How Conservative is Newt's Actual Voting Record?

libertarian-neocon.blogspot.com ^ | libertarian neocon

[libertarian neocon]

The folks at Club for Growth has white papers on all the GOP candidates summarizing their public records and does a pretty objective job. Looking at Newt's I really was struck by how conservative Newt's actual voting record was (which of course was mischaracterized by Jennifer Rubin, who I think must have been offered a post in a Romney administration. How else do you explain her going full spittle in support of Romney and anti-Newt?)., with most of the worrisome aspects of his record coming from speeches AFTER he left public office. This is pretty much the exact opposite of Romney, who has a very questionable record from his limited time in elected office, with most of his conservatism coming from campaign speeches. Anyway, let's look at Newt's actual record:

• Voted YES on the Reagan tax cut of 1981
• Voted YES on the Reagan tax reform bill of 1986
• Voted NO on the George H.W. Bush "Read My Lips" tax hike in 1990.
• Voted NO on the Clinton tax hike in 1993.
• Voted YES on the capital gains tax cut in 1997.
• Voted NO on the Chrysler bailout in 1979
• Voted YES on the Gramm-Rudman balanced budget bill in 1985
• Voted YES on a balanced budget amendment (as part of the "Contract for America" effort that he led) in 1995
• Led the effort and voted YES to cut $16.4 billion from the budget in 1995.
• Voted YES on welfare reform in 1996

I also decided to look myself at how much federal spending increased while Gingrich was Speaker of the House (1995-1999). By my calculations, Federal spending rose an average of 3.1% a year while he was speaker. When you compare it to the Presidential terms from Reagan on, this is the lowest rate of spending growth over the last 30 years. Under Reagan, spending grew an average of 7.6% a year. Under George H.W. Bush, 6.7%. Under Clinton, 3.3% (it would have been much more if he got his single payor health care plan through, also he was restrained by Newt later). Under W., it as 6.6% and under Obama, a whopping 8.6% a year. Also, under Newt, Federal spending as a % of GDP fell from 21% to 18.5%, a whopping decline in 4 short years.

Is his record perfect? Nope. Not even close. But the point is that on the big issues, he voted Conservative and helped champion balanced budgets and tax reform. Focusing on that actual voting record really makes me more comfortable with him. Especially when his main opponent is someone whose main accomplishment is a massive government healthcare program.

[narses]

You want Obama? Or Romney?

[rbmillerjr]

I believe Newt Gingrich’s imperfections both personally and as a conservative make him perfect for this America.

He is flawed but still a far better choice than both Romney and Obama.

This elections is going to seal our fate as a Nation. We don’t need perfection, we need an intelligent leader.

Gingrich
Romney
Obama

What is to decide?

[Lakeshark]

He worries me, but I can handle what you just said.

Right now the alternative appears to be Romney or Newt.

No contest.

[DoughtyOne]

Bingo!

[DoughtyOne]

BTW: It's also important to note, that Newt became so unpopular as Speaker that he was facing a revolt from his own party. He stepped down.

I don't see many any of his supporters mentioning that.

[nickcarraway]

McCain probably has the exact same votes on all these. These are cherrypicked “easy” votes.

[Lucky9teen]

Rush was just discussing this: This is the guy who led the first GOP takeover of Congress in 40 years. He came up with the Contract with America. He helped balance the budget, made welfare reform happen, and worked hand in glove with Reagan and Bush as they took the Soviet Union apart. Other than Ronald Reagan, no one has actually accomplished as much for conservatism in D.C. over the last 40 years as Newt Gingrich — and despite the complaints about his leadership, there certainly has been no one since who has even come close to filling his shoes in Congress.

Still not sure about the Global Warming schmoozing he did with Nazi Pelosi on that loveseat....but he sure sounds good and could smack down Obama in any debate, that’s for sure.

[libertarian neocon]

“McCain probably has the exact same votes on all these. These are cherrypicked “easy” votes.”

McCain has an 82% lifetime rating from the ACU compared to 90% for Newt. So McCain is to the left of Newt if you look objectively at the totality of their records. Plus McCain did vote against the Bush tax cuts, though Newt was in favor of them (though not in office).

[b4its2late]

Anyone BUT Romney as our candidate is my take, because the media wants Romney.

[arrogantsob]

As though someone MORE conservative that Newt can win the nomination.

[sickoflibs]

RE “Notice all these Conservative milestones are 15 to 25 years ago and we are supposed to ignore his last 15 years of progressive positions.”.....
The reason I focused on his actual record is because when push came to shove and he had to put himself on the line, he voted the right way on this major legislation. People can say anything.”

That is NOT nearly as impressive as it seems to you or you make it out. As a congressman Newt represented a small district in GA. And it was probably a pretty conservative district too.

After he resigned from congress he no longer had the bonds of the conservative voters to worry about, He could do and say what he wanted, until now. That last 15 years is when he let his progressive side out, and he sure did,

[sickoflibs]

RE :”So you aren’t concerned that he whored for Freddie and Fannie?o you aren’t concerned that he undermined Paul Ryan’s attempt to rein in entitlements? So you aren’t concerned that he endorses the BS of global warming?”

