This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

For Republicans Newt Gingrich is the Only Choice

rcwhalen's picture




 

A number of people have been asking me about the 2012 election and who I will support.  I am a member of the libertarian wing of the Republican Party where Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan happily reside.  No surprise then that I support Newt Gingrich for the Republican presidential nomination. 

 

After graduating from Villanova University in 1981, I worked for the Heritage Foundation and later for Congressman Jack Kemp (R-NY) as a writer for the Republican Conference Committee.  My first real awareness of Gingrich as a political leader came in 1984, when he took the attack to the Democrats onto the floor of the House.  He did so in such a way as to provoke a personal reprimand from Speaker Tim O’Neill, who took the floor to attack Gingrich. 

 

But his post-luncheon bluster got the better of Tip O’Neill, who was censured for his remarks in one of the great parliamentary maneuvers in modern American politics.  The drama was captured by David Osborne in Mother Jones:

 

“Immediately, Minority Whip Trent Lott rose and asked that the Speaker's words be ruled out of order and stricken from the record. In the House, normally a bastion of civility, members are forbidden from making personal attacks on one another. After five minutes of nervous consultation, the chair ruled in Lott's favor. That night, the confrontation between Gingrich and O'Neill made all three network news programs. The third-term Republican from Georgia had arrived.”

 

For a young Republican, that public takedown of Tip O’Neill more than a quarter century ago presaged the end of an era politically, the end of Democratic fiat and the real beginning of Republican insurgency.  I watched on CSPAN as Republicans led by the three term congressman from Georgia retook control of the House of Representatives for the first time in the post-WWII era. 

 

For Republicans interested in winning the 2012 election and changing the direction of the country, the decision comes down to former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney vs. former House Speaker Gingrich from Georgia.  As expected the Big Media ignored the great Texas libertarian, Rep. Ron Paul.  None of the other Republican candidates beside Gingrich and Romney, in my view, has the ability to win a national election for the Grand Old Party and, more important, to govern and lead the nation effectively.

 

Say what you want about Romney’s competence, which I respect as a fellow bankster, but he is still a northeastern liberal who as president would likely pander to the largest banks and corporations.  Terms such as “status quo” come to mind with Romney.  Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, just might start channeling Teddy Roosevelt and break up the big bank cartel in the US housing market. 

 

Romney did dismantle a lot of private corporations during his years running Bain Capital, boosting shareholder value.  He also destroyed a lot of jobs along the way, but I cannot see leveraged buyout king Mitt Romney really challenging the corporate status quo in Washington. 

 

Romney is on the record as a bailout denier and overt apologist for the large bank subsidies and rescues put in place by Ben Bernanke and Tim Geithner.  The comparison between Romney and Gingrich’s critical view of the Wall Street bailouts is pretty striking.    Gingrich has called for swift action to punish the key players behind the financial crisis, something that should garner support from many points of the political compass. 

 

"If they want to really change things, the first person to fire is (Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben) Bernanke, who is a disastrous chairman of the Federal Reserve, the second person to fire is (Treasury Secretary Timothy) Geithner," Gingrich said in the Republican debate sponsored by Bloomberg and the Washington Post.

 

The first issue for me with Gingrich is experience, both in terms of domestic economic and political policy. As noted, Gingrich and my friend Grover Norquist led the first successful GOP House campaign in 40 years and the first re-election of a Republican majority in the House since 1928. 

 

Gingrich worked with members of both parties as Speaker to cut taxes and spending, and understands how to make the government sausage factory work.  He collaborated with conservative leaders like Kemp, Jude Wanniski and Art Laffer, to make supply-side economics a viable response to the Great Society welfare state in Washington. 

 

Gingrich, Kemp and many other conservatives I first got to know through my parents in the 1980s and 1990s worked with Ronald Reagan on defeating the Soviet empire and renewing the US economy.  Gingrich has been involved with national policy for decades while Romney was governor of Massachusetts for one term, where he did little to change that state’s unique culture of corruption and astronomically high tax rates. 

 

Gingrich understands the scale of change required in government today.  He has tackled welfare reform, four balanced budgets, Medicare reform, and the largest capital gains tax cut in history.  The proposal for Social Security and Medicare by Gingrich rejects the idea that we can solve our budget and debt crisis by some combination of cutting benefits and raising taxes within the current framework of these two programs.  

 

Romney has a very limited record when it comes to proposing change to these largest components of the federal government. Gingrich actually understands the issues involved in running the American political economy and can speak about them in detail, as shown in the debates and in other public forums, as well with his proposals for change.

