Posted on 12/20/2011 11:08:45 AM PST by Servant of the Cross
If Newt Gingrich were being nominated for sainthood, many of us would vote very differently from the way we would vote if he were being nominated for a political office.
What the media call Gingrich’s “baggage” concerns largely his personal life and the fact that he made a lot of money running a consulting firm after he left Congress. This kind of stuff makes lots of talking points that we will no doubt hear, again and again, over the coming weeks and months.
But how much weight should we give to this stuff when we are talking about the future of the nation?
This is not just another election, and Barack Obama is not just another president whose policies we may not like. With all of President Obama’s broken promises, glib demagoguery, and cynical political moves, one promise he has kept all too well. That was his boast on the eve of the 2008 election: “We are going to change the United States of America.”
Many Americans are already saying that they can hardly recognize the country they grew up in. We have already started down the path that has led Western European nations to the brink of financial disaster.
Internationally, it is worse. A president who has pulled the rug out from under our allies, whether in Eastern Europe or the Middle East, tried to cozy up to our enemies, and bowed low from the waist to foreign leaders certainly has not represented either the values or the interests of America. If he continues to do nothing that is likely to stop terrorist-sponsoring Iran from getting nuclear weapons, the consequences may be beyond our worst imagining.
Against this background, how much does Newt Gingrich’s personal life matter, whether we accept his claim that he has now matured or his critics’ claim that he has not? Nor should we sell the public short by saying that they are going to vote on the basis of tabloid stuff or media talking points, when the fate of this nation hangs in the balance.
Even back in the 19th century, when the scandal came out that Grover Cleveland had fathered a child out of wedlock — and he publicly admitted it — the voters nevertheless sent him to the White House, where he became one of the better presidents.
Do we wish we had another Ronald Reagan? We could certainly use one. But we have to play the hand we were dealt. And the Reagan card is not in the deck.
While the televised debates are what gave Newt Gingrich’s candidacy a big boost, concrete accomplishments when in office are the real test. Gingrich engineered the first Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in 40 years — followed by the first balanced budget in 40 years. The media called it “the Clinton surplus” but all spending bills start in the House of Representatives, and Gingrich was speaker of the House.
Speaker Gingrich also produced some long-overdue welfare reforms, despite howls from liberals that the poor would be devastated. But nobody now claims that they were.
Did Gingrich ruffle some feathers when he was speaker of the House? Yes, enough for it to cost him that position. But he also showed that he could produce results.
In a world where we can make our choices only among the alternatives actually available, the question is whether Newt Gingrich is better than Barack Obama — and better than Mitt Romney.
Romney is a smooth talker, but what did he actually accomplish as governor of Massachusetts, compared with what Gingrich accomplished as speaker of the House? When you don’t accomplish much, you don’t ruffle many feathers. But is that what we want?
Can you name one important positive thing that Romney accomplished as governor of Massachusetts? Can anyone? Does a candidate who represents the bland leading the bland increase the chances of victory in November 2012? A lot of candidates like that have lost, from Thomas E. Dewey to John McCain.
Those who want to concentrate on the baggage in Newt Gingrich’s past, rather than on the nation’s future, should remember what Winston Churchill said: “If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost.” If that means a second term for Barack Obama, then it means we’ve lost, big time.
You and Paul are a good match.
However, Newt has expressed favor for the health mandate, climate change and he called the Ryan plan "social engineering". His calling FDR the greatest President of the 20th century is what a majority on the left believe.
Are we not caring what a candidate says anymore just because he's not Romney?
And FDR’s so-called strength makes him the greatest President? Really?
Here are two questions for NRO...
1.) Name significant Conservative accomplishments for Newt Gingrich
Answer- several.. Contract with America, Welfare reform, budget balanced, capital gains cut..
2.) Name one significant accomplishment for Mitt Romney..
................
He keeps talking about the welfare reforms he implemented. It was not all a good thing. For example,if your son is identified as the father, for the next 18 years he will pay inordinate amounts of child support. If he is lucky, and DNA tests are performed he will not be responsible for another man’s child. I have seen fathers sleeping in their cars over this, never seeing the child Newt insists they pay for. This definitely does not encourage families, it encourages women to be sure they pick several different men to finger as fathers for a lot of money they did not earn.
