This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.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
- 45111 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
He is a hypocritical creep with a big mouth that likes to tell you how to live your personal and family life. Gee, where have I seen that before.
If this is all the GOP can offer it signifies how decrepit the GOP side of the two headed two party monster is.
Ron Paul will never be the GOP candidate simply by virtue of his intelligence and willingness to speak the unpleasant truth, something you can't do on the company payroll. The fact that the GOP can't find a a way to embrace a man like Ron Paul really tells me all I need to know.
Meanwhile Newt certainly does have practical experience with consumer finance and Congressional ethical rules dosnt he?
From @LOLGOP's Bubba parody:
Of course, we cannot forget the man who probably wishes he could go back to being forgotten, Newt Gingrich.
The only man alive who has a more pungent stink of failure on him than Newt Gingrich is Donald Trump. They both have three wives. But Trump declared bankruptcy four times. Newt would NEVER declare bankruptcy. He’ll only imply moral bankruptcy every minute of his life.
But let’s stick to the facts. Newt set up a website during the 2012 to fight the smears, which was nice. Usually Callista leaves fighting Newt’s smears to the night maids.
Newt insists he is a moral man. He firmly believes that marriage is between a man and woman who doesn’t have cancer.
Now, on Newt’s “fight the smears” website, I learned that Newt didn’t actually divorce his wife while she was dying of cancer. The tumor was benign, folks.
Newt has been married three times but we all know that his true love is the sound of his own voice.
Newt loves talking, especially when he can get paid to do it. He earned $30,000 an hour from Freddie Mac and claims Freddie was paying him to be a historian. If Newt’s a historian, Jack Abramoff should win the Nobel Prize in History, right after Bernie Madoff gets the Nobel in Economics and Newt and Donald share Husband of the Century.
But Newt loves revisionist history. He loves taking credit for the surplus I created, even though he said raising taxes on the rich would destroy the economy. And he even wrote a book where the Nazis won World War II. No wonder he called his health care plan “the Final Solution.”
But Newt isn’t just a twice-divorced lobbyist with a Nazi fetish. He’s also the only Speaker of the House in the history of the United States ever reprimanded for ethical violations. He paid $300,000 to settle his violations, which broke his fellow Republicans hearts. Especially David Vitter. You know how many diapers and hookers you can buy for $300,000.
Newt was also having an affair with a staffer while leading my impeachment. As the rest of his caucus was obsessing about Monica’s blue dress, Newt was obsessing on his own caucus. That makes him the world’s biggest hypocrite.
But look at that bastard, he’s the world’s biggest everything.
Now, this is the part where I’m supposed to say I really love Newt, but it doesn’t take a historian to see the only thing I love about the guy is how easy is to hate.
He’s Dick Cheney without the shotgun. He’s Boss Hog without the snazzy white suit. He’s an albatross on American politics, and that’s something that any historian who earns in one year what Newt does in two hours will be glad to verify.
All we need to know about "The Newt":
From an Infowars article 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.”"
my puppy for prez
Sounds just like Fascist we have already.
What we need is someone who will take us BACK to the beginning, and make a FEW changes,few,very few.And the Current regime would not approve, nor Newt if he advocated this horseshit.
+1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000^(10^1,000,000,000)
I'm just waiting for someone to make the argument that he'd be the best choice because it takes a corrupt politician to lead a corrupt country.
If he campaigns on that, I might vote for him.
"In 2012, you need a bigger crook in the White House than the crooks in Congress. Vote total crook. Vote Newt!"
Or:
"2012. The year of the corrupt president. Vote Newt."
I feel like I'm standing around waiting for someone to say, hey maybe we should take a closer look at this Ron Paul guy.
Then what I see is the GOP starting to say hey let's wheel out old shit for brains. That's the ticket.
and what a bonus first lady per the OP!
http://scooterm.blogspot.com/2011/05/callista-gingrich-in-age-between-jo...
WTF??? Newt?
Why settle when we have Ron Paul!!!!
Something to consider is that control of the congress matters more in this next cycle than who the president is/isn't. Imagine RP as prez. WTF do you think he would really be able to accomplish? I love the man and more so his message, and yet seriously, the average american citizen is just not prepared to deal with the scope of change he advocates for. I'm not trying to be an ass (that just comes naturally) but seriously people, America is way to far gone for RP to just step in and 'fix' it.
So which party ought to be in control of the house/senate? Regardless of who the prez is that might actually matter more. For all the well deserved disdain that our congressional representatives reap, I submit that balance of power at the congressional level is every bit as important as who the man in front of the curtain might be.
And so now to earn your bitter contempt, I'll state that the 'tea party' types, you know those crazed, racist, dangerous, deranged, extremist that the media so brilliantly disected and disposed of? Yeah, those people. They need to control congress.
