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

I posted the below in response to a FReeper who asked me what we should do in regards to progressives Newt and Romney. And he asked me what would George Washington do? So I got to thinking about why I've been gravitating towards Newt. In fact it kept me up for half the night.

Well, I’ll tell you, after Palin declined to run I really didn’t have a dog in this race. I liked Bachmann and Cain a lot, even Perry, but not as much as I liked Palin. Bachmann and Cain are both conservative enough, but neither have really been tested in higher office, nor do they have much experience in world affairs.

I also had high hopes for Perry because it looks like he’s done a great job in Texas, but his positions on the border issues turned off a lot of people. And his “heartless” statement didn’t win him much opportunity to turn that around.

I guess Santorum is conservative enough and possibly Huntsman, but neither engender much enthusiasm or excitement. Seems they’re just going through the motions. Don’t know if they have the real world experience to be CINC anyway.

Bachmann seems to be trying really hard but don’t know if she’s really qualified for the top spot either. Even so, had Bachmann really lit a fuse on the trail, I probably would have stood by and supported her, but she flopped and is unlikely to recover.

I thought early on that if Perry got into the race (without Palin) that he’d suck all the air out of it and would dominate. But he flopped. And then Cain took off like a rocket and he flopped.

Now Cain didn’t have elective experience, but he looked like a great conservative so we were all hoping and pulling for him. Well, that didn’t turn out well.

Mind you, that abortionist, lib progressive bastard Mitt Romney is just sitting there smiling through all this and he, Rove and the GOP elite think they’ve got it in the bag. Just gotta hang in there, not say anything rash, not rock the boat, no mistakes, just play defense as one by one the upstart tea party conservative candidates burn themselves out.

In my mind, we must defeat Romney AND Obama. I don’t think George Washington is going to be smiling down on us if we had this great tea party opportunity to knock off the progressives and we let Rove, Romney and the corrupt good old boys club bushwhack us. We’re supposed to be the bushwhackers.

So like a whole lot of conservative Republicans and tea party folks, we’re bouncing candidate to candidate looking for the one to knock off Romney so we can take the tea party battle directly to Obama. Romney is no tea party person. He and Rove, et al, sneer at us. No way in hell are they going to do anything we’re interested in doing even if they do get elected. It’ll be government as usual. Big. They hate us worse than they hate the democrats because we’re a direct threat to their power base.

So in comes Gingrich. Didn’t much care for him at first, mainly because of his well known baggage, and his perceived RINO plumage, but he began making a lot of sense and scoring a lot of points in the debates. Turns out his depth of knowledge and experience in government affairs both domestic and foreign and his experience with Ronald Reagan, the Reagan Revolution and the Republican Revolution of the 90’s are quite extensive and quite impressive if you look.

He’s been through the mill and that’s what a lot of our younger less experienced, less traveled candidates are missing. In the debates he comes off as a wiser, more experienced, more knowledgeable, level-headed senior statesman. And it appeared to me that the other candidates acknowledged and respected that.

So I start thinking back about his history as a congressman and speaker, and lo and behold, it appears to me he’s not such a RINO after all. He was a genuine Reagan protege. And he learned well from the master communicator. He eventually set a goal for himself to build a Republican majority and to take the speakership, and he determinately accomplished that goal.

And he had some great conservative accomplishments as congressman and speaker. He passed the contract with America. He cut taxes. Cut the deficit. Reformed welfare. Blocked HillaryCare. Became a thorn in President Clinton’s side, blocked much of his liberal agenda and ultimately allowed impeachment to proceed. Then of course, he resigned due to his own infidelity scandal. But, unlike Clinton, he didn’t deny it, didn’t lie about it, and he did the right thing by resigning.

Bottom line though, through his years with the Reagan Revolution and the Republican majority much conservative good was accomplished. The Wall came down, the Soviet Union collapsed and our great Reagan economy flourished for two decades.

Now, if a progressive RINO had been in charge of the congress during this period, who knows what would have happened. I’m sure the history would have been a lot different. Remember, before Gingrich and his Republican Majority, we conservatives had wandered in the wilderness for 40 years!! And our country was on life support after Jimmy Carter nearly killed it. And the democrats were saying at the time that there was nothing we could do about it. We were going to be stuck with the cold war. Stuck with the Soviet Union, stuck with Iran. Stuck with high oil prices, gas lines and rationing. Stuck with recession, high interest rates, high inflation and high unemployment from that point forward. They could not be fixed. Jimmy Carter and the democrats had given up on America and surrendered the USA to our fate as a failed nation.

In walk Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich and reestablish that great shining city on the hill! Thank God! It’s not the end of the world after all. Iran returns the hostages immediately. Reagan takes the Soviet Union head on! Reagan takes the democrats head on and doesn’t take no for an answer. Takes his ideas to the people. It was a struggle but eventually the economy began turning. Reagan’s central theme domestically was that the government was too big, too intrusive, taxes too high, too much spending, too many regulations, too many restrictions on business and industry and they all must be cut. And he took that battle over the heads of the democrat congress to the tax payers and they loved it. Sound familiar?

And in 1994, Newt Gingrich leads the charge against the democrats who had been in power for 40 years and the Republicans take the majority and Gingrich becomes Speaker. He dreams up the contract with America which was designed as an extension of the Reagan Revolution and and included items attempting to balance the budget, reform welfare, tort reform, term limits, line item veto, etc. Some of it was successfully implemented, some not. But under Gingrich they did cut the deficit and balance the budget four years running. Sound desirable? Sound progressive?

How many times in our history have you seen a liberal progressive, cut taxes, cut regulations, cut spending, cut welfare, balance the budget, block big government programs like HillaryCare, impeach a sitting president, etc?

