Gingrich: Why is Steve Bannon fighting Republicans when he could be fighting Democrats?

[mystery-ak]

Gingrich: Why is Steve Bannon fighting Republicans when he could be fighting Democrats?

AllahpunditPosted at 3:31 pm on October 18, 2017


Eh, by this logic it was wrong for tea partiers to primary establishment Republicans in 2009-10. Every insurgent political movement answers this question the same way: “We can’t fight the enemy effectively until we install better generals of our own.” And every time, that answer is disingenuous. It’s not about appointing better generals to defeat the other side. That’s salesmanship. It’s about an ideological takeover of your own side. It’s a coup.


Still, it’s enjoyable watching Newt turn the logic of 2016 against Trump’s former chief strategist. The argument to Never Trumpers last fall was that it’s fine to have doubts about Trump but in the end defeating Democrats is the only thing that matters. Well, says Gingrich, the GOP has lots of plum opportunities to do that next year. Why waste time and money in the primaries trying to bump off literally every Republican incumbent except Ted Cruz instead of focusing on the many red-state Democrats who are ripe for the picking?

more
https://hotair.com/archives/2017/10/18/gingrich-steve-bannon-fighting-republicans-fighting-democrats/

[Bigun]

Because the current leadership of that party is every bit as big an enemy of conservatism as you can find anywhere.

[endicom]

Why waste time and money in the primaries trying to bump off literally every Republican incumbent except Ted Cruz instead of focusing on the many red-state Democrats who are ripe for the picking?

Some of this, some of that...

[Bigun]

Some of this, some of that...

   but the enemies within are the biggest danger to us IMHO!

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

  but the enemies within are the biggest danger to us IMHO!

Dear Newt:

"But what have you done for me Lately?"

Eddie Murphy

[Concerned]

It's becoming increasingly clear to me that Trump and his minions are incapable of seeing that attacking of their own party (and the party in the majority) won't help him get his agenda through Congress.
   

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

It's becoming increasingly clear to me that Trump and his minions are incapable of seeing that attacking of their own party (and the party in the majority) won't help him get his agenda through Congress.
   

Paraphrasing Jack The Joker Nicholsen

"Bob, this majority party needs an enema."

What else would you expect him to do, given that almost all of what they've given him is a raised middle finger?

[Concerned]

Paraphrasing Jack The Joker Nicholsen

"Bob, this majority party needs an enema."

What else would you expect him to do, given that almost all of what they've given him is a raised middle finger?

I would expect the self-described "great dealmaker" to actually make deals.  I just don't see how alienating the majority party helps him get his agenda passed.  It might make him feel good to lash out, but it's ultimately self-defeating IMO.

[Bigun]

I would expect the self-described "great dealmaker" to actually make deals.  I just don't see how alienating the majority party helps him get his agenda passed.  It might make him feel good to lash out, but it's ultimately self-defeating IMO.

He could do that very easily IF the deals being offered were a means to deepen or widen the swamp. Anything else is a non starter

[Concerned]

He could do that very easily IF the deals being offered were a means to deepen or widen the swamp. Anything else is a non starter

OK.  So making deals with Congress by the self-described "great dealmaker" is a "non-starter".  Hmmm.  How is alienating the majority party and the party he's supposed to be leading, helping to advance his agenda?

[DCPatriot]

Because perhaps somebody's sphincter muscle on the GOP side might twitch uncomfortably, that's why.

[Bigun]

OK.  So making deals with Congress by the self-described "great dealmaker" is a "non-starter".  Hmmm.  How is alienating the majority party and the party he's supposed to be leading, helping to advance his agenda?

When the objective is to drain the swamp the creatures residing therein will do everything possible to prevent it!  Even those who normall purport to be mortal enemies any other time.

[Concerned]

When the objective is to drain the swamp the creatures residing therein will do everything possible to prevent it!  Even those who normall purport to be mortal enemies any other time.

So when does the draining start?  The mid-terms next year?  It'll be interesting after the mid-terms to see if the Republicans have significantly greater than 52 in the Senate and significantly greater than 240 in the House because I doubt if much draining will have been done if additional Democrats get in there.  It's likely to be long, difficult year for this President legislatively if this is his primary objective.  Just another missed opportunity by this Administration.  Oh well, at least he gets to lash out at his own party.   

[kevindavis007]

Newt has a point.

