Why I Support Newt Gingrich
I have been agnostic on the Republican primary so far, but the time for choosing has arrived.
For the reasons set forth below, I believe that the primaries will come down to Mitt Romney versus Newt Gingrich. As such, the choice is not between Newt Gingrich and some hypothetical more perfect conservative candidate, as Newt’s most vocal critics would have us believe.
I’m supporting Newt Gingrich as the most conservative Republican who is electable and most qualified for the position of President.
The Case for Newt is Strong
It is not enough to have a “not” candidate. There is a positive case for Newt.
As to Newt’s conservatism, one needs to view his almost 35 years in the public eye as a whole. There are few politicians who have fought as hard over so sustained a period against the false narrative in which an ever-expanding central state is seen as necessary and the decline of the United States is deemed inevitable.
While any of the Republican candidates running can argue against a particular policy or piece of legislation, only Newt has shown the ability to see the historical forest for the trees, to argue for American exceptionalism and greatness founded in history and constitutional principles, not sound bites. This description by Melanie Phillips seems most fitting:
Faced with the apparently overwhelming power of the left-wing media and intelligentsia, weaponised through their Orwellian hijacking of the language of the centre ground and their career-ending bullying and intimidation of all who dare to disagree, many conservatives have succumbed to the cultural mind-bending without even realising they have been in effect captured by the enemy.
The reason why Newt Gingrich is striking such a chord is principally because he does realise all this very well, and so delivers a very clear message and the hope of a return to reality. He gives expression, in other words, to an authentic conservative voice. Gingrich is very smart, a serious thinker and a good communicator. He is also extremely tough and resilient. He is without doubt a Big Beast in the political jungle — beside whom Mitt Romney, his chief rival, seems a diminished figure….
Desperate times like these need a Big Beast not just to defeat Obama but to defend the free world.
Newt is uniquely capable of communicating a winning conservative vision in a persuasive and forceful manner, as the positive reaction to his debate performances demonstrates. Obama versus Newt on stage before an audience of tens of millions of voters could lead to a catastrophic defeat for Obama, while Obama versus any other current candidate could have the opposite effect.
Newt has a political history which fits very well with the current political and economic conditions. While Newt was a combative Speaker of the House, he also was someone who fought successfully to balance the budget, reform welfare, and implement an economic growth agenda with a Democratic President in office. An electorate sick and tired of Washington politics and deficits will welcome this narrative.
The Case Against Newt is Weak
Many of the personal criticisms of Newt are fair game and well-known, and we would be foolish to discount them completely. But Americans are a forgiving people on personal matters, and Newt has atoned for his real and perceived sins. Variations on “when I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible,” still work.
Newt has made some policy mistakes, but that is to be expected from someone who has been so forthcoming with ideas and solutions, not just polled talking points. Some of those positions have been distorted and misrepresented, but some of the criticisms are fair, as Newt would acknowledge.
We never get a perfect candidate. We choose among those who are running. So don’t tell me about all Newt’s supposed heresies unless you are prepared to make the case why one of the other current candidates stacks up better. Among those who are running, no other candidate measures up to Newt.
Romney is not Conservative and Cannot Inspire
You can make lists of Newt’s policy positions over the course of several decades which were not conservative, as many people have started doing since Newt’s rise in the polls. But can you make lists of positions of Mitt Romney which were conservative prior to his decision in 2005 to set himself up to run for President in 2008?
And isn’t that the point? Romney simply is not conservative; he doesn’t exude it, he didn’t govern that way, he didn’t run that way in Massachusetts, and deep down, I don’t think most Republicans believe it.
Someone who is pro big state government does not inspire trust that he will be anti big federal government when in office. As the 2010 elections demonstrate, electoral success will not be achieved through someone who wants better big government; we need someone who truly believes in better smaller government.
Romney is a smart, decent person who would make a better President than Obama, but there is a reason three-quarters of the Republican electorate desperately seeks someone who is not Romney.
