Misunderstanding Ronald Reagan

Entering politics after his great speech on behalf of Barry Goldwater's campaign, Ronald Reagan surprisingly won the California Governorship in a landslide.

Over two Presidential elections, Reagan lost four states -- and two of those were the home states of his two opponents, Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale. The only state to vote against Reagan both times was Minnesota, where Mondale hailed from.

As he left office, he was as popular as any President in the history of the country.

Yet, throughout all that, the Republican hierarchy has never understood what made Reagan so great or so popular.

The Eastern Establishment hated when he challenged Gerald Ford in the 1976 primaries. When he nearly knocked off an incumbent President -- albeit an unelected one -- on the floor of Kemper Arena, they could not comprehend why; they were just glad it didn't happen.

Four years later, they opposed his candidacy; he was too conservative, they said. Bob Dole and George H.W. Bush were their top choices. Thankfully, the American people chose to ignore them, with 47 states electing him.

Still, the RNC did not understand the appeal of Reagan. Finally, they found the answer: He was an actor! Instead of seeing the mass appeal of Reagan's message -- low taxes, small government, aggressive foreign policy -- they felt he was only popular because 30 years earlier he appeared in movies.

This fundamental misunderstanding led many to feel Arnold Schwarzenegger could be an effective Governor. And now, people feel as if Fred Thompson is the "next Reagan" because he, too, appeared in movies.

By making it appear as if all one needs to do to be like Reagan is to be in Hollywood, people vastly underestimate Reagan's intellect. Today, after book after book has been published full of Reagan's letters and written speeches, one would think he would not be considered an "amiable dunce" any more.

There was much more to Reagan than playing the Gipper -- but for Fred Thompson, playing Arthur Branch on NBC is it.

Newt will get in if Thompson falters

In a recent article, veteran reporter Robert Novak writes that if the Fred Thompson candidacy does not hold up, then Newt Gingrich will run.

While that has been the assumption, seeing it in print, especially in an article by someone with the experience of Novak, gives it more credence.

And that, coupled with the news that Gingrich will have representatives at the Iowa Straw Poll this summer -- which Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Jim Gilmore have already pulled out of -- would make it seem that a Gingrich run for the White House is simply waiting on people getting over their excitement over Thompson, which has nothing to do with issues and everything to do with his being an actor.

Also in that article, Novak points out, as he has in the past, that Newt "bombarded Republican Senate offices with material attacking the immigration bill backed by President Bush, even sending proposed talking points to senators about to meet with the president."

While Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Thompson all opposed the amnesty bill this year, they all were in favor of an even worse bill in 2006.

Indicating that their opposition to it this year was simply for political reasons, Gingrich "weighed in more heavily on the immigration issue than any of the major Republican presidential hopefuls," writes Novak. The former Speaker appeared on talk radio, made YouTube videos, and wrote articles attacking the bill.

Matt Towery, a former chairman of Newt's political organization and who, in March, predicted Newt would eventually get in the race, echoes Novak that how Thompson does will effect what Gingrich does.

But he adds:

"If Thompson somehow falters, Gingrich still waits backstage. Expect him to seize the opportunity if there is one. Has Gingrich outsmarted them all? We can't know yet....But credit Gingrich with having seen as early as last year that too many candidates would start campaigning too quickly, and that they would hemorrhage big money just as quickly."

Longtime conservative activist and author of, among other, the 2006 book "Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause" Richard Viguerie penned an article last week in which he shreds Thompson, saying the former Tennessee senator is not a conservative.

Apart from the concerns most conservatives have with the former actor -- him being only behind John McCain and Russ Feingold in support of their campaign finance reform, for example -- Viguerie says Thompson has failed two important tests: the Goldwater test and the Reagan test.

As opposed to Goldwater, who went after Republicans who did not stand up for principle, Thompson has not actively went after the Republican establishment -- "[a]nd by his silence he has become complicit," says Viguerie.

The Reagan test deals with who he surrounds himself with. Reagan "was at our conservative functions, and not just at the head table -- he mingled with us, listened to our concerns, and made it clear where he stood," writes Viguerie. The future 40th President also had conservatives around him as Governor.

