Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Thomas Sowell contrasted with anti-Newt Romney PAC money

Thomas Sowell contrasted with anti-Newt Romney PAC money

Thomas Sowell has an interesting column today pushing back against the demonization of Newt.  It’s not an endorsement, but it sure sounds like Sowell is not liking all the hate being directed Newt’s way (h/t jeannebodine in the Tip Line):

Did Gingrich ruffle some feathers when he was Speaker of the House? Yes, enough for it to cost him that position. But he also showed that he could produce results.

In a world where we can make our choices only among the alternatives actually available, the question is whether Newt Gingrich is better than Barack Obama — and better than Mitt Romney.

Romney is a smooth talker, but what did he actually accomplish as governor of Massachusetts, compared to what Gingrich accomplished as Speaker of the House? When you don’t accomplish much, you don’t ruffle many feathers. But is that what we want?

Can you name one important positive thing that Romney accomplished as governor of Massachusetts? Can anyone? Does a candidate who represents the bland leading the bland increase the chances of victory in November 2012? A lot of candidates like that have lost, from Thomas E. Dewey to John McCain.

Those who want to concentrate on the baggage in Newt Gingrich’s past, rather than on the nation’s future, should remember what Winston Churchill said: “If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost.” If that means a second term for Barack Obama, then it means lost big time.

Contrast Sowell’s sober assessment with this chart from The New York Times showing that a pro-Romney SuperPAC is pouring far more money into negative ads against Newt in Iowa than all the other candidates combined.

Getting people to hate Newt is the easy part, giving us a reason to vote for Romney is the hard part.

I’ve said it since the beginning of this campaign, Romney needs to make the case for him, not just against others.  If he cannot do that, and he hasn’t so far, he may win the nomination but he will not defeat Obama.

Update: via National Journal:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and his allies are making an all-out push to win the Iowa caucuses — or at least to knock down their toughest opponent — according to advertising data…

The $971,187 in combined Romney advertising is nearly as much as the rest of the Republican field is spending in Iowa…. And the tone isn’t going to reflect the Christmas spirit.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

“I’ve said it since the beginning of this campaign, Romney needs to make the case for him, not just against others. If he cannot do that, and he hasn’t so far…”

To be fair, Romney has only been running for president for five or six years and has only spent hundreds of millions of dollars. It takes more time and money to make your case when you have no case.

    BurkeanBadger in reply to Henry Hawkins. | December 20, 2011 at 8:51 pm

    Henry,

    You (and others) have mentioned this many times. And I agree. Romney has to provide solid reasons and argument for his candidacy, rather than just trying to win by default.

    But then, so does Gingrich (or any other candidate). Why should anyone support Gingrich qua Gingrich? Not simply to stop Romney? I am still waiting for an answer to that question.

    The answers provided involve nothing of significance that is new since late November when Gingrich suddenly ascended. Thus, I ask, if you are supporting him now, why didn’t you support him in July, August, September or October? Why weren’t you behind him when his numbers were in single digits?

    Maybe you’re all Cain supporters who have moved to Newt? Cain is the only one who has left the race. If you weren’t Cain supporters, what, specifically, about Newt has changed to win your allegiance?

    It certainly seems like most of the sudden Gingrich support exists primarily because he appears to be the last “Not-Romney” standing (although let’s see what happens with Santorum). And if one truly believes that Romney will be a major detriment, it is fine to support Newt for negative reasons alone.

    But, don’t chastise us Romney folks for doing the same thing

      Henry Hawkins in reply to BurkeanBadger. | December 21, 2011 at 12:59 am

      Maybe it’s just that you have a self-defeating habit of making sweeping assumptions about people you know nothing about, assumptions that, ahem, coincidentally support your preheld position?

      How would you know who I did or did not support in August?
      Are you keeping notes and calendar logs on Gingrich supporters? Do you consider it a good argument that if one hasn’t supported a given candidate from the beginning, there is a falseness in the later support?

      It’s a campaign. They’ve all been giving speeches, debating, doing interviews, etc. Voters have been reading, watching media, doing their own research, etc. It’s a process. For many, it is a close thing between this or that candidate. Late entries are common, as we saw with Rick Perry. Decisions not to run come late too, as we saw with Palin, Christie, etc. Some folks approach this differently than you apparently do. Perhaps it is an error to differ from you in how – and how fast – one picks a candidate? If so, we apologize. We had no idea.

      Gingrich supporters here have articulated their reasons often and well, just as we have articulated our reasons for not supporting other candidates. We don’t bear the blame for your remaining ignorant of them. That is all yours.

After 2008 many pundits said that the Republican nomination process was fundamentally broken. Looks like it has gotten worse, not better.

Conservatives have really dropped the ball here. One negative story and we flee a candidate like rats fleeing a sinking ship. Think how easy that makes it for the MSM to choose our candidate for us.

Newt has very little money, so self-defense is difficult. This fall is different that Perry and Cain – it is from external attacks rather than self destruction.
I am reminded of movies like “The Omen” and “The Sixth Day” – we have lots of people (e.g. Beck, Coulter) that we thought were conservative and somewhat fair; and all of a sudden they act like minions of the anti-Christ.
What will happen? Ron Paul will be encouraged; he will run 3rd party; Obama will win. So…who is the anti-Christ in this scenario?

@SameSame: BINGO!
Why is the public falling for the MSM like sheeples all over again? Don’t they ever learn?
I must be an oddball, because I see right through this bull.
They attack Gingrich because they FEAR Gingrich.

It’s a completely unfair comparison (Gov. Romney’s accomplishments vs. Speaker Gingrich’s). Romney wasn’t exactly swept into power as part of a conservative tidal wave. Massachusetts was and is a very liberal state, and the only reason it has recently elected GOP governors is to provide a bit of a check on the solid-Dem legislature and because the GOP candidates were generally impressive, “jobs”-oriented leaders who WEREN’T running as major conservative reformers. By contrast, Newt became speaker specifically because of a conservative reform wave that swept across the country. Of course he “did more”; he had a mandate to “do more.”

It’s also ludicrous to ask people who weren’t in a given state at the time to compare what the governor of that state did to what a national figure like Gingrich did. Obviously, people in Montana are going to have a better handle on what Newt did as speaker than what a governor did simiply because the speaker was on Dan Rather and CNN every night.

As someone who did live in Massachusetts during Romney’s term, I was glad to have him in there even though there was no chance he was going to be able to turn the state into a Mecca of conservative governance. The best you can hope for from these lefty states is SOME measure of restraint and sanity, which hopefully will at least postpone the inevitable collapse that liberalism invites.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Conrad. | December 20, 2011 at 2:09 pm

    “Massachusetts was and is a very liberal state, and the only reason it has recently elected GOP governors is to provide a bit of a check on the solid-Dem legislature and because the GOP candidates were generally impressive, “jobs”-oriented leaders who WEREN’T running as major conservative reformers.”

    Since 1858, when every Massachusetts governor was either Democrat or Republican, Republicans have won 33 of 50, or 66%. Did Romney forget how to create jobs between 2002 and 2006? Your ‘only reason’ is not born out by the record, nor does it explain why jobs guru Governor Romney’s negatives were so high he declined to even run for reelection.

      I said that’s those were the reasons liberal Mass voters elected Republicans. How does the “record” disprove this? I didn’t say that Romney, just because he ran as a non-threatening “jobs”-type candidate, could in fact transform Mass into, for example, Texas. I’m saying pretty much the opposite. Mass. was a liberal state in decline before Romney and a liberal state in decline after Romney. Essentially the entire legislature and state government bureaucracy have been steeped in liberalism for years and years. All a GOP governor can hope to do there is promote policies that are somewhat more conservative than his Dem opponent’s policies would be. You can’t blame Romney for the state’s economic performance when he doesn’t have the votes or a mandate from the electorate to change anything.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to Conrad. | December 20, 2011 at 4:36 pm

        You said of the liberal Massachusetts “the only reason it has recently elected GOP governors is to provide a bit of a check on the solid-Dem legislature and because the GOP candidates were generally impressive, “jobs”-oriented leaders who WEREN’T running as major conservative reformers.”

        I was pointing out that Massuchusetts has by a two to one margin elected Republican governors over Democrats all the way back to 1858.

        I was pointing out further that if “the only reason it has recently elected GOP governors” (Romney being the fourth Republican governor in a row) was because of their perceived jobs creating expertise, why were Romney’s number so bad he declined to run for reelection?

        Romney’s two main resume items are ‘job creating businessman’ and ‘job creating governor of Massachusetts’.

