The American Spectator : A Newt Vision to Save America

Text Size

A Newt Vision to Save America

By Peter Ferrara on 11.17.10 @ 6:08AM

There's Gingrich having these wild ideas!

Last week, I attended the Annual Dinner of the Institute for Policy Innovation in Dallas, Texas, featuring former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Gingrich is the only political leader in America today who, after you hear him speak, leaves you feeling like you learned something new, or, maybe even that a whole new perspective or vision has been opened for you. In fact, his speech at this dinner is this generation's modern equivalent of Reagan's famous CPAC speech of 1975,

Gingrich has been on the cutting edge of American politics for at least 25 years now. It was as early as March of 2009 that Gingrich said if the Democrats continued to move to the left, and if their budget vote is as bad as their stimulus vote, that the Republicans would take back the House majority. Think back to how crazy, and far sighted, that had to be at the time, when Barack Obama was still in the process of beatification by the national, party controlled press.

And Newt was called out on that craziness. Stuart Rothenberg, long-time top analyst of congressional political trends, wrote in response, "[Gingrich's] idea is lunacy and ought to be put to rest immediately." It took more than 18 months for Rothenberg to catch up to Gingrich.

Gingrich provided insight into his roots at IPI, and where he is coming from: "My Dad was a career soldier and on Veterans Day I feel in particular the 27 years he spent serving in the United States Army, and the depth of his belief that defending America was a moral cause." Gingrich explained the specific effect this had in his youth:

When my Dad was stationed in Orleans, France in 1957-58, the French Fourth Republic was dying. It was fighting a war in Algeria it was losing. It was suffering 100% inflation. There was still World War II and World War I battle damage…. And we went to stay at a friend of my father's at Verdun. My father's friend had been drafted in 1941, sent to the Philippines, served in the Bataan Death March, and spent three and a half years in a Japanese prison camp…. We spent several days touring the largest battlefield of the Western Front in Verdun in which some 600,000 men were killed in a nine month period. We spent every evening talking about his experiences having been defeated and trying to survive in the Japanese prison camp.

The lesson Gingrich took was this:

I came out of it convinced that countries die. And that the quality of civilian leadership is central to their survival…. I concluded that my job was to try to understand three things: what is it we have to do to survive as a country, how would you explain it with such clarity that the American people would give you permission to do it, and how would you then implement it in such a way that it both worked and they would give you permission to continue. I've literally now, for 52 years, been trying to understand this.

The result that Gingrich now offers us after 52 years of this process: "I think we have to move from a rejection model of conservatism to a replacement model of conservatism." Gingrich explained that in the Declaration of Independence, we declared that we were rejecting the British monarchy, and that we were now independent. "However, that didn't make us independent. We declared our opinion. In order to be successful and independent, there had to be two enormous acts of replacement. The first occurred in the winter of 1778 at Valley Forge, when George Washington, after two long painful years of defeat, came to the conclusion that only by having a first class Army, capable in a disciplined way of fighting in the field, could we defeat the British."

So Washington spent the winter at Valley Forge training and disciplining that American Army, with the help of the young French nobleman Lafayette, and the German military veteran Von Steuben. The result was "an American Army that in the spring of 1778 defeated head-on a first class British Army in a shocking moment in which all of a sudden the British were forced to realize the Americans probably were not going to ever be defeated. But it was the replacement of British military power with American military power which made the difference." [Emphasis added.)

The second enormous act of replacement to create America was the replacement of the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution of the United States. "It wasn't just the Articles of Confederation aren't adequate. It was here is an alternative."

Gingrich went on to apply this analysis to the politics of today. The American people rejected the Left in 1972, "George McGovern was annihilated for all practical purposes." The American people rejected the Left again in 1980, "People forget, Jimmy Carter carried exactly the same number of states as Herbert Hoover." The American people rejected the Left even more decisively in 1984, "Walter Mondale was repudiated carrying one state, his home state, only because Reagan didn't go and campaign there. If Reagan had campaigned in Minnesota the last weekend, he would have carried 50 states. He thought it was somehow ungentlemanly."

The American people rejected the Left yet again in 1994, "and for the first time in 40 years, the Republicans got control of the House, and we kept it for twelve years." Gingrich concluded, "And last Tuesday, the left was once again repudiated." That repudiation included the largest gain of House seats by either party since 1932, plus 682 state legislative seats switching from Democrat to Republican, restoring Republicans in the states to their high water mark in the 1920s.

But Gingrich asks, do you think the Left even noticed this now long history of rejection. He answers:

The Left didn't notice it because the power of the Left isn't in popular elections. The power of the Left is in tenured academics. The power of the Left is the news media. The power of the Left is the bureaucracy. The power of the Left is union leadership. The power of the Left is inside the judgeships. The power of the Left is in the Hollywood literati. And so the Left just kept going further Left.

Gingrich concludes:

Page: 1 2 3 >

About the Author

Peter Ferrara is Senior Fellow at the Carleson Center for Public Policy, Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Heartland Institute, and General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under the first President Bush. He is the author of America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb, now available from HarperCollins.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (92) | Leave a comment

logmank| 11.17.10 @ 7:02AM

There is no one in American politics more confusing than Newt Gingrich. He comes up with an extremely well thought out treatise like this, then sits down on a couch with Nancy Pelosi and talks about the dangers of anthropogenic global warning in front of the television cameras.
Huh?

Big Tony| 11.17.10 @ 9:12AM

A large number of people were fooled by the Global Warming scam. Until it was exposed for what it really was. I'd be willing to see what Newt's current views are in light of the current situation and see if he is still a believer in Global Warming or not. If he is no longer a believer I'd be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

txn4ever| 11.17.10 @ 3:13PM

Global warming was debunked long before the Newt sat down with Nancy yet the Newt was unable to digest the real science.

