Newt Gingrich - RINO or Genuine Pro-Life Reagan Conservative?

vanity | December 9, 2011 | Jim Robinson

[Sudetenland]

First, let me apologize for my snarkiness, I'm afraid that is a personal flaw that I am striving to overcome--unfortunately not terribly well especially when I see a constant barrage of what I see as unjustified attacks against any candidate. Neither you nor your comment deserved that kind of response.

Second, The "cost" to which you and the CBO refer are unrealized income from the interest advantages and other benefits that the GSE's enjoy. The problem with that sort of calculation is that they are false in their premise. Without Fannie and Freddie making those mortgage loans, their would have been no borrowing of that money and thus no interest payments on those loans. Therefore the "losses" are sustained solely based on the fact that Fannie and Freddie are making those loans--at the insistence of the government.

This is an entirely different thing from the implication conveyed in that charge against Newt, that they were receiving payments of tax-payer money from the government.

Again, the only costs incurred are reductions of the rate of return "income" that would never have existed without the two entities. That's analogous to a business not making the margin of profit they originally expected on a product--something not normally classified as a debit.

Gingrich severed his business ties with the GSEs as soon as the government moved to take them over and pour money into them.

As for that last point--like the very first point about GM--I fail to see the relevance to Gingrich's time with Fannie and Freddie. Gingrich was no longer involved in either operation by the time that this outrage occurred. This is an attempt at guilt by association and unwarranted.

Additionally, these executives are not those who were responsible for causing the problem, they are people who have been hired to resolve the problems. You can argue that they should not receive bonuses, but you cannot get the level of quality of people to do this sort of job without that level of compensation. Talent costs money.

[Jack Hammer]

Given the idiocy of the American electorate, yes, I think it’s always best to “keep it simple.”

And, at this point in time, ANYONE is better than Obama.

[Waywardson]

Hey, you can continue to vote for None of the Above and believe that is the the principled stand. And I will support the King David’s who are far from perfect but confess their sins and say they are changed men.

[org.whodat]

Just because you call amnesty a different name does not change what it is, newt supports amnesty, he just want to call it something else.

[poinq]

There are lots of problems with Newt. But they are not nearly as large or as structural as the problems with Mitt.
And he can do the job. Newt with a good VP will help a lot.

[poinq]

There are several reasons for Newt to say this. It makes Mitt look smaller. It makes Newt look better to Mitt’s supporters. And the biggest reason of all. Mitt has a lot of money, big backers, and an orginization already in place.

Newt knows he can do whatever he wants when he becomes president. VP is a title without a job. Let him spend the VP slot anyway he wishes.

[Cicero]

As I indicated, it’s not a question of whether it’s right or wrong to turn Newt down because of a long history of affairs and divorces. It’s how the Evangelicals will act, right or wrong.

There are always a few pastors who will come out and speak as you say, whether for political or for Christian reasons. But Newt will be in a very bad position when the MSM starts detailing all his past behavior and rolling out the women to appear on talk shows. That has worked for them before. And what will Newt say, “I have seen the light and become a Cathlic?” that won’t necessarily appeal to Evangelicals, either.

McCain tried and failed to divide the Catholic and Evangelical votes in 2000, but he did it badly—and GWB was’t a Catholic. This time, the lying press will have plenty of useful propaganda levers.

IS Newt now a reformed sinner, a new man? Frankly, I don’t know. But there is still some evidence against it, I’m sorry to say. I won’t condemn him, but I don’t trust him after some of his recent conduct—most notably Dede Scozzafava, a corrupt abortion lover whom he worked hard to try to put into office against a solid Conservative.

[EternalVigilance]

Such a stance is only “principled” if “none of the above” meet basic non-negotiable criteria, such as “will they keep the first obligation of their oath of office to equally protect the God-given, unalienable right to life of every innocent person in this country?” Which, sadly, is currently the case. Newt Gingrich, like all of his competitors, have already clearly told you that they won’t do so with their promises to sign lawless, unconstitutional “laws” that explicitly allow the murder of certain classes of disfavored innocent human beings.

