Shut Up Palin and Moralists! GREED IS GOOD

So, two follow-ups to my post of this morning that exposed Bo Snerdley of the Rush Limbaugh program to be a truly ignorant illiterate.  (You can read that here.)

First, I understand from increasingly addictive and necessary Cornell law professor William Jacobson that today Limbaugh points out Romney is saying that his experience as CEO of BAIN Capital is like what President Obama did with General Motors.  So if you are Rush Limbaugh it is ok today to attack Romney.  Just as long as us “mind numbed robots” get the proper memo to know what we are supposed to think.  Sheesh.

Secondly, a former pro-Palinista blogger who I respect, admire and often agree with (MarkAmerica.com) writes that I am full of crap. Or something.  He says specifically:

(to those who would say) “Well, capitalism is all well and good, but you still have to temper it with morality.”  I want those purveyors of this opinion to pay closest attention to me, as I tell them that they’re shoveling manure.  Capitalism reflects a system of morality, and if you don’t share it, fine, but do not pretend that it means something else.  Do not take “capitalism” and twist the label to fit what is merely modified socialism.  There is nothing wrong with profits, whether large or small, nor any size in between, provided only this:  Those making profits do so by their own efforts and with their own wealth and property.  That’s the morality of capitalism.  It’s a morality I endorse entirely, and unreservedly.  Do not offer to me that capitalism must be “tempered” by something.  To temper a thing is to alter its fundamental structure.

My response?  (You’ll enjoy this.)

It is just dishonest to say Gingrich is arguing from a socialist mindset. He has NEVER advocated government interference with business. HE IS arguing for the morality of how profits are made.

You damn Sarah Palin as she made the EXACT same point against in her speeches in Alaska running for Governor.  Just because a company can screw the residents of Alaska doesn’t make it right.

You err in assuming that advocating responsible capitalism is the same as arguing for government interference. That is naive and certainly dangerous.

As I point out in my piece (here http://t.co/WJO898s) the REASON we have government encroachment is because of IRRESPONSIBLE capitalism. There is no need for a law to protect workers pensions if all employers are protecting those funds that the employees earned. However, with one greedy capitalist, society enacts a law to try and protect those workers AS IT SHOULD.

When government already controls these functions through socialism or communism, you still get greed – but now in different (multiple) ways that are far inferior.

Adams, de Tocqueville, Jefferson, Monroe ALL have said that FREEDOM doesn’t work if people do NOT self-regulate themselves.

Capitalism is NOT any more or less moral than dating or dieting.  It is a system that can amplify the heart of it’s operator for bad or for good. There is a great story about Smith Wigglesworth the famous preacher who taught hellfire and brimstone sermons against sins. A group at a tavern wanted to tease him and waved money in front of him while taunting him to take it. Wigglesworth didn’t hesitate and grabbed. This shocked the gathering of sinners and they protested, “Smithy! Don’t you know that money came from drinking and gambling?” Wigglesworth didn’t hesitate a moment and said, “This money has served the devil too long. time for it serve God..”

You may like to divorce the philosophy or system of capitalism from God’s law but if you do – you are then serving Mammon. That is not just a philosophy but an actual demonic god. Which means you are motivated by selfish greed, rather than amassing that to A) provide a product or service beneficial to someone or B) to use your wealth to the betterment of society.

The problem with your analysis is that you stop at your devotion to capitalism only in contrast to socialism or communism. Freedom loving Patriotic Christian people understand that society and our country will NOT be helped by those whose sole goal is to amass wealth for themselves. Look at the Saudi Princes who conduct free market capitalism for themselves but use their capital to ONLY gratify themselves. They have to have a brutal police force and suspend “freedom” for the uneducated masses who are NOT served by a new 80 story Ritz Carlton shaped like a camel. They are free to do it – but “capitalism” used to only on selfish purposes creates anger and deprives the society of a greater good from those who would have started micro-capital lending built products and services that might not have garnered the most profit.

As an avowed conservative, free market CONSTITUTIONAL capitalist, I’m not buying what you think I should shovel.  Not only will you convince people like me that ANYTHING that happens in any boardroom is sacrosanct under the capitalism sacraments you seem to worship, you risk the entire conservative brand name suggesting capitalism is inherently “good” regardless of how it is conducted.  God’s law is replete with examples of God’s opinion about how capitalism works including:

The people will curse him who withholds grain,
But blessing will be on the head of him who sells it.
- Proverbs 11:26

I’m surprised you are this far distant from Palin’s views who herself said last night on Fox Business that the BAIN questioning was perfectly acceptable.

In my opinion it is not only acceptable, it is necessary.

Limbaugh is the Liberal, Not Newt

I must admit I haven’t followed the news closely the past couple of days. Even then, there is no way to avoid the outcry over Gingrich, Perry and Santorum being smeared as “socialists” simply for questioning Romney on this Bain business.  As a small businessman, conservative and avowed capitalist, I certainly AM interested in the debate but quite shocked at the illogical and imbalanced response of Rush.

After analyzing it I’m convinced. 

Limbaugh is the liberal here, not Newt.  He is arguing from the left of de Tocqueville far worse than Rick, Rick and Newt are on Bain.

Today, Rush Limbaugh admitted he was the equivalent of a Muslim Ayatollah and was issuing a Fatwa against Newt because he was “attacking capitalism.”  This alone should tell you how insane the Limbaugh argument is.  Effectively, MahaRushie is admitting that he is the arbiter of what is “right and wrong” and that debate is dangerous.  Newt has departed from the “faith” and now must be beheaded.  Sounds a lot like a liberal approach to disagreement to me.

I thought this whole “dissent is unpatriotic” approach was outlawed with the global warming scandal, but indeed Rush is acting like his brain is fried.  Funny how Limbaugh complains for months that conservatives don’t attack Romney since he isn’t “conservative”, he lauds them when they announce that they are going to take the gloves off, and then freaks out when they do.

In a sense, Limbaugh’s theory about liberals can now be applied to him.  He often argues that liberalism is a “faith,” and they will throw their cause of woman’s rights, racism and concern for the poor under the bus if it threatens their power.  How many times has Rush explained that Jewish Democrats are liberals first because liberalism is their true religion.

It now turns out that Limbaugh’s religion isn’t right and wrong (or Christianity) – it is capitalism!  And it MUST NOT BE DEBATED!

On one hand I understand the thin skin of Limbaugh (and certainly Mitt Romney).  Free market capitalists (such as myself) have been mercilessly portrayed as “greedy” and “immoral” simply for making a profit.  Not only that, we’ve been chastised for the size of that profit.  The average person thinks the rich and successful have won the “life lottery” and they ignore the years they lived on pennies, risking their families wellbeing to build a business.  You never hear about the entrepreneurs that failed along the way and lost their marriages and credit.  RIGHTFULLY, someone needs to explain to the OWS types that since I took the risk, I can damn sure decide what the hell I want to do with my business.  If I want to layoff all my workers and move to Mar Vista, that is my right!

