Why I'm Backing Newt Gingrich

For conservatives, I'm a might tired of the weenies who prance around on the Internet as if they're spoiling for a fight, then when someone with a little fight in them comes along, they start sounding like pussified Republicans. Oh, God, no, we can't have that go on!!

One of the Left's big advantages is, they aren't afraid of a little passion in their politics. They're also more willing to take risks. Well, there's a rule of thumb that applies, higher risk is required for higher reward. Look it up in your capitalist manifesto, when you climb down off your high horse and stop defending it, when it wasn't under attack in the first place.

I didn't start out backing Newt Gingrich. Perry was my guy. He's gone and you go to war with the army you've got, or you can sit in your tent and pick your ass, while government continues to grow and we continue the long, slow slide into statism that's been going on for almost a century, now.

It is inconceivable that we will see any serious Right-leaning reform from a guy like Mitt Romney. He may work hard at some things when it suits him, but he has no history of fighting for anything other than perhaps parochial interests when the current is seriously against him. And the current in Washington and the media is most definitely against conservatism.

Romney will make Bush's Compassionate Conservatism look like the real thing. At this point in our nation's history, what in the hell is there worth fighting for in that? We may as well turn out the government approved light bulbs and hand over the keys to an establishment GOP every bit as invested in big government, as are the Democrats. They just like to tinker around the ever expanding edges of it on their own behalf.

Well, I'm not down for that. And most certainly not now. We do not have four or eight years to fritter away on Obama-lite, which is precisely what Romney is. So much so, in fact, he may not be able to win the general as his record indicates there isn't really enough difference to warrant throwing Obama out in the eyes of many voters.

Say what you want about Gingrich, one can look at his record and see someone who actually was once involved in some serious reform of the right kind in Washington. I watched the debate last night and all the others, sorry, but Santorum does not impress in this regard. I'm sure he's a fine man and I have resisted criticizing him, but that dog won't hunt, most especially in any general election. So, get over it.

Conservatives now have but one horse to ride; otherwise, you may as well saddle up with Mitt and head off into the sunset with whatever you think is a genuine form of conservatism. Romney is not going to expend one iota of political capital selling it, or fighting for it, because he doesn't believe in it. He is as elitist and out of touch with the working class that empowers Reagan conservatism as is Obama. And he's damn near as progressive in terms of government being the answer to everything, as long as he's the one who gets to make the decisions. That's not conservativism. It's bullshit.

We're in a fight to save what remains of the vision we have of America as conservatives. Whatever he's done, or not done, we can tell that Gingrich appreciates that particular vision. He is also showing himself to be an effective fighter. However he got there - the people that have voted decided it, not me - that's where he is. And he's demonstrating a willingness to fight for conservatism, but some of you bad-asses are afraid to fight for and with him?

The hell with you, punch your ticket and scurry to the back of the GOP's big government line like the losers that you actually are. I went into 2012 looking for a fight for the right reasons and the right cause - and as it stands today, there's only one guy left standing who looks anything like close to suitable to mix it up on our and conservativism's behalf. And, dammit, I'm going to fight with him, not run away like a coward because I want to look politically correct, or smart.

We'd still be a British colony if we had to rely upon what passes for a Republican and too damned many conservatives today, we're they around in 1776. Tremendous risks were undertaken to found absolutely the free-est, most glorious nation on Earth we call home. But you can't risk taking a chance on a former Speaker of the House to simply make a beginning on trying to turn it around?

Hell, you may as well tear up your passports and citizenship papers, too - you don't look like half of what I always thought a traditional American was. You're just another loser willing to turn the other cheek as big government smacks you around, because it's the easy and oh so smart thing to do.

Well, screw that. I'd rather go down fighting for what's right and what I believe in, than limp away like some over-compromised alleged conservative, but ultimately unprincipled clown, because when the call went out at what is widely considered to be a pivotal moment in American political history, I couldn't manage to stand up and be counted upon.

Comments

[Adrienne]

I tend to agree with everything you've said. Last night when Santorum accused Newt of having "an idea a minute with no follow through" decided it for me. I didn't see that as a bad thing at all. It sounds like Newt is a bit ADD and most adults with ADD are very smart. Follow through? That's what the hell he has a staff for. You know, the ones who don't have an idea a minute.