Never! In other words, all this to say Newt is NO RINO!! He’s a pro-life, pro-small government, pro-national security, Reagan conservative!! In short, we’re desperate, and he’s exactly what we’re looking for, and he’s running head and shoulders over the rest of the field, so what the hell are we squabbling about?

Yes, Romney and Rove hate him, the Republican establishment elite ruling class hates him, the liberals hate him, the democrats hate him and they hate him for the same reasons the taxpayers will support him, the lovers of liberty will support him, the defenders of life will support him, the defenders of national security will support him, the lovers of the Reagan Revolution will support him, and we the tea party should support him!! He’s a tax cutting, budget balancing, strong defense, small government, pro-life Reagan CONSERVATIVE!!

I went through much the same evolution as you, Jim; Palin, Perry, Cain and now?

The only time during the recent debate that I stood up and cheered is when Newt took on the judges and talked about impeachment and eliminating courts.

I have some old business with Newt from the 90's.

1. Government shut down, yes the one that gave us Monica Lewinsky and the fateful pizza delivery. First, Newt was trying to get a deal with Clinton on reforming Medi-Caid (or Medi-Care, I can't tell the difference). Fundamentally, this was a strategic failure with Newt going a bridge too far. The entitlement programs can only be reformed with a mandate in a Presidential Election after long discussion. Newt was feeling his oats, misjudged the situation and screwed the pooch. Also, as to Newt's leadership, he screwed up. Newt marched his army up the hill on this reform, took the hill and then marched back down again. Newt, then took his army, this time with fewer men, marched up the hill and marched down again. Finally, Newt again ordered his army to march up the hill, only by this time, no one was following, because he screwed it up the first two times. All the while, the Democrats were demagoging Newt with his 'die on the vine' comment without effective response.

Tactically, Newt did great with the 'Contract with America', and then blew it strategically. What has he learned from this episode? I haven't heard it discussed.

2. I recall hearing Newt tell us on the Rush Limbaugh's program, that he didn't see the Federal Budget going down for the next 50 years. If he didn't see that, he wasn't planning or desiring it to go down. That's Newt's conservative vision? Newt's told us, it told 16 years to make his vision of a GOP majority in Congress a reality. Newt's told us about how he's taught Generals how to fight wars. But he doesn't see the Federal Government's budget declining for 50 years. OK.

3. Here's one that brings several of Newt's problems together in one package and I haven't seen anyone bring this one up. When he was Speaker, Newt was having fantasies of running for President. As Speaker, who traditionally does not vote and works behind the scenes, Newt stepped in with an amendment to an energy bill with ethanol subsidies. I recall, that this would cost Americans $1.5 billion. Why would he do this? He was playing to Iowa farmers in order to get 35,000 caucus votes in the Iowa caucuses. So, screw the American consumer, step on the free market processes, increase the power of government, go for phony 'green' energy all for his own personal agrandizement and a few thousand votes in Iowa in his Presidential election fantasy.

4. Until Bachmann brought this up in the debate, I wasn't aware of Newt and the Partial Birth Abortion issue. I think Bachmann misses the point here. Saying Newt is pro-Partial Birth Abortion is a cheap shot. The real point is that Newt's personal opinions do not matter, when he takes political decisions that undermined the fight against Partial Birth Abortion.

We have the "Realists" here, telling us a political leader has to make the politically expedient decisions. True enough. But is nothing beyond the pale? Is there no political expedience that is off the table? IMHO, Partial Birth Abortion is beyond the pale. It is barbarism. Newt stepped in to have the Party fund candidates supporting Partial Birth Abortion. David Duke was beyond the pale and Partial Birth Abortion is not?

And it turns out that being purely politically expedients isn't so politically successful as the "Realists" would have us believe. Bachmann reported that funding candidates, who supported Partial Birth Abortion, muddied the waters, demoralized GOP voters, and didn't succeed.

On to more recent business, NY23 and the Dede Scozzafava Affaire. Newt backed a far left, ACORN supporting GOP candidate and trashed the conservative candidate. Scozzafava ended up with only the support of people, who voted "R" no matter what. She flamed out, quit the race, trashed the conservative, endorsed the Democrat and gave he seat to the Democrats. This is always how it is with RINO's. Newt's personal opinions in support of conservatism were trumped by political expediency.

What's Newt going to do as President? He may be personally a solid Reaganite conservative. But where is political expediency going to take him? I don't see that he listens to what the base says and takes direction from that, his ego gets in the way. And as President, Newt will name the head of the RNC (which needs to be cleaned out with a sewer snake), he will have vast influence on GOP candidates and will be the definition of Republican and conservative. How'd that work out with the Bushes as President? The problem with Newt, is that we don't know what he's going to do.

Current Business: Can consistent conservatives like Bachmann or Santorum (or Perry) catch fire in Iowa and become serious contenders? Possibly. Let's not settle for Newt until we have to. Let's see how Iowa plays out.

I'm not saying that Newt isn't pro-Life in his personal views and in his votes. But he has taken actions, and this is the point Bachmann misses, that countradict his personal views. He insisted that the GOP fund candidates, who do not oppose Partial Birth Abortion. Newt said he didn't want to "purge" the Party. Newt's political actions for reasons of political expediency go beyond the pale.

My question is what will Newt do as President? When will political expediency trump his personal views, his political promises, his conservative principles? I don't know.

My point about the "realists", is that what they actually do, doesn't end up in a success and therefore really isn't very "realist", then is it? Was supporting Dede Scozzafava in the end "realist"?

My question is what is beyond the pale for the "realists"? David Duke was beyond the pale, while Dede Scozzafava and partial birth abortion are not? Please explain.

I'm leaning toward Santorum, Bachmann and Perry in that order.

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.