News Flash: Gingrich Not Conservative

Gene Healy at the Washington Examiner gives the grim details.

But there’s more than what Gene digs up. Here’s what a Gingrich supporter is implicitly saying:

(1) It’s all right that my candidate says he would have voted for TARP, what Reagan budget director David Stockman has called “the single greatest economic-policy abomination since the 1930s, or perhaps ever.” With the people on one side and the entire establishment on the other, Gingrich made his choice, and I’m glad he chose the establishment against me.

(2) It’s all right that my candidate, even into 2011, supports the individual mandate for health insurance, the linchpin of Obamacare, which I am supposed to be against.

(3) It’s all right that my candidate says he would support a cap-and-trade scheme.

(4) It’s all right that my candidate made a TV ad with Nanci Pelosi about global warming.

(5) It’s all right that my candidate, when the GOP had a genuine window of opportunity in 1994, imposed on Republicans in Congress the toothless Contract with America, which even if enacted in toto would have changed nothing of significance.

Newt’s dreary record goes on and on. I’ve covered it on this blog here and here. And if you read or listen to him for any length of time, and refrain from superficial judgments based on talking points he repeats in presidential debates, it is clear he is in no way the conservative the GOP base claims to want. Nothing in his philosophy is conservative. The Left wants to tinker with society and so does Newt. He just thinks his “solutions” are better than the Left’s.

Share this post:Digg thisShare on FacebookGoogle+Share on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on Twitter
  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=725305302 Jake Barnett

    Neocons and Socialists only differ on methods.  His comment about an Executive Panel judging Al-Awlaki and his son guilty of treason as amounting to some sort of legal justification for execution should tell you all you need to know. 

  • http://twitter.com/cTiger2 ctiger2

    Newt’s a big govt, pro-war, lying, greedy, shameless fascist.

  • Jeremy

    You could tell me he kills puppies on the weekend, and I’d still support him over what we have now.

  • Anonymous

    My puppy is more conservative than Newt……does everyone forget that if it weren’t for Newt we wouldn’t have NAFTA?  One of the worst ideas that has damaged this countries economy…..
    I am amazed at the short memories that his supporters have or they believe that he has “changed”.
    I refuse to vote for a Neocon RINO…..we deserve better.

  • Jeremy

    Yeah, we deserve better but in the end you get 2 choices. Will you A) Sabotage all candidates that aren’t Ron Paul or B) Campaign for Obama.

  • Mark H

    If Ron Paul doesn’t get the GOP nomination (which is a pretty safe bet), I hope Gingrich gets it. Ron then runs as an independent and siphons off huge amounts of votes from Newt, who is an unlikeable and unelectable warmongering statist, as well as a good number of votes from disappointed Obama supporters. In this scenario, Ron will actually have a good shot at winning the presidency.

  • Mark H

    Under the Obama-Gingrich-Paul matchup, Ron’s chances of getting elected might actually be considerably better than if gets the GOP nomination and runs head to head against Obama.

  • Anonymous

    Boy, don’t you sound SO principled! 

  • Dither

    You’re why this country has “what we have now.”

  • Jeremy

    You’re right it’s all my fault. It must be nice to support a candidate that you know good and well won’t win. That way you can wash your hands of whatever happens, and feel superior all the time because of your pipe dream.

  • Kusokurae

    False choice. Obama is a candidate that isn’t Ron Paul.

  • PUBLIUS1787

    Newsflash !   Woods not conservative either !
    He is an anarchist who rejects the Constitution. 
    Woods = black pot.

  • jabgdn

    If Romney, Gingrich, Perry or Cain get elected in 2013, maybe people will realize that Obama really wasn’t that bad after all.

  • Dither

    No, Newt’s supporters are sabotaging Ron Paul. That’s the way I see it. Quite frankly, there are no SUBSTANTIVE differences between Newt and Obama (as detailed by Tom in this blog post). If those two run against each other, who cares which one wins? Only brainwashed party loyalists who respond like Pavlov’s dog when they’re told by propagandists to vote “the lesser of two evils,” as if it’s possible to know in advance which sock puppet with a horrible record of past deeds is going to do more harm over the next four years.

    Bush was worse than Clinton. Obama is worse than Bush, and it’s very likely McCain would have been just as bad as Obama, if not worse (given his crazed penchant for war-mongering). Each sock puppet is worse than his predecessor because his predecessor established a precedent for having gotten away with more egregious violations of the law than the one that came before.

