For many years I have been a staunch conservative with no one to represent me. Looking back, the last time republicans acted the way I wanted them to was when Newt led the way for republicans to take over the congress. It was his Contract With America, that propelled our party back to relevance, and allowed us to set the agenda, even though Bill Clinton was president.
Newt cut Clinton’s proposed budget and convinced him to cut the capital gains tax from 28% to 20%, which greatly increased revenue and aided Newt in balancing our budget. And in doing so helped create 11 million jobs. He also led the charge in reforming welfare.
Now, what are our priorities today? We want to cut taxes, cut spending and create jobs. That’s why we need Newt to lead us there. He’s been there and done that before. It’s true he made enemies, who try to belittle him, but that is always the case when someone fights with everything they have to bring prosperity to the country, rather than trying to appease the media. We face a crises in this country and we need a fighter like Newt.
And while we are at it, is anybody as tired as I am of all this talk about electability? I remember when that argument was made against Ronald Reagan and I think we all know how that turned out. Which candidates are electable? Ron Paul? Gimme a break. Rick Santorum? Good man, but not ready for prime time and has views compatible with the liberals. Romney? The problem with Mitt Romney as my friend Forrest Gump might say is “Life is like a box of Mitt Romney. You never know what you are going to get.”
So what does it take to be electable. It takes contrast. It takes the ability to articulate the differences between the liberal point of view and the conservative point of view. But with a man like Mitt Romney, there are not enough differences to compel someone to become enthusiastic enough to vote.
With Newt, we can compare his Contract With America vs Obama’s Contract on America. We can compare Newt’s energy policy, which is to drill for our own oil and gas to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. Compare that to Obama’s plan of sinking billions into unworkable solutions, while driving the cost of energy up double. Cheap energy is the key to revitalizing manufacturing and easing the crunch on the poor and the middle class. We can point to the fact that the only success Obama has had in the energy department is he was able to repay many big dollar donors and bundlers.
Newt Gingrich 2012
While Obama has killed so many high paying jobs, especially in the energy field, Newt would would move ahead with exploration for both gas and oil that will create hundreds of thousands of great paying jobs. The cheap energy will make marginal manufacturers more profitable and in a better position to expand. We cannot spend our way to prosperity. We cannot tax our way to prosperity. (Look no farther than Illinois, who has raised income taxes by 67% and still have an 8.5 billion dollar deficit). But we can grow our way to prosperity. We need a candidate who realizes this but even more important, we need a candidate who has proven they can do it.
We need Newt!
Newt Gingrich never helped balanced the budget or had a budget surplus because both never existed.
This is one of those things where “If he says it enough it might become true.” No matter how many times he or President Bill Clinton try to take credit for a budget surplus or balanced budget, the fact is that they never existed.
Newt Gingrich repeated the first half of the myth twice a few nights ago: “So in fact Rick, it is a very sound plan and I say this as somebody who helped balance the budget four times in a row.”
“In addition, I would just suggest having helped balance the budget for four consecutive years, for the only time in your lifetime, I’m reasonably confident I can find ways to balance the budget.”
But here are some articles rebutting that.
The Myth of the Clinton Surplus || Townhall Finance
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/craigsteiner/2011/08/22/the_clinton_surplus_myth/page/full/
The Myth of the Clinton Surplus, Part II || CraigSteiner.us
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/30
Myth of Clinton Surplus Officially Dead || CraigSteiner.us
http://www.craigsteiner.us/comments/147
Time for Some Truth Bill Clinton Never Balanced A Budget And Never Ran A Surplus || Biggovernment.com
http://biggovernment.com/jdunetz/2011/10/03/time-for-some-truth-bill-clinton-never-balanced-a-budget-and-never-ran-a-surplus/
“The first to state his case seems right, until another comes and cross-examines him.”
Steve I do agree with many of the points Gingrich states but we have to ask ourselves is he any more reliable than Romney?
I contend no. He is articulate for sure. But he would not be the first politician Americans have fallen for because of an ability to speak.
Lest we forget a couple months ago when he admitted in a debate about being in support of the individual mandate. Lest we forget his work with Fannie and Freddie. Or better yet him sitting next to Pelosi on “climate change”.
I too call myself a conservative. But I must be able to call my candidate one as well.
I do not sway easily for the candidate some media enterprise terms “electable”. My sole purpose in voting is to vote on principle and integrity.
