Newt Gingrich: Insurgency in Connecticut!

This is really rich. This morning on Fox "news" Gingrinch claimed that there is an insurgency in Connecticut!

Note to Gingrinch: That insurgency happens to be the citizens of Connecticut revolting against Joe Lieberman and his revolting support of this Iraq fiasco.

Note 2 to Gringrinch: Its called the the people exercising their right to replace the out of touch incumbent with someone who will act upon their will - through the ballot box. You know, Democracy?

Labeling these citizens in this ridiculously Orwellian manner is beyond the pale. Not to mention absolutely elementary. More Zero intellect hard at work.

And why on earth is REPUBLICAN Newt Gingrinch shilling for a Democrat, anyway? Must be shaking in their ruling elite establishment one-corporate-party boots.

The website ThinkProgress has posted Gingrinch's comments.

Here they are:

Gingrich: There Is An ‘Insurgency’ in CT Which Says ‘Can’t We Come Home And Hide?’

This morning on Fox News, Newt Gingrich claimed there is a “legitimate insurgency in Connecticut, which needs to be met head on,” made up of people who say Iraq “is so hard, it is so frightening, it’s so painful, can’t we come home and hide?” Gingrich said that if the “insurgency” wins, “it will be the beginning of extraordinarily important period in American politics, and in American history.” thinkprogress.org...

I guess the thought of the war party losing their DLC Lackey Lieberman
scares the crap out of them. Hopefully sHillary will go down next.

Here's a devastating little blog from Huffingtonpost. Big kudos to Davis Sweet for expanding exponentially on what I was saying - especially regarding the Orwellian Bushspeak. And I got news for GinGrinch: you will become president when hell freezes over, buddy. But thanks for the laughs.

Newt's "Insurgents"

Festering politico Newt Gingrich has one talent: rhetorical provocation. (All right, two, if you include "hair helmetage.") If you need an idea stripped down to its ugly, ugly core, Newt's your stripper. (Ew...)

In Newtworld -- as seen on Fox "News," of course -- Connecticut voters who prefer not to have Americans slaughtered for Bush's arrogant mistakes are "insurgents."

So if I understand Newt's new lexicon, an "insurgent" is someone who exercises their right to vote, who advocates peace and diplomacy, and who rejects a candidate who has refused to represent them. Sounds like my kind of insurgency! How do I sign up?
www.huffingtonpost.com...

With all due respect to the fact that applying the term insurgency to a political movement in the particular context that Gingrich did seems extremely odd, I can see where it came from.

It seemed weird mainly because Gingrich isn't a Democrat and because he didn't use the term in the context that it would most logically come to mind.

There is in fact an internal force within the Democratic party which is attacking one of its own leaders. The term does in fact apply even by strict dictionary definition. This is an insurgent movement within the Democratic party aiming to uproot one of their officials who is not liberal enough for them anymore.

Insurgent

2 : one that acts contrary to the established leadership (as of a political party, union, or corporation) or its decisions and policies

Furthermore, hotbutton words are politics as usual. It's not some new and ominous trend. It's the same old loaded language with a catchy new name.

Fair enough though, Orwellian Bushspeak it is.
But haven't you validated it with your Seussian Deanspeak (Gingrinch)?

Originally posted by The Vagabond


There is in fact an internal force within the Democratic party which is attacking one of its own leaders.

Um, that internal force within the Democratic party would be the people in Connecticut at the grassroots level who have had it with a warmonger. Its hillarious, and completely transparent, to see all of these NeoCons foaming at the mouth in support of Lieberman.

You have such war party cheerleaders as Hannity, Coulter, GinGrinch, et al shilling for the embattled pro-war Democrat. Its really sad. They're losing it. Support for the war, that is. A Lieberman defeat tomorrow will be a watershed moment for those who support disengagement from iraq.

Note to Hillary: Ya betta be payin attention, yo. You might just be next.

