T Nation

Who OUGHT to be President!

Here’s the man:

http://www.newt.org/

From an interview:

GINGRICH: “You know, I think if you want the job for ego reasons, you shouldn’t run. I mean, if you think well this would be a great promotion, don’t run. I think if it’s not – if you are not prepared to be a genuine servant, trying – we’re a country now in the largest number of challenges since the Civil War. We have more different things we’ve got to fix in the next 20 years than at any point since 1861.”

For myself, I don’t think that Hillary or Barack, or even McCain, are up to this task. We need someone with rock-like conservative principles. Bush blew it, which makes Newt’s task that much harder, but I think he’s the best person for the job.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

For myself, I don’t think that Hillary or Barack, or even McCain, are up to this task. We need someone with rock-like conservative principles. Bush blew it, which makes Newt’s task that much harder, but I think he’s the best person for the job.[/quote]

I too would like to see a man with rock-solid conservative principles elected(Im not sold on Newt yet though). But barring a nuke going off in a major city, I can’t see that happening. Right down to the individual citizen level(which I deal with everyday as a public servant), a lot of people in this country expect government to do everything for them. I am shocked how many there are, and this is why you see tenets of socialism springing up everywhere. The sad thing is very few people realize it as such. A guy that truly spits in the face of socialism is not getting elected Im afraid.


New Age Newt, nahhh, don’t think so.

The following sample of votes shows only some of the many decidedly unconservative votes Gingrich has cast:

Welfare Madness. During his 16 years in Congress, Gingrich has inveighed vociferously against the evils of the New Deal/Great Society welfare state – while voting for every kind of welfare program imaginable: for the elderly, children, the “homeless,” businessmen, farmers, bankers, leftwing broadcasters, etc. Those votes include: March 21, 1991 – $30 billion to begin the unconstitutional bailout of failed savings and loan institutions; June 26, 1991 – $52.6 billion for agriculture programs, subsidies, and food stamps; October 5, 1992 – $66.5 billion for housing and community development; September 22, 1994 – $250.6 billion in appropriations for the Departments of Labor, HHS, and Education.

Budget-Busting Profligacy. A Balanced Budget Amendment forms the core of the first plank of Gingrich’s “Contract with America.” He has been calling for such a measure and condemning deficit spending ever since coming to Congress. In an early 1982 speech he called on Congress to reject further increases in the National Debt Limit. “Only by using the debt limit as a leverage point” he bravely declared, “can we force the changes which clearly the liberal leadership of this body wants to avoid.” Trouble is, a few months earlier, on February 5, 1981, he had voted with those same “liberals” to raise the National Debt ceiling by another $49.1 billion to $985 billion. He has gone this same route many times since.

Of course, raising the debt ceiling would not have been necessary had he practiced what he preached. His votes against “more frugal government” include: December 21, 1987 – $603.9 billion for 13 regular appropriation bills larded with many wasteful, extravagant, and unconstitutional items (it passed by a vote of 209 to 208); May 4, 1989 – outlays of $1.165 trillion and a deficit of $99 billion for a dishonest and spendthrift 1990 budget designed to barely skim in under the Gramm-Rudman $100 billion deficit limit; March 10, 1994 – a vote against a responsible amendment offered by Representative Gerald Solomon (R-NY) to balance the budget by 1999 through $698 billion in spending cuts (a mere 3.5 percent cut) over five years.

Considering these and other votes against sound fiscal policy, it is not surprising that Gingrich’s spendthrift ways have carried over into his personal finances. The 1992 House banking scandal revealed that he had run 22 overdrafts on his checking account, and this in spite of having voted himself a huge pay raise and having a taxpayer-provided, chauffeur-driven car. Nor is it surprising that his rating from the National Taxpayers Union during the latest session of Congress (the 103rd) was a meager 75 percent. His tax-and-spend record over the years on votes tabulated by Tax Reform IMmediately (TRIM) has so often contradicted his rhetoric that National Director of TRIM James Tort was prompted to remark: “Professor Gingrich hopefully will never be called upon to teach a course in the proper role of our federal government. His rare votes against bloated big government usually have been prompted by the partisan wrangling of the moment, not by any great respect for, or understanding of, the Constitution.”

