Image 01 Image 03

Newt and Mitt 1994

Newt and Mitt 1994

I have started watching videos from the earlier days of Newt and Romney.  I wasn’t politically conscious in 1994, so much of this is new to me.

I find the contrasts interesting, including this short clip of Romney running from “the time of Reagan-Bush,” and the somewhat longer clips below regarding the Contract for America.

If the choice comes down to Newt or Romney (as both I and Newt predict), I think this history will come into play, because the electorate will have to decide which candidate they trust when the going gets tough.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


I remember Newt’s speech, not Romney’s, of course he was not a well known national figure then.

I hate to admit it, especially as a Clinton voter and campaign volunteer from the 90’s who absolutely loathed Newt, but I would trust Newt over Romney, and I would trust strong consititional limited govt congress people to keep Newt in check.

I saw Romney just recently on cavuto’s show and the man refused to say that Romneycare was a mistake, I have friends in MA, they hate romneycare, it takes forever to get a doc appt, and the prices have gotten up substantially, doctors have moved out of the state, and the quality has gone down.

This is the first republican primary I believe I’m voting in, Newt’s not perfect, I’m sure the Barry worshipping media will pull up all sorts of past things said (sitting on a coach with Pelosi, etc), which I find so amusing. The LSM will vett Newt’s past from 20+ years ago, and yet won’t even vet Obama from just 3 years ago, apparently the LSM is still under the impression that independent minded Americans trust them as unbiased or their judgements as impartial bystanders.

The only way I would vote for Romney over Newt is if Newt implodes as the others have, or I see numbers in polling where Newt fares worse than Romney against Obama, as kicking him out of the WH next november 2012 is the main priority.

I like Newt more because he realises the opponent is not just Barry Soetero, its also the LSM that protects him. Not sure if Romney has caught on to this yet.

I’d like to add, I do find Romney more disciplined than Newt. So that’s another thing I will watch for. Romney has improved tremendously since the last election run.

So, I’ll see. A.B.O, so whoever has the better chance of defeating the fraud gets my vote.

I don’t trust either one of them!God help us if these are the best canidates,ABO is going to be hard to swallow.

The Congress led by Newt Gingrich facilitated, during the Clinton presidency, the lowest unemployment rate in modern times and the longest-ever sustained economic growth of the country.

Should we attribute this, at least in part, to a delayed effect of Reagan policies, capped by Bush I? Perhaps. Gingrich was in Congress, actively involved in pushing his ideas, through all of that time too.

But in terms of the “Contract with America” very little of it was implemented. Newt got his majority and then accomplished very little of lasting legislative reform.

Newt also refused to “defund the left” and allowed them continue to suck at the teat of taxpayer funded subsidies while pushing radical leftist agendas indistinguishable from the “OWS” movement today.

When you look at the wording of the “Contract” it was a clever promise to engage in smoke and mirrors but do little. I got suckered by the man once. Over the past 15 years I have learned my lesson.

Newt sounds like a conservative when he wants to but he has steadfastly refused to implement conservative legislation when he had the opportunity.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me…

    janitor in reply to WarEagle82. | November 19, 2011 at 3:07 pm

    Okay, WarEagle82. I have much respect for your opinions. Instead of dissing Gingrich, just tell me positives about what Romney has actually done for people, and how he has demonstrated that he is vested in the concerns of the people and the government of the United States. I’m ready to listen.

    JayDick in reply to WarEagle82. | November 19, 2011 at 4:43 pm

    I’ve said it many times before and I’ll say it many more times. The most important consideration is who is most likely to beat Obama. All other factors pale by comparison.

    The real choice is Obama or one of the Republicans. I’ll take the Republican, regardless of who it is. Obama’s reelection will doom our country.

      WarEagle82 in reply to JayDick. | November 19, 2011 at 4:46 pm

      No, that is a false choice. The real option is a progressive or a conservative. There are several GOP candidates who are progressives if less radically so than Obama. Electing a progressive Republican gets you to Obama’s goal slightly slower. Electing a conservative helps restore constitutional government. That is the real choice…

        JayDick in reply to WarEagle82. | November 20, 2011 at 8:55 am

        It is not a false choice, it is the only choice. Nominating a real conservative who can’t win won’t accomplish anything except the country’s downfall.

