Dog Brothers Public Forum


Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
February 21, 2018, 07:23:59 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
107428 Posts in 2403 Topics by 1095 Members
Latest Member: dannysamuel
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Newt Gingrich
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 Print
Author Topic: Newt Gingrich  (Read 80373 times)
Power User
Posts: 15533

« Reply #200 on: March 15, 2012, 04:47:15 PM »

I sure wish Newt didn't have more baggage than LAX and appealed to the all important swing voter, but he does not.

Yes, Newt can preach while we sing songs of praise for the gospel of small government in the background, but it's more important at this point to win with Mittens Q. Milquetoast than risk Obozo II: The Wrath of Farrakhan.
Power User
Posts: 15533

« Reply #201 on: March 15, 2012, 04:56:13 PM »

"President Obama's response to soaring gasoline prices has been touting algae-powered cars...".

President Obama is hardly the only person to "tout" algae as an alternative to oil.

Exxon Sinks $600M Into Algae-Based Biofuels in Major Strategy Shift:

Algae Oil in China:

BD, there is an important distinction between the US Gov't funding algae as energy vs. Exxon. Can you tell me what it is?
Power User
Posts: 2268

« Reply #202 on: March 15, 2012, 06:27:45 PM »

GM, first of all, I never said or implied it was the same thing.  I noted that, and I quote me: "President Obama is hardly the only person to 'tout' algae as an alternative to oil."  Second, there are several things that are different about it.  Since you clearly view me as a simpleton, I couldn't possibly begin to imagine what more highly evolved mind is thinking.  When you explain it, please use small words.  I would note though, that when Gingrich says what he says about the algae he acts like Obama is retarded.  My point is that there is a possibilty that there is a viable use. 

"President Obama's response to soaring gasoline prices has been touting algae-powered cars...".

President Obama is hardly the only person to "tout" algae as an alternative to oil.

Exxon Sinks $600M Into Algae-Based Biofuels in Major Strategy Shift:

Algae Oil in China:

BD, there is an important distinction between the US Gov't funding algae as energy vs. Exxon. Can you tell me what it is?
Power User
Posts: 15533

« Reply #203 on: March 15, 2012, 06:49:06 PM »

Well, the important point was Exxon and all the other private entities looking at algae are using their, not taxpayer money. In addition, they tend to be pretty good at getting bang for their buck, instead of Obama's "green jobs" that translates to handing out massive amounts of taxpayer money to dem cronies that result in Solyndra after Solyndra. Still, it's a pretty clever way to launder money, i'll give Buraq that.
Power User
Posts: 2268

« Reply #204 on: March 15, 2012, 08:16:21 PM »

What do you think of things like NSF grants for R&D?
Power User
Posts: 42483

« Reply #205 on: March 15, 2012, 09:23:07 PM »

Umm  , , , I'm thinking this better belongs on the Energy/Green Energy thread.  (BTW didn't Newt used to support corn ethanol?  Maybe he still does?)
Power User
Posts: 15533

« Reply #206 on: March 15, 2012, 09:23:24 PM »

I can't say that I have a good grasp of the internal workings of the NSF's grant process and the degree of political graft that may or may not be involved in the awarding of said grants, however given the abuses well documented under this administration and our dire economic condition, I'm wanting the USG out of the grant business altogether.
Power User
Posts: 15533

« Reply #207 on: March 15, 2012, 09:24:34 PM »

Umm  , , , I'm thinking this better belongs on the Energy/Green Energy thread.  (BTW didn't Newt used to support corn ethanol?  Maybe he still does?)

I'm guessing that depends on when and where you ask him about that and most any other topic.
Power User
Posts: 42483

« Reply #208 on: March 21, 2012, 07:37:47 PM »

Can Newt still win the Republican nomination?
Is he still the only candidate who can beat Barack Obama?
Most definitely.
I am writing to you today because I know you to be among those who have closely followed Newt Gingrich. I have known Newt for many years. It was a great privilege to have served as his spokesman for over a decade.
Since late last year I have been working with a small team that makes up the Winning Our Future Super PAC, a team solely dedicated to helping Newt secure the Republican nomination for President of the United States. Working with such a loyal group of supporters has been a great and tremendously challenging experience.
Recently, many in the mainstream media have essentially dismissed Newt's campaign. You may have been tempted to do the same. But let me tell you why I believe that this race is far from over.
First, a short history lesson. For decades prior to Newt's election to Congress from the Sixth District of Georgia, the Republican Party was a regional party and not a national party. But Newt believed that our nation is conservative and that the GOP could once again become a governing party if it adhered to conservative principles. But first we needed to recruit and train candidates that could run as conservatives. To do that, Newt developed courses for GOPAC to teach Republican candidates to win elected offices throughout the country. But he did not stop there. Newt understood that helping our candidates to get to Congress would require a strong network of local grassroots support. Newt spent a great deal of time helping local, county and state parties organize, recruit the right candidates and raise money. Then in 1994, he successfully nationalized the Congressional races with a set of bold ideas contained within the 'Contract with America'. The result was a stunning victory for Republicans creating the first majority in both the House and the Senate in forty years.
The reason the election of 1994 was so successful was the power of ideas that inspired a nation. Nine-million MORE voters turned out for Republicans than did in the last off-year elections in 1990 while at the same time, one-million FEWER voters showed up to vote for Democrats. That was a ten-million vote swing in favor of the GOP.
When elected, Speaker Gingrich:
•   Formed the Conservative Opportunity Society in the Congress, which still meets today to shape public policy based upon conservative principles.
•   Took on President Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party directly.
•   Led the charge to balance the Federal Budget cutting both taxes and spending.
•   Strengthened the military and reformed Welfare.
•   Helped the private sector create 11 million jobs with pro-growth economic policies. During his speakership, the Dow Jones rose over 130% and the NASDAQ rose over 180%.
Compare this success to what is going on in the race for the Republican nomination today.
The front-runner Mitt Romney has steadfastly refused to run an issues-based campaign.  Instead, he has engaged in a scorched-earth strategy outspending his competitors by tens of millions of dollars running false ads against his Republican opponents. These negative ads have had a devastating effect on voter enthusiasm and turnout. Remember, the key to winning majorities in 1994 is directly related to inspiring voters to turn out for a positive set of ideas. Mitt Romney has eviscerated the enthusiasm the Republicans had just a few short months ago. We simply cannot beat Barack Obama with depressed turn-outs.
Romney has offered nothing to inspire voters. His strategy is rooted in the fact that he does not have a conservative record to run on.
As a US Senate candidate in 1994, Romney ran against the Contract with America and the conservative agenda.
He ran to the left of Senator Ted Kennedy and lost badly. In fact, he was the only Republican Senate challenger to lose that year. As a candidate for governor of Massachusetts, Romney said that it was a burden to run with an R attached to your name.
He called his views "progressive".
As governor, he enforced the nation's strictest and unconstitutional gun-control laws. He supported pro-abortion laws including the radical position of giving a judge authority to overrule the parents of a minor daughter seeking an abortion. He appointed pro-abortion judges. His state was 47th in job growth. He passed "Romneycare" which included a health insurance mandate, the forerunner to "Obamacare". He supported the radical environmentalists' job-killing cap and trade policy. Romney left the governor's office in disgrace. More than half the voters believed he did a poor or very poor job.
But more recently and perhaps most disturbingly, Romney revealed his true colors as a nanny-state politician when he condemned the poor to a cycle of government dependency and hopelessness declaring on CNN that he did not worry about the poor, the government takes care of them.
No wonder he only runs ads tearing down his competitors. Romney does not want you to know his record.
All in all, Romney is not us.
He has never been with us because he simply does not believe in the America we believe in. That's why he sounds so disingenuous; it's because he is. He does not believe what he says most of the time. Romney has failed to wrap up the nomination because the conservative base will not support him - the same base WE will need to beat Obama.
Then there is Rick Santorum.
He initially looked like a candidate Conservatives could like. But a look at his record shows he was often at odds with conservative ideas. When Santorum first ran in 1990, he said he "danced around" the issue of abortion because he was for most of his adult life up until that point, pro-choice. He modified his position when he found out that more voters in his district were pro-life.
He described himself as a "progressive conservative" which is, not only an oxymoron, but completely ignorant and irreconcilable.
Any conservative with any sense of history and judgment could not possibly describe himself as a progressive. Just to make the point, it was the progressive movement that promoted eugenics which, when repudiated, morphed into the pro-abortion movement.
The progressives also gave us Prohibition. That is the same thinking of the people who are now telling us today what we can and cannot eat.
Santorum supported Arlan Spector for President.
Spector was one of the most ardent pro-abortion members of the US Senate yet Santorum endorsed him for President in 1996. Santorum also endorsed Spector for his reelection over conservative Pat Toomy. Santorum said that Spector could be counted on for the votes where we needed him to be with us. But Spector was the deciding vote for Obamacare. So while Romney invented it, Rick Santorum, it can be said, gave it to us by supporting Spector's reelection. Spector, as you know, went on to switch to the Democratic Party.
So much for us counting on him.
Santorum, like Romney, is a big-government Republican.
He once claimed credit for saving the Food Stamp program. He voted for Medicare Part D, a program bigger than Obamacare. He voted to raise the debt ceiling five times. He voted twice to force FedEx to unionize. He voted against "Right to Work" and anything else the union bosses told him to vote for or against. He voted for Planned Parenthood funding even when he said he didn't support it. He voted for the "bridge to nowhere". His success in getting earmarks is legendary, a legacy he says he's proud of.
In fact, when Santorum was in the Senate leadership, government spending continued to explode and yet he provided no leadership to stop it. His mantra was and is " go along to get along" because he's a team player. He may be that, but he is no leader. And let's not forget, in 2006, he ran to the left of Bob Casey. Like Romney, he thought the key to getting reelected was to run as a moderate. He lost his Senate seat in Pennsylvania, the same state Romney is currently beating him in, by 18 percentage points -- a modern-day record defeat.
Here is why I am writing to you and why I don't want you to give up on Newt.
I am not going to attempt to persuade you that the challenge is not great. It is. But Newt can still win.
But, let's look at the current reality.
Newt is far behind in the delegate count according to the mainstream media.
But many of those delegates that they are counting have not even been selected yet.
Romney's challenge remains getting the required number of delegates needed to secure the nomination. Today, that looks increasingly unlikely if Newt stays in the race.
Despite what the pundits are saying, Romney needs Newt to exit this race as soon as possible so he can eliminate Rick Santorum. If that happens he will likely get enough delegates to win and wrap it up.
Santorum simply cannot beat Romney in a one-on-one contest. Santorum needs Newt to stay in the race to deny Romney as many delegates as possible to keep him from getting the required number of delegates before the Republican National Convention in Tampa. If that happens then Romney would fail to get enough votes on the first ballot to secure the nomination. After losing the first ballot, all the delegates are released and can vote for any candidate they choose.
In that scenario, Newt has a very good chance of winning the nomination.
Remember, the delegates at the convention are not casual observers. They know the history of all the candidates. They know Romney is not a conservative. He did not govern as one and would not. They know Rick Santorum did nothing to stop the spending spree in Washington and was absent without leadership when conservatives needed him.
They also know that it was Newt Gingrich who led the way in shaping our party to go toe to toe against liberal Democrats, not by accommodating them but by beating them with conservative policies.
They know that Newt has a proven track record of increasing voter enthusiasm and turnout. They know he would beat Barack Obama in a debate and on election day in November.
Given that choice, I believe the delegates will do the right thing and nominate Newt Gingrich.
Today, our Party has tried to recapture the conservative spirit it had when Newt was Speaker by forming the Tea Party, a direct challenge to the establishment. It was the Tea Party after all that led the way to recapturing the majority in the US House in 2010. It was not the GOP establishment. They are still active today and will be a force at the convention.
If the Republican delegates in 1976 picked Ronald Reagan over the establishment's candidate, Gerald Ford, we would not have suffered through four years of Carter. In August, if the delegates pick Newt, we will not have to suffer four more years of Barack Obama.
It can happen. In fact, it is likely to happen.
But to ensure it does, I need you to continue to believe in Newt and his ideas of energy independence, job growth, free enterprise and prosperity. While the other candidates and the media focus on trivia, Newt will continue to focus on the issues that matter to our future.
For Newt's entire career, which you already know, he has taken on what for virtually every other politician goes into the "too hard" file.
He led the GOP to being a governing majority when no one thought it could happen.
He led the fight for tax cuts, spending cuts, Welfare Reform and a balanced budget when the establishment said it was too hard.
Washington cannot intimidate Newt.
He is the only candidate with a record of standing up to Washington, which is why the establishment is working so hard to defeat him.
He is the only candidate who knows how to energize voters to turn out.
And most importantly, he is the only candidate capable of defeating Barack Obama in the fall.
These are serious times and require an experienced and serious leader.
If you are in a state that has not voted, please vote for Newt and help get others to do the same. We need as many delegates in Tampa as possible to win a brokered convention.
Consider running for delegate yourself.
Some say a brokered convention is bad for the Party, but what is bad for the Party is to give it over to the moderate establishment who, as in years past, will lead us to defeat.
Newt showed us how we can win and be a governing majority and he did it by running and governing on conservative values.
If you can financially help it would be a big help to Newt, we would be grateful. You can do so by clicking the donate button below.
And while I am asking for money, it is not my main objective in writing to you.
I am writing to you personally to ask you again to believe in Newt and our conservative movement. We can beat Barack Obama in the fall but it will take the right candidate with a solid conservative record - someone who has worked tirelessly for decades to make the Republican Party competitive by representing conservative values.
It's time to choose Newt Gingrich to be our nominee. Please go to and join us.
Rick Tyler
Winning Our Future
Paid for by Winning Our Future. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
Power User
Posts: 15533