  • Anonymous

    Newsflash, the troll is back!

  • Anonymous

    This is a primary race. Obama is not running in the primary. The question is, why support Newt over Ron Paul? Don’t bother citing electability since Paul does just fine in the polls. He trails Obama less than any candidate except Romney.

  • Josh

    You are out of your mind. Go troll somewhere else.

  • Josh

    It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. While it’d be nice if we had a modern preferential voting system, the only antidote to the status quo is to vote your conscience rather than based on media handlers who steer the electorate based on the old “electable” fear-mongering.

  • Tina

    newt is not really that bad.  he is in some ways ron’s other half.  newt, like all other politicians, do not have the strength to stand up to establishment and hence his voting record is the same as the others. 

    but, newt, unlike all other politicians, does have genuine concern for this country and does want to fix it in many of the ways paul would fix it.  newt genuinely speaks at length about phoney US wars, anti-christian arab spring (which i respect as noonelse is standing up for christians in the middle east), reigning in the fed, closing down some bases, having a middle east strategy to combat terrorism versus going country by country, etc…

    while paul has the content/diagnosis of what is wrong, newt has the delivery aspect of the message better and provides some solutions based on paul’s diagnosis.  while paul has the political will, newt is bound to establishment to carry thru with much. 

    paul could easily deliver and be more solution-oriented in a way that will appeal to a broader base with a handful of seasoned experts in various fields like foreign policy, communications, media blackouts/damage control, etc…

    fyi – palin stated that rp supporters should be dinging media about unfairness and not rp’s official campaign and she believes paul should keep educating (versus i supposed winning).

    nobody caught this, but newt did a Pawlenty in the last debate.  when asked about his critique of romney as being a good manager, but not a change-agent, newt got sheepish and cowardly and showed his weak side by refusing to critique romney again and in fact praised romney’s business skills.  his advisor dinged romney’s business experience in the interview that followed as saying his bus experience is more about moving around it systems, etc..  my guess is whoever went after pawlenty to not attack romneycare probably got on newt’s case as well for saying romney is not a change-agent. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ken-MacMillan/683031628 Ken MacMillan

    Where’s the dislike button?

  • http://www.facebook.com/metarob Rob Roberts

    You’re missing a ‘t’ in what should be “the” before “establishment” in numbered paragraph 1.

  • Martial_Artist

    I’ve asked the question about the Contract with America before, although not on your blog, but I still have not received an adequate response, so here goes one more time:

    How does one go about suing the Congress (or a majority subset thereof) for breach of contract?

    Pax et bonum,
    Keith Töpfer

  • Dliegmann

    Newt is on our side! We should not attack each other, check this out!
    .”Historically low interest rates made possible by Fed policies over the past decade fueled an inflationary housing bubble.  Home prices exploded due in part to the availability of cheap credit only to collapse disastrously in 2006 and 2007.” 
    -Newt’s 21st Century Contract With America
    He’s not perfect and he sometimes impulsively gets behind something only to later regret it, but he’s on our side. He is more conservative than all the other candidates, with the exception of ron paul and gov. johnson. I agree with everything Tina said.

  • http://profiles.google.com/xanas3712 Matthew Swaringen

    So what?  Consistent libertarians are anarchists.  Get over it. 

  • http://profiles.google.com/xanas3712 Matthew Swaringen

    So what?  Consistent libertarians are anarchists.  Get over it. 

  • http://twitter.com/AnonymousHench Bruno Tata

    Newt would be an unelectable disaster.  And he would suck even if he won.   But please name the last “conservative” Republican presidential nominee by your definition.

    I can think of none back to at least Eisenhower, whom I don’t know much about.  

    So, is demanding the candidate be the most conservative in at least 59 years asking too much of the electorate?

  • Dajeeps

    Gingrich is a career politician and has done the go along to get along thing, that is why he did that commercial with Miss Nancy. It was after the elections in 2008 where Republicans were totally routed. If you want to have any kind of influence on what is happening and get Democrats to listen and to do things at least some of they way you’d like to see, playing nice is likely the better thing when the other side can just run you over like a truck. Shortly after he made the commercial he testified before congress and told them what he thought of their crap and tax bill. But I don’t see the link to that here. If you want to talk about all the terrible positions he’s had, that’s fine, but you should at least be fair about it.

