Four Reasons Why Conservatives Should Think Twice About Gingrich
With the New Hampshire Union Leader’s endorsement of Newt Gingrich as well as Gingrich’s rise in the polls, the former speaker has the momentum in the race for the White House, but is this a good thing?
Speaker Gingrich has many commendable points. He’s skilled at crafting conservative policy proposals and he is an accomplished debater and proponent of conservative ideas. Gingrich also deserves credit for working with President Clinton to pass welfare reform, and some credit for the balanced budgets that existed prior to 9/11. Conservatives remember Gingrich fondly for leading the GOP to victory with the Contract with America.
However, things did not go so well once Gingrich was in office. His troubled tenure from 1995-99 (which he at one point compared to being prime minister) as well as his post-speakership career raise several red flags that conservatives would be wise to consider:
1) Big Spending and Earmarks:
While Gingrich was speaker, Congress and the president balanced the budget. This did not come about through hard choices, but rather through a booming economy. As the information age dawned and the dotcom boom began, government coffers surged with revenues.
As part of the balanced budget agreement, Congress put in place spending caps. With the surge of revenue, Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott decided to break the spending caps that had been put in place in the balanced budget agreement and increased federal spending. This practice was continued under Gingrich’s successor, Dennis Hastert. The predictable result of the Republican Congress’ profligacy on spending was that once the dotcom bubble burst and economic growth slowed, the only way that Congress could afford to continue the increases they’d made in the good years of the economy was to run up deficits.
Gingrich’s speakership was dealt a telling blow as a result of his ineptness in negotiating the FY1999 budget which was passed a month before the 1998 elections and increased spending without delivering any major tax reductions. Then-Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) said voters complained to him that nobody read the bill and “the president (Clinton) got virtually everything he wanted.”
One part of Gingrich’s legacy that remained long after he left was the expanded role of earmarks in congressional politics. Gingrich doubled the number of earmarks in Congress and his office sent out memos encouraging the use of earmarks for protecting vulnerable members of Congress. The number of earmarks would eventually increase to 14,000 per year and would lead to the end of the Republican majority. While the greatest excesses did not occur during Gingrich’s speakership, the first steps toward the Republican train wreck of 2006 were taken during Gingrich’s tenure.
2) Dysfunctional Leadership and Failed Communicator:
If conservatives want lasting victories, they need to survive politically and communicate to the public well. During the government shutdown in 1995-96, Gingrich and the House Republicans failed to formulate an effective response to the Democratic message. Gingrich’s inexplicable statement that President Clinton failed to give him proper seating on Air Force One to a state funeral for Yitzhak Rabin only made the problems worse. Gingrich’s approval rating shrunk to a toxic 20% in the polls as a result of this failure.
Gingrich’s speakership led to a historic lack of confidence from Republican leaders and the rank and file. In 1997, nine Republican members of the House refused to support Gingrich’s re-election to the speakership and the GOP leadership rallied barely enough votes to keep Gingrich in office. In July of that year, Gingrich faced a coup from his top lieutenants that collapsed due to incompetence. After the 1998 elections, Gingrich was forced to step aside.
3) Washington Insider:
Gingrich does not shy away from being a Washington insider. He responded to criticism of his work for Freddie Mac and the Washington insider label by stating that we need to elect someone who knows how Washington works in order to change Washington.
Conservatives have reason to be wary of this idea for a number of reasons, not the least of which is Gingrich’s flawed record as speaker, suggesting that his success at changing Washington has been slipshod at best, and that his career tendency has been to go along rather than address tough issues when called for.
In an October debate, while Gingrich lauded Herman Cain for proposing his 9-9-9 tax plan, Gingrich cautioned, “Change on this scale takes years to think through if you’re going to do it right.” It’s worth noting that sixteen years ago, Gingrich appointed Cain to Jack Kemp’s tax commission and since then several other tax reform commissions have been appointed. How many more years do we need to “think through” tax reform until we actually do something significant? It is standard Washington tactics to kick big issues down the road for others to deal with, and Gingrich is too big a part of that system to change it.
4) Betraying Conservatives on Key Issues:
Newt Gingrich threw himself into backing liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava while conservatives and tea party groups were rallying around Conservative Doug Hoffman. Gingrich scolded conservative activists for backing Hoffman. Hoffman, for his part, is forgiving of the whole thing and urges Republicans not to hold Gingrich’s action against him. While this is kind of Mr. Hoffman, conservatives would do well to ignore the advice because Gingrich’s belligerent defense of Scozzafava is part of a larger pattern of key betrayals of conservative interests.
While Gingrich was speaker, he and the NRCC were notorious for backing liberal Republicans over conservatives. For example, in 1997, Gingrich recruited liberal state Assemblyman Brook Firestone and supported him over conservative Tom Bordonaro in a special congressional election. Primary voters in the district rejected Firestone as well as Gingrich and company’s attempts to play kingmaker.
