The Unorthodoxed Genius of Sitting on a Park Bench

In the past few months, since coming out in support of Newt Gingrich, I’ve seen hundreds of attacks against him…by conservatives. They’ve attacked Newt from a hundred different angles. And why not? It’s easy to find something in his forty plus year career that you won’t like. He’s voted more than 7200 times. He’s given more than 15000 speeches. He’s written hundreds of articles, papers and books on dozens of topics. His career has spanned ten presidents. He’s fought from a position of minority. He’s battled to bring the GOP back into power in Washington. Considering the sheer volume of information available about Newt and from Newt it would be nearly impossible to do an exhaustive and copious study of his position on any single issue, let alone all of them.

That being the case, I believe the single most telling incident in his personal history lay on a park bench with Nancy Pelosi. Newt has written it off as one of the dumbest things he’s done in recent history. Yet conservatives just won’t let it go. Why? The answer to that question may best be found in understanding what it was that Newt was trying to accomplish by sitting on the bench in the first place.

He has told us that his purpose in doing that public service ad was to show that conservatives have solutions to the issue of global climate change too. Think about the ramifications of that statement alone. In saying that, Newt public acknowledges there is such a thing as global climate change. Did he admit that man is the cause of that climate change? No. But does that stop some conservatives from still attacking him for admitting that there is such a thing as global climate change? Still, no. Why does that bother some conservatives?

That answer may be best found by first attempting to discover why Nancy Pelosi would choose to sit on a park bench with Newt Gingrich for a PSA about global climate change? Since she’s never really spoken out as to her reasons, it would be difficult to know for sure what her motives were. But I think we can make some educated guesses. First, it can be safely assumed that she…to some degree…actually believes there is global climate change occurring. To some conservatives it is reasonable and sane to take whatever stand a liberal has and merely take the opposite. She believes in global climate change. Therefore I should not believe in it.

But Newt takes a different approach. Is it so distasteful to accept that the temperature of the earth does fluctuate? It shouldn’t be distasteful. The temperature of the earth does, indeed, fluctuate. By admitting that, while sitting on that park bench, Newt accomplishes several things: 1) he disarms Nancy’s stage one attack against conservatives. You see, it’s like this. She knows that when she, as a liberal, says the sky is blue, that the knee-jerk reaction of many conservatives will be to argue that the sky ISN’T blue. It makes a certain segment of conservatives sound a bit insane. By accepting the premise that there is such a thing as global climate change, Newt takes that weapon away from Nancy. 2) Because Newt accepted that premise, he is afforded a stage whereby he can stand in opposition to Nancy’s second premise that mankind is a major contributor to climate change. Some conservatives would then take this opportunity to stand tall and argue with Nancy that this isn’t true at all. But again Newt takes a different approach in an attempt to, again, disarm her further. He doesn’t argue that man is NOT the cause of climate change. He argues that he doesn’t know. He argues that there are scientists who stand on either side of that debate. And he argues that there isn’t enough evidence either way. In doing this he places the onus upon Nancy to either accept the reasonableness of Newt’s claim that there is no conclusive evidence either way or risk sounding unreasonable and argumentative herself.

In a matter of a few seconds, Newt has completely turned the tables on Nancy regarding this issue. She must now either accept that there is no solid evidence either way regarding man-made climate change or risk giving the high ground to Newt and conservatives. However, at this point, it’s actually too late. Newt has won the battle to control the conversation. No one is asking Nancy what her position is on this issue. No one is asking her what her solutions are. Everyone knows. She believes in climate change. She believes man-made activities is a major cause of that climate change. And we know she believes that the solutions lay in giving the federal government more power of our lives so they can control our country’s ‘carbon footprint’ as a whole.

But instead of people asking Nancy or even giving her the time of day in that discussion, people are looking at Newt and asking him what HIS ideas are for this issue. HE gets to show his ideas. He gets the microphone and he gets to tell what he would do. He gets to tell people that he does believe the global climate is changing. He gets people to nod in agreement with him when he presents the saner idea that there IS no solid evidence either way regarding man’s involvement in causing that change. And then he gets to present his solutions: an ‘all of the above’ approach to energy and alternative energy sources, free market approaches, and ideas that not only can be labeled “green”, but also would stimulate free market enterprises and capitalism.