    I don’t think Gingrich is the perfect candidate; we don’t have one. But there are a few things going for him that no one else has. One of them is that he made wise use of the power he had and got stuff out of Bill Clinton that no one else has done; and doing, getting it done, is the most important part. It’s so easy to just oppose, be snarky, and full of nothing but rhetoric. I’m not really going to satisfied with someone who has spent nearly their entire career being just a dog baking in the woods. That has to translate into to something tangible or it isn’t worth anything at all.

  • Anonymous

    Wow, I am really surprised to find people on here actually taking up for Newt!   I guess most have never really looked into all the ways he has stabbed Republicans, Conservatives, and Americans in their backs and twisted the knife.  I concede, it is difficult looking up someones voting record and analyzing it.  Although Newt may have some of these moderates and RINO lovers fooled, the good thing is he doesn’t have enough money to even get on the necessary ballots, so Newt is a non-issue.  Just like the scandal of Newt taking 1.6 million from Freddie M., this is all about lining Newt’s pockets with later speaking tours.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=730740747 Chuck Reichmuth

    In the end there is not much difference between them all besides Ron Paul.

  • http://www.facebook.com/tommy.derossett Thomas Mfba DeRossett

    anarchism is not bad you are just a trained lab rat to parrot whatever your TV and leaders say… libertarian itself can be label anarchism… as far as woods rejecting the constitution you are far from being correct here.. he rejects how our government runs but they dont follow the constitution anymore in fact they laugh in your face every time you bring up the constitution in an argument…its time to quit fighting among each other and come together for what maybe the last hope of saving us from losing all sovereignty… they win if we stay divided cuz we are easy to conquer so lets come together no matter our differences.

  • CHead55

    I have doubts as to whether Newt loves this country. He is close personal friends with Alvin Toffler. Newt wrote the forward for one of his books. Newt even went so far as to recommend Toffler’s book, “The 3rd Wave” to Republican’s in Congress. In Toffler’s book, he claims that the system of US Government is obsolete and that “it must die and be replaced”. Newt himself once groaned that “The American challenge in leading the world is compounded by the Constitution.”

  • RFN

    No, he’ll still be absolutely pathetic.  There is no light in which Obama will be viewed as anything but an abject horror.  Well, except for statist light of course.  The guys you mentioned are Obama light.  We’ll just lose more slowly.

  • RFN

    Exactly.  He is the ONLY one offering a stark difference in governance.  

  • jabgdn

    If he’s a candidate of compromise, does that make him a compromised candidate?

  • Maximustrex

    It did not take me long after hearing Newt talk to figure out Newt was a neocon. He is a war monger and thinks the president powers extend to areas that the U.S. Constitution prohibits. He proposes things that are in violation of the Bill of Rights that says it all!

  • jeremy

    Your post is way too reasonable, and thought out. Just jump on the Paul train and say things like Fascist!!! Statist!!!! Bilderberger!!!!

  • Publius1787

    A dose of reality for the peanut gallery of anarchist drones:   I got a news flash for you Woods drones — he is not a conservative.   He will admit as much if you ask him.  Another news flash — every single founding father rejected the anarchist society envisioned by Woods.   News flash #3 — Ron Paul rejects the anarchist society envisioned by Woods.  News flash #4 — von Mises rejected the anarchist society envisioned by Woods.   News flash #5 — Reagan utterly rejected the anarchist society envisioned by Woods.  Of course, our political and civil rights have not been buttressed by corresponding protections of economic liberty — but gutting the system that has bestowed more life, liberty and private property protections than any in history for the fantasy of anarcho-capitalism is ridiculous.   This is the end game sought by Woods, it is definitely not the promotion of a classical liberal society envisioned by Jefferson, Madison, Reagan, Mises, Hayek, and even Paul.  

  • http://tomwoods.com Tom Woods

    Yeah, you’ve said this. Got it. I’ve noted the admiration for Rothbard shared by Paul and Mises, even if they disagreed with him. I’ve likewise noted that lots of people were happy to work with Rothbard, a genius, even if disagreeing with his ultimate goal, which — as you may have noticed, though the point may be a bit subtle — we are nowhere near reaching.  So as soon as we’re on the verge of anarcho-capitalism, feel free to hop on back here and repeat this comment for the 50,000th time.

