« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Newt Gingrich: The man for this moment

By: barleycorn (Diary)  |  December 14th, 2011 at 11:29 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Like others on this site including at least one front page poster, I came relatively late to the realization that Newt Gingrich is our best choice for 2012. Humans are herd animals for the most part with only sporadic twitches of original thought, and thus I bought into the conventional wisdom that Mr. Gingrich is a brilliant old wind bag with a checkered past and no serious electoral future.

It took months of seeing other lesser mortals fall one after another while watching Gingrich rise above with eloquence and substance, before the penny began to drop. I think it was sometime in September or early October when I started to consider Newt as a viable pick for next year. Since that time nothing has happened to change the direction of my thinking while much has occurred that reenforces it.

It has become trite to the Nth power to point out that we live in perilous times fraught with dangers from both within and without. But trite or not, time is slipping away for America.  In the Spring of 1940, Great Britain was on the brink, lead by a dithering nincompoop and facing almost certain invasion by German forces. In that hour, that nation turned to a 65 year-old irascible has-been and by so doing, saved herself.

Newt Gingrich is Churchillian in both many of his positive attributes and some of his flaws. A brilliant mind wedded to an outsized ego can be an ugly thing to see at times,  but that combination is what is often desperately needed to solve huge problems, over-come massive adversity, and jerk a nation back from the edge of oblivion.

I like Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann but I have very little confidence that they at present have the vision, creativity, and raw political skills to find solutions to the towering mess in Washington.

Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum each have significant negatives that render them unfit and unqualified to be President of the United States.

Jon Huntsman was passably good for Utah but has a mixed record of deeds and rhetoric since that time that makes him a poor fit for the Republican Party in 2012

Newt Gingrich in spite of his ideological flaws and sad history of marital failings, is the man made for this moment. His intelligence and confidence in his abilities will serve him and us well as we grapple with trillions in debt, a national crisis of confidence, and a world skittering toward collapse and chaos.

We near the day of decision. Will we seize the moment and make the choice that will begin to save our homeland or will we passively stand about like fools and idiots as 400 years of history dissolves before our eyes?

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • buddyp

    Re: Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum each have significant negatives that render them unfit and unqualified to be President of the United States.

    What are the “significant negatives” you think render Santorum “unfit and unqualified” to be president?

    • acat

      See, the thing about Santorum is that his national image is, apparently, significantly different from his image in his old PA house district. Nationally, he’s the “Terry Schaivo” guy, the “intelligent design” guy .. not a fiscal guy.

      And it doesn’t help that he supported Snarlin’ Arlen all those years.

      Mew

  • izoneguy

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      Newt talks like a Lefty. Romney has successfully governed like one.

      • themobhasspoken

        Romney did not raise taxes, did not pardon any criminals, did not expand gay rights or abortion rights, and did not support funding for stem cell research.

        Newt is unacceptable to me because he is not trustworthy. He has thrown his family, his church, and his party under the bus on many occasions. He has not been loyal to conservatives.

        • thirstyboots

          People don’t remember, but Gingrich has positioned himself as opposed to Goldwate/Reagan conservatism since the 80s.

          Gingrich believes the government can provide answers to pretty much every problem that afflicts society – but that only a very smart man like him has the correct answers.

          He’d be Bush on steroids. We’d have a NCLB type of “reform” every month. I suspect he’d be the most pro big government President since Lyndon Johnson.

          I trust Romney much more to have the federal government much less active and it’s not even close.

        • keven

          Romney didn’t raise taxes. But he did raise fees, which is worse.

  • barleycorn

    You think a 15 year old clip of Newt Gingrich talking about the National Forest Service has some relevance to the 2012 presidential election? Really?

    Amazing.

    • themobhasspoken

      Here’s Newt Gingrich praising Andy Stern, the former head of the Service Employees International Union:

      “Andy Stern, the head of the Service Employees International Union, is the union leader who probably best understands the challenge of the world market and the need to make American union members productive in the face of world competition. Sadly, he is a distinct minority among union leaders.”