Thompson, in contradistinction, has no movement conservatives around him right now, and was so committed to advancing the conservative cause that he was out of the political scene from 2003 until the middle of this year.

Though Viguerie only discussed Thompson in the article, it's quite clear that if he looked at Newt Gingrich through the same lens, the former Speaker would look much better.

On the Goldwater test -- in short, putting principle above party -- Gingrich would grade much higher, as he has spoken out on any number of issues that has put him at odds with the party's leadership, not the least of which was his criticism of McCain-Feingold.

Gingrich has also been squarely in the middle of the conservative movement for almost 30 years now -- so much so that noted conservative historian Lee Edwards names him one of the four main figures of the movement, along with Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan. Thompson is not mentioned in the book, published in 1999.

Moreover, Gingrich has, like Reagan, spoke at numerous conservative events, one of which was the 2007 Conservative Political Action Conference. According to everyone there, Newt recieved the largest ovation, and when he walked through the crowd, he was nearly mugged by the 7,000-plus crowd.

If the debate is who is more conservative, Gingrich wins quite comfortably; if the debate is who has done more for the movement, Gingrich wins -- in a landslide.

Gingrich: Immigration bill "a sellout of every conservative principle"

Just one week after pulling the plug, Harry Reid is now ready to bring the immigration bill back to the Senate floor. What's more, Republican sellouts, such as John McCain, Jon Kyl, Trent Lott, and others, are on board for the mass amnesty.

So are the other top Republican candidates: Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney. While McCain and the other Senators do not realize the anger with which tw0-thirds of the country views the bill, Thompson, Giuliani, and Romney are smart enough to change their views.

Smart in a slimy-politician way, that is.

Just within the last year or so, Giuliani was on board for a very similar type of immigration bill. He was not for an actual fence on the border; he was for a "technological one."

"What are the chances," writes Terry Jeffrey in his article "Mr. Security's Amnesty," George Steinbrenner, owner of Rudy Giuliani's favorite baseball team, could be persuaded to replace the physical barriers around Yankee Stadium with virtual ones, based on the premise that cameras and sensors could do a better job than actual walls and fences in keeping people out of the stadium when they had not paid for a ticket?"

In an interview, Giuliani said, "There's got to be a program to regularize the people that are here...."

Sean Hannity then asked him, "Does that mean amnesty, though?"

To which the former mayor replied, "It doesn't mean amnesty."

But, as Jeffrey said, "That's George W. Bush-talk for: Yes, it does mean amnesty."

Giuliani also, as mayor of New York City, opposed a bill that would have "stipulated that only citizens and certain legal immigrants were to receive food stamps and imposed financial penalties on states that did not verify the legal status of those applying for the stamps," writes Human Events' Amanda Carpenter.

Giuliani's beef, of course, was that it excluded illegals from food stamps and other aid.

---

Romney, as he has done on every issue, changed his position once he started running for President.

When John McCain campaigned for him, he supported McCain's immigration policy -- saying it was not amnesty -- and McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform. But now Romney -- rightfully -- rails against both.

He doesn't mention he supported both of those just a few years ago, though, and when combined with his change in his stance on abortion, embroyonic stem-cell research, gun control, gay marriage, and any number of other issues, it's tough to see it as a sincere switch.

---

Tom Tancredo, perhaps the leading opponent of illegal immigration in Congress, said Fred Thompson's immigration policy "sucks."

Sometimes it pays to be succinct.

But Thompson -- suddenly -- is for tough border enforcement, but as with Romney, it's tough to believe he sincerely changed in a year.

---

Compare Giulini, Romney, Thompson, and McCain with Newt's history on illegal immigration:

As Speaker, Newt supported legislation of Duncan Hunter's that eventually built a fence on the border near San Diego. He also, as he does now, wanted English as the official language of the United States.

In late 2005, the same Tancredo who trashed Thompson's immigration stance said that Gingrich had the best plan in the GOP besides himself.

---

As with so many issues, the other Republican candidates are recent converts to the position Newt has held for many years.

The danger with that, of course, is what would stop them from flipping back to their previous position? Also, can they be trusted to see the next issue correctly if they could not see past ones like Newt did?

It's great that Fred Thompson now largely admits he made a mistake supporting the squelching of free speech as laid out in McCain-Feingold -- but if he can initially make such a horrible mistake, isn't it quite possible -- even likely -- he'll be wrong on future issues?

