Defending Newt’s Conservative Street Cred (by ContraSuggest)

Imagine suddenly waking in the middle of yet another Republican presidential debate to witness the truly surreal event of Mitt Romney criticizing Newt Gingrich for not being conservative enough on the issue of illegal immigration.  The thought of Mitt criticizing Newt for not being conservative enough on anything should be enough to convince anyone that they were still asleep and dreaming.  Well to be fair, Mitt didn’t actually use the words not conservative enough, but that was certainly the implication, when he and Michelle Bachmann objected to Gingrich’s comments regarding work visas for some current, long-time illegal aliens.  Sadly the conservative news media jumped all over it as a chance to expose Newt as the conservative pretender many of them apparently believe him to be. 

Let’s break it down, shall we?  Gingrich is a life-long movement-conservative who, admittedly, has gone astray on several issues over the span of a 40-year career.  I’m disappointed that many respected figures in the conservative news media have blown this out of proportion in an attempt to diminish the former Speaker.  I think it’s counterproductive, pathetic, and embarrassing when conservatives start eating their own. 

Gingrich has been in the public eye since the mid 1970s; in that time he has been a back-bencher in the House of Representatives, Republican Minority Whip, a conservative revolutionary who led Republicans to their stunning 1994 victory in the House, a lecturer, a small business owner, and a political consultant.  Over 15 year’s worth of his comments on a panoply of subjects are a part of the House congressional record, he has done thousands of television and print media interviews, he has authored over 30 in-depth books on a wide range of socio-economic and historical topics, many hundreds of articles and white papers, and has delivered thousands of speeches.  Does anyone imagine that a man who has boldly put himself out there on the field of public discourse, in and out of public office, to such a degree would not have hit a few sour notes along the way?  Mr. Romney, by contrast, has had great private sector accomplishments, unsuccessfully ran for the U.S. Senate, was then governor of Massachusetts for only four years (he chose not to seek reelection), and has been a professional presidential candidate since then.  He doesn’t have much of a record in office to compare and contrast with what he says.  Let’s grow up conservatives; unless we can secure the candidacy of the Savior himself, we’re never going to find someone with whom we agree on all things. 

Gingrich is too willing to “compromise” with the Left, you say?  Those who use compromise as a pejorative are equating compromise with surrender.  With tough negotiation, compromise can mean victory.  In the 1990s, Gingrich’s so-called compromises brought us meaningful welfare reform, tax cuts, and the first balanced federal budget in many decades.  There were many conservative victories during those years because a center-left president was willing to make deals with a conservative Speaker of the House.  If Gingrich is victorious in 2012, this time the conservative will be in the White House, exercising constitutional executive powers and using the bully pulpit of the presidency to bring the federal leviathan to heel.      

Now, let’s briefly summarize Newt’s illegal immigration policy:

·        Secure the Southern border in one year’s time by building a fence and deploying thousands more to police it

·        Bring sanctuary cities into line by withholding federal funding

·        Pursue the unconditional deportation of illegal criminals

·        Legally declare English as the official language of the USA

·        Provide work visas to illegals who’ve been here for many years, working and obeying all of our other laws 

I would remind Newt’s naysayers (who accuse him of changing his positions) that he has consistently argued for the first four of these provisions for many years, there’s no phony “conversion on the road to Iowa” here.  The final provision is what’s causing all the flap, and Newt has to explain it more clearly; however, anyone who would call this an amnesty plan has got to have a screw loose.  By stopping the hemorrhaging at the border, we will prevent another 12 million illegals from entering the country over the course of the next 20 years, and another 12 million in the 20 years after that.  Any illegal who breaks the law gets their ass booted out; if we catch them back here again, they don’t pass go, they don’t collect $200; they go directly to jail.  The last bullet point doesn’t exist in a vacuum; treating it that way has brought ridiculous charges of “amnesty,” and a “magnet” that will lure more illegals to America.  I can understand Romney and Bachmann leveling these charges during the debate.  What I can’t understand is why some well-respected conservative writers, such as National Review Online’s Mona Charen and Thomas Sowell, chose to go after Newt, while failing to present a fact-based analysis of this episode.