If it is the latter, I can assure you that I am using the word redemption specifically because it has more than one meaning. Most common, especially from a Christian like myself, redemption is all about the spiritual, and I don’t mind if you don’t buy that part. Redemption also means to reclaim something of value.

Most of us are looking for that second kind of redemption politically, in our economics, in our personal finances, and some are also looking for it after having had divorces.

I won’t go through and defend the things Newt has done, and I probably won’t defend the things he does in the future, but I don’t begrudge any man who becomes the champion of his own fate and chooses to go on a journey of redemption. It’s what America is made of.

Fundamentally.

Whether you are talking about the pilgrims who journeyed across the Atlantic, the patriots who took up arms to secure the ideals of the Enlightenment for their posterity, the freed slave, or the immigrant who saw, and continues to see, America as the last best hope; all of them were/are taking part in a journey to reclaim something of value – Freedom. Their pursuit of freedom and the opportunities that come with it, are – at their core – journeys of redemption, and something that most Americans instinctively understand and respect.

Aaron B. Gardner

To those of you in the Republican base, this isn’t complicated. Newt is winning. He is on a momentum roll here because he can articulate conservatism, that and he’s willing to take it to Obama. I have said for the longest time that whoever does that, whoever articulates conservatism with passion, with love, cause that’s love of country, with good cheer. Conservatism is inclusive. Somebody who can articulate it happily, proudly, with good cheer cannot be beat.

Rush is right, Newt articulates conservatism. He does it very well and he rarely misses an opportunity to do so in grandiose fashion. This in and of itself isn’t that big of a deal. In all honesty, articulating conservatism isn’t all that hard, especially when our focus is leaning more and more towards conservative populism.

What makes this interesting is that Newt has managed to win by articulating conservatism while having a considerable record of apostasies. Newt isn’t an empty vessel as Rush suggests. No, he is a vessel filled to the brim with ex-wives and mistresses. Newt is a man who sat on a couch with Nancy Pelosi, who favored an individual mandate, who, for all intents and purposes, lobbied for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

So what is it about Newt that allows the conservative voter to so easily look beyond these betrayals?

I attempted to answer this question in a series of tweets last night. To my surprise, Ben Domenech gathered up my tweets and put them in this morning’s Transom. To even greater surprise, Peter Robinson then quoted me in a post at Ricochet.

In “The Transom” this morning, Ben Domenech quotes Aaron Gardner, providing a big part of the answer:

From @Aaron_RS: “I think much of Newt’s appeal is that he is on a journey of redemption, and the people want to believe they are as well. His conversion, and the broader idea of Americans being able to bounce back. His story fits the mood. You add the redemption theme to Newt being able to appear confident and communicate ideas to people, and you have a result like SC. Mitt, on the other hand, has no redemption story because to repudiate any past position is to admit he was wrong. In the end, Newt is more optimistic while being honest and that goes a long way in building trust. Mitt isn’t getting that benefit.”

Romney, in other words, is the diligent older brother, the one who has behaved himself all his life and just can’t understand why he doesn’t get more credit.

Newt? Newt’s the prodigal son–a sinner like everyone else.

The idea of redemption being a compelling force in this cycle isn’t really all that far fetched. The last decade has left many people wanting redemption. Whether it is because of the war taking its toll, the economy tanking, or the less than subtle feeling that Orwell’s boot is stomping on our human faces forever; the reality is that a lot of people in America are looking for some sort of redemption, political, economic, and even spiritual. And they are getting it vicariously through Newt’s candidacy.

To be clear, Gingrich is not the redeemer, he is but one of the many seeking redemption. And that, when looked at in the right light, is humanizing and, as odd as this may sound, akin to humility. His candidacy revolves around a symbiotic relationship with the angst the voters are expressing. This was made clear last night when the audience was disallowed the opportunity to provide instantaneous feedback. Newt was thrown off his game by not being able to interact with the audience.

Add to this the fact that Newt isn’t simply seeking redemption, he is willing to fight for it by articulating conservatism, and you start to see why his likability is increasing and his negatives are dropping.

