Since my blog has moved, I can no longer use Bloggers "Follower" gadget. If you are a part of NetWorked blogs, which includes a Facebook page, you can follow through NetworkedBlogs, and I can follow you back. Please come to my new blog - MaggiesNotebook.com, see the NetworkedBlogs widget in the right sidebar and click follow. I will follow back.
"I learned that in extreme situations when human lives and dignity are at state, neutrality is a sin. It helps the killers, not the victims." Elie Wiesel, Holocaust Survivor who lost his family in the Holocaust - Nobel Prize Author
Socialism - Liberalism Quotation
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." – Norman Thomas
Newt Gingrich is currently doing a good job denouncing jihad and its supporters, but I remember before the election when he refused to say that Obama might have Islamic leanings, or that he might be sympathetic to Islam...although we "nobodies" out here knew it and backed it up with facts. Nevertheless, yesterday Newt gave a quote to the NYT saying he is not surprised that this president panders to Islam and has done so by defending the plans for the Ground Zero mosque.
“There is nothing surprising in the president’s continued pandering to radical Islam,” he said. “What he said last night is untrue and in accurate. The fact is this is not about religious liberty.”
Mr. Gingrich said the proposed mosque would be a symbol of Muslim “triumphalism” and that building the mosque near the site of the Sept. 11 attacks “would be like putting a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust Museum.”
“It’s profoundly and terribly wrong,” he said.
House Minority Leader, John Boehner (R-OH) is also lambasting Obama's endorsement of the mega-mosq, saying Obama's comments are "deeply troubling." Rep. Peter King (R-NY) says while the Muslims involved in erecting the mosque have the right to do so, it "offends too many people." From King:
The right and moral thing for President Obama to have done was to urge Muslim leaders to respect the families of those who died and move their mosque away from Ground Zero. Unfortunately the president caved into political correctness."
I don't think Obama bowed to political correctness. I believe his comments, which were more or less spit-out, chin-in-air, were combative. If he cared about the offensive nature of this 'place of worship,' he could have acknowledge the right to build it, then suggested that doing so is so painful for so many, that moving it to another location would be wise. But, he didn't do that. Not surprising! Thanks to JihadWatch.
In this video Newt Gingrich talks about the Ground Zero mosque, the facts of Islam - which calls for Shariah law and fundamental Islam throughout the world.
Newt Gingrich on O'Reilly: Islam and Ground Zero Mosque (video)
Conversations like this one leave me speechless. I'll address just one point: Mike Wallace zings Newt for saying Supreme Court Justice, then nominee, Sonia Sotomayor was racist. Sotomayor was absolutely racist. She is a member of LaRaza which wants to take and claim the lower half of the U.S. for Hispanics, and that's not the only evidence of racism. About Shirley Sherrod, Howard Dean doesn't care about the facts in the Sherrod case, and continues to maintain that Fox News is responsible for her firing - it's hilarious. Mike Wallace over and over states the facts. Dean doesn't care. Note that Dean seems surprised that Fox News didn't talk about Shirley Sherrod or air the video until she had been fired and it was widely known that the White House was behind her firing. Democrats don't know &^$#)@*. Apparently they never read anything except their mainstream White House-controlled propaganda squad.
Starts at 3:18
Newt Gingrich, Mike Wallace and Howard Dean on Shirley Sherrod (video)
This is the Newt from "once upon a time" when he was my American hero. After he began selling books, I noticed he went a bit wonky with a new book is on the horizon, and moves uncomfortably to the center, but this is as simple as 2 + 2. God bless Newt Gingrich.
Having said that, the video below is not new. This speech was given on November 21, 2009 at David Horowitz's Restoration Weekend, at Palm Beach, FL.
Newt Gingrich Crush the Left, Impeach Judges, Victory or Death
Newt Gingrich has baldly said the Tea Parties will "end up a militant wing of the Republican party." If you weren't already done with Gingrich, now is the time to pitch this guy. Maybe he is promoting a new book with Kerry or Clinton (take your pick which one - either Hillary or Bill) - Tea Partiers Cling to Their Guns and Religion, or Tea Partiers Take Over Congress and Kick Our Butts Out, or....
Gingrich said the movement is a "natural expression of frustration with Republicans and anger at Democrats," which is "more likely to end up as the militant wing of the Republican Party" than as an independent or third party."
This is why Gingrich will never receive the endorsement Tea Parties, or Sarah Palin.
Gingrich said the idea of running for President was "sobering and daunting," saying he feels some responsibility to his grandchildren to help fix the mess the country is in." What? He doesn't recognize that the Tea Partiers feel that responsibility every bit as strongly as he does? He doesn't realize that Tea Partiers feel the danger as deeply as he? His "militant" comment is not the way to do it, for gosh sakes. Tea Partiers are likely to do all they can to keep the "occasionally Liberal" Gingrich out of the Oval Office, and deservedly so.
We need Gingrich's brain, which learches Left, and reaches across the aisle, all too often, out of the Oval Office and working out of the RNC. When Gingrich is good, he is really good, but when he is bad, he is exceptionally bad. Remember, this is the man that wants to put your medical records online.
