A Case Against Gingrich

My warning for all of the desperate republicans who are flocking toward Newt Gingrich, believing that he is the man who can beat Barack Obama in the 2012 elections…..

Be careful what you wish for.

Take a deep breath. Do your homework. Rekindle your common sense. Read your constitution. Again.

Newt Gingrich talks a good game, in fact, he talks a great game. No one can sell an idea like this former Speaker of the House. He’s smart, he’s witty, he’s sarcastic, he’s authoritative. Newt not only has all of the facts, he can rattle them off like a quick-tongued auctioneer at your local auction house. He’s the smartest man in the room, and he knows it. When he speaks , we are somehow hypnotized into suspending our own beliefs, our own common sense, our own values because he appears to have “true wisdom.”

Getting into a political debate with Newt would be like getting into a one-on-one basketball contest with Michael Jordan. Newt is not only an expert on the inside political game played in Washington, he is the stereotypical prototype of the GOP.

And that, my friends, is the problem. Despite his claims otherwise, Newt Gingrich is not a conservative; he is a progressive Republican.

Big difference. Huge.

What do I mean? Let’s start with the fact that as a congressman, Newt voted TO CREATE the Department of Education. While current, conservative members in the party are begging for a candidate who will dismantle this bloated government agency, Newt was one of the leaders responsible for our BIGGER federal government.


If it was, I’ve yet to hear Newt admit to it.

Newt Gingrich sat on the now-famous couch with Nancy Pelosi sounding the bells for global warming and giving kudos to Al Gore for his work to combat the impending catastrophe awaiting our country. This was at a time when folks like Lord Christopher Monckton of England and Professor Lindzen of MIT were systematically proving that “global warming” was a manufactured hoax meant to redistribute wealth throughout the world. It was the same time when many Americans were questioning the validity of global warming and scientists were beginning to jump OFF the “climate change” bandwagon.

As “the smartest man in the room”, you would assume Gingrich would have been able to see through this socialist hoax.

Wouldn’t you?

Also alarming is the fact that Newt Gingrich claimed in the first presidential debate to have collected a paycheck from Freddie Mac to the tune of $300,000, serving as a “historian” for the bailed-out housing giant. That number quickly escalated to $1.6 Million, although in the past few weeks, we’re hearing Gingrich explain that he only raked in $35,000 per year from the housing giant.

So why did Gingrich mention the $300,000 figure in the first debate? Don’t most folks– especially “smart folks”– know the difference between $300,000 and $35,000? Maybe it’s a simple accounting problem that can easily be cleared up, but Newt doesn’t appear to want transparency on this issue. While Mitt Romney has asked Newt to release his contract with Freddie, Newt is simply ignoring that request.

Besides, he’s too busy asking Romney to release his tax records so voters will be able to see the “true” Romney; there’s simply not enough time in the day to show folks the “true Newt.”

We saw a small portion of the “true Newt” during the Bain Capital debacle, his vindictive attempt to bring down Mitt Romney by using class warfare and the ideologies of “excessive income” and “vulture capitalism.” Yup, a man who has had more than his share of paychecks signed by the taxpayer, is finding fault with Romney, a guy who has probably never taken a dime from the government and has paid more INTO the government than most of us have ever earned.

Besides, I thought that Republicans were the party that supports capitalism, the party that believes that wealth is a good thing, profits are a good thing, and that we should never put a limit on either the opportunity or success of the individual.

Obviously, Newt believes otherwise.

But it’s not just Bain Capital that has some of us scratching our heads. Newt has also criticized Mitt Romney for only paying about 15% in taxes last year, the legal amount that ANY American is required to pay when the majority of their income comes from Capital Gains. It’s the same reason that liberal billionaire, Warren Buffett, legally pays 15% in taxes.

Here’s my question: What percentage did Newt pay on his Capital Gains investments last year? More than 15%?

I think not.

Looking into his past political positions, we now know that Newt supported an individual mandate on healthcare for a couple of decades. Yes, that’s right. The main issue that has plagued Mitt Romney–Romneycare–is an issue with which Newt agreed and would have implemented had he been the governor of a state.