        I hope those who support take your other words to heart:

        “You can’t blame Romney for the state’s economic performance when he doesn’t have the votes or a mandate from the electorate to change anything.”

        Assuming you are correct, and I don’t doubt that, Romney was ineffectual at best on jobs and the economy in Massachusetts. And then there’s that Romneycare.

        My apologies – I’m not refuting you so much as using your post to illustrate some hard truths about the supposed only electable conservative.

    Same Same in reply to Conrad. | December 20, 2011 at 4:47 pm

    No one, not even the Romney campaign, is touting Romney’s governorship as a reason to vote for him. He served one term which was enough for the people of MA to throw him out. Seeing the writing on the wall, he decided not to run for reelection.

    When a candidate is running for national office, it is useful to consult with the people who know that candidate best. If MA wouldn’t reelect him, and wouldn’t support him in a presidential election, that has to count for something. You might talk about MA being a blue state, but Pawlenty didn’t have that problem, did he?

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Same Same. | December 20, 2011 at 7:38 pm

      Agreed, except that Romney most certainly is using his one term in Mass as a campaign positive – executive government experience akin to the presidency. During the early debates Romney, Perry, and Huntsman argued extensively that their respective performances as governors made them the one true Job Creator.

There’s an element of hysteria in all of this: the voters cannot be trusted and Gingrich clearly is not going to follow the status quo if elected.

Romney reminds me of Al Gore and John Kerry : the “electable” candidates. How’d that work out?

@ Tamminator (and others): Why is it so difficult for Newt’s supporters to grasp that there are genuine, intelligent, well-meaning conservatives who simply don’t share your judgment as to Gingich’s being the best candidate? I’m getting so tired of this meme that if someone criticizes Newt, it’s because that person is a RINO or a stooge of the MSM. I find this particularly galling because practically NOBODY who supports Newt now was supporting him back in, I dunno, July, when he was polling in the low single digits. If his magnificence as a candidate is so obvious now that opposition to Newt can only be explained as the rantings of fools and confederates, then why weren’t all you folks backing him months ago?

Face it: Gingich is a flawed candidate, just as the other candidates are flawed. Reasonable people can and have reached different judgments as to which of the flawed candidates would be the best nominee for the party. I wish people could simply accept that.

DINORightMarie | December 20, 2011 at 1:27 pm

Rush just read Dr. Sowell’s column on the radio. Hope that helps your blog, too! 🙂

I don’t see how anyone, unless they are being paid, can find Romney a better candidate than Newt. Unless you have a personal issue with him, perhaps.

However, this is the time for our people to put personal issues aside; if we don’t, our nation will not exist, and socialist “fundamental transformation” will be completed. America will become, officially, Ameritopia.

@Conrad:
You missed my point completely. The media has been piling on Newt for the past week. Just like they did Palin. They are afraid of him.
Watch then fawn over the candidate that THEY choose for us.
That’s what they did with McCain. Also watch for the use of the word “moderate”.

I didn’t say I was fawning all over Newt. I’m saying, watch what the media and pundits do, because they will tell us exactly who they FEAR.

Vote for whomever you want.

American Family Assoc. just endorsed Newt.

    workingclass artist in reply to herm2416. | December 20, 2011 at 4:14 pm

    Yeah…It’s weird but both anticipated evangelical endorsements went to the 2 catholics in the race.

    No word yet on how the southern baptists feel about that…

    *snicker*

Thomas Sowell is right on the money. These people are giving the election to you know who, on a silver platter.

IF and WHEN that occurs, Mr. You Know Who will expropriate the silver platter. “stupid is as stupid does”.

Romney doesn’t need to make the case for himself to beat Obama, all he has to do is make the case against Obama. Re-elects are a referendum on the incumbent. As long as Romney doesn’t look threatening and more people disapprove than approve of Obama he will win. Not sure Newt has the same luxury.

    DINORightMarie in reply to valleyforge. | December 20, 2011 at 3:45 pm

    By your own logic, Newt would beat Obama, as well. If all that has to be done is that the Republican nominee makes the case against Obama – which, thus far, only Newt has consistently done – then it is a no-brainer done-deal Republican win.

    However, your logic leaves out the Alinsky-ites who will use a scorched earth destroy-the-target campaign against WHOEVER the Republicans nominate. That will happen to Newt, Romney, Bachmann, whoever.

