NEWT SOUNDING MORE AND MORE LIKE A BITTER OLD MAN…

Ya know, I used to think that we had only one grouchy old man currently vying to be Barry's Republican opponent, and that was Ron Paul. But recently I've come to the realization that we now may very well have two. With Newt Gingrich now beginning to come across as being nothing more than a bitter, vindictive, whiney old man as well as being a sore loser, I think his priority has now become more about taking down Mitt Romney and much less about actually being a serious GOP candidate. After his going so far as to actually blame Fox News for the failure of his campaign and claiming that it has been biased in favor of Mitt Romney, the network has now struck back at the struggling Republican presidential candidate. The network, where Gingrich had a contract before hitting the campaign trail, dismissed the accusations and claimed his criticism of the network was motivated by nothing more than Gingrich's desire for a job at rival CNN. Gingrich's rather outspoken criticism of Fox came during a meeting in Delaware on Wednesday with Tea Party activists.

Gingrich has often been described as being rather volatile and of possessing a rather short fuse as well as an inability to control his mouth. And examples of both were recently on full display. According to the RealClearPolitics website, which was given access to the above mentioned meeting, Gingrich said: "I think Fox has been for Romney all the way through. In our experience, Callista and I both believe CNN is less biased than Fox this year." Come on, I can't believe that's what he really thinks. Might Newt have now gone round the bend? Because he went onto say, "We are more likely to get neutral coverage out of CNN than we are of Fox, and we're more likely to get distortion out of Fox. That's just a fact." By his acting like a spoiled Democrat, Newt's not really doing himself any favors here. And it certainly didn’t take very long for Fox to hit back. In a statement provided to the Guardian, it said: "This is nothing other than Newt auditioning for a windfall of a gig at CNN – that's the kind of man he is. Not to mention that he's still bitter about the fact that we terminated his contributor contract."

Gingrich, I think it fair to say, has now very clearly demonstrated his desire to be nothing more than a spoiler by his stubbornly choosing to remain in the Republican race after the exit of Rick Santorum. He has won only two states so far and continues to trail, and rather badly, Mitt Romney. He is also struggling financially, having accumulated huge debts during the campaign and suffered the indignity of seeing a $500 check to the Utah Republican Party bounce. Gingrich is campaigning this week in Delaware, one of several states where he hopes he can benefit from Santorum's departure. And in sounding more like a spoiled little brat than a presidential candidate, he was heard to say that he was working on the assumption that Rupert Murdoch had thrown his support behind Romney. "I assume it's because Murdoch at some point said, 'I want Romney', and so 'fair and balanced' became 'Romney'. And there's no question that Fox had a lot to do with stopping my campaign because such a high percentage of our base watches Fox."

Fox, led by Roger Ailes, has been the main media forum for the Republican candidates. Fox insists it has been fair and balanced and having watched it, I would tend to agree. In the initial stages of the primary and caucus season, it even seemed to be a little more hostile toward Romney than the other candidates. But by March, Santorum could be heard whining and complaining, on Fox, about some perceived bias. Santorum said Romney enjoyed a huge advantage in terms of money, organization and media coverage. "He's had Fox News shilling for him every day," Santorum whimpered. Do we really need another crybaby as president? I would seem that we have one of those now and the last thing that we need is another one, even it is one from the Republican Party. A crybaby is a crybaby. So it's a good thing that Santorum pulled out and Gingrich would be doing everyone a big favor if he would just bow out gracefully and go to work over at CNN where he most likely will be playing to a more suitable audience, albeit a much smaller one.

Gingrich is scheduled to attend the White House correspondents' dinner at the end of the month, but as a guest of CNN, not Fox. He makes the claim that he was largely indifferent to the views of journalists: "They know I don't care about their opinions. I don't go to their cocktail parties. I don't go to their Christmas parties. The only press events I go to are interesting dinners when the wife insists on it, so we're going to go to the White House correspondents' dinner because she wants to. And we're actually going to go to CNN's table, not Fox." He expressed disappointment that former colleagues Fox, with whom he had a contract until he officially joined the Republican race, had apparently written him off last summer. Gingrich enjoyed massive media coverage when he won the South Carolina primary in January, but interest dipped after he failed to win Florida the same month. Since then, coverage has gradually evaporated, with no print journalists any longer attached full-time to coverage of his campaign.

