So he says Romney Can be ther next Reagan... hmmn

Romney Can Be the Next Reagan

By William Tucker on 2.6.12 @ 6:08AM

The temperament is there, as is the natural appeal of a friendly, modest, handsome leader.

I'm hoping Republicans will soon wake up, stop fighting among themselves, and realize that Mitt Romney has the best chance of becoming the nation's next Ronald Reagan.

Everybody remembers Reagan for his single-mindedness in cutting federal spending and taking the government out of the central position in everyone's life. What they forget is that it was Reagan's temperament that made all this possible.

Think back to Reagan's famous rejoinder to Jimmy Carter in their first and only debate, "There you go again!" What was the significance of that? Carter had just finish a long, beady-eyed recitation about national health insurance, which, he said, promised "not inpatient care but outpatient care" with "an emphasis on hospital cost containment," and how Candidate Reagan, of course, was opposed to all this because he had opposed Medicare in 1964. Reagan stood shaking his head and laughing the whole time and when it finally came his turn, he sighed, "There you go again."

The audience laughed and why not? Carter's expressionless, robot-like recitation typified his whole presidency. He was obsessed with details. Reagan's genial response was that when he opposed Medicare in 1964 it was because he favored another piece of congressional legislation that relied less on government. But in a single moment, Reagan had also revealed Carter as a narrow-minded pedant while he was an affable, good-natured leader capable of keeping things in perspective. Voters liked what they saw and that ended Carter's Presidency.

Mitt Romney has a very similar temperament. In fact he had a "There-you-go-again" moment in the last debate when Rick Santorum launched into his inevitable fulmination about how Romney will never be able to debate President Obama on Obamacare because of Romneycare. Romney gave his usual rejoinder but then added, "It's nothing to get angry about." That's the kind of perspective a President needs.

Santorum, you must admit, is a pretty disagreeable individual. He spends the opening portion of every debate congratulating himself on having been at the center of everything good that's happened in Washington for the last twenty years. Then halfway through he will turn on whoever happens to be the frontrunner and launch an eye-gouging attack, talking out of the side of his mouth and casting sidelong glances all the while to see how far he can bait his chosen target. There is an air of bitterness and grievance about Santorum that is hard to take.

President Obama has a similar air of grievance and issue obsession that will make him equally vulnerable in debate. If there's one candidate who can throw this into relief over the course of a campaign the way Reagan did with Carter, it's Romney. Let's face it, he's an attractive guy. A natural leader, he's been very successful and has a lovely and courageous (and only) wife, plus a big photogenic family. All this is bound to start growing on people.

The New York Times ran some pictures of him with his wife and young family back at Harvard Business School and there was a definite Kennedyesque feel about them. People are going to start responding to him on a personal basis.

Now of course there's the Mormon thing and you can count on the Democrats to flail away at that. An early Politico report said Obama planned to characterize Romney as "weird," with Mormonism as the implicit centerpiece. I doubt this is going to work. Americans are willing to try new things. That's how we got Obama in the first place. Romney will be intriguing precisely because he represents another frontier -- the first non-Protestant the Republicans have ever nominated for President.

The Mormons were indeed a violent and divisive sect in the 19th century but since giving up polygamy in 1890 they have become just another fundamentalist group looking for a place in American history. It's the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, remember, that gave us that stirring arrangement of "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" (the one we sang in high school). Mormons now lead exemplary moral, often highly prosperous lives. They are very big in the Boy Scouts. 

In my old neighborhood in Brooklyn, Mormon missionaries had started several Boy Scout troops in African-American neighborhoods and even adopted one young man after his original family fell apart.

Romney definitely has that straight-arrow feeling about him, but even that may work as people realize it is still possible to lead moral lives in America. His most formative experience, however, has been as a CEO, where he apparently learned his executive style. Except for a few square-offs with Rick Perry, Romney's demeanor during the debates has been collegial and inclusive.  

That's why he shows that deer-in-the-headlights look when the others first started attacking him. "Why are you going after me?" he seems to say. "Aren't we supposed to be going after President Obama?" He's learned to fight back, which is good, but there is still a definite modesty about him. Watch him when he's giving a speech and the crowd starts chanting "Mitt! Mitt! Mitt!" He falls back into an ingenuous smile and seems to say, "Is this really happening? Do they like me this much? "

All the other Republican candidates are the exact opposite. Santorum has a very narrow mind. He'd make a terrible leader, locking into doctrinaire stands and picking fights. He's a Senator, not a President.