Newt Spending like a Candidate

Almost two months ago, it was revealed that Newt Gingrich's 527 group, American Solutions for Winning the Future, had hired a pollster and fundraiser.

Lately, it was revealed that the group also spent $136,000 in April for "travel, aides' salaries, advice from a preeminent Iowa political consultant and other expenses that seem a lot like those racked up by the presidential candidates," writes Politico.com.

In March, the group, among other expenses, spent $89,000 dollars on radio advertisements.

Since its establishment in October, the group -- which will, in the words of Newt spokesman Rick Tyler, "advance big ideas" -- has raised $2.2 million. That's more than all GOP Presidential candidates but the "big three": Giuliani, McCain, Romney.

Newt says "great possibility" he'll run

In an interview with "Good Morning America" promoting his new historical-fiction novel, Pearl Harbor, Newt said, "I think right now, it is a great possibility" I'll run for President.

Though Gingrich still says he won't decide until late September after American Solutions workshops, this interview -- especially when combined with his recent hirings of two staffers -- is the strongest indication he will run.

When asked about Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney, the former Speaker said the three front-runners "are just not viable conservative choices."

The Republicans are doomed, said Gingrich, if they do not preach, and are not committed to, "fundamental change."

Green Gingrich -- or not?

Recently, Newt and John Kerry debated global warming and climate change. After the debate, Human Events' Amanda Carpenter wrote an article, The Greening of Gingrich, in which she claims Newt took liberal positions on the topic. Many others wrote the same thing.

Actually reading the words he used reveals something else, however. He did, as the writers say, make two conclusions:

1. The world has gotten warmer over the past 100 years, and
2. Humans have made some contribution to that

The problem is, Carpenter -- author of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy's Dossier on Hillary Rodham Clinton -- and others made it appear as though the Speaker blamed humans for all of the increase; he didn't. He simply said that humans had some role in the warming, not too controversial.

Moreover, he pointed out that the data does not extend back more than 400 years or so. Because of that, said Gingrich, "we're not actually sure what happened earlier in terms of the planet. And a good example of that would be the fact that 11,000 years ago the Gulf Stream stopped, and for 600 years Europe had a little ice age...then the Gulf Stream started back up and Europe lost the little ice age."

By pointing out that the Earth was warmer 11,000 years ago, Gingrich seems to be downplaying the effect humans have had on the warming of the past century.

He also blasted Al Gore's "science": "[C]omputer simulations -- which are only computer simulations -- show that over the next century there is a probable increase in the sea level between 7 and 23 inches....Very different than the sense that we will be in a catastrophe within a decade."

Gore claims that the sea level will increase by 20 feet.

As you can see, Gingrich is no raving lunatic claiming that the only time the Earth has been hot is after the Industrial Revolution, that this could lead to wide-spread chaos within the next few years.

Just as importantly, Newt wants the marketplace to dictate any changes in energy, not the government. And if the free-market can find ways to make energy cheaper and make the environment a little better, that's great. The bigger advantage would be the cheap energy, of course.

I usually am a big fan of Carpenter's work, but in this case she seems to have twisted Newt's words, as a closer reading of the speech reveals something entirely different than what she wrote.

The Impact of Alito and Roberts

While I disagree with President Bush on a number of issues -- with immigration and government expansion at the top of the list -- I must applaud him for his two Supreme Court appointments: Samuel Alito and John Roberts. (Of course, if Bush had his way, then Harriet Miers would be there, not Alito.) Last week, those two, along with two Reagan nominees and one Bush 41 nominee, voted to uphold a ban of the barbaric partial-birth abortion

As usual, the media misreported the ruling, saying the Court "banned" the procedure. When, in reality, what happened was the five judges said Congress has the right to make laws about abortion -- including, if Nancy Pelosi wishes, a new law to make partial-birth abortion legal.

Phyllis Schlafly and other conservatives have problems with Bush's lower-court nominees -- I simply do not know enough about those decisions to make an informed opinion -- but he certainly looks to have nailed it with Alito and Roberts. Roberts, who caused some concern among conservatives, including myself, when he was first picked, looks to be a solid jurist.

