Posted on 02/06/2007 3:18:16 PM PST by Jean S
For those of you joining this thread from http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1789812/posts please see post #178.
B Knotts: The national debt only went up while Newt was speaker. Please see http://www.toptips.com/debt_history.htm Regarding the border, Newt was in a position to *lead* on the issue between 1994 and 1998, and he did not. I assure you the issue has been brewing for quite some time, and if it was his *job* to have foresight and to lead, and he did not, then we would be criminal to push someone like Newt.
I'm still waiting for someone to name an actual Newt accomplishment from 1994-1998, other than getting himself and others elected as Republicans.
"Though Newt is articulate like Reagan:
...
2) He had 4 years to balance the budget, and did nothing. "
HUH?????
Newt's 2 Congresses did more to blaance the budget (they succeeded!!!) than any other 2 congresses in history.
"1) He had 4 years to close the border, and did nothing."
Btw, they passed immigration reforms that incrementally helped. Clinton admin undermined immigration law with 'hidden amnesties'.
"That's exactly right, if we choose to ignore the fact that it was his Leadership that swept the Republicans into the Majority after 40 years (elected Speaker 1995-1999) of Democrat rule, and the architect of the Contract With America was forwarded by him, AND he led the House through the Clinton Presidency, IN SPITE of the Liberal MSM bombarding the country with Clinton-Speak and Leftist propoganda.
Now, if you think he should have ignored all that and focused on the Illegal aliens and the Debt, and not accomplished what his Leadership did, THEN you have a case.
Notwithstanding all those accomplishments, I stand by my contention that he is the CLOSEST thing to a Conservative in the list of potential 2008 candidates."
WELL SAID.
I am thinking that either Newt or Mitt Romney are acceptable. Mitt Romney is a leader with exutive epxerience and ability; and he is still with wife number 1 and articulate, ie, Newt without the personal baggage.
" .. out of a nation of 300 million, the Republican party can only dig up Newt Gingrich, then this country is finished anyways, AND I DON'T BUY THAT."
So, name 3 conservative Republican leaders who *would* be acceptable to be President, if you 'dont buy that' he is the best we can find.
"1) the national debt only increased"
Uh, that happened under Reagan and he was the best President of my lifetime.
"2) the borders stayed open"
That happened under Reagan too, yet he was the best.
Under Newt, they cut taxes and balanced the budget and enacted welfare reform - despite Clinton in the white house. That is amazing, and much better than the wimp leadership in the Congress in recent years that just got tossed out.
What about:
- Welfare reform
- Lower taxes and less spending
- Standing up to terrorists
- Solutions on Social Security and Medicare
- Pro-life and pro-Constitution on Judges
- supports traditional marriage
"Question: Will #1 and #2 unchecked, destroy this nation yes or no? "
Newt is not for amnesty, and is for bringing in English-only for citizenship. Read his "winning the future".
"The national debt still only went up under his watch as Speaker. That's NOT leadership."
You repeat this idiocy like a mantra. The national debt has gone up every single year for 150 years! So accordin to you America has hd no leader at all since the days of ... Martin Van Buren?!?
Let's see the whole context and record. You ignore the fact that 104th Congress under Newt cut the deficit by $100 billion in a single year! Then they went on to cut the deficit further by reining in total spending; they enacted tax cuts along with spending cuts; they *exceeded* their deficit reduction goals - goals the MSM and liberals said were impossible and draconian. And they fixed welfare, defended marriage (DOMA), and passed other good conservatives reforms.
And in the end they did succeed in eliminating the deficit for a while. Most importantly, they acheived the near impossible - GOVERNMENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF GNP SHRANK FOR 4 STRAIGHT YEARS.
That didnt happen since Newt left, even with a Republican President and non-Newt GOP Congress.
Newt presided over the most conservative Congresses we had in 50 years. I appreciate his leadership, which was excellent, and for 'conservatives' to ignore it is to spit in the face of historic reality.
I'm just not convinced that Newt would do anything different and make actual conservative changes... Vetoing spending bills, wall on the border, etc. Just seems like a lot of great talk and a suit...
"How does anyone know if all his baggage is out in the open?"
He was viciously attacked by Democrats for years and multiple false accusations were made against him. This was Democrat 'payback' for Newt actually defeating the Democrats.
They had their chance and threw over 100 ethics charges at him. Most were garbage.
"Sorry, but cheaters don't exactly inspire trust. How do we know his wandering eye won't land on someone else between now and election time?"
I am assuming that multiple-marriage Rudy and McCain are also off your list, then.
Romney still has wife #1. Go with him.
"IMO, Jim's wife."
Interesting, I think women have a bigger issue here than men. I will agree with one thing - If it is Newt vs Hillary, there will be a yawning gender gap. Somewhat ironic of course, since Newt is a boy scout compared to Hillary's husband, but that's politics.
I think also that Newt is smart enough to know this, understands his own electability issues, and so is cagey about the 2008 presidential run. HE would rather play the John-the-Baptist role and let someone else be the GOP messiah. .. but who will do it in a way that will win over the conservative base?