« Reply #209 on: March 21, 2012, 07:43:03 PM »

Can Newt still win the Republican nomination?


Winner of the 2012 Harold Camping prize for predictive excellence!
Power User
Posts: 42483

« Reply #210 on: March 26, 2012, 11:47:35 AM »

As is often the case, Newt is the one who notices that the Reps need to be FOR something, as well as AGAINST the other side.


Today the Supreme Court begins hearing oral arguments in Florida v HHS to determine the constitutionality of President Obama's healthcare takeover.
This will be one of the most consequential court decisions in generations, as it will decide whether or not government has power over very personal decisions of life and death. If you believe, as I do, that we must either limit government or we will have government limit us, then please make a generous donation today.
I strongly support the 26 states that will argue before the Supreme Court that Obamacare is unconstitutional. But as I fight for the repeal of Obamacare, I will also advocate for specific replacement policies that will empower patients and create a free market framework for healthcare.
My "Patient Power" plan focuses on solutions that center on the doctor-patient relationship, use the best new science, lower medical costs, and improve the quality of life for every single American. Some of these solutions to save lives and save money include:
•   Allow Americans to purchase insurance across state lines, making health insurance more affordable and portable

•   Reform Medicaid by giving states more freedom and flexibility to customize their programs to suit their needs with a block-grant program

•   Introduce lawsuit reform to stop the frivolous lawsuits that drive up the cost of medicine

•   Stop health care fraud by moving from a paper-based system to an electronic one

•   Invest in research for medical breakthroughs for urgent national priorities, like brain science with its impact on Alzheimer's, autism, Parkinson's, mental health and other conditions
These are just a few examples of reforms that we can enact, once Obamacare is repealed, that will transform our current healthcare system into one centered on the individual, where patients and doctors have power, not Washington bureaucrats.
Power User
Posts: 15533

« Reply #211 on: March 27, 2012, 12:59:20 PM »

*How much does he charge to do magic tricks at kid's parties?

Gingrich charging $50 for campaign-stop photos?

posted at 9:15 am on March 27, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

What can a candidate do to raise cash when donations begin to dry up?  Seize every opportunity to merchandise the campaign, it seems.  National Journal reports that Newt Gingrich has taken the standard grip-and-grin ritual after stump speeches and turned it into a revenue source, a report I’ve confirmed with the campaign:

 In a sign that his campaign is in need of fresh funds, Newt Gingrich on Monday began charging $50 to have a photograph taken with him following a campaign speech to Republican groups here in the northernmost part of the state.
It was the first time that the former House speaker has charged those attending one of his public speaking events to pose for a photograph with him. Lately, a member of his campaign staff has been snapping photos of any interested attendee and later posting them online at the campaign’s website,
On Monday night, those paying for a photograph were also told they could find their photos on Gingrich’s website, after they had filled out a form providing their credit card information.
Power User
Posts: 42483

« Reply #212 on: April 02, 2012, 03:45:51 PM »

Newt responds to Joe Biden on Face the Nation:

DAMMIT-- why did he have to $#ck up so much!
Power User
Posts: 15533

« Reply #213 on: April 02, 2012, 10:24:25 PM »

Newt responds to Joe Biden on Face the Nation:

DAMMIT-- why did he have to $#ck up so much!

Bcause Newt does whatever Newt sees as in Newt's best interest. It must be cuddle-time on the couch with Nancy Pelosi, again.
Power User
Posts: 15533

« Reply #214 on: April 13, 2012, 09:01:35 AM »

Power User
Posts: 15533

« Reply #215 on: April 24, 2012, 09:04:16 PM »

Newt's Southern Delaware sell blood plasma strategy.
Power User
Posts: 9471

« Reply #216 on: April 24, 2012, 11:22:45 PM »

Post-mortem on the Gingrich candidacy - I hate to say this but the first indicator that he had not learned self-discipline while out of power was that he showed up for the race looking out of shape.

They said of the last overweight President 100 years ago: “Taft is the most polite man in Washington,”  “He gave up his seat on a streetcar to three women.” 

Hey GM,  Crafty's donations helped give Newt the confidence to borrow the other 4.5 million.  If Newt had turned out to be the real deal, we wanted him to win.  For me, same for Rick Perry.  I was hoping to see in him exactly what the country was needing.  That didn't go very well either.

Running for President and being in the spotlight over a sustained period is hard.  Forget about being likable or connecting with voters, we are only asking Mitt Romney to still look competent on Nov. 6, and then govern that way.
Power User
Posts: 42483

« Reply #217 on: April 25, 2012, 04:38:04 AM »

For decades he has dreamt of becoming President.  He had the capability to be one of our greatest ever.  For one shining moment in this campaign he had it in his hands to do so- and he blew it.   I suspect he will be thinking about this until his dying day.
Power User
Posts: 9471

« Reply #218 on: April 25, 2012, 08:50:44 AM »

Newt gave Romney the gift that will take him through the general election, the label "Massachusetts Moderate", while Obama was watching the Republican primary circus foaming at the mouth to call whoever came out of it a right wing zealot.  Now what, they will call him incompetent?  Like Jimmy Carter calling ANYONE incompetent.  Or argue their own policies are working, we are on a glide-path, lol.

Power User
Posts: 42483

« Reply #219 on: May 03, 2012, 12:32:28 AM »

I caught a goodly portion of Newt's rather lengthy "concession" today, which dedicated quite a bit of time to restating what his campaign was about when it was in the groove.  Its great stuff!-- but had little resonance in its restatement today because he spoke in a manner that refused to acknowledge just how diminished he has become due to his own human foibles.   

His inner suffering must be great.   For one golden moment everything that his whole life was about was in his grasp , , , and he blew it.

Power User
Posts: 9471

« Reply #220 on: May 03, 2012, 11:14:47 AM »

For quite a long time the country has searched and given up searching for the next Reagan, who was not perfect either.  Newt was something like Reagan but with important differences.  Different levels of self discipline and consistency were part of it. 

With Reagan it was all about America, not Ronald Reagan, always.  All about freedom, never about him.  Reagan did not get bored with chasing the same 3 things every day, limited government, a strong America standing up to communism and a vibrant, free economy.

Newt's successes were that way, his best speeches, his best debates, his best policy ideas, and in the organizations he set up to chart a new path for America.  In other ways it was apparent that Newt was about Newt. 

Much of his past demise as Speaker was unfair.  They filed charges against him on everything and when he settled what he couldn't afford to fight, he was called guilty.  A speaker doesn't have the power of the Presidency to communicate back when his perfectly sensible words (a bureaucratic agency that would 'whither on the vine') were clipped and used wrongly against him.  He had nothing like the Edwards guilt in his scandals but he had allowed that vulnerability too, with secrets he needed to keep and a woman with 'good tastes' to placate.  Thousands in jewelry and a trip to the Mediterranean when your focus is the highest office is not focus or discipline. 

Reagan by the end of 8 years also had problems, worn down by the process, the opposition, the media and perhaps his impending illness.  His administration barely survived Iran-Contra, but Iran-contra was about doing everything possible to fight communism, nothing about personal advancement or gratification.  What brought Reagan back to prominence in history was that his policies were largely still in place - and they worked.  Growth was robust, he got his successor elected on a promise to continue the policies, revenues doubled in a decade, the wall came down and so did the Soviet empire.  He had won 49 states in reelection but the real results were not apparent until he was gone.

Had Gingrich survived 8-10 years of Speakership and kept focus and discipline on the core principles underlying the 'Contract', being elected President would not have been a stretch.

Newt IMO should have settled much earlier for a behind the scenes role with someone else on the stage, but that is not who he is.  I wish him all the best in private life.
Power User
Posts: 42483

« Reply #221 on: July 07, 2012, 12:30:09 AM »

Newt would have skewered the logic of the SCOTUS decision and left Baraq bleeding in the water as he circled in for the kill.
Power User
Posts: 42483

« Reply #222 on: July 18, 2012, 10:23:24 AM »

Newt will be on Jay Leno tonight
Power User
Posts: 42483

« Reply #223 on: August 08, 2012, 11:39:40 AM »

Obama's big gamble on Bill Clinton
by Newt Gingrich

Dear Fellow Conservative,

The announcement that former President Bill Clinton had been personally asked by President Obama to place his name in nomination at the Democratic Convention struck me as potentially a major mistake.

Bill Clinton is one of the most effective and aggressive speakers in the Democratic Party.

His attacks on Republicans will be witty, memorable, and effective for the moment.

The problem for Democrats is that while those who listen to Clinton's speech and cheer him will be excited, those who think about Clinton and Obama in the same thought will begin to realize how bad Obama really has been as President.

Republicans should take every opportunity to drive home the amazing contrast between Clinton's bipartisan achievements working with a Republican Congress and Obama's absolute inability to work across the aisle.

I am aware of the vast difference because I spent two years opposing the Clinton Presidency as the House Republican whip and four years negotiating with President Clinton as speaker.

The gaps in approach, style and achievement between Obama and Clinton are immense and all to Obama's discredit.

Bill Clinton announced in a State of the Union that "the era of big government is over." President Obama has been working for four years to build even bigger government.

Bill Clinton worked with a Republican Congress and Republican Governors to pass welfare reform. Clinton had campaigned on "ending welfare as we know it." Obama in one partisan step ordered his administration to destroy the work requirements and return to the dependency-fostering, taxpayer crushing, work avoiding welfare system of the past.

Bill Clinton as Governor of Arkansas had learned the executive has to negotiate and work with the legislative branch. Two and a half years of bipartisan struggle led to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. For the next four years there were balanced budgets and $405 billion in federal debt as paid off. Obama refuses to compromise and cooperate with the legislative branch and has run up the largest deficits in American history.

Compare their concrete achievements.


There is a 23,100,000 job gap between the economic growth of Clinton and a Republican Congress and the job destructive, class warfare policies of Obama's partisan radicalism.