Foreign Aid. If there is anything more unpopular, unconstitutional, counterproductive, fiscally irresponsible, and immoral than welfare for domestic freeloaders, it is welfare for foreign freeloaders. But the “tight-fisted” Mr. Gingrich consistently votes to send U.S. tax dollars to kleptocrats and tyrants abroad: June 27, 1990 – $15.7 billion in foreign aid for fiscal 1991; June 20 1991 – $12.4 billion for fiscal 1992 and $13 billion for fiscal 1993; June 25, 1992 – $13.8 billion for fiscal 1993; August 6, 1992 – $12.3 billion for the International Monetary Fund and $1.2 billion for the “republics” of the former Soviet Union; June 17, 1993 – $13 billion for fiscal 1994; September 29, 1993 – $12.9 billion, including $2.5 billion to Russia; August 4, 1994 – $13.8 billion for foreign aid for fiscal 1995.

Eco-Lunacy. Gingrich, a longtime member of the Georgia Conservancy (“an aggressive environmental group comprised largely of upper-middle class urbanites” – Newt’s own words) cofounded by Jimmy Carter, organized one of the early environmental studies programs back in 1970 while a professor at West Georgia State College. According to Current Biography, the success of his early congressional campaigns was due in large part “to the support of environmentalists.” Besides being blatantly unconstitutional, virtually all federal environmental legislation involves gross violations of states’ rights and the property rights of private individuals, both of which Gingrich claims to champion. Newt’s “green” votes include: May 16, 1979 – the -Alaska Lands Bill, locking up 68 million acres as untouchable “wilderness”; December 17, 1987 – $307 million for continuation of the fraudulent and unconstitutional Endangered Species Act, putting the “rights” of owls, bugs, rats, snakes, and newts above those of people; March 28, 1990 – elevating the unconstitutional Environmental Protection Agency to Cabinet-level status; May 23, 1990 – the badly misnamed Clean Air bill, requiring radical cuts in industry and automobile emissions, adding tens of billions of dollars annually in new costs to our already stringent and costly air standards.

Federalizing Education. The Communist Manifesto calls for nationalizing education, while the U.S. Constitution, to the contrary, prohibits federal involvement in educational matters. These votes cause one to wonder which document’s philosophy is guiding Newt Gingrich’s education policy decisions: May 10, 1979 – for creation of the new Cabinet-level Department of Education demanded by President Carter and the radical National Education Association; May 9, 1989 – $1.4 billion in federal aid for “applied technology education,” the new federalese for vocational education; May 16, 1990 – $2.9 billion for Head Start and Follow Through programs for fiscal 1991, rising to $7.7 billion in 1994; July 20, 1990 – $1.1 billion for a variety of education programs, none of which the federal government has authority to fund; May 12, 1994 – “such sums as may be necessary” for the $3.3 billion-per-year Head Start program and $2.6 billion for fiscal 1995 for three low-income and child abuse prevention programs.

Counterculture Values. Despite playing to the “religious right,” Gingrich has racked up a surprisingly “moderate” record on homosexual “rights.” His troubling votes include: May 22, 1990 – the Americans with Disabilities Act, permitting massive new federal intervention into the private workplace in order to stop “discrimination” in hiring on the basis of disability, including AIDS; June 13, 1990 – $2.76 billion for various AIDS programs demanded by the militant homosexual lobby; July 12, 1990 – the final version of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

On July 26, 1990 Gingrich voted with the majority in refusing to support a resolution by Representative William Dannemeyer (R-CA) to expel Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) for felony criminal offenses related to his homosexual activities. He actively supported the re-election of Representative Steve Gunderson (R-WI), an open homosexual, and praises Gunderson’s “courage” for being “gay” and Republican.

Nationalizing Law Enforcement. On October 22, 1991, Gingrich voted for an amendment to the federal crime bill offered by Representative David McCurdy (D-OK) to establish a National Police Corps. Although he didn’t vote for the $30-billion Clinton crime bill of 1994, he resurrected it and helped make passage possible. As Representative Susan Molinari (R-NY), one of Newt’s cheerleaders, explained to Michael Kinsley on CNN’s Crossfire, “If it wasn’t for Newt Gingrich, you wouldn’t have a crime bill.”

