I was wrong about Newt. Or, as Newt would say, I was fundamentally wrong. Fundamentally and profoundly wrong. I was as adverbially wrong about Newt as it’s possible to be. Back in the spring, during an analysis of the presidential field, I was asked by Sean Hannity what I thought of Gingrich. If memory serves, I guffawed. I suggested he was this season’s Alan Keyes — a guy running for president to boost his speaking fees but whose candidacy was otherwise irrelevant. I said I liked the cut of this Tim Pawlenty fellow, who promptly self-destructed. There would be a lot of that in the months ahead: Michele Bachmann ODing on Gardasil, Rick Perry floating the trial balloon of his candidacy all year long, only to puncture it with the jaunty swing of his spur ten minutes into the first debate. And when all the other Un-Romney of the Week candidates were gone, there was Newt, the last man standing, smirking, waddling to the debate podium. Unlike the niche candidates, he offers all the faults of his predecessors rolled into one: Like Michele Bachmann, his staffers quit; like Herman Cain, he spent the latter decades of the last century making anonymous women uncomfortable, mainly through being married to them; like Mitt Romney, he was a flip-flopper, being in favor of government mandates on health care before he was against them, and in favor of big-government climate-change “solutions” before he was against them, and in favor of putting giant mirrors in space to light American highways by night before he was agai . . . oh, wait, that one he may still be in favor of. So, if you live in the I-95 corridor, you might want to buy blackout curtains.
Advertisement
But, when you draw them, Newt’s still there, shimmering beguilingly, which is the one adverb I fundamentally never thought I’d be using for this most fundamentally adverbial of candidates. A year ago, we were still talking about Palin and Daniels and Christie and Jindal and Ryan, an embarrassment of riches. Barely a month ago, Cain and 9-9-9 were riding high, an embarrassment of a different kind, and Gingrich was still a single-digit asterisk. But, like Gussie Fink-Nottle, we are all Newt-fanciers now. On the eve of Iowa it seems the Republican base’s dream candidate is a Clinton-era retread who proclaims himself a third Roosevelt, with Taft’s waistline and twice as many ex-wives as the first 44 presidents combined; a lead zeppelin with more baggage than the Hindenburg; a self-help guru crossed with a K Street lobbyist, which means he’s helped himself on a scale few of us could dream of. For this the Tea Party spent three years organizing and agitating?
Gingrich’s timing is brilliant — if it was planned. And, if it’s accidental, it’s kind of freaky. You’ll recall that two decades ago, in one of his many Post-it notes to himself, Newt wrote: “Gingrich — primary mission. Advocate of civilization. Definer of civilization. Teacher of the rules of civilization.” I’m not sure I’m quite ready to acknowledge Newt as the “definer of civilization,” but he is certainly the teacher of the new rules of primary season. Consultants, money, endorsements are for schlubs. The daring candidate is out there running on portentous adverbs: In the land of Cain and Perry, the polysyllabic man is king. Iowa is now all that stands between Newt and the nomination. If he wins there, you might expect New Hampshire to protect its brand by voting for the non-Newt. Instead, what’s left of Romney’s softening lead in the Granite State will vanish as legions of nominal “independents” flood the Republican primary to vote for the candidate they figure will be easiest to beat in the general — as happened in 1996, when more than a few of my liberal neighbors figured why waste your vote renominating Clinton when you can cross over, boost Pat Buchanan, and sabotage Bob Dole. From New Hampshire, the race moves to South Carolina and Florida, where Gingrich is already ahead, and thence to a slew of southern primaries, to the vast majority of whose electorate Mitt is a Massachusetts squish and to the rest a demonic cultist. So the fate of the Romney campaign now rests on some other candidate — Ron Paul — figuring out a way to stop Newt in Iowa.
This is a few days to late, Newt is on the decline already. He is now at 8.1% on Intrade, below Ron Paul's 8.2% (which is ridiculously high for Paul as he has no chance of being the nominee, and should be sold short).
At this point, think he is more likely to finish 6th in Iowa than he is to finish first. He doesn't have a good answer for Freddie Mac and it is killing him.