Unfortunately, many conservatives don’t see it that way still. They approach it in a manner that allows liberals to dictate our positions. They take position A, so we must take the opposite. Many people forget that Conservatism is not the most extreme right end of the political spectrum. To the far right of conservatism are the Reactionaries. Such a perfect word for what I’ve been describing about some conservatives. They approach political issues by reacting to what their opposition does. Liberals believe X, so they REACT and decide they must believe Y. Instead, Newt’s approach is one of initiation. Why should the left be the ones initiative intellectually engagement? Why should they get to make the first move?

Many in the political world call this “getting out in front of an issue”. Take control of the dialog. Show yourself to be the sane one…the logical one…the reasonable one. Place the onus upon your opponents to either agree with YOU or risk being labeled the insane one, the illogical one, the unreasonable one.

If you view Newt’s record, history and approach to virtually every issue, this is how he does it. He disarms his opponents by laying the groundwork regarding those aspects of an issue that they can both agree upon. Then he looks for the first opportunity to show himself and his views to be the sane, logical and reasonable ones…putting his opponents in the position of having to react to him. By doing that, he takes control of the dialog and he becomes the one people turn to for ‘solutions.’ I guarantee you that if you look at Newt’s historical views on any issue, this is how he has approached it. There is an old saying that if want to change the direction that a stubborn horse is going, you don’t yank on the reigns and try to fight the horse. Instead you climb on its back and start by riding it in the direction it’s already going and slowly begin to guide it back to where you want it to go. There is no better analogy of Newt’s approach to virtually every issue. He’s been doing it this whole campaign. He refuses to get into a battle of 30 second attack ads with his fellow Republicans. He’s stood his ground on that and merely taken every opportunity possible to share his message. Little by little people went from one clanging cymbal to another until finally there was Newt doing the same thing he’s always done…and looking better and better all the time. Slowly turning the horse.

Response To Ed Evans

Let's begin with.... GINGRICH HAS NOT FOUGHT ON LIFE ISSUES

Gingrich: “My personal view is that this is a country which is pro-choice but anti-abortion.” [Face The Nation, 4/9/1995]

He was absolutely right. Explain how he is wrong in his view?

Gingrich: Abortion “has diverted Republican energies and it has led the Republican party into a very dangerous period of focusing on what divides us rather than what unites us.” [Washington Post, 1/22/1990]

He’s absolutely right too. The TP movement is PROOF of that. The vast majority of the TP’s success is attributed to the fact that they focus on THREE very powerful issues that unite most, if not all, conservatives.

In a 2005 interview, Gingrich stated that abortion should be illegal, but was unsure about how to enforce that provision. He stated that punishing doctors who perform the procedure was preferable to punishing women who have an abortion.

In 1995, Congress put forth an amendment in response to Clinton administration actions that defined an abortion in response to rape or incest as medically necessary that allowed each state to opt out of this provision and decline funding. While Congressman Gingrich stated that he himself supported funding for cases of rape or incest, he supported the amendment.

In 2011, Congressman Gingrich supported an Ohio law that made abortions illegal after a detectable heart beat is present. His campaign literature for the 2012 Presidential election states that he supports reinstatement of the Mexico City policy, supports cutting funding for Planned Parenthood, and opposes federal funding for abortion.

While in office, Congressman Gingrich twice voted in favor of the partial birth abortion ban.

The Hyde amendment states that federal funding for abortion cannot be used for abortion unless the abortion is medically necessary. In 1993 the Clinton administration made move to define the cases of rape and incest as medically necessary. House Republicans put forth an amendment to allow states to decline funding for abortions in the case of rape and incest. On March 2, 1995 Congressman Gingrich was quoted as supporting the amendment.

This is not an issue which is going away. Each side of the issue will try to find their best advantage in bringing it up. All we can do is try to find a common ground to hold ourselves together while we have the debate.

The actual wording of the amendment is identical to existing statutes and clarifies congressional intent, allowing but not requiring states to pay for abortions. I support the Istook amendment.

On April 9, 1995 Congressman Gingrich appeared on "Face the Nation" and noted that he supported funding for an abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and to protect the health of the mother.

No. First of all, I think you should have funding in the case of rape or incest or life of the mother, which is the first step. ...