Of course he was reffering to the way FDR led the country during the war years and has specified not during the depression years, but I think you know this it’s been brought up enough.
They stripped him of the Speakers post and immediatly started spending more and much more in earmarks and increasing government. Look at the stats and see how spending increased after his departure. Sometimes you can tell if someones your friend by his enemies.
There is a difference between whether one agrees with a person’s politics and their place historically, Newt is a historian.
This point seems to have escaped you.
When you have Ronald Reagan in the same century, how can you pick FDR? How can you pick FDR anyway?
Newt has said he is more Teddy R than FDR.
Tedddy R...not all bad, no, but a Progressive.
I don’t know about Cowman, but no such point escaped me.
I wouldn’t have gone with a politically correct pick of what liberal historians said, and that’s who mostly writes our history.
I would’ve gone with Reagan, because I truly believe he was the greatest. He wasn’t there to try to remake America by Progressivism, but to try to restore what he could of what our Founders meant.
Btw, I thought you didn’t like (appropriately so) personal attacks. Or at least when others did so to you.
The fact that it didn't come to pass as a result of the Impeachment of Clinton could hardly be the fault of Newt.
Newt is the dream candidate. With one vote we can stick it to the Dumocrats and the elite Republican establishment at the same time. Now that’s what I call efficient government.
Good news today, too, in Gallup both Mitt and Newt poll 48% against Obama’s 50%. So the myth that Newt is not electable goes bust again.
I find it absurd that people think Obama can take Newt down with negative ads on his past personal transgressions. That annoying Tucker Carlson was pushing that idea again on Hannity tonight, but this time he was too scared and didn’t mention Newt by name. The hate mail to FOX must be piling up. I’d like to tell him Obama is not relishing the idea of running against someone with personal baggage, he is terrified of running against someone whose experience, depth of knowledge and political acumen puts his own untested, “affirmative action”-certified credentials to shame.
Who seriously thinks that their negative ads are going to better than OUR negative ads? We’ve got a freakin’ gold mine between the debt, Solyndra, Fast and Furious, Jon Corzine, failed stimulus, unemployment, gays in the military, flip-flop on Gitmo, et al. They’re going to look like idiots if they point to trivial stuff Newt did 2 decades ago in the face of all that. And for exactly how long do they think they can stretch that out before the public gets sick of hearing it and turns on them just out of sheer boredom alone?
The point does not escape me. I realize that Newt has studied history extensively and has specialized in the WW2 period which would be the FDR presidency. I just cannot admire someone who expanded the power of the presidency to dictatorial levels, proposed an income tax of 100%, established work camps, and presided over one of the biggest land grabs in US history. In addition to this he prolonged the depression through his socialist policies and tried to take over the supreme court by packing it with his own stooges.
If Newt wanted to select a strong leader of the 20th century he could have chosen Reagan, Coolidge, or if he wanted a war leader Eisenhower. Even Truman would have been better than FDR.
In my opinion a President needs to expand freedom in order to be great. FDR only expanded government oppression. Newt's other favorite Teddy Roosevelt started the ball rolling on the socialist decline of American Freedom.
This raises numerous alarms with me about Newt's view of governance.
Contrast this article with the nonsense spewed once again by Ann Coulter. I read the first paragraph from her today. The lady is insane. I have no doubt, that given the choice she would vote Obama over Newt.
Romney, is dishonest as they come. I respect his life style, and if he gets the nomination I will vote for him, but Newt is the man. He, like Bebe Netanyahu for Israel, is our Churchill. The more you listen to Newt, the more you like him.
Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-*
“BTW when you fight fire with fire you get more fire”
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Not really, setting a back fire is sometimes the only way to stop a forest fire. It burns fuel so that when the main fire reaches the area it dies down for lack of fuel. It may mean more fire for a while but less in the long run.
I guess all those postings about Clinton were just a waste of time...
The only Speaker in History to be removed for ethics.
The wisdom of Afronaut: You people would vote in Satan as long as he was a Republican. You are the fringe of society, soon to be ignored for the mess your generation has bestowed on America. Your Generation has destroyed the hope and dreams of anyone under 30.
Sowell is certainly an insightful thinker, but I have to wonder if his situation as a professor doesn't color his view. He has a whole world of academia and ideas as well as the political world. It seems like a lot of people who only have Washington politics have found it harder to make their peace with Newt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.