Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, March 02, 2009
Rich Galen :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Republican Intellect-in-Chief
by Rich Galen
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


The New York Sunday Times Magazine yesterday published a major - an 8,000 word - update on the State of Newt Gringrich.

I have known Newt since 1982 when I went to work for the National Republican Congressional Committee - the political arm of the House GOP. Our relationship has rocked from unswerving loyalty (in both directions) to not speaking to each other for five years and back again.

He was elected in 1978 and was, in his own words, a "backbencher" during what was known as the post-Watergate era. Even after a 15 seat pick-up by the GOP in that election, the Democrats still held a 119 seat majority. To give you some context, Nancy Pelosi's current squad has a 76 seat majority.

The Clinton-Gingrich wars began on the day that Newt was sworn in as Speaker in January of 1995 and continued until Newt announced, following the elections of 1998 when the GOP lost five seats, that he would not take his seat when the new Congress convened in January 1999.

The writer of the NY Times piece, Matt Bai, said "Whatever else you think of Gingrich, he has always been considered a prospector in bold and counterintuitive thinking - floating ideas, throughout his career."

I have always held that Newt, with a PhD in history from Tulane University, is at base, a teacher. He tests ideas aloud which has led to no small number of misunderstandings over the years depending upon who left which room at what point in one of Newt's lectures.

In a piece which appeared about a week earlier in "Mother Jones" magazine, David Corn quoted me as suggesting Newt is "the Republican intellect-in-chief." He then went on to write:

Gingrich can come up with 15 ideas a day, Galen notes, realizing that only one is any good and that "over the course of a month, maybe one of them is actionable and you can build a project on it."

That drew a cranky-gram from Newt suggesting that my giving him an idea win-ratio of "1 in 450" was not terribly helpful. I reminded him that the test was an actionable idea around which a project could be built. It is a percentage no other single person the public arena can even come close to.

Newt is not, as too many in the GOP appear to be, hoping President Obama will fail. In his article, Matt Bai wrote that shortly after the November election Newt suggested to Congressional Republicans:

"If the president of the United States walks in with a rational, moderate proposal which has his left wing up in arms and you don't help him, you look like you're a nihilistic party of reactionary opposition."

I looked up "nihilism" for you. It's on the Secret Decoder Ring page.

When the article was posted on-line Saturday night I e-mailed Newt to congratulate him on a very positive article - especially given it was in the NY Times. I asked him what Republicans should do moving forward.

This is what he e-mailed back:

1. Cooperate whenever possible;

2. Create better solutions when they are wrong;

3. Fight when it is unavoidable;

We should always approach every question in that order. We should win the argument that our solutions are better for you as a person and for the country as a whole.

The problem with being around Newt is that he says (or writes) things like that - 15 times a day - and then gets in the elevator and leaves it to you to figure out how to put it into practice.

The next problem with being around Newt is, when he comes back from wherever he's just been and you haven't figured it out he'll go to the whiteboard and show you how to do it.

Between Mother Jones, the New York Times and others there is a growing attitude that "Newt is back."

Newt once said this:

This ought to be the goal:

That there will be a Monday morning when for the entire weekend not a single child was killed anywhere in America;

That there will be a Monday morning when every child in the country went to a school that they and their parents thought prepared them as citizens and prepared them to compete in the world market;

That there will be a Monday morning where it was easy to find a job or create a job, and your own Government did not punish you if you tried.

That was from Newt's first address as Speaker of the House on January 4, 1995.

Newt Gingrich isn't back. He never left.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Rich Galen has been a press secretary to Dan Quayle and Newt Gingrich. Rich Galen currently works as a journalist and writes at Mullings.com

Be the first to read Rich Galen's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

It's like this Rich
America, as it's sitting, will never have Newt's guidance. Those infatuated with Obama are beyond reason. For example, we're labeled fat fats and greedy because we want to cut taxes. They intentionally ignore our argument on limited govt. Am I telling it like it is?

Met Newt
Last year, near this time, newt spoke at the National petroleum Refiners Association. The day before his talk, he checked into the same hotel where I was, and like a star struck idiot I bugged him in the lobby....well, no one else was....and shook his hand and simply wished him well. No autograph or photo, just a handshake.
Next day, in the convention hall, massive line to get in, I needed a restroom break (sorry TMI) so had to go to the basement near the loading docks. So, alone in there, standing (again TMI) Newt strolls in to my amazement. He is standing next to me and recalled my handshake the day before. he engaged me in a short talk about the petchem business, was remarkably respectful and kind, but provocatively intuitive.
he then proceeded to approach the edge of the stage, i was at the front center table, and talk without a note for over an hour.
I always have been a huge fan, I became a bigger fan that day.
Newt may have troubles with libs and others, I have no idea, but I'd vote (twice in chicago) for him if he ran!

Advice for the GOP
If the GOP can figure out how to increase the wages and the wealth of the working class, they could be enormously successful.

And trickle down supply side economics won't do it.

The problem with the economy is that the working class doesn't have enough disposable income. All of the wealth in our economy is getting sucked up by the people at the top.

One idea is to rewrite the balance sheets of corporations.

As it stands now, the stockholder is owed all of the wealth of a corporation, and workers are seen as liabilities.

Not only does this way of looking at the balance sheet lead to greater wealth disparity, it is not an accurate reflection of who actually contributes to the wealth of the corporation. Original investors in a corporation contribute to a corporation's wealth. But an investor who buys stock from another investor contributes zero to the wealth of the corporation, yet they are entitled to all of the profits.

Meanwhile, the workers, who create the vast majority of the wealth, share in almost none of the profits beyond their wages. Indeed, they are seen as liabilities on the balance sheet.

If workers were to receive a share of the profits that reflected their level of contribution, we could go a long way towards building up the working class. It would also motivate them to be more innovative and harder working.

The investor class would get a smaller slice of the pie, but the increase in wages would increase disposable income which would increase the overall size of the pie.

Phylo out.

Newt
As a huge Obama supporter, I admire Newt in many ways. I love the way he is always trying out new ideas. I actually think Obama would be wise to engage him in private debates from time to time. I would pay anything to hear those debates. They are both wicked smart and love a good intellectual challenge.

If the GOP is smart, they will get behind Newt and dump Palin, Limbaugh and Joe the Plumber. All three of them are first class idiots.

Newt and cooperating with the enemy
If Gingrich does not believe in complete, relentless, and unforgiving opposition to Obama, he's no conservative. Most TH readers loathe Obama and many really don't believe he is the legitimate president of this country. If Gingrich wants to keep in the good graces of his fellow conservatives, he's got to stop playing at the game of "loyal opposition" and get serious about working to bring Obama down.

Conservatives should be working for the failure of all of Obama's policy proposals. They should stand firm against Obama in every way possible. Instead of prattling about cooperating with Obama, Gingrich should be rallying conservatives to oppose him in Congress, in the media, and on the streets. Where are the massive demonstrations against Obama that conservatives should be staging? There has been plenty of time to get a mass anti-Obama movement started. People like Gingrich should be the leaders of such a movement.

Gingrich is not the real intellectual leader of conservatives. Only one man deserves that title, and his name is Rush Limbaugh.

Phylo,

like Frank in other comments, displays typical leftist arrogance by imagining that his political opponents should should find his leftist opinions, comments and rants of great value.

Geesh, if you had anything of value to tell the center and the right, you would not be supporting Obama and his desire to "boorow our way to prosperity".

Wait a minute..
I thought Jabba the Limbaugh was the intellect and chief of the GOP?

Rich, good article! Newt is way too
smart for libdolts like the teflon jon, as in jonny on the spot, to understand or appreciate.

Gestelle, he only said to cooperate if the One brought a moderate proposal forward. So far, Newt would be fighting just like you want as nothing the One has proposed is anywhere near moderate.

Newt may be too smart for his own good as a politician and is prone to voice those 15 ideas/day. He may do better doing a little more vetting of his ideas before he voices them. In contrast, Pelosi hasn't had an idea in her entire career. Yet she still voices what passes for ideas constantly.

