The case for Newt Gingrich

Never again are you likely to see the kind of vehement attacks that Newt Gingrich has endured the last several weeks.  Unfortunately Newt provided much of the ammunition that his fellow GOP presidential candidates have fired his way, but as is generally the case with political attacks, there’s much that is inferred or suggested that is false or misleading.

Newt Takes A Beating

The Newt Nancy Affair

In 2007 Newt appeared in a television ad with former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.  Newt has proclaimed the ad a terrible mistake, however was it really?  Sure Ms. Pelosi is the anathema to everything that Conservative’s believe and apologizing for appearing with her seems to be politically beneficial during the primary season, but should Conservative’s be afraid to appear with left-wing zealots?  Surely not.  In most instances when Conservatives and Liberals argue their points side-by-side the flaws in the progressive arguments are highlighted; however in this instance Newt and Ms. Pelosi were not voicing opposing views.

Pelosi and Gingrich were espousing a concern for addressing climate change at a time when the deceit of the left-wing radical scientists had yet to be exposed.  Many Conservatives, including the then president George Bush were in favor of tempering Conservative views relative to the environment.  Conservatives are not anti-environment as many Liberals would like to suggest and if what was being spread by the left were true only a fool wouldn’t be concerned.  Four years later it’s clear that data was being manipulated and facts hidden to support a view that even today can neither be proven nor disproven.  Whether climate warming exists and if man has had a hand in it remains an open question.  Intelligent stewardship of our environment is never a mistake and frankly nothing Newt said in that ad would indicate otherwise.  Radical environmental policies such as Cap and Trade have never been supported by Mr. Gingrich.

Did Newt Attack Paul Ryan?

Many have suggested that Newt’s comments on NBS’s Meet the Press were a direct attack on Congressman Paul Ryan, however further investigation shows that while Gingrich’s words may have come across as commentary on Ryan’s Medicare plan it wasn’t.  David Gregory, liberal moderator of the show, always attempts to get Conservatives in a “gotcha” moment.  Watch a few episodes involving Conservative and Liberals and you’ll see the obvious bias.  Gregory asked Newt whether Republicans should change Medicare even if there is public opposition and Newt said, “No you should not.”  Had the Speaker stopped there he would’ve escaped whole, but he went on to state that right-wing social engineering is no better than left-wing social engineering.  An honest Conservative can agree that it is not the place of either party to restructure society to fit a particular political point of view.  While Newt wasn’t directly attacking Ryan’s plan, the press and the Democrats went out of their way to paint it as such.  Recognizing the media, Democrats and even some Conservatives linkage between Ryan’s plan and his use of the term right-wing social engineering Newt stated that his choice of words was too extreme and he apologized to Congressman Ryan.  Newt has been a strong Ryan supporter for years and would not intentionally call into question the congressman’s motives; however Newt was correct that policies not supported by the public should not be forced onto the citizenry by any party.  As a republic it is the will of the people and not the views of politicians that should reign supreme.  Newt wasn’t questioning Ryan’s plan only the concept of any political party ignoring the will of the people.  Gregory got his gotcha moment and Newt got caught in the trap.  If you want to nail Newt for anything, it would be that a man as bright as him should not have allowed himself to be ensnared by David Gregory.

Newt’s Healthcare Mandate

In the early 1990s President Clinton employed his wife Hillary, now the Secretary of State, to formulate a health care program to address the growing costs of medical care in the country.  As any liberal plan Hillarycare was heavy on government control and light on free market principals.  The Heritage Foundation proposed a plan that included a requirement for all persons to purchase health insurance as a foil to the Hillarycare program.  Newt and many other Conservatives supported the Heritage Foundation proposal; however Newt, then serving as a leader in the House, quickly came to the conclusion that such a plan was unconstitutional and would not result in a reduction in healthcare costs.  Newt quickly abandoned his support of the mandate, concentrating on insuring that Hillarycare never became law.  Newt’s efforts to sink the Hillarycare ship were ultimately successful and the Clinton administration dropped all further attempts towards socialized medicine.

Gingrich Inc.