It was during the meeting in Delaware, again, according to the RealClearPolitics report, that he expanded his criticism of the media beyond Fox, to include columnist George Will, whom he accused of personal jealousy. "In the case of Will, I was on [George] Stephanopoulos on Sunday morning with him, and it was kind of a 'You're not allowed to run for office – I mean, if you could run for office, why am I not running for office?' " Gingrich said. "And it's almost like they were personally offended. You know, 'This can't be real', and 'How can this guy go do that?' "I got that reaction from Will a few years back about writing a book, because I'm supposed to be a politician. He's supposed to be the writer. Well, I've now written 24 books, and 13 of them are New York Times bestsellers. I mean, there's a morning when George ought to just get over it." As well as criticizing the media, Gingrich attacked the Republican party, describing it as "inarticulate". He added: "The Republican party is a managerial party that doesn't like to fight, doesn't like to read books."

So I can't help but ask myself, does Newt really think that such infantile behavior is conducive to his being able to convince anybody to vote for him for president? I mean for crying out loud. I heard enough whining from Barry and his team over the course of the last three years to last me a lifetime. So why on Earth would I want to hear it from a guy who is supposed to be on my side? And why should I have to. Politics is a rough and tumble game and if Newt is going to have such a thin skin, especially after having been involved in politics for as long as he has been, maybe it's just time for him to move on to something else. Like maybe writing more books. Even though he has said repeatedly, that he would support whom ever the eventual GOP candidate is, because the goal here is for us to defeat Barry, I do worry about him actually carrying through with that. Instead, I see him attempting to mount some sort of a retaliatory strike in an attempt to sabotage a Romney candidacy that would result in our being saddled with Barry for four more years, sacrificing the country for no other reason that sour grapes.

MORE OF NEWT ON REAGAN FROM 1988…

Oh what a difference a fews years can make. To hear Newt Gingrich talk today, you'd swear he was right there diligently working side by side with Reagan, and together they were able to get this country turned around after what was the train wreck that was the Jimmy Carter presidency. But when looking back we find that is not quite an accurate portrayal of things actually took place. And we see that Newt had some rather unpleasant things to say about Ronald Reagan, at that time. So, was Newt lying then for supposed political purposes, or is he lying now for the same reason. Because make no mistake, at some point he was, or is, in fact telling us a lie.

NEWT GINGRICH IS NO RONALD REAGAN…



Over the course of this campaign Newt Gingrich has been very fond of using any number of references to his “working” with Ronald Reagan, maybe just a little too fond. Ya know, it seems that every four years we hear from any number of Republican candidates as they make claim after claim about how it is they and only they who can carry forward the Reagan mantle. It is their past relationship with Reagan that makes them uniquely qualified in they’re being able rekindle that American spirit which Reagan was able to tap into with such ease. Hell, we’ve even heard Barry “Almighty” compare himself to Reagan. How nutty is that? But in between elections you hear nary a word from these same individuals about the man whose name they so very freely bandy about at election time. The man that many Americans, including myself, consider as one of this nation’s greatest, if not the greatest, president. Since we haven’t got the man with us today to verify all the wild claims being made by those who swear they were friends, associates or supporters of Reagan and who claim to fully endorse his conservative philosophy, we’re left to try to sort things out for ourselves. And it is in area of his being a kindred spirit, of sorts, that, personally, I simply think Newt is being less than honest. And that’s despite the fact that Reagan’s son, Mike, has endorsed Gingrich. I just think Newt’s trying to score points by exaggerating just how involved he might have been in working with the last truly conservative president this nation had.

NEWT THEN, NEWT IN 2012 RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT...

Newt seems to relish taking pot shots at the other candidates regarding things that they have either done or said in the past, regardless of how long ago it may have been. He also seems to be quite adept at rewriting his own personal history. Case I point was last night's debate when he said, "I went to a Goldwater organizing session in 1964. I met with Ronald Reagan for the first time in 1974. I worked with Jack Kemp, and Art Laffer and others to develop supply side economics in the late '70s. I helped Governor Reagan become President Reagan. I helped pass the Reagan economic program and worked with the National Security Council on issues including the collapse of the Soviet Empire." So which is it, Newt? Try as he might to convince us that he is, he is not the second coming of Reagan. Having said that, however, he would be better than Barry "Almighty."