I’m not buying Newt Gingrich as David any more than I bought your weak self-justifications for supporting pro-choice for states, “states’ rights trump unalienable rights” Ron Paul in the last election cycle.

[ThomasMore]

so what the hell are we squabbling about

Exactly!

Newt is the candidate we should all be pulling for at this point.

[Brices Crossroads]

“What say you?”

Not much left to say, Jim. Your post says it all. While Gingrich was embracing Reagan and running a Reaganesque campaign in 1994 to retake Congress, Mittens was grovelling in front of Ted Kennedy and disavowing Ronald Reagan publicly in a debate with Kennedy.

When Gingrich achieved power, he pushed the conservative agenda forward like it had not been pushed before. Eight years later, when Romney finally won the governorship of Massachusetts, he pushed the leftist agenda with Romneycare (complete with $50 copay abortions), gay marriage and big spending. He left Massachusetts in terrible shape and would have lost re-election.

Gingrich sometimes SAYS things I disagree with, but when he was in power, he rarely DID anything I disagreed with. By contrast, when he was in power, Romney DID many things with which I disagree. Newt is a professor and professors frequently speculate and pontificate, so I cut him a break on some of the things he said, because the things he did were, by and large, conservative.

Based on his experience and track record, Newt is far more likely to arrest and roll back the Obama socialist agenda than the other candidates, because he has done it before.

[sheikdetailfeather]

I agree with you jimrob, and so does Mark Levin.

http://www.therightscoop.com/mark-levin-denounces-smear-attacks-on-newt-gingrich/

I have to tell you that I’m looking at these attacks on Newt Gingrich, as an example, and I’m very troubled by them. They go beyond substantive and intellectual analysis of the man’s record, into attacking what people are claiming are some kind of psychosis and so forth, really smearing the guy. Really smearing the guy. OK?

I’ve said it before and I want to say it again. Every single one of our candidates is head and shoulders over Obama. Every single one of them loves this country, loves the Constitution, loves our economic system. They’re imperfect in many ways in their personal lives, some more than others, and in their policy positions over the decades, absolutely.

But I do know this! Not one of them is a Marxist. Not one of them seeks the destruction of the private sector. Not one of them seeks to massively increase the central government.

Now I have strong disagreements with several of them. But I do not believe that when we are eleven months away from the most important election in my lifetime, where Newt Gingrich may well be the nominee – and I’m making no predictions – that all the trashing and attacking and opposition research that’s being used, not to challenge his positions, but to character assassinate him, to absolutely destroy him.

I’m not joining in on that! As a matter of fact, I’m denouncing it!

Because if he is our nominee, I intend to fight with 100% of my energy to get that man elected, good, bad, and indifferent!

[no-to-illegals]

The fact this did not evolve into a food fight is exemplary of the people at this site. Arguments pro and con, read it all. Tea Party people, in our nation, have not only put Newt on notice, the entire political establishment is on notice, as was so stated by yourself Jim. The people of this country want our country back.

The Greatest Generation placed each of us in a unique situation. This generation which followed after WWII has answered the call. This thread expressed, in its entirety exactly what I perceived was occurring in our country. Finger to pulse type of moment. Thanks Jim. A pray the Great Physician is knowing how to help and will.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

And, at this point in time, ANYONE is better than Obama.

How about Van Jones?

[Waywardson]

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.... in this case, it would be for Obama. Be as wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove. Choosing none of the above, is unwise and harmful because the result IS Obama.

And of course the “leave the results to God” reminds me of....

It had been raining for days and days, and a terrible flood had come over the land. The waters rose so high that one man was forced to climb onto the roof of his house. Confident that God would save him.

As the waters rose higher and higher, a man in a rowboat appeared, and told him to get in. “No,” replied the man on the roof. “I have faith in the Lord; the Lord will save me.” So the man in the rowboat went away. The man on the roof prayed for God to save him.

