Gingrich 2012 Prez Run Now Plausible

Unless or until he announces at some point that he is not running, I am coming out two years early in support of Newt Gingrich for President in 2012. Here is the first of a series of articles regarding this potential Republican hopeful, a true Conservative who, if he really wants it, is the best person for the job in this man's opinion.

Let me first do what some in this business fail to do: Reveal a potential conflict of interest and remind readers that I served as Newt Gingrich's political chairman before and while he was speaker of the House. I've known him 30 years. But those who follow this column, including Gingrich, have not always enjoyed my views on some of his words or actions.


Newt knows I am an independent thinker, and while I'm not on his level of political genius, I might be a bit more in touch with the daily grind that faces most Americans every day.

So what's my take on this week's disclosure from Newt that he might run for president in 2012? First comes an initial, perhaps superficial reaction: Mitt Romney seems more charismatic, better organized and hungrier for the job than any other potential 2012 candidate. Sarah Palin is attractive, also charismatic and an ambitious potential candidate. Even Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who is not well known, has a lot of "curb appeal" as a young candidate on the rise.

But I don't discount a Gingrich run. The presidential campaign of 2008 was about style over content. John McCain won GOP the nomination because Mike Huckabee, who shocked the Republicans by winning in Iowa, was viewed as perhaps too socially conservative. Romney seemed stiffer and "slicker" that year. He was too closely aligned with the unpopular George W. Bush camp. The GOP voters went for the image of "the maverick" in John McCain. It didn't work.

As for the Democrats and ultimately the nation, the elegant, charming and oratorically gifted Barack Obama represented a "change" as much in style as in substance. Oh, yes, there ultimately was plenty of substance in the change Obama brought to the nation as president. It just has not been the kind of change that many independent voters who supported him were expecting.

I have seen Newt Gingrich reinvent -- or perhaps better to say, "evolve" -- many times in his career. First, he was the bright new Republican conservative thinker in an overwhelmingly majority Democratic House in the late 1970s and the 1980s. By the early 1990s, he was the bomb-throwing, take-no-prisoners fighter who helped oust Speaker Jim Wright from power. By the mid-1990s, he was still a "revolutionary," but one with a detailed plan of action and a band of Republican "brothers and sisters" in the House willing to follow his lead to a huge 1994 electoral takeover of that chamber.

Then there were the years in the "wilderness," a term once used to describe Winston Churchill after his having led his nation through World War II, only to be later tossed out of power, at least for a while. Gingrich resigned after much internal GOP fighting. Yes, there is always the "he has baggage" argument. But years have passed, and Americans have short memories and forgiving hearts.

Now we see Newt Gingrich the "elder statesman." When Gingrich speaks, not only do cable news, talk radio and conservative popular news and opinion sites take note, so too does the "media establishment" that once ruled the airwaves and print journalism in America.

No, Gingrich will never match a Palin or Romney in a contest of style or youthful appearance. But in 2012, he will be the same age as Ronald Reagan was when he won the presidency for the first time. In that contest, the dashing John Connally and the elegant George H.W. Bush were viewed as the early frontrunners in the GOP race, along with other younger stars like Howard Baker.

Remember how Reagan moved from being viewed as an elder conservative also-ran to frontrunner status. It was one debate held in New Hampshire where the establishment GOP tried to keep Reagan from speaking. "I paid for this microphone," Reagan blasted as the moderator attempted to have him silenced.

And while I often discount the power of debates, it was the CNN/YouTube debate late in 2007 that catapulted Mike Huckabee toward a win in Iowa. And if you really want to reach back in time, I can name several presidential contests in which the debates turned the tide and the outcome of the election.

I can see Gingrich potentially playing roles like these. He is not an unappealing man. His grey hair and the calm manner in which he analyses issues gives those who view him a sense that there is still around at least this one bright, able -- and stable -- statesman. Do you really think any of the Republican contenders -- to say nothing of Barack Obama -- would want to debate Newt Gingrich?

A Gingrich run is more plausible than many think. Depending on an assortment of factors, it could just work for the Republican Party.

WRITTEN BY: Matt Towery at Human Events with the original article available by clicking on the title of this entry

Why Women Are Unhappy

The National Bureau of Economic Research released a study to be published soon in the American Economic Journal that shows women's happiness has measurably declined since 1970. It's no surprise that this has stimulated much comment.

