I know all about Gingrich. Did you know that Winston Churchill changed between Conservative to Liberal and back again? That Sir Winston was called ‘mad’ by his contemporaries? Idea people are like that, especially when they have a decades long record for us to peruse.
How many Republican candidates running this election cycle have any record of altering Congress? Only one.
How many Republican candidates running this election cycle have balanced budgets and slashed spending? We both know the answer.
The 1998 budget was scheduled for a $1 Billion cut and congress saw the gravy train leaving the station. No more getting rich at the public’s expense. No more cutting deals with big donors for pushing legislation containing contracts, all for big $$ later - a Santorum specialty.
So it became “get rid of Newt Gingrich” even to the extent of manufacturing lies about him. Santorum was one of the long knives, you know. Those phony ethics charges that were ALL dropped, but the media continues to smear him year after year after year.
And now, older and wiser, Newt is back. And the corrupt in Washington, D.C., those feeding on the corpse of Uncle Sam, are AGAIN trying to save the status quo.
There is only one person Obama fears in this political race: it is Gingrich. Newt had BHO2 so riled over the oil drilling speech, BHO2 was blubbering about algae!
Newt Gingrich is speaking about specific remedies to the $16 TRILLION DOLLAR DEBT this nation is facing. Romney and Santorum? Crickets.
You write well, JohnBovenmyer, but you have the odor of an establishment apologist. Particularly when you slam Sarah Palin.
Actually two!
Rick was one of the seven who exposed the House Bank check scandal! That was the first blow leading to the takeover in '94. Newt was silent there, having been one of the (quite minor) offenders although his subsequent leadership on the Contract became the biggest factor in the takeover. Rick was a major contributor to ending the only federal entitlement program ever ended, working on it in both Houses and floor managing it in Senate. Newt was obviously also a major contributor on that, but both deserve credit.
Newt did a lot of good in Congress. He wasn't perfect, none in congress were, but his net was excellent until he took himself out after the '98 election. If you look at Santorum's record as of when Newt left Congress pretty much all would have said he was a rising star, perhaps the biggest young star conservatives had in Congress. Ending welfare as we knew it certainly slashed spending and Rick certainly voted for those balanced budgets even though he had less responsibility for them. Certainly some of what Rick has done since has affected folk's perception of him. What Newt has done since deserves the same kind of attention, no more, no less.
I've read thousands of pages of Churchill's writing, including his entire WWII history, and am well aware of his checkered course in British politics. He was a great man and history shows us that great men often have shortcomings nearly as great. Newt may well be a great man, but that is hard to judge other than in hindsight and I'd prefer to think, regardless of this race, that Newt's book has more chapters to follow. However, regarding Churchill, history records that he was the right great man for Britain in WWII because he'd spent his entire career attacking systems like Hitler and Stalin's. And his varied past services had developed the skill set required to thwart them. The issue of our time happily is no longer Nazism, nor Communism as threats to freedom, although Freepers can doubtless draw some parallels. It is more specifically Obamacare as the threat de jour to freedom. Sure, Obama provides additional threats to our freedom with every breath he takes, but there was a reason he took a whole year ramming through Obamacare. It will be the killing blow we don't stop it. Santorum was one of the creators of Health Care Savings accounts, the best pro-freedom solution available to the problems Obama will claim to have solved. It has been his issue for 20 years. He, like Churchill in 1940, is the best equipped to lead against the biggest threat of the day. Even if Newt is a great man he's one who spent a decade on the wrong side of that issue and as such he's not the right choice to lead against it. I would like to believe his conversion is sincere and that he can offer strong service on the team just as did many of Churchill's 1930s foes under his leadership.
Newt fans claim Santorum is saying nothing about energy policy and shrinking government. They're not listening very hard. He talks about it a lot and has been at least since my search for 'my' candidate, after Sarah bowed out and then Cain was chased out, lead me to him in time for the Iowa caucuses. He's big on domestic production of all carbon based energy, and unlike Mitt and Newt was never on the global warming bandwagon. He's talking about cutting spending $5 trillion and specifically discusses entitlement reforms with a record of having cut them. He talks up small business rather than big business as the way to grow the economy. His economic policies draw me to him more than his social ones, although I generally agree with them as well.
I'm no establishment apologist! I remember Goldwater beer. I was for Reagan in '68 over Nixon because I feared what Nixon's domestic policies would be. Boy was I right! Alas they wouldn't let ten year olds vote then. I've been reading Reagan's favorite publication, Human Events since then. My first vote was for Reagan in the '76 Iowa caucuses. I must have spoken up then because they made me one of the vote counters for my precinct. When Newt was a freshman congressmen I was arguing for conservatism against Paul Wellstone's students. I'd ID'd Wellstone as a liberal true believer my first couple weeks on campus. The only thing I've written against Sarah Palin was that her long tease as a potential candidate kept conservatives from considering, and vetting, other options. Leaving the RINOs with a significant head start. Is that not true? I wish she had run, but if her choice was going to be to not run I wish she'd announced it sooner. It's not been discussed much because of the love and respect so many have for her, but Sarah would be the first to say she's not above legitimate criticism. And it shouldn't be forgotten that, although Palin is supporting Newt now, it was her kind words towards Rick before Iowa that launched his rise.
I'm trying to make my points now because we are running out of time to stop Romney before the convention. (Plus I'll be stuck offline for awhile after AL and MS so need to get my FR fix in while I can). If we get to the convention with Romney having just a plurality the GOP-e will likely find some way to drag him over the line. The only places Newt has won are SC, GA and FR. (If Freepers alone could control the debate the country would be a better place, but our power is, so far, limited. Perhaps after JohnRob does more upgrades...) Newt's shown no ability to compete in other regions, where his negatives remain high, and that just doesn't leave him as a viable candidate in a national race. I wish Rick could have had a few more % in MI and OH, it would have made things easier. But if Rick can win AL and MI, where his social positions won't hinder him, and Newt finally concedes, he might receive enough stop Mitt momentum to win before the convention. Or at least go in close enough to make a deal with Newt to push him over the top there. They've been personal friends and worked well together, why can't their supporters?