'Already Failed' (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aFfk5skijH5s)
June 9 (Bloomberg) -- Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said President Barack Obama's plan to fix the economy through stimulus spending and government intervention to boost companies like General Motors Corp. has "already failed."
"Bureaucrats managing companies does not work, politicians dominating the economy does not work," Gingrich told about 2,000 Republicans who attended a fundraising dinner at the Washington Convention Center last night.
Gingrich was the keynote speaker at the event, which raised $14.5 million for the Republican House and Senate campaign committees as they gear up for the 2010 congressional election. After last year's vote, Republicans find themselves outnumbered by Democrats in the House 256 to 178 and 59 to 40 in the Senate.
Some Republicans are hailing Gingrich, the leader of the 1994 "Republican Revolution" that brought them congressional majorities, as de facto head of the party at a time when they are looking the path back to political dominance.
In introducing him, Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin called Gingrich the "architect of the last reform movement" and "the man of ideas."
I gotta admit, I like the thought of Newt, being on the Republican Ticket.... :yes:
Me too..... :yes: :yes:
Let me be among the first to say, "Newt's a Dweeb!"
Quote from: Palehorse on June 09, 2009, 01:33:19 PM
Let me be among the first to say, "Newt's a Dweeb!"
but yet you voted for W, ..... TWICE?
:confused:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 09, 2009, 01:55:03 PM
but yet you voted for W, ..... TWICE?
:confused:
The pugs trot that sorry POS out next election and they are toast. Adding the bimbo to the ticket burns the toast. . .
They're going to have to find a lot better group of potentials before they swing my vote again. I hate being lied to. . .
Quote from: Palehorse on June 09, 2009, 03:06:44 PM
The pugs trot that sorry POS out next election and they are toast. Adding the bimbo to the ticket burns the toast. . .
They're going to have to find a lot better group of potentials before they swing my vote again. I hate being lied to. . .
Where has Newt .... LIED?..........He was the brains and the orchestator of the Contract with America, which made Clinton a two-term President.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 09, 2009, 03:18:03 PM
Where has Newt .... LIED?..........He was the brains and the orchestator of the Contract with America, which made Clinton a two-term President.
Here's a hint - he's a party politician. They all lie. . .
Quote from: Palehorse on June 09, 2009, 03:21:34 PM
Here's a hint - he's a party politician. They all lie. . .
so you admint that Obama is a lying snake too?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 09, 2009, 03:27:33 PM
so you admint that Obama is a lying snake too?
well come on Henry, you can't get elected to the PTA without knowing how to bend the truth to suit you.
Quote from: Gryphon on June 09, 2009, 03:28:52 PM
well come on Henry, you can't get elected to the PTA without knowing how to bend the truth to suit you.
touche'.. :yes:
Is this the same newt Gingrich who violated House ethics rules by lying and ultimately resigned in disgrace?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 09, 2009, 03:27:33 PM
so you admint that Obama is a lying snake too?
Every election, (yes every), comes down to a choice between the lesser of two or more evils. (Except for those wherein the candidate runs unopposed).
They all lie, every single one of them. With kickstands and without.
Quote from: Palehorse on June 09, 2009, 03:44:57 PM
Every election, (yes every), comes down to a choice between the lesser of two or more evils.
Or as they put in on Southpark, between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich
Read the whole thing and then see if your question is answered Ex
Quote from: Palehorse on June 09, 2009, 03:21:34 PM
Here's a hint - he's a party politician. They all lie. . .
Then, don't get mad a Bush then........he was just doing what you knew he was going to do anyway.....RIGHT?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 09, 2009, 04:03:16 PM
Then, don't get mad a Bush then........he was just doing what you knew he was going to do anyway.....RIGHT?
And you need to stop riding Obama! :razz:
Then what would he do with all those sour grapes? ;D
You guy's really need to pay more attention to what's really going on ya know. Czar's appointed to various positions that answer to no one but Obama...What's that all about? Sour grapes?? I don't think so.... :no:
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on June 09, 2009, 11:35:00 PM
Then what would he do with all those sour grapes? ;D
I am not sure I really want to know. . . but I bet it's illegal! :spooked:
me: It's a bit difficult for you to convince anyone that this isn't about sour grapes, because your concern wasn't apparent and your "enlightenment" didn't occur until after the shrub left office.
Quote from: me on June 09, 2009, 11:41:01 PM
Czar's appointed to various positions that answer to no one but Obama...What's that all about?
He creating jobs, of course. Just like he promised. :grin2:
There's Carol Browner, the "energy czar," ... "Regulatory czar" Cass Sunstein will be heading up the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,...The "Guantanamo closure czar" is a "top level diplomatic position" to be occupied by Daniel Fried...Then there's "urban czar" Adolfo Carrion, Jr., "faith-based czar" Joshua DuBois, "non-proliferation czar" Gary Samore, and "terrorism czar" John Brennan. White House science advisor John Holdren has been called the "weather czar." This office is entirely separate from that of Van Jones, the "green czar." Last, but not least,... Nancy-Ann DeParle, who usually gets the title "health czar."http://www.reason.com/news/show/133650.html
Quote from: me on June 09, 2009, 11:41:01 PM
. . . Czar's appointed to various positions that answer to no one but Obama...What's that all about? . . .
