Gingrich’s Redemption Compared to That of King David

In my opinion the VERY BEST article of the last 10 days, that best articulates why Newt Gingrich cannot be President of the United States, is by Dr. Jerry L. Walls. Rather than take up a lot of real estate here with his quotes, I highly recommend you set aside five minutes and click here to read this OUTSTANDING editorial:

JOHN NEWTON, NEWT GINGRICH AND THE REAL ISSUE FOR HIS CANDIDACY

“Fidelity is the sister of justice.” — Horace

“True happiness… is not attained through self-gratification, but through fidelity to a worthy purpose.” -Helen Keller

Mitt Romney and The Newt

With nothing better to do on a Friday night, I type….

Living in Orange County, CA (large Republican base), we have two major newspapers to choose from. The Orange County Register and The Los Angeles Times. The LA Times clearly has better overall journalism, though it definitely leans left.

This article in today’s Times, by David Horsey, came as a tip from one of MRC’s chatters whose call sign I missed. Thank you!

Some of the better quotes include,

Gingrich is not well-liked by many of the people he worked with in Congress. In fact, loathing may better characterize their feelings.

Now tell me, have you seen a better political cartoon than this one? SERIOUSLY!

By David Horsey / Los Angeles Times


Today, while at a business luncheon in Laguna Beach, I overheard four gentlemen involved in a lively political discussion while I too was so engaged. I heard one guy say, “You should have seen it last night! Romney was just pounding that snake Gingrich! It was beautiful!” My colleague and I smiled and continued our discussion of Gov. Romney while we enjoyed the ocean view on a spectacular day.

Horsey continues,

Ron Bonjean, a long-time aide to the Republican leadership, told CNN that folks on Capitol Hill are very nervous about Gingrich’s candidacy. “It sends a shiver down a lot of Republican spines,” Bonjean said. “You can actually feel the nervousness from Republicans around town that Gingrich could actually bring the craziness back of his speakership from the 1990s.”

The worry ranges from first-term members to veterans who served with Gingrich as he rose to power in the 1980s and ’90s. According to a report in Politico, freshman House Republicans could talk about little else on a bus ride back from their caucus retreat in Baltimore last week. They have seen the polling data indicating Gingrich is disliked by suburban women – even conservatives — and is broadly unpopular in the Northeast.
[...]
Gingrich is proud to be a man of big ideas and bold rhetoric, and it was his intelligence and combativeness that was attractive to the 40% of Republican voters in South Carolina who cast their ballots for him. But Republican officials in Washington see his big ideas and bold talk as evidence of a boundless ego and unscrupulous character.
[...]
Now, those old colleagues are aiming the tough language at him – “erratic, abrasive, undisciplined, unreliable, unhinged, unethical, mired in scandal, consummate D.C. insider.”

[emphasis added]

“Frankly, Governor Romney in his career has created more jobs than the entire Obama cabinet combined, so he could actually talk about it.” — Newt Gingrich

——————————————————————

INTRADE (1/27/12, 10pm, PST):

To win the Florida Primary — Romney: 91.1% / Gingrich: 6.9%
To win the Nevada Caucus — Romney: 92.7% / Gingrich: 3.6%
To be Republican 2012 Nominee — Romney: 87.5%
President Obama to be re-elected — 54.9%,
,

Gingrich’s Favorite Modern Day President? Reagan? — Guess Again . . .

Ever wonder why Limbaugh, Hannity, and Levin are angry that staunch conservatives are out in force in support of the conservative principles espoused by Governor Romney while they are denouncing Gingrich? It is not just rhetoric that Gingrich is the ultimate Washington insider who is most likely to increase the size of government (his lunar colony with 13,000 Americans is only one tiny example).

Hannity, Levin, and Limbaugh are entertainers first. Their radio and television ratings go through the roof when a liberal is in office and they tank when a conservative is President. It is no surprise to this writer that these celebrities are pulling for the guy with all the dirty laundry. Am I implying or stating outright that these guys want Obama for another four years? No, I am not. But clearly their media “value” is much higher with Obama as President — there is no question about that. So, for me anyway, there is no surprise here (though Hannity is clearly toeing the Murdock line as his lackey for Gingrich).

If I asked the question — “Which of all the modern presidents is the favorite of Mr. Gingrich?” — what would you say? Reagan, right? WRONG.

Let Mr. Gingrich tell you directly:

Don’t get me wrong. I consider FDR a hero for the way he took it to America’s enemies in World War II — no question about it. But he expanded the federal government in unprecedented ways that can never be reversed.

Three Gingrich quotes from this clip:

1) “In my judgment, FDR is the greatest President of the twentieth century.”

2) “The most effective President of the twentieth century.”

3) Responding to the question of which modern day President is the favorite of Gingrich, he replies, “FDR”

The important question one has to ask, when considering how a Romney or Gingrich President would govern, is which is most likely to expand the federal government? A President Gingrich or a President Romney?

