Gingrich: GOP Should Be "Party Of Yes"

[Procrustes Stretched]

...

You're racist enough. You should run for local office as a representative of the Tea Party.

 

[xsited1]

Gingrich: GOP Should Be "Party Of Yes"

By Reid Wilson
NEW ORLEANS, LA -- Ex-House Speaker Newt Gingrich will urge attendees at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference to offer solutions instead of simply criticizing Dem policies, his organization said in a media release this afternoon.

"To win in 2010 and 2012, it's not enough to say no to the radical agenda of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid," Gingrich said in a statement. "Tonight's speech will explain why real leadership requires Republicans to offer a compelling vision of safety, prosperity, and freedom that stands in vivid contrast to Obama's secular, socialist, machine now running Washington."

Dems have scored points by labeling the GOP the "Party of No" for a perceived lack of serious policy alternatives. And the label clearly rankles GOPers in DC, who point to a few proposals from Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and House and Senate leadership.

Meanwhile, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) is spearheading efforts to craft a new version of the Contract with America, which Gingrich used in '94 as the GOP took back the House for the first time in 40 years. Party leaders have yet to say when they will unveil their agenda, and some worry that releasing it too soon will give Dems a target as they struggle with a tough political environment.

Hotline On Call

Makes sense since the "Dems have scored points by labeling the GOP the "Party of No" for a perceived lack of serious policy alternatives."

 

[JakeStarkey]

Gingrich: GOP Should Be "Party Of Yes"

By Reid Wilson
NEW ORLEANS, LA -- Ex-House Speaker Newt Gingrich will urge attendees at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference to offer solutions instead of simply criticizing Dem policies, his organization said in a media release this afternoon.

"To win in 2010 and 2012, it's not enough to say no to the radical agenda of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid," Gingrich said in a statement. "Tonight's speech will explain why real leadership requires Republicans to offer a compelling vision of safety, prosperity, and freedom that stands in vivid contrast to Obama's secular, socialist, machine now running Washington."

Dems have scored points by labeling the GOP the "Party of No" for a perceived lack of serious policy alternatives. And the label clearly rankles GOPers in DC, who point to a few proposals from Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and House and Senate leadership.

Meanwhile, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) is spearheading efforts to craft a new version of the Contract with America, which Gingrich used in '94 as the GOP took back the House for the first time in 40 years. Party leaders have yet to say when they will unveil their agenda, and some worry that releasing it too soon will give Dems a target as they struggle with a tough political environment.

Hotline On Call

Jill...the Dems took back congress by being the party of no before the phrase became popular.

Ever wonder why they don't want the GOP to do that?

Answer: Because it works.

And following Mudwhistle's scintillating analysis will get the GOP smeared again in 2010, 2012, and every time they try that.

Here is the correct analysis: the Dems got smeared in 2002 and 2004 being the Party of No. They came up with programs and plans, propagandized them, converted the American majority and won in 2006 and 2008.

If Republicans want to win, Mudwhistle's looniness ain't the road map, podjos.

 

[The Rabbi]

Jill...the Dems took back congress by being the party of no before the phrase became popular.

Ever wonder why they don't want the GOP to do that?

Answer: Because it works.

that's not true at all. i think you'd be hard-pressed to find a republican bill that didn't have at least some democratic votes.

you never saw the dems, in unison, refuse to vote for a bill even if it was based on bills they had drafted.

you never saw dems, in unison, spewing trash like 'i hope he fails'.

it was the repubs who refused to put a dem bill on the table unless it had a minimum number of repub votes;

if you mean that dems weren't going to vote for things as malicious as the terry schiavo disaster or an amendment to ban gay marriage, you're correct. but that wasn't based on a political tactic... that was based on the contents of the proposed legislation.

Democrats voted for it because they were typically included in discussions on any piece of legislation. So their views made their way into the final legislation, allowing them to vote for it.
That's called "bipartisanship". That means both sides can support it, in case your online dictionary is off.
It is something Obama and the current national-socialist Democrats in office don't and can't do.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Isn't Newt pretty much the father of modern neocons?

Newt is the father of the Clinton's "Budget surpluses"

Whatever.. Clinton dragged him along.