The Problem for Newt

conservativation, I second your testimonial for former-Speaker Gingrich. Not from any personal encounter, but from having attended a local speakers' forum last year where he was the featured guest. His primary topic of discussion was health care. He offered the audience a very understandable survey of the challenges facing our nation and a compelling assessment of the possible solutions. Having sat through a number of comparable sessions by other "experts" on the subject, I can testify that none were in Newt's league from an intellectual standpoint.

The problem for Speaker Gingrich is that he is too easy for the left to demonize, which is the only effective form of political dialogue they know (witness Gestell's asinine 12:30 p.m. post). From his less-than-serious first name to the fact that he publically airs his thought process, he makes too easy a target for our spoon-fed populace.

Typically, our local speakers' forum is a sell-out -- even for dunderheads like Bill Moyers. But at the evening in which Speaker Gingrich was the featured guest, only about 3/4 of the seats were occupied. The left-leaning ticket holders decided to stage a boycott because they would not support a "partisan" like Newt Gingrich.

It would be easy to say "their loss", because his presentation was excellent. But ultimately, the loss was (is) for our nation -- because so many of the left-leaning populace refuse to listen to opinions they've decided are not worthy.

If Newt Gingrich were to run for national office, I'd support him without reservation. But he won't run, because he can't win in our superficial system.


But Teflon Don !

There's your problem.

You attempted to think without practice at it !

If Newt is your intellectual
in chief, GOP is way DOA.

Newt, a Failed Leader?
I had the privilege of meeting Newt a couple times as a result of my company scheduling a conference with him as speaker. I was very impressed with his intellect and agree with everything Galen says above about his brilliance. But...a big but...I believe he frittered away a potential great career that could have ultimately seen him in the White House. I think of those alternate history books that he co-authored. What a waste of his intelligence and efforts!

He should be leading the GOP Party instead of Michael Steele. Steele is an excellent Republican but he doesn't have the charisma, intelligence, and experience to rebuild the Republican Party. Gingrich does and he proved it with the Contract With America.

As I write, Rush is demolishing Steele and his failure to stand up with him against the Democrats. GOP in the Congress is leaderless and clueless and that's why I don't donate any more to the Republican National Committee.

But I think Newt is two busy spreading his intelligence and efforts all over the place instead of rebuilding the Party. Don't get me wrong I would vote for Newt as president in a heartbeat.


On defining the ''possible''
--
In order to understand the situation in which both Republicans and American conservatives (the sets do not robustly overlap) find themselves, it must be understood that whenever Hussein the Hubshi and his co-conspirators do anything with which it is possible for a non-socialist to cooperate, it can only be for the strategic purpose of drawing these non-socialists into future actions to the detriment of individual rights and destructive of the Constitution.

Is this understood?

Think of a fencing match or a chess game, in which a player takes certain actions which offer - on their face - opportunities for positive actions by the opponent, only to bring the opponent into a situation where the killing stroke may be administered.

This has been the practice of socialists since the founding of the Fabian Society in 1884.


"Cooperate whenever possible" is the motto of the boiled frog.


You got that, folks?

If you wish to become yet another boiled frog, just follow the advice of this "Republican Intellect-in-Chief."


The sane alternative is to look at everything the enemy does as enemy action aimed at the destruction of lawful government in these United States, trust them in NO WAY WHATSOEVER, diagnose their malignancies, expose them, and offer Constitutional alternatives every time, pushing hard and uncompromisingly with every breath.

If you "go along to get along," eventually you'll be gotten along into a place where you'll find yourself clubbed to death and skinned like a baby seal.

Guaranteed.

--

Phylo
It has been a while since I looked at a balance sheet but I don't recall "workers" by any name listed under "Liabilities." If corporations did consider the workers to be liabilities, that would be the easiest liability to dispose of: fire 'em all. I think you made up that "workers as liabilities" thing. I think any corporation views its (productive) workers as assets, which they most certainly are.

Any of those workers may start his own business, be the boss, take the risks, and ALL of its profit, if any, will be his (except for the amount Obama decides is NOT his, of course). As employeees, their share of the corporation's wealth is termed "salary."

