Author Topic: Newt Gingrich  (Read 117750 times)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69135
    • View Profile
Newt Gingrich: The Cost of Rejecting Reality
« Reply #250 on: August 06, 2014, 05:29:54 PM »
Obama, Buchanan, and Baldwin: The Cost of Rejecting Reality

President Obama is in serious danger of joining a select group of disastrous leaders who put their people and their country in desperate circumstances that cost lives and risked ruinous defeat.
 
Almost everywhere you look around the world, the situation is worse for the United States and worse for freedom than when President Obama took office—in many cases catastrophically so. There isn’t much sign that he recognizes this or is particularly concerned.

Iraq is the most obvious (and potentially most dangerous) example. The Washington Post clarified the stakes there in a report quoting Janine Davidson at the Council of Foreign Relations. Davidson noted that ISIS, the terrorist group that has taken over much of the Iraq, “now controls resources and territory unmatched in history of extremist organizations.”

The Post went on to quote the State Department’s deputy assistant secretary for Iraq and Iran, describing ISIS:

It’s “worse than al-Qaeda,” Brett McGurk…told lawmakers last month. It “is no longer simply a terrorist organization. It is now a full-blown army seeking to establish a self-governing state through the Tigris and Euphrates valley in what is now Syria and Iraq.”

Just this past January, President Obama dismissed this new threat "worse than al-Qaeda" with the trivializing quip: “The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant.”

Assuming the President was telling the truth, the White House analysis seven months ago was that ISIS was an irrelevant junior varsity split off from the really important al-Qaeda.

That would be a mistaken analysis of historic proportions. Yet it fits the continuing pattern of the State Department and the White House underestimating Boko Haram in Nigeria, the terrorists in Libya, the Taliban in Afghanistan (where an Afghan just killed an American major general, the highest ranking officer lost in the last 12 years of war), the Iranian nuclear program, the Iranian influence over Maliki in Iraq, the depth of Hamas's commitment to destroying Israel (killing every Jew as Hamas’s charter promises and as Hamas spokesmen have continued to suggest), etc. etc.

The Obama administration's Middle East confusion is matched by its misunderstanding of dictatorship in Venezuela, Putin's intentions around the Russian periphery, the growing North Korean weapons program, the growing Chinese aggressiveness in the South China Sea and with the Japanese. Again and again there is a growing gap between reality and the Obama Administration's analysis and plans.

Well-meaning but delusional governments can have catastrophic consequences and many people can die as a result of misinformed, overly positive, and or fantasy-driven leadership.

President James Buchanan simply couldn't bring himself to intervene to stop the South from arming itself, taking over federal armories and setting the stage for Civil War. He left the Union in much worse shape, made war much more likely, and is generally considered to be the most destructive president in American history.

Similarly, Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin lied to the British people about the German military buildup under Hitler. He knew the truth but was afraid of annoying the British voters by forcing them to confront the danger of war. He simply wasn’t truthful, as Churchill pointed out time and again in frustration. Chamberlain succeeded Baldwin and continued the process of ignoring the demonic evil in the Hitler dictatorship and trying desperately to cut a deal to protect Britain even at the cost of selling out
Czechoslovakia.

President Obama should study carefully the costs of self-deception and weakness. He is in grave danger of leading us into a disaster on a scale that will be historic and will condemn him to be in the league of Buchanan and Baldwin.

That would be a horrifying legacy and a horrifyingly expensive result in both blood and pain.

Look at the facts as they are unfolding and decide for yourself if this analysis is too strong.

I fear the future will prove this analysis correct.

Your Friend,
Newt

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69135
    • View Profile
Newt on Baraq's SOTU
« Reply #252 on: January 15, 2016, 04:08:50 PM »
Obama Blasts Bullying, Ignores Beheading
Originally published at the Washington Times

The 2016 State of the Union was very striking for the one-sidedness and disproportion of the President's concern for religious suffering.
President Obama worried that "politicians insult Muslims, whether abroad or fellow citizens."

But he couldn't bring himself to worry aloud about the Christians being driven from Middle Eastern countries, the churches being burned from Nigeria to Malaysia, or the 22 Coptic Christians who were beheaded on video on a beach in Libya by Islamic supremacists.

Insulting Muslims: bad. Killing Christians: irrelevant.