---------

In addition to partial-birth abortion, the Supreme Court looks poised to strike down a section of the horribly-conceived McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform.

This case involves a pro-life group that produced ads in July 2004 in which they encourage citizens to ask the Wisconsin Senators -- one of whom was co-sponsor Feingold -- to oppose filibusters. Democracy-in-action, right? Wrong, says the federal government. A judge pulled the ads. The group had no right to lobby Feingold, who was up for re-election in four months, according to the law the Senator helped write.

The government argued that although the ad did not expressly name Feingold -- simply saying Senators -- that could still sway voters to vote for his opponent. Plus, the government added, the ad contained the address of a website that had critical statements about Feingold's policy.

Another government agency, the FEC, argued "this type of communication is one that uses particular 'magic words' like 'elect,' 'defeat,' 'vote for' or 'vote against,' or when taken as a whole and with limited reference to external events, such as the proximity to the election, can only be interpreted by a 'reasonable person' as advancing the election or defeat of one or more clearly identified candidate[s]."

There you have it: private citizens are not allowed to "advanc[e] the election or defeat of one or more clearly identified candidate[s]." Wow -- that's going to throw a wrench in this whole democracy thing, isn't it?

As Antonin Scalia said, "This is the First Amendment. You can't have people guessing whether their free speech is allowed or not by Big Brother."

Newt Gingrich had this to say in Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract with America: "No law...should limit the right of Americans to complain about, compliment, or otherwise comment on those to whom 'we the people' have loaned power." Continuing, he added, "The idea of incumbents passing incumbent protection legislation limiting the right of their fellow citizens is precisely what the Founding Fathers were trying to block in the First Amendment."

Gingrich is the only "top-tier" Presidential candidate -- Republican or Democrat -- who opposed the bill: John McCain (obviously), Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards all supported the bill or similar bills. (Obama, as a state Senator, did not vote on McCain-Feingold, but has made statements that support the same type of regulation.)

The last time McCain-Feingold was challenged, Sandra Day O'Connor was on the court. With her retired, it would seem the decision will go the other way: 5-4, for striking down the section-in-question. "If we agree with you on this case -- goodbye McCain-Feingold," said Justice Stephen Breyer, a supporter of it. "And you are asking us to do this only three years after we upheld them?"

Yes, Steve, we're asking you to strike down an awful law designed to silence private citizens -- Stare Decisis be damned.

Aside from the frightening restrictions on free speech, the law is fundamentally flawed in another way: It does nothing to remove "big money," its main goal. I don't think there should be any limits on how much any one person wants to give, but if that's the goal -- which it was in this case -- then why would one allow those wealthy contributors to create a 527 group, for which there is no limit on money? Another problem, notes Gingrich, is the law gives the media even larger power, as the rich and powerful companies are not regulated -- not that they should be. It just shows that the average citizen is who the law silences, not the intended group, the wealthy, nor the large corporate media.

I gave President Bush credit earlier, but I must criticize him now. He is, after all, the one who signed the bill, which he called unconstitutional, into law. Why he did this, when his veto could not have been overturned, is beyond confusing. Even if the bill was veto-proof, and it would be law no matter what Bush did, he should have stood on principle and vetoed it.

Hopefully, within weeks we will know that the Supreme Court has delivered a blow to the McCain-Feingold act -- and, as Justice Breyer remorsefully predicted, that that will mean the complete termination of it soon enough.

Gingrich Hires Pollster, Fundraiser

In what could be seen as a sign that Newt is heavily considering a run at the Presidency, the former Speaker has hired a pollster and fundraiser -- two roles "crucial to a typical campaign team," Politico.com writes.

The two new additions are for American Solutions for Winning the Future, a group founded in December by Newt that will aim, in a bipartisan manner, to find ways to solve any number of issues, including health care and education. The two staffers could also serve another purpose: to give hints to other potential staffers to not join the Giuliani, McCain, or Romney campaigns just yet.

It would appear that the pollster, Matt Dabrowski, will play a similar role to that of Frank Luntz's during the formation of the Contract with America. Luntz recently published his latest book, Words That Work

One of the more interesting stories in Major Garrett's An Enduring Revolution: How the Contract with America Continues to Shape the Nation is that as Luntz was preparing the 10 planks of the Contract, he listed them in descending order of popularity among swing voters -- so, for example, the first item listed was the balanced-budget amendment and line-item veto.