Unfortunately few agree with this philosophy of voting anymore. I joined the republican party because I saw it as the most likely party to advance freedom. Yet today I see millions supporting Romney and Gingrich.
I long for the day when a strict adherence to the Constitution is the only barometer to holding office.
That is why I can only support Ron Paul in this election. He is hated by liberal elites for his stance on economic issues. He is hated by establishment republicans for his foreign issues. Yet he is supported by millions for the exact same reasons.
When did free markets become taboo? When did following the Constitution and declaring wars before fighting them become dangerous?
What I learned this year and last is it is not only democrats who have difficulty obeying the Constitution. It is republicans too.
I do not wish to insult or talk down to you or anyone else. My goal is the actual definition of the American experiment. Freedom. Liberty. Are we as free as we can be? How much longer do we play the lesser of two evils game?
It is time for Americans to opt out of this system. My vote on January 21st will go to Ron Paul. My extensive research into the man tells me I am voting for freedom, peace, and the Constitution.
I pray South Carolina votes for the same.
For liberty,
Jake
If you consider Romney has a weather vane where his moral compass should be. Although I must admit, I am very much amused when I hear Mitt speak about how prolife he is. He is the one who paid for abortions in his Romneycare bill and he appointed Planned Parenthood to the independent board that oversaw $50.00 copay abortions. And that was two years after his supposed awakening. And this isn’t the only issue Mitt has done a 180 on. And when you call him on his flip flops, he swears that was his position from Day 1.
In fact, at the beginning of this campaign, I did not expect to support Newt, but after careful consideration and much research, it soon became clear that Newt is not only the best choice, he is the only one. I will try to explain to you my reasoning and why I came to that conclusion.
Mitt Romney. Head to head against Barak Obama, he is extremely vulnerable because of his liberal record in Ma and how can he possibly show a contrast between himself and Obama when his policies are exactly the same as the liberals? Until last night, when he was in mortal fear of losing South Carolina, did he actually take part in the debate. Until then he merely played defense and that would prove fatal against Barak Obama. He implimented gay marriage by fiat, although he now denies it. It’s in the record. I can think of another presidential candidate that did the same thing in 2008 and fooled enough people to get elected. We don’t want to go down that road again. He is the democrat’s choice for the republican nomination. Donna Brazile and Nancy Pelosi have both said so.
Rick Santorum. He is a good man but has a spotty record. He voted to give convicted violent criminals back their vote after they got out of prison. Not only does he defend the costly earmarks congress adds to every bill but declares he is proud of it. He consistantly voted to raise the debt limit under George Bush. He voted to double the size of the failed Department of Education. He is not the dynamo we need for the next four years.
Ron Paul. I understand he is your choice because when you hear him speak it’s like the sirens of mythology, who sang so beautifully but lured many sailors to the death. But his reality is much different than his speech. He is extremely antiIsrael, our only dependable ally in that part of the world. He has said he wants Israel to disappear entirely and replaced by the Palestinians. In fact, he is a 9/11 truther, who believes that the CIA was involved with 9/11. He also believes that there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll. In fact, there are very few conspiracy theories he doesn’t subscribe to. His past writings laced with racism is another factor against him. He claims that the newsletters bearing his name and put out by him with racist overtones must have been written by someone else. This is so unbelievable. But the biggest problem Paul has is that he is the most ineffectual member of congress today and possibly in history. He has sponsored 620 bills and only four have even reached a vote. Of those four only one passed. The next president needs to be one who can actually get things done.
He wants to pull all of our troops out of all foreign countries. This sounds enticing but what happens in those countries such as Poland? They have stood firm against Russia because they have our backing and do not fear military attacks because we have troops there and any action against Poland would involve the US. That is the deterrment against a renewed Soviet Empire. If we pull out, Poland would be forced to make nice with Russia and in just a few years, the US could find itself totally isolated and as such extremely vulnerable.
Ron Paul wrote a bill to eliminate OSHA. OSHA may need to be reformed but they perform much necessary enforcement of safety laws. They also provide to any company requesting it a safety plan to cut down on workplace injuries that hurt the companies as much as it does the employees. I worked at a trucking company and a steel fabrication plant that did avail themselves of OSHA’s services and the suggestions they made cost a minimal amount of money but cut down on injuries on a scale that was truly amazing.
As far as Paul being driven by pricipals, consider this. In 2001, he was going to vote against invading Afghanistan because he felt we deserved to be attacked because of our support for Israel. His entire staff threatened to quit and that had no affect on his vote. So why did he change his mind and his vote? Political expediency. Jackie Gloor would hasve bolted and the conservatives in Victoria would have bolted and he would not have been reelected.
