The Rev. Donald E. Wildmon is urging Christian voters in Iowa to vote for Newt Gingrich in their caucuses on Tuesday in what he describes as the “most critical” election in American history.
Wildmon also warns that voting for other “good” conservative candidates will ensure Mitt Romney’s victory.
Wildmon, founder of the American Family Association, is one of the nation’s most respected Christian leaders and has been at the forefront for decades in fighting for traditional values against a rising tide of secularism.
In an exclusive interview Thursday with Newsmax, Wildmon said other candidates in the Republican race, including Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, and Michele Bachmann, are all “good people.”
But he said a vote for any of them will divide the conservative vote and help former Massachusetts Gov. Romney.
Wildmon told Newsmax that Newt Gingrich is the only candidate who can wrest the White House back from President Barack Obama.
“I think he is the one person that could win the White House and make some of the changes that are desperately needed,” Wildmon insisted. “I think that he would be able to defeat Obama, and also he would be able to defeat Romney.”
Before anyone decides Ron Paul is right and Newt Gingrich is wrong, read his newsletters that call for destruction of Israel, a race war, etc etc and just read them. His newsletter went on for well over a decade. Go read them.
“Newt balanced the budget and got the policy heavy lifting done while he was in office and it hasn’t been done since he left.” – J.C. Watts
When you cut out all the fluff, feelings, and BS, that is where the rubber meets the road isn’t it? Leave it to J.C. to nail it in a way which should be totally obvious, but often seems obscured.
As so many of our readers know, ideologically I am dead center between the TEA Party and what is so often referred to as the “GOP Establishment”. I have a regular dialogue with both sides and for the most part have been able to garner the respect of both sides. The GOP needs results and the TEA Party and independents are demanding it. While other candidates promise, Newt has “been there and done that”. Newt also has the ability to sell and agenda and use the Bully Pulpit to move the Overton Window back to traditional Americanism.
Newt should pick a CEO, governor, or a social conservative leader to be his running mate.
This is not to say that several of the other candidates would not make a far better President than the current occupant. This editor is very fond of several of the candidates and is acquainted with some of them, but as indicated, results are demanded and nothing else will do.
Newt talks about Reagan’s example and explains how Reagan’s example set the path for a genuine American recovery. Be sure to read every last word.
Newt Gingrich:
Officially, the recession ended two and a half years ago. President Obama tells us the economy has been moving in the right direction since June 2009.
Few will take solace in that statistic. Americans are suffering. For nearly three years, nearly one in 10 have been out of work. Almost double that number are either underemployed—working part time when they would rather be full time—or have simply given up looking.
Historically in America, the deeper the recession, the stronger the recovery. By historical standards, we should be completing the second year of a booming recovery. Recall that, just like President Obama, President Reagan inherited a terrible economy when he took office. But Reagan enacted historic income tax rate cuts, regulatory reforms and spending controls. The recession officially ended in November 1982, and in the following two and a half years the unemployment rate dropped 3.6 percentage points, more than eight million Americans went to work at new jobs, and the longest period of economic growth in American history commenced.
Mr. Obama’s policies have been just the opposite: trillion dollar stimulus-spending waste, a government takeover of the health-care system, an activist EPA attacking businesses, and demonization of job creators. The president barnstorms the country advocating tax increases for investors, entrepreneurs and small businesses, teeing up the country for another crash in 2013 when the Bush-era income tax rates expire. Meanwhile, America’s businesses continue to suffer from the highest business tax rate in the industrialized world, with no relief in sight.
This nightmare will not end until Reagan-era economic policies are restored: tax reform, a sound dollar and smarter regulations. If they are, within a year the American economy will take off on another historic boom.
First, we must reduce the federal business tax rate to 12.5%, eliminate the capital gains tax as a double tax on capital income, and eliminate the estate tax. We must allow immediate expensing (writing off the costs in one year) for investment in capital equipment so American workers can continue to be the most productive in the world, using the latest and most advanced technology.
On the personal income side, I propose an optional 15% flat tax, allowing those American taxpayers who prefer it to file their returns on a postcard. This will save close to half a trillion dollars annually in tax-compliance costs.
These tax reforms are not designed to be revenue-neutral, but to maximize job creation, wages and economic growth. We will balance the budget with the revenues from such growth and spending cuts. That would include breaking up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into manageable, entirely private companies, with no government guarantees.
Second, the dollar needs to be stabilized by establishing a price rule for the Federal Reserve to follow in its conduct of monetary policy. This will help stabilize international exchange rates, resolve the ongoing cycles of global financial crises and investment bubbles, short-circuit the run-up in gas and food prices, and unlock the frozen credit system.
Third, the burden of regulatory costs on American businesses and consumers has to be lightened. Reflecting my unwavering opposition to cap and trade and any other form of tax on energy or carbon, we must replace the Environmental Protection Agency with an Environmental Solutions Agency. We must move from antigrowth confrontation with business to collaboration with job creators, states and local communities to achieve better results. We must repeal Dodd-Frank and its “too big to fail” big-bank bailouts, and repeal Sarbanes-Oxley, restoring Wall Street as the world’s pre-eminent equities market.
We can slash further trillions in taxes, spending and regulatory costs by repealing and replacing ObamaCare with Patient Power, involving no individual insurance mandate and no job-killing employer mandate. We must also modernize the Food and Drug Administration, recognizing the need to get lifesaving medicines and technologies to patients faster and to remove cost barriers to their rapid development.