So we're stuck with a choice between a guy whose conservative cheerleader (Ann Coulter) tells us was simply faking his leftism to get elected in Massachusettes, and a guy who can sound conservative but loves to tickle the ears of the left with big government solutions. Isn't there anybody out there with a solid conservative track record? If only Michele Bachmann hadn't repeated that anecdotal story about Gardisil. I think we can all agree that it's better for our country to go belly up than elect someone who repeats a mistaken idea about a government-approved drug.
I would say depending on your 'brand' of conservatism that either Rick Santorum or Ron Paul would fit your bill as Rock Solid. But what brand would that be? Neo, Paleo, Social, Fiscal...
Like evidently most of the GOP/TP members, I am sick and tired of attack ads, personal insults, character assassinations and all the negativity and depressive pessimism, displayed by pretty much all the candidates, except Gingrich.
The reason, why so many can identify with this man, is his story and life experience. of course he is not "consistent" or "unblemished" by mistakes, errors, misjudgments or even "flip-flops". Who in his right mid could possibly expect that, a career of 40 years, 24 books and thousands of speeches, meetings and negotiations considered. But the man owns up to it, has usually a reasonable explanation for it, as we all are most definitely not the same person anymore, we were 20, 30 or even 40 years ago. Would I actually want a "consistent" politician over a couple of decades? One who never changed his opinion, never learned, adapted or grew? We all know and understand, how quickly the frame parameters on literally all dimensions of life have changed just over the last 20 years. I'd say that someone who remained consistent to the extent of a Paul, could rightfully be called stubborn or fact resistant or even a bonehead. A flip flopper is in my book someone who changes his position for elections with in a short time frame or according to the audience he/she is addressing. Gingrich's message in that regard is very consistent, whereas for instance Romney (Romney care) or Bachmann (pandering to the Cain people now, while being an aggressive foe to 999 before)) very much fall into the category of panderers and floppers.
Yes, Gingrich is not attractive or a Rock star. Haven't we just experienced such? Haven't we not just anointed a messiah, a good-looking speaker, who in terms of policy and experience was a blank page? Haven't we just experienced that there is no on the job training for newbies? Empty promises of hope and change with no tangible results or action?
This man, Gingrich, having to deal with a democratic president, actually achieved to balance the budget, welfare reform and implement far reaching legislature. This man has proven, what he can do with a divided congress. Imagine what he could do as President working with a GOP controlled legislative branch and a huge majority of GOP governors. In my opinion all personal crap aside, on the merits, the facts and (proposed) policies, this man is rock-solid. Economy, check, Energy, check, technology, check, NASA, check, Immigration, check, Entitlement reform, check, Obamacare, check, Immigration, check, Social Security, check, foreign policy, check, defense and national security, check. Every single critical issue, he commands with knowledge, facts, historical learning, policies and ideas. He is right on the money on every single topic and has a plan or approach to every single challenge. Now - what does the establishment, the other candidates, the Dems bring up? Divorces, ethics, character, wild leadership, arrogance....etc. etc. Nothing on the merits of his proposals, no facts, just personal baggage.
At this point, I would like to quote Mr. Tony Blankley, who addressed this issue better than anyone else, an insider during Gingrich’s greatest achievements, National Revue Online, 12.13.2011 :
>>>
Thus, Romney received the endorsement of the GOP political types -- congressmen and former congressmen. Now they are doubling down on their early bet and are out telling reporters that Gingrich was never much of a leader and never got much done.
Curious. I remember most of them enthusiastically following his leadership year after year as the Republican whip from 1989-1994. It was the most successful congressional opposition movement since Benjamin Disraeli formed the modern Conservative Party in Britain in the mid-19th century. And after the GOP took back the House for the first time in 40 years (and the Senate, too, by the way), Gingrich's four years as speaker proved to be the most productive, legislative congressional years since at least 1965 to 1967, and they were led by Lyndon B. Johnson from the White House. Working against -- and with -- Democratic President Bill Clinton, we passed into law most of the Contract with America, welfare reform, telecommunications reform (which ushered in the modern cell phone and Internet age), we had the first balanced budget since before the Vietnam War, we cut taxes and lowered unemployment to under 5 percent.
