GINGRICH: I have spoken at CPAC many times. And CPAC was founded to challenge the Republican establishment.
The fact is: When Ronald Reagan came here in 1974 and gave his famous speech on bold colors, no pale pastels, that was a decade in from Reagan's first, great national speech for Barry Goldwater, A Time For Choosing.
When Reagan campaigned in 1980, you could see the gap between the Republican establishment and the conservative movement. Reagan campaigned on supply-side economics, lower taxes, less regulation, more American energy, place for people to create jobs. The establishment called it “voodoo economics.”
The GOP establishment has a single word they use with contempt for conservative ideas:
They say they are “unrealistic.”
So creating 16 million jobs under Reagan — “unrealistic.”
Ending the Soviet Union — “unrealistic.”
And Faith Whittlesey, who was in the Reagan White House and ambassador to Switzerland, wrote a brilliant piece recently for Newsmax, pointing out that the fight she and Iwere in as conservatives against the Republican establishment, over the very question of whether or not we should have an anti-Soviet campaign.
The 1994 “Contract with America” — “unrealistic.”
The House Republican majority of 1994, which by the way, was elected by the largest one-party increase in an off year in American History — 9 million new voters — “unrealistic.”
Reforming welfare — where two out of three people would go to work or go to school — “unrealistic.”
Cutting taxes with the largest capital gains tax cut — first tax cut in 16 years — unemployment drops to 4.2 percent, 11 million new jobs — “unrealistic.”
Four years of a balanced-budget — “unrealistic.”
(Applause).
GINGRICH: For the Republican establishment, managing the decay is preferable to changing the trajectory because changing the trajectory requires real fight and requires a real willingness to roll up sleeves and actually take on the Left.
And that is why the Republican establishment, whether it is in 1996 or in 2008, can't win a presidential campaign because they don't have the toughness; they don't have the commitment; and they don't have the philosophy necessary to build a majority in this country.
Wanna hear more?
So what is the right number of debates?
Pick a number. How many have we had?
I don’t vote for a debater. I have every expectation that Obama will not debate Gingrich fairly. He will either refuse to debate, or will lie during the debate. Of course Gingrich may lie too, but the general rule is “the first liar doesnt have a chance”.
I will vote for anyone over Obama.
Real men fight battles. Instead of fighting, these 'gentlemen' chose to run and hide. In hiding, these candidates showed they don't have the fortitude it takes to be the leader of the free world.
THE LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD!!!! This is the soberest hire we'll ever, EVER make. Shouldn't we loan it to the most experienced one who doesn't back down?
A leader LEADS. Why vote for a coward???
GO NEWT!!!
I got a call from a Pauly and I just said I am not interested. It Pi**es me off that they got my name and phone number when I attended a TEA PARTY rally to promote Clint Didier against Patty Murray for Senate. It didn't take me long to realize that our supposed tea party here is Libertarians. I haven't gone to another party.