jeffreymark

A NEWT REBUTTAL

Trashing Newt certainly is in vogue among bluebloods this season. All this talk about his lack of credentials as a conservative and his disparaging the Reagan administration are complete nonsense and borderline evil. They certainly confirm the immature character of those seeking to destroy Newt. Therefore, below I wanted to post articles that refute and enlighten the trash talk. These I previously posted on my Facebook.

I know I'm posting lots of stuff on Newt Gingrich. I'll get over it. But, for anyone who passionately cares about our nation and what our children may inherit from us they need to pay attention to those who may set the future direction of the country. 
The Romney camp has posted a legion of distorted facts about Gingrich. One publication that appeared yesterday was Newt supposedly disparaging the Reagan years. I never heard him do this. It seemed out of character. Plus, given Romney's record for waffling I immediately looked for the full interview so as to hear Gingrich's words in their context. And, what do you know? I found it. Follow the link below. 

Riehl World View: Video Of Newt Bashing Reagan Is Bogus

www.riehlworldview.com

There's a short excerpt of a 1988 C-SPAN video purportedly showing Newt Gingrich bashing Reagan when talking about how Bush, Sr. should run. As I suspected, it's edited to give a false impression. What you don't see is immediately after...

____________________________________________________

While Ms.O'Sullivan may not possess the credentials of those previously referred to on this page, she writes a compelling op.ed. piece in favor of Newt Gingrich. Yes, indeed I flooded today's posts with pro Newt articles. Yet, I hate to see the man lose as a result of smear campaigns. One thing I firmly believe-Gingrich is a principled conservative. Those influential pundits like Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter, who deceptively label him a liberal ought to take that one off the table. He has many flaws, but liberalism is not one of them.

Send Us Newt

Melissa O’Sullivan writes on NRO: Last fall, people in Washington told me, “Get over it, Melissa. Newt’s not going to be the nominee.” Later, in New York City over Thanksgiving, I was told, “Get over it, Melissa. It’s going to be Romney. There’s still so much stuff out there on Newt that’s just wait...

_____________________________________________________________________

 

I was quite engaged in politics during the 80s myself. I agree with Limbaugh. I don't remember this stuff. Everything I recall about Newt leaned toward one who was ultra conservative to a fault.

 

 

Coordinated Avalanche Against Newt Doesn't Match My Memory of Reagan Years - The Rush                Limbaugh Show

RUSH: I'm not denying it happened. I'm just telling you, this stuff was a total shock to me last night when I learned that Newt had said this stuff.

______________________________________________________________________

More conservative support for Newt Gingrich. Michael Reagan exclaims: (via Dallas Morning News)

“I am deeply disturbed that supporters of Mitt Romney are claiming that Newt Gingrich is not a true Reaganite and are even claiming that Newt was a strong critic of my father.

“Recently I endorsed Newt Gingrich for president because I believe that Newt is the only Republican candidate who has both consistently backed the conservative policies that my father championed and the only Republican that will continue to implement his vision.

“It surprises me that Mitt Romney and his supporters would raise this issue — when Mitt by his own admission voted for Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale who opposed my father, and later supported liberal Democrat Paul Tsongas for president. 

“As governor of Massachusetts, Romney’s achievement was the most socialistic healthcare plan in the nation up until that time. 

“Say what you want about Newt Gingrich but when he was Speaker of the House he surrounded himself with Reagan conservatives and implemented a Ronald Reagan program of low taxes and restrained federal spending. 

“Newt’s conservative program created a huge economic boom and balanced the budget for the first time in more than a generation.” 

Mike Reagan concluded: “I would take Newt Gingrich’s record any day over Mitt Romney’s.”

______________________________________________________________________

I have not endorsed Newt Gingrich. I do, however, like his conservatism. The attacks against him are deliberately designed to get Romney nominated. Most of the attacks on Newt grossly misrepresent him and take his rhetoric out of context. For every attack on Newt I can find a counter by "elitists" who support him-people like Nancy Reagan and Michael Reagan. I encourage anyone who runs from Newt because of all the confusing half truths out there to do some investigative work themselves.

Newt Backed Reagan, Romney Opposed Him

www.newsmax.com

A newly surfaced video shows that no less a figure than Nancy Reagan asserted that President Ronald Reagan passed the “torch” of Reagan conservatism to Newt Gingrich — belying efforts by Mitt Romney supporters to cast Gingrich as anti-Reagan.

_____________________________________________________________________

Of course Newt is greatly flawed. Yes, he indeed tosses hand grenades. And, he probably chased a few women in his day. I'm not denying that. But, my favorite historian Victor Davis Hanson offers a provocative look at private morals vs. public political practice.

