And He Claims He is NOT a Progressive.

I know how “conservatives” reacted when Clinton engaged in this sort of double speak. Now I have to ask, will you respond in kind to this:

Watch clip on HufPo

In spite of being on the record saying all of THIS:

If you add this to Newt’s support for global warming and “green” economic policy; for socialized health care and his personal life regarding his marriages, it is – IMHO – impossible to make any rational argument in support of this man’s character.  He has none.

Now, I am not one to tell somebody how they must vote, but I am and will tell you that, if you support Newt, then you have no grounds to attack anyone on the left as you are supporting someone who is cut from the same cloth.  I happen to agree with the “conservative” notion that the majority of politicians and leaders in the Democrat Party have lousy character, trouble telling the truth and a proven record of doing whatever is required to get elected.  But this describes Newt, too.  So, by all means, if you like him, support him.  But please, have the decency to call yourself what you are: you are not “conservative,” you are PROGRESSIVE!  Oh, and stop attacking Obama and the left because you’re not really upset about their policies, the only thing you’re really upset about is “your Progressive” isn’t in charge.

(This is why definitions matter: if you don’t know the definition, then you will be easily led into supporting something you would otherwise oppose.)


More Newt nuttiness at The Other McCain and American Freedom by Barbara.

Links added by Utah.

24 thoughts on “And He Claims He is NOT a Progressive.

  1. Newt’s sole attraction right now is the fact that he is willing to attack Obama where it hurts. I’m happy to hear it but it still doesn’t mean he can lead.

    Newt’s problem is that a successful insurgent does not make an effective leader, these are two very different skillsets. Newt proved that he knew how to fight against power in 1994 but the subsequent years revealed his weakness in commanding it.

    • I agree: people just want to hear someone attacking Obama, but I think it is more than that. I believe they also like the way Newt attacks the media. Unfortunately, too many of them will accept this in return for turning a blind eye to the weaknesses in Newt that you have pointed our, and rightfully so, I would add.

      I fear the ABO craze is going to give us the same thing it did in 2008: another President who doesn’t understand individual rights and liberty. IF we would all focus on that, the economy and most other problems would straighten themselves out on their own.

      • I fear the ABO craze is going to give us the same thing it did in 2008: another President who doesn’t understand individual rights and liberty. IF we would all focus on that, the economy and most other problems would straighten themselves out on their own.

        Hmmm, I wonder which of the candidates running right now embodies those rights you mentioned?

        Mike G.

        • Only one catch with Paul: he is too far to the right of the founders. The more I study his book, “Liberty Defined,” the more I realize he does the opposite of Progressives: instead of “interpreting” the Constitution to allow MAXIMUM govt., Paul “interprets” it to favor NO govt.

          That is as much of a non-starter as the Progressive position, though it goes overboard in the right direction, going overboard in the direction of no govt. guarantees a loss of individual rights and liberty just as surely as going too far toward total govt.

          Still, I would favor Paul over Newt/Romney – which is why I say Santorum is a “compromise.”

          • Ron Paul advocates for the kind of limited government the founders envisioned. I don’t know how it could be any plainer. The government does so many things it’s not allowed to do according to the Constitution, that I reckon people are scared of what will happen without looking at the good that could come from going back.

          • Mr. G,

            I’m not saying he doesn’t advocate limited govt., I’m saying I believe he advocates a bit too little govt. Remember why the Constitution was written in the first place? It was because the Articles of Confederation were too weak.

            In his book, Paul advocates leaving a great deal of stuff alone that can and should rightfully be addressed by society through govt. The more I understand what he has actually argued for, the less I can support him. Still, he would be better than Newt/Romney, but I CANNOT say he would be better than Santorum. Santorum has expressed a proper understanding of the Declaration/Constitution (I heard that with my own ears), and Santorum would defend the nation.

            But, that said, I have come to understand I will no more win my case with Paul supporters than I will with Newt/Romney people. Nor will either side apparently accept that I keep saying I see Santorum as a compromise. He is not my ideal candidate, just the only one I see for whom I can vote (at this time) and keep a clean conscience.

        • Ron Paul? Ding! Oh, I do beg your pardon, because I’m a Paulbot suggesting WW III.

          Look at the polls that M. fastidiously posts! Seems to me that people DO go by debates, in which case Gingrich wins.
          Also, Guy, in case it escaped you, that’s why they”re scared to death to place a bet against him….

  2. B, we won’t get too little government from a Paul Presidency, just a hard pu;ll in that direction, which is what this country needs. The compromise can come in the negotiations after the elections, electing a compromise candidate is tantamount to admitting defeat before negotiations start.

    • I actually understand and agree with everything you say. I actually don’t have much worry of Paul pulling too far right – especially with all the Progressives in the “D’s and R’s” occupying Congress. The only reason I cannot vote for Paul has already been stated, and I do not see any way around this for me at this time. So, baring some change I believe from Paul, Santorum is my only option.

  3. No one likes the truth. and just as M.’s article pointed out; politicians are very adept at the side-step. Let’s face it: Newt would own Beck in a debate. (even though Beck is right)

    • Actually, Newt got held to the wall in his interview on Beck’s show. So I’m not so sure Newt could best Beck, especially since Beck actually knows his history at least as well as Newt and has learned to drag squirmy little snots like Newt back to the point at hand when they try to slime away into some diversion.

  4. Dateline South Hill, VA.

    On my way to Williamsburg to visit my new Granddaughter.


    I think the reason you don’t care for Ron Paul is because you might misunderstand his stance on foreign policy. You’re under the impression that RP doesn’t want to protect our interests which is far from the truth. Paul just believes in going through Congress, as it states in the Constitution, before declaring war. He also realizes that the President might have to make a unilateral decision in the case of an enemy attack. I think a lot of people don’t really listen, or just listen to the 30 second sound bites they hear on the news.

    Mike G.

    • I should also add that I don’t think we need 900 bases all over the world. I remember when I was stationed in Germany, it seemed like their was a base every ten miles or so. A base can be considered any posting in which American soldiers or airmen were stationed, such as the remote radar site we were at or the HF radio site down the road about a 1/4 mile from our site. Each was considered a separate base because we were in different commands.

      Mike G.

    • Not sure if you have managed to catch all my comments on this issue, Mr. G. So let me recap, OK?

      I agree with Ron Paul: bring the military home and keep Diego Garcia and Guam. I don’t see reason for much else; other bases only serve offensive purposes and we are NOT s”supposed” to be offensive as a nation.

      I have no problem with the idea of going to Congress to get a declaration of war; I prefer it.

      Now here is the problem: Ron Paul DOES NOT SEE THE THREAT!

      I have read his book and he thinks we are to blame, not Islam. This PROVES a fundamental and FATALLY flawed understanding of Islam. He cannot and WILL NOT defend us from a real threat that is already inside our borders because he doesn’t believe it exists.

      Second, as he has already said he wouldn’t have fought WW II – after Pearl Harbor – I don’t think Ron Paul would EVER ask for a declaration of War. Which leaves me with as much reason to doubt Ron Paul is capable of defending America as I have to believe Barack Obama can fix the economy.

    • Not to get off the subject, but to get off the subject; can I just say that you look way too young for seven granchildren?

      Isn’t Williamsburg where they do those reenactments?

  5. My oldest granddaughter is old enough to drive. 😉

    Yes it is. We went to Jamestown today and saw the original town or fort where they’re doing the archaeological digging. Really quite interesting.

    Mike G.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.