My first gut reaction to Newt’s line of questioning on this Bain business a few weeks ago was nauseous to me for this very reason.  I felt the same way when Herman Cain said he was “Main Street” and Mitt was “Wall Street,” - like that was a bad thing.  I AGREE that once we start attacking the fundamental role of investment banking, we have no chance to truly educate America on the superior benefits of capitalism despite some pretty evil people residing there.  Like Obama’s chief financial advisor who stole ran MF Global into the ground.  And that undergirds my point.  Why are we so worried about warranted criticism of Wall Street firms?  Or Romney’s Wall Street firm?

I also understand that Newt did not pick this fight.  Romney went after him unfairly.  A SuperPAC that Newt hasn’t even talked to bought this documentary to use against Romney and Newt is merely discussing it, albeit hoping it hurts Mitt.  All that being said, Newt already sent a (bad) thrill up our leg when he started arguing for immigration because of being “concerned” about 20 or 30 year illegals with families entrenched in their community.  I discuss the error of this at length in the PolitiJim Anti-illegal Immigration & Naturalization plan.

But I did something Rush didn’t seem to do.  I listened to the argument.  So what was the sacred “religious law” that Newt violated?  Pick which one you think it is:

1. Capitalism is evil.
2. Making too much money is evil.
3. Deciding to lay off employees is evil.
4. Romney is an irresponsible capitalist.

From my Twitter timeline and the posts I’ve seen today I would have been certain Newt was saying ALL of the first three points.  Perhaps some Rush listeners ARE mind numbed robots.  Problem is, that isn’t what I heard him say.  What I heard him say (about Romney) was

“he's gonna have to explain why would Bain have taken $180 million out of a company and then have it go bankrupt, and to what extent did they have some obligation to the workers?

Can I ask you a question?  If we are allowed to criticize politicians for doing “good” or “evil” in office, is it unfair to ask the same of capitalists?  Is their truly no “right” or “wrong” in capitalism?

Why is it ok to argue how “moral or immoral” someone’s use of power or policy are in politics, but you can’t argue how they used their power or products in capitalism?

Isn’t this what Sarah Palin did in her “crony capitalism” speech?  Do we really believe that ALL capitalism is just, fair and good?  If you do, you are quite ignorant of history. 

Let me ask you this.  What are the worst components of our economic and political system?  Here is my short list:

• Unions who extort money from capitalists (and now taxpayers).
• Oppressive regulations on business from the environment to consumer “protection.”
• The Federal Reserve banking system and it’s undemocratic inflationary powers.
• Minimum wage and medical “safety nets” through government.

If you are for limited government, you might have a few more, but I would think you would agree with me, that these inhibit growth and are used as leveraging points for statists to gain power over “real” producers of productivity, right?

Guess how these encroachments started?  Respective to each point above:

• Business owners ala Upton Sinclair’s THE JUNGLE who cared so little for their employees, they put an economic value on their worth instead of a human one.
• Unscrupulous MBA’s who instructed employees to throw chemicals into the public waterways so they didn’t have to pay for and could pass responsibility to the larger community like Lake Erie and any number of others.
• Totally unregulated banking that allowed people to artificially control 10 times the stock they truly could pay for, resulting in an instable stock market that ruined millions of lives for decades ala 1929.
• The traditional family and American church ceased taking responsibility for our elderly and infirmed opting for convenience and personal irresponsibility following WW2.

This is covered well in THE TRAGEDY OF AMERICAN COMPASSION. Had men PROPERLY stewarded their power in these areas, regulation would never have been necessary.  Isn’t this simply a fact of life?  There is no need to set a curfew for a child who has shown great maturity in avoiding wild parties, gets straight A’s and is concerned with doing “the right thing.”  But we now consider a Balanced Budget Amendment, a Right to Life Amendment and a Federal Marriage Amendment despite never needing any one of these for almost 200 years.  Up until recently, we were fairly responsible.

What Rush Limbaugh (and all liberals) are missing is this.

“Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

I would submit that if Liberty can not be established without morality, neither can “capitalism.”

You can’t have it both ways.  You can’t say capitalism is “great” without admitting that without morality it is dangerous.  Worse, you can’t tell average Americans that capitalism needs no oversight and can’t be abused when they have lost billions and trillions to corporations like Enron, Worldcom, Freddie Mac (is a private company by the way) and Madoff.  Russia implemented capitalism but without the Judeo/Christian underpinnings it has degraded into such a corrupt system many long for communism again.

Rush (and all of you acting like Newt is the new Obama) are guilty of acting just like the liberals who don’t want to be accountable to ANYONE.  And this could be why we suddenly see the same reaction in Rush that we do from our teenager who accuses us of “not trusting them” when we accidently find the joint in their jacket they were “holding for a friend.”  Deep down they haven’t dealt with their own guilt in how they have mishandled responsibility.  I suspect a large part of this outrage is tied to a fear they will be called to account for HOW they use their money.

I’m not saying Rush is evil.  I know he gives great sums to many charitable causes.  There certainly is also the fear that if we admit there is a “right” and “wrong” to profit – we are inviting others to judge us. - Or worse, set limits for us.  In this Newt, and the “Rick’s” MUST clarify and amplify this.  None of their previous positions suggest ANY OF THEM want MORE regulation in business.

But just because you have the right to spend your money and run your business any way you want – it doesn’t mean that ANY way you run it is right.  And since Governor Romney is using the BAIN experience to justify his:

• experience in creating jobs,
• success at understanding how to help businesses make a profit,
• management of large organizations,
• ability to turn around the economy…

…wouldn’t it just be SLIGHTLY responsible of us to ask IF he did indeed do this and HOW he did it?  Why is that an “attack” on capitalism unless you are afraid of admitting you serve “Mammon” rather than your good conscience – if not God?

Legal Insurrection run by Cornell Law School professor William Jacobson has a brilliant series of insightful articles on this.

The Bain Documentary

I will point out two unsettling issues with the Newt/Bain thing.  Newt, for his amazing rhetorical skills, should have reaffirmed the free market system much like all the candidates did on Social Security reform.  Bachmann and Perry have been especially good at predicating EVERY description of Social Security reform with the over emphasis that current senior citizens need not worry.  It seems we have some Depends-wearing little old capitalists who need reassuring.

Secondly, the "Bain documentary” tries to use common liberal emotional approaches to manipulate sympathy with those put out of work without giving the context of a legal or moral issue from a conservative capitalism viewpoint.  Like the Wisconsin public teacher union issue, it is painful to know there are stresses on large classrooms, but it comes into perspective when you realize hundreds of others are put out of work to ensure a fatter benefits for the few.  I have only seen clips but clearly they don’t designate that often layoffs are beneficially for the rest of the workers, the companies and the pension funds that rely on them.  Or that by continuing to employ them ALL investors and workers would loose their money and jobs.

I will say again. On these two issues Newt, Rick and Rick need to articulate that the socialist system creates MORE “pain” than the capitalistic one.

So, in light of that.  Can we agree it is ok to evaluate capitalists by their “works” and “intent?” 

