Newt Gingrich has won the endorsement of J. C. Watts, which, in my mind, speaks very well of the former speaker. Mr. Watts spoke glowingly of the Gingrich-era balanced budgets — but I wonder if he wants to return to the policies that produced them. More at Exchequer.
Wow. Another Newt article, another backhanded slap.
The problem I have is that this is classical "Liberal" treatment, to make everything personal (not objective), and to add a 'but' or 'however' to anything positive.
"— but I wonder if he wants to return to the policies that produced them?"
However, there's always the chance that a group of terrorist refugees from the Huffington Post are holding the former editors hostage, and are doing their best imitation of conservatives.
Yeah, that's the ticket.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSpeaking of endorsements (and in light of NR's curious determination to spend time focusing on questions of Newt's faith), those touting Romney's "electability" should note that the new president of the SC Baptist Convention, Brad Atkins, contends that, for many in South Carolina, "Romney's Mormonism will be more of a cause of concern than Gingrich's infidelity,"
"Conservatives can process and pray their way through the issue of forgiveness toward a Christian that has had infidelity in their life, but will struggle to understand how anyone could be a Mormon and call themselves 'Christian.'"
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is an interesting endorsement.
I like Mr. Watts, and wish he stayed in the House to keep up the good work.
However, he may not be seeing this very clearly. Giving Newt such credit for balanced budgets is a stretch. Even Fox News noted the bloated Gingrich claims:
External Link
Ann Coulter soundly offers a sober dose of reality about the Gingrich fantasy:
"But Gingrich recently told Sean Hannity, "I helped Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp develop supply-side economics ..." In Ronald Reagan's autobiography, "An American Life," he writes extensively about supply-side economics. He cites Jack Kemp several times. He never mentions Newt Gingrich. (However, in Reagan's massive 784-page diary, Newt's name does come up -- once. On Jan. 3, 1983, Reagan wrote that he met with "a group of young Repub Congressmen," and says that one of them, "Newt Gingrich," proposed freezing federal spending at 1983 levels, which Reagan rejected out of hand because it would "cripple our defense program.") I licked stamps for Reagan mailings when I was in high school. I didn't formulate supply-side economics or win the Cold War."
Mr. Watts should also read Mr. Will's serious rebuke of Newt:
External Link
Gingrich is not a sound choice, especially for conservatives.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree. His conservative accomplishments pale by comparison with the conservative accomplishments of Mitt Romney while Mitt was governor of Massachusetts.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy response is over at Exchequer, too.
None of its words are borrowed from the same sources from which I've been quoting the same passages ad infinitum now for three weeks.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLOL !
You do realize the Coulter article and the Will piece which accurately address the woeful Gingrich offering are brand new.
Both Wil'sl and Coulter's work was published yesterday.
Perhaps you should actually review the the content, before you attempt to make some childish-swarmy put down.
Will's piece published Dec. 21st:
"Gingrich, the anti-conservative"
Coulter's piece published Dec. 21st:
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"NEWT HELPED FORMULATE CHRISTMAS"
I read both pieces.
It didn't seem at all new, sorry.
Both writers seem to have ordered up an extra-large side of re-hash with their eggs yesterday, Old Man.
"LOL" at all the moderates suddenly in love with quoting Ann Hairflipper, err -- Coulter.
The moderates' least favorite person on Earth suddenly is their diamond-in-the-rough?
That is a little bit too convenient for my stomach.
Joke:
How many moderates does it take to buy copies of Coulter's books for her to very suddenly become the champion of moderate politicians?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh my...
madisonian, if you really read the articles, you would know both are referencing the recent attempt of Gingrich to distract and placate offering pure bombast regarding the Judicial Branch.
The tired Beltway Insider who swiped 1.8 Million via Fannie and Freddie, only made the irresponsible threats on the Court days ago. It is new, as Newt just began this folly.
Moderates?
Who are speaking to, or with, or against? And how do you know one's existence? You have just made the worst mistake of all. You are foolish enough to prejudge someone on the internet. You have revealed very poor judgment.
Your silly demeaning of Ann Coulter is truly amusing. You reveal you are utterly lost, writing checks even Gingrich's hubris cannot cash. Now, I don't even believe you actually know the true definition of the word "moderate".
You certainly display, no knowledge of the true meaning of conservatism.
Old Man?
Are you adding an admission you are an inexperienced youth, who is stuck on juvenile put downs? Are you someone who just has to demean, for your basis is so lacking?
George Will's piece on conservatism is worthy of review, for those who have so much to learn.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMaybe he just prefers not to have a candidate that still, to this day, supports the individual mandate. Maybe he'd rather not have a candidate that governed his state in a manner indistinguishable from a progressive democrat.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm really not sure that it makes any sense at all to be boasting about things that happend a decade or more in the past. We are trying to move to the future and are in the midst of the greatest financial/economic crisis since the Great Depression (to coin a phrase). If the EU flails apart are we really still going to be arguing about the same things we were arguing about ten years ago? I'd like to see some out-of-the-box thinking like the government actually making what it spends VISIBLE to US. Anybody able to figure that out? Crowd-sourcing the expenditures would be much faster and accurate than depending on some Senator and a staff of 20 to watch this for us. Just an idea.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse