While most speakers were focused on firing up conservatives heading into the elections of 2010 and 2012, Newt Gingrich brought something unique in his speech. He talked about how conservatives ought to behave for next three years remaining on Obama’s first term: with “principled, responsible bi-partisanship.”
He’s not talking about caving to liberal demands. He’s not talking about shelving principle for the sake of congressional congeniality. What he’s calling for is for conservatives to fight from a position of strength, with the understanding that our ideas are better than this.
For instance, with regard to the President’s upcoming summit on health care, Newt suggested that Republicans go and insist on a real bipartisan approach: demand to divide the time 50/50, bring their own agenda, and not accept the current legislation as a starting point.
Now that Obama’s popularity has plummeted only less than the health care bills themselves, such principled demands have a chance of succeed. If conservatives are not afraid. Newt has called on us not to be afraid, which is easy for him to do because he has an unparalleled command of the issues and can stomp pretty much any liberal in a debate rather handily. But so can any conservative who understands the principles we represent because our ideas truly are better. So we should not be afraid to demand they be heard, and follow up those demands, should they be ignored, by continuing to fight and defeat the radical Obama agenda.
Comments
Print This Post
Not that the Democrats care. They aren’t actually interested in “investigating” anything with their “hearings.” Rather, they are just going through the motions so they can pass their cap-and-tax plan.
Comments Print This Post
I was too tired to do a write-up after the last two days of the conference, so I’ll recap my impressions of them both now.
Day 2
Although there were a number of good speeches, the star of day 2 was Newt Gingrich. Like many speakers, Newt quickly picked on Eric Holder’s “nation of cowards” remark. Unlike others, however, he flipped it completely around on Holder and challenged him to a dialogue on cowardice in Detroit, where “bad government, bad politicians, bad bureaucracy, [and] bad ideas” have driven the city into the ground. He adds that “we should be committed to eliminating bad government, bad bureaucracy and bad politics to liberate the people of Detroit.”
Newt went on to argue that the democrats actually think we’re “just plain dumb.” As examples he cites Obama’s pledge to allow no earmarks when he was about to sign a bill with 8,000, Obama’s attack on CEO’s who use private planes while Pelosi flies around privately thanks to U.S. taxpayers, and finally, Obama’s claim that he wouldn’t raise taxes on anyone making $250,000 while at the same time making clear he is for an energy tax which, since everyone uses energy, would significantly raise taxes on people making less than $250,000.
He also laid appropriate blame on the last minute policies of the Bush administration and talked of an Obama-Bush economic continuity that cannot work. He then further criticized Obama’s desire to punish companies for taking jobs out of America instead of rewarding companies for bringing jobs in. There was plenty more in the speech than I touched on here, so you can see it for yourself at Newt.org.
Day 2 also saw good speeches from Ron Paul, Wayne LaPierre and Mitt Romney. Ron Paul (speech available here) received a pretty positive reception, including on issues which he might not have in the past. His call to change our foreign policy is clearly getting wider consideration within the conservative movement. While I don’t agree with the degree to which he’d have us retreat from the world stage, I think it’s an important realization that we simply cannot afford to do again what we did in Iraq, regardless of whether one thinks it was necessary (or we were justified in believing so based on the evidence) or not. The movement, myself included, got a bit too caught up in Wilsonian idealism in response to 9/11. The goal’s of the Bush Doctrine are admirable and would improve our security, but spreading democracy is not as simple as removing a dictator. Democratic government first requires democratic culture, and that has to come from within. Open economic and cultural trade and soft power need to be used in all but the most extreme circumstances.
I was also glad that Ron Paul clarified that he does not want to abolish the Fed entirely, but thinks it needs serious reform. He cited a bill recently introduced to audit the Fed, which got widespread applause. Clearly the institution needs reform. The idea that we can count on technocrats at the Fed to tweak interests rates and perfectly balance between the triple threats of unemployment, inflation and speculative bubbles is simply no longer credible. We need to rethink the government role regarding the money supply, and reforming the secretive nature of the Fed is a necessary first step.
Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer of the NRA, offered a stern warning against the Obama administration’s plans for gun rights. Following the recent and fallacious comments by Eric Holder attributing Mexico’s problems to our gun freedoms, he portrayed the administration as poised to strike against gun owners. It was highly effective and, if the administration pursues a reckless gun grabbing agenda, it is likely that the NRA could return as a potent political force in the next election. Guns motivate the right, and Obama would be wise to remember this.
