Newt Gingrich may have a long legacy of activism on the right, but he has also enthusiastically endorsed a wide range of dubiously conservative positions over the years. In fact, it can occasionally be hard to distinguish his suggestions and views from those of President Obama.
Advertisement
Following are 19 quotations, some of which were said by Barack Obama, and some of which were said by Newt Gingrich. Not all of these ideas are as outlandish as the space colony that Newt mentioned this week in Florida, nor as radically conservative as making students work the janitors’ shifts; but some of them could certainly be mistaken for President Obama’s ideas. Click the blue buttons to reveal who said what.
NEWT OR OBAMA?
1. “Andy Stern, the head of the Service Employees International Union, is the union leader who probably best understands the challenge of the world market and the need to make American union members productive in the face of world competition.”
Who said it?
Gingrich (Real Change, p. 33)
2. “We need comprehensive immigration reform, part of which would allow entrepreneurs and high-skill individuals to stay here, because we want to be attracting top talent here.”
3. “The United States will gain far more supporters and do far more good throughout Latin America by including [them] in the space program than it will by sending the same amount of money to any Latin American country in military aid.”
Who said it?
Gingrich (Window of Opportunity, p. 52)
4. “[We should] make the U.S. a leader in the global effort to combat climate change by leading a new international global warming partnership.”
5. “I am a hawk, but I am a cheap hawk. . . . I don’t think the Pentagon should be any more exempt from reengineering, downsizing, and rethinking than any other part of the federal government.”
Who said it?
Gingrich (To Renew America, p. 184)
6. “In order to reach the space station, we will work with a growing array of private companies competing to make getting to space easier and more affordable. . . . The truth is, NASA has always relied on private industry to help design and build the vehicles that carry astronauts to space, from the Mercury capsule that carried John Glenn into orbit nearly 50 years ago, to the space shuttle Discovery.”
7. “America, as the world’s sole superpower, is obligated to provide environmental leadership at a time when so many world leaders are wringing their hands at the sheer enormity of the task.”
Who said it?
Gingrich (Contract with the Earth, p. 3)
8. “President Bush’s failure to address the NAACP early in his presidency was a clear signal to the African American community that Republicans did not see them as worthy of engagement in dialogue.”
Who said it?
Gingrich (Real Change, p. 21)
9. “It was an enormous mistake for us to try to occupy [Iraq] after June of 2003. We have to pull back, and we have to recognize it.”
Frankly, I'm sick of this stuff. I've never seen the establishment Republican Party so adamant that their guy was going to win. Makes me want to vote for Ron Paul! Yeah, there are similarities between some things Gingrich has said & written but, hey, Romney invented Obamacare! Not to mentioned that his decision making prowess seems to fit that same "leading from behind" meme Obama uses. Give it up, already! Let the contestants battle it out fairly and stop the character assassination stuff. America needs leadership and so far Mitt Romney hasn't demonstrated any. You can't say that about Gingrich. One last point, Obama's whole campaign strategy is anti Romney, nominating Newt would completely screw things up!
I couldn't agree with you more. Its like a well organized coup against Newt Gingrich. True he has his baggage but much of it has been intentionally distorted. People are starting to see that. My question to these "Romneynites" is how well do you think your candidate is going to do up against Obama, when the subject of his Romneycare comes up? Judging by the exchange between Romney and Santorum in the last debate, concerning that topic , it's not going to look too good with the audience. Did you see the look of smug on Santorum's face as Romney was desperately and nervously trying to defend it while grasping for words? While I believe I may be underestimating Santorum, I do believe he'd be the better candidate before Romney but my gut tells me Newt is the best of the lot.
It really is disgusting to see a formerly respected news source in decline. Your clear bias for Romney is shocking....and in the long run stupid. You have proven one thing: that so-called Conservatives can be every bit as shallow, narrow-minded, stupid, and just as plainly vicious as the left-wing ideologues you rail about. You lie and misrepresent in the hopes of influencing the ignorant to your point of view. That is not a Conservative tenet. That is a big government, statist tenet....manipulate the populace any way you can in the pursuit of supporting your goals. Joseph Goebbels would be proud.