His isolationist attitude mirrors that of Hoover’s whose policies of isolation led to the Great Depression. His close advisor at that time was Joe becker who was a follower of Lew Rockwell, a lefty anarchist. To vote for Paul, you have to totally ignore his history and that is what got us into the Obama mess. Too many voters believed his words and ignored his deeds.
So in summary, I feel Newt is the right man because what he promises are things he has already delivered and that was working with a democratic president. Imagine the possibilities with Newt as president with both chambers of congress in the hands of republicans> It boggles the mind and revives the American dream.
Your source is Craig Steiner who is a good conservative but he cherry picks the issue. The shift between public debt and intragovernmental debt was not unique to the years Newt was speaker. It began during the Johnson presidency when he wanted to hide the true cost of the Viet Nam war decided to move Social Security receipts into the general fund thus creating the intergovernmental debt. So if you want to use a different formula for the Newt years than you do in previous and subsequent ones, you would have a point. However, if you want to accurately measure the results, you must use the same guidelines for every year. Regardless, Newt did force the reform of welfare, cut taxes and increased the revenues greatly by forcing Clinton to agree to a capital gains tax cut. Anyone can sit back and pick the fly crap out of the pepper but what is your alternative? Romney? Liberal big spender. Santorum, a man who never met a debt increase he didn’t vote for. Paul? The most ineffectual member of the house. He proposed 620 bills while in the house. Of that 620, only 4 came to a vote and only one of them actually passed. The man lives in Fantasyland. Besides can republicans actually nominate a blatant racist and antisemite for president? And why wouldn’t his isolationist policies not destroy the country. This is 2012 not 1812. Like it or not, the world is tied together and if we cancel NAFTA and Gatt as Paul has proposed, what would we do for the millions of Americans who make their living by manufacturing and transporting goods to other countries.
Newt is spot on here. His position is we need to open more markets for US goods, which Ron Paul claims would lead to more foreign imports. But would it really? Would people suddenly buy 6 pink flamingos for their yards rather than just 3? Of course not and new imports would cut into imports from China and India, not into US manufacturing. Newt also understands that the 36% corporate tax keeps America from increasing exports. We simply can’t compete with countries taxing at one half of our rate. Imagine US goods costing 18% less in foreign markets. US quality is respected all over the world but our prices keep our exports from growing to the extent we need.
Is Newt the perfect candidate? No, but there was only one Ronald Reagan. We aren’t going to get perfect. However, Newt’s insistance that the US take advantage of our own natural resources and decrease our import and dependency on countries that hate us will make us safewr. His plan to cut corporate tax will increase exports and help grow the economy and create jobs. His hard line stance against foreign dictators and terrorists will make us safer as opposed to Obama’s appeasement policy and Paul’s proterrorist argument.
Jake, a person with a tendency to make racist comments and has called for the elimination of Israel is hardly the kind of candidate you can call conservative……..unless you are a liberal of course. It’s been very painful watching his extremel;y poor debate performances and the booing following some of his more ridiculous remarks such as we brought 9/11 on ourselves. Add to that opinions he has shared over the years such as America was wrong to go to war against Hitler and you can see why in a five man race in Texas, Paul finished behind Romney, Gingrich, Perry, Santorum and then Paul. And those people know him best. That’s a killer . Ask Al Gore who wouldn’t have needed to carry Florida had he just carried his home state of Tennessee.
Furthermore, his isolationist policies would be a disaster to our economy. We’d lose the 2.4 million Americans who manufacture exports, not to mention all the jobs lost in support of exports. Then there is massive inflation to deal with when domestic companies no longer have to compete with other countries.
And one more thing. He is the most ineffective meber of the house. He sponsored 620 bills of which only four came up for a vote and only one passed. With that record of failure, what makes you think he would be anything but an ineffective president? The press builds him up to make sure Romney gets the nomination making Obama a 2 term president.
I THOUGHT CHARACTER MATTERED TO THE TEA PARTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have to wonder if I fit with the TP anymore!!!!!
So who has character? The racist Ron Paul? The liberal Mitt Romney? The big spender Rick Santorum? Or the most corrupt president in the history of the US? Maybe we can get a boy scout to run for president? Myself, I want results and to reverse the Kenyan Curse that has plagued us for the last 3 years.