Which he was not.

No, Newt hasn’t run a company, hasn’t started an industry, hasn’t run a state. He pats himself on the back for “creating millions of jobs” because he was somewhere in the vicinity of the White House when Reagan actually DID. He’s taking full credit for Reagan’s policies– although last I looked, he was a simple legislator during that time and had a minimal amount of influence on Reagan.

Worse yet, as Speaker, Newt stood on the floor of the House of Representatives and led the charge against Bill Clinton’s cigar antics with Monica Lewinsky (along with the perjury which followed)….

And then he went home to his mistress.

No, not his FIRST mistress, his second one.

When asked about this infidelity, Newt calmly stated: “There’s no question that at times in my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard, and that things happened in my life that were not appropriate.”

Let me translate that for those of you who weren’t paying attention: If it hadn’t been for his intense love of country, Newt wouldn’t have had multiple affairs.

That darn patriotism ruined Newt’s marriages.

We watch this ex-Speaker during these presidential debates and we swoon over his commanding skills of debate. We cheer as he points his finger in the eye of the press, chastising them for asking the uncomfortable questions which they wouldn’t dare ask of Obama. We know in our hearts that Barack doesn’t stand a chance in the arena of ideas with Newt Gingrich, and the mere thought of a match-up between the two is titillating.


We must remember that Newt’s finger can point in more than one direction. What happens when that same finger stops pointing at the press and is suddenly pointed at the American public? What happens when he chastises US, accusing US of being unreasonable, accuses US of being too utopic?

His progressive tendencies will emerge with a force, and Newt will adamantly defend each and every one of them.

We saw a taste of it this past Saturday when Newt was a guest on Fox and Friends, a conservative-friendly show. Newt didn’t like the line of questioning– some of which had to do with his past ethics charges– and he lashed out, accusing the hosts of not being “balanced”. The questions were certainly timely because the Romney camp has alleged that there are realms of unreleased documents pertaining to Newt’s ethics charges. Remember, Newt DID have to pay $300,000 in penalties for those violations. The public needs to see what’s in those unreleased documents before the Obama campaign has a field day with them.

Newt’s refreshing, “attack the press” tactic will only work so long. It’s a matter of time before it gets old and Newt begins to appear to be an angry, angry bully who picks on the press and anyone else who gets in his way.

Obama will have a much easier time against a bully than against articulate arguments.

Many Americans are buying the “new and improved” Newt. Here’s the question which needs to be answered: Are we so desperate for “anyone but Romney” that we will concede our family values, our beliefs on global warming and immigration, along with our beliefs that capitalism is what has made our country great? Are we willing to put a PROGRESSIVE into office simply because of his debating skills? What has Newt done– outside of his debate performances– that convince Americans that he will be a good, conservative leader?

The answer? Very little. Very little indeed.

Be careful what you wish for, folks.

There is no room for error in this upcoming election.



Tags »

Date: Monday, 23. January 2012 8:34
Trackback: Trackback-URL Category: Uncategorized

Feed for the post RSS 2.0 Comment this post


  1. J. Ewing
    Monday, 23. January 2012 10:37

Newt accomplished a great deal before, during and after his tenure as Speaker. He engineered the historic 1994 GOP House takeover with the Contract, DELIVERED on the contract, and went on to form the very successful “American Solutions” organization, a stewpot of conservative thought and policy from which he draws his current ideas.

Besides, if he did NOT have those debating skills, in the race against Obama, he would most likely LOSE, and that would be worse than Gingrich’s supposed progressive bent. ANYBODY would be better than Obama, even I or you, but Obama must be defeated first.

  • 2012 South Carolina results and observations | US Common Sense
    Tuesday, 31. January 2012 23:22
  • 2

    [...] the world) is currently facing, or are more people identifying with his foreign policy positions? awaken the elephants: Newt Gingrich talks a good game, in fact, he talks a great game. No one can sell an idea like this [...]

    Submit comment