Just who the heck do all these wizard political pros think managed all that? It wasn't us clever staffers or many of the now grumbling GOP K Street crowd. We helped, but Gingrich led. I admit Gingrich's methods were not orthodox. He modified the seniority committee chairman system and picked the best members for the key posts. More than a few feathers got ruffled.
One of his key insights was to recognize that the two-dozen Northeastern moderates and liberals in the GOP caucus held the balance of power -- we didn't have 218 safe conservative votes in the House. Gingrich needed to avoid them playing off the GOP against the Democrats, which is what such a faction in any congressional party normally tries to do. Rather, he wanted them to feel fundamental loyalty and value in sticking with the GOP working majority. To do that, they had to get some of the provisions that they wanted in bills, often enough that they would stick with the conservatives on other issues.
This required a lot of maneuvering by Gingrich. Conservative members got frustrated that he did that. They called that erratic on his part. No, it was a necessary, calculated maneuver. He was actually shrewdly managing a precarious majority. If Gingrich hadn't kept the Northeastern liberals in the fold, very little would have been accomplished in those spectacular four years of legislating and leadership.
But when it came to fundamental conservative principles and the political strategies necessary to protect them, Gingrich saw the threats to them and never wavered. I was amused to see Gov. John Sununu, President George H. W. Bush's chief of staff and a current Romney supporter, criticize Gingrich last week.
I remember back in 1990, just after Gingrich had become the GOP whip, President Bush, urged on by Gov. Sununu, was about to break his campaign pledge and raise taxes, which eventually cost him his re-election bid against Bill Clinton. It was Gingrich who opposed it. In fact, Marlin Fitzwater (Bush and Sununu's loyal, shrewd White House press secretary -- and no fan of Gingrich's at the time) later wrote in his memoirs, "As it turned out, one of the few people on the Republican team who understood this trap (the Democrats demanded Bush raise taxes as the political price to reduce the deficit) was Newt Gingrich. ... Newt had ... recommended a different course of action: Abandon the budget negotiations (with the Democrats), keep the tax pledge, insist that Congress cut spending, and make a political fight out of it. It's clear now that we should have followed his advice."
Years later, when Gingrich was speaker, he followed his own advice. He refused to raise taxes, he made a political fight of spending cuts with Bill Clinton (paying a big price in personal smears run against him), but we won the historic balanced budgets.
In dangerous times, the safer choice for president is not the candidate who has always played it safe, nor is it the candidate who has not already faced and defeated adversity.
>>>>
Yes, Gingrich does not fit the mold of a streamlined, good looking, "presidential", charismatic rock star type man with a comfortable low, baritone voice. He is not slim enough, not telegenic enough, he ruffled a ton of feathers, quite logically, when one wants to enact far reaching legislature during a period of Dem control. He made enemies, dealt and wheeled, cajoled, convinced and sometimes may have bullied a few congress members into submission.
But he got the job done, and that is the key point, as it is today, where speeches do not suffice anymore and the impasse in congress is handicapping the entire country.
Those pundits, commentators, anchors and opinion makers of the establishment left and right find themselves utterly astounded and amazed about Gingrich's meteoric rise in the polls.
But, guys, (from usually very astute Krauthammar to Will), I hate to tell you, that you seem to be completely out of touch with main street America. Don't you see that we Americans are sick and tired of the blame game, the negativity, the bickering, the finger pointing, and the teleprompter speeches full of words and empty of substance? We want to believe again in a better future. We want a vision, we can unite behind again. We want to feel exceptional again, proud to be American, just like when we proudly watched Apollo Missions to the moon and our shuttles circle the globe way beyond, what anybody else was able to achieve. We set a goal, Kennedy did, and the nation united behind it and actually achieved it.