All of these quotes have been taken out of context. I know that, for I am familiar with most of them. Yesterday, your fellow trolls tried to paint Gingrich as anti-Reagan: A lie so egregious even non-Gingrich supporters like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin took you to task. Levin, who was actually in the Reagan Administration eviscerated any claim that Gingrich was not a Conservative Reaganite. He then pointed out Romney as not even being a Conservative. Being an independent. Supporting Tsongas. Voting for Carter and Mondale over Reagan, etc.
Thatś OK though. Know that you have devalued your organization and your reputation to that of a $2 dollar escort.....cheaply bought and paid, for the pleasure of a rich dilettante who cares nothing for the Nation, just besting his own father in accomplishments. Go back to your street corner.
I wouldn't say Rush Limbaugh took anyone to task about this. He basically just admitted he wasn't aware of these Newt comments, didn't remember them, and seemed honestly a bit confused and upset by them since they didn't jive with his memories of Newt.
Actually, Rush did defend Newt after he learned the anti-Reagan quotes were taken out of context. But since he hasn't taken a side in this race he fairly assessed the charges before taking a side. Too bad NRO won't do the same.
Amen. In the past 48 hours all of these lies have been refuted. The sad thing is that so many of the organizations and individuals that I thought I could trust have been prostituted by Romney's money. So very, very sad.
My wife and I have decided that if Romney is the nominee we'll just vote for someone else on the slate (there is always a bunch of weird presidential candidates on the list - not sure how they get there, but one of them at random, will get our vote). This assumes, of course, that we decide to go and vote. As the implications of what the GOP Establishment has done over the past week sink in, it may very well be that we have to wait for the Tea Party to actually exist.
I wonder if this past week marks the beginning of the end of the GOP.
It really is disgusting to see a formerly respected news source in decline. Your clear bias for Romney is shocking....and in the long run stupid. You have proven one thing: that so-called Conservatives can be every bit as shallow, narrow-minded, stupid, and just as plainly vicious as the left-wing ideologues you rail about. You lie and misrepresent in the hopes of influencing the ignorant to your point of view. That is not a Conservative tenet. That is a big government, statist tenet....manipulate the populace any way you can in the pursuit of supporting your goals. Joseph Goebbels would be proud.
All of these quotes have been taken out of context. I know that, for I am familiar with most of them. Yesterday, your fellow trolls tried to paint Gingrich as anti-Reagan: A lie so egregious even non-Gingrich supporters like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin took you to task. Levin, who was actually in the Reagan Administration eviscerated any claim that Gingrich was not a Conservative Reaganite. He then pointed out Romney as not even being a Conservative. Being an independent. Supporting Tsongas. Voting for Carter and Mondale over Reagan, etc.
Thatś OK though. Know that you have devalued your organization and your reputation to that of a $2 dollar escort.....cheaply bought and paid, for the pleasure of a rich dilettante who cares nothing for the Nation, just besting his own father in accomplishments. Go back to your street corner.
Newt is probably the pull-quote-iest person alive today. He’s said so many things — wonderful, stupid, and just plain contradictory things — that, much like Mr. Potato Head, you can construct any kind of person that you wish. That’s what Glenn Beck, Romney, and others have done of late. They, for instance, took one quote and said, “Aha! See! Newt is anti-Reagan” which is about as bizarre as saying that Reagan was anti-Reagan or Thatcher was anti-Reagan.
I don’t agree with Newt regarding the solution to illegal immigration. But I have to admit, Newt didn’t create this mess. It’s been festering for decades. Therefore it would be ignorant of me to expect a simple answer. I can agree to disagree.
Regarding the environment, if I could have I would have had a Larry, Moe, and Curly moment and double-poked Newt in the eye when Newt sat on the couch with Pelosi to help forward the egregious lie (and one in the naked service of advancing statism) of man-made global warming. There is no defense of this bit of stupidity, although he has since recanted.