But when it came to the second-most popular -- Congressional term limits -- Luntz listed it last so that people would see it in case they just read the first and last items.

With the hiring of two campaign staffers, even if they are just for American Solutions, it would appear that there is growing traction for the type of ideas Gingrich is pushing. And if that's the case, just as it was in 1994 with the Contract, then on January 20, 2009, the former Speaker just might be inaugurated as the next President.

We can hope, and this news certainly makes it more likely it's not a false hope.

Giuliani: Goldwater "incompetent, confused and sometimes idiotic"

In my last post, I dealt with how Rudy Giuliani and other Republican Presidential candidates felt about Ronald Reagan. In this one, I will discuss what Giuliani felt about another conservative icon: Barry Goldwater.

As was the case with the Reagan post, I am not arguing that Giuliani should not be elected just because of what he said a number of years ago; I'm arguing that this is further proof that he is no where near a conservative, and that, in many instances, is very hostile to the same people who he needs to win the Presidency.

Giuliani thought Goldwater was an "incompetent, confused and sometimes idiotic man." By extension, he would seem to feel the same way about any one who voted for the Arizona Senator.

In 1964, he felt the Goldwater supporters -- of which Reagan was one -- "succeeded in inflicting a tremendous defeat on the Republican Party."

Giuliani said that Goldwater's biggest challenger in the 1964 primaries, Nelson Rockefeller, characterized "a tradition in the Republican Party [he had] worked hard to re-kindle" -- which is to say the liberal Republican tradition.

In contradistinction to the supposed "tremendous defeat" the '64 election would inflict on the Republican Party, it actually was a tremendous boon. By abandoning the Eastern Establishment Republicans -- led by Rockefeller -- and their "me, too" philosophy, the Republican Party started attracting Southern conservative voters; in fact, of the 6 states Goldwater won, 5 were in the South. (His home state, Arizona, was the exception.)

While some liberal commentators saw the election as a sign that conservatism would never be embraced by the American public, many -- including Newt Gingrich -- saw the fact that five states of the "Solid South" voted Republican as a changing tide in American politics.

When it came to Congressional races, Georgia, like other Southern states, voted Democratic; however, all but one district went for Goldwater. "Newt did a serious analysis of the recent elections in Georgia and came away convinced that Republicans could be elected to Congress," writes Mel Steely. Gingrich did this analysis in 1974.

One of the things that most attracted the people who would later be called "Reagan Democrats," argues Craig Shirley, was that Goldwater picked an equally-conservative running mate. Most Presidential candidates try to balance the ticket, so Goldwater was expected to pick a moderate running mate. By not doing so, he alienated many of the Eastern Republicans, and they sat out the election, one of the reasons Lyndon Johnson won in a landslide.

"But in choosing [William Miller], Mr. Goldwater also began the process of attracting conservative Democrats into the GOP," writes Shirley. One of those people was Ronald Reagan, the former head of Democrats for Nixon, who first registered as a Republican toward the end of 1964.

As the campaign wound down to its final week, Reagan gave a nationally-televised address on behalf of Goldwater: "A Time for Choosing." Lee Edwards has pointed out "that Reagan would not have been given the opportunity to appear on local radio, let alone national TV, if Nelson Rockefeller or any other Republican liberal had been nominated.

What makes that especially important, writes Edwards, is that it was that address that led to California Republicans to ask Reagan to run for Governor.

In short: If there was no Goldwater campaign, there would almost assuredly been no Reagan campaign.

As you can see, Giuliani could not have been more wrong about Goldwater's campaign. It almost directly led to Reagan's victory in 1980. And the complete transformation of the South to GOP territory was made in 1994, when The Contract with America led to Southern voters vote for Congressional Republicans for the first time since FDR.

------------

In a related topic, it should be pointed out that Gingrich supported Rockefeller in '64, but only for one reason: Rockefeller, felt Gingrich, was the strongest advocate of integration. While Rockefeller was exactly what was wrong with the Republicans and it's doubtful that Gingrich agreed with him on anything else, it's a noble enough reason. That he supported Reagan in '65 shows that Gingrich was not a "Rockefeller-Republican" even when he voted for the New York mayor.