[Xiaoding]

As a famous guy said, we cannot spare this man. He fights.

Newt is the only one I would even CONSIDER voting for right now.

[gothicreader]

"Well, screw that. I'd rather go down fighting for what's right and what I believe in, than limp away like some over-compromised alleged conservative, but ultimately unprincipled clown, because when the call went out at what is widely considered to be a pivotal moment in American political history, I couldn't manage to stand up and be found."

You nailed it dude!

These RINOs are trying to eliminate us conservatives - it ain't going happen!

[Snorkdoodle Whizbang]

Couldn't have said it better myself, Dan. Love him or hate him, you have to admit that Gingrich is a fighter... and that is most certainly what we need right now.

[Ragspierre]

Agree, Dan.

Of the people on scene at the moment, Newt is the strong horse.

Santorum is just not a believer in market economics, and Romney is not a conservative.

Newt stepped in it over the Bain thing, but had the sense to know he had and jump back.

[Ragspierre]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/20/us-usa-politics-texas-idUSTRE80J16A20120120

Good news from the Supremes.

UNANIMOUSLY, they struck down judge-drawn redistricting in Texas.

More to come, however...

[Y-not]

I'm leaning Newt. I've seen no vision from Santorum (and the things he seems to be passionate about concern me; his priorities seem out of whack) and I don't trust Romney (for many reasons I won't bother to list here). But before I open my wallet for Newt, I want to watch and listen to him for a bit.

I would appreciate it if someone could provide an honest assessment of the warts - or possible skeletons - from Newt's time as Speaker. Will those scandals matter? Are there more to worry about?

I think the Mistress #1 (Wife #2) stuff is a big nothingburger, assuming Newt handles it without obfuscating (the way Cain did).

[sickofrinos]

Great read. Thanks.
I'll take the Little ball of hate over the other three, any day.
Newt has to win, as he will be the last chance before collection day.

[USA American]

"But before I open my wallet for Newt, I want to watch and listen to him for a bit."

Very prudent. Newton Leroy has only been in the public eye for 30 or so years.

"Will those scandals matter? Are there more to worry about?"

Not one bit. You should feel totally confident in leaning for Newton Leroy. He is beloved by the demographic increasingly critical to national elections - old, white people, incapable of critical thought.

[texas]

LOL (toquoteRush) RightOn RightOn Dan. Much to my chagrin, GOP tossed out the Cowboy, #Perry now Newt is the only one left that will actually challenge Obama. We can sort the political bobcats out later, now is the time to save the Republic.

It's our only hope Obi Wan, unless someone is brave enough to start a Third Party. Just saying.

[Ragspierre]

UAssMORON, doing her usual drive-by poo smear.

Always a revelation...

of hate-twisted, moronic Collectivism.

[USA American]

Poor, Clownselor. Too bitter, old, deluded, and clueless to not hear the ticking time bomb. The Clownselor actually believes that the rest of America drinks the same Kool Aid as the 27%ers. I wonder, Clownselor, what appeal does Newton Leroy have to anyone other than the Teatards? Enlighten us.

[Ragspierre]

He believes in the power of the individual, and the ideal of the Founding; limited government, leaving the people free to act as self-sufficient individuals who care for others because they are good.

[Rhymes With Right]

If Newt is the nominee, the GOP will have abandoned its pro-marriage family values commitment. Given Newt's attack on Bain, his nomination also repudiates the GOP support of markets. All that is left is for Newt to adopt Ron Paul's foreign and defense policy and he BECOMES Obama.

[Ragspierre]

"GOP will have abandoned its pro-marriage family values commitment."

You ever tell a lie, Right? I mean EVER...?

Can you advocate for honesty?

Please, people...

[Ragspierre]

http://biggovernment.com/dmitchell/2012/01/20/illinois-downgrade-provides-more-evidence-that-higher-taxes-make-fiscal-problems-worse-not-better/

And just how MANY times...over what period of years...around the globe...

does THAT lesson have to be brought home?

Only in the delusional, mad world of the Collective is it even a question.