This primary cycle has been not so much a search for a nominee as it is a search for a nominee who is not Romney. No other candidate has given rise to a “not” movement. Romney is not capable of motivating the Republican electorate, and therefore damages the chances for victory against Obama. See, Bob Dole, John McCain.
A candidate has to have an intangible quality that leads people to want to get out and work, and vote, and fight like hell for the candidate. That is not enough to make one presidential (see, Obama), but it is a necessary component of general election victory which Romney does not possess.
Romney’s electability versus Obama simply is overstated. As leading Republican candidate after Republican candidate has been put through the media grinder, Romney has not. The mainstream media has been noticeably not going after Romney, saving the proctological examination of his business dealings at Bain for the general election grinder. (This Chicago Sun-Times article is a rare media attack on Romney and a taste of things to come.)
We are in the absurd position that the one candidate who most needs testing because he is the most likely nominee is the one candidate the media ignores as it devours his opponents. Buyer beware, we are being fed a false narrative of Romney electability.
Indeed, the most recent polling by McClatchy shows Newt as strong if not stronger against Obama. Let that be a warning bell every time you hear the argument that Romney is most electable because he is more moderate. Indeed, the argument that Romney is most electable because he appeals to moderates is ironic coming from people who argue that Gingrich actually is more moderate than the “Gingrich who stole Christmas” caricature.
How telling that one of Romney’s current most vocal supporters not long ago told us that if Romney were the nominee he would lose to Obama.
The Other “Not Romney” Candidates Are Weaker Than Newt
The other leading conservative candidates do no better than Romney in comparison to Newt. Unlike in prior election cycles, when a candidate could lie in the weeds until Iowa to make a surge (see Huckabee, Obama), Bachmann, Perry and Cain all have had their surges and have fallen back due to a variety of problems which are not going to go away.
Perry has been a solid Governor who has been unable to bring it to the national stage. I had very high hopes for Perry when the buzz of his possible presidential run started over the summer, but reality did not meet expectations, by a wide margin. It is too late in this election cycle for Perry to change the nation’s first impression, not even a better than expected showing in Iowa.
Cain is a very likable and inspirational person, but has not yet demonstrated the command of issues or ability to govern effectively. I am not convinced that 9-9-9 is a good or winning theme but it is the centerpiece of Cain’s campaign on which the presidential election would rise or fall if he were the nominee. I am not willing to risk four more years of Obama on whether the nation accepts 9-9-9.
Michele Bachmann had her surge early on, a surge I did not support or think could be sustained. As she has dwindled to low single digits in the polls, she has become more strident in her rhetoric and has taken herself pretty much out of contention.
That leaves Rick Santorum among the conservative candidates. He has not had his surge, and he may beat expectations in Iowa. But I do not think a candidate whose most recent electoral experience was a massive loss in Pennsylvania can make the case that he is a national candidate.
Paul is not a viable option to me, or in a national election.
Why I Support Newt At This Moment in Time
In many ways this is the riskiest of times to come out in support of Newt. Since he climbed to the top of the polls recently the long knives have come out for him. Newt is the first to acknowledge that such a process of extreme scrutiny is a good thing, which shows an electoral maturity that some others have lacked.
If my judgment proves incorrect, and Newt cannot survive the scrutiny, so be it. But it would not change my reasons for supporting him and for believing that he is the best candidate among the Republicans who are running.
We need someone who is conservative, inspirational, has command of the facts and arguments, and has the ability to bring it all together without fear of time clocks, debate moderators, or the mainstream media.
We need a message and a messenger. That is why I am supporting Newt Gingrich.
Updates: Ed Morrissey, Newt Gingrich is for real:
Those who want a fighter know that they can trust Gingrich not to embarrass them through incoherence or ignorance, and that he has a more natural inclination to confrontation than Romney. …. And if it comes down to Gingrich and Romney, the Tea Party contingent may well put its shoulders behind a man who they know will outfight Barack Obama if a more consistently conservative alternative fails to emerge.