With Clinton and a Republican Congress unemployment fell from 7.3 percent to 4.2 percent. Under Obama unemployment has been stuck at 8.2 percent (now moving up to 8.3percent this month). Obama has the worst job collapse in 75 years. Obama has had over 8 percent unemployment for 41 straight months. In fact under Obama unemployment went up from 7.8 percent to today's 8.3 percent.

President Obama's $5.2 trillion in deficits is a sharp contrast to Clinton's balanced budgets.

During the bipartisan period from 1995 to 1999, debt held by the public as a percentage of GDP dropped 23 percent. Under Obama, it rose from 40.5 percent in 2008 to an estimated 74 percent in 2012—an increase of more than 83 percent. And under President Obama, gross federal debt passed 100 percent of GDP for the first time since 1947.

When I was sworn in as speaker in January 1995, the Congressional Budget Office projected cumulative federal budget deficits of $2.7 trillion over the next decade. After four years of bipartisan rule, in 1999, the CBO projected a $2.3 trillion surplus – a turnaround of $5 trillion. Under Obama, the CBO this year estimated a ten-year cumulative deficit of $2.9 trillion.

The President's jobs failure has left 46 million Americans in poverty, the largest number in history.

Clinton's bipartisan cooperation on welfare reform and balanced budgets reduced the number of children in welfare by 25 percent and reduced the number of Americans in poverty by 17 percent.

Under Obama median household income has declined by $4300 while under Clinton it increased by $6200.

When you look at fact after fact about how much better Bill Clinton was than Barack Obama in clear, objective economic and governmental achievements, it will cause voters to spend Clinton's entire nominating speech considering the question, "Why is Obama such a failure?"

That is the high risk inherent in Obama asking Clinton to nominate him.
Power User
Posts: 15533

« Reply #224 on: October 12, 2012, 05:10:36 PM »

Click on the link and enjoy. Newt nails it.
Power User
Posts: 42483

« Reply #225 on: November 30, 2012, 08:25:20 PM »

Dear Friend,
How many times have you heard about the terrible, frightening, all-imposing "fiscal cliff" in the last few weeks?
Now we have a constant media drumbeat that Republicans will have to cave to President Obama's demands or they will bear responsibility for going over the fiscal cliff.
President Obama has increased his demands for more taxes and more spending.
The Left, both the politicians and the news media, have created a mythical threat which can only be solved by Republicans surrendering their principles and abandoning their allies.
Yet the fiscal cliff is entirely a manufactured threat.
The same people who are now negotiating worked two years ago to create the mess which they say is such a threat.
At any point they wanted to, the President and the Congress could reduce the "cliff" to a series of foothills by breaking the problem into ten or twenty component parts.
They could then focus on solving each problem on its own merits and out in the open with public hearings, public understanding and public involvement.
Public understanding, however, would limit the level of waste, favoritism, and special interests which could be funded.
That is exactly the opposite of what the Washington establishment wants.
To get a unique insight into the current psychological process of chanting "fiscal cliff," it is worth reading Tom Wolfe's essay, "Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers" (1970).
Wolfe describes a San Francisco welfare office in which the senior management hides away on the second floor and hires young, underpaid people to catch the flak of the welfare recipients who show up angry and unhappy. It is the job of the junior staff to endure the hostility while protecting the calm and isolation of the senior leaders.
The local Samoan community had figured out the game and decided to change it. As Wolfe vividly describes, they would send very large Samoans with war clubs into the office. The flak catcher would start explaining why they couldn't see the senior decision makers on the second floor. The Samoans would begin chanting and pounding their clubs on the color. After a couple minutes of threatening noises, the young welfare worker would decide they weren't getting paid enough to endure the tension and the sense of threat. They would let the Samoans go upstairs to make their demands to the senior welfare officials.
This brief description does not do justice to the beautiful writing and keen insights Wolfe brings to this scene.
But hopefully it does paint a picture of what we are living through.
The political and news media Left have fashioned an artificial club called "the fiscal cliff".
They are now standing on national television pounding their club and describing more and more horrifying outcomes if Republicans refuse to surrender their principles and appease the fiscal cliff Gods as defined by the Left.
Their goal is to panic the country so the people will then apply pressure to panic the Republicans.
Every time you hear “fiscal cliff” just remember it is an artificial invention of the Left.
Every time you hear a dire warning about the coming crisis remember the Samoans pounding their war clubs and chanting.
House Republicans should start legislating solutions they believe in, allow President Obama’s alternatives the honest chance to win a floor vote, and move forward.
The current negotiations are phony, dishonest, and calculated to produce either a failure to be blamed on the Republicans or a success defined by the collapse of the Republican policy positions.
Republicans would be far better off to refocus their energy on legislation, appropriation, oversight, and communication -- and relegate negotiation to being fifth on their priority list.
Power User
Posts: 9471

« Reply #226 on: December 01, 2012, 11:23:41 AM »

"At any point they wanted to, the President and the Congress could reduce the "cliff" to a series of foothills by breaking the problem into ten or twenty component parts."

Isn't that exactly what you do when you have a seemingly insurmountable large task at hand.  Democrats are doing the opposite, focusing only on the one part that can't be done and wouldn't solve the problem if it could.

Negotiating is important, roughly 5th on the priority list far behind legislating a solution and communicating.
Going through some papers yesterday I came across a yellowed out clipping of the actual text of the Contract with America, in small print from page 20 of the local paper Sunday before the 1994 election - far better coverage than any Republican proposal has gotten since.  I pulled out a magnifying glass and read to see if anything that should have been done then would have prevented the situation today.  I has two lists, first what they will do immediately the first day and second list of what they will bring to a vote in the first 100 days:

From the first list:

• SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
• EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.

Both I suppose would have to be in the constitution to be binding on future congresses, but both in actual practice would make the faux negotiations we face today moot.

First on the 100 day list: 1. THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment..."

That alone, ratified back then, would have removed the need for all future debt ceiling crises, credit downgrades and fiscal cliffs.
Power User
Posts: 42483

« Reply #227 on: December 05, 2012, 11:04:42 AM »

12/5/2012 06:00 AM

Instead of being focused on a phony fiscal cliff, Republicans might focus on how they will approach Obama’s second term.
What should House Republicans do? They are in a very different world than they expected just one month ago. Instead of cooperating with a new President-elect Romney, they find themselves baited, taunted, and attacked by a newly re-elected and re-energized President Obama.
What is the right strategy for this new situation?
The news media are, of course, in full collusion with the president in defining the current situation in pro-liberal, anti-Republican terms.
The House Republican situation is made even more complex by the strengthened position of Democrats in the Senate. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has to feel emboldened by the strategic success of gaining seats in a year which began with every expectation of substantial Republican Senate gains.
The news media and Washington elite solution is simple: surrender, cave in, give up your principles, do what the President demands. Those are the daily suggestions and expectations of the elite media and much if the national establishment, which takes its talking points from the consensus media of the left.
It would be a triple disaster for House Republicans to follow this defeatist advice.
First, it would be a betrayal of the very principles for which they campaigned and the voters who elected them.
Second, it would deeply and bitterly split the House Republican Conference between hard core conservatives and “Obama cooperators.”
Third, it would embolden President Obama and the left to increase their demands and push for even more concessions.
House Republicans are guaranteed majority status through 2014. The odds are overwhelming that they will increase rather than decrease their numbers in the 2014.
House Republicans do not have to worry about day-to-day headlines or day-to-day polls.
They have the opportunity to think and to develop a new strategy in response to their new circumstance.
It was this understanding of time and strategic patterns which enabled the first House Republican majority in 40 years to become, in 1996, the first re-elected House Republican majority in 68 years.
The Washington establishment mythology of the Clinton years almost completely falsifies what actually happened.
House Republicans closed the government twice in late 1995 in their determination to convince President Clinton and the national establishment that we were going to balance the federal budget for the first time in a generation.
The Washington media still believe this was a major mistake.
Yet closing the government convinced the Republican base and the conservative movement that we were serious and had the courage to stand and fight for our convictions.
One year later House Republicans were re-elected despite a resounding defeat for Republican presidential candidate Robert Dole. Almost no one in the national establishment has ever looked at the GOP’s House victory and why it occurred.
Welfare reform and the only four balanced budgets in the modern era were a direct result of that strategy. Furthermore, those balanced budgets were produced by economic growth brought about by tax cuts, not by a socialist austerity program based on tax increases.
House Republicans should take the next six weeks to meet in private and work through a grand strategy for the next four years.
They have to develop a strategic program that can stop and then reverse the efforts of President Obama and the left to fundamentally change America.
This is precisely the type of moment the Founding Fathers designed the constitutional balance for.
The Founding Fathers understood that the executive branch could potentially become dictatorial and too powerful. That is why they built in checks and balances.
The House has five great tools for offsetting a President. These tools are helped by a cooperative Senate but they are not eliminated by an uncooperative Senate.
The five tools are:
1. Appropriations
 2. Oversight
 3. Legislation
 4. Communications
 5. Negotiations
The House Republicans today are over-relying on negotiations, the fifth and least useful of the five tools. Our effective negotiations with President Clinton only came after the two government shutdowns. We had to earn his respect through direct, hard confrontation before we could get his attention for practical negotiations.
The negotiation tool is the weakest because it centralizes communications and decision making into a formula which maximizes the President’s dominance within the national news media.
 The most powerful House tool is appropriations. This power goes all the way back to Runnymede and the signing of the Magna Carta. If the people’s representatives don’t appropriate the money, the President can’t spend it. House Republicans should be prepared to suspend all appropriations except national security and public safety. They should selectively zero out the least popular of the President’s initiatives and agencies. He can attack the House all he wants, but he can’t spend money without its approval. The conservative movement would be galvanized by such a display of firmness.
 There are well over a hundred subcommittees which can be holding oversight hearings. Like the Lilliputians tying down Gulliver, these subcommittees can gradually educate the country about the waste, the cronyism, the corruption, and the radicalism existing throughout the Obama executive branch. The daily reports of hearing after hearing and scandal after scandal become a Fabian strategy of wearing down the Obama juggernaut and exposing its downside.
There is also a positive side to the hearing and oversight process. The House Republicans should ally with the 30 Republican Governors. Many of them are doing very smart things which could be applied to Washington. All of them can highlight areas in which Washington is forcing waste and inefficiency on their state. They give the House Republicans 30 star witnesses to layoff hearings. Several former Governors (notably Indiana’s Mitch Daniels and Mississippi’s Haley Barbour) would also make outstanding witnesses.
The combination of positive reform ideas and negative coverage of waste and scandal could make every subcommittee a star in its own right and create more communications than the White House could cope with.
 Legislation is action. It is fact. It is reality.
House Republicans should start by scouring the bills introduced by House and Senate Democrats for every good idea. Every chance House Republicans have to pass a bill introduced by a House or Senate Democrat, they build an irrefutable record of bipartisanship. Let Harry Reid and President Obama explain why they oppose Democratic bills passed by the House Republicans.
In addition, House Republicans should look for specific, narrowly-drawn positive ideas and pass a vast series of small bills. Let the Democratic Senate either start behaving responsibly or let it become known as the graveyard of obstruction. Either a lot of bills will be sent to the President or the theme of Constructive Republican House versus an obstructionist Democrat Senate will become a major factor in the 2014 elections.
 House Republicans should study the period 1824-1828. The Jacksonians were enraged by the outcome of the election of 1824 and they spent four years steadily undermining the administration of President John Quincy Adams. Their use of the frank and of Congressional communications is a masterpiece.
In 1996, a concerted, methodical House Republican effort enabled us to reform Medicare and win the communications argument. In 2012, the National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee did a splendid job of defeating Mediscare.
The House Republican leaders cannot out-communicate the President. It is a structural impossibility because of the White House command of communications.
However, 200-plus House Republicans (some will never cooperate) can more than overmatch an Executive Branch.
 Having used appropriations to prove seriousness, oversight to define the debate, legislation to build a coalition, and communications to define the contest, then House Republicans can then negotiate from strength.
This is a strategy which can set the star for a successful 2014 and 2016.
More importantly, this is the right strategy for our values and for America.
Power User
Posts: 42483

« Reply #228 on: December 12, 2012, 10:31:48 AM »
Power User
Posts: 9471

« Reply #229 on: December 12, 2012, 01:49:37 PM »

Newt makes a good point here that the WSJ was making yesterday:  "Until they understand the larger strategic fight, they can’t possibly know what to do in the current short-term tactical situation."