Newt wanders in the hinterland between ruling class and country class. While he may have great ideas a lot of them seem to be recycled from those who came before.

Redstateboy| 11.17.10 @ 4:55PM

good points... McCain lost me (even though I voted for him) when he too began yap'n about Man Made Global Warming BS.. What we need is someone with F'n conviction instead what we get is watered down Conservativism diluted with Liberal BS so as what?? appeal to greater numbers of us great unwashed rubes?

Nobama| 11.18.10 @ 7:40AM

It's important to observe that since Gore lost in 2000, he couldn't run in 2004. Who became the candidates for the left? Kerry and Leiberman, the authors of the climate bill. In 2008, ALL candidates were warmers. McCain had a sudden STRANGE surge in donations. Beware the lukewarmers and RINOs who will run for office in 2012. Romney will likely see huge donations. Conservatives must reject these substitutes.

Yes, Newt was apparently sucked in by the warming scam. But I think Inhofe and blogs like this one have educated many of the GOP now.

Son Of Sam| 11.17.10 @ 9:23AM

I liken Newt to Thomas Jefferson in that he has excellent ideas, but he really has no clear idea about how to achieve those ideas, nor does he have the true "fire in the belly" to prosecute the conflict to make those ideas. What we need now are combat officers, not more armchair theorists afraid to dirty their wingtips with the mud of battle. Fortunately, many such soldiers of freedom are beginning to emerge now, thanks largely to the tea party movement. What makes me most hopeful about this past election is that it was much more deeply rooted in the efforts of "we the people", and not a handful of elected politicians like Newt. However talented they may be, by themselves they will never be enough

Nancy| 11.17.10 @ 9:53AM

Amen

mames| 11.17.10 @ 10:27AM

Gingrich is history not the cutting edge. His vacillations are legendary and his personal life is a pure mess. I ask you would you like him to be YOUR father?

Alan Brooks| 11.17.10 @ 11:48AM

I've studied futurism for 30 years,
Gingrich's conservative futurism is an idea whose time has...
past.
It is as outmoded as New School Of Social Research futurism, 1966.

However perhaps Newt has finished with conservative futurism yet is too cowardly to admit it.

Albert| 11.17.10 @ 12:12PM

"I've studied futurism for 30 years."
Yes, but now that's in the past. (just kidding.)
Newt should stick to punditry, perhaps scholarly research. But never again should he run for office.

Fubar Akbar| 11.18.10 @ 6:24AM

The future's not what it used to be.

Negro X| 11.17.10 @ 5:45PM

Brooks you idiot, you studied futurism for 30 years? Why then didn't you see obama's string of failures coming. You are retard.

Forrest Gump| 11.18.10 @ 7:11PM

I'm a retard and I find it highly offensive to be compared to Brooks.

Tim*| 11.17.10 @ 7:45AM

Mr.Newt is perceptive on certain issues, but still seems to have a Big Government mentality

Alan Brooks| 11.17.10 @ 11:53AM

Oh NO KIDDING, Timmie-boy.
Gee how did you ever hypothesize in the first place that Gingrich has a Big Government mentality?
Did you ruminate in your hypo-hyperbaric think tank?

Tim*| 11.17.10 @ 2:43PM

Now,ObamaBoy Brooks,We know you're still all aghast and flummoxed by Your Midterm Asskickin' .
Maybe You Can Go Feed The Squirrels In The Park & Tell Them About Your Angst

Margee| 11.17.10 @ 7:52AM

Yeah, advising Obama to take some time off to "think and reflect" is a brilliant, cutting edge idea.

P.Smith| 11.17.10 @ 7:56AM

He makes good points as a speaker, but there are too many contradictions in his past life for him to be my leader; I just can't trust a man that can’t keep his pants on.

If a man cannot be trusted in the very basic matters of his marriage, how he be relied upon to make appropriate decisions about everyone else’s life?

Big Tony| 11.17.10 @ 8:28AM

Get real! We are looking for a leader that can articulate where we need to go and how we can get there. And then hopefully inspire people to take the actions necessary to turn the country around. We are not trying to elect an angel or a saint. This is where the left excels they don't care anything about the personal flaws and human failings of the people they elect, look at Clinton as an example.

I am not saying Newt is the best person for the job, Palin is not ready for prime time and Romney is a RINO if there ever was one, but Newt may be the best we can get. I hope for the sake of my children and the country someone rises to the occasion and the american people see fit to elect him or her. But it is seer folly to expect human beings not to have flaws or to think that all we have to do is elect the right person and everthing will be great! The New Deal, the Great Society and Obamanomics will not be undone without a great deal of sacrifice and hard work by a large number of people.

Deborah D| 11.17.10 @ 8:35AM

Amen, I'm with you, Big Tony. I'm sick of conservatives throwing the baby out with the bath water. I think Newt would serve as a great adviser to whomever the Republicans deems to nominate. They'd be stupid not to listen to this wise sage.

Bill Young| 11.17.10 @ 9:41AM

I agree with both you and Tony. There is not a person walking the face of the earth that is perfect. The Biblical giants of scripture also had their failings and yet God still used them to advance his plan of salvation for the world. David and Solomon are just two examples. We are not perfect people yet we can still work for what is right and advance the cause of freedom.

didi scars-a-lotta| 11.17.10 @ 10:03PM

Yes! Neut listens to other wise sages and follows their advice so as not to fault himself. Also, Neut is great at wetting his finger to feel which way the wind is blowing. He's also good at hunting, excepting rinos.