More from Morrissey here:
Gingrich may not be a conservative dream candidate, but he has worked with grassroots conservatives far more than Mitt Romney has over the last several years, and he shows a much greater tendency to fight than Romney does as well. If there are no reliable conservatives whom voters can trust not to make fools of themselves in a long campaign, Gingrich at least fills that bill. And compared to Mitt Romney, Gingrich may well be conservative enough to become a rally point — much like Romney himself was in 2008, albeit too late to stop John McCain from winning the nomination.
I am not brushing aside his support of Dede Scozzafava, or that global warming commercial he made with Nancy Pelosi. His personal baggage is known.
But so is his record: He pushed for term limits, balanced budget, balanced budget amendment… He is pro-life and pro-liberty. I cannot think of another leader in Washington — he was 2 heartbeats from the presidency from 1995 through 1998 — who has publicly denounced secular humanism.
————————–
Note: While I will actively support Newt, I want readers to know that this blog will remain a place where supporters of various Republican candidates are welcome to make their voices heard in the comments.




Comments
While I have my concerns about Newt, I can’t deny that his tendency would be to default to a conservative position; Romney’s strong Ripon Society roots and his gubernatorial record suggest a default to the other side.
We have to remember that in the end, a President is a politician and a politician will cut the best deal he can get at the time- we saw it with Reagan and we’ll see it with Newt or whomever unseats Obama.
I bought his “stupid” analysis of the “Loveseat Diplomacy” commercial and was happy he sees the error of his ways; I could vote for him without holding my nose-and I can’t say the same for Romney.
Gingrich supports the murdering/assassination of American citizens without due process merely on suspicion. This is neither conservative nor is it American in value; it is tyranny.
One other thing, old, white-haired pudgy guy against young, tall black guy is not going to draw those voters who vote based on looks.
Yes, I know this is shallow. We are in the American Idol era. Face it.
Also, the public will not pull the lever for someone names “Newt.”
That is all I have to say.
No, it’s not a shallow premise. In marketing and design, the term is ‘Aesthetic Preference’. And its been proven. Age, hair color and countenance…matters in mass media.
Think Kennedy vs. Nixon. Reagan vs. Mondale. Scott Brown vs. Martha C. Age +/or Hair color.
People who dismiss these seemingly superficial criteria for electability don’t understand marketing science.
That said, should Newt become the not-Obama nominee; we must all show solidarity even if his zero aesthetic preference will make it much more difficult to market the GOP brand in the general elelction.
In response to claims that Gingrich is “polarizing”, and cannot lead constructively:
Gingrich repeatedly was re-elected to the House of Representatives, commencing at a time when Democrats controlled the politics in Georgia. He served for 20 years. He was successful and popular enough to become minority whip, then to be elected speaker. His record of accomplishments through those years is extensive and mostly solid.
He founded the Conservative Opportunity Society. He led Republicans into a majority in Congress during a Democrat administration. He was the co-author of Contract with America. He was Time’s 1995 Man of the Year. He helped push through welfare reform, as well as capital gains tax cuts, and a balanced budget. He was instrumental in pushing for internet access to Congressional information. Ultimately, he was attacked viciously by Democrats and the media — because of his conservative activism and his success, and, I suspect, because of having himself brought ethics charges against corrupt politicians. In the wake of the unpopularity of Republican attempts to remove Clinton, certain ambitious Republicans scapegoated him. Are we going to keep falling for propaganda? I don’t think so. I think the country has become much more media savvy and aware of what is going on.
Odd ….they voted for someone named barack hussain obama ….and did so while whole heartedly trying to kill folks with much the same sort of names in 1/2 dozen places around the world
People want authenticity in their leaders not a pretty face. You honestly believe even twentysomethings would vote for JLo for president? We’re fascinated by celebrity and will even pay to be entertained by it but we do not trust it to make decisions for us. Obama didn’t win because he was attractive, but because he seemed to speak from the heart. He doesn’t have that advantage anymore.
