-
Time to Go for the Kill
May 22, 2013 | 67 comments
-
Obamacare Implodes
May 15, 2013 | 41 comments
-
Obama’s Rising Inequality
May 8, 2013 | 101 comments
-
Downsize the Liberals
May 1, 2013 | 53 comments
-
Fight Back! Privatize the FAA!
April 24, 2013 | 65 comments
Another Perspective
The Case for Newt Gingrich
How easily his great and solid conservative achievements are forgotten.
He led us to victory before. Spectacular, historic victory. The strategy and content of his 1994 Contract with America propelled the Republicans to a 54-seat gain in 1994 to win control of the House of Representatives, which had been held by the Republicans for only two out of the previous 62 years. Even the Reagan Revolution in the 1980s failed to achieve that.
Then, for all the caterwauling we have heard about how he handled the budget battles with Clinton, he led the House Republicans in 1996 to their first re-election as a majority since 1928, almost 70 years.
Moreover, once in power, Gingrich delivered on his promises, and maintained a solid conservative record. He carried out the Contract with America in full, holding a vote on every item as promised, most of which did pass (which was not promised). His record was unswervingly pro-life, pro-gun and Second Amendment, and anti-tax. Indeed, he worked closely with the conservative activist groups on every one of these issues.
Gingrich’s Balanced Budget: Succeeding Where Bush
Failed
Contrary to the untouched by
reality liberal/left talking points about how the 1993 Clinton tax
increases led to balanced budgets, when the Gingrich majority took
power in 1995, it was greeted by the 1996 Clinton budget still
projecting $200 billion annual budget deficits as far as the
eye could see, totaling $2.7 trillion over 10 years, confirmed by
CBO. The House passed a budget bill providing for $1
trillion in spending cuts over the next 10 years, and that was
almost 20 years ago when $1 trillion was still real
money.
In the government shutdown budget battles with Clinton, Gingrich won the substance, as Gingrich demonstrated the only way to balance the budget, with Reagan’s supply-side economics. That involved both cutting taxes, to get the economy booming, and cutting spending, resulting in the longest period of federal surpluses since the 1920s.
This is what the official government records show. You can dig deep into the records at omb.gov yourself. Total federal discretionary spending, as well as the subcategory of non-defense discretionary spending, declined from 1995 to 1996 in actual nominal dollars. In constant dollars, adjusted for inflation, the decline was 5.4 percent. By 2000, total federal discretionary spending was still about the same as it was in 1995 in constant dollars. As a percent of GDP, federal discretionary spending was slashed by 17.5 percent in just four years, from 1995 to 1999.
Total federal spending relative to GDP declined from 1995 to 2000 by an astounding 12.5 percent, a reduction in the federal government relative to the economy of about one-eighth in just five short years. This was accomplished not just by reducing discretionary spending, but through fundamental structural reforms of some programs, such as the old AFDC entitlement program. The Gingrich Congress succeeded in block granting that program back to the states, after two vetoes from Clinton. After 10 years, the taxpayers saved 50 percent on the costs of that program, while the poor formerly on the program gained by going to work, with poverty among them plummeting. That is a model for future entitlement reform.
As a result, the $200 billion annual federal deficits, which had prevailed for over 15 years, were transformed into record-breaking surpluses by 1998, peaking at $236 billion by 2000. Over four years, the national debt held by the public was reduced by a record $560 billion in surpluses. When Gingrich left office, instead of CBO projections of $2.7 trillion in deficits over the next 10 years, CBO projected surpluses of $2.3 trillion over the next 10 years. That is a positive turnaround in the budget of $5 trillion. This is exactly what we need today.
These spending cuts were accomplished not with a deal with the Democrats to raise taxes, but with pro-growth cuts in tax rates. Gingrich led enactment of a capital gains tax rate cut of nearly 30 percent in 1997, from 28 percent down to 20 percent, which was the largest capital gains cut in American history. Despite that cut, actual capital gains revenues soared $84 billion higher for 1997 to 2000 than projected before the rate cut. The Republican Congress also expanded IRAs, and adopted other tax cuts on capital.
Contrast that with the disastrous 1990 Bush/Darman/Sununu budget deal, trading permanent tax increases for supposed future spending cuts. The economy dropped into recession almost from the moment the deal was announced, with GDP declining 3.6 percent in the fourth quarter of 1990. That briefly ended the 92 straight months of economic growth of the Reagan recovery, almost 60 percent longer than any other peacetime expansion in U.S. history.
As a result, federal tax revenues declined rather than increased, despite the tax hikes engineered by Bush budget director Richard Darman, intellectually dominated by the Washington Post and New York Times. Federal revenues had been running 18 to 18.4 percent of GDP before the budget deal, but they declined to 17.5 to 17.7 percent during 1991 to 1992. Pulitzer prize winning columnist Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal reported in January 1993, in a column entitled “Oops, Weren’t We Going to Reduce the Deficit?” that the rich paid $6.5 billion less in taxes in 1991, after the tax rate hike, than they did in 1990 before rates went up.
While the Joint Tax Committee had estimated the 10 percent luxury tax on boats, airplanes, cars, jewelry and furs would raise $6 billion in 1991, the actual revenue increase was $53,000. The lost revenue from laid off workers previously building luxury boats and planes was far greater. In the first two years of the luxury tax, 9,400 non-rich boat makers lost their jobs.
At the same time, federal spending rose rather than fell, climbing from 21.2 percent of GDP in 1989 to 22.3 percent in 1991 and 22.1 percent in 1992. In 1991 and 1992 federal domestic spending exploded by 20 percent. “Notwithstanding all the budgeters’ talk of pain,” wrote Howard Gleckman of Business Week after the budget deal was consummated, “spending at home is in for a windfall.” Everything from Head Start to NASA to Medicaid to highway spending enjoyed beefy budget increases in this new austere budget environment.
The deficit consequently soared from $152 billion in 1989, to $221 billion in 1990, $269 billion in 1991, and $290 billion in 1992, when the voters rightly booted Bush out for violating the no new taxes pledge that got him elected. As a Cato Institute report concluded: “The 1990 budget deal was not the deal of the century, but the crime of the century. It hurt the economy, reduced revenues, increased spending, and failed its ultimate test: it didn’t reduce the budget deficit.” But to this day, Washington budget experts want another grand bipartisan budget deal just like what happened in 1990.
Ironically, Gingrich is being savaged by the Bush crowd now for his role in leading House Republicans in 1990 to reject the Bush budget deal. Bush White House Chief of Staff John Sununu, Sr. is bitterly attacking Gingrich as unstable for opposing the Bush budget deal circus. Former President Bush has endorsed Romney because he is not “a bomb-thrower,” in Bush’s words, a reference to Gingrich’s refusal to lead House Republicans off the cliff with him.
About the Author
Peter Ferrara is Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy at the Heartland Institute, General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union, Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and Senior Policy Advisor on Entitlements and Budget Policy at the National Tax Limitation Foundation. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under President George H.W. Bush.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (111) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Peter Ferrara
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/12/28/the-case-for-newt-gingrich
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Deborah D | 12.28.11 @ 6:52AM
Thank you for a little sanity as it relates to Newt Gingrich. The over-the-top assault on Newt has been very effective. Yell this to the rooftops, Mr. Ferrara. With you and Art Laffer's endorsement of Mr. Newt, maybe more rational discussions can occur. I fear the Romney GOP'ers are winning the money and the food fights.
