Gingrich Demonstrates That The First Conservative Principle Is Enraging Liberals

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 09:54:12 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

It seems pretty bad politics for an aspiring Republican Presidential candidate to claim that President Obama's tenure in the Presidency is "Bill Clinton's third term" (Clinton is very popular) but when your prime directive is pissing off liberals, then that's what you do:

[Newt] Gingrich seemed amused when noting that the Clinton administration redux that Democratic activists sought to avoid by supporting Obama over Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primary seemed to be happening anyway. "It must be fascinating to be one of those left-wing activist groups that spent so much time and energy beating Hillary Clinton, because they didn't want to see this kind of an administration, to now watch a member of the famous Daley machine in Chicago emerge," he said.

Speaking for me only

< Joe Biden Praises Lieberman For His "Civility" | Judge Upholds Ahmed Ghailani's Terror Conviction >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Gingrich Demonstrates That The First Conservative Principle Is Enraging Liberals | 37 comments (37 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Well, remember, they all swore (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by observed on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 10:01:32 AM EST

a Hypocritic oath back in their youth.

That is bizarre (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by lilburro on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 10:20:32 AM EST

that's practically high praise from Newt. A Republican leader basically telling America that Obama is not a Kenyan socialist monster. Blinks Where am I...

Every time Gingrich says a word... (5.00 / 5) (#4)
by Dadler on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 10:23:44 AM EST

...if I were a Dem leader, I'd respond by saying "A man who serves a woman divorce papers when she's in the hospital with cancer is not someone who cares about anyone or anything but himself. If you cannot treat with humanity and respect your supposed loved ones, when they are deathly ill of all things, then you certainly have NOTHING to contribute to the conversation about bettering the nation. A wretch is a wretch is a wretch. Goodbye, Mr. Gingrich, and be SURE to let the door slam you in the ace on the way out."

And if he complained about it being a personal attack, I'd add, "You bet it's personal, just like the policies you espouse negatively affect actual persons from coast to coast. Or do you think the decisions made in Washington don't seem personal to those adversely affected by them?"

But Dems aren't that quick on the draw (none / 0) (#7)
by shoephone on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 11:35:02 AM EST

And, as always, they are terrible with messaging.


: how true it is (none / 0) (#8)
by Dadler on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 12:12:12 PM EST

and how inexcusably pitiful.

: Former Israeli politician (none / 0) (#29)
by Zorba on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 04:36:29 PM EST

Abba Eban once said of the Palestinians that they "never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity." The same could certainly be said of the Democrats.

Wow (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by jbindc on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 12:38:51 PM EST

"Bill Clinton's third term"

I wish.

I half think (none / 0) (#15)
by BackFromOhio on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 02:28:02 PM EST

Newt's goal is to get us liberals to respond by denigrating Obama as not Clinton enough; clever....


Or dividing Dems with a wedge (none / 0) (#26)
by christinep on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 04:27:53 PM EST

: Dems are already divided (none / 0) (#42)
by jbindc on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 01:33:53 PM EST

and have been for awhile now.

but what Gingrich said is true (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by Bornagaindem on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 01:48:53 PM EST

that the Obots fought so hard to get Obambi because he was not a Clinton.

Of course we would be be so much better off if Obama were even remotely like Clinton. And remember Clinton lost congress to raise taxes on the rich so we could balance the the budget ( something we should have been doing at a time of good economic growth).

Obama lost congress because he was a complete idiot and trashed his base and pre-compromised on everything and got a bill that is a giveaway to big pharma and big insurance - the cause of the problem in the first place.

But yeah you have to laugh at what the obots got as oppsoed to what they thought they were getting.

: No hindsight necessary. (none / 0) (#40)
by lentinel on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 10:14:09 PM EST

I don't think that you need hindsight to have noticed Obama's shortcomings.
Endorsing Lieberman, voting for FISA, being awol when defining votes were taken in the Senate, voting to renew the patriot act, touring with Donnie McClurkin, calling that woman, "sweetie", opposing the right of gay people to marry and attributing it to his religious beliefs, presenting us with Rick Warren at the inaugural...
These all point in a very nasty direction.
And it all unfolded before us.

: You are right (none / 0) (#43)
by jbindc on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 01:35:34 PM EST

But let me ask you this - did you feel the same way about George W. Bush? Whether or not you liked his policies, he WAS President of the United States. Did you, or the people around you, call him or his supporters names and belittle him / them?
Just curious.

Did anyone expect anything less (5.00 / 3) (#24)
by Anne on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 03:32:07 PM EST

from someone who shares a name with a class of amphibians, some of which can secrete toxins through their skin?

I mean, really.

That being said, if there were a Democrat who had a reaction time that could be measured in seconds, as opposed to weeks, he or she really ought to point out that anyone with Newt's personal track record should have nothing to say that anyone wants to hear.

