Gingrich Offers New ‘Contract with America’
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign got off to a self-admittedly “bad start,” which is more than a bit of an understatement. His candidacy has been dismissed since then — but two recent polls show improvement. He now plans to make a splash with his “21st Century Contract with America.”
Gingrich has consistently gotten some of the biggest applause lines in the presidential debates, and wisely positioned himself to gain by staying out of the combat as the others attacked each other. A recent CNN poll, taken after the the last debate, shows Gingrich in a solid third place at 10 percent with Herman Cain, Sarah Palin, and Ron Paul at 7 percent. (This was taken before Herman Cain’s rise in the polls following his straw poll win in Florida.) Michele Bachmann’s support collapsed to only 4 percent.
Former President Bill Clinton was asked by Newsmax to assess the field and if he thought it was down to a contest between Romney and Perry. The one candidate Clinton mentioned who could shake up the race was Gingrich. He also said: “Politics is not so static that it will be these two guys fighting it out all the way to the end, with nothing unpredictable happening.”
Gingrich’s new Contract, which he states is “10 times deeper and more comprehensive” than the 1994 proposal, may be what moves Gingrich to the top of the second-tier pack.
Gingrich’s website says that the Georgia primary is the “launch pad to victory,” his must-win state. He says he hopes to be in the top three in Iowa, will be in the top three in New Hampshire, and will win South Carolina and Florida. His website also says that “victory is vital” in South Carolina and Nevada, but that Georgia is his make-or-break state.
A recent poll out of Georgia shows Rick Perry in the lead at 24 percent, Herman Cain in second at 15 percent, Gingrich in third at 9 percent, and Bachmann with 8 percent. Cain won the state’s straw poll while Gingrich came in fourth, but 20 percent were undecided. Gingrich’s closest rivals are Bachmann and Cain, the former of which may be drop out if she loses Iowa.
Cain’s rise therefore comes at Gingrich’s expense. Cain is now seen as viable, giving him an edge over Gingrich and the other second- and third-tier candidates. Expect a big jump in the polls — but this jump can quickly disappear as he comes under the spotlight. Cain is extremely well-liked, but voters will now start asking themselves if he has the experience and substance to be president.
Standing next to Gingrich and other candidates, he could very well start looking more like an excellent vice presidential nominee instead of a commander in chief. The founder of Tea Party Nation endorsed Gingrich this month, making this very point: “Newt is electable. If you have seen the GOP debates, Gingrich has been the best debater … he looks presidential.” He also called him a “big idea man” with “the vision to fundamentally change the federal government.”
Christi, Perry, Romney…….all RINO’s.
Paul……..an isolationist.
Johnson and the other idiot Huntsman…….forget them.
Cain…..like him a lot. But don’t think he can win primary.
Santorum……..smart as a whip, would make a great president, but too unknown.
Bachmann……..smart cookie, and could be very effective president.
Newt Gingrich……..as a conservative, I don’t condone his marital history, but the future of the U.S. is at stake. He is the one that can set it straight. Man, I would love to see him debate Dumbama!!!!! He would chew him up and spit him out. Debates between those two would have 100 million watching just in the U.S.
Newt should make:
Cain – Secretary of Labor
Palin – Secretary of Energy
Paul – Secretary of Treasury
Mark Levin – Attorney General
North – Secretary of Defense
Guiliani – Secretary of State
Put Santorum in charge of Homeland Security…..he is brilliant on the subject of muslims and islam.
That’s a lot of picks. Why did you leave out his ideal pick for vice president since you were picking them for him? Who would you put in there?
Exactly! I also have suggested that the primary winner break tradition and declare a partial cabinet, ahead of the election, as listed above. Unstoppable.
Newt is my pick for these reasons: He has the most complete grasp of Gov’t and the most thorough solutions, I don’t believe he is a RINO, seems he has changed as he has matured. He is the only one that could chew up Ovomit and his sophistry and obfuscation…sorry as much a I like the others all I see is carnage after Ovomit gets through with them.
Pretty good line-up but I would tweak it just a little.
Palin as Secretary of the Interior. She is pro drilling and pro environment but not an environmental whacko and knows how to deal with oil companies.
John Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the UN as Secretary of State
Allen West someplace, peferably as VP or SECDEF.
You echo my thoughts exactly!
Being Sec. of DOI would mean Sarah Palin might have to actually work and would be subject to restrictions on her outside earnings, so She Who Was Once Governor ain’t likely to do that.
I don’t know what gives people the idea that she actually knows anything about running a government or about the oil industry. The government of Wasilla in her time was about the size of a suburban real estate office and she didn’t even run that; she had a City Manager that did all the real work. She got a nothing patronage job, though a very well paid one, with the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission from Gov. Murkowski in hopes of shutting her up about not being picked for the Senate seat he vacated. She was so dramatically unqualified for that job that the Republican controlled Legislature passed what many styled the “No More Sarah Palins” bill imposing oil industry experience on appointees to the AOGCC because the only experience she might have had with the oil industry was pillow talk with Todd, who was a production worker at the time. She had the great good fortune to run for Governor against a former two-term Democrat governor, Tony Knowles, who couldn’t hide from his liberal friends and supporters, especially environmentalists who are the kiss of death in Alaska politics. Then she inherited a spiralling budget because of high oil prices. A dead dog would have had 80% approval with record government spending, both state and federal, and with Alaska’s permanent fund dividend almost $2000 a head and enough surplus to pay out an additional “Palin Pander Dividend” of $1000 a head. Then when prices collapsed after Comrade Obama’s election, she was faced with hard choices and governing wasn’t fun any more. That and the fact that her fame had a shelf life made her decide that that Ethics Act she so liked to brag about passing to “clean up the old boys” was standing between her and making a bunch of money. So, she quit. Oh, and wasn’t yesterday her “drop dead date” for announcing she was running for President. Crickets? Oh yeah, she’d have to work and have restrictions on her outside income for that job too.
It would appear that Palin isn’t running for anything – why not try to get over your apparent obsession with her?
Did she ever, in any stage of her life, accomplish anything? Just want to know if your clearly unbiased interpretation of her life includes any achievement that was not due to pure luck or the misfortune of others?
The trick to smearing somebody is to throw in a few compliments here and there, in order to give the pretense of being objective. This is not your first attempt, but it is no better than the previous.
@K.T. and Henry Anson: So, basically, those who irrationally adore She Who Was Once Governor are sane, rational people and those of us who range from not enamored to outright detest, that would be me, her are obsessed. I get it.
No, Henry, I won’t give her much credit for being anything but relatively young and pretty. An old or unattractive woman with her “skills” would never have even been elected President of the PTA. She’s pretty, totally self-absorbed, and vicious towards any who she styles an enemy. She built her political career in Alaska on the dead bodies of people, yes, mostly men, who boosted her.
As for my particular venom towards her, she makes her “reformer” reputation at my and my friends’ expense. Every time that vile woman carries on about how she “cleaned up the old boys,” she is first lying and second insulting someone I know. All you Palinbots only know the Sarah Palin of press releases and self-serving, mostly untrue, books and such. Some of us know her. We’ll quit talking bad about her when she moves to AZ and becomes a quiet, private citizen who doesn’t dabble in either Alaska or National politics.