Gingrich admits that his thinking is grandiose.

It is my opinion that the probability that Gingrich, as President, would reduce the size of the federal government is less than one percent.

Gingrich is definitely a big-government Washington insider.

[Thank you to my friend Troy Tate for sending over this clip]

Endorsements Matter, Especially for a Republican

NOTE: Specific Endorsement Count by Candidate & Names: End of Post

Any one endorsement for a presidential candidate, in and of itself, is not generally considered that important in the long-term. However, how that endorser supports the candidate over time and the number of endorsements of stature can have significant influence. Every endorsement is a huge vote of confidence by the person putting their name on the line, in public (consider those who do not endorse candidates at all — there is a reason they don’t step up)

I have been giving a lot of thought to the large number of endorsements Governor Romney has compiled week in and week out. Gingrich sees this “voting” and he attempts to blunt their importance by referring to these as “the establishment” supporting Governor Romney.

Nonsense.

No matter how you cut it, almost EVERY one of these endorsers knows both Gingrich and Romney; some better than others. Very few of these choose Gingrich. By the way, I have yet to hear any close friend of Gingrich or any colleague of his (that worked closely with him for years), ever say anything positive about the man as a leader (besides his ability to speak well). Why is that? I only hear negative things said of him from those that know him well.

Yesterday’s Opinion section of The Wall Street Journal discusses this important topic:

Do endorsements matter? Politicians certainly think so, and they spend loads of time courting party elites and opinion-makers. So far, though, 2012 has shown how the politics of anointment and appointment can fail.

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley flopped mightily in trying to deliver her state for Mitt Romney. Evangelical leaders held a summit to get the Palmetto State to back their new choice, Rick Santorum, but he fared much worse than Mr. Romney. Newt Gingrich knows the feeling—New Hampshire’s supposedly dominant Manchester Union Leader newspaper huffed and puffed for Newt and got him less than 10% of the vote.

But it’s easy to cherry-pick examples to prove the folly of endorsements. In some circumstances, they can make a substantial difference.

Throughout American history, presidencies have been created by the laying on of incumbent hands. Thomas Jefferson effectively passed the presidency to his friend and confidant, James Madison. Andrew Jackson handed his populist democracy off to an unlikely dandy, Martin Van Buren, in 1836. Few would have imagined the studious and portly William Howard Taft as president until Theodore Roosevelt picked him in 1908. More recently, George H.W. Bush might not have been elected president without Ronald Reagan’s blessing. Madison, Van Buren, Taft and Mr. Bush all got their predecessor’s third term—when popular, presidents have extraordinary powers.

What about little-known state legislators and local sheriffs? Even low-level backing can attract the cameras and generate a positive story. But this can backfire if candidates overplay their hands, as Jon Huntsman did when his campaign hinted at a “major” announcement in Florida. Speculation naturally centered on former Gov. Jeb Bush. Not quite. Mr. Huntsman got only his son, Jeb Jr., and the media’s letdown showed in the coverage.
[...]
Even more than Democrats, Republicans typically nominate a candidate that party elites support. In “The Party Decides,” political scientists Marty Cohen, David Karol, Hans Noel and John Zaller analyzed endorsements made prior to the Iowa caucuses in presidential primary contests from 1980 to 2004. They found that the candidate who had won the biggest share of endorsements won the eventual nomination in nine of 10 competitive contests (the exception was Democrat John Kerry in 2004). On the GOP side, the eventual nominees all won a strong plurality of endorsements.

Not surprisingly, given Mr. Romney’s position as the front-runner and the fear that many Republican officeholders have of sharing a ballot with Mr. Gingrich or Ron Paul, the former Massachusetts governor has a long lead in endorsements from elected officials. According to the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call, Mr. Romney has the backing of 72 members of Congress, versus a combined 17 for the other candidates.

This is good news for Mr. Romney. Mr. Gingrich is attempting to stir the populism of the GOP base by railing against “elites,” but many voters welcome guidance in intra-party contests. In a general election, voters have the invaluable short-hand cue of the party label. But in a nominating contest, all candidates have the same party label. How to choose just one? Differences in personality, background and policy help, but so does a candidate’s association with other well-known party figures. People want to puzzle out which candidate comes closest to their kind of Republican or Democrat.

Non-endorsements can send powerful signals to voters as well. For decades, leading Southern Democrats practiced “golden silence” in presidential years, refusing to endorse their party’s presidential nominees. This was a green light to voters that it was acceptable to support a Republican for the White House. In 1960, President Eisenhower wanted Vice President Nixon to succeed him, but he damaged Nixon’s campaign when asked what major decisions in his administration Nixon had influenced. “If you give me a week, I might think of one,” said Ike. The comment ended up in one of John Kennedy’s TV ads.

Could non-endorsements end up mattering in 2012, too? Despite decades on Capitol Hill and four years as speaker of the House, Mr. Gingrich has only 11 congressional endorsements, five of them from Georgians.

