I am Still Leaning Toward Gingrich

John R. Houk

© March 2, 2012

The GOP race for the nomination for President has been whittled down to Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul. I am definitively no supporter of Romney and Paul.

That leaves me with Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich.

I like Santorum’s Social Conservatism.

I like Newt’s debating skills and the Conservative credentials that brought the Republican majority to the House for the first time in a quarter century when he became Speaker.

Newt has a checkered morals history in his personal life and some questionable choices in encouraging the thoughts of pseudo-Marxist Futurist Alvin Toffler. I have pretty much gotten over Gingrich’s past issues and believe in his present stands at his word.

Former Senator Santorum is big to claim he is the true Conservative. I am uncertain of the “true Conservative” claim as much as he is a better candidate than Romney claim (and everyone is better than Ron Paul because of an American anti-Exceptionalism stand in Foreign Policy). If the GOP race comes down to a choice between Romney and Santorum then I choose Santorum. At this point if the race involves Newt Gingrich I am still leaning toward Newt.

I am going to cross post a Townhall.com article by Rachel Alexander that sheds a light on Santorum’s Conservatism. The article is decidedly anti-Santorum; however if you look at the numbers you will notice that Newt’s numbers are better. Also I am guessing if one compares Santorum’s numbers to Romney’s gubernatorial numbers on Conservatism Santorum wins there. I think it is a good guess that even though Romney’s negative-Romney ads show Santorum is not as Conservative as the campaign claim, that Santorum still outshines Romney.

After the Townhall.com article I am posting a Newsmax ad email from Winning our Future Super PAC which is not Gingrich ran but is pro-Gingrich.

JRH 3/2/12

**************************

Is Rick Santorum Really the Most Conservative Presidential Candidate?

By Rachel Alexander

Mar 01, 2012

Townhall.com

The anyone-but-Romney conservatives have currently latched onto Rick Santorum as their candidate du jour, providing him with a surge shortly into the Republican primary elections. But is he really that conservative? Santorum is known for taking strong stands on social issues like abortion and gay marriage. As a result of his outspokenness on the sanctity of marriage, he has been the target of a cruel gay activist.

Up until his surge, most people took his conservative claims for granted without closely scrutinizing his record in Congress. But his record is sketchy. Santorum’s lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union is only 88. Newt Gingrich’s lifetime rating is 90. Santorum’s record was even worse in the past; during his first two years in Congress he received ratings of 83 and 81, which dipped to a low of 70 in 1993.

Santorum really hurt his conservative record in 2004 by backing abortion-rights supporter Arlen Specter for Senate over conservative challenger Pat Toomey, deciding that Toomey was unelectable. Specter narrowly won. Toomey went on to win the next election, as Specter switched parties and lost in the Democratic primary.

Santorum is not necessarily the best candidate for the Tea Party either, considering he expressed his distaste for the Tea Party a couple of years ago, “I have some real concerns about this movement within the Republican party…to sort of refashion conservatism. And I will vocally and publicly oppose it.”

Liberty Counsel Action put together a list of not 10, not 50, but 100 of Santorum’s disappointing votes on major issues over his 16 years in office. His record on social issues does not entirely live up to his rhetoric. He voted to fund Planned Parenthood as part of an appropriations bill that provided money for Title X family planning. He voted three years in a row against bills to end the National Endowment for the Arts, famous for funding artwork like a cross in urine.

The fiscal watchdog organization Club for Growth describes his performance in Congress as merely “above average.” Santorum voted for union-backed legislation that restricts steel imports. He opposed repeated attempts to reimpose the "pay-go" rules that would hold down spending increases and tax giveaways. He voted against the National Right to Work Act and voted for Fed Ex unionization. He supported a bill by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) increasing the minimum wage. He voted for practically every "emergency supplemental" spending bill sought by the Bush administration, which added tens of billions to the deficit. He voted to increase the debt ceiling and voted against a flat tax. He voted against reforming welfare programs numerous times.

He requested billions of dollars of earmarks for his home state of Pennsylvania, and defends this practice by claiming that “there are good earmarks and bad earmarks.” He was one of only 25 Senators who voted for the Bridge to Nowhere, part of the $284 billion 2005 highway bill known for its bloated earmarks.

Santorum does not appear strongly principled, since he now admits some of his past votes were mistakes. He voted for the expensive Medicare Part D prescription-drug program, the largest entitlement program since Lyndon Johnson, which is expected to cost $68 billion this year. He said after the fact that his vote was a mistake since the program did not have funding. During last week’s presidential debate in Arizona he admitted that voting for the No Child Left Behind Act, which expanded the federal government’s role in education, was a mistake and he “took one for the team.”

There is a reason why presidential candidates rarely come from Congress. Their records are more extensive and visible than governors or non-politicians. The nature of being a member of Congress means voting for bills that include items you don’t agree with in order to get your own agenda passed. This kind of compromise will translate into compromising as president, since the president will need to sign bills in order to get anything accomplished. The question is whether a president will stand firm and compromise on very little, like Ronald Reagan, or whether a president will compromise their principles more often like both presidents Bush.

What may ultimately turn conservatives away from Santorum are the robocalls he ran in Michigan this past week attacking Mitt Romney. They were directed into Democratic households, urging Democrats to vote in the Republican primary against Romney since Romney opposed the auto bailouts. The calls sounded like they were coming from Democrats until the very end when the Santorum campaign was identified. This kind of dirty campaigning, which tricks opponents into voting for you, crosses the line, especially since Santorum also opposed the auto bailouts.

Santorum may be reasonably conservative, but he is not clearly the most conservative candidate in the race. To claim that he is the best choice for conservatives is debatable. Gingrich’s record is slightly better, and it is difficult to compare Santorum with Romney since Romney’s experience as governor was different and brief. Ron Paul has the most conservative record when it comes to fiscal issues, but the least conservative record on foreign policy and defense. Perhaps conservatives who claim Santorum is the best candidate are basing their preferences on criteria other than his record in office.

_________________________________

Important Letter - Our Next President

Sent by Newsmax

By Becky Burkett

From: Winning our Future Super PAC

Sent: Mar 1, 2012 at 10:53 AM

"Is The Idea of Mitt Romney Being the Voice and Face of the Conservative Movement for Possibly the Next Eight Years Keeping You Up at Night?"

Don’t Let the Establishment Fool You!

The GOP Presidential Nomination Fight Ain't Over. Here’s Why…

Dear Fellow Conservative,

In 2008, many conservatives secretly thought to themselves that while electing Barack Obama would be the worst thing that could happen to the country (and it was), electing John McCain would be the worst thing that could happen to the conservative movement (and it would have been).

Well, as Yogi Berra said, it’s déjà vu all over again.

Clearly, re-electing Barack Obama would be disastrous for our nation. It’d be the end of our country as we know it…and I say that without an ounce of hyperbole.

And electing Mitt Romney would inevitably force Republicans and conservatives to defend the same kinds of government-expanding programs John McCain would have pushed - such as his anti-free speech McCain-Feingold law.

Talk about being between a rock and a hard place. However…

It’s not too late this time.

Indeed, conservatives still have an opportunity to have our cake and eat it, too. We can both defeat Barack Obama next November…AND…do it with a Reagan conservative, not a Massachusetts moderate.

We can nominate Newt Gingrich.

While the elite media is desperately pushing the idea that "Newt can’t win," it's simply not so.

·         I'll remind you that that’s the same thing the media said about Newt leading Republicans to a majority in Congress in 1994.

·         And I'll remind you that the elite media declared Newt’s campaign "dead" last summer.

·         And I'll remind you that the elite media declared Newt’s campaign "dead" after Iowa.

·         And I'll remind you that the elite media declared Newt's campaign "dead" after Florida.