Eric Cartman| 11.17.10 @ 9:15AM

There are a lot of things that would make it difficult for Newt to be president. But there is nothing preventing him from being our Ben Franklin. If he can't become president - and I wouldn't mind if he did- he should be appointed as out National Historian - unpaid of course - and let loose on the Democrat's leviathan. Let his explain why it's bad policy, what it is doing to us, what can be done instead. Any Republican who can get the rabble in the Detroit School Systems to listen and consider alternatives, should be give a chance.

Nostril| 11.17.10 @ 8:46PM

Mr. Smith makes the valid point that personal morality is an indispensable indicator of personal integrity. Witness Bill Clinton. I was really bummed when the R's only enacted a couple of the 10 items in the Contract With America, under Newt's leadership. Especially term limits. He tends to think that every problem needs a national policy, implemented usually by the federal government, the Constitution be darned. We need to find ways to break the Left's stranglehold on most people's minds, through their virtual monopoly of the education and academia, entertainment and news media outlets. They didn't get us, but they settled for warping our children's minds. There are now , what , 15-19 fully red state legislatures that should waste no time implementing a voucher program enabling all kids to get private or home schooling.

IzeHavitt| 11.18.10 @ 12:11AM

Very well said, Tony. Think about it, folks. No matter who the conservatives nominate, the Left/ Mainstream Media will vilify this person. Think about this, too: one of Saul Alinsky's cunning observations was that the Right is expected to be morally innocent in all things, whereas the Left allows no such boundaries to hinder themselves. So they give themselves a license to " do whatever it takes". So, for them, anything goes, and their friends in the media turn their blind eyes to the same. And as far as Newt's imperfections are concerned, well, whaddya think we have A Redeemer for? I like, and have liked Newt as POTUS for a long time, and one reason is that, like Ezra of the Old Testament, Newt has prepared his heart.Another reason is that, like Reagan- and unlike Clinton- Newt really wants to accomplish something, and not just be the Ultimate Somebody". This is the difference between a genuine statesman and a mere politician. And belive me, we really need as many statesmen as possible now. May God bless him in his work.

Seek| 11.17.10 @ 12:56PM

The man's been divorced twice. So what? In the first place, he's happy with his current wife. In the second place, lots of conservatives have gone through a divorce -- think of the thrice-divorced (and recently remarried) Rush Limbaugh.

Divorce in and of itself ought not cast a shadow of dispersion upon a man's fitness to hold public office. It's the public, not private, Newt Gingrich that counts in the end.

Susie| 11.18.10 @ 9:34PM

Amen.

susie| 11.18.10 @ 9:39PM

If your wife can't trust you, neither can I.

susie| 11.18.10 @ 9:43PM

For some reason, I have been replying to P. Smith and it shows up as a reply to Seek. ?????

artin j smith| 11.17.10 @ 8:03AM

I think that there is perhaps embedded in our psyche a desire--perhaps a feeling of urge to "get along" --meaning with ones opponents. This could be simply a Normal" human emotion. However, what should be asked of Gingrich and others like him who want " get along" with the likes of Pelosi is--where is their urge to "get along" why don't they show such as desire. ? This is a capitol question that needs to be debated and answered. I have thought about this a great deal and have come to this conclusion: Socialists,Marxists.Communists do not compromise. This a fact of life--not just my oppinion. Look how can Pelosi become a party leader still after a resounding defeat--of yea there are those that will oppose her but how can SHE still believe ? This is one small example. The dilemma we have in my oppinion is to some extent look at the election we just held. I truly believe that the reason for the resounding vote AGAINST the Socialists was mainly in the economic area and political method or ideology. Those people who voted for Obama thinking they got a "reasonable normal leader" found otherwise.
While there is I believe agreement on putting a check on government and making changes that would relieve the psyche of the bourgeoise, the question then arises, what is it we want as a nation and what do we agree on ? In broad brush strokes we have a great deal of agreement for the majority of voters, but in fine details, there are many areas of disagreement, social issues being among them. I think it is crucial to first defeat the Socialists and keep them out of power with a coalition. Then debate the finer points.

coal carrier| 11.17.10 @ 8:07AM

I have always liked listening to what Mr. Gingrich has had to say basically because he usually lays out solutions to specific problems. His discussions are not just happy talk. However, I have to question his thought of “we are determined to go into the poorest of communities, of every part of America”…“so that every American is truly capable of pursuing happiness”.

I don’t believe you can legislate someone into pursuing happiness. Pursuing happiness comes from within an individual. It is developed from the way a person is raised. It is formulated in a person’s culture. Pursuit of happiness does not come from the government. Government can only remove barriers. And to a large extent those barriers have already been removed. It is now up to the individual to pursue his or her happiness.

Pursuit of happiness is not a pursuit of handouts.

MikeBee| 11.17.10 @ 9:23AM

Coal Carrier,
You are absolutely right. And THAT is what Newt means by going into the poorest of communities and changing them. Look at the city of Detroit. It has been run as a communist "state" for 40 years, and suffers greatly from this. We have to go in there and get government out of the way, and give the people a chance to succeed.

Louis Jenkins| 11.17.10 @ 8:16AM

Newt is at it again. Enough with the old man, time to get new talent in the game. Every election he raises up his head and speaks of wisdom and knowledge, then somewhere along the way, be it a couch with Mrs. Pelosi or in the sack, he gets lost. Enough already, we don't need Newt running for President.

R Martin| 11.17.10 @ 8:43AM

I agree...mostly.

At 67 I don't consider Newt an "old man" and believe his chronological age provides some useful experience and maturity. The "young man" currently in the White House sorely lacks those qualities.