Rudy - No! McCain - hell no.
Romney? Maybe, needs to placate on many questions.
Anyone else? Hunter et al are not top tier.
So who should we run?
JimRob, a man after my own heart.
Here's my unabashed take on what I am looking for. No harm in laying out what we want to see if any wannabes take us up on it:
http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2007/02/who-should-be-our-next-president.html
What kind of person should we support for President? We ought to vote for candidates based on their character, their competence, and their vision and solutions. The candidate should be of good character and capable of leading and managing the vast behemoth that is the Federal executive branch, with a conservative vision that embraces the three legs of the Republican coalition:
1. A pro-free-market pro-freedom, small-Government, fiscal conservative who is for lower taxes, limited spending and less Government regulation.
2. A strong defender of American sovereignty (including our borders) and our national security who will win the war on terror (and understands it as a necessary war against violent radical Islamic extremism); someone who will stymie the anti-Americans both at home and abroad.
3. A pro-life, pro-family defender of traditional values, e.g., for school choice, for traditional definition of marriage, and opposed to the social re-engineering of the cultural left.
While we are at it, we need a candidate who can engineer solutions to: energy dependency, global warming, Federal budget deficit, US trade deficit, failures in American education, illegal immigration, Medicare and Social Security going bust, cultural degeneration and breakup of families, and global terrorism.
The candidate needs to espouse not just the right ideas, but be an articulate and inspiring leader. This leader should both win the election and win Americans - and the world - to pro-freedom conservative values and beliefs.
Against that tall order, in the words of U2's Bono - "I still haven't found what I'm looking for." We know it won't be any Democrat, all of whom are promoting different brands of socialism-lite, putting old, wrong, ideas in new wine skins. If you find the right candidate, let me know."
Our next RR--Congressman Steve King. Problem is he's a congressman and relatively unknown but he is the BEST spokesman Republicans have. If Freepers have not heard his special orders, they're missing something. His speech after the House vote on the Iraq war was outstanding.
Yup. dont know him. Link to info?
No other Republican can win.....there are no other true conservatives to vote for.
http://www.house.gov/steveking/news_all.shtm
>>"The national debt still only went up under his watch as
>>Speaker. That's NOT leadership."
>You repeat this idiocy like a mantra.
I repeated my question since I have gotten no good answer.
According to http://www.toptips.com/debt_history.htm the national debt went from $4.7 trillion to $5.5 trillion which means IT WENT UP. The fact that government spending as a percentage of GNP went down for those 4 years DOES NOT impress me, since we continued to pay interest on trillions of dollars, money we rob from our children's children.
What could he have said to stick up for the American taxpayer in 1994-1998? How about ...
"The hard-working American taxpayer is already extremely generous, and not a resource to be abused infinitely by reckless spending through your budget Mr. President. You want to steal from the pockets of our children to pay for this budget Mr. President. Surely Mr. President, you're not against children ... are you?"
I'm not even a politician, and I can do it! He's a professional, and he can't. How lame is that? He just had to hammer away like that, but he didn't even try.
>they *exceeded* their deficit reduction goals
I dare say their goals were very low. Just because you meet a goal, does not mean it was a worthy or lofty goal.
>So, name 3 conservative Republican leaders who *would* be
>acceptable to be President
>No other Republican can win.....there are no other true
>conservatives to vote for.
According to BillyBoy's posting here http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1780333/posts?page=164#164 Duncan Hunter is the leading candidate among registered FR users. I know that's only one and not three I offer, but it proves that we have at least one conservative out there that has no baggage, and doesn't have a history of running up the national debt, and has not abused our trust by not sounding the alarm on the border while in a position of prominence.
We don't need Newt.
"The fact that government spending as a percentage of GNP went down for those 4 years DOES NOT impress me,"
Well it should.
">they *exceeded* their deficit reduction goals"
I dare say their goals were very low. Just because you meet a goal, does not mean it was a worthy or lofty goal."
Their goal was a tough one, that Coongresses in years before and since failed to meet. They met it - they balanced the budget.
I'm sorry your grasp of budget history isn't that keen.
I'm sorry you dont understand the magnitude of the accomplishment that was done on your behalf. I'm sorry you dont understand the difference between total debt and the net Govt obligations. But if you actually took the time to study the numbers, you would find validation in what I say:
The most fiscally conservative congresses in 50 years were the 2 congresses under Newt's reign.
Yet you blast him based on a premise that doesnt even compute.
It's like you are looking at the Sistene Chapel and declaring a preference for a velcro Elvis painting.
"Hunter ... doesn't have a history of running up the national debt"
Hunter has been in the very same Congresses that Newt has been in, and then some!!!
So Hunter is not part of the GOP House majority that ruled since 1994? He didnt have some say as chair of military appropriations?!? He didnt vote on the very same budget you a castigating Newt over?!?!
Jeez. Are you really dense or is this just a put-on?
I thought Newt Gingrich and Duncan Hunter were good friends?
Personally, I didn't bother, because the issue is basically a non sequitur. You might as well criticize Newt for the price of tea in China.
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.