Indeed. The Gingrich-led opposition “threw” the game, failing to challenge the bill’s fundamental flaw – that the federal government has no constitutional authority to take over state and local crime-fighting duties – and focused instead on “pork” in the bill. “That crime bill stank to high heaven,” charged Pat Buchanan. “[I]t federalizes crimes such as spousal abuse, giving the feds police power the Constitution reserves to the states.” And the crime package in Newt’s “Contract With America” would speed us further down the road toward a national police state.

Newt’s Roots

Llewellyn Rockwell, president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and publisher of The Free Market, observes that, rhetoric notwithstanding, “Newt Gingrich is a Rockefeller Republican, a big-government ‘Conservative’ who talks a good line, but like Ronald Reagan will give us higher taxes, more government, and more spending. His ‘Contract With America’ is a fraud; it should be called a ‘Press Conference with America.’” Or, perhaps, a “Contract On America.” Newt’s “Contract,” with its calls for amendments to balance the budget and impose term limits, seems to imply that our original contract, the U.S. Constitution, is gravely deficient. This could give new impetus to the dangerous movement for a constitutional convention.

The problems with Newt Gingrich’s “conservatism” go back to his “roots.” Current Biography Yearbook for 1989 gives this snapshot of his early career:

After graduating from Emory [University in Atlanta] in 1965, Gingrich received a master's degree from Tulane University in 1968 and a Ph.D. degree in modern European history in 1971. His behavior at Tulane appeared to belie his future conservatism and hawkish foreign-policy views. He accepted student deferments rather than face the draft during the Vietnam War, experimented with marijuana, led a campus demonstration defending the school paper's right to print a nude photograph of a faculty member, and campaigned for Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller of New York in 1968 because of the governor's support of civil rights.

Nelson Rockefeller, of course, was the bane of all conservatives, the epitome of effete internationalism, and a member of the CFR (run by his brother David) and the ruling elite of the Eastern Establishment. In his unsuccessful runs for Congress in 1974 and 1976 Gingrich showed no deep conservative leanings. He was, and remains, a member of the NAACP, the World Futurist Society, and the New Age-oriented Congressional Clearinghouse on the Future. In 1978 Congressional Quarterly gave this bio of the freshman congressman: “In his previous campaigns Gingrich was considered unusually liberal for a Georgia Republican. But this year he relied on the tax cut issue, using an empty shopping cart to emphasize his concern about inflation.” He also capitalized on the widespread anger over President Carter’s Panama policy and headed up “Georgians Against the Panama Canal Treaty.” He has been using conservative issues to advance his career ever since.

In 1981 this writer asked Georgia Congressman Larry McDonald for an evaluation of the rising Republican star from his neighboring 6th District. His reply was surprising, at the time. Newt Gingrich, he said, was a devious and ambitious politician masquerading as a conservative and not one to be trusted. Gingrich had gone out of his way, Dr. McDonald said, to obstruct and to undermine support of conservative members of Congress for some of McDonald’s legislative efforts. This was particularly disturbing since Representative McDonald was the most conservative member of Congress – by virtually all ratings systems – and would have been a natural ally of Gingrich if Gingrich were truly conservative. In July 1983, the Conservative Digest compared the voting scores of the leading conservatives in Congress based on ratings from the American Conservative Union, the Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress, the National Conservative Political Action Committee, and THE NEW AMERICAN’S own Conservative Index. Congressman McDonald topped the list at a combined 98.3 percent. Congressman Gingrich weighed in at an anemic 77.5 percent.

CFR-Crafted Conservative

However, by beating his chest more loudly, trumpeting his message more stridently, and pursuing power more ruthlessly than all others, Gingrich has won the title of Maximum Leader of the “Conservative Revolution.” Not that it was all his own doing, by any means; the CFR-dominated “liberal” media have been only too accommodating in crafting conservative bona tides for one of their own. It is a sickeningly familiar redux.

