The Case for Newt
Mr. Gingrich's tax plan would cut capital gains tax rates to zero for all taxpayers.
Peggy Noonan calls him "ethically dubious…unreliable….egomaniacal…harebrained."
George Will says he "embodies the vanity and rapacity that make modern Washington repulsive."
David Brooks says he "has every negative character trait that conservatives associate with '60s excess: narcissism, self-righteousness, self-indulgence and intemperance."
And never mind Newt Gingrich's character—Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry reminded viewers of Saturday night's debate that Mr. Gingrich once favored a federal mandate on individuals to buy health insurance, a mandate he now calls unconstitutional.
Amid all the attacks, it's worth pausing to try to understand why Mr. Gingrich, the same man described by these columnists as this vain, rapacious, narcissistic, harebrained egomaniac, is leading the Republican field in some recent polls. It's a three-part case: past, present, and future.
The past is Mr. Gingrich's record as a Republican leader in Congress. First, there was the political success of winning the first Republican majority in the House of Representatives in 40 years. Then, as speaker, there were policy successes: Mr. Gingrich worked with a Democratic president to pass a historic welfare reform bill with work requirements, cut the capital gains tax, and balanced the federal budget. Speaker of the House is no small thing; it's one of the few offices mentioned in the text of the Constitution itself (Article I, Section 2, states "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker"), which is more than can be said for either the secretary of Treasury or of State. And, according to Presidential Succession Act of 1947, if both the president and vice president were to die in office or to resign, the speaker would be next in line for the presidency and serve out the rest of the term.
The present is how Mr. Gingrich has conducted his campaign for president. He's been much tougher on the press than the other candidates. In the June 13, 2011, CNN New Hampshire debate, for example, Mr. Gingrich pushed back against CNN's John King: "John, you mischaracterized me." Later, he answered a question on immigration by calling the premise of a question "nonsense," saying, "there are humane, practical steps to solve this problem, if we can get the politicians and the news media to just deal with it honestly." At the November 9, 2011, CNBC debate, he said, "it's sad that the news media doesn't report accurately how the economy works."
In debates, Mr. Gingrich has consistently portrayed himself as an ally of the other Republican candidates rather than a rival. "All of us on the stage represent a dramatically greater likelihood of getting to a paycheck and leaving behind food stamps than does Barack Obama," he said in the CNBC debate. "Every person at this table is more likely to solve those problems than Barack Obama," he said in the October 11 Bloomberg-Washington Post debate.
A campaign that understands and conveys that the left-wing press and President Obama, not the other Republicans, are the enemies attracts a certain amount of appreciation from the Republican primary electorate. Rush Limbaugh took notice: "Newt is remaining very consistent in suggesting that for everybody on that stage the real opponent is Obama…and the enemy here is the media. That's been the position that Newt has taken. He's been very consistent with that."
The future—the third prong of Mr. Gingrich's appeal—relates to the policies he says he'd implement as president. Here, he just matches up better to his rivals on the substance of his policy message. One area where Mr. Gingrich has been willing to criticize a Republican has been in faulting Mitt Romney for limiting his proposed capital gains tax cut to those earning $200,000 a year or less. Mr. Gingrich is absolutely correct about that, explaining to Mr. Romney in Saturday night's ABC debate: "You know if you really want to create jobs, you want to—you want to encourage the people who make more than $200,000 who actually have capital to invest the capital in the U.S. I'll stick with zero capital gains, will create vastly more jobs than your proposal." Mr. Gingrich's tax plan would cut capital gains tax rates to zero for all taxpayers.
Mr. Gingrich also outdoes both Governor Romney and Governor Perry on taxes other than capital gains. Mr. Romney would cut the corporate tax rate to 25% from 35%; Mr. Perry would take it to 20%; Mr. Gingrich would go all the way down to 12.5%. Mr. Gingrich's proposed optional 15% flat tax for individual income is also lower than Mr. Perry's 20% proposal. To those who claim this is unaffordable, Mr. Gingrich responds, in his 21st Century Contract With America: "The biggest key to reducing the deficit is robust economic growth….We can have higher revenues without having higher taxes." The proposed rates would probably increase in any negotiation with Congressional Democrats to get them passed, anyway, so there's a virtue in having a Republican open the negotiation from a lower starting point.