We won’t know until later whether this story ends with actual redemption, both personal and national, or if it ends with another betrayal. That said, the circumstances that exist today have made people less apprehensive towards taking this leap of faith.

As for myself, I haven’t decided whether I can support Newt, or that I could defend him for four years. But like Rush said in the transcript I linked at the beginning:

I trust the Republican base. That’s who I trust. I trust the Republican voters. I’m totally confident with them. They are the people in this audience. Why wouldn’t I trust them? They’ll figure this out. They’re not a bunch of brain-dead, mind-numbed robots. This is how democracy works. It’s how representative Republicanism works. It’s what we’re trying to hold onto, for crying out loud.

Aaron B. Gardner

It sucks, but the reality is, this is what has happened. The Governor’s campaign is nearly broke and he is on the verge of going into personal debt. The news on the wire is that he has conceded this reality and will be dropping out of the race. He will be holding a press conference today at 11 am ET.

With that in mind, I suggest we all do a few things.

Donate what you can to ensure that Gov. Perry isn’t left in debt when this is all over.

After SC, win, lose, or draw, thank the Governor for changing the tenor and tone of this race by giving a donation to retire whatever debt he may have. These things will allow the Governor to fight on from the outside, if that is what he chooses, or go home to TX with minimal personal damage to him and Anita.

I say all of this as one of Governor Perry’s biggest supporters on RedState. I have given what I could, I have written what I could, I have influenced who I can. I have run the race with honor and will end it with my principles intact.

Each one of us has a choice in how we proceed, we can succumb to the grief we are all feeling, looking for someone to blame. Or, we can pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and continue to fight for the ideas and principles that the Governor brought to the race. This is truly the extent of what you can do to try and change the reality as it exists right now.

Donning the sack cloth and smearing ashes on ourselves will not change the heart of a single voter, nor will it advance the cause of freedom, which Gov, Perry has been fighting for.

Our cause is greater than one man, even though our man is a great one. If the Governor leaves the race, it will be up to us to carry the banner and push those who remain more towards the ideas and principles Gov. Perry championed.

Aaron B. Gardner

As the movement gained strength and popularity, the Obama administration decided to flex its muscles and force even greater socialist schemes on the people of this nation. The passage of Obamacare, while an absolute defeat for smaller government, served as a rallying cry that strengthened our resolve.

In 2010 we put down the protest signs and picked up campaign signs. We made errors, but more importantly, we took back the House. Unfortunately, we didn’t change our leadership. Betrayals and half measures served to squash the optimism that had been prevalent.

As we began pondering the 2012 GOP candidates, there was a palpable pessimism. The field was unworthy of the conservative resurgence that had returned the House to our control. We were all awaiting a champion.

Pence declined, Palin declined, Daniels, Christie, Jindal, Ryan, none would step forward.

Then, something happened. Governor Perry heard the call and threw his hat into the ring. For a moment, we were optimistic about our primary.

What we didn’t know was that our new champion would stumble. Gov. Perry was recovering from a back surgery and half his state was on fire. Gov. Perry was fighting to get assistance from the federal government due to the level of destruction that was occurring, to no avail.

Those who were against the Governor’s entrance into the race quickly sprang to action. They berated him for possibly missing debates, then chastised him for debating while his state was on fire. Unable to assail the Texas economic record, they – the candidates and the pundits – shifted the focus and attempted to paint Gov. Perry as soft on illegal immigration, in favor of forced government inoculations, and worst of all, as a crony capitalist.

Admittedly, Gov. Perry failed to nip this in the bud and expose that the majority of these complaints were nothing more that projection from the other candidates. Personally, I believe that the Governor’s back issues held him back. Additionally, I think he fell into a trap of trying to take out Mitt Romney.

I don’t think it is fair to lay all the blame on the Governor though. I truly believe that a significant portion of the blame can be put at our own feet. A healthy skepticism of those in power had transformed into an unhinged paranoia. Gardasil was one instance, secret Islamist was another.

Despite the Governor improving after the early debates, the narrative was set and he had been crowned the stupid candidate.

Since then the front runners have all been politicians who have supported the individual mandate, including Santorum, or a CEO on a book tour.

This is what our pessimism and borderline paranoia have brought us to. We have rejected the only three candidates in the race that have never supported an individual mandate. Those being, Gov. Huntsman, Gov. Perry, and Rep. Paul. Paul is a racist lunatic who should be purged from the party. Gov. Huntsman decided early on that courting conservatives would be a losing strategy. In hindsight, Gov. Huntsman was right, but for the wrong reasons. Gov. Perry is still the natural choice for movement conservatives and those who joined the Tea Party movement in 2010.

Unfortunately, it appears we have decided that we can forgive bad policy records easier than we can forgive poor debate performances. The bar is high for us to prove we are serious and victory requires calm, consistent, focused, calculated effort.

In the last century, every conservative resurgence has fizzled out in the course of a few years. This has become the expectation, and the saving grace of the ruling class. If they simply hold out long enough, they know that we will lose inertia, eat our own, and fail to devolve the power back to the states where it belongs.

In the end, we will end up with the candidate we deserve. My hope is that we, the voters, will decide to set aside the irrational grudges that will lead to us deserving Mitt Romney, and four more years of Barack Obama.

If we don’t, we’ll all share in the blame for this late term abortion on our conservative resurgence.

Aaron B. Gardner

I don’t see how the — the party that says it’s the party of the family is going to adopt an immigration policy which destroys families that have been here a quarter century. And I’m prepared to take the heat for saying, let’s be humane in enforcing the law without giving them citizenship but by finding a way to create legality so that they are not separated from their families.

This was followed by Governor Perry:

the real issue is securing that border. And this conversation is not ever going to end until we get the border secure. But I do think that there is a way. That after we secure that border that you can have a process in place for individual who are law- abiding citizens who have done only one thing, as Newt says, 25 years ago or whatever that period of time was, that you can put something in place that basically continues to keep those families together.

Somehow Governor Romney, who here and here was voicing approval of some form of amnesty, has some convinced that he represents the hardline on immigration. Not wanting to chase this rabbit, I will note that this is purely a political move by Gov. Romney rather than a principled objection. After all he’s “running for office, for Pete’s sake…”

With this in mind I think it would behoove us to have an honest discussion about what we believe as conservatives and how this should shape our policies.

Before I go to far, I will state unequivocally that I reject blanket amnesty. As well I reject the notion of compassionate conservatism, as conservatism is itself inherently compassionate. That said, I understand the desire of some to add this descriptor since that inherent compassion is sometimes almost impossible to see in the debates that transpire on this complicated subject.

The argument against any form of amnesty, however limited it may be, has been summarized over the years as “enforcement first”. I agree with this, as far as I have understood it to mean stemming the tide of further illegal immigration and securing the border. But, I do not agree with what this simple phrase has morphed into.

I do not think practical, nor in keeping with conservative ideals [such as free trade], the idea of a complete border fence that spans our entire southern border. Additionally, I grow suspicious of those proposing this as an all encompassing solution to the problem of illegal immigration when they do not also require such a fence on our northern border. Furthermore, having established a secure border whatever that might be, I am skeptical that those who are currently against any form of amnesty would then support it in even a limited form. Instead, I believe the goal posts would shift. In fact, I believe that shift has already started to occur.

The calls for increased deportation, which President Obama has actually accelerated, would come under the more acceptable phrasing of enforcing the laws already on the books. I would point out that blind enforcement of those laws and not differentiating between the active criminal illegal immigrant and the passive illegal immigrant searching for that last best hope on earth, could do more to exacerbate, rather than solve, our problems on our southern border.

The questions I find myself asking; Are we, as conservatives, prepared to send a generation that has only known America as their home into a failed nation that is currently, and for the foreseeable future, being held captive by a murderous gang of drug cartels? And if we are, do we really not see that the consequences of such actions could lead not only to their death, which at that point would be the merciful option, but also to lives of enslavement in the service of these same murderous cartels? Further, having provided a captive supply of manpower for the effort, would this not also have the effect of increasing the flow of illegal drugs into America despite our best efforts to control the porous border? And finally, do we not see how this could also increase the desire of those who seek to flee north to again do just that, whether it be legal or not?