Weasel Zippers speculates that Newt is pandering for a job on MSNBC. Media Matters, Huffington Post, Think Progress and Democrat Underground are loving the Gingrich accusations.
My opinion about Newt Gingrich took a drastic turn to the negative when he began talking about putting our medical records on a national computer system. It was his opinion that it would make it easier for doctors to access your health and mine in cyberspace - and of course, he said, your records will always be completely private. It didn't matter to him that most of us want to keep our records in our doctor's offices, and at our hospitals. We have little privacy now, but what we have, we would like to safeguard. Today we learn that patient's medical records in Britain have gone online without their consent. See a video below.
Those who do not wish to have their details on the £11 billion computer system are supposed to be able to opt out by informing health authorities.
But doctors have accused the Government of rushing the project through, meaning that patients have had their details uploaded to the database before they have had a chance to object.
The scheme, one of the largest of its kind in the world, will eventually hold the private records of more than 50 million patients.
But it has been dogged by accusations that the private information held on it will not be safe from hackers.
The British Medical Association claims that records have been placed on the system without patients’ knowledge or consent.
It follows allegations that the Government wanted to complete the project before the Conservatives had a chance to cancel it.
In America, our records are where they should be: with our personal doctors and hospitals. When they are needed elsewhere, they are couried to the next doctor. I pay for that service. I don't want your online medical records, but you are going to force it on us.
A pox on you Newt Gingrich and your Paper Kills program. And a pox on everyone in Congress trying to put the private information of the health of Americans online, in the name of "efficiency," - with the cry that "paper records kill." Please! The truth is, you simply lie when you say the information will be kept private. It's about "control," and we know it's about control, and we are terrified at the mistakes possible when your program gets underway. How shameful that you, Newt, would be behind this Nationalization of our private medical records program.
Newt Gingrich's American Solutions has revealed our newest disgrace - DrillGate. Through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) we learn that the public is favorable to offshore drilling, as laid out by the Bush administration, by a 2-1 ratio. This has put the Obama administration in the awkward position (or maybe it's business as usual) of hiding, deceiving and manipulating analysis of comments from American citizens. Now, a new comment period has been announced - 45 days of additional delay.
Here's the story. Months passed.
Months after the public commenting period ended in September 2009,
nothing was forthcoming from Salazar or the White House. Through the
FOIA, American Solutions found 530,000 comments submitted showing overwhelming support for GW Bush's five-year plan, which was on Obama's desk when he moved into the Oval Office. The federally-mandated commenting period was already underway at that time, Flashback: "Drill baby! Drill!"
When Obama ascended to the Oval Office, the commenting period was extended to September 2009. An unnecessary delay, according to many. Perhaps the plan was to get ACORN online, filling out comments. Whatever...it didn't work.
Vince Haley at BigGovernment
describes an email obtained through the FOIA showing the dishonest attempt to manage the public's
very positive opinion of offshore drilling, by an administration not
nearly as positive toward drilling as they wanted us to believe. This also gave Salazar a way to avoid publicly acknowledging the public's clear
support for drilling. In fact, a spokeswoman for Liz
Birnbaum said the agency had not completed "analyzing" the comments, although she acknowledge the results were favorable by a 2-1 ration. Translation: the agency had not
completed manipulation of the data.
In an email dated October 27, 2009,
Liz Birnbaum, director of the Minerals Management Service, informs
other Interior officials that a preliminary tabulation of the results
of the comment period had not yet gone to Secretary Salazar, adding
“[s]o the Secretary can honestly say in response to any questions that
he’s [SIC] has not yet seen the analysis of the comments – staff is
still working on it. I did, however, confirm to him the 2-1 split that
these guys [at American Solutions] are emphasizing.”
But this administration is never without "the next move." In January 2010, Salazar announced another 45-day comment period on a "study of how drilling would affect the ocean floor" off the Atlantic coastline. It is not clear who the commenters will be. You and I probably know little about the ocean floor, but to say experts in the field of oceanography know little, is unbelievable to me. But wait, this article says the 45-days are, indeed, for the public "to weigh in on "seismic exploration" in their area. What was the 2009 comment period for? Another orchestrated ACORN opportunity.
We don't see this as a bad thing," said Nicolette Nye, spokeswoman for
the National Ocean Industries Association, which promotes offshore
drilling. "We're pleased the new administration is continuing with the
… process."
Energy companies are lined up to begin seismic research in the Atlantic coastline, to indicate the possibility of oil and gas under the ocean's floor, but the rumblings of dangers to marine life are already ramping up.
The Bush plan, which had the support of 68% of Americans, would have allowed drilling on up to 300 million acres off US coastlines and would have taken effect in mid-2010. Salazar is quoted as saying it "was a headlong rush of the worst kind." There is no doubt that while Birnbaum protected Salazar from the full data in writing, he knew and he enabled the stall full disclosure, promised by the President.
Vince Haley points out the "extraordinary benefits" of jobs that could be created, "without federal spending," at a time when our
Nation is facing the highest unemployment in decades, with no bright
outlook for changing the situation, and with another dishonest stimulus, verified by the previous stimulus failure, to create
jobs.
