Christian values are a big part of but not all that matters to me. Rick Santorum’s voting record on Socially Conservative issues is at best no better than Newt’s then there is the matter of “Fiscally Conservate” issues. Then there would be the ability to articulate what is needed to fix America and to clearly define issues and solutions and the difference in the socialist and Conservative principles and ideas. Newt will take the fight to obama ans will beat him. The difference is being in Presidential, not wanting to denigrate Rick but I’ve heard him described as an “over zealous hall monitor” and I belive that is how he will come across and be portrayed. Social Conservative issues are important to me but that is not all that’s on the table. We need an extrodinary individual for these times and I can’t think of any, anywhere better suited for the task ahead than Newt Gringrich whether they are in the race or not. Below are some of thr reasons I’m for Newt.
Newt Gingrich, an Extroidinary Man for These Extrodinary Times
Newt Gingrich is a Historian, he loves this country and understands our Constitution, our system of government and the sacrifices made by patriots to create it, and the importance of maintaining it. He knows how government works and how it should work. He is intelligent, educated, and has common sense. He has been in the public eye for thirty five years and has made public controversial decisions, he has cast over 7200 votes, made over 15,000 speeches, written twenty four books. His voting record has been consistantly “Conservative” whether you are speaking in terms of “Social”, “Fiscal” or anything else, Newt Gingrich is “THE CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE.” His original “Contract with America” led to CONSERVATIVE Republicans taking the US House of Representatives and appears to be the basis for the modern day Tea Party. Under his leadership as Speaker of the House the Republican Congress produced four consecutive balanced budgets, welfare reform, strengthened our national defense and intelligence. The CBO had forecast a deficet for ten years of 2.5 trillion dollars when he was elected Speaker and four years later the ten year forecast was for a surplus of 2.5 trillion dollars for a turnaround of 5 trillion dollars. They cut taxes and unemployment dropped to 4.2%. President Clinton talks of his administration having balanced budgets, surplus, and welfare reform, that’s true but it was thrust upon him by Newt and the Republican Congress. Spending and earmarks dropped as soon as Newt became Speaker and both remained low during his tenure as Speaker and skyrocketed as soon as he left the Speaker’s position. Those who didn’t want him keeping government spending under control, the Republican establishment, are the ones who are now attacking him and trying to stop his return to Washington. Republicans should be apologizing to Newt for squandering the bounty he brought to the country instead of attacking him. I believe this is Newt’s time. America is in trouble and needs an advocate, Newt Gingrich is that advocate.
posted on 03/09/2012 10:00:44 AM PST
First of all Frank, I think you've written a well formed series of thoughts here. It's a nice presentation. To respond to each point, it's going to seem that I disrespect your attempt here, and that's not my intention. You have made respectful arguments, and I'll try to do the same with my responses.
Christian values are a big part of but not all that matters to me.
I would agree with this, with the caveat that I do not want to back a guy that has done some major trampling of those values. I would not vote for Bill Clinton alone, based on his treatment of his family. A man that will sell out his wife and daughter, will sell out anyone.
Rick Santorums voting record on Socially Conservative issues is at best no better than Newts...
But later on here you praise Newt's voting record on Socially Conservative issues. I don't see any such praise here. You state yourself, it may even be as good as Newt's (paraphrased), so why no praise for Rick's voting record on Socially Conservative issues? Is that consistent?
...then there is the matter of Fiscally Conservative issues.
I'll admit that I view this as one of Santorum's weaknesses. I will also admit to suspecting that a number of issues along these lines, have been leveled somewhat unfairly. It's quite easy to find a number of things a guy has voted for, when they've been chained onto other legislation that he was compelled to vote for with other Conservatives. Is Santorum as bad as we have been led to believe by the supporters of other candidates, or is he marginally worse than other people we respect? I believe he is marginally worse, but by no means disqualified by his actions. I will weigh this with other evaluations of the candidates.
Then there would be the ability to articulate what is needed to fix America and to clearly define issues and solutions and the differences in the socialist and Conservative principles and ideas. Newt will take the fight to Obama and will beat him.
How many debates did Santorum participate in with Newt Gingrich? Romney was there, Santorum was there, Newt was there, and Ron Paul was there. Did Santorum come off looking like some light-weight who wasn't presidential? No. I have seen a number of supporters of other candidates say so, but I wasn't buying into it. I watched one debate at length, and read the comments on this forum directly after the debate activity. Some of the comments were so far afield at the time, that it was like we were watching two different debates. Newt was really good at the populist tactic of attacking the debate hosts to the acclaims of his followers, but that didn't always translate into the presidential substantive action some of his followers thought it to be. At times I thought it was appropriate, but at other times it almost looked more manipulative than anything else. He wasn't trouncing other debate participants. There were times when he scored some shots, to be sure, but there were also times when shots were scored against him.
Then when he demanded the debate audience be able to applaud loudly to reinforce his points, I remembered how we trashed Paul's crowd for doing it. I also wondered why he was so insecure that he couldn't let his 'golden words' resonate with the people watching at home without reinforcement. Newt himself is the reason why I don't buy into the full merit of your argument on this topic. Newt himself doesn't think his words can stand on their own merits without boisterous attending audience signs of approval.
