When Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House of Representatives, brought about the “Republican Revolution” back in 1994, I was still a liberal. I wrote about it (in a law school newspaper) and lamented that Republicans controlled Congress (by picking up 52 seats and becoming the majority in the House for the first time since 1954).
His Contract with America sounded like so much bunk at the time. The attempt to inject accountability into the government wasn’t a bad idea, but Republicans were advocating it, and that was enough to dismiss it outright. (See also Wikipedia’s entry, a Heritage Foundation article and a nine-part series on the Republican Revolution).
Now a different kind of Revolution has taken place, one in which Gingrich would be a liability. Lately there’s been talk in the media about his running for the presidency in 2008. I can’t tell you how cringe-worthy that is. And when I heard about his “Walking Tour of God in Washington, D.C.,” I thought, “That’s just what we need. A Republican philanderer lecturing people about God.” (See a transcript from a recent appearance on FOX.)
Why do I react this way? Because I think Gingrich is a man of low character. He served his first wife divorce papers while she was in the hospital suffering from cancer. During Bill Clinton’s impeachment scandal, he’d been cheating on his second wife with one of his staff and told her over the phone while she was attending her mother’s birthday party that he wanted a divorce. I won’t even get into the ethics violations.
Contrary to smooth Bill “Slick Willie” Clinton and his supporters, who made the nonsensical claim that a man’s personal life is separate from his professional/political life, a person is who he is in all areas of his life. Unfaithfulness is a character flaw, and that flaw affects the whole man, not just the “personal” one.
(As an aside, here’s a little advice for women in the audience. If you’re seeing a married man and he leaves his wife for you, it has little to do with you, despite what he says. While you’re feeling special and better than she, understand that one day he’ll probably do the same thing to you. Your man’s low character will manifest itself again when the next pretty young thing crosses his path. So don’t act surprised when he serves you divorce papers — if he marries you, that is — at the most inopportune moment.)
You’re tainted goods, Mr. Gingrich. Stay away from public office. Republicans don’t need you and the real conservatives in the party can’t afford you. Write your books, do your public policy work behind the scene, and for crying out loud, don’t embarrass yourself (or us) with lectures on “moral values.”
I agree–I cringed at the idea of him running.
Comment by mj — 01.17.05 @ 9:34 am
LaShawn Barber: Why I Wouldn’t Vote For Newt Gingrich
LaShawn Barber: Why I Wouldn’t Vote For Newt Gingrich
Trackback by Dummocrats.com — 01.17.05 @ 10:03 am
I agree, LaShawn. He would not make it through the first caucases, and the MSM would have a field day with his past. He would not get my vote, either.
BTW, welcome back!
Comment by marcus — 01.17.05 @ 10:11 am
I agree, but what about the Reverend King, La Shawn?
Comment by Sissy Willis — 01.17.05 @ 10:12 am
Absolutely on the mark, La Shawn. It reminded me of the joke about Dan Quayle, Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton going to the Wizard of Oz. “What can I do for you?” says the wizard.
Dan:”Can I get a brain?”
Newt:”Can I get a heart?”
Bill:”Can I get Dorothy?”
Newt is heartless and would be a major setback for the party.
Comment by BobG — 01.17.05 @ 10:16 am
Good thoughts….Newt running would be like waving a red flag in front of a bull. Although, he might serve to draw a lot of the fire away from the serious candidates.
Comment by Guy — 01.17.05 @ 10:43 am
Well said La Shawn!!!
The first I heard of it was last night while catching up on Townhall Columists. Newt was an overall force for good of the country, however, we don’t need no philanderer occupying the Oval Office after the grief and shame that Slick brought to it.