On the same topic, Goldwater was hit over the head for not voting for the Civil Rights Act in '64. But it was not because he was a racist or anything remotely similar to it; in fact, he had voted for similar Civil Rights Acts in 1957 and 1960. He had also pushed for integration of the armed forces two years before Harry Truman.

One of the new editions to the '64, and the part that distressed Goldwater, was Title VII -- which deal with "equal employment opportunity." Though for the idea, the Arizona senator was against the government mandating it. He felt if the government "can forbid such discrimination, it is a real possibility that sometime in the future the same government can require people to discriminate in hiring on the basis of color or race or religion." While that talk was dismissed by those who wanted the bill to pass, it ended up being correct -- eight years after the vote, affirmative action was the law of the land.

Differing Views on Reagan

Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, both attempting to secure the conservative vote, have invoked Ronald Reagan's name numerous times.

Giuliani referred to the 40th President at least 12 times at the 2007 Conservative Political Action Conference alone, one time calling Reagan "one of [his] heroes."

Romney also says President Reagan is one of his heroes. "I believe that our party's ascendancy began with Ronald Reagan's brand of visionary and courageous leadership."

But 15-20 years ago, far from singing Reagan's praises, they were on the record in opposition to him.

George J. Martin, former Executive Director and CEO of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, compiled an extensive list of quotes dealing with Giuliani, both about him and by him.

From that collection:

While running for Mayor, Giuliani "maintained that he never embraced Mr. Reagan's broad conservative agenda," and refused to label himself a "Reagan Republican." The American people, he said, would never get behind the "so-called conservative philosophy of government," because it has "erratic" and "dangerous" prescriptions.

Romney, in the same debate in which he said he was more liberal than opponent Ted Kennedy on abortion, remarked, "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush."

So, Giuliani was dramatically opposed to Reagan in 1964, and there's no reason to think Romney was conservative in 1964 if he wasn't during the '80s -- a decade during which Reagan was an immensely popular President.

How did Newt Gingrich feel? Well, funny you should ask. In The Gentleman from the Georgia, author Mel Steely writes that Gingrich became a fan of Reagan in 1965, after seeing the California Governor candidate debate Bobby Kennedy. Newt especially liked it when Reagan asked Kennedy and an audience full of leftist students, "Do any of you honestly believe that if Stalin had a monopoly on the A-Bomb that we'd be free?"

Gingrich would also support Reagan for president three years later, even though Reagan did not enter the race until, in the words of Lee Edwards, "the eve of the election."

In 1976, when the conservative Reagan challenged sitting-President Ford, a moderate, Gingrich did not public ally state he was in favor of Reagan. The reason he did not was that he did not want to alienate any Republican voter in a district in which no Republican had ever won, and often the incumbent Democrat went without a challenger. While not explicitly stating that he wanted the former California Governor to win, Gingrich did allow his campaign chair to run the Reagan campaign in the 6th district.

Now, some may think electing a President based on who said the nicest thing about Reagan is silly -- but that's not the point. The candidate's opinion of Reagan -- from before they were running for President -- is another standard by which we can judge their conservatism, honesty, and principles.

For Giuliani, who doesn't even try to insult voter's intelligence by calling himself a conservative, only his honesty is in question: Either he lied when he said he did not like Reagan or is lying today when he calls the President one of his heroes.

For Romney, a self-described conservative today, all three look pretty weak: His conservatism for obvious reasons, his honesty because he either lied in 1994 or today, and his principles if he can go from being more liberal than Ted Kennedy to as conservative as Reagan.

In contrast, Newt looks very good -- being a fan of Reagan in 1965 shows a much deeper conservative conviction than being a fan of his in 2005.

Perhaps just as important as Newt's opinion of Reagan was the President's feeling about Gingrich. In one of his radio commentaries, Newt relays the following story:

How would the Gipper handle today’s challenges?…Last week I visited the Ronald Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California. Walking through that beautiful library, I was reminded of a meeting that I and a few House conservatives had with him during his second term. We complained for nearly an hour about the goals that hadn’t been accomplished. We told the President what we thought he should do.