And through this further testimony in ignorance; we find the member demonstrating the ignorance, which brought her to believe in 'skitsofrenia'

IGNORANCE ON PARADE!​

 

[Oddball]

Newt is the father of the Clinton's "Budget surpluses"

Also a myth.

The alleged "balanced budget" and mythical "surpluses" were all but inevitable, as Perot pointed out on a multitude of occasions back in '92.

Perot?



Sean, is that you?

---

Nothing and everything is inevitable when it comes to the economy. Actions taken brought about the economic recovery of the 90s. Your argument is sound when speaking of a recovery in the long term as in, given enough time---things will recover/balance out. Eventually the economy will rebound.

But a balanced budget and surpluses had to be planned for. Clinton gets the credit for actions taken, just as Reagan does and Obama does.

Total bullshit.

Perot's numbers were taken straight from the CBO and projected out at only a 2.5% to 3% growth rate. With those numbers, he showed time and again that the budget was going to balance all by itself, if no radical tinkering at all was done by the feds.....And it did so, almost exactly as he had projected.

Next thing you'll tell us is that Bubba and the republican congress got together just to make Perot look good.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

...

You're racist enough. You should run for local office as a representative of the Tea Party.

ROFL.. Hey LOOK! It's another lie... another fraud being advanced by our in-house Leftists...

In truth there's not a scintilla of Racism to be found anywhere NEAR the Tea-Party... Yet here we find a Leftist asserting raw deception as if it were the purest essence of truth.

Such is the case of the Hyper-sensitivity with regard to the referring of the BOY King as The Brown Clown.

This being a function of the Progressive mindset, wherein THEY SEE the Rich Dark Caramel Hue of the BOY King being what's REALLY HOLDin' HIM BACK! And it's just not fair that someone would remind the world that 'he Brown...'

Of course the world is reminded of this everytime they see him... Being a brown person myself, albeit several shades off the deep rishness of his High Browness... I personally don't see the problem with someone being Brown... particularly given that all but 100% of the Human species is brown; From the golden hue of the lightbrown artic dwellers, to the Deep Dark Chocolate tones of the Desert Nomads...

But the Ideological Left FULLY believes that a dark skin pigment is a sure sign that someone isn't QUIIIIiiiiite human; although in the case of The Brown Clown; as was noted by TWO of the Nations LEADING PROGRESSIVES... Notably Harry Reid and Joe "The Plagiarist" Biden...

'Obama is truly an exception; he's so clean and well spoken; able to speak without a negro dialect...'

There's the HATE, Kids... They just like to dress it up.

That fact that the Clown is BROWN is irrelevant, except where one feels that being Brown is being inferior; I just use it to help to identify the Clown to which I'm referring... And thus far, NOT one person has had any trouble figuring it out.

But I've included a Visual Aid specifically to help those who seem to find it so awfully offensive... Perhaps they'll eventually come to realize that despite his Browness He is a human being; It's his Clownish IDEAS that are offensive... And Perhaps SEEING HIS BROWNESS MORE OFTEN, ASSOCIATED DIRECTLY WITH HIS CLOWNISHESS... THEY'LL EVENTUALLY COME TO REALIZE THAT SEEING HIS BROWNESS IS NOT A DENIGRATION... SO NOTING HIS BROWNESS CAN THEREFORE NOT BE A DENIGRATION; and that instead of trying to pretend that he's NOT BROWN, we can begin to focus on exposing what DOES denigrate him; what DOES threaten his leadership and those he leads: HIS CLOWNISH IDEAS!

Ya see BEING BROWN DOESN'T UNDERMINE THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY... ADVANCING FOOLISH< UNSOUND, UNSUSTAINABLE, WHOLLY DISCREDITED IDEAS.... does. And that there are MILLIONS OF FOOLISH CLOWNS THAT SUPPORT THOSE IDEAS... doesn't change anything.

Again, Kids.... This isn't a complex issue here... it's just one which is WELL beyond the limited intellectual means of a Progressive to deal with.

(Tip of the Hat to Allie for introducing the photo where it counted most... )

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Also a myth.

The alleged "balanced budget" and mythical "surpluses" were all but inevitable, as Perot pointed out on a multitude of occasions back in '92.

Perot?