 

The second issue is conservative vision.  Newt Gingrich is a consistent advocate for conservative American values such as individual liberty and responsibility, while Romney is a “born again” conservative of recent vintage.  From the Contract With America to his latest venture, American Solutions for Winning the Future, Gingrich has provided leadership in terms of generating a broader, non-partisan discussion on political and economic issues. 

 

Jack Kemp said famously: “Be a leader.”  Gingrich does that and more, but he also has the intellectual credentials to back up the rhetorical theater that is American politics. Gingrich is the author of dozens of books, many of which he actually wrote.  He has the ability to learn and understand complex domestic and geopolitical issues. 

 

For over two decades, Gingrich has taught at the United States Air Force's Air University, where he is the longest-serving teacher of the Joint Flag Officer Warfighting Course.  He was the third witness at opening House hearing on Goldwater-Nichols legislation, which created a joint operations culture in the US military and streamlined political control over the American armed forces. 

 

The Goldwater-Nichols legislation had enormous practical and political ramifications, some driven by technology but others by political concerns about the supremacy of civilian rule in post-WWII Washington.  We need a President who understands these complex issues.  Richard Hofstadter wrote about the anti-intellectualism in American life, but out citizens are ready for a President who knows issues in detail and also knows what he does not understand. 

 

The third issue is pragmatic conservatism.  While Gingrich is guided by many of the core libertarian principles set forth by the founders of our republic, he is also someone who identifies problems in a frank and objective way, then seeks practical answers.  His willingness to  be a bold change agent versus a manager of the status quo is a key component that differentiates Newt Gingrich from Mitt Romney, and most of the other Republican candidates this year.

 

Yet even as Americans try to undo decades of socialist construction at the hands of both political parties, we need to do so in such a way that does not destabilize the economy and creates an environment that will foster confidence and new private sector growth.  Gingrich believes that fostering an open discussion about the many policy issues we all face is the way to break the cycle of corruption and dysfunction in Washington.   

 

“In an age where massive pieces of legislation are written in secret and passed before anyone has time to understand their contents, it is my hope that this open process of developing the 21st Century Contract With America will help restore the bonds of trust between the American people and their elected representatives,” Mr. Gingrich writes in 21st Century Contract With America. 

 

The other issue which demonstrates the pragmatic approach that Gingrich takes to issues is immigration.  Speaking as someone who is descended from immigrants and who has worked and traveled in nations all around the Americas, we need to be more sensitive to the plight of undocumented aliens.  But more than that, Gingrich and other conservatives need to advance solutions to the problem of undocumented aliens and thereby eliminate an obstacle to winning majority Hispanic support for Republican candidates. 

 

When you look at Romney’s anti-immigrant stance, he almost seems to be mutating into the Richard Nixon of “silent majority” fame, threatening to keep out the evil illegal aliens. Romney’s position is hypocritical, however, because his own Mormon ancestors fled the anti-polygamy laws in the US in the late 1800s for the more permissive climes of Northern Mexico – only to be chased back across the border by the violence of the 1910 Mexican revolution. 

 

Romney’s Mormon ancestors returned to the US across the same porous Mexican border that admits thousands of illegal immigrants each year.  Did they cross into the US legally?  Should we deport Mitt and his family back to Coahuila? 

 

Romney’s tough guy stance on immigration, juxtaposed with his unusual family history, makes him a sitting duck for Democrats in a general election campaign.  We need Republicans who will work with the Hispanic community, not give them reasons to vote against us. 

 

Gingrich has proposed a workable pathway to legal residency and full integration into US society for illegal aliens in terms of taxes and social services, but one that also recognizes the fact that many illegal workers will eventually return to their native lands.  Like Gingrich, I feel that only legal émigrés who follow the law should be eligible for citizenship.  But neither should we turn economic refugees into a permanent underclass.

 

America needs to create a way for workers from Canada, Mexico and other nations of the Americas to work in the US, pay taxes and receive needed services, and be part of the formal economy wherever they ultimately reside.  And US citizens would benefit from such reciprocity in the other American states and the legal protections afforded by such state-to-state relations. 

 

I think Newt Gingrich could make the vision of a transparent, open marketplace for labor in the Americas a reality.   He has the sort of intellectual honesty and willingness to risk change that could address intractable issues like immigration, the economy and anti-competitive behavior in the economy.  And Newt Gingrich rejects the socialist policies of the American left, led by the likes of Paul Krugman and Robert Reich, who believe that people who work with their minds are somehow criminals. 

 

If you really listen to his whining socialist diatribes, Paul Krugman is the enemy of every man and woman who works in the global financial markets.  Many of my colleagues on the Street are very liberal, yet Krugman would take all of their money via higher taxes in a nanosecond.  How is it that nobody sees that Krugman’s commentaries in The New York Times are almost perfectly predicted by George Orwell in Animal Farm – and Hayek in the The Road to Serfdom?   