Thanks, but no thanks. Sorry, give someone else their day in the Sun.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Apologies to Soft Cell’s Tainted Love:
Sometimes we feel we’ve got to run away,
We’ve got to get away,
From the shame that you drive into the heart of us
The “morals” we share
Seems to go nowhere
And you’ve lost your light
For you adulterate, you can’t see what’s right
(chorus)
Once you ran for us (you ran)
Now we’ll run from you
This tainted goods you’ve given
Ex-wives gave all they could give you
Take their trust and that’s not nearly all
Oh…tainted loves
Tainted goods
Now we know we’ve got to turn away
We’re not voting your way
You don’t really want IT any more from God
To make things right
You need to hold Jesus tight
But you still think love is to play
But we’re sorry, we don’t play that way
(chorus…)
Don’t run again please
We cannot stand the way you preach
Pray for you, tho you hurt us so
Now we’re going to take our votes and go
Unfaithfullness, tainted goods (x2)
Low character, tainted goods (x2)
Tainted goods (x3)
Comment by Andy — 01.17.05 @ 10:44 am
LaShawn: AMEN
BobG: LOL, I hadn’t heard that one
Comment by don — 01.17.05 @ 11:07 am
Welcome back LaShawn. You were missed. You are right on about Newt. I agree, Nyet on Newt. Could you give us an idea of who we should be looking for for 2008? Guiliani, Newt, and McCain certainly don’t do it for me. It may seem early, but there are a lot of “good” Democrats lined up and I’d hate to see conservatives left high and dry.
Comment by pjlr — 01.17.05 @ 11:16 am
La Shawn,
Brilliant as usual, and I agree wholeheartedly. It’s no wonder that today Hugh Hewitt on his website is recommending you to Roger Ailes to be a part of the first all-blogger show on Fox News. Congratulations on all that you have accomplished. It is well-deserved.
Comment by Tom B. — 01.17.05 @ 11:17 am
I always liked how he was against pork and from the one of the most pork-receiving districts in the country.
Comment by actus — 01.17.05 @ 11:29 am
Good points made.
Don’t forget that he tried to get out of upping his child payment even though his income increased.
Comment by DarkStar — 01.17.05 @ 11:29 am
I totally agree with you. I think Newt is a very smart man with a lot of great ideas, and a few not so great! - but he has shown conclusively he lacks the character our national leaders ought to have. The sad thing is he used to talk about how important character is, and that’s it’s a vital part of what leadership is! He’s forgotten that or is deep in denial. Either way, he ought to stay a commentator and leave well enough alone.
Comment by Louie Marsh — 01.17.05 @ 11:36 am
Hello LaShawn,
I sent you an email. I hope you find time to read and respond.
God Bless
Comment by aaronjhankins — 01.17.05 @ 11:36 am
EXCELLENT post La Shawn. Two thumbs up on the character flaws (flawed character affects all aspects of the person).
Comment by Renee — 01.17.05 @ 11:38 am
Dynamic Conservative Mike Pence is our man for 08. We must have Mike Pence. He is the leader of the conservative movement and the only man who can accurately and gracefully articulate our ideas, values and principles. He consistently and unashamedly puts God and Family first. Watch for him to become the Conservatve frontrunner in this next presidential election.
Comment by DraftPence08 — 01.17.05 @ 11:39 am
Why I Wouldn’t Vote For Newt Gingrich
The D.C. conservative sniffs at the former U.S. House Speaker’s openness to a presidential bid in 2008 and his Walking Tour of God. She mentions the Republican Revolution that he led in 1994 with the Contract With America, but argues that a different …
Trackback by Booker Rising — 01.17.05 @ 11:40 am
You are right! Mike Pence is the most influential conservative on the hill. Did you hear his CPAC speech from last year where he was the keynote???? He was on Fire!
Comment by dwayne — 01.17.05 @ 11:42 am
I never heard about Mike Pence just a few months ago. Now he is the chair of the Republican Study Committee and is getting alot of press and airtime. He is actually discussing our conservative values with passion and vigor. I don’t know much about him but I think we all need to check him out.
Comment by cynthia — 01.17.05 @ 11:45 am
We missed you but your first post back was worth the wait.
Comment by Man of Substance — 01.17.05 @ 11:51 am
I have been thinking how to express my thoughts on this subject, but as usual, La Shawn Barber has proven how eloquent a dissension can be written - so I don’t need to write anything and simply say DITTO La Shawn Barber.