For all these strengths, there are a lot of people who think the Republican Party would be crazy to hand over its presidential nomination to a twice-divorced, admittedly overweight history professor-turned-career politician who will be 69 years old on Election Day. Then again, there were a lot of people four years ago who thought the Democrats were taking a big risk by nominating a young, black, law professor from Hawaii and Indonesia named Barack Hussein Obama.
Ira Stoll is editor of FutureOfCapitalism.com and author of Samuel Adams: A Life.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
*BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARF*
I call your *BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARF*
and raise you *SHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT*
BTW: What is it with Reason and Stoll?
Newt Gingrich: Asshole.
In the future, survivors (gen Y) will envy/hate/loathe/spit on the dead (baby boomers).
Boomers are determined to get theirs at the expense of their children. Gen X continues to aid/abet them.
*I do not hate the average boomer (as they are my parents), but if they don’t get on the stop spending train, I reserve the right to ignore their pleas of mercy when Gen Y cuts them off in 20 years.
“I do not hate the average boomer (as they are my parents)”
Same, but goddamn their gravy nonetheless.
But, as Ira fails to note, the problem is the spending.
If Newt were serious about helping America, he’d be on Paul’s side hammering on the spending Washington continues with, instead of playing the marginal tax card. Republicans can’t say that they are starving the beast when it just supplanted its appetite with debt as opposed to taxes, thus digging our hole deeper and deeper.
No solution is complete until spending is reigned in and the budget is brought back down to reality. Newt’s playing a shell game with capital gains that benefits rich assholes now at the expense of all of America later.
Of the top 3 candidates, the only one that’s talked big about the spending is Paul and thus he’s the only serious one up there. the rest are just playing the same old song and dance for the past decade, hoping magic will save the economy.
A great tax structure and nuclear war.
Hitler: Great on infrastructure improvements.
(yeah yeah godwin)
Newt’s a perfect reason to hate the baby boomers. He’s basically the alpha boomer (he’s borderline being born in ’43).
He was the beta boomer. All others are merely a perfected subspecies.
To hear him talk, you’d think he was a delta+, maybe a gamma-, boomer at best.
To hear him talk, you would think that he was the Alpha and the Omega.
+1
To hear him talk, you’d think he was a delta+, maybe a gamma-, boomer at best.
But I do hear he knows how to single-post.
Maybe you should stop projecting your male plumbing inadequacies on Newt.
Newt Stillson
nice.
I realize that Newt is no libertarian.
The problem is that any time I see a small-government-leaning politician vilified as a self-indulgent ego-maniacal narcissist, I can’t help thinking these people must think he’s some sort of closet libertarian, because that’s exactly the same kind of language that people who hate Ayn Rand tend to use.
And that makes me think they know something I don’t. Which makes me like Gingrich more.
News? Small government?
No.
Well, in terms of overall spending levels. No so much on the civil liberties.
this is not the newt you are looking for. The democrats, other than hating Newt for personal reasons (mainly his assholishness in rhetoric), loved sitting next to him while he signed their golden calves into law. Climate Change, sure. Obamacare, wonderful. He’s the worst of both worlds when it comes to spending, which is what everyone needs to know.
I’m sure you are correct.
Still, when I hear “he’s an egomanical narcissist with an inflated sense of self-worth” from typical statist-collectivist quarters, I can’t help thinking “they must think he’s some kind of libertarian” .
if liberals think newt is a libertarian, they’re dumber than they appear.
Still, when I hear “he’s an egomanical narcissist with an inflated sense of self-worth” from typical statist-collectivist quarters, I can’t help thinking “they must think he’s some kind of libertarian” .
He’s a politician. Thus, the default is that that description is accurate, unless proven otherwise.
Sometimes even people you can’t stand are correct.
But Newt is an egomanical narcissist with an inflated sense of self worth
Sometimes statists get things right
But Newt is an egomanical narcissist with an inflated sense of self worth
Sometimes statists get things right
They “balanced” the budget by issuing IOUs to the public itself.