Ron Paul is the only true conservative in this race. Check the records of all the other candidates. Ron is the true conservate candidate who follows the tea party principles. His delivery may be lacking but his message is not!!!!!
Do conservatives endorse Cynthia McKinney? Do conservatives endorse Ralph Nader? Paul does. Why would Paul endorse someone like McKinney who is a self described socialist? Because she is the poster girl of antisemites. She even appeared on TV in Iran spewing her garbage but Paul endorsed her for president in 2008. Do conservatives think George Bush and the CIA were behind 9/11? Paul does. Do conservatives want to dismantle US influence throughout the world? No. Paul does. Do conservatives want to see Israel destroyed? No. Paul does. He wants the area now called Israel to be turned over in it’s entirety to the “Palestinians.” Do conservatives believe that the US should quit persuing terrorists? Don’t be ridiculous. Paul does. To drive that point home, in NH 31% of his votes came from people who describe themselves as very liberal and 24% from people who describe themselves as liberal. Do conservatives believe in being prochoice? No. Paul’s rating with the prolife movement is at about 50%. That’s Nancy Pelosio territory. In SC 40% of Paul’s votes were from people who describe themselves as very liberal and 22% from people who describe themselves as very liberal. His lowest rating came from conservatives and very conservatives. 13% and 9%. So if Mr Paul is so conservative why is all his support come from liberals? Because he thinks like they do. Destroy Israel, abortion on demand, endorse socialists, dismantle the military. Secondly, if he became president how effectual would he be? He spent 23 years in congress and sponsored 620 bills. Of those 620, only four came to a vote and only one became law. Why massively conservative bill did he pass? He had the government sell a small parcel of land to a Galveston historical society. He proves that Lincoln was right………..”You can fool some of the people all of the time………….” (especially if you ignore his past)
Wow, the post above me may actually be the most ridiculous thing I’ve read outside of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s twitter feed.
1) in 2008 Ron Paul endorsed 3rd party candidates… all of them, as being better than Obama and McCain. That included those two, but you failed to mention it including Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr, so much for intellectual honesty…
2) Ron Paul isn’t a 9/11 truther, he has never said that he was, nor has it been indicated. Actually you people who accuse him of being a truther while also describing him as part of the “blame America first crowd” must have an IQ of less than 70 (the threshold for being mentally retarded). They are mutually exclusive, in case you couldn’t tell.
3) Ron Paul in 1981 was the only person in Congress who refuse to condemn Israel for blowing up Saddam’s nuclear reactor. He wants Israel to do whats best for Israel and not look to us for “the go ahead”. Relying on us is dangerous because we are bankrupt. I would be more angry about this claim, but its so stupid, that anyone reading it knows that you are making stuff up.
4) Ron Paul is pro-life, but he’s also a Constitutionalist, and wants it to be decided on the state level… the way it was before Roe v Wade. Thats why in the last debate he mentioned the legislation needed to overturn Roe v Wade. Fun fact: Jane Roe’s real name is Norma McCorvey and ever since receiving an abortion has turned into a devout Christian and pro-life activist. She is a Ron Paul supporter
http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm look at this record on abortion, its a pro-life federalist record
5) Dismantle the military? He wants the military to be the largest part of the federal budget. He wants to stop paying for other nation’s military, and build bases back at home to actually protect us, not the Germans or Koreans (who are both G20 nations by the way)…
6) The only person getting fooled here is anyone who can look at Gingrich’s record and think “Oh man this guy is awesome.” You almost made me begin my Newt Gingrich article, which you would hate. Not only because it would destroy Newt, but because, unlike your comment above, is 100% factual and would be well written (and cited).
Everyone has the right to their own opinion but not to their own truth. I will now dismantle your juvinile post piece by piece.
#1 A true libertarian would never endorse McKinney or Nader under any circumstances except a bitter paranoid old fool. There is absolutely nothing in their resumes that vaguely resemble a libertarian slant. To suggest that paul was right to endorse them is ridiculous at best and hypocritical at worse.
#2 Ron Paul’s aide of 15 years stated that Paul is a truther.
http://rightwingnews.com/election-2012/statement-from-fmr-ron-paul-staffer-on-newsletters-anti-semitism/
“He engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration.”
Eric Dondero
Just one of the many conspiracy theories Paul believes.
http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2011/12/27/ron-paul-is-crazy-part-4018663/
#3 More from aide of 15 years Eric Dondero
“He is however, most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general. He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations. His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer. He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs.”