I saw some blogger today complaining that conservatives had seen one too many viewings of “Pretty Woman.” For the seven people in America who’ve never seen it, the Richard Gere character buys companies, lays off all the workers, sells their assets and adds another billion to his portfolio.  He is TRULY a destroyer of jobs and these people exist.  T. Boone Pickens did just that for years.  They were called “Corporate Raiders.” Recently, Pickens spent $62 million of his fortune promoting wind energy seemingly because he was a born again environmentalist.  Later we found out he was heavily invested in wind turbine equipment and that his companies that would reap billions from energy subsidies the government would put in place.  Meanwhile, he still holds huge amounts of “dirty” energy holdings.  Is that a “good” capitalist?  One that would try and hoodwink the taxpayers to subsidize wind on the pretense of being “clean energy?”  Sounds like Solyndra to me.

So if the GOP and conservatives can’t be honest with themselves that “capitalism” requires a morality of CARING ABOUT YOUR EMPLOYEES and being DEDICATED TO THE WELL BEING OF YOUR COUNTRY, how the hell do you sell this to rest of America?  Do we really believe that the “right” to do something makes it good?  Or a value we want in a leader?

Like a liberal who wants to shut down the discussion of how destructive government entitlements are to the people they are trying to help, conservatives like Limbaugh are in danger of the same thing.  They don’t seem to want to discuss how capitalism without a conscience destroys the mangers, pensions and investments of those it is purporting to help.

Who was the better capitalist?  George Bailey or Mr. Potter? I submit that like in life, being “rich” doesn’t make you better.  Similarly, an entrepreneur who has a goal of creating jobs and better lives for his employees, is a “better” capitalist than one who SIMPLY wants to create wealth for the sake of creating wealth.

I am not saying to PENALIZE the greedy hoarder at all.  But don’t expect America to suddenly spend the next 9 months studying Friedman and Hayek to understand this nuance.  What Limbaugh is trying to do is to force the idea of Mr. Potter being a better person because he is greedy.

I’m sorry. Greed is a sin for a reason.  God blesses people to be rich undeniably.  He also condemns those who are “greedy for ill-gotten gain.” I’m not suggesting to outlaw it or regulate it – but as conservatives we must realize that as Tocqueville saw, capitalism will NOT succeed without Judeo/Christian virtue.  And Limbaugh makes the same fundamental mistake liberals do in selling their philosophy without an equal measure of personal responsibility for our culture.  Not in the form of socialistic communism, but as an individual responsibility to TEACH that capitalism only works with a majority of people who want to do good.

What then of the “good” capitalism of Mr. Romney?

The worst accusations:

• Bain got back $12 Million on an $8 Million investment while US taxpayers had to bail out the pension fund for $44 million.
• Bain recovered it’s capital transferring all risk to new bondholders before bankrupting the company.
• Despite warnings from regulators, investors and unions to set aside more money, Bain took out profits that ultimately contributed to insolvency.
• Bain turned down opportunities to sell out and protect the jobs of the company.
• They often hired inexperienced managers and wouldn’t protect core producers because they were too expensive, ultimately contributing in failure.

Confession:  I have seen many of these missteps in companies I’ve worked for or owned too.  Hindsight is not just 20/20, it’s electron microscope magnification. 

To me the worst accusation isn’t written here.  Is that Mitt Romney never actually CREATED a product or service from the ground up, but bought out other peoples hard work.  Bain provided money for many companies, but Bain itself never did the hard work of developing a product, market or struggling in the day to day nuance of REAL business.  That is NOT a moral judgment.  But clearly Mitt Romney only learned one lesson of business:

If you throw money at a business or problem and it doesn’t work out, you yourself don’t have to figure out why it worked – you just move on to the next thing to throw money at.

Again, I don’t say this to demean the role of venture capital.  I’ve invested in businesses myself.  I’m just pointing out that HIS view of the American economy is NOT where the 70% of jobs are created.  It IS in the area where most of the visible “wall street” and business scandals have occurred.

HOW BAIN PLAYS AGAINST OBAMA

I see only two main arguments from pro-Romney advocates:

1. He is the only one who can beat Obama because he appeals to moderates,
2. He will be seen as a successful businessman who can fix the economy

Most conservative concerns with Romney are:

• If he gets elected, he has no desire, track record or “compass” to reform government.  He just said last year that he would KEEP parts of ObamaCare.
• If he gets elected, he will dump conservative causes and do WHATEVER is politically expedient.

So are we better off with someone who replaces Obama but really doesn’t do ANYTHING to fix the fundamental flaws that will keep spending our children’s money?  I think that is asking whether you would rather have incurable cancer or be tortured.  Of COURSE one is better than the other.  If it comes to that, at least we might find a cure for cancer while we battle it.  But that is not the REAL question.  The proper question is:

Is Romney TRULY more electable than Rick, Rick or Newt?  I submit:

1. Obama has now shown it’s entire campaign will consist of CLASS WARFARE, RACISIM charges and VOTER FRAUD.
   
2. The Occupy movement has already published that the past demonstrations where only trial runs for a much more violent and intense campaigns in the summer and fall of 2012 ALL BASED AGAINST WALL STREET and government abuse.
   
3. Just as McCain had no significant variation from the promises of Obama, Romney has the LEAST differentiation from what Obama will lie about promise this time around.

As Legal Insurrection pointed out, you may bristle at this discussion because it seems to argue against capitalism, but in fact Romney will face FAR WORSE against a $1 Billion campaign from people who have proven they will lie without remorse.  If you thought that what Romney’s SuperPAC did in driving Newt’s numbers into the storm cellar in Iowa was bad – just wait until a force 10X larger with the complicit help of the main stream media does the same to RomRom.

At the very least this discussion will drain SOME of the venom out of this attack so it is more like “old news” should Romney be nominated.  Even then, the majority of the country will not tune into the election until October of 2012 and only if Obama hasn’t created a series of international distractions to keep it off of the front pages.  (This is part of the purpose of the Occupy Wall Street manipulation.)

At most this discussion will nominate ANOTHER non-Romulan who is ALREADY HALF INSULATED FROM THIS OBAMA ATTACK having already shown that the GOP is also concerned with Wall Street abuses.  And the non-Romney candidate will be much more credible in the eyes of the AVERAGE, non-conservative arguing against the influences of Wall Street in the Obama administration.

In the end Romney provides EXACTLY the lack of clear contrast with Obama’s weak points and you can bet, there will 10 times as many ads of laid off workers from Bain on Obama commercials as there are Budweiser commercials.

Why do we assume protecting Wall Street experience is equivalent to protecting capitalism?  It just isn’t the same thing. 

One of my companies spent 6 months in negotiation with a Bain-like company.  Despite the hard work and risk of my team of 12 early investors, managers and inventors – this venture capital firm wanted the right not just to take over the company if the economy cratered or some other unforeseen market condition out of control appeared, they also had the ability to create the problem by controlling our finances.  They were PERFECTLY within their rights to demand this, just as we were in our rights to not accept it (and we didn’t), but many companies like this have literally stolen the technology or companies from lesser sophisticated entrepreneurs.  And instead of empowering those entrepreneurs like Edison or Bell to go and invent more, they go on to use the seductive appeal of their instant infusion of cash not to create more goods, services and benefits for mankind – but ONLY more cash for themselves.

I think we deserve a President that EDUCATES not just personal responsibility, but virtues of wealth to help others, rather than just help yourself.