That’s not really Newt’s fault, the Democrats had been doing that since the 60s.
Bridge..friends…jumping off…
You realize this is exactly how Al Gore and Barack Obama were vilified?
Portraying outwardly educated people as self-absorbed is Luntz 101, and it’s hardly specific to any political philosophy. It’s how low-information southerners see “the elites” of the college-educated class, and it’s effective propaganda.
Except the stupid hicks were right about Obama. He is exactly what they said he was.
They were right about Gore too. I hope they wise-up about Gingrich before the primaries.
Except, johnc,
1. Most of those “low-information southerners” are about as likely to have a college degree as your “elites of the college educated class”.
2. The depiction of southerners as low-information hicks is usually a tactic reserved for people a generation or so removed from the shop floor themselves.
3. You do realize that you’re buying into much the same sort of charade you’re accusing them of.
4. The low-information southerners seem to be doing a better job of managing themselves, on average, than the college educated elites.
Newt has a useless degree in history….he’s not educated!
For a politician a history degree is valuable. After all, look how many of our pols are completely ignorant of the truth about the Depression, WWII, Vietnam, etc.
Gingrich is in no way a “small-government-leaning politician”. He is indeed a “self-indulgent ego-maniacal narcissist” and an out-of-the-closet scumbag.Look at his record, both personal and political.
… and thus it begins: where in the libertarians are told to vote for the GOP candidate.
Which they fall for.
Every. Single. Time.
You will vote for the far-rightest conservative and like it!
they might fall for Romney. Newt’s all sorts of icky…santorum icky.
Tulpa is head over heels for Romney already.
I wasn’t around here in ’08, but from what I can tell everyone was busy fellating Obama cause he was supposed to be the anti-Bush/Republican. So no, libertarians don’t vote for the GOP candidate every single time. Get a life douche.
I was around here and the comments section wasn’t busy fellating Obama. There was that infamous poll or Reasoners but if I remember correctly almost all of the ones who said they would vote for Obama were contributors and not actual staff members.
Bailey, Cavanaugh, Weigel…
Even in hindsight, I still take Obama over McCain-Palin.
Only because Obama’s regime more clearly exposes the failure of big government and will likely give us a more rational Congress.
Obama was a far better choice than McCain. And is still a far better choice than Gingrich.
Right. We love to throw money at big banks, unions, failing auto companies, ‘green’ boondoggles, gun-runners, etc.
You, sir, are a complete idiot.
I make most of my money as income so this doesn’t help me at all. In fact it would shift the burden onto me and away from people making capital gains.
I like Ron Paul’s idea. Cut spending.
Its the only solution. Fiddling with tax laws and financial instruments has done nothing but create an illusion of growth, which could not be maintained. Meanwhile, government has continued to occupy more and more space and make worse and worse decisions for spending America’s GDP. Time to return the decisions for spending back to Americans and reign in the beast of government.
Capital gains what? Look, will he or will he not invade other countries? Can we rely on this man to Protect ‘Merica by bombing the shit out of nations that have never attacked us? That’s the question here, political commentator-person.
Exactly. If Lindsey Graham and John McCain endorse him, then you’ll have your answer.
There’s one issue that might scare me into voting GOP, even if it’s not Paul: The SCOTUS.
And what makes you think Newt wouldn’t put another Souter up there?
Oh, I fear him with the appointment power as well, but Obama has been horrific in that regard.
frankly, i think either way we go, wwe’re praying for a blind squirrel/acorn (pun not intended) event.
I don’t know why, but I keep hearing Carly Simon singing, “You’re so fucked; you probably think this election’s about you.”
the least the polling stations could do is hand you a bottle of jack daniels after you vote (the shot before you vote is a given).
Maybe if I drank so much that I blacked out and couldn’t remember who I voted for, this election might be more palatable. Usual exception for when I’m punching the ballot for Paul or for LP Johnson.
The possibility of another Souter is far better than the certainty of another John Paul Stevens.