Connecticut is America this Week
Taylor Marsh

Joe Lieberman has simply been thrust into a humility tour. It happens to people when their ego gets out in front of reality. But Joe Lieberman isn't alone. The entire Democratic Party is experiencing a similar catharsis, all at the hands of ordinary people. Republicans could be next, when tens of thousands of voters simply stay home in disgust. But reality is the dish of the day, being served up on a plate of Iraq.
www.huffingtonpost.com...

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Note to Gingrinch: That insurgency happens to be the citizens of Connecticut revolting against Joe Lieberman and his revolting support of this Iraq fiasco.

Well I guess it could be seen as an insurgency when a political candidate deviate from main party views of certain issue.

Now what is strikes me the most is how this politicians seems to sell their soul to the devil itself in the pursue of public approval and votes.

Perhaps Liberman needs to wake up and realized that most Americans are actually sick and tire of the results of the so call liberation, invasion, alias war and war on terror in Iraq.

Will he learn from his mistakes.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Um, that internal force within the Democratic party would be the people in Connecticut at the grassroots level who have had it with a warmonger.

Are you denying that these people are democrats? It isn't Republicans who are trying to get someone more left-wing in their, that's for sure.
The fact that it's a grass roots effort against an official is precisely what makes the term insurgency (without negative connotation) applicable. I

Its hillarious, and completely transparent, to see all of these NeoCons foaming at the mouth in support of Lieberman.

That's right, because everybody knows full well that a Democratic politician only represents, is only responsible to, and can only be talked about by registered Democrats. Being an elected official in no way makes him responsible to and open for discussion by the citizenry in general.
Republicans have no business supporting Democrats who they feel are doing a decent job.

ECK, to be honest I'm extremely surprised that you've fallen for this politically devisive crap they jam down our throats. Apparently somebody has convinced you that Republicans and Democrats are sworn enemies who should never make common cause, never agree enough to help eachother, etc. Do you now think that every member of every party should vote the party line and never be supported from outside if his conscience takes him outside those bounds?

I believe that both parties should have close relationships with the members on the fringes of the other side. That's where compromises are made. When there's a Lieberman or a McCain who can be won over from his parties side but is going to ask for some concessions, that's a good thing because it takes us away from the extremes.

Unfortunately the extremes are exactly where many democrats are going these days, even a few who had me convinced that they were intelligent, moderate, reasonable people.
Republican voters who I know seem to be moderating. They've learned from the Bush administration. Unfortunately there's nobody standing up in a rational manner to accept their concessions and build a middle ground, and if it keeps up, the immaturity that many democrats are showing is likely to drive the Republicans back to the right and result in another mistake.

He called it a legitimate insurgency, he's not saying that these people should be locked up or that they are just like the people ripping people's heads off in iraq.

Originally posted by Nygdan
He called it a legitimate insurgency, he's not saying that these people should be locked up or that they are just like the people ripping people's heads off in iraq.

Nygdan, surely you're aware (by now anyway) the Orwellian way in which these NeoConservatives use language to twist and distort the reality right before our very eyes?

Unfortunately, humans react emotionally to charged language, whether consciously or subconsciously. Some far more than others.

It should really insult more people that they think so little of our intelligence to talk to us in such a demeaning and subtley combative way. GinGrinch is a professor, afterall; and is convinced his brilliance burns far brighter than ours.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
The fact that it's a grass roots effort against an official is precisely what makes the term insurgency (without negative connotation) applicable.

GinGrinch was attempting to link these irate moderate (Dem.) voters to terrorists in the minds of all listening to him. It was despicably Machiavellian. Meant in the darkest spirit. And it did not work.

The people from Connecticut are not stupid people. NeoCons are, though.
CT:1; NeoCons: 0

ECK, to be honest I'm extremely surprised that you've fallen for this politically devisive crap they jam down our throats.