My economic plan includes sweeping entitlement reforms that would altogether cut federal spending in half over the long run, entirely solving the nation’s entitlement and fiscal crisis. Reforms include starting and then expanding personal savings, investment and insurance accounts until they ultimately finance all the benefits now financed by the payroll tax—and eventually displacing that tax entirely. The successful federal welfare reform of 1996 should be expanded to every federal means-tested welfare program, close to 200 or more, block-granting them to the states and ultimately saving trillions.
We also need an American Energy Plan, freeing the energy industry to maximize production of all forms of American energy, ensuring the reliable supply of low-cost gasoline, diesel, natural gas, coal and other energy sources essential to fueling a booming economy.
These policies will ignite another record-smashing, and world-leading, 25-year economic boom, restoring the American Dream and rebuilding the America we love.
These are major endorsements. J.C. Watts is on every VP short list and he is a powerful orator and brilliant politician, businessman and church leader.
Here is a video and transcript of Mark Steyn challenging J.C. Watts’ endorsement and Watts was more than prepared for it – LINK.
Art Laffer is the author of the Reagan economic recovery and is a legendary economist.
“Newt has the best economic plan among all the candidates” – Art Laffer
The politics of personal distraction. This is mostly what the opponents of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich are using to try and trash him personally to the voters. The facts are that when he was in office he was able to carry out most of his promises and the Contract With America in spite of Democrat and media opposition. After he left office the GOP lost their way and became Democrats lite in too many policy areas.
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 next weeks and months.
But how much weight should we give to this stuff when we are talking about the future of a 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 has 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 can be beyond our worst imagining.
Against this background, how much does 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.
This is without a doubt the very finest column of the year. Read every last word as it is packed with substance.
Andrew McCarthy dismantles the latest editorial form National Review which was the cheapest hit piece I have ever seen in the publication. I was shocked at how sophomoric it was and it clearly did not deserve to be published in WFB’s legacy. The piece linked below from Andrew McCarthy has rescued National Review’s credibility.
[Editor’s Note: I studied Constitutional Law from federal Judge Allen Sharp, I have also been instructed by Henry Abraham, the author of “Justices and Presidents”, which is the definitive text on the Justices of the Court. Newt is totally correct about this as Article III of the Constitution is clear on this issue. The UPDATE is below.]
Go to 4:50 in the video to see Newt’s position. An awesome speech by the way:
What you are about to read below a load of complete nonsense. What Newt is talking about is called Article III of the US Constitution. Congress has almost total power over the lower courts. Congress passes “Judicial Acts” for the purpose of regulating the lower courts and dealing with rogue circuits like the 9th. EVERY first year law student knows this. For a former Attorney General to talk like this is beyond astounding and is likely pure politics.
They go on as if the lower courts are all powerful and that the status-quo is fine. They were created by an Act of Congress so what? Congress cannot take another look at them? Judicial supremacy was opposed by the Founders.
EXCLUSIVE: Former Bush Attorneys General Call Gingrich Position on Courts ‘Dangerous’
Two former attorneys general under President George W. Bush have found a few things to like in Newt Gingrich’s position paper on reining in the authority of the federal courts, but other parts, they say, are downright disturbing.
Some of the ideas are “dangerous, ridiculous, totally irresponsible, outrageous, off-the-wall and would reduce the entire judicial system to a spectacle,” said former Attorney General Michael Mukasey.
In a 28-page position paper entitled, “Bringing the Courts Back Under the Constitution,” Gingrich argues that when the Supreme Court gets it wrong constitutionally, the president and Congress have the power to check the court, including, in some cases, the power to simply ignore a Supreme Court decision.
“Our Founding Fathers believed that the Supreme Court was the weakest branch and that the legislative and executive branches would have ample abilities to check a Supreme Court that exceeded its powers,” he argues.
Mukasey and Alberto Gonzales, in exclusive interviews with Fox News’ Megyn Kelly, said they are particularly alarmed by provisions such as allowing Congress to subpoena judges after controversial rulings to “explain their constitutional reasoning” to the politicians who passed the laws.
“The only basis by which Congress can subpoena people is to consider legislation. To subpoena judges to beat them up about their decisions has only — if they are going to say that has to do with legislation they might propose, that’s completely dishonest,” Mukasey said.
“I think we have a great government, a great country because it’s built upon the foundation of the rule of law. And one of the things that makes it great and the rule of law is protected by having a strong independent judiciary,” Gonzales said.
“And the notion of bringing judges before Congress like a schoolchild being brought before the principal to me is a little bit troubling. I believe that a strong and independent judiciary doesn’t mean that the judiciary is above scrutiny, that it is above criticism for the work that it does, but I cannot support and would not support efforts that would appear to be intimidation or retaliation against judges.”
Mukasey has counseled Mitt Romney, Gingrich’s chief rival for the Republican presidential nomination, but said only once, and he would do the same for any GOP candidate. He and Gonzales said they were also not happy with the Gingrich call for the power to impeach judges or abolish judgeships following any ruling considered particularly outrageous.
They were additionally very skeptical of Gingrich’s suggestion that we should just “do away with” the Ninth Circuit because of some of the left-leaning decisions from that group of jurists.