So just as people took a chance with Barry, only to get the same policies as before but with more spending, so you, too, should take a chance on Newt, and see what happens!
How is the US Government like Harrah’s Casino.
No matter which bet you take, the House wins!
I trust Newt Gingrich even less than I trust Barack Obama, which is not at all. I have no idea what dumbass, statist fad idea Gingrich will stick his dick in. My guess would be, all of them.
Please, somehow, let Paul win.
Is Tebow’s endorsement available?
If Tebow Jesus endorses Ron Paul count me in!
I think that’s a pretty good guess. Newt is basically the RED version of a BLUE technocrat.
You know, what’s all the bitching about consumers having too many choices? Really, I don’t see that I have very many at all. Paul, shit, shit, shit, shit, shit, shit, shit, and, oh, yeah, Gary Johnson.
If there are blue dogs, what would newt be? A red skunk?
Red panda?
Cap gains should be taxed like all other income; the government should not be in the business of deciding which stream of revenue is advantageous for a taxpayer. Especially when cap gains so plainly favors the propertied class over income earners.
The tax code could be made massively simpler just by not discriminating about different sources of income.
But the propertied class could only become propertied by saving some of the earned income which was already liable to full taxation.
That is valid. First, I still think simplicity over defining income would result in a more positive outcome and far greater compliance with the tax code. Second, the double tax on income is avoided under normal circumstances since you are only taxed on the appreciation of assets.
Those who advocate more compliance with the tax code often wind up in jail. Irwin Schiff, Wesley Snipes, Cheryl Peel Jackson, etc.
I agree. If taxes on capital gains are so high they are screwing up the economy, then you should lower the rate of taxation on all incomes until it stops screwing things up. But its dumb to tax salaries at a higher rate than investment income.
Need to fix the double taxation of divedends too though.
You are buying a cash flow when get equity with dividends, why should the cash flow be taxed differently to you because it was taxed at the corporate level (whether or not we should have a corporate tax is a separate issue)? Put another way, how is it any different than purchasing an annuity or engaging in any passive activity that generates income?
This is sort of one of those things that makes me think we need a revolution to wipe the slate clean.
I just can’t see a tax “reform” package that does all that without adding a shitload of sweeteners to buy out all the constitutencies that would lose.
As is noted above, the capital has already been taxed.
The real solution is to stop taxing income and start taxing consumption.
Newt Gingrich is a Big Government Progressive!
On the plus side, unlike Romney Newt has yet to commit a felony on the debate stage.
god, i forgot about the retarded “you can only bet in state funded lotteries or casinos” bullshit that was bipartisonly shoved down our throats. If Newt explodes and Romney gets indicted, does Paul have a shot then?
It’s strange, but that picture of Newcular Titties reminds me of Dave Chappelle playing Rick James, with the aura emanating from his Jamesness.
Looks like Wade Phillips to me, which makes me hate him even more.
He’s Newt Gingrich, bitch.
Say, he could win with that slogan.
That’s what he’s told his wives. Apparently its a winner.
Upset that you don’t have the best team in Texas anymore? He’s doing great as a defensive coordinator.
Last night made me smile. Go Texans!
“Show me your titties”
“Mmmm, I wish i had more hands, because I’d give those titties 4 thumbs down”
Seriously, that was one of the funniest skits ever done.
The fact that a certifiable, ethics-free lunatic like Mr. Gingrich is taken seriously as a candidate tells you everything you need to know about how crazy the GOP has become.
The fact that the so-called “liberal” press hasn’t pointed this out shows how much of a lie it is to call the press liberal.
As a liberal I wish there was a liberal running for president, but it is pretty clear that anyone currently being considered other than Mr. Obama
Didn’t mean to send that yet. Last sentence should read:
As a liberal myself I wish there was a liberal running for president, but it is pretty clear that anyone currently being considered other than Mr. Obama is either a moron or nucking futz.
Anyone who thinks that should be forced to have “gullible dumbass” tattooed to their forehead.
Liberals not allowed here nor are classic liberals.
Brain-damaged psychos like Michele Bachmann allowed though!