I have fallen for nothing, Vagabond. That is exactly why I see through this elementary crap. That is why I knew Lamont would win. The people of Connecticut and the majority of Americans (60 percent) - including myself - are fed up with the war and those who represent it. It is a completel failure. Lieberman's loss was a shot across the bow, nationally. Democrats and Republicans alike, that continue to support Bush's Iraq non-policy will be in danger of losing their seats, irregardless of their past stewardship. Lieberman's loss to Lamont is historic.

Seeing this wave coming, Hillary grilled Rumsfeld last week over his incompetence and demanded his resignation. That's wonderful and very much needed. But she is the biggest political whore and hypocrite I have ever seen. The writing is on the wall and she's standing there staring at it. I can just hear the gears in her mind whining at high speed.

Apparently somebody has convinced you that Republicans and Democrats are sworn enemies who should never make common cause, never agree enough to help eachother, etc.

That is downright ridiculous and I thought you knew me much better than that. I have no problem working with anyone, of any party, as long as they espouse common sense. And I am also loyal to the US constitution first, before any corrupt party.

The Republicans are pissed right now b/c they were powerless to keep their favorite pro-war Democrat poodle from losing. Word is now, they are so hot for Lieberman to come back to the cocktail circuit that Rove has offered all his (WH) resources to combat Lamont. They have absolutely zero conscience and even less willingness to allow dissent.

As for Lieberman and McCain, they have both sold their souls to the powers. So they are both near worthless war whores. Now McCain is even pandering to the religious right. What an opportunist. I hate to say this, but McCain will not be elected president. His time has passed.

Unfortunately the extremes are exactly where many democrats are going these days

Yeah, so the DC chattering class would have you believe. Ned Lamont's victory last night proved that. Cokie Roberts and the rest of those bobbling talking heads got a big black eye last night for their ignorance in covering real reality. They got it all wrong.

Big media needs to get up off its collective knees, wipe itself off and start doing its job telling the truth. Otherwise, they're gonna drive themselves straight off the cliff of total irrelevence.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
GinGrinch was attempting to link these irate moderate (Dem.) voters to terrorists in the minds of all listening to him. It was despicably Machiavellian. Meant in the darkest spirit. And it did not work.

Perhaps he was; I don't claim to read the man's mind. I can however tell you that since the word would have made perfect sense in a completely benign context that I do not consider it a given that Gingrich was calling anyone a terrorist.

As a matter of fact, by pure chance I happen to have made a very similiar statement recently about the possibility of a Republican insurgency attempting to pull their party further to the right, and I meant no insult at all.

Newt Steals Vagabond's Words, Read All About It!

The usual suspects, people like Rice, Frist, and Guiliani, will probably command more money but "insurgents" who would represent more of a change in the Republican party like Tancredo, Gingrich, or McCain (if he stays Republican) are actually a little better understood already (perhaps not as much when compared to Condi though), and may command more loyalty from the voters just on recognition.

The people from Connecticut are not stupid people. NeoCons are, though

I have fallen for nothing, Vagabond. That is exactly why I see through this elementary crap.

Listen to yourself for a second. You're reading deep between the lines for the slightest hint of an insult so that you can work up a nice little tempest in a teacup because you think Newt should have consulted his thesaurus more carefully, and yet in the midst of this outrage Newt ain't the one borrowing epithets from Dr. Seuss and calling people stupid. Check your blood sugar, switch to decaf, do whatever it is that you do when you catch yourself coming unglued because the vibe I think I'm getting off of you is the same vibe I got last time I saw a race brawl break out.

When you get right down to it there's not much sense in getting wound up and doing the my dog can beat up your dog thing because come November we're gonna go cast our votes, neither one of us will ever know with complete certainty which candidate that vote was counted for (or if it was counted at all) and whatever the outcome is the odds are that we'll end up disappointed all over again. Hopefully the next disappointment will have a little more charisma than Lieberman, but it'll be a disappointment all the same if you're betting with the odds.

Lieberman's loss was a shot across the bow, nationally.