If they surrender all the concessions now for nothing, what leverage do they bring to the rest of the negotiations, comprehensive tax reform for example, but also everything else - immigration, regulatory reform, budget process reform, even further healthcare negotiations...
Power User
Posts: 42483

« Reply #230 on: January 09, 2013, 11:02:30 AM »

By: Newt Gingrich
1/9/2013 07:50 AM




Watching the news media this weekend start the process of setting up Republicans for another losing fight has been depressing.
Congressional Republicans seem to be moving toward three decisions that are profoundly wrong.
Just listening this weekend some Republican leaders seem to be saying:
1. They will fight over the debt ceiling;
2. They are urging President Barack Obama to lead;
3. They have come out of one failed cycle of secret negotiations with the White House and seem eager to start right back in on a new cycle of negotiations.
All three are demonstrably wrong.
1. The debt ceiling is a terrible place to fight when there is a Sequester bill and a Continuing Resolution available.
2. I do not want President Obama to lead. No conservative wants President Obama to lead. He is an ultra-liberal who really believes in the power of big government. Why would any Republican ask him to lead? I want the House Republicans to lead. Conservatives want the House Republicans to lead. Furthermore, Republicans should quit going on television and asking President Obama to be “reasonable.” The president will concede to Republicans exactly what they coerce him into giving and not one inch more.
3. Negotiations are the weakest of the five legislative branch tools. Appropriations, legislation, oversight, and communications are all tools which should be used to set up a framework for successful negotiations.  Negotiating with a president without using the first four tools is an invitation to defeat.
Let’s start with the futility of focusing on the debt ceiling.
President Obama set the stage Saturday with his weekly radio address when he announced  that he will insist on a clean debt ceiling. In doing so he actually outlined for Republicans the two fights they can win.
Consider the president’s argument:
“(O)ne thing I will not compromise over is whether or not Congress should pay the tab for a bill they’ve already racked up. If Congress refuses to give the United States the ability to pay its bills on time, the consequences for the entire global economy could be catastrophic. The last time Congress threatened this course of action, our entire economy suffered for it.  Our families and our businesses cannot afford that dangerous game again.”
Without realizing it the president just outlined the winning strategy for Republicans.
He suggested that the time for Congress to draw the line on spending is before they “rack up the bills” — to paraphrase the president.
We have two immediate opportunities to heed the president’s words: the Sequester bill that is coming up in 60 days and the Continuing Resolution at the end of March.
There is an enormous difference between the Continuing Resolution, the Sequester bill and the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling involves the faith and credit of the United States. It can not be held hostage because the crisis impact of failing to pay the government’s debts would be immediate, worldwide, and shattering.
Every element of the business community and the news media will spend the next two months beating up Republicans if the debt ceiling is the focus of the conflict.  This past weekend’s media focus is just a taste of what is coming.
If Republicans fall for the debt ceiling trap they will once again be isolated in  a corner, identified as negative extremists, and ultimately forced to back down with maximum internal conflict and bitterness among conservatives and Republicans.
However, they have two wonderful, clear, and far better fights available in the Continuing Resolution and the Sequester bill.
Both involve spending.
Both allow Republicans to quote President Obama’s Saturday radio talk over and over and over again.
The time to shrink future debt ceilings is by cutting spending now.
Threatening to stop the debt ceiling guarantees that the business community and the news media put more and more pressure on Congressional Republicans.  In the end Republicans will be forced to cave.
Threatening to selectively close, eliminate, or shrink various parts of the government through spending bills puts President Obama and Congressional Democrats on defense.
Is there any Democrat who can argue with a straight face that in a $3.7 trillion federal government there is nothing which can not be cut or eliminated?  Polls consistently show three out of four Americans favor cutting government spending.
A fight over cutting spending is a fight in which the natural advantage goes to the Republicans.
This advantage can be strengthened by House Republicans taking five big strategic steps:
 1.Systematic hearings by every committee and subcommittee focusing on waste in government and opportunities to cut spending and reform government.
 2.An alliance with the 30 Republican governors with them testifying on how to reform the federal government, how to cut spending and how to implement the Tenth Amendment and return power and responsibility to the states and with governors providing communications support back home.
 3.An aggressive outreach to arouse and coordinate every group that wants smaller government so there is a nationwide clamor for spending cuts.
 4.A very intense, disciplined, coordinated communications effort by every member, committee and subcommittee.
 5.A very creative series of legislative efforts including: 1. Breaking the CR into a series of bills with national security and public safety funded for the rest of the fiscal year, while some of the smaller CRs could last for 60 days and lead to continuing fights over spending and reform (think Departments of Labor, HUD, FCC, etc. as hard to arouse public indignation over); 2. Attaching various major reforms to non-national security Continuing Resolutions;  3. Finding every reasonable bill introduced by Democrats in the House or Senate and bringing them up to pressure Democrats into voting for their own members’ bills; 4. Finding positive solutions that will improve the lives of people (for example, renewing visas is absurdly expensive and frustrating — modernizing the system will open a positive dialogue with virtually every immigrant group).
This is not a call for softness or compromise.
I am prepared to be very tough. I just want to be tough on a battlefield where Republicans can define the fight, communicate the principles, and win.
This is a call for picking very tough tenacious fights on grounds that conservatives and Republicans can win.
I led two government shut downs, for six days in November, 1995 and 21 days in December, 1995 and January, 1996. Those two closings led to the first domestic discretionary spending cuts since 1981. They also led President Bill Clinton to come to the Congress in the State of the Union and say that “the era of big government is over.”
Once President Clinton concluded House Republicans were serious about getting to a smaller, balanced budget we were able to work toward welfare reform in 1996. Note that we didn’t get welfare reform by back room deals in secret. We passed welfare reform twice and it was vetoed twice. It was only on the third passage, closer to the election, that the president finally signed the bill.
Some people in the news media think closing the government hurt us. To the contrary. When we closed the government no  House Republican majority had been re-elected since 1928. After the confrontation and the subsequent negotiations House Republicans were able to survive a bad Presidential year and we were able to run ahead of the ticket and get re-elected for the first time in 68 years. People believed we were serious, committed, and tough but also that we were responsible and realistic.
Republicans have to confront the reality that we can get a good bit from President Obama if he has no alternative. Every conservative gain will come by strategically setting up fights we can win. Every liberal loss will come because the American people decide we won the argument, thereby forcing Democrats to go along with our proposals.
There are no inside strategies that will move President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). Only a methodical steady outside strategy will put them in a position where they are cutting their losses.
In the process we will set the stage for very successful elections in 2014 and 2016.
Power User
Posts: 9471

« Reply #231 on: January 09, 2013, 05:02:48 PM »

Gingrich is mostly right.  Of course there are probably only 4 people in the country who could accurately tell you the difference between the debt ceiling, the sequester and the continuing resolution.  The accusation will be the same if they only hold out on the last two, and no default has to occur with the first; it's just that everyone knows they are totally unserious about cutting spending by the full 1.1 trillion up front.

How much SHOULD spending be when we are taking in at the rate of $2.9 trillion per year?

One key fact with all the spending, deficit and debt:  Republicans controlled the House during 14 of the last 18 years.  During the Gingrich-Clinton years, as Newt describes, they negotiated democratic and baseline increases down pretty aggressively.  During the first 6 years of Bush it was a blank check; they mostly deferred to the president of their own party who equated "compassion" with spending.  Then were four enormously costly years of the Pelosi-Reid-Obama disaster.  Then the takeback of Nov 2010.   Then Republicans only fought again to slow the future increases, never to reverse the trillion a year in additional "temporary, emergency" spending.  That is where we are now:  making a trillion a year gap permanent - best case.

One important thing we learned this week: the Speaker of the House does not have to be a member of the House.

Boehner, who "needs this job like a hole in the head', missed an opportunity to really shake things up.  He could have made Newt the new Speaker.  He could have done it expressly for the purpose of closing the deficit trajectory, the unfunded liabilities and restoring our credit.  It would have been President Obama's worst nightmare - at first, only for him to take credit later like Clinton did.  Put the President on notice there is a new (old) Sheriff is in town.  Let the hearings begin on every aspect of spending, waste and unintended consequences of programs.  As Newt says, bring in the Republican governors and start passing reforms that give major functions of government back to the states.  Let the reckless statements like we don't have spending problem get answered in real time.  Interrupt proceedings on the floor of the House and answer him.  We would get the debates some of us wanted and it would be focused only on policy outcomes, not on popularity, swing states or electoral votes. 
Power User
Posts: 42483

« Reply #232 on: January 26, 2013, 10:26:22 AM »

Memo: The Challenge Confronting the Republican Party

I wanted to share with you the following memo which I have written at the request of Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, and which he has distributed to RNC members this afternoon.
This is the beginning of a four to six month project considering what the Republican Party must do to become competitive in all 50 states.

Newt Gingrich
 December 2012
To Chairman Reince Priebus:
Thank you for inviting me to present an analysis for the Republican National Committee about the current challenges Republicans face at every level.
Our working together goes all the way back to your early years in politics. I enjoyed doing events with you in Wisconsin and admired the work you did in helping Scott Walker become Governor.
I was delighted when you became RNC Chairman and I know how much you accomplished in the last two years rebuilding RNC finances and developing a better ground game.
Your creation of the Growth and Opportunity Project chaired by Henry Barbour is a very important step toward assessing what we have to learn from 2012 and what we have to do to succeed in 2014 and 2016.
I look forward to working with Henry and his team and hope this paper provides some useful thoughts about both the GOP’s past record of responding successfully to election challenges and to the changing nature of American society and politics.
Reforming the Republican Party so it can create a governing majority is an enormous challenge which includes every element of the party. However as you have observed the RNC has a key role to play in bringing together the ideas and the critiques and helping shape a clear vision of a successful GOP.
I begin with three famous quotes about solving problems.
“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results,” Albert Einstein.
“We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” Einstein
“When I couldn’t solve a problem I would always make it bigger until I could find the solution. I never solved it by making it smaller,” President and General of the Armies Dwight Eisenhower on problem solving in World War Two.
The scale of strategic thinking Republicans need is vastly larger and deeper than any current proposal recognizes. The Republican National Committee will play a particularly important role in gathering information, encouraging analysis, hosting dialogues about key changes, and helping implement strategies for victory in 2014 and 2016.
This will require a deep, bold, thorough, and lengthy process of rethinking.
I was so shaken by how wrong I was in projecting a Republican win on election night that I have personally set aside time at Gingrich Productions to spend the next six months with our team methodically examining where we are and what we must do.
In that context I was delighted when you appointed a distinguished team to lead the analysis for the Republican National Committee. I appreciate your invitation to work directly with them on a process that will be important to the entire Republican Party and ultimately to the country.
This paper is a step in that direction.
This initial analysis is direct, tough minded, and daunting.
As you recognize, the Republican National Committee is not merely the junior partner of whoever becomes the next presidential nominee.
The Republican NATIONAL Committee has a key role to play in every level of party activity including Congress, Governors, state legislators and local offices and activists.
That key role has often led to profound improvements in the GOP at a time of electoral disaster.