We certainly don't need Newt running for president, but we do need him. His personal shortcommings, management failures as Speaker and high negatives with the public preclude his appeal as a candidate. Yet he is a productive strategic thinker with real intelligence (as clearly demonstrated in his IPI address), and his ideas can certainly help Republicans/Conservatives develop and implement a path to the sort of American Exceptionalism no one would be reticent to recognize.

Louis Jenkins| 11.17.10 @ 11:30AM

Dear R. Martin:

That's okay. I don't necessarily argue that 67 is old either considering my age. Rather out with the "old man" concept. He may provide useful experience and maturity, but I don't think he will ever be presidential material. As for the young man in the White House, couldn't agree more.

Son Of Sam| 11.17.10 @ 11:46AM

The '94 landslide -- of which Newt was THE principle architect -- took place in the same year that our newest voters were born in. Other than political junkies such as ourselves, how people could identify who he is and what he's accomplished if they were handed an un-captioned picture of the man?

Deborah D| 11.17.10 @ 8:31AM

I've had my problems with Mr. Newt as well, but I think he has amazing ideas. I think most conservatives would have to agree that where the Left gets its power is not from its numbers but from its position in the culture...they decided to march through the institutions, and they did -- and this is where they have brought us.

It's time for Americans to march through their institutions and take them back. Newt is one of the few actually saying that. Not sure he is presidential material, but he would be an excellent man behind the throne.

Thanks for this, Mr. Ferrara, once again you've given us much to ponder.

Al Adab| 11.17.10 @ 10:35AM

Deborah:
Newt is one of the better "idea guys" in the movement although he carries too much baggage to lead again. As the policy debate heats up we need to have full discussion about priorities and possibilities for Reclaiming our Institutions.

This is at long last the opportunity the Conservative Movement thought it had in 1994 and 2000. Both those times the GOP failed us. They must not be allowed to fail us again.

Deborah D| 11.17.10 @ 2:34PM

Amen! The country can't afford another failure of the GOP to nominate a good candidate for president. This past election was the THE most important election of my lifetime in order to stop the radicals in their tracks. The one in 2012 will again be THE most important election in order to reclaim our country and turn the ship of state around so we can preserve the republic for our children.

Rick T| 11.17.10 @ 8:44AM

Newt has the strength and the passion to carry it through, and would create a legacy to carry it forward. Despite his faults, I think he is without question the most qualified and visionary leader.

justasimplepatriot| 11.17.10 @ 8:49AM

Effective executive skills are needed but they must be accompanied by the ability to teach, encourage and inspire - on a level of Reagan's "I believe America's brightest days are ahead"

Never has this Country been in such dire need of encouragement. If Newt can do it he's got my vote. He will need to convince me he will govern conservative by instinct. Any compromise with the left is a huge step back.

Kenny| 11.17.10 @ 8:49AM

No doubt, Newt has his good points, but the man better get any presidential ideas out of his head right now.

The Reason? Simply put, Newt is not trusted by conservative, including myself, and he's hated by the Democrats.

Newt can campaign for Republicans, advise the GOP, write books and promote conservative solutions to today's problems, but he cannot be the one holding power.

And if Newt is half as smart as his apologists think he is, then he'll know this himself.

George S| 11.17.10 @ 8:51AM

Intellectuals like Newt pose two problems. First, is that they do not reject an idea -- say, like global warming -- outright based on principle or common sense. They instead get suckered into the premise and try to crank out brainpower to apply a conservative twist or solution when all it does is accept a liberal premise and further cements it in law or whatever. Second, it tends to make them indecisive (did I make the right choice? What if instead..?). As a professor and a majority leader, Gingrich may well have been excellent, but to take down liberalism takes the mettle of a type that does not flinch. Like a Reagan or a GWB. Liberalism cannot be beaten with eggheads and smart quips, it takes a leader who has no doubts about what is right and wrong and has the will to stand their ground in defending their beliefs. Palin has that over Newt in spades, as does Rubio, Christie, Giuliani and Ryan.

Frisbee| 11.17.10 @ 9:04PM

GWB? Whom could you possibly mean? You mean Bush 2? He was constantly flinching. I mean, actually, he didn't even get that far. He was a nice guy, but not up to the task, and certainly not comparable to Reagan!

GavInTucson| 11.17.10 @ 10:37PM

GWB and the likes of Giuliani aren't even second-stringers compared to Reagan. Palin, Rubio, and Christie might be comers, but they've got a long road ahead in proving themselves.

And, speaking of Palin, forget her. While I might admire her positions and beliefs, she's such a lightning rod (even among some Republicans) that I feel she doesn't stand a chance in hell of ever being President. And, sorry, as much as I might find her reality show somewhat entertaining, I really can't take anybody seriously in that line of work.

Just my two cents.

Petronius| 11.17.10 @ 8:56AM

When Newt had the gavel he also tried to have it both ways, using his position as Speaker to attempt gaining admission to the permanent Washington establishment which is Liberals Only. Now he comes at us with soft conservatism as a foil to soft tyranny. And he can stick that too.
If this country is ever going to recover, the old firewalls of moral behavior must be rebuilt and made to last. We are on the verge of collapse because of the current proclivity for the amorality of profligacy and parasitism by the Liberal electorate. And we have to pay for it, along with the carnage of the predators in our midst resulting from their mayhem, and the cultural rot inflicted upon us by perverts. Have you got that Newt? It's them or Us.

Mattled| 11.17.10 @ 9:10AM

Lifetime Washington Liberals feed off of taxpayers like us. Same with Public sector unions. Why do public employees need unions? If Liberals believe ANY Government is great, why do public employees need union protection and cover?