[Fishrrman]

"Gingrich: Why is Steve Bannon fighting Republicans when he could be fighting Democrats?"

Because some "Republicans" -are- little more than democrat-communists with an "-R" after their names. At least their behavior seems to indicate this.

Ahem... isn't there a term that describes them quite well.... starts with R-I....?

Removing them from office is the first and essential step to "fight" the democrat-communists.

[Fantom]

Newt has a point.

Actually the answer is Dion Sanders.."Both", we can do both.  Take out the democrats in the democrat party and take out the democrats in the Republican party.

[Fantom]

"Gingrich: Why is Steve Bannon fighting Republicans when he could be fighting Democrats?"

Because some "Republicans" -are- little more than democrat-communists with an "-R" after their names. At least their behavior seems to indicate this.

Ahem... isn't there a term that describes them quite well.... starts with R-I....?

Removing them from office is the first and essential step to "fight" the democrat-communists.

To use a quote from Patton....."I'd rather have a German Division in front of me than a French one behind."
- General George S. Patton Jr

[Bigun]

Actually the answer is Dion Sanders.."Both", we can do both.  Take out the democrats in the democrat party and take out the democrats in the Republican party.

   and 

And the ones within the Republican party are the more dangerous ones in my estimation!

[Fantom]

  and 

And the ones within the Republican party are the more dangerous ones in my estimation!

Yep, a fifth column is always more dangerous than the enemy in front of you. 

[bilo]

So when does the draining start?  The mid-terms next year?  It'll be interesting after the mid-terms to see if the Republicans have significantly greater than 52 in the Senate and significantly greater than 240 in the House because I doubt if much draining will have been done if additional Democrats get in there.  It's likely to be long, difficult year for this President legislatively if this is his primary objective.  Just another missed opportunity by this Administration.  Oh well, at least he gets to lash out at his own party.   

Your wrong. Until the Pub party has party discipline there really is no reason to elect them. What's happen this year is a handful of Pubs in the Senate and more in the House failed to keep promises they've been making for years. The Pubs who sold us out were of course praised for doing so by the Rats and media. Did any of these Pubs lose committee chairmanships? Did any of these Pubs see that their campaigns would no longer be supported by the party or it's key donors. No! There were no repercussions.

So electing Pubs that are liars and cheats is not going to help drain the swamp. We have them in DC now and they aren't doing anything.

Maybe if the Pub party faces the reality that they will be a minority party for a long time if they won't follow through on their promises will get them to actually insist that their elected members actually do what they promised they would.

[bilo]

Newt has a point.

I really like Newt, but this time he's wrong.

The Pubs promised for 7 years that they would repeal obamacare and when they had the House, Senate and Presidency they didn't.

President Trump is the one who has actually done something. I will vote for him, but I won't vote for liars and cheats, or those who protect them.

[Concerned]

Your wrong. Until the Pub party has party discipline there really is no reason to elect them. What's happen this year is a handful of Pubs in the Senate and more in the House failed to keep promises they've been making for years. The Pubs who sold us out were of course praised for doing so by the Rats and media. Did any of these Pubs lose committee chairmanships? Did any of these Pubs see that their campaigns would no longer be supported by the party or it's key donors. No! There were no repercussions.

So electing Pubs that are liars and cheats is not going to help drain the swamp. We have them in DC now and they aren't doing anything.

Maybe if the Pub party faces the reality that they will be a minority party for a long time if they won't follow through on their promises will get them to actually insist that their elected members actually do what they promised they would.

Well, if the Republican Party is a “minority party for a long time”, that will certainly help the Democrats and make Trump’s life more difficult. That’s one heck of a plan.

[bilo]

Well, if the Republican Party is a “minority party for a long time”, that will certainly help the Democrats and make Trump’s life more difficult. That’s one heck of a plan.

I've seen this argument for incrementalism for over 40 years, "keep the Pubs in office and will get things done and besides the Rats would be worse". After 40 years of this what conservative gains have we seen?

Abortion? Still as bad as always and now we pay for people to get them.

Traditional marriage? That died an ugly death and along with it the idea that boys should be boys and girls should be girls.

Free market economics? We have corporate fascism more than ever.

Conservative courts? No a Pub majority SCOTUS sold out our liberty with it's obamacare ruling.

You may want to keep repeating the same mistake of electing Pubs and hoping for the best, but I don't want to participate in that insanity.