FINAL THOUGHT

A long hibernating observation from the Sarah Palin documentary THE UNDEAFEATED resurfaced for me.  In her Alaskan endeavors, it struck me that Palin was a populist, NOT a classic conservative.  She attacked the GREED of “big oil” and was attacked by those in the GOP who are making the same argument against Newt.  When I was searching for a reference why this appeal of Newt’s sounded familiar, I was shocked to realize it had many of the same undertones of Palin’s rhetoric.  It is WHY she appealed to 80% of Alaskans.  She didn’t SHOVE capitalism down their throats.  She preached a responsibility and REFORM against capitalism run amuck.  And a responsibility of profit.

DONT BE SURPRISED IF PALIN JUMPS in ON NEWT’S SIDE AGAINST RUSH!

Crony Capitalism implies a personal responsibility of the entrepreneur and an attack on Wall Street deals NOT derived from hard risk and risk.  This is the essence of the Bain world.  This from Palin’s crony capitalism speech:

It’s called corporate crony capitalism. This is not the capitalism of free men and free markets, of innovation and hard work and ethics, of sacrifice and of risk. No, this is the capitalism of connections and government bailouts and handouts, of waste and influence peddling and corporate welfare. This is the crony capitalism that destroyed Europe’s economies. It’s the collusion of big government and big business and big finance to the detriment of all the rest – to the little guys. It’s a slap in the face to our small business owners – the true entrepreneurs, the job creators accounting for 70% of the jobs in America, it’s you who own these small businesses, you’re the economic engine, but you don’t grease the wheels of government power.

Romney SHOULD have to answer for what is his ONLY private sector credential.  Newt advising a private company like Freddie Mac that has had a part in financing over 50% of American home loans – not just the bad ones - to quit making bad loans as a private isn’t nearly as damaging to me as a vulture capitalist whose ONLY virtue was making money while sacrificing productive jobs that could have been saved.

And Rush Limbaugh needs to quit being so fearful that someone is going to come and ask him what he’s done with his millions.  He’s acting like a liberal who is afraid of serious questions about the MORALITY of money. 

Don’t forget that Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin are very responsible for the McCain nomination by sabotaging Huckabee.  They kept calling Huckabee a liberal and we ended up with McCain.  Before his death, the great conservative Paul Weyrich admitted that other conservatives wrongly undercut the conservative values of Huckabee and regretted endorsing Romney over Huckbee.

It looks like a Limbaugh doesn’t change it’s stripes.  

Thank God we can make sure he doesn’t get another moderate the nomination.

The Drinking Scale of Gingrich Big Government Gaffes

The tweet said, “I will not support Newt Gingrich because he is a big government Republican.” I’m surprised this entire sentence isn’t trending on Twitter.  I personally believe Bachmann and Santorum are like more "conservative" than Gingrich.  My problem with both of them (as you may have already heard if you read my blog) is that "policy" alone does not a good President or leader make.  In my opinion the secret of Reagan and Thatcher was not just a conservative core, it was the ability to persuade and motivate others others to a specific battle plan. 

The “big government” charges are:

• Paul Ryan’s plan is a “right wing social experiment”
• He believes in Cap and Trade because he sat on coach with Pelosi
• He was for the Individual Health Care Mandate
• He supported TARP
• Immigration
• He supported Bush 43’s Senior Drug program

As Limbaugh said, Gingrich is the last politician we've had who campaigned and succeeded in reducing the size of any government program and forced it into four consecutive balanced budgets.  All under a Democrat President.  Certainly Gingrich - as Speaker - moved the entire Congress toward conservatism when he took over here.  In fact it is the biggest single move in history AND they actually INCREASED conservative votes from the 103rd to 104th Congress a very rare political feat.  People forget he fought AGAINST the 1990 George Bush tax increases.  This is hardly someone who is TRYING to increase government.  There is a big difference between a teetotaler and a drunk.  It is clear he is neither but does he just have a glass of wine on holidays, or does he have a nightcap nearly every night?  Let’s see.

Gingrich on Paul Ryan's Plan

THE PAUL RYAN THING. People who think Gingrich was against the Paul Ryan plans IDEAS are just intellectually lazy.  The "right wing social engineering" response came from a hypothetical question by David Gregory if REPUBLICANS would pass the Ryan bill even if Democrats didn't like it.  It was a "gotcha" question that got him.  Newt supported the Ryan bill when it first came out giving it high praise in his newsletter and continued to say he would certainly sign it if presented to him.  His objection however was forcing it upon the people with legislative trickery similar to what Barack did with ObamaCare.  And he's right.  In fact HIS position was more conservative than Paul Ryan's - the same Ryan who allowed the GOP to settle for the SuperCommittee instead of keep fighting last July with DeMint on BBA and Cut, Cap and Balance. 

It would have been much better for ALL of us however it Gingrich had done what he did on his views on Israel.  Set the standard high and sold it.  He mentioned in an interview on Greta that Bill Bennett had to help him see what the fuss was about because Gingrich didn't understand how “social engineering” had come across.  Most importantly, he apologized. Something Bachmann has STILL not done for her "666" comment about Herman Cain's plan.  Would you rather have a politician that says something stupid and never addresses it head on - or someone like Gingrich who spends significant time explaining what he meant?   Drinking scale? All in all Gingrich is the unfortunate Baptist who got beer poured on him at a party.

I had a very uninformed twitter pal try to convince me that Gingrich was "big government" on global warming because he did that stupid ad with Pelosi.  But what someone DOES is more important than a stupid IDEA to "get conservatives in the environment discussion."  He testified AGAINST Cap and Trade (vigorously I might add) immediately following Al Gore on the hearings.  He is very knowledgeable about the lack of scientific data to back it up but never mentions the IPCC scandal or Romney’s former aide, now Obama’s, who is subverting the FOIA.  He is for ethanol subsidies which isn’t REALLY anything but tax incentives – not outright giving of tax payer money to firms.  That is a big difference.  Drinking Scale: A responsible but foolish middle aged guy who bought liquor for some under age democrats to be “hip.”

The real problems for a 'big government” accusation comes from a small (in terms of life long votes) but significant part of his record.  And, although prone to "tinkering" with government as opposed to crusade against it on smaller programs, there are really only 3 major items of concern.  The individual mandate during HillaryCare, the Bush 43 drug entitlement bill and TARP.

HillaryCare Harry and Louise TV Ad

The Mandate

. Similarly, if he was "big government" you would have expected him to tweak HillaryCare or be for it.  He lead aggressive  attacks on it publicly and schemed privately to kill nationalized healthcare.  It was in that scheming with the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation (the same one that Rush Limbaugh supports, advertises and endorses) that most conservatives thought they could provide a way to stop what seemed inevitable.  At the time it seemed a much more responsible position to make people pay than give it away for free.  Einstein didn't come up with the theory of relativity as a "whole" idea.  It evolved after running into roadblock after roadblock as he tried to make core principles of science fit with the idea he had in his vision.  Should Gingrich have had better instincts? Absolutely.  Rick Santorum saw it and fought it as a junior congressman and you would hope the “big” thinker could have seen that.  He is adamantly against it now and we have NO evidence of Gingrich changing BACK once he works through initial issues.  In fact, his Center for Health Transformation has been a rottweiler against ObamaCare for 3 years.  But, given that the economy was soaring and the government had no deficits, it is forgivable to me.  
Drinking scale: An isolated over indulgence at the company Christmas party retreat.  That lasted about 8 years but he’s been in AA for 3 with Heritage, CATO and other bad influences. 