As for the "rich" people who own corporations--oh, and I am one of them--we spend our money. Everything we buy, everyone we hire, spreads OUR wealth. Personally, I prefer spending MY money on that which I want rather than letting Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama spend it on what THEY want.

I contribute to charities, I'm happy to pay government--local, state and federal--to protect me. And to protect my property rights. It's what the Constitution allows, indeed MANDATES, each to do.

Obama, professor of Constitutional law that he is, thinks the founding fathers erred in not better providing for government's ability to redistribute MY wealth (as he stated on PBS). He's right that they did NOT provide for redistribution of wealth but he's wrong about their not considering the concept. Actually, they REJECTED the concept.

Before massive redistribution became Big Government's mission, ignoring what the Constitution allows, the country grew quite nicely. Most people were able to provide for themselves, some grew wealthy, others were cared for by church and other charities or their own families.

Obama believes in subsidizing sloth. He WILL get more of it.

SJ Doc...
you should be advising the GOP. You compromise with the devil (Obama's socialist program) and sooner or later you end up in the devil's craw! That's how cowardly the current class of GOP legislators is.

Phylo, You're Part Right.
Trickle down economics merely means that members of all income brackets (even the upper ones) get to keep more of what they earn. It is they who take the risks, invest the capital, and create jobs. God love poor people but I never got a job from one. If I had gainful employment, I had more money to donate to the poor by way of my church. (I do like the idea of classifying workers as assets instead of liabilities though.)

I wish Newt wouldn't cooperate at all with Democrats, but in Washington it's just not possible. Even President Reagan settle for half a loaf when he had to.

A great way to keep all the wealth from just concentrating at the top is to enact a sunshine law that lets stockholders in the company know how much the CEO and the board are making. If stockholders think their company's wasting money, they can vote with their portfolios and sell the stock. Think what that would do for companies that have a stock purchase program. I just don't know if government micromanagement of companies would produce the results you're looking for. http://theclosetconservative.com

Newt is Spot on
But since we all know #1 is impossible, the main job of the republican party must be to crdate BETTER SOLUTIONS to the libturds.

i think we shoud have mandatory sterilization for all women who have received welfare for their first child.

round up and incarcerate every illegal alien.

shoot to kill each illegal trying to cross oour borders.

Stop teacing "ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE"

HAVE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR ENTRANCE IN TO PUBLIC KINDERGARTEN

END SPECIAL EDUCATION in PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Polly
The Constitution doesn't only allow for protecting property rights. It also says that "promoting the general welfare" is the government's job. The Constitution says nothing about capitalism or socialism.

Newt's Failure
As one of the great political debaters in the country Newt should know that once you accept the premise of your opponent you've already started to lose the argument. Newt accepted the wild theory that Global Warming is happening and we must cap carbon emissions in order to stop it.

He accepted two premises:

1. GW is happening
2. Humans can stop it by taking action against carbon emissions.

Both premises are unproven but the result of these actions lead to...

3. Massive taxes on energy that will affect every American.

3. Fight when it is unavoidable....?
Earth to Newt, earth to Newt.... The aliens have landed and they are hostile.... I say again they have landed and are hostile....
We are engaging but you are in our firing solution.... If you cannot engage evacuate immediately, they are using you for cover and we are sustaining damage....

Very few speakers
on TV nowadays are engaging at any level whatsoever, but Newt is definitely one of them. Another in his class of intellect is Dick Cheney, but the bunker kept him out of sight 99% of the time, a huge stroke of luck for the libtards.
The republican party is so stupid though, they let Newt get ripped to pieces as Speaker of the House.
I guess the rumor that DC is all about personalities somehow applies.
When the republicans finally decide they are worthwhile, and stop talking like whining liberals and exagerrating everything, like when Bush claimed it was a "thumping" (this type of idiocy is at every level in our politics now - the slightest molehill is a federal offense and a mountain ), maybe we will get some actual talkers like Newt up front and center.
It appears though, that a few minutes at the podium without a big libtard emotional win to go along with it ( as in the recent Jindal speech) is enough to send the rank and file into a libtard tither.
I sure wish the republicans would stop parsing and playing around, and start getting HARDCORE - of course that would be 'just being normal' - but we're so far from talling the simple truth, with the libtard PC insane public mantra controlling everything and everyone at the TV level - we'll need some kind of miracle to throw off the babbling psychological managers and tenders and handlers, so that we can get straight to the truth, instead of blabbering about in a thousand vague emoticons of speechification.