UPDATE – Some Romney supporters are trying to spin this story into something it isn’t with a series of misleading accusations and objections.
Bogus Objection #1: Newt wants to micromanage the Judiciary!
Who said anything about “Micromanaging the judiciary” – I will tell you who – NO ONE HAS.
The 9th Circuit has not been micromanaged, on the contrary these created, invented courts who are invented at the pleasure of Congress and the American people have been trying to micromanage our lives.
Judge Hamilton even tried to order the Speaker of the State House and President of the State Senate to ban Jesus from the prayer opening each session.
Newt is not saying that the judiciary should be micromanaged and he has never said anything even remotely close to that. His position paper and the video of his speech which I linked above, make it clear that the 9th and a few other judges have gotten so out of control and so radicalized that they are trying to micromanage our culture like a far left secularist oligarchy.
Creating a straw man is no way to win the point.
Bogus Objection #2: Newt wants exclusive executive control over the judiciary!
Newt is not talking about exclusive executive control. Presidents lobbied for and got those Judicial Acts passed by Congress; just like when people said “Reagan cut taxes”, it was Congress who passed that new tax legislation.
Bogus Objection #3: We should take a Burkean approach in saying are we really so hubristic as to dismantle that system and hope to create something better in its place?
This is elitist euphemistic sophistry for “we need to preserve the status-quo” and it is also pure nonsense. We dismantle some government systems and recreate them all the time, it is called Federalism and the 50 states do it on a regular basis with various legal and policy experiments.
Bogus Objection #4: Chief Justice Marshall established judicial supremacy over constitutional interpretation.
I know all about “The Great Chief Justice” John Marshall, however Marshall cannot remove Article III, nor did he intend to.
Marshall did not establish “judicial supremacy over constitutional interpretation”, he asserted that the Supreme Court had the power of “Judicial Review”; to declare certain acts of Congress and certain enforcement actions of the Executive under it’s jurisdiction to be unconstitutional. There is a significant difference between the two.
In no way was Marshall trying to assert Judicial supremacy and in no way was he trying to elevate the power of the lower courts that exist at the pleasure of Congress to a position over them in such a way to take separation of powers and toss it out the window.
Quite frankly, I am astonished at the near total lack of understanding many so called lawyers have about “Separation of Powers”. All it takes is one good read of the Federalist Papers. So either our law schools are dropping the ball or the self bias of lawyers and law professors has them believing in this supremacy nonsense.
The Judiciary was intended to be the weaker of the three branches of government. It is the duty of all branches, not the sole purview of the court, to uphold and defend the constitution, this is why the Constitution demands an oath of office to defend it for ALL of the three branches.
The way our government is supposed to work is that when one branch gets out of line, the two others can gang up on it and strip it of power when needed. This is basic 8th grade civics stuff and I am seeing political enthusiasts and pros along with some attorneys responding to this very notion as if we had told them that Martians had made a crop circle in their back yard.
Is this simply the rank intellectual dishonesty in the form of political maneuvering or has our education system failed to this degree?
[Editor’s Note – Tossing all modesty aside for just a moment. My Constitutional Law class was as intense as one would find in any law school.
Question #4 on my ConLaw final exam was:
The Great Chief Justice dies in 1801. Thomas Jefferson appoints the head of the Virginia Supreme Court to be the new Chief Justice of the United States. Explain how this likely changes every Supreme Court ruling from 1801 to 1821 (essay format start writing).
I got an A. This writer has found few attorney’s who can beat him in a game of ConLaw quiz bowl.]
Mitt Romney’s latest comments about not having strident criticisms of President Obama is an indicator of how he is absorbed by a beltway mentality that is the antithesis of Ronald Reagan. Romney also said in multiple interviews that people in the primary are making bombastic comments that by implication they do not believe.
Bombastic. You know like when Mitt Romney told Rick Perry that one cannot be too against illegal immigration.
What statements has Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum or John Huntsman or Herman Cain said about Barack Obama that was not demonstrably true?
This thinking comes from the “beltway” idea that most voters lean liberal, that if we go directly after Democrats foolishness and corruption that they will send voters into the Democrats arms; as if the Democrats never say bombastic things about Republicans such as
Republicans want to bring back Jim Crow
Republicans want dirty air and water
Republicans hate old people
Republicans hate children….
…All of which are common fare from the Democrat Party leadership.
The numbers show that in 2009 and 2010 that independents responded to the traditional/conservative TEA Party message in a big way, including women and Catholics in nine of the top ten swing states.
Here is a novel idea Mitt Romney, instead of saying things that you think beltway independents want to hear, how about you show us that you have a core and tell us what you genuinely believe, assuming of course there is anything. David Axelrod says that do not have a core. You are proving him correct.
As far as President Reagan, he savaged the left, he savaged Jimmy Carter. Reagan did it with the truth because he understood that truth is indivisible.
In this piece I quote President Reagan and show you his speech at Liberty Island where he blasted the left and Jimmy Carter. Please click the link above for the video.
The Carter record is a litany of despair, of broken promises, of sacred trusts abandoned and forgotten. Eight million — eight million out of work. Inflation running at 18 percent in the first quarter of this year. Black unemployment at 14 percent, higher than any single year since the government began keeping separate statistics. Four straight major deficits run up by Carter and his friends in Congress. The highest interest rates since the Civil War, reaching at times close to 20 percent, lately they’re down to more than 11 percent but now they’ve begun to go up again. Productivity falling for six straight quarters among the most productive people in the world.
