Presidential Candidates

Appalling Moments in Newtspeak

|

Since Newt Gingrich, currently the leading candidate for anti-Romney, comes across pretty well in my column this week (which quotes his comments on immigration), now may be a good time to remember some of the appalling positions he has taken over the years. Here I focus on civil liberties. 

Freedom of speech: At a 2006 awards dinner dedicated to the First Amendment, Gingrich said freedom of speech must be curtailed to win the War on Terror: "This is a serious, long-term war. Either before we lose a city or, if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the Internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people." He admitted this strategy might provoke "a serious debate about the First Amendment."

Freedom of religion: During the 2010 debate over plans to build a mosque near the site of the World Trade Center, Gingrich's jingoistic demagoguery made Sarah Palin seem calm and nuanced. In contrast with Palin, who urged supporters of the Park 51 project not to build the mosque but conceded they had a constitutional right to do so, Gingrich demanded government action to stop them, saying "we should not tolerate" what the First Amendment requires us to tolerate. He insisted "there should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia." In response to those who noted that interfering with the project because of its Muslim character would violate the Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom, he said "Nazis don't have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington." To understand what drove Gingrich's vehement opposition to Park 51, it might help to know he worries that in half a century the United States will be "a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists." 

Drug policy: As speaker of the House in 1995, Gingrich backed the death penalty for drug smugglers, saying, "You import commercial quantities of drugs in the United States for the purpose of destroying our children, we will kill you." In 1998, a decade after Congress created mandatory minimum sentences that were widely condemned as senselessly severe (including the crack penalties it voted almost unanimously to reduce last year), Gingrich still wanted to "increase penalties for selling illegal drugs" and "impose mandatory jail sentences for selling illegal drugs." Asked recently whether he still believed in executing drug dealers, he hedged a bit, referring to murderous cartel leaders who are already subject to the death penalty. But he expressed admiration for Singapore's drug policy, which includes forcibly testing anyone suspected of drug use (including tourists), long prison sentences for possession, and mandatory execution of anyone caught with more than a specified amount of drugs (18 ounces of marijuana, for example). "They've been very draconian," Gingrich said, and he meant that as a compliment.

Judicial review: Gingrich thinks Congress should abolish the courts of judges who reach decisions it does not like. Alternatively, he says, it can simply declare its acts exempt from judicial review.

Privacy: Gingrich says he would not change a thing about the PATRIOT Act. In 2007 he called the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance of communications between people in the U.S. and people in other countries "clearly justifiable." He added, "I would argue that that even inside the U.S., the Congress should adopt a law that says when you're in doubt on terrorism [as opposed to ordinary criminal cases], go ahead and wiretap and file the report with the judge, but don't slow down; don't wait for the lawyers…I am not at all cautious about chasing terrorists very, very aggressively."

Due process: Gingrich argues, in essence, that due process can be suspended by crying "national security." Under criminal law, he said at the November 22 Republican presidential debate, "the government should be frankly on defense and you're innocent until proven guilty. National security, the government should have many more tools in order to save our lives." Like Romney, Gingrich believes the president has the authority to order the summary execution of people he identifies as enemies in the War on Terror. "If you engage in war against the United States," he said at the November 13 Republican presidential debate, "you have none of the civil liberties of the United States"—leaving unresolved the question of how to determine who is at war with the United States in an ill-defined, worldwide, never-ending conflict against a scattered, amorphous enemy. 

I'm sure there is more. I welcome readers' suggestions.

NEXT: New Remy Video to Debut Tonight, Nick Gillespie to Appear on Fox Business' Stossel Show, 10pm ET!

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. So basically he’s like Obama but white?

    1. You could say the same thing about Romney.

        1. …and Bachmann

          1. … if Obama wore drag.

            1. He doesnt? I pegged the guy as being in the closet during his campaign……

      1. whose “we”, you and your mouse? I didn’t know.

  2. Wow. Who’s more respectful of the Constitution. Newt or Obama?

    1. Re: TrickyVic,

      Who’s more respectful of the Constitution. Newt or Obama?

