Beck thinks the only difference between Romney and Obama or Newt and Obama is skin color, the guy is an idiot and has lost all sense of perspective and proportionality. Both Newt and Romney have fought tax increases. Newt did more to reduce the rate of spending in DC than any currently living Republican. Newt wanted to voucherize Medicaid and Medicare back when Paul Ryan was a Congressional intern. What Republican leader first uttered the phrase “HCFA dying on the vine”? Answer: Newt.

Any painting of Newt as a progressive who is equivalent to Obama is mindless shallow drivel. Proportionality is a prerequisite for a truly conservative perspetive. Recall how leftists will point to some random act of violence by someone serving in Iraq and use it try and impune the entire effort? Well, its no less unreasonable when you use the same tactic against a Republican candidate.

Third, people like Bachmann will always say the right things because they are never responsible or accountable for anything. What has Bachmann ever achieved in Congress?

She talks tough on the debt ceiling, but where is the proposal that would make raising the debt ceiling unecessary?

Where is here proposal for entitlement reforms?

Newt is the opposite of the no-achievement Bachmann, but that means he has said things that could be attacked, proposed solutions that could be challenged, etc.

In terms of the individual mandate, the Newt interview on Glenn Beck clearly shows that Newt’s “individual mandate” is something significantly different than how Obama and leftists use the term.

There are plenty of reasons to not support Newt. Perry is my first choice. But painting Newt as equivalent to Obama is not persuasive. Mischaracterizing Newt’s position on healthcare is similarly disappointing, Re-read the transcript (if you even bothered to read it in the first place).

GINGRICH: All of a sudden responsibility to help pay for healthcare. And I think that there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I?ve said consistently we ought to have some requirement to either have health insurance OR you post a bond OR in some way you indicate you are going to be held accountable.

VOICE: That is the individual mandate, is it not?

GINGRICH: It?s a variation on it.

Honest political discussion in this country is impossible when words like cuts, amnesty, and individual mandate are used as empty vessels into which various people just project whatever emotional response they want to invoke.

A lot of Newt voters will (hopefully) end up with Perry, but your insulting flim flam is not aiding Perry.

There are few Democrats who are as leftwing as Obama. When you assert that Republicans are equivalent to Obama, I have to presume the person speaking is a raving lunatic.

JSobieski

If you look at the language carefully, there are essentially three options in what Newt considers a ?variation? on an ?individual mandate?:
1.?have health insurance OR?
2.?post a bond OR?
3.?in some way indicate that you are going to be held accountable?

If its progressive to try to implement a policy that enhanced the accountability of people who receive services to pay for those services, I guess I am a progressive.

If the mandate above occurred in the context of voucherizing Medicare and Medicaid (as Newt proposed back in 1993), it would be the most important reform of entitlements EVER.

This line of attack is as unfair as people saying that Perry is pro-amnesty because of the instate tuition issue.

bzip

You keep trying to spin this mandate but the evidence is to clear and too much of it:

Fist of all Newt has some kind a fetish for “mandates” he now is into cars for mandates:

01/30/2011 ? He suggested that flex-fuel vehicles be mandated for Americans.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704698004576104682930044012.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
?So along comes Mr. Gingrich to offer his support for Mr. Obama’s brand of green-energy welfare, undermining House Republicans in the process. In his Iowa speak-power-to-truth lecture, he even suggested that the government should mandate that all new cars in the U.S. be flex-fuel vehicles?meaning those that can run on an ethanol-gas mix as high as 85%?as if King Corn were in any danger of being deposed.?

Health Mandates, recent support by Newt:
05/15/11 – Newt Shocks Conservatives:
http://nation.foxnews.com/newt-gingrich/2011/05/15/newt-shocks-conservatives
?Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Sunday that he strongly supports a federal mandate requiring citizens to buy health insurance ? a position that has been rejected by many Republicans, including several who likely will be running against him for the Republican presidential nomination.

Appearing on NBC?s ?Meet the Press,? Gingrich told host David Gregory that he continues to advocate for a plan he first called for in the early 1990s as a Congressman, which requires every uninsured citizen to purchase or acquire health insurance. Read more at newsmax.com.?