Through his inflation he has raised taxes on the American people by 30 percent, while their real income has risen only 20 percent. The Lady standing there in the harbor has never betrayed us once. But this Administration in Washington has betrayed the working men and women of this country.
As we have all seen in the elite media by some in the chattering class, the long knives are out for Newt Gingrich. Every time he has ever thought out loud it will be used against him and taken out of context. The “establishment” types are in a panic because they are afraid that Newt will shake things up as he did when he helped balance the budget and pass welfare reform.
“Put ourselves in a room and balance the budget by force of will; lock the experts out.” – Newt Gingrich
As for Glenn Beck the former liberal and alcoholic.
Newt is not the same man that he used to be.
I saw him on Sean Hannity some time ago. Newt said that he had come to realize that his old friends in academia, like this crew in the White House, are as big a threat to the United States as the Soviet Union ever was. Because, as Newt told Sean, “If these people are allowed to get their way this country will look nothing like the one we grew up in.”
Ever since that time Newt has had a moral clarity that I personally find to be astonishing. Newt is not the only one to become more accurate and conservative with age. He wrote a book about rediscovering his faith and has made films about President Reagan and Pope JP II’s efforts to fight communism.
Rick Perry, Ronald Reagan, Michelle Bachmann, Ron Silver, Chris Hitchens, Star Parker and yes even Glenn Beck all used to be Democrats and/or leftists. Heck, even Erskine Bowles embraced free market economics. He said it had something to do with him becoming a grandfather.
Glenn Beck is no longer a liberal neo-secularist and is no longer an alcoholic. So why can Glenn Beck can have a spiritual and philosophical awakening and Newt Gingrich cannot?
This video is being clipped and edited to make it look like that Newt was a part of why Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae failed, but when you look at his complete comments in context you can see that Newt’s remarks were spot on.
Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich faced more than two hours of sometimes contentious questioning before a group of conservatives at a northern Virginia hotel Wednesday morning.
Gingrich requested the meeting, organized by longtime conservative leader Richard Viguerie, after learning that Viguerie had put together similar meetings for rival candidates Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, and Michele Bachmann. About 60 people were in the Gingrich meeting, which was held at the Key Bridge Marriott hotel just outside Washington.
“It was a little tense in there a couple of times,” says one participant, noting that some of those gathered challenged Gingrich repeatedly on his environmental policy and support for the Medicare prescription drug entitlement. Gingrich did not back down from past positions and ended some exchanges by saying that he and the conservatives would just have to agree to disagree.
Among those attending were Gary Bauer, Brent Bozell III, Angelo Codevilla, Ken Cucinelli, Marjorie Dannenfelser, Helen Krieble, Leonard Leo, Curt Levey, Ginni Thomas, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., and several others.
Many candidates would not have the conviction to face a serious and substantive crowd like this for over two hours. No matter what one may think of Newt, this act commands respect. Newt also subjected himself to a lengthy interview with Glenn Beck and several in the elite media voiced their “surprise” at what a substantive and meaningful interview it was. Of course those of us who are familiar with Glenn’s work know that his research team is as good if not better than any elite media news organization.
Mini UPDATE – Here is Newt’s lengthy and very stimulating interview with Larry Kudlow – LINK.
Mini UPDATE II – Newt gets a standing ovation at conservative HQ event – LINK.
More from the Washington Examiner:
One attendee, who asked to remain anonymous, confirmed that the participants were undecided but suggested that few would end up with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. All of those present knew Gingrich and had ups and downs with him over the years, but none was as familiar with Romney. “We’ve been working with Newt for 30 years,” the participant said. “For whatever reason, Romney hasn’t ever been there.
While Mitt Romney has been avoiding conservatives while claiming to be the conservatives standard bearer, Gingrich has decided not to make that mistake and has let conservatives have at him at length to make his case. Romney refuses to debate Newt one on one as Herman Cain did. Romney seems to be employing a strategy of running out the clock and taking no risks. This also has made him an absentee in many circles.
Newt has been displaying a moral clarity since 2009 most have not witnessed in him before. He has been plugging away against Obama’s bad policies since and has been defending conservatives in the elite media since Obama took office. Newt defended Sarah Palin as the press trashed her; when we now know that on issue after issue after issue from death Panels, to ObamaCare costs, to the cronyism, to energy policy, to Egypt & Libya, to inflation and the increasing food problem, Palin has been almost prophetic in her correctness. Where was Mitt Romney in 2009 and 2010 when you and I were out protesting in the cold, raising awareness, networking to educate people, and raising funds for local candidates?
Anyone who says that Glenn Beck is not a serious political force is made into a liar by this interview. This is the toughest and most substantive interview I have ever seen Newt faced with and it is worth examining.
There is no one in the elite media capable of offering an interview this substantive and informative.
[Note, this story is stickied to the top of the page as it is our feature of the week. Please scroll down to see new posts and updates!]
by PoliticalArena.org Editor Chuck Norton
Sometimes beltway wisdom can reflect certain truths not apparent to many nice folks in “fly over country”, but often the beltway wisdom caters to government largess and the message can be sold to large donors and bundlers.
