Newt Gingrich for President

After starting out for Tim Pawlenty, praying for Mitch Daniels & Paul Ryan, then flirting with Michele Bachmann, hoping for Rick Perry and wondering about Herman Cain, I have found my candidate, and it is Newt Gingrich.   Part of it was, of course, a process of elimination.  Though I generally like the policy stands of the three most conservative candidates in the race, Bachmann is unelectable, Perry makes W look sophisticated and Santorum has a likability issue that is keeping him from catching on, despite being an articulate speaker and high quality candidate.  I even took a fresh look at Huntsman recently, hoping I was wrong with my initial assessment.  Yesterday's speech at the Republican Jewish Coalition reminded me about why I didn't like him in the first place.  He just couldn't be pinned down in any way to show his support for Israel, barely even mentioning it in his prepared remarks (though he did get questions about it from the audience).  What about Mitt you ask?  The unpopular one-term Governor of Massachusetts whose main achievement is Obamneycare?  Early on, I did try to forget that fact that he is wishy-washy thanks to some of his very good debate performances which led me to believe Obama would be toast against him.  But the more I listened to him (thanks to the gazillion debates we have had so far) the less I trusted him.  I just couldn't help but think he was a pretend conservative and a pretend hawk.  Then of course there was the sense of entitlement which he exhibited in this exchange with Perry (talking down to/patronizing Perry) as well as his reaction to the fair questions from Bret Baier.  Sending out John Sununu to attack Newt for opposing the George H.W. Bush tax increases just reinforced my dislike of Mitt and just reminded me that he really doesn't believe in anything except for getting himself ahead.  While he would be a better President than Obama, voting for him would leave a very bad taste in my mouth.

Now, that is not to imply that I am only supporting Newt because I just don't like the others.  I really enjoyed watching him in the debates.  While all the others were busy trying to pick each other off and, other than Santorum & Romney, would have cringeworthy moments in debates, he kept the message of the debate focused on defeating Obama.  I remember thinking during a few of the debates how, despite his low levels in the polls, he was really adding value by eloquently communicating the conservative message to millions of viewers (as well as pointing out some of the nonsensical positions this administration has taken). And he has continued to do so, constantly appearing in interviews, both friendly and relatively hostile (unlike Mitt who has insulated himself from any real scrutiny).  Also, as I mentioned before, Newt's actual record is quite conservative:

• Voted YES on the Reagan tax cut of 1981
• Voted YES on the Reagan tax reform bill of 1986
• Voted NO on the George H.W. Bush "Read My Lips" tax hike in 1990.
• Voted NO on the Clinton tax hike in 1993.
• Voted YES on the capital gains tax cut in 1997.
• Voted NO on the Chrysler bailout in 1979
• Voted YES on the Gramm-Rudman balanced budget bill in 1985
• Voted YES on a balanced budget amendment (as part of the "Contract for America" effort that he led) in 1995
• Led the effort and voted YES to cut $16.4 billion from the budget in 1995.
• Voted YES on welfare reform in 1996

Also, under his tenure Federal spending grew less per year than it had for decades and he was able to balance the budget and reform an entitlement with the same Democratic President who tried to nationalize the healthcare system.  He didn't just talk like a conservative, he actually achieved some of our big goals (though unfortunately the balanced budget was undone soon after he left the House).

I am not saying by any means that he is perfect, but nobody is going to be perfect.  Take Ronald Reagan.  He raised taxes as Governor of California and 11 different times as President.  Federal spending grew by 7.6% a year under his administration, more than double the rate that it grew when Newt was speaker (3.1% a year).  He granted amnesty to illegal immigrants.  He negotiated with Iran and the evil empire itself, the Soviet Union.  Also, back in 1976, he promised to pick a liberal northeastern running mate, Richard Schweiker, in order to be more palatable to the establishment Republicans.  Despite these imperfections, Reagan was still the greatest President since at least Abraham Lincoln thanks to the really great things that he did.  First, he made America feel good about itself again after years of liberals convincing everyone that America had peaked and things were only going to get worse.  I remember quite a few people thought eventual Soviet victory was inevitable and that it was only a matter of time.  Even Republicans like Kissinger believed that to some extent.  Second, he got the economy moving again through his sweeping tax cuts.  Third, he was able to defeat the greatest threat to mankind since the Nazis, the Soviets, freeing hundreds of millions of people (many of whom are current NATO allies).   

Now take a look at Churchill, as Steven Hayward did expertly today, both on his blog and in the National Review.  Here are some things that were said about Churchill (and if you replace Churchill's name with Newt's as Hayward did on his blog, you would be surprised they weren't talking about Gingrich):

"Winston is often right, but when he is wrong, well, my God!"  "His planning is all wishing and guessing."  "He is easily taken in by quacks and charlatans."  "Mr. Churchill carries great guns, but his navigation is uncertain."  He is "a genius without judgment."  He is a man of "transitory convictions," who has been "on every side of every question."  "His mind is essentially critical and volcanic and he is used to proposing and propounding schemes and ideas . . . and as a rule gracefully withdrawing them."  About his military views, one high-ranking officer said, "He knows no details, has only half the picture in his mind, talks absurdities and makes my blood boil to listen to his nonsense."  His many non-fiction books have been dismissed as "autobiographies disguised as a history of the universe."  Even his historical novels get the lash, with critics calling them "crude and immature," revealing Churchill to be "a perfect poseur, adept at the arts of notoriety."  One of his accomplished peers in public office said, "He will never get to the top in politics; with all his wonderful gifts. . . [he] does not inspire trust."  Even the kindest description of him cannot avoid noting his flaws, such as "He is like a wonderful piece of machinery with a flywheel which occasionally makes unexpected movements." 


Churchill also was the king of flip-floppers, changing parties not once, but twice, going from Conservative to Liberal (for 20 years!) and then back to Conservative.

I'm sure some of you are thinking "then doesn't this excuse Romney as well?"  No.  Despite flip-flopping, Churchill and Reagan, like Newt, actually had a core set of values that they didn't alter.  I really can't say the same for Mitt Romney.  I couldn't tell you what he really believes in.  And unlike Churchill, Reagan and Newt, Romney doesn't have a long public record.  He has one term as a Massachusetts Governor and that is a net negative, if anything, given Obamneycare.

Right now, the United States faces an enormous number of threats.  Our economy continues to be weak, with millions of long term unemployed and a constantly disintegrating currency.  Our standing across the globe is greatly weakened due to our withdrawal from Iraq, both Egypt and Turkey turning Islamist, the threat of a nuclear Iran and our backstabbing of allies the world over. 

Newt Gingrich has what it takes to be a really great President of the United States just when we need one the most, and that is why I am supporting him for President.