Now that three States have had their Republican primaries or caucuses, the field is narrowing. Inevitably, many Patriots are going to be disappointed that their favorite candidate has not won. I’m one of them, since I supported Michele Bachmann. Then Huntsman dropped out and endorsed Romney, and now Perry has dropped out and endorsed Gingrich.
But we need to move on, and coalesce behind the best candidate still standing, then support the winner against the Marxist-in-Chief. Not only that, but we should try to elect as many Tea Party candidates to the House and Senate as possible, replacing both Dems and RINO appeasers.
In my previous column, written before the Iowa caucuses, I named Newt Gingrich as my second choice behind Bachmann, because of his excellent record of real conservative achievements. Conversely, Romney doesn’t deserve Patriot support in the primaries because, as Thomas Sowell noted, his “record as governor of Massachusetts produced nothing that would be regarded as a serious conservative achievement.” I’ve also documented his tax-the-rich demagoguery and ignorance in Tax reform vs. Romney.
It seems that many in the Tea Party agree. E.g. Dianne Belsom, President of Laurens County Tea party in SC, summarizes:
We were looking seriously at the republican candidates and realized that Newt is the only one that has a proven track record of cutting government. And we simply cannot allow Mitt Romney to become our candidate. It may be harsh, but Romney’s record is littered with Obama style programs. And he has never indicated as part of his campaign that he would differ to any great degree from where we are now.
After this, Newt decisively won the influential SC GOP primary, winning most voting groups. So why Newt? Because of his conservative policies and conservative record!
There are hardly any people who have advanced conservative results as much as Gingrich. Kevin Lehmann writes:
According to the Freedom Index—a congressional scorecard based on their adherence to constitutional principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, national sovereignty, and a traditional foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements—Newt Gingrich scored an 84 out of a perfect 100, more than double that of his congressional peers. To put that in perspective, the average score for the past two congresses averaged 59.
And his his bold plan eclipses Romney’s. The famed free-market economist Dr Arthur Laffer, of Laffer Curve fame, called Newt’s economic plan as “pure Reaganomics,” and summarized both his policies and his record as:
Like Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts and pro-growth policies, Newt’s low individual and corporate tax rates, deregulation, and strong dollar monetary policies will create a boom of new investment and economic growth leading to the creation of tens of millions of new jobs over the next decade. Plus, Newt’s record of helping Ronald Reagan pass the Kemp Roth tax cuts and enacting the largest capital gains tax cut in history as speaker of the House shows he can get this plan passed and put it into action.
After Reagan, Gingrich strongly urged his successor George Bush I to keep his “Read my lips: no new taxes” pledge. Bush naïvely trusted the Dems when they promised to cut spending by $3 for every $1 in tax increase. Gingrich not only believed that pledges should be kept, but also remembered that the Dems reneged on the same promise to Reagan and increased spending instead of cutting it. They did the same to Bush, and he lost the election. (See Ann Coulter’s column I’ll Gladly Pay You Tuesday For a Tax Increase Today warning the current RINO appeasers from trusting Dems this time).
Gingrich’s “Contract With America” was largely responsible for the first Republican majority in Congress for four decades. During this time, despite the opposition from the Clinton White House, he achieved the first balanced budget since the Vietnam War, huge welfare reform, lower tax rates, unemployment of under 5%, and telecommunication reform that was so important for the Internet and mobile phone revolution.
Now, when we don’t have a Conservative majority, sometimes deals need to be made, so we don’t get everything we want. Newt had to make some concessions to RINOs, which critics have latched on to. But achieving 80% by conceding 20% is better than the Ron Paul strategy of holding out for 100% and achieving 0% (see also Broken Windows: lessons for patriots). His former staffer Tony Blankley explains:
One of his key insights was to recognize that the two-dozen Northeastern moderates and liberals in the GOP caucus held the balance of power—we didn’t have 218 safe conservative votes in the House. Gingrich needed to avoid them playing off the GOP against the Democrats, which is what such a faction in any congressional party normally tries to do. Rather, he wanted them to feel fundamental loyalty and value in sticking with the GOP working majority. To do that, they had to get some of the provisions that they wanted in bills, often enough that they would stick with the conservatives on other issues.
This required a lot of maneuvering by Gingrich. Conservative members got frustrated that he did that. They called that erratic on his part. No, it was a necessary, calculated maneuver. He was actually shrewdly managing a precarious majority. If Gingrich hadn’t kept the Northeastern liberals in the fold, very little would have been accomplished in those spectacular four years of legislating and leadership.
But when it came to fundamental conservative principles and the political strategies necessary to protect them, Gingrich saw the threats to them and never wavered.
Gingrich not only has very strong conservative ideas, he can also express them effectively. The great conservative columnist and economist Dr Thomas Sowell said, “If he were debating Barack Obama, Newt Gingrich could chew him up and spit him out.” He has certainly shone in the current GOP debate.
And in Newt, we finally have a candidate who realizes that the opposition is not just the Democratic Party, but also their unpaid agitprop wing, the Mainstream Media. Newt has totally put biased Democrat “moderators” in their place.
While Newt is not the perfect candidate (nobody is!), he is a genuine conservative and a complete contrast to the Marxist-in-Chief on all important issues. He also has a proven track record, as well as being an effective promoter of his ideas. Lastly, the debates show that he can take on the leftist media and would destroy Obama in presidential debates.
In the next column, I’ll discuss Newt’s staunch support of the pro-life cause, school choice, strong national defence, and Second Amendment rights.