I would like to think that we are capable of the task before us, that we can have a realistic idea of what border security would look like and that we could then discriminate between the criminal and those looking for a better life and offer asylum to the latter who have known this as their home all of their lives.

If we choose to hold to the idea that we can simply deport them all, or allow them to self deport as some insist would be the case after securing our border, while ignoring whether the cost of doing so could outweigh the cost of them being here in the first place, I fear we would be guilty of appealing solely to our instinct, conservative though it may be. And as Russell Kirk, one of the modern giants of conservatism said, “A conservatism of instinct must be reinforced by a conservatism of thought and imagination.”

Aaron B. Gardner

“We’ve been a little bit lazy over the last couple of decades. We’ve kind of taken for granted — ‘Well, people would want to come here’ — and we aren’t out there hungry, selling America and trying to attract new businesses into America,”

Governor Perry’s retort? “That’s Pathetic.”

Governor Perry goes on to urge us to clean house in D.C. with a Balanced Budget Amendment and if Congress balks, to cut their pay and send them home. Governor Perry ends on noting that the President’s “socialist policies are bankrupting America”.

All I can say is: More please!

Aaron B. Gardner

P.S. Consider this your afternoon open thread.

Today he releases an ad titled “Cut, Balance and Grow“. This one highlights his Cut, Balance and Grow plan and is gushing with an optimistic vision for America.

Hopefully this ad can break through the media narrative of the Governor being an angry conservative who lacks vision. His plan, as evident in the video, has inspired people like Steve Forbes, Steven Hayes, Rep. Paul Ryan, Rush Limbaugh, and the Wall Street Journal.

The only question is whether the voters are willing to give this optimistic vision a chance and listen to the message rather than focus on the media narrative that is being pushed about Gov. Perry.

Aaron B. Gardner

Our cause sprang back to life in 2010, and, despite still being a tad punch drunk from 2008, we managed to wrest back control of the House of Representatives. Now, with President Obama stuck polling in the low 40′s, we have set before us an opportunity to retain our edge in the House, take the Senate, and replace the Marxist who currently occupies the White House as his useful idiots occupy various streets in our beloved land.

My fear is that this opportunity will be wasted. My worry is that our movement still doesn’t quite have it’s legs beneath it or its weight properly centered. We have not only the opportunity to have a 1980 style rebirth of Conservatism, but also a chance at putting up the wrong candidate and replaying 1976 instead.

The root of this is not an irrational emotion or a desire to down play our opportunity and ability to overcome. No, the root is that, as Burke once said, “It is sometimes as hard to persuade slaves to be free, as it is to compel freemen to be slaves.” Right now, this very moment, we have a candidate for the GOP nomination who is, by far, the biggest alpha male conservative in a generation.

He has proposed unleashing the American entrepreneurial spirit, freed from burdensome regulations, on our energy sector. He has proposed neutering the agencies that have prevented us from competing in the world market. He has proposed reforming the system of entitlements which serve to encourage sloth in the current generation and enslave future ones. He has proposed reforming our tax code which punishes success and perpetuates warfare among the classes. He has proposed binding the mischievous hands of Congress with an amendment limiting their ability to spend more than they can possibly take in, no matter what rate they try to put upon us. He has proposed ending the subversive chicane of baseline budgeting which allows a rise in the budget to be called a cut simply because it wasn’t raised as much as it was in the last budget.

Frankly, he has proposed the last 30 years of conservative policy initiatives and he has been roundly berated for it.

I understand that people were disappointed with Gov. Perry’s debut in the debates. I can also understand people having a difference of opinion on issues like In-State tuition rates and, to a degree, mandatory vaccinations for cancer causing STD’s.

What I can’t understand is the desire of some to allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good, maybe even the great. I doubt anyone could honestly make a case for any other candidate having a more conservative record of governance, a greater depth of experience, or a better record of winning elections, than Gov. Perry.