Inside the beltway, insiders from both parties treat small government conservatives as “extreme” because all of them make their money from government largess either directly or indirectly. There are also factors that swing the public that those inside the beltway never get exposed to. The greatest example of this was in 1976 and in 1980 when “insiders” believed that Ronald Reagan was a joke, a stupid B-movie actor whose eloquent speeches about the dangers of communism, socialism and collectivism should have went out with the 1950’s. Now those same pundits claim to be the very fathers of his success. While some of the names of the insiders and pundits have changed, the beltway mentality has not.
Please examine these comments from the insiders poll at National Journal and enjoy my comments which will appear in red.
The Gingrich Moment has yet to catch on with National Journal‘s Political Insiders. Despite former House Speaker Newt Gingrich‘s surge in the Republican presidential nomination contest, overwhelming majorities of both Democratic and Republican Insiders still say former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has the better shot at beating President Obama in 2012.
[This is what the left and the elite media say. They said the same thing about McCain and Dole. The elite media is essentially the Democrat media complex, so if Mitt Romney is so much of a threat why are they avoiding piling on and trashing Romney like they have the other candidates? In each case where the most “moderate” candidate was considered the most electable the Democrat campaigned to the right of the GOP nominee and won. When there is a bold difference between the two candidates the conservative Republican wins.
Some insiders know this and are simply rooting for the two candidates who are most likely to guarantee continued government largess. Other insiders start out with the best of intentions, but end up adopting the very mentality that they came to DC to change in the first place. Having been to DC events I can tell you that the temptation to meld in to that mentality is highly seductive. Make no mistake, the media and the White House want to run against Romney and several White House staffers have let that leak out. They believe that the same strategy the GOP used against John Kerry in 2004 can be used against Mitt Romney. They also believe that Obama can fool voters by campaigning to the right of Romney’s record. They will say that Romney talks like Reagan, but governed like Dukakis. Obama will also run against what he will describe as a namby-pamby do nothing Congress that talks about grandiose reforms but ends up with a schizophrenic big government record like Romney’s. ]
For some of the Insiders, Romney’s well-oiled campaign and potential for moderate appeal gave him the edge.
[The well oiled campaign with huge state machines is not as overwhelmingly effective as it used to be for two reasons.
The first reason is that with the power of the internet and multiple 24 hours news channels voters have more unfiltered access to information and the candidates. Herman Cain had almost no ground machine to speak of, and the truth is that if it weren’t for his repeated stumbling when it comes to basic foreign policy questions and messaging, he would still be the front-runner. The allegations of sexual harassment by women, all of whom have direct ties to David Axelrod and the Chicago Democrat machine were so transparent, that most people were not swayed by them. The fact that the Cain allegations didn’t stick in spite of a massive elite media campaign to try to make them otherwise is yet another indicator of just how powerful new media really is (note, remember when Cain was asked if he would take a lie detector test about the allegations and he said yes? Only local media shared the results). A wealthy massive machine is no longer necessary to get a message out.]
“He [Romney] almost beat a liberal icon in a blue state and went on to win the governor’s race,” said one Democratic Insider. “He is a very strong general-election candidate.”
[And Newt nationalized a mid-term election, brought in a GOP majority in the House for the first time in 40 years, cut taxes, balanced the federal budget, created a surplus, and passed welfare reform with a Democrat President, yet our Democratic insider knows that. Also, since when has Massachusetts ever been a political gauge for the rest of the country? ]
“Mitt Romney is better positioned to speak to independent voters,” said another Democrat, “including key voting blocs like swing unmarried women.” A Republican strategist agreed. “Romney is more acceptable to moderate voters, especially female voters.”
[Nonsense. And this brings us to the second reason why massive state machines on the ground are not as effective as they used to be. Those machines were needed to get the attention of ordinarily more apathetic independent voters (and conservatives could not be more motivated already). Independent voters have been anything but apathetic since 2009. Independents are engaged and informed in a way I thought I would never see again in my lifetime. They are also far from what beltway insiders would consider moderate.
In questionnaires about civics and current events independents score almost as high as Republican voters, before 2009 they scored below Democrat voters.
In the 2009 state and local elections voters swung towards GOP/TEA candidates by 18 points in the key swing states of Florida and Pennsylvania. The independent voters in those key swing states were not energized by a “moderate message”. They were energized by the bold TEA Party message of Rick Santelli and Sarah Palin. In New Jersey the firebrand fiscal hawk Chris Christie was elected governor.
In 2010 GOP/TEA Party candidates swept the elections in nine of the top ten swing states. For the first time since 1984 when Ronald Reagan won 49 states, traditionally independent and slightly left leaning voters such as women and Catholics voted Republican by big numbers. There is no way that anyone could say that they were energized by Mitt Romney or anyone like him. Florida, which Obama won, tossed out their own Republican Governor Charlie Crist who was a wishy-washy Mitt Romney like moderate, and replaced him with reaganesque Marco Rubio. Governor Crist tried to take the independent vote away from Rubio by running as an independent and guarantee the Democrats a win, but independent voters such as women and Catholics voted for Rubio by significant margins.]
Other Republican Insiders named Romney as the stronger candidate, but couldn’t muster much enthusiasm about the prospect.
“Romney’s shape-shifting might not be appealing for conservatives in the primary, but he’s far more disciplined than Gingrich and is the only candidate that can win in November,” said one Republican.
