No Newt Is Good Newt (Who is the King of Flip-Flops? Not Mitt but Newt)

American Thinker ^ | 11/30/2011 | Stuart Schwartz

[SeekAndFind]

He is the king of flip-flops, the emperor of hypocrisy, the czar of opinions a mile wide and an inch deep. Mitt Romney? Not by a long shot -- because when it comes to core values, conservative or otherwise, Romney tips the top of the belief-o-meter compared with Newt Gingrich. And it is a lesson conservatives should learn now, before the actual primary voting begins. For the Tea Party, for evangelicals, for the ordinary Joe and Jane who believe in American exceptionalism and hard work and God, for the like-minded concerned with the path of the Republic -- no Newt is good Newt.

Newt Gingrich is for Newt. Period. The end. This consummate Beltway insider and lobbyist will say anything, do anything, and pander to any and all in his lifelong pursuit of...Newt. He is a more facile and intelligent, an older and whiter and chunkier version of Barack Obama, whose single defining trait is overweening narcissism. And just as Barack begins each day with an admiring look in the mirror, Gingrich is second to none in his appreciation of the glory that is Newt.

Welcome to Newt World. This is the same world inhabited by the elites of both parties, a world where values are well-articulated but are, in the end, just talk. Does that mean he won't seek to apply traditional American values to a government gone wild? No, he may...or may not. It depends upon who cheers the loudest, not worldview and values.

[BunnySlippers]

I can’t believe FR would even support Newt. He is the worst!

[SeekAndFind]

Examples of Newt’s double talk:

* He can take the Tea Party line of opposing government energy subsidies while supporting green energy subsidies and ethanol.

* He can attacks Obamacare while promoting a government takeover of the health industry ( He was a former proponent of the individual mandate).

* He can appear “practically spooning” Nancy Pelosi in commercials about the need for government action on global warming while doing the same and opposite with the Tea Party

* Married Newt was leading the impeachment of [Bill] Clinton while diddling his Congressional aide.

Newt’s core is straight from the low end of the window and door aisle at Lowes: hollow molded composite. Nothing real about it. But in Washington, it works.

BUYER BEWARE !!

[cripplecreek]

Capitulating to any of the perpetual politicians will be the end of the tea party.

[BunnySlippers]

My guy is Perry and he just can’t get started again. I’d rather vote for Mitt than Newt.

But, it actually looks now like Obama will have a second term where he can do irreparable damage.

[I am Richard Brandon]

So we are all going to support a politician who has been absolutely steadfast in his beliefs throughout the years are we? Come in Mr. Paul, I am sure that the electorate respects you and will vote for you!

[stuartcr]

Who is left? Freepers aren’t allowed to support Mitt and those two are in the lead.

[BunnySlippers]

I’m supporting Perry. He may have a comeback in him. Hope so.

But I can’t vote for Newt.

[stuartcr]

He pretty much is the only one that has stuck to his guns, isn’t he?

[stuartcr]

So what will you do if he or Mitt end up running against Obama?

[MEGoody]

I can’t believe FR would even support Newt.

"FR" is an open forum, so you are going to get pros and cons on every candidate (unless there is a concerted spamming effort - then Jim Rob has been known to take action.)

Whom do you support and why? I'm still undecided so willing to hear your arguments for your preferred candidate.

[MEGoody]

After reading the entire thread, I see that you support Rick Perry. What are the “pros” for his candidacy?

[SeekAndFind]

RE: So we are all going to support a politician who has been absolutely steadfast in his beliefs throughout the years are we?

Personally, I respect a politician who has been steadfast in his beliefs. BUT IT HAS TO BE RIGHT BELIEFS. Pelosi has been steadfast in her beliefs, doesn’t mean we should support her.

And as for changing one’s mind (AKA FLIP-FLOP). If the change is towards the correct view ( e.g. global warming is bunk ), it is still very difficult to determine whether it comes out of a genuine change of heart ( because he believes his previous belief was wrong ), or because he just wants your vote....

In this area, I’m not sure I can trust Newt and/or Mitt on these.

I believe Bachmann and Santorum are the most CONSISTENTLY correct and steadfast in their stance on issues.

[parksstp]

Newt Gingrich Campaign Song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pzkszgjkj6Q

[ridesthemiles]

Cannot vote for Romney-—not now- not ever.

[Sudetenland]

We all know of Newt's penchant for inconsistent public statements, but we also know that he has done more for conservatism than any other candidate.

Interesting to note that the author omits anything of substance that differentiates Newt from Mitt or from Obama--genuinely an absurdity to compare Newt to Obama and very telling of the mentality of the author.

Let's recap the leading candidates records:

• Cain--successfully ran a hamburger chain and lifted that region from the least profitable to the most profitable. Successfully ran a Pizza chain from near bankruptcy to profitability--but also took it from #5 to #8 in the process.
  
  
• Mitt--Successful governor of the most liberal state in America, Romneycare, stellar success with the Olympics.
  
  
• Bachmann--led failed effort to stop the budget deal, has authored a number of bills--nothing of substance passed.
  
  
• Newt--was the primary source for Reagan's "are you better off . . ." question during the decisive Reagan Carter debate. Even more important:
  
  
  1. Orchestrated the "Republican Revolution" that put Republicans in control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years when no one else was willing to even attempt it.
     
     
  2. Came up with the Contract for America and met the promise that every single provision would see a vote on the floor. Not all of it was enacted, but that was never the promise.
     
     
  3. First balanced budget in decades. Then proceeded to produce four consecutive balanced budgets.
     
     
  4. Forced Clinton to accept tax cuts including the largest capital gains tax-cut in history.
     
     
  5. Forced Clinton to accept the huge restructuring of Welfare and replaced it with "Workfare."
     
     
  6. Got the Congressional Accountability Act passed that required Congress to abide by the same laws as private businesses.
  
  
  They all have their foibles and achievements and Newt's foibles maybe a bit more glaring that the others, but none has close to the record of actual conservative achievements that Newt has.
  
  Another error the author makes is to claim that Newt is a favored of the establishment conservatives--very clearly Mitt has that post locked up.
  
  The author is simplistic, intellectually dishonest, and factually challenged.

[Lou Budvis]

It’s too bad Santorum and Bachman couldn’t get more traction, but they’re not viable options anymore. Rick Perry did himself in and Cain isn’t qualified. That leaves Newt. Slick Willard isn’t an option.

[LADY J]

No Newt or Romney.

I'm sticking with Cain unless some proof comes up to make me change my mind.

[dforest]

Chris Horner on local radio in Indy right now warning people about Newt and his rabid support of GW.

Lookout people. Horner says Newt will pander to media and triangulate against a conservative Congess.

Buyers BEWARE!

He says Newt cannot be trusted. He also said to not trust Romney on this issue.

[Lou Budvis]

When I ask people here, who besides Reagan has done more for conservatism than Newt over the last 30 years? - I never get an answer.