      Andy Stern wrote a column two weeks ago about how U.S. capitalists should learn from China’s “superior economic model”.

      Gingrich was the first and only Speaker of the House to be disciplined for wrongdoing. And it was not a party-line vote. 395 representatives, including most Republicans, voted to discipline Gingrich. What was he disciplined for? Misleading the committee. Why is that relevant? Because he is currently trying to mislead conservatives.

      Newt wants you to forget that he has described himself as a “realpolitick Wilsonian” and a “Teddy Roosevelt progressive”. He wants you to forget that he has heaped praise on FDR, calling him “the greatest president of the 20th Century”.

      I’m not about to forget it, Newt. I won’t be voting for you.

      • barleycorn

        “Andy Stern, the head of the Service Employees International Union, is the union leader who probably best understands the challenge of the world market and the need to make American union members productive in the face of world competition.”

        Notice that Newt didn’t say “Andy Stern is a great guy and I plan to make him Labor Secretary”?

        He simply said that Stern is “the union leader who probably best understands the challenge of the world market”.

        Are you not able to understand that Stern could be the worst human on Earth yet could also be accurately described as “the union leader who probably best understands the challenge of the world market”.

        You’ll have to do better.

        • texashistorian

          You sound like Newt, now. We shouldn’t have to parse out his words so carefully to try and figure out what he means. The way you see his answer is classic Gingrichism; he never says things in a direct enough way that he can’t wiggle out of it later and claim nuance. The bottom line is, is that Andy Stern is a Marxist labor leader. Newt knows, or ought to know this. A Marxist like Andy Stern sees the challenges of the world market in terms of capitalism being the problem. Now, tell me again how it is that Newt can say Stern “best understands the challenges of the world market,” when Stern’s worldview is anathema to conservatism, and then claim Newt wasn’t endorsing the man. Be serious here- Newt is a government guy. That’s fine if that’s how he feels (FDR the greatest Pres. of the 20th century anyone?) but he should be honest about it and let voters really decide. Don’t spin a web of words, then tell us later what you REALLY meant by them, Newt.

          A candidate needs to be taken at face value. If Newt says things, he should expect to be taken seriously, and be big enough to own up to what he thinks, not try to hoodwink us after the fact and claim he never meant it the way it sounded.

          • barleycorn

            Going back and grabbing a line here and a line there to prove your already arrived at opinion.

            Context matters a huge amount. Using certain groups of metrics FDR was the greatest president of the 20th Century.

            If I say Babe Ruth was the greatest baseball player of all time, that doesn’t mean I condone his drinking and carousing. That doesn’t mean he was the greatest at everything. It doesn’t mean he was a nice guy.

            Being nuance challenged doesn’t make you right.

          • texashistorian

            I’d like to know if these “certain” metrics are metric by which we, as conservatives, would agree equal greatness. I can tell you that if you measure the growth of federal spending, or the number of federal agencies, or the reduction in personal liberties, and consider those good things, then FDR was a great President. So tell me what metrics would lead Newt to that statement? Secondly, what was Newt doing mentioning Andy Stern in so positive a light if he was only pointing out some basic fact? If you use the metrics of a radical Marxist labor leader, then yes, Andy Stern (to paraphrase your Babe Ruth example) best understands the challenges of the global market. In what universe would a conservative, especially one who wants my vote, ever extoll the virtues of an Andy Stern?

          • barleycorn

            Your attitude and approach is coming directly out of the liberal playbook. Opponents are all bad all the time and nothing positive shall ever be said about them.

            I absolutely will not chase Newt Gingrich quotes around every time one of you Anti-Newtbots throws one out. Give me the actual context and I’ll consider it.

            I am sick and tired of the idea that someone I disagree with on the issues can’t have any redeeming qualities whatever.

            To the question regarding Stern. I wouldn’t say that the quote you dug up is wildly positive. Depending on what point Newt was making and his audience at the time, I suspect he was mainly trying to draw some distinctions between different groups or types of labor leaders. Given that he was at the time (2007) a private citizen, I could not care less about what he said about Andy Stern.

