This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
For Republicans Newt Gingrich is the Only Choice
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.
»
- rcwhalen's blog
- 45110 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Socialism is a scary word that provokes an emotional reaction and causes lots of people react and immediately embrace the alternative. It's become a reflexive emotion that is easily triggered by those seeking to distract the populace and further the divide and conquer strategy. If one uses the word fascism, there isn't as much of a reaction, and some people might even have to look it up to figure out what it means. (Yeah, I realize that looking something up to gain understanding is a stretch for a lot of people.) Those few that might trouble to do that would probably then scratch their heads and say, "WTF is the actual difference between the blue team fascists and the red team fascists?!?!"
Nail hit squarely on head and driven home. Well done.
Sweet spew. I respect what you say. So now what to do? I suspect that Whalen provoked this 'dirty laundry' discussion intentionally. So really Mr. Anonymous, I ask this with no agenda other than to maybe ferret out an honest answer.
What do you believe we should do?
Just show your cards.
I genuinely like your comment and would like for you to at least provide some 'meat' with your very fantastic potato'e's?
What to do?
Well we all know/should know the history of fascism, however it has been labelled, e.g. Communism, Nazism and actually Fascism in Italy under Mussolini, who defined it as the bundles (fasces) of state, corporate and military powers.
And we all know (or should) that when this this sort of constellation comes about, it is both unstoppable and utterly ruthless.
The only sensible thing to do - beyond a point at which you know you cannot make a difference - is keep a lowish profile and cross your fingers, especially if you get caught in a war zone.
Yup.
Revolution is the only solution.
More details please.
Revolutions have a nasty habit of killing lots of people and creating further problems.
Maybe the greatest flaw with our species is some gene which enables a few to have sufficient charisma to both latch on to an idea AND persuade others that it is worth dying for ... such are the basics of revolutions.
Count me out.
Ghandi led a peaceful revolution. It's possible, but difficult. But then again, all serious change is difficult. To wit, how difficult it is to lose this beer belly.
I honestly can't pretend to know the answers. I'm like everyone else. Watching the great drama unfold, caught up in the characters without a clue where the plot leads.
Great comment! I wish I could give you a hundred plus votes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wake up America....you have been reduced to the worst of all states where you are allowed to vote - BUT ONLY AMONG THE CANDIDATES APPROVED BY THE STATE. They had elections in the Soviet Union as well, but at least they had the intellectual honesty to admit they were all from the communist party. In the American Fascist state we pretend we are free.
With all due respect, the problem is the system, even the OWS neo-hippies have figured this out.
Let's pretend:
What if Newt had succeeded Bush instead of Obama.
Surely, there would have been no further bail-outs and give aways to Dimon/Blank/Citi, correct?
And the troops would be home because Obama hates them but Newt loves them.
And pigs have surely flown.
As long as intelligent observers like yourselves ignore the fact that Newt, Obama, et al are on the same team, the one that rammed the end of Glass Steagel down the nation's throat when no one was looking (thanks Larry Summers and Alan G), the magnitude of the profound consequences of their actions on behalf of their handlers at the major financial institutions is as incalculable as this run on sentence. - G
With all due respect, the problem is the system, even the OWS neo-hippies have figured this out.
Let's pretend:
What if Newt had succeeded Bush instead of Obama.
Surely, there would have been no further bail-outs and give aways to Dimon/Blank/Citi, correct?
And the troops would be home because Obama hates them but Newt loves them.
And pigs have surely flown.
As long as intelligent observers like yourselves ignore the fact that Newt, Obama, et al are on the same team, the one that rammed the end of Glass Steagel down the nation's throat when no one was looking (thanks Larry Summers and Alan G), the magnitude of the profound consequences of their actions on behalf of their handlers at the major financial institutions is as incalculable as this run on sentence. - G
Yeah, right. Newt is a douchebag.
And conservative values you mention are (classic) liberal values.
Exactly, this guy can't be trusted by his wife, his party, or the American people.On January 21, 1997, the House of Representatives voted to discipline him for ethical wrongdoing. He was accused of using tax-deductible charitable donations to fund a non-charitable college course that he taught, and of giving false information about this to the House Ethics Committee. In a 395-28 vote, the House ordered Gingrich to pay an unprecedented $300,000 penalty as part of a settlement to avoid a full hearing.[6]
Gingrich had represented Georgia's 6th congressional district from January 3, 1979 until January 3, 1999 when he resigned as speaker and as a member of Congress. Gingrich did not serve the 11th term to which he had been elected in November 1998.
Obama wins if contest is between Gingrich and Obama. Gingrich cheats on taxes, he cheats on wife, he cheats American people. It's all you need to know about him.