And we could go on and on. These are things we must factor into the equation. But when Newt had power, he government as a conservative, and a staunch Reaganesque one at that.
I’ll be looking forward to the NRO article that points out that, just like Ron Paul, Mitt Romney distanced himself from Reagan, even to the point of voting for Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale. Seen in the context of his long support for liberal ideas (such as Romneycare), it’s a legitimate question as to whether Romney is simply Obama redux, a man talented at crafting an image that belies his real beliefs.
I’ll leave it to Jon Stewart and other jokers like that to play games with the news and information in trying to craft an image for purposes of spreading propaganda. But I expect a bit more from National Review.
I don't see how Newt's weakness on illegal immigration can be excused because "he didn't create this mess". Pretty much none of the problems we are facing right now were created by any of the candidates for president. We are expecting them to have Conservative solutions for them though.
Do You Know Obama? He Sometimes Sounds Like Newt? or maybe ths title for an article. Do You Know Romney? He Sometimes Sounds Like Newt? or how 'bout this one... Do You Know Romney? He Sometimes Sounds Like Obama? I got one!... Do You Know Romney? He Sometimes Sounds Like Romney...... Honestly.
I completely agree with most people's comments on here. Conservatives shouldn't give into the unsubstantiated comparisons that don't take into account context. Nor should we be blatantly dividing ourselves within the party. I understand that you have to play by the rules of the game to win (which can get ugly at times). But do we really have to stoop to the same tactics the left uses against their opponents, against our own party members? Do you really think that ends well?
Attack Newt for what is obvious, in a logical and non-deceitful tone, and show how that is not leadership material. Forget all the Reagan Administration gaffes as a singular reason why he is not fit for office, and forget about his sexual dalliances. Rather, use his lack of unity, morals, and his arrogance/grandiosity as reasons in a larger context of how that would effect decisions he will make, not decisions he has made (though I understand how tempting it is). People have known about what Newt has done in the past for a long time. Harping on that won't change people's opinions. And don't box them into a singular experience. Don't simply attack him for what he did on paper. Dig deeper if you want to show that he is not fit to be a leader, because I know the sole reason why NR (and the Republican establishment) is bashing Newt is because they don't think he can win against Obama. And they are right. The left are masters of aligning the vocal chorus of the population around their morally deceitful rhetoric, and Newt is the jackpot for this. If Romney can't do it, you can be sure Obama will.
That being said, I don't think anyone who starts off a speech with, "by my second term" is fit to be President. Arrogance has no place in leadership positions where there will always be a strong opposition which you need to unify behind your ideas. Newt is certainly the polar opposite of Reagan because of his blatant arrogance. Just remember people, why do you think the left is openly attacking Romney in primary states? Because they want Newt, and they have a bible full of ammo to use against him. What do they have on Romney? He makes a lot of money, paid only what the law required, is Mormon (as if he is going to impose his values on everyone), and he's connected to Wall Street (as if Obama isn't). That's it? Just think about it and everyone will realize that Newt will not, and cannot win, anything but debates. Debates alone won't win this election.
“I know the sole reason why NR (and the Republican establishment) is bashing Newt is because they don't think he can win against Obama”
If so, Alex, it’s not NRO’s job to treat us all like retards and assume the role of parent and, through sheer parental authority, try to tell us who to vote for. That’s what Democrats and the left do. Instead, it’s National Review’s job to espouse conservative principles and to objectively evaluate the candidates on how well they represent those principles and the likelihood of forwarding them effectively.
If Newt (supposedly…I don’t agree with this perception) is such a loose canon that he can’t do so, then fine. Make the case. But then NRO needs to explain how Newt was able to accomplish what he did as Speaker when the propensity (like now) was toward a safe, moderate, do-nothing RINO-ism. (And such RINO-ism he indeed had to fight tooth and nail and is, at least, partially responsible for Newt’s reputation of not being a team player. But that’s always the kind of arrows that leaders get stuck with for being out in the lead. It goes with the territory.)