5/15/11 – Gingrich Backs Obamacare’s Individual Mandate Requiring Health Insurance
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/gingrich-health-care-insurance/2011/05/15/id/396426

Appearing on NBC?s ?Meet the Press,? Gingrich told host David Gregory that he continues to advocate for a plan he first called for in the early 1990s as a Congressman, which requires every uninsured citizen to purchase or acquire health insurance.

Gregory played a clip of Gingrich speaking during an appearance on Meet the Press in October 1993:

?I am for people, individuals — exactly like automobile insurance — individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance. And I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy so we insure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.?

You can spin it all you want, Newt supports mandates, also global warming, TARP, a form of amnesty, the list goes on and on – Newt is a progressive.

JSobieski

So I supposed you want to get Pence, Ryan, DeMint, et al out of DC as quickly as possible.

The more recent quote by Newt on Glenn Beck explains exactly what Newt means by an invidual mandate. You choose to ignore it.

I don’t agree with Newt on all issues, but I also don’t take MSM articles about any Republican at face value either.

Most of your quotes are not quotes by Newt—they are quotes about people characterizing Newt.

Kind of like when the MSM said that Paul Ryan wanted to end Medicare.

If you can identify one living individual who has done more to keep spending under control in DC, I would love to hear about it.
Scope

For those of us here back in the 10 elections, you railed on and on and on about Christine O’Donnel’s noy paying her campaign debts, Yes, that was your big schtick against O’Donnell. Gingrich is still trying to pay his exhorbitant expenses from his early campaign. If I am not mistaken, you railed against O’Donnell because her lack of fiscal acumen, and that proved that she just could never be the Senator from DA. Now we have Chris Coons, the bearded marxist from DE as the sitting Senator. How’s that working out for the R’s JSob. But, now Gingrich is racking up bills, he may never be able to pay, but that OK. Oh O’Donnell was a very inferior candidate, most would agree with that. Would she have been better than Coons? No question. What was most egregious about your posts back then, was you even knocked her after she won the primary. You still knocked her when she was the R candidate.
JSobieski

First, I supported O’Donnell against Coons. I didn’t send her money, but I wanted her to win. Nowhere did I support Coons. In fact, I wrote a diary in favor of R unity prior to the primary.

http://www.redstate.com/jsobieski/2010/09/14/establishment-republicans-dc-ruling-class-types-and-rinos-a-conservatives-humble-request/

“First and foremost, I hope that no matter who wins the DE primary, that we all support the winner. By support I mean vote for, and not spend time trashing until after the November election.”

So you are just plain wrong about what you are saying.

Second, I didn’t support her in the primaries because she (a) had no record of accomplishment, (b) asserted in her lawsuit that conservatism led to sexually discriminating mistreatment (yes, she used a leftist stereotype of conservatives in a lawsuit against her employer); and (c) did not even bother to “process” her vendor invoices from her previous campaign.

Not only did O’Donnell not pay her prior invoices from her prior campaign—she was still “processing” (her word, not mine) until a week before the primary election in Delaware.

If Newt ran for office in 2011 while still having unpaid campaign debts from a previous campaign, let me know. Otherwise, there is no hypocrisy over here.

JSobieski rule for which no hypocrisy has been shown:

DON’T START A NEW CAMPAIGN FOR ELECTED OFFICE IF YOU HAVEN’T BOTHERED TO “PROCESS” AND PAY YOUR PREVIOUS CAMPAIGN INVOICES.

Peace!
JSobieski

It is much easier to make an argument for hypcrisy when you actually cite facts or pick a topic for which the facts cannot easily be cited.

There is an art to smearing, and to your credit, you aren’t any good at it.
Scope

Here is what I said-

“Gingrich is still trying to pay his exhorbitant expenses from his early campaign.”

From his “early campaign” meaning his 2012 campaign for the presidency in the first few months.
JSobieski

Put another way, what you said about O’Donnell can’t me be a hypocrite..

This goes to the very definition of hypocrisy in the dictionary. It addition to reading that, you might also want to look up in the good book the little tidbit about “false witness” and “removing the speck out of someone elses eye”..