The President went on to say that when “a kid is called names, that doesn't make us safer, it diminishes us in the eyes of the world."

Why is our civilization—or Islamic civilization, for that matter—diminished by name-calling, when the real damage to both is being done by virulent, violent Islamic supremacism? (After all, the vast majority of Muslims being violently killed are killed by Islamic supremacists.)

The President saw fit to blast bullying in his State of the Union, but he said nothing of the beheadings that leave Americans justifiably afraid. Nor did he mention San Bernardino, the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11—which occurred just over a month ago.

If calling a kid names is bad enough to diminish us all, how does the President feel about the incident in France this week, in which a Muslim student in Marseille pulled out a machete and tried to kill his Jewish teacher? Indeed, the situation in France is so hostile to Jews that the leader of the Jewish community in Marseille advised that they should stop wearing yarmulkes because it makes them targets. Not since the Nazis have Jews been told it is dangerous to be overtly Jewish in a European country.

Moreover, if calling a kid names diminishes us all, how would the President characterize the hundreds of assaults and rapes of German women by immigrants over New Years? How would he describe the German media’s and German government’s efforts to censor the news so that people would not know about it?

The President talks about "telling it like it is," but neglects to mention the thousands of women and girls sold into sexual slavery by ISIS. He says that the United States has the most powerful military on the planet, but offers no strategy for ending the brutal rule of ISIS over millions of people.

Finally, the President highlighted his delusions about the dangers of the real world at the close of his speech, when he said that he was optimistic that "unarmed truth...will have the final word.”

This is a wonderful phrase for a preacher.

It is a terrible phrase for a commander-in-chief.

Unarmed truth would have its head cut off by ISIS.

Unarmed truth would be sold into slavery by Boko Haram.

Unarmed truth would be massacred by Al-Shabab.

It is a sad reality that while President Obama is very sympathetic to the plight of Muslims, he is stunningly silent about the plight of Jews and Christians.
It is a frightening reality that President Obama has no idea how dangerous the world would be if truth did not have the protection of the American military.
This was a very disturbing State of the Union—an address that explains much of our current danger.

Your Friend,
Newt

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69135
    • View Profile
Justice Obama?
« Reply #253 on: January 29, 2016, 09:31:35 PM »
 


Supreme Court Justice Obama?
Originally published at the Washington Times

As the Republican primaries have become increasingly contentious in recent weeks, various factions have threatened not to support the others should their preferred candidate fail to win the nomination. But if the prospect of Hillary Clinton as president is not frightening enough to unite Republicans behind their eventual nominee, perhaps something Secretary Clinton said in Iowa this week will be.

Asked at one of her town hall meetings if she would consider appointing Barack Obama to the Supreme Court after his term as president, Hillary appeared as if she had just heard the best idea of her life.

“Wow, what a great idea!” she gushed. “Nobody has ever SUGGESTED that to me! WOW. I love that! Wow.”

For the full, chilling effect, you will have to watch the video. It must be seen to be believed. It’s uncanny.

If--despite our history with her--we are to take Hillary at her word, it seems there is a chance she would appoint the most anti-Constitutional president in American history to the Supreme Court of the United States, where he could remain for decades as the most anti-Constitutional Supreme Court justice in American history.

From the point of view of Democrat primary voters (if not from Clinton’s), the idea isn’t insane.

The party openly celebrates President Obama’s illegal actions--from suspending immigration law by executive fiat, to modifying Obamacare (“the law of the land”) at whim, to using the IRS to target conservative opponents, to making “recess appointments” when the Senate was not in recess. Democrats would like to protect as many such overreaches as they can. Undoubtedly, they could trust President Obama to give his illegal innovations--and the many others sure to be committed by a Clinton administration--the stamp of Constitutionality.

The idea of appointing a former chief executive to the bench is not without precedent. In 1921, Warren Harding nominated former President William Howard Taft to be chief justice of the Supreme Court. Taft went on to hold the position for more than eight years, and regarded it as the greatest honor of his life.

