It is a foregone conclusion that people on the left end of the political spectrum (aka, morons) categorically despise Newt Gingrich. It’s easy to understand why, since Mr. Gingrich stands firmly against their statist worldview and made a career of tearing down and offering viable alternatives to their leftist shibboleths. But Newt has raised more than just the ire of statists; he’s also regularly savaged by those on the political right. Veteran writer and columnist Peggy Noonan, befuddled and dismayed over Gingrich’s lead in the polls, professed that’s she’s never met a Gingrich supporter. John Derbyshire refers to Newt as a “gasbag.” Mona Charen, in so many words, called him a tofu conservative. Dr. Thomas Sowell characterized Newt’s debate comments on immigration as “amnesty.” Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), who worked in the U.S. House under Speaker Newt back in the 1990s, couldn’t find a kind word to say about him. One of the premiere conservative news sources, National Review Online, featured a condescending slide-show spoofing Newt. Glen Beck says he’s a big-government progressive. The list of negative comments seems to go on and on, some of which have been addressed in previous posts. Some of the people denigrating Newt are partisan political hacks and blowhards; some are well-respected conservative political analysts (many that we personally revere). Could they all be wrong? For the most part, yes. Let’s get something straight, the Office of The President-Elect is not about marching in lockstep with any conventional wisdom. We’re unabashed, dyed-in-the-wool conservatives here, but our analyses are independent and fact-based; if we disagree, even with the views of conservative luminaries, you can bet your ass we’re going to forcefully state our case with reason and facts. We have enthusiastically endorsed Newt Gingrich for president and stand by that endorsement. There will doubtlessly be innumerable future attacks on the former Speaker. Naturally, any baseless or tenuous criticisms will be challenged here for the duration of the primary process.
Will the Real Conservative Please Stand Up?
Various organizations, both liberal and conservative, provide statistical ratings based upon legislators’ congressional voting records. Here’s a list of eleven such organizations and how they ranked Newt Gingrich for the year 1994, a time when he was still in Congress. Note that the organizations are grouped in ideological order, beginning with the extremely liberal; conservative groups at the end:
Americans for Democratic Action ( |
American Civil Liberties |
Committee on Political Action of the AFL-CIO (COPE)- 13% |
Consumer Federation of |
League of Conservation Voters (LVC)- 0% |
National Security Index of the American Security Council (NSI)- 100% |
Chamber of Commerce of the |
American Conservative |
National Tax Limitation Committee (NTLC)- 96% |
Christian Coalition (CHC)- 100% |
This, of course, is not the report card of a closet liberal (or any other kind of liberal for that matter). Yet Newt’s conservative enemies continue to make baseless criticisms about his lack of conservatism. As stated in an earlier post, Newt has on some occasions strayed from conservative orthodoxy. However, much of the criticism coming from the right makes him out to be an incoherent, unpredictable, and thus dangerous, conservative iconoclast. This couldn’t be further from the truth. I get that Newt is an egoist, sometimes a curmudgeon, and perhaps a generally abrasive personality who hasn’t always worked well with others. He has tended to piss people off. Fine. If that’s the criticism, then his detractors should go ahead and say so, but they must stop pretending that he’s not a conservative simply because he pisses them off. They’re entitled to their opinions but they’re not entitled to make up stuff. This puerile idiocy is damaging our chances of knocking-off Oblabla.
Gingrich or Romney?
Democrats recently ran an attack add against Mitt Romney, accurately stating (for a change) that the Governor, as recently as 2002, avowed that he would “protect and defend a woman’s right to choose.” In the next clip from 2007 Romney declares “The right next step is to see Roe v. Wade overturned.” Should Roe be overturned, individual states could place serious curtailments on, or outlaw abortion altogether. This would hardly amount to protecting and defending a woman’s right to choose. This is one of the reasons why Mitt has a credibility problem concerning his consistency on critically important issues. We’re not talking about changing one’s opinion on the number of loan guarantees to be extended to Micronesia
Versus Obama
Gingrich-loathing media boobs gleefully point out that Obama fears a Romney candidacy, while hoping against hope that Gingrich will be the candidate, because they believe defeating him would be a simple matter. Let’s remember that President Carter’s strategists (and Carter himself!) badly wanted Reagan as an opponent in 1980 because they deemed him an amiable dunce, and loose cannon, that they could easily dispatch. Reagan cleaned Carter’s clock and went on to win a landslide victory. Team Obama had better be careful what they wish for. I positively guarantee that Gingrich will obliterate Oblabla in every one of their debate encounters; there can be no other outcome. That’s not to say that President Vapid is incapable of landing blows on Newt, employing distortions and demagoguery, but that he would ultimately be overmatched. The brilliant conservative history professor would systematically dismantle and shred the propaganda-spewing leftist “law professor.” No contest.
well said CS :)
ReplyDeleteLet's face it, the only republican candidate who will not be slandered by the warshinton establishment press/pols this time around is Willard "Mittens" Romney. With so many states having pushed their dates forward the primary will be over by February for all intents and purposes thereby shutting down any debate and coronating Romney for no other reason than it's his turn. What matters the truth?
ReplyDelete