First candidate that comes along and cuts both off gets my yard as an advertising vehicle. End Liberal domination in D.C. And end the act of using our money -----against us aka public unions.

Petronius| 11.17.10 @ 2:25PM

Matt
Talk to your Letter Carrier. He can infuriate you with stories about idiotic work rules which make it almost impossible for him to deliver Your mail. But that's the daily Dickensian schedule of abuse and violations of our contract by Postal Management who proliferate their jobs by eliminating ours. We need the NALC because these same managers make decisions which not only contravene the contract but result in my colleagues getting killed on the route. A supervisor in Raytown Mo. did exactly that and all he got was a transfer. Can you say arrogance of power?

Thom| 11.17.10 @ 4:02PM

Petronius, should other government employees like the "military" have unions to protect them from bad Management decisions? I worked for government for 20 years (not in management) and spent some time in the military and it seems to me that everywhere you have "government” employee unions you end up with a combination of poor performance coupled with outrageous cost for said work performed coupled with shafting the people who pay your salary all the while using a monopoly status under law to hide behind the harm they do to the country at large. Examples of this are numerous not the least of which was PATCO and the Post Office Unions have threatened to strike more than once when it would do max harm to their "customers". Not to make too fine a point here but you can't have it both ways, being "necessary" as a government entity and acting like the UAW when it lines your pockets at taxpayer expense. Just for the record the average postal employee salary is equal to mine and I’ve been doing what I do since 1973 and have never been in a Union. The single largest difference between people who wish to be in a Union and those like me who want nothing at all to do with one is that I wish to be judged on my own merit while Union mindsets seek to be part of a herd and wish to be protected from the consequences of others being rewarded more for better work. Simply put what the “collective” mindset typically produces over time is the lowest common denominator becoming the standard and powerful disincentives develop to not rise above that with individual members. The Post Office is a blazing example of this both at the management and employee level. I can get killed driving to work any day or going to the mail box and no Union decision is going to change that. It all comes down to whether you wish to be viewed as an individual or as part of a herd. I’m not cattle, sheep or goat. No one speaks for me. So by your standard, the military certainly needs to be unionized to protect itself from all those bad management decisions, right?

Tom Anderson| 11.17.10 @ 8:59AM

While far from perfect, who is perfect? That said, I am willing as a libertarian to give Newt another look. He's got the brain power and the experience to do an excellent job as President. Again, the question is not, who would be the perfect candidate? The question is, who among those likely to run would best advance the country toward the goals of limiting the power of government, advancing the cause of individual rights, and pursuing those policies best calculated to advance the general welfare, domestically and internationally.

Donna| 11.17.10 @ 9:19AM

I am with you Tom. I lean toward Palin right now, but could be easily convinced to support Newt over others in the field right now.

I marvel at his ability to synthesize information/history and use that to formulate great ideas.

Dan Hirsch| 11.17.10 @ 9:06AM

Newt sure sounds good, doesn't he?

So did Barry...

Great historians see through the fogs of war, business, time to understand what really happened. Results are not such a big deal to historians.

Executives need to be entirely focused on results. Look again at Barry.

This is where Newt seems to falter. His own life has not reflected an uninterrupted string of principled decisions.

A President needs to stand head, shoulders, elbows, and a lot more above the rest of us in his or her life and principles. Newt doesn't come close; but he is a fascinating interpreter of what has happened.

But why did he sit on the couch with Nancy? In support of what foolishness? Methinks his Narcissus gene is mite too strong.

Dan Hirsch

Nolite me conculcare!

Rmm| 11.17.10 @ 9:24AM

Newt had his chance, and blew it. He is an eloquent spokesman for the cause of smaller government and bashing the liberal elites. I especially like his way of undressing our wannabe President, and keeping the heat on the Left.

JimP| 11.17.10 @ 9:28AM

An exellent column! I look forward to the release of Mr. Ferrara's book and will buy Newt's newest release now.

Newt definitely has flaws, as do we all which has already been pointed out. I don't get his sitdown with Nan or his tour with the execrable Al Sharpton. Nevertheless he still has a great mind and a wealth of good ideas. I am among those who think Palin is not quite ready and could be unelectable in '12 (but much could change in 2 years). I think Jindal is fantastic, but again, not quite there yet for different reasons than Palin, IMO. I'd take Newt over any of the remaining names on the list, but it would be a "trust, but verify" vote. No more palling around with Nan, Al or any of the other lefty loons and their BS ideas that demonstrably belong on "the ash heap of history".

chris haynes| 11.17.10 @ 9:38AM

He supports pro-abortion candidates as long as they are Republicans.

45,000,000 innocent children dead. Biggest holocaust in history. None of this all men created equal, endowed with an inalienable right to life for Newt.

To Newt, you're okay if youre sound on capital gains taxes. Holocaust enabling, whatever.

Mr. Grinch| 11.17.10 @ 9:44AM

If the republicans really, REALLY want to commit suicide, they'll nominate Newt. Sure, he's smart, but let him be chief of staff or something. Sure, I agree with him on some things, but I don't think he's genuine, and he's about as charming as an eel. And, yes, he got a raw deal with our msm, not a day went by without hearing about his negatives, (as opposed to Speaker Nan), but some of that was his own fault, he's as politically accident-prone as Ms. Stand-By-My-Man Rodham-Clinton. I'm really starting to think he's just another polical opportunist, just one flip-flop away from Spector or Crist. Frankly I see a lot more sincerity in our younger guns, like Paul Ryan.