[emphasis added]

CHECK THESE TWO SITES FOR MANY SPECIFICS:

Endorsements for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012

RACE 4 2012 — Endorsements as of January 20, 2022
,

Gingrich: “I’m Not a Duck!” … and Other Lobby Lies & PELOSI KNOWS…

*********************************************************************************
* * * * PELOSI: Gingrich as President: “THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN” (below fold) * * * *

Was there an important speech last night? I heard something about the POTUS speaking. Oh well, I missed that one.

Now that I think about Newt walking out onto the debate stage the other night, he actually walks like a duck! Do you remember that profile shot from behind the curtain, looking out toward the audience as Mr. Gingrich walked out? He sorta waddled.

Lobby Lane

In all seriousness . . .

Monday night, Gingrich told the us that he was merely acting as a concerned “citizen” in all these jobs he has had earning multi-millions of dollars. Right. Again, what do we know? We are all simply naive.

A number of sources yesterday checked into whether Mr. Gingrich used his influence inappropriately. Here is what we find from CNN‘s Truth Squad. You judge:

The New York Times also reported last month that the world’s largest insulin maker, Novo Nordisk, had hired Gingrich to help “position itself as a thought leader” to raise awareness about diabetes.

Former Colorado Rep. Marilyn Musgrave told CNN last month that Gingrich called her at the height of the 2003 debate urging her to vote for the bill.

“Newt called me to vote yes,” said Musgrave, who is now director at the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List.

“He asked for a yes vote on a Medicare prescription drug benefit,” she said. “Dick Armey” — a former House majority leader — “called me and wanted a no. But I had already made up my mind to vote not to expand an entitlement that we were going to have to pay for down the road.”

Musgrave, who is neutral in the presidential race, said she was not sure if Gingrich was technically “lobbying” when he called her, because she did not know if he was working for anyone else at the time.

“All I know is he wanted a yes,” Musgrave said.

Musgrave was one of 19 House Republicans who voted against the plan, which passed 220-215.

Two other Republicans who served in Congress at the time, Arizona Rep. Jeff Flake and Idaho Gov. Butch Otter, told the Des Moines Register last month that they interpreted Gingrich’s actions as lobbying.

“He told us, ‘If you can’t pass this bill, you don’t deserve to govern as Republicans,’ ” Flake told the paper. “If that’s not lobbying, I don’t know what is.”

According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the bill is projected to cost nearly $1 trillion from 2010 through 2020. The price tag for Medicare Part D was added to the nation’s deficit.

“It was a huge entitlement” that left the insurance and drug industries as big winners, said Uwe Reinhardt, a professor of health economics at Princeton.

[emphasis added]

(more…)

Gingrich: A Man Who has Never been a “Leader” — A Person Without a Core

Nobody believes that Newt Gingrich was ever serious about a run for the presidency. So why did he enter the race you ask? Think about it. The man loves the limelight. It is all about Newt. Have we ever seen any man on the world stage, in any era, with such an insatiable love of self? Is there any person even close in comparison to Mr. Gingrich in self absorption?

Photo Credit: Drudge Report

One man comes to mind: Hugo Chavez. I insert that name here because the man’s ego and self-love is enormous, but even Chavez does not compare with Gingrich. As dangerous as Chavez is, hobnobbing with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, he is not as dangerous as Newt Gingrich.

The world knows Chavez as a corrupt dictator (non-leader); a dictator of a third world country — Gingrich would have the world believe his “core” is now different; that character is not important. Chavez is a known entity. Gingrich has the world fooled; to this point — today. Gingrich was literally kicked out of the Speakership by those he was “leading!” And hit with a huge fine! As Speaker, 84 ethics violations were filed against him. He was kicked out of the House leadership with a vote of 395 to 28! Mr. Gingrich is seeking power of the greatest nation on Earth.

Try to imagine what would be written in the elementary school history books about all the “firsts” that a Gingrich presidency would usher in. Need I list them all? Just think about all the character lapses in marriage, numerous unethical decisions, the many times he has said, “Yeah, that was a mistake” (about 10 times in the last three months alone), etc.

Did you hear what Gingrich said Saturday night during his speech? He said something like, “You know, it is not my ability to debate that brought this win; it is my ability to articulate the values Americans want to see in their President . . . “ He said that! Gingrich actually believes that of himself! (have I ever mentioned arrogance in reference to this person?)

What does he tell us? “Forget all that stuff in my past, “I have matured. I am 68 years old. I am a grandfather now. I sought redemption . . . ” “I”, “me”, “I”, “I”, “I” — What? I remember maturing from age 15 to 25. Gingrich tells us he is still maturing as he pushes 70 years old?! You know what that is code for? They are the words of a two-timer — a person who is used to wanting his cake and eating it too. Are they not? Have you ever compared the number of self-described pronouns used by Gingrich vs. Governor Romney in any of the debates? There are too many to count.