Grouchy| 12.28.11 @ 7:07AM
Newt is the one candidate with real accomplishments....Over-throwing powerful Speaker Jim Wright, leading Republicans to winning the House, balancing the budget. The irony is he did such a good job it helped re-elect Clinton...Newt's big problem is sitting in the front row and her name is Callista.
chuck| 12.28.11 @ 8:31AM
And how is Callista any worse than "for the first time in my adult life I'm proud of my country" Moochele?
I'll take Mr. Newt and the 3rd wife any day over the Marxist and lard-arse.
Dan| 12.28.11 @ 9:18AM
I'll take Newt even if he was chasing a skirt around the Oval Office every day, and twice on Sunday!
Our situation is such that we're not in a place where we can pretend that some "good family man" is remotely equal to the challenges we ALL face.
These people pushing Romney are so far out of it that it's like they're all up their at the family compound of the creepy Bush clan, in Maine! Just hopeless!
Occam's Tool| 12.28.11 @ 10:55AM
Dan,
yeah, it's a real problem voting for someone who has actually DONE what Conservatives WANT. They'd rather vote for a maniacal backbencher like Paul, who no one will work with.
Jack in Wi.| 12.28.11 @ 12:34PM
Look at a bust of the Emperor Nero and tell me he isn't a dead ringer for Newt Gingrich. Nero like Newt was very delusional.
Dan| 12.28.11 @ 12:59PM
Yea, all said he was "delusional" when he proposed making the GOP the majority in the House.
All were against him, and only a few loyal allies were with his plans, his agenda.
When he won the position of House Whip, he won by a single vote, and the entire Bush apparat was against him, big time, and Bush was President then too, nominal leader of the party.
When he took on Clinton, again, most were against him getting control over the budget.
We need more delusional types, come to think of it.
Less the sober and the serious Bush types, who've taken the country over a cliff.
C Smith| 12.28.11 @ 7:11PM
Yes, Newt has issues that are deeply disturbing, but he alone had the courage to expose the "Quintessential Lie of Our Time":
Newt Gingrich, in a variety of settings earlier this December, impugned the US State Department for its Arab-centric policy i.e., policy “based upon a pack of lies and self-deception” which “says that it’s always Israel’s fault no matter how bad the other side is.”
"Somebody ought to have the courage to tell the truth," Newt Gingrich pleaded regarding Palestinians as an "invented" Palestinian people intent on Israel's decimation:
"Remember, there was no Palestine as a state — [it was] part of the Ottoman Empire. I think we have an invented Palestinian people who are in fact Arabs and historically part of the Arab community and they had the chance to go many places."
"The fact is, the Palestinian claim to a right of return is based on a historically false story. Somebody ought to have the courage to go all the way back to the 1921 League of Nations mandate for a Jewish homeland, point out the context in which Israel came into existence, and 'Palestinian' did not become a common term until after 1977. This is a propaganda war in which our side refuses to engage. … You're not going to win in the long run if you're afraid to stand firm and stand for the truth."
Gingrich bated the media by sighting the undeniable impediment of the so-called "Peace Process" with this statement: “The Palestinian Authority ambassador to India said last month, ‘There is no difference between Fatah and Hamas. We both agree Israel has no right to exist.’” Yet the media remains predictably silent!
"They [Palestinian terrorists groups Fatah and Hamas] teach terrorism in their schools. They have textbooks that say, 'If there are 13 Jews and 9 Jews are killed, how many Jews are left?' We pay for those textbooks through our aid money. It's fundamentally time for somebody to have the guts to stand up and say, 'Enough lying about the Middle East.'"
Gingrich then queered, “Is what I said factually true? Yes. Somebody ought to have the courage to tell the truth. These people are terrorists. It’s fundamentally time for somebody to have the guts to stand up and say, ‘Enough lying about the Middle East.’”
When moderator George Stephanopoulos during an ABC News hosted debate intimated that Newt's inflammatory rhetoric would "make life more difficult for the Israelis" Newt responded: "How would we know the difference? The Israelis are getting rocketed every day"!
CrackerHound| 12.28.11 @ 8:51AM
I believe that Romney will win Iowa and New Hampshire which will cause the media to declare him the inevitable Republican nominee. Not so fast. I think Newt will pick up all of the "not Romney" voters and will once again rise from the ashes to claim the Republican mantle. It is my hope anyway.
Newt is not my ideal candidate at first glance, but maybe he is the right man for the times. I sometimes think that my reluctance towards Newt is unduly inspired by the media narrative being put out. His "baggage" and "grandiosity" is all we hear about from the establishment media. When you accept those things as true and step back and look at the whole picture, you will see that Newt can be a champion for the conservative/American cause.
I really don't care what he believes, I care what he can achieve. Romney is not equipped to deal with an America in the worst shape since the great depression. It's even worse than that if you consider the sharp divisions we have which make moving forward even more difficult.
Being a uniter is overrated. Reagan didn't rise promising to be a uniter. He came on the scene promising to defeat failed ideologies and the rest is history. We don't need compassionate conservatism, we need to force the body politic back towards the orginal intent and away from this wild swing towards socialism.
Occam's Tool| 12.28.11 @ 10:59AM
Nobody thought Churchill would amount to much, either. Except for the infidelity, he had ALL of the problems Newt had, and many more. Gallipolli, switching political parties, etc.
ABP, but I would like a political genius in the White House. Only genius will save us now.
TrueBlue| 12.29.11 @ 2:38PM
Personally, I don't want the "perfect" candidate. If someone is that perfect that nobody can find anything wrong with him then everyone's internal alarm should be going off to ask how that's even possible. NOBODY is perfect. So what, Newt has been married 3 times. His first wife, and daughter with that wife, don't have any real problems with him. That says something given how most divorces end up.
Even if you look at all the "crazy" ideas Newt has, he has a longer list of successes than anyone running since Reagan. Right now we need to reverse course. If he can push Congress to get us back to even Bush II years we'd be in a better spot than we are now. Clinton years would be even better, and they already have a budget written that we know works!
W| 12.28.11 @ 9:04AM
Excellent article on Newt's positives. He is a complex man who written, said, and done many things that one can praise and find fault. He is not my first choice but I have no problem in supporting him. He will destroy Obama in a debate, but he will also insure a big turnout for the Dems because they hate him.
Dan| 12.28.11 @ 9:21AM
This article is too little, too late.
Where was this kind of defense against the garbage that those over at Commentary were throwing Gingrich's way, {we all know what their agenda is over at Commentary/Contentions, we know exactly where they're coming from, and we know how the Upper East/West side is influencing their opinion}.
We needed this kind of push back BEFORE plunging poll numbers caused by an unrelenting and savage attack against him.
It's fucking infuriating that those currying favour with the Bush establishment have done so much damage to the very guy we need!
Drunken Sailor| 12.28.11 @ 12:31PM
Vote for someone with the endorsements of Peter Ferrara, Art Laffer, & Thomas Sowell? What a novel concept.
http://www.nationalreview.com/.....mas-sowell
Jack in Wi.| 12.28.11 @ 12:32PM
Gingrich will never ever be elected to public office in the USA again. Mr Freddie Mac, and Mr sellout to the insurance and Israeli lobbies is toxic and is hated by most of the American population. He would get near zero votes from women, the military and their families, the young, disaffected Democrats, and independents. Frankly he would be lucky to get 50% of the Republican vote. I know I will never vote for him.
