Newt outlines his new Contract with America

[Mustang]

Gingrich outlines his

Moreover, he added, unlike 1994, people “are so fed up with the way the stimulus is written in secret, so fed up with Obamacare being written in secret, Nancy Pelosi’s line about how you have to pass it to see what’s in it, [that] I don’t think they want something jammed down their throat.”

Furthermore, Gingrich said some of the ideas in the new contract “are so new and so different we have not yet developed the ideas on how to do it.”

“I would say in particular the section on brain science, which will be extraordinary as it is flushed out over the next few months,” he continued.

This isn’t the first time Gingrich has unveiled a “21st century Contract with America.” It’s the subtitle of his book “Winning The Future,” and the subject of a 2010 Newsmax article. So was this just a clever repackaging of an old idea?

“The Newsmax article,” Gingrich explained, “was actually written as advice to House Republicans on how to develop a contract. It’s actually, if you understand what I’m doing, a pretty good basic primer on how to do this,” he said.

The new contract, said Gingrich, will be based on four “pillars”: New legislation similar to what was proposed in 1994, 50 to 200 executive orders to be signed within hours of the inauguration, a new system of training presidential appointees and modernization of government. Gingrich aspires to reach out to “activist leaders” to help implement and design the program.

The new legislation and executive orders would focus primarily on creating jobs, balancing the budget and judicial reform to stop “the continued elitist assault on American culture,” Gingrich said.

Explaining the evolution of his ideas, Gingrich remarked, “I’ve gone from being critical of the judges to advocating a Jeffersonian response, which in some cases would actually abolish the judgeships.”

Not alot of details yet. But Im interesting to see what he has planned. Im hoping it might be a good plan regardless what candidate wins the nomination.

I believe they are saying the plan is going to be revealed in more detail Thursday.

Sounds like Newt is proposing a dictatorship with his emphasis on 50-200 executive orders, and abolishing judgeships. Sounds like an unconstitutional power grab aimed at circumventing the checks and balances of the constitution by the intimidation of (or downright threatening) the Judicial Branch of the gov't.

And what's this about legislation and executive orders to 'focus primarily on creating jobs'. I thought conservatives preached that was the job of the private sector. And he's going to reach out to 'activist leaders' to help 'implement the system'? They very people who complain about so-called 'activist judges' are going to reach out to 'activist leaders'? Who are these 'activist leaders,' anyway? Or don't we get to know that?

And this doesn't really suprise me since Newt was an authoritarian Speaker who consolidated personal power after the '94 midterm election.

Why don't we just call this what it REALLY is. Newt's taking out a contract on America.

 

[Foxfyre]

Gingrich outlines his

Moreover, he added, unlike 1994, people “are so fed up with the way the stimulus is written in secret, so fed up with Obamacare being written in secret, Nancy Pelosi’s line about how you have to pass it to see what’s in it, [that] I don’t think they want something jammed down their throat.”

Furthermore, Gingrich said some of the ideas in the new contract “are so new and so different we have not yet developed the ideas on how to do it.”

“I would say in particular the section on brain science, which will be extraordinary as it is flushed out over the next few months,” he continued.

This isn’t the first time Gingrich has unveiled a “21st century Contract with America.” It’s the subtitle of his book “Winning The Future,” and the subject of a 2010 Newsmax article. So was this just a clever repackaging of an old idea?

“The Newsmax article,” Gingrich explained, “was actually written as advice to House Republicans on how to develop a contract. It’s actually, if you understand what I’m doing, a pretty good basic primer on how to do this,” he said.

The new contract, said Gingrich, will be based on four “pillars”: New legislation similar to what was proposed in 1994, 50 to 200 executive orders to be signed within hours of the inauguration, a new system of training presidential appointees and modernization of government. Gingrich aspires to reach out to “activist leaders” to help implement and design the program.

The new legislation and executive orders would focus primarily on creating jobs, balancing the budget and judicial reform to stop “the continued elitist assault on American culture,” Gingrich said.

Explaining the evolution of his ideas, Gingrich remarked, “I’ve gone from being critical of the judges to advocating a Jeffersonian response, which in some cases would actually abolish the judgeships.”

Not alot of details yet. But Im interesting to see what he has planned. Im hoping it might be a good plan regardless what candidate wins the nomination.

I believe they are saying the plan is going to be revealed in more detail Thursday.

Sounds like Newt is proposing a dictatorship with his emphasis on 50-200 executive orders, and abolishing judgeships. Sounds like an unconstitutional power grab aimed at circumventing the checks and balances of the constitution by the intimidation of (or downright threatening) the Judicial Branch of the gov't.