 

To me Newt is the only credible conservative in the presidential race for 2012, but one who brings a mixture of core American values, real world experience and a pragmatic, compassionate approach to a range of issues.  Gingrich wants to facilitate real change in America, while Romney only wants to run the welfare state better.  And Newt Gingrich is not afraid to call Barack Obama a socialist in a national presidential debate.  That is why I support Newt Gingrich for the Republican nomination for the presidency.

 

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sun, 11/27/2011 - 15:42 | 1918328 VelvetHog
VelvetHog's picture

She turned me in to a Newt! ...well, I got better....

Sun, 11/27/2011 - 15:36 | 1918310 Lone Deranger
Lone Deranger's picture

When I went to the ballot box on November 4, 2008, the choice was McCain or Obama.  I ended up writing in Ron Paul, and went home feeling good about it. I'll do the same on November 6, 2012 if Gingrich and Obama are the choices.  In my opinion either one of these idiots will do a fine job of pushing the US off the precipice.

Obama has done so much damage it's not clear to me how it can be unwound. Logically, total society collapse in the US (and other Western nations) appears to be the only destination.  Ron Paul could have set the nation on a course back in 2008 (painful medicine to be sure), and in his second term the US would have started to realize true benefits.  The problem is that the majority of people in the US want instant, feel-good rhetoric that sways their often shallow emotional state.  This is why someone like Obama (and I'll throw most of the other elected officials in that basket), are able to get elected.  The pea-brained media gets to elect our government on TV through a series of emotional whim stories and other bizarre manipulated processes.  Gingrich's campaign was dead a month or two ago, and now he's the "frontrunner" - WTF! It's like the electoral process is something akin to "Politicians Got Talent".  Go to YouTube, and pull up America's Got Talent, then go to a Republican debate, and tell me what the difference is.  On these debates they even have people with clickers rating the second-by-second emotional response of what falls out of their mouths.  GIVE ME A BREAK!!

I became a Ron Paul fan in 2006, right after he wrote the paper: "The End of Dollar Hegemony".  I was blown away that we really had someone that intelligent serving in office.  I have kept up with him since then, and he has been consistent every step of the way.  I don't agree with every single detail of Ron's policies, but overall he stands to benefit most Americans - and really Western society as a whole.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul303.html

Sun, 11/27/2011 - 17:56 | 1918775 whstlblwr
whstlblwr's picture

Don't write it in. Register Republican and vote for Ron Paul in primary. Then he can win nomination.

Sun, 11/27/2011 - 15:34 | 1918301 Whoa Dammit
Whoa Dammit's picture

Don't get Newtered. Volunteer to help Ron Paul's campaign. 

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/sign-up-as-volunteer/

Sun, 11/27/2011 - 15:30 | 1918283 oldmanagain
oldmanagain's picture

Science is our hope, not " corporations are people".

Our nation and many after it, has postulated there is a "social contract".

The rule of  law can insure that all are treated fairly, with justice.

Not one Republican candidate can pass the smell test.

Sun, 11/27/2011 - 15:56 | 1918255 TheAkashicRecord
TheAkashicRecord's picture

Gingrich believes there are dangers in America become a secular Country, he thinks atheism is a dangerous philosophy, and he thinks it is impossible to have morality if you don't believe in God.  Those facts in and of themselves would preclude me from voting for this guy. 

“How can you have judgment if you have no faith? How can I trust you with power if you don’t pray?”

Get the fuck off of it Newt. The fact that people embrace Newt as some sort of intellectual is very telling.  Anybody who thinks religion or faith are required for someone to exhibit our higher human faculties is delusional and cannot seriously be considered an intellectual.  

"There is no attack on American life more destructive and more historically dishonest than the secular Left's relentless effort to drive God out of America's public square."

Really, Newt, that's the most destructive act occuring on American life?  

When the Republicans start to embrace rationality, call me.  

Note: I support Ron Paul.  Although I disagree with many of his views in this sphere of thought, I know that he would never want to legislate his version of morality at the Federal level, and that is something I can respect.  

Newt also sounds insane about foreign policy and he doesn't understand root causes concerning our economy. 

His ad hominem attacks on OWS are also not appreciated. 

He believes the Constitution is a hindrance (and that hindrance is a problem) as seen here.  

“The American challenge in leading the world is compounded by our Constitution,” 

The Constitution is SUPPOSED to be a hindrance!  A hindrance to what the federal government can do, that is a GOOD thing!

And he's a statist and globalist.  