The waters rose higher and higher, and suddenly a speedboat appeared. “Climb in!” shouted a man in the boat. “No,” replied the man on the roof. “I have faith in the Lord; the Lord will save me.” So the man in the speedboat went away. The man on the roof prayed for God to save him.

The waters continued to rise. A helicopter appeared and over the loudspeaker, the pilot announced he would lower a rope to the man on the roof. “No,” replied the man on the roof. “I have faith in the Lord; the Lord will save me.” So the helicopter went away. The man on the roof prayed for God to save him.

The waters rose higher and higher, and eventually they rose so high that the man on the roof was washed away, and alas, the poor man drowned.

Upon arriving in heaven, the man marched straight over to God. “Heavenly Father,” he said, “I had faith in you, I prayed to you to save me, and yet you did nothing. Why?” God gave him a puzzled look, and replied “I sent you two boats and a helicopter, what more did you expect?”

= )

[EternalVigilance]

I haven't chosen not to decide. I've decided to stand for the first principles of the republic, no matter what you or anyone else do.

If the choice offered is between two evils and one of the evils "wins" that is not the fault of those who chose not to support evil. Sorry. Your self-justification is illogical and unscriptural.

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”

-- John Quincy Adams

"Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual--or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country. "

-- Samuel Adams

“There remains the one standard that has not yet been universally used, namely, the choosing of candidates on moral grounds. A nation always gets the kind of politicians it deserves. When our moral standards are different, our legislation will be different. As long as the decent people refuse to believe that morality must manifest itself in every sphere of human activity, including the political, they will not meet the challenge of Marxism. Contemporary history proves that modern political leaders, devoid of a moral inspiration and relying solely on a mass basis (might makes right), proves ineffectual in time of crisis."

-- Fulton Sheen

[EternalVigilance]

Matthew 4

[EternalVigilance]

Newt Gingrich wants to replace Obamacare with Gingrichcare.

[bcsco]

I’m coming around to the decision you made, though not there yet. Once Palin opted out, I went to Cain completely. I saw his lack of government service as a plus. Sure, I had issues with his responses to some issues (not in belief but in understanding), but he was head’s above the others, IMO, and gaining in the polls.

Then came Caingate. That didn’t bother me at all outside of making me furious. But he decided to fold as well so...

Possibly I’ll support Newt. He’s the only one remaining worth considering, IMO. But if I do, it’ll be with a fair amount of distrust and holding my nose when I mark the ballot. Man, I hate doing that...

[fightinJAG]

Thanks for your civil response. I try very hard not to respond to undue snarkiness with same (I try to give the poster the benefit of the doubt), but don’t always succeed, either. So I will get in there and mix it up with someone, but never mean it personally.

As I said, you are correct that Gingrich was not paid in taxpayer dollars. However, I stand by the larger point that, regardless of all the technicalities you and I can discuss about accounting and so on, these GSEs would not be in existence but for taxpayer support.

That said, using that term took away from my point, which was that Gingrich was *supporting* the existence and mission of Freddie Mac at the precise time conservatives in Congress were trying to dismantle or, at the very least, severely rein in the GSEs.

Good grief, had Bush succeeded in straightjacketing Fannie and Freddie in 2005, maybe the crash would not have been so catastrophic — and maybe we never would have had a President Barack Obama!

I find Gingrich’s conduct here both inexplicable and unforgiveable, and my conclusion is quite apart from the source of the millions he was paid for same.

As for my point about the subsequent bail-out in 2008, it was only this: this crash did not occur overnight and it demonstrates clearly that, but for taxpayer support (unpriced benefits, which I know you disagree with in concept, and then actual tax dollars), the GSEs are not and cannot make it financially.

But, again, as you rightly pointed out, all that clouded my simple (and, in my mind, irrefutable ;) point that no conservative in his right mind would have been shilling for Freddie Mac at that point in time. And I don’t believe Gingrich’s schtick about being hired to be a “historian” either.

So, thanks.

[Waywardson]

We are all “evil”. For there is none righteous. We are all as filthy rags. And one of the filthy rags IS going to BE in charge. Better he who will sin the least.