This study covers the same time period as the rise of the so-called women's liberation or feminist movement. The correlation demands an explanation. You can read the entire study here.

One theory advanced by the authors, University of Pennsylvania economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, is that the women's liberation movement "raised women's expectations" (sold them a bill of goods), making them feel inadequate when they fail to have it all. A second theory is that the demands on women who are both mothers and jobholders in the labor force are overwhelming.

I'm neither an economist nor a psychologist, but I'll join the conversation with my own armchair analysis. Another theory could be that the feminist movement taught women to see themselves as victims of an oppressive patriarchy in which their true worth will never be recognized and any success is beyond their reach.

Feminist organizations such as the National Organization for Women held consciousness-raising sessions where they exchanged tales of how badly some man had treated them. Grievances are like flowers -- if you water them, they will grow, and self-imposed victimhood is not a recipe for happiness.

Another theory could be the increase in easy divorce and illegitimacy (now 40 percent of American births are to single moms), which means that millions of women are raising kids without a husband and therefore expect Big Brother government to substitute as provider. The 2008 election returns showed that 70 percent of unmarried women voted for Barack Obama, perhaps hoping to be beneficiaries of his "spread the wealth" policies.

In the pre-1970 era, when surveys showed women with higher levels of happiness, most men held jobs that enabled their wives to be fulltime homemakers. The private enterprise system constantly produces goods that make household work and kiddie care easier (such as dryers, dishwashers and paper diapers).

Betty Friedan started the feminist movement in the late 1960s with her book "The Feminine Mystique," which created the myth that suburban housewives were suffering from "a sense of dissatisfaction" with their alleged-to-be-boring lives. To liberate women from the home that Friedan labeled "a comfortable concentration camp," the feminist movement worked tirelessly to make the role of fulltime homemaker socially disdained.

Economic need played no role in the feminist argument that marriage is archaic and oppressive to women. A job in the labor force was upheld as so much more fulfilling than tending babies and preparing dinner for a hard-working husband.

Women's studies courses require students to accept as an article of faith the silly notion that gender differences are not natural or biological but are social constructs created by the patriarchy and ancient stereotypes. This leads feminists to seek legislative corrections for problems that don't exist.

A former editor of the Ladies' Home Journal wrote in her book "Spin Sisters" that the anorexic blondes on television are every day selling the falsehood that women's lives are full of misery and threats from men. Bernard Goldberg calls the mainstream media "one of America's most pro-feminist institutions."

According to feminist ideology, the only gender-specific characteristic is that men are naturally batterers who make all women victims. On that theory, the feminists conned Congress into passing the Violence Against Women Act (note the sex discriminatory title), which includes a handout of a billion dollars a year to finance their political, legislative and judicial goals.

The feminists whine endlessly using their favorite word "choice" in matters of abortion, but they reject choice in gender roles. The Big Mama of feminist studies, Simone de Beauvoir, said: "We don't believe that any woman should have this choice. No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children ... precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one."

The feminists have carried on a long-running campaign to make husbands and fathers unnecessary and irrelevant. Most divorces are initiated by women, and more women than men request same-sex marriage licenses in Massachusetts so that, with two affirmative-action jobs plus in vitro fertilization, they can create a "family" without husbands or fathers.

Despite the false messages of the colleges and the media, most American women are smart enough to reject the label feminist, and only 20 percent of mothers say they want full-time work in the labor force. I suggest that women suffering from unhappiness should look into how women are treated in the rest of the world, and then maybe American women would realize they are the most fortunate people on earth.

WRITTEN by Phyllis Schlafley at Human Events on June 16th, 2009

Islamism Series: Farewell, War on Terror

R.I.P. Pvt. William Long (left)...
Did you notice in his Cairo speech to the Muslim world last week that President Obama did not use the word "terrorism"? Interesting in light of reports that some in the Obama administration no longer refer to actions against al-Qaida and the Taliban as the "war on terror," instead calling them an "overseas contingency operation." But why? What is the reasoning behind this?

Apparently, the president believes that in order to forge a "new start" with the Muslim world, America must spotlight the common ground between the two cultures. Emphasizing atrocities committed by terrorists under the banner of Islam obviously does not aid that strategy. So out with the war on terror, in with the spirit of cooperation.

Some conservatives find this appalling. They say it shows weakness on the part of Obama. I disagree. As long as the United States stays strong on the battlefields and in the security area, diplomatic euphemisms don't mean very much. Obama wants more friends in the Arab world, and he's willing to give Muslims a rhetorical break to get them.

