Over $9 million is being spent in Iowa on negative campaign ads against Newt Gingrich.  All Ads set to run for a full two weeks.   Think about that a moment.  With a field of nine candidates, $9 million is being spent against ONE.   Ask yourself why?

Would any ideological adversary spend $9 million attacking Perry?  What about Herman Cain or even Michele Bachmann, let alone Ron Paul?  What is it about Newt Gingrich that strikes the fear into professional self-interested politicos?    Perhaps the Cowboy Poets special interest advocacy group finds reason to fear the spigot being turned off…..

(By John Ransom via Townhall) Iowa’s Rep. Steve King probably has best summarized the Republican presidential field by saying that none of them is perfect. But then the same could have been said of any of our GOP presidents too. Even-gasp-Ronald Reagan had his failings.

While the Democrats made a mistake in believing that Barack Obama was the next JFK, Republicans make the mistake of always looking for the next Reagan.

Ronald Reagan is not here to save us. Sarah Palin will not save us. It won’t be Mike Huckabee or any of the other wanna-bes who have figured out how to monetize their narrow popularity into fat TV and radio gigs but could never win the GOP nomination.

There’s only one candidate who stands far and away both the most experienced, the most qualified and the most ready to thoughtfully tackle the country’s problems and set us on the path to the next American Century.

He’s an original, he’s exceptional and quite frankly, Republicans are very lucky to have him.

That guy is Newt Gingrich.

And if he has a chance to win, he first has to show us all that he can take a punch and come up smiling.

While Mitt and friends- remember the guys who first invented Obamacare, called Romneycare?- spend their money on Super Pacs pointing out that Newt’s been married 3 times or that Newt has worked as a lobbyist, let’s take a look at what Newt really has done.

It was Newt Gingrich who reformed welfare; it’s was Newt Gingrich who engineered the GOP takeover of the US House for the first time in 40 years; it was Newt who founded the Opportunity Society; it was Newt who cut capital gains taxes. It was Newt, my Tea Party friends, who shut down the federal government in a showdown with the Democrats rather than compromise. It was Newt who took the fall for other Republicans over the impeachment of President Clinton.

Other than Ronald Reagan, you can’t name a political figure who has done as much to concretely advance conservative ideas than Newt Gingrich has.

Dr. Ron Paul? He was writing survivalist newsletters when Newt was writing real-life history by reforming welfare.

Because here’s the thing about being president of the United States: You actually have to get things done.

Ask Obama how that works.

And you have to do the right kinds of things.

Ask Mitt Romney how that works.

Compare Newt’s real world, political accomplishments next to his rivals’ accomplishments and they appear puny by contrast. Newt’s a great man surrounded by political pygmies.  (article)

(By Thomas Sowell via Jewish News)  If Newt Gingrich were being nominated for sainthood, many of us would vote very differently from the way we would vote if he were being nominated for a political office.

What the media call Gingrich’s “baggage” concerns largely his personal life and the fact that he made a lot of money running a consulting firm after he left Congress. This kind of stuff makes lots of talking points that we will no doubt hear, again and again, over the next weeks and months.

But how much weight should we give to this stuff when we are talking about the future of a nation?

This is not just another election and Barack Obama is not just another president whose policies we may not like. With all of President Obama’s broken promises, glib demagoguery and cynical political moves, one promise he has kept all too well. That was his boast on the eve of the 2008 election: “We are going to change the United States of America.”

Many Americans are already saying that they can hardly recognize the country they grew up in. We have already started down the path that has led Western European nations to the brink of financial disaster.

Internationally, it is worse. A president who has pulled the rug out from under our allies, whether in Eastern Europe or the Middle East, tried to cozy up to our enemies, and has bowed low from the waist to foreign leaders certainly has not represented either the values or the interests of America. If he continues to do nothing that is likely to stop terrorist-sponsoring Iran from getting nuclear weapons, the consequences can be beyond our worst imagining.

Against this background, how much does Newt Gingrich’s personal life matter, whether we accept his claim that he has now matured or his critics’ claim that he has not? Nor should we sell the public short by saying that they are going to vote on the basis of tabloid stuff or media talking points, when the fate of this nation hangs in the balance.

Even back in the 19th century, when the scandal came out that Grover Cleveland had fathered a child out of wedlock — and he publicly admitted it — the voters nevertheless sent him to the White House, where he became one of the better presidents.

Do we wish we had another Ronald Reagan? We could certainly use one. But we have to play the hand we were dealt. And the Reagan card is not in the deck.

While the televised debates are what gave Newt Gingrich’s candidacy a big boost, concrete accomplishments when in office are the real test. Gingrich engineered the first Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in 40 years — followed by the first balanced budget in 40 years. The media called it “the Clinton surplus” but all spending bills start in the House of Representatives, and Gingrich was Speaker of the House.

Speaker Gingrich also produced some long overdue welfare reforms, despite howls from liberals that the poor would be devastated. But nobody makes that claim any more.

Did Gingrich ruffle some feathers when he was Speaker of the House? Yes, enough for it to cost him that position. But he also showed that he could produce results.

In a world where we can make our choices only among the alternatives actually available, the question is whether Newt Gingrich is better than Barack Obama — and better than Mitt Romney.

Romney is a smooth talker, but what did he actually accomplish as governor of Massachusetts, compared to what Gingrich accomplished as Speaker of the House? When you don’t accomplish much, you don’t ruffle many feathers. But is that what we want?

Can you name one important positive thing that Romney accomplished as governor of Massachusetts? Can anyone? Does a candidate who represents the bland leading the bland increase the chances of victory in November 2012? A lot of candidates like that have lost, from Thomas E. Dewey to John McCain.

Those who want to concentrate on the baggage in Newt Gingrich’s past, rather than on the nation’s future, should remember what Winston Churchill said: “If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost.” If that means a second term for Barack Obama, then it means lost big time.  (article)