        Show me a real conservative who is likely to win, and I’ll support him/her 100%. But the important part is winning.

    That is correct. Gingrich promised to abolish 95 government programs in the Contract with America. Not only did he fail to abolish even one, by the time he stepped down in 1998, the budgets for these programs had increased by an average of 13%.

    Gingrich was also spearheaded repealing Glass-Steagall as Speaker. Although his own bills failed, he eventually prevailed when his idea to wed the repeal to compromising with the Dems on Fannie/Freddie led to the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 which repealed Glass-Steagall. That was what made Gingrich so valuable to Fannie/Freddie in 2008-2009 that they would pay him $1.5-2 million to help them strategize around Republicans.

    So Gingrich is not the guy to lead the world out of its current crises. He is a major reason why the world banking system is in the toilet. Although Romney is clearly not the guy for the GOP, neither is Gingrich.

    What a disaster the GOP has made of the 2012 campaign. Despite our warnings in 2006 and 2008 and the Tea Party victories in 2010, instead of relenting to allowing conservatives a place in the party machinery, the GOP establishment intensified their war against conservatives. There is no excuse for fielding such a pathetic field of liberal scoundrels. None. GOP=RIP

It is an interesting observation about political consciousness. Except for a mild involvement in the Federalist Society in law school, I was not politically awake until the Republican convention in ’08.

I didn’t know what a RINO was. Bush v. Gore registers because of the legal battles over the recounts in Florida, but I didn’t vote for either. Similarly, I didn’t vote in Bush v. Kerry.

Donald Douglas | November 19, 2011 at 1:07 pm

I’ve met both men, and neither of them are anywhere near my ideal candidate. I’d go with Romney simply as a matter of personal experience. I think his demeanor and friendliness is more of what we need in a president, compared to Gingrich’s cold, unfriendly wonkishness. I doubt there’s much difference in terms of patriotism and the direction of policy, both foreign and domestic. Frankly, this is a choice over the relative cringe factor, and I cringe less with a Romney presidency than a Gingrich presidency. But you’re right. I think it’s coming down to these two.

    Those are valid observations. On the other hand, I think Newt’s rhetoric is much stronger. In nearly all conversations, debates, responses to questions, etc., Newt gives strong, clear, logical answers. Seems like that would impress a lot of voters.

Is that the same Newt that boldly announced in May 2011 on Meet the Press that the Reagan Era is over?

    Zelsdorf Ragshaft III in reply to mdw9661. | November 19, 2011 at 7:52 pm

    With Obama as President and the policies he has implemented. I think that statement by Gingrich that the era of Reagan is over, is accurate. Must be some part of a small military, nonexistant domestic growth and unemployment at 9% you fail to grasp.

      So, tell me how Obama has any influence whatsoever on whether or not the Reagan Era is over? That akin to saying in the 1970s that since Jimmy Carter is president there is no Reagan Era. Unemployment was high then as well.

      Either you are intentionally disingenuous or unknowingly ignorant in that comment. If you were to check your history, you would realize that the shrinking of the military in a sizable way took place during the Clinton administration, during a time when Newt was Speaker.

      Perhaps you need a lesson: The Reagan Era is as much a philosophy as it is economic indicators. With the onset of the Tea Party and the historically substantial 2010 election, the Reagan Era is fine and well and resides with Tea Party conservatives.

      What is your motivation? Is appears to be shining the turds of Newt Gingrich.

[…] also: Legal Insurrection, who has a nice video comparison of Newt and Mitt in […]

[…] credit to William A. Jacobson at Legal Insurrection who posted these two […]

[…] double hat tip to Professor William A. Jacobson at Legal Insurrection, who originally posted the videos, and Henry Luis Gomez at Babalú Blog, who provided some solid […]