            About FDR. This may be difficult for you to grasp but like Newt, I am a person first, and “conservative” second. So I can look at a beautiful woman who happens to be a liberal and appreciate her beauty in spite of her dumb ideas.

            FDR was man of considerable talent and ability. No less a conservative icon than Ronald Reagan thought he was the bees knees. Though Reagan later in life became a conservative and thus rejected many of Roosevelt’s policies, I am not aware that he ever lost his admiration for FDR as a national and political leader.

            FDR was probably the single greatest communicator ever to hold the office. Take the time to listen to a few of his speeches. He always spoke calmly, in simple easy to understand words, and in a straightforward conversational tone.

            In terms of economics and war he didn’t know 1/10 what he thought he knew nor 1/20 of what he is credited for by liberal sycophants. He displayed authoritarian tendencies and had way too many communists and fellow travelers around him.

            Are there things that I admire about FDR? Yes.

            By the same token I am fervently grateful that he died as the war was winding down and didn’t have a chance to further implement his grand plans.

            I suspect Gingrich was speaking as a historian regarding FDR’s abilities and I doubt very much he was endorsing the New Deal.

          • texashistorian

            Wow, you kill your argument by descending into personal insults. If you can’t agree that there are legitimate reasons that some might pose to question whether Newt is the best candidate for our nomination, then so be it. I am a Perry supporter, but I acknowledge there are some things that he needs to deal with, and reasons some might not care for the man. What you are admitting to is that you don’t really know the context of Newt’s statements. On the face of them, they are suspicious, and that is the question, isn’t it? If I am going to back Newt for President, then those questions need answers. You liking Newt and therefore assuming that it’s good doesn’t do any thing towards that end. For what it’s worth, he is my second choice after Perry. But there are things in his record worth looking at more closely, and some things that are plain scary.

            Nowhere in any of my posts on this site or anywhere else have I been an anti-Newt bot. There are things about Newt that I question, and apparently that is not okay. I admire your tenacity in defending him, I surely do, but disagreement does not equal blanket condemnation. Live by your own principles! Andy Stern is a political jackass. Can he be a good father or husband, yes. But seriously, that is NOT what Newt was talking about. I disagree with you on FDR as the greatest communicator. That’s fine, but if that is what Newt meant, then he ought to come out and say so. I want an explanation that Newt has not given thus far. So what are we to make of it? We can blindly assume that his intentions and meanings have all been good, and in the best service of conservatism, or we can question. I choose the latter, you choose the former.

            I am going to bow out of this, now, but leave you with this. Newt promoted a government approach to solving man-made global warming and sat on couch and did a PSA with Nancy Pelosi in support of that. Newt later said that was stupid. What he never said was, how he meant stupid. Was it stupid to be seen doing that politically? Was it stupid to back the idea in the first place? Which? Newt has never clarified, and that lack of clarification on several issues is the single largest problem I have with Newt as our Presidential candidate. If that makes me an anti-Newt bot, or bad person in your book, okay. I can live with it.

        • pennsylvaniafarmer

          I’d also like to see the Stern column about China having a superior model. Stern is of course a dyed in the wool lefty, but he’s too smart to state simply that China’s workers, most of whom toil in economic conditions equal to those of the pre-labor movement in the U.S., are better off under the Chinese model. Something sounds distorted there.

          One of Newt’s best traits, I think, is his ability to disagree with his opponents without caricaturing them (though he’s certainly not immune from doing that). I believe that Newt, despite his character issues, has an approach that could really play to independents and give Obama as tough a fight as Romney.

  • conservativecurmudgeon

    Versus, say, Obama– who has only one idea: More and Bigger Authoritarian Jack-Booted Government.

    The terrific thing about Newt is that he’s shown the Legislative Chops to actually accomplish the reductions in the size, scope, and reach of the Federal Government about which he’s so often evangelized.