YES, IT'S ANYBODY BUT OBAMA, BUT…

Keep in mind here that I’m speaking as someone whose guy has now dropped out of the race, a decision that has now essentially left me in somewhat of a quandary. You see, out of the remaining candidates still standing, I’m leaning toward Romney or Gingrich. And the fella I was supporting was Rick Perry, who has endorsed Gingrich. Now while Newt would like us all to believe that he is the second coming of Ronald Reagan, facts, as Newt like to say, can be used to tell a rather different story. Because as we take a little journey down memory lane we can see that along the way Newt has floated more than a few ideas that Reagan never would have never gone for. Crazy ideas that deal with everything from “climate change” and mandatory health coverage to the curtailing of free speech online. Today, throughout the ongoing campaign, he has attempted to either downplay or divert completely, attention away from those ideas, and we kinda saw that again in Thursday night's debate in South Carolina. A tactic, that apparently seems to have worked so far.

Regarding the specific issue of the internet, since deciding to throw his hat into the ring comprised of those hoping to unseat our “Dear Beloved Leader,” Newt Gingrich has continued to portray himself as a friend of a free and open Internet. But in the past he's talked up some pretty radical proposals that would actually curtail free speech online. Ideas that you would normally expect to hear coming from Eric Holder or Barack Hussein Obama. There was a question posed on Thursday night that had to do with the Stop Online Piracy Act, legislation that has the support of many in the entertainment industry as well as many powerful members of the House and Senate. The legislation now appears, at least, to be on life support after running into what can only be described as a firestorm of criticism from Internet users, tech companies like Google, and activists who shut down websites in protest last week. It sounds like what it was that Gingrich was supporting, and not all that long ago, politically speaking, is eerily similar to what we're hearing from Barry "Almighty." But apparently that's not his opinion today.


Today, at a time when Gingrich is busy trying to become Barry’s Republican opponent in 2012, his opinion seems to have changed on a number of issues. Regarding the internet specifically, he now says, "You have virtually everybody who's technologically advanced, including, you know, Google and YouTube and Facebook and all the folks, who say this is going to totally mess up the Internet, and the bill in its current form is written really badly and leads to a range of censorship that is totally unacceptable. Well, I favor freedom." Adding, "The idea that we're going to preemptively have the government start censoring the Internet on behalf of giant corporations' economic interests strikes me as exactly the wrong thing to do." What a difference a few years make, because it was back in 2006 that Newt was singing slightly a different tune. Because back then what he calls this “messing up of the internet” didn’t seem to bother Gingrich all that much. Then Gingrich was arguing that censoring the Internet would be the right thing to do when it comes to Islamic radicals who use the web to organize jihad against the U.S.


His opinion of things in 2006 was, "We need to get ahead of the curve rather than wait until we actually literally lose a city, which I think could literally happen in the next decade if we're unfortunate," is what Mr. Gingrich opined in a speech given in New Hampshire. He went on to say, "We now should be impaneling people to look seriously at a level of supervision that we would never dream of if it weren't for the scale of the threat." So I think it a very fair question, much more fair than asking him about the ramblings and bizarre accusations of an ex-wife, to ask regarding what it was that might have brought about this very obvious change in his position. Gingrich's aides posted the audio on the web at the time, but for whatever the reason, that file seems to be gone now. It's become one of those things that makes you wanna go, hmmmmm. But if memory serves, the former House speaker didn't really go into great detail back then, but he did suggest that a group of retired judges or other respected individuals should be empowered to shut down websites that foment anti-American violence. But who defines exactly what that is.


Now while at the time Gingrich did not explain how the U.S. would take down those sites on servers beyond the reach of U.S. law and he conceded that the kinds of controls he was proposing for the web would trigger "a serious debate about the First Amendment." DUH! But he justifies any intrusion saying that it was needed because of the apocalyptic nature of the threat posed by Islamic terrorists. "This is a serious, long-term war," Gingrich said. "Either before we lose a city or, if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the Internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people." Now obviously, terrorists pose a more significant threat than intellectual property pirates. So, I suppose, Gingrich could distinguish his positions on those grounds. But both proposals raise serious questions about their practical effectiveness and the degree to which they'd block speech that's lawful right now.


