The Case for Newt Gingrich

spectator.org ^ | 12/28/2011 | PETER FERRARA

[TBBT]

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.

[TBBT]

If not Newt, It will be Mitt.

Keeping clinging to second tier hopefuls. You'll ensure that Mitt gets it.

[mmanager]

Thanks for your work TBBT!

[mmanager]

Ping!

[izzatzo]

I’d go for Newt, pimples and all, anyday over Mitt. Newt shows some good traits that Mitt would not have on his best day.

[TBBT]

I was a Fred Thompson guy the last go around. Others were Huckabee fanatics. Neither side would give an inch. South Carolina rolled around and it was all over. We done ourselves in and McCain marched away with it....

History repeats itself...

[Linda Frances]

WHY do we always have to compromise? I'm so sick of getting mccains (without Sarah) I WILL NOT vote for mitt or paul or newt. No one is perfect, but has the republican party joined the 1990 liberals in saying character does not matter? Do we have to take someone who changes like the wind or a crazy old man who will let us get hit before he hits them & then will not go to war if he does not get approval from the house & senate? What if the house & senate is filled with anti-war socialist? Do we just let the country go down to avoid war?

[mmanager]

“Keeping clinging to second tier hopefuls. You’ll ensure that Mitt gets it.”

Man that hit’s it on the head!

We are eating our own here. DU, KOS, Huff and Axlerod are having a blast reading our post’s here at FR.

Time to get serious and focus on how we can get rid of Romney and Obama. Only one has that chance....NEWT!!!!

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Reality is hard for most of them. They are mostly dreamers and Idealists/Perfectionists. (Look at the Palin fiasco for example, many of them are still cling to that insanity and call it hope.)

[ILS21R]

President - Gingrich
Vice President - Bachmann
Secretary of State - Bolton
Secretary of Defense - West
Secretary of Commerce - Cain
Attorney General - Issa

[SamAdams76]

Thanks for sharing the article. In recent days, I have struggled over who to support in this nomination process. I had determined to stick with Michelle Bachmann because she best represents my conservative values of the available candidates. However, I am coming to the realization that she isn't going to win this nomination and I certainly don't want Mitt Romney benefiting from my vote for a candidate who has little chance of winning.

My primary happens on March 6 and it looks more and more like I am going to cast my vote for Newt. I still think Newt is flawed in many ways but I also believe he's got the fire in his belly to take Obama down to the mat during the general election and to beat Obama, we are going to need a fighter.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

[We are eating our own here. DU, KOS, Huff and Axlerod are having a blast reading our post’s here at FR.]

You are right! It is not only an embarrassment, it is an utter disgrace! You can also bet that the MSM has also been reading, looking for ways to go after Newt.

Jim Rob was right; “Loose Lips, Sink Ships!”

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

See #8! You ARE the problem. Absolutely no doubt about that!

[DJlaysitup]

Well I'm no big Mitt fan but I think his campaign is correct here:

Appearing in Portsmouth, Romney noted a statement that Gingrich’s campaign director compared the former House speaker’s recent inability to qualify for the Virginia ballot as a setback comparable to Pearl Harbor from which the campaign would recover.

“I think he compared that to Pearl Harbor? I think it’s more like Lucille Ball at the chocolate factory ,” Romney said in reference to the famous I Love Lucy skit in which the comedienne was overwhelmed by a rapid assembly line of candies. “You’ve got to get it organized."

Newt's campaign is a mess. It was never prepared to win.

[mmanager]

This is what we are stuck with. What is the alternative? Oh, I’m not going to the poll’s because someone is not my ideological candidate?

We HAVE to get this guy out of office. We can’t take our ball home and not vote for “any of the above”. Our country is at the place of distruction.

This is the most serious election of our life time.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

You are one brain dead, deranged Troll n00b! Either that, or you are a Paultard. (Please respond, we are getting bored and are in need of a new plaything.)

[Neoliberalnot]

President - Gingrich
Vice President - Bachmann
Secretary of State - Bolton
Secretary of Defense - West
Secretary of Commerce - Cain
Attorney General - Issa””

You sir are an excellent judge of leaders.

[trisham]

Why can’t he/she be both? We’ve had an influx of Paul trolls.

[TBBT]

WHY do we always have to compromise? I'm so sick of getting mccains (without Sarah) I WILL NOT vote for mitt or paul or newt.

Then you will be voting for Mitt Romney, although indirectly. You will do exactly what I described in reply #5. Some will come to accept reality. Others never will. Call it compromise or whatever you choose. For those who refuse, we'll have you to thank for Mitt Romney.

[littlesorrel]

Newt is no dummy. If he is working for Romney it is in Romney’s interest to have Newt look not prepared.Notice that Newt is not going negative on Romney but the other guys. Calling Romney a Moderate is a compliment.He’s liberal.Plausible deniability.