Yes, our government must focus on bringing us out of the crisis, and must present a sober, pragmatic course of action to do that. Albeit, this does not preclude offering us at the same time an optimistic vision, full of promise, again. The vision, for example, to be again the beacon of technology and space exploration, good for research and development, good for business and good for our souls. In that context, I very much liked Gingrich’s attitude towards NASA, technology, internet and modern techniques in terms of management (LEAN, Six Sigma), as this by Romney et al arrogantly belittled Vision can and would propel America to the forefront of so many dimensions again. (Think about the many trickled down inventions and technology advances NASA initially produced, but nowadays are enjoyed by the average consumer. How about The vision to become truly independent from foreign fossil fuels within 10 years, very much possible in light of our own resources and will to take advantage of it? Or, The vision to become strong again, respected throughout the world for our values and deeds, faithful to our allies, while tough towards our enemies. Just 3 examples, where vision and a dream could go hand in hand with a pragmatic (boring and at times painful) turnaround strategy for the nation. (By the way, what is Obama’s vision? A fast train? Bringing everybody down to the same level as opposed to Gingrich’s idea to bring everybody up? Fear mongering and Class Warfare? Demonizing the opponents? Finger pointing to Bush?)
Back to Will and company, for this pragmatic, dry turnaround, combined with optimism and a positive outlook for our future to happen, we want, heck, we need this time around skills, experience, knowledge, track record of achievements, facts and the truth, plain and simple. No 30 sec audio bits and stump speeches, platitudes and pandering. We want a fact based debate, sober and substantive and above all, positive. Throw in a little humor and self-depreciation a la Reagan, and even you may perhaps understand, why we like Gingrich.
Because he is not afraid to sit down with Lincoln/Douglas style debates, where he can in detail outline his ideas and present them to the American People, we came to actually like what we hear in terms of plans and proposed policies. We like the clarity and brevity Gingrich offers, and we love the language he frames his positions, using plain and simple terms, so we all can understand and then buy in. In fact, no living Republican has a greater track record of achievements, in the context of today's challenges, mainly economical, the man has precisely T H E track record, experience and obvious skills, this nation needs right NOW. We also believe that this man has the intelligence to surround himself with the right advisors and front commanders, such as Ryan, Christie, Rubio, Daniels, Pawlenty. Even Perry on Energy and Romney on economics, Trump on trade and Santorum on manufacturing and family could be great contributors. They all would help Gingrich to temper and filter his slew of (good) ideas and set priorities in their implementation. Why would the establishment not doubt that Gingrich is in fact the smartest guy in the room, albeit doubt his ability to surround himself with the right people???
Argue about ads with Pelosi, 3 divorces, second hand hearsay about temper and bad management, when it comes to facts, figures, merits, policy, knowledge and a proven skill to navigate the treacherous waters of Congress successfully, Mr. Gingrich must not fear anyone.
Also, I like in a politician the rare trait to be willing to speak the truth, as he sees it, even, if that my cost him votes from GOP Purists .On Immigration, he was the only one not pandering to that base, as if we Americans were so cruel to round up 3 Mio people in concentration camps and hurl them back to whence they came. This ain't amnesty, it is common sense, since the alternative, neither Bachmann, nor Romney dared to even address, would be well in the realm of the logistics of Nazi Germany and have a huge impact on local communities, law enforcement, public perception and last, but not least local businesses.
Bachmann and Romney shamelessly pandered to the TP purist base, neither going to explain, how they would possibly deport 3 Mio people (estimated long-term aliens who fall under the 25 years proposal Gingrich's), let alone 11 Mio illegal aliens, which simply would prove to be unfeasible. Gingrich offered a nuanced, reasonable and, above all, humane approach, willing to draw boohoos from the audience, but knowing, like everybody contemplating the alternative just for a moment, that in fact this problem needs a smart and multi-faceted solution. I highly admire Gingrich for daring to be this honest. He wan’t only right on the facts, but he dared to present them.
I hate to break it to y'all, but he (politically incorrectly) is also right on the mark with his notion of the “invented” Palestinian People.
How does one define “a People”? By distinct, unique language, writing, religion, capital, or culture. Ask yourself, if only one of these attributes truly applies to the Palestinians? While the Hebrews/Jews date back to the antique, (some sources date it back to 6000 B.C.), comply with pretty much every qualification of a People, there is no reference to a Palestinian People until the Brit. Mandate for Palestine after the fall of the Ottoman empire, encompassing Arabs, Jews and Christians, inhabiting the region. However, it first was Arafat, who used the term to describe solely the Muslims living there. When in the 1940s the Brits allowed for their mandates to become independent, such as Jordan, Iraq, Syria, SA and Lebanon, the Jewish settlers in the holy land fully justifiably did the very same for their lands, territory, they had after all peacefully purchased for decades before to allow for a return of their People to the lands they never abandoned and never stopped claiming as their heritage. ISR came to be in its form today only, because it was several times attacked by its Arab neighbors. Up to this day, the charters of Hamas, Hezbollah, the constitution of Iran demand the destruction of the Jewish state and claim the entire holy land as theirs. Jerusalem became only important Muslim site, when other interests, such as the Christian Crusaders or todays ISR intentions were focused on it. During long periods of Muslim occupation, predominantly the Ottoman Empire, Jerusalem was treated like a backwater village and its buildings, mosques and temples were thus neglected, the city crumbled. Even the statement, that Mohammed ascended to the heavens in Jerusalem is a proven myth, as Mo never travelled to Jerusalem.