And what's this about legislation and executive orders to 'focus primarily on creating jobs'. I thought conservatives preached that was the job of the private sector. And he's going to reach out to 'activist leaders' to help 'implement the system'? They very people who complain about so-called 'activist judges' are going to reach out to 'activist leaders'? Who are these 'activist leaders,' anyway? Or don't we get to know that?

And this doesn't really suprise me since Newt was an authoritarian Speaker who consolidated personal power after the '94 midterm election.

Why don't we just call this what it REALLY is. Newt's taking out a contract on America.

Sorry Mustang but the statists/political class opposing any form of reform last time already used that phrase. It was silly then. It is silly now. But it has already been done. You need to come up something more original for the leftwing talking point this time.

 

[Intense]

Yeah, Only the Judges should have Unlimited Power. What was Newt thinking.

 

[Mustang]

Gingrich outlines his



Not alot of details yet. But Im interesting to see what he has planned. Im hoping it might be a good plan regardless what candidate wins the nomination.

I believe they are saying the plan is going to be revealed in more detail Thursday.

Sounds like Newt is proposing a dictatorship with his emphasis on 50-200 executive orders, and abolishing judgeships. Sounds like an unconstitutional power grab aimed at circumventing the checks and balances of the constitution by the intimidation of (or downright threatening) the Judicial Branch of the gov't.

And what's this about legislation and executive orders to 'focus primarily on creating jobs'. I thought conservatives preached that was the job of the private sector. And he's going to reach out to 'activist leaders' to help 'implement the system'? They very people who complain about so-called 'activist judges' are going to reach out to 'activist leaders'? Who are these 'activist leaders,' anyway? Or don't we get to know that?

And this doesn't really suprise me since Newt was an authoritarian Speaker who consolidated personal power after the '94 midterm election.

Why don't we just call this what it REALLY is. Newt's taking out a contract on America.

Sorry Mustang but the statists/political class opposing any form of reform last time already used that phrase. It was silly then. It is silly now. But it has already been done. You need to come up something more original for the leftwing talking point this time.

You should be sorry.

I've listened to conservatives throw around the word, "tyranny," in relationship to Obama and the Democrats when it's clear that Democrats are willing to compromise while Republicans aren't. And the governing philosophy of men like Newt, Bush 43 (remember the 'I am the decider' comment?), and Tom DeLay were overwhelmingly more authoritarian in their approach to governance than any Democrat I can think of with the possible exception of LBJ when he was the Senate Majority Leader. But in THOSE days ('55-'61), Johnson was a warm and fuzzy pussycat compared to the latter day power-grabbing personal styles of Newt and DeLay. DeLay even threatened members of his own caucus. Why do you think there's so little sympathy for him now that he's out of power and in so much legal trouble? You NEVER see anyone defend the man. And why? Because they hated him. That's why.

 

[Mustang]

Yeah, Only the Judges should have Unlimited Power. What was Newt thinking.

Name ONE judge who has unlimited power.

 

[DaGoose]

Hey, people, let's not get offensive, we all love our country and none of us want it to become dependent on the government. That's why there ARE Conservatives.........

And none of us want the government to tell us how to run our personal lives and involve itself in our private decisions. We're opposed to laws banning abortion, euthanasia and gay marriage to name just a few.

That's why there ARE Liberals, Progressives and Libertarians.

.

You don't want governmen telling you how to run your personal life, so you vote for people who do just that... Makes no sense to me.

Really? Which of the GOP POTUS candidates is opposed to laws banning abortion, euthanasia and gay marriage? And who have you supported that opposes those laws?

.

 

[Foxfyre]

And none of us want the government to tell us how to run our personal lives and involve itself in our private decisions. We're opposed to laws banning abortion, euthanasia and gay marriage to name just a few.

That's why there ARE Liberals, Progressives and Libertarians.

.

You don't want governmen telling you how to run your personal life, so you vote for people who do just that... Makes no sense to me.

Really? Which of the GOP POTUS candidates is opposed to laws banning abortion, euthanasia and gay marriage? And who have you supported that opposes those laws?

.

We have had LOTS of GOP (and Democratic) Presidents who supported banning much of abortion and euthanasia and gay marriage. And not one of those guys were able to pass a single law affecting any part of any of that. President Bush succeeded in recommending that we stop federal taxpayer money from funding abortion or embrionic stemcell research, etc.; but abortion and embrionic stemcell research continued unabated.

The President can lead but he cannot force either the Congress or the people to do anything. His personal views might suggest what sort of legislation he would sign or veto, but you aren't ging to find a President who shares all your social agenda 100%.

 

[DaGoose]

You don't want governmen telling you how to run your personal life, so you vote for people who do just that... Makes no sense to me.

Really? Which of the GOP POTUS candidates is opposed to laws banning abortion, euthanasia and gay marriage? And who have you supported that opposes those laws?