TARP.  I'm shocked at how many conservative Cain supporters had no idea that Herman was for TARP.  Santorum again gets props on this although few realize how dire the situation really was.  The justification is always laid at the feet of it being “an emergency.”  We have no problem spending without limits in a time of war because our existence is stake.  Although I personally disagree, many conservatives and establishment GOP types felt this was a kind of economic attack that could destabilize American currency and send us into a world financial catastrophe.  Worse, it came during an election and neither party wanted to be perceived as "doing nothing." With George Bush having come through the Hurricane Katrina debacle where he had expected local and state government to handle Hurricane Katrina issues AS THEY ALWAYS HAD IN PREVIOUS DISASTERS, I’m sure most in Washington were trying to avoid getting killed in the media by suggesting government couldn’t or shouldn’t do anything. 

TARP did have unintended GOOD consequences.  Politically, the GOP escaped huge hits on unanimously not voting for the STIMULUS because they had voted for TARP.  And without a reference with which to compare, the public would have laid an inevitable economic downfall on the GOP.  The hit would have been even harder and deeper in 2009 but the economy would just now begin to recover guaranteeing Obama a second term.  On the drinking scale it is the fifth of whiskey the Cowboy surgeon makes the victim drink - and then takes it himself - prior to bloodletting in the 1800's, only to discover he misjudged where the infection.  (For those who don't know bloodletting ACTUALLY worked on staph infections.)  Would it have been better to not perform the procedure risking only death or recovery?  I can forgive this one but can't forgive the lack of sounding the warning at the time.to educate on overriding conservative principles.

IMMIGRATION I’ve already covered extensively in a 3 part series that breaks down the issue, Newt’s record and (even better) the PolitiJim Immigration And Naturalization plan.  In summary while Newt’s program suggests complete self-deportation and no citizenship, the only penalty for breaking the law is essentially, inconvenient travel.  It is one of those issues that I believe he is overestimated the political resistance to reform and trying not to be “Grinch.”  Drinking scale: Too much Tequila lowering his inhibitions and causing a loss of respect among his peers who had to throw him into bed.  Even with the tight restrictions he proposes, I fear the hangover will result in continued disrespect for the law and those in charge of enforcing it in Washington.

DRUG ENTITLEMENT.  This to me epitomizes the possible risk with Gingrich.  His motivation was actually SMALLER government but his infatuation with unique and creative ideas backfired (at least in the short term).  Gingrich understood that given a Democrat congress and a populist Republican in George Bush, Medicare reform wouldn't happen for years and years.  He argues that first, we taxpayers are paying $130,000 for heart bypass instead of $2,000 for Lipitor without it.  It is a good argument. Secondly, it was the first time government offered consumer choice to control costs and the first form of a health savings account that Gingrich saw as the beginning to true reform.  The beginnings of the health equivalent to the "Chilean model" in retirement benefits.  Purists like Glenn Beck were incensed that Gingrich wasn’t arguing for complete defunding of Medicare immediately.  But it is interesting most ignore Bachmann’s pervasive assurance to seniors that their programs "won't be touched."  Why not the hatred for her statement from them?  And would you rather be paying $100,000 more per patient to address heart blockage until we have a Medicare solution, it gets public acceptance, it gets adopted and the current "grandfathered" (pun intended) recipients run out?  The political reality that Gingrich understands is that most certainly he would sign a reform bill for Medicaid as he did for Welfare, he doesn’t know how to make this case to a bigger audience without commitment political suicide.

The two major problems that all of the conservatives who voted for it have is that they never took into account that it only estimated ten years in the future (not fully accounting for boomer retirement.) It also didn't focus specifically on the tiny group of seniors who were deprived of ANY drug solutions leaving a whole system to be exploited by non-deserving seniors.  It is disconcerting that with all of the understanding Gingrich has with his Center for Health Transformation efforts - he is not validating that he sees the runaway costs on this program.  So here we have to conclude either Gingrich is a political genius - putting elements in place to move liberals and independents into entitlement reform without the fear that we will let them starve -  or he is too worried about seeming to be the "Grinch" that shot grandma.

We have evidence for both.  He was brilliant in forcing Clinton to the right, fighting against his own party to bring all 10 Contract With America issues to a vote in the first 100 days as promised.  And, his "heartless" comment about illegal families that have been here 20 or 25 years shows he is willing to bend conservative policy to emotion driven ones.  On our drinking scale he seems to be a functioning alcoholic who can't admit he has a problem.

And he isn't totally wrong.  A less than charismatic figure could easily get beaten by Obama if he doesn't adequately “sell” the smaller government programs.  As the victory for the unions in Ohio showed on the prop 2 issue, most Americans are generous people and when presented with a badly sold conservative choice against depriving school teachers and fireman of jobs and retirement they will NOT choose the conservative route.  As much as we want illegals deported, all entitlements stopped, and every “Department” except Defense disbanded, it is well LESS than 20% of all voters who want or approve of all those things.  Which brings us back to the Paul Ryan issue.

CONSERVATIVE POLICY ALONE WONT MAKE A GOOD PRESIDENT.

To me this was the brilliance of Palin and why we are at such a loss without her.  She created a "plan" that was mentally digestible to Alaskans and lead the troops up the glacier to overthrow corruption in her own party and in the state.  (Gingrich articulates this in about 60 seconds better than anyone I've heard – at the 3 minute mark of the first Greta video above).  Ironically when you study short Palin's Governorship, she actually had to reverse a couple of stances that were NOT conservative (including the Bridge to Nowhere).  It is this ability to ADJUST toward conservatism that I am interested in.  Reagan implemented the most liberal abortion laws ever in California - but after a (long) time, studied and solidified his conviction - and then became solidly pro-life.  But in the end, he really never accomplished much or took on overturning Roe V Wade as many of us wanted.  But had he done so, he might have lost the momentum he had for fiscal issues as he had to operate with a Democrat congress.

Bachmann has disappointed me by going beyond her (great) rally against ObamaCare and moving into creating a unique objective people will follow.  As Dick Morris pointed out recently, Gingrich's rise coincided with his addition of solutions to his brilliant attacks on the media and Obama.  Santorum keeps talking about bills he co-sponsored or voted on, but he is stuck on legislation mode instead of waving a banner of a movement.  "999" was a big leader idea that represented MORE than just three 9% changes, but a entire restructuring of how the IRS and our spending fit together.  Romney presents 59 individual changes with no binding overriding crusade behind it.  For now, Newt is the man who not only continues to present bold new plans (like calling Palestinians an invented people,) but he has a track record of DOING it.