    So, the key to winning is both that the nominee keeps the offense up against Obama’s abysmal, failed presidency AND having a great defense that will NOT cave to the horrible negative attacks that are sure to come.

    We ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

    Believe me, this 2012 election will be the worst in memory, perhaps the worst ever in our nation’s history. Beyond dirty, beyond low, beyond the pale.

    These types of ideologues live for the cause, and will do whatever it takes – “by any means necessary” – to take out their “target.”

    Just read (or re-read) Rules for Radicals. And review what was done to Hillary and Sarah Palin. Then multiply by 1000. That is just a hint of what’s coming.

      BannedbytheGuardian in reply to DINORightMarie. | December 20, 2011 at 4:30 pm

      Aye Aye.

      In a worst case scenario -say equal to 1937 Britain – Romney = Chamberlain . I do not believe all the negatives of PM Chamberlain for he did what the aristocracy allowed him do. Romney will do what the US aristocracy allows.

      Newt = Churchill. A flawed man with past failures & triumphs. Churchill was a racist (by todays standards ) an Empirist A black dog depression man , even an over indulger of fine cigars & food & wine.

      However he alone saw the evil & he alone had the fight in him. Secret cabinet papers have revealed just how close the British inners were to a non aggression treaty with Germany.

      One difference is that however weak the British upper class were the people were tigers.

      Not so sure about USA 2012.

    I think 2012 will be much more of referendum on Obama than on either Romney or Gingrich, but it’s never going to be 100% about the incumbent. Whoever the GOP nominee is, he will have to be an acceptable alternative to Obama.

    That said, Newt is probably a riskier choice than Romney on this score because there’s a lot less in his public career that can be easily lampooned or caricatured. Being an “ideas” guy, Newt has undoubtedly left a long paper trail of ill-conceived ideas for the Obama folks to follow. And it doesn’t matter if 90% of these ideas are good; it’s other the 10% that will get all the attention (take Newt’s judicial reform plan, for example).

    As far as Romney’s supposedly having accomplished nothing in Massachusetts, that non-barking dog is not going to count for much in a general election. The voters are much more concerned with who you are and what you WILL do than with how much you’ve accomplished in another elected office. Based on records of accomplishment, Lincoln never would have beaten Stephen Douglas (in 1860, not 1858).

      janitor in reply to Conrad. | December 20, 2011 at 6:33 pm

      Being an “ideas” guy, Newt has undoubtedly left a long paper trail of ill-conceived ideas for the Obama folks to follow.

      It sounds as though you’re guessing.

      And it doesn’t matter if 90% of these ideas are good; it’s other the 10% that will get all the attention…

      As far as Romney’s supposedly having accomplished nothing… voters are much more concerned with who you are and what you WILL do than with how much you’ve accomplished…

      All politicians talk about what they will do. Most don’t do. Romney has done the same, but without specifics: conclusions about where we have to go (goals), but not how to get there. The United States is not an office supply store, and is not in the private sector. (Can we just bankrupt or sell off the unseemly nonproductive parts of the population?)

    Doug Wright in reply to valleyforge. | December 20, 2011 at 4:10 pm

    @valleyforge: If Palin were running, I’d be pushing her as much as I can, heck even donate a few of my very sparse bucks to her campaign. However, of the hopefuls, Newt is the only one who espouses what I espouse, and I especially like his views on the roles of all three branches of our federal government.

    So, understand that the professor, who has different reasons, perhaps, from mine for supporting Newt is supporting Newt and encouraging others to do so too. If you have a different view, and it certainly sounds like it, start your own blog and post away. As far as your arguments, Romney has yet to make any case for anything except he’s not BHO, which if things fall his way would be good enough to vote for him versus BHO on election day.

    Please understand that it’s all about electing the GOP candidate and thus defeating BHO, he of little faith, morals, or convictions other than his being a follower of Alinsky.

Romney ‘says’ he’s a conservative, but very little in his political record provides evidence of that, while much in his record casts justifiable doubts. In terms of what he has ‘said’, Romney has held every spot on the political spectrum from liberal Democrat (read his words from his run against Ted Kennedy) all the way over to conservative Republican (what he currently ‘says’), hitting every spot in between.