The Freedom of Information Act protects citizens from their government's secrets, but when the government fails to disclose, and forces the public to file an FOI request, those responsible should be held accountable. The people should never have to d-r-a-g public data from elected officials.
The overwhelming consensus among Tea Party goers is, they love Sarah Palin but haven't made up their minds about a Republican nominee. That's exactly where I am. For the most part, I like what Palin is doing. She is a strong voice and we need her out there, whether we agree with her all the time or not. By the time we get closer to the end of 2010, we'll know a lot more about Sarah's idea of conservatism.
Mentioned in this article by Tea Partiers are the usuals: Huckabee, Romney, Gingrich, Fred Thompson, Palin and even Scott Brown and Dick Cheney. In my perfect world, Dick Cheney is my pick. Since that is not going to happen, I hope we have others looking at the future of this country and planning to put their ideas on the table.
Six Republicans are establishing a new political organization, the American Action Network, to organize "grass-roots support" and raise funds for the November 2010 mid-term elections.
The organization will be a 501(c)4 with Rep. Eric Cantor's (R-VA) senior aide, Rob Collins, serving as the first executive director. Founding Republican leadership: former Florida Governor, Jeb Bush, former Minnesota Senator, Norm Coleman, Republican strategist Ed Gillespie, Republican donor Fred Malek, and former GW Bush adviser, the Architect, Karl Rove.
Establishment conservatives apparently...finally, get it...maybe: grass-roots patriots mean business, and part of that business is NEVER supporting limp-wristed pretty boys and girls for candidates?
Is this a "move over Tea Parties, the big boys have arrived?"
If the mindset is constitutional conservatism, American Action Network will succeed. If the mindset is "business as usual," they better start looking for other sources for election funding.
At least Newt Gingrich isn't a part of this bunch.
Newt Gingrich believes he is one of the top contenders for the Republican candidate in the 2012 presidential race. This tells me that Newt will now take a hiatus from writing and hawking books.
I was huge fan of Newt's brilliant brain until around April 2007 when I decided I would never vote for Newt, unless I was forced to do so, just as I so reluctantly voted for John McCain in 2008. Is Newt capable of standing up to Democrats and fearlessly point out the absurd? I don't think so.
I echo Senator Jim DeMint. "We need some new Republicans!"
“I need
some new Republicans, people who believe in constitutional government,
a balanced budget and liberty and so I’m out across the country
recruiting new republicans who I think if they get here will not only
challenge the institutions of government but be willing to even
challenge the Republican Party and our leadership if they feel like
we’re going in the wrong direction. I think just a handful of new
Republicans in the senate could help change the direction.”
Newt is much of what DeMint lays out: Newt believes in constitutional government, balanced budgets and liberty, but Newt also loves to reach across the aisle and he values his friendships across the aisle, more than he values sound thought.
I have seen and heard Newt embrace Democrats as credible representatives for America far too many times. We need new Republicans who will not view Democrats as credible representatives, because the party no longer represents the Founding documents. It is that simple.
A few days after I wrote my first rant about Newt's character failures, Thomas Sowell states:
"Only where it counts -- in Washington -- are conservatives tongue-tied."
Newt is never tongue-tied when he appears on O'Reilly, Hannity or Greta, but when he is outside the FOX family, we cannot count on him to not extend his hand across the aisle to the worst of Congress. Whether it is John Kerry or Hillary Clinton, Newt is old politics. He cannot retrain his brilliant brain. He wants to scoop everyone up in his warm political embrace. That will not work when we face off against Democrats in 2012.
It takes a lot of energy, and causes a lot of pain to write about once-heroic Republicans, now turned to damaged goods. Doing so gives me a monumental headache. So I'm reposting the following thoughts about the Gingrich and Kerry, specifically about the debate on the environment, but in general, the overall problem with Newt. He spoke of his long relationship with the Senator and the extreme mental accuity of John Kerry. Really, did we need to hear that from one our leading Republicans, especially when the argument about the environment was, already back in 2007, obviously rife with fraud?
You see, Newt wants to have "interesting dialog;" he wants to discuss
"market oriented science," and that's all well and good – it’s a
discussion this country needs to have, but the Left intends to bring
America to its knees on this issue, fueled by the elite's quest for
even more wealth, by manipulating the everyday habits of industrious
Americans.
The Left has no interest in entrepreneurial-endeavors that expose the
folly of carbon offsets and such.
Newt, we watch you on talk shows, read your books - listen to your
every word. You tamp-down Democrat strategists with the ease of picking
lint. You are tough and calmly aggressive until...until...you pair up
with an elected politician.
Those leading, shaping and interpreting public policy should not shine
a light on personal friendships. When you do, we angst over it, for
recent history has not been kind to trusting Republicans who, daily,
watch the unthinkable parade in front of us.
We are not asking you to abandon the fine art of gentlemanship, but we are asking you to be fearless in revealing the absurd...
We want our finest conservatives to take-on "taking" the Left. We want
our conservative leaders to call them out, one-by-one, these rude,
mean-spirited, and dishonest politicians. If you personally like the
Left, fine - just don't tell us about your buddyship until today’s dire
issues have the opportunity to be settled by conservative measures.