In addition to endorsements for liberal Republicans, Gingrich has been more than willing to endorse liberal causes. Among examples of this are the famous ad of him sitting on a couch with Nancy Pelosi calling for government action to address climate change and his letter in support of Bush’s immigration reform, which many conservatives labeled amnesty. When Gingrich opposes conservatives, he tends to do it in a very dramatic way that’s very belligerent to conservatives who disagree with him.
Conservatives betting on Gingrich have to hope that something has changed Gingrich over the past thirteen years that will transform him into someone who can not only talk about conservative ideas, but can implement conservative solutions. Given the totality of the Gingrich record, this is a bad bet.
Every bit of this is true, and we Conservatives know it. Sadly, it looks like Gingrich will be the nominee, at this point, since it looks like Cain is about to drop out.
Seriously, at this point, Bachmann seems the best choice. The things she has been saying lately have been very solid. She has matured recently. She is worth another look. I just wonder if she has the time to recover.
From the Nov 12 foreign policy debate:
“PELLEY: That is time. Thank you. Representative Bachmann, do you think the 30,000 surge troops in Afghanistan have made a difference, and if so, where?
BACHMANN: They absolutely have, but it’s unfortunate, the request was made for 40,000 troops. President Obama dithered for approximately two months, when he should have given the full complement of 40,000 troops. When he gave 30,000 troops to the effort in Afghanistan, that meant that a decision had to be made. With 40,000 troops, they could have conducted the war going into the southern province in Helmand and also going into the eastern province and dealing with the problem all at once and coming to victory that much sooner and bringing our troops home.
When 30,000 troops were given, then our troops did the very best that they could by going into the south and dealing in the Helmand Province. We actually have seen improvement down by Kandahar. That’s a very good thing. And that’s because of the brave actions by our men and women in that area. However, we have to recognize, now President Obama has made a very fatal decision in Afghanistan. He’s made the decision that by next September, our troops will be withdrawn. If that is the case, how do we expect any of our allies to continue to work with us? How can we even begin to seek the peace with the Hikani Network that are in the eastern regions?”
And:
“GARRETT: Congressman– congresswoman Bachmann, your opinion on this question that our emailer asked.
BACHMANN: “If I were president, I would be willing to use waterboarding. I think it was very effective. It gained information for our country. And I– and I also would like to say that today, under Barack Obama, he is allowing the A.C.L.U. to run the C.I.A. You need to understand that today, when we interdict a terrorist on the battlefield, we have no jail for them.
We have nowhere to take them. We have no C.I.A. interrogations anymore. It is as though we have decided we want to lose in the War on Terror under President Obama. That’s not my strategy. My strategy will be that the United States will be victorious in the War on Terror.”
Gingrich has been boosted by the multitude of debates. He is the ultimate policy wonk, and so, the debates play to his strengths. It makes his campaign seem more viable than it really is.
Oh well, if he is the nominee, I’ll vote for him. (sigh)
If you think that Bachmann’s answers on WaterBoarding are solid, then I feel sorry for you. The Establishment Republican position on torture is reprehensible. The idea that you could torture 100 people in hopes of getting 1 person to answer a question is sick. 99 innocent people being tortured is too high a price.
Terrorists and their supporters are not innocents.
From what I’ve read, only THREE people were water-boarded, and they – KSM in particular – provided a wealth of actionable intelligence.
The US waterboarded 3 count em 3 people
Terrorists plant bombs on childen; behead captives and have no reguard for human life.
Yet your worried about waterboarding you PC looser ?
This is the politically correct attitude that is killing our defense capabilities. Assume you support the OWS, gun control and the redistribution of wealth too.
Visit with the family of a fallen hero in the military and THAN tell them your against a method that could have saved their son’s/daughters life in the name of Political Correctness
Lets me honest. Are we really excited about Newt? NO! Is he a good executive and manager? No! Is he really presidential and a sound rebuplican? No! What we like about Newt is that he is a great debater and he will give Obama the difficult attack that almost no one has dared to do the past three years. OK I said it. We have been screaming at the TV set for too long wondering why these nit wits never ask the obvious questions of the great one. We wonder night after night as we watch liberal monitors attempt to humiliate us at every turn. So now we want pay back and we want someone to finally go after the real “enemy”. Yes that guy who wanted to “transform” this great country to a third world tyranny of socialists.
That is what we want. Newt will do this like no one else. Does this mean he is qualified to be President? No! But anyone on the stage is better than what we have now by a long shot. This Newt strategy will
WIN the election. Once this is done we can worry about controlling Newt’s ego impulses.