OccamsRazorXXX| 11.17.10 @ 2:02PM

I agree. If one steps back and looks at both parties all we see are dinosaurs from with '60s, '70s and '80s mentality in positions of power or dominating the party talk. It is 2010 and we need new faces, with ideas to solve 2010's problems. Not retreaded ideas repackaged under a new name and no politicians with movie star mentality who really have no record for their time in office ala Obama, i.e. Palin. Alaska is a union state, where the majority of its citizens work for government. Not an acceptable template for America.

Out with the Newts, Romneys, McConnels, Boehners, Roves etc.... In with the Marco Rubios, Paul Ryans, Eric Cantors and Michelle Bachmanns.

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.17.10 @ 9:45AM

Someone above,

Took on the idea of "pursuing happiness emerges from within a person."

In New's speech the operative term was "capable"...of pursuing happiness. A key word in my opinion.

"Capable" means NOT "poor in spirit", (to use a Biblical term), or hopelessness, or life-long depression.
I firmly believe the Christian children's song provides the "capability".
ie: "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so. We little ones to Him belong...and in His arms we are strong."

See, mostly, children need to be loved and encouraged, and hugged, emotionally and physically. They desperately need atta-boys and atta-girls.
Finally, they need someone BIG to trust absolutely, for their safety and sense of being beloved. Why not our Creator...?

In my heart of hearts, I believe that most of the sadness in the whole world is due to one single binary word. "child-abuse".

That is why I truly detest generation after generations of passed down child abuse in some cultures.

RCV| 11.17.10 @ 2:15PM

Amen to every word.

owyheewine| 11.17.10 @ 10:42AM

I see Newt more as an Oracle than a leader. Face it, he lead a strong force of committed, disciplined conservatives in the fight with Slick Willy, but faltered over issues of personal vanity.
His thinking is terrific, but he is a little lacking in character to be the face of conservatism in the next election.
By the way he has done a 180 on global warming. Must have been listening to Rush.

Paul from SA| 11.17.10 @ 10:48AM

I no longer look up to Newt. He is sounding more and more like a total party man, without any regard for what's good for the country. He just wants power.

Newt said eliminating the mortgage interest deduction is a stupid idea. We need a flat tax with no deductions -- no preferential treatment to any person, group or industry. Giving wealthy people preferential treatment ( a discount) to own a house is not fair.

John II| 11.17.10 @ 12:13PM

Well, it's fair to the younger, responsible, struggling homeowners who otherwise couldn't afford even a modest house to raise their kids in.

But everything about the income tax is selectively fair. There should be no income tax at all. Taxes should be strictly on property and consumption, especially in this day and age when property and consumption are so easy to track, and without invading everyone's privacy.

The rich would pay more because they own more and consume more extravagantly--so the envy aspect favored by the busybody Left would be appeased: the consumption tax is automatically a graduated tax.

The rest of us would be in a better position to save more, and more inclined to invest more.

The only serious snag: raising taxes would be an easier move on the part of greedy liberal legislators. But the political culture would quickly evolve to make life properly miserable for such bastards.

The most satisfying immediate effect of abolishing the income tax is that the denizens of the IRS and untold thousands of shyster tax lawyers would have to look for honest work. In other words, the moral improvement in the culture would be rapid.

Anyhow, stop talking about flat tax, and start thinking about the serious moral problems with any kind of income tax whatever.

RCV| 11.17.10 @ 1:21PM

John, my friend, I happy to find a topic on which I am in complete agreement with you on. A consumption tax is far superior to an income tax on so many levels: It is graduated in exactly the right fashion. It doesn't penalize hard work, and leaves people with more freedom to choose. It encourages savings and through that, self-funding for retirement, unemployment, etc. It requires a far smaller bureaucracy to administer and collect. It would free us all from the hated April hell.

And on this day, in 1777, the Articles of Confederation were submitted to the newly-independent States for ratification.

RCV| 11.17.10 @ 1:22PM

...and on rereading, I apologize to your Most Glorious Pendantic Nature for the doubel "on" in the first sentence.

RCV| 11.17.10 @ 1:26PM

...not to mention the erroneous spelling of "doubel" in the first apology. But it gives me a further opportunity to call attention to the fact that, on this day in 1558, the great Elizabeth I assumed the throne of England. Which reminds me further of the wonderful Onion headline on the engagement of Prince William: "Unemployed Woman to Marry Soldier From Family on Public Benefits".

Frisbee| 11.17.10 @ 8:51PM

The problem with the mortgage interest deduction is that nobody wants to ever pay off their mortgage.

Also, things like the mortgage interest deduction inevitably just raise the price of the house. Same with having both parents work: if everybody does it, it just raises the house prices (while destroying the home).

Bob Miller| 11.17.10 @ 11:51AM

If the socialist stranglehold on nearly our entire educational system is a big part of the problem, what exactly needs to be done now in education, both public and private? And who is going to fund alternative institutions on the scale needed, considering that government bureaucracies who fund education are quite pleased with its ideological status quo?

John II| 11.17.10 @ 12:27PM

Home schooling and, within limits, charter schooling: it's already being done. But the temptation to abandon one's children to institutionalization at about age 6 is pretty strong.

The stranglehold of the crazed ideologues who run the school system is mostly real--but it's abetted mostly by parental irresponsibility, which in turn is fostered by a corrupt culture abetted by a corrupt education system.

Round and round it goes. One can only cut the Gordian knot if one is serious; among those who give a damn at all, most seem content to puzzle over the knot.

Frisbee| 11.17.10 @ 8:55PM

Here here JohnII. We are homeschooling. It is wonderful. We know our kids, and they know us. It is truly a family life.

The replacement of the family with government institutions is at the very heart of the continued demise of America. (Geesh - how merciless! I mean, who the heck enjoys being in a government building... and they want their kids raised there?)