Then you can tell us how fine Senator John Kerry and his cohorts may be.
On a personal level, I concede that you think John Kerry is a swell
guy, but when you “speak” such validation – out-loud, it hurts the
conservative movement because the fence-sitter moderates look for the
easy way out, and the Democrat strategists quote you, just as they did
when you personally validated Hillary Clinton a few years ago.
It only makes sense that we need every honest advantage, and praising
the Left, when it’s not necessary, is to put your debate at risk. The
problem is, conservative debate is just too proper and vulnerable when
up against political friendships.
My message to all conservatives in the public arena today: Taking pride
in the conservative nature of accord just gets us into trouble. It
doesn't work anymore. Don't even think of telling us that you cannot
bring yourself "down" to their level - that you will not stoop that
low. Find a way to deal with these people. You're either the person for
the job or you’re not.
If Gingrich does declare for the 2012 race, he will suck every dollar the GOP has from the race. The Grand Old Party is hungry for Newt. They think he is a sure thing. Wake up. Support someone outside the Beltway network, because that is our plan.
U.S. News and World Report's Religion section says that "political analysts" view the Owens-Hoffman_Scozzafava debacle in New York's 23rd District as a failed result for Republicans because Republicans "overreached," by abandoning Dede Scozzafava, who has never been a true Republican,
and supporting Doug Hoffman (for 3 days), who then lost to a Democrat - the first
time in more than a century.
Republicans
Don't they wish that were the case. The truth is, Liberals understand that Doug Hoffman lost by a miniscule margin, after receiving no backing, monetary or endorsements, from the GOP, and had two opponents against him until the weekend before the election when Scozzafava quit the race - and then endorsed the Democrat.
While Liberals "get it," although they won't admit it, GOP leaders are less clear. Can it be that the heart of the party, the voters, do not want party leadership choosing our candidates? Can it be that voters want true conservatives to have a chance in the primaries before the GOP starts announcing their endorsements? Well it can be, and as Newt Gingrich finally admitted after his careless hawking for Scozzafava, "the age of party leaders picking people is over."
U.S. News and World Report's Dan Gilgoff points out some interesting dynamics in the race to unearth conservative candidates:
(1) Charlie Crist and Marco Rubio - Florida:
The ongoing tensions are on clearest display in Florida, where Gov. Charlie Crist, facing the more conservative Marco Rubio, a former Florida House
speaker, in the primary for an open U.S. Senate seat. The National
Republican Senatorial Committee, the GOP's senate campaign arm, has endorsed Crist, while Rubio is pitching
himself as the grass roots' choice. "The conservatives are the ones
being purged from the party," says Rubio, who claims the national
senatorial committee has scared off potential donors, though the group
denies it.
(2) Carly Fiorina and Chuck DeVore - California:
A similar battle is underway in California, where former
Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, who supports abortion rights, is
fighting state legislator Chuck DeVore, an abortion-rights foe, for the
party's nomination for U.S. Senate. An adviser to John McCain's 2008
presidential campaign, Fiorina is receiving fundraising support from
McCain and other establishment types. DeVore hails from Orange County,
a bastion of conservative Christian activism and is a fixture on the
tea party circuit, whose economic conservatives are helping fuel bids
to take on establishment candidates.
(3) Phyllis Schlafly and Sen. Bob Bennett - Utah:
In Utah, meanwhile, a longtime "pro-family" activist endorsed by
Christian right icon Phyllis Schlafly is among the conservatives
running against Republican Sen. Bob Bennett. Cherilyn Eagar says her
state's tradition of picking nominees by convention makes it easier for
her to benefit from the support of activists, including religious
conservatives. "Bennett's version of national healthcare had a
provision requiring insurance companies to supply abortions," she says.
"I find that reprehensible in a state that is highly pro-life."
It took Sarah Palin's endorsement of Doug Hoffman to grab the attention of voters outside of New York City. Gingrich hit back hard at Palin, saying that a win by anyone other than Scozzafava would result in Nancy Pelosi being "speaker for life." Most conservatives would rather lose the seat, than entrench another Olympia Snowe or Richard Lugar in the party. We've learned our lessons. So Gingrich had to go to bed knowing that the RINO he supported [Dede Scozzafa], asked her followers to cast their vote for the Democrat. Bitter, bitter lesson. And even after all that, Hoffman lost by only a small margin. Just think what could have happened had the GOP abandoned politics-as-usual and looked around for a real conservative. No, it wasn't "overreaching," it was an awakening. Thank you Sarah Palin.
Sean Hannity gives Newt Gingrich an opportunity for redemption. After Sean explains that Newt was his first interview, ever, in Atlanta, establishing that the two go way, way back, the discussion of Scozzafava and the NY23rd began.
Newt Gingrich
Hannity began "I was surprised that you had endorsed her [Scozzafava]." Newt has a few weasel words, but did say he regretted that his endorsement. Don't we know he does. He pointed out that he endorsed Hoffman and worked hard for him (yes, Sunday, Monday and election day - far too little, way too late).