If anyone thinks that there will actually be a presidential candidate debate where the republican nominee will be able to face off against Mr HopenChange, then they’re not thinking clearly. If, by some stroke of luck it should actually happen, any/all attacks on current policy will be squelched by the moderator and even yelled down…which when I think about it, would be a very revealing occurrence.
But while the republican candidate gets questions of A-grade difficulty (“Why do you hate poor people?/Why do you hate Mexicans?”) Obama will get questions like, “How has staying in the white house enabled you to better give the poor what they need?” and other little fizzers like that. In other words, like everything else, any debate will be a sideshow, not a true representation of idea vs. idea, etc. The left will make it a farce and the media will then tout Obama’s “clear victory” the next day.
So don’t count on Newt being able to shut down Obama in any way, much as we’d all like to see it happen.
Tommy Gunn:
I’m in accord with your assessment. Newt has fire in his belly and I don’t see it as strong with any of the others. His nearest competition is Romney, who is not as tough as Newt, rather bland to be frank about it.
As for Newt’s ego, I prefer it to Obama’s ego. Newt does not apologize for America, I believe he loves his country. Obama we know doesn’t love America.
Comparing his characteristics to Obama’s is an eclipse in favor of Newt.
OK, I get it, Gingrich isn’t perfect. Who is?
Show me someone better who is running.
Romney? Really? Guy isn’t Republican or Conservative. He’s a suit with nice hair.
Paul? Comes off as the crazy uncle you see once a year at Thanksgiving. Has a completely unrealistic military and foreign affairs stance.
Cain? I like the guy, but he can’t get elected if every other day some woman accuses him of something. And they aren’t all lying, are they?
Perry? I want to like him, I really do. But he says dumb things. He’s kinda like Romney, a suit and nice hair, but he’s from Texas so thats OK.
Bachmann? She’s crazy. And not very bright.
Palin? I like her. But she’s not committed to it.
Huntsman? Who?
Come on, can’t you people come up with a single candidate worth a damn? We can’t send Obumma back to Chicago next year with the current crowd. That loser is gonna be re-elected and we’ll blame everyone but ourselves for it.
This candidate assessment is slick but simplistic. Not necessarily criticizing; it seems everyone speaks/thinks in sound bytes these days. The human brain IS lazy and prefers things easy (plain ol’ biology — spending or saving resources).
I admit I still like Cain, but realize at this point he’s out. Yes, I think all the allegations are unreliable, esp. this last one. The woman said they had a 13 yr. affair. When Cain pointed out she included the almost 2 yrs. he was fighting for his life w/cancer, she quickly backtracked: “ON & OFF for 13 yrs.”
I guess what I’m saying here is if Cain is going to drown in maybes and ifs, how much harder will it be, esp. for women of ANY political stripe, to vote for Newt with his right-out-there “can’t keep it in my pants, and I believe my own publicity”? Then his (pardon me) piss-poor excuse about how he was just so busy & focused on the country? We all make mistakes — a big “I’M SORRY! and I’ve learned” would’ve been better, particularly since he kept repeating the same mistake. This makes me deeply uneasy. Yes, it seems to be on the personal level, but at some point the political/personal are a huge part of the mix.
As an Independent, will I vote for Newt if he’s the candidate? Yes; anything to get rid of The One. But not energetically or w/enthusiasm. Repubs. need to realize they really DO need to make a bigger tent. So many labeled “in the middle” would vote to the right immed. & always if the social issues could move out of the spotlight and focus almost exclusively on the fiscal & monetary issues. That’s the main thing — when you threaten the rice bowl, everyone responds the same way: “What, mine? NO, you can’t have more of MY money!” It’s when the carrot becomes a stick that problems crop up, and that’s the social stuff. (yes, I’m not naive, I also realize fiscal/social at some point become one & the same)
I’m not terribly happy w/Romney either, but he’d be my choice, and look to the Congress to keep him in check. At least he won’t be bowing to kiss heinie every damn day, depending on how the wind blows or what side of the bed he got up on.
Did you “blackout” the man running second in polls in Iowa?
This comment is from left field: ” We do not need a career politician.”
Isn’t that what Gingrich is- a ‘career politician?”
The fact that we have politicians that have been in congress for 20 years is not necessarily a bad thing. Politicans need to have some kind of expertise on foreing policy and an even greater understanding of the Constitution and the nerve and the patriotism to stand by it. Newt has the experience but not the patritosm or the nerve to buck establishment pressures from think tanks to go pure constitutionalist.In fact he has joined the think tankers to push an internationalist agenda and dump the Constitution.
Newt is the original champion in Congress for the anti-American GATT, NAFTA, Most Favored Trade status for Red China. Those three Newt deals have hurt our economy via trade deficits and exportation of manufacturingoff shores.
