Newt Gingrich Controversies

[kujo]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1327337372' post='2373803']


Look, attack his positions all you want, but do not continue to criticize and mock his features. If you were running for president, would you be offended to find that everyone on the internet was making fun of your head? Don't make cheap shots at people. Explain your positions charitably. This indeed can be done without cheap shots.
[/quote]

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d8/Stay-puft-marshmallow-man.jpg/300px-Stay-puft-marshmallow-man.jpg[/img]

That's what I think of when I see Newt Gingrich. And no, I'm not talking about his appearance--I'm talking about the way his policies and beliefs will destroy our country.

[Roamin Catholic]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1327342061' post='2373844']
I'm talking about the way his policies and beliefs will destroy our country.
[/quote]

It would still be better than what Obama is currently doing.

[4588686]

[quote name='Roamin_Catholic' timestamp='1327346876' post='2373892']
It would still be better than what Obama is currently doing.
[/quote]Really, and what is Obama currently doing?

[kujo]

[quote name='Roamin_Catholic' timestamp='1327346876' post='2373892']


It would still be better than what Obama is currently doing.
[/quote]

Yeah I would totally rather have someone vomit on my shoe than vomit in my mouth!

[kujo]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1327347740' post='2373902']
Really, and what is Obama currently doing?
[/quote]

NOTHING!

That's the problem, IMO.

[4588686]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1327350343' post='2373940']
NOTHING!

That's the problem, IMO.
[/quote]

I don't see how you can say he's done nothing. What exactly do you mean?

[Winchester]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1327337372' post='2373803']
Look, attack his positions all you want, but do not continue to criticize and mock his features. If you were running for president, would you be offended to find that everyone on the internet was making fun of your head? Don't make cheap shots at people. Explain your positions charitably. This indeed can be done without cheap shots.
[/quote]
If I had a massive cranium, I would not want people to ignore it. I didn't say it was a stupid head, or a hideous head. I said it was massive. That's a biological fact. Why do you hate science?

[Winchester]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1327350343' post='2373940']
NOTHING!

That's the problem, IMO.
[/quote]
If he'd done nothing, we'd be better off. Would that he were more like Harding than Hoover.

[kujo]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1327356589' post='2374023']
I don't see how you can say he's done nothing. What exactly do you mean?
[/quote]
[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1327356832' post='2374028']
If he'd done nothing, we'd be better off. Would that he were more like Harding than Hoover.
[/quote]

My point is a broader critique on his abysmal lack of leadership and political wherewithal. At every turn, he displays an alacrity for doing what is [i]least[/i] prudent and [i]least[/i] strategic. As a student of political science, I am constantly awestruck at someone who simply doesn't know what the floop he's doing! Worse, he seems to have allowed himself and his presidency to be overridden by cleptocrats and deviants from Wall Street and the like, all in an attempt to bridge the enormous chasm between his total lack of knowledge and experience dealing with [i]real world problems![/i] I recently read a very engaging book by Ron Suskind called [u]Confidence Men[/u] wherein Obama's deferential attitude is exposed as one of the core issues in the White House. He is frequently disrespected and spoken-over by the various men and women he has assembled as part of his "financial team." Suskind attributes much of this to Obama's "weakness" for ph.D's, something you'd expect a person from academia to struggle with. Far from a political polemic, the book offers a great insight into the flawed individual we see on TV every 35 seconds, a glimpse that is so very different than the caricatures we see in the right-wing media. Would that he were a tyrant, perhaps he'd have been able to get some meaningful legislation passed to ameliorate the healthcare, immigration and foreign policy issues we face--to say nothing of the economy. Instead, we have a man who routinely cedes his position and power to interest groups and the like.

/rant

[4588686]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1327357635' post='2374032']
My point is a broader critique on his abysmal lack of leadership and political wherewithal. At every turn, he displays an alacrity for doing what is [i]least[/i] prudent and [i]least[/i] strategic. As a student of political science, I am constantly awestruck at someone who simply doesn't know what the floop he's doing! Worse, he seems to have allowed himself and his presidency to be overridden by cleptocrats and deviants from Wall Street and the like, all in an attempt to bridge the enormous chasm between his total lack of knowledge and experience dealing with [i]real world problems![/i] I recently read a very engaging book by Ron Suskind called [u]Confidence Men[/u] wherein Obama's deferential attitude is exposed as one of the core issues in the White House. He is frequently disrespected and spoken-over by the various men and women he has assembled as part of his "financial team." Suskind attributes much of this to Obama's "weakness" for ph.D's, something you'd expect a person from academia to struggle with. Far from a political polemic, the book offers a great insight into the flawed individual we see on TV every 35 seconds, a glimpse that is so very different than the caricatures we see in the right-wing media. Would that he were a tyrant, perhaps he'd have been able to get some meaningful legislation passed to ameliorate the healthcare, immigration and foreign policy issues we face--to say nothing of the economy. Instead, we have a man who routinely cedes his position and power to interest groups and the like.

