Think Progress thinks it has Newt Gingrich in a gotcha moment, which shows how out of touch Think Progress is. Here’s a partial quote and the video below (emphasis by TP):
I repudiate, and I call on the President to repudiate, the concept of the 99 and the 1. It is un-American, it is divisive, it is historically false…You are not going to get job creation when you engage in class warfare because you have to attack the very people you hope will create jobs.
This is not the first time Newt has taken on the Occupy Wall Street movement and Obama’s class warfare strategy. I thank Think Progress for capturing this moment.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Newt is right to go after Obama on this, and he is right on each of the reasons he gave in this clip for his criticism. Obama needs to be pounded as much as possible for his un-American class warfare.
Newt is correct on this.
Another thing I don’t think repubs understand, even those who were political enemies of Bill Clinton. What Obama did to Bill Clinton and Hillary, calling them racists, using the race card against them was one of the most disgusting things I had ever seen, that is when I left the undemocratic party, and millions like me.
Newt or Romney (although Romney may be too well staged to do this — although according to Hillaryis44’s lastest post, Romney is starting to use this tactic in the fundraising letters), but if Newt were to go after Obama for calling Bill or Hillary Clinton a racist, repubs have no idea how many sane democrats who left the party in disgust, you know, those “bitter clinging” reagan dems, pumas, independents, “the working white class”, the working-any race-class, will be solidly, even more so for the utter defeat of this fraud in the WH.
That is a good idea. Even better if saved for the general election?
Newt can read polls. The very liberal PPP puts the Obamavilles at 33% approval and 45% disapproval amongst the real 99%.
Mdw9661:
Are you suggesting Newt’s position on the “99 and the 1” is poll driven rather than a principled position?
I’ll leave that to others to form their own opinion cause frankly I am disinterested in the primaries. Will support the nominee, ABO, however.
But, intentionally or not, the Obama repudiation angle is a game winner because the the Occupests have jumped the shark.
I don’t like Newt.
I don’t like his personal life and I believe that people with messy personal lives are less effective professionally. Look at what a divorce does to productivity of those involved.
Had Clinton been a CEO of a private company and got into that kind of high profile scandal–he would have been fired forthwith–not because of what he did, but because of the distraction both to him and the rest of the company. Don’t tell me otherwise–been there, done that.
I think he screwed up what might have been our best chance at fixing things in 1994. Combination of his personal problems and poor leadership.
OTOH, he is staking out clear, coherent positions. Most of them I agree with, some I don’t. But, I will support someone with a clear, unequivocal position over the usual “voted for it before I voted against it” spineless type. At least if the disagreements are few and not deal breakers.
The DC establishment hates him. The MSM hates him. The late night comics and Hollywood in general hate him.
He is the only one with the balls to tell the gotcha media to quit asking stupid questions.
He is 100 percent right on this point. As he has been on several others of late.
And, I would REALLY love to see him and The One in an unscripted debate–which will never happen, the Dems will see to that. In fact, if Newtie gets the nod, look for some amazing gymnastics keeping the number of debates down as few as possible and the format totally scripted. The problem Obama’s team will have is that Newt may agree to the script and then go off it. I would.
Am I going to end up supporting a scoundrel like this? Please…..
Lichau
“The DC establishment hates him. The MSM hates him. The late night comics and Hollywood in general hate him.”
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
Class warfare, and similar conflicts, are a regressive conception which were rejected with enlightenment. Instead of hoping perpetually for redistributive and retributive change (i.e. involuntary exploitation) to improve the condition of its recipients and to not seduce service providers, we should recognize that its continuance is a causal factor in progressive corruption of individuals and society.
We should focus on voluntary exploitation, principally economic development, which will enable individuals to live as equals under the law. We should consider fundamental economic development (e.g. agriculture, livestock, basic services) to be the immediate goal. We cannot solely rely on keystone industries in an area and region, which when absent or in decline result in immediate impoverishment of the affected people. There must be a foundation to economic development. There is rarely an instance of either physical or material instant gratification, which does not occur at the expense, and without the consent, of other people.
The “occupy” (truly a reference without reason) movement is both right and wrong. Their priorities are wrong. I don’t recall their kind’s presence when passage of the so-called “health care reform” was imminent, or other “stimulus” measures. They are passionate to protest fraudulent exploitation (exceptional corruption), while embracing or condoning involuntary exploitation (fundamental corruption). It is far better that we recognize and resolve causes than continue the charade where treating symptoms has become a lucrative enterprise.
re: fundamental economic development
With a focus on resource recovery, energy production, and human development; and a mind to good stewardship of our space.