We will know that Newt's political heart has really changed when he endorses Marco Rubio for governor in Florida. Thanks to Saint Petersblog for the following transcript of an interview with Newt about Crist and Rubio:
Reporter: Speaker, why don't you tell us who do you like for the Florida Senate race?
Newt: Well, I think they're both fine people.
I've
worked with Governor Crist for many years, and I've worked with Speaker
Marco Rubio. It's going to be an interesting choice. Marco Rubio's a
very aggressive, very articulate conservative. Governor Crist is a very
solid political figure.
I think that Florida's very fortunate to have that kind of a primary. Those are both very good people.
We know what a "very solid political figure" means. It means Crist has a lot of name recognition and is a polished politician. Crist is not conservative. Marco Rubio is conservative. We'll see what happens as the primary nears, but the GOP has already endorsed Charlie Crist. A pox on them!
The first video below is the Newt and Hannity discussion about Scozzafava. The second video is Newt in Florida at a book signing and an interview with a local reporter, when he is asked about Marco Rubio and sitting governor, Charlie Crist.
It has just been announced that Doug Hoffman lost the NY23 special election for the U.S. House to Democrat David Owens. So be it. Message to Newt Gingrich: This is not a win for you. Message to John Boehner: This is not a win for you. Message to Eric Cantor: This is not a win for you.
The problem is, you backed the wrong candidate from the beginning, plying hundreds of thousands of dollars into the campaign of the wrong candidate until she quit and endorsed a Democrat.
You, the leadership, are to blame for this loss. Count the days you dithered away after Sarah Palin endorsed this conservative candidate. And take note Newt: Nancy Pelosi will not be Speaker for Life. Conservatives across the country won the battle of principle tonight.
DeDe Scozzafava, a New York Republican, dropped out of her bid for the U.S. House from New York's 23rd district and endorsed her Democrat opponent, David Owens. Assemblywoman Scozzafava's ex-campaign manager endorsed Hoffman.
New York 23rd Congressional District
Republican Burns took a stab at defending Scozzafava's "capable" legislating, but said he disagrees with her decision to back Democrat Owens:
I am supporting Doug Hoffman, because denying Nancy Pelosi another foot soldier is vital to restoring fiscal responsibility and common sense in Washington.
Mr. Burns said he agreed with Newt Gingrich:
...the party needs to recruit both moderates and conservatives if it
expects to pick up seats in '10. He said he agrees with
ex-Speaker/ex-Scozzafava backer Newt Gingrich (R)
that the party needs to find candidates that fit their districts.
Burns: "Otherwise, it's going to be tough to take back the House."
This is both a tribute to the power of the
national conservative movement to define an issue and a commentary on
the populist anger against politics-as-usual.
Burns did the right thing. Scozzafava was not statesman-like, and Doug Hoffman is the only conservative who has run in this race, or is running in this race.
Newt Gingrich with ickky egg on his face once again! After saying that Republican DeDe Scozzafava's exit from the NY23 race was "statesmanlike," Scozzafava endorsed Democrat David Owens today. See post election update below.
Scozzafava did the "statesman like thing in dropping out..." said Newt. That enraged he when I read it this morning because I ignored it because he also admitted that "the age of party leaders picking people is over.
How wrong can one man be about the principles of the party he once led? One thing is certain, that rarified air Gingrich breaths bears a bit of a stench today.
In the meantime, Scozzafava supposedly withdrew from the NY 23rd District special election for a U.S. House seat because Doug Hoffman, a Republican running on the Conservative Party ticket, left her in the dust in the polls. Newt saw that as statesmanlike, A Hoffman spokesman called her a turncoat.
Those in the camp of the Conservative candidate Douglas L. Hoffman called Ms. Scozzafava a turncoat.
“This
afternoon Dede Scozzafava betrayed the GOP,“ Senior Communications
Advisor Rob Ryan said in a statement. “She endorsed a Pelosi Democrat
who will spend more, tax more, and push the liberal agenda that is
dragging down this nation.”
Here is DeDe Scozzafava's statement:
Many of you have asked me whom you should support on Tuesday. Since
announcing the suspension of my campaign, I have thought long and hard
about what is best for the people of this District, and how to answer
your questions. This is not a decision that I have made lightly.
You
know me, and throughout my career, I have been always been an
independent voice for the people I represent. I have stood for our
honest principles, and a truthful discussion of the issues, even when
it cost me personally and politically. Since beginning my campaign, I
have told you that this election is not about me; it's about the people
of this District.
It is in this spirit that I am writing to let you know I am supporting Bill Owens for Congress and urge you to do the same.
Scozzafava has received endorsements from the socialist ACORN-fronted Working Families Party (WFP) in the past. The WFP is a political party that strongly endorsed Barack Obama. She supports abortion, union card check, and legislation to codify same-sex marriage.
Scozzafava's husband, Ron McDougall is the head union organizer for the Jefferson-Lewis-St.Lawrence Country Central Labor Council that was instrumental in creating the Working Families Party. She was also endorsed by the UAW, of which Ron McDougall is a member. Just like a Democrat Newt? Do you get it now? Can you hear us now?
Related: Hot Air has the story of a conference all with the Hoffman campaign.