The whole election has always been between the young insurgents who back Ron Paul and the old guard Bush, Rockefeller, countryclub Republicans who back Romney. this party is like Humpty Dumpty and is very unlikely to ever be put back together again.
The only hope of a united party who can beat Obama is for there to be long and honest debates about the future of the party and country, Between Romney and Dr. Paul. Then maybe their can be a consenses as to how to run a united campaign. There is no way another blustery warmonger like McCain or Gingrich can ever get elected in this country.
TrueBlue| 12.29.11 @ 3:00PM
If you think Paul is so great, get him to get into a nice long debate between just him and Newt. Love to see how that one would turn out. Romney is a used car salesman, can't trust him and has no record of accomplishments except lying to people.
Jack in Wi.| 12.30.11 @ 1:46PM
I would love to see Ron Paul one on one with Newt. Newt would never agree to it.
Simon Templar| 12.31.11 @ 12:23PM
This comment of yours is the best proof of your fanaticism, delusion, and intellectual dishonesty.
LarryK| 12.28.11 @ 6:55AM
"If it's Mitt, I quit!"
SpiralArchitect| 12.28.11 @ 1:32PM
Vote Totalitarian
Obama '12
wodiej| 12.28.11 @ 6:59AM
great article. thanks for the facts.
Michael Tomlinson| 12.28.11 @ 7:18AM
I'm voting for the Republican nominee next November (ABP), but while Newt behaved badly after leaving office when in office he succeeded where Reagan failed.
As President the conservative Newt, who actually did much of what Reagan is extolled for, will govern not the former Speaker who embraced Hillary, Pelosi, the global warming hoax or healthcare mandate madness.
That said Perry is still the most consistent and successful conservative leader in the group so he'll get my vote in my state primary.
Dan| 12.28.11 @ 9:16AM
The thing is that most reports of Newt "behaving badly" as you see rely upon versions of events from Bush types.
I'm not talking here about his marital woes, which as most of us have observed, are endemic across the country, with hardly a family untouched with some serial divorcee in their midst.
No, here I'm talking about Newt's supposed "arrogance," his supposed "hyperpartisianship."
We've been receiving only ONE version of events, only one side of the story. ---------------------- And yet the other side of that story, the sweeping changes that Newt imposed are NEVER related.
Check out Contentions over at Commentary.
All of the good that Newt accomplished, things that Reagan never even proposed, are ridiculed and derided.
And for who, for what?
For a Romney?
Romney!
It's unbelievable.
W| 12.28.11 @ 10:41AM
Dan
Obama will accuse Newt of :
1. Ethics violation. Newt paid $300,000 find and resigned as Speaker. Those are facts Newt will have to deal with. Blaiming he media for raising these issues does not change the history of what happened.
2. Newt is a Washington insider since 1980. There is nothing wrong with this but you can't call yourself an outsider if you entire life has been with the government.
4. Newt is unstable and radical. They will point to the forced resignation, and that most of his House Republicans who worked with him have criticized him.
5. Newt praised RomneyCare and the individual mandate.
Romney is not the enemy. Newt is not the enemy. Obama is.
Dan| 12.28.11 @ 11:22AM
In order:
1} What ethics accusations that weren't contrived, what ethics accusations that Gingrich was exonerated of?
2} Insider, advantage and disadvantage there, for to the extent that he's an insider he knows where the bodies are buried, he knows exactly which regulations need to be targeted, that provides him with a level of policy knowledge unequalled by any in our party, including Paul Ryan, of course it does allow him to be tarnished too, but that's a wash. It's NO coincident that the establishment that some accuse him of being part and parcel of, is actually determined to destroy him.
3, {you got your numbers wrong there...}, Accusations of instability are risable coming from an establishment that has led America to the brink of economic collapse. I'll take the radical firebrand any day of the week right now, particularly in light of the real accomplishments that he engineered, without much help by the way from his own party. There's a pro and a con to this point, Gingrich could easily portray it that HE would be the agent of REAL change, which is consistent with the message he's been pushing for over a decade.
4} Romneycare is a serious prob for him, but recall that Gingrich has for DECADES advocated various measures to enhance real choice for real Americans, particularly in healthcare. Read through the lead article again, especially those sections related to healthcare.
As for Romney not being the enemy, ---------------------------- yea, he's our enemy, because he's supported by people who screwed us over big time, the Bush family.
Everything you need to know about Romney is revealed in who supports him, and who opposes him, guys like me, genuine, well-read conservatives.
W| 12.28.11 @ 12:52PM
Newt will need better answers than attacking Bush. He will sound like the Dems who have Bush Derangement Syndrome. Attacking Bush will not help Newt.
Newt pled guilty to the ethics charge and paid $300,000. If it was contrived he should have fought it. Once you plead guilty, your explanations are not credible.
Newt could not even get on the Virginia ballot. that is one example of instability. He must have forgot that he praised Romneycare until the stories came out yesterday.
While Speaker and during the charges against Clinton, Newt was having an affair with a staffer. Ok, he married her. But why are you having an affair with your staffer when the entire Republican party is attacking Clinton for an affair with an intern? This is the issue of judgment, along with the Pelosi ad.
As for the "insider" charge, it will be his work for FREDDIE for 1.5 million, not where bodies are buried.
It is one thing to debate and defend your postions on issues, but another to defend your character and judgment. You are just giving the Dems extra bullets to shoot you, and they will.
Of course, our opinons here don't mean anything. It will be the primary voters who decide.
Dan| 12.28.11 @ 1:02PM
In this era of economic agony, ----------- you really think the wider electorate is going to give a damn about Newt chasing skirts?
I don't think so.
I think his only baggage that might count is the way he phrases things, and has phrased things for quite some time.
He challenges.
He forces people to think.
And he's a thing for saying that which isn't politically correct.
That can hurt...........
I'm not denying it.
W| 12.28.11 @ 1:08PM
Dan
I hope you are right. But Newt better get organized and prepared.
Occam's Tool| 12.28.11 @ 10:56AM
Michael---superb points as usual, sir.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 12.28.11 @ 7:34AM
The article contains a misleading synopsis of alleged budget surpluses. Those surpluses were created by borrowing funds from the Social Security Trust Fund.
Only in Washington, D.C. is "borrowing" a concept that can lead to surpluses.
Only in the year 2000 did the deficit fall to 17.6 billion. But this was accomplished by borrowing from the Trust Fund.
However, in the year 2000 the national debt had risen to 5.6 trillion, hardly a surplus.
In 2001 the alleged surplus had disappeared, unable to be hidden between the "on budget" and "off budget" accounting gimmicks of the federal hat trick squad.
Another accounting gimmick of the federal government was to keep Fannie/Freddie off the federal books, hiding an even larger deficit.
Newt Gingrich may have done some good things, but no one has ever slowed down the national debt.
To suggest there was a a surplus is beyond misleading.
Clint| 12.28.11 @ 7:37AM
This Newt Gingrich:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWKTOCP45zY
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Oldefarte| 12.28.11 @ 4:50PM
http://youtu.be/BiKAyoSM33o
chuck| 12.28.11 @ 8:33AM
Great article, Peter!
