[2ndDivisionVet]

Comments?

[2ndDivisionVet]

Link to article:
http://tucsoncitizen.com/arizona-lincoln-republican/2012/02/22/the-case-for-newt-gingrich/

[Son House]

Best case scenario for economic recovery is Newt’s economic plan, and that is all the people need to know! No really, the article has little new insight, and the argument is kinda weak against the others.

[marron]

I essentially agree with the article. Any of the guys running would be better than the guy currently in the White House, in fact you could pick a name at random from the phone book and have a better president than what we have suffered through the last several years.

But Newt is more than just better than O, he is the right man for the job. He was born to do this job, and he has prepared for it his whole life. He is a philosopher and a visionary, but he is also a mechanic who knows how the machineworks operate, and he has been in the loop long enough to know where all the bodies are buried.

I’d gladly vote for Santorum, and as much as I don’t like the other two, they’d be far better than what we have now. But Gingrich will turn this ship around.

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

Comments?

Okay. "I don’t agree with Newt’s immigration solution, but his solution comes closest, and knowing Newt’s ability to get things done with Congress I am confident in the end we will have a workable solution."

This worried me, when I read it. The problem is that, if Newt's solution comes closest to being a reasonable, workable solution, then it will ipso facto be unacceptable to the Dems from the word Go home! and by the time all of the handshaking across the aisle is done, we'll somehow still find ourselves being invaded, and with the bonus of the Left taking credit for it (Shamnesty of any kind) and pandering to the newly minted voting block with all sorts of enticing additional public assistance, thereby growing even more, the entitlement class.

"During the only four years in my lifetime that we had a balanced budget, Newt Gingrich was speaker of the House! Obama has failed to even introduce a budget, and government expenditures have been authorized through omnibus spending bills and individual bills. Spending in Washington has clearly spiraled out of control, and needs decisive and experienced leadership to rein in spending and make painful cuts."

That sounds like a good ad.

Out of the group that's still in the mix for the GOP nomination, Newt, warts and all, is by far the best of them. I voted for Newt a month ago via the Arizona early absentee ballot, have no regrets, and wish him well in my home state's primary next Tuesday. Given that the Citizen is considered to have the more conservative editorial leaning between itself and Tucson's other notable paper, the Star, the budding idiotorium in the comments section doesn't inspire confidence in the political education of the GOP electorate, at least in Tucson, and perhaps more widely, Arizona itself.

[PRePublic]

Bump for later.

[org.whodat]

Newt said he voted for amnesty and Reagan signed the bill, then the government flailed to live up to the agreements. Noot was one of those that did not do crap. And I will not kick the football for for Lucy again.

[rambo316]

When a leftist moderates the debates they never speak up in defense of the girly boy in the white house when Newt or one of the other debators speak out on what an utter failure the ineligible fraud in the white house truly is. We hear day in and day out about what a great leader the fraud in the white house is, but then when Newt or one of the others speaks the truth during a debate about the fraud in the white house and all his policy failures, there is a silence from the leftists.

[rambo316]

When a leftist moderates the debates they never speak up in defense of the girly boy in the white house when Newt or one of the other debators speak out on what an utter failure the ineligible fraud in the white house truly is. We hear day in and day out about what a great leader the fraud in the white house is, but then when Newt or one of the others speaks the truth during a debate about the fraud in the white house and all his policy failures, there is a silence from the leftists.

[nathanbedford]

As one who can claim to be among the first on FreeRepublic to support Newt Gingrich, I echo virtually every sentiment on this thread the effect that he is the man for the times and there is no one else on that debate stage last night with the capacity to divert the Republic from its headlong rush toward the cliff.

We conservatives have long been familiar, going back to a time before his inauguration, of the Manchurian candidate phoniness of Barack Obama. If Gingrich is denied the nomination that leaves another phony, Mitt Romney or someone who was simply not ready for the job, Rick Santorum.

If we have an Obama-Romney race I will emphatically support Romney but I will do so in the knowledge that I have no idea whom it is I am supporting. If the race is between Obama and Santorum I fear the drive-by electorate will watch performances such as that rendered up last night by Santorum and conclude that, as bad as Obama is, Santorum is simply not up to the job.

When the persuadables among the undecideds come to actually decide how to vote they will do so based mostly on word-of-mouth and television image. They will watch the presidential debates to determine whether or not the Republican nominee is actually presidential timber. They will want to know not so much what his policies are but whether the potential replacement for the man whom they want to replace makes them feel secure that it is safe to put him in the job.

Judging Santorum by his performance last night alone and not on his courageous campaign so far, the drive-by electorate will stay with Obama.