[ltw]

"Given Newt's attack on Bain, his nomination also repudiates the GOP support of markets."

Mitt Romney, based on his profession as a private equity manager and company founder, should have easily been able to explain to the American people the crash of 2008, the bailouts, who got the money, and have laid out a plan for sudden and relentless reform based for returning to the free market system. He hasn't. Mitt Romney just got around to mentioning "crony capitalism" last night as a talking point. Fortunately Gov. Palin already laid down the marker back in September on a description and discussion of what crony capitalism is. Bain Capital is not a proxy for free markets. It is infinitely fair to bring Bain Capital up, the biggest question to me being... why the heck hasn't Romney used his professional expertise by explaining where the money went in the crash of 2008 and the bailouts. It appears to me Mitt Romney is not willing to lead sudden and relentless reform in the area closest to his profession. So, who needs him?

[Huey]

Of the choices available, Newt is, on every front (other than in his personal life) heads and tails a bigger and tougher man than the rest.

I have been saying for YEARS that the Republicans should take the fight to the MSM. Newt does it. Palin does it. A few others of marginal national significance do it.

Of those on the stage, ONLY Newt will take the fight to Obama WHILE ON THE STAGE in the debates and that's when it's important - not in commercials - but in person. He literally has no fear that I can see. Romney shrinks (or, at least, withdraws into himself while he tries to formulate a response which he believes won't hurt him politically.) Santorum may be a more solid conservative (with some issues there to be fair) but he comes off on stage as a self-righteous prig who can only attack with, as one commentator noted, his only weapon - a bludgeon. Paul is a whackadoo.

Of course, I'd vote for ANY of them (as Beck noted, I'd vote for a shoe with a sock for a running mate) over Obama. But, Newt at least has the potential for making big changes - IF he is willing to concede that he's not the smartest person in the room on every issue and is willing to listen to the ideas (and cautions) of others.

[astonerii]

I am with you on this. Santorum was a second choice for me until his whiny attacks last night. I was immediately turned off by the pettiness of it all. Newt fights, Newt knows the past and thus can work with whatever future we have, Newt is able to see immediately the bias in a question or statement and then is able to reduce that question or statement down such that he can answer it on conservative terms and while doing so educate a poorly educated population on why he is right.

[Ragspierre]

I also think that Newt feels the wind filling his sails.

I look for him to start naming some of those who he would tap for cabinet posts, and for Conservatives to feel impressed.

[Ragspierre]

The Obami have MANDATED TOTALLY FREE contraception, gutting any religious employer exemption.

What you would expect from the MOST RADICAL ANTI-CHOICE, PRO-DEATH person in the U.S. Senate as President.

That will play well.

[HTW]

I'm with Santorum. Sorry. I agree that from a technocratic standpoint Gingrich is by far the best we've got. But he and Romney are both stuff you wouldn't want to touch without thick, asbestos gloves at the moment. Limbaugh will savage both of them, and Drudge with his pro-Romney agenda will shoot arrows at Gingrich until he's gone. And it's not like he doesn't have anything in his quiver.

Santorum is the least controversial, and frankly probably has as good a chance at beating Obama as either Romney or Gingrich. And he served 16 years in the House/Senate (compared with Gingrich's 20 in the house). It's not like he has no experience.

I'll comfortably vote for Gingrich if he's the nominee, and I'm not sure what I'll do if it's Romney (probably hold my nose and vote anyway). But I think that Santorum is the guy.

[Kiril The Mad Macedonian]

Dan, I'm torn between Santorum, and Newt (Personal Life Warts & All).

What is your response to those, like Glenn Beck, who point to Newt's love of Wilsonian Progressivism,& FDR, among other things, and make the case that Newt is a Progressive in many of his ideas, and statements?

If there is some truth to their claims do we really want another Progressive in the White House, even if it's a Republican one?

[Ragspierre]

I'm not Dan, but Santorum has a MUCH more Progressive-like record in office.

Remember, Wilson was a religious guy who tried to compel the Kingdom Of Heaven via BIG GOVERNMENT, and who was no friend of economic liberty.

[Huey]

Kiril: What conservatives MUST understand is a simple truth about politicians.