Classical liberal = Libertarian
…so I stop talking out of it
” Then again, there were a lot of people four years ago who thought the Democrats were taking a big risk by nominating a young, black, law professor from Hawaii and Indonesia named Barack Hussein Obama.”
So, are you saying that, if elected, Newt will turn out to be a fat, old, white Barack Obama?
No, he’ll never be as well spoken…
I love Newt. He is a saintly Godly man if ever one existed.
What I want to see–aside from my other motivations for wanting to see it–is Hannity having to suck it in and publicly love Ron Paul as the GOP nominee. Oh, that would be so great.
Sean, you are a great American.
OT: Sidney Crosby has acute flare of of vaginitis. Is out indefinitely. Penguins contact Broncos with questions about Tebow’s skating ability.
He has an unnatural skating motion, but oddly he can score at will in the third period.
Brilliant!
I totally called this.
Also, the irony is that Newt doesn’t really have to do much to make the left-wing press appear to be his enemy, because they are doing such a good job making themselves look like his enemy. That can’t be hurting his chances with the Republican base.
The democrats are practically giddy at his apparent strength with the party base. The media can point out his faults and alienate the independents without worrying that they’ll drive the GOP to a more moderate choice. Newt looks like a moderate electable candidate to the base while appearing to be the lunatic fringe to the independents. in other words, the democrats savior.
The Democrats are trying too hard to make it appear they would love Newt to win the primary. When they all share the exact same talking point, they’re lying. I think Newt scares the crap out of them. That isn’t to say I’d ever vote for him.
I’m not sure I know which it is. Maybe they think that Gingrich will alienate independents. But he is the same guy who got a Republican majority in 1994 based on the ‘Contract with America’.
They’re either happy that the nominee is someone with a lot of old negatives, or their afraid that it’s an experienced moderate who can get the base behind him.
I thought this was a Libertarian site?
You conservatives fool me every time!
We keep asking for a bouncer at the door, but Gillespie just buys more jackets.
I’m not really pro-Newt. I like Gary Johnson. It’s just that the Newt hate kind of makes me sympathize with him a bit.
Do you sympathize with Hitler?
Just saying, sympathizing with someone just because he’s hated is kind of ridiculous.
So why not just be honest and tell everyone that you just like him or his ideas?
Warning, you have just been put on notice that you have violated my law.
They don’t have much to attack him on besides infidelity. Immigration, Freddie Mac and supporting the individual mandate won’t hurt him. Then there’s those accomplishments he shared with Clinton.
James,
Newt’s got something in the closet ready to offend everybody.
Little boys?
Its abortion – Cons hate that freedom – I forgot it for a minute.
And infanticide — cons hate that freedom, too.
That is what kills me here!
Howard Dean is far more libertarian than Gingrot in every way – guns, budgets, drugs, medical, media, taxes – but Dean is a “socialist” to conservatives!
Plenty to dislike about Dean, but your point is still right.
So why aren’t you running him instead of offering America another bowl of sugar coated Barry-O’s?
Newt’s job in ’94 was to put the electoral revolt (started in ’92 with disaffection for Bush) on a leash, and that is what he has been sent to do this time against the Tea Party.
Maybe, but Romney is smooth. Gingrich is one interview away from complete meltdown continuously.
Oh, and Palestinians are just another mirage in the desert.
I think it has more to do with the fact that Romney is basically a liberal dressed up in conservative (i.e. Mormon) clothing. He’s not going to melt down because he’s never going to say anything that the media will disagree with, because he doesn’t actually disagree with them on anything.
By comparison, Newt has lots of positions that are “controversial”, if you’re coming from a center-left perspective.
They’re even more hyper about it because he’s really a moderate centrist on so much, that he drives them nuts when he deviates from the establishment position and says something freaky sounding.
I’d like to add that when Ginrich has a “meltdown” it’s frequently when he says something shockingly libertarian like “child labor laws are stupid”.
Or advocating more humane immigration laws.
Half the shit Gingrich says that gets him in trouble is stuff I agree with.