Reagan was brilliant at this.  Obama's 2008 campaign team was as well although in deceit.  Most Americans won't take the time to do their homework on REAL policy.  It's changed a bit with the Tea Party but you and I are the minority minority.  Most American voters make quick judgments similar to math questions on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire.  They can't or wont' take the time to work out the answer themselves - but they take an emotional stab at one of 4 choices presented to them.  They say to themselves, “the ‘lifeline’ sounds like he is smart” or “he makes a reasonable case for his answer” and choose WHO will make their answer for them. 

So is everyone drunk with Gingrich-Ale?

Newt attended a skeptical audience at Richard Viguerie’s ConservativeHQ conference.  A hero to many of us on ObamaCare legal challenges is Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli who asked:

“How can we be sure, what’s the restraint on you that these ideas won’t end up being more big government?” asked Cuccinelli.

Speaker Gingrich replied to laughter that “there’s nothing to restrain a President from doing something dumb, but I trust the people in this room to tell me if that is the case.” But then he noted more seriously that, “I’m a Federalist.  I look to the Federalist Papers and the Constitution to guide me and restrain government.”

Gingrich left to a sustained standing ovation and direct quotes from many who had changed their minds.

Democrat Ad: Gingrich the Original Tea Partier

He hasn’t convinced me he is Rush Limbaugh without the cigar.  But yo

u do have to ask yourself why, if Newt was so liberal and big government, would the liberals and GOP Establishment hate him?  The liberal press was disdaining his "conservative" solutions in 2009 and the Democrats see him as a Tea Partier.  Not enough to convince me he is Jefferson or Adams but nice to know THEY are worried. He certainly was an EFFECTIVE leader as Speaker, and the truth is he wasn't liked because he was too much like an executive than a legislator.  And he wouldn't let the Establishment get away with the same old stuff like going home early to campaign.

Tony Blankley, columnist and former aide to Gingrich describes how amazingly perceptive and inventive he was in getting conservative bills passed with a significant number of liberal GOP who were always threatening to jump to the other side.  Things you don’t hear.  He also shakes his head at the GOP establishment now shunning him when they all were glowing about his leadership as they notched victory after victory.  You want to hear a great story about Romney pawn John Sununu read Tony’s article.  It’ll help you understand why Newt is a threat.

So why not Bachmann or Santorum? 

Santorum to me is like "Apple" of conservatives.  As the personal computer was introduced in the early years, Apple may have a better product, but IBM was better at marketing theirs.  Both work, but Apple does so more elegantly.  I am a PC user and don't like the expense and limited availability of Apple software so it is tough for me to right this, but I would much rather HAVE an "Apple" candidate.  And a purer conservative who will fight to be responsible to a limited government answer to everything is great unless I would not have a majority of the market share for years and years. 

The reality is that with all of the economic reforms, clean up of Obama Care and Administration leftover poisons, Gingrich won't have a lot of time in his first four years to implement any NEW programs.  If Gingrich has a vocal conservative VP willing to out their own leader like DeMint or Palin (and who could challenge him in 2016), Gingrich might actually be BETTER than a purer conservative who can't explain and motivate the REST of America as to how conservatism will benefit them.  Things like his support of the Bush drug boondoggle will make him MORE acceptable to independents (and even liberals fed up at Obama) in a general election as he won't SEEM so extreme.

So would you rather have a conservative wolf in sheep's clothing as Gingrich might be, or pure conservative lamb without much knowledge and experience in actual policy implementation and leadership that scares majorities off with a wolf costume?

To me there isn't a GOOD answer, but one at least one of those choices gives us a chance to make change now with the current administration.

With Gingrich I’m not worried about him driving home after a drink or two at the bar, but I’m not leaving him at home alone with the keys to the liquor cabinet.

---

LAST CALL: As I am just posting this 2 twitter friends @southrngirl77 @MRPRFCT are alerting me to praise Gingrich gave communist leaning Andy Stern and SEIU back in 2007 following several meetings with him.  Now even Glenn Beck hadn’t learned of Andy Stern or SEIU’s Marxist plot and connections (and likely the majority in Congress still don’t) so I’m quite sure just like the Toffler’s Newt was on his “liberal friendship” tour.  Newt said this in his book Real Change according to HuffPo:

Conservatives cannot cheer unions overseas and then be blindly anti-union here at home. There are legitimate historic reasons for workers to organize together, and there is a strong need for a healthy, competitive, union, movement that helps improve the lives of its members and the competitiveness of our country.

Andy Stern, the head of the Service Employees International Union, is the union leader who probably best understands the challenge of the world market and the need to make American union members productive in the face of world competition. Sadly, he is a distinct minority among union leaders.

…former Gingrich aide Rick Tyler stressed that his former boss no longer agrees with those sentiments.  "He met with Andy Stern several times and Andy Stern had given Newt the impression that he was a forward-looking union leader," said Tyler. "Turns out he wasn’t."

So let’s be intellectually honest.  Did Gingrich have a “pro-union” 20+ voting record?  No.  He has a 90% or 94% pro-conservative record over an amazingly long legislative career.  Did he support and participate in any SEIU sponsored policies that impacted law.  No.

Did Gingrich adopt ANY of the radical or even liberal views of SEIU since meeting with Stern?  Hell no.

But there will be many dishonest partisans on the conservative side who acting like a cross between James Carville and David Axelrod (what would a baby from Axelrod and Carville look like – yikes) who want to now make this bigger than what it is.  Which is Gingrich is continually trying to broaden cooperation and relationships with the other side.

I understand that there are some “anti-union” conservatives who might not even know that Ronald Reagan was President of the Screen Actors Guild.  Siphoning the union vote was critical to BOTH of Reagan’s elections. But there is no way a distinguished ultra conservative paper like the New Hampshire Union Leader would have endorsed Gingrich if this was significant, well known position of the Newt.

Drinking scale: I personally am GLAD he met with Stern and isn’t afraid to walk in liberal circles.  I’m ready to have a drink myself though after reading his endorsement of Stern just trusting what he SAID instead of waiting to see what he does. 

Obama and the 2012 Presidential Race

by little tboca

Here’s a taste of what Americans can expect in the Presidential Race of 2012. Obama has already kicked his class warfare into all of his campaign speeches and will continue this strategy for the next 11 months. He’s pretending that he’s looking out for the “middle class” – what a laugh.

He’s the one who knocked the middle class off their feet in three years; he stopped any and all job growth, he redistributed 787 billion dollars known as the stimulus bill, which should have been called Obama’s “Dissuasion” bill.

He backs the Muslim Brotherhood, trashes Israel, supports the Wall Street Protestors and continues hanging out with “America’s Most Wanted,” Marxists, Communists and Socialists.

Our final decision in 2012 will determine the future of our children, grandchildren and future generations. We must be resilient, determined and give them a legacy that they can wrap their arms around with pride.

So the question for 2012 is do we want to vote for the person who can “take our Country back” or will we succumb to the Liberal News Media’s lies and propaganda and give Obama his second term?

There is one man who can restore our Nations weak foundation, give us back our Freedoms, Rights and our voice. We can beat him to death for his mistakes, or we can acknowledge that he is the one person who has learned from his mistakes, asked God’s forgiveness for his indiscretions and give him 100% support.