Gingrich hates the “elite media” right? He said so with conviction by yelling at John King at the debate. He has everybody fooled on this front too. Consider this from MailOnline, speaking for the press:

Gingrich loves the press. In some respects we are, as John McCain famously noted, his “base”. He craves the media. I’ve never seen a man so happy as Gingrich was when he ambled into the spin room in Myrtle Beach last Monday night and about 200 of us swarmed around him hanging on his every word.

Romney would have rather been anywhere else in the world than that in the middle of that heaving, sweaty scrum. But Newt was in pure heaven. He loves the game.
[...]
At the end of the Charleston debate, Gingrich warmly thanked CNN and afterwards he spoke cordially with King.
[...]
In South Carolina, it was an open secret that the press were rooting for Gingrich, not out of bias or any belief that he would be a weaker candidate against Obama but simply because the press wants a good story and a knock-down, drag-out battle for the GOP nomination to cover.

Let’s face it, Gingrich loves the “destructive, vicious, negative” news media. He knows how to play the game. And the press loves him for it.

[emphasis added]

Gotta love how Governor Romney is peeling away layers of the gloves in Florida. The world has not yet seen even a glimpse of Mr. Gingrich’s sullied, hidden career. Well, we are about to find out a lot more than we ever thought existed about Mr. Gingrich. Frankly, I was surprised that more than a handful of people voted for the guy. But I think it is because of what Ann Coulter said yesterday; that voters don’t think more than “three seconds” about the man’s past.

Jayde’s great article below refers to the reporting of Reid Epstein of Politico. In my opinion, Governor Romney was generous in his reference to Gingrich by using the term “leader” in any form:

“Speaker Gingrich has also been a leader,” the former Massachusetts governor said. “He was a leader for four years as speaker of the House. And at the end of four years, it was proven that he was a failed leader and he had to resign in disgrace. I don’t know whether you knew that, he actually resigned after four years, in disgrace.”
[emphasis added]

It is only my opinion, but based on what I have learned about Gingrich’s “leadership”, his style is more like that of a dictator. He has the reputation of giving his word to one person on a specific direction and then taking a wholly different tack without blinking an eye. A true leader is above reproach and does not exhibit any ethical lapses.

Gingrich would have us believe these major character flaws were “mistakes” of his past. They are not mistakes at all. They are actions which serve as spotlights on major core character weaknesses. A true leader is honored by those whom he leads. A true leader puts the team he leads before self and deflects credit to those members of the team that follow his lead. A true leader knows how to execute (Gingrich is not an “execute”ive). Gingrich has always struggled to keep a team in place. Why is that?

Consider the hundreds of sincere testimonials that have been published from people that have been “led” by Mitt Romney throughout his career. How do those compare to what people say about Gingrich when he has had power? Is it possible to find any testimonials in support of Gingrich that even compare? Are there any? I have yet to hear of any or read any of them.

There are those around Hugo Chavez that would like to kick him out of office like the House did with Gingrich, but Chavez has the power to rule with an iron fist to keep them from the insurrection.

(more…)

EXCLUSIVE: Mark DeMoss Remarks to Evangelical Leaders — Houston Ranch, January 14, 2022

Mark DeMoss

Following this past Christmas, reports surfaced of a meeting by prominent national evangelical leaders to be held in Texas sometime in January. You will recall this meeting involved over 150 people at a ranch outside Houston, January 15th. The ostensible purpose of the meeting was to caucus and select one of the presidential candidates behind which all voters could unite — in effect, to choose the one “non-Romney” candidate that they thought could best defeat Romney. Fascinating!

As with any caucus, some were prepared to stand and persuade others to vote for the candidate they believed to be the best to select as the Republican nominee for President.

One of those leaders present that day, at the ranch outside Houston, was nationally known and highly respected Mark DeMoss, a prominent Evangelical. Mr. DeMoss stood for Governor Mitt Romney.

Though I have never met Mr. DeMoss and therefore do not know him, I can only imagine that his remarks to this body required a tremendous amount of courage, especially with the understanding that the vast majority of those present were intent on selecting a candidate they believed could best oppose, and therefore defeat Governor Romney! For this one act alone, I have tremendous admiration and respect for Mark DeMoss. I strongly believe that Mitt Romney will be the next President of the United States — if so, I believe that history will hold Mark DeMoss out as a true American patriot in the stature of any this nation’s finest patriots of the past and present.

I am most grateful that Mr. DeMoss granted MittRomneyCentral.com the privilege of publishing his remarks to the group of 150+ Evangelicals exactly one week ago today. When I requested “an editorial” from Mr. DeMoss through our friend, John Schroeder of Article VI Blog, I never dreamed I would receive his remarks to the other evangelical leaders at the ranch that day.

Mark DeMoss’s speech that day is published below in its entirety — unedited.