      That’s like asking who looks better naked: if Rosie O’Donnell or Roseanne Barr.

      I would rather have my eyes gouged out by crows rather than trying to find out… in BOTH cases!

      1. Rosie O’Donnell.

        1. What’s wrong with you?

          1. If I was forced–forced!–to choose, I’d go with O’Donnell too. They’re both hideous, but Rosie is just fat… Roseanne is fat and plastic surgery disaster zone of Biblical proportions.

            1. In that case I would chose Roseanne and blame it on Moses.

              Ah, Moses just asked me if there would be flaiming bush.

      2. I think you need to poke your ear drums too.

  3. The German general Paul Von Mainstain used to say that the one kind of officer who must never be allowed in your organization is a hard working stupid one. Newt really has spent the last 15 years embodying that position.

    “This is a serious, long-term war. Either before we lose a city or, if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the Internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people.”

    You can use the internet to destroy a city? And the Soviet Union had the most fearsome, efficient and oppressive security apparatus the world has ever seen. Yet, they couldn’t stop ideas that from getting into the society that people wanted to hear. Newt must really enjoy pissing in the wind.

    1. You can use the internet to destroy a city?

      You fool! Did you not learn the lesson of WarGames?!?

      1. Stick to playing Chess?

      2. What were they using then, a 2400 baud modem?

        1. The “T” in T1 line stands for TERROR!

          1. THIS

          2. So a T3 line is TERROR tripled?!

            1. Cubed. Terrorific.

            2. holy shit…what is an OC-48 then? Or a STM-16? And how about Europe? E3? really?

              1. Who cares ’bout them sissies in yew-rope?

    2. As much as I loathe Obama I have an EXTREMELY hard time deciding who would be worse for the country, him or Newt. Clearly Obama is an economic disaster, but Newt would be a constitutional disaster that would make our economic recovery irrelevant.

      The only advantage to getting one of those two to run the country for the next four years is that it will hasten our demise, so we have that going for us.

      1. Obama has been a Constitutional disaster too.

      2. I would rather have Obama win. At least that way the Democrats will get the blame they deserve for the impending doom rather than blaming it on “small government extremism”.

        1. I would seriously vote for Obama over Newt Gingrich any day. I despise Obama.

        2. The impending doom has been impending since the 60s.

    3. The German general Paul Von Mainstain used to say that the one kind of officer who must never be allowed in your organization is a hard working stupid one.

      Paul Von Mainstain? This is usually attributed to Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord.

      1. I have always heard it attributed to Manstein. There were four kinds of officers; hard working smart ones, lazy smart ones, lazy stupid ones, and hard working stupid ones. All but the last one could be used.

    4. The German general Paul Von Mainstain

      I thought it was Clausewitz.

      1. According to this it is the elder Moltke, which makes sense since he was the innovator of the German staff system.

        http://old-soldier-colonel.blo…..es-of.html

        1. IF one of my roommates hadn’t stolen my copy of About Face, I could look it up. 🙁

        2. That makes sense. Clausewitz would be a little early, I suppose.

          Probably one of those aphorisms that had been floating around for awhile.

          1. If a military aphorism doesn’t reference a specific weapon, it’s probably been around since the Egyptians first whipped on the Hittites.

    5. “Paul Von Mainstain”

      I’m sorry, I appreciate the substance, but I LMAO.

      Is this like Paul von Hindenberg, Erich von Manstein, and the band Staind’s collective lovechild?

      1. Better than WW2-era gay porn star Paul Manstain.

    6. You sure youre not thinking of Erwin Rommel? “Men are basically smart or dumb and lazy or ambitious. The dumb and ambitious ones are dangerous and I get rid of them. The dumb and lazy ones I give mundane duties. The smart ambitious ones I put on my staff. The smart and lazy ones I make my commanders.”

  4. “a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists.”

    This is why I giggle every time I see him described as the intellectual candidate.

    With all my effort, I doubt I could produce a string of words so utterly stupid. It’s like he’s a genius at being a dumbass.