Newt is the real conservative with the track record and the vision to get this country back on a solid footing.
Dan| 12.28.11 @ 9:28AM
Which is exactly why the establishment is attacking Gingrich.
The establishment is quite comfortable with a gradual, prolonged period of American decline. They've mentally reconciled themselves to that, and I'm not talking in the last few years. They were reconciled to that way back during the NIXON administration, and Reagan had to fight against that exact mindset just to get the nomination.
Recall that speech where he said America needed a bold agenda of no "pale pastels."
That fucking Bush family have put us all up against the wall!
Of course they don't feel it. They're invited to the right party, their benedictions are always courted, their approval endlessly sought. Their family connections ensure that none of them will ever know financial hardship.
Meanwhile, out in that world where men try to find employment, {you know GW, doing those jobs you told us "Americans won't do"}, where men try to eke out a livelihood where scores of illegals drive down wages, out there things don't look so rosy as they do from that compound up in Maine.
VonMisesJr| 12.28.11 @ 8:50AM
You know that Newt is the "change that we have been waiting for" when the MSM and the GOP wail and grind their teeth. He is the one contender that will defy the establishment in favor of the people. And his alleged weakness is his strength.
The GOP claims he is undisciplined. But what exactly does that mean in ruling class talk? It means that the establishment cannot control Newt. Newt's ego is his fortitude to attempt to do great things for the country and for his legacy. But McConnell and Boehner are not interested in Newt's legacy, but only Republican control of the Leviathan.
Until you understand that it is not about red v. blue, or Democrat v. Republican; and it is a disguise for the real game of ruling class v. country class; you will fall for the propaganda. But once you understand that the Republicans are the party of statism and the Democrats the party of socialism, you are merely choosing your totalitarian poison.
Indy| 12.28.11 @ 9:32AM
There are some things I like about Newt but I am troubled about his support of the individual mandate in Romneycare, his support for FDR as the greatest President of the 20th century, especialy over Reagan, and when you couple that with his plans for the courts, I am concerned...think of what Obama could have done in his first two years when he had the most progressive Congress in my lifetime if he had followed Newt's plans for the courts?
It would be refreshing to hear a candidate say they will do what is right for the country even if it means they will only have one term. I honestly believe whoever wins will be a one term president (notice the optimism in the outcome, OMG, Obama Must Go) but with the pending financial disaster, we need someone strong who will make the needed painful fiscal decisions and put our country first over party and re-election...
VonMisesJr| 12.28.11 @ 10:29AM
Dear Indy,
I understand your concern. But the proposition from Newt was to simply hold the Judges to the Constitution!
If the people are stupid enough to put Pelosi, Reid and Obama, or the likes of them back in power again; then there is no stopping what the congress and exevutive branch will inflict on the nation. Saving a few good judges will do little to save our tail from the Leviatian socialist totalitarian onslaught.
Dan| 12.28.11 @ 10:57AM
The weight of judicial opinion moves in a way CONSISTENT with the views of our establishment.
Always has.
Always will.
Unless some REAL change is imposed upon them.
And it is going to need to be imposed.
Indy| 12.28.11 @ 12:51PM
Sadly, there are many uninformed and yes, stupid voters...that is what we face, many will vote based on 30 sec sound bites from Ads and the "expert media"
The Senate and House are key and we need more conservatives, Lugar must go, Utah did it in 2010, I am counting on the good people of Indiana to replace Lugar with a conservative.
I always welcome your comments, keep them coming! Have a great afternoon, time is getting away from me and I must tackle some urgent To Do's.
squalis| 12.29.11 @ 10:13AM
Is it stupid for those on the taxpayor dole to vote Dem?
richard ryan| 12.28.11 @ 11:18AM
Newt understands Reagan's greatness. Not sure about his admiration for FDR, but why don't we prioritize his policy positions rather than getting bogged down in some of his past statements. The guy has a long history in the public eye, and of course has made some major missteps.
The individual mandate gets all kinds of press these days, and was a bad idea (which NG understands btw), but the mandate is not the real problem with OBAMAcare, it's the complete government takeover that is the problem. Newt advocates free market solutions.
VonMisesJr| 12.28.11 @ 11:50AM
Richard,
You are correct more than you even state. This propaganda fails the test of basic logic. Newt opposed HillaryCare and along with Heritage made some political blunders trying to compomise.
But Romney has the model established and still alive in MA called RomneyCare. Why do you think the liberals called the "Provisional Personhood and Annulment (of the) Constitution Act" (PPACA or ObamaCare) the same convention as Romney's plan?
Here Romney has passed and defends RomneyCare. Obama shoved ObamaCare down the throats (or something like that) of the former American citizenry with an unconstitutional travesty. Now we are to believe that Newt is unfit because he tinkered with ideas to avoid HillaryCare. The "Father of Logic" aristotle would be appalled with our ignorance of the science of logic.
VMJr.
CrackerHound| 12.28.11 @ 11:34AM
Indy:"and when you couple that with his plans for the courts, I am concerned...think of what Obama could have done in his first two years when he had the most progressive Congress in my lifetime if he had followed Newt's plans for the courts?"
Yes, but Newt wants to reverse the inequity in the separation of powers that exists now....and his plans are within bounds of the constitution, judicial fiat is not. He would put the courts back in their intended context.
He's on our side (if you are a conservative and not a middle of the road, squishy independent). As I alluded to in my previous post, I don't really care about making friends or keeping the peace with socialists. Personally, I am not going to worry as so many do, about whether if down the road some Democrat will be able to abuse a tactic that our side uses. They will figure out eventually anyways.
As much as I wish it were not, we are in a political war for the future and Newt is an unafraid warrior...has been for decades. Regardless of his many failings and inconsistencies, his enemies have ALWAYS been Liberals.
Indy| 12.28.11 @ 12:46PM
I'm a no squish Indy, like many independents I am quite conservative, fed up with both parties. As long as I can vote in primaries, I will stay an Indy...the Lame Duck cave did it for me and payroll tax debacle did not help, I cannot support Boehner and McConnell.
I also recognize, I will never find a candidate I can support 100%, I do like some things about Newt, he has the stones to call Obama what he is a Saul Alinsky radical, Romney would never say that and he won't go to the mat on principles, I think Newt would, he has done that in the past.
Newt does say some troubling things, a recent interview he supports "Green Conservatism"
http://newhampshireprimary.blo.....atism.html
I continue to do my homework, and who knows who will be on the ballot by the time my state primary rolls around. I welcome thoughtful comments from readers here, I will not cast a vote without thinking through the good, bad and ugly based on factual review of the information I can find.
Dan| 12.28.11 @ 9:34AM
It's exactly as Rush Limbaugh endlessly says: "The establishment will always tell us who they fear!"
And so they have!
Oh God how they were scared witless of former Governor Sarah Palin.
And oh how the mighty do tremble at the prospect of a Gingrich nomination! Let alone a Gingrich Presidency.
This nation needs some serious prayer in a serious and major way.
We need to be delivered of this false messiah destroying American greatness; we need to be delivered of this establishment of overlords without nerve or vision.
We the help of the Almighty.....................
Indy| 12.28.11 @ 10:25AM
I'm with you, praying daily for our country.
Vern Crisler | 12.28.11 @ 1:07PM
I really wish conservatives would dispense with this "ruling class, country class" garbage. It's just re-gifted Marxism.