My personal view is that this is a country which is pro-choice but anti-abortion. There are remarkably few Americans who favor abortion as a contraception or who think of abortion as a trivial matter. And so I think we can have a pretty large area of civil discussion without it breaking down into automatic hostility."

PROTECTING LIFE AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
"There is no liberty without religious liberty” – Newt Gingrich

The revolutionary idea contained in the Declaration of Independence is that certain fundamental human rights, including the right to life, are gifts from God and cannot be given nor taken away by government. Yet, secular radicals are trying to remove “our Creator” – the source of our rights - from public life. Newt has an aggressive strategy to defend life and religious liberty in America.

Principles to protect life and religious liberty

1. Nominate conservative judges who are committed to upholding Constitutional limited government and understand that the role of the judges is to interpret the law, not legislate from the bench.
2. Combat judicial activism by utilizing checks on judicial power Constitutionally available to the elected branches of government.
3. End taxpayer subsidies for abortion by repealing Obamacare, defunding Planned Parenthood, and reinstating the “Mexico City Policy” which banned funding to organizations that promote and/or perform abortions overseas.
4. Protect religious expression in the public square such as crosses, crèches and menorahs.
5. Protect healthcare workers right to conscience by making sure they are not forced to participate in or refer procedures such as abortion.
6. Protect the rights of home-schooled children by ensuring they have the same access to taxpayer funded, extra-curricular educational opportunities as any public school student.
7. Protect the rights of teachers to use historical examples involving religion in their classroom. Nor should they be discouraged from answering questions about religion or discussing it objectively in the classroom.
8. Protect the frail, infirm and the elderly from the state’s arbitrary decision to terminate life.

Newt has also suggested in speeches and interviews that he believes it to be plausible to have Congress bypass the courts over abortion and define ‘life’ as beginning at conception. This would, as he suggests, place the unborn child into the category of citizen protected by the 14^th Amendment.

I could continue, if you wish.

Pro-Life
Yes
"I think that abortion should not be legal, and I think that how you would implement that I'm not sure."
The American View, 2005

Federal ban on abortions
Adoption
Supports
And in that sense that we want to move the society as rapidly as we can that people should select adoption rather than abortion and that choosing abortion is not acceptable."
The American View, 2005

Parental notification
Supportive
“He backs parental notification before minors can have abortions”
New Hampshire Sunday News, May 15, 2011

Planned Parenthood
Against
“I think that Planned Parenthood should be defunded, and I think it's a very significant issue to say to people, 'Should your tax money go to pay the leading abortion provider in America?’”
Gingrich’s press release, 23 May 2011

Embryonic stem cell research
Against
Gingrich, his capacity as the Senior Fellow of the American Enterprise Institute, together with Rick Tyler, wrote a critical piece on President Obama’s decision to “unilaterally lifted embryonic-stem-cell research restrictions” - NewsMax, 15 March 2009

THE STORY OF GINGRICH AND FREDDIE MAC

These are nice accusations and all…but what evidence do you have that Newt did anything but give advice to FDMC? Do you have an iota of proof that Newt or his firm ever did anything by way of lobbying FOR FDMC? If not, what you are suggesting is that a man should be berated for making money from a contract his firm made with another firm, just because that firm is FDMC and that firm chose to NOT take his advice and as a consequence FDMC and the mortgage industry collapsed. You want to blame Newt for the fact that FDMC didn’t take his advice. How stupid is that?

Freddie Mac say Gingrich was hired as a consultant to keep conservatives from tearing apart the company:

“Former Freddie Mac officials…say the former House speaker was asked to build bridges to Capitol Hill Republicans and develop an argument on behalf of the company’s public-private structure that would resonate with conservatives seeking to dismantle it.” [Bloomberg, 11/15/2011]

Gingrich earned almost $2m working for Freddie Mac:

Gingrich Was Paid Up To $1.8 Million By Freddie Mac. “Newt Gingrich made between $1.6 million and $1.8 million in consulting fees from two contracts with mortgage company Freddie Mac, according to two people familiar with the arrangement. The total amount is significantly larger than the $300,000 payment from Freddie Mac that Gingrich was asked about during a Republican presidential debate on Nov. 9 sponsored by CNBC, and more than was disclosed in the middle of congressional investigations into the housing industry collapse.” [Bloomberg, 11/15/2011]