Fidelity and the Presidency

www.nationalreview.com

Victor Davis Hanson writes on NRO: The news media seem obsessed with the serial affairs of a younger Newt Gingrich back in the last century. The anger of his second of three wives mysteriously became national news on ABC’s Nightline on the eve of the South Carolina primary. Millions watched Mrs. Gin...

 

 

 

 

 

WHY THE INSIDERS OPPOSE NEWT

Curious thing, these demons Ann Coulter exposes so effectively and thoroughly. They seem to drive the emotions of those who think they stand above such bane. This legion I speak of takes on the name "establishment predetermined to elect Romney." That demon so enfolded all us conservatives we saw no other alternative. I always liked Newt-thought he walked and talked like a true conservative. But, he carried baggage in the form of marital infidelity. Conservatives don't like infidelity and rightly so. Principled people know that cheaters cheat period. They cheat their families, friends, business associates and nation. They can't be trusted. Therefore, we ruled Newt out. He can't win, we passionately declared. So we went with Romney.

And, Mitt looks Presidential. He's articulate, handsome, and the all American boy; the quintessential Boy Scout. Your grandmother loves him because he stays out of trouble. Yet, we conservatives keep the skeptical cards once out there close to our vest. In other words Romney used to make us nervous. His health care reform in Massachusetts, his waffling on abortion, and his Mormonism, not exactly orthodox Christianity, all paint a portrait of a dubious candidate.  In fact Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post, did a little fact checking on Governor Romney and offered this bit of information:

 

A review of the record shows that Romney has shifted his position on abortion numerous times since 1994 when he first ran for federal office as senator for Massachusetts. His August 5, 2007 claim that "every action I have taken as governor of Massachusetts" appears to be undermined by his October 15, 2005 decision to sign a bill seeking a federal waiver to expand family planning services in the state.

I am trying to develop as full a chronology as possible of Romney's gyrations on abortion. Let me know of any twists or turns I may have missed. Most recent update: December 20, 2007. (see the full chronology here)

Since Massachusetts days Mitt adamantly declares he saw the light. All right, I want to give him the benefit of the doubt on that one. Of course he offers several explanations depending on the month, as to why he did what he did and finally saw the light. For one, he insisted that governing in a Ted Kennedy ruled domain he had to do things a bit differently. So, what must we make of this gimpy excuse. Did he sell his soul for a high place in the Kennedy palace? If so, do we really want a sellout? Or if we trust his conversion why can't we judge Newt by the same face value standard? Newt says he made mistakes, implying he fooled around. His new found Catholicism, however, authenticates his repentance, at least in his own world. Even his daughters publicly forgive him. 

Indeed, I sort of take him at his word. Furthermore, I do not seek a meek Sunday School teacher to hold the highest office in the land. I want a conservative with a proven CONSERVATIVE record who can both possesses a big vision and clearly articulate the same. Plus Newt Gingrich appeals to a broader scope of voters than Romney. Mitt looks stilted, wealthy, and made up. Gingrich inspires the informal, realness in us all. His policies clearly favored capitalism in the past while his raising eyebrows at Romney's Bain Capital strikes a positive chord with blue collar workers. In addition, Newt's southern roots impel his easy demeanor. People connect with laid back southern dispositions. 

In the long run establishment institutionalist types get the tea leaves wrong. They then end up scratching their heads and perceive, "We misunderstood the American people." Most common hard working Americans want a person outside the good old boy network where tradeoffs and back room deals become the scriptures for the day. Newt may work because he knows the back room and seems to publicly rise above it. Americans like that.

TEA PARTY STEALTH

I repeatedly and openly posit the hunch to my friends that the Tea Party seriously provides the tools for our nation's salvation. Or, salvation in terms of her traditional character. Some believe because the latest Republican front runners failed to kiss the Tea Party ring that this movement has petered out. Not so! The unique movement knows how to win the end game. All politics is local. Tea Party gurus everywhere now invest more in local organization than national. Ascension from the grassroots works. In fact, most paradigm shifting radical movements work like seeds in a garden. The plant grows and one by one pollinates other plants, which in turn pollinate more plants etc... Church leaders get it and even our own Savior knew this. He took a small band of grassroots ragtags, invested his life in them, turned them loose, and look what happened.

Meantime, those frustrated with our current candidates must exercise cautionary patience. Rome does not get built in a day. It took one hundred years (beginning with Teddy Roosevelt) for progressives to get to their icon Obama. One hundred years of enlightenment education, unchecked idealism, and bratty affluence to get where we stand today. Washington Post columnist Dr. Milton Wolf gets it when he opines:

First, however, conservatives must face reality and choose one of these three options: (1) Decide between Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Romney, (2) devise some near-magical electoral path in the 11th hour that leads to a different nominee or (3) brace for Barack Obama’s second term. A rule to remember: Manage the situation you have, not the one you want, or someone else will manage it for you.  