    1. Wow. My eyes had already glazed over before I reached that line.

      1. Joe M|12.1.11 @ 3:55PM|#|show direct|ignore
        SF, you’re my new favorite poster, again.

        Who? Who supplanted me in your affections? I will tear that bitch’s weave out!

        1. I’m like the GOP voters. You’re the flavor of the week right now.

    2. Secular Sharia run country.

    3. IIRC he made that remark to a bunch of Baptist fundies. I think he was trying to pack as many hot-button buzzwords into one sentence as he could. So the alternative explanation for that mind boggling remark is that he’s not necessarily an idiot, just a craven, pandering opportunist.

      1. You are so kind

    4. Eh, I give him the benefit of the doubt on that one. When you read it in context, it does look like an “or” was unintentionally dropped. It’s still plenty stupid, but at least it’s not contradictory.

    5. I don’t agree with Paulie Krugnuts on much, but he had the best summation of Newt Gingrich I ever heard:

      “…a stupid man’s idea of what a smart man sounds like…”

      1. Funny, that’s also what I think about krug. 😛

    6. Right? No part of the two ideologies cross over. At all. Our distinguished Republican front runner, ladies and gents.

  5. “”Newt must really enjoy pissing in the wind.””

    Especially when the wind blows towards him.

  6. Under criminal law, he said at the November 22 Republican presidential debate, “the government should be frankly on defense and you’re innocent until proven guilty. National security, the government should have many more tools in order to save our lives.”

    Because no one would ever misuse the term “national security”. And no one has ever argued that the burden of proof should be placed on the defendant in terrorist cases. You can say we need to have military tribunals. You can say that the rules of evidence should be relaxed. You can even say if you are really radical that the standard of proof should be lower than beyond a reasonable doubt. But no one in the history of the subject to my knowledge has ever advocated an “innocent until proven guilty” standard.

    It is glaringly obvious Newt doesn’t know anything about national security law or international law or much of anything else. He really is breathtakingly stupid.

    1. … and energetic. Don’t forget that. 😉

      1. Von Manstein would cry if he were alive.

        1. You couldn’t misspell it Manstain for superlulz?

  7. And this guy is taking the lead.

    That’s why I can’t take team red serious. If they were serious about the Constitution, Ron Paul would leave them all in the dust.

    1. Republocrats, Demolicans, what’s the difference?

    2. The only reason he is taking the lead is because he is kicking around Obama. All the GOP voters want is someone who will call Obama the shitbag that he is. It really is that simple. If Romney or any of the others would just come out and destroy Obama, they would go up in the polls too.

      1. Wouldn’t Cain be the best one for that? He could say plenty of things the others couldn’t.

        1. That is how Cain got ahead in the polls. It is just that the endless stream of bimbo eruptions did him in.

          1. Which all sounded like bullshit. I don’t quite buy into the conspiracy theory, but Cain getting the nomination was Team Blue’s worst nightmare.

            1. I think the last one was legit. He did seem to have a 13 year affair. But who cares?

              1. “”He did seem to have a 13 year affair. But who cares?””

                Newt may have a comment about quanity over quality.

                The christian right would care. Not that they matter like they once did.

                1. Atheists are more trustworthy nowadays.

              2. “”He did seem to have a 13 year affair. But who cares?””

                Newt may have a comment about quanity over quality.

                The christian right would care. Not that they matter like they once did.

              3. I don’t think it was. A thirteen-year affair would leave a ton of evidence.

                Regardless, whatever question they ask Cain in the debate, his answer should start, “Because Obama is a no talent house nigger…” There is no way Newt can top that.

                1. Wow RoboCain. Just wow.

                  1. Seriously, though, Obama is like the least black African-American ever. Clinton was more black, or at least he knew how to talk to a church. Cain should start using that.

      2. “‘If Romney or any of the others would just come out and destroy Obama, they would go up in the polls too.””

        Is that what’s important to the republican voter?

    3. Ron Paul doesn’t kill enough brown people.

  8. Newt Gingrich is the only thing standing between the American Way and Muslims putting their church across the street from 9/11.

    1. They already have 7/11.

  9. On the plus side, he did come out against John McCain’s beloved national service requirement. But he might have just been opposing Clinton for its own sake.