The only thing less relevant than a game of “I think you think I think you think” speculation about an individual person’s thought process is that kind of speculation about a large diverse group of people who don’t act or think collectively.
Oh, come on. Obama would carry 40 or more states against Gingrich. He is a supremely unlikeable man.
You’re right.
Newt only took that “no adultery” pledge today because us wingnuts wanted him to.
Why would you even publish this piece of shit op-ed? This is like Exhibit A in why libertarians get fucked over by conservatives: the consistent perception that taxes are the only issue that matters. Who gives a fuck about taxes if he spends us into bankruptcy and shreds the Bill of Rights for the drug war and starts a fucking nuclear war with the Middle East? Go fuck yourself Stoll.
Amid all the attacks, it’s worth pausing to try to understand why Mr. Gingrich, the same man described by these columnists as this vain, rapacious, narcissistic, harebrained egomaniac, is leading the Republican field in some recent polls. It’s a three-part case: past, present, and future.
If that’s singing his praises, I’ll eat my hat.
“Clearly he must be a great basketball player. Look at him dominate that 6 year old.”
In a totally unrelated matter, Michael Savage offered $1 Million dollars (with pinky in mouth) to Newt if he drops out of the race within 72 hours, or else he will destroy the Earth! Bwa ha ha ha!!
Newt gets more than that from FM quarterly.
The trouble with that theory is that a company really only benefits from investment when they initially sell their stock.
Once they’ve sold it and gotten their IPO money, stock holders are pretty much well, parasites. All they do is drain money from the company, either in dividends, or force the company to do idiotic things for short terms games, spiking the stock price up, so the investors can sell. Even though it often leaves the company devastated.
then don’t go public, there are plenty of successful sole proprieterships and limited partnerships in the world. Companies that IPO do so for the cash influx for growth. If they were more patient, they could have stayed privately owned and safe from takeover.
If any business I ever run becomes a major enterprise, I’d do everything I could to avoid going public.
IPOs are how the original owners and investors cash out.
That’s it, there is no other point to going public in today’s economy.
Except for that massive infusion of capital that the IPO generates. The IPO rarely consists of just the ownership interests of the current owners and managers. That’s why the proceeds of an IPO usually well exceed the pre-IPO value of the firm. The firm is taking on additional capitalization.
“All they do is drain money from the company, either in dividends…”
But the stockholders OWN the company! DO you think private owners also “drain” money from the company when they take profits? Should all companies be non-profits?
No, JeremyR. The managers have sold off much of the company. The managers are no longer the company’s owners. The stockholders are. They aren’t parasites for expecting their property to be managed in their interests.
Newt thinks that by proposing tax cuts, he is actually cutting taxes. But he isn’t.
“Government debt” is a phony concept. There is no such thing as “debt” for the government; not as you and I understand being in debt. “Debt” is for individuals and entities who don’t print their own money and don’t have the power of taxation. When the government spends money it doesn’t have at present, it is merely committing itself to more taxation in the future.
What we call “government debt” is just postponed taxation. You can tax now, or you can tax later. (Maybe you hope some combination of inflation and economic growth will make future taxation less onerous that present taxation, but that is just a hope, not a guarantee.)
When Newt says he will eliminate present capital gains taxes, even as he builds a sci-fi defense network against the looming threat of the EMP bomb and insulates our entitlement system against “right-wing social engineering,” he is merely shifting the burden of present spending to future taxpayers. There is no “beast” to be “starved.” There is only an allocation of burdens between the present taxpayers (who can vote) and the future taxpayers (who cannot vote until somebody invents a time-travel machine).
“There is no “beast” to be “starved.””
Yes, there is a beast to be starved; it means forcing the government to cut costs since, sooner or later, the public will understand that spending half the budget on debt maintenance isn’t a good idea.
Fancy thinking the Beast was something you could hunt and kill! You knew, didn’t you? I’m part of you? Close, close, close! I’m the reason why it’s no go? Why things are what they are?
^?
Someone has no appreciation of great literature.
Philistine
The government won’t swallow itself by its own tail by way of interest payments, not when it can print its own money.
Re: There is no “brain,”
The “you” meaning the image in the mirror to which you’re eerily talking to.
