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.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
jeff montanye's picture

i was too, a couple decades ago.  re hcsk, ron paul's foreign policy may be his very best point (hard to say there are several).  foreign policy success is not measured by how many people one can kill but by how well the long term interests of the nation are defended.  and multiplying wars against an increasingly radicalized and empowered group of adversaries while allies dwindle doesn't do it.  as rumsfeld asked, are we making more of them than we are killing?  answer: yes.

Ying-Yang's picture

hscknight, Dr. Paul is correct on international policy and could school you and obummer about the banksters. Get over it and join the Paul revolution.

End the FED or we're DEAD.'s picture

Watch out! There's a Muslim under your bed!

FlyOverCountryBoy's picture

Newt did nothing to stop illegal immigration when he was Speaker.  Absolutely nothing.

Newt is not even a good historian (his chosen profession)!  He stated that Franklin Roosevelt was a great man who ended the Great Depression. Anyone who has a minimal knowledge of the history of that era knows the Depression did not end until after the war when Truman cut the Federal budget by almost 2/3rds (from about $95 billion to about 35 billion).  Roosevelt's policies were merely a continuation and expansion of Hoover's meddlesome, big-government policies, and worse. 





Lord Koos's picture

He may not have technically ended the depression but a helluva a lot more Americans had jobs by the end of his third term.

StychoKiller's picture

When you reach the bottom of the swimming pool, there's only one direction left -- check your premises.

Lord Koos's picture

Right, it was just lucky those jobs came back.

Optimusprime's picture



And besides that, he is, like all other possible candidates (besides the honorable Ron Paul, of course), just another congressional "whore for Israel".


That one just won't go away.  We are sick and tired of AIPAC calling the shots.  More and more people are aware of it, and with awareness comes rejection.

Tuari's picture

Totally agree. Newt's bad news. Heck Bill Clinton praising him has to be a big flashing sign of the obvious.

BW's picture

Newt? are you kidding me?

Not For Reuse's picture

And the moral of the story is that voting Republican is like sniffing anthrax but only up your right nostril

Bear's picture

So we all vote Obama back for another four years? Good move

el Gallinazo's picture

Remember the old 7-UP ads, "Buy the Uncola."  Well I would recommend that one votes for the un-Fascist, and there is only one in both "major" parties, Ron Paul.  I don't agree with all his economics, but this isn't a perfect world.  What an asshole Whalen is.  Like I would vote for a man who was carrying on an affair while his wife was stricken with cancer and would present divorce documents to her as she recovered from major surgery.  I would rather vote for Jon Corzine.

jeff montanye's picture

excellent comment.  ron paul isn't perfect but no one else is even good.  i worked my aging ass off for obama and he is no better than george w. bush.  and in many ways worse.  ron paul would do many things right.  and he is not being elected dictator for life.  there will still be congress and the courts, for what they are worth.  not to mention another election in four years.  but imo the inside job assassin is likelier than the electorate to end any paul administration.

bank guy in Brussels's picture

Hey, Mr Whalen, don't bogart that bong. Pass it over.

Did you get some of that super-weed from the Netherlands, that Dutch people used to ship to America inside of a hollowed-out cheese?

Troll Magnet's picture

ronald reagan was a libertarian? did rcw just prove that all bankers are fucking retards?

cossack55's picture

Reagan? Puuulease. WTF is up with TR? Ever heard of westerning? This guy is a dope.

dwdollar's picture

Of course they are fucking retards. Was it not obvious enough before?

Ted K's picture

Whalen likes Newt Gingrich because he knows Newt's soul is easily sold to the banksters who provide Whalen with his living.  After all, what would Christopher Whalen do for money if there was no corruption to warn us about after the blow up and say Chris "knew it all along". Where was Chris Whalen before the banks' blow-ups in 2008???  Whalen did try to sell some book December 2010, 26 months after the crisis (what do you know, just in time for your Christmas reading) and that sure was useful as hell after everyone and his brother knew the private banks had fucked America up the ass with a pipe lined with nails. Nothing like post crisis analysis to help with your 401K. Very useful.

Want to know the real reason why Chris Whalen LOVES Newt Gingrich??? Observe the following two links (please excuse the 20 second wait through the advertisement):

ClassicalLib17's picture

@ Ted K,  Curious that CBS used the TeaParty March on D.C. as a backdrop in this segment.  Wouldn't a shot of the OWS rallies have been more apropos?   I will vote for experience and a man, as an historian, who perhaps sees an opportunity to place his name in history as one of the all time greats.   I like Ron Paul, but the fact remains, he is not electable for a number of reasons.  A cabinet position would be where he would serve the most effectively.      

Lord Koos's picture

Newt is a loser against Obama, and just about everyone else.  If he's the best the Republicans can do then they are truly fucked.

jeff montanye's picture

i agree.  that's why ron paul is such a game changer.  he can beat obama and potentially heal some serious self inflicted wounds on the state.

ClassicalLib17's picture

You're not fooling anyone, you Obama supporter.  I will be pleased next November when we have a new president.  Hopefully,  he will do the right thing.  Ron Paul doesn't have a chance to win and none of you, supposed, Ron Paul supporters responding on this thread likely ever vote Republican.  Dedicated Republican voters, nationwide, will decide who their nominee will be. 

Joy on Maui's picture

Speaking just for 2 of us, you are wrong.  Never have voted Republican before in my life.  Will this year - Ron Paul all the way.

i-dog's picture

(deleted, after reading your latest response to akak)

Ted K's picture

"Libertarian" just means you're a ditto head Republican, but you just don't have the balls to admit it or back it up.  You have a right to waste your vote on Newt, and I respect your "independence".  Very few libs will vote for Newt based on his political record if he makes it to the nomination.  And it's going to be interesting to see how many "conservatives" vote for a philandering man working on his 3rd wife who found it convenient to put a Catholic fig leaf on just before running for Pres.  

