Newt Gingrich: Tea Party Turning Into Militant Wing of GOP

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

MrJayremmie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2008
Messages
3,438
Likes
27
Points
48
Newt Gingrich: Tea Party Turning Into The 'Militant' Wing Of GOP

Newt Gingrich said that he expects the Tea Party movement to evolve into "the militant wing of the Republican Party" at a speaking engagement in Pennsylvania on Wednesday night, the York Dispatch reports.

Gingrich described the Tea Party's sentiment towards Washington as "natural" and argued that people are entitled to the "pursuit of happiness."

The York Dispatch reports on Gingrich's remarks regarding the future of the conservative movement:

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.

The Dispatch also reports that while many of those attending the event held by the Manufacturers' Association of South Central Pennsylvania seemed to support Gingrich's conclusions, some members of the audience did not agree with his characterization of the Tea Party movement as potentially "militant."

Gingrich addressed a wide range of political and policy issues in his Wednesday night speech -- from unemployment to whether he'll run for president in 2012. Via the York Dispatch, here are some of the former House Speaker's other notable remarks:

* "High schools are an expensive "baby sitting service" and that students who want to leave school should be allowed to enter the work force."

* "Last year's extension of unemployment benefits was like a bribe to people to tolerate legislators' incompetence, he said."

* "Newt Gingrich said he hasn't yet decided whether he'll run for president in 2012."

I personally think the Tea Party will end up hurting Republicans more than Democrats unless the GOP can convince the Tea Baggers to join the GOP (they seem to be quite easy to persuade, so you never know).
 
The Tea Party Movement will definitely push Republican primary candidates further and further to the right. It'll be interesting to see if they can successfully maneuver back to the center in time for the General Election.

Most women and minority people I know aren't really prototypical "Tea Party Types." To win them over I think candidates will often need a more centrist message than "government is evil!", "Obama isn't an American!", "banks are too regulated!" and "cut taxes!". Not always, but often.
 
Gingrich only HOPES the Tea Party will become a small radical segment of the conservative movement . . . If it turns into something much bigger, and swamps the Republican party, his career is probably over.
 
It seems to me the Tea Partiers are a loosely knit collection of groups and individuals with one uniting philosophy: Government has gotten too big for the good of the country. Are there whackjobs who attach themselves to this movement? Sure, just like any other large movement. It's not violent, nor does it promote violence. It's not racist, although I'm sure there are racists who have attached themselves to the movement. It's a collection of people who just want to live their lives. The vast majority of these people are just average citizens who are just fed up. Most have never been involved in politics before. That's why the signs and the costumes are so hokey; these people are political amateurs.

The idea of a small government isn't a "far right" idea; it's a centrist one. Those who buy the characterization by those on the Left of the Tea Party as being "racist" and "violent" are just unthinking sheep. If you want to see violence, check out the following stories:

[video=youtube;yBdbTVUeay8] (Those are SEIU employees beating a black Tea Party memeber)


http://indyposted.com/tag/allee-bautsch-beating/
 
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0428/Why-tea-party-defenders-won-t-let-N-word-claims-rest

Why 'tea party' defenders won't let N-word claims rest

Black congressmen's charges that they faced 15 N-word slings from 'tea partyers' in the run-up to the health-care vote tarred the movement. Will tea party insistence that the lawmakers present evidence help US move to a 'post-shame' era?

Unwilling to let charges of racism stand, "tea party" groups continue to challenge claims by members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) that protesters hurled the N-word at them 15 times at a "Code Red" protest in the run-up to the health-care reform vote on March 20.

Without hard evidence for either side, the conventional wisdom might be for tea partyers to let the incident slide and to blame the movement's more radical elements. Instead, a group called the Tea Party Federation sent a letter to the CBC on April 26 demanding video or audio corroboration of the accusations.

Already concerned about agents provocateur infiltrating rallies, tea party members say they either want help to ferret out the guilty party – or an apology from congressmen it if turns out they made up the incident to discredit the tea party movement.

Amid at least one poll showing that the public perceives the tea party movement to be at least partially racially biased, the forceful letter – added to a $100,000 bounty already out for hard evidence – is a new twist on an old tactic: calling a bluff on the race card. It also adds to an effort by conservatives, given President Obama's election, to move into a "post-shame" age in which the politics of race are dialed back to allow America to move forward.

"Ironically, the fact that a black man is president has made conservatives think that, 'Well, we elected a black guy president and that shows America is not a racist country and we should put this stuff behind us,' " says Michael Kazin, a history professor at Georgetown University. "Other politicians, including Hillary and Bill Clinton, have gotten burned by saying that black people will use the race card in their defense even if nothing is going on. But what does work is saying that liberals or Democrats are talking about race in order to hide their true intentions, which [resonates] among independent voters."

So far, it's not clear what happened that day. Deciding to walk outside in the nice spring weather rather than take an underground tunnel, a group of black congressmen walked down the steps of the Capitol and to the Cannon House Office Building.

Hordes of tea party protesters surrounded them and can be heard on video yelling "Kill the bill! Kill the bill!" Reps. André Carson (D) of Indiana and John Lewis (D) of Georgia said in an interview right after the gauntlet walk that they'd also heard the N-word used 15 times by various people in the crowd. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D) of Missouri, who was also in the group, at first said a protester spit on him, but later clarified that the protester had allowed spittle to fly in his direction while yelling.

Since the alleged incident, at least one person used who initially corroborated the story, North Carolina Rep. Heath Shuler (D), who is white, has said he did not hear the epithet. The videographer who shot the only available video of the incident says he didn't hear the N-word, but added that it well could have happened, given the tenor of the verbal confrontation.