I don't think it's necessary to debate Romney's forensic skills. It is clear that he will be able to stand on his feet and debate Obama. He can take a punch and he can land a punch and he seems to be reasonably unflappable. In other words, he will appear presidential and he will pass the drive-by test. Nor is it necessary to evaluate Newt's forensic skills. His ability to debate Obama is unquestioned. But electability is only one of my three leg test for supporting a nominee. Electability, of course, comes first. As John F. Kennedy said, "first you gotta get elected." I don't think there is much to choose from between Gingrich and Romney on the electability issue. Each has strengths and weaknesses and it is impossible to predict now how the actual dynamic of the election will play out six months hence.

The second leg of the stool his conservative bona fides. I have no question that Gingrich trumps Romney all day long on this test.

The third leg, vision, also belongs to Gingrich. And this is the reason why we conservatives really should rally behind Gingrich now. If we do not turn the Republic around now it is inevitable that we slide off the cliff. If we do not defeat Obama the fall will simply come sooner. If we defeat Obama with Romney we will have put in place a Rockefeller-Bush-Romney Republican and we will get half measures which will simply not do because this is Europe 1939 and with Chamberlain we will lose this existential struggle.

There is another part of Romney that disturbs me, it is becoming increasingly clear that the man is a ruthless prick. He is a hypocrite who sends surrogates out to do his slanders and turns a smiling face to the mothers of America and poses as the picture of innocence and succeeds in getting the women's vote while they react against Gingrich. Whatever transgressions Gingrich has made, I believe they're mostly of the intellectual sort and not so Nixonian in character as I increasingly see in Romney.

For Gingrich to prevail now either Romney or Santorum must disintegrate and it looks like Santorum is in some danger after last night's performance. If he fades markedly, Gingrich still has a chance in a one-on-one against Romney.

[VRWC For Truth]

Newt has more baggage than he can carry. Pass.

[dforest]

I will take Newt or Rick. I am also done flaming either of them.

That said, Romney may well run away with it now. He is even packing the debate audiences. You could tell that at the beginning when they were introduced.

[McGruff]

This is my case.

GINGRICH: Now, I am going to give you a series of solutions that are big enough to get America back on the right track. And I think this has been the greatest challenge of this campaign.

We have lots of bickering; we have lots of arguments about this and that. We have virtually no discussion of what does it really take to take the most complicated society in the world, the largest economy in the world, and move it back to being the most successful, most prosperous, safest and freest country in the world.

So I am going to try this afternoon to set the stage for that.

And we have tons of details at Newt.org — any of you want, to just go to my first name dot org. You will see an immense amount of material.

But the standard here is that solutions big enough to get America working again — and the principle is to unleash the American people to rebuild the America we love.

Let me start with jobs: If I am the nominee, with your help, I will ask the entire Republican ticket to campaign with me on the pledge that when the Congress comes in on January 3, it will stay in session, and by January 20, when I am sworn in, it will have repealed Obamacare.

(Applause).

GINGRICH: It will have repealed Dodd-Frank.

(Applause).

GINGRICH: It will have repealed Sarbanes-Oxley.

(Applause).

GINGRICH: All three of those are job killing bills, which centralized bureaucracy in Washington DC and increased the corruption of the political system. All three should be repealed and held at the desk until I am sworn in. That afternoon, on the very first day, we should sign the repeal of all three. That's a reasonable start.

(Applause).

GINGRICH: Two hours after the Inaugural Address — that was just the hors d’oeurve. We haven't got around to serious work, yet.

After the Inaugural Address, I will spend it signing executive orders and presidential findings. All of them will have been published by October 1. The country will know precisely what this campaign is about.

The very first executive order will abolish all of the White House czars, as of that moment.

(Applause).

GINGRICH: We will sign, that day, an executive order, which as of that moment, approves of the Canadian pipeline to Houston, period.

(Applause).

GINGRICH: My message to Prime Minister Harper and the Canadian government is simple: You do not need a partnership with the Chinese. Give the American people a few months. When we beat Obama on election night, you can start buying equipment because we will approve it on January 20th.

(Applause).

GINGRICH: There will be an executive order to move the State Department, to put the embassy in Jerusalem as of that day, period.

(Applause).

GINGRICH: We will, that day, reinstate Ronald Reagan's “Mexico City Policy” — No money for abortion overseas, period.

(Applause).

GINGRICH: And we will have an executive order to repeal every act of religious bigotry by the Obama administration period.

My goal, with your help, is that by the time President Obama lands in Chicago, we will have repudiated at least 40 percent of his government on the opening-day.