Newt Gingrich Calls Barack Obama A “Radical”! Really, Newt? :(

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is giving broad hints of his intention to seek the GOP Presidential nomination in 2012, and part of his strategy is to declare, at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, that President Obama is a “radical”, in fact the most radical leader of the nation in its history!

Newt does not seem to realize how ridiculous he looks by making such a silly assertion! Because the President managed to get through, after a long battle, a moderate health care plan that does not fully please liberals and was seen as a compromise, that makes him a “radical”? The fact that he wants to promote financial reform of a banking and stock market system that ran amuck for years makes him a “radical”? His attempt to promote a program that allows some oil drilling, but seeks to diversify our energy future by moving away from too much dependence on oil, makes him “radical”? The fact that he worked to preserve our banking, insurance and auto industries and prevent a worse loss of jobs makes him “radical”? His determination to make progress toward a nuclear free world by making agreements to cut the number of nuclear weapons and scale down the danger of nuclear war makes him “radical”?

Any sane person would see that Barack Obama has been working night and day to insure the return of prosperity and to secure our safety and security, both of which are the main responsibilities of any American President!

If Barack Obama is indeed ” radical”, then so are Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and even Ronald Reagan!

In reality, Newt Gingrich KNOWS that Barack Obama is within the mainstream, and has even been willing to work with the President on education reform. It is very clear that Gingrich respects the President, despite his rhetoric!

Newt Gingrich is simply displaying his ambition for the White House, and is therefore willing to lie to himself, fellow Republicans, and the American people! He is a very intelligent, articulate man, who has shown great speaking and writing ability, as he is the author of many books, including Civil War novels which utilize his historical training, all the way to the Ph. D.

At the same time, Newt Gingrich has been very willing to divide and create confrontation, as demonstrated by his years in the House, working against Speaker of the House Jim Wright, and being an extremely controversial Speaker from 1995-1999! It could be argued that he was more of a lighting rod than Nancy Pelosi has ever been in the past three plus yearrs as Speaker!

If Newt expects to seek the Presidency, he will have major liabilities which include: his scandalous private behavior, including cheating on two wives, and telling his first wife of an impending divorce while she lay ill in the hospital; his often corrupt behavior as Speaker, bordering on illegality; his willingness to use character assassination to the extreme against the opposition party; and his lack of any public office for what would be fourteen years by the time of the Presidential Election of 2012.

An election between Barack Obama and Newt Gingrich would be, certainly, one of the most exciting, dynamic and clear choices that the American people would ever witness. But the thought of a President Gingrich brings up thoughts of a time of conflict and divisiveness that would be greater than anything we have yet seen! A Newt Gingrich Presidency would be a truly “radical” Presidency, far greater than anything that Barack Obama could even imagine!

5 comments on “Newt Gingrich Calls Barack Obama A “Radical”! Really, Newt? :(

  1. John smith April 10, 2010 1:08 am

    Obama not radical?? He had the most liberal voting record in the Senate and he appoints staff members whom are openly communists, members of socialists organizations and some whom publicly admit to looking-up to Mao! What the Hell are you smoking Prof??

    But I will leave you with this bit of meat about the pandering former Speaker. Newt opined in his 1995 book, “To Renew America” that another “fundamental transformer”, FDR, was probably the greatest president of the 2oth century! (page 36) Thus forever alienating those of us whom believe in freedom, “free” markets, and that the Federal Government must be constrained by the Constitution

  2. al walker April 10, 2010 2:56 am

    If your audience was full of independants and actual thinkers rather than braindead liberal progressives who knee slap every ridiculous remark you make you would not try to sell them Ice water in the winter time.
    Obama is like Reagan? This health care monster hasnt even been read by the idiots libs who were the only ones who voted for it but you call it mainstream?
    If even Olympia snow had voted for it you could get away claiming its is mainstream, and now that polls have consistantly shown at least 60 percent of America wants this Healthcare repealed what you wrote is pitifull and so sad I truly feel sorry for you.

  3. Ronald April 10, 2010 8:41 am

    I want to thank John and Al for contributing their views on this entry.

    But I also want to comment that the word “radical” can be used in different ways. It seems to me that it is certainly very “radical” when you have a President who presided over a tripling of the national debt by cutting taxes on the wealthy and corporations, while adding to the tax burden of the middle class (Ronald Reagan)

    It is certainly very “radical” when you have a President who doubled the national debt and added more to it than even Ronald Reagan, and this with a Republican Congress in control (George W. Bush).