  10. “a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists.”

    The mind boggles.

    1. More than a decade on, while some of the new farmers are doing well, others have found that if they cross the ruling party, they face losing their new land.

      The mind boggles.

    2. “Economic consultant John Robertson suggests that agricultural output is only around 50% of the level it was before the land invasions began in 2000.”

      BBC: “See? Success!!!!”

      In Mexico, land reform was called “distributing poverty.” Oh, those cynics!

    3. That was about the most sickening thing I’ve ever read on the Internet.

    4. Their “good results” example is a guy who brags that the land he’s farming is now more productive than it was when it was used for cattle ranching.

      Sure it is…for now. I’m sure when some white guy stole it from the cattle-raising Xhosa he thought he was being more productive too. But then all his topsoil blew away and he and his descendants became cattle ranchers.

      The same thing will happen to this man, except he doesn’t have the expanse of land to raise cattle so he will simply starve.

    5. It is one of a number of studies which challenge popular perceptions that Zimbabwe’s land reform programme has been an unmitigated disaster.

      The Sussex University study does, however, accept that the process has had setbacks.

      Only just over a third of the new farmers are doing well, about a fifth are supplementing their income by other means, and the rest are struggling, are not using the land for active production, or have given up altogether.

      Uh, these are “setbacks”? Barely a third of those who received stolen farmland are even farming actively. A greater number received the property and abandoned farming. That sounds exactly like an unmitigated disaster.

  11. During the 2010 debate over plans to build a mosque near the site of the World Trade Center, Gingrich’s jingoistic demagoguery made Sarah Palin seem calm and nuanced.

    With the added bonus that Palin would look better naked compared to Newt…

    1. Palin is calm and nuanced. I kept telling you dumb asses Palin was a more than viable Republican candidate and you wouldn’t believe me. Palin is fucking Cicero compared to Newt or Romney or Cain or any of the rest of the except Paul.

      1. Ok, she would look better naked than Paul.

        There! Happy?

        1. Seriously, listen to Palin sometime and tell me she is a hell of a lot better than any of the current GOP candidates sans Paul.

          People give Palin shit about the Couric interview but then they act like Gingrich is anything but an idiot for saying this stuff?

          1. Yeah, Bachmann makes Palin look like Marie Curie.

            1. I always like Joan Jett better.

              1. I would vote for Joan Jett, do you know why?…..

                1. Sure, I’ll run away with the joke.

                  1. Because…????

              2. All you have to do is say “Joan Jett” and I get a stiffy.

          2. Re: John,

            Seriously, listen to Palin sometime and tell me she is a hell of a lot better than any of the current GOP candidates sans Paul.

            Seriously, I’ve never entertained the idea that Palin is a fruitcake. At least she concedes the existence of Paul.

            1. I wish Palin would have run. She would be a hell of a lot better than Romney, Gingrich or re-electing Obama. And that seems to be the available choices right now.

              And these people are so crazy, I think she would have shined in the debates.

              1. “”I think she would have shined in the debates.””

                Maybe. She’s prone to making gaffes too. I’m not sure she’s out of the race. It would be a smart move to not enter the race until the last moment avoiding the circus. You avoid risking gaffes, and grinding your campaign into the ground.

                1. Not that smart of a move. IIRC, she’s already missed the filing deadlines for several of the early primary states and has no ground operation in the early caucus states. Ask Rudy Giuliani about how well the “early states don’t matter” strategy worked

                  1. This is why Paul has a good chance. Nationally, he’s not looking great, but he’s kicking ass in IA and NH.

              2. It would have been a huge mistake for her to run. Take all Palin love and hate out of this conversation and think about it. If she takes the high road right now…no matter who wins, BO, newt, or Romney, she has the ability to critisize and maintain her support (the only exception is Paul). Then in 4 years she would tear it the fuck up. Even against a Repub incumbent. In all honesty I think it is probably the smartest thing she has done politically. Notice she isnt even “picking a winner” now. She want the ability to judge from afar.