That, of course, pleases the American left, and herein lies a problem. The liberal media are now actively downplaying Muslim terrorism, and that was vividly demonstrated last week when an American Muslim in Arkansas shot two soldiers. One of them, 24-year-old Pvt. William Long, was killed.

The cold-blooded murder of Long by Carlos Bledsoe, aka Abdulhakim Muhammad, was a shocking story. But if you were watching Katie Couric on the "CBS Evening News," you missed it, as Couric did not mention the murder. On ABC, Charles Gibson ignored the story, as well. On NBC, Brian Williams spent less than two minutes on the situation.

But the network news operations and most other national media enthusiastically covered the murder of late-term abortion doctor George Tiller by a pro-life zealot. According to a new study by the Pew Research group, Tiller's murder received 90 percent more news coverage than the crime against Long. Unbelievable.

It is flat-out wrong for the news media to under-report a story where an American Muslim guns down two American soldiers in a small Arkansas town. Just a few years ago, that kind of journalistic irresponsibility would have been severely criticized. But not now. Today, news reporting is a different story.

As has been well documented, the American media are now in the ideology business, and Obama has been a big beneficiary of that. Not only did most journalists vote for him, as the president recently pointed out, but the media actively aided his candidacy by providing him with favorable coverage. And that continues to this day.

The news media may believe they are helping Obama by avoiding the constant violence of Muslim terrorism, but the practice is putting all of us in danger. How many more Bledsoes are roaming around?

Good question. Unfortunately, you won't get an answer on the nightly news.

NOTE: This article is presented as a continuation of the "Islamism Series", all of the entries for which may be viewed by clicking in to that below label.

WRITTEN by Bill O'Reilly and published at Human Events on June 13th, 2009

SCOTUS Nominee Sotomayor: You Decide

Shortly after President Obama nominated her to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, I read Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s now famous words:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.”

My initial reaction was strong and direct -- perhaps too strong and too direct. The sentiment struck me as racist and I said so. Since then, some who want to have an open and honest consideration of Judge Sotomayor’s fitness to serve on the nation’s highest court have been critical of my word choice.

With these critics who want to have an honest conversation, I agree. The word “racist” should not have been applied to Judge Sotomayor as a person, even if her words themselves are unacceptable (a fact which both President Obama and his Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, have since admitted).

So it is to her words -- the ones quoted above and others -- to which we should turn, for they show that the issue here is not racial identity politics. Sotomayor’s words reveal a betrayal of a fundamental principle of the American system -- that everyone is equal before the law.

The Central Question: Is American Justice No Longer Blindfolded?

The fundamental issue at stake in the Sotomayor discussion or nomination is not her background or her gender but an issue that has implications far beyond this judge and this nomination: Is judicial impartiality no longer a quality we can and should demand from our Supreme Court Justices?

President Obama apparently thinks so. Other presidents, Republican and Democrat, have considered race and gender in making judicial appointments in the past. But none have explicitly advocated the notion that judges should substitute their personal experiences for impartiality in deciding cases. And certainly none have asserted that their ethnicity, race or gender would make them a better judge over a judge from a different background.

Here is how President Obama explained his criteria for appointing judges earlier this year:

“We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old -- and that’s the criterion by which I’ll be selecting my judges.”

No Group Has Benefited More From Impartial Justice Than the Less Fortunate

With these words, President Obama is cleverly inviting his critics to come out swinging against empathy for the less fortunate among us. But Americans are smarter than this.

We understand that the job of a justice is to enforce the law, not the rule of empathy. And we understand that when a judge substitutes his or her personal experiences for the law, the law becomes what he or she wants it to be, not what the people, through their elected representatives, have decided it should be.

Most tragically, it is this principle of judicial impartiality -- of justice, not just for the rich and the powerful, but for all -- that has most benefited the vulnerable and the downtrodden in America.

No group has needed or continues to need justice -- that can’t be predetermined by wealth or privilege -- as much as the less privileged. President Obama doesn’t seem to grasp that, by weakening judges’ adherence to the rule of law, he is also weakening the very foundation of equal justice for the less fortunate Americans he wants to help.

The “Court of Appeals is Where Policy Is Made”

How does Judge Sotomayor come down on the issue of a judge’s fidelity to the law?