He's a cheat and can't be trusted! We need strong ethical American to be President. Not cheat.
I won't argue Newt's character issues from the past, but if you think Obama is any better, just play reruns of his campaign promises and compare those to what he has done while in office. The guy is a bald faced liar...and I'd go one better...he's a sociapath because he can do it over and over knowing he's lying, and, he can do it looking you straight in the eye. That's scary. In the end though, it doesn't matter. The person elected will be the one who the public believes can get them out of this mess. Obama can't win on that platform, so he can only win by running a negative campaign and ripping his opponent. Newt would tear the big 'O' at least a couple of new assholes in any presidential debates. I'd like to see a Newt/Cain ticket, because Cain as a VP could go after Obama the way no one else could and the liberals are scared shitless of the guy (more than Palin). This will be a fun election...definitely a lot at stake regarding the future direction of our country.
tyler,,,, i understand letting people post but this guy? to say he is a libertarian and im for newt, is like telling me its raining while you are pissing in my pocket,,,,,, from movie layer cake
Original reads better
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4e8iAofnrw
Oh my God ...........are you kidding? good grief............is it so beyond the limits of your thinking to say such a thing? man do due diligence......please.......
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Kabbalah/jewish_cabala.htm
this man is a traitor to the americans and a clear and present danger to liberty (what's left of it)......
THE YIDS ARE COMING TO GET YOU!
Not "are coming" -- should be past tense. The Zionist controlled financial services industry, the Zionist controlled media/entertainment/advertising industry and the Zionist controlled military/industrial complex already have us.
“Our race is the Master Race. We are divine gods on this earth. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our worldly wise kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves.” — Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin (1977-1983) in a speech to the Knesset [New Statesman Magazine June 25 1982]
Begin's another lucky recipient of the Nobel "Peace" Prize.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4O-_pLoynk&feature=player_detailpage
Is this satire? Has MDB been given 'contributor' status? FFS!!
tyler needs to give this guy the hook...........
...either that, or one of the Tylers needs to hit the gong.
Will the real newt please stand up!
I'd be happier if he'd just slither back into his hole.
I honestly thought this article was a joke. But the more you read - the more the author seems to being truthful to his own thoughts. I can't believe anyone can be so ill informed. Gingrich is a vacillating liar - and might be my last option on the GOP list if not for the Israeli boot-licking glassy-eyed war monger Bachman.
ZH - this is a new low in articles. It is insulting and... bizarre - to appear on this site. Let's get rid of it and Whalen as a contributor.
Exactly. This is a puff piece from the right-wing religious nutters on the Council for National Policy ("a few hundred of the most powerful conservatives in the country"...NYT). Membership includes: Jack Kemp (dec'd), Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, John McCain, Steve Forbes, Pat Buchanan, Nelson Bunker Hunt, Tim LaHaye, Tom DeLay, Phyllis Schlafly, Rev. Sun Myung Moon, Oliver North, Janet Napoletano,..........
Cheeses, Tyler!! :-/
"Eye of Newt"
Come on. This guy is as corrupt as Delay or Clinton. He is a Washingon Lifer who has sucked on the taxpayer tit so long the cow is dead.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2011/1118/Being-a-Washing...
How do you extract several 10's of millions without really ever working a real productive job. Ask Clinton. Ask Harry Reid. Ask Newt.
Yes, he has some understanding of private enterprise, unlike the current boob in chief who knows absolutely nothing.....BUT when push comes to shove, he has a lot of favors to return for his ill-gained fortune and he will dole the largesse out to his cronies, not the best solution.
Pass.
Ron Paul or phukitall.
RPOP
Ron Paul our President
RP or phuckitall
Only Patriot
"You down with RPOP?" yeah, you know me.
I think we have found a campaign slogan....
No thanks - the only way he can lead a country, is if the South secedes. He has too much intellectual hubris about him, and no willingness to represent the entire US (unlike Romney). It doesn't help that Gingrich is willing to excuse illegals with even more amnesty.
The only way I'll consider a Georgia politician is if another Ohioan like William Tecumseh Sherman lays waste to their state beforehand (taking Gingrich's and Carter's kind down with it).
Gingrich isn't from Georgia. He is not a Southerner, he is a carpet bagger.
So it begins anew...another election where with about a year to go, everyone is trying to rationalize having to vote for the lesser of two weevils, er, evils. The justification for side-lining(or ignoring) Ron Paul is that 'he doesn't stand a chance'. Well he doesn't so long as people spend their time writing this shite about who's second best. So fucking what if he doesn't stand a chance? I'd rather cast my vote for a guy that I believe in than some POS who is just a all-white version of the last guy. Newt waffled in the 90's, I've read some pretty scathing looks at his record and I've seen very little to counter it even to this day. He talks out both sides of his face and has about zero credibility with me. I'll write in Ron Paul, but I'm not voting for Eye of Newt or the current douchebag smoking up the Oval Office. Settling just means you don't have the balls to stand up and vote your conscience.
rcwhalen:
"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."
