Posted on 11/26/2011 12:31:21 PM PST by rzman21
John Rossomando Follow John on Twitter
Former Gingrich press secretary Tony Blankley tells ConservativeHome USA that the popular desire to elect someone with ideas and substance has fueled the former House speaker’s rise to the top of the polls.
“While most of the people who are running for president are pretty well informed and pretty bright people, most just end up in talking points,” Blankley says. “There’s not a lot of depth to their discussion, and I think that Newt’s standing out in the debates as somebody who’s actually thought deeply on these issues, cares about them and who discusses them both conceptually and in detail.
“And I think that’s why he’s moved up from single digits to anywhere from around 22 to 24 percent after a couple of months of debates.”
Blankley observes that a candidate like Gingrich has appeal because he stands for ideas and results at a time when both parties can’t seem to get the job done. The Supercommittee’s Super failure stands as the latest and most searing example of Washington’s inability to place the country’s needs before political considerations.
“I think not just a lot of conservatives, but also a lot of independents and moderates want to hear somebody who has some idea of how we can improve things,” Blankley says. “That’s Newt’s strength, and now is his moment, I think.”
Gingrich’s former press secretary jokes that you would need a “really large vehicle, maybe an ocean liner” to affix a bumper sticker that would fit all of Newt’s ideas in one place.
But on a more serious note, Blankley suggests that a Gingrich presidency would be the most ambitious of any in recent memory. Blankley saw Gingrich up close on an almost daily basis throughout the Contract With America and the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994.
“I was with him about 12 hours a day, particularly before he became speaker where it was just the two of us and a secretary in the room,” Blankley says. “I know him very well.”
According to Blankley, Gingrich was just about the only person in the room in the run up to the 1994 midterms who thought the GOP could win early on and made it happen with his dogged determination.
He predicts that the first eight months of a Newt presidency would be not unlike FDR’s in the event he would win along with sizeable GOP majorities in the House and the Senate.
“It would be like 1933, but we’d be going back in the other direction toward markets and traditional values,” Blankley says. “It would be a really thrilling thing to watch.
“We had a bit of that during the first eight months of the Reagan term in ’81 had some of that; it was a pretty invigorating period where the ideas of the new president won support in Congress and the country.”
Gingrich’s record from the 1980s shows he consistently ran to the right of the Reagan administration, particularly in his insistence on a spending freeze in 1983, which put him at loggerheads with people like James Baker and then OMB Director David Stockman, as Evans and Novak reported in January of that year.
Blankley predicts Gingrich would likely have sizeable majorities in both the House and the Senate, but exact number in the latter chamber being more open to question.
“I think you would see a remarkable period of legislation on deregulating, on attracting health care into a more market-oriented system and on reforming taxes,” Blankley says. “But I can’t imagine anyone who would bring the intellectual vigor or policy agenda to the table as Newt would.”
He characterizes Romney as someone who would be more like “a manager” who would manage the nation’s policy problems incrementally rather than in large jumps unlike Gingrich.
“I think we need to do it in larger jumps,” Blankley says. “So I think comparing a Romney to a Gingrich presidency, I think would see a far more dramatic effort under [Newt] more like he did when he was speaker.
“I think the motivation for him to deliver once he’s committed on something is really powerful.”
To date, Gingrich is the only American politician who committed to balancing the federal budget and succeeded.
Blankley predicts based on his knowledge of Gingrich’s character that the former speaker would only choose people in his cabinet who would get the job done and be most effective. He notes that Gingrich bucked House tradition when he tapped people like now Ohio-Gov. John Kasich to chair the House Budget Committee and Henry Hyde to chair the House Judiciary Committee.
Gingrich is man who isn’t restrained by Washington convention, but who instead has consistently bucked custom to get things done.
“Newt believed you picked people who would deliver people who would deliver the results you committed to,” Blankley says. “And I think you’d see that kind of selection in top appointments, and [his] people wouldn’t be there because some faction of the party wanted them to be there, but [rather] because of the policy commitments he made during the campaign.” (Audio of the interview is on-site.)
There is another glaring possibility that makes perfect sense.
“That’s OK, I’d rather have everybody else read it and make up their own minds instead of taking your word for it. I’m sure you’re comfortable with that.”
I’d rather have people read the DETAILS of the Krieble Plan, which Newt has said he supports COMPLETELY. I’m sure you’re ok with that.
In case anyone missed it after your spam-job, here is the key point, again:
The Krieble Plan DOES put illegals into the head of the line in that they get to live here as citizens (except not vote), work here, enjoy our benefits, have kids here, while others that didn’t sneak over are still stuck in Haiti, Sudan, and other countries. Seems like a HUGE REWARD for sneaking in...
Here’s the exact quote, starting at the very last sentence of Page 27:
“The “Red Card” would provide no path to citizenship or to permanent resident status at all. In accordance with the
founding American principle of equal opportunity under the law, anyone in the world can apply to be a U.S. citizen,
whether they are here as guest workers or not.”
http://krieble.org/Websites/krieble/Images/files/Red%20Card%20Solution%20White%20Paper.pdf
“There is another glaring possibility that makes perfect sense.”
He (Newt) is simply UNABLE to understand what America stands for and what American culture is.
Thanks, I had forgotten that possibility.
What a joke.
There hasn’t been one (conservative President) since Reagan.
Newt refuses to learn from Reagan who regretted amnesty.
Can you please show me where he said he supports it? Then I will read it. There is no mention of it in his comprehensive immigration plan as outlined on his website.
Seriously? You stand in judgement of Newt's ability to understand American culture? I'll let the rest of the folks digest that one.
Exactly. Does the GOP still have any conservatives?
That’s not really saying much.
Sorry, but Newt brought Krieble into this debate, not me. As far as I know, he has not expressed ANY problem with their plan. But feel free to correct me (with a link, of course)...
“Gingrich, citing a plan from the Vernon K. Krieble Foundation, said some of those individuals could get a “red card” allowing them to be legal, but not giving them a path to citizenship or the right the vote.”
“Seriously? You stand in judgement of Newt’s ability to understand American culture? I’ll let the rest of the folks digest that one. “
You asked me to name possible reasons why Newt would be in favor of the demographic destruction of this country.
Perhaps you have better ones...
Good post, but expect to get flamed and derided for posting facts instead of anit-Newt screed.
That is why it would imperative if Newt is elected to vote in lots of Tea-Party conservatives to Congress. Screen out the good ideas and put them into legislation.
Hopefully, Newt would appoint a strong cabinet who would not be afraid to challenge him.
No new "male-female couples" or any other illegals will "come in under this plan" except possibly briefly and temporarily until they are caught. There will be no more 'anchor babies.'
You are one of the paranoids. You are lying to the forum and you need to stop..
Did he cite the plan, or endorse it, because he does not endorse it anywhere in his ten point comprehensive immigration platform. It looks like he took the essense of the Kreible idea, you will see it on his plan, and adopted it without endorsing the entire actual Kreible plan, as you have claimed.
More paranoia. Watch out for “the Kriebles,” they’re
going to get you.... Sound like a Stephen King novel.
“It looks like he took the essense of the Kreible idea, you will see it on his plan, and adopted it without endorsing the entire actual Kreible plan, as you have claimed. “
Close enough for me. Let me know when he distances himself on that aspect of the plan.
“More paranoia. Watch out for “the Kriebles,” they’re
going to get you.... Sound like a Stephen King novel.”
Yea, I remember when I lived in California a while ago and my secretary kept saying “Watch out for the Mexicans, they’re going to take over”.
What an idiot she was...right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.