But, when you look at what Romney has actually done as opposed to what he now says or has said…. ouch. Romneycare? A “model for the nation” as he put it? Though there is much more, that’s a deal-killer right there.

    I dont’ think a fair and impartial reading of the record supports the conclusion that Romney is significantly less conservative than Gingrich. First, if you look at their positions on the issues, I don’t think there is much if any difference between them (or amongst the GOP contenders as a group, Ron Paul excepted). Second, you can’t reasonably cite Romneycare as the smoking gun of Mitt’s supposed liberalism without at least acknowledging that Newt was also in favor of an individual mandate (and, in his case, it would have applied to the country as a whole, not just the People’s Republic of Massachusetts). Third, the whole myth that Mitt ran to the left of Ted Kennedy, which Newt fans repeat ad nauseum, is based on a comment Mitt made solely in connection with the issue of gay rights, in which Mitt said not that he would be more “liberal” on this issue, but that he would be a more effective leader (or advocate, I forget which). The idea that Mitt was, in that one utterance, revealing himself to be to the left of EMK is nonsense. One can just as easily cite numerous examples of Newt saying something that sounded liberal (like the shot at Romney for layigg off people at Bain, or the Pelosi-couch episode, or endorsing the non-Tea Party candidate in the NY Congressional race).

    Romney MIGHT be marginally less conservative than Newt, but to suggest there’s a huge space between them on the ideological spectrum (in either man’s favor) is just an assertion not backed up by the facts.

      janitor in reply to Conrad. | December 20, 2011 at 6:37 pm

      Conrad, why are you FOR Romney?

        Conrad in reply to janitor. | December 20, 2011 at 8:18 pm

        I don’t favor him on ideological grounds. As I’ve said before, I’d strongly prefer Mitt was a lot more conservative. However, I don’t think he’s that much less conservative than the others. The reason I would support him over Newt, for example, is that I think Romney would be better at BEING president than Gingrich, and probably a much safer bet to get there. Romney has loads of executive experience, including in the private sector. He seems to be very smart, very well-spoken, and very, very focused and driven. He doesn’t strike me as someone who wants to become president in order to test out on the American people the validity of a bunch of theories that have been kicking around in his head for years. I think he would take the job understanding that his “employer” wants certain things to happen (repeal Obamacare, free up the energy sector, cut spending, etc.) and that he would by and large pursue that agenda.

        I could go on, but hopefully that gives you a sense of where I’m coming from. I specifically reject the idea that conservatives should support whoever the most conservative candidate is, regardless of all other considerations. Reagan was probably NOT the most conservative candidate in 1980 (anyone remember Phil Crane?). But he was the best candidate and almost certainly was a better president than any of the other candidates that year could have been.

      Aarradin in reply to Conrad. | December 20, 2011 at 6:51 pm

      If a progressive Democrat had been Governor of Massachusetts rather than Mitt, would he have done anything different? Would we notice the difference?

      To this day Romney defends the individual mandate. He still defends Masscare as a positive accomplishment for Massachusetts. It was, and is, an unmitigated disaster. Private insurers fled the state, costs are through the roof and growing much faster than the national average, wait times are at Canadian levels, and the real extent of the disaster is disguised by passing substantial costs to state and federal taxpayers. The ‘fix’ they are proposing is to implement single-payer government run health insurance.

      As for Newt on the mandate – you forget (or are ignorant) of the fact that he was proposing it, tactically, as a means to defeat HillaryCare. There’s context there that you have chosen to ignore.

      Mitt on ‘global warming’ actually entered Massachusetts into a regional carbon trading scheme and imposed carbon caps on utilities that resulted in the, so far, permanent reduction of generating capacity by 18% in the state. Eletric rates, as Obama would say, “necessarily skyrocketed”. Newt, of course, sat on the couch with Pelosi for a commercial – which led to no legislation.

      Mitt was as much a “venture socialist” in MA as Obama is nationally. Gingrich actually balanced a federal budget – which is no small feat, as you can tell by how seldom its ever been done.

      Based on what they’ve actually done in office, as opposed to selected quotes deliberately taken out of context, its clear that Mitt is, at best, a ‘moderate Republican’. But, don’t listen to me, Mitt described himself repeatedly as a “progressive” and as pushing the “progressive agenda” while running for MA Gov and while in office – and he has the record to prove that that is what he is.