Somewhat like Taft, President Obama has exactly the “right” background for the job. He is a graduate of Harvard Law School, where six out of the nine current justices went to school. And before he ran for office, Obama was a Constitutional law professor, which is all the experience that many other justices required to begin pronouncing law from nation’s highest court. (Obama has certainly had plenty of practice pronouncing it from the presidency.)
If the thought of Justice Obama is not frightening enough by itself, consider that Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. served on the Court until he was 90 years old. By that measure, President Obama, who is 54 today, could be on the bench until 2052--or even longer, if the miracles of medicine are able to keep him issuing opinions into his ninth decade.

Imagine the damage he might do from a perch of 30 or 40 years on the Supreme Court. Or consider just a few of the questions that today hang by a 5-4 majority of the conservatives: whether the free speech clause of the First Amendment protects speech about political matters (Citizens United v. FEC), whether the religious liberty protections in the Constitution apply to Americans who own businesses (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby), and whether there are any limits at all to what the federal government can justify under the Commerce Clause (NFIB V. Sebelius).

Whether or not President Hillary would in fact appoint Barack Obama to a retirement job on the Supreme Court, we can be absolutely certain about one thing: she would surely appoint justices who would eagerly overturn all of those 5-4 cases, and sanction almost any abuses of power she could think up.
In other words, no matter whom she nominated, Hillary’s lifetime appointees would decide cases as if they were Justice Barack Obama. That specter alone should be terrifying enough to end any talk within the GOP about not supporting the eventual Republican nominee.

Your Friend,
Newt
 





 












Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69135
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18359
    • View Profile
Re: Newt Gingrich
« Reply #255 on: February 08, 2016, 05:24:10 PM »
Agree.  Cruz in starting to seem in a sense like Romney.  Just cannot get over the hump so to speak, but for different reasons.  He is not likable no matter what.  I don't see how anyone can win without a likability factor.

Bush now in 2nd in NH by one poll!  God help us.  He is a disaster.

I would take Christie over him.  Maybe even Kasich...... :?

I would certainly vote Trump before him

I ddin't see the debate.  Was Rubio really that bad or is the MSM and his political enemies making it out to be worse?
« Last Edit: February 08, 2016, 05:27:14 PM by ccp »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69135
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69135
    • View Profile
POTH: Is Newt Trump's heir?
« Reply #257 on: October 22, 2016, 04:44:29 AM »
If Donald loses, the question arises-- does someone else succeed him to lead the movement, and if so, who?  Here Pravda on the Hudson offers its take:


Mr. Gingrich’s ‘Big Trump’

By TERESA TRITCHOCT. 21, 2016
Newt Gingrich listens as Donald Trump speaks at a campaign rally earlier this year. Credit Ty Wright for The New York Times

It’s no big surprise that Newt Gingrich is still a gung-ho adviser to the Trump campaign. Mr. Gingrich has long espoused political views similar to Donald Trump’s.

But there is more to the alliance than a meeting of the minds. Mr. Gingrich understands that Mr. Trump appears to be losing not because his message has failed to resonate with Americans but because he is a poor messenger.

“I don’t defend him [Trump] when he wanders off,” Mr. Gingrich recently told ABC News. But “there’s a big Trump and there’s a little Trump,” he said, explaining that the big Trump is the one who has created issues that make “the establishment” very uncomfortable.

“The big Trump,” he said, “is a historic figure.”

With statements like that, Mr. Gingrich is positioning himself as the keeper of the Trump-campaign themes and, by extension, as the politician best able to mobilize Trump supporters going forward.

In the 1990s, Mr. Gingrich spearheaded the antigovernment movement. As House speaker from 1995 to 1999, he invoked racial stereotypes about African-Americans during debates over welfare reform. During his unsuccessful bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, he repeatedly called President Obama the “food stamp president.”

Mr. Gingrich played to birther movement sentiments in 2010 when he said that Mr. Obama exhibited “Kenyan, anticolonial behavior.”

And now, he is extolling the virtues of “big Trump.” There is a pattern here, and it does not bode well for American politics.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18130
    • View Profile
Re: POTH: Is Newt Trump's heir?
« Reply #258 on: October 24, 2016, 09:00:02 AM »
quote author=Crafty_Dog If Donald loses, the question arises-- does someone else succeed him to lead the movement, and if so, who?  Here Pravda on the Hudson offers its take: ...Gingrich...


