Donate Today!
Posted on 11/17/2011 2:25:24 PM PST by TitansAFC
As the debates accumulate, it becomes more and more evident that Newt Gingrich’s intellect, experience, articulateness and depth of knowledge elevate him to the top of the GOP field. Anyone should be happy to pay admission to watch him duel with President Obama in debate! He’s not as charismatic as Herman Cain or as smooth as Mitt Romney, but boy, does he have a brain!
Ever since the campaign started, Newt has always gotten in his own way. Now he has graciously stepped aside and let his creativity and intellect shine through.
Earlier in the debates, he bit the questioners’ heads off in a pique of surly crankiness. No longer. Now he just answers the questions as they come, often hitting them out of the ballpark. His perspective and insights are penetrating and his condescension has vanished (or at least is sublimated).
Unfortunately, he does owe some of his current surge to the unsubstantiated and vague charges against Cain. While Republicans generally dismiss these charges, they worry that they will hurt him in November should he win the nomination. Herman will recover. His positive solutions for our economy will lift him back into the top tier of contention. Michele Bachmann might also come back, lifted by a tide of opposition to any tax increases embedded in the deficit-reduction supercommittee’s recommendations.
But any recovery by Cain or Bachmann will not bump Newt from the top tier. The likely result of the debate process is to bequeath to Iowa three or four contending candidates and leave it to them to sort out.
If Newt is the candidate, will his personal baggage drag him down? It will hurt, no doubt about that. His marriages will be dissected by the media, and his family will be deluged with questions and well-laid traps.
His ratings will decline as the inevitable baptism of fire begins. As with Cain, he will experience a few bad weeks. But, as with Cain, his positive strengths will carry him through the fire and he will come out the other end.
But once Newt survives the process, he will be inoculated against the charges. He will have immunity against the issue.
And here is the core of Obama’s problem. All of the Republican candidates will be so thoroughly vetted — and purified — by the brutal process they are going through that they will be immune to his charges against them in the fall.
John Kerry never went through that process. His quick knockout of Howard Dean and the tepid challenge mounted by John Edwards did nothing to vet his claims of hero status in Vietnam.
Obama, on the other hand, survived the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers charges in the primary. When the general election came, they were old hat and had no electoral punch. Similarly, Bill Clinton got the nomination only after he had survived Gennifer Flowers and the accusations of draft-dodging. In November, those charges were spent bullets.
That’s the good news for Republicans. The nominating process has been so combative and the media scrutiny so searing that the candidates have been pre-screened. The FBI screening process is nowhere near as intense as the negative-research capacities of the media and political opponents.
If nominated, Romney will have survived the accusations of flip-flopping, Cain will have overcome the sexual harassment charges and Newt’s marital history will be yesterday’s news. And then we can get on with the business of winning the election.
And win it we will. Obama cannot survive his 60 percent disapproval rating on his handling of the economy (the highest ever recorded by CBS during his administration). Under his leadership, Gallup reports an almost 10-point edge for the Republican Party on handling the economy. Against a generic opponent, Obama draws only 43 percent of the vote. With the personal negatives on the Republican candidates aired and used up during the primaries, there will be nothing for Obama to hide behind.
Aww ... and I really LIKE Jefferson and consider him to have been extremely impressive.
“A society that fails to control its own borders is asking for the level of trouble we now have.”
http://www.newt.org/solutions/tell-truth-about-national-security
How can anyone say Newt is all talk and no walk? Did everyone simply forget that he was the primary architect of the true fiscal conservatism in the 90’s when he managed to get a Democratic president to go along with his agenda?
Welfare reform brought down government spending and forced millions of able bodied Americans to get off their duffs and go get jobs. This resulted in lower unemployment and a wider tax base and contributed to balanced budgets.
Remember federal spending limits? This was Newt’s biggest accomplishment (though Clinton seems to get credit for signing it) making sure our goverment wouldn’t spend our country into debt. Along with trade agreements and other fiscally responsible policies the United States was immensely prosperous because of the government staying out of the way and letting free markets work the way they should.
And then the GOP tossed him overboard. The Democrats made him a target and threw so many mudballs at him that the establishment Republicans abandoned him to prove to the media that they weren’t a bunch of meanies who want to starve children and kick old people out to the curb. The reason he has a reputation as “damaged goods” is because the GOP put that label on him themselves. It’s a shame so many grassroots conservatives went along with this.
I’ve been saying for months that he is not just electable, but that he’s a terrific candidate. He’s also one of the few candidates who is taking care to NOT criticize other Republican candidates because there is a higher priority - criticizing Obama and the Democrats. If you’ve noticed, he has been consistent in explaining exactly what is wrong with Democratic policies and telling us what Republican policies will replace them.
I will certainly be voting for whomever the Republican nominee is from among this field in order to get Obama out of the White House. But my most enthusiastic vote would be for Newt.
I stand corerected on that point, he was Rep. when he signed that bill.
My other points stand though, and your arguements are the favorites of the left when bashing Reagan.
Newt? - Hell No
Most excellent post!