NAFTA was not free trade but favored trade to foreigners. From GATT (General Agreement on Trades and Tariffs) came the world Trade Organization whose bureaucracy regulates our trade policy. Congress has been shoved aside against the explicit responsibility that the Constitution places in the legislative branch.
Newt is indeed anti-Constitution and pro-international bureaucracies of the unelected. The managed trade bureaucrats are unaccountable to no one but to their bosses. Newt places no concern on the people that must bow low to internationalism in order to do business.
NAFTA is counter US national interests but that apparently is okay with Newt:http://thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary-mainmenu-43/7800-real-conservatives-oppose-nafta
I liked Gingrich from the beginning. I like Gingrich now, and I will like Gingrich in the primaries. Stop pushing Romney. I didn’t like Romney 4 years ago, I didn’t like Romney this year, and I won’t like Romney in the primaries.
Adam, you left out that Romney has more electable hair than Newt.
This, ununderstandable insistence that a person, politician or otherwise, cannot change from past errors, mistakes, outright sins etc. is hypocritical and downright dishonest by all parties. I am saying this from personal experience. When I was 20, I voted for Jimmy Carter because I believed he was honest. I learned that being honest does not necessarily make a good president. The only people I have discovered to be not normal are the ones who were and still are self-righteous. While I didn’t like Romney or Gingrich in their past, I am now open to both of them and I am starting to open up to their message because a person who has learnt from their past mistakes is actually the better person for it.
I agree with your general premise about people learning from their mistakes. Gingrich and Perry have very publicly admitted to past mistakes. Romney???
“If conservatives want lasting victories, they need to survive politically and communicate to the public well. During the government shutdown in 1995-96, Gingrich and the House Republicans failed to formulate an effective response to the Democratic message.”
Thankfully, there is more than the propaganda wing of the Democrat party in the media these days. Do you think Clinton and his allies in the MSM would have been so successful in their portrayal of Newt and the Republicans if there was an alternate point of view to the propaganda wing of the Democrat party?
I could deconstruct this post point by point but then this response would be way to long =/
Newt is an SOB. We need an SOB. A nice conservative, who assumes the media is nice or the democrats are nice wont get it done.
Your RIGHT ON THE MONEY
Chastise the press for gotchya questions; loaded questions and wide spread ignorance from the MSM. Thats one of NGs strenghts
(Warning! This may be considered “adult content”, and not suitable for all readers).
Oh, no! You found some brown spots in Newts underwear!
As if no one else has never had any. But, according to the CMA (Communist Media of America), it’s less condemning than sperm stains.
Newt’s better than any of the breast feeding juvenile felons the Democrats have put in power to suck the life out of America and it’s Citizens.
Until you pass legislation that makes it a felony to have “earmarks’, “insider trading”, “lobbyists”, “nepotism”, and belonging to the “good ol’ boy network”, Washington politics will never change. You’re just peeing into the tent from the outside.
Whomever gets the Presidency will be subject to the “Balance of Powers” as Prince Obama is now. The obvious difference will be that Newt will respect that balance unlike the Prince of Incompetence we now have as CEO of his “good ol’ boy network”.
You have enumerated several items that can be applied to ALL candidates. When that is done, Newt still comes out on top.
The reason I would never vote for Gingrich is that he is the Godfather of NAFTA–without his stint as Speaker would not have passed IMO in 1994. Collusion between Newt and Bill Clinton to sell-out America. And that’s what we’re living with today.
As a bemused independent and a political junkie, this HAS to be the most amazing Republican primary ever! After this, perhaps should forget debates, go back to smoke-filled rooms (well skip the cigarettes, but you get the idea) to come up with a few candidates, have a June convention, and then an exciting few days of allowing delegates in attendance to make the decision.
I don’t think ANYBODY can survive today’s lengthy, intrusive, ruthless campaign without looking ridiculous or made to be so on one of the evening comic shows and totally disillusioning, wasting all that enthusiasm, for the voters.
Gingrich won’t do any better than Cain in this matter (go Google “Vanity Fair Gingrich” and you’ll see what I mean–articles dating back to the 90s quoting various ex-wives).
But it isn’t only lurid stuff, it’s his PERSONALITY and character. Newt fascinates me because he can talk in long paragraphs, wonderful sentences endlessly. Someone I once knew characterized this talent as being able to “put his brain in neutral and let his tongue idle.” And that’s when he comes out with the statements that so bother conservatives–talking as he’s thinking of all sides. Actually, as someone who believes that Ryan budget bill passed by Republican House ending Medicare as we know it for age 54 and under guarantees Obama will win, I think his mild remark that Ryan’s bill was perhaps too extreme? was right on–good pragmatic political thinking. He was trying to head off party suicide.
But it is EXACTLY that kind of rumination spoken out loud (and he talks A LOT) that scares conservatives. I almost think the Conservatives are unsatisfiable and not meant for this real world in a 2-party system. Democrats have same problem with unsatisfiable left. They both belong in one of the European style systems where there’s 4-5 parties and then you get to participate in a coalition government to use your clout.