    It is certainly very “radical” when you have a Medicare Part D plan enacted into law without any means to pay for it (George W. Bush), and have the Patriot Act passed in a moment of hysteria, taking away the basic civil liberties of the American people (George W. Bush).

    It is certainly very “radical” when most of the national debt increase in the past thirty years occurred under Republican Presidents, and it was a Democratic President who actually added much less to the national debt and even balanced the budget a few years (Bill Clinton).

    It was certainly very “radical” when it was Republican Presidents who drew us into three wars, two of which have not been won, and have added tremendously to the national debt, because for the first time in history, our taxes did not go up, and we were not told we had to sacrifice, during a time of war. The amount of the growth of the debt for Iraq and Afghanistan could more than pay for the Health Care reform.

    The fact that the rich have become extremely rich and the poor have become poorer, and the middle class has been decimated since the Reagan years onward, is a “radical” action caused by the Republican party.

    We could go on and on and on, gentleman, but it is clear to any fair minded observer that it is the Republican party record since 1980 that has been the “radical” change, and that Barack Obama is trying to right the balance and give average, every day Americans the opportunity to have a future and some dignity, instead of assisting the very rich to be more selfish and self centered than they have become with the help of the Republican party! This is a country “of, by and for the people”, not the rich!

    Oh and by the way, John, I am not smoking anything and never have! 🙂 I have never smoked tobacco, marijuana, or anything else, as I wish to preserve my health and brain! 🙂 I am a believer in obeying the law in all respects, including not using illegal drugs ever, and I have never even been drunk, as I do not and have not seen that as an accomplishment. 🙂 I also have always paid my taxes, instead of trying to evade them, and I have filled out the census, which many conservatives seem to think, such as Michele Bachmann, is not a responsibility, which it indeed is. I do not see the government as the enemy, but instead as promoting equal opportunity for all! I trust our government, even when I do not agree always with who runs it and what they do! I am the true patriot, more than those who would wish to deny the basic human right of decent health care!

  4. John smith April 10, 2010 1:44 pm

    Thank you professor! In a century dominated by progressive presidents, Reagan was indeed a radical. To understand the difference between the economy under Reagan and Obama , your progressive students should study the Laffer curve.

    (a good and short but realistic introduction right here)

    Under Reagan taxes went down but overall revenue went up. ( Also real wages + benefits to the middle class went up too). The problem was that government spending rose faster. The tax cuts were not the problem!

    Reagan was far from perfect. For instance, he apparently learned absolutely nothing from the Progressive’s prohibition of alcohol. The “War On Drugs” did little to prevent anyone wanting drugs from obtaining them yet the resulting damage to “the rule of law” cost us dearly, especially among the inner-city poor…. just like in the 1930s

    Economically, under Obama we see the reverse of Reagan; tax rates and government mandated expenditures are going way up creating a cycle where customer and businesses have less money to spend –> business therefore receive less revenue because business and consumers are spending less –> businesses lay off workers
    or go out of business because of lack of income–> consumers and business spend less –> the cycle continues to spiral, the effects on the economy are devastating!…

    unfortunately those hurt most by Obamanomics war on the rich are the increasing great numbers of young unskilled workers that cannot find a job! and while Obama sees his goal of reducing differences in wage distribution , the people are poorer throughout all classes of society with the possible exception of the political elite.

    Those wanting to know how to fix the economy should look to our history—- to the depression that I suspect you leave out of your history lectures— the Depression of 1920!
    (this is a great lecture by the way)

    I won’t defend Bush or far that matter, The Republican Record. —Bush was a fraud — He was either a big government internationalist progressive or completely controlled by them in a futile attempt to win their favor. It is a shame that so many conservatives were distracted by Bush wrapping himself in the flag and religion —– under Bush’s leadership the Republicans thoroughly discredited themselves and made in possible for our center-right nation to be seduced by an extreme left opposition candidate —– indeed we all wanted change … but most of us did not want socialism!

    Best regards professor, I am pleased that you are actually willing to debate opposing opinion. Far too many progressives respond with only Alinsky inspired attacks

  5. Jon April 12, 2010 10:28 pm

    I am confused, besides the recent health care bill where have taxes gone up? Maybe I missed it. Please explain the Obama-Economics. Sounds like a bunch of rhetoric to me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.