That's it, plain and simple. To compromise ones pace does not mean they must concede their principles. Conservatives often want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If they mindlessly sabotage the two front runners this writer predicts they will tragically dig a deeper pit for conservatives to rise out of. The recent barrage of criticisms toward Newt Gingrich in particular, provide nothing more than fodder for the Dems. To be sure, they have remained relatively quiet, keeping their salivating rhetorical attacks clandestine. Dr. Wolf offers compelling wisdom at this point:

It’s time for conservatives to quit playing checkers and start playing chess. Stop sabotaging our own candidates and instead create a path that rewards conservatism no matter who our nominee is. Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney are both smart enough to know that while the Tea Party lights a path to the White House, the harsh reality follows that should one of them receive its support and betray it, his presidency would be over before it began.

Kudos to Dr. Wolf. Our movement needs more politically astute voices like his. 

WATCHING THE REPUBLICAN DEBATE

Perhaps we ought to call it the "Let's Run for President" show. Are we kidding? I took debate in college. This is s Hollywood or CNN glitz and glamour production. Each candidate is in a free for all feeling forced to get a word in edgewise. The platform turns everyone of them except Newt Gingrich into robotic statistic spewing machines. Newt, the most idealistic and creative of the bunch (and might I add by far the most brilliant) looks at ease because he has been the center of attention before as Speaker of the House. The man knows history and when he speaks he often makes so  much sense that his is the final word. But, he has one looming shadow that may eternally dog him. He cheats on his wives. 

GLENN BECK GOES YARD AS KEYNOTE SPEAKER AT CPAC

The annual meeting of CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) met this week and pulled a disturbing blunder. In a straw vote they gave Ron Paul a majority 31%. Mitt Romney, who won the last three straw polls, came in second this time. CPAC ought to feel a bit ashamed at their telling faux pas. Ron Paul should not be taken seriously. He is an angry individual whose grinding ax produces conspiracy theories as social and political narratives. His supporters often act like the proverbial B black and white  movie robots who passionately await the space ship to show them dehy leadah'. Washington Post columnist Chris Cillizza opines:

Be careful not to read too much -- or much at all -- into these results. Paul's supporters are loyal and loud but not, ultimately, that large a group as proven by the fact that he did not win a single primary or caucus in 2008.

But one wonders why the bizarre vote. Perhaps CPAC wants to continue down the same Republican path of late by appearing a bit more moderate. In the meantime they may be committing another grave error. 

Enter Glenn Beck. He gave the keynote address today and I must say he went yard several times. Sounding and looking like a television evangelist, Beck pulled out the old chalk board and enthusiastically wrote the word PROGRESSIVISM. Then he proceeded to define America's plight as one in which progressives, formally known as liberals, own America's current prevailing vision. Like a man full of the Holy Ghost, Beck challenged all Americans to have a "come to Jesus" moment where we acknowledge the error of our misguided ways and repent. Glenn Beck offered a compelling, provocative light to a movement that seems anchor-less as vividly demonstrated by the straw poll. Watch the entire fire and brimstone sermon below. (via NewsBusters) (Video may take a few moments to load)

REPUBLICAN WOMEN OF TRUSSVILLE

Conservative women of Trussville, Alabama got a good thing going. America needs more local groundswell movements like this one. It looks as though these magnificent women are on to something revolutionary and compelling. Go here to visit their website and here to read their newsletter. (via American Thinker)

GINGRICH TOYING AROUND AGAIN ?

Scuttlebutt has it that Newt may run for President in 2012.  In my opinion Gingirich is a solid principled conservative. And indeed he is one of the few visionary Republicans left. When he speaks I listen and learn. But Newt carries too much moral baggage. For a party that prides itself on family values Gingrich fails the litmus test. Twice divorced, once as the result of an extra marital affair, Gingrich may find it difficult to gain any credibility. His ethos threatens his rhetoric. Yet, Gingrich can play a significant role in conservative policy by keeping on keeping on. Newsmax explains:

Gingrich showed he still had his finger on the pulse of his party when — amid soaring gas prices — he helped popularize the phrase "drill here, drill now" that was adopted as a mantra on the 2008 GOP campaign trail.
He's taken on an unofficial role counseling congressional Republicans and is credited with helping rally opposition in the party to President Bush's bailout plan for financial institutions last fall. For conservative Republicans fed up with what they saw as out-of-control federal spending and meddling in the private sector, it was a sign the GOP was rediscovering its values.
Gingrich is in frequent contact with Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the second-ranking Republican in the House. He's been all over the web promoting anti-tax "tea parties" set to take place around the country on April 15.
Whether Gingrich will be effective opposing Obama is an open question. He said it's important for Republicans not just to be seen as the party of "no" but to put forward workable alternatives. He blasted Obama's $787 billion stimulus plan — which the House GOP went on to oppose unanimously. But he also outlined his own conservative stimulus package, which would slash payroll and business taxes.
And he wastes no opportunity to criticize Obama on virtually any topic. Gingrich has labeled the administration "anti-religious" and criticized — via the social networking Web site Twitter — the president's early handling of the Somali pirate crisis.
For Republicans struggling to regain their footing, Gingrich is a battle-tested veteran with experience going head-to-head with a Democratic White House. Republicans flailing to find a message have turned to Gingrich for help.
"When you are the party in the wilderness you turn to an intellectual leader of the party, like Newt, to get you out," GOP pollster Whit Ayers said. "He's clearly playing a key role in revitalizing the Republican Party."

Gingrich, a historian, brings a needed guiding star to the table. Recent gaffs from Obama and a semi renewed interest in European collectivism infers a vacuum in the historical/tradition arena exists. That arena consists of fundamental philosophical principles that span the chasm of time. Lose those in the name of postmodern progress and we will lose our soul as a nation, which I fear began a generation ago.

REPUBLICANS LACK JUST ONE THING

Republicans, now more than ever, desperately want a conservative voice to lead. As of late they turned to Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal for guidance and public rebuttals. Jindal, a Catholic Christian, no doubt possesses the quintessential conservative values needed to lead the Republican party. Yet, he lacks one key ingredient, he lacks charisma. Like it or not public persona initially defines a person. First impressions may not dry the cement, but they do pour it. Republican conservatives must look for someone who alluringly articulates conservative beliefs with confidence, zeal, and emotion. Bob Dole, George Bush, John McCain, Fred Thompson, the list goes on and on, failed miserably in the charisma department. Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin both possess the core conservative values vital in winning over a Republican base and they generate the magnetism needed to influence even the undecideds. Romney loss the nomination basically because Republicans could not make up their mind about his Mormonism. When they finally decided he stood on solid conservative ground, identifying with evangelicals and the base on socio/political issues, the fat lady was singing the last verse of the song. Sarah Palin, on the other hand, was too young and relatively unknown. Even though she added zeal to an otherwise lackluster campaign, her political immaturity made voters skeptical. Next time around I look for her to make a compelling impact. 

I like Bobby Jindal. He stands on solid conservative ground. Republicans must listen to his ideas. I suggest, however, he write the speeches and let the Romneys and Palins deliver them. 

NEW WEBSITE FOR REBEL ROUSING REPUBLICANS

Liberals often appeal to younger rebel rousing, adolescent types while Republicans get viewed as stodgy old curmudgeons out to spoil everybody's fun. A new website administrated by David Furm assumes that conservative Republicans can appeal to the younger, wild side without surrendering its core values. The site called The New Majority, makes this claim about itself:

NewMajority.com is a site dedicated to the reform and renewal of the Republican party and the conservative movement. It is edited by David Frum and published by NewMajority LLC.
The centerpiece of New Majority is "The Scroll", a running commentary on daily issues and events by the New Majority contributors. With a stable of bloggers spanning a wide array of backgrounds and viewpoints, the New Majority aims to be a place of discussion of issues facing conservatism and that Republican party. Visitors are encouraged to join in on the discussion in the comments section.
The New Majority also features original video pieces containing exclusive interviews and other coverage, book reviews by David and other contributors, and original reporting by NewMajority.com reporters.

THE DEATH OF CONSERVATISM?

A legion of pundits out there recently, with gleeful hand rubbing, pronounced the death of conservatism. Many base their claim on the trouncing Republicans have faced the last two elections. But elections run in cycles. The American culture embraces its unique freedom to throw the bums out from time to time. Ideologically conservatives remain dominate in American culture. A policy shift, however, may lurk around the corner with the Obama administration.  That shift, as with Rooseveltian New Dealism may seismically shift the halls of power in D.C. to a more liberal, socialistic bent, making it extremely difficult to undo. Bruce McQuain of Right Wing News fame explains:

The obvious point is that once the change is made, you're staring bullet number two right in the face. The chance of ever shrinking government again, is mostly right out of the window (and the Republicans chance as a party, to ever get the opportunity, may be as well).

It seems a bit silly to argue we can overcome this lurch to the left, given the experience of the rest of the world in this regard. As Pethokoukis points out, Social Security is an abysmal savings/retirement system, is technically a Ponzi scheme and is insolvent to boot but the chances of 'reforming' it are slim and none. Just as we've learned from the financial crisis we're now undergoing, government rarely reacts to such things until the problem has collapsed around its ears, and it then rides to the rescue claiming everything and everyone not connected with government are at fault for the failure.

Continue reading RWN here.