“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.
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!
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.
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...
I’m with you, Jim.
I’ve never trusted or liked Gingrich, and I’m not about to start doing mental gymnastics to try and convince myself to start liking or trusting him now just because he’s the frontrunner.
Great job on this, JimRob. Back in ‘08, I had the same tagline (with the right date, of course). Actions DO speak louder than words, and Newt wins on that as you’ve outlined.
Spot on Jim! Our country is in a mess like never before because of Obama and big government. We need someone that understands ALL of the issues here and abroad.
GO NEWT!
whoever can beat zero.
all else pales.
beating zero is job 1
getting the senate is job 2
keeping the house is job 3
thats it, imho
Please freepmail me if you wish to be added or dropped from the mitten ping.
Okay Mitten, chime in!
Santorum has my vote in the primary. I don't care if he lacks the polish of the establishment choice, or that he lacks the ability to excite the emotions (both hot and cold) of the former Speaker. He is a solid conservative. He lost his office because he refused to turn aside from his principles.
Speaking of principles: Speaker Gingrich's dismal track record as a husband truly turns my stomach. A man who will betray you in the smallest way will betray you in any way--and I don't consider marriage to be a small thing.
I don’t trust Newt...sticking with Perry.
It started with the Administrative implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity in the Clinton era. This was a Treaty that was never ratified by Congress. It included the “Sustainable Development” initiative further by the “global climate crisis.” You can recognize it be such terms as “ecosystem management,” “biodiversity,” “health in all policies,” “ecosystem services,” “equity,” “social or environmental justice,” “sustainable,” “precautionary principle,” “public trust,” “polluter pays,” “cap and trade,” “mitigation banking,” “biodiversity corridors,” “key indicator species,” “programmatic permit waivers,” “strategic growth,” “footprint,” “communities of place and interest.”
These have resulted in massive regulatory schemes that have eroded the notion of private property ownership and individual rights - supplanting them with “communitarianism” and European socialism. If you have ANY doubt about this, visit this webpage that chronicles all the documents and programs put into place on the federal and State level since 1992. http://users.sisqtel.net/armstrng/agenda21.htm
There is no doubt in my mind and in that of my state assemblyman and senator that these policies are designed to push people off their rural and suburban land and into high density planned communities.
When I read about Newt's involvement in promoting environmental regulation and actions to combat “climate change,” I am convinced that he is yet another progressive globalist in sheep's clothing. He will give conservatives the rhetoric they want, but then act to further undermine private property rights, rural natural resource development and social engineering through “sustainable development.”
I do not want a choice between two men who will both further that agenda, albeit one more stealthily and perhaps a little slower than the other. I want someone who will cut the Gordian knot and return to Jacksonian/American individualism and the protection of private property rights.
I do not think Newt is that man - nor Romney.
Sorry Jim but I have to disagree.
I do agree with you regarding Romney though.
I cannot vote for Newt or Romney.
(It has NOTHING to do with his three marriages or affairs)
I feel like Newt is Big Government, do not feel he is conservative consistently, he is not strong on 2nd Amendment (he has not returned the National Association for Gun Rights Presidential Survey) AND
every time I think about Newt I get a visual picture of
him on the couch with Pelosi.
Newt is the wise Professor that has great ideas and can talk the talk but unfortunately he does not always walk the walk.
Perry is the Bad Ass who talks about bold changes and gets things done. Perry will strengthen the States and shrink the Federal Government. He doesn’t always talk smoothly like Newt but he does walk the walk and has a record to prove it.
Perry will make the changes in Washington DC that we need to SAVE THIS NATION. He is Bold and Decisive.
Perry doesn’t pander to Democrats.
I have been for Rick Perry since he entered the race and will remain for Rick Perry.
Rick Perry 2012
And I think that Santorum is the STAR pro-life candidate.
What about a Gingrich/Santorum ticket?
Robert Walker, B-1 Bob Dornan, Duke Cunningham, Dana Rohrabacher, Duncan Hunter.
Some flawed individuals, all flawless Reagan conservatives.
Newt has a nationwide grassroots organization that he has spent decades putting together, witness the Republican majority he was responsible for in 1994. They just don't have his name on them. He has had a newsletter longer than I can remember.
Enough of the MSM, GOP elitist sound bites.
Time for Newt to take the initiative and start on The Obammunist full time, conservatives will appreciate that more than an intraparty defense.
yitbos
But he's okay by me as a President.
Thank you Jim, for speaking out loud and clear. Your analysis and comment is spot on.
I, too, was hoping for Sarah to enter the race, but once my disappointment wore off, I looked around at all the candidates, and carefully watched all the debates and listened to the interviews. It became obvious early on that Newt the only one who was a strong conservative who could wipe the floor with Obama in a debate. He is the smartest and most experienced & knowledgeable in all areas. He has shown a depth of maturity and leadership among the candidates -very different from what he was as a young man.
No candidate is perfect, and for the failings in his personal life, Newt has admitted wrongdoing, has shown repentance, and asked for forgiveness. I believe his spiritual conversion is genuine.
Using the Reagan rule of agreeing with at least 80% I can vote for Newt with a clear conscience.
Obama MUST be defeated, and so must Romney and Ron Paul. Romney is truly a RINO, and is Obama-lite. Ron Paul is dangerous. He’s a Libertarian, not a conservative, not even a Republican. He thinks like someone stuck on stupid in the cold war mentality of the 60’s. His foreign policy would be catastrophic for America. The Neville Chamberlain of the 21st century. His newsletter & website are as offensive and inflammatory as Obama & Rev Wright when it comes to Israel, the Jewish people, and race.
Our primary in NY is very late, but I’m voting for Newt.
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.
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?