[Almost exactly one year ago, Nate Gunderson published this outstanding article by Mark DeMoss that received over 2,300 views and 33 comments]

Mark DeMoss founded The DeMoss Group in 1991, and since then he has served some of the world’s most prominent and effective Christian ministries and enterprises. Mark has been involved in shaping some of the largest Christian events and campaigns over the past decade while simultaneously overseeing the growth of his firm. He has extensive media relations experience with both religious and mainstream media and provides particular expertise to clients in crisis/issues management and communications. Mark provides primary public relations counsel and strategic planning for The DeMoss Group. His first book, The Little Red Book of Wisdom, was published in 2007.

Favorite DeMoss Group Core Value > We demonstrate uncommon integrity.

REMARKS to HOUSTON EVENT January 13-14, 2012

By Mark DeMoss

In the summer of 2006 I began a search for the perfect presidential candidate. I’m here to tell you: I still haven’t found him—or her.

But I would suggest, neither have you—because there simply is no such thing. Just as there’s no such thing as the perfect employee, teacher, or pastor. None of us can find another person—including a spouse—with whom we agree on everything.

However, I’ll tell you what I did find that summer of ‘06. I found one of the most remarkable men and families I have ever met or known in Mitt Romney, his wife Ann, and their five sons. Governor Romney was my choice for president in ’08, and he remains my choice today. I didn’t arrive at this decision lightly.

So how did I, as a conservative and an evangelical, land on Mitt Romney? After reading all I could find and talking to people who knew him, I went to see him and told him I’d like to help him. I also told him he couldn’t pay me—ever.

I have a three-part litmus test for choosing a presidential candidate:

1. He/she must share my values (not necessarily my faith or theology)

2. He/she must be competent to lead and govern should they actually get elected.

3. He/she must be capable of getting elected.

So let me talk for a few minutes about values, competence and electability.

VALUES

  • First, while I am not interested in (nor worried about) giving platform to Mormon theology, I think this country would benefit from a good dose of Mormon values. Their overwhelming commitment to marriage, family, hard work, honesty, integrity, morality and character is something to be admired and modeled. Frankly, this church’s record in this area often outperforms ours in many ways. (I was reminded about this again just last weekend while watching one of our fallen evangelical leaders starring in ABC’s reality show Wife Swap.)

    I’ve been in the Romney home numerous times. I’ve been with Mitt in offices, holding rooms, hotel rooms, restaurants, cars and planes all across this country and everything about him is real. I’ve gotten to know dozens of his friends, colleagues and advisors. I’ve even attended his church.

    His marriage of 42 years is rock solid, and I’ll tell you this: I don’t worry about waking up one day to a headline about Mitt Romney like we have been saddened to hear about leaders among our own ranks like Gov. Mark Sanford, Sen. John Ensign, Sen. David Vitter, and countless pastors.

  • Gov. Romney has fought hard for values we care deeply about. For example, he immediately condemned the November 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage in his state, and then lobbied hard for a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage.
  • Keep in mind; Mitt had an 85% Democratic legislature in Massachusetts. This is an important point, which I think is either unknown or lost on many conservative critics. An 85% opposition legislature means bills and measures the governor proposed could be changed at will. It also means measures he vetoed could be overridden at will.

    (By the way, Mitt cast 800 vetoes as governor of Massachusetts—that’s one veto every day-and-a-half for four years.)

    Finally, it means he had to know how to work constructively with people on
    the other side, which is something we could use more of today.

    So when you hear Mitt Romney did something as governor you don’t like, take a minute to find out if he did it, or an 85% Democratic majority did it over his best efforts and objections. A fair and honest assessment of his record requires this.

  • Under his leadership, Massachusetts’ public schools began offering middle school classroom programs on abstinence from a faith-based organization.
  • As governor, Mitt Romney vetoed bills providing access to the “morning¬after pill” and for expansive, embryo-destroying stem cell research.
  • He staunchly defended the right of the Catholic Charities of Boston to refuse to allow homosexual couples to adopt children in its care, and filed a bill to protect such religious liberty.
  • National Review political reporter John Miller wrote that, “a good case can be made that Romney has fought harder for social conservatives than any other governor in America, and it is difficult to imagine his doing so in a more daunting environment.”
  • Listen to what one notable Republican had to say about Mitt Romney.

    “In a few short days, Republicans from across this country will decide more than their party’s nominee. They will decide the very future of our party and the conservative coalition that Ronald Reagan built. Conservatives can no longer afford to stand on the sidelines in this election, and Governor Romney is the candidate who will stand up for the conservative principles that we hold dear. Governor Romney has a deep understanding of the important issues confronting our country today, and he is the clear conservative candidate that can go into the general election with a united Republican party.”

    Who said this? Rick Santorum did when he endorsed and campaigned for Mitt just four years ago. Nothing in Mitt Romney’s record, speech, or life has changed since Sen. Santorum offered that endorsement, which, knowing the senator, I believe was offered seriously, genuinely, and as a matter of real conviction.

  • I have concluded that Mitt Romney’s values more closely resemble my own than any president in my lifetime.