Florin| 11.17.10 @ 12:50PM

No one expects a person to be perfect but we do expect someone leading our country to have character...Newt is for Newt. He loves to pontificate and brag about how smart he is while trying to look humble. He went after Pres. Clinton for having an affair while he himself was having an affair. That is so hypercritical and bizarre - surely he knew he would be found out. He treated his former wives very shabbily which shows what he thinks about women; he supported and urged others to support Scozzafava despite the fact that she is a left leaning radical liberal...so much for his conservative standards...he will do whatever is politically expedient in order to get his dream of being president fulfilled but that is never going to happen. And who knows what he will do with his present wife when he realizes his dream is gone? We have younger, brighter and more honest men and women in the Republican party now - let them take leadership positions...if Newt wants to advise them, so be it - but let it be from a background position - I'm an Independent, former Democrat...and I know Newt has no chance of becoming President...Hannity keeps asking him about it and Newt nods his head and gives that silly smile and pretends he is considering it so he can keep being asked to speak on matters of importance...but his time is past and will never come again...he needs to face that and accept it...and get on with his life.

J.P. Travis| 11.17.10 @ 12:52PM

Newt Gingrich is simply another RINO, a Washington insider who continues to lust after power. If we learned anything from his endorsement of Dede Scozzafava, it's that he has no principles. He articulates conservative ideas now, but will say whatever he needs to say to benefit his own goals. It's time to move past such people. Give me an inarticulate American with principles over the highly-educated nincompoops like Gingrich any day.

Doctor Right| 11.17.10 @ 1:15PM

Newt,

Please take your "visions" and step-aside.
You're sooooooo 90's...you fill us with ennui.

J.C.Eaton| 11.17.10 @ 1:26PM

Newt Gingrich is a candy-ass, and Presidents of the United States should NOT be candy-asses. Thank you.

Douglas| 11.17.10 @ 2:26PM

Yada, yada, yada. Cheer leader for Newt the toad. Newt is a huge bloat politician. He will say and do anything for his own benefit. He is nother more than a huge gas bag. WHY IN THE CRAP DO YOU CONTINUE TO FEATURE ANYTHING ABOUT THE BUM. The sooner we rid ourselves of the Gingrichs the quicker we can find real conservatives.

Perusha The Offender| 11.17.10 @ 2:35PM

Newt and Sarah BOTH have off-putting aspects. I’ve been a Palin fan from the get go, since her principles coincide with mine, but I couldn’t watch all of her TLC Alaska showcase program, because her perky demeanor and chirpy voice overwhelmed my enjoyment.

As for Newt, I totally hope he runs for president.

Even all you Newt naysayers should hope he does. Why?

Remember that sign on Reagan’s desk---something about it doesn’t matter who gets the credit, as long as it gets done?

Well, the only really vital importance of Newt transcends all his personal peccadilloes and previous errors or failures in judgment.

Imagine a scenario where a speaker could have their words spread in the most pleasing voice, and the listeners didn’t have to SEE their body---oh, that would be radio advertising!

Anyway, WHAT a Newt (and a Palin) has to say is all that counts, so I must emphasize that old Goldwater admonition---“Grow up, Conservatives!”

It’s the MESSAGE, stupid!

If he does choose to RUN for president, he will get the chance to spread his WISE message. Now, of course, it includes many details about all the various areas that NEED to be debated, so it would be a wonderful GIFT to the as yet ignorant individuals, who haven’t had the opportunity to digest what he is offering.

Americans need to know that “happier” ways of dealing with all our problems exist, before they can even realize reach change is possible.

We better HOPE Newt runs!

AS President, one gets to use the bully pulpit to “teach” us “children, (NOT) well in the case of BHO-the pretender.

And, AS a candidate for the presidency, one also gets to use the campaign’s bully pulpit, and if Newt is anything, he IS a teacher, and his lesson plan is congruent with the real world’s true situation, including ways to rightfully deal with it.

Even hypocrites can SAY the truth!

It NEVER matters who says such and such, but whether such and such is true.

JeffT| 11.17.10 @ 2:49PM

Any0ne who sits on a love seat with Pelosi extolling the virtues of combating the scam of global warming is not someone I need to listen to.

PattyMor| 11.17.10 @ 3:36PM

You know what God did to all those rulers who disobeyed God. Just wonder he is thinking about our subsidizing of abortions and unmarried mothers, pushing guy marriage and global warming (man made). Oh, and the "legalized stealing" called redistribution of wealth.

Irish22| 11.17.10 @ 4:26PM

Every time I see the "endowed by Creator" quote it makes me think that those who would "give" me rights (to abortion, health care) seek to become [like] Gods themselves.

David| 11.17.10 @ 4:06PM

Conservatives will do themselves a favor if we stop holding out Gingrich as a party leader.

He supports amnesty for illegals (probably for Hispanics only), believes there is global warming and it is man-caused, he supported every RINO in the primaries over the conservative candidate, and his THREE marriages make him suspect on all moral issues.

He is an opportunist and a user. Like McCain, he will snuggle up to Christian pastors when he wants their help, then trashes them when they are no longer useful.

Forget Gingrich, Huckabee, and Romney.

Michael L. Hauschild| 11.17.10 @ 4:35PM

All hail the brilliance, Newt of the nineties, Rove of the tens. NOT.

Thom| 11.17.10 @ 4:40PM

Newt has always been an articulate, deep thinker and big vision kind of person but he has also shown he has been infected with the Romney disease. By that I mean he is malleable in his beliefs and what he will advocate tends to go with the flow of the moment at times. Lap dancing with the enemy isn’t going to gain ground in the position we are in at this point in time. It is one thing to articulate a vision, a plan for achieving that vision in broad terms but willingness to compromise the founding principles for over 70 years is what has gotten us here.