In 1976, CFR front man Jimmy Carter was presented to us by the same CFR media elites as a “conservative” Southern Baptist from Georgia who would give us the “change” America needed. In 1992 it was CFR member Bill Clinton, another “conservative” Southern Baptist from Arkansas who was sold to the country as the ticket to positive “change,” the “New Democrat” with “traditional values” and a “New Covenant.” Now comes “conservative” Southern Baptist and CFR member Newt Gingrich, with promises of drastic “change” and a new “contract.” If you’re beginning to sense another imminent betrayal, congratulations: you’re catching on.

by William F. Jasper

I should be president. But I don’t want the job and I wasn’t born here so I coundn’t even if I won an election. to do so. Based on who has had the job and how they did, it don’t look too tough.

I even have a great campaign slogan for him:

“Elect Newt, 'cause Bush weren’t near stupid enough”

[quote]tme wrote:
I even have a great campaign slogan for him:

“Elect Newt, 'cause Bush weren’t near stupid enough”[/quote]

tme,

What do you think of Bush’s Medicare Part D
prescription drug program. It’s been a huge success, too bad it never gets talked about huh.

http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3356103,00.html

Israel faces nuclear Holocaust warns Gingrich

Newt Gingrich: Haifa, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem facing mortal Iranian threat, says former US Speaker of the House; emphasizes ‘three nuclear weapons are a second Holocaust’
Yaakov Lappin

The Israeli people are facing the threat of a nuclear Holocaust, former US Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich warned the Herzliya Conference held by the Institute for Policy and Strategy at IDC Herzliya on Tuesday afternoon. Meanwhile, he said, the United States could lose a few million people or a number of cities to a terrorist attack with weapons of mass destruction.

Gingrich, who addressed the conference via satellite from the United States, said he thought Israel’s existence was under threat again for the first time in 40 years.

“Israel is in the greatest danger it has been in since 1967. Prior to '67, many wondered if Israel would survive. After '67, Israel seemed military dominant, despite the '73 war. I would say we are (now) back to question of survival,” Gingrich said.

He added that the United States could “lose two or three cities to nuclear weapons, or more than a million to biological weapons.”

Gingrich added that in such a scenario, “FREEDOM AS WE KNOW IT WILL DISAPPIEAR, AND WE WILL BECOME A MUCH GRIMMER, MUCH MORE MILITARIZED, DICTATORIAL SOCIETY.”

“Three nuclear weapons are a second Holocaust,” Gingrich declared, adding: “People are greatly underestimating how dangerous the world is becoming. I’ll repeat it, three nuclear weapons are a second Holocaust. Our enemies are quite explicit in their desire to destroy us. They say it publicly? We are sleepwalking through this process as though it’s only a problem of communication,” Gingrich said.

The former House speaker expressed concern that the Israeli and American political establishments were not fully equipped to take stock of the current threat level.

“Our enemies are fully as determined as Nazi Germany, and more determined that the Soviets. Our enemies will kill us the first chance they get. There is no rational ability to deny that fact. It’s very clear that the problems are larger and more immediate than the political systems in Israel or the US are currently capable of dealing with,” said Gingrich.

‘Time to come to grips with threat’

“We don’t have right language, goals, structure, or operating speed, to defeat our enemies. My hope is that being this candid and direct, I could open a dialogue that will force people to come to grips with how serious this is, how real it is, how much we are threatened. If that fails, at least we will be intellectually prepared for the correct results once we have lost one or more cities,” Gingrich added.

He also said “citizens who do not wake up every morning and think about the possible catastrophic civilian casualties are deluding themselves.”

“If we knew that tomorrow morning we would lose Haifa, Tel Aviv, and Jerusalem, what we would to stop it? If we knew we would tomorrow lose Boston, San Francisco, or Atlanta, what would we do? Today, those threats are probably one, two, five years away? Although you can’t be certain when our enemies will break out,” he warned.

Earlier, Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, said that Islamic jihadism was “the nightmare of this century.”

“The war in Lebanon demonstrated that Israel is facing a jihadist threat that runs through Tehran, to Damascus, to Gaza. Hizbullah are not fighting for the coming into being of a Palestinian state, but for the going out of being of the Israeli state,” he said.

Romney emphasized that Iran could not be compared to the former Soviet threat, because the Islamic Republic was following a suicidal path. “For all of the Soviets’ deep flaws, they were never suicidal. Soviet commitment to national survival was never in question. That assumption cannot be made to an irrational regime (Iran) that celebrates martyrdom,” he said.