Newt is a great American, has been a great supporter of Trump, probably designed and wrote Trump's new Contract with the American Voter.  He is a great surrogate and behind the scenes adviser.  That said, as a candidate and a player, he had his time and he had his chance.  He isn't the leader or the successor.  As youthful as he comes across he is older than both Hillary and Trump.  He had his own women and fidelity issues.  He worked for Fannie Mae as a "historian" when he should have been lobbying for its demise.  There isn't a successor to Trump and his hardest core supporters aren't coming back to merge with the other wings.  We have to replay this whole, rotten ordeal having learned nothing and with a side that is small and even more divided.



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18359
    • View Profile
Re: Newt Gingrich
« Reply #259 on: October 24, 2016, 09:32:15 AM »
"There isn't a successor to Trump "

No .  And everyone else looks like a midget next to his guts.   Too bad he couldn't control himself. 

With this and my other statements posted today I still hope it ain't over till its over.    :|


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69135
    • View Profile
Re: Newt Gingrich
« Reply #260 on: October 24, 2016, 10:11:02 AM »
You may be right Doug.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69135
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69135
    • View Profile
Jobs, jobs, jobs
« Reply #262 on: December 28, 2016, 09:15:13 PM »
The Other Half of ‘Jobs, Jobs, Jobs’
Originally published at Fox News.

President-elect Trump said his administration will be focused on three very important words: Jobs, Jobs, Jobs.

He has outlined a bold agenda to achieve 4 percent economic growth in America, and much of that agenda involves undoing the Obama administration’s disastrous regulations that get in the way of job creation,  but job creation is only half the challenge. Americans must have the skills necessary to do the jobs that are created under this new, more dynamic economy.

Meeting this goal will also require undoing the harmful actions of the Obama administration, specifically the devastating impact his Department of Education is having on career education in America.

Career education is distinct from the four-year Bachelor of Arts and Science programs you might think of as higher education. Career education certificates and associate degrees typically take 1 or 2 years, respectively, and rather than providing a broad-based education, they are specifically tailored to prepare students for specific jobs.

The demand for these programs is growing. Since 2003, per the National Center for Education Statistics, the number of certificate degrees awarded has increased by 40.9% and the number of associates degrees awarded has increased by 50.8%. This is a much faster rate of increase than the growth in Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees of 33%.

Many of these programs are offered at community colleges, but private sector career schools play a vital role as well. In 2014, more than 1/3 of certificates and almost 1/6 of associate degrees in America were awarded by private sector career colleges.

In fact, these numbers understate how critical private sector schools are to certain industries.

Healthcare is a prime example. According to a recent analysis of Department of Education data by Career Education Colleges and Universities, 78% of vocational/practical nurses and nursing assistants, 74% of medical assistants, 43% of ultrasound technicians, and 39% of surgical technologists are educated at private sector colleges and universities.

The fields of computer networking, electrical and electronic engineering, heating and ventilation installation and airplane and auto repair also disproportionately rely on private sector career schools to provide workers with the skills necessary to fill critical jobs.

Disgracefully, despite the vital nature of private sector career education to the American economy, the Obama administration has launched an ideologically motivated assault on private sector schools.

Over the past four years, the Department of Education forced almost 900 private sector campuses into closure, throwing tens of thousands of students out on the street – many of them low-income adults, single parents and African Americans and Latinos.

In just the past thirty days – in a final effort to cause as much damage to private sector schools before President-elect Trump takes office – the Obama Department of Education has revoked the accreditation status of ACICS – a national accreditor which certifies many private sector career schools in America, and deliberately done to immediately put almost over 700 schools in serious jeopardy.

Just as President-elect Trump has made it clear that he intends to undo many of the Obama administration’s disastrous regulations that hurt job creation, his administration should swiftly announce it will take steps to undo the damage President Obama has done to career education in America.

First, the Trump administration should announce that it will give ACICS 12 months to correct the deficiencies which the Obama administration used as an excuse to try and shut them down. This is a standard grace period that the Department of Education normally gives after notifying an accreditor that it is not meeting certain standards. The only reason ACICS was not given this same courtesy is because the Obama administration viewed them as a vehicle through which they could attack private sector schools.

In addition, the Trump administration should announce that it intends to make the disastrous Gainful Employment Rule open for review. This rule, which I have written about before , removes programs from eligibility for federally backed student loans if the earnings of its graduates do not meet an arbitrary debt/earnings threshold in three years.