What I said about O’Donnell is that a person should pay their debts from a previous campaign before launching a new campaign.

Thus there is NOTHING hypocritical of having Newt as #2 on my list since Newt has no debt from previous campaign.
JSobieski

Put another way, what you said about O’Donnell can’t me be a hypocrite..

This goes to the very definition of hypocrisy in the dictionary. It addition to reading that, you might also want to look up in the good book the little tidbit about “false witness” and “removing the speck out of someone elses eye”..

What I said about O’Donnell is that a person should pay their debts from a previous campaign before launching a new campaign.

Thus there is NOTHING hypocritical of having Newt as #2 on my list since Newt has no debt from previous campaign.
JSobieski

Put another way, what you said about O’Donnell can’t make me a hypocrite. That makes your statement factual incorrect.

This goes to the very definition of hypocrisy in the dictionary. It addition to reading that, you might also want to look up in the good book the little tidbit about “false witness” and “removing the speck out of someone elses eye”..

What I said about O’Donnell is that a person should pay their debts from a previous campaign before launching a new campaign. Nothing conservative about letting your small vendors go unpaid, failing to even process their invoices, and then saying “what the heck, lets give it another try”,

Thus there is NOTHING hypocritical of having Newt as #2 on my list since Newt has no debt from previous campaign.

Put still another way, I never criticized O’Donnell for her “early campaign” debt, I crticized her for her “previous campaign” debt.

Bottom Line: If you want to smear people, you need to improve your skills.

Your options would seem to consist of the following:
(1) Stop smearing
(2) Plan ahead better
JSobieski

Put another way, what you said about O’Donnell can’t make me a hypocrite. That makes your statement factual incorrect.

This goes to the very definition of hypocrisy in the dictionary. It addition to reading that, you might also want to look up in the good book the little tidbit about “false witness” and “removing the speck out of someone elses eye”..

What I said about O’Donnell is that a person should pay their debts from a previous campaign before launching a new campaign. Nothing conservative about letting your small vendors go unpaid, failing to even process their invoices, and then saying “what the heck, lets give it another try”,

Thus there is NOTHING hypocritical of having Newt as #2 on my list since Newt has no debt from previous campaign.

Put still another way, I never criticized O’Donnell for her “early campaign” debt, I crticized her for her “previous campaign” debt.

Bottom Line: If you want to smear people, you need to improve your skills.

Your options would seem to consist of the following:
(1) Stop smearing
(2) Plan ahead better
JSobieski

Otherwise, I will just start saying baseless things about you as well.
JSobieski

Evidence directly contradicting Scope’s accusation? My diary linked to above.

I will refrain from “saying baseless things about you” but most people aren’t as nice and forgiving as I am. For me it is always about issues and truth, not candidates and personalities.
bzip

You are yet another hopeless one. And I suppose Newt wanted a voucher system in 1993 for Hillarycare.

I suppose it wasn’t Newt sitting on the couch with Pelosi talking Global warming, nope it wasn’t Newt in a love fest with Kerry over global warming.

Nope it wasn’t Newt that supported TARP. Nope it wasn’t Newt that supported Medicare Part D. I do have video’s of Newt in his own words so please don’t try and spin this another way – Newt is a progressive, period! You can spin, you can blame the MSM, you can yack all you want – Newt is a progressive!

Own up to it, it will be good to live up to the truth and move onward.
JSobieski

I am not defending Newt on TARP (something a lot of R’s voted for including Paul Ryan). Nor am I defending Newt for the Pelosi photo op.

I am simply responding that the current voucher strategy of Paul Ryan and other conservatives was first advocated by Newt in 1993.

Your own quotes show that. Read them.
dajeeps

The entire point that was left out by both Beck and Bachmann is that Newt’s position is that for things like healthcare, we can’t just go pulling the rug out from under people over night and need to reform them in a systematic approach to where they voluntarily transition to it because they are based on personal choice and provide market based solutions as opposed to government straight jackets that come complete with death panels. That’s Teddy Roosevelt? That’s Progressive? Really? No, it’s rational considering all the things Democrats have been shoving down our throats and what he has done to his party as a result. If the mass majority of the people are not on board with any given solution, it might as well not be one.