O.K. lay it out. Whom did Sarah Palin murder? How was it covered up? I suspect that the sole truth in your smear is that Palin has vitriolic enemies in Alaska. This needs no ghost come from the grave to tell us. I just thought that the case you allege would have more substance than the standard left wing vileness, insults to doubters, and ad hoc accusations, being a native of Alaska, as you imply.
Typical Palinbot with no sense of humor or ability to understand political language. No, dumbass, far as I know there are no physically dead bodies in She Who Was Once Governor’s past. There are a lot of political careers lying in her tiretracks, however.
But I don’t know why I bother, Palinbots are definitionally stupid, so no explanation will make any difference.
thanks Paulbot. I won’t bother to argue with you because you are receiving instructions from the mother ship through the tin foil.
I don’t condone Newt’s “say anything” record. The famous park bench ad with Nancy Pelosi was enough for me. FAIL
That Pelosi couch scene did it for me, too. Newt was out from the start.
BUT, it’s very important that he has changed his position on global BS warming, unlike Romney. And it doesn’t have to be considered a flip flop for Newt, as the science and knowledge of it, and the climate (pun), has changed. Of course I like Perry’s position on global warming, but he is a bad spokesman for the skeptic position. So Perry could do more harm than good.
I REALLY like Newt now. I think he’s the one to bring Tea, the establishment, conservatism, skill, and electability all together, certainly as best as we can now. Why not make him the Not Romney? Perry and Cain will fade.
like all your choices for cabinet members, being you didn’t mention veep i imagine you’re going for everyones obvious choice Marco Rubio
I realize I’m a bit late to the party, but,,, Newt is always the smartest, most intelligent, quickest on his feet, and I should mention, the most articulate guy in the room. I’ve been a fan of Newt for many years, I followed his stint in Congress, saw his results as Speaker. A balanced budget for 3 years speaks for itself. I’ve seen him speak and watched tons of video of his speeches and I’ve never seen a TelePrompter in the room. The man is very able to do an hour or two with a crowd, off-the-cuff, a half hour of Q & A, and he never misses a beat, the man is brilliant. He would make a monkey of Obama in any debate format. The primary reason for this is; I believe, he speaks from the heart, with great knowledge, and from deeply held convictions.
This is the man who is capable of real government reform if “We The People”, give him permission to act in our behalf.
Being twice divorced and thrice married myself, I don’t hold his marriage history against him. I know sh*t happens in relationships, we fix it and we move on. The American conservative movement needs to get over itself on this moral issue and focus on what needs to be done to fix America right now.
Let me see if I understand this. You are talking about Oliver North? The guy who willfully broke federal laws, violated his oath as an officer, perjured himself before Congress, and avoided prison only on a legal technicality? Colonel The-End-Justifies-The-Means North?
You mean THAT Oliver North?
Are you referring to the cross-dressing, homosexual-agenda-promoting New Yorker? THAT Guiliani?
When John Bolton is available?
WHY?
that’s a great line up for cabinet positions !!
I say, all the candidates who lost, use them in cabinet slots, at least you know where they stand on important topics !
Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign bad start begins and ends with his, “As soon as Americans realize how great I am and beg me to run” attitude.
That attitude made him (finally) decide to stay out of the last general election and it took him forever to finally decide that the voters had submitted themselves to his esteemed grandeur enough for him to grace this election with his presence.
As far as his new proposal being 10; or a thousand times better than his 1994 CWA a large portion of the voters are too young to make any meaningful connection for comparison about that.
Voters today demand that candidates “Show me your stuff that can stomp Obama into oblivion right now” and I’ll listen to you.
Here, Newt’s super warehouse of valuable experience and knowledge do not make the grade when delivered with the passivity of a nice, pleasantly plump old man’s grin.
This mood also does a good job of wasting what ever the establishment RINOS come up with in spite of their pesky persistence.
In recent years, I thought that Newt Gingrich was the one to take on the mantle of Ronald Reagan and lead the country from the mess created by Barack Obama. Newt certainly has the intellectual capacity and vision to do that.
I thought that it would take someone older and someone who was experienced. That meant Newt, Cheney or McCain. Cheney’s health, however, has not been not good enough, and unfairly maligned but still tarnished McCain lost in 2008 in what was a Democrat year and at a time of irrational Obama adulation. In contrast, Newt is healthy, and anyone who heard his speeches in 2009 and 2010 had to have the thought Newt was the one.
But Newt’s bad start made me think that it was to be someone else. Perhaps Perry. Perhaps Romney. But Newt is making a come back with powerful debate performances and strong policy ideas.
Your thoughts on McCain are mistaken. He is as close to a democrat as can be and still be called a republican. Even John Huntsman is more conservative than McCain. He had no hope of winning because he was not an alternative to liberalism.
No, Chris in California, you are the wrong about McCain, who is rightly characterized as a pro-life fiscal conservative and military hawk. Huntsman is far more liberal than McCain. I suspect that your misimpression comes from listening to Rush, but McCain is the one subject as to which Rush is wrong.
If you took the time to check the record, you would see that McCain’s voting historically has been conservative and that in the last two years, McCain’s voting record has caused him to be rated as one of the 10 most conservative U.S. Senators. McCain, throughout his career, has been a fiscal conservative who has gotten into heated argument over his opposition to earmarked and out of control federal spending. McCain had the most free market approach to health care in 2008 of all the candidates and had always been adamantly opposed to national health care; quite consistently, McCain strenuously opposed and voted against ObamaCare. McCain voted against every Obama bailout bill and even voted against the second release of TARP monies when GW Bush was still President. McCain voted against the confirmation of Sotomayer and Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. McCain’s vote against the appointment of radical pro-abortion Sibellius to HHS reflected his life long pro-life position. McCain was right about the Iraq War when even many Republicans went wobbly and fought off Democrat led efforts to cut off funding our troops in the field in Iraq. McCain’s 2008 campaign supported cutting the corporate tax rates and keeping the Bush tax rates for which McCain voted except the first time when he voted no because the restrictions on spending had been taken out of the tax cut bill. All of the foregoing puts McCain in the conservative camp.
McCain also represented something that I think is very important for the country from a conservative viewpoint. He was a combat naval aviator, the son and grandson of U.S. Navy Admirals and a genuine war hero. His 2008 campaign theme of “Country First” reflected a family tradition of military service continuing with one son who is a Marine who served several tours of duty in Iraq and another son who is a Naval Academy graduate and serves in the Navy. John McCain’s discussion of serving with a servant’s heart was and is genuine. In contrast, you have in Obama a narcissist President who is a radical socialist and a former community organizer.
What happened in 2008 had nothing to do with McCain being too liberal. McCain actualy bested Obama in the debates, particularly at Saddleback. Unfortunately, 2008 was a Democrat year because of: (i) the financial crisis that created economic uncertainties that favored Democrats; (ii) the Bush Administration bank bailout that muddied the waters of the real differences between the parties; (iii) the anti-Bush sentiment resulting from unceasing (and unfair) left wing attacks on GW Bush; (iv) the absurd press bias in favor of Obama that resulted in the press being a day-in, day-out propagandist for Obama; and (v) Obama’s 7 to 1 money advantage.
So, there is no need to diss McCain on the road to picking the 2012 GOP candidate to defeat Obama. I refer you to my original advice that the candidate should be somone experienced and that Newt is the one person who fills that bill.