        Tamminator in reply to Aarradin. | December 20, 2011 at 7:53 pm

        Excellent arguments. And civil.

        Conrad in reply to Aarradin. | December 20, 2011 at 8:30 pm

        I agree Romneycare is a serious demerit for Mitt. At the same time, I don’t accept that Newt’s support for the individual mandate was entirely “tactical” just because that’s how he characterizes it today. Similarly, I don’t really think that Newt’s gig with Freddie Mac was anything more than his cashing in on his bona fides as a prominent Republican. I think Freddie Mac, a thoroughly Dem outfit, hired him to give them some useful bipartisan cover, and Newt went along because it was an extraordinarily lucractive engagement.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Conrad. | December 20, 2011 at 7:42 pm

      Name ONE thing that Romney has done to advance the cause of conservatism. ONE. Not words he’s said or claims he makes. Actions he’s taken. Name ONE.

        What could he do in one term as governor of Massachusetts? It’s not like he could pass legislation banning public sector unions, what with a legislature that was like 80-20 democrat.

        I know he vetoed something like a million bills passed by that legislature. Does that count as “advancing the cause of conservatism”?

        I really don’t think it makes sense to treat the nomination as a reward for prior service in the cause of conservatism. Elections are about the future. I’ll gladly concede that Newt has done more for the cause of conservatism than Mitt. It doesn’t follow that Newt would make a better president. (Isn’t anybody troubled by the fact that Newt has ZERO exectuive experience, and has been out of office for a dozen years or so? Do these things not matter at all?)

          BurkeanBadger in reply to Conrad. | December 20, 2011 at 9:07 pm

          Name ONE thing Newt has done to advance conservatism since 1998? ONE. It seems that a lot of Newt supporters are living in the very distant past of the halcyon days of the Contract With America. Yes, it was impressive, and yes Newt worked hard to advance conservatism on an intellectual and practical basis back then.

          But it’s going to be 2012 in two weeks. There will be voters in this election who were born in the year of the Contract and plenty more who have no memory of it. The Republican Party and conservatism in general has moved in many, many directions since Gingrich left the Speakership under a cloud (some good, many others bad).

          Where has Newt been during this time? We all know the answer to that, and it mostly is not pretty. I agree that Romney does not have a stellar record of practical conservative accomplishments. But, neither does Newt.

          I get the feeling that many Gingrich supporters are in a euphoric state about those heady days of late 1994 and 1995 (until the shutdown), when conservatism seemed unstoppable, when Clinton and most mainstream Democrats were reduced to adopting Contract-lite talking points and when Gingrich was the biggest factor for this atmosphere.

          But those days are long, long gone. And no, Newt cannot bring them back. Neither can Romney. Since there is nobody in the Presidential race (e.g. Ryan, Christie, Jindal) who plausibly can, let’s examine the candidates by more modest standards. Who is more likely to beat Obama, usher in a GOP Senate, and at least reverse a small portion of his statist “fundamental transformation” nightmare?

          The answer to that, I have no doubt, is Mitt Romney.

Romney, like Obama, can not run on his record. Certainly not as Governor of Massachusetts which he ran in a manner indistinguishable from a progressive Democrat. Its also becomeing apparent that he can’t run on his record in the private sector either. Bain will hurt him tremedously.

So, if we end up with Mitt vs Barry, we will have nothing but mudslinging from both sides.

Gingrich has been succeeding based on his positive campaign. He’s the only candidate that’s stirred some passion in the base.

Perry could do the same, if he could manage to string a coherent sentence together. Perry, IMO has the best record to run on. I’d be all for him if he could articulate it.

Two questions: 1) In this particular race (2012) can we afford to wait for the “perfect candidate,” and 2) given a choice between imperfect candidates do we want the candidate The Establishment chooses or the one it loathes? Remember, the enemy of Liberty is already running for re-election. What matters all our legitimate and worthwhile social concerns if our economy collapses, taking the nation with it? That’s like trying to rearrange the furniture in a house with no roof.

You know what is appealing to me about Gingrich?
That he seems like he could be a big “don’t fuck with us” leader.
Americans are looking for that after since Obama is such a wimp.
And THAT may make me vote for him over the others.
I’ll vote for anyone who is the Republican nomination no matter what, but I’m starting to like the guy who people hate.

–> Burkean Badger:

“Name ONE thing Newt has done to advance conservatism since 1998? ONE.”