Mimi| 12.28.11 @ 8:57AM
Thanks Peter...A GREAT factual piece....tying where the Bush crowd is coming from in supporting Mitt Romney....WOW facts do come out!!!
Intrade has Newt at .67 cents...7.40 for Mitt. After reading a detailed account of Newt's PLAN so clear, so logical so helpful to this NATION and all the people.....somebody better wise up !.....Maybe it's time to make some money!!!
Dan| 12.28.11 @ 9:49AM
Bush, Romney, and those types ALREADY made their money, and now they're just interested in preserving financial differences.
Which is why they're keen on dragging in scores of millions of third worlders to our shores, to our communities, to our job sites.
Anthony| 12.28.11 @ 8:59AM
Yep, we're headed for another McCain disaster with Romney, thanks to the Obozo media and the R establishment.
Oh well, four more years of Obozo and we won't have to concern ourselves with who will be the R standard bearer.
Our only concern will be who will be the pallbearers for America's coffin.
Once again, we are about to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory!!
Dan| 12.28.11 @ 9:56AM
It's difficult to fault Iowans who have soured on Gingrich; they've been overwhelmed with so much filth, so much scare tactics, that they're unable to think clearly.
It's not the rank and file "snatching" defeat from the jaws of victory. What we're seeing is the establishment forcibly raping that rank and file, and imposing itself upon us.
What we're seeing against Gingrich is a condensed and sharpened version of what we saw dragged out against Sarah Palin.
Which of us could sustain such an onslaught, and retain high polling numbers?
What we're asking of Gingrich, to sustain high polling numbers when his own party is attacking him is unprecedented.
It would be against all human experience to expect him to weather such a storm.
Which means our only response must be to inform that establishment in no uncertain manner that we REJECT Romney.
That we REJECT Romney now.
That we REJECT Romney later.
That we REJECT AND RESIST any and all attempts by the establishment to dictate our nominee, to dictate our policy, to dictate our future, to dictate a slow decline of this country.
I don't see how we can accept Romney.
For to accept Romney is to effectively CEDE control now, and for the foreseeable future, of our country over to them.
And they're not our friends, and they don't wish us well.
Dan| 12.28.11 @ 9:11AM
Peter,
you clearly need to get in touch with QUIN HILLYER, and snap him out of it.
He thinks that Newt's intellectual brilliance and vision for this country is NOTHING compared to the fact that Newt didn't play well with the other children in the sandbox.
At the rate that HILLYER is going, he'll be dragging before us old copies of whatever various demerits that Newt garnered in grade school and high school, and a list of how many times he had to serve detention with the other troublemakers in school.
Clint| 12.28.11 @ 9:27AM
Like Michele Bachmann said, " Newt-Romney Aren't True Conservatives."
We Are Being Set Up By The RINO-CINO Ruling Elite And Their Flunkie Stooges.
These Are The RINO-CINO'S , Who Gave Us The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain Of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy,McCain-Lieberman,Gang Of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003,TARP.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Oldefarte| 12.28.11 @ 4:51PM
http://youtu.be/BiKAyoSM33o
Derek Leaberry| 12.28.11 @ 9:28AM
In a time when social and moral dysfunction is America's chief corrosive(running up $ 1.5 trillion deficits is a sign of moral dysfunction), Newt Gingrich is a terrible choice for president. Not only is Gingrich an extreme narcissist, he is a serial adulterer. And so is Mitt Romney a terrible choice, a man who accepts the national dysfunctions as normal. Romney is the man who ran to the left of Ted Kennedy on homosexual "rights" and abortion "rights." How can a conservative party, if indeed the Republican Party is conservative, nominate either man? Perhaps someone like Bobby Jindal can be persuaded to run even if he cedes certain primaries and caucuses to this motley group the Republicans have running for president presently.
Drunken Sailor| 12.28.11 @ 12:35PM
Last I checked Jesus was not running for office. There is no perfect canidate. Get over it and get behind who you think can best do the job.
Derek Leaberry| 12.28.11 @ 1:09PM
The key national problem is cultural decline which bears its fruit in any issue of the day. We have a $ 1.5 trillion deficit because tens of millions of Americans want free things from the government or think they are owed free things from the government. Without cultural revival, there is no way for any man to "do the job."
As for you decision to bring Jesus into the discussion, it shows a lack of good manners and a childish nature. In considering a Republican candidate for president, I would like it to be someone that George Washington, Robert E. Lee or Teddy Roosevelt might approve. I do not think any of the three would approve Newt Gingrich as a man or a leader. The same goes for Romney.
Drunken Sailor| 12.28.11 @ 2:07PM
"As for you decision to bring Jesus into the discussion, it shows a lack of good manners and a childish nature"
Why? Are you afraid to discuss your belief or lack of? You sir, are the one waiting for the perfect canidate. I simply pointed out the last perfect person we know of is Jesus and he aint running.
Yes or cutural decline is a issue but do you really think electing one person will change that?
And as for voting for a person that Washington, Lee or Roosevelt might approve of, since they are long dead, that is a coin toss. By the way, I like Teddy but Conservative he wasn't and Lee while a admirable leader was a drunk (not that their is anything wrong with that). You have in the past and again today shown that you believe the goverment should be the driving factor in our cultural reform. I respectfully disagree. That burden belongs to each and every one of us. Not a faceless, souless entitity. Stop looking for canidate to fix all you feel is wrong with this country and find one you think can turn this ship, shrink goverment control and allow the people to work on our "Cultural Decline".
Derek Leaberry| 12.28.11 @ 2:55PM
For the record, Robert E. Lee abstained from alcohol, which I do not hold against him.
One insight of yours I very much agree with is that the government can not be the "driving factor" in cultural reform. It can not. The government is too corrupt. But Gingrich, and, by extension his wife, present too great an example of moral decay. A President Newt Gingrich and would act as gasoline poured onto a raging fire.
Drunken Sailor| 12.28.11 @ 3:42PM
I agree to disagree on the Presidential canidate then. We can agree the culturale decline should stop.
As for Lee, yes he abstained. He was man enough to recognize that would had a undue hold over him and resisted. I respect that.
"I like whiskey. I always did, and that is why I never drink it." Robert E. Lee
Derek Leaberry| 12.28.11 @ 4:54PM
I think Stonewall Jackson said that. Nonetheless, good night. I respect your views.
Simon Templar| 12.31.11 @ 12:39PM
An example of moral decay?
The man has admitted his sins publicly, converted to the catholic faith and now regularly attend services, made peace with his former wives and children, now spends more time with his family, and by all accounts, wife and friends included, is a changed man. I would say that is a story of redemption and repentance. Stop binding these sins to the man and ignoring his recovery. Let us look at ALL of the story.
O Tamandua| 12.28.11 @ 10:00AM
Here's one more thing I remember about Newt. Many would like to forget when an interviewer of Bill Clinton had the audacity to ask at session's end: "Boxers or briefs?" (President "power crackling in his jeans" Clinton laughed, then mentioned his choice, which I never made an effort to put into my memory.)
After Speaker Gingrich came to power an interviewer made the mistake of asking him the same thing. "Bad idea", as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger once said to the predator. Newt chastised the reporter saying essentially: "None of your business, and we have far bigger things to be concerned with than trivial matters like that."