"A bright line was crossed on the 20th," says Christina Botteri, a spokeswoman for the Tea Party Federation. "The left constantly attacks conservatives as racist, as dumb, as evil, but what happened on the 20th is a sitting congressman, with the full voice and credibility of the House of Representatives, accused a group of citizens with whom he philosophically disagrees of assault and then refused to help find the persons responsible. They need to help us find the people responsible or apologize for making it up."

Conservative Web publisher Andrew Breitbart has accused the congressmen of lying about the incident in an effort to tar the tea party movement. He has gone so far as to offer a $100,000 donation to the United Negro College Fund for proof. Though it appears from footage that at least some of the congressmen's entourage were filming the walk, no one has claimed the bounty.

"[This] is a slander with real-world repercussions," Mr. Breitbart asserts on BigJournalism.com.

Some in the mainstream press have conceded tea partyers may have a point. Washington Post reporter David Weigel has said the March 20 incident is a "paradigm shift" that shows conservatives how the media accept attacks on the right without doing due diligence. Politico's Ben Smith, who keeps a close eye on the tea party movement, Tweeted a response to Breitbart about the lack of takers on the bounty: "I think you've pretty much won this one, no?"

And CNN senior political analyst David Gergen, in an April 14 television appearance, said the incident "was an important moment … a searing moment during the health-care debate.... Many of us took it as sort of like, that's what happened. Now, if it didn't happen, I think it's important to know that."

To the Congressional Black Caucus, meanwhile, the Tea Party Federation's push to keep the incident alive seems illogical, because it holds the spotlight on the ugliness of what one congressional staffer called "two days of terror." The CBC is unlikely to reply to the letter, sources say.

With the March 20 incident in mind, at least one political scientist suggests that America is not ready for "post-shame" politics.

"There are some things that society has rightly come to dissociate with shame, but shame serves an important function in moral thinking," writes Clyde Wilcox, a political scientist at Georgetown University, in an e-mail. "Some of our political arguments today are shameful, and we move to a 'post-shame' era at our peril."
 
What's the source for the original poster?

I rather enjoy how it seems to be twisting "militant" into meaning "violent" rather than "aggressively active," which is the far more likely definition he intended.

Ed O.
 
The idea of a small government isn't a "far right" idea; it's a centrist one.

How do you explain the massive broad-based support for social security and medicare? If the center in our country love small government, it seems to me those would've been killed off long ago.

Also, how do you explain that Obama got elected running on a platform of universal health care?
 
How do you explain the massive broad-based support for social security and medicare? If the center in our country love small government, it seems to me those would've been killed off long ago.

Also, how do you explain that Obama got elected running on a platform of universal health care?

Answer to the first question: "everyone loves a ponzi scheme unless they're the last generation left holding the worthless paper."

He got elected because he is not George Bush. All indications are people do not give him the same level of support they did at election time, once they woke up and saw what the agenda was beyond not being George Bush.
 
I think Newt is embracing his new role as a superhero, Captain Obvious.
 
I think Newt was one of the original generation of neo-cons, but he's closer to being an actual conservative than modern neo-cons. He's both brilliant and stupid at the same time.

The tea party movement has shown no indication of becoming a 3rd party, and I suspect they'd support conservative democrats as much as republicans, FWIW.

When Newt calls them potentially the militant wing of the republican party, I think he means both "activist" and "unwilling to be controlled." The latter being a big problem for republican establishment, if you know what I mean.
 
A party of sour grapes and sore losers with KKK undertones.
Ha, ha, ha, ha!! That's a good one: KKK undertones.

Why is it that every protest movement by liberals is a noble endeavor, but when conservatives protest it's automatically racist? I suspect that liberals are frightened to death by the Tea Party movement, and are afraid that it's going to continue growing until it threatens to undermine their entire agenda.
 
Answer to the first question: "everyone loves a ponzi scheme unless they're the last generation left holding the worthless paper."

Ok, so you agree "small government" isn't a centrist idea.
 
He got elected because he is not George Bush. All indications are people do not give him the same level of support they did at election time, once they woke up and saw what the agenda was beyond not being George Bush.

He talked for more than a year about providing universal health coverage. Was it really such a shock that he followed through on that promise?
 
He talked for more than a year about providing universal health coverage. Was it really such a shock that he followed through on that promise?

He also talked for more than a year about bringing the troops home. :)

Politicians say a lot of crap that people don't really believe.

Ed O.
 
He talked for more than a year about providing universal health coverage. Was it really such a shock that he followed through on that promise?

He talked for a year about the war, being anti-war, and basically appealed to the left's version of the tea party movement (otherwise known as his ATM, moveOn.org et al). EDIT: d'oh, Ed O beat me to it.

And people do want small government, they just don't know what to cut (I say cut it all).
 
How do you explain the massive broad-based support for social security and medicare? If the center in our country love small government, it seems to me those would've been killed off long ago.

People like free stuff. The generation receiving Social Security and Medicare paid pennies on the dollar for the benefit because they're living much longer than the projections indicated and medical care is much more expensive. Enact real PAYGO and see how much people like Big Government.

Also, how do you explain that Obama got elected running on a platform of universal health care?

He ran on "Hope" and "Change". He soft-pedaled health care, even running against mandates and taxing medical benefits. Remember him villifying Sens. Clinton and McCain for those positions? I do. He gets elected and assumes their positions. He won based on rainbows and unicorns, with not much based in reality. Also, his name was John W. McBush.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top