Help may be on the way! There’s Americans Elect, which is most likely to elect a populist IF huge numbers of people participate. Then we’ll have a 3 way race of Obama, Gingrich or Romney saying staunchly conservative things whether they believe them or not, and the AE candidate (I’m hoping it will be Buddy Roemer).
FINALLY, Conservatives will get the race they want and we’ll see how that works for them. I anticipate will be crushing defeat. Country MAY be conservative but they want their SS and their medicare. Conservatives want to be consistent (as do liberals) but PEOPLE are notoriously INCONSISTENT.
Free trade is a GOOD thing. It eliminates inefficiencies in our economy, driving down prices for capital and consumer goods. We need more free trade, not less. Was NAFTA perfect, no, but it’s a hell of a lot better than the restrictive policies in place in those countries and ours before NAFTA.
Ha! Funny! Using ex-wives for character references. That’ll work.
When you really want to get into someone’s underwear, they know all the stains, holes, and wrinkles.
Why hasn’t the CMA (Communist Media of America) paid off a parish priest to divulge all the details of their confessions yet?
Stay tuned!
ADAM LOVES ROMNEY. End of story. Would Adam care to debate Newt ?
Regardless of which RINO R ends up with the nomination, as POTUS it would require constant vigilance to keep these “Big Government” RINO front runners in line as none of the front runners are even faintly close to being conservative outside of their puking out lies in their attempt to get the nomination. Having said the preceding; of the front runners, Newt is the closest to being conservative based on his legislative record. But, the reality is that’s not saying much.
I don’t think Romney is capable of learning from his mistakes on a fundamental level. Concrete bound mistakes? Yes he can probably learn from them. But anyone who can declare that socialized medicine can be good for a state but bad for a nation is not thinking in terms of fundamental principles. Having been taught by his professors that truth is determined by popular vote instead of correspondence to reality, Romney will bend to whatever popular wind is blowing at any given moment. He’s already demonstrated that if being in favor of socialist principles like RomneyCare will get him what he wants, he will do it. Conversely, if being in favor of individualist and Constitutional principles works for him now, he’ll swing that way as he is doing.
If it comes down to a choice of Obama or Romney then Americans must make sure they vote for more Constitutional conservatives in congress so they, congress, may put a leash on Romney’s progressive proclivities.
Regardless of which RINO R ends up with the nomination, as POTUS it would require constant vigilance to keep these “Big Government” RINO front runners in line as none of the front runners are even faintly close to being conservative outside of their puking out lies in their attempt to get the nomination. Having said the preceding; of the front runners, Newt is the closest to being conservative based on his legislative record. But, the reality is that’s not saying much. It does seem that any R getting the R nomination since Reagan has to be a Liberal leaning R (RINO). And the R’s wonder why they get kicked to the curb after serving to give the Democrats everything they ask for…traitors all (d’s and R’s)?
This article is all true, of course, but an article such as this could be written about any of the Republican front runners. I wonder how much of the problem is attributable to Neoconservatism. Probably not quite all, but is Gingrich hoping to be the philosopher king? (I’m refering to the book by Thompson and Brook.) I hope not, but I’ll vote for any of the Republican candidates over Obama. Any of them!
There is no perfect candidate. But after Obama, I’d vastly prefer a committed actor than a smooth talker. For this reason, I still prefer Perry to all the other candidates. Yes, hes made speaking gaffes. But he’s proven himself committed to policies that this country needs, such as less government, loser pays tort reform, relatively freer markets, lower taxes and fewer regulations. Gingrich and Romney both have spotty records on those issues.
That said, I hope everyone will agree that whoever wins among the Republican candidates, that candidate will promote a more conservative, less radical agenda than will Obama, and vote for the Republican on that basis. It always amazes and depresses me when someone who’s conservative says they’ll vote for a third party candidate to protest that the Republican choice does not sufficiently approached perfection. Such reactions are a politically unsophisticated, emotional response which can only lead to 4 more years of Obama [shudder].
Let’s not make things too complex. Fight all you want, but when the nomination process is through even if your choice doesn’t win, don’t take your eye of the only thing that really matters – moving the community activist for President back to the ‘hood.
Neither Romney or Gingrich are my choice of excellent candidate, though both do somethings with excellence. And both are far more effective debaters than the supposed orator of time, Barack Obama. There is no excuse this time in the debates. Barack Obama has strung together the most dismal performance of a sitting President since Jimmy Carter.
Personally, I am far happier this year with the two choices than I was in 2008.
Let’s not tear down either candidate. Let the best man win the debates, and pray that either can defeat that dangerously inept, empty suit of a Euro socialist wannabee. Can you imagine the damage that could ensue if Barack Obama were to be able to run unencumbered without the worry of getting reelected? At the very least, nothing would get accomplished for four year with Barack Obama as President. And I am afraid, we are running out of time.
“Personally, I am far happier this year with the two choices than I was in 2008.”
Absolutely. People, including myself, need to be reminded of that.
I think that the Tea Party should have their own candidate and I think it should be Sarah Palin. The Republicans and the Democrats are all in cahoots together… John Boehner makes a good example. It is time for a viable 3rd Party to take over.
“THROW THEM ALL OUT!”
Was Newt helped by the economic situation when he and the fellow Republicans passed the balanced budget? Sure – but they still passed it, and in the face of multiple Presidential vetoes, which is why I never give Clinton any credit.
Yes, Newt has his issues, and they are many, but he’s also managed to stay in Washington while remaining fairly principled and still effective at trying to move towards better government – which does occasionally entail reaching across the aisle. It means he has a colored history, granted. But he’s the only candidate who has real solutions to pretty much every issue out there.
yep.
Newt isn’t perfect. Romney isn’t either.
But, kind of like life, you don’t have an infinite variety of choices. Actually, in this case, you have three: Newt, Mitt or Barack.
It’s beyond clear to me that Newt is the most conservative choice and the best communicator of the principles I favor. I can live with a checkered history. Name a politician in the age of 1 second communications who has made a difference over three or four decades who doesn’t have some weaknesses.
But I can be happy with Romney if he gets the nomination because I think he also has a good chance to defeat the most dangerous person on the planet since Mao died. Since I can prioritize, that’s what I really care about.
Prioritize…exactly..
I have preferences, and I support a more hard core conservative message in the primaries..but I want Obama OUT most of all, so at the moment Newt is, IMHO, the most conservative-ish candidate CAPABLE of winning.
The Game Plan should be:
1) Get the top slot onto “our side” of the asile first and foremost, I dont CARE who it is…
2) Getting the most electable “conservative” is a very close second priority
3) Lots and lots of Angry Tea Party-esque coat-tails filling up the lower slots nationwide…
A President can only pass the bills that are brought to him, the more conservative the house and senate, the more conservative the legislation will be to start with.
There is a big difference between a liberal “veto avoidence” bill given to a RINO, and an actual CONSERVATIVE bill given to the same RINO.
Yes, we need to win the Presidency, but lets not blow it arguing over the Perfect Conservative…there is too much at stake.
Anyone but Newt. For those of who you think he is the best option how many times will you be had by this guy. His whole strategy is to go to the right of his opponents in elections and then veer a hard left and start wheeling and dealing with the taxpayers money. He has done this time and again. Instead of calling it the best available option let’s call it triangulation and move on to someone who may disappoint us all a lot less.
I see that you cleverly didn’t suggest any candidates to replace Gingrich. Kinda weakens your argument.
Listen you people, if the republicans nominate a can on tuna you better vote for it!!!!! 4 more years of Obama will destroy this country!!!
There is nothing that Gingrich could do that begins to compare with the rotten, corrupt criminal enterprise that Obama operates.
Some pretty weak and stretched criticisms. Criticism for criticism sake?
The budget was balanced because of the booming economy? Or was it vice verse? Or maybe it was because welfare reform took people off the dole and put them to wok? Or maybe if you check the growth figures the economy was just growing and not “booming.”
Then again, maybe the budget was brought into balance due to an absence of deficit spending.
Cal, I was starting to think that every commenter here was as stupid as the author. I had to follow the path through his bonafides to find out that he holds an AA “degree” from Flathead Valley Community College. Fascinating stuff they’re pouring into the minds of the young there.
One need go no further than his first claim that Newt deserves SOME of the credit for welfare reform. Newt deserves ALL of the credit for reforming the welfare system. Clinton fought him the whole way, and few others helped. William Jefferson Blythe deserves credit for the wisdom of signing the bill when Newt held the political gun to his head, and Morris told Blythe that either his signature or his political brains would be on it. As for the balanced budgets, does anyone in their right mind think that ANY democrat had ANYTHING to do with those budgets? It’s a huge gold star for Newt. Newt was the obstacle to deficit spending.
Of course Adam can be forgiven for not knowing these things. He’s not old enough to remember any of them, and he’s not educated enough to devine the gold from the dross. He is however guilty of opening his mouth and removing all doubt.
All anybody has to think about when casting a vote for President next time is, how Congress and Obama ignored the American Citizens with their ObamaCare;
Spent YOUR MONEY any way they wanted on lavish vacations;
Supported union protestors that wanted to attack the “rich” and “wealthy” that EARNED their wealth and riches;
Undermined OUR military and the traditional American Dream for their own socialist agenda;
Promoted more membership in the Welfare Class.