Common_Cents

There is little intellectual honesty left, and the mindless drivel exaggerations are counter-productive to candidates.

Plus, the irony is if Perry supporters want a 2nd shot for Perry, they should be supporting Gingrich(or laying off) and let him take down Romney. Perry had his chance and failed. Gingrich is succeeding, he deserves a little credit.

Scope

You know Common Cents, if you made the first rational argument here, you might have some credibility. You are so desperate to support your guy Newt, you seem to be living on another planet. Do you ever bring your spaceship in for landing on planet earth?
bzip

CC you are hopeless.

“Perry had his chance and failed. Gingrich is succeeding…”

Might I remind you it was Perry from the start that ruffled Romney with the famous line from Romney, ” I am running for office I can’t have illegals working for me”. It was Perry that labeled Romany as the well known flip-flopper from all the previous debates’

Or the famous ruffling from last night and the 10K bet. Cripes, if you had even “1″ brain cell left you would see Perry has done more to take down Romney then anyone ever has.

kipling

Have the two ex-wives, that Newt cheated on, made their peace with Newt and his candidacy? Or, are we going to see a crying ex-wife explaining to Oprah how Newt betrayed her and the children?

If not a wife, how about the close “friend” who will certainly be willing to tell her side of the story?

The Democrats will stoop to anything. Newt will not be able to stay on the issues when confronted with a crying former spouse. Nor will he be able to play it off by saying the American public have a right to ask questions. At some point those questions will have to be answered. It had better be by Newt.
Common_Cents

Perry has a great record. I”ve stated that 101 times now. Why isn’t he dominating? He should have had it locked up by now but he is in single and low double digits.

Yet you call me out, you should call out the Perry campaign. He can’t even instill confidence in the base, how the heck is he going to win the general?
kipling

My question is simple and straightforward. A Newt candidacy is over the moment a former spouse or friend of a spouse appears tearfully on national TV.
lineholder

No offense, but I think you’re giving the MSM more credit than they deserve here. It depends on why people are supporting Gingrich and how strong the sentiment is to get Obama out of office. If people choose to support Gingrich anyway IN SPITE OF all the negative things, then I don’t see the MSM having much influence on them.

And even for those that it might influence, if it’s the general election and the voter wants Obama out of office, they’ll end up choosing to support Gingrich IN SPITE OF the negatives.

I don’t think the MSM is going to be influential enough to drive voters in OBAMA’s direction. At least not to the extent that they might have influenced voters in the past. Just because it’s Obama and because his policies have done so much damage to this nation economically.
kipling

If Newt was a consistent conservative then you might have a stronger point, but Newt has a severe trust problem. He has supported the individual mandate and even now seems to support it. He has supported the man-made global warming hogwash. That is why many conservatives have a sense of unease about Newt. We don’t know what Newt will do as President. He has often come across as the “big government conservative.”

The personal betrayal of his two previous wives amplify the trust issue.

Obama and the MSM know this and they will use it in the general if Newt is the nominee.

Your strategy for electing Newt depends upon people voting against Obama rather than for Newt. Yet, we will need more than votes. We will need active support and people energized for the candidate. It may not be enough to just be against Obama, especially if Newt appears like Obama with the mandate and global warming.
lineholder

The hard cold reality is that our options are becoming limited at this point.

Romney…I don’t think Romney can win against Obama. I’d love to say otherwise, but Romney is just too much of a cold fish to inspire people on much of anything, and I just don’t see him as having a snowball’s chance in Hades of winning. If he gets the nom, I’ll fight behind him every inch of the way to do what I can to make sure he wins, but I just don’t think he’ll succeed in it.

Perry’s the wildcard in this. He’s qualified, but for the life of him, the man hasn’t succeeded in connecting with voters in a way that establishes himself as a frontrunner in this race and allowed him to maintain that position long enough to give it credibility. This isn’t TX. What may have worked for him in TX re: his campaign strategy may not work as well on a national level, kipling. If he’s got what it takes to bring it rather than following his trademark campaign strategy, then I think that’s his best shot. He’s running out of time.