(more…)

Timothy Dalrymple: Open Letter to Mitt Romney Skeptics, Especially Evangelicals

Thanks to John Schroeder of Article VI Blog for connecting Mitt Romney Central with Timothy Dalrymple. The following open letter is another outstanding endorsement of Governor Romney as the candidate best suited to represent conservative values as our President of the United States. Tim’s three main arguments below are compelling, especially regarding Governor Romney’s moral leadership.

Timothy Dalrymple is the Director of Content for Patheos.com, the largest religion website in the country, and the managing editor of its Evangelical Portal. He earned his Ph.D. in modern western religious thought at Harvard’s Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, and contributes to Evangelicals for Mitt. Raised in non-denominational evangelical churches in California, Dalrymple has ministry experience in youth ministry, college ministry, prison chaplaincy, teaching apologetics, and leading overseas missions. Formerly of Boston, he is now a member of Perimeter Church in Johns Creek, Georgia. You can follow him at Philosophical Fragments or Facebook.

Timothy Dalrymple

See the just-released ebook from Evangelicals for Mitt for a comprehensive explanation of why Romney is the best positioned to represent evangelicals’ values in the White House.

By Timothy Dalrymple

Dear Mitt Romney skeptics, and especially my fellow evangelicals,

Do you remember how it felt when the economy began to implode in those anxious, waning months of 2008? We were coming down to the wire in the election contest, and the candidates we had to choose between were Barack Obama and John McCain. Given the choices, of course, I supported McCain. I still think he would have made a far better President than Obama has proven to be.

But as the very foundations of the American economy were shaking and falling away beneath our feet, and we faced the very real possibility of a Second Great Depression, how desperately I wished that Mitt Romney had emerged from the primary as the champion of the GOP. The presiding President and his party took the heat for the financial crisis, and McCain worsened the situation when his actions and statements inspired no confidence in his stability and expertise on economic matters. The election turned in Obama’s favor when he gave the impression of solidity and strength in the economic crisis.

Romney, however, had something Obama couldn’t even begin to claim: a brilliantly successful career in the private sector, and a world of experience specifically in the financial sector, where our most intractable problems lay. Between McCain and Romney, Romney was touted by the conservative commentariat as the conservative option, and I remember feeling as though the liberal media, independents and even some Democrats who were able to vote in primaries had shoehorned John McCain onto the GOP ticket. If Romney had been at the top of the ticket instead, I still believe we would have avoided the lamentable Obama Presidency; compared to a business titan, Obama would have looked like the inexperienced pretender that he was, and he could not have stood up to Romney’s economic expertise in the debates.

Well, we’re still in the midst of an incredible mess as a country. Our financial house is in shambles. Tax reform, regulatory reform, streamlining government, changes to our energy and immigration policies, will all help. But the character of the American people, the moral substructure that provides the necessary, nurturing environment for our democratic free market, has also disintegrated. Our problem is not merely political; it is also cultural. I am convinced of this with every bone in my body: We need to rediscover the virtues of the free market, and we also need to rediscover the economic virtues. On the one hand, we need a President who understands how companies grow and flourish, who understands how the economy works and what provides the predictability and clarity and the space for innovation that the market demands; Romney’s experience in venture capital, properly understood, is one of his truest strengths, because the venture capitalist learns a great deal about what kinds of ventures succeed and what kinds of capital they need. On the other hand, we need someone whose personal integrity and whose socio-political principles will strengthen the family, enrich the workforce, and restore our collective commitment to responsibility and initiative, stewardship and thrift, diligence and creativity.

I’ve written responses to some common misconceptions about Romney and his candidacy – and a long, specifically evangelical case for Mitt can be found in this ebook. The purpose of this letter is simply to set forth, in broad outlines, why I think Romney’s the right guy at the right time for this country. The Presidency is a position of enormously important economic, global and moral leadership. In all three of those areas, I firmly believe that Mitt Romney is the leader we need. He also, not coincidentally, stands the best chance of defeating Barack Obama — and if there’s one thing conservatives agree upon right now, it’s the profound importance of installing new leadership. As the country staggers toward decline, we need someone who can pick us up, rally the American people behind a positive and hopeful vision, and deploy all of his intelligence and experience and skill to move us toward a better future. That’s Mitt.

Economic and Global Leadership

Those who know him personally attest, without exception, that Romney is an extraordinarily intelligent, boundlessly competent, and thoroughly hard-working man. He built a towering reputation in the business world, accomplished a near-miraculous turnaround of the Salt Lake City Olympics (which was mired in scandal and red ink and on the verge of collapsing), and took an extremely liberal state (Massachusetts) that was deeply in debt and restored it to fiscal health and a budget surplus in the course of four years.

In the business world, Romney specialized in turning around failing companies, and he did so with great success. Sometimes, yes, that means eliminating jobs — but in most cases you’re eliminating jobs in order to avoid eliminating a company in its entirety. You make companies more profitable, more competitive, and thus more sustainable. You eliminate jobs now so that you can keep paying the salaries of those who remain, and ideally add more jobs again later. In other words, sometimes the most pro-jobs thing you can do is cut one job and save the company that employs ninety-nine more.