If this isn’t enough to make you vote for anyone other than Obama, then just think what Obama will do with four more years where he won’t be distracted by his favorite past time; Campaigning for office. He’ll devote all his time and effort to destroying anything left of any remnants of the “American Dream” and ingenuity.
OUR Justice Department has been compromised, so you can forget about any “justice” for this administrations transgressions. The Supreme Court is now just as compromised as the Justice Department.
There is no more “Balance of Power” under the current regime, so if you are not one of the favored lackeys, you are on your own, and will be discarded like a piece of trash unless you have enough money to bail yourself out.
And I haven’t even mentioned the Presidential Pardons possible for Obama to spend as recklessly as he has spent the taxpayers money, which will be as devastating as the prison dumps California has made.
Mr. Graham I agree with you that all the GOP candidates need 2,3 even 4 rounds of scrutiny. I even agree that the conservative you hope appears on the seen would oppose any liberal ideas and offer gridlock whenever necessary,but how would feel about the chances of such a persons getting elected? I’m liking Newt for the spot because he appears the most conservative of the bunch.
OK, I agree Mr. Graham. So what.
Newt and Mitt are both establishment Republicans, either RINOs or RINOs in the making, Between the RNC and that other group started by Karl Rove, American Crossroads, the Republican party is basically split already.
With Cain off the rails we have Paul, Bachmann and Santorum.
The best tactic is to stick with your choice in the primaries until that choice drops out then fully support someone else until there is only one left. Then bludgeon O’traitor in Nov 2012.
IMHO Bachmann and Santorum are more TEA party likeable than the rest.
The negativity is maddening. Obama doesn’t need a billion dollars; we’ll do all the work for him. Why don’t we all just re-elect him and get it over with then?
Whatever Gingrich’s attributes one ought not be forgotten. We hiss at Beltway Insiders but that name contains basic truth. Politicians are members of a private exclusive club of like-minded persons. Persons who desire power: soft or hard over the lives of others, whatever they say to become members. This is a reality that ought not be dismissed.
Agreement in general is part of club membership. When disagreements to means and ends among club members are made public we the observers are given only that information these privileged members deem appropriate. That back-room again.
We do know from experience that disagreements often, too often, end in what is called compromise, a word for charade. A gull for the ignorant masses that something has been done for their benefit. The socalled Democratic members, conjoined with Republican RINOS – openly or cooperative with ruling members ends as the most egregious in these “compromises”.
Unfortunately the dignity and rights of Americans are easily dismissed by Beltway Insiders in their evident contempt for the American voter as ignorant, easily gulled, tactically distracted, and unwilling to hold their representatives to their contracts, signed by their oaths of office on accepting representation. People elected over and over again by the Americans. As if they neither know nor care that the fate of the USA is in their own hands.
It is essential that Obama and his team with their ends/means are removed. It is unfortunate the slate of those considered for the cleaning of the Augean Stables in Washington contains no Hercules. But necesssary to remember that the socalled Democratic Party is in full flow to the final destruction of America as the land of free and self-governeing citizens.
“Is anybody there? Does anybody care?”
Even if Gingrich wasn’t a NWO/Globalist/Council on Foreign Relations member, I still wouldn’t vote for him.
Problem is no one else in the field comes close to Gingrich with respect to the appearance, real or not, of political stature, experience and his command of the issues. However unlikely, should Obama ever agree to a debate Newt will eat him for lunch. Will these past excursions off the Conservative reservation be used to pillory him in the media? Probably but will Romney or Cain fare any better? Probably not.
I’m in the camp of who is most likely to whip Obama, badly, not who is the most vocally Conservative because there is not one such in the current crop of likely nominees. With the exception of Newt they’re all too busy bashing each other and mouthing political platitudes designed to be as innocuous as possible with respect to who they will be running against; Obama. The cause of the instantaneous rise in the polls of Trump, Cain and Perry is an indication of the strong desire of the voting public for someone, anyone who’ll step up and call the proverbial spade a spade, no racial pun intended. Unless and until that individual appears Newt may be the best we can get.
I’m going to vote for someone who has some kind of experience in business. As many have said in this election cycle “It’s the ECONOMY, stupid”. We do not need a career politician, we do not need a Beltway snake oil salesman nor do we need a Maoist, Fascist, Communist, nor do we need a serial philanderer.
I want someone in charge that understands that the business of the country is business, that Congress and Czars and government bureaucrats DO NOT create jobs. Business and roughly 75+% of those are small businesses, create jobs. It’s time to elect someone who understands that and is experienced enough to put together a qualified team to start working our way back from the abyss.
It would also be nice if we could find someone who understands the ideas of loyalty, integrity and keeping promises as well as someone who doesn’t feel the need to savage those who don’t agree with him/her.
