There, I said it!
I think that is where I am settling as well.
Romney’s positions and that of Newt’s are pretty well known.
One has acted them out and the other has not.
One is opportunist for the purpose of advancement, the other is a serious intellect and strategist whose performance in the past I very much agreed with.
In fact, I had to educate our new local host his 2nd day on the air. He made the unfortunate mistake of Praising Bill Clinton for Welfare Reform, the Balanced Budget and lowered taxes through capital gains tax cut.
Brian Sussman made an unfortunate mistake of trying to give Clinton credit on the one hand while demonstrating his errors on the other.
I called in and thanked him for deciding to become a full time talk jock but I wanted to correct his view about Clintons legacy. Not to be contrarian or take away from him or Bill Clinton but they were just plain wrong and I asked I might quickly demonstrate why Clinton deserved zero Credit and when I am through who really should get the credit, without insulting anyone.
So I quickly went through them:
Contract with America, who wrote it? Newt Gingrich was his reply.
That is correct.
Now to clear the record I’ll go through them in the order I think is most powerful:
Capital Gains tax cut-
Was thought of as a response to Clintons raising of taxes and as a tool to keep the investment community well, inevesting and spurring additional investment. That was a Contract with America initiative and a well thought out position by Newt.
There was some horse trading and Newt gave away something no one really cared about to get it and the economy kept going with the result being unemployment dropping from 7% to 4% in a few short years.
The host immediately got the idea, said he would probably rephrase his thought at the end and asked me to continue.
Balanced Budget -
Again, Newt gave Clinton some bases that were already on the secondary list, devised by Dick Cheney, as alternatives for closure. Clinton got a win for his anti-military wing, we gave away something we didn’t care about and got what we wanted.
Welfare Reform -
this was the end goal all along and with a new Republican majority Congress it easily passed the House only to have Clinton veto it.
No problem. The President has the bully pulpit but was embroiled in a few distractions at the time which made it possible for Newt, Dole and few others to take their case directly to the American people who were sick of welfare queens.
Clinton was made aware the American people and the Houses were very much in the majority and very excited about reforming welfare. Still, he vetoed it again and then tried to make the argument he was going to co-opt the argument and reshape welfare reform as he saw fit.
It became very apparent the American taxpayer had, had enough and so had the houses. The pressure became to much and Clinton relented with nary a change to the original welfare reform act.
While he took credit for welfare reform it was never his idea, never became a priority until politically forced.
This was a Newt idea and part of the Contract with America which he shepherded.
Mitt has done nothing like this and I can trust Newt to follow through on his positions.
Still, I am in the Bachman(was), Santorum or Perry Camp. They just need to catch and if they cant’ then I am with Newt, all....the ...way.
Welfare Reform, the Balanced Budget and lowered taxes through capital gains tax cut.
Who has a record like that?
Who can perform like that?
“Gingrich - Santorum 2012.”
That ticket if formed before the South Carolina primary would win the SC primary and Super Tuesday. But I don’t think Gingrich will make the offer and if offered Santorum will not accept...especially if he is running ahead of Newt in NH.
Master Po and Grasshopper;)
I could live with that, although I'd prefer someone like Ryan in the vp slot.
Why not Gingrich & Condeleeza Rice in 2012?
OR Santorum & Rice in 2012?
Putting Rice in the veep slot takes a LOT of wind out of Demoncrat sails. It may split the black vote on the other side and think of the disaffected women in the ranks of the RATS who'd jump at the chance to make history once again.
I’d turn that around and put Santorum at the top of the ticket, with Newt playing a Cheney-type role. Can you imagine Newt suddenly presiding over the Senate? I can. I think he would relish it.
Gingrich - Santorum 2012.
I can live with that. However,I won't support Perry under any circumstances. He's as much a charlatan as Romney is and is now poised to give Romney a boost in SC by diminishing Newt and Santorum instead of doing the right thing for conservatism and bowing out. Besides, Obama would eviscerate him in any event.
So Newt and Santorum it will be for me, albeit warily. Obama must be stopped and statist RINOs need not apply.
Where is the “Like” button..I agree with you.
Agreed because if we support Romney now then we have to support him in 2016. Then what, hope for a real conservative in 2020?
I like Santorum's focus on manufacturing and he's young enough to run on his own in 2016 (if necessary) or 2020.
Of what's left, I'd prefer Perry or Newt. At the rate things are going it'll be Romney by March. It's maddening.
I'd accept that, or either one with some other choice as VP, though I'd prefer Santorum - Gingrich. I'd rather have the more staid individual in the presidency. Let Santorum govern, and Gingrich be the one to take on the establishment/msm. He has the ability moreso than Santorum.
I said that three months ago. It was the only thing I could see that would beat Obama and REPRESENT us!
I could live with this. I just hope they can keep their campaigns against each other civil so as not to create any bad blood when it comes time for reconciliation.
I could vote for both Paul and Mitt against Obama.
Paul may do a lot of very bad things but he will also do a lot of very good things that quite possibly wont happen with any other man now running. I am therefore willing to accept the bad with the good at least for 4 years.
As for Mitt like it or not he is not running to govern Mass. If that was not enough to convince you know that his tenuous hold on conservatives should help to keep him walking the line.
He probably wont accomplish as much as Newt, perry and certainly not as much as Paul, but hes better than Obama and he might at least provide a political platform for conservative States to push the line.
Relax guys we can work with any of the guys running. Each of them simply requires a different strategy on our part.
(PS if your worried about Federal Judge ships know this, no man appointed by any Federal executive and approved by any federal senate is going to be likely to cut down the hand that fed and continues to feed them. The self-serving corruption of the Federal “courts” is a product its nature & position as a part of the Federal Goverment choice and empowered by the same. The Federal court thus can’t help but be as corrupt as the same Goverment is powerful.)
I would rather see Santorum/Gingrich. Newt is a little too snooty but would be good behind the scenes.
Gingrich - Santorum
or
Gingrich - Cain