(more…)

WSJ: “Bain Capital Saved America”

Artwork by Chad Crowe

Daniel Henninger wrote this excellent article in yesterday’s The Wall Street Journal, Opinion section.

Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich would lead voters to believe that Mitt Romney was involved in some kind of evil for his work at Bain Capital. Americans know differently. Governor Romney does need to find opportunities to provide the many examples of how his turn-around work improved the lives of thousands of families.

Henninger’s opinion piece is outstanding.

Not only did Bain Capital save America, but no matter what turn Mitt Romney’s political career takes, Bain Capital may stand as the best of Mr. Romney’s lifetime contributions to the nation’s economic well-being. If only he’d tell the story.
[...]
Properly understood, the 1980s, including Bain, were the remarkable years when an ever-resilient America found a way to save itself from becoming what Europe is now—a global has-been.
[...]
Read through S&P’s justification for last week’s downgrades of nine European countries. Along with the expected dumping on those countries’ fiscal profligacy, one finds as well a blunt recognition of Europe’s moribund “fundamentals,” meaning their ability to produce “strong and consistent” economic growth.

If not for Bain Capital and the other, bigger players who commenced a decade of leveraged buyouts and hostile takeovers in the 1980s, the odds are that the U.S.’s “fundamentals” would be similarly weak. Instead, the U.S. corporate sector remade itself during the Bain years.
[...]
Thousands of Mitt Romneys allied with huge pension funds representing colleges, unions and the like, plus a rising cadre of institutional money managers, to force corporate America to reboot. In the 1980s almost half of major U.S. corporations got takeover offers.

Singling out this or that Bain case study amid the jostling and bumping is pointless. This was a historic and necessary cleansing of the Augean stables of the American economy. It caused a positive revolution in U.S. management, financial analysis, incentives, governance and market-based discipline. It led directly to the 1990s boom years. And it gave the U.S. two decades of breathing room while Europe, with some exceptions, choked.
[...]
Mr. Romney’s answer appears to be that voters want to keep hearing about him and his management résumé. Voters don’t want one man’s story. They want someone who understands how the next 10 years can produce an American economy that offers the opportunities for them that the 1980s produced for Mitt Romney.

* * * * * CAPITALISM * * * * * *

“What’s immediately profitable is the only kind of logic that capitalism understands.” — Susan George

“Whether we look at capitalism, taxes, business, or government, the data show a clear and consistent pattern: 70 percent of Americans support the free enterprise system and are unsupportive of big government.” -Arthur C. Brooks

,

Marianne Gingrich Grants ABC News Exclusive Interview — Scooped by Drudge Report

Photo Credit: Drudge Report


Drudge announced breaking news with an exclusive report early Wednesday evening, stating that ABC News had conducted an interview with Newt Gingrich’s second wife Marianne Gingrich for a program to be aired in the future. Following is that initial report:

**Exclusive**

Wed Jan 18 2012 18:47:14 ET

Marianne Gingrich has said she could end her ex-husband’s career with a single interview.

Earlier this week, she sat before ABCNEWS cameras, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

She spoke to ABCNEWS reporter Brian Ross for two hours, and her explosive revelations are set to rock the trail.

But now a “civil war” has erupted inside of the network, an insider claims, on exactly when the confession will air!

MORE

ABCNEWS suits determined it would be “unethical” to run the Marianne Gingrich interview so close to the South Carolina Primary, a curious decision, one insider argued, since the network has aggressively been reporting on other candidates.

A decision was tentatively made to air the interview next Monday, after all votes have been counted . . .

[emphasis added]

According to this first report, the breaking news stated that the interview would first be aired next Monday after the South Carolina primary. It was later reported that ABC News would air it on Friday. Then the Associated Press reported that ABC News would air it Thursday night. Sure seems confusing!

Contrary to what Gingrich keeps telling reporters this week (that Governor Romney will resort to “dirty tricks”), don’t believe any of it. This is between Ms. Gingrich and ABC News. According to Drudge, Gingrich cancelled a news conference yesterday to deal with the breaking news. What is there to “deal with” anyway? There is no new information except that she granted an interview.

Photo Credit: Drudge Report


Of course, without excerpts of the interview, it is difficult to know if what Marianne Gingrich discussed in the interview is revealing at all or just some additional insight into what is already known about the former congressman. But here’s a guess. Based on the fact that ABC News first intended to release it Monday, then moved it to Friday, and again to Thursday (“tentative”) seems to point to big news. Interviews with his second wife are rare in recent times. And if what she talks about is in fact big news, it is unlikely good news for Mr. Gingrich. Since we are precluded from publishing the AP short, click here to read the published report directly. It is hard to imagine Marianne Gingrich revealing anything more damning than what she said in August 2010.