The RNC has historically played a very important role in recognizing new realities and developing new strategies and new structures.
After the disastrous collapse of the GOP in 1964 Chairman Ray Bliss played a decisive role in rebuilding the party structure. Within two years President Lyndon Johnson had created such a mess and Republicans had rebuilt so rapidly that the GOP won decisive victories for Congress and for Governorships.
After the devastating Watergate defeat of 1974 Chairwoman Mary Louise Smith led a courageous rethinking of the party’s strategies and structures. Her Executive Director, Eddie Mahe, undertook an exhaustive in depth look at a party which had dropped to 18% support among the American people( the lowest since the Great Depression).
In 1977 Chairman Bill Brock built on that rethinking. He backed Congressman Jack Kemp’s concept of supply side tax cutting to create economic growth. In 1978 Brock paid for the “tax cut clipper” to fly Kemp and Senator Roth around the country. This was a very courageous step because many establishment Republicans ridiculed Kemp’s ideas and opposed his bill. Even when Reagan adopted it in the campaign it was derided as voodoo economics by some Republicans).
I campaigned on supply side tax cuts and won a House seat in 1978 after losing in 1974 and 1976. I know Kemp’s ideas made a big difference.
Brock invested heavily in party structure and in ideas. After Margaret Thatcher won the May, 1979 election, Brock brought her advertising team to the United Stares and we studied intensely how they had communicated complex ideas in simple, vivid language. I was honored as a freshman to be part of that group and I know it disseminated a new wave of ideas that along with Reagan’s adoption of them shaped the GOP for a generation.
After the 1992 defeat Chairman Haley Barbour was decisive in renewing enthusiasm, raising resources, and helping shape and implement strategy. Without Haley’s help we would not have had a Contract with America, would not have won the first House GOP majority in 40 years or re-elected it for the first time since 1928 in 1996.
Your leadership in creating the Growth and Opportunity Project sets the stage for exactly that kind of decisive impact over the next few years.

There will be forces urging The Growth and Opportunity Project to develop a shallow, quick fix, small change approach to our current challenges.
There are very powerful, well connected, and prestigious forces who have made a lot of money out of the old system and have a huge interest in keeping it intact. It may be bad for the GOP but it is good for them.
There are a number of influential people who are simply uncomfortable trying to think through fundamental change. They like to raise money and spend money. Over the last six presidential elections they have been in the minority five times. If money were the answer by now they would have found a majority.
The committee has an historic obligation to insist on a very deep, through analysis of where we are, what we did, the challenges we face, and the strategies and structures needed to win in the future.
If basic rethinking doesn’t make a lot of people very uncomfortable it isn’t serious enough, thorough enough or bold enough.
This makes the Growth and Opportunity Project a central activity for the party in the next six to nine months.

Too many Republicans underestimate the scale of the threat we face.
There is a combination of demographic trends, cultural changes, technological breakthroughs and intelligent, disciplined application of resources which could turn America into a national version of Chicago or California.
It is very unlikely Republicans will win in California without major changes.
It is very unlikely Republicans could win in Chicago even with major changes.
Those Republicans who assume bad events will beat the Democrats in 2016 underestimate the power of machines to survive bad performances.
In good economies or bad Democrats win in Chicago.
Throughout the decay and decline of Detroit (from 1,500,000 people with the highest per capita income in 1950 to under 800,000 and 67th in income today) Democrats won despite failure after failure.
In Argentina Peronism shattered the country’s political culture three generations ago and Argentina has never recovered.
The Democrats have been building a national machine while the Republicans have been running campaigns.
Four years of preparation (one could argue 20 years of preparation going back to the first Clinton victory) collided with a two to six month Republican general election campaign.
President Obama combined the lessons he learned as a neighborhood organizer with the principles and systems he learned from the Chicago machine. In Florida alone they had 800 full time staff by Election Day. In some areas they had paid people who had lived in neighborhoods for over three years before the election.
This was organizing unlike anything Republicans had imagined.
As a general rule Machines beat campaigns.
It will take a large coalition working year around to bring enough people and resources together to defeat a machine
Unless Republicans profoundly and deeply rethink their assumptions and study what the Democrats have been doing the future could become very bleak and the Clinton-Obama majority could become as dominant as the Roosevelt majority was from 1932 to 1968 presidentially and from 1930 to 1994 in the House of Representatives.

No Republican should kid themselves about the scale of President Obama’s political achievement.
I was one of those who thought he would almost certainly be defeated.
Election night results have forced me to rethink everything I understood about how America makes political decisions.
With a bad economy, high gasoline prices, radical policies, and a massive deficit, precedent suggested that President Obama would lose in 2012.
However the President’s campaign recognized the challenges and designed strategies and structures to overcome them.
Former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher asserted that “first you win the argument, then you win the vote.”
The Obama campaign took her adage to heart.
Exit polling indicated that Obama won the argument over the economy and by a large margin the American people blamed former President George W. Bush rather than his successor for the economic mess.
Building on advantages they had before the campaign began, the Obama team sealed off African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans (amazingly, by a bigger margin than Latinos), younger Americans and especially young single women.
Look at that list.
If the Democrats sustain their dominance in those groups, how can we believe we will be building a successful Republican future.
From a geographic perspective how do we write off New England, New York, California, Illinois, etc and think we are going to compete. One analyst noted that the Democratic majority starts with about 250 electoral votes and simply has to find 20 extra electoral votes to win the Presidency.
This emerging Democratic machine helps explain why, in five of the last six Presidential campaigns, the GOP has failed to win a majority (and the 2004 Bush reelection was the smallest re-election margin of any President in our history).
If we were a sports team with that record every fan would be demanding profound change.

The current Republican consulting class and their professional campaign acolytes simply don’t know enough to provide the level of knowledge we need.
Our effort should include reports from and dialogues with a number of people who have never been Republican consultants (see the “Questions” section below for some examples).
There should be special RNC meetings throughout 2013 to host day long workshops in which experts from a variety of areas immerse the committee in the realities of the world in which we will be competing.
The workshops should be streamed online and cached at an “RNC STRATEGIC THINKING” website so every Republican activist and concerned citizen can also learn and offer suggestions and comments.
We need a bottoms up rethinking involving many, many people, not a top down “expert led” process.
The experts just proved they aren’t experts so we should be very cautious about their reassurance that now they know what they didn’t know six weeks ago.
An open process would also fit more into the emerging nature of the Internet based, wireless, Information Age fluidity.

When the analysis has been absorbed and the new strategies and structures adopted it is vital that the Republicans insist on changes that are measurable.
For too long we have tolerated consultants and staff promising change as they went back to their comfortable but losing ways.
For too long we have been intimidated by incumbents and candidates who promise to follow new strategies and grow new structures but promptly fall back into the same old habits and patterns.
Mayor Giuliani’s use of specific measurements to fight crime in New York is a case study of insisting on and getting real change.
The results of the Growth and Opportunity Project should lead to measurable differences in the GOP over the next few years.

As we enter this process it is important to remember we have a lot of assets.
Having lived through 1964 and 1974 I can personally testify that we are much stronger today.
In November 1974 only 18% of the country identified as Republican. It’s hard to believe that six years later Ronald Reagan won in a landslide and two years earlier Nixon had won re-election in a landslide- a note for those who think things can’t change rapidly.
The exit polls for Congress in 2012 indicated 33% identified as Republican, 39% as Democrats, and 28% as independents.
Republicans control the US House ( not true in either of those earlier disasters).
We have 30 Governors representing 315 electoral votes (45 more than it takes to win the Presidency).
In 24 states Republicans control both the Governorship and the legislature.
Those 24 states have 161,390,000 people or 51.2% of all Americans living under Republican government.
There are only 14 states with total Democratic control.
Overall there are 3863 Republican state legislators and only 3519 Democratic state legislators.
Thus we are in a period where there could be an alliance between 30 Republican Governors and a Republican US House of Representatives which could highlight better solutions and also highlight the failures of the federal government.
There is also a large bench of talent in the Republican state legislators which could lead to a future of very good candidates at every level.
The question is if we can identify a strategy and structure which enables us to turn those assets into a victorious future majority.

Learning how to win in the 21st century is vital to the cause of freedom. The Republican Party remains dedicated to the cause of Liberty as described by our first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln when he described the source of American prosperity:
“All this is not the result of accident. It has a philosophical cause. Without the Constitution and the Union, we could not have attained the result; but even these, are not the primary cause of our great prosperity. There is something back of these, entwining itself more closely about the human heart. That something, is the principle of “Liberty to all”—the principle that clears the path for all—gives hope to all—and, by consequence, enterprise, and industry to all.
“The expression of that principle, in our Declaration of Independence, was most happy, and fortunate. Without this, as well as with it, we could have declared our independence of Great Britain; but without it, we could not, I think, have secured our free government, and consequent prosperity. No oppressed, people will fight, and endure, as our fathers did, without the promise of something better, than a mere change of masters.”
We remain dedicated to the cause of freedom and liberty but we have to master the technologies and systems of the 21st century to ensure that that cause is victorious. We have to apply the principles of freedom, safety, prosperity, and liberty to helping Americans of all backgrounds understand how our approach will lead to their having better lives.