Newt…for whatever reasons, Newt’s connecting with voters right now. We can fret and fume about “maybe’s” with the MSM until we’re blue in the face. If Perry doesn’t find a way to bring it, and if he can’t find a way to establish himself as THE frontrunner in this race, then Newt’s the most viable option we’ve got.

IF that is what it comes down to, kipling, then I’ll take every anti-Obama vote we can get, okay? Enthusiasm or not, if it gets Obama out of office, then I’ll take it.
kipling

I would support Newt in the general election against Obama. I think most conservatives would.

However, we should not kid ourselves about who Newt is and what baggage comes with his nomination. If he responds to the MSM attacks and the allegations the same way Cain did, then he is a dead man walking.

Newt has a real problem and he must pro-actively address that problem. He should not wait for the MSM to call the tune.
lineholder

about the possibility that what we’re seeing pertaining to Newt’s rise in the polls is because voters are choosing to support Newt IN SPITE OF all the negative things.

When a person makes a choice IN SPITE OF, they don’t have any illusions about what the truth is, kipling. What’s more, they can develop a fairly strong sense of resolve that the choice that they’ve made is the right choice for them to make, under the circumstances, so their mind isn’t easily influenced or easily changed.

As to how Newt responds to attacks by the MSM…your point is valid. I don’t think Newt is likely to get caught being either naive or having a deer-in-the-headlight expression from any attacks like Cain did. Newt’s been associated with the realm politics for too long for him to respond that way.

I think Newt’s problems lie more in the fact that he is the kind of person who has a strong level of confidence in what he knows within the context of his own life experiences (and that kind of confidence isn’t a bad thing), but if he isn’t careful about his tone and his choice of words, he comes across as a conceited and pompous pain in the backside.
westcoastpatriette

Sorry to threadjack–just wanted to get your attention.
lineholder

in this case. I got an email from her saying thanks for the prayers and saying she’d be in touch when she got back home to AL and things settled down a bit. This is a tough time for her all the way around…she lost a niece in an act of violence earlier in the month…Sam lost his job…and then the death of her father…

Just send lots and lots of prayers her way, westcoast.
kipling

I am just not sure the majority of people really know Newt at this point. He has high name recognition but do people know the baggage. I will admit that even I – a political junkie – did not know as much about Newt as I know now. Will those less informed be turned off once the full picture of a faithless husband who abandons his wife and kids is painted by the MSM. Please note that I am not saying that about Newt. It is not a fair depiction but it will be the depiction that the MSM tries to paint.

I agree fully with your last point. Newt can be his own worst enemy.
lineholder

My answer is…I don’t know. The MSM goes out of the way to put their own spin on everything these days, and most of us on the right know that this is the case, so we’re not as inclined to get caught off-guard by just believing what we’re told to believe and buying into that spin as the honest-to-goodness truth.

But for the remainder of our population…I honestly don’t know how many of them have even close to recognizing this. So your point here is very much so valid.
JSobieski

Just as Bob Dole’s ex-wife supported him.
kipling

nt
Common_Cents

No matter if anything comes out or not, people will have 2 choices, either Gingrich or Obama. The primary was different w/ several choices when the Cain debacle happened.

Pelosi was bluffing, why give that botox buffoon any credit? Newt shut her up in about 34 seconds. She will always be an idiot.

But yes, there is that risk of a ex wife boo hoo media moment. It’d do newt some damage but if anyone can handle it, its gingrich.

I’d say he can handle that better than Perry can handle Perry=Bush 24/7 in media. That will be a real tough one.

tomatin

CC
pj2012

but not to rewrite his history…

Perry’s the one taking Romney down not Gingrich. The “I can’t have illegals, I’m running for office, for pete’s sakes” moment was the beginning and now the 10k bet regarding the HC mandate may very well be the end for him, in Iowa anyway.

Perry’s already using the 10k moment in an ad.