They're politicians.

It's really that simple.

When we send someone to Washington, once they get there, they become infected with the need to "do something."

After all, that's what they were sent there to do. "Something."

And any "something" that a legislator does is done via government - whether it's a law, a regulation, a rule or whatever. And, the "something" which is being done is merely a different "something" based (loosely) on the legislator's personal view of the world.

Take the SOPA debate in the last debate. Every single one of the candidates were against this VERSION of that particular "something" (although such staunch "conservatives" as Marco Rubio were, at one point, co-sponsors of the bill). But, each of them were in favor of "something" - just not THAT "something."

And, what "something" will they ultimately support? Dunno. But, you can be sure that they will if they have the chance. There's a problem. They will want to do "something" about it.

So, it is INEVITABLE that government grows in power. Dunno how old you are, but just get into your car and think back 30 years or so - then look just at you and your car and think about how many laws which have been passed over the past 30 years which affect you as it relates to you and your car. Child seats. Seat belts. Shoulder harnesses. Air bags. DUI's now down to .08% (or two beers) even when no one is hurt. Emissions. Tires (and how you dispose of them). Mileage. Crash test scoring. Inspections. Cell phone use. Road rage laws. Speed limit laws (up and down). School zone laws. Gun laws (what you can carry, where you can carry it, and whether it can be loaded). Laws, regulations, rules from the "left" and from the "right." Endlessly. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Piece by piece these legislators have done "something" over and over resulting in their taking control over (and relieving us of the responsibility for) every aspect of our lives.

It is what legislators DO. It is what they have always DONE. That will not change. It can't change so long as our politicians are dependent on VOTES because, in order to get elected, they have to identify some "somethings" which need fixing and convince enough people that they are the ones who can fix that "something" so that they will vote for them. Then, once in office, they must DO "something" so that, when the next voting cycle comes around, they have some "somethings" to point to so that those voters will vote for them again.

Rinse and repeat.

So, what matters is that we vote for people who view the world as closely to how we do so that the inevitable "somethings" they cause to happen are such that they at least approximate "somethings" with which we agree.

For me, that's Newt. And, inevitably, no matter who wins, he will do "something" which makes government bigger and more intrusive at least in some portion of my life. If, at the same time, however, he can remove that intrusion in other parts of my life, maybe the "somethings" he does will be a net gain for liberty and freedom.

[Mac]

Hate to break this to you, but Ron Paul is going to win... In the end, it is his supporters who are passionate and will go the distance to see him get the nomination. Newt...what a crock. Do you really want bigger government, crony capitalism and more of your liberties stripped away in the name of protection? No thanks. Ron Paul 2012!

[Reaganite Republican]

Fantastic!

One thing you hear about is Newt's ego and even 'magalomaniac', etc.

Well, the ball is REALLY teed up for any who'd like to be a conservative hero of all time...
I mean seriously, the opportunity is right there, and NOW: Newt said he's going to institute a
Reagan-Laffer-Kemp agenda... isn't that the greater part of what most of us are seeking?

Pulling the country out of the steep descent of the bizarre and destructive Obama era could make Newt the man of history his ego has long craved... and he's surely smart enough to smell the opportunity

That's a pretty powerful motivator for him to stick to his Reaganite platfrom... the ego is far from a negative imho, now that he's so obviously matured

[FredTx]

..and on a slightly more light-hearted note.

Assuming we have a President Gingrich (good thing), and considering his well deserved comparisons to Churchill, we'll know whether earlier presidents agree if he too reports seeing Lincoln's ghost wandering the White House... ;)

[Ragspierre]

o/t but...

Regarding the Obami who took the 5th today.

[Ragspierre]

Ooopps...

1. you only take the 5th to avoid CRIMINAL liability

2. you don't get to just intone that you're taking the 5th...a judge will often examine you closely to see if that protection is warranted.

There are big implications to this.

[Dustin]

"Hate to break this to you, but Ron Paul is going to win."

I appreciate the laugh.

"Do you really want bigger government, crony capitalism and more of your liberties stripped away in the name of protection?"

Newt doesn't believe in making the government bigger. He isn't perfect, and I do worry about our liberties, but he's easily the best candidate.