So counterfeiters and thieves don’t have debts.
So that’s it, the government doesn’t really owe because it will pay in the future… with interest!
That’s not a debt! Naaaaah!
GET A BRAIN, MORON!!!!!!!
“So counterfeiters and thieves don’t have debts.”
No they don’t; not when they operate under color of law. Exactly.
“So that’s it, the government doesn’t really owe because it will pay in the future… with interest!”
It’s the only “debtor” that prints its own money and “earns” by fiat.
Best Newt ad yet! So embarrassing.
http://youtu.be/kxEciAcewEE
Fffff, rick rolled in French?!
Why is capital gains income any different than earned income? Kill the corporate tax & tax all income the same or preferably not at all.
As a nontaxpayer, the only candidate who would be tolerable is Ron Paul! He would open the debate to include the nontaxpayers as well as the taxpayers!
He should start by promising to pardon Wesley Snipes as soon as elected!
An okay article, but shorter than I expected. Is that really all there is good to say about Newt? Wow; he’s worse than I thought.
Note also that Newt’s line, “We can have higher revenues without having higher taxes,” while very true and very important, is (in this race) also code for the Standard Establishment Republican Guarantee: “We have no intention of ever actually cutting spending, shrinking the government, or reducing its role in your life.”
Reasons to vote for Mitt Romney.
He’s electable (just like Meg Whitman.
And
???????
???????
???????
???????
???????
???????
Newt loves illegals (amnesty) more than Americans (Newt wants to bring back child labor for US kids). Mitt thinks corporations are people (killing his general election chances). Ron Paul is the only candidate with a plan to end the TSA and end the endless wars for Israel, it all started a decade ago after a false flag attack.
9/11, US and Israel:
http://www.amazon.com/America-…..1450257437
I think most libertarians will agree that Ron Paul is the obvious best choice for a host of policy issues – taxes, spending, monetary issues, foreign wars, domestic wars on drugs and terror, etc. I suspect then that most of us would prefer to see space in Reason devoted to Dr. Paul. We can start hoping to get a moderate conservative elected when the only other choice is Obama.
Dude, there blog posts on Ron Paul nearly every day.
If Newt is elected he will carry out the same policies as Bush and Obama on War, drug war, homeland security patriot acts and imprisoning without trials and the economy, but could possibly be MORE effective at passing carbon taxes.
Since that is what I’m expecting, I’d rather just see Obama do it. I’d hate to see “free markets” blamed for a bad economy AGAIN.
If Newt is the best the GOP can offer, it’s the LP candidate.
Correction:
f Newt or Mitt is the best the GOP can offer, it’s the LP candidate.
First off, let’s be clear that among the Republican field, the nomination will go to either Newt or Mitt. While Newt does indeed have all the negative character traits alluded to in this article, not to mention serious baggage, the Republican establishment will probably pick him even though he would lose them the election. You see, Mitt has what it takes to win against Obama which is enough of a moderate streak to bring in independents and younger voters; Newt’s baggage ensures anyone with a moderate streak will turn the other way come voting time. Besides, if it’s one thing the last three years have shown us, it’s that former governors make better presidents than former congressman. Despite the obvious evidence that Mitt is more electable in the general election, I fear the Republican establishment simply won’t be able to help themselves. Beating their chest, they’ll pick the “more conservative” and the “non-Mormon” and they’ll lose. By by golly they’ll still have their ideology in tact. Don’t get me wrong, I like Newt a lot: he’s the most experienced, the most decisive and clearly has the balls to lead. Romney’s a close second, but the issue I have with Newt is that he can’t win against Obama.
That’s not the GOP establishment you’re talking about, that’s the idiot wing of the conservative base (which is more breast than wing tbh). Though there’s still a chance that santorum will get a chance to shine still.
While it did annoy me somewhat, I accepted Reason’s constant stream of unfair hit-pieces on Romney as the result of an equal-opportunity criticism policy.
But now that they’ve published *two* Gingrich apologetics today, I’m not so sure. Has Reason fallen in love with Newt?