It was Gingrich, who dared once again to mention the naked, historically proven truth. During a time of re-emerging Anti-Semitism where it has become the trend of the times to attack ISR and apologize for the poor suppressed Muslims, he once again is a lone voice of reason and demonstrates the courage to go against the mainstream of political correctness, where terrorists can no longer be called terrorists, and the fact that 99 out of 100 attacks worldwide are being committed by Muslim radicals is under Obama being ignored or omitted for fear of racial profiling. Journalists are sacked due to admitting to feeling more comfortable to sit next to a white grandmother, than to a young Muslim. Everybody by now recognizes the elephant in the room, albeit the progressive left and the leftist mainstream media will neither mention nor concede that terrorism in the 21st century is a challenge brought to us by Islam. Isn’t it time that one politician speaks out and mentions, what we all by now have come to acknowledge? ISR is under attack by Muslims for decades now, bent on destroying this nation. We call terrorists freedom fighters, instead of acknowledging the fact that they are a bunch of radicals, originating from people who either sold land to Jews or fled the land due to wars initiated by their own people. How can anyone in his right mind expect from the ISRs compromise or gestures, if people like Hamas, Hezbollah or the Iranians who support them with weapons, indoctrination, training and money, pledge to destroy the Jewish state? Over 3500 Rockets rain down on ISR per year alone, and still you want to believe in good intentions by these people?
I can only thank Mr. Gingrich for voicing, what informed and history learned people already know, but do not dare to speak out about, due to political correctness. For the many aforementioned reasons, but especially this courage, I came to full-heartedly endorse Mr. Gingrich for President.
In my humble opinion, the nation cannot afford to waste time and energy on anything else than forward looking FFF (Facts, Figures and Fight).
We all know that working in the environment of Congress is at times a nasty business of backroom deals, dirty, titt-for- tat, and dealing and wheeling. To get anything done there, it takes a truly special kind of person, and nobody walks away without inconsistencies, compromise, heck, even some perceived flip flopping. This especially applies to Gingrich with a 40 years career in politics, 24 books, thousands of meetings and deals and many public speeches. Having beaten down, bullied, cajoled, threatened, pressured, convinced, flattered many during his time in Congress, it would be naïve to expect anything else than these reactions of so many among the GOP establishment, pundits, lobbyists, opinion makers and journalists, many of those still suffering from bruised egos and their ruffled feathers.
My point is: Right now it is all about the platforms of the candidates, their plans, policies, approaches and the actual probability of those to get tangibly enacted. I tune off, when I hear crap about character, past statements and actions, especially, if they are 20 years in the past. I do not care about looks, sympathy points, sound of voice, age, qualitative assessments of character and second hand hearsay, the opinion of the so called pundits, the establishment, the biased media and any disgruntled egomaniacs and above all, the liberal mainstream. Here is, what I think we all should concentrate on:
First, I solely focus on how the candidates would address the various challenges which are at present threatening the nation in its core.
Secondly I assess the chances of these plans actually coming to fruition, since it does not suffice anymore to just have great ideas, but see some, if not most of them actually being implemented.
Third, I compare knowledge, skills, experience, track record (have they done anything in the past similar to what they now propose, were they successful in this etc.), the ability to voice those plans, communicate them in understandable terms to the American people.
4th, which of the candidates offer me big ideas, a vision behind which I believe the nation can unite behind. (A la Kennedy and the moon landing)
5th, Positivity, which of the candidates offers me optimism, a positive outlook, humor, self-depreciation, while communicating a sober, pragmatic and feasible strategy for turnaround.