The former governor called for the utilization of the widespread opposition held by the Iranian people to their own regime, in order to facilitate regime change, while also adding that “the military option remains on the table.”

“Iran must be stopped. Iran can be stopped,” Romney declared, receiving applause.

[quote]tme wrote:
I even have a great campaign slogan for him:

“Elect Newt, 'cause Bush weren’t near stupid enough”
[/quote]

tme,

Forgive me. I have to wave the B.S. flag ONE MORE TIME.

It’s going to be very difficult to convince anyone with a functional brain stem that Newt is ignorant.

Have you read any of his books?

Listened to him speak?

I know, you haven’t.

You may have policy differences with Mr. Gingrich, however, calling him ignorant makes you look quite misinformed.

JeffR

jlesk,

Serious question: Why do you bother?

It’s worth it if even one person wakes up.

[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
It’s worth it if even one person wakes up.[/quote]

Wake up white people. The Jew is using the black man for muscle.

I think that is what the neo-nazi said in Blues Brothers.

[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
It’s worth it if even one person wakes up.[/quote]

Here is some free advice: If the whole world is “wrong” and you are “right,” chances are you are the one with the problem. Please reach out for counseling.

JeffR

[quote]JeffRo wrote:
Here is some free advice: If the whole world is “wrong” and you are “right,” chances are you are the one with the problem. Please reach out for counseling.

JeffRo
[/quote]

Gee, why didn’t you pass along that little gem to Shrub before he waded in over his head in Iraq? You could have saved this country a few hundred billion dollars, not to mention a few thousand lives.

[quote]tme wrote:
JeffRo wrote:
Here is some free advice: If the whole world is “wrong” and you are “right,” chances are you are the one with the problem. Please reach out for counseling.

JeffRo

Gee, why didn’t you pass along that little gem to Shrub before he waded in over his head in Iraq? You could have saved this country a few hundred billion dollars, not to mention a few thousand lives.

[/quote]

tme,

Another piece of wisdom: france/germany/russia are NOT the whole world.

Oh, plenty of countries actively and passively participated in Iraq.

Please try harder.

JeffR

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
What do you think of Bush’s Medicare Part D
prescription drug program. It’s been a huge success, too bad it never gets talked about huh.
[/quote]

Why talk about one thing he’s done successfully when ther are numerous others that he hasn’t?

[quote]JD430 wrote:
I too would like to see a man with rock-solid conservative principles elected(Im not sold on Newt yet though). [/quote]

Why is it important to have a conservative in the White House? For that matter, what does it matter if the person is liberal? Judging a person’s ability should be based on more than the their policy centered values. I don’t think this country could handle another conservative in the White House right after this mess.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
What do you think of Bush’s Medicare Part D
prescription drug program. It’s been a huge success, too bad it never gets talked about huh.

Why talk about one thing he’s done successfully when ther are numerous others that he hasn’t?

[/quote]

Would you have EVER pointed it out liftus?

Someone should.

JeffR

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
tme,

What do you think of Bush’s Medicare Part D
prescription drug program. It’s been a huge success, too bad it never gets talked about huh.
[/quote]

I agree, that one thing has been a success. My mother’s monthly prescription bill went down by several hundred dollars on the new plan. That was last year, this year the new plan isn’t quite as good. Still better than nothing, I guess. I think the insurance companies are allowed to gradually start screwing people more every year.

But the fact is that Iraq has been such a complete, monumental, total fuck up that these minor successes are just never going to get much play. Sorry to pop your bubble.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
tme wrote:
I even have a great campaign slogan for him:

“Elect Newt, 'cause Bush weren’t near stupid enough”

tme,

Forgive me. I have to wave the B.S. flag ONE MORE TIME.

It’s going to be very difficult to convince anyone with a functional brain stem that Newt is ignorant.

Have you read any of his books?

Listened to him speak?

I know, you haven’t.

You may have policy differences with Mr. Gingrich, however, calling him ignorant makes you look quite misinformed.

JeffR

[/quote]

Newt’s a smart guy, but he’s a scumbag.

And he often wades into debates he has no business being in. I once heard a retired Army Lieutenant-Colonel say that “Newt Gingrich talking about national defense is like a virgin writing a sex manual.”