Keep your eye on the ball.
Who becomes prez matters. Support/resistence in congress might matter even more. SOme love divided power but I believe it's time to go 'all in' and choose sides. Like 'progressive'? Fine let's do it. Give obama his second term and both houses.
Don't like 'progressive'?
Then it's GOP all in all the way.
RP?
Okay, me to. Now seriously who the fuck ought to control congress then?
Just a simple question.
The president directly controls the military as well as all government departments. Ron Paul could and would start to clean house on day one. I imagine that he'd have a small inauguration and he'd be at his desk fifteen minutes after being sworn in.
don't forget, while the power of the president is technically limited to being able to veto bills and to being 'commander in chief', the administration has immense power via the IMPLEMENTATION of laws and bills that congress passes.
E.g. Obamacare, even though the administration managed to get congress to pass it, they have instituted waivers to various companies.
By the same token, Ron Paul's administration might not be able to get Dept of Education, HUD, Energy etc. technically/legally eliminated, but they can setup rules and procedures to effectively neuter those departments, and remove the bulk of funding for it. THAT is what Ron Paul can do.
As much as we like Paul, he can not communicate his ideals sufficiently to Joe Sixpack...and the MSM doesn't help him in this regard. You have to work to understand Paul's positions...Joe Sixpack won't do that.
Newt is a master communicator...ready with a soundbite when needed, able to talk minutia when required.
Paul's age is also a deterrent. If you want Paul to have a place at the table, elect Newt. He's likely to keep Paul close; economic advisor if not a cabinet position. I doubt Newt would ask him to run as VP, but that would be a strong conservative ticket.
I REFUSE to play the "lesser of two evils" game anymore! Besides, they are ALL globalist shills except for Ron Paul anyway.
If I have to vote for someone, I will WRITE IN Ron Paul's name.
If Obama wins as a result, then that is what this f'ing country deserves!
agreed.
I hate when people's excuse for not voting for Ron Paul is something to the effect of 'well average person is too stupid, so they won't understand/vote for RP, so we'll have to just vote for whoever they vote for".
So who the fuck is more stupid? The sheeple or YOU for knowing better but still following the sheeple?
Exactly! The "lesser of two evils" is still a win for the kleptocracy and a vote for continuation of the looting.
the lesser of two evils is what obama is counting on to get his base, whom he has betrayed, to vote for him.
"Paul's age is also a deterrent."
Paul gets on an actual bicycle and rides dozens of miles of real road on a regular basis. Newt ignores his stationary bike on a regular basis.
Oh please, no matter how many times he tries to reinvent himself, Newt can never run away from the fact that he's an adulterous, ethically challenged, narcissistic blowhard.
anything but that. defeat obama to keep the crimes of the w. bush administration from becoming bipartisan. obama is a soulless monster (which insults other soulless monsters).
Does that mean you don't want an adulterous, ethically challenged, narcissitic blowhard for our next president?
How about an faithful, honest, humble patriot? Nah...he's unelectable for some reason.
I guess we'll just stick with the lying sack of shit we've got now.
You left off double talking hypocrite lying flipflopper corporate whore.
Ron Paul is the best choice. I wish his son was running because age would not be an issue. Newt is a POS like Romney and Perry is a LBJ Republican like Bush.
The younger Paul is a standard bought and paid for Republican.
I support RP and donated to his son even but Rand believes corporations are people...that is all I needed to hear and now know he's a corporate shill. If corporations are people how do we send them to jail?
I am glad to see you guys get it...
really. they have the same initials and the same last name. they do not have the same beliefs. it is not a dynasty. his age is an advantage. he has formed his beliefs. he does not have to insure his next forty years of income. he is not as easily frightened. he may not even care if he is reelected. he's been around the block. not his first rodeo....
That is a good question.
I'm a big fan of Whalens work but this article was hard to swallow. Gingrich is no libertarian (not even close). The man advocates expansion of the patriot act and is part of the military industrial complex. Whalen has done great work on Fannie and Freddie while Gingrich was lobbying for them. Comon we can do better than this. Done even get me started on the FED, Gingrich cant even pretend to be Ron Paul on that issue. Ron Paul has been fighting the fed for decades and we are suppose to trust Gingrich because he throws us a one liner, please.
Hey, I understand and respect that you don't care for this article. I think Gingrich is a creep and I know that he is also a neocon opportunist. If I am provided the option I will vote for RP. I suggest also that we unfortunately must acknowledge the reality that it is 99% likely at this point that our choice in November 2012 will be romney/obama or gingrich/obama. Knowing that pisses me off and yet if those are the choices then desicions will need to be made based on the options available. It's a sad reality that we really don't have any good options available but as with so many other realities in life you sometimes just have to choose the lesser of two evils. At least gingrich would likely make some good choices and the man is leaps and bounds preferable to the narcistic dimwit anti capitalist pretending to run the show today.