[Romney is more disciplined, but not as disciplined as one might think, already since the debates started Romney has changed his messaging and positions. What is the bold Romney vision for America other than “I’m not Barack Obama and don’t I look sweet on TV? Also Newt has come back from the early missteps in his campaign with a new discipline and has avoided his previous academics ways of getting himself off message with excessive nuance.]
“Mitt Romney will be hard to hate in the general for the same reason he is hard to love in a primary,” said another Republican. “There isn’t much ‘there’ there, so the spotlight will gravitate to Obama. Romney makes it a referendum on Obama; Gingrich makes it a choice.”
[Indeed, 1980 could have been a referendum about Carter, but Ronald Reagan went out of his way to make it a choice. Gingrich gives you something to vote for.]
Concerns about Romney’s charisma led a small number of Insiders on both sides of the spectrum made the case for Gingrich as the stronger Obama opponent. “Romney seems like he is the most formidable on paper and in debates,” said one Democrat, “but the American people will struggle to take to him, just as the Republicans are struggling to take to him.” “The president’s money will dwarf ours,” warned a Republican strategist. “So our candidate must frame his message more clearly and forcefully. That’s Newt’s strength and that’s Romney’s weakness.”
[Hey someone in DC is thinking! Obama and his team led by David Axelrod will try to mottle everything, change history, and make the facts into a soup until people don’t know what to think. Newt has the boldness and razor like clarity in his presentation that can cut through the nonsense.]
Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham are for Mitt Romney. Why?
Ann & Laura are singularly focused on Romney’s ability to speak and have been quite up front about this when discussing it.
I understand their point of view, but I do not totally agree with it. During the Bush administration while I was getting my latest degree at IU, I had to constantly defend what the administration was doing right because the administration made almost no attempt to articulate it themselves (with the exception of hiring Tony Snow).
This became very tiresome and was a reason why the GOP got pasted in 2006 and 2008. Since communication is the life of Ann and Laura (and it is my life too) I see how their point of view can be so unbalanced.
When George W. Bush was debating John Kerry can anyone honestly say that Bush dominated Kerry in any of those debates? Yet Bush still won convincingly.
The want to have Romney for the reasons stated is defensive in nature. Just as the Democrats picking Dukakis was defensive, picking Mondale was defensive, and picking Kerry was defensive. They were all picked because the Democrats “settled” on who they thought was “electable”. The GOP did this with Dole and McCain and today many “insiders” want to follow that line of thinking for 2012. Don’t be fooled.
Ann and Laura had a conversation on The Laura Ingraham Show and agreed that Mitt Romney will never be as conservative after the primary as he is now, and he will not be as conservative in the White House as he would be in the General Election. They both laughed and said how it will work out great for them because they will have yet another [liberal] Republican that they can make fun of for four years.
The state of the country is so dire that we no longer can afford the luxury of having a president talk radio can make fun of.
Herman Cain debated Newt in a long format one on one and came out OK, so what is the problem Mitt?
Aren’t the American people deserving of a long format conversation that isn’t just cute 30 second responses? Mitt is trying to run out the clock and hope for a win without really fighting for it.
We all know Mitt’s past and we all know Gingrich’s. Both candidates in the past have had some foolish positions. The difference is not just some of the foolish positions that have come out of their mouths, but what they have actually implemented into law.
Mitt has the RomneyCare albatross around his neck which is too similar to ObamaCare. Gingrich talked about a health insurance mandate as a part of a thought experiment with a think tank and rejected the idea after a time because he concluded that a government powerful enough to impose such a mandate would also be a heavy handed disaster. Romney actually imposed a mandate. Both candidates say they are pro-life now, but as a matter of legislation only one has signed laws that have taxpayers pay for abortions and that is Mitt Romney.
Newt Gingrich has actually balanced the US budget, reformed entitlements and welfare into better working programs and Newt helped draft the Medicare Part D which came in 40% under budget. Newt blabs a lot, he is an academic and 50 odd sounding ideas will come out of his mouth every day, Newt’s mouth and academic way of thinking makes Newt his own worst enemy, but when you look at what laws were passed and how budgets were balanced Newt gets the job done and knows how to nationalize elections and get the American people behind an agenda he has sold on the merit. What has Mitt Romney actually DONE to advance the conservative movement or even protect traditional Americanism?
Newt has said a lot of things that are just dumb or were unfairly demagogued and lied about, but Newt admits these mistakes and does not sugar coat them. Mitt Romney lies about his. I have not caught Newt in a fib in any of the debates. I cannot say the same about Romney.
Newt is not afraid of the media and will take them on when needed, this is critically important to both the election and the fourth estate as a check and balance. The elite media is supposed to be helping keep government in check and instead most of what we get from them is cheer-leading for a leviathan state.
Newt Gingrich has been plugging away against Obama’s bad policies since 2009 and has been defending us in the elite media since Obama took office. Newt defended Sarah Palin as the press trashed her when we now know that on issue after issue after issue from death Panels, to ObamaCare costs, to the cronyism, to energy policy, to Egypt & Libya, to inflation and the increasing food problem that Palin has been almost prophetic in her correctness. Where was Mitt Romney in 2009 and 2010 when you and I were out protesting in the cold, raising awareness, networking to educate people, and raising funds for local candidates?
When history looks at who advanced the conservative movement the most Newt comes in second only to Ronald Reagan. Newt is featured in almost every political science textbook for his achievements. Newt’s name will always be remembered along the names of Reagan, Taft, Coolidge and Goldwater.