NEXT

Sun, 11/27/2011 - 18:13 | 1918815 whstlblwr
whstlblwr's picture

"impossible to have morality if don't believe in God."

Well, he believes in God, and from what I see he's very immoral.

Sun, 11/27/2011 - 19:16 | 1919014 LeBalance
LeBalance's picture

but the extent of his immorality is limited by the Constitution.

Sun, 11/27/2011 - 16:13 | 1918441 wisefool
wisefool's picture

Well said. Newt as a moralist is absurd. He switches religions and wives on a regular (and corrodinated self serving) basis. Next up for him will be one of the old school religions that allow multiple wives, which in our modern framework is rediculous. Here is a typical psuedo intellectual newtism: (para)

Single moms should be a rarity, the support and guidance that a father provides is invaluable to the moral fabric of america. However, a divorced woman with children is not a single mother. She is a divorced woman with children, and the marriage did not nessecarily need to be to the biological father. Vote for me folks, I am so smart you need me to do thinking for you!

Sun, 11/27/2011 - 15:11 | 1918219 Tegrat
Tegrat's picture

Newt - RHINO. MSM trying to pick the Rep Candidate again...

Sun, 11/27/2011 - 16:17 | 1918257 gangland
gangland's picture

Newt Gargamel Ginrich (sic) = HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

AHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAAHAH to eternity....

 

and fuck you RCWHALEN NOT THAT THERE WAS EVER ANY DOUBT, BUT YOU JUST OUTED YOURSELF AS A PARASITIC TOOL!

AND FUCK LLOYD BLANKFEIN!

http://www.salon.com/2011/11/26/goldman_sachs_announces_presidential_run/

 

corporate gop conservatives, libertarians, tea baggers like rc whalen are so pathetically desperate, you all remind me of the idiots who desperately voted for barry, i dont know who's more pathetic you douchbags or the so called corporate left.

at this point might as well vote for papa smurf.

 

Sun, 11/27/2011 - 14:58 | 1918179 Thorny Xi
Thorny Xi's picture

The only real republican and financial district candidate is Barack Obama.  The rest are just part of the sideshow, or as we used to say in broadcasting, the crap we run between the commercials. 

Sun, 11/27/2011 - 19:33 | 1919092 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Nailed it.

That's not going to convince many folks, though, because the crazy part is that he's the Democratic candidate.

Sun, 11/27/2011 - 14:56 | 1918168 Diamond Jim
Diamond Jim's picture

Mr. Whalen's article has obviously spurred some heated debate amongst ZHers.  I note the crying about Mr, Paul not geting or "having" a chance and note the excessive baggage that Mr. Gingrich carries. I have read mr. paul's book and do believe in libertarian thought...but one thing apparent to me  in both current (and recent history) of Libertarian philosophy and in in mr. Paul's thought is a glaring niavitte  on foreign policy. they essentially withdraw from the current world and become more or less isolationist as they "fix" domestic policy. President's really go down in history based on their foreign policy. Sure, they can lead and suggest on domestic, but they are really a foreign policy tool of the Constitution. Congress originates all domestic spending bills, confirms domestic cabinet, justices, controls immigration etc. With a Mr. Paul in charge of foreign affairs ...Iran will get its nuke (I am sure much to the delight of some ZH Jew hatters...I sometimes wonder if there are more haters of Jews to be found here in ZH or in the OWS group) and begin a policy of bullying its neighbors, While i wish we could be more energy independent, Iran with Russian and Chinese backing will take over  nearby oilfields, causing us more pain at the pump as a result of our hiding behind a noble  isolationist policy. Since we appear incapable of taking on the issue of a nuclear Iran, we may be happy that Israel may do the job for us, while "we lead from behind" again. I do not advocate our being the world policeman, but we do have an obligation to be engaged. China will expand greastly in its locale taking over Taiwan, threatening Japan and taking over nearby natural resources, russia will continue to stir the pot in the middle east backing Iranian aggressions. It is the old principle of what would fill the power vacuum if America abdicates. I fear we would face problems far worse than our current domestic problems on debt, responsibility of and retribution for our current financial crisis, lack of direction by Congress etc, etc ad nauseum. Madison always thought that we would advance after years of deadlock when a new paradigm was reached. Compromise was the ultimate force moving our nation. This is a congressional thing...foreign policy is is job of the executive branch. This is where current Libertarian thought fiails, this includes RP.

I do see the point made by many oppossing views herein. One good reason for my reading ZH. I am at times second guessing my choice for  president. I am still watching , but do know this much...Prez Owe must go. there are times whren i wish we could take all the R candidates together, put them in a blender and come out with the appropriate composite candidate.

Sun, 11/27/2011 - 16:34 | 1918521 honestann
honestann's picture

If you are too stupid, or utterly incapable of stopping the mainstream media lies from controlling your brain, to recognize the difference between "isolationist" and "non-interventionist", then go back to fantasy football or something your intellect can handle.  This utterly insane notion that the only way to avoid being "isolationist" is to endlessly impose sanctions and bomb innocent people has infected almost every clueless moron on the planet at this point.  Based upon this utterly false "definition", 99% of countries on the face of the earth are "isolationist", and can only become happy modern nations if everyone starts invading and bombing a dozen other countries, and establishing trade sanctions.  That's right, they say anyone who trades is an isolationist... how's that for self-contradiction?

To stop bombing others, and stop imposing sanctions on others, is NOT naive and is NOT isolationism.

A bunch of non-Jewish countries in the middle east already have nukes, and nothing has happened to Israel.  If Iran gets added to the nuke list, nothing will change.  The Iranian moron who talked said Israel should get wiped off the face of the earth is about #14 in the hierarchy in Iran, would have no power to order the Iran military to nuke Israel.  Furthermore, Iran isn't about to purposely have themselves wiped off the face of the earth, which is what would happen immediately if they were insane enough to nuke Israel.

In other words, anyone who believes these clap-trap theory about Iran has absolutely ZERO ability to be logical, rational, historical or thoughtful.  It is not Ron Paul who is naive, it is everyone too lazy or stupid to observe the facts of these matters and draw rational inferences.  Kruschev said "we will bury you" to the USA, and he had tens of thousands of nukes, intercontinental ballistic missles, and nuke-carrying submarines off the coast of the USA.  And nothing happened.  To imagine that Iran with one (or a dozen) nukes would attack Israel is just craziness.

Like many people, I don't have any special dislike or like of Israel, but I am DAMN TIRED of them being at the center of just about every freaking international story and hassle year after year after year, and decade after decade after decade.  They are big boys, have craploads of military, missles and nukes... and can take care of themselves.  Leave us out of their business.  Voluntary trade, fine.  Otherwise, forget about it.

This theory that IF the USSA wasn't the world super-duper-bully, that China and Russia and everyone else would "take over the world" is patent bullcrap.  You people are terrified of your own shadows, and have hijacked the life and wealth of everyone to blow up shadow after shadow after shadow for no good reason.  Grow up, morons!  Or at least leave the rest of us alone, and out of your schemes.  If you want to buy weapons with your own money, and go to Israel or Iran or Taiwan and fight shadows, then do so.  Otherwise, shut the frack up and leave us alone.

Ron Paul 2012, or the USSA will become utterly enslaved... followed in a couple decades by the rest of the planet.

Human beings are freaking worthless species that deserves to be wiped off the face of the earth.  What other species defends and praises the predators that prey upon it?  Answer:  none.  Only humans are stupid enough to do that.

Sun, 11/27/2011 - 17:53 | 1918764 whstlblwr
whstlblwr's picture

I am going to send your comment to my Jewish relatives who support Ron Paul until debate and his non support of Israel. I undertand the Jewish fears, but agree with you Iran is not a threat. Just like they scare us with threat of the terrorist on homeland to take our freedom, they use Iran to scare.

But it's clear the Israeli Arab conflict needs resolution immediately. It's clear even on this blog about financial matters, the racism from both sides creeps in. It's dangerous, and imo Israel needs to stop expansion in west bank and palestinans need to accept a state where they don't get all they want.

LIVE IN PEACE.

Sun, 11/27/2011 - 15:13 | 1918166 Whats that smell
Whats that smell's picture

If you are an old school republican type vote for a Libratarian, if you are an honest Democrat vote Green Party,  piss on Elephants and Mules.

 

Gonzalo has a good article

http://gonzalolira.blogspot.com/2011/11/why-i-support-occupy-movement.html

 

Sun, 11/27/2011 - 14:55 | 1918165 PLove
PLove's picture

 

 

When Newt took over House leadership, his stated plan to stay in power was to have the lobbyists fund the GOP.  

Newt is without character, morals, or patriotism.   

Only parasites take this pig seriously.

 

 

 

 

Sun, 11/27/2011 - 14:53 | 1918158 cathrynm
cathrynm's picture

Newt = Bob Dole, the sequel. 

Sun, 11/27/2011 - 14:52 | 1918147 TahoBilly
TahoBilly's picture

Kill this thread...just pissing people off. Gingrich=Just another sociopath. As Celente says, look up the meaning!

Sun, 11/27/2011 - 14:49 | 1918138 Bansters-in-my-...
Bansters-in-my- feces's picture

Hey rcwhalen.......