Sean, is that you?

---

Nothing and everything is inevitable when it comes to the economy. Actions taken brought about the economic recovery of the 90s. Your argument is sound when speaking of a recovery in the long term as in, given enough time---things will recover/balance out. Eventually the economy will rebound.

But a balanced budget and surpluses had to be planned for. Clinton gets the credit for actions taken, just as Reagan does and Obama does.

Total bullshit.

Perot's numbers were taken straight from the CBO and projected out at only a 2.5% to 3% growth rate. With those numbers, he showed time and again that the budget was going to balance all by itself, if no radical tinkering at all was done by the feds.....And it did so, almost exactly as he had projected.

Next thing you'll tell us is that Bubba and the republican congress got together just to make Perot look good.

So it's like magic? There are no associated costs with the Nationalizing of Healthcare which the Conservative Congress STOPPEd... which would have CRIPPLED the Budget, as it's about to do now... Unless another Conservative Congress stops it.

What ya need to come to grips with Dude, is Perot was and likely remains Crazier than a SHITHOUSE RAT.

And FTR: I was amongst the FIRST in our county to sign up for Perot's campaign LONG before he announced... door to door, manning the Tent, passing out our own Perot literature, which WE PAID FOR...

And was with him RIGHT UP to the point where he bailed... at which point I realized that I'd been snookered... that he was a ruse; a scam which was designed to split the Conservative vote.

And I've never looked back at the guy. I burned hundreds of dollars of Perot Literature, which I bought and paid for from my own pocket... the night he decided to 'get back in'... me and a couple of others from the 'campaign' built us a big barn-fire and got hammered, as we laughed at how foolish we'd been to believe something that basically got started with A Progressive: Larry King.

'dat boiee craizeh... He crazieh eh haell...'

 

[jillian]

Gingrich: GOP Should Be "Party Of Yes"

By Reid Wilson
NEW ORLEANS, LA -- Ex-House Speaker Newt Gingrich will urge attendees at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference to offer solutions instead of simply criticizing Dem policies, his organization said in a media release this afternoon.

"To win in 2010 and 2012, it's not enough to say no to the radical agenda of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid," Gingrich said in a statement. "Tonight's speech will explain why real leadership requires Republicans to offer a compelling vision of safety, prosperity, and freedom that stands in vivid contrast to Obama's secular, socialist, machine now running Washington."

Dems have scored points by labeling the GOP the "Party of No" for a perceived lack of serious policy alternatives. And the label clearly rankles GOPers in DC, who point to a few proposals from Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and House and Senate leadership.

Meanwhile, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) is spearheading efforts to craft a new version of the Contract with America, which Gingrich used in '94 as the GOP took back the House for the first time in 40 years. Party leaders have yet to say when they will unveil their agenda, and some worry that releasing it too soon will give Dems a target as they struggle with a tough political environment.

Hotline On Call

Makes sense since the "Dems have scored points by labeling the GOP the "Party of No" for a perceived lack of serious policy alternatives."

not perceived...actual. they stomped their feet, crossed their arms and refused to participate except by whining.

i'm pretty sure if they had offered the slightest alternative, they'd have kicked butt.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I have been a Republican a very long time, and this time, and for the last ten years, when it comes to these topics, we have had no serious policy alternatives other than to say "no" to the liberals. And we will keep getting beat until we come up with serious alternatives, publicize them well, and get a reasonable candidate. That ain't Palin. It should be Romney, but we can count on the southern evangelicals shooting us all in the foot again.

Well, we went through this with the fools in 1964 and came back. We have gone through it with the fools in 2006 and 2008. We will get rid of them, and we will come back again.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Also a myth.

The alleged "balanced budget" and mythical "surpluses" were all but inevitable, as Perot pointed out on a multitude of occasions back in '92.

Perot?



Sean, is that you?

---

Nothing and everything is inevitable when it comes to the economy. Actions taken brought about the economic recovery of the 90s. Your argument is sound when speaking of a recovery in the long term as in, given enough time---things will recover/balance out. Eventually the economy will rebound.

But a balanced budget and surpluses had to be planned for. Clinton gets the credit for actions taken, just as Reagan does and Obama does.

Total bullshit.