Newt wasn't and isn't perfect, but I remember that moment as a sign that grownups were back in the house.
bill| 12.28.11 @ 10:22AM
Newt is the "old man in the sea." If anyone surprises in IA, it's Newt. He's got a lot baggages, but he has charisma and leadership.
1. He engineered the 1994 GOP revolt
2. He balanced the budget 4 straight years
3. he reformed the welfare system
4. He impeached Bill Clinton
5. He is a far better candidate than Mitt "RINO" Romney
Dan| 12.28.11 @ 10:52AM
What kind of baggage is there for Gingrich in this period of economic agony?
This country is in the toils and throes of economic agony unseen since the Great Depression, and some think that Gingrich's supposed stylistic tics and marital woes are going to hold back his candidacy .............. Take a good look at the American landscape right now.
Get a grip.
Michael Ross | 12.28.11 @ 11:14AM
Excellent Point!!
Dan| 12.28.11 @ 10:54AM
Bill, my comment was tagged to the wrong post.
So I'm NOT telling you to "get a grip," in fact, I concur with your listing of Newt's real accomplishments.
bill| 12.28.11 @ 11:06AM
Welcome to the party, my friend, Dan.
Ken Royall| 12.28.11 @ 10:31AM
The only candidate Obama could beat easier than Newt is Ron Paul. Newt Gingrich is a retread with more baggage than a 747. 90 days ago his campaign was considered a joke, we were right about him then. It takes more than a few snappy comebacks in the debates to be a good president.
Seek| 12.28.11 @ 11:28AM
We've all got baggage. At least Newt's is out in the open -- as if he had any say in the matter. If we oppose him, it should be on his mass immigration enthusiasm. It reeks of "Third World First, America Last." Tom Tancredo ran as a real patriot in 2008, but regrettably, went nowhere. We need someone like him this time around.
Dan| 12.28.11 @ 10:50AM
Yea, the guy that advanced in measurable ways a genuine conservative agenda is supposedly going to be an easy mark for an absolute failure!
Is that it?
We have REAL unemployment exceeding 10%
We have REAL underemployment exceeding 20%
We have protracted unemployment WORSE than the period after the 1929 market collapse.
BUT ONLY ROMNEY can hope to prevail.
EVEN THOUGH Romney is the guy that the Democrats and the media are preparing for. The street theatre we saw last Sumner won't even be close to the street agitation which will beset all American cities next year, and that entire theme is designed to target for destruction the likely Republican nominee, Romney.
To go with Romney is to walk KNOWINGLY into an ambush!
Over a year's worth of Democrat effort, preparation, planning, all in expectation of Romney.
Have you any idea of the types of information they have about his finances?
Romney is a rich a man, born rich, out of touch, with the creepy Bush family behind him.
And you're going to go with him during a time of economic hardship unseen for a generation?
TommyFrisco| 12.28.11 @ 11:46AM
You are right on, Dan. Romney will be tagged as the 1% and Bain Capital will be portrayed as what's wrong with capitalism.
We've made it clear to the GOP rulers that we don't want their man, Romney.
The most electable GOP candidate will be the one we all get behind. There are way too many commenters claiming that if ____ gets the nomination, they will stay home. Those people are part of the problem. We can't fix the GOP overnight. It will take time to replace all of the RINOS. We did some good in 2010 and 2012 will be even better if we all stand together to stop the madness in DC.
Doc| 12.28.11 @ 10:58AM
I'd never vote for him. I think he's mentally unstable, imbalanced.
TommyFrisco| 12.28.11 @ 11:18AM
Doc, you are wrong on so many levels, I must reply to your comments.
1. We must vote for the GOP nominee. Otherwise, Obama will be re-elected.
2. Mentally unstable and imbalanced? So, you've bought into the propaganda? What is your reasoning for saying this? Because he's thrown some ideas out there that seem over the top? Who doesn't agree that judges should not legislate from the bench? Who doesn't agree that many childeren in poor neighborhoods do not have good role models? Who else besides Newt Gingrich has the gonads to bring up discussions like this? Who else had the gonads to sit on that couch with Pelosi? Why shouldn't conservatives be involved in all discussions> What legislation resulted from that commercial? Does Newt have an ego problem? Of course! They all do. Would you rather have an insecure POTUS? Everyone agrees that Newt is the smartest man in the room. Would you rather vote for someone who is of average intelligence?
Dan| 12.28.11 @ 11:28AM
Think of it this way Doc, -------------- all of those that are mild mannered, measured, sane and sober, all those who we're endlessly told a serious political players, are EXACTLY the ones who have taken this country to the edge of economic collapse.
They're the ones who have led us down a path that leads to the very valley of the shadow.....
Yet they, and it is very much THEY, they're the ones accusing Gingrich of being out of it, of being outlandish and wild, hyperbolic and extreme.
Just think about that.
You're taking seriously the accusations made by those who have led us to this point of crisis.
TommyFrisco| 12.28.11 @ 11:03AM
Excellent commentary, Peter. This should be required reading for anyone searching for facts about Newt Gingrich instead of propaganda currently being spewed out.
Nominating Newt will send a powerful message to the GOP establishment and our so-called 'conservative' pundits that....We, The People are now in charge of the Republican Party. That, my friend, is why I encourage all of us in the conservative base to consolidate behind Newt Gingrich. We're fed up with their BS!
Michael Ross | 12.28.11 @ 11:11AM
The Establishment (GOP) as well as the MSM will always tell you who they fear through lies and deceit. (I.E. Sarah Palin) Newt is the only one who can take it to both. Two points to ponder: He is 68 years old, he doesn't need this.... and there is a big difference in passing liberal legislation and making it law and just espousing liberal positions because one thinks they are politically expedient at the time. Remember, we are not electing a "daddy" to make us feel better about ourselves, we are electing someone to bring this country back from this nightmare of a socialist. Ask yourself a question..Is Mitt Romney going to fight for what you know in your heart or even articulate those things, think not, he will go along so as not to rock the boat. Think about it. You will be solely disappointed in Romney. He is of the Bush's. Remember McCain, they are telling you who should be the nominee by tearing down all the others, one by one. Wake up!
Dan| 12.28.11 @ 11:32AM
The other thing is that this election is not some referendum on what kind of husband is desirable.
Nelson played games with Lady Hamilton, yet he was the one who pursued the French fleet for three years to their fateful engagement at Trafalgar.
MacArthur had a fling with some hot teenage Fillipina that needed to be covered up, but his response at Inchon was an American masterstroke of arms.
Patton was playing the field simultaneous to his romping and stomping through France and the Saar!
We're not looking for a "decent family man."
Our situation is such that it's going to take a good who is very much full of himself to get his mind around it and turn it around.
Romney is EXACTLY the WRONG kind of man for this moment of American crisis.
CrackerHound| 12.28.11 @ 12:29PM
Great posts throughout Dan...my thoughts exactly.
Hopefully conservatives will rally around Newt after this long period of electoral nuerosis. It seems all we are doing (myself included at times) is looking for negatives in our candidates instead of who we CAN support. This is not supposed to be a conservative trait...being afraid that is. Afraid to commit because of past experiences and afraid of the consequences of losing this election.
I don't think McArthur or Patton waited for the last minute to pull the trigger on a campaign out of fear. Time is running out on both the primary dates and nation's condition. Forget the establisment media amd skewed polls that can't be trusted. Make a move people.