To undo this will require some steadfast willingness to call a spade a spade and make serious enemies (in both political terms and perhaps more than those terms). Sacred Marxist cows from the past are going to have to be named and dismantled in order to change the “culture” and Newt hasn’t shown a willingness to name names and simply say these programs are failures and why. Changing the culture in the “inner city” is first going to require not being apologetic about the free will choices that helped create it, maintains it and the need for individuals to be held to a level of accountability for their own wellbeing before you can start to dismantle the current spoils based system that sustains it. You can’t create “happiness” without wealth generation and a culture that has disdain for hard work and respect for others that do this and prosper isn’t going to vote against its own self interest in an environment where such disdain is celebrated and tolerated. People need an incentive to do the right thing and a consequence for not. That’s where idealistic visions tend to fall apart when coupled with the view that someone is entitled to the fruits of someone else’s labor. I don’t have a lot of “faith” that our political system can deal with that at this point given the very foundation of one political party is the tenets of Marx and the other seems to think it can make Marx efficient and affordable.

A lot can and will happen between now and the election of 2012 so all cards are on the table but as one poster already pointed out, we’ve already got one articulate idealist and we might not survive as a nation to get to 2012 as it is.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 11.17.10 @ 4:53PM

I will not, under any circumstance, vote for anyone who has ever held any federal office. They are simply reshuffling a tired old deck and that deck has dealt the public a losing hand every time.

Paleo-ossa| 11.17.10 @ 5:35PM

Newt is a super conservative strategist and tactician in an academic setting, but on the ground in the field of political battle he can be fatally distracted, or as another writer said “politically accident prone.”

sawdin| 11.17.10 @ 7:05PM

Newt, like Palin, will best serve the country as fundraisers, advocates of policy prescriptions and advisers. If they run in 2012, they might split the party, and even if they don't and one of them is the Republican nominee, they will lose due to the Palin/Gingrich derangement syndrome that will overcome the mainstream media.

allmhuran| 11.17.10 @ 7:23PM

Newt Gingrich has done his public service. And some to our detriment. Speaks well but not a true conservative. He is a longstanding member of the Council on Foreign Relations. The CFR for decades has worked against the best interest of the US. And for the interest of the United Nations. Barry Goldwater warned America about the Council on Foreign Relations. I do hope Newt Gingrich gives up any pretense of running for President. It would not be good for this country. Unfortunately, he is a wolf in sheeps clothing.

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.17.10 @ 7:27PM

I pray earnestly,
that Sarah runs...win or not.

bluecollarbytes| 11.17.10 @ 8:30PM

I do respect Newt and he can teach up a storm. But his ideas (plan) is a decades-long journey if it requires change of mindsets created by the entitlement society. It's an ongoing war at best, with no reasonable hope of winning over an enthusiastic '70-75%' of the population.

The candidate that can tap into the 'instinctive American psyche' will be the one. It won't require reeducating the public, because deep down...most of us know what works and doesn't work in America. For instance, folks Know ObamaCare is wrong. Demonizing the 'rich' is wrong. Class warfare is un-American. Union thugs destroying businesses is wrong. Ushering America into what some think is well-deserved irrelevancy is wrong.
etc

Frisbee| 11.17.10 @ 8:42PM

We lost a big opportunity in 2000 when Alan Keyes tried to get the Republican nomination. Instead we got G W Bush for 8 years. I think Alan Keyes is still the best man for President, and he even wins on the race card because he's blacker than Obama! Alan Keyes in 2012!

Margie| 11.17.10 @ 9:53PM

Well, Sarah Palin is saying that she might run for President. I will be so glad if she does. Each and every time I hear her speak about our country I am thrilled and mightily encouraged. Sarah really gets it. She has everything it takes to be President. As much as Ronald Reagan had. He loved God, loved his country, knew right form wrong and Left from Right. He understood about freedom. lower taxes, less government and a strong military. She does too. What more could you ask for?
As to Newt~ if he were to become the nominee, I'd vote for Him, as I did with McCain, but because of his wishy-washiness on things I can't really say I'd want him to become the nominee if it'll cause weakness as far as the voters go.

Does Sarah have an even stronger chance of winning? That's the question I'm asking myself and I think I am coming to the conclusion of~ yes. But we shall see. I say that whoever does become the nominee we should get behind so that Obama isn't re elected.

C Smith| 11.18.10 @ 3:01AM

A "Newt" Vision to Save America?

Newt? The guy who visited his wife in the hospital as she was recovering from cancer surgery to discuss divorce? Wanted to marry the woman he was currently "bedding." This lasted until Newt and Bill found something in common, interns and staffers decades their junior. May America's deliverance arise from another place!

http://popularapostasy.blogspo.....erica.html
"For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife. For John said unto him, It is not lawful for thee to have her. And when he would have put him to death, he feared the multitude, because they counted him as a prophet. But when Herod's birthday was kept, the daughter of Herodias danced before them, and pleased Herod. Whereupon he promised with an oath to give her whatsoever she would ask. And she, being before instructed of her mother, said, Give me here John Baptist's head in a charger" (Matthew 14:3-8).

JimmyT| 11.18.10 @ 1:59PM

Yea, Newt has such insight. Limbaugh and Beck were predicting what would happen if bambi was elected BEFORE he was elected. Newt goes with whatever will get him face time. He's a media whore who sells books or documentaries. I used to have a great deal of respect for him as he was gaining notoriety and appeared to actually have principles. Not anymore! He's just media blah, blah, blah now.