Comment by woodiah — 01.17.05 @ 12:07 pm
Newt for President - NO!
I have been thinking how to express my thoughts on this subject, but as usual, La Shawn Barber has proven how eloquent a dissension can be written….
Trackback by Woody's Blog — 01.17.05 @ 12:14 pm
Hello, readers! I enjoyed my time away from blogging and could’ve gone another day or two or three. I guess I’m not as addicted as I thought.
Comment by La Shawn — 01.17.05 @ 12:17 pm
Condi in 2008. no contest.
Comment by Maureen — 01.17.05 @ 12:23 pm
I agree. Newt was good as speaker of the house, and he accomplished many great things, but he is damaged goods. The Democrats are probably licking their chops at the prospect of him re-entering politics. He can’t stand for family values, because he has not shown them.
The rule of thumb that if a man’s wife can’t trust him, then no one can, is as true today as ever.
Comment by Fr. John Whiteford — 01.17.05 @ 12:26 pm
Well said LaShawn. When I saw the title of the post, I thought to myself “any man that could served his wife divorce papers while she was in the hospital battling cancer…” It is good that that one instance was not lost on just me. There are certain things that should be forgotten. This unfortunately is not one of them, it speaks to his character as a man. If that is the best the Republicans can come up with, they’re sunk.
Comment by cooper — 01.17.05 @ 12:29 pm
No Newt for Prez?
La Shawn Barber details why she won’t be voting for Newt if he runs:
Why do I react this way? Because I think Gingrich is a man of low character. He served his first wife divorce papers while she was in the hospital suffering from cancer. During Bill…
Trackback by AlwaysRight.org — 01.17.05 @ 12:34 pm
Blogs for Newt? No Thanks
I’m sure you’re completely aware of the fact that Newt Gingrich is considering a run for President in 2008. When this news broke my first reaction was disbelief. I can’t see any possible way for Newt to work past his…
Trackback by The Blue State Conservatives — 01.17.05 @ 12:41 pm
Newt is the Republican Party’s Bill. High intelligence, great politician, good leader, with selfish character. It’s just sad.
Welcome back La Shawn, you were missed. Please answer the following questions about your hiatus.
How long have you been viewing waterfalls? Do you believe you’re addicted to waterfalls, be honest? How often do you do a waterfall hiatus, and for how long? Have you ever thought of giving up waterfalls? Why not! We need you here.
Comment by Jim R — 01.17.05 @ 12:42 pm
I agree totally with Maureen: Condi for 2008!
Newt is a has-been, a pre-9/11 pol who thinks that character is of no import.
Comment by maria horvath — 01.17.05 @ 1:06 pm
I don’t think Newt could be a serious candidate. He just angers too many people for all kinds of reasons.
Mike Pence is an Indiana Congressman. When he was first elected to office, the Democrats made it clear that he was to be a target for defeat two years later. He did such a good job that there was no serious attempt to run against him.
He is a social and fiscal conservative. He is intelligent, presents himself well and is a good candidate. There are many people in Indiana that look to him to be a candidate for the senate when Indiana Republican Senator Dick Lugar decides to retire.
As far as I know Mr. Pence has not expressed his views on the Senate position. I had not heard his name mentioned as a Presidential Candidate, but it is worth considering.
Comment by Allan Yackey — 01.17.05 @ 1:48 pm
Maureen and Maria,
Dr. Rice is pro-choice, pro-gay-rights, pro-affirm-action…
still support her for prez now?
Comment by jab — 01.17.05 @ 2:58 pm
Newt Gingrich as a Litmus Test for Moral Conservatives
Newt Gingrich is testing the waters for a possible bid at the presidency in 2008 and has become a litmus test for conservatives who believe that character counts and that what a person believes and does impacts his or her suitability for public office….
Trackback by bLogicus — 01.17.05 @ 3:40 pm
I am no fan of Newt, like LaShawn I detest people who cheat. But if you’re looking for the perfect candidate I can tell you right now you’ll be searching for a very long time. You have to weigh the pros & cons of each candidate. Compared to Kerry or Clinton I would vote for him in a heartbeat.