#4 If you believe that you might want to look again. No state can pass a law that overrules federal law. Therefore it’s impossible for states to act on their own without lengthy and expensive litigation that they would lose. This probably explains why Paul is rated the most ineffective member of the house in it’s 228 year history for someone who has served 6 or more years. Paul sponsored 620 bills in his 23 years in the house and only four were deemed worthy of a vote and only one became law. And that bill was to sell federaL property to a Galveston Historical Society. Quite an impressive record huh? I have no doubt he would be equally effective as p-resident.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ron-pauls-house-record-stands-out-for-its-futility-and-tenacity/2011/12/23/gIQA5ioVJP_story.html
#5 Paul wants to remove all troops from around the globe. He repeated that just the other night in the debate. So what do you do with them and how do you protect American interests if you do? The answer is obviously you can’t. Poland is a great example. To take them out of the Soviet sphere, we put troops there. This keeps Russia and Putin for going after them like he did in Georgia. With our troops gone, Poland would have no choice but to cozy up to Russia.
#6 Newt has accomplishments. He led the republican takeover of congress, reformed welfare, cut taxes, created jobs and balanced the budget in the span of 4 years. In 23 years Paul acquired land for a historical society. I must say I am deeply impressed……..not.
Now one last thing. Dick Morris has made the claim that Paul is a liberal. Let’s look at where his votes came from. I don’t have Iowa but in NH 31% of his votes came from people who described themselves as very liberal In SC that number is 40%. In NH 24% of paul’s vote came from people who say they are merely liberal. In SC that number was 22% In NH Paul got 6% of his votes from people who describe themselves as very conservative. In SC that number was 9%. And while we are at it , if you believe Paul put out a newsletter full of racist comments, many signed with his name and he didn’t know it you must believe Obama never knew Rev Wright was racist either. It’s your right to vote for someone like Paul but don’t expect sane people to.
#1 Its important to note that the “endorsement” was given at a 3rd party debate they had in 2008. All candidates, including the crazy far left ones, signed a pledge to balance the budget and audit the federal reserve. Paul then said that he’d pick any of them over Obama or McCain. I agree, McKinney is terrible and Nader is mostly bad.
#2 Eric Dondero was fired several years ago. Slandering his former boss, particularly when running for president, is what I would expect. Do you believe Marianne Gingrich? The difference between the two is that everyone knows the basic Newt cheating on her story to provide a firm basis for her claims. There is no proof of Dondero’s claims. Particularly because Paul voted to authorize force in Afghanistan after 9/11. When Reagan, Gingrich, Pat Robertson and other republicans condemned Israel for defending herself in 1981, Paul went against them.
#3 Every session Paul introduces a number of bills to leave the UN and to audit the Fed, as well as others. Auditing the Fed is now a distinct possibility because of him, as people have begun paying attention. Do we blame Paul for people ignoring these Constitutional and conservative causes or do we blame the GOP, the party that talks about small government, but grows it when given the chance? Look at the bills he’s introduced this Congress, you’ll see there’s one reigning in the TSA, eliminating the individual mandate, and removing the provision in the NDAA which allows for the indefinite detention of American citizens. Whose fault is it that they don’t make it out of committee? From 2007-2010, we could blame the democrats. Now, the GOP is exposed as being as crappy as Tea Partiers know they are.
#4 Paul proposes building more bases at home. This would allow the troops to use their pay to stimulate our respective local economies, instead of Germany’s. Luckily for Americans, Russia is a nation in perpetual decline, with it getting worse (for them) yearly. Their birth rate is anemic, and their population will half every 35 years. Notice that Georgia is still a free country, by the way, they didn’t just take over all of the country. Me personally, I’m ok with a few bases abroad, only in civilized friendly countries and probably no more than 5-10 per continent. This whole 700+ military installations in 130+ countries is absolutely insane. Many modern “Conservatives” fear uncertainity when it comes to our bases abroad like liberals do with eliminating entitlements. Conservatives believe that if we pull out of Japan the result would be China nuking it, then invading. Liberals believe if you take away welfare, children will be starving on the streets. I am very skeptical about both claims.