Zero hedgers are on to you like flies on shit.

You have been pegged for the fool that you are.

The hedgers don't miss much.

Good work crew.

Sun, 11/27/2011 - 14:46 | 1918120 Temporalist
Temporalist's picture

I have to think Whalen posted this as sattire.  He calls himself a "bankster" and calls Roosevelt "libertarian" so he's just pointing out that the establishment douchebag republicanTs will want Newt because they're a bunch of brainwashed monkeys that try to hammer square pegs into circular holes because the R party tells them to. 

 

Vote Police State!  Vote Unconstitutional Wars!  Vote Endless Debt Slavery!  Vote Newt!

Sun, 11/27/2011 - 14:45 | 1918115 KP69
KP69's picture

Chris, I am a big fan, but I cannot agree w/ you on this one. True, Newt is the second best candidate of the bunch and he may have a better chance of winning than RP, but these qualities are simply not good enough reason for me to vote for him.

I have always believed that it is better to vote for the correct candidate and lose than vote for a 'lesser of 2 evils'. If it were b/n Newt and Romney, Newt would certainly fit this bill.

I will vote for RP, b/c he is a true statesman, an horonorable man that cannot be bought. He is very smart and will do what is best for this country. He is a true Patriot.

 

Sun, 11/27/2011 - 15:08 | 1918212 narnia
narnia's picture

The ONLY chance the GOP has to win the Presdiency is to nominate Ron Paul.  

If it isn't Paul, I hope it is Newt.  It's not because I like Newt, but as long as a liberal capable of getting 10% of the vote is politely nudged into the americanselect flag- maybe a bernie sanders or some idiot like that- I think Ron Paul has a 4 way election in the bag vs. Obama & Newt.  I think he may be able to win in a 3 way vs. those stooges.    

 

Sun, 11/27/2011 - 14:43 | 1918105 baltbear
baltbear's picture

Since Teddy Roosevelt worked for a graduated estate tax with a 100% marginal rate, and Newt was ciritical to the present shaft the working man tax code, what is oresented is classic Heritage Foundation:

  "Your heritasge is what we, the enlightened, tell you it is."

 

 

Sun, 11/27/2011 - 14:43 | 1918104 Bansters-in-my-...
Bansters-in-my- feces's picture

If any AMERICAN POLITICAL PARTY IN POWER WANTED TO CHANGE THINGS FOR THE BETTER, they would kick the federal reserve banking system the fuck out of the country.

Even allowing them to use the name Federal so deceptively is a crime...

End of story.

Sun, 11/27/2011 - 14:27 | 1918037 honestann
honestann's picture

Gingrich is a modern-day nazi.
You consider jack-booted-thugism to be libertarian?
Ron Paul 2012 --- the modern day Thomas Jefferson.

Sun, 11/27/2011 - 14:27 | 1918036 Cardiodoc
Cardiodoc's picture

Maybe Newt if he promises to put James Johnson on the ticket with him.  We need his brand of free enterprise- an unleashing of the capitalist spirits.  The government will exist only to absorb the levered-up liabilities of the master classes and to keep a lid on the unfocused and half-informed rage which ensues.  Distract them at the margins with frothy, spittle throwing, fomentations on murdered babies and which brand of Jesus to buy at the retail outlet.

As to all the eye-bulging hyperventilating prom-queen pickers out there, do we think it matters?  The sky darkens as the meteor approaches...

Sun, 11/27/2011 - 14:18 | 1918004 digalert
digalert's picture

Gingrich wants a police state!

Sun, 11/27/2011 - 19:32 | 1917993 G. Marx
G. Marx's picture

Gingrich? He's a freakin' statist! YOu're a libertarian-republican? As SoH, Grinrich worked to have Ron Paul defeated by having a local democrat convert to a republican, give him RNC money, all to replace Dr. Paul and come under RNC/Gingrich control.

Either you're feckin' clueless or just other apologist for the staus-quo. I can't beleive anyone at ZH would take your reco of Newt seriously.

Sun, 11/27/2011 - 14:12 | 1917976 TahoBilly
TahoBilly's picture

I get home from yoga, flip on ZH and see left column "Gnut Gingrich for President" thinking it was a joke and to the right "Congress Votes on Explicit Patriot Act" and then I think, one of these posts s on the right track and it ain't the dude pounding the table for fatso.

Sun, 11/27/2011 - 14:50 | 1918141 Temporalist
Temporalist's picture

It is a joke...it was framed as satire.  Nobody can be stupid enough to think Newt should be president.  That is like saying Mitt should be president.  Or Herman Cain.  Total joke.