Perot's numbers were taken straight from the CBO and projected out at only a 2.5% to 3% growth rate. With those numbers, he showed time and again that the budget was going to balance all by itself, if no radical tinkering at all was done by the feds.....And it did so, almost exactly as he had projected.

Next thing you'll tell us is that Bubba and the republican congress got together just to make Perot look good.

Perot's numbers or the CBO's? And if Perot was quoting the CBO's numbers was anyone denying them or saying they were wrong?

interesting thing about Perot's candidacy. Many people do not believe he had much of an effect on the outcome of the election, but a discussion among liberals---among liberals did discuss this and the idea that he did help shape the fiscal agenda of the 1992 campaign.

Independent political analyst Charlie Cook &#8220;quibbled&#8221; with Raines&#8217;s assumption that Clinton would not have won in 1992 without Perot.

&#8220;If you look at the exit polls, half of the Perot voters said they would have voted for Bush and half of the Perot voters said they would have voted for Clinton,&#8221; Cook told ABC News.

Raines is not alone, however, in thinking that Perot&#8217;s 1992 campaign shaped the agenda once Clinton became president.

&#8220;I think there is no question about it that Perot was a very important force in not only the outcome of the election but also in defining the agenda that the Clinton administration followed,&#8221; said Robert Reischauer, the president of the Urban Institute who headed the Congressional Budget Office from 1989-1995, in an interview with ABC News. &#8220;He was sort of telling it like it is because he invested a lot of his own money in this and he had no coterie of people he had to please &#8211; no party, nothing like that.&#8221;

The conference on &#8220;Progressives and the National Debt&#8221; was co-sponsored by the liberal Center for American Progress and the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Time for Another Ross Perot? - George's Bottom Line

but.................

Perot did say it would take higher taxes to do anything...

THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: The Economy; Perot's Bitter Budget Pill: Higher Taxes to Cure Deficit -http://www.nytimes.com/1992/07/26/us/1992-campaign-economy-perot-s-bitter-budget-pill-higher-taxes-cure-deficit.html?pagewanted=1

...and I think Bush (GHWB) along with Perot wanted to cut capital gains taxes for the wealthy while raising taxes on the rest of the country in order to balance there budgets.

The White House said this week that it could eliminate the budget deficit, projected to be about $350 billion this year, by 1998 if Congress would pass all of President Bush's economic proposals and significantly faster economic growth resulted. The calculations came in a mid-year review by the Office of Management and Budget, which said the new projection was based on Congressional approval of a cap on Medicare and other entitlement spending and passage of a long-sought cut in the capital gains tax.

Mr. Perot's plan promises to turn the present deficit into a surplus of $8 billion by 1998.

Mr. Perot would subject 85 percent of Social Security benefits to taxation for individual recipients with income of $25,000 or more and for couples filing jointly with income of $32,000 or more. At present, just 50 percent of those benefits are taxed.

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/07/26/us/1992-campaign-economy-perot-s-bitter-budget-pill-higher-taxes-cure-deficit.html?pagewanted=1

It has been my observation that there is usually nothing balanced about a conservative's approach to a balanced budget. the wealthy get a tax break and the rest of America gets a tax raise.

 

[CMike]

Republicans would love to say yes, and we will when we regain control of congress.

However, the people in power and have all the control, are the radical socialist left wingers.

Republicans need to protect this country, by saying no to policies that damage this country.

 

[CMike]

I have been a Republican a very long time, and this time, and for the last ten years, when it comes to these topics, we have had no serious policy alternatives other than to say "no" to the liberals. And we will keep getting beat until we come up with serious alternatives, publicize them well, and get a reasonable candidate. That ain't Palin. It should be Romney, but we can count on the southern evangelicals shooting us all in the foot again.

Well, we went through this with the fools in 1964 and came back. We have gone through it with the fools in 2006 and 2008. We will get rid of them, and we will come back again.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

...

You're racist enough. You should run for local office as a representative of the Tea Party.

ROFL.. Hey LOOK! It's another lie... another fraud being advanced by our in-house Leftists...

In truth there's not a scintilla of Racism to be found anywhere NEAR the Tea-Party...

...

sure, signs with 'niggar' written on them, and being held by a founder of the Tea Party movement, don't count as racist.