To prove the point, Ron Paul is a rock star among college students and you couldn’t find a more awkward and homely public figure. It’s authenticity and credibility that attracts his supporters, that he has a core and is not afraid to defend it. Newt is the next most authentic contender, even more so than Cain, who cannot admit a mistake, or Perry, who lurches between folksy and over-rehearsed talking points. Bachmann is so afraid of making a mistake she seems as robotic as Romney. And Santorum and Huntsman look like run of the mill politicians.
[...] William Jacobson: As to Newt’s conservatism, one needs to view his almost 35 years in the public eye as a whole. There are few politicians who have fought as hard over so sustained a period against the false narrative in which an ever-expanding central state is seen as necessary and the decline of the United States is deemed inevitable. [...]
I recall the sick feeling in my stomach as I pulled the trigger for McCain And as of this moment Gingrich is the only presence that doesn’t agitate the “gag” response FULLY
Is it to late to reconsider thadeus mccotter?
Gingrich-Martinez 2012?
The professor has jumped the gun and won’t take contrary comments any longer do to cognitive dissonance.
Here is the words from someone whose advice I trust:
“(The) cream of the crop has not risen yet in this very fluid primary process.”
– Sarah Palin, November 15, 2011 (on Greta)
While agree this being premature and I most especially agree with Palin, you are being unfair that Jacobson will not take contrary comments or the that he is suffering from cognitive dissonance.
I disagree with his reasoning with because I disagree with the foundational assumptions on which it is based, but there is nothing “dissonant” in his position.
There certainly is when Professor Jacobson attempts to minimize Gingrich’s foibles while optimizing his (questionable) attributes.
I think that’s called argument. He clearly believes Newt’s foibles (failures) are not that important and he has reasons for believing that.
“Cognitive dissonance” is holding mutually exclusive opinions (or making self-contradictory arguments) at the same time.
It’s good to see a positive case being made for Newt, as opposed to being merely the “not-Romney du jour.” I don’t agree with it as I think it is premature, particularly in regard to Perry.
But more importantly the postive argument relies almost exclusively on Newt’s talents as a spokeman, and the discounting of the negative arguments against Newt entirely ignores Newt’s actual record as speaker.
This summary statement particularly I take issue with: “We need a message and a messenger. That is why I am supporting Newt Gingrich.”
Nothing could be farther from the truth. We need a leader. Anyone can be a messenger; few can lead. Discounting what candidates have actually done in favor of what candidates have said is a serious mistake.
History shows that Newt is inherently a polarizing figure. When in the opposition, he is good on the attack, and at drawing a line between “us” and “them.” But he his record shows he cannot hold what his attacks gain him. He is not a leader, except in opposition; he has never shown the ability lead constructively.
It would be a mistake to nominate someone who cannot use the office of president constructively should he be elected to it.
We as a country opted for style over substance in 2008, and we turned a deaf ear to the maxim that “actions speak louder than words”. We have been suffering for it ever since.
If we want to save our nation, we must “disentrall ourselves” and rediscover the truth of those old verities.
This is absolutely true. It’s time to revisit history and look at Gingrich’s long record of accomplishments. Also to revisit with a more sophisticated eye the media spins and skewed weighing of what is important.
Indeed. That’s something that needs to happen with all the candidates.
Aucturian | November 16, 2011 at 2:23 pm
Market him as the wise thinker and, ergo, leader. Think Roman Senate!!!
Good idea — as long no one looks too closely at the actual Roman Senate.
But I would very much like to see a candidate with the slogan: Obama delenda est!
(NB: anyone who understands where or not “Obama” as used here is a feminine, 3rd declension noun properly modified by a feminine form of the passive periphrastic in what might be the nominative case is welcome to issue a correction.)
No correction needed. Obama presents himself as a “metrosexual.” (See, e.g., the photographs of him riding a bicycle. Compare the photographs of Bush on a bike.) Therefore the feminine form of the passive periphrastic is more than appropriate.
Sounds good to me.
Of course the case I think would be most appropriate is the feminine form of the passive parasitic, but I can’t seem to find that in a Latin grammer.