In any event, Gingrich's 2006 statements show that he's not entirely averse to "preemptively hav[ing] the government start censoring the Internet" for some reasons and that he's far from being a champion of unfettered free speech on the Web. And as mentioned earlier, he has had a sentiment for “climate change” going so far as to team up with old “Stretch” Pelosi. We’ve got to remember that a great debater does not even a good president make. And it may be just me, but as this primary process continues, the level of arrogance being exhibited by Gingrich has continued to escalate. So as Team Gingrich, including the candidate himself, continues to make hay regarding what Romney did, or did not do during his time as governor of Massachusetts or while he was at Bain, our about his taxes, Gingrich is far from being as pure as the wind driven snow. And again, speaking only for myself, I’m “leaning” toward Romney. Look, I’ve put all of my eggs in one basket already and was left with an empty basket and eggs all over my feet. So I’ll b watching and listening and deciding, just who it is that I think is best able to beat Barry.

NEWT BLASTS MODERATOR ASKING ABOUT EX-WIFE...

HAS NEWT NOW DECIDED IT'S MORE IMPORTANT TO TAKE DOWN ROMNEY THAN TO BE PRESIDENT?

So, making good on his threat, Newt Gingrich has released a new television add just today, Thursday, essentially calling out Mitt Romney by name, a first, and painting the former Massachusetts governor’s economic plans as timid compared with his own. While the ad does not rise to the level of those slashing attacks similar to the anti-Gingrich ads run by a “super PAC” financed by Mr. Romney’s supporters, it does go further than any previous effort by Mr. Gingrich, who has been struggling to win over New Hampshire voters, to undercut an opponent. Vindictiveness is not normally a quality that one looks for in a presidential candidate, and frankly haven't we been witness to enough of that from the current occupier of the Oval Office? I can't help but wonder how this new strategy will work out. It might cause some to ponder just what his priorities are, the White House or a little revenge on a competitor. If it were me, I think that I would try to appear to be above that sort of thing, to perhaps turn the other cheek.

In the new ad, as quotes critical of Mr. Romney from The Wall Street Journal and Forbes appear on screen, a narrator says: “Romney’s economic plan? Timid. Parts of it virtually identical to Obama’s failed policy. Timid won’t create jobs and timid certainly won’t defeat Barack Obama. “Newt Gingrich’s bold leadership balanced the budget, reformed welfare, helped create millions of new jobs. The Gingrich jobs plan: a powerful plan for growing our economy and creating new jobs.’’ The Gingrich campaign said the ad would begin running Thursday on TV stations in New Hampshire and South Carolina, but would not disclose how much was being spent. Mr. Gingrich needs to replenish his war chest after his debilitating, disappointing battle in Iowa. Speaking in Plymouth, N.H., on Thursday morning, Mr. Gingrich echoed the ad almost verbatim: “So you’ve got to decide.” he told about 100 people at an old train depot transformed into a senior center. “I will defend free enterprise. I won’t be timid about it. I will be bold, just as Reagan was bold.”


I think old Newt need to tread lightly here, or this little attempt at payback may blow up in his face. I just don't think that this is the type of behavior that's goingto captivate very many people, or persuade anyone to vote for him. Politics as we have all heard is a very rough and tumble "profession." And, as it has also been said, if can't handle the heat stay out of the kitchen. So what is see this as being is nothing short of a tantrum that is very liable to have some far reaching consequences. I mean, I can already see Barry sitting in the Oval Office, feet up on his desk with that perpetual smug smile on his face. I think that maybe someone with a little sanity iver there on the Newt team, should grab him up by the short hairs and have a real heart to heart. But if nothng else, I think it safe to say that he's most likely to be too stubborn to take the advice, he seems to be pretty settled on this new stategy. But in doing so, I think he's loosing sight of the bigger picture. Buy hey, maybe I'm wrong, I've been wrong before.

NOT SURE IF NEWT MIGHT BE DONE EVEN BEFORE HE STARTS...