If this does end up as a race between Newt and Mitt, the choice of who to endorse is obvious.
Prior to the “Republican Revolution” of 1994, Rep. Newt Gingrich of Georgia had earned an A rating with Gun Owners of America. But that all changed in 1995, after Republicans were swept to power and Gingrich became Speaker of the House.
The Republicans gained the majority, thanks in large part to gun owners outraged by the Clinton gun ban. And upon taking the reins of the House, Speaker Gingrich said famously that, “As long as I am Speaker of this House, no gun control legislation is going to move in committee or on the floor of this House and there will be no further erosion of their rights.”
His promise didn’t hold up, however, and his GOA rating quickly dropped to well below the “C-level.” In 1996, the Republican-led Congress passed the “gun free school zones act,” creating criminal safe zones like Virginia Tech, where the only person armed was a murderous criminal. Speaker Newt Gingrich voted for the bill containing this ban.[1]
The same bill also contained the now infamous Lautenberg gun ban, which lowered the threshold for losing one’s Second Amendment rights to a mere misdemeanor.[2] Gun owners could, as a result of this ban, lose their gun rights forever for non-violent shouting matches that occurred in the home — and, in many cases, lose their rights without a jury trial.
While a legislator might sometimes vote for a spending bill which contains objectionable amendments, that was clearly NOT the case with Newt Gingrich in 1996. Speaking on Meet the Press in September of that year, Speaker Gingrich said the Lautenberg gun ban was “a very reasonable position.”[3] He even refused to cosponsor a repeal of the gun ban during the next Congress — despite repeated requests to do so.[4]
Also in 1996, Speaker Gingrich cast his vote for an anti-gun terror bill which contained several harmful provisions. For example, one of the versions he supported (in March of that year) contained a DeLauro amendment that would have severely punished gun owners for possessing a laser sighting device while committing an infraction as minor as speeding on a federal reservation.[5] (Not only would this provision have stigmatized laser sights, it would have served as a first step to banning these items.) Another extremely harmful provision was the Schumer amendment to “centralize Federal, State and Local police.”[6]
Final passage of H.R. 3610, Sept. 28, 1996 at: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll455.xml . Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) warned his colleagues about the hidden dangers in H.R. 3610, and in regard to the Kohl ban, noted that it would “prohibit most persons from carrying unloaded firearms in their automobiles.”
[3] Associated Press, “Gingrich Favors Handgun Ban for Domestic Abuse Convicts,” Deseret News, Sept. 16, 1996. The full quote reveals how much Speaker Gingrich had adopted the anti-gunners’ line of thinking: “I’m very much in favor of stopping people who engage in violence against their spouses from having guns,” the Georgia Republican said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I think that’s a very reasonable position.” But the fact that this gun ban covers misdemeanors in the home is primary evidence that NON-violent people have been subjected to lifetime gun bans for things like: shouting matches, throwing a set of keys in the direction of another person, spanking a child, etc.
[4] See H.R.1009, “States’ Rights and Second and Tenth Amendment Restoration Act of 1997,” introduced by Rep. Helen Chenoweth (R-ID).
“I already said that if he wants to use a teleprompter, then it would be fine with me. It has to be fair. If you [were] to defend ObamaCare, wouldn’t you want a teleprompter?” Gingrich asked.
“Now, just for a second I’m going to go in the detour and I’ll try to explain why I’ve been and he’ll say yes. There are two reasons. The first, is ego. Can you imagine him looking in the mirror? Graduate from Columbia, Harvard Law, editor of the Law Review journal, the greatest articulator in a Democratic Party?”
“How is he going to say that he’s afraid to be on the same podium as a West Georgia College student?”
This is a solid piece by Phyllis Schlafly, the matriarch of the conservative movement, where she makes what is perhaps the most important point in the campaign. The American people feel the nation’s decline and most people can feel the change in the national consciousness. Having recently finished a new degree I can tell you that even most students feel it. Talk radio has talked about how Obama is presiding over the nations decline and President Obama is telling is that American exceptionalism is no better than Greek exceptionalism. We are not getting this message with moral clarity and boldness from our candidates, or at least that is how it seems in the elite media.
For those of us who have been paying close attention though, Former Speaker Newt Gingrich has been saying these things. He is the only candidate who calls out President Obama, and many in his staff, as the Saul Alinsky radicals they certainly are. The media does not like reporting it, but it is there and will be unavoidable if Newt is the nominee. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, while not a candidate, has been calling out Obama and his friends as Saul Alinsky neo-Marxist radicals since 2008. Mayor Giuliani is very falimiar with the violent radical left and their front groups such as SEIU and ACORN.
Despite the inordinate quantity of press coverage about next year’s presidential election and attention to TV debates, plus the consuming desire of the media to predict who will win in 2012, the polls show that no candidate in either party is reaching 50 percent public support.
Meanwhile, the NBC News/WallStreetJournal poll, conducted jointly by Democrats and Republicans, reports that 74 percent of Americans think our government is taking us in the wrong direction, and only 17 percent think we are on the right track. Other polls are similar, with Gallup reporting 85 percent dissatisfied with the way our country is headed, and only 13 percent satisfied.