Newt Gingrich is backing Doug Hoffman. What a difference a day, a Sarah Palin endorsement, and a few tea parties make. The age of party leaders picking people is over. See update 11-3-09 below. Also see post election update below:
However, he goes on to call Dede Scozzafava a "statesman:"
Scozzafava did the statesmanlike thing in dropping out.
And he says the populist movement wins over politics-as-usual:
This is both a tribute to the power of the
national conservative movement to define an issue and a commentary on
the populist anger against politics-as-usual.
Gingrich admits that he has been a part of "politics-as-usual." Isn't that pitiful? Sarah Palin brought DeDe Scozzafava to national attention. I doubt many of us would have known about her without Palin's endorsement of Hoffman. Sarah is no longer an elected official. She is now one of the conservative sentries sprinkled around the country - standing guard, as are our the tea parties. We are back on track.
In an interview with Rush Limbaugh in January 2008, Gingrich said this:
We
are at the end of the Reagan era. We're at a point in time when we're
about to start redefining -- as a number of people started talking
about, starting to redefine -- the nature of the Republican Party, in
response to what the country needs.
Wrong!
Newt, the great modern day, post-Reagan brain of conservative politics, has forgotten that Ronald Reagan did the hard lifting. Reagan didn't "redefine," he didn't figure it out for himself, he just took the Constitution's conservative principles and planted both feet squarely. When he could not get the policy he wanted, he didn't stop talking about conservatism. He didn't start making excuses, redefining and looking around for a bigger tent.
Newt fell into the trap. He forgot that conservative populism is constitutional populism. He forgot that populism is "we the people." He knew it when he was Speaker. Conservative principles haven't changed. As Newt once said, the primary purpose of a political leader is to:
"build a majority. If [voters] care about parking lots, then talk about parking lots."
So let's get on with it and talk about conservatism. If we can fill a big tent with pro-choicers joining us because conservatism, in the main, is a constitutional and very decent position, then let them enter. Let us talk, and talk, and talk about what is constitutional and what is not.
Newt gets it: The age of the party picking people is over. It should have never started. "We the people" allowed it to happen. We thought our chosen leaders would be on watch, but that sentry failed. Even as we began to wake up, the leadership didn't listen. We'll keep our sentry posted. Now let's work on getting support for Marco Rubio in Florida who is the only conservative in the race for the U.S. Senate.
Update 11-3-09:
Gingrich has told the AP that he is "deeply upset" that Scozzafave endorsed the Democrat, David Owens in the NY23 congressional race. He asked:
How could she have accepted all that support?" he
said, adding later: "I'm very, very let down because she told everybody
she was a Republican, and she said she was a loyal Republican."
Earth to Newt: did you ever take just a minute to check out her voting background or her associations? All the info was very public and very available. Hoffman was in the area telling everyone, everything about her. How did Sarah figure it out and you didn't?
Post election update - my message to Newt Gingrich and party leaders:
RINO DeDe Scozzafava tearfully quit suspended the NY23 special election for New York's 23rd Congressional District. It begs the question, will the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) switch their big campaign contributions to conservative candidate Doug Hoffman? In a last attempt to desecrate conservatism, Scozzafava's scuzzy and subtle suggestion that her name will remain on the ballot and, although she is not in the race, voters can still cast a vote for her, is despicable.
Doug Hoffman
Scozzafava has a long-time liberal-leaning-performance as a Republican in New York. Hoffman is a business man who lives just outside the congressional district and says he was "redistricted out" of the voting area. His candidacy got a giant boost when former governor, Sarah Palin stepped in and supported him, over Newt Gingrich's foolish endorsement of Scozzafava. The sparks flew.
Endorsements for Hoffman have come from Governor Tim Pawlenty, former Governor George Pataki, former senators, Fred Thompson and Rick Santorum, Dr. James Dobson, Concerned Women for America, Club for Growth, Steve Forbes, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, The Minuteman PAC, Rep. Jeff Flake, and the Wholesale-Distributor PAC, among others.
The New York Post is endorsing Hoffman and says assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava:
"...is the product of an obscenely corrupt political bargain by GOP bosses that sells out their party - and New Yorkers generally....
And then comes the damning claims of Scozzafava's cozy relationship with socialists tied to ACORN:
With the backing of the ACORN-allied
Working Families Party, she supports Big Labor's favorite organizing
bill -- card-check -- as well as the federal stimulus, opposed by every
House Republican.
Michelle Malkin has a column out on the Working Families Party.
Sounding just Democrat, DeDe's farewell message is a whine and devious message:
In recent days, polls have indicated that my chances of winning this election are not as strong as we would like them to be.
On Election Day my name will appear on the ballot, but victory is
unlikely. To those who support me – and to those who choose not to – I
offer my sincerest thanks.
Even in defeat Scozzafava's smary behavior continues. Rather than sincerely asking that her supporters switch their vote to conservative Doug Hoffman, she hints that votes can still be cast for her. Are her supporters really Republicans? The district yielded a 52% vote for Barack Obama in November 2008. Was that just a vote against Bush? Are her supporters RINOs too, who will cast their vote for Owens? Whatever the answer, Scozzafava should have said that a vote for Hoffman is the proper way to Republicans and her. In such an important contest, Scozzafava's subtle suggestion is unforgivably scuzzy.