And, that being said, Newt's right - not that this has anything to do with Hillary Clinton, because it doesn't - but about "leftists" being ticked off about all the Clinton re-treads. Not because they're associated with Clinton, but because, of all the people he had to pick from, he chose the most Republican-friendly, free-market, entitlement-hating, corporate-friendly ones.

This is a two-fer for Gingrich: an administration that is much farther to the right than they ever could have expected - or hoped for - and ticked-off Democrats.

Why, it's probably almost as much fun for him as serial adultery.

The comments are awesome (none / 0) (#2)
by me only on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 10:05:21 AM EST

Yawn... (none / 0) (#5)
by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 11:04:44 AM EST

Good old nutty Newt (none / 0) (#6)
by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 11:25:11 AM EST

Not content to be a humongous Republican leadership failure only once :) He has been the epitome of clueless and unprincipled I suspect since birth. It was only because some very popular President did something labeled third way that ever even looked remotely sane in the right lighting.

Do you think it will take him (none / 0) (#19)
by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 02:44:17 PM EST

anyplace this go around? I was much younger and not so jaded during the Clinton administration and once upon a time I used to consider him a credible Republican leader. I've been listening for awhile now, and now understand that he is crazy and that it was Clinton working with him that even lent him any sort of credible legislator look. Our problems are so serious now, I just can't imagine that his spew will carry him anyplace that he wants to go.


: Yup, but (none / 0) (#34)
by NYShooter on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 06:58:11 PM EST

what's scary is that you just described Richard Nixon's time, between his failed run for California's Governorship and being sworn in as our 37th President.
Politics, a strange and wondrous thing

Add to your comments, Donald (none / 0) (#28)
by christinep on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 04:35:02 PM EST

his early recognition of someone as self-absorbed who could threaten his limelight as the go-to Repub pundit for years. You need the popcorn to laugh thru his jabs at Palin...jabs which are growing ever so much more sharp as his spotlight is growing smaller and hers has grown larger in that circling group of a political party.


How true--that Republicans' chief (none / 0) (#10)
by MKS on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 12:59:00 PM EST

goal is to enrage Liberals.

Policy does not matter to most conservatives. It is about "winning" or beating liberals. Conservatives could win a toothpick and still be happy if they beat liberals at a particular game and the toothpick was the trophy.

Conservatives are inherently authoritarian. So being validated by the government is crucial--not to be validated by the government is viewed as an existential threat. This is why they sound so desperately apocalyptic with rage when a Democrat is in the Whitehouse.

The two true strands in Republican or conservative thought are (1) the anti-tax group and (2) the religious conservatives trying to have the government impose their view of social issues on all the rest of us.

Deficits do not matter. As Cheny has said, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. Taxes do. The genius of the current Republican party was that beginning in 1980 the anti-tax group enlisted the support of the social conservatives.

What matters is cutting taxes and anti-abortion, anti-gay and anti-atheist issues...Everything else is noise.

Proof? The Republicans call Obama's version of Romneycare a socialist plot. Cap and trade was originally a Conservative idea--creating a "market" for pollution credits, rather than just setting pollution levels by regulation. Republicans rejecting their own ideas? Why would they do that? Because it is not about ideas, it is about beating liberals, which to them proves that God exists and supports their way of life. I only exaggerate slightly.

Why do the conservatives fear Socialism so much? It used to be Communism that was feared, but that is defunct, so conservartives move on....Socialist Europe scares the bejesus out of social conservatives--not because the economies in Sweden, France, Britain and Canada are horrid, or that those countries are dictatorships that oppress their own people. No, it is because
Europe is godless Europe--that is why Socialism scares social conservatives. Conservatives are deathly afraid of atheism.....

It is all about religion and taxes.

Beating a godless liberal vindicates a conservative's religious views--which are really more about cultural vindication than theology....

This is why the repeal of DADT will deflate conservatism. The anti-gay efforts are failing, so the social conservatives have very little, if anything, to show for supproting Republicans since 1980. The authoritarian streak in Republicans will take over, and they will simply join the other side--they simply cannot bear to be in opposition to those in authority. The Republicans will now start saying they really have no problems with repeal of DADT.

The social conservative Titanic has hit the iceberg of DADT repeal and will slowly sink. Conservatives will have to rely on their Ayn Rand supporters--but that puts them back to 1976 levels of support.....

Also (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 02:15:17 PM EST

Policy does not matter to most conservatives

Nor does it matter to most Democrats, based on how awful the policy has been lately...e.g. HAMP, health insurance mandates, etc.


I wouldn't (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 03:06:42 PM EST

bet that the repeal of DADT will deflate conservatives. Repealing the Jim Crow laws didn't deflate them. Nothing is going to deflate them but the rest of the country is moving forward and the GOP is still stuck in the past.