My hope is that the conservative movement will get their collective heads out of their 4th point of contact, stop with the point guard political hoop dreams, and support the best man for the job.

Our movement, our nation, and our future depend on it.

Aaron B. Gardner

You see, the good Senator from New York isn’t happy with President Obama’s new, old, current, ever thus, plan to make the rich pay their fair share. Actually, that isn’t entirely true, Chuck isn’t happy with the President’s plan to make the rich in New York pay their fair share. He is completely comfortable with taxing the rich in Mississippi, even if they aren’t what most normal people would consider rich.

If you are wondering what I am talking about, wonder no more [via CBS New York, h/t The Transom]:

Schumer said the $250,000 limit is unacceptable since it will hit the metropolitan area disproportionately because of the high cost of living here.

“$250,000 makes you really rich in Mississippi but it doesn’t make you rich at all in New York and there ought to be some kind of scale based on the cost of living on how much you pay,” Schumer said.

Not only is this a blatant engagement in class warfare, the idea itself is also blatantly at odds with Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which the good Senator has sworn an oath to protect.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

If Sen. Schumer were not both evil and stupid, he would be working to lower the cost of living in New York by using his influence to lower the tax and regulatory burden laid upon New Yorker’s by Bloomberg and Albany. New York has become a bastion of over regulation and burdensome taxation, going so far as to regulate the salt on your table and levy taxes on any behavior they consider a sin.

Instead, Sen. Schumer seeks to subvert the clear intent of the Constitution and make those in Mississippi pay for the failures of his own state. Let me be clear, there is no reason Mississippi should have to subsidize New York’s failed socialism.

Sen. Schumer, I have embraced the healing power of “and”, you are evil and stupid.

Aaron B. Gardner

Part of our plan — part of our plan is to make sure that as we create these jobs, we creat jobs of the future, like the ones you’re creating, jobs you can raise a family on, green jobs, jobs that will serve as a foundation for a stronger American economy, which is why it’s sp important we — we — we invest in Solyndra and invest in what Solyndra is doing, not just to get us through today, but to power our way to a much brighter tomorrow.

…

And I’m really happy, along with the secretary, to announce today that we’ve closed a $535 million loan guarantee for Solyndra, more than a half a billion dollars. This is the first in what the secretary’s going to be announcing the Department of Energy will be making available for more than $30 billion in loan guarantees the recovery act is providing and will provide to American companies that are leading the way to a new clean energy future.

Back in the salad days of the Obama administration, when hobbits were still only fantasy and the Democrats controlled all the rings of powers, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act glided through Congress and was signed by a gleeful President. All were confident that they now had the power and the plan to turn the economy around and fix the environment in the process.

Green Jobs were here to stay. Our very salvation depended on it.

The loan to Solyndra will allow you to build a new manufacturing facility and with it almost immediately generate 3,000 new well-paying construction jobs. And once your facility opens, there will be about 1,000 permanent new jobs here at Solyndra and in the surrounding business community, and hundreds more to install your growing output of solar panels throughout the country.

It’s important. [ed note: THIS IS A BIG EFFING DEAL]

It’s important because these jobs are going to be permanent jobs. These are the jobs of the future. These are the green jobs. These are jobs that won’t be exported. These are the jobs that are going to define the 21st century and the jobs — going to allow America to compete and to lead like we did in the 20th century.

Permanent Green Jobs. Put it in the bank people, this will work!

And out there in Solyndra, you guys have figured it out; you’ve figured out to harness the sun’s power for a better, more efficient, more prosperous future for all of America.

And in the process, you’re creating more jobs.

Unfortunately, all those jobs are now gone. And the only people who prospered are now being investigated by the same people who propped them up in the first place. This is an especially disturbing turn of events considering it has been reported that the Dept. of Energy was sitting in on board meetings when Solyndra was going through their loan restructuring.

I guess when Obama said that no one messes with Joe, he didn’t have Solyndra in mind.

Aaron B. Gardner