Umm. . . accountability??
Quote from: Palehorse on June 10, 2009, 08:27:34 AM
Umm. . . accountability??
What about transparency? With those czars things can be done without our knowledge or congress having to approve or disapprove. No transparency or accountability for them except with Obama.
Quote from: me on June 10, 2009, 10:36:26 AM
What about transparency? With those czars things can be done without our knowledge or congress having to approve or disapprove. No transparency or accountability for them except with Obama.
Trust has nothing to do with this then?
Quote from: Palehorse on June 10, 2009, 11:19:10 AM
Trust has nothing to do with this then?
Why appoint a czar who answers to no one to do a job that there is already a committee that is accountable to congress and the people who is already in place to do that same job? Why not make the committee's who are already in place and being paid do their job right? Trust? I guess you could say, no, I don't trust the czar move at all.
Quote from: me on June 10, 2009, 02:34:41 PM
Why appoint a czar who answers to no one to do a job that there is already a committee that is accountable to congress and the people who is already in place to do that same job? Why not make the committee's who are already in place and being paid do their job right? Trust? I guess you could say, no, I don't trust the czar move at all.
Red tape. . . When you have one person reporting to the top dog, it lends it self more readily toward accountability, and reduces the amount of egotistical bullshit and special interest stroking necessary to get to the root cause. :smile:
Quote from: me on June 10, 2009, 02:34:41 PM
Why appoint a czar who answers to no one to do a job that there is already a committee that is accountable to congress and the people who is already in place to do that same job? Why not make the committee's who are already in place and being paid do their job right? Trust? I guess you could say, no, I don't trust the czar move at all.
You're absolutely correct. Congress should be responsible for reviewing the applications for and interviewing every single non-elected federal employee as well as overseeing their day-to-day duties and conducting their annual reviews. What the hell are we thinking? :rolleyes:
Quote from: mcgonser on June 09, 2009, 03:53:43 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich
Read the whole thing and then see if your question is answered Ex
It was a rhetorical question but I think it's great to see Republicans lining up behind the likes of Newt and Sarah; it proves you've learned nothing.
Quote from: Palehorse on June 10, 2009, 03:13:13 PM
Red tape. . . When you have one person reporting to the top dog, it lends it self more readily toward accountability, and reduces the amount of egotistical bullshit and special interest stroking necessary to get to the root cause. :smile:
So Obama is appointing all these czars with no accountability to anyone and along with all the other things he has going on he is going to have time to make sure none of them are abusing their power? He is just going to look at reports from them and figure that they know what they are doing even though they might be making a king sized mess of everything and neither us nor congress can do a thing about it. Do you really trust that way of doing things?
Don't know. Gubment typically uses the labyrinth method of hiding what it is doing from us. . . That works so well. . . :rolleyes:
QuoteLast month in the Washington Examiner, former House speaker Newt Gingrich denounced President Obama's supposed plot to "release trained terrorists currently held at Guantanamo Bay into American suburbs." The men he was so afraid of are innocent Chinese Muslims known as Uighurs, who have since been released in Bermuda after spending seven years locked up in Guantanamo. According to 2008 State Department Human Rights report, these men faced "severe cultural and religious repression" at the hands of the Chinese government. In 2001, they stayed in a Uighur camp in Afghanistan and "were later turned in to the authorities by Pakistani villagers in return for an American bounty," even though were never a security threat.
However, in his column, Gingrich said they posed a "paramount threat and "have been allied with and trained by al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist groups." In an interview with Fox News, Gingrich added that the United States should just send them back to China.
One of Gingrich's Republican colleagues is now calling out his ignorance. At a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Human Rights on Tuesday, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) said that Gingrich belongs in the "hall of shame" for fear-mongering about the Uighurs. He also said that the Bush administration unjustly detained these men at the bidding of the Chinese government in a "pathetic" attempt to gain the country's support for the Iraq war:
The Bush administration...held Uighurs in Guantanamo as terrorists, and they did this, I believe, to appease the Chinese government in a pathetic attempt to gain its support at the beginning of the war against Iraq, and also to ensure China's continued purchase of U.S. treasuries. Many, if not all, the negative allegations against the Uighurs, can be traced by to Communist Chinese intelligence, whose purpose is to snuff out a legitimate independence movement that challenges the Communist party bosses in Beijing. [...]
In the hall of shame, of course, is our former speaker, Newt Gingrich. His positioning on this should be of no surprise — and is of no surprise — to those of who, during Newt's leadership, were dismayed by his active support for Clinton-era trade policies with Communist China.
http://thinkprogress.org/
:rolleyes:
Ginwrench is about as smart as bush and palin, combined. I hope he, like paylin, just keep talking all the way through 2010, 2012, 2016, and beyond.