Point to where Gingrich did something or said something (anything that proves your comment) that he’s taking Romney down?

pj2012

JSobieski

When push came to shove, Bachman didn’t even have the guts to fully support the Republican Study Committee plan on Medicare. So much for a titanium spine!

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/michele-bachmann-backs-away-ryans-medicare

WALLACE: What do you tell people nearing retirement who say I can?t afford to pay more of my own healthcare costs out of pocket? Which is what the Ryan and Republican Study Committee plans would do.

BACHMANN: And I understand that. I put an asterisks on my support, I put a blog posting up that said just as much. That is my area of concern, I support this bill with that proviso. ? One position that I?m concerned about shifting the cost burden to senior citizens. Seniors are saying, look, I?m not in a positon to be able to handle that. I also share that real fear, that?s why I put that asterisks out there. [...]

WALLACE: So you?re not wedded to the idea of a voucher program for Medicare?

BACHMANN: I?m wedded to the idea of efficiencies and cost cuttings and savings in healthcare, but how we get there is open to discussion.

HOW IS BACHMANN’S ANSWER DIFFERENT FROM OBAMA’S? If someone can answer that question, maybe I will listen to her indictment of Newt on healthcare.

Why should I care what Bachmann says on the issue of Newt’s progressivity? She is far more status quo on entitlements than virtually anyone else running for President in 2011.

If you want bold leadership, you are going to have people say things on occassion that you don’t like.

if you want someone who will never say the wrong thing, you will nominate someone who won’t accomplish a damn thing.

Perry has the best record, so I support Perry. Newt has a high Beta—great achievements coupled with negatives.

Having Bachmann “the spineless” attack Newt on the health care illustrates precisely why conservative reforms are never implemented. Her actions remind me of how weak Republicans couldn’t even hold a committee hearing on SS reform.

Reforming big government is not an embrace of big government.

center77

we would have made up a word by now to describe it. I think that’s why so many have yet to really think about this. Newt seems good because of the debates, but after that its all rolling down hill. The gen election there are 3 debates, but over a half of a year of media after and in between, its the in between that makes me worried about Newt. It’s as simple as that.

lineholder

Seriously. Because at this point, Perry hasn’t been able to make a connection with voters that is strong enough to put him in a front-runner position (for more than two weeks, mind you) and lend his campaign clout and credibility going into the general election.

Romney has and always has had a limit of support within the general public, and if it’s possible to rise higher than that, particularly against the unscrupulous Dems who will more than likely pull out every dirty trick in the book come November of next year, then I really think that is one of the things we should be shooting for.

So where does this leave us, realistically speaking, center77? What alternatives do we have, realistically? Newt is the only other viable option at this point. It doesn’t matter whether we like it or not…that’s how it is.

avagreen

Right now?
That Newt has already won and nothing/no one else should be considered? How many people have been on top and then…poof! weren’t?

Romney has been on top for a long while and we were being told it was inevitable that he would win up until….well it’s still going on.

Then along came Cain: Should this statement have been made sometime about six weeks ago when Cain was still riding high?

The race isn’t over.

Perry is rising in the news (thank god!……something Newt hasn’t had to handle) and in his debates/ads/interviews. I’m for letting the whole thing run its course …….. like it’s intended to do.

Or, just shorten the whole season by a three weeks to allow the person that’s “winning” at that point be declared.

lineholder

It’s what he should have been doing in the first place rather than all this other stuff about “sitting back and waiting for his opponents to implode, then moving in for the win”. That IS his trademark campaign style, correct? At least, that is exactly what his supporters have said over and over again.

I’ve got nothing at all against Perry. I think he’s qualified. But he has to succeed in making enough of a connection, ON HIS OWN, with voters, as broad a spectrum as he can get, that will bring him up in the polls. He needs a strong head-wind behind him going into the general if he wants to win. Any candidate with a R behind their name will need that head-wind, with the reason being that the Dems are going to do everything they can, by hook or by crook or by another unscrupulous form of corruption they can think of, to get Obama that 2nd term!!!

When there’s evidence that Perry is succeeding, then my tone will change. But if he hasn’t got what it takes to succeed in this with the electorate, then Newt’s the only other viable option we’ve got.