Newt’s positive positions on economy, taxes, free trade, spending and regulations far outweigh his mistakes. We have the option of going to his website and asking specific questions, if we have any doubts on how he stands on certain issues. http://www.newt.org/news/letter-supporters-gingrich-urges-them-stay-positive or http://www.newt.org/meet-newt

There wouldn’t be a Republican majority in the house today without the Republican Revolution led by Newt Gingrich in 1994. Newt is the reason and the only reason that the GOP took over the house for the first time in forty years.

Newt Gingrich made mistakes, but the difference between him and so many of the Old Establishment Politicians is this; Newt actually revisited his errors while serving in the White House analyzing and correcting his mistakes in order to become the committed leader that he is today.

Two Quotes that come to mind about making mistakes:
1. There are no mistakes, no coincidences. All events are blessings given to us to learn from. -Elizabeth Kubler-Ross
2. All men make mistakes, but only wise men learn from their mistakes.” Winston Churchill

Everyone has the right to decide who the next 2012 Presidential Candidate will be and pick the man or woman of his choice. We must be strong and arm ourselves against the lies, propaganda and political rhetoric and that can only be done by doing our homework.

If we want to sit on our butts and let Obama and the Liberal News Media spoon feed us lies about Obama’s ideology, we’ll face defeat due to our own complacency, negligence and ignorance.

May God Bless America
As Always,
Little Tboca

Is Newt a Fat White Obama Progressive?

How did I get sucked into defending Newt Gingrich when I don’t support him (or any other candidate)?  I had been reworking an article for days on this ridiculous notion that Gingrich is untrustworthy because of his two affairs over 20 years ago and Rick Perry is the new Mother Theresa.   Now that Glenn Beck has proclaimed that Newt Gingrich is essentially a fat, white Barack Obama (and some conservative bloggers I respect have not done their homework and agree with him), you dear reader are the beneficiary of a new blog.  (It’s ok, your welcome.)  I will explain at the end of the post why Perry’s sins are more egregious than Newt’s although neither should disqualify either of them.  But once again, insanity seems to be the new contagion of conservative circles.

What Beck said:

• Since Gingrich said he admired Teddy Roosevelt’s early years, Newt is now wanting one world government and total government control.  He is “the same” as Obama.
• Tea Partiers who vote for Gingrich must be racists because they didn’t vote for the “other Progressive meat” called Barack Hussein Obama.
• Newt’s rise in the polls is due to the GOP machine.

Beck has been right on a lot of things including Van Jones, the economic meltdown and the insidious reach of the Soros/Marxist forces in the Obama administration.  But not only has he “jumped the shark” as The Right Scoop suggested, he’s buried his bloated ego inflated noggin clear up it’s ….shark butt.

You have to question ANYONE that suggests the “GOP Machine” (who has mercilessly ridiculed and attacked Gingrich since his poll rise let alone his entire career) is behind Newt’s rise in the polls.  I’m sorry, did 40% of conservatives who DIDNT vote for the acknowledged GOP party stooge (Romney) somehow miss the secret Karl Rove spies-in-black who came to our homes and brainwashed them to root for Newt from Tacoma to Tampa?  How insane is THAT statement?  All you have to do is to follow a conservative twitter feed to notice the increased attention and discussion since Palin “unannounced.”  This statement PROVES we have to fact check (and rethink) EVERYTHING Beck is selling.

I won’t even acknowledge the idiotic “racist” comment except to say it is pure manipulation.  He is trying to get weak minded conservatives (yes there are many) to feel guilty at voting for Gingrich.  It’s manipulative. …and LIBERAL!  Conservatives lay out facts, and respect the individual to think for themselves.  They don’t need to call people names to coerce them to think the way they want.

So let’s talk about 2 things.  Teddy Roosevelt’s REAL record and Newt’s ACTUAL voting record and accomplishments.

Teddy was a spoiled rich kid with great academic, military and literary accomplishments including graduating Harvard, attending Columbia law, and becoming Governor of New York and the Assistant Secretary of the Navy.  He was one tough bastard and most assuredly, the beginning of bigger government, an expansion of executive branch power and the beginning of government’s role in regulating business.

But guess what?  He ran against Woodrow Wilson.  That’s right.  He was TO THE RIGHT of the WORST progressive (up until Obama) in history.  This is important because you HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE CONTEXT of the times in which he came to power.  The population of the US had doubled in 30 years.  Immigrants and native born citizens were working in inhumane working conditions in crowded cities incubating rampant disease.  There were NO regulations (enforced) on businesses and books like Upton Sinclair’s THE JUNGLE exposed the lack of protection against deceptive products being sold to the public – and for the workers who were nearly treated as slaves or worse.  Corruption between business and local law enforcement was unrestrained.

As we know, absolute power corrupts just as easily in Enron as in the EPA.  Had businessmen acted responsibly it is unlikely that our national pedigree of liberty would have ever condoned government interference.  But people like Sinclair who were avowed socialists (he started the California ACLU) took advantage to urge control over private affairs.  THERE HAD BEEN NO HISTORY of government regulation of business up until that time and there really was no track record of whether it worked – or if it might infringe on freedom.  But it is an ignorant view to assume ALL of these people were the progressives of today.  In fact, there WERE major problems with unregulated business and the abuse of unskilled and uneducated workers – about 60% of the workforce.  And as free and great as America was STILL becoming (we were not a world power at this time), it is absolutely insane to think many of these peoples were motivated by sinister intentions.

Don’t you know liberals who truly believe they are “progressive” because it is kind and caring? They are wrong, but they aren’t motivated by power, greed or revenge.  More so those who were tired of seeing truly ignorant people having no rights while being exploited by some truly evil corporate owners.

Those like Beck that think a message of “small government and lower taxes” was an interest to that society – let alone be able to sell it to the majority who were barely surviving – are like those who arrogantly condemn the well meaning physicians who practiced blood-letting in the 19th century.  It was the best knowledge they had at the time.  America was growing but life was hard. Life expectancy was like 42.

THIS IS THE POINT about Newt Gingrich and the individual mandate.  It is so easy for us after 2 intensive years of self-education to come to the conclusion of mandate problems, and even THAT wouldn’t have happened without the practice of learning about HillaryCare.  This is why Newt is correct in saying MOST conservatives were trying to find a solution that didn’t put government in charge of the entire healthcare system.  When the Heritage Foundation ALSO was for an “individual mandate” you have to really stop and check yourself on what this meant AT THAT TIME.  With a prosperous country and the public widely ready to adopt HillaryCare, conservatives were frantically trying to find out a conservative solution while not losing the battle as people that wanted to deprive poor people of healthcare. 

IT IS VERY FAIR to point out that a few conservatives like Santorum did NOT go along with this and that Newt Gingrich’s “conservative compass” should have notified him he was heading in the wrong direction.  But my ancestor, Thomas Edison, took 2,000 directions before finding out how to make a light bulb work.  I don’t think people want to claim he was disqualified as an electrician or inventor.