McCain lost because Soros and co manufactured the economic crisis of Sep/Oct 2008. All of the conditions had been in place for years, and the markets had been reacting negatively since at least Oct 2007. Everything was known and had been factored into the markets and the financial world for a long time.
Yet it turned into an earth-shattering crisis in about two weeks, despite the fact that Bernanke and the Treasury Secretary (Paulsen) had very publicly expressed confidence in the markets and economy in the summer of 2008. They were correct because the economic indicators were not particularly bad. Employment was still high; corporate profits were good; inflation had ticked up, but soon came back down; consumer spending was good; GDP wasn’t outstanding but wasn’t horrible either. Yes, housing was in trouble, but it had been in trouble for at least a year.
The attack on Lehman Brothers is what triggered the crisis…but there had been a similar attack on Solomon Bros a few months prior without any dire consequences. Did you know that the attack on Lehman Brothers started the Monday after McCain took his first lead in the Gallup Poll? Gasoline was still over $4 per gallon, but in the next 2 months, the price crashed to under $2, just in time to completely negate McCains biggest issue, the reason he had selected Sarah Palin as VP. Within two weeks of the Lehman Bros attack, there was the still mysterious Money Market run that paniced Bush and instigated the bailout. Strangely, Obama had almost no reaction, whereas McCain clearly paniced as well. You would have thought that the completely inexperience Obama would be the one to panic…it was almost as if he knew what would happen.
There were many more eerie events in those two months and the market action was the stangest in decades. Volume jumped up in an unprecedented way and held steady for months. If the market was having a good day, in the last half hour, volume would skyrocket and price usually fell dramatically. This happened over an over again, almost as if some unseen hand was determined that there would be no rally.
The whole thing was staged to elect Obama.
Oh, one other thing. Soros and Goldman Sachs made billions during that period. Goldman’s track record during popped bubbles is now 14 for 14. They are so “smart” that while the rest of the world is crashing into poverty, they inevitable turn it into gold for theselves. Isn’t Goldman Obama’s biggest financial backer, other than the unions? They got that slap on the wrist a couple of years ago, didn’t they. Anything ever happen about that?
I have been aware, proreason, of the scenario you describe. I thought at the time that it was strange for the financial “crisis” to hit right after the McCain-Palin ticket went ahead in the polls. We need to be very realistic and be watching everything like a hawk in 2012 because the Obama Democrats and Soros have no intention of giving up power and have socialism undone.
This idea that a major financial firm would sabotage the economy just to influence an election is a bit conspiratorial. Gold Sachs may have supported Obama, especially as he, along with President Bush were both supporters of the TARP bailout of the banks, however, they would not on purpose sabotage their own success to help Obama win. More importantly, this commonly held idea that McCain/Palin was finished once the economy tanked is wrong. Although many contest the wisdom of opposing TARP, it was overwhelmingly (70%) opposed by the voters at the time. If McCain had gone to Washington to oppose the TARP bill it would have placed Obama and the Dems on the same side as Bush and allowed McCain to both derail the TARP bill and beat Obama, as just another Washington Pol, in the November election.
The 2012 election, however, would have been another story.
Cavalier:
Soros was convicted of market manipulation in Hungary for his actions in the fall of 2008. Soros is also well-known for trying to bring down the Bank of England in the early 90′s through currency manipulation, and for his involvement in currency manipulation in Malasia in the late 90′s
A major investigation of the market crash was initiated in late 2008 by the Bush administration, but it was dropped without publicity by the Obama administration.
The drop in the stock market was by far the largest of any presidential year, including the Great Depression years.
There has never been a greater oonvulsion in gasoline prices than there was in Sept / Oct 2008.
Many observors have denied that the Money Market event that paniced Bush was significant enough to merit action. It hasn’t ever been investigated.
Soros had made 2.4 billion dollars in a down market by the summer of 2008. His profits during the second half of the year have not been revealed.
In March 2009, Obama said that it was probably a great buying opportunity for stocks. They immediately began rising and climbed steadily for 2 years, despite the fact that the economy was much worse the entire time than in September 2008.
Chuck Shumer caused a run on IndyBank with public remarks in July 2008. It was unprecedented for a Senator to publicly do such a thing, since it is well known that high-ranking public officials must be very careful in such matters. A few weeks later, Harry Reid tried the same thing with AIG, although he didn’t mention that company by name in his public remarks.
The rise in stock trading volume that began Sep 8, 2008 had only one precedent in US history…in the late 40′s. Volume increases for individual days have been greater many times, but not volume sustained for months. All sectors were driven below book value. But it turned out that there were
Barney Frank made a very public statement that Fannie Mae was sound in the summer of 2008.
The financial community has no incentive to investigate or comment about the crash. The industry depends on public trust, and the industry makes money whether stocks go up or down. Individual investors would flee if the industry itself discussed the manipulation that happened in 2008.
Elected officials have little interest in investigating the manipulation for the same reasons. They are all intimately tied to Wall Street.
Conspiratorial perhaps. But there sure was a lot of strange goings on in 2008.
If McCain had waltzed into the White House instead of Obama, the events of that period would still be on the front page of the NY Slimes.
There really is NO other explanation for the financial “events” of ’08: speculation fuels oil/gas prices to stratospheric levels which then collapse immediately upon Comrade Obama’s election, huge sums of money from various trusts, endowment funds, hedge funds, and even sovereigns moving around inexplicably, “runs” on the Treasury, the sudden “realization” that various mortgage-backed securities were worthless, etc. All these things don’t happen coincidentally. The value of practically everything in America doesn’t collapse by a quarter to a half under any circumstance short of war or major natural disaster, but pulling the rug out from under the housing market has not only empoverished millions of Americans but has also fixed them in place so that their economic mobility has been compromised. I wrote a diary on the RedState blog back in the fall of ’08 basically asking how we lost a war and nobody knew there was a war on. Just the onslaught of bad news has damaged the economy in places that have otherwise sound economies, e.g., the oil and gas producing states. Even here in Alaska where we have money in the economy at levels not seen since the “Blue-eyed Arab” days of the early ’80s, the housing market is very soft because of credit restrictions and the value of things like boats, RVs, used cars has collapsed to what some foreclosed on, bankrupt, recently divorced guy in CA would sell his for. My boat surveyed in ’10 for half what it surveyed for in ’06 and the decline wasn’t age or depreciation, it was market comparability – and I still couldn’t sell it for survey value.
How is it that Herman Cain’s “experience and substance” are still questioned?
I think that it’s just tact on the part of those who favor another candidate.
The guy’s a rocket scientist and been at the helm of giant corporations, a Fed chief and a minister.
The only thing his resume lacks is the stain of a political career.
I don’t know if anyone else here feels this way, but I count that as a feature rather than a bug.
Absolutely. Borrowed from another article:
Here’s Cain’s bio:
Bachelor’s degree in Mathematics.
Master’s degree in Computer Science.
Mathematician for the Navy, where he worked on missile ballistics (making him a rocket scientist).
Computer systems analyst for Coca-Cola.
VP of Corporate Data Systems and Services for Pillsbury (this is the top of the ladder in the computer world, being in charge of information systems for a major corporation).
All achieved before reaching the age of 35. Since he reached the top of the information systems world, he changed careers!