Through the circle of friends principle, we should pursue objectives that will engender positive progress with our neighbors, and they with theirs, and so on and so forth until we have influenced the world through example rather than coercion, where the former increases the likelihood of a sustainable outcome.
n.n.
I am glad you are reading your own stuff and commenting on it, because it is a little to sophisticated for me.
Don’t consider it to be sophisticated, but an effort to provide a comprehensive context in a venue which doesn’t generally engender it.
It’s also worth considering that these comments are an expression of my thoughts, which I have considered for an extended period of time, and they have perfect meaning and consistency in my own mind.
Start with general principles and apply them to specific circumstances. It has been my observation that there is a self-enforcing consistency in our world (i.e. an underlying order). If our principles are sound (not merely idealistic), then they will guide us both in pursuing positive progress and coping with the limitations our world imposes upon us.
The principle I believe to be sound, and guides my thinking, is recognition and respect of individual human dignity. When you apply this principle in a world with finitely accessible, limited resources, then we are precluded from accepting general concepts of class warfare, etc., and must reject on them as a rule. The principle demands a pragmatic recognition of our defined, but malleable roles in this world (e.g. natural order) and society (e.g. enlightened order). The exceptions are limited first by the adherence to a common moral code (from which follows an optimal liberty), and second by an equally applied rule of law (which serves to mitigate the inevitable occurrence of fundamental and exceptional corruption).
It is my desire to contribute and promote to a comprehensive conversation, and to identify the so-called “issues of merit” as I perceive them to exist. It is my perception that we often confuse cause and effect, and that it promulgates the periodic conflicts we observe throughout history and the world. It is my belief that we are capable of identify causal factors which contribute to the progressive corruption of individuals and society, including acknowledgment of fundamental corruption in the form of delusions of grandeur and voluntary failure.
In this context, I would consider a derivative observation:
We cannot all enjoy a beachfront property in Hawaii.
Thanks for your response, most of which I understand. I also appreciate that you are engaged in a thoughtful and positive process, and that your process may lead to some good ideas. For me to understand your good ideas, however, they will have to be more clearly, maybe more briefly, stated.
Also, thanks for not pointing out the typo in my first response.
I wish you the best and continued success with your project.
See Newt’s proposed contract. Sounds like a good start.
21st Century Contract with America
Home – by Claudia – November 29, 2011
Here is the outline of changes he wants to deal with:
1. Repeal Obamacare
2. Return to robust job creation
3. Unleash America’s full energy potential
4. Save Medicare and Social Security
5. Balance the Federal Budget
6. Control the border
7. Revitalize our national security to meet 21st centruy threats
8. Maximize the speed and impact of medical breakthroughs
9. Restore the proper role of the judicial branch
10. Enforce the 10th Amendment
ht Frosteetoes “Newt’s awesome and knows his s— Take the time to watch this all the way thru, please”:
UPDATE: The above outline is just that; an outline. Take Frosteetoes advice and watch the video. Gingrich expands on the outline which should answer most of the issues we might have just reading this outline.
Video at this link – http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=107151
The only thing about Newt, will he be disciplined enough to not fly off the handle?
Romney may be like tofu, but its trained well disciplined tofu.
I honestly don’t have an answer. I’m in the ABO camp, but I want that ABO to actually have the best chance of defeating that fraud in the WH. And at this point, I don’t who, Newt or Romney.
I agree; I too am an ABO. Romney and Gingrich each has his strengths and weaknesses. I think Gingrich might be the better campaigner but Romney might be the better President. Romney might have less baggage, but he is not baggage-free.
Right now (subject to change) I think I tilt toward Newt because of his campaigning abilities. Obama’s defeat must be the top priority.
Whichever gets the nomination, the other should be seriously considered for VP.
[…] Legal Insurrection presents the video below via the leftist outfit called Think Progress. As Professor Jacobson points out, Think Progress thought they were catching Newt Gingrich in a gotcha moment when in fact they have produced a fantastic campaign ad for Newt 2012. […]
[…] Prof Jacobson- Divisivness […]
I like Gov. Perry’s better. Obama is a socialist & his socialist policies are wrecking the economy.