Up until very recently I found myself being somewhat of a fan of Newt Gingrich. I’ve always viewed him as being a pretty smart guy, and even though I haven't always agreed with some of his ideas, I found that I agreed with most. However, comments made this past Sunday have caused me to doubt myself to a certain degree. Statements made that he strongly supports a federal mandate requiring citizens to buy health insurance, have me questioning what it is that he truly stands for. After all, that is a position that has been rather enthusiastically rejected by a good many Republicans, including several who likely will be running against him for the Republican presidential nomination. So it was then that while appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Gingrich told host David Gregory that he continues to advocate for a plan he first called for in the early 1990s as a Congressman, which requires every uninsured citizen to purchase or acquire some form of health insurance. Gregory played a clip of Gingrich speaking during an appearance on Meet the Press in October 1993, “I am for people, individuals -- exactly like automobile insurance -- individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance. And I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy so we insure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.”

I really don’t care much for the analogy of comparing health insurance to auto insurance. I just think it’s a very sleazy attempt to try to fool people, because the purposes for each simply aren’t compatible. Gregory asked Gingrich if he would criticize GOP presidential rival Mitt Romney, whose "Romneycare" health program enacted during his time as Governor of Massachusetts mandated that all uninsured individuals purchase health insurance. Romney has already very clearly stated that were he to be elected he would work to repeal “Obamacare.” Gingrich replied he would not make it an issue in the campaign and said he agreed with key aspects of Romneycare. "I agree that all of us have a responsibility to pay--help pay for health care," Gingrich said, adding, "I've said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond ..." Gingrich also admitted that his proposal is a "variation" of the individual mandate, a key component of the Obamacare legislation that was passed over the clear objection of the American people while using every method of political chicanery imaginable and that Barry "Almighty" then signed into law in 2010.


I just can't figure out for the life of me why somebody who is seeking the Republican Party nomination for president would stake out a position that is so clearly at odds with nearly all, if not all, of the leading conservative critics of Obamacare, and who argue that the law requiring citizens to purchase a private insurance policy is not constitutional. With the Barry "Almighty" administration currently facing three separate lawsuits arguing that the federal mandate is unconstitutional, including one filed by a coalition of 26 states, I'm not sure what it is that Newt hopes to gain by making some of these statements. Here we are at a time when next to the "War on Terror", or the "Oversea Contingency Operation," the single greatest problem that we are now facing is the rapid expansion of government power, as well as the ballooning of our national debt problem, both of which are greatly exacerbated by the enacting of "Obamacare" and an announced candidate for the Republican Party is stating that he is essentially in agreement with a law that is so obviously unconstitutional. It bad enough when those on the left busy themselves by trampling on the Constitution, but when conservatives join in the trampling it truly is a very sad day.


Very vocal conservative GOP critics like Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli say the mandate is unconstitutional because although Congress can regulate commerce, it can’t require people to engage in a particular “economic activity” just because they live in the U.S. Conservative judicial experts have also taken exception to the claim made by Gingrich and supporters of the Obamacare law that mandating health insurance is the same as the government requirement to purchase car insurance, noting that driving a car is a privilege provided by states and not a constitutional right. Cucinelli says that "buying auto insurance is voluntary, since you are only required to purchase it if you choose to drive on public roads. But buying health insurance under the new federal law is not voluntary, as you are required to buy it just by virtue of the fact that you are breathing. The federal government has never before in history exercised its regulatory power to require someone to buy a product or service as a condition of residence in the United States.”


Gingrich, though, seemed to disagree with that notion on Sunday, though he was quick to point out the differences between his plan and the federal health law. “In, in the first place, Obama basically is trying to replace the entire insurance system, creating state exchanges, building a Washington-based model, creating a federal system,” Gingrich told NBC’s David Gregory. “I believe all of us--and this is going to be a big debate--I believe all of us have a responsibility to help pay for healthcare …" Look, in many cases, especially with younger folks who are in good health and usually living on tight budgets, forking over funds for something that they are unlikely to ever use is a waste of their limited funds. That accomplishes nothing more than taking money out of their pockets that could be better spent. So to make such a blanket statement doesn't seem to make any sense to me. It's kind of like swimming against the current. Yet Gingrich seems to be convinced that this mandatory purchasing of health insurance is the way to go. And I simply don't think it's going to garner much support for his candidacy. I mean how can you advocate pretty much the same policy as the man who you hope to defeat for the job of president? Where's the incentive to vote for you and not for him? You can straddle the fence and still hope to win. It just ain't gonna happen!