 

[rdean]

Republicans were voted out of office because their policies were incompetent failure. Whether it was the lack of clean up after Katrina, letting Bin Laden go, the failure and disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan, the lies to the American people, the ruined economy, the attempt at blame, the jobs moved overseas, the greed of Wall Street.

Republicans are like "Midas", only everything they touch turns to shit. It's not like they can deny it. The history is very recent.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I have been a Republican a very long time, and this time, and for the last ten years, when it comes to these topics, we have had no serious policy alternatives other than to say "no" to the liberals. And we will keep getting beat until we come up with serious alternatives, publicize them well, and get a reasonable candidate. That ain't Palin. It should be Romney, but we can count on the southern evangelicals shooting us all in the foot again.

Well, we went through this with the fools in 1964 and came back. We have gone through it with the fools in 2006 and 2008. We will get rid of them, and we will come back again.

Posting that is changing nothing other than you have no plan for the future. We will not win with "no", period. If you continue to think so, along with your friends, we will continue to lose. In other words, you were a loser in 2006 and 2008. We will lose in 2010 with your attitude. So come up with something, son, other than being part of the problem.

 

[Oddball]

Perot?



Sean, is that you?

---

Nothing and everything is inevitable when it comes to the economy. Actions taken brought about the economic recovery of the 90s. Your argument is sound when speaking of a recovery in the long term as in, given enough time---things will recover/balance out. Eventually the economy will rebound.

But a balanced budget and surpluses had to be planned for. Clinton gets the credit for actions taken, just as Reagan does and Obama does.

Total bullshit.

Perot's numbers were taken straight from the CBO and projected out at only a 2.5% to 3% growth rate. With those numbers, he showed time and again that the budget was going to balance all by itself, if no radical tinkering at all was done by the feds.....And it did so, almost exactly as he had projected.

Next thing you'll tell us is that Bubba and the republican congress got together just to make Perot look good.

So it's like magic? There are no associated costs with the Nationalizing of Healthcare which the Conservative Congress STOPPEd... which would have CRIPPLED the Budget, as it's about to do now... Unless another Conservative Congress stops it.

What ya need to come to grips with Dude, is Perot was and likely remains Crazier than a SHITHOUSE RAT.

And FTR: I was amongst the FIRST in our county to sign up for Perot's campaign LONG before he announced... door to door, manning the Tent, passing out our own Perot literature, which WE PAID FOR...

And was with him RIGHT UP to the point where he bailed... at which point I realized that I'd been snookered... that he was a ruse; a scam which was designed to split the Conservative vote.

And I've never looked back at the guy. I burned hundreds of dollars of Perot Literature, which I bought and paid for from my own pocket... the night he decided to 'get back in'... me and a couple of others from the 'campaign' built us a big barn-fire and got hammered, as we laughed at how foolish we'd been to believe something that basically got started with A Progressive: Larry King.

'dat boiee craizeh... He crazieh eh haell...'

That Perot is a nutbar is irrelevant to the fact that he was right about the budget and deficit first coming into balance, then skyrocketing again in the early 2000s....Both the Shrub and Boyking have poured gasoline on that fire.

The problem is, has been and will continue to be runaway entitlement spending.

 

[jillian]

The 'problem' was having a president for eight years who was the only leader in history to cut taxes during time of war....

and then he ran up a 200 billion dollar bill.

 

[The Rabbi]

The 'problem' was having a president for eight years who was the only leader in history to cut taxes during time of war....

and then he ran up a 200 billion dollar bill.

And Obama doubled down on that bet, prolonging the recession in the meantime.
You're so predictably stupid.

 

[Devil505]

To win in 2010 and 2012, it's not enough to say no to the radical agenda of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid," Gingrich said in a statement. "Tonight's speech will explain why real leadership requires Republicans to offer a compelling vision of safety, prosperity, and freedom that stands in vivid contrast to Obama's secular, socialist, machine now running Washington."

The GOP needs to start offering up solid, irrefutable solutions to our problems and force the Democrats to say NO YOU CAN'T

Right now, even when the Dems include Republican initiatives.....the GOP votes NO

I agree with you (about the GOP) & love your Ed Norton avatar!