Business Manager. Took charge of Pillsbury’s 400 Burger King restaurants in the Philadelphia area, which were the company’s poorest performers in the country. Spent the first nine months learning the business from the ground up, cooking hamburger and yes, cleaning toilets. After three years he had turned them into the company’s best performers.
Godfather’s Pizza CEO. Was asked by Pillsbury to take charge of their Godfather’s Pizza chain (which was on the verge of bankruptcy). He made it profitable in 14 months.
In 1988 he led a buyout of the Godfather’s Pizza chain from Pillsbury. He was now the owner of a restaurant chain. Again he reached the top of the ladder of another industry.
He was also chairman of the National Restaurant Association during this time. This is a group that interacts with government on behalf of the restaurant industry, and it gave him political experience from the non-politician side.
Having reached the top of a second industry, he changed careers again!
Adviser to the Federal Reserve System. Herman Cain went to work for the Federal Reserve Banking System advising them on how monetary policy changes would affect American businesses.
Chairman of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank. He worked his way up to the chairmanship of a regional Federal Reserve bank. This is only one step below the chairmanship of the entire Federal Reserve System (the top banking position in the country). This position allowed him to see how monetary policy is made from the inside, and understand the political forces that impact the monetary system.
After reaching the top of the banking industry, he changed careers for a fourth time!
Writer and public speaker. He then started to write and speak on leadership. His books include Speak as a Leader, CEO of Self, Leadership is Common Sense, and They Think You’re Stupid.
Radio Host. Around 2007—after a remarkable 40 year career—he started hosting a radio show on WSB in Atlanta (the largest talk radio station in the country).
He did all this starting from rock bottom (his father was a chauffeur and his mother was a maid). When you add up his accomplishments in his life—including reaching the top of three unrelated industries: information systems, business management, and banking—Herman Cain may have the most impressive resume of anyone that has run for the presidency in the last half century.
Damn! Iknew some this but not all! He’s got my vote
A truly remarkable man. Compare his history and accomplishments to Obama; then appreciate how screwed up we really are.
My son (18 years old 9/28) and I went to a meet and greet pancake breakfast to see Mr. Cain a few weeks ago. He spent about an hour getting in the door speaking to everyone he could one on one. Then he gave a great speech for about ½ an hour. No teleprompters no notes, just straight talk from the heart. I knew then that he was smart and knew what he was talking about, but I had no idea about he’s bio. We only went to see him because my son liked him in the debates, and I’m trying to my son thinking about his first time vote in Nov. I was leaning towards Parry myself but after the breakfast and now this Mr. Cain has my vote, as well as my son. Guess I should have lessoned to him in the first place. “ We shell be lead by the children.”
What’s missing in this impressive bio is any security or foreign policy experience. Were he to be on the ticket he’d need a running mate with those chops, preferably at the top since it’s the PRESIDENT that has to deal with foreign leaders and lay out the nation’s international vision.
agreed where he is short on experience can be overcome with the right advisors, plus he worked without a teleprompter all his life and would expose zer0 like weiner as the empty suit he is in the debates (as would Newt). the newness of oBlamer has lost its shine and barribg something drastic he’s gonna take the whole dim party down with him. and none too soon these “progressives” have been trying to stalin ize the US for almost 100 years, and thought they had it in their grasp w totus, the house and senate, thus they overreached a woke “the sleeping giant” no more snooze button, time to destroy their whole (bowel) movement
Oh, I dunno, maybe it’s because he’s never held office?
Maybe?
(Where is the “rolling eyes” smiley when you need it?)
I was also very disappointed with the horrific start of Newt’s campaign. The fact that he stayed the course and is slowly rising is promising. He really would be the one to take on Obama in a debate. He is a very smart guy. Perry is the anti-Gingrich intellectually, known in Texas inner circles as “not the sharpest tool in the shed.” I can’t seem to get on board with him OR Romney. Just when I begin to like one of them they blurt out some RINO drivel that makes me wonder. Liking Herman Cain. Bachman is finished.
Newt would probably be an outstanding president. He is an extremely brilliant man, well versed in domestic and international policy, and an excellent orator who can run rings around anyone in a debate, whatever the format. However, he has shot himself in the foot politically on several occasions, his personal/marital foibles are problematic (mostly because he has the [R] after his name) and he’s just not as down-to-earth and folksy as a Bill Clinton or George W. Bush.
If he somehow managed in the next 8 months to secure the nomination of the party, I would lend full-throated support to him. Highly unlikely. But he would be an outstanding Secretary of State in any administration. So far, for me, Cain is looking pretty good. Will have to read more about is 9-9-9 plan as I have heard it has some sort of VAT tax in it (ugh).
At the very least, it’s great to have Newt in the debates to clearly articulate the conservative position and contrast it with the social/democrats who are destroying the nation and the rest of the Republican field who cannot or will not articulate it. Go Newt!
Apart from sitting on the global warming bench with Pelosi, exactly what makes anyone think that this new ‘contrac’t will be treated any differently than the old contract that Newt broke while Speaker of the House??
Had it not been for RINOs spending like drunken Socialists, they would not have been thrown out.
End both the RINO and Comrade regimes!
Hold on there, podnah!
I am no fan of Newt Gingrich. I don’t want to see him in the White House. I am appalled at all of the favorable comments here from people who call themselves conservative. Newt is seriously bad news, in my book.
BUT!
Fair is fair. Your statement is not.
Newt Gingrich and the Republicans in the House delivered the Contract with America EXACTLY as promised.
The Contract with American NEVER promised to enact all of those things into law. If Newt had made that promise, he’d have been a liar. The House cannot pass bills by itself. Civics 101, people. The Senate has to pass the bill too, then the President has to sign it.
The Contract with America promised to bring all of those items to the floor for open debate. That’s ALL it promised. Many stupid Americans didn’t listen to what was said, and ASSUMED that Newt had promised to PASS all those things.
He did NOT.
He promised he would bring them to the floor for open debate (which was never allowed by the Democrats)
AND HE DID.
HE fulfilled the Contract with America completely, to the letter, and in the spirit of it.
You are simply and completely wrong on this.
Yeah, that whole “contract” thing worked out well, love the term limits, etc.
Cain’s the best one in the race. West is the best one in the country. Pallin is right in between them. Bachman could do in a pinch. Sure Paul’s an isolationist, but there isn’t a damned thing wrong with that, only with his inability to realize that we are at war and did nothing to justify being attacked.
The rest are just go along, get along more business as usual politicians and go go to . . .
It’s been said it took a Carter to give us a Regan. If so, we damned sure deserve the best there is after this POS-POTUS, instead of “settling” for a perceived “lessor of two evils”.
Romney is too liberal; a plastic candidate from central casting. Perry is just not very smart and, at best, is a Yahoo, and just like Bush—another Texas governor far too comfortable with the slow motion Hispanic invasion of his state–his stance on illegal aliens—a deal breaker issue–is a disaster. Cain is likeable but, if you really listen to him talk about things other than his 9-9-9 plan, it is obvious that he just simply doesn’t have the smarts and, most critically, Cain doesn’t possess the deep and necessary knowledge—especially about foreign affairs and national defense, among other subjects–that a President must have; we have all seen what a disaster it is when a President such as Obama does not have this knowledge. Bachmann, while very admirable, similarly has a few themes she keeps harping on, but I believe she too lacks the necessary broad background and practical experience we are going to need in a candidate.