.

We have had LOTS of GOP (and Democratic) Presidents who supported banning much of abortion and euthanasia and gay marriage. And not one of those guys were able to pass a single law affecting any part of any of that. President Bush succeeded in recommending that we stop federal taxpayer money from funding abortion or embrionic stemcell research, etc.; but abortion and embrionic stemcell research continued unabated.

The President can lead but he cannot force either the Congress or the people to do anything. His personal views might suggest what sort of legislation he would sign or veto, but you aren't ging to find a President who shares all your social agenda 100%.

Agreed. But the current crop of GOP POTUS candidates' support on the personal liberty issues outlined above is effectively 0%.

.

 

[Sarah G]

Gingrich outlines his

Moreover, he added, unlike 1994, people “are so fed up with the way the stimulus is written in secret, so fed up with Obamacare being written in secret, Nancy Pelosi’s line about how you have to pass it to see what’s in it, [that] I don’t think they want something jammed down their throat.”

Furthermore, Gingrich said some of the ideas in the new contract “are so new and so different we have not yet developed the ideas on how to do it.”

“I would say in particular the section on brain science, which will be extraordinary as it is flushed out over the next few months,” he continued.

This isn’t the first time Gingrich has unveiled a “21st century Contract with America.” It’s the subtitle of his book “Winning The Future,” and the subject of a 2010 Newsmax article. So was this just a clever repackaging of an old idea?

“The Newsmax article,” Gingrich explained, “was actually written as advice to House Republicans on how to develop a contract. It’s actually, if you understand what I’m doing, a pretty good basic primer on how to do this,” he said.

The new contract, said Gingrich, will be based on four “pillars”: New legislation similar to what was proposed in 1994, 50 to 200 executive orders to be signed within hours of the inauguration, a new system of training presidential appointees and modernization of government. Gingrich aspires to reach out to “activist leaders” to help implement and design the program.

The new legislation and executive orders would focus primarily on creating jobs, balancing the budget and judicial reform to stop “the continued elitist assault on American culture,” Gingrich said.

Explaining the evolution of his ideas, Gingrich remarked, “I’ve gone from being critical of the judges to advocating a Jeffersonian response, which in some cases would actually abolish the judgeships.”

Not alot of details yet. But Im interesting to see what he has planned. Im hoping it might be a good plan regardless what candidate wins the nomination.

I believe they are saying the plan is going to be revealed in more detail Thursday.

Oh for god's sake. He's pulling this old lame contract out again? He is such a loser, let it go, Newt. For the love..

 

[Ropey]

It allows a platform that is not so anti-Obama as it is anti-Democrat.

It's worked before.

 

[Avatar4321]

That contract balanced the budget in the 90s.

 

[Ropey]

Maybe He could run with Hillary on top.

​

Then it's no different than her alone time with Slick Willie.

 

[Full-Auto]

when it's clear that Democrats are willing to compromise while Republicans aren't.


When is the next conference call?

 

[Sarah G]

It allows a platform that is not so anti-Obama as it is anti-Democrat.

It's worked before.

Didn't he pull this contract BS out again last year and it was met with a resounding ignore?

 

[American Horse]

Friday, October 1, 2010Newt Gingrich's Spending Habits
The Associated Press finds some wow-worthy numbers in Newt Gingrich's campaign finance numbers.
His flagship political operation, a tax-exempt conservative group called American Solutions for Winning the Future, has spent at least $2.2 million over the past two years on private jets and executive chauffeur services.

Overall, the group has spent nearly all of the $20 million it has raised over that period on administrative and travel expenses.
POLISING: Newt Gingrich's Spending Habits

Yeah, well it wasn't gubmt money, it was from private donations and had it been a liberal in his position it wouldn't have been challenged, and nothing at all would've come of it. That screed you linked to makes it sound like travelling around the country, sleeping in motel rooms, and working all hours of the day and night is a lark, and all for fun or high livingt

I for one wouldn't spend a year doing it for a million bucks in my bank account, and I doubt you would either USC. That is not high quality living.

Remember also he wrote a book and as is normal (re - some other politicians of the other party) there was an advance which is standard and ordinary. But that became a scandal (With a Republican, it had to be bribery doncha know) and he decided to forego the advance.

 

[kwc57]

Gingrich outlines his

Moreover, he added, unlike 1994, people “are so fed up with the way the stimulus is written in secret, so fed up with Obamacare being written in secret, Nancy Pelosi’s line about how you have to pass it to see what’s in it, [that] I don’t think they want something jammed down their throat.”

Furthermore, Gingrich said some of the ideas in the new contract “are so new and so different we have not yet developed the ideas on how to do it.”

“I would say in particular the section on brain science, which will be extraordinary as it is flushed out over the next few months,” he continued.