According to Answerbag.com:
In 1998 Newt Gingrich was facing numerous obstacles. The Republican attempt to remove then President Bill Clinton from office was unpopular with the public. Gingrich himself was increasingly unpopular with the public, he was facing numerous ethics investigations, he had lead his party to disappointing results in a recent election and he was facing a growing dissatisfaction with his leadership within the Republican party. On November 6, 1998 he resigned as Speaker of the House and from the Congress.
Declining Popularity According to the Washington Post, by July of 1998 only 31% of those surveyed had a favorable impression of Newt Gingrich, while 47% had a negative impression of him. According to that same poll, only 38% felt that Republicans were best suited to handle the nation's problems, down from 60% 4 years earlier.
Ethics Probe Gingrich and foundations he was associated with were under investigation for numerous ethics violations, primarily concerning using tax exempt status for organizations designed to further his political goals and making misleading statements to congress. In December 1998 he paid $300,000 of his own money to settle the last of these charges.
Oh sure he is. Let’s put Trent Lott or Bob Dole on the ticket as VP and make it just like it was in the Good Ole Days. /sarcasm
Were you around at that time? Your use of the article leads me to believe you weren’t.
He was unpopular because of his CONSERVATIVE stands of which his own party, the establishment, wouldn’t stand behind him on. Clinton was working his magic & had the public in his back pocket for the better part. “It’s the economy stupid”, & the economy was good, life was good for most & they didn’t want the boat rocked. Gingrich was rocking the boat.
Gingrich had dozens & dozens of ethics complaints filed against him, a favorite lib tactic (see Sarah Palin) but not one of them stuck (see Sarah Palin). He settled on the last to save a long drawn out process of which his own party didn’t have the conviction to stand w/ him on.
The Republican party at the time was a bunch of weenies afraid of losing power. Newt was the sacrificial lamb & it took years for the Republicans to get their conservative chops back after that despicable showing.
Do yourself a favor, go look at the last charge that he paid the fine on & tell me what it looks like to you, especially in light of what I just laid out & what congress has been getting away w/ ever since.
Sounds like what is happening to HERMAN CAIN.
Now there we can agree! It’s the same ole lib tactics they’ve been using forever. It’s filthy what they done to Cain.
Newt backed away from those stands himself.
He got a taste of power and at some point he decided staying in power and reaping the benefits was more important than making changes.
From his early Rockefeller Republican days to his Nancy Pelosi global warming ad he's always been an ambivalent figure -- sometimes a model for conservatives, sometimes anything but.
No doubt he made mistakes of which he takes full accountability. The point is that conservatism wasn’t ready to go full bore yet. People weren’t ready as a whole for what Newt was preaching. He adapted & changed.
Newt has recognized the mistakes however. Times have changed & America is finally ready to handle what Reagan, & later Newt, started. Have you ever changed your line of thinking based on circumstances? I certainly have.
I think Newt has as well. If that’s the case, there’s no better in our current field to bring about the change we’re all so desperate to see. A Gingrich/Cain ticket would be dynamite! Newt could do his thing while Cain learns the ropes & gets up to speed.
Why I prefer Newt over Cain. The following issues concern me
Cain’s Wife Voted Democrat and YES! FLOTUS play a role in America’s lifestyle or politics
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Cain-Wife-Votes-Democrat/2011/11/04/id/416931
Cain “would have no problem hiring an OPENLY Gay staffer
http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/herman-cain-id-hire-an-openly-gay-staffer/
Questionable donations
In 1993, Cain donated $250 to New York Rep. Jose Serrano (D), according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Many consider Serrano one of Congress’ most outspoken defenders of Latin American dictators like Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez.
When he was the president of Nebraska-based Godfather’s Pizza, Cain primarily donated to Republican candidates, but he also provided financial support to a Democrats.
“They were business decisions and personal decisions,” Cain said in an interview published last week by Yahoo News.
Cain defended the donations, saying that the beneficiaries were “moderate” Democrats. But when it comes to Latin American politics, Serrano is far from “moderate.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/280470/cains-past-donations-democrats-katrina-trinko
Cain considered voting for Obama in 2008 but instead voted for Romney
In 2008, Cain was asked if he could support Obama for President. He said he could envision doing just that if he would agree to work across the aisle. Really, now. With all we knew about Obama, would any of us have even gave this any thought? Yet a conservative who was intending on running for President would. I hear his supporters say he was proud a black man was going to be President. What happened to “I’m not a black man.” “I’m not an African American”. “I’m a conservative.”
Now in this race, he said he supports Romney. And all indications are that he is doing just that.
CAIN said he would surround himself with top notch advisors...in that case he needs to get rid of Brazil ASAP! http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20111116_Key_figure_in_Philly_bugging_probe_now_top_Cain_aide.html
Cain also made “false allegations,” against the Perry campaign accusing him of being behind the “false allegations,” on HIM.
Enterprise Zones...
Detroit would pay 3 3 3 instead of 9 9 9
His plan, however, was a significant adjustment from how it was initially proposed. In an interview last week, he suggested some leeway to boost economic development. For instance, taxes in struggling areas could be set at 3-3-3 rates, 3 percent in each category.