Then, as we were leaving, President Reagan placed his hand on my shoulder and looked me in the eye. He said, "It took us 50 years to get into this mess. I’m doing the first eight. Maybe when I’m gone, you guys have to continue the heavy lifting."

That moment put the situation in perspective. President Reagan was reminding us that the biggest dreams of the conservative movement would take much longer than his presidency to realize. Today, much of that work still remains to be done, and together, our generation will be the one to accomplish it.

This week I’ll be focusing on how I think President Reagan would have handled today’s challenges. Whether it’s defeating Islamic-fascists, defending God in the public square or competing in a global economy, we will be the ones to take the Gipper’s vision into the 21st century.

Our generation’s rendezvous with destiny is now. Ronald Reagan’s legacy will live on through us. I’m Newt Gingrich, and together we can win the future.

The interesting thing is how Reagan viewed Gingrich: as a fellow conservative leader. Can you imagine Reagan saying that to John McCain? Rudy Giuliani?

Reagan also showed his support for the Georgia representative in 1984, endorsing Newt's first book, A Window of Opportunity:

The vision of Window of Opportunity is a vision of the American Dream in the 1980s and beyond; a challenge to mobilize the spirit, wisdom and strength of our nation; a source of new hope for building an Opportunity Society that sparks the best in each of us and permits us to chart a better future for our children and our children's children.

As can be seen, there was a mutual admiration between President Reagan and Speaker Gingrich -- as well as a shared conservative philosophy -- that no other front-runner in the 2008 race can come close to.

Again, it's not just that Gingrich was a fan of Reagan; it's that he has very similar views to Reagan, and has felt that way for 40 years.

Gingrich: "The Return of the Liberal Tax Increase"

Starting on April 24 of last year, Newt has written a weekly newsletter for Human Events. The Speaker covers a wide-range of topics in it, from the War on Terror to the economy.

In his latest one, titled "The Return of the Liberal Tax Increase," Newt detailed how much more the "average" American citizen would pay under the House Democrat's plan. Far from "taxing the rich," the bill would hurt married couples, couples with kids, and small business owners.

By Newt denouncing the proposed-tax increase, it is yet another opportunity to bring up the stark differences between Speaker Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and John McCain:

In 1988, Giuliani opposed President Bush's "no-tax pledge," which, of course, Bush broke.

In 1994, Romney criticized the supply-side economics of Reagan's.

In 2001 and 2003, McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts.

Gingrich, on the other hand, has long supported tax-cuts -- even opposing Reagan's 1982 tax increase on businesses and excise taxes, as well as the broken-pledge of Bush 41.

Reagan's '82 tax increase, a year after his historic income tax reduction, was part of a deal with Congressional Democrats: for every dollar that taxes were hiked, the Democrats promised three dollars of spending cuts; the cuts never happened, of course. To his credit, however, Reagan made sure that taxes were not hiked on individuals. Still, the deal was bad enough that Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese -- who Giuliani thinks is a sleaze -- calls it "the greatest domestic error of the Reagan administration."

To go up against one of his heroes when he had just 3-plus years in Congress on such an important issue as taxation shows Gingrich's principle.

So did dissenting on Bush's tax increase -- which taxed income, unlike Reagan's. Even though it would appear easier to oppose the Bush hike -- after all, the move was overwhelmingly unpopular and Gingrich had now served almost 12 years -- it was tough for one reason: Newt was the number two Republican in the house. As part of the leadership, he was expected to fall in line. But at the Rose Garden signing ceremony, he pledged to vote against it and felt it would not pass -- "astound[ing] everyone, especially White House aides," writes conservative historian Lee Edwards in The Conservative Revolution. "He was speaking not just for himself but for conservatives in and out of the administration."

"Rudy Would Kill the GOP Pro-Life Movement"

On Tuesday, Doug Patton wrote an article in which he points out that if Rudy Giuliani is the Republican nominee, it would be the first time since 1976, when Ronald Reagan challenged Gerald Ford in the primaries, that the Republican presidential candidate would be pro-abortion. That, says Patton, "could spell the end of the pro-life movement within the Republican Party" -- the consequences of which would cause social-issues voters to stay home or, perhaps, even vote Democrat in some cases.