As predicted by many, the rule is hurting students rather than helping them. For instance, students in lower wage states are having their opportunities for career advancement eliminated simply due to differences in the cost of living. The rule also doesn’t appreciate that many fields – such as the culinary arts and design programs – require a period of apprenticeship, which means that graduates will not necessarily realize the real value of their degrees in just three years.

The Trump administration should also announce that two rules which have not yet gone into effect – the Borrower Defense to Repayment (projected to cost over $16 billion over ten years) and the State Authorization Rule – will be immediately withdrawn. Instead, Congress and the Trump administration should work together to craft better solutions when they reauthorize the Higher Education Act later this year.  There is clear precedent for these actions provided by none other than President Obama himself.

In 2009, his Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel sent directives to all departments and agencies instructing them not only to withdraw all rules which were not yet implemented, but also to act to stop “rules which raise substantial questions of law or policy.” The biased rulemaking and regulatory enforcement of the Department of Education against private sector schools certainly rises to this standard.

President-elect Trump can show that he is indeed focused on jobs and send a signal now that the assault on career education will come to an end in his administration. Only then will Americans have access to the vital skills education they need to get good jobs in the 21st century.

Your Friend,
Newt

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69135
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69135
    • View Profile
Re: Newt Gingrich
« Reply #264 on: December 19, 2020, 05:22:27 PM »
One of the players in this suit brought this to my attention:

file:///C:/Users/prett_000/Downloads/Ethics.pdf



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18359
    • View Profile
Re: Newt Gingrich
« Reply #267 on: December 21, 2021, 11:19:07 AM »
I love listening to Newt
he always has interesting take

AOC brand politics = mental illness

White House staff real leaders of the WH - not jBiden

Biden the worst president since the (possible first gay one). Buchanan

always has interesting takes 


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69135
    • View Profile
Re: Newt Gingrich
« Reply #268 on: December 21, 2021, 01:46:37 PM »
Newt has an aspect to his depth that I attribute to his having been a college prof of American history.

I remember when he was running for the Rep nomination for president.  It was in NH and he spoke off the cuff for about an hour on the history behind the Second Amendment.  I sat enthralled.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18130
    • View Profile
Re: Newt Gingrich
« Reply #269 on: December 22, 2021, 12:41:45 PM »
Crafty:  "... I attribute to his having been a college prof of American history."

Yes, but unfortunately a lot of people teach "American history" today without the curiosity that drives one to get that depth of knowledge, wisdom and insight.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18130
    • View Profile
Re: Newt on Manchin and the WH Staff
« Reply #271 on: December 24, 2021, 11:42:41 AM »
https://www.gingrich360.com/2021/12/21/joe-manchin-and-the-white-house-staff/?fbclid=IwAR0-H_cgMkmpwMvuYxpYSqsxIutGqu_fKWTaeEjdsgtVdPqaz0XP7YxMl1A

Great story by Newt.  Huge mishandling of Manchin by Biden and staffers.  Those staffers should be fired, but good for us that dysfunction lives on.

It is outrageous and totally undemocratic that Omar, AOC, these staffers or anyone should believe we should have legislation that only 49 Senators support.  Anyone who reads West Virginia (Trump +39 actual result) as a liberal bastion is an idiot.

More interesting is the reaction in the heartland.  The radicals may be in office but moderate Dem voters outside Washington are siding with Manchin against the other 49. 

They used to use that divide the other way.  In Amy Klobuchar's first race, she said moderate Republican Sen John McCain voted against tax cuts and that somehow proves Bush- Republican tax rate cuts were reckless, even though we gradually learned John McCain was an attention seeker, a sellout and an economic dunce.

As already posted, the spot-on criticisms Manchin had of this legislation will most certainly be featured in the campaign ads running in the swing districts and states this year.  You don't have to be a Republican to know that doubling the size of an already bloated government and astronomical debt is a bad idea.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69135
    • View Profile
Re: Newt Gingrich
« Reply #272 on: April 26, 2022, 02:55:02 AM »
An American majority, not a Republican majority

Part two: Lessons from Reagan

By Newt Gingrich

To really understand the American majority that we can build, we must understand the one that emerged to support former President Ronald Reagan. Further, it is essential to understand how much Reagan had learned from former President Richard Nixon and the emerging, massive, anti-left majority that first appeared in 1972.