Keep in mind that we might discard sinful people, but God doesn’t. Read up on David, Paul, Matthew, and many others to see what I mean.
Comment by Jim Stegman — 01.17.05 @ 3:48 pm
It’s funny La Shawn - I have been considering doing a post just like yours about Rudy Giuliani. He seems like a strong leader and a good guy in many ways, but he is a pro-abortion philanderer that I could not support - and I think he has far more of a chance to make a serious run at it than Newt. Newt is too polarizing to make it in any regard.
I could change my mind if Giuliani had serious change of heart , but I don’t see it happening.
Comment by Jeff Blogworthy — 01.17.05 @ 4:27 pm
Yes Jab I do, I don’t agree with every single issue she takes a stand for, but I do agree with most of them. She also defends her issues with fire and brimstone which what I want in a president. For the record I don’t agree with every single conservative stance, nor every liberal stance so I will never find a candidate that fits me perfectly. I agree with Rice on most things, and thats good enough for me.
Comment by Monster Kabasue — 01.17.05 @ 4:41 pm
Biblical Qualification for Leadership
La Shawn Barber has written a piece on why she would not support Newt Gingrich as the Republican presidential nominee. She feels his character flaws, especially infidelity, disqualify him for elected office. As much as I like Newt in other respects, I …
Trackback by Wittenberg Gate — 01.17.05 @ 7:36 pm
Newt for prez doesn’t thrill me but I would have to see who he is running against. I wouldn’t support him in a primary.
Comment by Evon Bachaus — 01.17.05 @ 8:31 pm
I like Newt for his political mind, but I tend to agree with you about his character.
I think he needs to stay in politics because of his ideas, but he needs to stay behind the scenes. Were he to run for president he would be trounced.
I would not vote for him even if I thought he could win. But again, he is one of the bright minds in politics and I do believe he is needed.
Comment by Keith — 01.17.05 @ 9:38 pm
Newt became just another politician when his ego/head got too big to exit a certain door on Air Force One.
Comment by Bachbone — 01.17.05 @ 9:42 pm
Newt is a calculator. He is calculating his run in 2008. He is flawed and his calculations are flawed. La Shawn has it right: phony is as phony does. BUT should he prevail in 2008, we will join in with his excuse making.
Comment by Heliotrope — 01.17.05 @ 9:51 pm
I liked Newt as Speaker, and supported him as a donating “Friend of Newt…” I was furious when a LA GOP rep challenged him for the Speaker post (that was a fast tumble from grace, too).
But I was personally offended when Newt’s marital split was in the news at the same time one of his mailings said, “Marilyn and I want to thank you … ” Not smart, and a real turn off.
On a Presidential run, though, that seems to be based on his coy answers to interviewers while he’s on his book tour. He quite candidly stated that the speculation ‘could help and couldn’t hurt’ his book promotions.
I don’t yet really believe he’s a serious candidate.
Comment by Merry — 01.17.05 @ 11:08 pm
[…] POLITICS — Dr.AJ @ 10:02 pm It’s not that pretty. He’s tainted goods. Although I wouldn’t describe New […]
Pingback by SmartChristian Blog » LA SHAWN’S TAKE ON NEWT GINGRICH — 01.18.05 @ 1:58 am
Some Excellent Advice
Lashawn Barber renders some excellent advice: Contrary to smooth Bill “Slick Willie” Clinton and his supporters, who made the nonsensical claim that a man’s personal life is separate from his professional/political life, a person is who he is in all…
Trackback by Church Voices — 01.18.05 @ 2:03 am
You leave Newt alone! he’s got some great ideas and he is certainly smarter than anyone in the Bush administration.
Comment by jri — 01.18.05 @ 7:41 am
I know. I cringed when I heard it as well. I’m holding out for Condi.
Comment by RepJ — 01.18.05 @ 10:06 am
JRI and La Shawn,
While you probably know me as an ardent defender of many who are accused of things that aren’t true, I can only say about Newt that his governing philosophy is sound but that doesn’t make someone the right person for President.