Marianne Gingrich granted an interview to Esquire in 2010 in which she said of her former husband, in part,

“Newt always wanted to be somebody,” she says. “That was his vulnerability, do you understand? Being treated important. Which means he was gonna associate with people who would stroke him, and were important themselves. And in that vulnerability, once you go down that path and it goes unchecked, you add to it. Like, ‘Oh, I’m drinking, who cares?’ Then you start being a little whore, ’cause that comes with drinking. That’s what corruption is — when you’re too exhausted, you’re gonna go with your weakness. So when we see corruption, we shouldn’t say, ‘They’re all corrupt.’ Rather, we should say, ‘At what point did you decide that? And why? Why were you vulnerable?’ ”
[…]
Though Gingrich had made history and achieved extraordinary power, he still felt like an outsider, and the hatred touched something primal inside him. “All he wanted was to be accepted into the country club,” Marianne says. “And he arrives at the country club and he’s just not welcome. ‘Yeah, but I belong here,’ he said. ‘I earned my way to this. I earned it.’ ”

Next came the government shutdown of late 1995, which so alarmed the country that the poll numbers for Republicans went into a steep overnight decline. “Newt’s shocked, doesn’t know what to do,” Marianne says. “He’s like, ‘Whoa, wait, wait! This isn’t just my fault! We need to work this out!’ ”

Greta Van Susteren weighed in on Drudge’s “siren” with this in her GRETAWIRE:

This is not to say that news should be suppressed (it should not) but news should also not be used to ambush. Thus…in light of the close time to the South Carolina primary…if I were ABC, I would hold this interview until after the polls close on Saturday (or I would have showed it a week ago.)

Politico released a letter by Gingrich’s two daughters in their “Marianne Gingrich Speaks” article along with this,

But Drudge’s siren-headlined bulletin - his splash came a day after the 14-year anniversary of him breaking word of the Lewinsky scandal — ensures much more focus on [the] interview by the rest of the press.

The New York Times, in its “Gingrich Camp Responds to Ex-Wife’s Interview” article published the following,

Marianne Gingrich, the second of Mr. Gingrich’s former wives, was married to him for 18 years. After they divorced, Mr. Gingrich married his current wife, the former Callista Bisek, with whom he admitted conducting a lengthy affair while he was still married.

Word of the interview was leaked to The Drudge Report, which reported on Wednesday afternoon that a debate was taking place within ABC over whether it was fair to broadcast it so close to the crucial primary in South Carolina on Saturday.

An ABC source confirmed there was disagreement over the timing of the interview, which was conducted by Brian Ross of the investigative unit, which operates separately from the political news division.

The push-back on ABC from the Gingrich campaign was in the form of a letter signed by Mr. Gingrich’s two daughters from his first marriage, Kathy Lubbers and Jackie Cushman, who regularly accompany him on the stump.
[…]
An ABC News spokesman confirmed Wednesday night that “Nightline” will broadcast the interview at 11:35 p.m. Thursday; excerpts will be released earlier in the day, before a Republican debate sponsored by CNN on Thursday evening.
[…]
At ABC’s competitors like CBS and CNN, executives scrambled to figure out if someone at their own shop had scored a big scoop.

Just after 7 p.m., as the evening newscasts ended, the Web site revealed that it was ABC that had interviewed Ms. Gingrich.

The Drudge Report declared that there was a “civil war” inside ABC News about when to run the interview, though if there was, it was a short and bloodless one.

[emphasis added]

NOTE: It is the hope of the Mitt Romney Central team that ABC News will take a very responsible, fair, and truthful approach to their editing of anything Ms. Gingrich said. Reports indicate the interview lasted two hours. After accounting for TV commercials, the net broadcast time of the Nightline show is approximately 23 minutes total (normally divided among three segments). Even if ABC News takes the entire 23 minutes for this broadcast, they will edit out over 80% of it. With so little time left before voting in the primary, Team MRC hopes that whatever ABC News chooses to report is fair and not taken out of context.

Just prior to publishing this post, National Review Online reported this in “The Corner,” that the Gingrich campaign “will fight back” and then also later they “predict that Gingrich will likely ignore the story.” This is the last paragraph of the NRO post:

ABC News wanted Gingrich to come on Nightline to offer a rebuttal of sorts but Gingrich’s advisers declined. “This is a sideshow, a distraction,” the third source says. “Is it helpful? No. But is it a game-changer? No.”

Obviously this story will be all over the news today. Stay tuned. There is a very good chance that there is nothing new in the interview and that any hype associated with the Thursday teases will be nothing more than teases. In typical Matt Drudge style though, he gotten a lot of people to sit up and pay attention.

“Many persons have a wrong idea of what constitutes true happiness. It is not attained through self-gratification but through fidelity to a worthy purpose.” – Helen Keler

“Nothing is more noble, nothing more venerable than fidelity. Faithfulness and truth are the most sacred excellences and endowments of the human mind.” – Marcus Tullius Cicero

,

Page 3 of 512345