You forgot he wrote an article in the WSJ supporting amnesty in 2007. And he supported a personal health insurance mandated in the 1990s much like Obama/Romney-care. And I saw one post where he supported the fairness doctrine in the 1980s. The best was global warming with Pelosi.
Newt is trying to challenge Romney in number of flip-flops and pandoring. Democrats will fry these two

[lquist1]

“Are you saying that Bachmann missing many votes because she’s running for president, while she collects a paycheck for being a voting representative, is a good thing?”

I never said it was, in fact, I’m not a Bachmann supporter and I’m not here to defend her specifically. You can check my other posts for verification of this fact.

“By definition when on mentions two examples, in this case I mentioned Bachmann and Perry, that is not a signaling out.

I would add, I have always made this criticism, even before BAchmann and Perry. In fact many of us made this criticism of Obama when he ran.”

So then it seems you are saying that EVERY candidate for POTUS that currently holds some kind of elective office should resign. I presume this would include the hundreds of such candidates going back to 1789.

If this is your position, then I stand by my assertion that it’s completely ridiculous and absurd to expect EVERY single candidate to resign their current office as a condition to run for POTUS.

On top of all that, it’s totally unrealistic to expect this to change, since people have been doing it for over 200 years and there’s never been any public outcry against it.

“Your example is absurd. I never said people who are running for reelection. Running for reelection is part an elected officials job. A person who runs for reelection spends time with his constituents, reporting to his/her constituents the quantity and quality of his/her work.”

I realize you never said those running for re-election, but I fail to see why there’s much difference. In both cases, a candidate holds an office in which they have a job to do, then they also decide to seek election (or re-election) to either their own office or a different one. They are now doing two jobs-holding an office and running a campaign.

And I might add-only Washington insiders believe that running for re-election is part of an elected official’s “job.” Nowhere in their job description is it required that they seek re-election, this is completely optional, and many of us believe that there should be limits on the amount of times an elected official is allowed to do so.

Oh-one more thing I meant to ask yesterday-what exact duties has Perry neglected as TX Gov that make you think he should resign before continuing with his POTUS campaign? Did he miss a couple of key meetings I didn’t hear about? Educate me, please!

[Soothesayer9]

"Noob troll alert, c’mon people, wake up!"

Sharp as an orange.

Really, lay off those slot machines for awhile.

[takenoprisoner]

Nice work. Make no mistake about it, Newt is a Secular Internationalist. Like Obama, he will sell his soul to the devil, if that is what it takes to be President.

If Cain is out, for me, that leaves Bachmann. Since IMO, both Newt and Romney are the equivalent of Obama in a mini skirt. Rub my thigh, and I will soothe yours.

Bachmann has not sold her soul. Win, lose, or draw, she is standing on principle.

It’s rare to find this in a politician. So, she will be my choice henceworth.

[RasterMaster]

I've always thought, if I must have an active politician as the nominee the choice should be of those closest to the people....hence the House candidate. SINators are always too fond of big goobermint and "compromise" (surrender to the enemy) for me. I'd be very happy with a Cain/Bachman ticket or enthusiastic over another choice from the House...

[noinfringers2]

How about a West/Bachmann ticket?

[Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!]

Wow! You call for someone to be zotted because they don’t agree with the current flavor of the week GOP candidate?Seriously?(BTW:the top candidate may change next week)The hypocrisy is overblown;especially since six months ago if someone posted a Gingrich thread it was filled with mockery and Pelosi/Newt sofa pictures.I have seen people threatened with being zotted in the past for saying anything whatsoever about Gingrich other than he was a RINO.And now he is all of a sudden not a RINO and you want someone that disagrees with your fluke zotted?Regarding sickoflibs and Palin.Palin asked for money in her PAC days before she announced she wasn’t running this bothers me and a lot of other people and threads are filled with ‘if only Sarah would have run’.It is old she is done.No one is allowed to show political anger but you?

Unbelievable!

I have a FR FRiend that left this forum because they posted a pro Allen West post way back when.I watched a good candidate Bachmann get smeared and called a RINO.There are some loons that post the conspiracy that Bachmann is for Romney;ALL to promote someone that is not even running and said she would be Romney’s VP; or the flavor of the week candidate.

Seriously? or is this a sick joke?

I recall when Perry was being called a RINO you said that he was being vetted.Well guess what Gingrich is being vetted and then some.

And ya’ll wonder why people leave here as you try to zot all that don’t mimic your every day whims of hypocrisy...

How sad, only Obama and the Axie Chicago thug political machine win when this happens.

[CottonBall]

But the point is that on the big issues, he voted Conservative and helped champion balanced budgets and tax reform.

But he's happy with illegals taking over the country. Hardly a conservative stance.

[RasterMaster]

You know I’d get on board for that if it happened!