Newt has made some poor choices personally and it has tarnished his character. He gave liberals ammunition to repeatedly ridicule him to the point that Newt will never recover.
Newt is so damaged that he won’t even come near being nominated to run for President.
I for one would love to see new faces run for President. Condaleeza is a good choice I believe. Those who try to derail Condaleeza’s chances by pointing out she’s pro-choice (as JAB does above) and accusing her of being pro-affirmative action and pro gay rights do not understand Condaleeza Rice’s positions on these issues.
Condaleeza is not pro-affirmative action.
I don’t know what her position is on gay-rights.
Condaleeza is in line with most republicans on the abortion issue.
Whereas most Democrats would vote against “partial-birth abortion” bills, I do not think that Condaleeza would.
The one legitimate issue for Condaleeza is that she hasn’t held elected office. I pray that she becomes governor of a state and then runs for president. When I listen to her speeches on C-SPAN I think she is brilliant and full of common sense. Is she a perfect 10? No. She does have some shakiness in her voice sometimes but I believe that it is better to have the person in office with the right values and concepts than a slickster.
Comment by Baklava — 01.18.05 @ 12:37 pm
I agree, that Newt would be a liability. His character is weak, and his morals low. We, as conservatives, need to make sure that the RNC knows that when the time comes, folks like us won’t stand behind him. Someone like Pence or Frist. But not a Newt.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 01.18.05 @ 12:54 pm
Baklava,
You are misinformed.
(1) Regarding affirmative action:
On January 13, 2003, Dr. Rice said,
“I believe that while race neutral means are preferable, it is appropriate to use race as one factor among others in achieving a diverse student body.”
This was part of an OFFICIAL White House press release which you can look up on the White House website.
If you recall, she used to be Provost of Stanford University, and was a strong proponent of affirmative action in college admissions and faculty hiring (though, notably, she opposed affirm-action at the tenure level).
She has also said that she herself was a beneficiary of affirmative action: “I am myself a beneficiary of a Stanford strategy that took affirmative action seriously, that took a risk in taking a young PhD from the University of Denver.”
(2) Regarding abortion: She has indeed proclaimed that she is “mildly pro-choice,” and at other times as “reluctantly pro-choice.” Also, in 1999, after stepping down as provost at Stanford to work for Bush’s campaign, she told the San Francisco Chronicle that despite her devout Presbyterian background, she is a “pro-choice evangelical,” and that “there’s a lot of room in the middle [on abortion]. . . . I don’t think Americans think abortion is something you do lightly.”
She has not elaborated further to date, so she may or may not qualify her support with parental notification or limits on third term abortions… But she does indeed support adult women making that choice for themselves, at least in the first trimester.
Comment by jab — 01.18.05 @ 2:38 pm
Thank you La Shawn for your perspective in many areas. Good post!!
This agenda that Newt is on now is not good for either America or for the conservative movement. Because we find most of our conservative beliefs in our morality, any and all of us will be held to a higher standard. Perhaps Newt would best serve us if he continued to help educate America on the true history of our nation. He does that very well and it is greatly needed now. We do need more conservatives educating our youth.
God bless and keep it up!!!
Comment by dbledged — 01.18.05 @ 2:41 pm
Baklava,
Dr. Rice used to be a Democrat, but switched to the GOP in the late 1980’s because of Ronald Reagan’s stance towards the Soviet Union. By all accounts, she is fairly hawkish on foreign affairs, but still retains Democrat views on all the social issues.
I am a liberal Democrat, but I have immense respect (though still disagreement) for Republicans who are fiscal conservatives and social liberals. I would welcome the GOP’s shift to the left on social issues by nominating Dr. Rice.
Comment by jab — 01.18.05 @ 2:45 pm
Correction:
The date of Dr. Rice’s press release in support of affirmative action was dates Jan. 17, 2003.
Comment by jab — 01.18.05 @ 2:54 pm
Jab,
Please re-read what I said about Dr. Rice on the abortion issue. As with all issues people do not fall on a scale at extreme ends usually. I don’t think Dr. Rice is on the left side of the spectrum on these issues. On a scale of -10 to +10 she may be near 0 but I believe she is right of center.