Ron Paul is the same only at a different order of magnitude. Paul enjoys being outside the tent pissing in, if you don't mind the expression. I doubt he could find twelve people in the whole country with whom he could agree enough to form a cabinet. Like so many libertarians, he takes pride in how much he can offend people. As President, he's sit in the Oval Office disagreeing with everyone in Washington, as he's done for the past 30 years.

Newt is the same thing over again -- the perpetual insider posing as a victim of the Washington elites. He would launch his administration with all the grandeur of Napoleon invading Russia but overlook some critical detail that would leave him in full retreat by the following winter. Probably he would decide that history dictates we put a colony on the moon and then spend the rest of his administration arguing about it with Congress.

Now I know what people are going to say: "But that's exactly what we want. Romney would just go down and get along with everyone in Washington and nothing would change. We need someone who's going to shake things up from top to bottom." But that's not how Reagan did it. He didn't pick fights. He did a few photo-ops with Tip O'Neill, the only Democrat with any authority.

Reagan won with an agenda and a first-class temperament. I have no doubt Romney can do the same.Critics will argue Romney doesn't have Reagan's ideological commitment, but experience in the private sector brings you to the same place. Anyone who can do simple math knows this country is headed off a cliff and anyone who's tried to operate a business knows government regulation is strangling free enterprise. Mitt has the same Reaganesque ambitions as the other candidates. What he doesn't share is their sense of bitterness and exclusion.

Much of this comes, no doubt, from his fortunate background. He did go to Cranbrook, the premier prep school of the Detroit area and started at Stanford. But there's a great deal of Midwestern modesty in him as well, reminiscent of Dwight Eisenhower. Historians have pointed out that all the generals under Eisenhower in the European theater harbored huge egos. There was the imperial Lord Mountbatten, the flamboyant General Patton and the GI's favorite, Omar Bradley. Had Eisenhower been another swashbuckler, the whole staff might have disintegrated into a boiling cauldron of competition. But as a modest Midwestern farm boy, he was able to hold the whole thing together. He didn't make a bad President, either.


Romney has the same qualities. Whereas Newt would make a great General Douglas MacArthur, ready to challenge everyone else's authority, Romney obviously prefers to organize without putting himself out front. He lets others have their say. His one great weakness is that he doesn't yet seem to have the common touch. He still looks uncomfortable in crowds and can't seem to relate to people who don't share his background. Maybe the trip from Cranbrook to Cranford NJ isn't that easy. But I'd be surprised if he doesn't get better during the campaign.

As Jimmy Carter would ultimately discover, this election will not be decided by who can memorize the longest list of talking points. It's going to be won by the candidate who voters feel most comfortable having in their living rooms.  

Obama passed the test in 2008. He was young and fresh and seemed to have a level head while McCain appeared old and tired. It was a fairly easy choice. But the President won't have those advantages this time around. After four years of mismanaging the economy, he won't be able to talk hope and change. 

His only option will be to go negative, portraying Romney as a rich boy who doesn't care about anyone who doesn't have money. That may work for a while but at some point people are going to want to hear something positive. At that point they will start listening to Romney. If he sounds like Reagan, they will find him an attractive and plausible alternative.

Romney is something we haven't seen for a while in America -- a benevolent family man. He's the well-meaning father who knows how to do the right thing even if he can't always express himself. 

Liberals are beginning to notice this and feel uneasy. Last week the New Republic ran a cover photo of him taken within three inches of his face that made him look like King Kong. Frank Rich has started harping on Mormonism, showing that religious bigotry is not dead in America. New York Times columnist Gail Collins is morally certain the public will turn on Romney once they perceive the true significance of the dog-tied-on-top-the-car. To her, Romney is capable of tying pregnant women to railroad tracks. But the public may see it as just another amusing episode of Father Knows Best.

And just listen to this indictment from Times contributor Lee Siegel, who calls Romney "the whitest white man to run for president in years."

He is nearly always in immaculate white shirt sleeves. He is implacably polite, tossing off phrases like "oh gosh" with Stepford bonhomie. He has mastered Benjamin Franklin's honesty as the "best policy"… He speaks of the founding fathers and the Declaration of Independence as phases of national creativity that we are destined to live through again. He frequently accompanies his recitative with verses from "America the Beautiful."

Who would ever want to vote for a candidate like that?

About the Author

William Tucker is the author of Terrestrial Energy: How Nuclear Power Will Lead the Green Revolution and End America's Energy Odyssey.

The Author makes some very fine points. But for me, it is his conservative record as Governor and what he accomplished. Throw in the private sector business accomplishments and  I see a great great candidate. Much accomplished and as good as we have seen in America.

The fine line

I grew up during the assassination of JFK, the Viet Nam War. The sexual revolution, drugs etc. Personally I was a small town boy that did not get involved. I have never been drunk or high. Never felt the need to escape. Perhaps it is because my mother used to show me clippings in the paper of drunk drivers killing someone, people high on drugs murdering someone. These presentations made me think. They made me realize at a young age how my one mistake could change my life forever.

Here we are in the year 2012. One thing that always sticks with me is how important real truth is. I am reminded of a movie called "A time to Kill". In the trial a Psychologist gives his expert opinion on the mental condition of the defendant.

Later the prosecutors bring up a conviction on the Psychologists record to try and discredit his testimony. The charge that he had been convicted of was statutory rape. He had to admit that that was true.

But the real truth is that he had went to another state and married his wife who was 17 at the time. When they came back to their state he was charged. It didn't matter they were still married to this day. Perception is everything.

I personally believe in "come let us reason". Let us get the facts before us and determine real truth within the context of what happened.

This year we have the election that will define America. The last election was one of Rhetoric with no basis of actual ability or any successes. It was the epitome of farce and projected abilities with no record to prove it. Barrack Obama is the most unqualified and unaccomplished President in the History of the United States. The state of our Country is a prime example of his incapability and inexperience.

I have been told that just mere appearance of a candidate goes a long way. I used to laugh that off. But it is true. America was mad when Obama appealed to their emotions. They did not bother to look into the empty suit that he is.

There is an old saying that if you do not learn from history, it has a funny way of repeating itself. Back in 2008 the media convinced America that the only person that could beat Hillary Clinton who was the DNP leader at the time was John McCain. Well we all know how that turned out. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice.....

Right now we have a less than a John McCain being shoved down our throats. Newt Gingrich uses the Rhetoric just as Barrack Obama does. He speaks all of the conservative buzz words which in turn makes many people believe he is something he is not... a conservative. I could show you one of his contracts with Freddie Mac to lobby for them. I could show you how he has long been for federal mandates and is for Obama care, cap and trade legislation. How he has favored many of the Socialist policies of our current President. But I am not going to.

I have done my research. You can do your own. Be responsible. I have had some friends who I have decided to cut out of my life for the very reason. They can not look at truth. Being honest is everything.Its' easy to be dishonest... just ask Barrack Obama and Newt Gingrich. They think you are stupid.

Gingrich's Lies in the Florida Debate and just who he is...Can you deal with it?

Newts lies in just the Florida Debate and other exposing of who he is.

Newt's lies:

1. He did no lobbying. We now have republicans on the record saying he indeed lobbied for Medicare part D.

2. He was paid as a "historian." Insulting he would think we would believe that one.

3. He lied about the manner in which he resigned as Speaker. Ron Paul was there to set the record straight. He resigned in disgrace.

4. He lied about having supported Barry Goldwater. In his own words we know that he supported Rockefeller against Goldwater.

5.GINGRICH: "When I was speaker, we had four consecutive balanced budgets." THE FACTS: Actually, two. The four straight years of budget surpluses were 1998 through 2001. Gingrich left Congress in 1999, so he only had a hand in surpluses for his last two years. The budget ran deficits for his first two years as speaker." - AP

Gingrich feigns outrage by this claim that He was a lobbyist, but the ruling from Political Fact says otherwise.
“Our ruling:
Romney said Newt Gingrich’s contract was with "the lobbyists at Freddie Mac." Gingrich provided strategic advice, a way of wielding political influence without having to register as a lobbyist. The primary point of contact on the contract was one of Freddie’s lobbyists.
We rate Romney’s statement True.”


http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/jan/24/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-newt-gingrichs-contract-was-fredd/


Here is a copy of one of the actual Contract between Newt and Freddy Mac
http://www.foxnews.com/interactive/politics/2012/01/23/gingrich-contract-with-freddie-mac/

Newt calls FDR greatest President of the 20th Century 
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/13/gingrich-on-numerous-past-occasions-fdr-was-the-greatest-president-of-the-20th-century/

Newt longtime supporter of federal health care
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/05/13/newt-gingrich-long-time-supporter-of-health-insurance-mandates/

Information on Newts ethics violations:
http://news.yahoo.com/those-ethics-violations-whats-hide-100110076--abc-news.html

Newt is for Cap and Trade:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-12-05/fact-check-gingrich-climate-change/51661486/1


By Aaron Klein

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has recently offered seemingly contradictory views on “climate change,” claiming to oppose climate taxation while partnering with a group that promotes such legislation.


The former House speaker earlier this week called his partnering with Nancy Pelosi on an environmental mission a “mistake.” However, last year he not only defended the move but said he would have done it again.

In a Fox News interview with Bill OReilly earlier this week, Gringrich was asked about a 2008 commercial starring himself and Pelosi in which the duo urged “action” to address “climate change.”

“We do agree, our country must take action to address climate change,” says Gingrich in the commercial, sitting on a coach next to Pelosi.
“We need cleaner forms of energy and we need them fast,” Pelosi chimes in.
“If enough of us demand action from our leaders, we can spark the innovation we need,” continues Gingrich.
Speaking to O’Reilly, Gingrich called the 31-second spot the “one of the dumbest things I’ve done in recent years.”
“It was an effort in my part to say that conservatives are concerned about the environment…But the commercial is just a mistake,” he told O’Reilly.
However, in a video interview with Human Events magazine in May 2010, the former speaker not only defended his commercial with Pelosi, but he said he would do it again even after the 2009 e-mail hacking scandal raised serious questions about the science behind so-called global warming.
“If they offer the chance to, then sure,” Gingrich replied, when asked if he would film the commercial another time despite the climate science controversy.
“I would do a commercial with Al Gore,” he further stated.
Actually, the Pelosi commercial was for a Gore initiative. It promoted the Gore-founded website and project, We Can Solve It.org.
In the 2008 ad, Pelosi states alongside Gingrich, “Go to We Can Solve It dot org. Together we can do this.”
In both his Human Events and O’Reilly interviews, Gingrich stated he was against “climate change” legislation.
“I actively opposed cap and trade. I testified against it the same day Al Gore testified for it,” he told O’Reilly.
Speaking to Human Events, Gingrich stated, “I deeply oppose giant tax increases. I oppose centralized burocracy.”
However, Gore’s We Can Solve It project that Gingrich promoted hawked carbon taxation and other U.S. and global climate legislation.
The group’s mission statement read, “The goal is to build a movement that creates the political will to solve the climate crisis — in part through repowering America with 100 percent of its electricity from clean energy sources within 10 years.”
The list of actions from We Can Solve It’s website in 2008 included: “Signing the petition for a global treaty on climate change. Urging the press to ask about global warming. Asking lenders to consider climate impact when funding new coal plants.”
We Can Solve It changed it name to The Climate Reality Project, a group still directed by Gore.  The group states on its website it seeks to oppose “manmade climate change.”
Just like We Can Solve It, Gore’s Reality Project is partnered with Earth Day.org, which promotes climate change legislation. It boasts how it helped create the environment for the passage of the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act and many other environmental laws.
Just last month, the Reality Project hailed the Australian Senate’s passage a carbon tax for the country’s largest polluters.
Maggie L. Fox, President and CEO of The Climate Reality Project, issued the following statement when the tax was approved:
“With this legislation, Australia will reduce carbon pollution, produce more energy from renewable sources, and stand up to the reality of climate change. Today, Australia joined leading countries around the world that recognize climate change is real, humans are causing it and we must act now.”
Gingrich’s own writings and activism, meanwhile, evidence environmental activism.
At a 2007 debate with John Kerry, Gingrich dubbed himself a “green conservative,” saying Republicans shouldn’t argue that global warming is a myth but should offer market-based solutions to the problem.
Gingrich co-authored the 2008 book, “A Contract with the Earth,” in which he expressed his view of favoring reducing carbon in the atmosphere, developing new technologies, and creating incentives and rewards for “green” companies.
The theme of the book was that conservative views are compatible with environmentalism.
In a 2008 piece in Issues in Science and Technology Magazine, Gingrich called for “a new, bipartisan environmental movement” meant to “create pathways for every American, indeed every nation, to cooperate and collaborate on achievable solutions to restore, revitalize, and renew the Earth.”
With additional research by Brenda J. Elliott

I could go on forever with his atrocities against Conservatism.