Newt Gingrich is by far the most learned and widely read, the most articulate, and the candidate with the most actual knowledge of and practical experience working in the legislative process and in government; he has been thinking about and working on these issues for 30-40 years. It is also obvious that, unlike Obama—who so obviously despises and hates America and its citizens—Gingrich loves America and its people; he is a true Patriot. As for the issue of Gingrich’s ego, I suggest that if a candidate doesn’t have a little ego, he is not likely to be viable in this current race. Gingrich has survived many battles, and is a very shrewd and tough guy; he is just the kind of guy we need to go up against Obama.
I watched Newt’s hour long introduction of his new 21st Century Contract With America yesterday (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/30/newt_gingrich_unveils_21st_century_contract_with_america.html), and I believe the areas he has chosen for massive reform and revitalization are the areas most in need of such urgent and deep reform, and I also agree with him that the United States is in such deep trouble in so many areas that only a program of massive, sweeping, and fundamental change such as he proposes can stop us from swirling ever faster around the toilet bowl of History.
My primary worry is whether the people of the United States have the vision and the guts to sign on for such an earth-shaking and arduous reformation.
Seth, you are correct. As for Newt’s past history and morals, when WILL ultra conservatives stop trying to legislate morality? God Almighty Himself gave us all free will, and it’s God’s job to judge Newt, not ours. Our job is to elect a strong, effective leader with the intelligence, experience, knowledge and ability to out-think the thieves in Washington DC, and give the independents a clear choice in 2012. My vote’s for Newt!!
Amen
I’d first like to hear his latest stand on global warming. He did make a tv commercial with Nancy Pelosi, sitting on a couch, each discussing the need to take on this awesome threat.
Has he changed his mind?
Sorry, can’t support Gingrich. I don’t care how smart he is. Character matters to me!
Me too. He’s on marriage #3 and Contract with America #2: my teenagers would say “Contract FAIL”
Same here.
And, he’s not that smart anyway.
Gingrich is a great strategist and a horrible tactician. Clinton out flanked him at every move. He might be the smartest guy in the room, but those are often the people who need detailed instructions on how to pick their noses.
A valid point, and one of concern. Newt, as Speaker of the House, was intentionally targeted by the Clinton War Room. They spent tens of millions of dollars demonizing Gingrich, which resulted in some of the highest negative ratings of any politician in history. Ironically, they focused on his personal sex life, even while their boss disgraced himself. Newt, one of the most effective legislative Speakers intellectually, led with his chin, and today carries high negatives. He suffered from the revolt of his party leadership: Tom Delay and Dick Armey, two tough, fiscally smart Texans. He knows how to throw bricks, where to hit; does he know when? Can he swallow a huge ego, and lead a very divided nation?
His pronouncements sometimes seem wholly political, e.g. the Pelosi Global Warming photo – op.
In a time of fiscal disaster, and a dysfunctional government, he is most interesting.
Newt’s a smart guy with a lot of good ideas. His problem is that he gets gooey in the knees in the presence of Democrats.
If only he would listen more closely to Hannity.
I see that I didn’t mention Ron Paul in my post above.
Well, I think that Ron Paul’s focus on the Federal Reserve as the source of a lot of our fiscal problems is correct, but his ideas outside of this one are the ideas of a crank–he is sort of like a demented, wizened, leprechaun; the kind of ranting, looney uncle that just won’t shut up about some particular ideas he fanatically focuses on, and who you try to put in a corner at family gatherings or, perhaps, lock away in an attic or basement.
The country is in very dire straits. While I guess Newt is very smart, just where have all those smart Presidents got us? FDR was smart and gave us the running start on big government. Johnson gave us all those welfare programs that have devasted families. Jimmah Carter (the Nuclear Engineer) was the worst president until Obama came along. Clinton was so smart that he could do the NYT crossword puzzle in one hour. Well Clinton sold us out to the Chinese and the Saudi’s. Obamma is always touted as the smartest guy in the room. He has sunk the economy under regulations and debt. So smart doesn’t cut it. And if Mr. Newt is so smart, why did he do that dumb commercial on global warming with Miss Nancy? Nope, I don’t trust him. Anyone willing to get on the global warming baloney bandwagon isn’t our guy (or gal).
I don’t particularly care about Newt’s domestic squabbles but, as others here have pointed out, Newt’s video with Pelosi about global warming is going to be a major impediment unless he can convincingly ‘splain it.
He tried to ‘splain it once, and the ‘splaination basically came down to it’s not worth fighting over. Taking him at his word on that for the sake of argument, it shows that he’s not a detail person. It’s intellectually lazy to defer to experts.
Someone name a single progressive push for more government that Newt Gingrich has not hopped on trying to make certain something got done for the progressives of this nation?
Global Warming, Check
Carbon taxes, Check
He might come up with great ideas, but you cannot trust the man, because his ideas are always short lived. Much like Obama, Newts conservative ideas come with an expiration date, it is always just shy of implementation.
Well, so far we have Romney’s pea-shooter plan and Cain’s fantasy plan. Perry, Bachmann and Santorum don’t seem to have written plans. Huntsman has a tax plan, but I haven’t seen a consolidated written plan from him. Didn’t bother to look for Ron Paul.
Newt will do better.
I’ve been knocking Cain’s plan, but at least he has one.
What I don’t understand is why there is so much emphasis on taxes, which seems to me to be a huge mistake, since it simply serves to confirm the media’s canard that Republicans only care about lowering taxes for rich people. Taxes isn’t the main problem anyway. Big government is.
They should all have a plan, and taxes should be a small part of it, not the main theme.
For example, a good plan would be:
1. Remove restrictions on American’s greatest resouce, ENERGY reserves, to rapidly reduce the price of energy, create a million jobs, make America the dominant energy producer in the world, and reduce dependence on foreign oil.
2. Rescind all government REGULATIONS implemented since the end of 2008, suspend activities of the EPA pending a detailed review, and enact another detailed review of all other regulations with a goal of reducing the regulatory burder by 50% and saving $200 billion of GDP p.a.
3. REPEAL OBAMACARE immediately. Pass a market-based health care bill within 6 months.
4. Immediately freeze federal compensation and all new spending, including all unspent stimulus funds and all “planned but not yet spent” money. Within 3 months, produce a detailed approach to return FEDERAL SPENDIUNG TO 2008 LEVELS within 2 years, and an additional 25% within 4 years. Then enact them. If a plan has not been preduced after 3 months, cut all federal spending 20% across the board with the exception of SS, Medicare, and committed military spending.
5. Shut down ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION within 6 months by using the US military. Complete strategic fencing within 2 years.
6. Repeal the DODD-FRANKS act immediately. Do not replace it.
7. Commit to maintaining a MILITARY PRESENCE in Iraq, but reducing the military presence in Afghanistan. Coordinate with the joint chiefs on the specific details, with a plan to be announced within 6 months.
8. Reduce the TOP CORPORATE TAX RATE to 20% and initiate a review to make taxes equitable across industries.
9. Eliminate requirements for block grant federal education spending immediately (i.e., keep the funding for a few years, but eliminate the strings), and turn the DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION into a resource center for the states within 5 years, with a size and cost less than 10% of current budget.