1. Served on the US Commission on Nat’l Security (examines nat’l security issues concerning the military, law enforcement and intelligence agencies)

1. Taught at both the USAF’s Air University (Joint Flag Officer Warfighting Course) and National Defense University (teaching various courses to officers from all branches).

1. Informal special advisor to Donald Rumsfeld on nat’l security strategic issues.

1. Member, Project On National Security Reform.

1. Founder and Chairman of American Solutions For Winning The Future (recruits, trains, supports citizens and elected officials in reforming how government is conducted).

1. Formed Gingrich Productions (assorted conservative documentaries, books, etc).

1. Renewing American Leadership (religious group providing education on conservative cultural and governmental reform)

1. Signed the Strong America Now pledge towards cutting government spending.

1. Regular appearances on FOX News and many other media outlets supporting the conservative viewpoint with his experience as Speaker, knowledge of history, etc.

“I agree that Romney does not have a stellar record of practical conservative accomplishments. But, neither does Newt.”

Newt’s non-stellar non-practical non-conservative non-accomplishments:

1. Congress, 1981 – co-founded the Congressional Military Reform Caucus.

1. Congress, 1983 – founded the Conservative Opportunity Society for House GOP, especially younger, newer ones (prepatory move to eventual takeover of House majority). Reagan took the ideas of this Gingrich-led group and used them in his 1984 reelection.

1. Congress, 1988 – major player in forcing resignation of Jim Wright (D).

1. Congress, 1989 – named House minority whip

1. Congress, 1994 – led writing of the Contract With America, which led to GOP takeover of House for first time 40+ years.

1. Congress, 1995 – voted Speaker

1. Speaker, 1995 – Congressional Accountability Act to remove many of the entitlements enjoyed by members of congress

1. Speaker, 1996 – Welfare reform

1. Speaker, 1997 – Capital gains tax cuts (Taxpayer Relief Act)

1. Speaker, 1999 – Worked with Clinton to produce first balanced fed budget in 30+ years.

Sorry – I could only find the one thing.

Maybe a supporter could provide a no doubt equally poor list of Romney’s conservative accomplishments for comparison?

    Hope Change in reply to Henry Hawkins. | December 21, 2011 at 2:22 am

    Henry Hawkins, major kudos and props!! Thank you for this list. I know it is on;y partial, and yet it is still great.

    I support Newt more surely with every passing day.

    Some people haven’t watched the speeches yet and still don’t know what’s going on.

    Whether you decide to support Newt or not, once you watch the speeches, you will understand why others do.

    I came of age in a very idealistic 1960’s. I so wanted George McGovern to win! In later years, I realized he was very naive and his plans wouldn’t work in the real world. Newet’s campaign is the first since I began to understand what Reagan was doing and began to support Reagan that I have been truly excited about the campaign of a candidate.

    The American people can shift away from quasi-communism and the always-growing power of the federal government STATE. Newt understands that we need to do this. He and his team are working on how we can do this.

    I am really looking forward to Newt’s first day in office if he wins, and I think he will win, when he abolishes the executive-branch czars. Gone!

    Thank you again, Henry Hawkins, for that list! I don’t need to say negative things about the other candidates, just the positive things about Newt.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Hope Change. | December 21, 2011 at 11:52 am

      Thank you, and you are welcome.

      It is striking that Romney talks and talks about his conservatism, but touts no achievements involving conservatism, indeed, spends much time explaining away decidedly unconservative actions and statements from his past. I’ve been asking for many weeks now for a Romney supporter to name one thing that Romney has done to advance conservatism – not mere words or campaign happy talk – but a definitive action or achievement that demonstrates Romney’s conservatism. There may be dozens of them, but how telling is it that his supporters cannot seem to list even one?

      Well, now they have a chance to list Romney’s achievements right next to an abbreviated list of Gingrich’s, that we all may compare the two.

Suspiciously quiet, isn’t it? lol

Well – Romney supporters couldn’t/wouldn’t ‘name one thing’, so I’ll do it for them:

One thing Romney did to help advance conservatism began in February 2008 when he gave up on his nomination run and endorsed McCain within the week. Since that time and through the 2010 midterm elections Romney was a tireless supporter and fundraiser for GOP candidates across the nation, many of which were conservative. That was a good thing.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend