"Han" wrote in message
...
"Robert Green" wrote in
:
sorry for snipping relevant prior text
Those are the sort of things that Han and I worry about that don't
seem to bother you. It's been alleged that more than one president
used the FBI to gather dirt on their political enemies, Presidents
from both parties. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts
absolutely.
The last statement is an obvious one, and sad to say rather relevant in
view of Gingrich' reported sttement that if elected he'd do as he saw fit,
and SCOTUS be damned (paraphrased!).
Yes, I read that and it's consistent with what he's said over the years.
http://www.freep.com/article/2011121...impeach-judges
WASHINGTON - Newt Gingrich says as president he would ignore Supreme Court
decisions that conflict with his powers as commander in chief, and he would
press for impeaching judges or abolishing certain courts if he disagreed
with their rulings . . . "I'm fed up with elitist judges" who seek to impose
their "radically un-American" views, Gingrich said Saturday during a
conference call with reporters.
An elitist politician with a $1M line of credit at Tiffany's and a doctorate
in history has some balls to be ****ed at judges who mostly try to follow
the Constitution that they were sworn to uphold. I don't know how good a
history professor he was if he fails to understand the basic principles of
"checks and balances" written into the Constitution. Maybe he thinks it's
about balancing his checkbook. (-:
I've pretty much concluded that Democrats and Republicans alike don't care
for judges who actively advocate positions they don't espouse. But they're
just fine with activist judges that think like they do. That's why we have
the nomination process for Federal judges, to at least ensure a mix.
Newt does worry me but I read an article in the NYT that actually pointed to
the many good ideas that Newt has that will probably sabotage him with the
far right. I'll quote the negative ones. (-:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/21/us...-gingrich.html
. . . But many of the conservatives who rode to power with Mr. Gingrich
ultimately deserted him, while he denounced them as "petty dictators" and
"the perfectionist caucus" in the waning days of his tumultuous four-year
speakership . . .Gingrich, 68, remains a paradoxical figure for
conservatives to embrace - a man who can "bring us together, and alienate
the hell out of us," said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South
Carolina, who as a House member tried to oust Mr. Gingrich in an
unsuccessful 1997 coup. Many credit him with advancing their cause, yet many
are deeply suspicious of him . . .
The Republicans I know are *somewhat for* Newt because he does have a good
understanding (probably better than Obama's) of how to get Congress to vote
his way. The Republican women I know, including my wife, find it very
difficult to like him after serving his wife with divorce papers while she
was in the hospital recovering from cancer. His comments about schools
hiring kids as janitors reminded more than a few Republicans that Newt
ranges pretty far into craziness on occasion. Not a sign of "presidential
timber."
. . . He emerges as more of a pragmatist than a purist, a believer in
"activist government" whose raw ambition made colleagues uneasy, provoking
questions about whether he was motivated by conservative ideals, personal
advancement - or both . . . "Gingrich is more Nixonian than he is
Reaganite," said Vin Weber, a former Republican congressman and the first
chairman of the Conservative Opportunity Society, who is on good terms with
Mr. Gingrich but supports Mr. Romney. "Not in the Watergate sense, in the
strategic sense. He is not an ideologue." . . .He made little secret of his
ambitions when, as a 25-year-old graduate student at Tulane University . . .
His political philosophy was "in the middle," Ms. Wisdom said. He was
antitax, and hawkish on defense, but a strong environmentalist and advocate
of civil rights
He does have some good ideas and what looks to be a fairly decent moral
compass - at times. At other times, people throw up their hands and say:
"WTF?"
. . . he railed against Nixon and Gerald R. Ford for their failure to
build a majority . . . "They have done a terrible job, a pathetic job," Mr.
Gingrich thundered, unaware that his words were being recorded. "In my
lifetime, literally in my lifetime - I was born in 1943 - we have not had a
competent national Republican leader. Not ever!" . . . Mr. Gingrich went on:
"I think that one of the great problems we have in the Republican Party is
that we don't encourage you to be nasty. We encourage you to be neat,
obedient, and loyal and faithful and all those Boy Scout words, which would
be great around the campfire, but are lousy in politics."
Ah, yes, an admission of guilt that reveals where the great Congressional
gridlock began. (-: I've heard many a representative say there used to be
a lot more fraternity between both parties before Newt and Tom (convicted
criminal) DeLay began their assault on Congress. There's more!
In 1979, his first year in office, Mr. Gingrich was among a handful of
freshman Republicans to vote to create the federal Department of Education,
a vote that many conservatives, who want to abolish the department, still
hold against him. (Today Mr. Gingrich says he wants to "dramatically shrink"
the agency.) . . . When President Jimmy Carter proposed an Alaskan wildlife
reserve, Mr. Gingrich voted in favor, breaking with his party . . .His
support for more federal investment in transportation, science, space
programs and technology rattled libertarians and free market conservatives .
.. .the Club for Growth . . . complains that Mr. Gingrich has "a recurring
impulse to insert the government in the private economy."
At least Newt doesn't buy into the "Starve the Beast" philosophy put forth
by the never-elected to office, "Who the Fu& are You to Dictate National
Policy to Anyone?" Grover Norquist and realizes the government does a lot of
necessary things.
. . .In a 1984 interview with Mother Jones Magazine, Mr. Gingrich was
unapologetic. "I believe in a lean bureaucracy," he said, "but not no
bureaucracy." . . . "Gingrich talked a lot about the importance of
listening, but he was often not interested in discussing our ideas," one
member of the freshman class of 1994, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, now a senator,
later wrote in a book about his years in Washington, "Breach of Trust." . .
..His decision to end the government shutdowns of 1995 and 1996 proved a
particular sore point; conservatives said Mr. Gingrich had caved in to a
White House that outmaneuvered him. . . ."He was like a whipped dog who
barked, yet still cowered, in Mr. Clinton's presence," Mr. Coburn wrote.
Faced with Romney the flip-flopping wonder and Newt the man with an ego the
size of Alaska, my guess is that a lot of independents will "hold their
noses" and hope the "hope and change" president will actually produce even
an iota of real change with another turn at the wheel. According to the
polls, the more people are reminded of Newt's colorful past, the lower his
polling numbers. Maybe HeyBub is right when he says the party should
nominate George the Elder. He is probably more electable than Mitt or Newt
(what the hell kind of names are those anyway?) and would be a better leader
than either of the two leading contenders. (-:
--
Bobby G.