              3. Wait…but John, MNG said you were going to flip to Gingrich once he got the nom.

          3. Look up when she’s talking. You’re not hearing the words.

            1. Not true. I am hearing plenty of the words and the words make a lot more sense than this shit.

              1. “I think on a national level your Department of Law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we’ve been charged with and automatically throw them out.”

                “I want to help clean up the state that is so sorry today of journalism. And I have a communications degree.”

                “We have a President, perhaps for the very first time since the founding of our republic, who doesn’t appear to believe that America is the greatest earthly force for good the world has ever known.”

                “Go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant — they’re quite clear — that we would create law based on the God of the bible and the Ten Commandments.”

                “I would hope at least that those protesters have the courage and the honor of thanking our veterans for giving them the right to protest!”

                “But ultimately what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the healthcare reform that is needed to help shore up our economy.”

                I could go on and on…

              2. I agree. She is of average intelligence and she is preferable to any republican except Paul or Johnson.

          4. “”People give Palin shit about the Couric interview but then they act like Gingrich is anything but an idiot for saying this stuff?””

            Who is acting like Gingrich is not an idiot?

            1. Everyone in the media and a large section of GOP voters

              1. 38%, according to the latest poll.

  12. Who? Who supplanted me in your affections? I will tear that bitch’s weave out!

    Bring it on, Saccharin bee-yatch! (Snap! Snap!)

    1. You meet me behind the Buy Low in one hour!

  13. BOW BEFORE THE HORROR OF YOGURT BABY!

    HE DEMANDS YOUR YOGURT!

    1. That kid is like 12 years old now.

  14. The “T” in T1 line stands for TERROR!

    Actually, it’s stands for Tenochtitlan.

    /George Noory

    1. The Aztecs had ISDN? sweet.

  15. Oh, I have another one.

    In a recent debate, Gingrich said that one criteria we should use for deciding if we should deport a particular illegal alien is if they are active in a local church.

    1. That may be unconstitutional. But it is not crazy. There is a pretty strong correlation between church attendance and not being a criminal. So if you goal is to deport only the criminals, that is a rational criteria.

      1. Then we should deport all atheists…legal or not.

        Romney’s plan may be heartless, but consistancy in enforcing our laws is better than complete randomness in enforcing them. Newt would have us play “Survivor: South Texas” and deport people that just happened to rub someone the wrong way and encourage payoffs to officials to continue to look the other way. Basically he would have us create a system ripe for bribery and corruption to meet our “compassion”. What needs to be set up is a system that gives illegals option to either pay a large fine and back taxes (which goes to pay for their permanent resident status) or they can get deported with a smaller fine. That money can then go to fund border security, a better organized immigration system and everyones status eventually gets resolved. I don’t understand why government can’t make money solve this.

      2. “”There is a pretty strong correlation between church attendance and not being a criminal.””

        Many of the anti-illegal alien crowd think it is a crime. Although I think it’s a civil issue, not criminal. However, states have been trying to criminalize it. In that case, being active in church wouldn’t make you less of a criminal.

        Why even mention a church, that place teaches you to forgive those you trespass against you.

        I think his statement is code for christians vote for me.

      3. “There is a pretty strong correlation between church attendance and not being a criminal. So if you goal is to deport only the criminals, that is a rational criteria.”

        Wow. I don’t even know where to begin with that statement. If the point is deporting actual criminals, why not deport actual criminals instead of using religion as a basis for unequal application of the law? That’s disgusting.

        1. It usually begins in the rectory basement.

      4. Most antebellum US slave owners weren’t considered criminals, but virtually all of them went to church.

        Morality is not synonymous with church attendance in my mind.

      5. Not going to church is not a crime. (Neither is illegal immigration, of course.)

        There is no concrete consensus on the effect of religion. At the community level, there are plenty of developed nations with high rates of church attendance and high rates of crime (the US), as well as those with low rates of church attendance and low rates of crime (Japan, near-zero in both). We’ve seen a decline in church attendance and religiosity in the US coupled with lower crime rates. At the individual level, atheists, those who don’t attend church as a matter of (lack of) religious conviction, are ill-represented among the US prison population. (Should we consider religion — or other correlated variables, like gender or ethnicity — as part of rational grounds for deportation?)