But like Rocky Balboa, no matter what they've thrown at Newt; no matter how hard or how low they've hit him…he’s still standing…and he's still fighting.

And again, quoting the immortal Yogi Berra, it ain’t over 'til it's over.

Now here's why it's not over…

While the Romney campaign - aided and abetted by the mainstream media – continue to talk about winning "states" in this year's GOP nomination process, the rules this time around have been radically changed.

In the "old days," if you won a state you won ALL of the states delegates. However, under new rules for this year’s contests, very few states which go to the polls before the end of March – including on Super Tuesday next week - are "winner take all."

Which means candidates coming in second, third and even fourth can rack up delegates.

For example: In the February 4 Nevada caucus – which Mitt Romney "won" – he was awarded 14 delegates. However, Newt picked up 6 delegates, Ron Paul got 5 delegates and Rick Santorum got 3.

Which makes it increasingly less likely that any candidate left in this race is going to wrap up the nomination anytime soon!

So like "Rocky Balboa," we don’t need to knock Mitt Romney out in the fifth round on Super Tuesday. We only need to still be standing.

We just need to slowly and methodically continue to rack up enough delegates to get us to the 12th round at the Republican National Convention in Tampa this August.

And if we do…all bets are off.

And those in the elite media - who are today saying "it can't be done" - will watch Newt Gingrich do the "impossible" once again.

And two months later…we’ll pull the plug on the Obama presidency!

·         We’ll repeal ObamaCare.

·         We’ll fire all the czars.

·         We’ll stop apologizing to terrorists and dictators.

·         We’ll stop spending our grandchildren into bankruptcy.

·         We’ll cut the cost of gasoline by drilling here, drilling now.

·         We’ll stop suing states for trying to enforce our immigration laws.

·         We’ll put America back to work.

·         We’ll put small businesses back in business.

With Newt Gingrich in the White House – along with Republican control of the House and Senate – we will finally realize the promise of 1994’s Contract with America, including a dramatically smaller and dramatically restructured government.

But none of those bold changes for America will happen if Republicans nominate a "pale pastel" Massachusetts moderate to go head-to-head with Obama's "Chicago Machine" in November – the same machine that rolled over, chewed up and spit out John McCain in 2008.

Indeed, before we get a shot at Obama, we need to win the GOP nomination.

Now is not the time to "go wobbly."

·         Now is the time to step up and stop the Republican establishment from forcing another Gerald Ford on us.

·         Now is the time to step up and stop the Republican establishment from forcing another Bob Dole on us.

·         Now is the time to step up and stop the Republican establishment from forcing another John McCain on us.

·         Now is the time to step up and stop the Republican establishment from forcing Mitt Romney on us.

Will you step up?

Can I count on you to help us help Newt stay in the fight all the way to Tampa?

I urgently need your help today. Super Tuesday is less than a week away. Please follow this link right now to make a donation of $25, $50, $100, $250 or more to help us help Newt…and give conservatives a true conservative nominee who can win!

Sincerely yours,

Becky Burkett
President
Winning Our Future Super PAC

P.S. In 1976, they gave us Gerald Ford. We got Jimmy Carter. In 1996, they gave us Bob Dole. We got Bill Clinton. In 2008, they gave us John McCain. We got Barak Obama. Now they're trying [to] sell us Mitt Romney. Don't let them. Not this time. Click this link right now to make a donation of $25, $50, $100, $250 or more…before we all wake up with a bad case of "buyer’s remorse" once again.

__________________________

I am Still Leaning Toward Gingrich

John R. Houk

© March 2, 2012

_______________________

Is Rick Santorum Really the Most Conservative Presidential Candidate?

Copyright © Townhall.com. All Rights Reserved.

_______________________

Important Letter - Our Next President

Paid for by Winning Our Future. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

This email was sent by: Newsmax.com4152 West Blue Heron Blvd., Ste. 1114
Riviera Beach, FL 33404 USA