#5 Newt’s Contract with America was great… until it didn’t happen. Ask Mark Sanford what happened when these true conservative freshmen got in office and tried to repeal big government programs. Newt told them “calm down, that was campaign mode, we are in governing mode now”. And thus none of the Contract came to pass. Newt is right to praise Ronald Reagan every 3 sentences, because without Reagan, Newt’s co-sponsored bill, The Fairness Doctrine, would’ve passed. Newt also voted for the Department of Education. I was under the impression that Republicans understood the futility and unconstitutionality of the Dept. of Education, not Newt though. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. Most people who admire and model themselves after Wilson and the Roosevelts wouldn’t be overly concerned with the Constitution.
#6 Dick Morris sucks. He is terrible. He’s not conservative in the small government sense, he supported the Federal Government taking over student loans. He’s also pro abortion and such. He is the most anti-libertarian pundit out there. Keep in mind he still calls himself a “conservative democrat… but since that doesn’t exist, a republican”. I’ve never met a conservative democrat, but I imagine that lines their ideology up with a Republican kind of like John McCain… the most liberal in office.
#7 Yeah… about the Newsletters, I’ve known about them for years. I stopped caring when I read this 2001 article from the Texas Monthly paper http://www.texasmonthly.com/preview/2001-10-01/feature7 (a very liberal paper) coming to the conclusion that he didn’t write the newsletters. Honestly, if you want a finger to point as to the racist comments in the newsletters, that is probably the fault of Lew Rockwell. He’s a brilliant economist, but he’s also an inflammatory SOB at times, I didn’t know him to be a racist from his podcasts and articles, but I guess it wouldn’t totally surprise me. Also, CATO agrees that Lew Rockwell is the likely author and Economist/Professor (and Rush Limbaugh fill-in host) Walter Williams said on the Rush Limbaugh program that he’s known Paul for 20+ years and he isn’t a racist. I know that because you dislike him, you’ll never give him the benefit of the doubt, and that is fine. I expect the “any stick will do to beat a dog” attitude from most people, these days. Shows a lack of honesty and character… but hey, who cares, right?
Look, you can convince yourself of anything you’d like but there is no way Americans would ever elect such a maniac and secondly as Dondero proved with his resignation email Paul lied about him being fired and secondly his story was confirmed by other staffers. Also your comment about the Contract “never happening” shows a lack of knowledge usually reserved with Paul supporters. The contract called for the house to vote on 8 bills on the first day of congress and another 10 within 100 days. This was completed with each item being passed by the house with the lone exception of term limits. Most died in the senate and Clinton vetoed a couple that did. But the contract was fulfilled. All 18 bills were voted for on time.
It’s funny that you dislike Newt who actually delivered , yet support Paul, the representative with the lowest success rating in the history of the house of anyone serving 3 terms. I minor bill in 23 years and you think he’d be successful as president? Get real.
Who says anything about successful? Was Mark Sanford an effective governor? No. All of his vetoes were overridden. Regardless, he’s the best governor this state ever had, based purely on his actions. Likewise, I totally expect republicans to revolt at the idea of eliminating government departments, I just want to expose them as charlatans. Based on your definition of success, Nancy Pelosi is a terrific Speaker. She got a lot of what she wanted. Maybe she should be president?
So are you agreeing with me that the contract didn’t come about? It passed in the house and died or a few actually made it to the veto pen. Well great. Don’t use that as an example of success. Do you believe Scott McClellan’s tell all book about the George W Bush White House? I’m just curious. Or do you give everyone else a pass? Why did the media not give Dondero any play? Because he’s an unreliable and unbelievable source. They focused on the newsletters because at least they actually happened. You’re “high and mighty” attitude is insane. Why don’t you actually argue on policy positions? Oh, guess that must be because Newt has supported too many big government progressive policies for anyone to have any desire to defend that. Why would I want a big government progressive to succeed and be effective?
Don’t be diingenuous. You made the ridiculous claim that Newt did follow through with the contract with America. That is patently false and when you were confronted with it, you change your stance. Yep, you are a Romney follower. And a paul apologist. There is no way anyone with an ounce of common sense would vote for Paul. As I pointed out, his votes are coming from liberals not conservatives. That’s because his beliefs and theirs coincide. Racist, antisemetic rhetoric and legalizing drugs pleases them.
Now if you insist that Paul didn’t write the articles you need to explain how a man making slightly over one million a year for a newsletter he doesn’t read is capable of running an entire country. The very premise is absurd.
Also your contention that Sanford was the best governor this state ever had, then please explain how you came to this conclusion if as you say all of his vetoes was overridden. i win in 620 tries for Paul. I was surprised. I didn’t think he won any. Next Tuesday, he will finish dead last again, right where he should be.