Sorry. But Newt is no Cicero or Seneca. Both Roman statesman were battle hardened veterans with no paunch (judging from their statues).
We’ll need much more because we are going up against the modern equivalent of Gauis Gracchus.
Owen J | November 16, 2011 at 3:24 pm
O.K. as far as the second part of your comment goes, I’d have to go back to freshman year Latin,which is more years ago than I care to admit; however, I wouldn’t mind the delenda est part being played up, although I am sure someone would claim that it is racist and the Secret Service would be hot on our heels!
I doubt many really know about the Roman Senate in detail, and still fewer have ever heard of it (particularly the younger generations)! But that “delenda est” certainly has a nice ring to it.
I don’t know about being racist but I suppose it could qualify as a threat — unless one could tack “at the voting booth” on the end, but I’m pretty sure that would destroy the effect.
Maybe there is a case that would translate “Obama-ness” or “Obamaist” to make it “clear” (yeah, right) that the attack is not personal but against Obama-like thought and behavior?
Of course it would be lost on the 99%, but I have to say, imagining someone like Col, West ending every speech with “Obamaist delenda est!” in the house makes me happy.
I agree with your position entirely, Professor.
For the first time since ’83, I think I’ll be voting for a candidate for President without having to hold my nose and say, ‘well, the other guy would be far worse’.
Of course it would be lost on the 99%, but I have to say, imagining someone like Col, West ending every speech with “Obamaist delenda est!” in the house makes me happy.
Wouldn’t that be wonderful. I can just picture it! (smiling her, or more like grinning). Why don’t you suggest it to him? Are you in his district or nearby?
Alas, I am not, but I suppose I could email him.
I’m thinking of getting it on a bumpersticker though…
Whatever misgivings I had against Newt were completely dispelled in Rush’s magnificent rant today. I normally have Rush on for background noise, but he really grabbed me today and made perfect sense.
So, great call Professor, and anyone questioning whether opposing opinions will still be welcome here should have their head examined. You have never been anything but fair.
Michael Graham, writing at the Boston Herald, has a good article on Gingrich. http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/2011_1116its_a_new_day_for_newt/ Graham is not a Gingrich apologist by any means, but as he notes, Gingrich may be the man for our national moment:
“The problem in Europe, for example, isn’t that their economies are struggling a bit. We’re talking about entire countries going broke and the euro possibly collapsing. The problem with Medicare isn’t that we need to nudge it into reform. Medicare is going broke, Social Security is already paying out more than it’s taking in and we’ve got (by some estimates) $100 trillion of entitlement and pension payments to make in the next generation that we can’t afford.
In a typical year with voters facing typical problems, typical pols carry the day. But there is nothing typical about 9 percent unemployment, a roller coaster stock market and Iran on the cusp of going nuclear.
And there is absolutely nothing “typical” about Newt. . . .”
I am sorry to see you going down this road. Newt personally has a slimy life. He’s cheated on his wife and been caught three (or is it four?) times. Why should I trust him? Plus he doesn’t have the self control to keep from being caught and personal gratification came first. What does that say about his putting others especially his country first. If you can’t put your immediate family first, then the only one closer is you.
He believes in not only global warming but government action to stop it. He raked in millions ‘consulting’ for failed government agencies after leaving office. He believes in the individual mandate for Obamacare. What more needs be said? He is not a Republican. His views and work would fit in just fine in the Democrat party. So what if he is ‘electable’? Obama was elected. Does that make him a good president? Should we vote for ‘anyone but Obama’? As far as I can see Newt would provide cover for more government interference and expanded regulation. Not trim the poisoned tree.
He is a parody of an insider rino. If I were not certain that some of his apologists here were serious I would consider this a pretty good satire thread.
I support Newt Gingrich for the Republican nomination in the absence of Sarah Palin. Frankly, if Sarah would be willing, a truly dynamite ticket would be Gingrich-Palin. Such a ticket would be a sure-fire national winner. Moreover, it would be an outstanding governing ticket, with Sarah coaching Newt with respect to executive action and Newt counseling Sarah on working with the legislature. And since Newt will be 69 on election day, 2012, Sarah would truly be in the catbird seat for 2016.