        And either someone’s a criminal, or he’s not. We have a process for figuring that out that doesn’t require asking about a person’s religious convictions.

        It’s unconstitutional, crazy, and all kinds of stupid.

  16. “there should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia.”

    That one statement disqualifies him forever. No re-dos, no clarifications, no mealy-mouthed explanations. For. Ever.

  17. ‘He admitted this strategy might provoke “a serious debate about the First Amendment.”‘

    The 1st Amendment is not up for debate.

    That he thinks it should be disqualifies him, IMO.

  18. Make that “should disqualify him” obv.

    Dam I need to use that preview post feature more often.

  19. Just calm down, everyone. Newt will self-destruct. Its what he does. Its who he is.

    Thus clearing the way for our new Robot Overlord. All Hail ROMNIAC!

    1. I was hoping for either Lord Humongous or Lord Vader. WTF.

  20. Where’s the Alt-Text? We need Alt-Text!!!

    “When I scrunch my lips like this, it keeps my glasses from falling off.”

  21. God help us if it’s Newt V Barack in 2012. I would prefer BHO over Newt.

    1. Fucked either way, you mean.

  22. going covert.

  23. I love that the current crop of GOP candidates make people actually consider statements like…

    Palin would be better.
    Grand Old Party.

    I think you could do a sort of human centipede surgery where you grafted the various positions of these clowns together into something coherent and get a generic republican that would make an acceptable candidate. The trick would be to make sure that all the shit policies from each were fed into each other so they never escaped the beast.

    1. Meanwhile, Obama’s shit policies…

      1. Omg I know, like that one that was, fortunately, overturned while they were supposed to be focusing on the economic crisis at hand.
        You know the one, where Obama tried to ensure kids in school got healthier lunches. Wow, that was a total shit policy. can you imagine if they had left that in place? What a NIGHTmare!!

  24. in half a century the United States will be “a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists.”

    The dangers that would be posed by secular atheist radical Islam are nearly incalculable.

  25. cant say that I disagree with anything he said there.

  26. > “If you engage in war against the
    > United States,” he said at the
    > November 13 Republican presidential
    > debate, “you have none of the civil
    > liberties of the United States”

    Military officers swear an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

    Foreign enemies are generally easy to spot. But what would a domestic enemy of the Constitution look like?

    I submit to you that people like Gingrich who advocate passing laws that circumvent the Constitution, knowing that the proposed laws are unconstitutional, advocating passing them BECAUSE they are unconstitutional and claiming that simply including text to the bill rendering them immune to judicial Constitutional review would make the courts unable to strike them down…THAT is a domestic enemy of the Constitution!

  27. “”You import commercial quantities of drugs in the United States for the purpose of destroying our children, we will kill you.”

    Under this policy there will be a lot of CIA spooks getting the needle. Oops.

  28. Something definitely worth noting: When asked how he summarizes himself politically, Newt suggested one should look no further than Alvin Toffler’s book, “The Third Wave”. For anyone not familiar with this book, look it up – it basically describes how a Constitutional Government is outdated, obsolete, out of touch with the 21st century and must be treated as so. In the end, Toffler writes as if to address our founding fathers, thanking them for creating the constitutional system which served us so well for so long, but now must be forgotten and replaced with a “21st century” form of government.

    So to summarize, Newt describes his entire political thesis by pointing out a book which reccomends dispensing of the very document that he (Mr. Gingrich) will swear an oath to preserve and protect.

  29. Gingrich worries “that in half a century the United States will be “a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists.”

    There is less evidence for an Islamist takeover of the US in 50 years than there is for global warming. So guess which which scenario concerns Newt the most?

  30. Can’t research. Busy puking now. I was pleased to move to Georgia where Carter was from during his Presidency. I am now ashamed to be from Georgia where second most well known political native is Newt Gingrich.

