gingrich - 'legitimate insurgency in CT'

imind · 08-08-2006, 09:54 PM

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.”

link

i doubt very much the the newter(ed) meant to equate those in CT to those in iraq, but i find his choice of words telling, and i foresee conservatives referring to libs as insurgents in the very near future.

one doesn't come across it very often on this board. perhaps because it is in its infancy and membership is still pretty much controlled but, on others the vitriol felt and expressed towards libs in general has peaked. i am hoping a conservative on here can explain this hate his comrades feel.

archangel003 · 08-08-2006, 10:04 PM

I think he was being obtuse. Just maybe.

imind · 08-08-2006, 10:16 PM

Originally Posted by archangel003

I think he was being obtuse. Just maybe.

one need not look very far to find other 'obtuse' statements by many other conservatives. so, why the hate?

6SpeedTA95 · 08-08-2006, 10:17 PM

I dont think he was trying to equate them with Iraq, and I agree that his choice of words was poor, this coming from a pretty big newt fan...both of the gingrich and fig variety

Concept · 08-09-2006, 01:04 AM

Well, we can either have the 'Whoa, I'm retarded, and he's right!' thing.

Or,

We can have a George Patton like thing - he equated our political system to the Nazi's. He got PR trouble for that.

kinggovernor · 08-09-2006, 01:12 AM

he needs to stfu

thatguyoverthere · 08-09-2006, 01:33 AM

Well, if the Repubs really do go down in November, Newt is positioning himself perfectly to fill the huge holes that will be left in the party leadership, and he could very well succeed. I think a lot of Republicans will want to distance themselves from the Bush crowd, and migrate to one who looks and sounds more like a national leader with a vision. Newt has a real chance to come back and make it big.

I appreciate the prediction, and you could be right about the Dems being labeled "insurgents", but on the face of it, it sounds like a bad plan that could backfire. Maybe it will be a code word that could rile up the base, but I kinda doubt it. then again, "cut and run" is soooooo early 2006.

As to explaining the continuing hate being displayed to the libs, I'm at a loss to explain it. I hope someone can at lest take a stab at trying to figure it out.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 08-09-2006, 01:58 AM

This is the first time a Republican calls Iraq dissenters terrorist sympathisers, really, this has never been done before...

SpicyMcVoodoo · 08-09-2006, 01:59 AM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I dont think he was trying to equate them with Iraq, and I agree that his choice of words was poor

So you think it was just an unfortunate coincidence he chose a word that equates Iraq dissenters with terrorists?

Concept · 08-09-2006, 02:00 AM

I believe Newt made a mistake. Would his words not merely appeal only to those that support the war?

Which, apparently, is not a majority.

IminWonderland · 08-09-2006, 02:07 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

he needs to stfu

I'll agree with that one.

Phantom · 08-09-2006, 09:41 AM

The word choice was awesome.

the word "insurgent" perfectly describes what happened in Conn. Maybe you guys need to take another look at the definition. From dictionary.com:

in·sur·gent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-sûrjnt)
adj.
Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.

This is exactly what happened. The (legitimate) voters rebelled against the leadership of a political party. The fact that our press today labels our enemies in war with the same term is just what makes this interesting.

this word choice was brilliant IMO and anyone who attacks it publicly is going to look like a fool.

Scrum · 08-09-2006, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by Phantom

The fact that our press today labels our enemies in war with the same term is just what makes this interesting.

The press, eh?

Insurgent is not an accurate term. This was not a revolution or revolt as both of those imply a use of force. Try looking those up on dictionary.com

This is just another attemp to paint democrats as terrorist sympathizers like Spicy said.

Originally Posted by Phantom

this word choice was brilliant IMO and anyone who attacks it publicly is going to look like a fool.

Yeah ok

6SpeedTA95 · 08-09-2006, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

So you think it was just an unfortunate coincidence he chose a word that equates Iraq dissenters with terrorists?

No, I think he was chosing to use strong words to make a point, not to compare them with terrorist in Iraq. It was a bad choice of words as I stated in my first post.

6SpeedTA95 · 08-09-2006, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by Phantom

The word choice was awesome.

the word "insurgent" perfectly describes what happened in Conn. Maybe you guys need to take another look at the definition. From dictionary.com:

This is exactly what happened. The (legitimate) voters rebelled against the leadership of a political party. The fact that our press today labels our enemies in war with the same term is just what makes this interesting.

this word choice was brilliant IMO and anyone who attacks it publicly is going to look like a fool.

I still think its a bad choice of words, like when Motivez called the president a terrorist. Yeah maybe it fits the definition but todays cultural definition is different and thats something you have to consider especially if you're a public figure.

Phantom · 08-09-2006, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

THe press, eh?

Insurgent is not an accurate term. This was not a revolution or revolt as both of those imply a use of force. Try looking those up on dictionary.com

This is just another attemp to paint democrats as terrorist sympathizers like Spicy said.

Yeah ok

I don't understand why insurgent is not an accurate term. I pasted the definition from dictionary.com and it fits perfectly.

Revolution or revolt are might be words that you associate both with the use of force and the term insurgent, but that comes from a misunderstanding of the meaning of insurgent. There is nothing violent implied by Newt's remark. In fact, he went beyond what was called for when he specifically labelled the voters as a legitimate insurgency - they did nothing immoral or illegal, since they acted well within accepted practices.

The "attempt to paint demcrats" comes from a misunderstanding of the word choices and that's what makes this so clever...

motivez · 08-09-2006, 10:07 AM

Because the definition in the mind of the public is not one that's a positive term.. it's linked to Iraq, to the death of our soldiers, to "weakness"

It might be accurate, but that doesn't mean it should be used. He knows that there is a negative connotation assosciated with the word, and that's expressly why it was used..

Phantom · 08-09-2006, 10:13 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

Because the definition in the mind of the public is not one that's a positive term.. it's linked to Iraq, to the death of our soldiers, to "weakness"

It might be accurate, but that doesn't mean it should be used. He knows that there is a negative connotation assosciated with the word, and that's expressly why it was used..

the we agree, except you think it was underhanded, and I think it was clever.

I'm curious who is going to be the first to come out and publicly attack him for this. It obviously a trap, and someone always falls for this stuff.

Scrum · 08-09-2006, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by Phantom

The "attempt to paint demcrats" comes from a misunderstanding of the word choices and that's what makes this so clever...

Rebellion and revolt certainly mean a use of force.
He chose his words on purpose and you just admitted as much.

Scrum · 08-09-2006, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by Phantom

the we agree, except you think it was underhanded, and I think it was clever.

I'm curious who is going to be the first to come out and publicly attack him for this. It obviously a trap, and someone always falls for this stuff.

Is he going to bust out the dictionary to defend himself.

A member of the high school debate team could get out of his "trap". It wasn't clever.