I think “dynamite” is indeed quite the word for it, but not in a good way.
In any event, I don’t think Palin would go for it — she’s a much better politician than Newt.
WardR | November 16, 2011 at 6:20 pm
I could go for that, but I would reverse the order.
Where to begin?
He believes in not only global warming but government action to stop it.
—Really? Newt has always been against Cap & Tax. He co-authored a book, titled “Contract with the Earth,” which he said outlined “a pro-market, pro-entrepreneur, innovative environmentalism.” Again, he’s NOT advocating the government regulate our energy producers out of business.
He raked in millions ‘consulting’ for failed government agencies after leaving office.
—So what? He gave advice to Fannie and Freddie and they ignored it. How about we focus on the members of Congress who benefited financially due to their inside knowledge of government efforts to deal with the collapse?
He believes in the individual mandate for Obamacare.
—“I agree that all of us have a responsibility to help pay for health care. And I think that there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I’ve said consistently, where there’s some requirement you either have health insurance or you post a bond or in some way you indicate you’re going to be held accountable.” He’s in no way advocating individual mandate, and federally-run health care. He’s simply saying the state shouldn’t pay for it, and citizens should show how they will cover themselves.
Let’s not forget that he supports murdering American citizens via executive order (or via secret committee) without due process.
[...] Why you should vote for Newt. [...]
[...] MUCH more at this link. [...]
Another faux conservative endorsement for the War Party. That Ron Paul is not a viable option to you is testament to your neoconservatism. Three cheers for the status quo!
Huh? You lost me…
The good ole days that the GOP is the war party are gone thanks to your present President. With an insurgence in Afghanistan and an invasion in Libya and now Uganda…I’d say the Dems are doing pretty good in that department. Oh..did I forget all the drone attacks and covert missions to take out certain Muslims?
Wake up, Suzy. The War Party refers to both the Republicans and Democrats, and there is no difference between the two.
“I’m supporting Newt Gingrich as the most conservative Republican who is electable and most qualified for the position of President.”
He’s not the most conservative; he’s not the most electable; and he’s not the most qualified.
Conservative – Take Gingrich’s “heresies” as Speaker and stack them against Romney’s as governor; you’ll find they’re practically on the same page, except in a few key respects. First, Gingrich wanted to take the individual mandate national, while Romney explicitly did not. Far from a “youthful indiscretion”, Gingrich supported a variation of the mandate as recently as last May. Romney, on the other hand, was asked in a 2007 interview if he would take his reforms national, and he said no, years before it was ever a sticking point with the country.
Second, Gingrich is far to the left of Romney on environmental issues. His turn on the couch with Nancy Pelosi is NOT so far distant. Romney, on the other hand, refused to institute cap-n-trade policies as governor; again, before it was ever an issue for conservatives. There are other policy issues in which Romney’s established record is more conservative than Newt’s, but we don’t have room to list them all here.
Electable – Let’s examine just how big that “Not Romney” movement actually is. Like the one child who acts up in class while the others study their assignments, the vocal anti-Romney crowd gets all the attention while the more considerate electorate is actually examining the field. What have they discovered? They like Romney best. He has the highest favorable rating and the lowest unfavorable rating of any candidate. He’s not just polling well against Obama nationally (while Gingrich isn’t), but in key swing states, as well (which Gingrich isn’t). He even makes certain states competitive that NO other candidate does, such as New Hampshire, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New York. He’ll force the president to campaign in states like Massachusetts and California, whereas Gingrich could conceivably lose in certain Midwestern and Southern states. Winning is about strategy, and Romney’s is a true 50-state strategy, while Gingrich can’t seem to build an effective primary strategy beyond scolding the media. That won’t cut it in the general.
Qualified – Gingrich was Speaker of the House for five years before his own caucus ran him out of town. He was able to get some fairly respectable laws passed, but then he wasted his political capital on a failed impeachment of Bill Clinton. Since leaving office, he’s been a consultant and a lobbyist. He’s educated, certainly, but he has no true experience with executive-style governance.