The key questions are about Republicans, not about Romney. It is a big mistake to focus the blame for this defeat on Governor Romney. He did not lose the majority in 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2008. This is a much bigger, deeper problem than an analysis of 2012 in isolation will solve.
The following are examples of the kind of questions the Growth and Opportunity Project should be exploring. This list is not inclusive but is merely illustrative of the depth of knowledge we need with which to begin our exploration of strategies and structures for the future.
Many of these questions will require a dialogue over time rather than a single meeting or single report. Some of them may remain works in progress over a number of years.
Start with what the Democrats have been doing right. Build a library of must reads starting with books like Plouffe’s The Audacity to Win, Bai’s The Argument:Inside the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics, and Witwer and Schrager’s The BluePrint(: How the Democrats Won Colorado(and why Republicans Everywhere should care). A small team should be assigned to pull together every book, article, and interview which helps explain what the Democrats have been doing and to organize them into topics for analytical access by every interested Republican. A working group should also issue a report on lessons to be learned after thoroughly reviewing all this material. Someone should become the chief researcher and archivist on our opponents’ systems and activities.
2. We need a map of the Democrats’ coalition and the scale and intensity of their coalition. Their organized efforts and networks simply dwarf anything Republicans and conservatives have developed. Furthermore, their coalition is a permanent system of activism while the Republican consultant model is campaign focused and therefore both episodic and isolated. An ongoing coalition can mass and focus more energy and resources than isolated short time-horizon campaigns,
3. We need a clear distinction between coalition-based campaigns and consultant-based campaigns. There are profound differences in systems, styles, structures, and attitude. The last three big Republican Presidential victories (1980, 1984, 1988) were coalition campaigns. The House victories of 1994, 1996, and 2010 were coalition victories. The Republican consultant class, many campaign professionals, and many Republican staff are deeply opposed to the coalition model. This choice is decisive in growing a bigger, stronger, and more robust GOP. The RNC should insist on this debate and force the transition to a coalition model including within the RNC structure itself. This question of strategic doctrine and the culture and structure which implements it is central to the future of the party. Another billion dollars spent on the wrong strategy and structure will be another billion dollars wasted. As an analogy, the French had more and better tanks in 1940 than the Germans. However they had the wrong strategy and structure for using the tanks. They were routed in days by a more modern doctrine. Doctrine defeats dollars and the bulk of the professional GOP is wedded to the wrong doctrine. This change will be painful but unavoidable if we are to become a truly competitive 21st century organization. The problem is not consultants, campaign professionals, and staff as such. We need solid professionals and experts who can develop complex strategies, build complex structures, and run complex campaigns. The challenge is to convert the culture and doctrine from one that is focused on candidate centric, consultant defined campaigns to one that is built around coalitions, long term party building and team efforts.
4. We need a timeline and analysis of the Obama Presidency and campaign. Some components of the campaign go back to 2006 and have been growing and evolving ever since. Micro-targeting, micro-leaders, micro-communities, and micro-issues all existed within a larger narrative. There was solid connection between campaign needs and Presidential and Executive Branch activities (including policies, appointments and schedules).
5. Infotainment is a world Democrats enjoy and use and Republicans either disdain or fear, and as a consequence avoid. The View, the Daily Show, the Colbert Report, Leno, Letterman, ESPN, Nickelodeon, MTV, and on and on, represent patterns of communications Republicans often disdain, seldom appear on and as a consequence are simply invisible to their audiences. The same could be said for most ethnic media. We need a report on the appearances of Democrats and Republicans in these areas in 2011 and 2012 and then we need a strategy for Republican engagement.
6. The strategic nurturing over time of micro-issues with micro-organizations and micro-communicating ( a pattern much richer and more powerful than micro-targeting) to create micro-communities that support their team and their candidate has been vastly better done by Democrats. This deserves its own study and a strategic response that will require very different systems and structures. There is a huge difference between the strategic development of issues over time (often lasting through several election cycles) and the Republican consultant and professional staff focus on tactics with very short time horizons.
We need at least three case studies of the growth of strategic issues on the left. The contraception issue ( which none of the GOP candidates understood when first raised in a debate by George Stephanopoulos in December, 2011) grew into the War on Women and became a major coalition message by the time of the Democratic National Convention. Post-election polling indicates it was very effective in mobilizing and solidifying one segment of the Obama coalition. It is a good example of a case study we need. How do we grow our issues? How do we recognize and trump their issues?
What other strategies should be studied as examples?
7. The 47% comment by Governor Romney reflected a deep belief by many conservatives and Republican consultants, campaign professionals, staffs, and activists. The entire psychology of writing off vast parts of a country or state and focusing narrowly may make some sense for a specific campaign. but it is a formula for permanent minority status when adopted by a party. The GOP should end red-versus-blue and narrowly focused targeting models. What would a 100% Republican Party be like if we planned 2014 and 2016 with no reference to red or blue states or counties. It is true that President Obama ran a deliberate class warfare divisive campaign. However if you analyze his winning coalition it is amazing how many components were bonded by micro-communities and a sense of inclusiveness that transcended a narrowly class warfare approach. We have to understand this pattern of defining differences while being openly inclusive.
8. California should be a test of the new inclusive solutions-oriented GOP. Having our largest state dominated by the other party is an enormous disadvantage for Presidential elections and for controlling the House. Furthermore a one-party California has proven to be economically and educationally a disaster for Californians. Finally, a GOP which includes minorities will by definition be competitive in California. A special California victory project should be developed and sustained by the RNC until California is robustly competitive again (think of it as the equivalent of the long RNC investment in growing support in the South).
9. A truly national party also has to learn to compete in urban America. The 87.5 per cent turnout in Milwaukee, which shocked Wisconsin Republicans, should also be seen as a rebuke to a GOP which has atrophied in urban America. The RNC will need an urban operation that recruits, trains, and supports candidates in urban environments. One of the RNC’s great contribution in the 1970s and early 1980s was an aggressive local candidate program. The local elections division was crucial to the growth of the post Watergate Party. In the mid-1980s it was reinforced by GOPAC. Without the work of those two systems we would not have won a majority in 1994. The RNC is NOT the presidential committee. It is the NATIONAL committee. As such it should methodically build the party at every level. This requires a structure and budget to make the commitment real.
10. Washington is going to be a mess for the next four years, but there are 30 state capitols with Republican Governors achieving positive solutions. In 24 states there is Republican control of the executive and legislative branches. There should be a close, daily alliance between the RNC, the RGA, and House Republicans. Every effort should be made to move Republican achievements from the states to the national media. House Republicans should host hearings led by Republican Governors with success stories and other hearings with Republican Governors reporting on waste and failure in the federal government in their states. In addition, a thorough analysis should be undertaken of successful Republican Governors. How do thy win? How do they govern? How do they hold their coalitions together? Washington has a lot to learn from the states.
11. The challenge of Latino, Asian American, Native American and African American supportI must be met or the GOP will become a permanent minority party. We must think through inclusion and not outreach. Out reach occurs when five white guys have a meeting and call minority activists. Inclusion is when the activists are in the meeting. As a start, the RNC should bring together minority elected Republicans and those white Republicans who do best in minority communities. New strategies and systems have to be built starting with listening to the people we want to recruit and attract. This challenge is so big, so hard, and so central to our success that it should be one of the top three items at every meeting and have one of the larger budgets at the RNC. Anything less will simply fail as it has for the last 50 years. The same model of inclusion has to be applied to expanding Republican strength among women and especially among younger single women. We should establish specific goals for increases in support within each group for 2014 and 2016.
12. How did the Obama team manage such enormous turnouts? What components of message and mechanism went into that historic result? Could it be matched by a Republican effort, and if so, how?
13. Data science Obama-style has no relationship to the Republican model of Internet politics. The Obama system is helped in data science by its 85 to 90% dominance of Silicon Valley. If you have the founders of Google and Facebook helping you design your system you have an enormous advantage over your competitors. The challenge of social networking, micro-community building and citizen mobilization may be second only to the challenge of including minority Americans in the GOP in determining whether Republicans decline into minority status for the next several decades.
14. The gap between Republican and Democratic pollsters is ominously large. The shock many Republican analysts and “experts” got election night was extraordinary and should lead to a deep, long rethinking of Republican assumptions about the country and the campaign. In my case, it is leading me to six months of in-depth questioning, learning and analysis at Gingrich Productions. If it is true that the Obama team was doing 9,000 calls a night internally, connected to their data scientists while also using traditional polling it represents a world no Republican can match today. This is at the heart of knowing reality better than your opponent and it has to be honestly and courageously addressed.
15. In story telling and narrative development, the mismatch of resources is as great as in Internet capabilities. Hollywood, New York City, academics, the news media and trial lawyers are the dominant story tellers in American life. Every one of them is overwhelmingly (80% plus) Democratic. Republicans have complained about the inarticulateness and communications ineffectiveness of the party for the entire time I have been involved (going back to August 1958). This is the third great strategic challenge along with minorities and the Internet community.
16. The cultural and language context of politics is being changed dramatically by entertainment and by the education system. A 30-second ad can’t offset hundreds of hours of sitcoms. A key speech can’t turn around years of indoctrination by left wing teachers and professors. Republican planning has to be much more aware of the context, especially for younger voters, within which we are messaging. In the long run there have to be strategic responses to the left’s domination of entertainment and education.
17. The key to success in politics as in war is the ability to stay on offense. There is a deeply destructive tendency among Republicans to fall into a defensive mode (watch the current “fiscal cliff” process as a depressing example). Learning to stay on offense requires a strategic vision that enables you to constantly orient to the future, an operational system that allows you to be inside your opponent’s decision cycle ( see Boyd’s work on OODA-loops for an explanation) and the tactical skill to dominate the media, which will normally be opposed to you. Republicans as a group have none of these capabilities.
18. What is the Republican vision of a successful America built by a freedom, opportunity, safety and prosperity majority? If we have no positive vision to attract people to and no positive vision toward which we can develop policies, it is impossible to stay on offense and impossible to build the micro-communities and coalitions which lead to victory. We have to translate that national vision into offering a better future in personal, believable terms that draw people away from a culture of dependency and enable us to offer a positive future rather than simply attacking the left. We need to become a party that people want to belong to. For example, we should have had a positive answer for lower cost, better outcome health care in addition to opposing Obamacare. People need to know what we are for even more than what we are against.i
19. These changes will require retraining or replacing much of the current generation of consultants and campaign staff. All too many of our current consultants and professional campaign staffs have very short time horizons built around negative campaigns of tearing down their opponents. This does not imply that we can succeed without consultants and campaign staff ( and knowledgeable counterparts in public office). Just the opposite. Their jobs are so critical we have to ensure they have the right doctrine and the right skills.
20. There should be an analysis of the Obama campaign compensation model. Is there a model of compensation which creates a longer time horizon? A model which encourages investing in a ground game as much as in television advertising? A model which has high rewards for winning or for meeting metrics (in some areas we may want to run starter campaigns to just begin re-engaging those communities and in those cases, the metrics of achievement may deserve rewards even while falling short of victory)?
21. What changes should Republicans make to maximize the effectiveness of their resources? There is a great deal of confusion about the efforts of the campaign, the committees, the superpacs etc. What do we need to learn from 2012 and how can we improve resource allocation in future campaigns?
22. What functions should be decentralized outside Washington? What lessons can be learned from the Obama-Democratic Party system.
23. There should be an honest, tough minded review of the campaigns, the party, and the super-pacs. There is a widespread view that money is not being distributed based on performance and proposals but instead is being distributed based on cronyism, favoritism, closed (rigged.) bids etc? This is a Republican issue not an RNC issue. Too much money was spent by too few people with too few victories to avoid these questions.
24. One test for the emerging new insights, strategies and structures would be to ask, if they had been in place in 2009 would they have enabled us to win in 2012? When the various studies have submitted their recommendations, it would be healthy this August or September to have a two day simulated 2009-2012 rerun using the new decisions to see what impact they would have had. That might be a powerful last step in developing a new model, Information Age, inclusive Republican Party capable of becoming the governing majority.
25. As we listen to the larger country and learn more about key groups we failed to win in 2012 a number of new issues will begin to emerge. We need an issue development process that will enable us to build micro-communities or supporters and appeal to many people who do not consider themselves Republican. However this process of issue development should grow out of the new lessons and not prejudge them.
Power User
Posts: 9471

« Reply #233 on: January 28, 2013, 11:15:20 AM »

Interesting ideas by Newt.  He admits being "so shaken by how wrong I was in projecting a Republican win on election night" and needs a period of 6 months to "methodically examining where we are and what we must do".  It hasn't been 6 months yet and his 24 point plan doesn't have the typical focus and clarity that Newt at his best possesses.  He is right we need to learn all they can about the Dem methods but Republicans cannot compete and win on their field.

Simply put by Michael Barone today:  "Democratic core constituencies -- blacks, Hispanics and gentry liberals -- tend to be clustered geographically in big metropolitan areas. Obama's large margins there helped him carry many electoral votes, but not so many congressional districts."

In the inner city I saw the blockworker with her pencil and clipboard the day before the election and she saw me from across the street.  I braced myself for a repeat of the conversation I had with the ACORN people wasting each others' time in 2004.  I was shocked when she didn't come over but this past year they were working smarter.  I didn't fit her demographic and she had worked the area long and hard enough to know I was the landlord not the resident. 

Take one Dem inner city for example: If they had an 87% turnout in Milwaukee preferring Obama by 79-19 (  For another, 119% turnout in liberal Madison is beyond impressive. (  Studying and doing the same for Republicans is not going to work.

In the 'rich Republican' areas, no one does person to person exact tracking of every household and you can't.  My own legislative candidate came by my house and missed me 7 times.  I voted for her anyway but she doesn't know that.  Houses are more spread out and people are busy.  Caucus turnouts are a few in a thousand and they don't want to get on email or call lists much less go door to door or voice the phone banks.

We must learn all we want from the other side but the answer is not simply to copy them.
Power User
Posts: 15533

« Reply #234 on: January 28, 2013, 11:18:06 AM »

It's all deck chair shuffling at this point anyway. The hull is breached and it's just a matter of time until things take their course.
Power User
Posts: 42483

« Reply #235 on: March 08, 2013, 09:36:25 PM »


Overwhelming Reasons for Optimism

Conservatives recognize that government is not the only, nor even most powerful of
human forces. This means we should not miss the revolutions occurring as Washington
acts out its melodrama of manufactured crises.