In latest polling dated October 31, Siena shows Hoffman at 35%, Owens at 36% and Scozzafava 20%.
So RNC, can you hear us now? While Hoffman can still lose Tuesday's election to Democrat candidate David Owens, conservatives are sending the message that we will no longer tolerate RINO traitors. We will fund conservatism, and, Newt, we are willing to take the chance that Nancy Pelosi will be "Speaker for Life," in order to try to do the right thing for the future of our country and families.
Sarah Palin took a giant step and did something established Republican leaders seldom do (excepting Senator Jim Inhofe): she endorsed a conservative candidate over an establishment pick. Palin's endorsement of Doug Hoffman in New York's 23 Congressional District is driving the old boys crazy. See a priceless Scozzafava video below. See post- election update below.
Sarah Palin
This report says two National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) officials said they will continue to support Dede with $200,000-$300,000 in political ads between now and the November 3rd special election. Have you donated to the NRCC lately?
None of those hundreds of thousands of dollars will support Doug Hoffman, the conservative candidate. Sarah Palin endorsed him anyway because it is the right thing to do. While the deep pockets of the Republican party work on the assumption that a conservative cannot win the seat, Doug Hoffman is rising in the polls over Dede Scozzafava, but trailing the Democrat, Bill Owens.
It would be one thing if Scozzafava balanced that social liberalism
with fiscal conservatism. But as a state assemblywoman, she voted for
massive tax increases, Democratic budgets and a $180 million state bank
bailout. She also supported the trillion-dollar federal stimulus
package — which every House Republican voted against.
More from Malkin - read this and weep if you are conservative:
More troubling, Scozzafava in past elections has embraced the ballot
line of the Working Families Party — a socialist outfit whose political
DNA is intertwined with scandal-ridden ACORN. ACORN and the WFP have
shared office space in New York City, Arkansas and Illinois. ACORN head
Bertha Lewis, a close Scozzafava friend and political supporter, wears
a second hat as vice chairman of the WFP. The WFP has been listed in
ACORN documents dating back to 2000 as an “affiliate.”
I notice that Dede's "Latest Tweet," according to her website, announces that Senator Collins will "stump' for her. Well, of course she will.
Scozzafava's websites tell us about Dede: She is demanding that the $394 million in federal stimulus money, allocated for the "Weatherization Program" in her area be released, as well as more funds for "dairy farmers." The delay is unacceptable, she said, and she is demanding answers. I understand her frustration. I demand answers from the feds all the time and get nothing. Welcome to the club.
Newt Gingrich has a new book - he always has a new book, and once upon a time I bought them. Gingrich defends Scozzafava - without a single comment about her lack of conservative values. He says it is less than "clever" for Palin to step into this race. It is okay for Gingrich to do the same, of course. He thinks it is not smart to "go around the country and try to purge the party." And that, my friends, is why conservatives are where we are today.
If Dede loses, Gingrich says it will "guarantee Nancy Pelosi stays Speaker for the rest of her life." I desperately do not want that to happen, but I do not think Newt has all the answers.
While Gingrich signs autographs at local book shops, he should think about the hopelessness his viewpoint brings to a conservative. He is saying that the GOP must back the local choice, with no attempt to give voice to a real conservative. If we lose a seat, it will be devastating, but it will be even more devastating to give a Republican seat to a supporter of ACORN. We have to make a stand, and a start. I think the time is right.
So Hoffman has the momentum and a chance to win, while Scozzafava is
fading. It’s probably too late for the national and state Republicans
to reverse their foolish initial blessing of Scozzafava—but surely they
could at least stop attacking Hoffman, spend what money they’re going
to spend attacking Owens, give up on pressuring high profile
Republicans not to go in to help Hoffman, and therefore give Hoffman a
decent chance to win.
Well, absolutely - fight the Democrats, not the conservative.
The National Coalition of Tea Party activists issued this statement:
We are extremely disappointed that the Republican Party (and leaders
like Newt Gingrich) has missed the message of the Tea Parties and
continues to take conservative voters for granted. We applaud all
courageous statesmen (Fred Thompson, Michelle Bachmann, and Dick Armey)
and call on other GOP officials to put America’s values over
traditional, often corrupt and morally bankrupt, power structures.
November 3rd is just around the corner. Here's the latest polling I can find. Note that the Daily Kos Research poll "provides some encouraging news for Scozzafava: "despite a week of bad publicity." It shows her leading Hoffman among Republican voters, 46 to 27 percent.
Democrat Bill Owens leading Republican Dede Scozzafava 35 to 30
percent, with Conservative party candidate Doug Hoffman at 23 percent.
The video below is priceless. I don't know how the guy standing to Dede's left kept a straight face:
Dede Scozzafava Surrounded by Hoffman Supporters - on television! (video)
A Rasmussen poll still maintains that the GOP has lost touch with their base. The GOP doesn't get the message - "Get Conservative," and they still are not hearing us. See a video below - Glenn Beck says it well.
Rep. Marsha Blackburn Gets the Message
The telephone survey finds that "73% of Republicans believe their congresscritters have lost touch with GOP voters." After all the tea parties, three-fourths of Republicans believe they have no voice and no support for conservatism. The depressing news is, the same poll in April 2009 had the same findings. Nothing is changing.
I do not have a congressional problem in my state, but I see it everywhere across the map. The best example I can think of is the GOP-announced support and funding of Florida's Governor Charlie Crist for Florida's U.S. Senate seat, against a clear conservative, which Crist is not, over Marco Rubio. Very early on the GOP declared they were behind Crist, nevermind that he has a slobbering love affair with Barack Obama.
Polls are everywhere, asking who we want as our nominee in 2013. I never know which box to check. Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo and Marsha Blackburn are not on any polls - and few governors are promising. It is depressing!
* Romney doesn't have the fire to be an energetic candidate, although he is a conservative.
* Mike Huckabee is gaining in popularity but he falls off the wrong edge of conservative a bit too often. I admit that he seems to be getting more conservative on his television show.
* Newt and Sarah are now bookmongers.
* Newt's political mind is truly awesome until he wants to sell a book with John Kerry or his wife. He has a right to a life as an author, but he forges far too many friendships with hardline Liberals. A Gingrich presidency would be the same "good ol boy" networks of keeping each other in the House and Senate that we've see for so many years.
* Palin's announced Oprah appearance confirms my feeling that she doesn't have the maturity to be in the Oval Office. After Oprah REFUSED to let Sarah on her show during the elections, Oprah exhibits her wiliness by now inviting Sarah on, and Oprah won this one for Barack. I still have hopes that Palin will be a powerful conservative voice. We won't know until her book, Going Rogue comes out.
The scattershot strategy
employed by national Republicans, as well as their inability to unite
to block some of Obama's more radical agenda items has most of the rest
of the party thinking they are not representing their interests.
I continue to give not a dime to the GOP. I support my local candidate because they are doing the hard lifting, and I support some others around the country when I can. I have nothing for the traitorous GOP.
Glenn Beck on Lindsay Graham - GOP Unchanged (video)
Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich got his straight-talkin' on today and told ABC News that Pelosi's actions make her a "trivial politician," her efforts are "despicable," dishonest," and vicious. Newt claims Pelosi "lied," and even worse, she lied to the U.S. House of Representatives and "dishonors the Congress by her behavior."
Nancy Pelosi
Newt was not finished with the Speaker and the pride of San Franciso:
Speaker Pelosi's the big loser because she either comes across as incompetent, or dishonest. Those are the only two defenses,...
If you have been in the outback for the last couple of weeks, and missed the pitiful Pelosi performances, Nan has accused the CIA of lying to Congress and misleading Congress, but she clarified things a bit today when she said she wasn't speaking of the Obama CIA, only the George Bush CIA.
Yeah, incompetent, viscious and despicable wraps it up fairly well for me.
In the end, I suppose we'll hear that Speaker Pelosi "disremembered," like Hillary and a cast of many before her. And it's all just a big nothing. I'm jaded. No doubt about it. William Jefferson, John Murtha, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and the pride of the liberal judiciary, Alcee Hastings - impeached for accepting bribes, racketeering and perjury - and now a Democrat member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Florida, have survived. Nevertheless, it is not short of wonderful that the Democrat Director of the CIA, Leon Panetta, a seasoned Washingtonian, says Pelosi was "briefed truthfully," and he says he has documents to back it up.
Newt wrote a book with Senator John Kerry on global warming, and sat on a sofa next to Speaker Pelosi hawking the dangers of climate change. I can forgive him for putting the sale of millions of books before good, conservative sense, which he usually has. After all, Newt also said playing politics around anti-terror techniques could "get a lot of people killed. This is really, really dangerous, and it's going to get a lot of people killed, if we don't call a halt to it."
Listen to Newt say all of the above, and more, here. He talks about our soldiers, and asks other piercing questions.
Pelosi was the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee. She had an absolute obligation to know what was going on, and an absolute obligation to speak up. Men and women risked their lives all over this planet protecting us...
This is an important interview and it is inspiring to hear a conservative speaking so strongly. Sorry I cannot embed it for you here, but ABC is protecting this extraordinary interview. Can't say I blame them.
FAIR USE: This blog may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner or may be authorized or licensed for publication at this site only. Permission to copy, republish or reproduce such material must be obtained from the original copyright owner.
Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Important Notice
Patrons of this Blog are advised that they will be held responsible for any unlawful, harassing, libelous, abusive, threatening, or harmful material of any kind or nature posted by their respective ISP. Patrons are cautioned not to transmit via comments, including links to any material that encourages conduct that could constitute a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability, or otherwise violate any applicable local, state, national or international law or regulation. Comments here are typically unmoderated and unedited. The fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes the site owner's endorsement of commenters' views.
![Twitter](<a href="http://www.twitter.com/maggiesnotebook"><img src="http://twitter-badges.s3.amazonaws.com/follow_me-b.png" alt="Follow maggiesnotebook on Twitter"/></a>){kind=small}