Dr. Rice’s statment is at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030117-1.html
She said:
Statement by the National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice
When the President decided to submit an amicus brief, he asked for my view on how diversity can be best achieved on university campuses. I offered my view, drawing on my experience in academia and as provost of a major university. I agree with the President’s position, which emphasizes the need for diversity and recognizes the continued legacy of racial prejudice, and the need to fight it [so does Ward Connerly]. The President challenged universities to develop ways to diversify their populations fully. I believe that while race neutral means are preferable, it is appropriate to use race as one factor among others in achieving a diverse student body.
:
:
:
She stated what she believes is preferable. She also allowed for some middle ground that it could be used as one factor among others.
While I disagree with that last phrase, it isn’t something that would align her in the -10 to -1 range of the spectrum. Those who are truly to the left do not seem to allow for any other opinion. They vehemently debate with Ward Connerly and others.
You may respectfully disagree and think that Dr. Rice is to the left on these issues but let me submit to you that your view of the “right” is tainted. Don’t worry. You’ll understand us sooner or later.
Comment by Baklava — 01.18.05 @ 4:57 pm
Jolly Digest 1-18-05
I have been a bad blogger of late.
Trackback by JOLLYBLOGGER - a weblog for jolly beggars — 01.18.05 @ 5:11 pm
Baklava,
Really? i had no idea that being “mildly pro-choice” was slightly “right of center” and “in line with most republicans.” I have a feeling most on this site would disagree with that assertion.
I never said Dr. Rice was far left on abortion, and she may very well support some sensible restrictions such as parental notification or limits on third trimester abortions… she hasn’t said either way… but I’m so very glad you proclaim that being “mildly pro-choice” is slightly “right of center” and “in line with most republicans.”
As for affirmative action, you are being disingenuous… in her full statement, the point of agreement with the president refers to the need for diversity and the need to fight racial discrimination. But in her past actions as provost as well as this statement, she clearly states that “while race neutral means are preferable, it is appropriate to use race as one factor among others in achieving a diverse student body.”
Again, you are saying that this is a slightly right of center view?
That race can be used and is appropriate to be used as one factor among many? Who knew the GOP was so progressive.
Let me guess, you think Democrats support quotas for the patently unqualified, right?
In any case, it’s good to know that you think “mildly pro-choice” and “it is appropriate to use race as one factor among others” are center-right views.
Sorry, but clearly it is YOUR view of the LEFT that is tainted.
(By the way, you do know that Ward Connerly supports gay-rights and equal marriage rights? )
Comment by jab — 01.18.05 @ 6:28 pm
Clarification:
I’m not sure where Ward Connerly stands on “gay marriage”… but he has definitely taken an affirmative stand on gay civil unions and extending domestic partnership and health benefits to gay partners. He is staunchly against affirmative action because he believes society should be completely color-blind… and he extends that logic to sexual orientation as well… I wonder how many conservatives who praise Connerly on his logic on racial issues know that he feels the same applies to sexual orientation as well.
Comment by jab — 01.18.05 @ 6:40 pm
Brilliant mind, but not an executive or leader, and his presidential run is delusional.
Comment by Pat Curley — 01.19.05 @ 1:55 am
The Carnival of the Vanities, #122
THE CARNIVAL OF THE VANITIES, EPISODE 122: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength…and I’m in charge! Once again I’ve returned to the man the helm of the Good Ship Lollipop. Having been here twice before, Bigwig clear…
Trackback by The People's Republic of Seabrook — 01.19.05 @ 7:19 am
Life, death and free speech . . .
I’m haven’t been keeping up as I should, and I’m running late in my posts, email, and everything… But I’ve noticed the rest of the world does not stop. A cruel white curtain of snow has descended over the East…
Trackback by Classical Values — 01.19.05 @ 12:19 pm
Inauguration Now
Heather has Inauguration day off, so I took a day to do so as well. My new boss is very cool: is someone in our group is on-call over a major holiday event, we get a free comp day. I was on-call over New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day, so I am takin…
Trackback by nmj3e — 01.20.05 @ 10:29 am
THIS COMMENT THREAD IS CLOSED. YOUR COMMENT WILL NOT BE POSTED.