Consider that despite President Obama’s best attempts to centralize power in the
bureaucracy, during the past few years the American people have:

Developed desktop 3D-printers which can manufacture almost any object you can
imagine within a few minutes. You can buy these devices for roughly the cost of a
laptop and print out, in plastic, anything you can design on your computer, or any
3D models from an online library. You can then send away to a website like
[]Shapeways to have the design printed in stainless steel,
silver, or ceramic. People are only beginning to understand the enormous
possibilities for industry, logistics, education, science and medicine.
video provides is a great short explanation.

Carried regenerative medicine to the point of growing people new organs using their
own cells. In fact, we will be able to 3D-print new organs using live cells within
the foreseeable future. []In this video
Dr. Anthony Atala of the Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine explains
how they are growing replacement bladders in incubators using patients’ own cells.

Created intelligent, autonomous drones for civilian use. You might have heard of
drone military aircraft (especially after Senator Rand Paul’s impressive filibuster
this week) but soon civilians will have access to drones of all sizes as well. The
potential for cargo shipping, transportation, public safety and more is
extraordinary. []This
video of a University of Pennsylvania lab shows a whole swarm of personal drones.

Pioneered the development of a driverless car. In addition to autonomous aircraft,
Americans might soon travel in cars controlled completely by artificial
intelligence. Sebastian Thrun at Google leads a team that created a car which has
driven hundreds of thousands of miles autonomously on California roads. The
implications for safety and quality of life are incalculable.
[]He explains the project in this video.
[!]This Audi
already parks itself automatically.

Launched private spacecraft, without NASA. Sir Richard Branson and others have
independently developed private spacecraft which are prepared to carry paying
customers on suborbital flights and beyond. Last week, SpaceX became the first
private company to resupply the International Space Station.
[]Branson discusses Virgin Galactic in
this video.

Made a high quality education available to everyone online, for free. Salman Khan, a
former hedge fund analyst, has recorded thousands of hours of free lessons on
everything from basic biology to calculus, in a project that started as a way to
help his younger cousins catch up in school. Today, his ever-expanding collection of
lessons is known as []Khan Academy. They have been
viewed more than 244 million times. In some schools, teachers now assign students to
take the lessons at home and to do their homework in class -- where the teacher can
help kids if they get stumped.
[]Salman Khan
talks about project in this video.

Several of these developments may be at least as important as the computer
revolution of the past two decades.

This gives us overwhelming cause for optimism. After all, this is occurring even as
we are stuck with a government trapped in the past, the legacy system that is the
federal bureaucracy.

The charades playing out in Washington among prisoners of the past are not the most
significant events for our economy. They are certainly not the most important
stories of our time.

Americans working together on projects like this, our pioneers of the future, will
do more to grow the economy, more to expand freedom and opportunity, and more to
shatter bureaucracy than Washington ever will.  In that sense, at least, the city is
already nearly as insignificant as we would like it to be.

Send us your own stories or videos of pioneers of the future at

Your Friend,

Power User
Posts: 42483

« Reply #236 on: April 04, 2013, 12:33:30 AM »

Note Piers' arguments and tactics.  Prepare yourself to deal with them!

For example, Newt stumbles pretty badly on the question "Do you agree with outlawing automatics?"  Upon answering yes, Newt then cannot deal decisively with the follow-up "Well, then what is the practical difference with a semi-auto with a magazine that holds 100 rounds that can fire them in less than one minute?"

How do we handle this one?
« Last Edit: April 04, 2013, 12:43:33 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Power User
Posts: 15533

« Reply #237 on: April 08, 2013, 02:46:13 PM »

Note Piers' arguments and tactics.  Prepare yourself to deal with them!

For example, Newt stumbles pretty badly on the question "Do you agree with outlawing automatics?"  Upon answering yes, Newt then cannot deal decisively with the follow-up "Well, then what is the practical difference with a semi-auto with a magazine that holds 100 rounds that can fire them in less than one minute?"

How do we handle this one?

Memo to Piers Morgan: Here’s ANOTHER Example of an AR-15 Used for Self-Defense

Anything that holds 100 rounds can generally be counted on to malfunction constantly. Very few people can accurately employ a rifle with a 100 round drum that isn't jamming with any kind of accuracy when attempting to hit anything beyond contact distance. The problem is that Newt and most others in the national spotlight haven't much, if any experience and training in firearms usage.
Power User
Posts: 42483

« Reply #238 on: April 08, 2013, 03:04:43 PM »

Yes, agreed that handling more than one is one of the first points we should make about defending +10 clips, ARs and the like.

That said how do we handle this one?

"For example, Newt stumbles pretty badly on the question "Do you agree with outlawing automatics?"  Upon answering yes, Newt then cannot deal decisively with the follow-up "Well, then what is the practical difference with a semi-auto with a magazine that holds 100 rounds that can fire them in less than one minute?""
Power User
Posts: 15533

« Reply #239 on: April 08, 2013, 03:11:42 PM »

The National Firearms Act: A Brief History

Posted on September 16, 2011 by BBunker

The Original National Firearms Act
 Originally passed into law in 1934, the National Firearms Act (“NFA”) was enacted in response to the surging crime gang of the era, like the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. Congress addressed this issue by imposing a “tax” on certain firearms and devices mistakenly thought to contribute to this crime wave: machine guns, silencers, and short barreled rifles/shotguns.
The NFA required that the possessor of any NFA restricted firearm or device must register it with the Dept. of Treasury (now the Dept. of Justice) and pay the then enormous tax stamp fee of $200. This was intended to discourage possession of these firearms and devices. Unfortunately, the NFA ran into serious constitutional hurdles vis-a-vis the Fifth Amendment in Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968).
The 1968 Amendment to the NFA (Title II)
 Following the setback by the U.S. Supreme Court in Haynes, Congress set about revising the NFA to cure its constitutional flaws. No longer could information from an NFA application be used against a person in a criminal proceeding. Also, Congress expanded the definition of “machine gun” and added destructive devices to the list.
The 1986 Amendment to the NFA: Firearm Owners Protection Act
 This ironically named amendment to the NFA adjusted the definition of “silencer” by adding parts for a silencer. The amendment also prohibited the transfer or possession of machineguns, with the exception of those manufactured prior to May 19, 1986 (The infamous “Hughes Amendment”).
Power User
Posts: 42483

« Reply #240 on: May 24, 2013, 07:54:56 PM »

Having trouble viewing this email?]click



A Scandalous Ideology

With so many big government scandals now implicating the Obama administration, there
is a great effort to tie them personally to President Obama, to discover exactly
what he knew about the IRS targeting conservatives, the AP’s phone records, or
Benghazi security.

Kimberly Strassel’s
in the Wall Street Journal today details how the 2008 Obama campaign pioneered some
of the very tactics the President now claims to be outraged by, asking for Justice
Department investigations of conservative groups and their donors.  If it does turn
out that the President knew about some of the corruption or incompetence under his
watch, he will bear clear responsibility. He already does as the Chief Executive of
the executive branch.

But Republicans should be clear: big government scandals are not about Obama. They
are about big government -- big government that is absolutely out of control whether
under Obama or any other president.

They’re big government scandals because they all arise from the enormous
bureaucratic structures which give unelected people tremendous power with little
accountability. Corruption is completely predictable. As George Will said on ABC’s
This Week recently, “The best construction on the IRS scandal is big government is
impossible to monitor...Any government has to be trusted. But the bigger the
government gets, the bigger the distrust ought to be and will be.”

What better example is there of big government than the IRS?

This is an agency to which every single person, business, and charity must send
intimate financial details every single year.

It employs close to 100,000 bureaucrats.

These bureaucrats administer a tax code that is so big and so complex that it is far
beyond anyone’s ability to understand. They are empowered to audit any person or
group of people they choose, checking for compliance with these often indecipherable
rules, at great expense to the subjects.

It is impossible to ensure all these bureaucrats use their power properly, and if
the public ever does discover impropriety it is virtually impossible to fire them
because they are heavily unionized against the taxpayers whose taxes they collect.

Is it any surprise that such an institution would be susceptible to corruption? That
it would persecute groups it did not like? That it would seek to protect itself, its
bosses, and its workers from accountability?

That’s how you end up with IRS agents investigating the Tea Party breakfasts hosted
by an
grandmother who was held in an internment camp during World War II. That’s how you
end up with IRS agents demanding to know from another organization
content of the members’...prayers.”

When corruption occurs in such an institution it is not right to say it was done by
“rogue” employees. It’s the inevitable outcome of creating an agency with vast
powers and little oversight. But agencies with vast powers and little oversight are
what big government is all about.

Columnist John Kass put it best in the Chicago Tribune last week recalling how he
learned the “Chicago way” growing up in the city as the son of small business

“The city code books aren't thick because politicians like to write new laws and
regulations,” he wrote. “The codes are thick because when government swings them at
a citizen, they hurt.”

James Bovard writing in the Wall Street Journal last week
alarming evidence of a culture of corruption that has infested the IRS for some
time: "A 1991 survey of 800 IRS executives and managers by the nonprofit Josephson
Institute of Ethics revealed that three out of four respondents felt entitled to
deceive or lie when testifying before a congressional committee."

The study is old, but has IRS culture changed? Recent reports clearly suggest it has

The administration’s handling of the Benghazi scandal shows a similar willingness to
deceive the American people.

Through twelve drafts of talking points for Congress and other public officials,
representatives of the White House and various federal departments whittled down
intelligence presented by the CIA into something unrecognizable and untruthful.

They seemed less concerned about presenting accurate information than about hiding
information that might have made them look bad. The dishonesty continued for months
-- is still continuing -- as Congress is forced to confront officials who want to
mislead them every bit as much as the IRS has.

It certainly matters whether President Obama knew about these big government
scandals or not. But even more important than his prior knowledge is his certain
knowledge today that he presides over a government that is ungovernable at its
current size with its current bureaucratic structures and work rules, out of
anyone’s control including his own, a government whose very condition is a scandal.
He knows abuses of power are common at every level. He knows this government is the
product of his own political ideology. And instead of taking decisive action to
reform these bureaucratic structures, his entire agenda is to expand their reach.

This is a larger, more important fight for America than just a Congressional
skirmish with Obama. These scandals are laying bare what big government is:
structures so vast they are uncontrollable. Conservatives want things to be
governed. They want simple rules to be fairly enforced. The oppressive and
unaccountable bureaucracies we have today are not a way of doing that. They’re just
the opposite.

Your Friend,

Power User
Posts: 7833

« Reply #241 on: May 25, 2013, 10:15:44 AM »

Newt has some good points as he always does.  Rush was saying more or less the same thing on radio sometime this past week.

Rush more or less said, don't get your hopes up that we can rid ourselves of the tyrant ONE (my name not his for the ONE which is Crafty's name - I just embellished it a bit).   But all that is besides the point anyway as it is not about him but the big government forces of the liberals.


The republicans appear to be taking the scandals opportunity to the first step back to redemption.   But they cannot simply make elections ONLY about the evils of "big government".    We have already been there done that.   What we wind up is praying Rasmussen is right and many Dems don't show up at the polls and we squeeze out another close margin victory.

The party IMHO has to do more to prove we are inclusive to other groups.   The party has to prove that we simply don't replace big gov with private wolfs thieves and scoundrels.   People can see the wealthy getting rich on Wall street.  They can see the bankers came through this without a scratch.   They can see how the rich and powerful have advantages in DC and in the courts the rest of us don't have.

I agree with GM .  There will always be those at the top that take advantage of what is available to them.   What I am asking at least the f' Repubs should at least recognize this.  Instead they ALWAYS look the other way.   If they were to recognize this and at least give some lip service to this point and offer some plan to combat this than maybe just maybe they could be ahead in Pew or CBS or CNN poll for a change.