    Perry, Bachmann, Santorum, are all first-rate men and women, and I would celebrate their elections, as well. But, they do lack this experience.

    • Common_Cents

      DC is complicated. All the simple messages sound great but processes and strategy to get stuff done is complicated. He should be using that as a differentiator.

      Luntz said Gingrich won the post debate poll w/ 25,000 participating, until later when the Paulites kicked in gear.

  • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

    …it was as Speaker of the House in the 1990′s.

  • WillWong

    Just got a call from the RNC asking for donations! Told her to let the Establishment know not to shaft Mitt Romney down our throats and that any money that would go the RNC are being diverted to Newt! She acknowledged my concern and assured me my voice is being heard!

  • Common_Cents

    Well, Todd Palin ;)

    Palin said he has not spoken to Gingrich or anyone from the former House speaker

    • izoneguy
      • Common_Cents

        I believe she was waiting for either Perry or Gingrich to excel or drop. Probably her decision depends on SC. However, her delay in making an endorsement is probably related to contractual reasons on Fox to keep viewers interested.

        • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

          and it is just plain stupid of her to endorse Newt, who is the very things she made her name railing against.

          • JSobieski

            You have no evidence to support what you say. You might as well say something like Perry and Palin are former lovers, and that the breakup didn’t go smoothly.

            The idea that Palin has a “master” is silly. Before when Palin had no money (so adding money and exposure could actually be tempting), she was Joan of Arc. Now that she is well established and can write her own ticket, you accuse her of selling out? To Fox News? LOL The conspiracy theories on this site are really stunning.

            12 months ago you were probably accusing me of hating Palin. Now her former fans accuse her of being a corporate flack. Totally crazy.

            What will you do if Perry takes a job with Fox News and endorses Chris Christy in 2016? Will he also be trying to please his Fox News “masters”?!?!?!!?

            Maybe Fox News will start a reality show called “Driving Mrs. Palin”. Perry could be the wise and witty driver and Palin could be an old crank.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            And, you know I was having gas pains at the thought of defending Palin :-) , but you’re right and center is 100% wrong. It’s the arrogance of youth.

          • JSobieski

            for defending her after getting flamed for more than a year for being a hater.

          • lineholder

            ROFL, JSobieski. Sorry, but you did invite it, you know?

          • JSobieski

            I just didn’t support her for President after she quit being governor.

            I am also a don’t get emotionally invested in a candidate/campaign/politician kind of guy.

            Being governor for 2 years doesn’t reveal much of a record either way, and that is essentially what I repeatedly said.

            Most of my complaints pertained to what Palin’s supporters were saying, not Palin herself.

            I was familiar with Palin before she became the VP nominee and was extremely happy she was picked. Both the presidency is position that requires more of a record.

          • jakeofalltrades

          • WillWong

            Your ranting against Sarah Palin is totally off base!

          • JSobieski

            By telling Palin to endorse Newt, they fool everybody into believing that there is no conspiracy.

            I know there is a tie in here somewhere to the Kennedy assassination, but I haven’t figured that part out yet.

          • izoneguy

            She will help whoever becomes the Republican nominee…

  • david1313

    like no other in the field. Most believe that. They worry about his ‘baggage’, not realzing they all have baggage, and the democrats are coming after all of them.

  • WillWong

    Romney is an establishment guy….more of the same!
    Santorum lost by 18% to Casey in 2006, endorsed Arlen Specter over Toomey…too high a risk!
    Perry….a good guy with a good track record in Texas….not sure how he can go toe to toe with Obama….lower risk than Romney or Santorum!
    Ron Paul….Not going there!

    Which leaves us Newt Gingrich…..risks includes….tons of baggage….Flip side….we already know that and some baggage can be attributed to his propensity to fight for his beliefs.
    Newt’s strength…..Proven record of balancing budgets, welfare reform, job creation….second to none of the existing candidates. Great debater…ability to stand toe to toe with Obama without a telepromter. Been there! Done that!

    Base on a calculation of all the risks, I am prepared to go with Newt!