The locals are restless, the grassroots are demanding change, and the Tea Partiers are expecting results, but Congress is stalemated and President Obama spends his time fundraising and campaigning for his own reelection. Why hasn’t any candidate been able to ride citizen dissatisfaction into majority support?
I recommend that every presidential candidate read three books to understand why they don’t get it. First, they should read the best book about Barack Obama, Radical-in-Chief, which explains how he became a Socialist while attending Columbia University.
Nobody knew anything about what was called the “lost chapter” of Obama’s life until a real scholar, Stanley Kurtz, did the original research. The highlight was a 1985 Socialist Scholars Conference addressed by Frances Fox Piven, known for advocating the Cloward-Piven strategy of killing capitalism by loading more and more people on welfare.
The presidential candidates should then read two books that explain in depressing detail why grassroots Americans are convinced that our government is taking us in the wrong direction and over a cliff before our children and grandchildren will ever achieve the American dream. Those two new books are Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? by Patrick J. Buchanan and After America: Get Ready for Armageddon by Mark Steyn.
Those books will help the candidates understand, and maybe even develop some empathy for the Americans whose votes they seek and must have if they are to win.
Buchanan explains how the America most adults grew up in is fast disappearing. Americans resent the dictatorial, undemocratic way that elitists in the media, academia, the bureaucracy, and the courts have spit on the foundations of our culture.
Those elite opinion sources have carried on a war against our Judeo-Christian faith, traditional marriage, and our patriotic belief that America is exceptional and should be militarily superior. They have trashed and tried to abolish symbols we cherish such as the Pledge of Allegiance, the Ten Commandments, and a cross erected in a public place to honor our veterans.
Those same elitists, using the power of government, have destroyed the economic stability of the family by legalizing unilateral divorce, giving enormous taxpayer subsidies to single moms which discriminate against marriage, adopting so-called free-trade policies that shipped millions of good jobs overseas, importing millions of foreigners from Third World countries to take the remaining jobs away from Americans, and enforcing so-called affirmative action policies that discriminate against white men. They are replacing e pluribus unum with what Theodore Roosevelt warned against: unrestrained immigration that will make us “a ‘polyglot boarding house‘ for the world.”
Buchanan is eloquent in describing the coordinated attack on Christian America and its replacement with the new religion of diversity, using the language of political correctness. Equality, a French-Revolution word that does not appear in any of America’s founding documents, has been elevated to become our national goal instead of liberty.
Buchanan cherishes the hope that our political leaders will, in time, recognize that enough Americans still want to remain one nation under God and one people united by history, heritage and language. He gives specific suggestions for how we can avoid driving off the cliff into national suicide.
Mark Steyn’s book delivers the same message, but in his uniquely different and delightful style. As Ann Coulter said, “Only Mark Steyn can write about the decline of America and leave you laughing.”
Steyn is particularly critical of the failure of our educational system. In 1940, a majority of Americans were schooled only from grade one to grade eight, and they grew up to be the greatest generation.
Now the plan is to keep kids in school from pre-Kindergarten until their mid or late twenties, laden with debt and coached to accept dependence rather than liberty. And worse, it isn’t clear they have learned anything useful.
Steyn puts it to us bluntly: we can rediscover the animating principles of limited government, a self-reliant citizenry, and the freedom to exploit our talents, or we can join the rest of the world in terminal decline. His message is, “if you want a happy ending, it’s up to you. Your call, America.”
Boehner goes nuclear when he finds out that language was illegally inserted into the bill giving the AIG execs big bonuses with our money. This goes all the way back to the language in the failed Stimulus Bill.
This is the speech that Leader Boehner was referencing in the beginning of the video above
ABC’s World News on Wednesday and Good Morning America on Thursday both reported on the revelation that Newt Gingrich received almost $2 million while consulting for Freddie Mac over an eight year span.
Yet, the network ignored the fact that the company (with a Democratic President) is still giving massive bonuses and will now be asking the federal government for an additional $6 billion.
On World News, Jon Karl highlighted only the Gingrich connection, highlighting attacks by Michele Bachmann.
Yet, while ABC focused on this, NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell explained, “So, here’s what set off the latest round of outrage. $13 million in bonuses for the two mortgage giants that had to be bailed out by taxpayers. Now these bonuses come after Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac actually lost $4 billion last quarter.”
So, while NBC’s Andrea Mitchell offered snarky comments, such as insisting that Gingrich is “trying to explain his gold platted, insider status,” at least NBC allowed that the company still had issues, separate from their relation to GOP presidential candidates.
On CBS’s Evening News, Wyatt Andrews noted the “bipartisan anger” from Republicans and Democrats over the latest news.
Speaking of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae CEOs, Andrews added, “Fannie’s Michael Williams and Freddie’s Charles Haldeman, earned $9.3 million and $7.8 million over two years, which gives them, Republican Darrell Issa said, the best taxpayer-financed jobs ever.”
On Thursday’s Early Show, Jan Crawford mentioned the congressional investigation during a Gingrich segment. GMA only focused on the Republican presidential candidate. NBC’s Today did the same.
A transcript of the Evening News segment can be found HERE
The good stuff starts near the end of video one when he starts talking about Poland at 7:35
From CPAC 2010.
“If you are not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.” – Malcolm X
REAGAN
, which explains how he became a Socialist while attending Columbia University.
by Patrick J. Buchanan and After America: Get Ready for Armageddon
by Mark Steyn.
Political Arena 