6th, which candidate will truly be able to expose Obama mercilessly with FFF, Facts, Figures and Fight, during extensive and sophisticated Lincoln/Douglas style debates. Who does not only have all those facts at his command, but can deliver them during a heated debate.
In other words, my view is forward looking and pragmatic. I am honest enough to myself that I will admit, it may take a mean, tough, intelligent and yes, zany SOB to not only win the election, but furthermore get this divided Congress to pass anything of note. Let alone the far reaching legislature, an utter turnaround from the socialist agenda under Obama. On all 6 of my individual dimensions I came accept Gingrich as clear front runner. I can sign off on literally all of his plans and approaches. I can fully buy into his vision for America, and I am utterly impressed with his ability to understand history and draw the right conclusions from it for the future. Lastly, as I myself hired many times, it in the end always comes down to the question of track record of achievements, thus the probability that the candidate can do it again. In that context, Gingrich achieved more than any GOP member alive. On top of that with a Dem President and a divided Congress. On top of the latter even with a liked, strong President, while himself not enjoying much popularity. I extrapolate now and think to myself, what this man could accomplish as president himself, perhaps even with a GOP Congress? The sky would be the limit.
This time around, it must be function over form. I go with the fat, ugly, tough SOB and not the good looking rock star. This time around I go with knowledge and skills and not well spoken, well-rehearsed stump speeches and empty promises of hope and change. This time around I go with a resume, a 98% track record of conservative voting, not a 70% abstain, present, or absent vote and a blank page in terms of resume and experience. This time around I go with a guy who knows how to kick Congress in their collective behinds in order to get something done, not someone who just promises to do so, let alone someone who led from behind or from a golf course. This time around, I go not just with big, but with big yet feasible ideas. Yeah, I wish Gingrich was as consistent as Paul, polished as Romney, conservative as Santorum and good looking as Obama. My personal preference was Christie and I loved the Ryan Plan.
But, to follow my own advice, I had to compromise, as anything but Obama must be the guiding principle. On balance and FFF, there was only one conclusion: Gingrich, as I rather have another Nixon in the White House, flawed, blemished, bruised in a thousand battles, but factually good for the nation, but a nice guy like Carter, morally integer, ethical, unblemished, clean, but naive, ineffective and very bad for the nation.
Compare and make your own decision:
Is Romney truly conservative or is he a hidden moderate? Will he waiver, flip, or change his views according to the audience? Does he have the FFF at his command to beat Obama, to debate Obama? Is he too polished, too risk averse, too careful, too tentative? Perhaps or perhaps not. As a minimum, there is doubt.75% of the GOP share my instinct.
Paul: It worries me, how many (young) people have become almost fanatical about him. How many seem to share his isolationist views. His take on foreign policy, defense, middle east and terrorism and national security is criminally ignorant and negligent. Would we become a stronger or a weaker nation under Paul? Heck, would he in fact endanger Americans with his policies?
Perry: Nice guy. Newby on the national arena and ineffective during the debates. He could never hold his own against Obama. Great ideas (part time congress), yet utterly impossible to ever be implemented.
Santorum: I like the man 100%. Not much I can argue about, great view on economy, manufacturing and the family as a core for America. But he does not connect. The fire does not jump over to the voters. But - he would be my second choice.
Bachmann: Intellectual Lightweight. Easily flustered, not solid on facts and history. Another Palin, almost as shallow. On many issues Obama would take her apart in a debate. She is a fighter, but that's about it.
Huntsman: He is an academic, polished and well spoken. But he is also fluffy, lofty and lacks seriously on the last F, Fight. He lost me, when he elaborated on the approach to China, proposing to invite dissidents to the embassy during a time, when tough responses to China's blatant economy/market/technology/currency/trade manipulations would be required. I call that just about the same rubber spine I hate with Obama.
Now Gingrich: On balance by far the best candidate. He may be flawed (who isn't?), he has a long career, therefore one who wants to find baggage, will certainly find it, but looking forward, he offers me everything I want in the next President on a purely pragmatic, sober, unemotional level. Vision, Big Ideas, Feasible Plans, Courage to speak openly, even if that does not please some voters, Humor, Self-depreciation and (nowadays) the wisdom and humility of a grandfather, a historian who understands root causes for challenges and threats and therefore can draw the correct conclusions for the future.