He's better than Ron Paul, the racist who couldn't run a newsletter without decades of excuses. Ron Paul thinks Israel keeps people in concentration camps. He is far too stupid in a lot of his comments.

I hope you reconsider. If you really believe in small government and saner policies, Newt is the least bad option we've got. He's far from perfect, but at least we have a healthy resistance to cults of personality as we've seen surround both Ron Paul and Mitt Romney.

Open your mind.

[Me]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuo3dBP431k

And who could forget the Paul Ryan undercut affair from one angry Iowan?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNNFcIRzyZg

Here's the link over the plan and the right wing social engineering and big, radical change. Coming from a big ideas and changes candidate, it's food for thought...

[Me]

As Joe Scarborough put so well, from somebody I never agree with, RHETORICALLY Newt is far right, but push comes to shove he's way mushy middle...

Amazing how folks perceive Santorum to be LESS conservative (over a few votes and balanced approaches on issues like SOPA while getting core stuff mostly reasonably accurate) and more big gov than a climate change, big business bashing, health care mandate supporting Washington insider booted by his own ranks and conservatives from power. One who tells them to shut up and vote for De de Scozafazza for the good of the Establishment!

[Dustin]

Meh, Newt has a big mouth "me", but he and Paul Ryan are much closer ideologically than any of the other presidential candidates.

The thing is, some conservatives have thoughtful honest need to debate these matters. This is very serious stuff we're talking about.

The left will take this debate as something to mock, which says a lot about how serious they really are.

[sickofrinos]

Hit the road mac.

[Ragspierre]

Reasonable minds will disagree, but...

Thomas Sowell is a very wise, steadfast Conservative.

Rick Perry is a much-more-than-not TEA Party advocate.

Both back Newtie.

[TexasFred]

Mac, step away from the bong, go outside, get some fresh air and TRY to clear that mass between your ears that is supposed to be a brain.

Ron Paul is going to win about the same time that Charlie Sheen does.. WINNING ... it's only a dream for Dr. Moonbat!

[Ricky]

Dan, you are right, we're taking a big risk with Newt!

I am torn between Newt and Santorum.

I thought Santorum was brutal last night, did not know he had it in him! He mopped the floor with Newt, Romney and Uncle Paul,IMO.

Newt is inconsistent in his debate performances. I think he dissappointed last night. He had some pathetic answers to the questions of what he will do different w.r.t running his campaign, and why he is the better choice than Romney. If he hopes on debates only to take out the Once - what if the Once refuses to debate him? I also don't like his immigration policy.

He is a better choice than Romney and I like me some bad Newt!!

I hope one of them wins SC.

[Kimberly]

Excellent! The liberal media is our #1 enemy and we need a President who can destroy their plans of destroying Conservatism. Newt is that man.

I can't even turn on FOX, talk radio, or go to Hot Air and other "conservative" blogs. They've got Romney so far up their behinds, it's not funny. I will not have McRomney shoved in my face ... I will make up my own mind and VOTE FOR NEWT!!

Newt-West 2012

[Ragspierre]

Can anybody 'splain to me what in the HELL Cain is doing playing with Colbert in SC...?!?!?

Anybody...???

[sickofrinos]

rags- I also wondered what is he doing on cnn?
Money?

[Hal Budez]

Who is J.D. Hayworth supporting? To me he was the #1 Tea Party guy. I really respect where he comes from.

[Ricky]

ROFLOL!!

Go Newt!!
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/20/romney-advisor-john-sununu-to-gingrich-how-about-releasing-those-ethics-documents/

[Ragspierre]

Yah, boy.

John Sununu.

The guy I think of when I think of "edgy" Northeastern Liberal Republican junket artist.

The man behind David Souter's nomination.

[Dustin]

"Can anybody 'splain to me what in the HELL Cain is doing playing with Colbert in SC...?!?!?"

That's easy. He's building his brand. Christine O'Donnell style. I've got nothing against the man, but that's what he's up to now. That's why he endorsed every American... that's better than taking a stand, if you're just trying to build your brand.

John Sununu has no credibility. he has set the conservative cause back... way back. The ramifications of this man's advice are severe and negative.