I have chosen Newt because of his overall competency. His skills match what we want to do. His enemies are my enemies. Romney has no ememies....that speaks volumes in this political landscape.
I feel very strongly that if Newt were to convince Paul Ryan to be his veep (despite the earlier spat over the roadmap), Obama will be looking at a Carteresque landslide. Those two will be seen by the majority, including a great many Democrats, as a team with precise ideas on how to fix our problems AND have the experience to do so.... down to the minutia.
Mimi| 12.28.11 @ 3:55PM
I too thought of Paul Ryan as V.P., with NEWT at the helm, when I read in Human Events about his being named Conservative of the Year.
What a unbeatable team to serve our country !
Who Knows?| 12.28.11 @ 12:01PM
Poor America!
It turns out that the brilliant doer, Newt Gingrich, has way too many flaws in his game. The key words of “would of” and “could of” will forever apply to him. Perhaps we can learn the lesson of what hubris on stilts brings---nemesis on the Eiffel Tower.
It is so sad to read more details of his past accomplishments, as well as what he proposes, given he will never be able to be in a position to bring to fruition SOME of his ideas---no mirrors in the sky, though!
This football season, it occurred to me that Newt is like a great passer, who can also run fast---BUT! He is too erratic, too scattered, so that he tends to fumble and/or make the wrong decision at costly points in a game. As a longtime Oregon Duck fan, with over fifty years of game experience---as a fan---under my viewing belt, I’ve learned to EXPECT some player or two to try too hard, and fumble or make another kind of bad play.
Oregon always used to get the second best players, at BEST, since any guys worth their salt went from high school to a football powerhouse like USC. So, what was the decisive factor?
When it came to skill players, Oregon usually was able to get PHYSICALLY talented kids. But, PSYCHOLOGICALLY, it was a whole different story.
Well, Gingrich is certainly TALENTED, and when it comes to personal attributes---lacking, shall we say.
Yes---it’s too bad Gingrich wasn’t always a virtuous man, in the way George Washington was. But, perhaps he rose to his highest possible SERVING role, given his failings.
But, a President Gingrich? NEVER.
fmm| 12.28.11 @ 1:01PM
Excellent article summarizing the true Newt and his programs. Everything else is just blather. Go Newt!!!
Ron| 12.28.11 @ 1:02PM
Pete,
Honestly, you lost me with the "Contract With America" blather...again.
I am so sick of hearing about that gone-nowhere, unsupported "I am not Klintoon" piece of work. What out of it has ever been actually implemented and fulfilled by either House of Congress? I mean deliberately, and not inadvertently because of the passage of some other legislation?
Dan| 12.28.11 @ 1:06PM
One thing more that a guy like Romney would NEVER understand, and that a guy like Gingrich gets instinctively.
That is that councils of war breed timidity and defeatism.
And against this entrenched establishment, against this liberal leviathan, we are at war, and Romney types, in the Bush style, don't have any intention whatsoever of waging successful war against that vast apparrat in our midst.
Anthony| 12.28.11 @ 1:18PM
....And if things were not bad enough, fighting the Obozo media and the R establishment, we still have to contend with the NY twin towers of ego, Trump, and the midget mayor, Blumberg.
Trump keeps threatening to run 3rd party if the Rs don't nominate the right candidate. Of course, this egomanical ass coyly refuses to disclose just who the right candidate is. Needless to say, there is no right candidate, it's all Trump b.s.,24/7 all Trump all the time, and the media eat it up!!
Then we have the midget mayor with $ billions to spend, and no place to go.
If Obozo loses this election, given all the things he has working for him, it will be a miracle.
2012 is going to be one UGLY YEAR!!!
CrackerHound| 12.28.11 @ 1:37PM
Anthony,
Your statements about Trump are certainly true. The media have become what our forefathers feared...a crony establishment controlled by corporations in cahoots with the government (Jeffery Immelt & GE being the most obvious example but there are others). This combined with the "shallowing" of Americans, caused in great deal by the media, makes it difficult for a good leader without celebrity qualities to be elected president. Obama has Hollywood on his side and in this country sometimes that's all you need....just ask Clinton.
Leveut| 12.28.11 @ 3:24PM
The article is very nice in describing what Gingrich did before he left the Speakership, and in describing what is in his current campaign document.
What the article leaves out, is all the various positions and things he has taken and spoken between leaving the Speakership and now, other than his current campaign document. And that is where his problem is, in the other half of the story.
Dan| 12.28.11 @ 3:44PM
Like Gingrich's consistently calling to the nation's attention the dangers of jihad.
Like Gingrich calling to our attention the dangers of unchecked, runaway spending?
Like his calling to our attention the dangers of EPM weaponry.
Like his calling to our attention the importance of gaining control over all of our borders.
Sure he sat down with Pelosi for the green issue. But when the new disclosures came to light that exposed that as a fraud, he jumped ship fast.
Not Romney, who frightened of yet another issue upon which he will have flipped, stays locked into AGW, DESPITE the evidence, despite the disclosures, despite the clear evidence now that the whole damn thing is a fraud.
If this description of what Gingrich did FOR YOU, for the country, to advance a genuine Conservative agenda is insufficient for you, --------------- then who out there would suffice?
Paul Ryan? Outside of his narrow budgetary expertise, he offers nothing but boilerplate platitudes. And even on his radical budgetary proposal, he had to backtrack, just like Gingrich said would happen, that such reform would need to be done gradually and only after the public had been thoroughly schooled on the details.
Who else is out there?
Giuliani to be sure, he's got loads of experience tackling an unwieldy, unresponsive and hostile bureaucracy, ------------ but he has supported gun control in the past and his position on abortion makes him unacceptable to vast numbers in the party.
So who else has REAL EXPERIENCE reining in agencies, departments and legislatures?
If not Gingrich, who?
'Bachmann? What has she EVER done other than clearly advance Romney's campaign? Not to mention her church that she was affiliated with has got SERIOUS probs with Roman Catholics, {the whole scarlet whore of Babylon thing...}.
Our options have narrowed sharply.
Romney is unacceptable for a whole slew of reasons.
Huntsman is weird.
Perry embarrassed himself and his supporters, and has now watched his financial backers walk away from him.
So who is left?
Sarah Palin doesn't seem real eager to jump in the race.........
Rich| 12.28.11 @ 5:31PM
Bingo!
Rich| 12.28.11 @ 5:39PM
...to Leveut, for the record. Also, for the record (imho), Romney will be the castor oil candidate and will likely lose, but by less of a margin than anyone else currently running.
OregonBuzz| 12.28.11 @ 4:12PM
It's strange that I have not heard much of this policy coming out of Newt's mouth. I know what's on his website and it sounds great. I remember the successes of the Reagan era and the Contract with America. It would be good if Newt talked about these things instead of getting into the schoolyard name calling currently going on in Iowa.
Dan| 12.28.11 @ 4:42PM
But that "schoolyard name calling" has been very successful against Gingrich, tearing him down at least fifteen points.
Nothing else has warranted such movement in his numbers.
In other states Gingrich's numbers remain decent or at least competitive, but in Iowa, where he has been hit by an unrelenting wave of aerial bombardment, his numbers have cratered.
And now I don't know how Gingrich can go along trying to engage on the issues when sneaks like Romney are using surrogates to destroy him.