After Newt’s departure from Congress in 1999, he and his wife Callista started numerous businesses including The Gingrich Group, Gingrich Productions, Gingrich Communications; each successful in its own right.  These years in business have added to Newt’s respectable resume a respect for the challenges of running businesses, making payrolls and producing jobs.

One of Newt’s businesses has been the subject of attacks launched by his opponents.  The Gingrich Group was contracted by Freddie Mac in 2006 to provide strategic advice to the infamous mortgage giant.  Strategic advice is a technical term for, “what do you think about this?”  Many consulting firms provide just such a service offering companies an outside view of their proposed endeavors in a “look before you leap” role.

There has been no reporting of any kind that would indicate that Newt or anyone at The Gingrich Group lobbied for Freddie Mac, or for any other client, despite the claims of his opponents.  The company had a strict policy against lobbying and their employees and clients knew well that Newt’s firm would not and could not advocate for or against legislation on behalf of their clients.  Bloomberg News confirmed that the fees paid to Newt and the Gingrich Group were solely for consulting services and they were not paid to lobby and they never acted on behalf of Freddie Mac before Congress.  While any association with Freddie Mac might be less than optimal amid a real estate collapse, The Gingrich Group and the Speaker did nothing that any other for-profit firm in the U.S. would not have been more than happy to do; to attempt to assassinate Newt’s character for working to make a buck is quite “anti-conservative.”

Why Newt Now?

With a withering economy and a socialist administration it’s easy to conclude that someone as far removed from Washington as possible is the solution to our current dilemma.  If only it were that simple 4 or 5 businessmen would’ve entered in the race rather than only Herman Cain.  The current backlash against politicians is well earned but poorly aimed.  It makes more sense to look at the entire package than bits and pieces of a person’s life.  Judging Mitt Romney solely by his governorship of liberal Massachusetts would overlook his many years in private industry.  In the same vein simply judging Newt by his tenacious leadership of the House in the mid-90s ignores many of his strengths.  What’s often overlooked is that Newt holds a PhD in History from Tulane University, taught history and environmental studies for 8 years before running for Congress, and after his time in the legislature had held numerous positions advising the Pentagon, teaching at the War College and serving on various commissions in support of national security.  Newt also formed the Center for Health Transformation and was co-Chairman of the National Commission for Quality Long-term Care and the independent congressional Alzheimer’s Disease Study Group.  Newt has authored 23 books including 13 New York Times bestsellers.

After the impeachment of Bill Clinton there were a lot of miffed politicians in Washington.  Newt had ruffled a lot of feathers and his ardent advocacy for Conservative views while in Congress left behind a fair amount of ill-will, much of which we’re hearing today; as Whip and Speaker Newt was a firebrand that got things done but sometimes left behind scorched egos.  The question you have to ask yourself is whether you want a diplomat or a leader in the White House?

When you compare Newt’s accomplishments with those of Barack Obama when he ran for the presidency you have to ask, “what in God’s name was this country thinking?”  Obama had led nothing, accomplished nothing and had such a narrow sphere of knowledge that his results should be completely unsurprising.

Like it or not, the GOP nomination will come down to Newt or Mitt.  Each has their strengths and their weaknesses.  Newt clearly has a match positioned not far from his fuse, but those who know him unanimously agree that age and time have tempered his volatility.  Mitt is the prototypical diplomat with a strong business background.  In Massachusetts he governed a majority liberal legislature with little in the way of conservative accomplishments, not surprisingly.  He proved he can work with Democrats but that often means vacating conservative beliefs.  Would Mitt’s ability to work across the aisle be of benefit with an opposition led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid?  Have you seen any sign that they are willing to bend?  Newt is on the other side of the spectrum; he’s a happy warrior that will work with you unless you stand in opposition to the American people.  Newt’s a schooled DC tactician and a fierce opponent should you choose to do battle and that’s what we need in Washington today.  With a Senate that hasn’t passed a budget in 3 years, a federal debt that has grown out of control and capitalism being attacked from every quarter we need a general, not an ambassador.
[widgets_on_pages id=”Underpost”]