Obama failing
"Newt is not, ... hoping President Obama will fail."

Let me tell you this one thing:
President Obama has failed.
The economy is failing and Obama is exacerbating the failure.
The honeymoon lasted for two weeks.

And where is the Republican Party?
I think they are still trying to figure out why they got whipped.
Maybe it is time for the Republican Party to find a leader to remind us that this is a great country and we need not fall victim to socialistic big brother philosophy.

Phylo
Ahh, James Madison, acknowledged father of the Constitution, apparently anticipated your argument when he said, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."

In 1794, Madison argued against $15,000 for relief for French refugees fleeing the insurrection in then-San Domingo to the U.S., saying, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

Thomas Jefferson agreed, writing, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

The founders placed great faith in "enumerated powers." Sadly, they didn't realize the Constitution was a "living document," subject to all manner of amendment without going through that whole tedious amendment process, which they must have thought was adequate to address future concerns.

They did what they could to ward off the despotism that comes as Government purchases the freedom and initiative of the masses with the money of its constituents. I guess they should have added one last sentence: "This is it, and we really, really mean it."

Phylo
It's a good thing that those corporate jets were taken away from those evil corporations. Them not have a jet is far more important that the jobs necessary to keep that jet going - pilots, maintenance, ground support, etc.

Yeah - we really showed those greedy CEO's didn't we?

Sorry about those middle class jobs that were lost - we just have to have our priorities. If a waitress can't fly a private jet then nobody should.

Death by a thousand cuts - there goes another one...

phylo
To take further what polly said, the Constitution itself specifically gives what powers are given for general welfare FOR THE UNITED STATEs..STATES..STATES. Interestingly enough the power to determine what general welfare is, is not present,merely the power of revenue, coinage, immigration policy, post roads and offices and a few others. If the power of general welfare was given in unlimited measure, none of the other enumerations would have been necessary, just as for Common Defence there are enumerated powers. As further substantiation matters like making canals, and Federal Universities were considered and did not pass, thus showing that "general" welfare was "specifically" covered by the following powers.

As for Newt
This is a proper segue from my earlier comment, in that really I can only agree with point 3 given by Newt, as there is such egregious violation of the Constitutional limits imposed on the Federal government, that nothing but fight is left, for how can there be cooperation in usurpation? ANY spending bill that does not have Constitutional fidelity is to be voted against. THAT IS ANY!!! No matter what. So any funding for Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, the FCC, etc. is to be struck down. Even the EPA and the Energy Department which ARE necessary but have never been Constitutionally put into place are not to be funded. There are reasons for having an amendment process, which should not be negated, one of the most important being that the Federal government realises that it is there for the benefit of the states, and is not allowed to operate as a feudal lord.

SJ Doc and macthemadman
Excellent comments. Nothing to add here.

Tadpole
It's kind of a laugh riot watching Congress get SO upset at the corporations that, having taken the taxpayers' money, now spend it in ways Congress dislikes. Perhaps Congress would approve if Citibank paid several billion dollars for a fast train from Disneyland to Las Vegas? Or maybe just $200,000,000 to rebuild one (1) intersection in Carmel, Indiana? Yes, those corporations must spend those precious taxpayer dollars carefully. (The rule is this: Wasting taxpayers' money is the job of Congress.)

When a bank cancels a gig in Las Vegas, how many middle-class workers miss the tips they would have received? How much revenue do the hotels forego? Does Nevada miss the tax revenue they would have collected? Doesn't matter, what's important is that taxpayer money not be wasted.

Barack & his Dems believe the economy cannot be stimulated except by government expenditures. I notice the stock market agrees.

Lenard
If the Republicans begin to fight unconstitutional expenditures of taxpayer money, they'll be coming late to the game. I really can't see them doing it, as they've been seduced by the aphrodisiac of (seemingly) unlimited dollars to be spent...any darned way they want to. The Democrats showed them the way; they followed willingly, even eagerly.