10. Initiate a task force led by Paul Ryan that will present within 90 days no less than 5 APPROACHES TO MAKE SS AND MEDICARE SUSTAINABLE for future generations, complete with costs, benefits and risks. Press and lead Congress to enact one of the approaches within a year.
11. Hold state dinners for the leaders of ISRAEL and GREAT BRITAIN within 3 months to reconfirm our commitment to our most important allies. Return Winston Churchill’s bust to the oval office on day 1.
12. Initiate a BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT process immediately.
Much of that would be hard to achieve, but all of it is at least possible, and such a plan would have a dramatic impact on the direction of this country and immediately begin to turn the economy around. Massive tax reform is a blunt and risky weapon that should be secondary to reducing government spending, taking the handcuffs off the economy and reestablishing our strategic alliances.
Pretty good strategy, Proreason.
While I might quibble over a few details, this is the type of plan thinking voters are hoping to see from candidates.
Are you listening R-Can Debate Club?
Hey proreason, i like your ideas, would also like to know what we do with the war on drugs? I think the republicans need to look at reality, that the war on drugs is not working.
And the donkeys are doing exactly what in that regard?
Millions upon millions of dollars have been wasted on this war. People going to jail for smoking hemp cannabis. If the republicans, which I’m a part of, are truly for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and getting government out of our lives, then looking at the hemp issue is important. Take a look at what former Gov. Gary Johnson says about the war on drugs. That is my reality at least.
I just hope the hemp wing of the libertarians all just get stoned and stay home on election day. They will never vote for a Republican and wind up either voting for some communist who says s/he’ll legalize hemp or some idiot third party or Ron Paul write-in that is just a vote for the communist, I mean Democrat.
Agreed. The “war on drugs” is nothing but an un-Constitutional tax we all pay directly to the out of control federal government, much of it going directly to the DNC through police unions and the trial lawyers’ association.
End prohibition and stick to the Constitution as written.
I would only disagree (slightly) with two of proreason’s points above. The Dept. of Education as well as Social Security and Medicare need to be phased out as quickly as possible and never replaced, rather than being “fixed”. Socialism is poison, pure and simple.
JustAl, the points I wrote about were intended to have at least some appeal to independents and the rare rational liberal. Personally, I agree that the Deptartment of Education ought to be eliminated immediately, but making that part of a plan would alienate people who might otherwise be supportive. Similarly, the language used for SS is extremely important, since millions are dependent on it. I don’t agree with you that it should be entirely replaced, but even if I did, the way to position it should be to reassure existing recipients and give hope to the younger people who are already convinced that they are paying into a rat hole.
In general, on these forums, I think it’s fine and interesting for people to express their views as frankly as they wish, but I am always taken back when people demand that the candidates do the same. It isn’t as black and white as lying vs the truth. The candidates have to get elected before they can make a difference. Perry is certainly finding that out in spades.
Protecting the border will have a big impact on the drug trade. With all of the other issues the country has at the moment, I think that attempting to do more than that in the short term would be a distraction from more important goals.
True, I agree, however both issues are related and concentrating on both issues would do immense good for our country, IMHO.
Nice list.
Can I add my own? How about a fair or flat tax so that everyone has “skin in the game?” I am sick and tired of the “poor” not paying federal taxes. How about a review of all government departments for possible closings?
How about bringing home our troops from the 175 places around the world especially Korea, Germany, and the UK? How about downsizing the DOJ which has been irreparably politicized by the Demonrats; ending affirmative action, and ending the strangle hold the NGL and trial lawyers have on tort laws and malpractice? How about investigation and imprisoning all the crony capitalists and their pols? How about ending the Fed. Reserve?
I support everyone having skin in the game but am not as entusiastic as most about a flat tax. The issues I see with it are:
- getting from here to there without major disruptions. As others have said, every clause in the tax code has a purpose, and in many cases, people and businesses are dependent on them. I don’t see how you can yank them out suddenly without causing even more problems. The perfect example is “corporate jets”. Well, as everybody now knows, there is an entire industry that would be devasted without that tax break…would it really be smart to yank the break out suddenly?
- a graduated income tax is well established and accepted in the country. The issue isn’t the rates so much as the complexity and what people perceive to be unfairness. But I would argue that the unfairness is local. People who pay rent don’t like the mortgage deduction, not realizing that rents would rise if the deduction were eliminated. And renters often have children and would certainly oppose eliminating large tax breaks for child care and personal deductions. So basically, complaining about deductions is really a complaint about OTHER PEOPLE’s tax breaks.
- it is inevitable that the complexity would creep back into a flat tax.
But I do agree that the tax code should be simplified, for the simple reason that it costs way too much to comply with it and enforce it.
It just needs to be done gradually.
I also agree that everybody should pay something, but NOT 9% as Cain suggests, since that would be devastating to millions of people with low incomes. 2 or 3% is probably more reasonable.
I also think that the tax code should not be a welfare channel. NOBODY should pay net negative taxes.
Newt has a good idea about this. Give people the choice of a flat tax or the existing code. That way, if somebody is dependent on the mortgage deduction or the child care credit, then they aren’t yanked around, but if they don’t want to mess with the complexity, they have another path. Overall, that is probably a tax cut as well, since most people would simply choose the least expensive path. Over time, if people migrate to the simple flat-tax choice, the complexities in the existing code could be eliminated as the dependencies wear off.
Yes proreason, It’s so simple. Unfortunately the candidates just can’t stay out of the weirdo zone. They all have those strange and out of the blue policies and character traits that makes it impossible to support them whole heatedly.
Is it too much to ask for a candidate, who is a normal person with a common sense program exactly like yours?
Proreason; you have just regurgitated Newt’s new 21st Century Contract. I suggest you have another look at the video:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/30/newt_gingrich_unveils_21st_century_contract_with_america.html
The man makes a lot of good sense.
I looked for his contract on the internet and couldn’t find it. The video was too long to view, but it’s possible I’ve heard some of his concepts and internalized them.
My key theme is that we need to concentrate first on Obama’s spending and the restrictions and burdens he has imposed on the economy. Those items are more likely to win independents than tax and entitlement and immigration reform, which need to be done, but are more controversial to solve than the low hanging fruit. If that is Newt’s theme as well than I’m happy to hear it.
Note that I also didn’t say anything about Global Warming, which obviously drives many posters here crazy (and myself as well). My reason for that is because it seems to have already been defeated. Why rub salt in the wounds of the fatasists who believe in it? So I don’t have an issue with Newt sitting down with the Witch and making an ad about it. Seems like smart politics to me.
My unfiltered view is that 75% of the federal government should be shut down. If getting elected wasn’t an issue, I’d close everything but defense, national security, justice, the state department and SS/Medicare. ALL of the other stuff should be done by the states. If SS/Medicare wasn’t so imbedded in society, I would shut that down as well.
Wow~!
I can’t understand how you can write off these important issues without seeing the videos in full. You say it is too long to hold your attention,,, duh, it’s only about an hour of your time.
The man very specifically lists America’s problems and offers a very thoughtful and carefully crafted plan to deal with getting us out of the ditch Obama has so artfully driven us into… It’s about saving America.
Give it a listen.
