Posted on 12/09/2011 1:31:59 PM PST by Jim Robinson
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.
As to your point #4: you and Michelle Bachmann are wrong. Newt has a 98% pro-life record in Congress. He has always been pro-life, and still
is.
As to your point about “realists”: politics is the art if the possible. Somebody is going to get elected POTUS in 2012. When you come up with a more conservative candidate who can actually go head to head with Obama and against the $1B Obama campaign machine, let me know.
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.
I understand your position. They are mostly all good people, except for Mitt & Ron Paul.
My feeling is that although I like and admire Santorum, he just doesn’t win elections . Bachmann has problems, and IMO is not a first tier level candidate. Her husband has skeletons. Rick
Perry is a great governor, and a
true conservative, but not a capable debater, and not Presidential material.
Well, just *rent* him, then. :-)
Jim, do you think Newt's VP pick will be a true indication, or political gamesmanship / pandering?
Cheers!
I’ve been in the anybody but Paul camp — it’s not too damned probable, but I will not vote for Paul, period —while I would hold my nose and vote for Romney over Obama. I don’t want to have to do that however, and won’t vote for Romney in the primary.
Colorado moved its caucuses up, so I might actually get to make a meaningful vote this year.
Hey Jim, you posted something awhile back listing the results of research on Newt Gingrich but I can’t find it. I think it would be useful as a reply to those who say Newt’s record is only flawed and void of accomplishments. Do you have the link?
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.