It must be really heady stuff.

Polly
I don't really care if the Republicans are 'late to the game'.

At some point somebody has to stand on principal and point out that right is right and wrong is wrong - contrary to popular (current) belief, the validity of truth is not based on the history of the messenger.

It is intellectually lazy and dishonest to point out that Republicans supported earmarks in the past - it was wrong then too!!!

Tadpole
I point out their support of earmarks in the past only because some "habits" are VERY hard to break.

And even though I don't exactly mean to ATTACK them, you know that every Democrat WILL attack them. Shoot, they already are.

Wouldn't it be fun if a few conservatives in Congress would begin pointing out that welfare is unconstitutional?

Of course, too many of the current welfare recipients could only wonder, "What is this 'Constitution'?"

And the MSM would work hard to convince the populace that conservatives are hard-hearted, uncaring misers. AND that they must be defeated, lest the poor be allowed to fall into the abyss.

Dr.Orly Taitz on Israeli Talk Radio ...
Listen to Dr. Taitz of Defend our Freedoms ...

http://defendourfreedoms.us/

Dr. Taitz has just filed for Eric Holder to provide a Special Prosecutor to investigate Obama's citizenship ...

Listen at:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Radio/Player.htm#0#710



Dr.Orly Taitz on Israeli Talk Radio ...
Listen to Dr. Taitz of Defend our Freedoms ...

http://defendourfreedoms.us/

Dr. Taitz has just filed for Eric Holder to provide a Special Prosecutor to investigate Obama's citizenship ...

Listen at:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Radio/Player.htm#0#710



TAKING RESPONSIBILITY
NEWT IS NOT PERFECT BUT HE DID TAKE RESPONSIBILITY OF HIS DECISION ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY EFFECTED OTHERS. TODAY POLITICAL OFFICE HOLDERS HAVE NO ACCOUNTABLE, DISPITE THE ETHIC LAWS THAT CONGRESS DOES NOT ENFORCE NIETHER PARTY.

Rich & Newt
Rich you are my favorite columnist.
Newt may have never left , but he is not in the saddle . Ideas are no good unless someone is pushing them . It doesn't matter what the answer is unless someone is fighting to get it
done . Bobby Jindel is no Newt . The Republicans need a fighter and a leader . No matter how well trained an army is , it still needs a LEADER . Your're a friend of his , tell him to spur that horse and RIDE before the U.S. is doomed .

Gestell
I loathe Pres. Obama's policies, but not the man. However, I am not fond of some of his character flaws, which includes hubris. But hell, the previous two presidents were the same way.

I like Newt but:
I still want Obama to fail. I am not among those in the political class that must engage in pointless political correctness. There has not been, nor will there be a moderate proposal from this president that angers the left, for conservatives to support (like Welfare Reform or NAFTA in the 90's). Obama will be successful, if the budget is balanced, employment is full, America is safe, Entrepreneurial freedom is real, GDP is expanding, the middle class is growing, and taxes are low. His policies will not achieve these goals. I will not support them. I will not be made to feel guilty about it.

Phylo and Polly's Posts
It must be noted that the preamble to the Constitution says that government's role is: 1)to PROMOTE the general welfare and, 2) PROVIDE for the common defense; and, 3) to secure the blessings of liberty. To promote the general welfare is to legislate conditions that allow the people to work out their own economic situations in ways that are satisfactory to them.Some folks only want to work for a living. That's fine. Others may be more ambitious and seek to make money doing business.That's fine, too. But each of these is far different than the government being the guarantor and/or provider of somebody's income, unless those persons are in necessary government employ. To provide for the common defense is both obvious and government's fundamental responsibility.Let's keep that straight.

George
Gee, George, I have NEVER, EVER heard Rush even IMPLY "My party, right or wrong"!

You have Republicans confused with anarchists. Republicans believe in LIMITED government. I think Republicans are wrong when they want to violate the Constitution with social demands, but then again, the Supreme Court wasn't exactly following the Constitution when they decided, by means of emanations and penumbras, that there is a RIGHT to abortion, guaranteed by the Constitution. ???