GINGRICH WAS PAID BY FREDDIE MAC AND DEFENDED THE COMPANY UNTIL THE BUBBLE BURST:

In early 2008, while still under contract, Gingrich said that going after those responsible for the subprime lending crisis was a bad idea:

“I was very jarred last night when Senator McCain talked about maybe some people need to be punished for the subprime mortgages. I don't -- I think if we started introducing a criminalization, class warfare model, we're going to wreck this economy. And I found what he said last night about going after some people, about they may need to be punished, I thought that illustrated a very bad understanding of the free market and how this world works.” [Hannity and Colmes, 1/31/2008]

Gingrich got paid by Freddie Mac up until the end, when the government seized the company:

“GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s $30,000-a-month consulting gig with Freddie Mac only ended after the housing meltdown forced the federal government to take over the failing mortgage giant.” [Politico, 11/17/2011]

Gingrich started criticizing Freddie Mac when they stopped paying him, talking about how close the company was to Democrats and Washington politicians:

“The speech that Senator McCain gave in which he outlined today very dramatic differences in how he would approach it and how Senator Obama would approach it -- and the difference between the Democratic Party's extraordinary closeness to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two huge financial institutions that the government has temporarily taken over. I think you're going to see some very interesting fireworks over the next 46 days, and one of the questions is going to be whether or not Senator Dodd should step down as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee because, given his closeness to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, it's inconceivable that he could be fair in writing a bill that protects the taxpayers.” [Fox News, 9/19/2008]

October 2008, Gingrich demanded that Obama give back all the campaign contributions he received from Freddie Mac:

“I'm very saddened that John McCain hasn't had the nerve and the coherence to go nose to nose with Obama, and force Obama to give back the money that he's taken from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, forced him to fire Franklin Raines, who after all got $90 million in six years while totally mismanaging Fannie Mae.” [Fox News, 10/10/2008]

This year, Gingrich didn’t deny that he wanted people to go to jail over being too close to Freddie Mac:

“Clearly, you're not saying they should go to jail?” GINGRICH: “Well, in Chris Dodd's case, go back to look at the Countryside deals. In Barney Frank's case, go back and look at the lobbyist who was close to Freddie Mac. All I'm saying is, everybody in the media who wants to go after the business community ought to start by going after the politicians who were at the heart of the sickness which is weakening this country.” [Bloomberg Debate, 10/12/2011]

Is that REALLY what Newt was saying? Is he really saying Frank should go to jail for being TOO CLOSE to FNMA and FDMC? You don’t think, perhaps, that he might be suggesting they go to jail for taking BRIBES from FDMC and FNMA in order to make sure that the Dodd/Frank bill didn’t do anything to regulate them? Nah…that’s not a crime, is it?

Gingrich said he would make his Freddie records public, but he has not:

“Freddie Mac is a quasi-government agency and sometimes its records are not considered public. Gingrich said that his campaign will make the records public ‘to the degree we can,’ although he and his national spokesman R.C. Hammond declined to say a timeline when such records would be available.” [Des Moines Register, 11/16/2011]

Yeah, you DO know what a confidentiality agreement is, right? He cannot give out information that FDMC will not agree for him to release.

Gingrich is incredibly saying he didn’t earn the Freddie Mac money – that his company, the “Gingrich group,” did instead:

“‘I didn’t take it,’ Gingrich said after an event at Harvard University when asked about reports that he collected nearly $2 million from Freddie Mac. He said the funds were paid to the Gingrich Group, his health care consulting firm, and he didn’t directly answer when asked if he would return the money to Freddie Mac.” [Boston Globe, 11/19/2011]

Give us one good reason why he should return the money? Did they request a refund? Did they sue and win judgment that his firm didn’t fulfill their contractual obligation? Why is it that a conservative is all for capitalism EXCEPT when it doesn’t suit their predisposed opinions about someone?

“Not my earnings”??

Yeah, you know…like when a corporation makes money…it belongs to the corporation, not the individual.