Comment by Administrator — 01.20.05 @ 2:54 pm
Broken Leaders and Second Chances
Last week I wrote about the Biblical qualifications for leadership after reading a post by La Shawn Barber about Newt Gingrich’s character flaws. On his blog, James Jewell of the Rooftop Blog posed an interesting question to La Shawn and I,
Trackback by Wittenberg Gate — 01.24.05 @ 3:17 pm
[…] ership — Mark @ 05.44 PM Ran accross a very interesting discussion at two sites La Shawn Barber and at the Wittenburg Gate. (Which is a great name by the way. When I origina […]
Pingback by Agricolae.net :: Leadership Qualities — 01.24.05 @ 9:44 pm
Fox making Gingrich a superstar
Newt Gingrich has been out of the spotlight for some time. He and his fellow House Republicans swept to power in 1994, on the wings of the Contract With America. Gingrich served as Speaker of the House from 1995 to 1999. He’s really been out of the…
Trackback by Slowplay.com — 02.02.05 @ 1:30 pm
Mike Pence for President
By
Chris Dickson
http://chrisdickson.blogspot.com
There is rampant speculation throughout the country as to who will be running on the Republican ticket for President in 2008 against Hillary. Likely candidates are; Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA,) Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-ILL,) Senator George Allen (R-VA,) and former Congressman J.C.Watts, to name only a few. Recently, several internet web sites have cropped up across the country to draft Congressman Mike Pence for President in 2008. Who is this man, and what are his qualities and qualifications?
Mike Pence personifies the conservative values of the Red-State-Midwest commonly known as “Hoosier Values.†He is one of the great polemicists of our time, and has a very clear vision for dynamic reforming of government in the 21st Century. As he becomes more prominent in the years ahead as a national figure, we hope he will continue articulating what resonates in the hearts of an overwhelming majority of American citizens.
Pence’s entry onto the political stage is clearly a defining moment in our nation’s history. His tremendous core conservatism is dedicated to limited government, fiscal government and traditional family values. He proclaims to be a “Christian-conservative-Republican (in that order.) But is there enough evidence to convict him on all three counts?
Is Mike Pence a Christian? Micah Clark, Executive Director of the American Family Association of Indiana writes, “Maybe when you talk politics on the radio you desire real life conversations. Maybe when you are a politician from a conservative district you know that to talk of God and to vote conservative is ‘good politics.’ But when you are Mike Pence, a man of real faith, you simply express it, act on it, and you put that ‘love one another’ command into practice.â€
Is Mike Pence a conservative? To answer this question, we need look no further than the 90 plus group of House conservatives who voted 100 per cent to elect Pence Chairman of the House Republican Study Committee in the 109th Congress. David Keene, Chairman of the American Conservative Union, said of Pence, “The Republican Study Committee is the bulwark of Reagan conservatism in the House. And Mike Pence is one of the most distinguished conservative leaders in Congress.â€
Is Mike Pence a Republican? George Witwer, senior fellow, Indiana Policy Review, writes, “Mike still spends much of the election season helping local and state Republican candidates with their races. He even played an enormously valuable role in the Indiana Republicans winning back the State House in 2004 by going door-to-door and speaking at rallies for state legislative challengers.â€
It is Pence’s belief and hope that in the decades to come, the justness of our cause as a nation will not only be realized by the powerful and wealthy, but also be realized within the obscure and hurting corners of our community. This realization has not materialized after nearly 60 years of Washington being dominated by liberals within the Democratic Party, although they have professed all along that they are “for the down-and-outs†of our society. It has been a lie that followed on the heel of the natural consequences of socialism.
Mike Pence for President? He certainly needs to be strongly considered.
Comment by Chris Dickson — 06.15.05 @ 3:21 pm