Everything Obama has done since he took office is in furtherance of the goal of Saul Alinsky's vision of a socialist/Marxist America. He pretends to accept the hoax of global warming so that he may tax and take control of any business that utilizes coal, oil, and even natural gas. He firmly believes in redistribution of wealth, not mandated, not allowed by the Constitution, and NOT a policy that leads to economic growth. He will try to take over the medical sector, so that he can do to doctors what he (with the aid of the Democrats in Congress, lawsuits and ACORN) did to lending institutions (they essentially outlawed prudent lending, demanded toxic loans, murdered the lending institutions). And on what basis did he mandate that all programs funded by federal dollars MUST be performed by union labor at union wages?

Laugh at socialism at your own peril. And Google New Harmony, Indiana, where the wealthy Robert Owen created a community based on "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." I don't want to spoil the ending for you but I will just say that Robert Owen returned to England a much poorer and very disappointed man. It seems that even in America, socialism is counterproductive.

But I'm sure Obama believes HE can do it better. HE will be a better ruler of the destitute masses.

Schizophrenic
I am of two minds regarding how I view the state of America. One day, I think I'd better get a few guns and buy some gold for the impending revolution. The next day, I invite a few charming members of the enemy camp for a dinner party. The desire for acceptance and being considered mainstream is strong, even though I know in my heart that the approval of Marxists renders me a shameful coward.

Romney
Every Republican I know wanted Romney. I would be more confident about the economy righ now if he were at the helm. What say you all? Will the Baptists and Evangelicals destroy him because his theology is "wrong"?

reply to replies
To Gay conservative #7: If you think you can BE a "gay conservative," you're over the edge. Conservative Republicans are, and ought to be, the straightest of the straight.

To Eddie etc. #34 what, exactly, was 'asinine?" My recommendations are based on reading TH columns and posts daily for over two years. I take TH readers to be a self-selected (not statistically generated) sample of conservative opinion. My comments are a distillation of what I've read.

To Rich Not Wealthy #35

My point is that Newt's kind of fighting is useless. What many of you conservatives want to do is lock, load, and deploy against Obama's socialist state. Newt isn't exactly ready to take operational command of a front-line force.

Newt only knows how to play politics as usual. He fantasizes that he's functioning in a parliamentary system—his use of the word "backbencher" is a Britticism seldom used in the US Congress. What conservatives like Newt don't get, and what many TH conservatives DO get is that the time for slinging insults and rebukes at the Obama regime is rapidly vanishing. If Obama is what conservatives believe him to be, then they must be prepared to leave conventional politics far behind.



Tadpole - On earmarks
--
Writes Tadpole:

"It is intellectually lazy and dishonest to point out that Republicans supported earmarks in the past - it was wrong then too!!!"


Little as I like defending any "Malevolent Jobholder" in civil government, part of what our Congresscritters are lawfully REQUIRED to do is direct federal spending.

The best definition of "earmarks" I've been able to find online reads thus:

"Provisions associated with legislation (appropriations or general legislation) that specify certain congressional spending priorities or in revenue bills that apply to a very limited number of individuals or entities. Earmarks may appear in either the legislative text or report language (committee reports accompanying reported bills and joint explanatory statement accompanying a conference report)."


Most commonly, the "earmarks" which we criticize - justly! - are those devoting unconstitutional and therefore unlawful spending upon "pork" activities in specific districts and states as a means whereby a Congresscritter delivers the sorts of "constituent services" that Crash Test Johnnie provided Charles Keating (remember the Lincoln S&L scandal?) in the '80s.

But it is one of the few legitimate jobs a Congresscritter does to direct specific federal expenditures in legislation.

The question is whether said "earmark" is on a big, honkin' porker or on something it's even marginally possible to consider a lawful activity of the U.S. government.

Specific spending allocations have to be made. They way it's done know is politically, according to clout and similar dirty dealings.

Revision is required. Preferrably at gunpoint.

But it's as necessary a job as carting corpses to the morgue. And somebody's gotta do it.

--
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.