And that's what's going on here, Romney's surrogates aren't interested in merely making Gingrich go away, they're trying to destroy him politically.
Romney must be stopped.
Bob Grant| 12.28.11 @ 5:00PM
There is no case for Gingrich. His 1.8 million (that we know of) 'historian' fee from Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac is massive albatross around his neck. The dem machine is salivating at the thought of using this weapon against him. Plus, it would take away a huge weapon the republicans have against Obama and his cronies.
Nope. Sorry. This is a deal killer for me.
shipley130| 12.28.11 @ 6:03PM
I have noticed that some of Newt's not so conservative ideas don't get much airplay when a Newt supporter is penning their 500 words. How about the one where Newt wanted to drop the work requirement for welfare recipients. I saw that one recently.
Dan| 12.28.11 @ 9:04PM
Newt forced welfare REFORM on Clinton, which caused millions of poor men and women to get back into the world of work.
Good grief.
This makes about as much sense as Bachmann hitting a guy on supposed want of purity related to things pro-life, when the guy has spent over twenty years up on the Hill earning a 98.6 pro-life rating.
I'm quite well aware of some of Newt's other ideas.
But it seems that many that are determined to run down Newt are determined to ignore or disparage his REAL accomplishments, and those accomplishments are such that no one else up on the stage has come even close to.
This search for political perfection, this quest for the unblemished candidate is now driving the nomination into the hands of a guy who is many things, but conservative isn't one of 'em.
Simon Templar| 12.31.11 @ 12:44PM
Dan, superb summative statement of what is going on. Crisp and insightful thinking. Keep blogging....
TKP| 12.28.11 @ 6:24PM
OregonBuzz - Amen!
My immediate reaction was - Great article, now if only Newt could be so concise and stay on message as well as Peter Ferrara.....
Conservatism works, albeit many times w/o the self serving "compassion" rhetoric
Statism is a failure everywhere, especially for those looking to climb the ladder
Newt was far more responsible for the Clinton boom, that Cinton every was - remember "... it is irresponsible to balance the budget in 7 years on the backs of the poor..." ? WJC 1995/6
Robert| 12.28.11 @ 7:48PM
A Republican who would deign to sit with the enemy (Pelosi), wax rhapsodic on individual mandates, and worst of all, support the Brady Bill and gun control is NO conservative. For without free choice and the 2nd Amendment, the other nine are meaningless.
Dan| 12.28.11 @ 9:11PM
Yes, the 2d Amendment is crucial.
But gun control is going nowhere, particularly after fast and furious, so if that is the key concern for you, you can rest easy, NO Republican administration COULD force through an anti-gun measure through this House.
bill| 12.28.11 @ 7:48PM
The GOP Primary Debacle:
Newt will lose in IA and NH, but still remain a formidable candidate, especially in those southern and western states. He will have to battle with Rick Perry because they both are from the south. Romney is a threat in the NE, Midwest, and western states, UT, NV, CA, because of a size able Mormon votes. Bachmann will battle with Romney for the Midwestern states, IL, IN, WI. Santorum will snatch PA, and can show strong present in NE, including NY, CT, MD. Ron Paul will remain a mystery, and may grab IA and NH. Jon Huntsman has no chance.
Tom| 12.28.11 @ 9:44PM
What we have here is someone trying to give credit to Newt for things he had nothing to do with.
The majority that was won in 1994 had a lot more to do with the ultra-left wing agenda pursued by Clinton in his first two years (HillaryCare, Gays in the Military, the Assault Weapons Ban). These things caused America to revolt, just as they did in the 2010 mid-terms. And the budget surpluses in the mid-90's were the result of the Tech Bubble prior to it's bursting. Remember all those people who were getting rich investing in companies that never turned a profit?
The truth is, Newt's a wild card and it would be a big gamble that we'd get the conservative Newt and not the one that goes off on his flights of fancy supporting liberal causes.
MumblyPeg| 3.30.12 @ 2:12AM
Yeah, same thing with Reagan, that was all Carter's doing.
Everyone hated Reagan and what he stood for, but held their noses.
Is there an oxygen shortage where you are? Are your lips blue?
Because you're not making sense. Stop typing gibberish and go to the Hospital or an Asylum if they'll have you.
Gary B| 12.28.11 @ 10:29PM
Newt has the guts to call out the Marxists Democrats, the corrupt press and, now, activist judges. That's exactly what we need. Someone who says what we're all thinking and acts on our frustrations. Who else has done that?
Don't get me started on judges. Of all the people who are steering our country to ruin, judges take the cake. Newt is the only one to ever mention this.
I don't fully trust Newt, but, as president, he'd be surrounded by competent handlers who would keep him on script.
I've called him names, but, compared to that hopeless sellout, Romney, he'd be a Godsend. Newt can state his case and sell it. Romney is just another McCain.
Ask youself this: Who would be the best campaigner?
POST American| 12.28.11 @ 10:45PM
-----------------BOTTOMLESS LINE----------------------
---Mercenary adulterer
------Prime promoter of Toffler's 'sovietization'
program which calls for the END of American
sovereignty --AND the family
---------Prime presiding figure during the very
height of the Globalist RED China TREASON OP
------------Stealth supporter of the franchise slum
amalgamation of North America
BEHOLD! ---the CON--servative 'NEW--'IT'
Getting--RICH!
Just a word of warning for we ---'the ITs'.
-------------YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!-------------
Fred| 12.29.11 @ 12:33PM
Don't forget his two most lasting contributions: 1) his vote to create the Department of Education in the House in 1979; and 2) selling the idea that a "conservative" could dub FDR "the greatest president of the 20th century."
Newt Gingrich: "conservative."
MumblyPeg| 3.30.12 @ 2:08AM
Fred "idiot".
Gotcha. Great post.
Gary B| 12.29.11 @ 2:21PM
Once again, we'll be holding our noses and voting for the lesser of evils, both in the primary and in the general election. This is wearing me out.
MumblyPeg| 3.30.12 @ 2:06AM
I will never hold my nose. That is the choice of fools.
Always vote your conscience! If you do not, the Party leadership will never get the message to correct course.
If Gingrich is not on the ticket, I will write in Ron Paul because his supporters are hard-core enough to do the same.
The Republican leadership need to understand that they cannot betray the fiscal wing of the Party and still win.
If they need to live the catastrophe of an Obama second term, so be it.
I will never live the catastrophe of allowing Washington to create two kleptocratic Parties and expect me to vote for them! If that happens then there is not hope.
Mitt Romney is the worst thing that's happened to the Republican Party in a generation!
I pledge to you my life, my fortune, my sacred honor that there will always be a Party of fiscal sanity.
It's armageddon, Charlie Brown!!
POST American| 12.29.11 @ 11:05PM
"--This may be the first election in
which the only possible choice is
---the BLANK ballot."
-----------------HUAC/ Nuremberg 2012-----------------
Phillip Gran| 12.31.11 @ 3:59AM
No wonder Bush Sr. supports Romney. Romney doesn’t believe in the incentive model of economic growth as Reagan and did and Newt does.
MumblyPeg| 3.30.12 @ 1:58AM
Well, the American Spectator has just elevated itself to the Conservative media outlet par excellence.
You are the heirs of William Buckley.
I cancelled my subscription to NR a few months ago and I will never look back.
I am subscribing to AS as we speak!