The difference is being Presidential, not wanting to denigrate Rick but Ive heard him described as an over zealous hall monitor and I believe that is how he will come across and be portrayed.
So what you're saying here is that a Christian man with strong beliefs and isn't afraid to voice them, should be immediately disqualified for the presidency? I don't believe you think that. People say lots of things, and it's our duty to weigh them and dismiss them if they are juvenile.
Social Conservative issues are important to me but that is not all thats on the table. We need an extraordinary individual for these times and I cant think of any, anywhere better suited for the task ahead than Newt Gingrich whether they are in the race or not. Below are some of the reasons Im for Newt.
Okay, I'll take you at your word, but you just told me you were disqualifying a good Christian man based on the idea he may be seen as a goody-goody two shoes. There are a lot of things I respect about Rick Santorum, and when you start eliminating him for one of the most important, I'm somewhat baffled that you now think I'd be interested in hearing about some of the virtues of your guy. Why shouldn't I simply dismiss your guy's finer points too?
Newt Gingrich, an Extraordinary Man for These Extraordinary Times
I know that seems reasoned to you, but I see him as a person who has his attributes, and his weaknesses. I'm not sold on the idea that this is his moment in destiny, and that the United States needs him desperately. The United States does need someone (different from Obama) desperately to be sure. I'm nowhere near being sold that person is Newt Gingrich.
Newt Gingrich is a Historian, he loves this country and understands our Constitution, our system of government and the sacrifices made by patriots to create it, and the importance of maintaining it.
Newt is a history professor. I would expect him to know these things. I'm glad he does. You're not a history professer, and you know them. Are you presidential? Perhaps so, but I'm not sold on this alone qualifying Newt as presidential. He loves the nation? Is there a valid basis for believing Santorum doesn't?
Would his level of respect for the nation be higher than that of Barack Obama? Absolutely. Is it higher than Rick Santorum's? I don't believe that. I don't know a single thing we could base that on. Later on I'll mention some things that may start you asking some questions.
He knows how government works and how it should work.
Actually, I think Rink Santorum knows how government works. You know how government works. You know how it should work. We both do. Most people here do.
He is intelligent, educated, and has common sense.
In order for you to write this, you must think that it differs from Santorum's status. Do you think Rick is illiterate, under-educated, and has no common sense? I'm not buying that. I doubt you really do either.
He has been in the public eye for thirty five years and has made public controversial decisions, he has cast over 7200 votes, made over 15,000 speeches, written twenty four books. His voting record has been consistently Conservative whether you are speaking in terms of Social, Fiscal or anything else, Newt Gingrich is THE CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE.
And yet with all this pedigree attached, Newt couldn't say no to going out there and joining Nancy Pelosi to advocate for fixes to Man-Made Global Warming. After 7,200 votes, 15,000 speeches, and writing twenty-four books, he still didn't get it. Name one Conservative you're proud of who believes in Man-Made Global Warming and wants our government to sign on to fixing it. Name one Conservative you are proud of that advocates the negative impact on corporations, small businesses, jobs, vehicles, your ability to travel freely and associate with whom you want, your financial solvency, and the well being of the United States that government fixes to Man-Made Global Warming can easily entail.
Are you happy with the green movement? That movement is central to the proposed fixes to Man-Made Global Warming. You're not going to sign on to that stuff. Why do you support someone who several months ago was willing to?
When it comes to Article IV Section IV of the Constitution of the United States of America, it states: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Does that state that it would be acceptable to register invaders, allow them to stay here and work, and eventually apply for citizenship? Does it even matter if they can apply for citizenship or not, if they get to stay here, squat on our soil, and drain our government resources dry?
Yes, Newt knows the Constitution of the United States frontwards and backwards. He is a history professor. He knows everything there is to know about our Founding, Our Founding Fathers, and our Founding Documents. He has cast 7,200 votes, made 15,000 speeches, and written twenty-four books, and yet there is clear evidence that this supposedly intelligent, obviously well educated (in some respects) man, may not have the comment sense to convert these attributes into reasoned actions on behalf of the Citizens of the United States. Basically it's a crap shoot from one issue to the next.
Conservative? In some way yes. In other ways no.
His original Contract with America led to CONSERVATIVE Republicans taking the US House of Representatives and appears to be the basis for the modern day Tea Party.
His Contract did lead to the Republicans regaining control of the House. I have given him credit for that for a long time. I have even argued against folks whose premise was that the development of the contract was actually a group effort. Either way, he played a highly visible positive role, and deserves credit for that. He and Republican leaders in Congress and the Senate deserve credit for getting the nation back on the track of fiscal solvency too. They actually slowed the growth in our nation's debt considerably. At the same time we still had trillions in debt. LINK They also got credit for ending Welfare as we knew it. Now, are we still spending hundreds of billions on welfare each year? Yes. Over a decade, we're talking about trillions of dollars in welfare outlay. Is it better today than it might have been if actions in the 90s hadn't been taken? Maybe. I'm not sure at this point. It still seems awfully bloated, and may have blossomed back out since Newt was Speaker, so I am not making the case for two things here. I am not saying Newt didn't help improve our welfare situation. I'm also not saying it hasn't gotten worse since he was in office, which wouldn't be his responsibility. I will say that I have found myself thinking that both parties contributed to some smoke and mirrors during that period. Things got somewhat better with regard to welfare, but nowhere near as better as we thought it was going to get.