Sun, 11/27/2011 - 14:12 | 1917975 TahoBilly
TahoBilly's picture

I get home from yoga, flip on ZH and see left column "Gnut Gingrich for President" thinking it was a joke and to the right "Congress Votes on Explicit Patriot Act" and then I think, one of these posts s on the right track and it ain't the dude pounding the table for fatso.

Sun, 11/27/2011 - 14:06 | 1917945 non_anon
non_anon's picture

with all due respect, you sir, are a fool

yes, I know, it's youtube

 

The Real Newt Gingrich Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02HX5v5Thpk

Sun, 11/27/2011 - 14:13 | 1917981 SRSrocco
SRSrocco's picture

I THOUGHT THIS POST WAS A JOKE

If anyone has a decent functioning brain stem, you would realize that after watching any of the Republican debates, Ron Paul is the only ADULT on the stage.  The rest are immature children talking worthless rubbish.

rcwhalen...you have got to be kidding that you think Gingrich is the Republicans only hope.  Your commentary is quite similar to MSM...NO MENTION of Ron Paul whatsoever.

This is why our country is in serious trouble.  Because people like this actually believe someone like Gingrich is their best hope.  The GRAND COLLAPSE is the only thing that will save us.

GOD HATH A SENSE OF HUMOR......

 

Sun, 11/27/2011 - 14:00 | 1917919 TahoBilly
TahoBilly's picture

What has Ron Paul done? How about, what has Ron Paul "not" done. Let's review!

1. launch endless wars

2. increase welfare spending

3. sign off on the (un)Patriot Act

4. how about particpate in bankrupting the country

What has he done?

1. led many late night speeches on the floor supporting the Consitituion and your freedoms

2. got the gawd damned Fed Bank audited, you know the one owned by the big crooked Wall St. banks

 

How is this Whalen character? By all means keep his financial commentary bu lose the political insight? Gnut Gingrich? I swear I though this was a joke.

Sun, 11/27/2011 - 14:00 | 1917918 TahoBilly
TahoBilly's picture

What has Ron Paul done? How about, what has Ron Paul "not" done. Let's review!

1. launch endless wars

2. increase welfare spending

3. sign off on the (un)Patriot Act

4. how about particpate in bankrupting the country

What has he done?

1. led many late night speeches on the floor supporting the Consitituion and your freedoms

2. got the gawd damned Fed Bank audited, you know the one owned by the big crooked Wall St. banks

 

How is this Whalen character? By all means keep his financial commentary bu lose the political insight? Gnut Gingrich? I swear I though this was a joke.

Sun, 11/27/2011 - 13:58 | 1917913 Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

Politics = Gong Show

Sun, 11/27/2011 - 13:52 | 1917872 one eye
one eye's picture

Ron Paul is hit or miss for me. Of course no one likes central bankers.

But Ron Paul misses with the military. It is intellectually dishonest to think that the U.S. having a big military does not lead to freedom. Just the thought of the United States military keeps countries from going to war. There being one super power with a military far exceeding that of any other country (while mainly not conquering) has provided for the whole of Europe to not pay for legitimate militaries or worry about being attacked. We don't have to worry about being attacked in full scale nation war. But we have come to the point that our government has overstepped what we'd like, but again that is our fault, we allowed politicians to incrementally do more of what they want.

Ask yourself what has Ron Paul done? I can't think of anything. I understand he has not done important things. But he has not accomplished anything being proactive.

Gingrich on the other hand led one of the greatest triumphants for Republicans in recent times. He got a balanced budget to pass, lowered welfare, he even almost got rid of the department of education, but he balked against Clinton. Bill was a better politican than Newt...

Ron Paul's legacy is of not doing. Newt Gingrich's is of doing. This is a time when we need serious stuff done.

Newt is undeniably the best pick of current republican contenders for this situation. 

Tue, 11/29/2011 - 18:42 | 1927796 Plata con Carne
Plata con Carne's picture

Last election cycle, and again in this election cycle - Ron Paul has received more campaign donations from active duty military personnel than all the other GOP candidates & Ogolfer combined. Verifiable fact on FEC and Politifact.

Defense, and Military Industrial Complex are two separate things. Ron Paul wouldn't touch Defense.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Sun, 11/27/2011 - 20:23 | 1919273 SgtShaftoe
SgtShaftoe's picture

As a military officer, I can assure you that your idea of the military usefulness of our wasteful dumping of blood and treasure on foreign lands is idiotic and offensive. There have been many a CIA station chief and cia analysts that has said the same and supports Ron Paul. Go read "blowback", get a clue, and stop advocating that my boys, girls and friends get sent to their deaths in some useless bullshit. I've shed enough tears, the families have had enough suffering. It breaks my heart, and makes me incredibly angry every time I see a maimed soldier. If you feel so strongly you want the USA to police the world, go pick up a fucking rifle and spend your own blood. Ron Paul gets more money from military personnel than all presidential candidates and Obama combined. Think on that a long time. The people who understand the most about the effective use and results of military force support Paul. Simply, good intentions aren't enough, and our involvement consistently makes things worse. Go start reading.