Mitt Romney’s speech was also well received. He said a lot of right things, but it all just felt like a testing ground for potential campaign lines. Still, he had a few memorable lines. Perhaps my favorite was when he said that “passing on that kind of debt to our children is not only fiscally irresponsible, it is morally wrong.” He also defended his support of TARP, saying “I believe that it was necessary to prevent a cascade of bank collapses.” I’m not convinced that is true, but it’s more plausible than any justification given by proponents of the other big spending initiatives.
He also won the straw poll with 20%. Following him was Bobby Jindal (14%), Ron Paul (13%), Sarah Palin (13%) and Newt Gingrich (10%). I did not catch the speeches of John Cornyn or Jim DeMint , and there were other good ones I have not mentioned.
Day 3
Day 3 saw a number of terrific speeches and presentations. In addition to the expected headliners, there were a few surprises, for me, in day 3. Niger Innis of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) gave an impassioned speech on why energy taxes are an attack on the poor. He got everyone fired up and received a grateful ovation from a crowd that was clearly bored by the previous presentation. Ward Connerly followed with a strong but calm speech on ending racial preferences.
The next two presenters were a big thrill. Out to talk about their recent film (Not Evil, Just Wrong) on how the environmentalists agenda destroys lives, Irish couple Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer mixed in various clips with the story of how they converted from European leftists to free marketeers – or “recovering Europeans,” as they called themselves. They are doing exactly the kind of works conservatives need to support to help counter the powerful hollywood propaganda machine of the left. I missed the speeches of Rick Santorum, Tim Pawlenty and Ann Coulter.
Of course, the main attraction of the day was none other than the Maha Rushie himself, Rush Limbaugh. For hours leading up to his speech, you could feel the anticipation grow in the crowd, finally erupting when he came on stage to his signature introduction music. The extemporaneous speech (Rush made a point of highlighting that he had no teleprompter or script) was broadcast live on Fox, C-SPAN and CNN, and Rush made light of this fact numerous times by referencing it as his “first address to the nation.”
In the first part of the speech, Rush gave an impassioned explanation of conservative principles. Conservatism wants people to succeed and all obstacles that stand in the way of success to fail. He repeatedly highlighted the difference between the left’s agenda of punishing success in the name of equality of outcomes, and the conservative ideas of liberty and opportunity. Philosophy, not narrow debates over process and even policy, are how he says conservatives must sell themselves. As usual, Rush is right. I could probably say a lot more about the speech, but I highly suggest you watch it for yourself. It is an hour and a half long (an hour longer than his original half-hour scheduling), but it’s worth it. You can find the transcript and links to video on Rush’s site.
Over the course of the entire convention, some issues stood out more than others. The most notable observation is that domestic issues were prominent. There was still a consensus that the jihadist threat is real and we must remain vigilant, but there was some disagreements over the nature foreign policy should take, and it was more than just Ron Paul on the side of less interventionism. This is a healthy debate to be having.
Domestically the most important issues included education, health care, unions and “card check,” and the free speech (fairness doctrine). On education the view was unanimous: we need school choice. On health care the main theme was that we cannot allow universal health care to happen. Ditto on card check and the fairness doctrine.
All in all I’d say the future of the conservative movement is bright. People were excited about the future as they could see conservatism returning to it’s roots of limited government and personal responsibility. The first step to ending the era of big government was ending the idea of big government conservatism, and I’d say CPAC all but completed that task.
Comments Print This Post
Not long after stipulating that he would enter the race if he could raise $30 million in pledges before Oct. 21st, Newt Gingrich has decided not to run for President.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich will not run for president in 2008 after determining he could not legally explore a bid and remain as head of his tax-exempt political organization, a spokesman said Saturday.
“Newt is not running,” spokesman Rick Tyler said. “It is legally impermissible for him to continue on as chairman of American Solutions (for Winning the Future) and to explore a campaign for president.”
Gingrich decided “to continue on raising the challenges America faces and finding solutions to those challenges” as the group’s chairman, Tyler said, “rather than pursuing the presidency.”
This is unfortunate, as having Newt on the same stage as the other Republican candidates would be a good way to get them to commit to adopting principled conservative reforms to specific problems. Te onus now is on us now. Newt’s doing tremendous work in spreading ideas for real solutions to real problems. Now we, as voters and interested citizens, must let the candidates know that we expect them to address these problems with specifics and not just platitudes.
Comments Print This Post
Fred Thompson’s stealth candidacy has moved within 5 points of Giuliani in the newly important Florida primary. It’s worth noting that Gingrich, who has been polling near 10 points in most states, was not included on the list. This perhaps confirms my impression that, at least at present, Newt and Thompson supports are interchangable. Thus, whichever of these two potential candidates enters the fray first will likely pick up most of the supporters of the other. My guess is that Fred is preparing to enter the race in early June, and as a consequence a Newt candidacy is not going to happen.
Fred is also said to have an opening in crucial Iowa.
Comments Print This Post
Coming as a surprise to few on the right, except Newt Gingrich unfortunately, new research draws a compelling link between global temperatures and sun spots which casts serious doubts over the carbon hysteria that has been sweeping the globe.
Sunspots have been monitored on the Sun since 1610, shortly after the invention of the telescope. They provide the longest-running direct measurement of our star’s activity.
The variation in sunspot numbers has revealed the Sun’s 11-year cycle of activity as well as other, longer-term changes.
In particular, it has been noted that between about 1645 and 1715, few sunspots were seen on the Sun’s surface.
This period is called the Maunder Minimum after the English astronomer who studied it.
It coincided with a spell of prolonged cold weather often referred to as the “Little Ice Age”. Solar scientists strongly suspect there is a link between the two events – but the exact mechanism remains elusive.
. . . Dr Solanki is presenting a paper on the reconstruction of past solar activity at Cool Stars, Stellar Systems And The Sun, a conference in Hamburg, Germany.
He says that the reconstruction shows the Maunder Minimum and the other minima that are known in the past thousand years.
But the most striking feature, he says, is that looking at the past 1,150 years the Sun has never been as active as it has been during the past 60 years.
Of course, no article this blasphemous could be put together without paying homage to the global warming eco-religion, so an obligatory acknowledgment was thrown in:
CommentsOver the past 20 years, however, the number of sunspots has remained roughly constant, yet the average temperature of the Earth has continued to increase.
This is put down to a human-produced greenhouse effect caused by the combustion of fossil fuels.
Print This Post
You’ll be able to watch live as Newt takes center stage and offers the closing remarks of this years’ Conservative Political Action Conference tomorrow at 4:45 EST. For more on the happenings at CPAC, check out some of Michelle Malkin’s coverage.
Comments Print This Post
Race42008 reports that Rudy Giuliani has filed a statement of candidacy with the FEC, paving the way for an official Presidential run.
Meanwhile, both a lot and a little has been happening in the Republican primary race. I say both a lot and a little because there’s has been a lot of reporting but very little change in the dynamics of the race to go along with it. Romney continues his failure to gain traction, polling behind Newt in just about every state, further justifying my December claim that “Romney is not a viable candidate”.
Commentators are beginning to pick up on something else I said in that post back in December, and that’s the fact that Rudy Giuliani is the sole front-runner. This is largely due to the fact that McCain’s “inevitability” aura never extended beyond the beltway. Rank and file conservatives are far less enamored with him than his admirers in the media suppose.
Dick Morris (Hat tip: another race42008 post):
Until now, the status of front-runner in the Republican primaries for president was jointly held by Arizona Sen. John McCain and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. McCain is clearly no longer the front-runner. In the last week or so, Giuliani has moved out to a clear lead.
. . .Conversations with conservative activists also show a remarkable openness to supporting Giuliani – a belief that he can overcome (perhaps finesse) his pro-choice, pro-gun-control, pro-gay-rights and pro-immigration positions. Feelings seem bitterer over McCain?s role in Washington battles – his opposition to the Bush tax cuts and his support for ?amnesty? for illegal immigrants and for campaign-finance reform.
Giuliani has developed an effective parry to charges that his pro-choice stance would undo eight years of pro-life heavy lifting by the Bush administration. He?s saying he?d oppose partial-birth abortion and work to continue to curtail Medicaid funding for abortion. More, he?d appoint judges like Justices Samuel Alito and John Roberts to the Supreme Court.
I’ve believed all along that Rudy’s strongest counter to the concerns of social conservatives is his record of support for strict constructionist judges, or what Scalia prefers be called originalists. Rudy has said on several occasions that he would have made Scalia his Chief Justice. Assuming he is to be believed, for which I have no reason to doubt, that statement alone can do a lot to bring weary social conservatives, who otherwise support his strong leadership and fiscal conservatism, into the Giuliani camp.
And, finally, I can’t talk about 2008 without turning to Newt Gingrich. The perennial favorite of conservatives everywhere is staunchly maintaining, in the face of rising poll numbers, his position that he won’t decide whether or not to enter the race until September.
Nonetheless, or perhaps consequently, the Draft Newt campaign has officially begun. Can it deliver a tide of grass roots support capable of ushering the right’s greatest idea man into the White House? It’s hard to say, though there are ample reasons to believe the odds are against him. Nevertheless, it may just be enough to thrust him onto somebody’s ticket in the VP slot. A Giuliani/Gingrich ticket is looking better and better to me.
Comments Print This Post
Polls by the American Research Group show Rudy Guiliani in a strong position in Republican primary states ranging the ideological spectrum.
Rudy Giuliani 29%
John McCain 24%
Newt Gingrich 19%
Chuck Hagel 7%
Mitt Romney 7%
Rudy Giuliani 31%
John McCain 25%
Newt Gingrich 22%
Mitt Romney 4%
John McCain 29%
Rudy Giuliani 25%
Newt Gingrich 14%
Mitt Romney 9%
John McCain 35%
Rudy Giuliani 28%
Newt Gingrich 15%
Mitt Romney 5%
There are, I think, three important points we can take from these numbers. First, Rudy is the front runner. Even though McCain is very close, he has burned too many bridges with conservatives. Rudy’s 28% in traditionally conservative South Carolina is impressive, and reinforces the previous evidence we’ve seen that the conventional wisdom is most likely wrong, conservatives are not going to run away screaming as they get to know Rudy Guiliani. Some will, but many will also see a man who ran a fiscally conservative government in a liberal state, who made strong strides in the areas of crime and education, and who is capable of leading in the war against global jihad.
Point 2: Romney is not a viable candidate. His exposure as a faux conservative, who couldn’t bring himself to be associated with Reagan or even support the Contract with America, means the end of his campaign. With McCain and Guiliani already pulling strong support, there’s no more room for preceived “moderates”. It’s conservative or bust for whoever wants to be candidate number three.
And that also brings us to point number three. Newt Gingrich. He polled a respectable third in every state, ranging in support from 14% to 22%. If no true conservative steps forward before September of 2007, Gingrich will be a force to be reckoned with in the Republican primary. Whether or not he’d have a legimate chance at the nod will depend on a number of factors wholly unpredictable at this time. But it will be good for the Republican party, and good for America, if he’s at least strong enough to be a serious contender, as he’ll have strong influence in setting the debate.
Hat tip: race42008
Comments Print This Post
Gingrich calls for elimination of McCain-Feingold reforms
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich says First Amendment rights need to be expanded, and eliminating the McCain-Feingold law’s restrictions on campaign contributions would be a start.
Gingrich, a Republican, suggested allowing people to give any amount to any candidate as long as the donation was reported online within 24 hours.
“Just as tax lawyers always succeed in out-thinking the (Internal Revenue Service) because they stay after five and the IRS goes home, the private-sector lawyers will always out-think the (Federal Election Commission) because they stay after five and the FEC goes home,” Gingrich told about 400 people at the Nackey Scripps Loeb First Amendment Awards dinner Monday.
Passed in 2002, McCain-Feingold bans unrestricted donations from labor, corporations and the wealthy to the political parties. Gingrich said the reforms have failed and led only to more negative campaign ads via e-mail, television, direct mail and phone calls.
Notice how the AP couldn’t help slip in some liberal framing, declaring that the bill “bans unrestricted donations from labor, corporations and the wealthy.” The bill does not discriminate against wealthy and poor, it applies equally to (and thus infringes upon) everyone’s free speech. But leave it to the MSM to slip some class warfare into an unrelated issue of free speech.
Hat tip: Race 4 2008
Comments Print This Post
Sorry, no posts matched your criteria.
I am a libertarian-conservative blogger living in the DC area. I have a Master's degree in Political Science, but please don't hold that against me.