Romney, on the other hand, has the best and most diverse executive resume of any presidential candidate: 25 years in the private sector, four years as governor, and CEO of the 2002 Olympics. In none of those positions was he anything other than a complete fiscal conservative. He hasn’t tackled the federal budget like Gingrich has, but if there’s anyone who honestly thinks he couldn’t, then they’re simply not paying enough attention.
Bonus – No personal baggage. I could write an entire post about this, but I don’t think I need to.
I’ll restate my thesis: Gingrich is neither more conservative, more electable, nor more qualified than Romney is. Newt’s “flip-flops” are both more disingenuous and more recent than Romney’s, his personal life will be a sticking point for far more voters than Mitt’s Mormonism, and for all his “ideas”, running for president may have been the worst.
Click here to read more, not just about Newt, but about the absurdity of the “Anyone But Romney” movement: http://youngconservative27.blogspot.com/2011/11/grow-up-part-two.html
[...] Jacobson at Legal Insurrection has on excellent post on why he is supporting Newt Gingrich. I must confess to not being ready to chose at this point. [...]
I think I shall have to let the inimitable Velociman speak for me:
Newt’s a brilliant guy, levels upon levels above his competition, but he has always found himself grounded upon the treacherous shoals of his own rancid personality. He’s just not a likeable guy, really. Like many history professors he is pedantic, a bit scolding, and a bit of a know-it-all. And as Speaker of the House he found himself in situation after situation where the personably brillliant Clinton led him around by his nose with a hot poker, like St. Dunstan scourging the Devil.
[...] was on with Mark Levin last night. Prof. Jacobson at Legal Insurrection is on the Newt wagon now. Newt answers attacks [...]
[...] you're at it, also read William A. Jacobson's essay, "Why I Support Newt Gingrich," in Legal Insurrection. Share No tiene nombre | Habla | Corre la bola | [...]
I just found out in the “Environment and Energy Daily” column back in May of 2004…they reported that Romney was not sure climate change was occurring and that he did not believe it was manmade…that was in 2004! For that reason, the legislation he pushed in 2004 was an ALL VOLUNTEER proposal to reduce emissions since only 2% of all greenhouse gas in America was coming from Mass. All this time I thought Romney pushed Cap and Trade..I was wrong. I am a Perry supporter and needed to pass this infor along since I feel dumb that I had a view of this man that was very wrong. I also didn’t know he was against a national healthcare mandate in 2007 before it even was an issue. I also didn’t know that Gingrich pushed for a national mandate as early as May of this year. It is the little things that tend to make a difference…you think? This article needs to do some eye opening and review their research again like I did…no, Gingrich is not the nominee for us…of course only time will tell.
[...] does seem to be a drift towards Newt Gingrich amongst the conservatives of the Republican party. This post by William Jacobson gets to the heart of the matter. I believe that the primaries will come down [...]
Aside from Rick Santorum, who realistically doesn’t have much of a chance, nobody but Newt is smarter on foreign policy issues or is stronger against the jihad and sharia, my most important issues. All of Newts skeletons are long out of his closet and he has held true to the Reagan policy of not attacking other Republicans, staying out of the circular firing squad, AND he is a likeable charming guy. I can happily support Newt Gingrich, unless Allen West were to finally hear our pleas and run.
I would pay to see Newt Debate president zero, who should be forced to do so with no teleprompter. That alone would is almost reason enough to support him above all other contenders.
Great essay, Professor, you make a terrific case for President Gingrich.
One more thing, if you have little kids, check out Callista’s book Sweet Land of Liberty, my 4 & 6 year old love it and it is a great 9and adorable) learning tool to introduce kids to US history and American exceptionalism.
[...] full article here. GA_googleAddAttr("AdOpt", "1"); GA_googleAddAttr("Origin", "other"); [...]
[...] Newt Gingrich Is Presidential I was already inclined to agree with Professor William Jacobson. [...]