Who is Newt:

04/02/1987 – He cosponsored the 1987 Fairness Doctrine
10/22/1991 – He voted for an amendment that would create a National Police Corps.
03/—/1993 – He Voted for sending $1.6 Billion in foreign aid to Russia.
11/19/1993 – He voted for the NAFTA Implementation Act.
11/27/1994 – He supported the GATT Treaty giving sovereignty to the U.N.
08/27/1995 – He suggests that drug smuggling should carry a death sentence.
04/25/1996 – Voted for the single largest increase on Federal education spending ($3.5 Billion)
04/10/1995 – He supported Federal taxdollars being spent on abortions.
06/01/1996 – He helped a Democrat switch parties in an attempt to defeat constitutionali st Ron Paul in the 1996 election.
09/25/1996 – Introduced H.R. 4170, demanded life-sentence or execution for someone bringing 2 ounces of marijuana across the border.
01/22/1997 – Congress gave him a record-setting $300,000 fine for ethical wrongdoing.
11/29/2006 – He said that free speech should be curtailed in order to fight terrorism. Wants to stop terrorists from using the internet. Called for a “serious debate about the 1st Amendment.”
11/29/2006 – He called for a “Geneva Convention for terrorists” so it would be clear who the Constitution need not apply to.
02/15/2007 – He supported Bush’s proposal for mandatory carbon caps.
09/28/2008 – Says if he were in office, he would have reluctantly voted for the $700B TARP bailout.
10/01/2008 – Says in an article that TARP was a “workout, not a bailout.”
12/08/2008 – He was paid $300,000 by Freddie Mac to halt Congress from bringing necessary reform.
03/31/2009 – Says we should have Singapore-style drug tests for Americans.
07/30/2010 – Says that Iraq was just step one in defeating the “Axis of Evil”..
08/16/2010 – Opposes property rights of the mosque owner in NYC.
11/15/2010 – He defended Romneycare... now he attacks it
12/05/2010 – He said that a website owner should be considered an enemy combatant, hunted down and executed, for publishing leaked government memos.
01/30/2011 – He lobbied for ethanol subsidies.
01/30/2011 – He suggested that flex-fuel vehicles be mandated for Americans.
02/13/2011 – He criticized Obama for sending less U.S. taxdollars to Egypt.
02/15/2011 – His book said that he believes man-made climate-change and advocated creating “a new endowment for conservation and the environment.”
03/09/2011 – He blames his infidelity to multiple wives on his passion for the country.
03/15/2011 – Says that NAFTA worked because it created jobs in Mexico.
03/19/2011 – He has no regrets about supporting Medicare drug coverage. (Now $7.2T unfunded liability)
03/23/2011 – He completely flip-flopped on Libyan intervention in 16 days.
03/25/2011 – He plans to sign as many as 200 executive orders on his first day as president.
04/25/2011 – He’s a paid lobbyist for Federal ethanol subsidies.
05/12/2011 – He was more supportive of individual health-care mandates than Mitt Romney, who's mandates Romney actually vetoed..and was vetoed back.
06/09/2011 – His own campaign staff resigned en masse.
07/15/2011 – His poorly managed campaign is over $1 Million in debt.
08/01/2011 – He hired a company to create fake Twitter to appear as if he had a following.
10/07/2011 – He said he’d ignore the Supreme Court if need be.e order and bypass the constitution and congress (as if they wouldn't go along anyway) then read the voting record and charge list.

There is no way Newt Gingrich is a Conservative or even a moderate. He is as I have shown for federal Health Care. He is also for Cap and Trade. He also was in agreement with Cash for Clunkers... It makes sense though...Newt is as big of a Clunker and Barrack Obama. Nuff Said.

Check out who his buddies were: http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=69