Understand?
JSobieski

and that we have not reached the beginning of the end or even the end of the beginning.

I predict that Romney ends up being knocked out early, and that the race ends up as a Perry v. Newt confrontation that will sharpen Perry in preparation for a victory of Obama.

avagreen

This is a real ad being run in Texas

Roger Williams, a congressional candidate from Texas recorded
this great ad.
Democrats don’t like it and tried to have it removed from the Texas TV station serving that congressional district. They claim it is
demeaning?
thehayride.com/2011/08/the-donkey-whisperer/

The Donkey Whisperer

ROF! Texans and their humor! (still laughin’)
gekster

at leasr for me.
I got a 404 error.
Here’s the vid.
avagreen

Tell me again: how to embed a vid?
BTW, thanks.
gekster

To embed a video that you want to embed, look a the bar below the video.
You will see ?share?.
Click on that.
Let that load.
A little lower to the left, you will see embed.
Click on that.
Let that one load.
Lower you will see some boxes of various sizes.
Click on the smallest one.
Above the boxes is a list of items.
Click on ?use old embed code?, and make sure none of the other boxes are checked.
Above that you will see httlm code, and if it is all in blue, right click in the box, and select copy.
If it is not in blue, right click in the box, click select all, and it will make it blue,
then right click and select copy.
To put it in the comment box, right click in the comment box, and click paste.

note: it will show the embed code until you post your comment.
then the video will show.
romansdaughter

That is great! I, myself am from Washington State but that was funny.
nathanalbright

n/t
avagreen

Yep! Texas humor is something special. A place where men aren’t afraid to appear foolish and to laugh at themselves. Heh.

lizzie

as if the liberals do not call ANYONE a racist for ANY criticism of Obama.
I get that all the time at The New Republic comment threads. Unless the liberals are criticizing Obama for being too Republican. Yes, that is happening a lot recently. They feel betrayed that he did not push for single-payer health insurance.

What I do not understand is why so many ‘establishment” republicans think Romney is so electable. Has anyone asked why Romney wants to be President? for real?

disclosure: I do not watch Glenn Beck OR Rachel Madow.

Those of us who just want fiscal sanity are mostly watching NCIS reruns.

2012 is looking a lot like a replay of 1968.
Substitute mountains of debt with the Vietnam war.

why worry? Gingrich does not really want to be president. he wants to be Winston Churchill without all that head of state stuff. or the whiskey.

that’s all.
pj2012

zachv

BAH. It’s fantastic that solar and wind have a low impact on the environment. Biofuels, maybe. But you’ve got to be nuts to think that solar, wind and biofuels will be any large percent of our energy needs, unless you were invest billions on top of billions in infrastructure.

We’re wed to fossil fuels for now. No getting around that. But, we’re also a civilization that has discovered nuclear energy. Not just fission, but fusion. Why would you ignore that?

1stRichard

Glenn Beck clearly made the comment as a challenge, look at the record, look they are both to the left of center. You want to stand on this side of the line, the policy should be clear on this side of the fence and if you do not support this policy then what more is there, race? Clearly this was at least a challenge to start talking about this and Glenn Beck is successful in this, look at the replies here. We had the same problem not to long ago with Brown 41 in our group and my reply then as to ?what more is there? is the direction, my exact words then?.

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the Liberal La-La land, (some call it the Happy Valley)
I will fear no Marxist: For thy art not afraid to ride the RINO to my destination
Thy 9 Principles and 12 Values, they comfort me, and guide me
Thou preparest a destination before me in the presence of mine enemies
Thy path ahead with enemies I walk a different path, hitching a ride if I must

As it was then as it is now it is about the direction, it is all about policy, how much of a right turn can we get from this election. Can we afford to make a small turn and compromise our principal? Honestly, I am sick of compromise, I am going to side with Beck on this.

RS

MEMBER DIARY

(UPDATE) Glenn Beck’s Reckless Race Card Comment May Re-Elect Obama

COMMENTS

ALL

COMMENTS

POPULAR

#RSRH

PICK YOUR STATE & GET LOCAL