Sun, 11/27/2011 - 23:16 | 1919820 one eye
one eye's picture

I said the government overstepped on what it should be doing. I never said going to war is a good thing. I said one country having a huge military helps the freedom in the world because countries don't go to war with each other. I do genuinely feel bad for hurt soldiers, but people aren't forced to join the military.

We need to get a lot done but there is a time for being a realist. Ron Paul is an ok person, he may even have the best ideas, but the fact of the matter is he has done very little other than talk. He has done nothing to change the country in either positive or negative direction. It is a lot of hope to believe that he will be able to get anything done through congress.

Newt has. Newt has balanced the budget before. Newt has rolled back welfare. Newt has even shut down the government.

No political group gets exactly the country it envisions from the start. We have to work towards those goals and incrimentally place them in. Ron Paul in this regards is not a good fit. Newt however can see the whole picture and get things rolling to where they need to go. I do hope Newt would keep in mind Ron's views of the Fed.

Mon, 11/28/2011 - 11:59 | 1921042 i-dog
i-dog's picture

Newt is a member of a very secretive group of conservatives (the CNP) that is hell-bent on war ... and is absolutely riddled with 33° Masons and Knights of Malta, whose sworn allegiance is not to America.

We will certainly not get what we envision with his hand on the button!!

Mon, 11/28/2011 - 11:26 | 1920914 SgtShaftoe
SgtShaftoe's picture

Look up all the stories of stop-loss'd soldiers. Many were forced into it. so were the national guard and reserves, beyond their initial stated mission. Once you sign up, you are stuck as an enlisted soldier. Saying they volunteered is a hollow argument. It was and is in many cases a backdoor draft.

Sun, 11/27/2011 - 16:11 | 1918424 dxj
dxj's picture

Gingrich is no libertarian, by any measure. Reagan was marginally one. Goldwater was probably the most pragmatic one in that he differentiated between an enemy who was hell bent on destroying us (the Soviets) and CIA mischief that created nothing but blowback.

Ron Paul understands that we created Bin Laden, the Taliban and Al Qaeda as a CIA/Brzezinski inspired "arc of crisis" to bankrupt the Soviets, but in the process we unleashed our Frankenstein monster against ourselves. We are headed for bankruptcy and martial law if left on the current course. No amount of fear-mongering about Paul can change that fact.

Gingrich and Romney are statists who will change nothing and will likely intensify the militarism and statism. The clear alternative is Ron Paul, a modern day Cicero (minus the polish). He is the only candidate who instills confidence that he will stick to his principals once in office. That scares the living crap out of the war-mongering, fear-mongering GOP machine.

Save the Republic, bring down crony-capitalism, bring back sound money, end the militarism that created the mess we are in.

Vote Ron Paul!

Sun, 11/27/2011 - 23:39 | 1919872 one eye
one eye's picture

I don't really know why you would think Gingrich is a statist with what he did while Speaker. I do realize he made some mistakes, but he did a lot of good (like a balanced budget!).

The situation we are in took a long time to get here, it would be extremely hard to get out of it overnight. Do you honestly think Ron Paul has (or can generate) the political capital to get what he wants accomplished? I just don't think he can.

Sun, 11/27/2011 - 15:00 | 1918183 Bansters-in-my-...
Bansters-in-my- feces's picture

Speaking of all that "freedom" you are talking about.I'm glad I have the freedom to say "YOU are a fucking idiot"

Sun, 11/27/2011 - 23:48 | 1919910 one eye
one eye's picture

I am glad you do too Bansters. I would prefer something more for the discussion next time though.

Sun, 11/27/2011 - 14:09 | 1917959 whstlblwr
whstlblwr's picture

Should love Ron Paul then because he keeps almost all money for Defense, it's one thing I don't like about him.

If you live in closed primary state below, change party to Republican to vote for Ron Paul.

Don’t let Gingrich win the Republican primary nomination!

Vote in the Republican primary.

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Idaho
Illinois
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Maine
Maryland
Mass
Michigan
Montana
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Oregon
Penn
Rhode Island
South Dakota
West Virginia
Wyoming

Sun, 11/27/2011 - 14:07 | 1917952 Zero Debt
Zero Debt's picture

Gingrich is doing what? With whose money?

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!