Everything old is new again.  NFL teams are wearing throwback jerseys, car companies have brought back classic car designs in new models, Pepsi has re-launched its original "Real Sugar" soda, "Hawaii 5-0" has been rebooted, The Muppets have made a triumphant return to the big screen, Nickelodeon is rerunning its '90s programming; even Netflix is carrying "He-Man" and "Voltron" cartoons.  So it's logical that there is no better time to bring back one of the most famous politicians from the now-nostalgic Clinton-era:  Newt Gingrich.

  He is the man that created the "Contract With America," and is the only Speaker of The House to submit a balanced budget four years in a row in any living person's lifetime.  He played a major role (if not THE major role) in turning the country's deficit into a surplus.  And during Newt's tenure, the Unemployment Rate dropped to a record low, and 60% of people on Welfare left the system voluntarily to get a job or go back to school.  The time is right for the Time Magazine 1995 "Man Of The Year."

  One of the best things about Newt Gingrich as a candidate (and he and most of his supporters will probably deny this while hissing with bared fangs) is that he is a true Centrist, and exactly what the country needs right now in a President.  He is a scholar of history, having written many books on the subject, and can apply that to a style of governing.  Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it, as Obama is now displaying by bringing back the kind of recession/depression numbers not seen since the Jimmy Carter era, by using similar previously-tested-and-failed policies.

  The beginning of Gingrich's presidential bid almost collapsed before it got started when he responded to Paul Ryan's proposed budget plan by saying that he didn't think "Right-Wing Social Engineering" was any better than "Left-Wing Social Engineering" for our country.  This caused almost everyone running his campaign to quit, and the media declared Newt as "dead in the water."  I'm glad they were wrong, because I still fail to see what was bad about an honest answer; a comment that genuinely felt as though it was from-the-heart.  It obviously wasn't a rehearsed statement, as he answered a question on the fly, and it provided a true and rare glimpse into what a politician feels on an emotional level.  It was one of those moments that angered conservatives, but definitely played big for independents -- the majority of Americans who feel the same way he does.

  He has since made the huge comeback by laying out great ideas in a "21st Century Contract With America," moment-maker debate performaces, and straight-forward, nothing-to-lose no-nonsense answers. 

  Newt knows the "I'm The Biggest Conservative" game is a game that must be played in order to get the nomination, but it is a game he has since played very well, and he has now made a connection with the Tea Party, the "Republican Establishment" crowd, and most importantly the Independents.  He has set himself aside because he asks people to be "with" him, not "for" him, because he knows he needs help from the American people to make positive changes in the right direction.  He knows no one leader can do it alone.

  And it is an amazing feat for one candidate to be despised by both Nancy Pelosi and George Will at the same time before even one vote has been cast in any of the early primary states!  That really speaks volumes, and I think it will even strengthen him more and endear him to more Americans.

  Gingrich's matter-of-fact, off-the-cuff speaking is what has garnered him the most support.  His debate performances have been superb, and it feels like he is the teacher on stage and the rest of the candidates (and the moderators) are his students trying to keep up with his lightning way of producing thought-provoking yet rapid fire responses.  He is thriving when the forum is unscripted and unpredictable.  He has been a risk taker and challenger to conventional campaigning, and I would be delighted and excited for the future if he ended up becoming the nominee, and ultimately the Commander-In-Chief.

This is in response to today's article:  http://www.townhall.com/columnists/HughHewitt/2007/11/01/federalism_matters_--but_to_mike_huckabee__an_interview_with_the_governor


Huckabee had a balanced budget every year he was governor of Arkansas.  So if spending went up, that meant he was able to cut things in other areas.  He ran a smooth machine in Arkansas, DESPITE having to work with the people that the Clintons had put in place there.

 

I actually think Huckabee has a very strong chance with defeating Hillary in the general election.  He is very conservative on social issues, where the rest of the field is lacking (besides Romney).  Huckabee is a very disarming figure, and has the biggest minority following of all the Republican candidates.

 

Now in regards to Mr. Hewitt:  I think he is a very good radio host, and does ask very good questions of all his guests.  I do think, however, he is overwhelmingly biased in favor of Mitt Romney.  I hate to think that this might be a possibility, but it may be possible that he might want Romney in office for his own benefit.  Mr. Hewitt's book, "A Mormon In The White House" would have sales soar if Romney became the Republican nominee.  The sales are already doing well, but this would definitely give the book additional life.

 

Mr. Hewitt even said in an article earlier this week that a vote for Huckabee is a vote for Giuliani, because since this is a "two man race."  He argues that a person would vote for Romney if Huckabee wasn't a factor, so this gives Giuliani a bump over this way.

 

Personal Note:
I will most likely vote for Huckabee (barring some scandalous information), but if I wasn't, Giuliani would be my guy because he's straight-forward with people, honestly sticks to his beliefs, and will be a strongest force against terrorism.  Huckabee is all that, too, but I am presently going with Huckabee as my top candidate because his pro-life stance edges out Giuliani from my own #1 spot.