Sorry, I'm not going to join you in giving Newt credit for the Tea Party. If we're going to give Newt the credit for that, then we need to delve into where Newt came up with his idea for a contract, and give others credit too. Newt gets credit for the Contract. Tea Party members get credit for the Tea Party.
Under his leadership as Speaker of the House the Republican Congress produced four consecutive balanced budgets, welfare reform, strengthened our national defense and intelligence.
My view of a balanced budget is this. Your outlays for government expenses and interest on the then current debt, must be exceeded by, or at the very least equaled by, the then current government receipts. The national debt either has to remain static, or decrease. Any increase is evidence that the national budget was not balanced. Please use this LINK to take note if our budgets were balanced or not between 1994 and 1999. The budget deficit did continue to grow, but Gingrich, the House, and Senate deserve credit for bringing our growing debt down from around $380 million per year, to between $113 to $130 million by '98 and '99. That's an impressive accomplishment, Newt deserves credit for the part he played in reducing the growth of our national debt by roughly two-thirds.
I touched on Welfare reform above. Right now I'll provide some actual numbers. LINK Please note that the federal government is still spending over $400 billion dollars on Welfare each year. We're talking about somewhere in the neighborhood of $4.250 trillion dollars over ten years. Does that sound fixed to anyone else? It doesn't to me. Am I going to blame this all on Newt? Of course not. (My thoughts above expand on that.) I never bought into the idea that Welfare had been fixed. I considered it somewhat of a smoke and mirrors routine. I'm not going to blame Newt for that, it's still my over visions of the touted reforms.
On the issue of our military, I'm going to have to ask folks to join me in being honest with ourselves. Let's see a show of hands from people who think Bill Clinton handed off a strengthened national defense and intelligence capability to President Bush. Is anyone here thinking our intelligence services were optimal just eight months after Bush was inaugurated?
The CBO had forecast a deficit for ten years of 2.5 trillion dollars when he was elected Speaker and four years later the ten year forecast was for a surplus of 2.5 trillion dollars for a turnaround of 5 trillion dollars.
All well and good, sounds very exciting. Actual debt grown before Gingrich and the Republican took over, about $380 million per year. Debt growth after their takeover, roughly $130 million. Projected out ten years, that's $3.8 trillion vs $1.3 trillion. That's a turn-around of $2.5 trillion. Did debt growth over the ten years after Newt became Speaker actually follow that model? No. At the end of Fiscal 1994, the national debt was $4.7 trillion. At the end of Fiscal 2004, the national debt was $7.4 tillion. Newt and company probably saved us about $1.25 to $1.5 trillion. IMO, that's still something to crow about.
They cut taxes and unemployment dropped to 4.2%. President Clinton talks of his administration having balanced budgets, surplus, and welfare reform, thats true but it was thrust upon him by Newt and the Republican Congress. Spending and earmarks dropped as soon as Newt became Speaker and both remained low during his tenure as Speaker and skyrocketed as soon as he left the Speakers position.
I agree with a good portion of this. Anything that happened good under the Clinton administration, wasn't of his own doing. I am still less willing to attribute all this to Newt. Fact of the matter is, spending remained low until Fiscal 2003. At that point the budget was negatively impacted by the War on Terrorism. Sadly, that wasn't all. Still that happened a considerable period after Newt left office. He left office in 1999, and spending didn't blow out until fiscal 2003.
Those who didnt want him keeping government spending under control, the Republican establishment, are the ones who are now attacking him and trying to stop his return to Washington. Republicans should be apologizing to Newt for squandering the bounty he brought to the country instead of attacking him.
Those Republican establishment types, aren't merely focused on Newt, so the political paranoia on his behalf doesn't sell with me. Besides, I see it more of a favoring of Romney, than an outright attempt to deny Newt as opposed to Santorum. They don't want either of them. As for the bounty Newt brought to the nation, I am appreciative to a point. Any guy that is willing to buy into government fixes to supposed Man-Made Global Warming is not concerning himself with government outlays, and most certainly not the outlays from my pocket book.
I believe this is Newts time.
America is in trouble and needs an advocate, Newt Gingrich is that advocate.
Yes, it's getting warmer outside every day...
I do not see Newt as the advocate we need. Up until a few months ago he was willing to advocate for things I abhore.
Take care Frank. Sorry I couldn't agree with you more on this.
posted on 03/09/2012 1:39:03 PM PST
(Abortion? No. Gov't heath care? No. Gore on warming? No. McCain on immigration? No.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson