Economics

Club For Growth Predicts President Newt Would Bring "Serious Disappointments and Unevenness"

|

The free-market-promoting Club For Growth rates Gingrich across the board, concludes 

Unfortunately, the problems in Speaker Gingrich's record are frequent enough and serious enough to give pause. On two of the most important recent issues that confronted limited government conservatives (creating the new budget busting Medicare drug entitlement, and the Wall Street bailout), Gingrich was on the wrong side. His advocacy of an individual health care mandate is problematic.  His penchant for tinkering with rewards for favored industries and outcomes shows a troubling willingness to use federal power to coerce taxpayers into his preferred direction.  And his occasional hostility toward conservatives who do not share his desire to support liberal Republicans or to compromise on matters of principle is worrisome.

The totality leads one to be rather unsure what kind of president Newt Gingrich would be.  Past in often prologue, and in Gingrich's case there is an enormous volume of past on which to base a judgment.  One could reasonably expect a President Gingrich to lead America in a pro-growth and limited government direction generally, possibly with flashes of real brilliance and accomplishment, but also likely with some serious disappointments and unevenness.

NEXT: Restaurant Executive Herman Cain Stands by His Non-Answer On Afghanistan

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Gingrich: the fatter, slightly less flamboyant Donald Trump!

  2. He’s a member of the AGW cult, and that’s all I need to know.

    1. I don’t know that he’s a believer in AGW, I think he just likes to get in on the action and put forward government solutions for the made-up problem.

      Come to think of it, yeah, that’s a pretty big requirement of AGW cult membership.

      1. As with any cult, the AGW cultists fall into two categories.

        There are the true believers, and the bullshitters.
        The true believers are self-hating enviroMENTALists who see human kind as the scourge of the planet.
        Then there are the bullshitters who see AGW as an excuse to increase their power and influence.

        Newt is a bullshitter.

        1. Yeah, no one buys into it because they think, well, that all those scientists might know more about that than they do.

          1. Yeah, no one buys into it because they think have faith in their belief, well, that all those scientists might know more about that than they do.

            AGW is not science. Science is open and provable.

            It’s scientism. Scientism is closed and faith based.

            1. Being smarter than MNG isn’t saying much.

      2. For the priesthood, at least. I have no doubt there are many earnest believers in the rank-and-file.

  3. All hail His Majesty Nixon II.

    1. Nixon II, that is also a good one…

    2. I like it. I’m using that one.

      1. Still nothing tops Newclear Titties.

        1. Newcular Titties

      2. too late
        Nixon II?

  4. The “Club for Growth” must be getting some of the good weed if they think that Newt has a chance in hell of becoming president. The dude just pissed all over the Ryan budget plan effectively cutting off the fiscal conservative vote. I don’t know how anyone thinks he’s a serious candidate.

    1. Newt is banking on the idea that people 55+ > abstract fiscal conservatives.

      He’s right, sadly. Granny Edna and Great Aunt Gladis don’t actually want any substantive fiscal reforms that would prevent their grandchildren from living a life of slavery (oh noes… I made the Rand Paul critically-poor-taste analogy… ohh nooesss). When the SHTF, all Edna and Gladis want is as much federal queso as they can get to drop at the nearest Indian casino, and they’d prefer to get it from a chubby white dude than from the untrustworthy colored gentleman with the FuRrInEr!!1!!!!1 name

      1. Newt has already promised an unlimited supply of Smeckler’s Powder to every citizen over the age of 65.

  5. Bible: ?
    Muslim Paranoia: ?
    Robot Wife: ?
    Robot Dog: working on it

  6. “On two of the most important recent issues that confronted limited government conservatives (creating the new budget busting Medicare drug entitlement, and the Wall Street bailout), Gingrich was on the wrong side.”

    Excuse me, but which Republicans now or likely to be running for the nomination were on the “right side”?

    Oh, and I love “his occasional hostility toward conservatives who do not share his desire to support liberal Republicans or to compromise on matters of principle is worrisome.” As if the Club for Growth’s limitless hostility toward conservatives and anyone else who dares to disagree with it is not “worrisome”.

    Yes, past is often prologue, especially at the Club for Growth.

    1. Just because the sinners are throwing stones doesn’t mean the target isn’t a heretic.

      1. Jehovah Jehovah Jehovah!

        1. You’re only making it worse for yourself.

    2. Excuse me, but which Republicans now or likely to be running for the nomination were on the “right side”?

      I’m gonna take a wild guess here and say Ron Paul.

    3. Excuse me, but which Republicans now or likely to be running for the nomination were on the “right side”?

      Michele Bachmann wasn’t in congress when Medicare Part D passed.She is opposed to Medicare in general. She was very opposed to TARP

  7. One could reasonably expect a President Gingrich to lead America in a pro-growth and limited government direction generally,

    Given his record of support for big government and meddling in the economy, why would anyone think that?

    1. I was hoping someone could explain upon what that expectation is based.

    2. Why? Because he’s a regular on Hannity!

    3. “Given his record of support for big government and meddling in the economy, why would anyone think that?”

      Only because his campaign bullshit might outweigh peoples’ memories.

  8. She turned me into a newt!

    well, I got better.

  9. Burn her anyway!!!!1!11!!!!!!!1!!

  10. Can I ask, who the f*ck is supposed to be Gingrich’s constituency?

    1. I mean, he’s taken too many stands for government to appeal to the Tea Party and his philandering I would think would lessen appeal to Socons, so who is supposed to be this guy’s support? ‘National security conservatives?’

      1. People who fondly remember 1994 and forgot everything that happened after that.

      2. The burgeoning contingent of robosexuals like himself.

        1. Alright, that was funny, +1

      3. People who fear Hillary Clinton’s ascension to the Presidency? Its a good question.

      4. That is a great question.

        Also, why is it that he seems so much less convincing as a possible candidate this year than in 2008?

    2. Doughy pseudo intellectuals who hope to stand athwart the course of history.

    3. *shrug*
      Even the upper middle-class conservatives here in Georgia are tired of him.

  11. Donald Trump not running for president

    Damn, they’re dropping like flies. If Palin doesn’t run either, he’s in third place.

    1. Ron Paul that is.

    2. Curse you Joe M. Curse your clever fingers.

    3. Why would Palin not run now? She should be able to corral many of Huck’s supporters and with her own certainly she can beat Romney.

      1. She hasn’t been doing any of the typical organizational things a candidate does. Same went for the Huck and the Don.

        1. Bet money we’re going to start to get a barrage of comparisons to the “Seven Dwarfs” meme from the 92 Democratic campaign

          *Is it Dwarfs or Dwarves? As a Tolkien fan I thought it was the latter, but I see dwarfs all over google.

          1. Walt Disney fucks everything up.

            And on the recommendation of several fellow H&R commenters, I have finally begun reading LOTR trilogy. Thank you fellow commenters. I chose wisely.

            1. I have finally begun reading LOTR trilogy.

              Beats the shit out of those shitty movies, doesn’t it?

              1. Just stay away from The Silmarillion and you’ll be OK.

                1. I liked the Silmarillion despite the extra-thick elf worship (I always liked the Dwarves better).

                  1. (I always liked the Dwarves better).

                    You must be a Ron Jeremy fan.

              2. It does. I hesitate to call the movies shitty per se, if only because the standards set by modern cinema aren’t exactly noteworthy. But the books definitely delve greater into depth and I’m still not halfway through the first book. I’m sure the further I get through the whole story, the more I will grow dissatisfied with the movie treatment, but as adaptations of classics go, it beats the hell out of Atlas Shrugged.

                1. Please tell me you read The Hobbit first. Fucking please.

                  If not, you have been lead astray. LOTR is not comprehensible without first reading The Hobbit.

              3. I found the movies to be much better then those shitty books.

                1. I found the movies to be much better then those shitty books.

                  Another 2-hour CGI battle?? Fucking awesomez!!!!!

                  1. Bayeque

                    1. Bayeque Bayesque

                    2. +1 for using “Bayesque” in a thread.

                  2. Don’t forget the slow motion scenes, because when it happens in slow motion it is epic.

                  3. I know this will make me sound like a nit-picky asshole, but seriously, the ending of Return of the King is just doo doo.

                    Actually when they had Liv Tyler save the hobbits from the nine in that rushing river, I knew to stop comparing the movies and the books and just enjoy each separately.

                    1. What? I had always imagined Elrond’s daughter as the offspring from a Jagger-esque B rock star and a Playmate, you didn’t?

                  4. Another 2-hour CGI battle?? Fucking awesomez!!!!!

                    The first movie had no CGI battles.

                    and the second and third books fall apart into a complete mess…so the CGI battles in the other two movies were actually an improvement.

                    Pip and Merry’s homosexual adventures with the Ents….give me a fucking break.

                2. Dude, were you possessed by a balrog when you wrote that?

            2. Did you read the Song of Ice and Fire series?

              Cause that shit is way better than LTOR so far.

              1. I’ve heard nothing but rave reviews of the adaptation of Game of Thrones, but haven’t yet seen it. I’ll have to add this to my Kindle account once I complete LOTR.

                1. Posting here has taught me that my fantasy fiction cred it woefully low. My background was all R.A. Salvatore and Dragonlance stuff. I gots me some reading to catch up on.

                  1. Hey, I dug Drizzt Do’Urden when I was a kid. Nothing wrong with that.

              2. Cause that shit is way better than LTOR so far.

                [whistles past A Feast for Crows]

                1. I just finished Feast for Crows. How did his editor fail to convince him that chopping half the characters out was a good idea? And then he followed up that brilliant decision by waiting five years to publish the next book. Way to go, George.

                  1. I’m sorry, six. Six fucking years.

                    1. Be careful. GRRM write angry blog posts about you if you bitch about his decisions.

                  2. Warty: Spoiler-ridden rant about FfC.

                    I started re-reading the series when GoT came on HBO, and stopped right before FfC. I want to read it and DoD back to back in July.

                    The first three are gold, but I see the structural and plot problems that GRRM was having that leads to the FfC debacle.

                  3. I just finished Feast for Crows. How did his editor fail to convince him that chopping half the characters out was a good idea? And then he followed up that brilliant decision by waiting five years to publish the next book. Way to go, George.

                    You have nothing on Steven King “Dark Tower” fans.

                    1. If you decided to continue after The Gunslinger, you have no one to blame but yourself.

                    2. If you decided to continue after The Gunslinger, you have no one to blame but yourself.

                      Wizard and Glass sort of got the magic of The Gunslinger back.

                      But yeah they pretty much suck other then that.

                2. I’m not there yet (thus the disclaimer); I probably should have just withheld my opinion until I was all caught up.

                  Maybe I just like some incest in my fantasy books.

                  1. Who doesn’t?

          2. According to Tolkien, the “real ‘historical'” plural of dwarf is dwarrows or dwerrows. He once referred to dwarves as “a piece of private bad grammar” (Letters, 17), but in Appendix F to The Lord of the Rings he explains that if we still spoke of dwarves regularly, English might have retained a special plural for the word dwarf as with man. The form dwarrow only appears in the word Dwarrowdelf, a name for Moria. Tolkien used Dwarves, instead, which corresponds with Elf and Elves, making its meaning more apparent. The use of a different term also serves to set Tolkien’s Dwarves apart from the similarly-named creatures in mythology and fairy-tales.

            The enduring popularity of Tolkien’s books, especially The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, has led to the popular use of the term dwarves to describe this race in fantasy literature. Before Tolkien, the term dwarfs (with a different spelling) was used, as seen in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. In fact, the latter spelling was so common that the original editor of The Lord of the Rings “corrected” Tolkien’s dwarves to dwarfs (The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, 138).

            You uncultured fuck.

            1. Discuss: Who is more boring? Rand or Tolkien?

              1. Oh by all means Rand (with the exception of We the Living). It’s like comparing the evil power of Sauron to that of Gollum.

                1. Maybe it was a mistake that I started (and stopped) on The Hobbit, because that book is boring as two old people fucking.

              2. Rand for sure.
                Tolkien was very descriptive, which some could consider boring.
                Rand was very heavy into dialog, which I found to be a big yawn.

                1. And made for an absolutely horrible adaptation.

                2. De gustibus, then. I like dialogue over 20-page descriptions of how music made some small person feel like he was dancing over some fucking hills, or whatever. The same reason I hated having to read The Scarlet Letter – you spent 10 pages describing the ivy that entwined around the walls of the governor’s mansion, Hawthorne? Really?

                  1. Long winded descriptions are easier to skim or skip, while long winded dialog is not.

              3. You.

            2. Are you labelling someone uncultured via a wikipedia selection?

              1. Not wikipedia. A Tolkien fanwiki, you illiterate peasant.

              2. Are you labelling someone uncultured via a wikipedia selection?

                Wikipedia actually specializes in fanatical adherence to pop and sub culture history.

                In other words the article on Starblazers is perfectly referenced and meticulously researched. While the article on Global warming is a jumble of lies political posters and point of view garbage.

                1. I’m just joking jc, I actually read that wikipedia was found to be as reliable as the Encyclopedia Britania or whatever a while back. I don’t have any elitism towards wikipedia.

                  Now tractor pulls, that is a different ball of wax.

                  And people that say ball of wax, that’s something else entirely.

            3. All I can say about dwarves is: Don’t let those dirt-grubbing little underworld thugs anywhere near you.

              Turn your back and your precious will be missing.

              1. The His Dark Materials by Philip Pullman is awesome. Add to that the obvious libertarian overtones (hating and criticizing both government and religion as the worst evils conceived by humanity), and you should absolutely have a trilogy at the top of any libertarian fantasy reading list.

                1. and religion as the worst evils conceived by humanity

                  We hate religion?

                  I guess I didn’t get the memo.

  12. Hey. The Donald is out. Is sweeps’ week over?

    1. Holy cow! He’s not quite as stupid as I thought.

    2. He’s not an idiot. He got his publicity, and got out when the returns would start to diminish dramatically.

  13. Why waste the ink? We all have a better shot at having a snowball fight in hell than he has of becoming president.

  14. ALT-TXT:

    Newt demonstrating the job requirements to his newest intern.

    1. Seriously though, this photo is screaming for ALT-TXT.

      Riggs, I am disappoint.

  15. One thing that can be said about Gingrich, like Romney I think he is able to say utterly anything, and I mean anything, no matter how contradictory or sensational it is, to get elected to power. Sadly we should never count that out.

    1. Totally agree!

    2. One thing that can be said about Gingrich, like Romney I think he is able to say utterly anything, and I mean anything, no matter how contradictory or sensational it is, to get elected to power. Sadly we should never count that out.

      Gingrich is the politician’s politician. Pragmatic in everything. No principles to get in the way of the goal for power.

  16. Is THIS the same J sub D from here?!

    I’ll toast to him tonight.

      1. Okay, now you’re just showing off.

        1. Damn twice in a single thread.

      2. Damnit- my job got in the way. I’m sad now.

        1. Tell me about it. I guess the reason Newt wants my job is because he’s only trying to fit in three holes a day, not the 18 I try.

    1. Yes. There was a memorial thread on H&R last week.

  17. I like the quote in this article:

    Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee also decided not to run on Saturday, leaving former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Texas Rep. Ron Paul as the only serious contenders for the Republican nomination thus far.

    1. I detest him but don’t count Romney out right now. He’s going to do well in New Hampshire and get a lot of push from that.

      1. Only due to his Massachussets pedigree. He’ll get slaughtered in the midwest and south.

        1. The South, yeah. But he will do well in parts of the Mid-West, like Michigan.

          1. Of course he’ll do well in Michigan, but no one is going to waste resources challenging him there anyway.

            1. Why is it supposed to be a given that he will do well in Michigan? Is there some particular position that is supposed to be Michigan-friendly, or is it just supposed to be some kind of brand-recognition legacy?

              1. His dad was governor there.

                1. Haha beat me that time.

              2. His dad George was governor of Michigan back in the day.

            2. His dad’s governorship was so long ago, that I’m not sure it will necessarily count for a lot in Michigan next year. A midwesterner might be more likely to score well than Mittens.

  18. Those establishment assholes at Club for Growth still ignore Ron Paul.

    I went to their site, and not a peep about RP. He’s not listed as “coming soon” in the Presidential Whitepapers, and his picture is not included in the banner at the top of the page.

    Who the fuck is Jon Huntsman?

    What could possibly be the rationale? Sure, reasonable people can believe that RP doesn’t have a realistic shot at the nomination, but RP is seriously in the mix this time.

    And, I would think that an organization that values “limited government” would at least do something on the most “limited government” candidate there is!

    1. “Who the fuck is Jon Huntsman?”

      IIRC Huntsman is the guy who took Snow White into the forest with orders to kill her but at the last moment he looked into his heart and spared her, bringing the heart of a deer to his evil queen instead.

      1. Well, then of course you have to include him.

        But, I still want to see RP on there.

      2. Hahahaha nice!

      3. You are 0 for 2 today on literacy. Everyone knows Jon Huntsman brought the queen a heart made of marzipan.

    2. Huntsman is the ambassador to China, ex-governor, a Mormon, and generally considered the well-spoken (5 languages), most educated possible Republican nominee. Other than that, he’s apparently loaded, and I don’t know crap about his philosophies of gov’t. Thank you NPR for making me better informed.

      1. Another Mormon? I could care less, but it just seems like the GOP isn’t going to nominate a Mormon. Hell, we’ve only had one Catholic, and look what happened to him.

      2. “Huntsman is the ambassador to China, ex-governor, a Mormon, and generally considered the well-spoken (5 languages), most educated possible Republican nominee”

        My goodness that is quite a hole to climb out of in a GOP nomination…Conservatives read that and think “Elitist, non-Jesus loving, furiner mixing Commie lover.”

        1. And then they go back to their WalMart and Traktor Pullz.

      3. I watched Huntsman give a speech on C-span. No matter what your political leanings, prepare to be underwhelmed.

    3. What, did Gary Johnson drop out while I wasn’t looking?

      I mean, all he brings to the table is executive experience, a pretty good libertarian orientation, and credible hair.

  19. Back before he was a household name, I once shared an elevator ride with the Newt. Yeah, I thought about it at the time, but concluded my dainty little girly hands were too small to fit easily around his neck.

    1. He’s like Jabba, you’d need a garrote and leverage.

    2. I was visiting the Capitol back in the age before 9/11 hysteria and came across him and a group of lackeys. He really is quite unpleasant to look at.

  20. With Trump and Huckabee out, that seems to leave a lot more time for the next tier of candidates like Gary Johnson. Or will they just pump everything into Pawlenty, Daniels, and this Huntsman guy?

    1. The second part of what you said.

    2. The next debate will be Romney, Pawlenty, Daniels, Hunstman, and Token Cain.

      RP and GJ will continue to be ignored and any illusions of legitimate choice will be quelled.

    3. I like Johnson’s stands but holy shit that guy has some strange, effeminate mannerisms. He comes across as a how I imagine how the Mad Hatter from Batman Comics would act.

      1. “…Mad Hatter from Batman Comics…”
        I guess I’m not up on my literature.
        This is not the same Hat who attended Alice’s Tea Party?

        1. Modeled on him. And he’s been a Batman villain since 1948.

          1. Don’t know how I missed this, I was born in 1948. I thought I checked out all the Batman Comix that the neighbor kids had.
            There was some notion that comic books were bad for kids in the 50’s. My mom would only let me read the Disney rags. Little did she know that seeing Donald and Daisy Duck with no pants on would lead to hippies streaking naked down Main St. 20 years later.

      2. Given all the mountain climbing and crap, he could really try to come across as the reincarnation of Teddy Roosevelt (in personality, not politics). Oh well.

  21. MNG|5.16.11 @ 2:05PM|#
    “I like Johnson’s stands but holy shit that guy has some strange, effeminate mannerisms….”

    Haven’t seen him on the tube; in person, he’s a pretty strong speaker.
    My only real gripe with the guy is his refusal to back gay marriage.

  22. Club For Growth Predicts President Newt Would Bring “Serious Disappointments and Unevenness”

    Yeah.

    Like no president sworn in in the last 30 years hasn’t been a “disappointment”.

    1. 30? I’m thinking more like a century.

      1. “I like IKE!”

  23. Without even reading the article or the comments, I can tell from the excerpt what it says: that President Gingrich would be damn good but not perfect. And you’re choosing to focus on the imperfections.

  24. Newt’s in and Trump’s out? Both are equally as obnoxious and aren’t nearly as talented in their fields as they’d lead you to believe.

    Seriously with 10% unemployment, you’d think the GOP would take itself a bit more seriously for 2012.

    1. This is their best lineup. Rand Paul is open to the same criticisms plaguing Obama about lack of experience — fair or not for Paul. Palin and Bachmann get crucified every time they start to make noise about presidency. The only real wild-card is Chris Christie, who can probably wait as late as August before doing anything but issuing denials while doing speeches in Iowa and NH.

      1. He could easily win the nomination if he got in. He could be pulling a Fred Thompson, except, you know, actually pulling it off. And he’s way better than Palin, Gingrich, and Romney.

  25. Newt is a great American!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.