“Because you have a lot of African-Americans located in cities like Detroit — disproportionately — it would encourage businesses to stay in business there or to move there,” Cain told CNN. “It would encourage people to work there, because if you live in the empowerment zone, you’re going to pay a smaller percentage in taxes.”
From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20111021/POLITICS03/110210417/Cain-proposes-to-help-‘empowerment-zones’-such-as-Detroit#ixzz1e0V43lAW
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear or pay Duties in another. So, what part of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 6 does Herman Cain not understand?
And if Article 1, Section 9. Clause 6 is not clear enough for Mr. Cain to understand the founder‘s intentions, and that our federal government is one of defined and limited powers, what part of Federalist No. 45 does Mr. Cain not understand which summarizes our federal government’s job as follows?
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
Cain’s proposal on empowerment zones is unconstitutional and violates the 10th ammendment..
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.
Finally, if the above has not sent the message to Mr. Cain that his proposal is tyranny with a smiley-face, then perhaps Herman ought to read what our Supreme Court stated shortly after the Tenth Amendment was adopted
The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.
Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.
Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void. ____ MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
9% Individual Flat Tax. http://www.hermancain.com/999
•Gross income less charitable deductions.
•Empowerment Zones will offer ADDITIONAL DEDUCTIONS for those living and/or working in the zone.
Good....I can handle two times.
No one's saying you must ...
but don't you owe us an explanation of who CAN win, how they can defeat both enemies: obama and the media?
Surely you must have those answers. Don't keep them secret from us.
After Nixon and Watergate, I didn't believe I would ever see a Republican controlled house in my lifetime. (and there hadn't been one in my lifetime up to THAT point either)
Why I prefer Newt over Cain. The following issues concern me
Cain’s Wife Voted Democrat and YES! FLOTUS play a role in America’s lifestyle or politics
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Cain-Wife-Votes-Democrat/2011/11/04/id/416931
Cain “would have no problem hiring an OPENLY Gay staffer
http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/herman-cain-id-hire-an-openly-gay-staffer/
Questionable donations
In 1993, Cain donated $250 to New York Rep. Jose Serrano (D), according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Many consider Serrano one of Congress’ most outspoken defenders of Latin American dictators like Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez.
When he was the president of Nebraska-based Godfather’s Pizza, Cain primarily donated to Republican candidates, but he also provided financial support to a Democrats.
“They were business decisions and personal decisions,” Cain said in an interview published last week by Yahoo News.
Cain defended the donations, saying that the beneficiaries were “moderate” Democrats. But when it comes to Latin American politics, Serrano is far from “moderate.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/280470/cains-past-donations-democrats-katrina-trinko
Cain considered voting for Obama in 2008 but instead voted for Romney
In 2008, Cain was asked if he could support Obama for President. He said he could envision doing just that if he would agree to work across the aisle. Really, now. With all we knew about Obama, would any of us have even gave this any thought? Yet a conservative who was intending on running for President would. I hear his supporters say he was proud a black man was going to be President. What happened to “I’m not a black man.” “I’m not an African American”. “I’m a conservative.”
Now in this race, he said he supports Romney. And all indications are that he is doing just that.
CAIN said he would surround himself with top notch advisors...in that case he needs to get rid of Brazil ASAP! http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20111116_Key_figure_in_Philly_bugging_probe_now_top_Cain_aide.html
Cain also made “false allegations,” against the Perry campaign accusing him of being behind the “false allegations,” on HIM.
Enterprise Zones...
Detroit would pay 3 3 3 instead of 9 9 9
His plan, however, was a significant adjustment from how it was initially proposed. In an interview last week, he suggested some leeway to boost economic development. For instance, taxes in struggling areas could be set at 3-3-3 rates, 3 percent in each category.
“Because you have a lot of African-Americans located in cities like Detroit — disproportionately — it would encourage businesses to stay in business there or to move there,” Cain told CNN. “It would encourage people to work there, because if you live in the empowerment zone, you’re going to pay a smaller percentage in taxes.”
From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20111021/POLITICS03/110210417/Cain-proposes-to-help-‘empowerment-zones’-such-as-Detroit#ixzz1e0V43lAW
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear or pay Duties in another. So, what part of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 6 does Herman Cain not understand?
And if Article 1, Section 9. Clause 6 is not clear enough for Mr. Cain to understand the founder‘s intentions, and that our federal government is one of defined and limited powers, what part of Federalist No. 45 does Mr. Cain not understand which summarizes our federal government’s job as follows?
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
Cain’s proposal on empowerment zones is unconstitutional and violates the 10th ammendment..
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.
Finally, if the above has not sent the message to Mr. Cain that his proposal is tyranny with a smiley-face, then perhaps Herman ought to read what our Supreme Court stated shortly after the Tenth Amendment was adopted
The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.
Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.
Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void. ____ MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
9% Individual Flat Tax. http://www.hermancain.com/999
•Gross income less charitable deductions.
•Empowerment Zones will offer ADDITIONAL DEDUCTIONS for those living and/or working in the zone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