In the years preceding Nixon’s presidency, left-wing values combined with big government bureaucracy and massive income transfers had created a disaster. There were nearly 160 riots in the summer of 1967, and the Black Panthers openly called for the assassination of police (at least 19 were killed). Leftist activists committed more than 2,500 domestic bombings in 1970 and 1971 (averaging five per day).

Rational people started to react to the chaos. The development of a new American radicalism to replace the New Deal coalition of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was captured brilliantly in Tom Wolfe’s 1970 article on “Radical Chic” and his other essays parodying the left’s absurdity.

Theodore White, in his “Making of the President 1972” argued that the radical Sen. George McGovern found it impossible to appeal to mainstream Democrats because the liberal ideology had become a liberal theology. The earlier FDR-liberal politicians had been able to compromise and to consider public opinion and practical realities. The new theologians of the “Church of Leftwingism” were rigid in their positions. And those positions were totally unacceptable to a substantial number of Democrats and virtually all independents and Republicans.

Furthermore, the rise of the hardline leftists was connected to the rise of Big Government socialism in President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. As Charles Murray and Marvin Olasky outlined in “Losing Ground” and “The Tragedy of American Compassion,” respectively, it was the Great Society that broke with historic American norms in favor of left-wing ideological stubbornness.

So, the rise of Big Government socialism and radical left-wing culture in the late 1960s and early ’70s began a dramatic shift in political support for popular conservative, pro-American ideas.

Nixon had been through a harrowing series of races starting with losing a virtual tie in 1960 to Sen. John F. Kennedy, then a shocking loss (48.8% to 51.9%) in California to incumbent Gov. Pat Brown. Finally, he had won the election by a stunningly narrow margin in a three-way race in 1968, Nixon (43.4%) beat Democrat Vice President Hubert Humphrey (42.7%) and independent Gov. George Wallace (13.5%).

However, just four years later, in 1972, Nixon won a stunningly big victory with 60.7% to Sen. George McGovern’s 37.5%. Mr. Nixon then won reelection by a slightly bigger margin than Reagan would in 1984 (58.8%).

Reagan instinctively understood the need for an American majority rather than a Republican majority.

Reagan’s first great national televised political speech was Oct. 27, 1964, “A Time for Choosing” speech on behalf Of Sen. Barry Goldwater’s campaign. In that speech, Reagan clearly indicated he was speaking for more than the Republican base: “I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines.”

In Reagan’s own race for governor of California in 1966, he outlined the case for welfare reform, lower taxes and combatting left-wing radicals on academic campuses. He did so as a “citizen candidate” reaching far beyond the Republican base. In this first race, Reagan received 57.5% to Gov. Pat Brown’s 42.3% (an 8.7% improvement over Nixon’s vote just four years earlier). Reagan was broadening the base, not just mobilizing it.

Reagan continued to reach out to an audience far bigger than the Republican Party. In 1975, when only 17% of voters identified with the GOP, a narrow base mobilization strategy was a guarantee of defeat. Reagan knew that and acted accordingly.

He was following strategies of educating and leading the public which he learned in his eight years at General Electric. This era of his life was captured brilliantly in Thomas Evans’ book “The Education of Ronald Reagan: The General Electric Years and the Untold Story of His Conversion to Conservatism.”

At the 1975 Conservative Political Action Conference, Reagan called for the kind of boldness he had displayed in his first governor’s race. He said: “A Republican Party raising a banner of bold colors, no pale pastels. A banner instantly recognizable as standing for certain values which will not be compromised. Yes, we must broaden our base, but let’s broaden it the way we did in 1972, because those Americans — Democrats and independents and Republicans — are still out there looking for a banner around which to rally. And we have what they want, what they’re seeking. But they don’t know that. And sometimes I wonder if we know it.”

Reagan’s efforts to broaden from a Republican majority to an American majority continued. Consider the opening of his speech to the 1976 Republican National Convention: “I’m going to say fellow Republicans here but those who are watching from a distance — all those millions of Democrats and Independents who I know are looking for a cause around which to rally and which I believe we can give them.”