Patton quotes Mark 8:36:

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

It's a good point: By nominating Giuliani, it would require selling-out principle, and if there's one thing the conservative movement has, it is principle. In a general election, there is no doubt that "settling" -- as long as the candidate is somewhat of a conservative, pro-life at the least -- is the way to go so that a liberal is not elected.

But in a primary election, one should look for the candidate they like, regardless of the "electability" of that person. In short: The primary season is not the time to compromise principles. Only when the general election arrives, and the choice is between a, say, 85% conservative, who was their third-favorite, and a 95% liberal, should one vote for someone who is not their top choice.

Some supporters of Giuliani have claimed that the only time a president can change anything on abortion is by appointing judges -- thus, they say, when Giuliani pledges to elect conservative judges, that is enough. But as Patton points out, a Giuliani-nomination likely means the right-to-life plank in the GOP platform would be removed.

Ever since that 1976 primary challenge of Reagan, the Republican Party, at their annual convention, has included the pro-life plank. At the '76 convention, Reagan supporters attempted to push many conservative planks: the anti-abortion one, one opposing the ERA, etc. "The mere fact that the ERA was open to question, and the pro-life plank added, was a victory for Phyllis Schlafly, a leader of the social conservatives," writes Craig Shirley in his terrific book about the Ford-Reagan campaign, Reagan's Revolution.

Patton concludes:

Yes, the war against Islamist fanaticism demands an alternative to Hillary Clinton. Yes, a Giuliani administration would be preferable in many important ways to a Clinton or an Obama administration. And yes, he is probably electable if we give him our nomination.

But at what cost?

P.S.: In the coming weeks, I'll discuss why Giuliani's pledge to appoint judges such as Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, and John Roberts is troubling for a number of reasons.

Moneyball

In May of 2003, Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game was released. I quickly bought the book, having had heard of it on several websites that I visited regularly, and couldn't put it down.

In short, it's about how the Oakland Athletics' general manager, Billy Beane, goes beyond the typical offensive stats in baseball -- batting average, home runs, and RBIs -- to find players who are undervalued. Beane was one of the first GMs to look at on-base percentage, and because so few did, he was able to build one of the league's best offenses with one of the lowest payrolls.

Now, Beane has had to adjust, since more and more teams are understanding the value of OBP, but the A's still compete with teams that spend 2-times, 3-times, and even 4-times as much money as they do.

Why is this on a political blog, you may ask? Because the book is a favorite of Newt Gingrich. It makes sense that he would like it, for it details three things that he likes: new thinking, metrics-based solutions, and an anti-establishment approach.

The baseball "establishment" hated the book, even though many have not read the book -- and one person, Joe Morgan, is so ignorant of it he thinks that Beane himself wrote it. Not knowing what they were talking about did not stop the old guard from dismissing the book, and four years later, they still go on bizarre rants on TV, in newspaper articles, and on radio.

Since the book has come out, many company managers have had their employees read it; many of those companies are on Wall Street, which the author of Moneyball, Michael Lewis, had written a book about before.

The fact that Newt likes the book exemplifies why I think he should be president: He looks outside the box and is always looking for new information -- two qualities not commonly found in politicians.



P.S.: For more on the book and how people outside of baseball have utilized it, here are a couple of articles:

• Q&A with Lewis
• Moneyball: What Savvy Marketing Execs Can Learn from a Maverick Baseball GM
• Faith in Figures Proves to be a Big Hit

Introduction

Hello, my name is Josh Gosser, and I'm a conservative. As such, this blog will deal with conservatism; in fact, the name of the blog comes from the subtitle of Newt Gingrich's 1984 book, Window of Opportunity.

A main focus of this blog will be Speaker Gingrich, the best defender of conservatism today. My hope is that in late September -- after doing work with his group American Solutions -- he decides that he has to run for president to truly enact the level of change that he desires, and that the country needs.

In attempting to persuade people to support Newt, I will analyze the other "front-runners" for the Republican nomination -- Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney -- and show why none of them deserve to be the nominee.

I don't support the Speaker for president because I think he's the best person for the job in 2008; I support him because I think he's, by far, the best candidate since Ronald Reagan, and before that, Barry Goldwater.

Thanks for reading, and I hope you will enjoy this blog.