Maybe even a few more Blacks and Latinos and Asians might be inclined to vote for them.  

I would be curious as to what Doug thinks about my thoughts.   Doug always has great insight from the political point of view. 
« Last Edit: May 25, 2013, 10:19:47 AM by ccp » Logged
Power User
Posts: 42483

« Reply #242 on: August 05, 2013, 11:26:45 AM »
Power User
Posts: 42483

« Reply #243 on: September 06, 2013, 07:29:50 PM »

Reagan Would Say No

Leaders who would consider involving the United States in Syria’s civil war against the will of the American people should weigh their decision against Ronald Reagan’s four principles for “the application of military force abroad.” Reagan established these principles after nearly 300 American and French troops were killed in an attack on their barracks in Beirut in 1983. He listed them in his autobiography:
1. The United States should not commit its forces to military action overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest.

2. If the decision is made to commit our forces to combat abroad, it must be done with the clear intent and support needed to win. It should not be a halfway or tentative commitment, and there must be clearly defined and realistic objectives.

3. Before we commit our troops to combat, there must be reasonable assurance that the cause we are fighting for and the actions we take will have the support of the American people and Congress. (We all felt that the Vietnam War had turned into such a tragedy because military action had been undertaken without sufficient assurances that the American people were behind it.)

4. Even after all these other combat tests are met, our troops should be committed to combat abroad only as a last resort, when no other choice is available. (Ronald Reagan: An American Life, 466)

Measure the Obama administration's muddled case for war in Syria against these principles.

“The clear intent and support needed to win”? Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said Wednesday in a Congressional hearing that the mission would cost in the range of “tens of millions of dollars.” Tomahawk missiles cost about one million dollars apiece. If it’s going to cost tens (not hundreds) of millions, what are we talking about? Lobbing fifty or so missiles onto targets which the President has given the Syrian regime weeks to evacuate?

Last night, ABC News and CNN reported the Pentagon will potentially use B-52 and B-2 bombers, indicating a much larger campaign that would likely cost more than the “tens of millions” Secretary Hagel predicted.

Indeed, the administration appears to be simply thinking out loud about taking the country to war.

That’s exactly the phrase Secretary of State John Kerry used to describe part of his testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in which he waffled back and forth on the question of whether the President might require American combat troops in Syria.

Early in the hearing he stated unequivocally, “We all agree, there will be no American boots on the ground.”

Then when asked if the administration would accept a Congressional resolution prohibiting “boots on the ground,” Secretary Kerry said it would prefer not to, before proceeding to imagine a scenario in which American ground forces might end up in Syria.

Then he said he had just been “thinking out loud,” and that he really meant that the administration would have “no problem” with a resolution which left it with “zero capacity for American troops on the ground.”

In the same hearing, General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he couldn’t speak to the scope of the authorization the President is seeking from Congress. When Senator Bob Corker asked, “What is it you’re seeking?”, the general replied, “I can’t answer that, what we’re seeking.”

The Obama administration is seemingly making this up as its goes along. On Sunday the Wall Street Journal reported that President Obama made the last-minute decision to seek Congressional approval “after returning from a 45-minute walk.” Yet the President wouldn’t ask lawmakers to return to Washington early. Only days after sending Secretary Kerry in front of the cameras to make what sounded like an urgent case for a strike, the administration reversed its tone completely, saying it didn’t matter if the U.S. launched its attack tomorrow or a month from now.

How can Congress be expected to vote in favor of improvisational war planning--especially for action that meets none of the criteria President Reagan described?

Your Friend,
Power User
Posts: 42483

« Reply #244 on: September 11, 2013, 07:12:50 PM »

Newt may be fudgin his Iraq history a bit here , , ,

Hawks, Doves, and Owls

As we remember the horrors of September 11, 2001, I want to add a new bird to our national security language.
For years we have talked about hawks and doves.
The term war hawk goes back to 1798, when Thomas Jefferson applied it to Federalists who wanted to go to war with France.
In the election of 1810 the war hawks won and elected Henry Clay as Speaker of the House (the only freshman member of Congress in history to become speaker). In 1812 they got their war which was with Great Britain.
The dove as a symbol of peace goes all the way back to the dove bringing the olive branch to Noah as a sign the waters had receded.
During coverage of the Cuban missile crisis commentators began to describe the hawk wing which wanted to invade Cuba and the dove wing which wanted to find a diplomatic solution.
During the Vietnam War the concept of hawks and doves became wide spread.
For most of my career I would have been called a hawk. When we founded the Military Reform Caucus in 1981, I said that I was a hawk, but a cheap hawk.
We have gained a lot of experience with war and violence in the Middle East since then. Indeed, we have been in a struggle in the Middle East for at least 34 years (going back to the Iranian hostage takeover).
We lost 241 service members in Beirut in 1983 (almost certainly masterminded by an Iranian).
We liberated Kuwait from Saddam in 1991.
We tried to police Saddam through the United Nations and coalition efforts for 12 years before the second Iraq war.
In 1996 we lost 19 airmen when the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia were attacked.
In 1998 we had embassies bombed in Kenya and Tanzania by al-Qaeda.
In 2000 in Yemen terrorists attacked the USS Cole and we lost 17 sailors.
Twelve years ago today in 2001, Islamist radicals attacked the American homeland with four coordinated aircraft hijackings, destroying the World Trade Center and part of the Pentagon and killing nearly 3,000 people.
During the 12 years since then we have been fighting across the planet, particularly Afghanistan and Iraq. I was initially in favor of both the Afghan and Iraq campaigns. Beginning in December 2003, I said that the United States had gone of the cliff in Iraq and was engaged in an inevitably losing strategy.
The result of the longest continuous war in American history is a mess.
Libya is a mess.
Egypt is unstable.
Iraq is violent.
Afghanistan is unstable.
Pakistan has large pockets of violence.
Iran is working to build a nuclear weapon.
Yemen is a mess.
Mali is a mess.
Radical Islamists are gaining recruits and spreading around the world.
It is with this backdrop that 85 percent of the American people in one recent poll said they were opposed to the United States getting involved in the Syrian civil war.
The American people are right.
Assad is bad.
The opposition to Assad is bad and maybe worse.
It is inconceivable that the United States would project enough power to change the Syrian system of factional warfare and hatred.
Staying out is not a sign we are becoming a nation of doves.
If directly threatened the American people will be as hawkish and aggressive as needed.
The last few decades, however, have taught us a lot.
We want to think long and hard before committing to war.
We want to ensure there is no alternative to risking the lives of our young men and women.
We want to know that there is a realistic goal that is achievable.
We are as tough as hawks but the lessons of history have made us slower, wiser, and more cautious. We are not isolationists and we are not doves.
We are owls.
Your Friend,
Power User
Posts: 9471

« Reply #245 on: September 11, 2013, 11:00:56 PM »

He is right; it is neither hawk nor dove we need in such trying times.  The answer is wisdom - backed up with core principles and backbone.  I like the symbolism, but it is not another bird we are looking for.
Power User
Posts: 42483

« Reply #246 on: October 20, 2013, 03:49:41 PM »
Power User
Posts: 15533

« Reply #247 on: October 21, 2013, 05:47:47 PM »

Power User
Posts: 42483

« Reply #248 on: December 07, 2013, 08:02:47 PM »

Hat tip to Big Dog:
Power User
Posts: 42483

« Reply #249 on: July 23, 2014, 10:09:24 PM »

Obama’s Attack on Israel

"The success of Hamas in closing Israeli airspace is a great victory for the resistance, and is the crown of Israel’s failure,” a Hamas spokesman said today.
When Israel declared independence on May 14, 1948, the United States became the first country in the world to recognize the Jewish state, just 11 minutes later. That recognition, however, came after one of the greatest foreign policy disputes in American history—a fight in which Secretary of State George C. Marshall told President Truman that “if the President were to [recognize Israel] and if in the elections I were to vote, I would vote against the President.”
This was an astonishing rebuke coming from any cabinet officer, and more so coming from Marshall—a popular figure who as Chief of Staff of the Army during World War II had helped win the war—and directed at Truman, one of the least popular presidents in recent history. But Truman was still the president, and he had the wisdom to forge with Israel what has become one of our country’s closest friendships.

Later, when Syria and Egypt invaded Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, President Nixon airlifted heavy arms and supplies to help Israel defend itself.
Contrast those strong actions with President Obama’s response to the current crisis threatening our ally.

The President’s FAA-imposed ban on flights into Ben Gurion International Airport is the most hostile step any American president has taken toward Israel in its entire existence. The restriction deals a major psychological blow to our friends, prevents Israelis across the world from returning home, stops tourists and others from leaving, and creates a major disruption to the country’s economy its tourism industry especially.

Even worse, it hands an extraordinary victory to Hamas, a terrorist organization that also happens to be the government in Gaza.

The decision can only be interpreted as a willful attack by the United States and one of its closest allies at a time of great crisis. It was clearly deliberate. If the restriction had been an accident—an unfortunate mistake by some bumbling bureaucrat at the FAA— the President could simply have reversed it when he found out about it.

Given the circumstances, it is impossible to believe the cessation of flights was not a deliberate act on the part of the Obama administration to undermine Israel and bully it into accepting the “ceasefire” President Obama and Secretary Kerry desperately want.

The Israelis maintain that their airport is safe. Their own airline, El Al, continues to fly. They have demonstrated with impressive accuracy the ability of their Iron Dome missile defense shield to protect Tel Aviv from Hamas rockets. Except for a single rocket discovered about a mile from the airport, there is no evidence to support the FAA’s decision.

That’s the same FAA that allows flights into Baghdad. That allows flights into Kabul. Into Peshawar and Kandahar. It allows flights, for that matter, into Kiev. These are all places where the FAA might apply the same logic as it did in Tel Aviv—there are bad people in the neighborhood who sometimes do bad things.

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg stood bravely against the administration’s bullying tactics when he released a statement last night announcing:

“This evening I will be flying on El Al to Tel Aviv to show solidarity with the Israeli people and to demonstrate that it is safe to fly in and out of Israel. Ben Gurion is the best protected airport in the world and El Al flights have been regularly flying in and out of it safely. The flight restrictions are a mistake that hands Hamas an undeserved victory and should be lifted immediately I strongly urge the FAA to reverse course and permit US airlines to fly to Israel.”

Mike Bloomberg is exactly right about the effects of the administration’s decision, which is even more damaging in the context of the American government’s latest pronouncements. All week Secretary Kerry and President Obama have been pressuring Israel to accept a ceasefire against an enemy that is actively trying to kill Israelis. They warn Israel that the United States is “deeply concerned” about civilian casualties in Gaza.

Indeed, everyone is worried about civilian casualties. Everyone except Hamas.

Have Obama and Kerry forgotten how the current violence started?

It started with Palestinian terrorists firing hundreds of rockets at Israeli civilians.

It continued with the discovery of hidden tunnels—dozens of them—which Hamas has dug into Israel with the intention, apparently, of launching an invasion of terrorists into Israel to kidnap Israelis and drag them back through the tunnels into Gaza.

A few militants who made it through the tunnels were found to be carrying tranquilizers and handcuffs. Today Israel discovered a tunnel filled with a trove of Israeli Defense Force uniforms in which the terrorists were evidently planning to disguise themselves.

This is the stuff of nightmares. And in the middle of Israel’s campaign to stop such atrocities, Obama and Kerry are criticizing Israel for causing civilian casualties? They’re handing a victory, with the flight cancellations, to Hamas, which hides its weapons and its militants in civilian homes to use women and children as human shields. It is an act of enormous cowardice.

President Obama should immediately reverse the FAA’s ban on flights into Ben Gurion International Airport and should apologize to Israel for the mistake. And Congress should hold hearings on the decision process to determine for certain if this was a deliberate political attack by the Obama White House on America’s ally.

Your Friend,
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!