I really like Newt Gingrich. He was almost singlehandedly the architect of the ’94 Republican Revolution that gave us back the Congress for the first time since ’48 and for the longest time since before the New Deal. He’s far and away the strongest on policy and is very good on his feet. All that said, the fact that he speaks in complete sentences and in logical paragraphs scares the living Hell out of a huge proportion of the electorate. To too many women, he looks and sounds too much like a man who might actually want to discipline children. To the young voters who either need to stay home or have some portion pried away from Obama, Newt looks and sounds waaaaay too much like the teacher who might actually give you a bad grade, so they don’t want to risk their precious self-esteem. (We really ought to think about the fact that two of the four states on the Southern border have Republican governors. Say a month of very lax drug enforcement before the election should significantly “suppress” the Obama yute vote.) Then a sizeable percentage of the SoComs/SIVVs would rather see an avowed communist elected than sully their precious principles by voting for a man with personal foibles. Add to that a sizeable percentage of the libertarians and the self-styled “true conservatives” will pronounce him a RINO and they’ll vote for Ron Paul or some other 3rd Party nobody.
So, I love to listen to him, love the way he ups the game among the other candidates, but he has a way to go to convince me he has a prayer against Comrade Obama.
Your characterizations of Newt are–I fear–right on target. For all the throwing about of the phrase “the only adult in the room,” he is that only adult, and in terms of intellect, knowledge, ability to articulate his points, and experience, Newt is head and shoulders above all the other potential candidates–Republican and Democrat.
However, as another commenter has mentioned, the Democrats very successfully invested millions of dollars and used their captive MSM to create lasting negative impressions of Newt, in effect tying a bag of shit mixed with iron very tightly around his neck, as well as the necks of all sorts of other potential opponents–Sarah Palin, for instance, comes to mind.
Strategy and tactics, strategy and tactics. I think News has put his finger on the key problems and has proposed sensible and sufficient solutions. The problem is how to convince enough people to ignore the smelly bag around his neck, and to really listen to his diagnosis, come to grips with just how bad things really are, and then sign on for the aggressive treatment he is proposing.
If you are right about the infantile ans spoiled nature of much of the electorate, Newt probably doesn’t have a chance. But, just supposing he does, then he has to win out over all his less serious, seemingly more attractive rivals and, then, find some way to corer Obama for some face-to-face, un-moderated debates in order to expose just how shallow, badly informed, and incompetent the great King Putt is.
Quite a tall order.
Newt? Can’t stand that guy, can’t listen to what he says. Too creepy, too egoistic, too many baggages, lots of MSM coverage, no MSM covers. I’ll be one of those who’ll stay home on that chilly Nov morning. Btw, he quit his cushy job in disgrace. Anyone stupid enough to throw a tantrum in public and fell into Clinton’s web is too stupid to be elected to any office with or without a plan.
If we need such a person to “save” us, then we are in much deeper doo-doo than we think, and we may as well pack it in.
To paraphrase a Clinton wise guy: It’s the messenger, stupid!
Newt is the smartest person in the room, any room, by far. He is the number 1 reason that Clinton is seen as a success today. I hope he can keep building support. He is the only candidate that I would vote for today. I trust him to do the right thing for our country. Newt’s problem – he is not seen as likable by most of the public. He has done an excellent job of staying on message during the debates and not entering the backbiting fray. I hope that is winning him many admirers.
Gingrich is a has been, a used to be, a thing oif the past. He should just get out of the way; his enemies, the democrats, nderstand him only too well.
Newt is a thinker, not a do-er. Do not confuse smart/knowledgable with capable. Newt knows the politics, the players, the issues, the process. He might make a great VP for someone without that knowledge. Inflict him on the Senate (VP is President of the Senate). On second thought, VP should actually be saved for the guy who will be the next President. Give him a cabinet post like Energy. Have him shrink or close out that Department.
Whatever you do, do not make him President. His ego makes him say and do things that are very unwise. It is what makes him so erratic. Watch him before a camera. He does the same thing McCain does. He literally swells up. His chest puffs up, his head goes back, he gets that straight across smile without the cheerful turn-up at the corners. Monstrous ego and media-whore. I do not need such for President. He’ll do something truly stupid at times. I mean epicly stupid. He will get the Dems back into power as they play it for all they are worth. As an advisor, he can be reined in. As President, he cannot.
I really need a humble man for President. I need someone who is steady and a do-er, please. Newt is not that guy. There is a reason he has all that baggage.
You got it nailed.
Maybe so, but he is still the only person to implement conservative policies in Congress in 80 years.
Right on the money, Mr. Mallone.
Leaving aside all questions of morality (or lack thereof), cozying up to Pelosi on global warming, and other arguable issues, this is it.
Newt is an academic. He’s not a leader.
He’s also not an effective communicator.
I mean, look how many people think his Contract with America was a promise to pass legislation, and fault him for not doing so.
This is all wishful thinking about Newt…I love listening to him map out how to fix the nations problems.
He’s a true out-of-the-box thinker, the only scholar up there, and he would crush Obama in the debates ….BUT, he will never get nominated, and if he did by some fluke, the MSM will never let him win the general – they hate him worse than GWB.
All of this attention will end up helping his lecture fees and such, later on.
Go Newt!!!!! He has the experience, the wisdom, the “smarts” and the drive to turn this country around and begin to get it back on the track to being a republic instead of a democracy. I hope that people can overlook the rough beginnings to his campaign and remember, instead, that Newt has been in this situation before as former speaker in 1994, and knows how to operate in the snake pit that is Washington, DC. Frankly, I’m glad he’s running because I just don’t see any stronger leaders in the pack. And I would love nothing, more, I think, than seeing Barack Obama debating him. Newt said that he (Newt) would challenge Obama to 8 debates, just between the two candidates, and that he would even let Obama have his teleprompters. Any bets on who the winner will be? Without the lamestream media questions?
God bless America.
Callie369
Possibly an even better idea; is to close all the departments except for Treasury, State, Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, and Health. All of the other U.S. departments are redundant to each of the fifty states responsibilities.
I doubt that Gingrich would have the onions to recommend closing any department, he is too much of a DC insider and policy wonk. I think that only Palin or Cain would have the necessary backbone to propose and support closing most or all the wasteful U.S. departments.
Expat in Warsaw
I thinnk that Newt must name a cabinet and his choice of VP at the earliest.
Either Cain or West as VP. He needs strong backing by those whose messages are
simpler and relate to so many voters who are unable to folloow his brilliant
but difficult strategy for recovering the Unitesd States. There are too few who
understand his plans, and too few who are willing to join his efforts of reform.
For too many years too many of the voters have become lazy recipients of gov’t
handouts. They vote their stomachs and lassitude. Uneducated and without any
desire to participate or try to understand his message: Newt must get this vast
voting mass on his side….and he can’t do it alone. They just don’t hear him.
That may help, but I think he cannot make it as far as president.
Morally speaking… He lost it years ago.
As Rush Limbaugh said last week about Newt….IF ONLY..\
yes, If only….
Under Newt’s leadership, in 1994 the GOP won control of the House of Representative. Alas, and then under Nwt’s leadership, the GOP saw that majority whittled down until Newt was forced out of his post — and Congress, and then the GOP lost its House majority.
Newt, I believe, doesn’t really know who his friends are. For all his references to books worth reading, he is, I guess, incapable of following the sage advice found in the books he would have us take note of, preferring, apparently, his fruitless quest to impress his adversaries. He is, I fear, just too clever by half.