Here is the funny thing: Beck’s favorite model for a president is Calvin Coolidge who set up government regulation over the radio industry in it’s infancy.  Hardly a free market ideal.  Coolidge’s LACK of attention to regulation let Wall Street run wild and set up the 1929 crash.  He was a master at vetoing liberal bills, but offered nothing as an alternative.  And that especially harmed the farming sectors of the economy.  It’s why people were ready for FDR.  He nearly let tens of thousands perish in the great Mississippi flood letting the state and local economies try to be saddled with their rescue and recovery need, and finally acquiesced under pressure.  He didn’t say anything against the KKK when they marched in Washington nor took a position on the Scopes Monkey trial that set the course of culture on evolution.  Is Beck ok with that too?

Bottom line on Teddy and Newt?  Newt absolutely has to clarify what it is he finds so compelling about Roosevelt.  To call Theodore Roosevelt a “Progressive” in the mold of Obama when there was hardly ANY government presence domestically or internationally is like saying having your first beer at a baseball game is the same as being a hardcore drug user.  It doesn’t fly.  But Roosevelt’s philosophy ABSOLUTELY was a departure from freedom toward government manipulation.  And it is bothersome Newt isn’t defending this and explaining this more clearly.  He IS the academic in the argument here and he is failing on the point he should be excelling at.

Beck also asked us to LOOK at Gingrich’s record.  And not just the “good” stuff.  So what is Newt’s ACTUAL record?

NEWT GINGRICH RECORD: CONSERVATIVE OR LIBERAL?

Unlike Obama, Cain, (and to some extent Bachmann), there is no lack of speeches, books  - and most importantly – votes to find out who Newt is.  The Club for Growth has an exhaustive PDF white paper on Newt and there are many other conservative sources including the American Conservative Union (Rating 90%).  So how do people like Beck make the jump that a man
William F. Buckley called, “profoundly committed free trader,” progressive and worse?

Because it’s not 100% conservative.  Gingrich admitted to CBN recently that he regretted his vote for the Department of Education and evolved from a Rockefeller Republican (liberal republican) into a conservative.  Who hasn’t, right?  Except that many like Reagan didn’t have a contiguous public voting record during the change.  So what were these terrible “Progressive” votes of his:

• 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

I’m sure Beck would claim this was ALL a setup to seduce non-suspecting patriots into a hypnotic state until he could REALLY get his hands on power!  AH HA!  Only one problem.  He barely survived a battle against DeLay and Boehner (who couldn’t make an argument for crony capitalism and progressive against these two right?), and STEPPED DOWN from his Speakership and Congressional seat after winning election.

AND FINALLY we have an important point – apart from the insane and uninformed ravings of those on our side.  Gingrich did not feel that pressing for hardcore conservative positions with a Democrat President would serve our purpose.  Especially after they had successfully enacted welfare reform and balanced budgets by working WITH Democrats than against them.  And this is a good argument. 

Is it better to remain in power and do SOME good, or stand on principle and lose all power to do any good?

ACU’s Keene calls Gingrich a partisan but NOT a conservative although he admits his speakership was basically conservative.  (Figure that one out.)   But if he is not a conservative, why did he create and fulfill the VERY conservative CONTRACT WITH AMERICA?  And why did those who argued AGAINST Gingrich’s leadership – end up running the franchise into the ground that gave us Pelosi and Reed?  Was the prescription drug and Head Start programs under Bush better under the anti-Newt forces?

I think like the Roosevelt and the Clinton years the “TIMES” will make Gingrich.  We would like to think of our leaders as the William Wilberforce's of history who have one true guiding NORTH and would rather lose the argument for decades until the ship aligns to their view.  Gingrich instead seems fine going from NORTHWEST to NORTHEAST to stay on the ship.  His impact AS A LEADER on the LAST MAJOR REPUBLICAN victory (Balanced Budgets, Welfare Reform) seem to me to not only make Beck’s argument silly about being a progressive – but also diminish the REAL records of Santorum and Bachmann.  It is one thing to vote on a measure – or even sponsor a bill.  it is quite another to motivate dozens of other leaders to a cause and actually WIN a battle or a war.  This Gingrich did.

THE ADULTERY TRUST ARGUMENT

Could the debate have gotten anymore uncomfortable last night than bringing up the issue of fidelity with cameras staring up the nostrils of Calista Gingrich?  AWKWARD!  But Newt correctly stated that character and fidelity are certainly fair issues of discussion.

There are three arguments being made.  First is that Newt is a leach like Clinton and is a moral reprobate.  Second is that because of Newt’s two adulterous affairs he is untrustworthy as a political leader even if it was 20 years ago.  The third is that, at least according to Erick Erickson of Redstate, Governor Perry would make a better President because:

He’s on his first wife still and has the most consistent record of conservative policies. And we hate the same people and institutions. We have the same general world view.

Last point first.

We in the Texas tea party (you will note in the polls) are not heavily for a Perry presidency.  It’s not because he isn’t a decent governor or a good Christian guy. (He is.)  Perry has consistently betrayed the tea party movement by not lifting a finger against the reelection of the truly progressive House Speaker Joe Strauss or by listening to Patriot and former Department of Justice attorney J. Christian Abrahams to protect the Voter ID law from Eric Holder which we so ferociously fought to enact.  He refused appeals by grassroots conservatives to veto State Board of Education redistricting and most importantly, two years ago he promised Texans he would not run for President if they elected him Governor.  (That one stunned his friend Sarah Palin.)

So let me ask you.  Is adultery which was publicly repented of over 20 years ago (and offset against enormous efforts to instill God and moral values into our country through his writings, speeches and films since) more or less of a “sin” than breaking a promise you made two years ago to an entire state?  Let’s go to the book (Rev 21):

⁸But as for the cowards and the ignoble and the contemptible and the cravenly lacking in courage and the cowardly submissive, and as for the unbelieving and faithless, and as for the depraved and defiled with abominations, and as for murderers and the lewd and adulterous and the practicers of magic arts and the idolaters (those who give supreme devotion to anyone or anything other than God) and all liars (those who knowingly convey untruth by word or deed)--[all of these shall have] their part in the lake that blazes with fire and brimstone.

It seems to me that God equates lying as no less of a sin than adultery to me.  And we know that Newt has repented to God and in God’s eyes is “white as snow.” 

Is he untrustworthy because he DID break his vow to his first two wives?  It is true that on the first marriage he was very young and his entire family tried to get them to divorce for years.  But if you SAID you should remain faithful “for better OR WORSE,”  you should.  We have every evidence to believe he was sincere in his life change as attested to by those around him including his daughter by his second wife who defends him vigorously.  No one really knows, but certainly in his PUBLIC record, he has not run on NOT raising taxes and then become John Kerry.  People will have to make up their own mind but I personally see ONLY a commitment to moral values and family the past 20 years – and NOTHING to betray a general conservative voting stance for most of his public life.

And can I ask this without you hating me, (Christians and moralists who hate Newt)?  How can you accept the book of Psalms and the life of King David who not only was an adulterer, but also a murderer but not accept your brothers and sisters as being capable of real change?  Peter DENIED Christ and led the church.  Paul (Saul) KILLED Christians, and wrote half of the New Testament.  Doesn’t God almost ALWAYS use the weak ones to prove HE is in control and not our own “works” of righteousness?

You will have to make up your own mind of course.  But please.  At least be intelligent and prayerful over your own decisions and what you pass along to others.