These guys are OK with a huge government getting bigger. Simple as that. they hate Newt, and I am delighted.

[Ragspierre]

Hope you're wrong, Dustin. I like Cain, and hoped better of him.

[mfm.droid@gmail.com]

Well, at one time I thought Newt was right-center.
Looking at his record, starting with his "handing the keys" to defeating the Progie-wing of the GOP to BJ-Bill ― and going into *his* tent "to pick his @ss" and grumble into his philosophical beard ― during the phony government shutdown, I now know better.

Well, why *not* vote for Newt ― he *is* the favorite of the LOTErs, after all!

We must all compromise our principles to get that ½ loaf... except we never seem to actually *get* even a crumb.

And, it really *is* true: "If you can compromise on it, it ain't a Principle!"

Good to see where people words are at variance with their jowl-shaking claims of "Principle" ― if the situation were less dire, it might even occasion a laugh or two!

We're told we must vote in the party stooge, or the ogre under the bridge will get us... that one named "Electability". You know him – you've seen him stalking Conservative commentors at sites like Malkin's or other actual high visibility Conservatives. His name invoked in whispers by faux-Conservatives, when a Conservative "gets uppity", grows a pair, and openly suggests doing the *HONEST* thing: actually voting his *conscience!* Even if some Progressive-in-sheep's-clothing party calls it a "wasted vote and as good as voting for the opposition!"

The ogre who's the Progressive (ie. Establishment) GOP's enforcer.

I *can* see the wisdom in the Progressive-GOP's advise: they are all of them, from Juan McCain to Ole Man Gramnasty, such wise and intelligent men!

How silly and unsophisticated: vote as you believe. Pray for guidance and then show that you *do* have faith in God as you claim and *VOTE AS YOU BELIEVE AND FEEL MOVED TO DO!" Of course ― what an absolutely SILLY notion!

This is no less than what we were advised by that numbskull, that wimpy, "sit in your tent and pick your @ss" GEORGE WASHINGTON!

My goodness, what a stupid man *he* was! Overlook that he predicted what our slavish following of party – of LOTE-ing – would bring! We ARE THERE!

And don't consider that, while we chase the myth of "electablity" foisted on us by our "betters" we're actually *encouraging* the growth of Progressivism! What you reward you get more of. That is Human Nature, and it has not changed in my 96yrs or even in the last 275, or even 2750yrs, yet we are asked to believe that in electing a faux Conservative suddenly the electorate will see how nifty Conservatism is and vote *more* conservatively the next cycle? Really?

And, *yes*, "electablity *is* a MYTH! There's many examples of so-called "unelectable" candidates winning. Most famously, Ronald Reagan was one of the first to wear that tag – the Progie-GOPers were trying it out and working to perfect their technique.

I wish more were as unelectable as President Reagan... Many might be, but the Progie-GOP has perfected the freezing-out of Conservatives.

Do you think it happenstance that even after proof it only help the DemonCraps, we STILL have open primaries? Why? Because the people running the party want to drive a stake through the heart of Constitutionally-molded Government as much as Obambie's handlers do! Look at their ACTIONS, not their lying words...

Which brings me back to Newt.

What do HIS actions say?

[Rick]

I'll vote for Newt if he's the nominee, but I'm supporting Santorum. Conservatives need to remember that the same "I can't believe what an inhumane idiot you are" dismissive tone of voice Gingrich uses against the liberal media is the same tone of voice he uses against CONSERVATIVES who stand up for, oh, I don't know, *conservatism*. If he's elected, expect a lot of harriet Myers/Amnesty/No Child Left Behind-like fights against our own party's president.

[Dustin]

"Hope you're wrong, Dustin. I like Cain, and hoped better of him.

Posted by: Ragspierre"

Well, I understand where you're coming from, but I can hardly blame the man for playing what amounts to a game now. We have a very, very stupid system with some very stupid media, and it's not really possible for anybody to fix it.

[palmyra]

Well said, Dan! I still like Rick Santorum, but I'm leaning your way. I just absolutely don't want Mitt Romney to be our nominee. Tomorrow should be exciting. I pray that conservatism wins big.