Time will tell. As I said in your Political Tsunami thread, it remains to be seen if this phenomenon will be powerful enough to turn red states, and then if it is, the million dollar question is whether or not the democrats will do what the voters put them there to do, or if they'll just do the same thing that the Republicans do (read: whatever they and their owners feel like doing).

Hillary grilled Rumsfeld last week over his incompetence and demanded his resignation.

And didn't get it. If she'd gotten it it would have been the first time in my life that I'd called her by any polite name, but she didn't get it. She knew she wouldn't get it. She wasn't trying to get it. She was doing what partisan politicians do: calling names. And you're doing what partisan voters do: clapping for the namecalling match instead of waiting for results.

That's wonderful and very much needed.

Wasting the senate's time on election year mudslinging? I thought we needed a viable approach to ending the war, a solution to our oil problems, and a balanced budget.

But she is the biggest political whore and hypocrite I have ever seen.

Wow, Newt gets off as the badguy of Whooville and the one you actually had some positive words for is bringing the world's oldest profession to politics? Man I'm gonna be trying to figure that one out for A WHILE.

I have no problem working with anyone, of any party, as long as they espouse common sense.

Like naming your enemies after children's books, calling Hillary a whore, and calling empty political rhetoric a "wonderful" and "much needed" use of the Senate's time?

And I am also loyal to the US constitution first

No one said that you weren't. I questioned the logic whereby you find it repugnant for Republicans to work with a Democrat who they find closer to their position that others. Would you prefer that the two extremes battle it out and never try to work with eachother's moderates?


Well man, I hope you're right. I really do, because you've put on some AWFULLY big shoes and I just don't know if your mouth will take 'em if this ends up going splat in November.
In a vacuum I respect the fact that Connecticut ditched an incumbent. I think that's healthy every now and then. I just think the beauty of that is overshadowed by the way certain people have conducted themselves about the whole business. When people are cheering and jeering like kids who've been binging on espresso and twinkies I say to myself "these people are not the brains of the operation; someone is pulling their strings". Meet the new boss... the same as the old boss.
Lamont's really going to have to live down the way his supporters have acted before I can believe that he's nobody's punk.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I can however tell you that since the word would have made perfect sense in a completely benign context that I do not consider it a given that Gingrich was calling anyone a terrorist.

The reason I pointed it out was because Gingrich used that language purposefully and nefariously, as though no one out here in the hinterlands would pick up on that. It's language used to incite - not unite! HEY! Now I sound like Sharpton.

Newt Steals Vagabond's Words, Read All About It!

The usual suspects, people like Rice, Frist, and Guiliani, will probably command more money but "insurgents" who would represent more of a change in the Republican party like Tancredo, Gingrich, or McCain (if he stays Republican) are actually a little better understood already (perhaps not as much when compared to Condi though), and may command more loyalty from the voters just on recognition.

The difference is stark. You, unlike Gingrich, put quotes around the word insurgents, b/c on some level, you knew what that form of language connotated.

Listen to yourself for a second. You're reading deep between the lines for the slightest hint of an insult so that you can work up a nice little tempest in a teacup because you think Newt should have consulted his thesaurus more carefully, and yet in the midst of this outrage Newt ain't the one borrowing epithets from Dr. Seuss and calling people stupid. Check your blood sugar, switch to decaf, do whatever it is that you do when you catch yourself coming unglued because the vibe I think I'm getting off of you is the same vibe I got last time I saw a race brawl break out.

You're being very dramatic now.

I would be giddy, did I use that word?!, yes giddy, if the same thing happened to Hillary Clinton. She deserves it.

Wow, Newt gets off as the badguy of Whooville and the one you actually had some positive words for is bringing the world's oldest profession to politics? Man I'm gonna be trying to figure that one out for A WHILE.

Defending Hillary? For the record, I have never been a fan Hillary or Bill.

No one said that you weren't. I questioned the logic whereby you find it repugnant for Republicans to work with a Democrat who they find closer to their position that others. Would you prefer that the two extremes battle it out and never try to work with eachother's moderates?

I prefer elections not to be stolen, so that actual representative Democracy can flourish. Since the silent coup of 2000, the will of the people has been silenced and far too many people around the world have been made to suffer and die b/c of it. Its unacceptable.

GinGrinch was attempting to link these irate moderate (Dem.) voters to terrorists in the minds of all listening to him. It was despicably Machiavellian. Meant in the darkest spirit. And it did not work.

The people from Connecticut are not stupid people. NeoCons are, though.
CT:1; NeoCons: 0

Well well, I see you are still up to your same old game of calling people names...neocons stupid huh. Thats says more about you than it does anybody else. Very typical for liberal hypocrite. You should check yourself into an institution for anger/hate management. Say hello to Ted Kennedy and Nancy Polosi for me.

As far your jubilation over Liebermans loss to a another Democrat, I wouldn't get so excited if I were you. IT WAS A PRIMARY! ONE LIBERAL DEMOCRAT REPLACED ANOTHER LIBERAL DEMOCRAT! BIG DEAL! IT'S NOT A WIN FOR THE DEMOCRATS! It really is very funny to sit back and watch the Democratic party implode as it eats itself alive and moves further and futher and further to kookville. However, I am going to love watching independent Lieberman bury Lamont in the general election...the one that matters.



God Bless America, Israel, and the United Kingdom

Originally posted by War_Monger
Well well, I see you are still up to your same old game of calling people names...neocons stupid huh. Thats says more about you than it does anybody else. Very typical for liberal hypocrite. You should check yourself into an institution for anger/hate management. Say hello to Ted Kennedy and Nancy Polosi for me.

Hey WARMONGER (nice name, btw), or should I call you shadow?

So, are you taking the position that NeoCons are NOT stupid?

I'm not a liberal, either. I don't expect you to know that, being a "younger" member of ATS. You'll figure it out, tho, somewhere down the line, if you don't lose interest.

Anger/hate management... nah, not really my scene. but thx for the concern.

As far your jubilation over Liebermans loss to a another Democrat, I wouldn't get so excited if I were you. IT WAS A PRIMARY! ONE LIBERAL DEMOCRAT REPLACED ANOTHER LIBERAL DEMOCRAT! BIG DEAL! IT'S NOT A WIN FOR THE DEMOCRATS! It really is very funny to sit back and watch the Democratic party implode as it eats itself alive and moves further and futher and further to kookville. However, I am going to love watching independent Lieberman bury Lamont in the general election...the one that matters.

That's a lot of capitalized letters. You might want to take a break, catch your breath, breathe into a brown bag.

What you said:

It really is very funny to sit back and watch the Democratic party implode as it eats itself alive and moves further and futher and further to kookville.

is most generally said about today's GOP.

Will Lieberman "bury" Lamont in the general election? That's a good question. So far, it looks like Lieberman will have absolutely zero help from the Democrats. Which, is how it should be. He'll need to beg Rove to steal the election for him at the rate he's going.

God Bless America, Israel, and the United Kingdom

How bout everyone else on this god-forsaken earth? And you call me a racist?!

The other question is, what if the republicans win CT? I think that the senate primaries in CT are open only to the party represented. Independents are the largest voting block. Its possible that people who register as democrats in CT tend to represent people further to the left that most 'democrats', with the average democrat registering as Independent.

If thats true, and considering that lierbman has won a bunch of elections in CT, its possible that the state, in the general election, isn't interseted in an anti-war senator. They might split between lieberman and schlesinger, but its also possible that they will stick to choosing between the two parties, and elect Schlesinger into office.

That might signal to the DNC that it needs to quash anti-war democrats across the country.

Originally posted by Nygdan
If thats true, and considering that lierbman has won a bunch of elections in CT, its possible that the state, in the general election, isn't interseted in an anti-war senator. They might split between lieberman and schlesinger, but its also possible that they will stick to choosing between the two parties, and elect Schlesinger into office.

That might signal to the DNC that it needs to quash anti-war democrats across the country.

Conventional wisdom said Lieberman would beat Lamont.

Conventional wisdom also sez that Lieberman will beat Lamont as an Independent. The Republian candidate is all but non-existent. Don't you find it striking that Rove is not calling up Rep. candidate Schlesinger and offering to his candidacy all of the WH's resources? What is beyond odd, is that Rove is bending over backward to get Lieberman re-elected.

Originally posted by Nygdan
The other question is, what if the republicans win CT? I think that the senate primaries in CT are open only to the party represented. Independents are the largest voting block. Its possible that people who register as democrats in CT tend to represent people further to the left that most 'democrats', with the average democrat registering as Independent.

If thats true, and considering that lierbman has won a bunch of elections in CT, its possible that the state, in the general election, isn't interseted in an anti-war senator. They might split between lieberman and schlesinger, but its also possible that they will stick to choosing between the two parties, and elect Schlesinger into office.

That might signal to the DNC that it needs to quash anti-war democrats across the country.

I'm a Connecticut Republican. I am voting for Joe Lieberman. He's done well for our state. Ned Lamont is a long shot, and frankly a "one issue" candidate. Joe Lieberman has been painted as a prowar Democrat but everytime a vote comes up in the senate to stop the war, it get's voted down. It takes more than one prowar Dem to do that!

Lieberman voted with the Dems 90% of the time yet he is painted as a "poodle" to the Bush administration. The Dems have been hijacked by militant, radical left wingers who wouldn't know a moderate if they fell over one.

Once the entire state votes, Lieberman will be Senator again.

Rove stealing elections? Take a look at what just happened in Georgia with Zsa Zsa Gabor. She lost the election to another DEMOCRAT and she's claiming election fraud, voting irregularities, and the same old same old. Soon she will be introducing herself as such:

Hi, I'm Cynthia McKinney and I used to be the next 4th district Representative of Georgia.

I wonder how gore will like her stealing his line.

I guess Rove stole that election too. Point is, whenever libs lose elections because the electorate votes them down they claim the election was stolen. How mature is that? Liberals are sore losers and are at the absolute height of their arrogance.

You might also want to take a look at what is going on here in my home state of Pennsylvania concerning Senator Santorum and Mr. Casey. There is now a Green Party candidate going on the ballot and the PA libs are worried because that will spilt the Democrat vote...Not to mention that Santorum is gaining steam. The Dem party in PA wants to kick the Green Party Candidate off the ballot beacause they know their goose is cooked despite the fact that Green guy has thousands more signatures than needed to get on that ballot. It just goes to show that the Dems are desparate and will go to whatever unfair and illegal measures needed to win.

As for me loosing interest, never! I wouldn't give you pleasure. I'm here to be a very painful thorne in backs of people like you. You can rest assurred that I will target your posts and challenge you whenever possible.


God Bless America, Israel, and the United Kingdom

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Conventional wisdom said Lieberman would beat Lamont.

I didn't get that impression.

Don't you find it striking that Rove is not calling up Rep. candidate Schlesinger and offering to his candidacy all of the WH's resources?

Injdeed, another strat for the republicans is to say, 'anyone put lamont', drop schlesinger, and push lieberman.

What is beyond odd, is that Rove is bending over backward to get Lieberman re-elected.

Why is it odd? It makes perfect sense for the republicans. Given a choice between Lieberman and Schlesinger, sure, the GOP will support Schlesinger. But if the realistic choice is between Lieberman and Lamont, why wouldn't they back Lieberman, especially if a Lamont victory is seen as a justification for the ushering in of 'leave iraq now' senate votes.

Originally posted by stanstheman


Lieberman voted with the Dems 90% of the time yet he is painted as a "poodle" to the Bush administration.

If you're a Republican, why would you even consider voting for Loserman? Afterall, you quote the statistic that he has voted with LIBERALS (cringe) 90 percent of the time... What the hell kind of Republican are you?