And so while holding my nose and doing so with sadness, yeah, I'll vote gingrich (not romney, if it is romney I will write in RP and let obama finish us off in hopes that from the ruins something good can emerge).
Damn.. it is november.... support Paul now and later You talk of defeat and outcomes now?. Build support if you really want Paul to win.
I will let you in on a little secret.............
The world will look much different in 12 months. Stay with your values and principals. Make a difference elect Dr. Paul
absolutely. any independent or democrat interested in real reform should register republican, if only for this election cycle, and vote for ron paul in the republican primary and again in the general election.
Just don't take Romney up on it if he offers you a ride. You may wind up like his dog, strapped down to the roof of his car.
Consider writing in Ron Paul perhaps? The "choices" we are offered are not in our interests at this point.
He'll call Obama a socialist when he's running, but if he wins, he'll just continue the exact policies of the last four Presidents since Reagan.
You didn't really think they let a politician have any actual power did you, rc?
Newt is hilarious. I'm going to lay in the nitrous if he gets the nom. What a laugh riot.
This screed is well below Whalen and, of course, ZH.
Newt,... we hardly got to know ya, and please save your history lessons for whalen!
I think we can all probably survive diverse views. Whalen is a luminary in so many ways. That is not to say that everybody must agree with everything he says.
But when a "diverse opinion" is founded on blatant error, one has to question the judgement of said opiner!
No rcwalen is a PUD that could be supporting Dr. Paul if he wasn't co-opted
So sad. Tyler, we know you gotta pay the bills (I hope to hell the guy's paying to post) but there is no room for this dogshit.
Hey he is likely right, but the worst case is if they do not ask Ron Paul to be VP. If he goes freelance we have real problems. If he ran as an independent it's a slam dunk for term two...ouch
NO difference b/t R's and D's anymore...all the elite ones, the "electable" ones, are GLOBALISTS!
Why can't everyone see that the office of the President is simply a marionette stage?
If one looks at the items the President is in charge of from the US Constitution, one can make the case that the President is simply a Federal Magistrate, no more, no less. US President != King!
Newt Gingrich is just the "Flavor of the Month". http://thereaganwing.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/flavor-of-the-month/. LOL!
Well, given the responses to this piece, one thing is certain.
ZH is populated by metrosexual youngsters who confuse market intelligence with wisdom, and possess as much wisdom and intelligence regarding history and the world as their OWS sisters.
Ron Paul's ideology about currency/Fed may be spot on, but he is hugely ignorant of international realities and would make Obama look like a tough guy - as opposed to the Urkel he is.
HCS Knight...
"Ron Paul's ideology about currency/Fed may be spot on, but he is hugely ignorant of international realities and would make Obama look like a tough guy - as opposed to the Urkel he is."
Are not the critical issues today...The debt, the currency, and the Fed the real issues that need to be discussed. Having been a member of congress for 24 years I doubt he is ignorant of 'international realities' unless our congressmen do not receive true and accurate information. You have access to more?
Is that glitter from gold on your uniform?
aah yes, the realities of international foreign relations.
those Iraqi WMD's could have killed us ALL. And Saddam was going to use them on Israel and all of us!
Oh wait.. my bad...
that Libyan dictator was a threat to our interests! they were going to kill us all! They were Al Qeda supporters.
Oh wait... my bad...
I mean Iran's WMDs could kill us ALL. And Ahmadenijad is going to use them on Israel and all of us!
I find it SO FUCKING STRANGE that NO ONE seems to have learnt ANYTHING from 6,000 US soldiers deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. That the war propoaganda that is being run by the MSM and Dems and republicans is still believed.
If the realities are that Iran is such a threat, Pakistan is even larger threat AND THEY HAVE THE FUCKING BOMB. Not to mention North Korea too have THE BOMB. And have detonated it twice, and shelled south korea. Has Iran shelled any foreign cities lately?
At least lets not be disingenuous. I don't understand how those who want war with Iran don't also advocate for war with North Korea, Pakistan, Syria (well that's coming), Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. etc.
Also I wonder how many of those who are advocating for those wars are ACTIVE MILITARY serving in the army, not as a remote control drone pilot.
If people truly want to 'support the troops'... PAY MORE TAXES, SIGN UP FOR THE MILITARY, BRING BACK THE DRAFT. Yeah... lets see how many people 'support the troops' then.
that's pragmatic metrosexual to you, kind sir
"Ron Paul for President" ,... Period!!!
I'm middle-aged, fat, and slovenly.