My comments:
Although I am not an American I know that Theodore Roosevelt early in WWI argued that the United States also should go to war and spend money and lives on this completely unnecessary war. I can´t imagine that Ron Paul would have pushed for the same thing. Well, in any case the Roosevelt had his will in 1917 when the US entered the war.
CTG- You hit a relevant nail on the head. If the author doesn't know the difference between a progressive (TR) and a libertarian (Ron Paul), he is not a libertarian. Thus this is a useless post.
I thought the time travel part was good too! Truth and Fiction are so difficult to remember.
Please see Wilson's War by Jim Powell, if you really want to know how America helped fuck up the twentieth century.
They had to create a new line item on the TIF balance sheet for how much Newt owed them... that will be enough to sink him in a general election
Any man that will tell his wife he wants a divorce while she'e in the cancer ward, so he can go marry his mistress, is a piece of filth. How much money did you give zero hedge to float this Republican drivel? In a sane world grifter sobs like Newt (a filthy little slithery thing) would be tried for treason and shot.
I guess it's all good if you like unrestricted Mexican black tar coming up the NAFTA super highway - to a town near you.
Whalen, I used to read you. As of this post, you are dead to me. Fuck you and fuck your 'Uncle Sol', too.
Ron Paul for President.
RC...Thank you for your impressions and I believe much of what you say.
I believe Newt can navigate and get creative enough to hammer down the realities of our Constitution and Declaration of Independence with enough clarity so the American people can more intimately embrace individual freedom in
such a way where they can rise in this horribly dangerous time out of complacency and into a rally cry of productive efficiency.
Out of all the candidates I believe Newt is closest to that type of leader having the intelligence and gracefulness to work with his people as opposed to doing things to or for his people. I believe his message resonates more at the heart of what America should represent not a distorted or maligned progressive interpretation whose idea of government parasitism which seems, currently, to be the order of the day.
The ridiculousness of what I see that many of us are witnessing is indeed embarrassing to anyone with any common sense. I see politically minded whining children trying to tap into the American psyche not having the maturity to man up and whom seem to be clueless about the inner core realities associate with rugged individualism and the meaning of non coercion government controlled oppression.
Also, as far as Mr. Anonymous comment "As of this post, you are dead to me. Fuck you and fuck your 'Uncle Sol', too. Ron Paul for President."
Paul hasn't a chance in hell of ever winning much less getting the nomination. Some do not have the capacity to see the obvious especially while their head is up their ass.
Perhaps Mr. Anonymous will one day hear that loud pop that often comes just before a moment of clarity.
OMG!!! Please read ALL of these posts about the REAL Newt, including this excerpt below:
From an Infowars.com article posted about Newt today:
"Finally, in order to understand just how dedicated Gingrich is to destroying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, consider that he described himself as a “conservative futurist” who enthusiastically recommended as Speaker of the House his colleagues read Alvin Toffler’s 1980 book The Third Wave.
In the book, Toffler wrote a letter to America’s “founding parents,” in which he said: “The system of government you fashioned, including the very principles on which you based it, is increasingly obsolete, and hence increasingly, if inadvertently, oppressive and dangerous to our welfare. It must be radically changed and a new system of government invented – a democracy for the 21st century.” According to Toffler, our constitutional system is one that “served us so well for so long, and that now must, in its turn, die and be replaced.”"
Would you like to recant your post now?
You are simply parroting "Ron Paul can't win", like a good Tavistock mind-controlled zombie! Ever heard of Tavistock? I didn't think so....
Newt will uphold the constitution by supporting the Patriot Act and bombing Iran. Brilliant!
Fuck Newt, and fuck Whalen. I'll never read anything you puke out after this piece of shit article. Go back and suck some more Koch.
Gingrich sucks and so does Romney. The half white muslim is the worst. Ron Paul or Santorum or Bachmann in that order.
You cannot type Paul in the same sentence as Santorum (warmonger) and Bachman (warmonger-lite)....
That's like playing the Sesame Street game "One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong."
Like a stopped clock you were right twice in that post and the rest was wrong, wrong wrong.
Newt may be the only GOP (sheeple) candidate. Does not change the fact that Ron Paul is the only candidate for anyone who desires freedom.
LawsofPhysics
Newt may be the only GOP (sheeple) candidate
Matters not, who's CHOICE he is, he's Nominated, guaranteed OBAMA 2nd Term.