Actually it's going to be more than interesting, it's going to be entertaining, as I can't recall a candidate's wife with as much antifreeze pumping through her veins as say..... oh yeah, that loser John McCain's wife in 2008. You know "the Maverick"??? "The Maverick" involved in the Keating Five S&L scandal that all you fucking illiterate "conservatives" couldn't remember even if you had read about it in the first place???

nmewn's picture

"Actually it's going to be more than interesting, it's going to be entertaining, as I can't recall a candidate's wife with as much antifreeze pumping through her veins..."

You've got to be kidding...Teresa Heinz Kerry & Hillary! come instantly to mind...(the terminally callous "I'll eat my cake in Spain while the country goes through stagflation back home") Michelle Antoinette notwithstanding of

jeff montanye's picture

you bet.  hillary may actually hold the record for the event.  but certainly honorable mention to the aforementioned mrs. mccain.  and while we are at it barbara bush.  nancy reagan was no slouch either.'s picture

Right. And it's good to be a Democrat like Nancy Pelosi. She sticks it to the corporations by buying Visa options and reselling them for a huge profit. Boy did she stick it to them! That's how we know we can trust her. Keep the faith.

Imminent Crucible's picture

What an oaf you are, Dead Ted. What a potty-mouthed, arrogant boor.

It's hardly worth the moments it takes to rebut your hateful, venomous ignorance. "Libertarian" and "ditto-head" don't go together, Mr. Carville.

As for Charles Keating and the S&L debacle, we remember it very well because we lived through it. We also remember the House Post Office scandal, the House Bank scandal, and the 13,785 other scandals that were headed up by Tip O'Neill, Tom Foley, Dead Ted K. and your other saints and heroes of the DemonCrap Party.

No, we won't vote for Newtie. That's because, like OKenya, he stands for nothing except Newt's self-interest. Gingrich is Baptist, he's Catholic, he's for the middle class, he's for the corporations, he's a Contract With America shill who's probably cheating on his third wife right now.

When I hear Gingrich say, "The only way to fix America is to abolish the Fed and jail every bankster CEO", then I'll know the Mayans were right and the world has ended.

jeff montanye's picture

don't be a fool.  newt (and romney and obama and ....) might say it.  obama said a lot of things before he was elected.  the trick is to find someone who might actually do it.  the only one visible that might possibly do it has been saying it and many other useful things (stop the wars, stop subsidizing zionism and persecution of the palestinians, end the war on drugs, restore civil liberties and the rule of law) for decades.

The Fonz's picture

All other politics aside, the biggest problem with Newt is that he is a pork barrel spender writ large. The amount of pork projects he got for his constituents was collosal.  This dude is a spender, he has been sanctioned by the congress for corruption already. THE CONGRESS... figured he was playing dirty pool. What does it take to get the congress to do such a thing? You want this person as president? When we have a confidence crisis and a fiscal crisis? I am sorry Mr. Whalen, that you have been put in such a tenuous position by your party. If I had to support Newt as a result of a party affilation I don't think I could write a piece like this.

Ying-Yang's picture

rcwalen.... you claim to be the libertarian wing of the republican party and tout The Gingrichofftaxpayersmoney as a choice? The election is a year away and you have given up on Ron Paul? Maybe if you write an article about electing Ron Paul he would have one more vote. You really care about the USA... pud!

Gingrichofftaxpayersmoney is part of the problem.

Libertarian wing my ass!

StychoKiller's picture

Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, just might start channeling Teddy Roosevelt and break up the big bank cartel in the US housing market.

Dood, even under the influence of LSD-25, NO ONE could be this delusional!

forexskin's picture

They musta ran outta room for the last line:


Careless Whisper's picture

NOTE TO TD: Why does the rating system start at 1 instead of 0 ??? I had to give this cocksucker a 1 vote when he really deserves a ZERO.  I'm kinda glad he posted this because now I know what type of moron this guy is.


ClassicalLib17's picture

 anyone but Obama            



I think that most respondents are Obama supporters,  judging by the hatred expressed today 

akak's picture

You are joking, right?

I fail to see even ONE comment in this thread that is even implicitly supportive of the Mulatto Usurper.

Methinks you are still inured to the false, hopelessly limited two-party paradigm.

ClassicalLib17's picture

@akak,  no I am not hopelessly limited to a two party paradigm, but, until the voting public wakes up,  I am not going to waste my precious vote on a candidate with poor debating skills and some positions I personally disagree with.  I ran for local city council and won on my third attempt at elected office, by six votes, as a Republican in a whopping majority democrat, hispanic majority ward.  My two previous unsuccessful attempts were as a democrat. I left the dems because I got sick and tired of arguing with them over reckless spending, appointing unqualified city dept. heads,  city gov't doing favors for residents on private property, lawsuits stemming from wrongful arrests and subsequent convictions, etc. etc. etc.  I do my new job full time because I can and that is my desire.  I worked 34 years as a union carpenter and finally ran out of work 22 months ago.  I am very good at what I do.  My new mission is attending to the considerable problems facing my ward's residents and those of the city in which I hold office.  I have learned in 7 short months what being between a rock and a hard place truly means.  I read alot and have been involved as a precinct committeeman in my city since 1990, but was not prepared for what I learned once I became one of nine alderman in my community.  As most of you already know,  we are in for a real shitstorm.  Thank you for your polite reply, sir