The Case for Newt Gingrich

[John Reece]

Peter Ferrara has presented the case for Newt Gingrich's candidacy for President in 1012 by recounting the quite astonishing actual factual record of his accomplishments in the House of Representatives before and during his tenure as Speaker.

Ferrara then switches from Gingrich's record in office to his proposals now set forth on Gingrich's website ― proposals that would no doubt be successfully implemented just as was the case when Newt delivered on every promise he had made (and even more than he had promised to do) during his service as a congressman and then as Speaker.

To read Ferrara's quite substantive and worthy article, go here.

[Pilgrim]

Gingrich couldn't even organize his campaign well enough to get 10,000 signatures in Virgina so he could be on the ballot. If he can't do that I don't hold out much hope for him being any sort of president that will be effective. And that he blamed Virginia for his failure? Come on.

[KingsGambit]

His views on federalism that he has been expressing in recent days are rather frightening, in my opinion. A few bad court decisions are not worth eliminating entire courts or arresting judges, as he has proposed:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...80O_story.html

[Epoetker]

His views on federalism that he has been expressing in recent days are rather frightening, in my opinion. A few bad court decisions are not worth eliminating entire courts or arresting judges, as he has proposed:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...80O_story.html

My estimation of Newt just shot way up. Though I do disapprove of the methods used-the proper way to exercise executive authority against the judiciary is the announcement that you're going to pardon everyone convicted of a law you don't like until they revise their ruling. And the proper legislative response is impeachment of judges.

But since neither has ever been made a tradition in America, judges are pretty much left alone to make up to the point where they're disregarded entirely. And it's entirely their own fault for taking on the powers assigned to them in all areas of life, especially family, social, and political life.

If Newt arrests Barney Frank and runs Judge Ted Biery out of office, he'll have shown more practical love toward the actual conservative base than anyone in the current Republican field. (What's really needed is a massive Augean stable firing of government workers and a re-hiring of those actually qualified for the job.) I hope he's sincere, and if he wins, that he follows through on these promises, as they're a sight better than whatever Ron Paul's backing off of.

As GK Chesterton says, revolutionary times are revolutionary because everyone is finally saying what they really think.

[Cow Poke]

There is no doubt Newt is the smartest guy in the room at the debates, but I don't believe he could beat Obama.

I would LOVE to see him DEBATE Obama!

[joel]

Peter Ferrara has presented the case for Newt Gingrich's candidacy for President in 1012 by recounting the quite astonishing actual factual record of his accomplishments in the House of Representatives before and during his tenure as Speaker.

Ferrara then switches from Gingrich's record in office to his proposals now set forth on Gingrich's website ― proposals that would no doubt be successfully implemented just as was the case when Newt delivered on every promise he had made (and even more than he had promised to do) during his service as a congressman and then as Speaker.

To read Ferrara's quite substantive and worthy article, go here.

Contains erroneous and misleading statements.
For example it says, "His record was unswervingly pro-life, pro-gun and Second Amendment"
But during his time as Speaker, he supported federal tax dollars being spent on abortions and multiple times voted for gun restrictions, earning a D rating from the Gun Owners of America.

The article gives the impression that he balanced the budget by cutting spending and cutting taxes. However, total spending over that time increased, and the budget was balanced by tax revenue increasing to the higher level of spending. Yes, the budget was balanced, but with a bigger government. The article gives the impression of declining spending by talking only about part of the budget.


The article says, "he is running this year on the most visionary free market platform of any candidate ever."
Ridiculous. If anything, that title goes indisputably to Ron Paul's plan, cutting $1T of spending in the first year, eliminating 5 Departments, slashing taxes, ending taxes on personal savings, balancing the budget in about 2 years, allows young people to opt out of entitlement programs entirely, etc. (http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issue...store-america/) In fact, I remember Gingrich criticizing Paul's plan, after it was announced, saying it cut too much.

[Epoetker]

I don't believe in Ron Paul's plan but the nations of the world would very, very, very, VERY much deserve an isolationist Paul presidency.