Repack Rider|12.12.11 @ 5:17PM|#
“As a liberal myself I wish there was a liberal running for president, but it is pretty clear that anyone currently being considered other than Mr. Obama is either a moron or nucking futz.”
Care to define “liberal”?
With record deficits, he wants to lower income taxes, lower corporate taxes, and cut the capital gains tax to zero? Come to think of it, he might actually be the worst GOP candidate, because he’s completely insane on something that matters, the economy, instead of on things where the GOP already lost, like abortion and gay marriage.
solarcub|12.12.11 @ 9:39PM|#
“With record deficits, he wants to lower income taxes, lower corporate taxes, and cut the capital gains tax to zero? Come to think of it, he might actually be the worst GOP candidate, because he’s completely insane on something that matters, the economy,…”
Lemme guess: You want to RAISE taxes, since your fave politicos will use it to reduce the deficit?
Do I have it? Does the sun have a different color from your planet?
Economy – that’s where you go to the toilet, right?
Sophisticated and sexy, Patricia is what you would call a true beauty.
Presently living and studying in the beautiful city of Rome, Patricia is a student of modern languages. So alongside her native tongue of Italian, she speaks English and Portuguese perfectly ? not forgetting a little Spanish!
Patricia has a playful and happy personality. She is one of life’s seekers and likes to search out new experiences and loves to experiment. Fortunately for us she also loves modeling and nudity comes as a second nature to her!
When she isn’t studying in Rome Patricia likes to head towards the coast and hang out at the beach. And who can blame her?
A classic beauty, with long dark velvety hair and a blinding smile, Patricia is one of those girls that takes your breath away!
Newt is a big government asshole.
There is no case for Newt if you are a Libertarian.
Newt should quit politics and audition for the Ned Beatty role in a stage production of “Deliverance”.
WEEEEEEEEEEE WEEEEEEEE!
Because he’s fat, you see.
Sorry. I’ve been drinking again.
Why is Reason discussing anyone but Ron Paul? If I want to read about those other assholes I can read the New York Times. Besides, Gingrich is the most loathesome creature ever to emerge from the belly of the beast (located in DC). We don’t need an adulterous, greedy, opportunistic, flipflopping lobbyist chickenhawk as President in our current situation. He’d be macerated by the Democrats. He has so much baggage, that when he walks down the street, people come up to him and ask him, “Are you moving?” People make much of Ron Paul’s age, but surely obesity is also a health and longevity risk. I would be embarrassed to have this grotesque monster represent my country on the international stage.
Gingrich is the most loathesome creature ever to emerge from the belly of the beast (located in DC).
Oh, I wouldn’t go that far. Don’t forget that he’s in competition with people like Harry Reid, Jesse Helms, Nancy Pelosi…
-jcr
Well he can hold his own…no one else will.
Shhh boom!
“…the future promised by Gingrich has an enviable tax structure.”
Empty promise since he tax code is the purview of … Congress. And that is why his numerous character flaws he has had ample time to display in the last couple of decades makes him unsuitable for the presidency.
A magazine that claims to be libertarian is attempting to make a case for Gingrich? Are you kidding me?
anything is better than Obama; and I’m not under any illusions that the Libertarian Messiah is going to manifest him or herself in the next year, so, I’d vote for Newt if he is the option. If anything, it would be more entertaining than listening to Obama blame everybody, including his dead grandmother, for the state of the economy for the next 4 years.
As much we all like the idea of lower taxes, they are only positive if we cut spending and reduce the debt. If we don’t, any tax cut will simply be a tax on America’s future and will eventually cause economic ruin. Newt Gingrich comes from the school of reduce taxes now, reduce spending later (which means never). I would think that a writer for Reason would understand this, but apparently they don’t. As much as it hurts to say this, we need to accept current tax rates and balance the budget. Then we can reduce taxes.
Why the hell would anyone who calls themself a libertarian be promoting Newt Gingrich over Ron Paul, especially as Ron Paul is performing so surprisingly well in the polls currently? I mean maybe he’s not perfect but he’s still like 90-95 out of a hundred while candidates like Newt are fucking worthless.