    In the meantime, I’ll have to console myself over the angry dissent of the blogger formerly known as “Ridin’ Dirty” by recalling the endorsements of such insignificant conservative and libertarian nobodies as Pat Buchanan, Barry Goldwater Jr., Judge Andrew Napolitano, Peter Schiff, Walter Williams, Jim Powell, Ron Paul, Michael Badnarik, and Harvard’s Jeffrey Miron, and the favorable reviews of my work (me, the extremist of no significance) of such obscure journals as the Journal of American History, American Historical Review, Journal of American Studies, Choice (review publication for academic libraries), Barron’s, First Things, Weekly Standard, American Spectator, CBS.com, Claremont Review of Books, RealClearMarkets.com, Washington Times, and others in that vein.

  • http://twitter.com/GroverBuilder Paul Bischoff

    Publius, after that sound thrashing, it’s okay to cuddle up to one of Dr. Woods’s Weekly Standard articles and cry yourself to sleep. There’s no dishonor in that, broski.

  • Reality_Check

    I believe this blog proves LIberals are both afraid of and hate Newt.

    Not sure what else it proves …

  • neocontrotsky

    I think it actually shows liberals would love to run against Newt.  Obama’s biggest weakness besides the economy is his very unpopular health care scheme.  How is newt going to attack it if he also supports the individual mandate portion?  Or he also has supported anti-gun policies in the past?  Or his stupid global warming ad he starred in with pelosi?

    Not only would liberals love all the ground newt already gives them on a number of issues, but they would also appreciate how it would be a repeat of mccain or dole and the base wouldn’t show up for him.  Newt has a lot of the same problems as Romney, plus the baggage of three divorces and handing the divorce papers to one of his wives while in the hospital!  You don’t think that minor little act will come back in a general election to turn women off on newt even more?

  • neocontrotsky

    Publius was just completely destroyed there Mark Levin style!  Hilarious!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Robert-Cochran/100002318166793 Robert Cochran

    Shaping up like the last election nothing to choose from Ron Paul the only choice for me.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1668858553 Faith M Martin

    Newt does not support a mandate for healthcare, he supports an individuals choice and option. here is the link to his healthcare solutions section. I have no faith in this gentlemans book or work, he graduated from Obamas alma mater Harvard and Columbia hmmm. that makes me doubt his motivation. http://www.newt.org/solutions/healthcare

  • http://tomwoods.com Tom Woods

    I see. So we shouldn’t listen to the words that actually came out of his mouth (before he knew he’d be running for president and they would embarrass him). We should consult his “solutions” page.

    I graduated from Columbia and Harvard,so I am probably like Obama. That is your Newt supporter. Nevermind that I am 10,000 times more fremarket than Newt, or that I’ve been published in all kinds of conservative outlets , or that my complaint is that Newt isn’t free-market enough.  I must be like Obama.

    You have “no faith” in my work, but you do have faith in the “work” of a guy who betrays your alleged principles every single day, who sides with the establishment against you, and who has been described as being on the left wing of the GOP.

    Of all things to put your faith in.

  • Ckcress

    So the fact that he is a two faced waffler that changes his rhetoric depending on who he is talking to makes him a reasonable candidate? Yeah, that’s the kind of person we want representing conservative values in the next election. And you are absolutely wrong about there not being a perfect candidate. Ron Paul is exactly that – your just to blind to see it. 

  • carlc55

    What gets me is that Gingrich supporters can’t seem to understand the definition of hypocrite (or refuse to). So for your information let me post the Merriam-Webster Online dictionary version:

    Definition of HYPOCRITE

    1: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion

    2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her
    stated beliefs or feelings Could anything be more fitting.

  • carlc55

    Wow, Ol’ Publius1787 really put you in your place Dr Woods, you unconservative,  anarcho-capitalist, libertarian Obamamater graduate you. And quit writing all those best selling books, your embarrassing yourself.

  • Anonymous

    In the formidable battle against financial fascism, one does not compromise, ever.

  • joni

    With all due respect, you contradict yourself. You say newt doesn’t have the strength (backbone?) to stand up to the establishment; but then you say he’s bound to establishment to carry thru with much. Ron Paul is the only candidate with backbone to stand up for our Constitution, in my humble opinion. His moral compass is evident in how he has voted over the years, often being the only “naysayer” and not “going along with the establishment”. His policies and stances don’t change, unlike his constituents, who only tell folks what they want to hear. Be blessed!