  31. And he is the “Intellectual” of the republican party.
    Go figure.
    Hangs head in shame.

  32. Sean Hannity has said the country needs to elect a true Ronald Reagan conservative to the office of the President. Then he mentions Newt Gingrich should run for President. I do not understand the contradiction, because Newt is not a true Reagan conservative.
    Newt says the United States is a center right country and the tea party movement shows the American people are not happy with Washington. Newt, tell us something we don’t already know. The American people are waking up to the radical agenda of the Obama administration and the Democrats/Statists. Common Sense Conservatism is rising again and the Statist’s day started coming in November.
    Bob Dole/Dull said it was his turn to run for President and we got 4 more years of the rapist Bill Clinton. Then it was John McCain’s “turn” and we ended up with Barack Hussein Obama.
    The following observations and questions are the reason I do not believe Newt Gingrich is a real common sense Reagan conservative Republican espoused by Hannity.
    Gary Gill was running against Missouri’s 3rd District Democrat Representative Dick Gephardt and he was leading in the polls until Newt praised Gephardt. Gill ended up losing the election.
    Newt made the Contract with America that helped the Republicans win the US House in 1994.
    What did the Republicans do after they won the US House in 1994? What was enacted? Did they follow through on the contract? No.
    In 2005 he teamed up with Hillary Clinton on National Healthcare and claimed she would be a formidable candidate for President. He did a Climate Change commercial with Pelosi and teamed up with Sharpton on education.
    Newt backed Dede Scozzafava, another RINO, in the New York Congressional race.

    Newt was on Greta and commented to her, “You strengthen yourself by attracting more people than by driving them away,” implying that you must compromise your conservative principles in order to expand the party. I believe you stand on conservative principles & let the people come to you.
    Newt is another crony capitalist as he is a member of GE’s healthymagination advisory board.
    Newt supports an individual mandate for healthcare, i.e. he supports Obamacare.
    Above all, he stated the Era of Reagan Conservatism is over.

  33. Would Newt be happy if all this came to pass, and the power was wielded by a Democratic President and a Democratically controlled Congress?

    I bet not.

  34. Gingrich, 18 October 2011: “Now, I happen to think that none of us should rush in judgment of others and the way in which they approach God. And I think that, uh, all of us up here I believe would agree. But I think all of us would also agree that there’s a very central part of your faith and how you approach public life and I frankly would be really worried if somebody assured me that nothing in their faith would affect their judgments? Because then I’d wonder where’s your judgement come — how can you have judgment if you have no faith, and how can I trust you with power if you don’t pray? Who you pray to, how you pray, how you come close to God, is between you and God. But the notion that you’re endowed by your Creator sets a certain boundary of what we mean by America.”

  35. What’s more, this powerful Blu-ray video to H.264 converter allows you to convert Blu-ray files in batches, preview and take snapshot of your Blu-ray movie.

  36. You opinion is just that. Newts opinion is his. Obama has his. Apparently, voters like Obama’s words because he was elected. Obama has violated the constitution numerous times, as do the police, and others. Some are prosecuted, some are not. But Newt’s speech is protected like yours, under the US constitution. Enemy combatants are the terrorist, the spy, the subversive that has no rights under the US Constitution. It is my belief that Islam and its followers perpetrated 9-11, and that Islam is a doctrine and not a religion. Islam is closed, it perpetrates hate and killing of non-Islamics. The placement of the super mosque near ground zero was a deliberate insensitive act of “in your face” Islamic aggression. Saudi money funded 9-11, and they ban any religion other than Islam. I would ban Mosques in the US, as they act as terrorist schools and armories-which makes them a military target. I disagree with Newt’s stand on guns and gun control. He is for control and registration. But most of all, I disagree with the writer of this article, and the political slant of this publication. So there, we all disagree on something. Is that bad ? No, because a world of groupthink would be a boring and result in a regressive society.

  37. i agree with all the statements

  38. Their “good results” example is a guy who brags that the land he’s farming is now more productive than it was when it was used for cattle ranching.

    Sure it is…for now. I’m sure when some white guy stole it from the cattle-raising Xhosa he thought he was being more productive too. But then all his topsoil blew away and he and his descendants became cattle ranchers. how to unlock iphone 4s

    The same thing will happen to this man, except he doesn’t have the expanse of land to raise cattle so he will simply starve.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.