Clear and direct.
Some say Newt has finally matured. I do like his pointed remarks and blowback to the Resident and his journominions. Classic putdowns that sting! I might be able to change my mind and eventually like him, but I can definitely vote for him over a couple of others I could name.
If elected he will not serve in a vacuum. He can intend all sorts of things but unless he plays nice with congress he gets very little. We need to stop hyperventilating over the presidential run and concentrate more on the Senate and House, IMO. ABO, everyone. ABO.
Congress is important and it would be great to have 60 Republicans in the Senate, however unlikely that may be. But, without the Presidency, there is no chance to undo the damage Obama has done. Defeating Obama must be the number 1 priority.
In other, more IMPORTANT news, the Udall amendment to Defense Authorization Bill S. 1867 has been defeated. The proposed amendment would have removed language [“regarding section 1032 , he says “‘The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.’ This language appears carefully crafted to mislead the public. Note that it does not preclude U.S. citizens from being detained indefinitely, without charge or trial, it simply makes such detention discretionary.””] from the bill that allows “suspected terrorists” explicitly including American citizens to be detained indefinitely, without ever seeing a judge, legal council, family or friends, similar to prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. The defense bill is almost certain to be passed and signed by Obama. At this point, anyone suspected of being a “terrorist” can be locked up indefinitely (forever) without due process.
Note that Marco Rubio signed off on this one as well. In fact, more progressives opposed this bill than did supposed conservatives.
@3:15 Rand Paul and Judge Napolitano (Only video of this available on youtube)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQ7GLVeJ2CU
http://www.conservativeactionalerts.com/2011/11/unconstitutional-bill-declares-us-a-battlefield-for-the-military/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=WAS20111127&articleId=27886
http://thatsmycongress.com/index.php/2011/11/29/attack-on-american-liberty-remains-us-senate-rejects-udall-amendment/
This is a sad, sad day in American history.
Say goodbye to due process.
This new power makes a fine addition to the power the president already has of being able to kill any American citizen anywhere in the world. Now wouldn’t that be SOMETHING if this or a future president were to round up “terrorists” living in the United States and order them all executed while they are in custody! Oh that could never happen. Nobody would ever put 2+2 together like that.
Okay……so, just how is this a “gotcha moment” again?
Newt is stating the obvious. I agree, TP’s reaction amplifies their disconnect with Americans, and America as a concept: individual liberty and responsibility, along with unlimited potential, and no classes or caste system to restrain our potential to achieve our dreams.
Think Progress is a Soros monkey incubator. They are suffering from groupthink, I suppose; either that, or they are delusional, ignorant of the American dream, and what America is all about.
Maybe that should be in their mission and vision statements? Nah, then everyone would KNOW they hate America, that they’re not just another 501(c)(3) sucking money from the government when they can and turning around to methodically take down America using stealth tactics. Clinging to the 1st Amendment as protection, of course.
We know that is who they are. But they don’t realize we know. Is there a name for that? Delusional is all I can come up with, somehow.
I’ll leave that to others to form their own opinion cause frankly I am disinterested in the primaries. Will support the nominee, ABO, however.
But, intentionally or not, the Obama repudiation angle is a game winner because the the Occupests have jumped the shark.
This country needs to do more than “Think Progress,” it needs “Real Progress” with “Real Jobs.”
Barack Obama had proven himself to be anything other than the “uniter” he claimed to be. He claimed to be for “change you can believe in.” I don’t believe in his change, his party or him.
Let’s give him more time to golf, but not on our dime. Let’s raid his pension fund to pay for his mistakes.
“It is un-American, it is divisive, it is historically false…”
Yet so many Americans can see a truth to it.
If you believe in free speech, you know anyone can disagree. Beware the person who uses words like “repudiate,” they are not taking your rights seriously. That is “un-American.”
Why doesn’t anyone bring up the fact that Newt has betrayed his family MULTIPLE times. This is frustrating! How could the party of “family values” nominate a chronic cheater? I’ll vote for Obama over Newt, Obama has no idea what he is doing, but he has been loyal to his family.
[…] Newt: ‘I Call On The President To Repudiate The Concept Of The 99 And The 1′ […]
[…] I’d rather support someone who’s willing to stand up to #OccupyWallStreet. […]