“Newt Gingrich told reporters … that it ‘would be my hope’ that the Gingrich Group will release information about how much money it made from home mortgage giant Freddie Mac. … He insisted that the $1.6 million he reportedly got from the controversial quasi-governmental entity were ‘not my earnings’ and that the decision to reveal the details is not his call.” [National Journal, 11/18/2011]

It is called a confidentiality agreement. And whether Newt knew the full extent of the contract provisions is completely irrelevant. It was, as I’ve said a hundred times, a case of two private sector companies doing business together. You don’t like how FDMC spent the money, talk to them. Newt has made it clear that it is his contracts with ALL firms with whom he consulted that neither he nor anyone in his firm would lobby on their behalf. He was hired not to give his stamp of approval on various companies’ plans but to give his opinion and recommendations regarding issues on the table. If they didn’t want to take his advice, that was their choice.

GINGRICH’S 2006 IMMIGRATION STUDY

Gingrich: “Anything less than requiring people who are working here illegally to return home to apply for a worker visa is amnesty.” [AEI Working Paper, 4/26/2006]

And how is this different than his espousing of the Red Card Solution? What’s the point to be made here? Are you intent of making it seem like his ‘humane’ view on illegals who’ve been here for decades and have roots here is amnesty? Would it make you feel better to be able to call it that? If so, then tell me…how many illegals would you think (of the 11 million or so living here) would qualify under this ‘human’ part of his overall plan? And exactly how does this ‘human’ part of his plan differ from that of Michelle Bachmann or virtually all the other candidates?

Unlike now, Gingrich wrote that those working in the U.S. illegally must return to their home country first and that visas shouldn’t be applied for from the U.S. “under any circumstances”:

“Doing it the right way means that all those who are currently working in the United States illegally and who wish to apply for the worker visa program must return to their home country and apply. Application for the worker visa program should not be permitted in the United States under any circumstances.” [AEI Working Paper, 4/26/2006]

Unlike now, Gingrich once said people could not “be allowed to start their time in the United States by breaking the law”:

“Amnesty undermines the rule of law. As we learned from New York City’s successful turnaround in the 1990s, disrespect for the law, even for minor infractions, leads to lawlessness. This is as true for immigration laws as it is for urban crime. Individuals cannot be allowed to start their time in the United States by breaking the law.” [AEI Working Paper, 4/26/2006]

Great, he’s evolved. I like that he has on this issue. I think it is fundamentally insane to think that you can approach 11 million illegals all the same way. I am proud to support his ten point plan on immigration.

Gingrich said English should be America’s “primary language,” but not the “only language”:

“Maintaining English as the primary language of America. English is not and never has been the only language in America. We have a long tradition of people speaking many languages in their local community and with other immigrants. But English has been and should remain our primary language.” [AEI Working Paper, 4/26/2006]

Might wanna get this one right. Newt actually has always advocated that English be the official language of GOVERNMENT. He understands that the country as a whole incorporates dozens, if not hundreds of languages.

Gingrich said illegal immigrants’ status “keeps them from playing responsible roles in our communities”:

“Millions of people are working here illegally because Americans are hiring them. They have jobs in your neighborhood… The illegal status of these hard working people makes them vulnerable to criminals and keeps them from playing responsible roles in our communities.” [AEI Working Paper, 4/26/2006]

Gingrich called the U.S. immigration bureaucracy “heartless”:

“Adding insult to this state of affairs is an immigration bureaucracy that has been slow, cumbersome, rude, heartless, and incompetent in the discharge of its duties.” [AEI Working Paper, 4/26/2006]

It IS heartless AND insane. One of the very reasons why more than half the illegals are here strictly to work (and frankly, have no interest in making America their home nation) is the fact that it is utterly impossible for a foreign national to obtain a work visa quickly or even to find work on US soil while living in their home country. If you haven’t read the Red Card Solution white paper, you should.

Gingrich called for a work visa program for illegal immigrants that could lead to citizenship:

“A worker visa program should be established to make it easier for people to enter the country legally and to work here at a specific job for a set of period of time. This program should not be an automatic qualification for citizenship, though eventual citizenship could be held out as an opportunity.” [AEI Working Paper, 4/26/2006]

And what exactly is the problem with this? Please do tell me why someone who comes here on a work visa should not be allowed to get into the proper lines whereby they can make the decision to make America their home country. Is there anything in that statement that says that Newt is advocating they get to cut to the front of the line or even to the middle of the line? No… You really should figure out why it is you find yourself so prejudicial regarding Newt. It honestly didn’t even take much effort to refute every note of these posts.