I hope that you now can understand why I endorse Gingrich for President.
Interesting "analysis". Newt's Immigration boards would be a disaster even if they could be enforced and of course would be just the loophole needed for the courts to impose general amnesty.
The principle here would to enforce the law. Newt has no priniciples - he's too smart to follow conservative principles (just ask him [or actually just wait a second and he'll tell you]) - therefore he's all over the map and cannot be counted on except to disappoint and blunder.
Thank you for putting my argument into words, much more eloquently and more detailed than I would have had the patience for.
I'm getting very depressed/angry at how my party establishment has been going out of its way to destroy conservatives (even conservatives they didn't HAVE to destroy... Cain would've eventually lost the nomination due to flaws with his 999 plan, there was no reason for the nasty trials in the court of public opinion, with absolutely zero evidence of wrongdoing!). They are going full-force trying to stick us with Romney, and for the life of me I can't figure out why. I'm very acquainted with Romney, he having been my governor, and I know he doesn't have the stones to take on the left and enact positive conservative change. Newt's already shown his ability to do just that. Romney's a pretty boy, a liberal pretty boy in an expensive suit, pretending to be a man of the people. Sorry, I know when I'm being patronized...
I'm so sick and tired of the GOP's stupidity, I can't take it. After 2012, I probably won't anymore. As a conservative, I'm tired of being patronized.
In closing, let me quote Ricky Roma, "I subscribe to the law of contrary public opinion... If everyone thinks one thing, then I say, bet the other way..."
Extremely thorough and well articulated. Your writing demonstrates the critical importance of advocacy. I am so relieved to see someone put Newt's long career in perspective. When we win I hope Newt finds a place for you.
WOW, Michel Zala - kindred spirit!!
-- a comprehensive statement why you support Newt.
I support Newt also!
Newt has a grasp of history -- AMERICAN history -- and he will fight for all Americans to have our chance for opportunity.
He has clear plans, including Executive Orders on his first day.
Thank you for this AMAZING statement of why you support Newt.
I agree with what you said, Michel Zala: Newt "offers me everything I want in the next President on a purely pragmatic, sober, unemotional level. Vision, Big Ideas, Feasible Plans, Courage to speak openly, even if that does not please some voters, Humor, Self-depreciation and (nowadays) the wisdom and humility of a grandfather, a historian who understands root causes for challenges and threats and therefore can draw the correct conclusions for the future."
Hi j.g.nyc - I agree. I've been watching Newt's speeches for months and I support Newt. All the way to the White House.
I really look forward to the first day and the signing of the executive orders that Newt says will return the country ON THE FIRST DAY to about 40% back to pre-the-current-administration constitutionality. On the first day!
They're working on the list of executive orders and the list is up at the website.
We will know exactly what he's going to do. I breath easier every time I think about this opportunity to fix this mess.
True conservatism's inbred dislike of big government, coupled with humility and the knowledge of the corrupting influence of power, unfortunately leads our best conservatives to stay out of the race for president. All the more important for us to focus on getting a conservative Congress that will rein in and even take back the power it has given to the executive branch.
We can only hope Newt implodes or sinks like a stone. Has anyone seen any Democrat worried about running against Newt? The Democrats can't wait for us to nominate Newt. Romney is not a great choice but at least with him we are not handing a loaded gun to the enemy.
I see the democrats TELLING US that they think Mitt's the best candidate, and Newt is their dream candidate. Now you'll have to pardon my skepticism, but if that's what they're saying (and doing their best to influence it that way), then I'm going to take it that that's the opposite of the truth. Seriously, if they wanted Newt then why would they attack him now? Same thing with Palin; if she's such an obvious loser as a candidate, then why oh did the left spend soooo much time trying to demonize her?
If everyone's telling me it has to be Mitt, then I'm sorry, but I don't agree. Nobody can even tell me why I'm supposed to agree that he's the guy; all they can do is destroy the competition. Very Obama-like. Sorry, I ain't buying what they're selling. I've been burned too many times and I don't trust them.
Follow