But NRO has not shown the same gusto in questioning the depth and commitment of Romney’s conservatism. And let’s assume that this simply all boils down to who NRO thinks has the best chance of beating Obama. Aside from this, again, not being their job, this strategy has proved to be a one-way ratchet toward the furtherance of liberalism as we surrender to the landscape instead of trying to change it.
If it is declared that it is no longer possible for a conservative to win, then let’s admit this, fold up the tent, and all become Democrats. Until then, a little objectivity by National Review would be in order.
I was simply pointing out that there is a clear bias in this NR article on Newt, and in some other articles. That means my criticism might support your view of a more objective opinion not based on falsities and vague connections with things that aren't there. I never said that they were entirely fair of their coverage of Romney, given that I state that they are clearly trying to push Romney to get the nod. Their job is to be objective, and that's what I was pointing out that they were not doing with this article on Newt. This article smacks of the same type of hair brained media tactics that the left uses, in essence supporting your thoughts yet again. I'm not knocking what Newt has done politically, but rather what he has done personally because one can rightfully assume that lack of integrity in someone's personal life bleeds into his political life. You can't tell me that he has separated the two completely without knowing him personally while legislating, and even then that neglects to take into consideration that even if he did the populace probably won't see it that way. We are all skeptical of the moral ineptitude that comes with political power (even if it is in the minority). It takes a little ruthlessness to get power in any circumstance, but we always try and choose the one who we think operates with something resembling a moral backbone. Newt has never shown that he cares to give off the sense of having a moral backbone beyond his stubborn belief in what he thinks is right. What will he do if he is wrong though?
Sure, I may think Romney has a better chance of winning and I am more in agreement with MOST of his policies than I am with Newt's. Not to mention Newt's lack of understanding of how his policies would effect Romney when he chose to make fun of his tax rate (which would be a lot lower under Newt's plan). So I may have a bias, that was based off my own convictions. Not NR's. This certainly doesn't mean that I was saying that anything NR did with this and other articles was right. I agree with NR that Romney should get the nod, while at the same time I have openly criticized their nonobjective treatment of the subject. Nothing I said was in disagreement with your thoughts beyond my choice for a candidate. Which begets the point that maybe you just responded this way because you disagree with my choice. And if that's the case, then to each his own, but know that I was agreeing with you on their treatment of Newt. That if they want to criticize him, do so in a non deceitful and logical way. Not the demagogic way of the left.
“I'm not knocking what Newt has done politically, but rather what he has done personally because one can rightfully assume that lack of integrity in someone's personal life bleeds into his political life.”
That’s fine, Alex. At least that is a rational argument, unlike many we have been deluged with at NRO. It may not apply in this case, but it is a reasonable thought.
This isn’t directed at you, but contrary to the many bizarre acolytes you find on sites such as this which are open to the public, guys such as me aren’t zombie-like Newt barflies. I want a good rough-and-tumble process where the strengths and weaknesses of all candidates are laid bare so that people can hopefully come to a fair and wise conclusion regarding who is to be the next leader of the free world.
But the kind of shenanigans that National Review has been engaged in (including submitting that truly Orwellian Elliot Abrams article which was self-consciously meant to deceive) is not what I call a deliberative process. It’s trying to rig the jury.
Alex, I think we agree on the process, even if we don’t agree on the candidates. Fine. I’m good with that. Cheers!
I voted for Carter also - and boy, did I feel like a fool afterwards! However, I changed and I think Romney did also. Romney understands the economy better than Newt, whose attacks on Bain were shameless. BTW: does Newt want to colonize the moon?
All I can tell you is that the libs who surround me at work are dying for Obama to run against Newt. They believe that Newt will bring down the entire Republican party. That is an unpleasant thought because we would never recover from Obama. Romney has a better chance of defeating Obama. He would be more capable of forming a broader coalition and yes, getting Democrats to vote for him.
Follow
