Gingrich takes shot @ Limbaugh

[Paydirt404]

Gingrich Takes On Rush: Hoping For Prez's Failure Is "Irrational"

Newt Gingrich became the highest profile Republican yet to push back against Rush Limbaugh, saying on "Meet the Press" that it's "irrational" to hope for the President of the United States to fail.

"You've got to want the president to succeed," said the former House Majority Leader. "You're irrational if you don't want the president to succeed. Because if he doesn't succeed the country doesn't succeed... I don't think anyone should want the president of the United States to fail. I want some of his policies to be stopped. But I don't want the president of the United States to fail. I want him to learn new policies."

The remarks were an obvious shot at Limbaugh, even if the conservative talk show host wasn't named. There has been a brooding feud between Limbaugh and Gingrich over the future of the Republican Party that briefly erupted during the recent CPAC convention. Responding to remarks by Gingrich that "the era of Reagan is over," Limbaugh declared during his hour-long closing address: "Our own movement has members trying to throw Reagan out while the Democrats know they can't accomplish what they want unless they appeal to Reagan voters. We have got to stamp this out within this movement because it will tear us apart. It will guarantee we lose elections."

That Gingrich would respond by pushing back against Limbaugh's now-infamous line rooting for Obama's failure suggests just how testy the relationship between the two has become.

Gingrich was highly critical of nearly every other aspect of the current administration, from its economic policies to its political tactics. At one point, he called the Obama administration cynical for trying to make an issue out of Limbaugh. On Sunday's talk show circuit, Sen. Lindsey Graham was the only other person willing to put his head on the line with some anti-Rush rhetoric.

"I think Rush Limbaugh's prominence in the Republican Party is not what we are talking about. I think his prominence in the radio world to gin up people for conservative causes is prominent. He doesn't play in the Republican Party. He is not an elected official," said the South Carolina Republican. "I'm Lindsey Graham. He has been on me for two or three or four years for different things and I take it for what it is worth. ... Stop talking about Rush Limbaugh at the White House."

www.huffingtonpost.com

[resnor]

LOL

Still posting from the Huffington Post, huh?

Apparently you haven't read/heard what Rush actually said...cause, if you had, then you would see that there is NO DIFFERENCE between what Rush said, and what Gingrich said.

I want some of his policies to be stopped. But I don't want the president of the United States to fail. I want him to learn new policies.

This is, in fact, what Rush has been saying all along. He wants SOCIALISM to fail. He said that if Obama was to turn out to be more like Reagan, he would want him to succeed. Gingrich said that he doesn't want Obama's policies to work...yet he wants him to succeed. LOL. You can't have it both ways. You can't have his policies fail, yet have him succeed.

[dsteve]

its a ****ing play on words, theyre both saying the same thing....I dont want the president to fail but I hope he changes his policies basically means, I think hes going to fail if he continues the way he is.

[McMadden]

Watch this => http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S8jqfamcos

[SUPDOG]

Nice. This is why Limbaugh is the best radio talk show host in history.

The ending summed up the people on this board: Limbaugh- "Why must we act like we have no brains and support whatever Obama wants"

That is what the democratic party is all about.


I want Obama to fail

FAIL FAIL FAIL!!!!


And so should any AMERICAN!!!

[theanalogkid]

He said that if Obama was to turn out to be more like Reagan, he would want him to succeed.

Another fiscally irresponsible president, with terrible policies? Shouldn't he be backing him 100% then?

[Nevada_Ballin]

"Why must we act like we have no brains and support whatever Bush wants"



Fixed.................

[resnor]

Another fiscally irresponsible president, with terrible policies? Shouldn't he be backing him 100% then?

Yeah, Reagan was a HORRIBLE President. Sure, he spent alot, BUT, he lowered taxes, and increased revenue. We saw the greatest 10 years of economic growth under Reagan. It disgusts me how people try to rewrite history to support their claims.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Yeah, Reagan was a HORRIBLE President. Sure, he spent alot, BUT, he lowered taxes, and increased revenue. We saw the greatest 10 years of economic growth under Reagan. It disgusts me how people try to rewrite history to support their claims.



?????????????????????????

[conviction]

Watch this => http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S8jqfamcos

I dont agree with him but I see his point. If this works the government will have more power than ever. It is kind of like how democrats got their panties in a bundle with the wire tapping because they said it would lead to more surveillance and an intruding government. I agree with them on that and they should correlate their own argument when it pertains to a democrat making the policies. The government will make huge strides to socialism if the package succeeds. The hard part, if it works, for the American people will be the ability to tell the government to stop exceeding upon its constitutional basis and restrain from growing in power and growing into a nationalized market.

[conviction]

President Ronald Reagan's record includes sweeping economic reforms and deep across-the-board tax cuts, market deregulation, and sound monetary policies to contain inflation. His policies resulted in the largest peacetime economic boom in American history and nearly 35 million more jobs.As the Joint Economic Committee reported in April 2000:2

In 1981, newly elected President Ronald Reagan refocused fiscal policy on the long run. He proposed, and Congress passed, sharp cuts in marginal tax rates. The cuts increased incentives to work and stimulated growth. These were funda-mental policy changes that provided the foundation for the Great Expansion that began in December 1982.

As Exhibit 1 shows, the economic record of the last 17 years is remarkable, particularly when viewed against the backdrop of the 1970s. The United States has experienced two of the longest and strongest expansions in our history back to back. They have been interrupted only by a shallow eight-month downturn in 1990-91.



link -- http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg1414.cfm

shazam!!! Your liberal bias, NB and analog, can't even touch the great policies that Reagan presented which overturned a terrible economy due to Jimmy Carter. Your right NB it wasn't ten years... His policies positively effected the economy for a much longer time period than that.

[McMadden]

link -- http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg1414.cfm

shazam!!! Your liberal bias, NB and analog, can't even touch the great policies that Reagan presented which overturned a terrible economy due to Jimmy Carter. Your right NB it wasn't ten years... His policies positively effected the economy for a much longer time period than that.PA DOW!!! Da Linc => http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/opinion/21krugman.html

Touché' read it and weep! Two can play this game. :D All day long. :eek:
I read your BS, now read mine. If you're brave enough. :eek:

For the attentive depraved:It did fail. The Reagan economy was a one-hit wonder. Yes, there was a boom in the mid-1980s, as the economy recovered from a severe recession. But while the rich got much richer, there was little sustained economic improvement for most Americans. By the late 1980s, middle-class incomes were barely higher than they had been a decade before — and the poverty rate had actually risen.

When the inevitable recession arrived, people felt betrayed — a sense of betrayal that Mr. Clinton was able to ride into the White House

[Nevada_Ballin]

link -- http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg1414.cfm

shazam!!! Your liberal bias, NB and analog, can't even touch the great policies that Reagan presented which overturned a terrible economy due to Jimmy Carter. Your right NB it wasn't ten years... His policies positively effected the economy for a much longer time period than that.


I have 2 words for Mr. Reagan:

Iran Contra

You're probably too young to know much about it so here's a link. Even though it's a wiki it is damn accurate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair


shazam.......


.

[theanalogkid]

Yeah, Reagan was a HORRIBLE President. Sure, he spent alot, BUT, he lowered taxes, and increased revenue. We saw the greatest 10 years of economic growth under Reagan. It disgusts me how people try to rewrite history to support their claims.

Spent a lot like increasing the national debt by 200% by the time he left office, moving the US from the world's largest creditor to the world largest debtor. His legacy of bloating the the size of government up continues to this day.

His tax cuts didn't increase government revenue, I don't know where you got that idea from. Revenues didn't increase until Congress started passing tax hikes and repealed sections of the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981.

He wasn't responsible for getting rid of inflation, that was Volcker's doing and that started before Reagan entered office. The "Reagan Recovery" only looks great when compared to the "Reagan Recession of 82-83"

The Reagan years saw a nation of savers, to go out and spend beyond their means due to the decline in interest rates.

He signed in a law which deregulated the savings and loan industry, which then collapse in 1987 and was given the largest bailout of the time. (funny, no one called George H.W. Bush a socialist)

As for rewriting history to support myself, nothing I have written here is not verifiable by facts. You can go continue to live in the American-centric fantasy land where Presidents are all national heroes, and none of these people are less than perfect, but I will not.

[dannydufflebags]

limbaugh is a douche