Here is what she told a Duke University Law School audience in 2005 (emphasis mine):

“All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is -- Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't 'make law,' I know. [laughter] Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it. I'm, you know. [laughter] Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating.”

Is Judge Sotomayor Being Quoted Out of Context? You Read, You Decide

If Judge Sotomayor, by her own words, believes the judge’s bench is “where policy is made,” what kind of law can we expect her to make as a Supreme Court Justice?

The Berkeley Law School speech in which Judge Sotomayor made the comments that I quoted at the outset of this newsletter -- that a “wise Latina” would make a better judge than a white male -- has been widely cited.

The White House is now claiming that critics are taking Judge Sotomayor’s comments in that speech out of context. So in the spirit of “you read, you decide” I am linking here to Judge Sotomayor’s speech in full.

As you read it, see if you agree with those respected legal scholars who have concluded that the speech as a whole isn’t as damaging as the Judge’s “wise Latina” comment -- it’s worse.

“Our Gender and National Origins May and Will Make a Difference in Our Judging”

Here are some excerpts from the speech (emphasis mine):

"I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that."


"Whether born from experience or inherent psychological or cultural differences...our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."


"Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases....I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
Again, you read, you decide. Read Judge Sotomayor’s speech in full here. Then let me know what you think at Newt.org.

“Equal Justice Under Law” Is Chiseled in Stone on the Supreme Court

The central principle of American justice -- and perhaps the single, great idea of America -- is equal justice before the law.

This idea is expressed in the words “all men (and today we would say all men and women) are created equal.” It means that Americans stand before the law, not as members of groups, but as individuals.

"Equal justice under law" is in fact chiseled in stone on the front of the Supreme Court building -- and for good reason.

When a judge disregards the rule of law and applies a different standard to certain groups -- or, as the President would say, shows “empathy” -- he or she violates this central American principle.

One Group’s “Empathy” is Another Group’s Injustice. Ask Frank Ricci.

When a judge views Americans as members of groups and not individuals, one group’s “empathy” becomes another group’s injustice.

Nowhere is the injustice that results from judging Americans as members of groups and not as individuals more evident than in Judge Sotomayor’s ruling in the case involving Frank Ricci, a New Haven, Conn., firefighter.

Ricci quit his second job and studied 13 hours a day in 2003 for a civil service exam he hoped would earn him a promotion to lieutenant in the New Haven Fire Department. And when Ricci took the exam, all his hard work seemed to pay off. He got one of the highest scores. But because no African-Americans scored high enough on the exam to be promoted, the city of New Haven threw out the results of the test and promoted no one.

Frank Ricci, 16 other white firefighters, and one Hispanic firefighter sued the city, claiming they were denied promotions on the basis of their race. A district judge dismissed the case, and a three- judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. One of those judges was Judge Sotomayor.

An Opportunity to Have a Debate About Equal Justice for Americans Like Frank Ricci

The Supreme Court is currently hearing the Ricci case, and a ruling is expected next month, likely in the midst of hearings on Judge Sotomayor’s nomination.

Legal experts expect the Supreme Court to reverse Judge Sotomayor’s ruling. But however the high court rules, this is a moment for America to have a full, honest and open debate, not just about the impartiality of our judges, but about equal justice before the law for Americans like Frank Ricci.

Which Judge Sotomayor Will Show Up on the Supreme Court?

In fairness to the judge, many of her rulings as a court of appeals judge do not match the radicalism of her speeches and statements. She has shown more caution and moderation in her rulings than in her words.

So the question we need to ask ourselves in considering Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation is this: Which judge will show up on the Supreme Court, the radical from her speeches or the convention liberal from her rulings?

It’s no small question. Judge Sotomayor is 54 years old. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is 89. Judge Sotomayor has the potential to spend more than 30 years on the Supreme Court. There, unlike on the court of appeals, she will have no reason to show caution. On the high court, Judge Sotomayor will not have to worry about a higher court overturning her rulings. As a Supreme Court Justice, she will do the overturning.

The stakes are very high with this nomination. Has President Obama nominated a conventionally liberal judge to a lifetime tenure on our highest court? Or a radical liberal activist who will cast aside the rule of law in favor of the narrow, divisive politics of race and gender identity?

WRITTEN by Newt Gingrich as "Supreme Court Nominee Sotomayor: You Read, You Decide" at Human Events on June 3rd, 2009