That man is NOT Gingrich or Perry or of course Bachman. All are career politicians, the first two aren’t really Conservatives and the third is simply not experienced enough in business or politics.
I remember how much I detested Newtie when he was in Congress and,every once in a while he siips and lets that enormous ego show. He’s had a few years to participate in transgressions and the Dems probably have all of them listed complete with references and video or oral tapes. I used to teach gifted kids who had an IQ of 140 oar higher. A few of them rested on that score and thought it would bring them love, fame, and fortune…..they were all wrong. As I suspected, they were very glib good test takers and, while it may impress relatives with their genius, the rest of society sees through them.
Sadly we are still faced with a bunch of lackluster candidates running on the Republican ticket. I have the following questions for them to make a flat out answer, either yes you will deport illegal aliens, or no, you will allow them to stay in this country illegally.
1. As the newly elected President, are you going to deport illegal aliens or not?
2. What is your plan to get the nation financial situation in?
3. What is your plan to get American’s back to work?
4. Do you believe in a flat 20% tax for every American, or have you considered doing away with taxes altogether?
Newt will never, and CAN never, win the general election. He is a great debater, but that’s it. He’ll skewer and slaughter, outmaneuver and out-articulate the Anointed One during the campaigns, but, like a boxing match, some people will start feeling sorry for the bruised and outgunned rival.
Gingrich can never win the independent vote, the Hispanic vote, the African-American vote, the women vote, the youth vote. So there you have it — that’s an incredibly sizeable chunk right there. Let’s be honest and realistic– he looks old and tired. In 2008, a lot of people voted for the Obama because they perceived McCain as too old when you compare the two. Additionally, Gingrich is as arrogant and self-promoting as Obama. We don’t need another arrogant jerk who lectures people and doesn’t listen to anyone, after 4 years of the current White House occupier.
Romney is the only GOP candidate who can win the general election, whether you like it or not, and whether you want to accept that or not. Gingrich IS a Washington insider; Romney is not. And Romney has run private sector businesses and actually created jobs, besides having executive experience as a Governor and when he ran the US Olympic Committe. We need someone in the White House who is about fixing the economy and creating jobs — not another divisive and polarizing figure like Obama. He’s also solid in the family values discussion and doesn’t have any of those skeletons and baggage, so during the campaign, all the damage that the lame stream media can dig up is regarding policy, ideology and what he did as Governor. Gingrich has way too many
baggage, dirty laundry and skeletons. Take it from this independent-minded minority female conservative: Romney can, and will, beat Obama. Gingrich will lose against Obama then America will be on its way to becoming the next Europe. How utterly sad if that happens…if you let that happen. Don’t be foolish and stubborn — listen to logic, reason and common sense. Let it be Romney versus Hussein because Romney will destroy Obama beyond the debates.
It’s Gingrich Time!
All things come to those who wait and now it’s Gingrich’s turn. With the race for the Republican nomination for president seemingly narrowed to a pack of two, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, it was time for the Obama attack team to zero in on Newt since he has been waxing of late and Mitt has been stagnating.
Adhering to the military strategy of focusing on offing the leader, the Obamians have been dismantling the front runner until he is beaten to a pulp then deal with the remnants of the field. It worked with Bachmann, Perry, and Cain so why not go with whatever works?
Of course, even when he was bringing up the rear, Gingrich received his allotted share of undercutting but it’s a whole new ballgame now that he’s in the lead. The Big Guns are being trotted out to reduce him to size, if not to a quivering shadow of his former self.
However, with all his faults and baggage, Newt represents a lot of candidate to cut down and he’s not known to quiver much.
And, to utilize a tempting pun, his quiver is chock-full of arrows with which to bring down Obama, chiefly his knowledge, experience, intelligence, and debating expertise, all of which constitute fearsome forces to reckon with and the re-elect Obama team has evidently been doing a great deal of reckoning.
The latest Democrat stalwart to join the Democrat attack machine isn’t known for her intelligence or expertise in anything other than winning her own re-election in a super-safe congressional district and just launched her initial salvo of innuendo intended to inflict damage on her former House colleague.
House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi didn’t really say anything of substance to Talking Points Memo but rather, in her sly fashion, tried to smear and intimidate Gingrich with a threat.
As she inelegantly put it without elaboration, “When the time is right. . . I know a lot about him. I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff.”
Just think about it. An investigative committee of four so far un-identified individuals investigating an arch political enemy for twelve months behind non-transparent doors and compiling “a thousand pages of his stuff.” It’s a wonder they didn’t find Newt guilty of pulling grandma’s plug and tossing babies into wood chippers!
Imagine any committee secretly investigating Barack Hussein Obama for a year! They could determine he was born in Nairobi, his father was a confirmed Marxist drunk, and his mother had this peculiar thing for Muslim men. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=9629.)