This isn’t the first time Gingrich has unveiled a “21st century Contract with America.” It’s the subtitle of his book “Winning The Future,” and the subject of a 2010 Newsmax article. So was this just a clever repackaging of an old idea?

“The Newsmax article,” Gingrich explained, “was actually written as advice to House Republicans on how to develop a contract. It’s actually, if you understand what I’m doing, a pretty good basic primer on how to do this,” he said.

The new contract, said Gingrich, will be based on four “pillars”: New legislation similar to what was proposed in 1994, 50 to 200 executive orders to be signed within hours of the inauguration, a new system of training presidential appointees and modernization of government. Gingrich aspires to reach out to “activist leaders” to help implement and design the program.

The new legislation and executive orders would focus primarily on creating jobs, balancing the budget and judicial reform to stop “the continued elitist assault on American culture,” Gingrich said.

Explaining the evolution of his ideas, Gingrich remarked, “I’ve gone from being critical of the judges to advocating a Jeffersonian response, which in some cases would actually abolish the judgeships.”

Not alot of details yet. But Im interesting to see what he has planned. Im hoping it might be a good plan regardless what candidate wins the nomination.

I believe they are saying the plan is going to be revealed in more detail Thursday.

In the IT world, we call that vaporware.

 

[kwc57]

Given our current community-organizer-in-chief, this sentence made me cringe a bit:

Gingrich aspires to reach out to “activist leaders” to help implement and design the program.

Yes, the use of "activist" in an apparently positive context struck me as well. It seems to have a somewhat negative connotation now, particularly among Republicans. However, it seems as though Gingrich at one time did consider it a positive word: It appears in his list of positive governing words in the GOPAC memo: GOPAC memo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

It's also possible that Gingrich was misquoted. I doubt, as the article quotes him, that he really thinks his plans need "flushing out" rather than "fleshing out". I do wonder what his new contract has to do with neuroscience, though. There is a trend in social sciences to study brain response, but I think it's way too early to do something like that in the real world.

Really? What would you call the Tea Party?

 

[American Horse]

Newt and his contracts with America, we all know what happened last time he did this, it failed

The Rs did exactly what they promised to do, in case you are not aware or get your inormation only from the Lamestream Media. Every item on the Contract was put to an up or down vote in the house. That is exactly what they promised,and that's exactly what they did.

....Except you forgot any-and-all details....or, you'd have mentioned them, right?

Not at all; they aren't the point, The point is that the assertion was wrong. A house caucus cannot promise to pass any legislation and have it become law, but they can promise to bring up a list of issues for vote, and they did just that.

But just in case you are curious, and I doubt that you are, Foxfire did yeoman's work describing the contract, and how it worked out in legislation <<RIGHT HERE>>

 

[oreo]

Good deal; it's about time we had something to chew on besides Cain's 9-9-9 plan which is a start but can be shot full of holes, and Romneys 59 point plan, which will have its challenge with capturing the public's imagination. I do believe Newt's a policy/idea genius.

I think most of us agree that Newt Gingrich is brilliant--he has written several books--mostly on the history of this country. I caught his wife on FOX news the other night--and she is out there advocating that more American history be taught in our schools--and she is writing children's books also.

I still don't understand how the RNC can forgive Romney--Perry and every other candidate over past flaws and flip-flops--but can't seem to make that connection with Newt Gingrich? I know he has had some marital problems--getting divorced--remarried etc.--and he did make a couple of very stupid ads with Pelosi and Hillary Clinton. But--what the hay--he would tear Obama a new one in any debate--because he is so knowledgeable.

 

[American Horse]

Good deal; it's about time we had something to chew on besides Cain's 9-9-9 plan which is a start but can be shot full of holes, and Romneys 59 point plan, which will have its challenge with capturing the public's imagination. I do believe Newt's a policy/idea genius.

I think most of us agree that Newt Gingrich is brilliant--he has written several books--mostly on the history of this country. I caught his wife on FOX news the other night--and she is out there advocating that more American history be taught in our schools--and she is writing children's books also.

I still don't understand how the RNC can forgive Romney--Perry and every other candidate over past flaws and flip-flops--but can't seem to make that connection with Newt Gingrich? I know he has had some marital problems--getting divorced--remarried etc.--and he did make a couple of very stupid ads with Pelosi and Hillary Clinton. But--what the hay--he would tear Obama a new one in any debate--because he is so knowledgeable.

I don't think we do forgive Newt; that shows in the fact that most of us love him but do not want him for president. But that doesn't take away from the respect we feel towards him as an original thinker, his abillity to identify problems and solutions, and that he is great debater. But he is a gadfly and almost no one takes him seriously as a presidential candidate. A Cabinet secretary - Yes!