Posted on 12/02/2011 1:50:20 PM PST by libertarian neocon
I am not surprised and I’ll tell you why: most of Newt’s liberal dalliances - and yes he’s had them - are in books and in editorials and PSA’s and so on. When it comes down to actual governance, he’s been - as the article says - very good (though not great).
I think people also remember that he did not maximize the Contract with America opportunity - so with all of that, they tend to also forget that he did do some great things while Clinton was President and did vote right for the most part while in congress.
Not to say we should ignore the liberal dalliances - which are more from his mindset of being a government tinkerer - than anything else - but keep it in perspective.
Gingrich is a politician, and he’s been running for office for a long time. He’s been trying to appeal to as many voters as possible—even muddleheaded TV watchers. A politician’s voting record is the only way to see the truth about him.
Good job.
There are so many lists being posted on FR - it’s hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. Newt’s many years in Congress shows that he VOTED yea or nea - not ‘present’. He did what he believed was the right thing. We may not agree with all his decisions - but the people of Georgia did.
off topic but relevant: On Hannity today - Mitt made the statement that Newt was a career politician. Question: What is a career candidate called?
The years following his political career - Newt has been a successful consultant.
The years following his Governorship - Mitt has run for elective office - spending his inherited fortune.
1998 was the last year that Gingrich, Paul and Santorum were all in Congress. Gingrich’s annual and lifetime ACU ratings were far better than both of the others:
100% - Gingrich: Annual 1998 ACU Rating (90% Lifetime Rating as of 1998)
88% - Paul: Annual 1998 ACU Rating (88% Lifetime Rating as of 1998)
84% - Santorum: Annual 1998 ACU Rating (83% Lifetime Rating as of 1998)
Source: http://www.conservative.org/ratings/ratingsarchive/1998/98houseratings.htm
When you compare it to the Presidential terms from Reagan on, this is the lowest rate of spending growth over the last 30 years. Under Reagan, spending grew an average of 7.6% a year. Under George H.W. Bush, 6.7%. Under Clinton, 3.3% (it would have been much more if he got his single payor health care plan through, also he was restrained by Newt later). Under W., it as 6.6% and under Obama, a whopping 8.6% a year. Also, under Newt, Federal spending as a % of GDP fell from 21% to 18.5%, a whopping decline in 4 short years.”
Good solid information.In addition, the meat ax taken to the welfare state should be mentioned, saving us untold TRILLIONS if we continued down that path.
Newt is never criticized for his achievement in office, but for his affairs, peccadilloes and rampant capitalist pig behavior making money for his firm(s) after the fact, even though he has never been found guilty of breaking or even denting any laws or stautes. Even his bogus charges in the House were dismissed one by one, the last and only one that earned hm the censure, being dismissed by the IRS after the fact...
Of course, I can see why people wouldn’t want him in office...we no longer have problems cutting entitlements, run away deficits or over spending. Why put a race car driver in the 88 car when we can get a NY cabbie with a hack license?
“1998 was the last year that Gingrich, Paul and Santorum were all in Congress. Gingrich’s annual and lifetime ACU ratings were far better than both of the others:”
That’s great stuff. I didn’t realize Santorum only had an 83% at that point. I wonder what his weakness was? Pork projects for PA?
Newt’s congressional constituency was a lot more conservative than Santorum’s. An 83% lifetime ACU rating from a state which is maybe 50% conservative shows a lot more courage than a 90% rating from a congressional district which is probably 90% conservative.
I will give Michele Bachmann her props and note that she has a lifetime rating of 100%.
The BIG issue, IMO is abortion.
This is what I have been trying to say but couldn't articulate it as well! Please repeat this often :-)
“I will give Michele Bachmann her props and note that she has a lifetime rating of 100%.”
Yup. I’m very happy she is around and on our side. As the nominee though? not so much.
I’m glad you took the time to look. All this RINO talk is just a bunch of crapola. I believe that Newt has a lifetime 90% conservative record. He is a senior fellow with the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. He is also a constitutionalist. If nominated and elected I believe Newt will do his best to enact the 21st Century Contract For America which is a good plan.
stuff like you posted is why Newt is winning.
If you look at his ACU ratings and votes from 79-88 when he and Cheney were both in the House they’re virtually the same. Is Cheney some RINO?
The idea that Newt isn’t conservative is hard to stomach, and that’s why very few are buying it.
Bump for later reference.
So, by applying your logic, given that Santorum’s constituency would be 50% conservative as president, we can expect him to cave on important conservative issues just like he did as a PA senator.
Nice.
Newt wasn't conservative enough for his district.
Or another way to look at it is that his liberal dalliances have come in the last 13 years, his conservative record was before that.
“I will give Michele Bachmann her props and note that she has a lifetime rating of 100%.”
Another reason why I support her.
Here’s to your zot, n00b!
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.