/rant
[/quote][quote name='kujo' timestamp='1327357635' post='2374032']
My point is a broader critique on his abysmal lack of leadership and political wherewithal. At every turn, he displays an alacrity for doing what is [i]least[/i] prudent and [i]least[/i] strategic. As a student of political science, I am constantly awestruck at someone who simply doesn't know what the floop he's doing! Worse, he seems to have allowed himself and his presidency to be overridden by cleptocrats and deviants from Wall Street and the like, all in an attempt to bridge the enormous chasm between his total lack of knowledge and experience dealing with [i]real world problems![/i] I recently read a very engaging book by Ron Suskind called [u]Confidence Men[/u] wherein Obama's deferential attitude is exposed as one of the core issues in the White House. He is frequently disrespected and spoken-over by the various men and women he has assembled as part of his "financial team." Suskind attributes much of this to Obama's "weakness" for ph.D's, something you'd expect a person from academia to struggle with. Far from a political polemic, the book offers a great insight into the flawed individual we see on TV every 35 seconds, a glimpse that is so very different than the caricatures we see in the right-wing media. Would that he were a tyrant, perhaps he'd have been able to get some meaningful legislation passed to ameliorate the healthcare, immigration and foreign policy issues we face--to say nothing of the economy. Instead, we have a man who routinely cedes his position and power to interest groups and the like.

/rant
[/quote]

That is entirely unfair with regards to his foreign policy. His reforms of wall street were anemic. What do you expect when it has to pass a House and Senate full of republicans that are pledging to undo what little was done? My question to people who espouse your attitude (and I have counted myself amongst that number many a time) is what exactly would you have him do differently? What stronger legislation could have gotten through the current House and Senate?

[kujo]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1327358569' post='2374044']
That is entirely unfair with regards to his foreign policy. His reforms of wall street were anemic. What do you expect when it has to pass a House and Senate full of republicans that are pledging to undo what little was done? My question to people who espouse your attitude (and I have counted myself amongst that number many a time) is what exactly would you have him do differently? What stronger legislation could have gotten through the current House and Senate?
[/quote]

Let me premise this by stating that my following statement is not nearly as combative or rude as it will probably sound like. I like you, Hasan, and appreciate our conversations, even when we disagree. So here we go:

[b]I reject the notion that Obama would never have been able to get anything done because of the Republicans in the House and Senate.[/b]

This man had a majority in both chambers for the first 2 years of his presidency, and rode into office on a wave of "hope" and expectations. The whole cult of personality that surrounded he and his campaign placed HIM as the center of the Democratic party and provided him with an incredible amount of political capital. In my view, he could/should have come in and done almost anything and gotten in through with overwhelming support of much of the American public--not only the Dems who naturally supported him, but also the vaunted Independent voting bloc who voted for him almost unanimously. My contention is that [i]he[/i] was so powerful in those first few days.

And what did he do, on basically the first day of office? He comes out and tells the Dems in Congress and Senate to put together a healthcare plan that he could sign. In essence, he delegated the responsibility of drafting a piece of legislation that addresses one of the mostly contentious and complex issues to perhaps the least qualified group of people on the planet--Congressmen and Senators! Instead of bringing these people--including reasonable Republicans-- in and coming up with a bill together, he let these morons go at it and fill it with the croutons and pork and nonsense that eventual came to be known as "Obamacare."

Now, this is all well and good if you're a big fan of a decentralized-authority in the Executive Branch. But the fact is that savvy politicians would NEVER have allowed this to sort of thing to happen. They would have realized that by giving it to the Congress and Senate, you completely change the tenor and complexion of the debate. You allow politics to enter into the fray. But even then, the disaster was handled in a very Obama-esque way: disasterously! He allowed himself and his administration to be usurped by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, who used this as an opportunity to fatten up their coffers. Instead of taking the lead, Obama let these two windbags be the face of it all, thereby removing himself from the "authoritative" role you'd hope the President would occupy.

Then there's the Republicans, who did exactly what you'd expect they would do. Again, Obama and his Democratic cohorts did exactly the opposite of what I or any other politically-astute person would. Rather than trying to negotiate and seek compromise with a minority of people who were never going to agree or comply, they ought to have put together a bill, presented it to the American people, and let the Republicans go on television and explain why they were vetoing healthcare reform. The way it was handled galvanized Republicans and allowed them to become this ridiculously-powerful group that was on the offensive instead of the defensive. This was typical of the way they've handled Obama ever since. He ceded his role at the outset of his first major political fight. When he should've stood up to the bullies, he simply put his lunchmoney on the table and slunk away.

One last word: say what you want about her, but this croutons would [b][u][i]never[/i][/u][/b] have happened with Hillary as the President.

EDIT: Fixed a mispelling. Kudos to ardillacid for the find. Thanks dude!

Edited January 23, 2012 by kujo

[ardillacid]

Calvanized ^_^

[MIKolbe]

[img]http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/newt-gingrich-family-values.jpg[/img]

[Socrates]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1327350343' post='2373940']
NOTHING!

That's the problem, IMO.
[/quote]
The less Obama "accomplishes" the better.

[kujo]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1327448474' post='2374681']

The less Obama "accomplishes" the better.
[/quote]

Read my subsequent posts and you'll understand the meaning of that statement I made. You'll enjoy.