In what was another one of those inexplicable moments where Gingrich, in making comments that came as surprising to many conservatives, has stirred a lively debate is his apparent slamming of Rep. Paul Ryan's plan to reform Medicare. In what is sure to provide many in the state controlled media with some ammo for which to go gunning for Rep. Ryan, Gingrich's comments were perplexing to say the least. In what one popular conservative website described as Gingrich "tacking left," the now-declared presidential candidate dismissed a plan popular among many conservatives, describing it as a "radical change" that he suggested was dangerous for Republicans to embrace heading into an election year. I just don't see the describing of Mr. Ryan's proposal as being radical an accurate description. Rep. Ryan's plan is designed to move to a system where seniors receive vouchers to buy private insurance. It's also a plan that has been endorsed by the majority of House Republicans. But Gingrich said it was "too big a jump. I think what you want to have is a system where people voluntarily migrate to better outcomes, better solutions, better options." "I'm against Obamacare, which is imposing radical change, and I would be against a conservative imposing radical change," he continued. "I don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering," Gingrich said. "I don't think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate.”


So I find myself asking, is this something that is once again simply about politics more than it is about what's best for the country? I understand that we need to win before we can have any hope of getting our train wreck of a country back onto the tracks, but we need to be upfront with the American people regarding the severity of our fiscal situation, and the measures, some being drastic, that are going to be required to get that feat accomplished. Dancing around the problem in an attempt to win election does absolutely nothing to actually fix the problem! Gingrich has instead called for a system that would preserve the current Medicare program alongside a voluntary, privatized version. But nothing he has said comes close to the blast he unleashed on his own party's top priority in Congress. "There are specific things you can do," Gingrich explained to NBC's David Gregory. " At the Center for Health Transformation, which I helped found, we published a book called "Stop Paying the Crooks." We thought that was a clear enough, simple enough idea, even for Washington. We--between Medicare and Medicaid, we pay between $70 billion and $120 billion a year to crooks. And IBM has agreed to help solve it, American Express has agreed to help solve it, Visa's agreed to help solve it. You can't get anybody in this town to look at it. That's, that's almost $1 trillion over a decade. So there are things you can do to improve Medicare.”


Meanwhile, as a counter to Newt's comments, Rep. Ryan defended his plan during an appearance on the CNN program "State of the Union." "We have got to reform this program for the next generation if we're going to save it for the next generation and that's what we're proposing to do," the Wisconsin Republican said. Ryan's spokesman Conor Sweeney took issue with Gingrich calling the plan "radical", saying the Ryan budget "remains the only serious proposal put forward on either end on Pennsylvania Avenue that saves Medicare." "The solutions offered by Chairman Ryan and House Republicans make no changes to Medicare for those in and near retirement, while offering a strengthened, personalized program that future generations can count on when they retire," Sweeney told National Review Online's Robert Costa. "Far from claims of radicalism, the gradual, common-sense Medicare reforms ensure that no senior will be forced to reorganize their lives because of government's mistakes. The most 'radical' course of action on Medicare is to continue to cling to the unsustainable status quo," Sweeney said. So I already find myself wondering what Newt's game plan might be. Because I’ll tell you what, if he continues down this path he's not going to be very successful in his attempt to gain much in the way of support for his candidacy.


I just find it all more than a little unsettling that someone who not only is readily viewed as being a conservative and very loudly proclaims himself to be a staunch conservative, would then come out and make the kind of statements as Gingrich now has. It makes me wonder if there are any real conservatives left and if there is now any hope whatsoever of being to wrestle my country from the clutches of a man that can only be described as being a devout socialist. It is absolutely imperative that we defeat Barry "Almighty" in 2012. Our ability to continue as free nation quite literally depends on our defeating this man, and our failure to do so will most assuredly result in the end of America as we know it. He has already been able to inflict damage that may very well prove to be irreparable though the advancing of his leftist agenda that has thus far resulted in what can only be described as a massive expansion of governmental power and an unprecedented level of intrusion into the lives of every single American citizen. We need someone who is willing to step up and not be afraid to take this man on and proudly put forth conservative solutions for the monumental problems that we now face. And if Newt's not willing to be that guy, so be it! NEXT!