As the Republican nominee in 1980, Reagan continued to follow a base-broadening strategy and worked to bring his party with him. I participated in the first Republican Capitol Steps event on Sept. 15, 1980. I was the House Republican organizer collaborating with Republican National Committee Chairman Bill Brock to get it done. Never had a presidential candidate joined with his party’s congressional candidates to pledge specific actions.

The historic nature of the day was captured by David Broder, whose entire column is worth reading. Broder wrote: “The implicit message of Monday’s ceremony is that there can be only one government in Washington at a time and that if voters want Reagan to lead it effectively, they have to go all the way with the GOP. … That is an honest statement, and it is as commendable for the Republicans to dramatize it as it is risky.”

The House and Senate candidates joined then-Gov. Reagan and then-Ambassador George H.W. Bush in pledging to: 1. Cut spending on Congress as signal to the rest of the government; 2. Cut government spending and reduce waste, fraud and abuse to fight inflation; 3. Cut individual income taxes across the board and develop incentives for savings, investment and capital recovery to put the country back on road to prosperity; 4. Encourage more private investment and permanent jobs — especially in our central cities; 5. Strengthen our national defense. More than 250 incumbents and candidates stood with the Reagan Bush team and made these pledges. The impact was clear on Election Day when the GOP picked up 12 Senate seats and won control of the upper chamber for the first time since 1954. No one had expected a Republican Senate majority (just as virtually no one would expect a Republican House majority in 1994). It was proof of the power of a tidal wave to exceed expectations. Despite the Republican victory, Reagan continued to reach out to Democrats to create an American majority. On the key vote on his three-year tax cut — the centerpiece of his economic recovery plan — 48 Democrats joined with 190 Republicans to provide a majority in the House. In the Senate, 37 Democrats joined with 52 Republicans topassthetaxcuts. Theterm “Reagan Democrats” began to be used, and his appeal to independents and moderate and conservative Democrats was a key part of his success. Reagan emphasized the broad nature of his coalition in his victory statement for the tax cuts: “The victories we have just won do not belong to any one individual, one partyoroneadministration. “It is a victory for all the people. A strong bipartisan coalition in the Congress — Republicans and Democrats together — has virtually assured the first real tax cut in nearly 20 years. It also has removed one of the most important remaining challenges to our agenda for prosperity.”

This effort to broaden the base and bring together as many Americans as possible would continue throughout Reagan’s eight years in office.

Reagan explicitly acknowledged the American people as the key to all his victories. He asserted: “what few people noticed is that I never won anything you didn’t win for me. They never saw my troops, they never saw Reagan’s regiments, the American people. You won every battle with every call you made and letter you wrote demanding action.”

Today’s Republicans have an opportunity to rebuild the Reagan American majority. They would do well to study how he did it with simple clear language: “tear down this wall,” “evil empire,” “we win, they lose” – simple, clear, understandable and to the point.

In the next column, I will explain the 1994 Contract with America as a base-broadening American majority strategy that stood on the shoulders of Reagan’s leadership


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18359
    • View Profile
Re: Newt Gingrich
« Reply #274 on: May 30, 2022, 02:58:35 PM »
newt:

"Somewhere there must be some Democrats willing to demand accountability and defend America against this kind of vicious dishonesty and manipulation."

there are none except Joe Manchin

the rest are too busy "SAVING DEMOCRACY"


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69135
    • View Profile
Newt Gingrich with Jordan Peterson
« Reply #275 on: November 18, 2022, 06:36:56 AM »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18359
    • View Profile
Newt in panic mode for '24
« Reply #276 on: December 02, 2022, 06:14:58 AM »
he woke up this am and saw headlines of job growth:

https://www.axios.com/2022/12/02/newt-gingrich-biden-republicans

the only. thing I am sure of, the answer is not TRUMP!

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18359
    • View Profile
Re: Newt Gingrich
« Reply #277 on: December 02, 2022, 06:25:50 AM »
and I should add it ain't Mike Lindell.

 :roll:

MON Dieu !!!!!

 :-o

commit suicide now and get it over with.......


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69135
    • View Profile
Newt: Trump is the man that Nixon could not be
« Reply #279 on: February 14, 2024, 01:24:15 PM »
I found this one both fascinating and perspective changing.

https://spectator.org/trump-is-the-man-nixon-couldnt-be/