Honestly, I think Newt would make the smartest, most capable president of the GOP candidates. That said, he will not win because of his adultery problem. Sorry, but I think its important to be faithful, and possible..
You all let Billy BJ Clinton get by with it, but I am not comfortable with a man who cannot keep his pants up.
Gingrich is another politician and supports Fannie Mae. From Gretchen Morgenson’s book Reckless Endangerment. “Fannie Mae is an excellent example of a former (not accurate to have said former) government institution fulfilling its mandate while functioning in the market economy. Fannie Mae has had a regional presence in Atlanta for over 40 years and the announcement of a partnership office demonstrates its continued commitment to affordable housing in the Atlanta metropolitan area.” Newt Gingrich – page 63.
Mr. Gingrich is a smart man. He does have some baggage, but Obama ran after admitting cocaine use in his book. Marital problems are very prevelant in this country and I don’t think they’d hurt him much. However, my guy, while still relatively unknown, is just a regular citizen who’s out there trying to do something. Check him out: http://www.gradyforpresident.com.
I was unaware of the full non-Affirmative Action biography of Herman Cain. I just wish he had at least one term in elective office. Both Newt and Herm would be great cabinet members.
His diagnosis that for 191 years America grew rich financing the federal government with consumption taxes. When the racist Woodrow Wilson who segregated the Federal government and military, got the Income Tax passed we have gradually lost the position as the world’s pre-eminent creditor and become the world’s largest debtor.
You cannot hector other countries like China or Japan or Korea to rationalize their currencies. Tariffs were outlawed by the Bretton Woods agreements after WWII. The only allowed tariff is the VAT tax and we get screwed because we don’t have one. If we replace the personal Income Tax with a VAT we immediately raise taxes on foreign companies irrespective of whether they are foreign or domestic subsidiaries, operating outside the USA.
I recall the old Tax legislator who said “Don’t tax me, don’t tax you, Tax the man behind the tree.” I’d change the last line to: “Tax the foreign company over the Sea.” But to put the VAT in I’d want to send a repeal of the Income Tax Amendment to the States, or we would eventually end up with both.
My own suggestion is a “VAT recapture Tax” that doesn’t raise taxes on domestic products but recaptures the VAT repeal of other countries exports, so they “…pay their fair Share”.
The VAT is the single most insidious tool for maximizing the power of government that statists have ever foisted on the world.
I believe Newt won second prize in the last debate. I said so the morning after. I also said Cain won the debate. There are more debates to come. I still lean Perry, but some of the others (maybe all, anyone but Zero) may get my vote. While Romney and Bachman were trying to steal the crown back from front-runner Perry, Cain and Newt stole the show in the last debate, and they might in future debates. Romney gained 1% while Bachman lost 7%. Romney may now be the front-runner, he won’t be for long. I’m not against him, but there is something missing. I would rather hear a plan from each candidate, than an attack of another candidate. Answer questions honestly, make a mistake, apologize, change your position, explain. And I would like to see the debates deal with one particular issue at a time, as to allow each candidate to prepare. They’re not in office yet, and this will help them prepare for the debates to come next year. So in the future debates, let’s get on topic, and stay there, then each candidate will be better.
I can help you. Here’s what’s missing in candidate Romney:
1. Integrity.
2. Honesty.
3. Conservative values.
4. Understanding of the principles on which this country was founded.
5. Sound economic principles.
But there’s good news. He DOES bring a lot of other things to the table:
1. A track record in elected office of aggressively pushing a statist agenda.
2. A track record in elected office of aggressively pushing the homosexual agenda.
3. A chameleon-like ability to say whatever is needed to get elected.
Newt has been the candidate with the most understanding and best solutions in my opinion. But I still support Cain given his superior personal qualities, as well as his 999 and certifiably conservative views.
sherlocktoo,
The great harm Obama did to America, besides wrack up gargantuan debt, is force socialized medicine on us. So for me this is the prime issue for the next president. Romney fails the test.
If you’re for socialized medicine in America, vote for Romney. Romney continues to defend the Ma law, Romneycare. He has never said, during a televised debate, that he would repeal Obamacare, only that he would issue waivers to the states. He says it’s a state’s rights issue, even though the democratic congress and Obama passed it as a federal law and must be uprooted at the federal level. A few days ago, on the Sean Hannity show, Romney did not disagree with Sean when Hannity said Obamacare must be repealed, but Romney never that I know of offered that view unprompted. Other candidates, and especially Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain, have made it clear they would repeal Obamacare.
If Romney would repeal Obamacare, why does he insist he will issue waivers, which he said he would do in the first two debates? Waivers mean that Obamacare will be the law of the land for states that do not request a waiver. And if Obamacare is leaf intact for these states, it becomes the model for all states (just as Romneycare provided a model for Obamacare) when and if future legislatures decide to go with the socialist program.
My state, CA, will not request a waiver. Will somebody ask Romney if he would give every American citizen a waiver?
Apparently Romney thinks Obamacare is a good law just as he continues to insist that Romenycare is a good law. There is little difference between the two laws. Does Romney realize that common sense reason revels there is a glaring inconsistency between the opinion that the MA law is a good one and the opinion that Obamacare must be repealed? Romney is a slick politician. He said he would seek a constitutional amendment. But why a constitutional amendment when a vote of congress could repeal it? A constitutional amendment would take years if it was doable at all. By then Obamacare would have a large dependency support group like Medicare has now; it would be incredible to imagine that that thought had not occurred to Romney.
I don’t like Herman Cain. He may have what it takes to run a company, okay, I’ll give you that, but I have doubts about running the country.
I’m unhappy with his 9-9-9 plan, I’d never support a 9% VAT, this would kill me. It would be especially hard on us lower income and retired families. What he doesn’t mention is that state and local sales taxes will never go away, (currently in Texas at about 8+%), add a 9% VAT and the basic things we need start to get very expensive. My wife is a school teacher nearing retirement and I’m retired, our combined income after 2012 will be quite low. This guy would have us living under a bridge in a cardboard box with his tax plan.
Sorry, no vote for Cain here.
Obama didn’t have any experience or substance!!!!!!!
Newt is too old to be president.
His makes an excellent tutor for future presidents.
Sorry for the typo.
The above sentence should read,”He makes an excellent tutor for future presidents.”
Hello there, simply became alert to your weblog via Google, and located that it’s truly informative. I’m gonna be careful for brussels. I’ll appreciate if you happen to continue this in future. Many folks will probably be benefited from your writing. Cheers!
Hi there, I found your site by way of Google whilst searching for a comparable subject, your website came up, it seems to be great. I have bookmarked it in my google bookmarks.
Its such as you learn my thoughts! You appear to know so much about this, such as you wrote the book in it or something. I feel that you just could do with some p.c. to force the message home a bit, however instead of that, this is excellent blog. A fantastic read. I’ll definitely be back.
I feel this is one of the most vital information for me. And i’m glad reading your article. However wanna observation on some normal things, The site style is perfect, the articles is truly great : D. Good job, cheers
I just like the valuable information you provide to your articles. I’ll bookmark your weblog and check again right here regularly. I am slightly certain I will be told many new stuff right right here! Good luck for the following!