Repeal of Jim Crow is a good example (none / 0) (#25)
by MKS on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 04:15:56 PM EST

Repeal did not end racism....but it made openly segregationist policy anathema.....

There are no segregationist parties now....Republicans bend over backwards to disavow racism.....not because they think it is the right thing to do imo, but because it is the popular, authority-sanctioned position.

Racist politics has to be oblique now....and is far less powerful than it used to be...

Repeal of DADT does not mean there will be no religious conservatives....It means they will leave active, organized politics....over time, dissolving into the background....

As the social conservatives give up on active politics to push social issues, the liberal economic slant of many social conservatives should bubble up. As an example, many hard core conservatives called Huckabee a pro-life Democrat in 2008. I think the best historical example is William Jennings Bryan. For easy credit, against Wall Street, for Women's Suffrage.....

Strip away the social issues, and you have many people who will vote for liberal economic issues....Witness any state-wide ballot on raising the minimum wage....Evangelicals will vote for that in droves....


: frankly (none / 0) (#31)
by CST on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 05:01:30 PM EST

for a while racist politics were oblique. It's getting less and less subtle.
Which.... it disturbs me but I kind of am glad at the same time. It's like the nazi mark in Inglorious Bastards, you want to be able to identify them easily.

: Yeah (none / 0) (#32)
by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 06:15:27 PM EST

but they've always agreed with liberals regarding economic issues. That is nothing new. We've never had a candidate except for Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton that could speak their economic lingo and Carter did a 180 once he got to Washington.
So while maybe the will sit home (there still is abortion afterall) I wouldn't count on them voting for Dems unless we can get a candidate who can talk to them.

The other things that matters to Repubs (none / 0) (#16)
by BackFromOhio on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 02:30:59 PM EST

is power. They know how to seize it, and when they do, use it. Gosh, they know how to create power out of minority status. The Dems are clueless and seemed embarrassed by power.


Two-sided dilemma (none / 0) (#30)
by christinep on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 04:56:26 PM EST

The use of power. Sometimes abuse of power is obvious; other times it depends on where one sits. I do believe that a number of Democrats have a certain queasiness/uneasiness about traditional hard knocks politics...certainly, there sometimes seems to be a periodic preference for backing off/circling around/pulling away when the political opponent is at the weakest. While I'm not so sure that the any such pattern is wrong--especially when we were all so averse to the tough-talking, non-negotiating Bush II, it is clear that the apparent decision not to use raw political power (at least publicly) can send a message of weakness in a society that has long valued shows of bravado as a symbol for strength.

For me, a willingness to show power as strength in a political dispute about domestic or foreign is important. The question in the most controversial situations is where is the balance. Maybe it will always be: If you agree with the outcome, the balance was appropriate; but, if you don't agree with the result, then the use of power was surely too little or too much.


".....long valued (none / 0) (#35)
by NYShooter on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 07:35:27 PM EST

shows of bravado as a symbol for strength."

So, what's Obama's excuse? He didn't need "symbols," we gave him the real thing.

Should I, once again, list the litany of real things we gave him as we waved good bye to the man who swore he would "change the way Washington works?"

And change it he did; he made treachery, betrayal, avarice, and duplicity so, so much more efficient. And it wasn't until the exhilarating adulation and exuberant clapping by the Villagers began to die down did some begin to notice. Along with the small rivulets of perspiration that enhanced their skins, were those little beads of blood some noticed? And as they pulled at the hatpins that entered their eardrums, some were heard to whisper, "I never felt it go in, did you?"

There's no comparing Obama to George Bush; Obama is so, so much better.


All I can say is: I disagree with you on this (none / 0) (#36)
by christinep on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 08:26:47 PM EST

And you just confirmed (none / 0) (#37)
by NYShooter on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 08:50:04 PM EST

why I love this country!


: The ability to disagree is (none / 0) (#41)
by christinep on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 01:33:39 PM EST

fundamental, I agree. And, I must say, it is also why I love our country. (We agree.)

I hope Larry Flint (none / 0) (#17)
by BackFromOhio on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 02:34:07 PM EST

put an end to that form of hypocrisy

: See you and raise you! (none / 0) (#33)
by Erehwon on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 06:52:35 PM EST

Sanford, Mark.

Newt (none / 0) (#20)
by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 03:01:44 PM EST

will say anything that gets himself attention. Newt view of himself is so inflated that he needs constant attention and will say and do anything to get it and he doesn't care if it comes from liberals or conservatives. You're better off ignoring him and laughing at him.

Anne (none / 0) (#38)
by kmblue on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 09:30:00 PM EST

your writing kicks ace. If you don't have your own blog, you should start one pronto.

: You are way too kind, but thank you... (none / 0) (#39)
by Anne on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 09:53:49 PM EST

your words are much appreciated.