Do or Die for Romney in Florida?
If former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney loses the Florida primary next week, his 2012 presidential campaign strategy may go down in the annals of political history as one of the worst ever. Mitt had it all: money, name recognition, a grassroots organization, business experience, and experience running a presidential campaign. He must have thought, or should I say that his advisors must have thought, that he was a shoo-in for the GOP nomination. From his perspective, it must have looked as though all he needed to do was avoid a catastrophic blunder and the nomination was his for the taking. If that’s what he believed, he was wrong — dead wrong.
Romney lost a close one in Iowa to Rick Santorum and won in New Hampshire. Next, he went to South Carolina. With a commanding lead in the polls and with the support of South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, he was looking forward to an easy win in the Palmetto State that was supposed to be followed in a matter of days by another win in the Sunshine State. But things didn’t go as planned. South Carolinians weren’t enamored with Romney’s campaign style that resembled Muhammad Ali’s rope-a-dope maneuver. He held himself above the fray, leaned against the ropes, and allowed his challengers, particularly Newt Gingrich, to pummel him. In a matter of days, Romney turned a sure victory in South Carolina into a whopping defeat and elevated Gingrich to the frontrunner position.
The Florida primary was supposed to be Romney’s firewall, the state where he would close out his opponents and wrap up the GOP nomination. Instead, he finds himself fighting for his political life, and his prospects for winning in Florida and nationally are looking worse with each passing day. As of January 24th, PPP’s Florida poll shows Gingrich at 38% (up 12 points since last week), Romney at 33% (down 13 points since last week), Rick Santorum at 13%, and Ron Paul at 10%. Gallup’s tracking poll for the GOP nomination shows Gingrich at 31% and taking off like a rocket, Romney at 27% and falling fast, and both Santorum and Paul at 12%. (A poll released yesterday shows Romney up by two points.) Update: Polls from Rasmussen and InsiderAdvantage this morning confirm this turn for Romney.
Making matters worse for Romney, he was unable to convince former Florida Governor Jeb Bush to endorse him, leaving open the possibility that he will endorse someone else or maybe that he will seek/accept the GOP nomination. In a Commentary article, Seth Mandel said, “Of all the many possible reasons Jeb Bush seems to have backed off his earlier intention to endorse Mitt Romney, Politico’s Ben White received the most plausible I’ve heard. White tweeted yesterday that he heard from people close to Bush and was told: ‘Jeb won’t endorse in part because he knows Romney needs to show he can take down Newt w/out help.’”
“Gingrich Frames the Debate”
from: http://spectator.org/archives/2012/01/25/gingrich-frames-the-debate
EXCERPTS:
Gingrich: “But the centerpiece of this campaign, I believe, is American exceptionalism versus the radicalism of Saul Alinsky….[W]hat we are going to argue is that American exceptionalism, the American Declaration of Independence, the American Constitution, the American Federalist papers, the Founding Fathers of America, are the source from which we draw our understanding of America. [Obama] draws his from Saul Alinsky, radical left-wingers, and people who don’t like the classical America.”
Having served President Reagan in the White House Office of Policy Development in the early 1980s [the author Ferrara], I can say the comprehensive conservatism and breadth of this South Carolina victory speech is quintessentially Reagan.
In sharp contrast, Romney is the perfect foil for Obama’s Alinsky strategy and tactics. Everything about him, from his business career, to his public record, to his appearance, to his inability to express fundamental principles and philosophy, only communicates “Country Club” Republican. Al Sharpton calls him “Mr. 1%.” Does the Republican Party, let alone confused “conservative” talking heads, really want to run this year against Obama a Wall Street multimillionaire who pays a 15% tax rate, and can’t explain or defend that?
Instead of the inspiring substance of leadership that Gingrich has provided, Romney has engaged in low brow trash talking, backed by the millions provided by his Country Club cronies. Romney says, “We’re not seeking a talk show host. We’re seeking a leader.” New Jersey Governor and Romney crony Chris Christie chimes in, “Newt has been an embarrassment to the Republican Party.”
You want a leader? Gingrich led the entire party to an historic victory in 1994 to the first Republican takeover of Congress in 40 years, something even Reagan didn’t accomplish. Then in 1996 and 1998, Gingrich as Speaker led the first reelection of Republican House majorities in since the 1920s. Some embarrassment, Chris.”
Al Sharpton calls him “Mr. 1%.”
Meaningless class warfare rhetoric. On the other hand, here’s some reality concerning the curious affinity Gingrich has for Sharpton:
In 2009, Newt Gingrich and Al Sharpton went on a nationwide tour together, from the White House to multiple cities, to promote education reforms also being pushed by Education Secretary Arne Duncan and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. In one video from the tour, Gingrich said, “I really appreciate the leadership Rev. Sharpton is showing all across America.”
Way to fight ‘em, Newt!
Just last month, Gingrich called into Sharpton’s TV show to wish him a happy birthday and shower him with praise. “I had such a great time going around America with you” to push education reform, Gingrich told Sharpton. “I will never forget it for the rest of my life. You were tremendous on those trips. . . . I watched you speak up with courage and with toughness on behalf of children in a way that all my life I will remember and I will honor you for the way you were willing to take on interests on behalf of children.”
So when Al Sharpton takes a shot at Romney is it because he, like the rest of the Left, view Romney as the more electable and dangerous opponent for Obama? Or is it simply one buddy doing a solid for another buddy?
Wait a minute. He said this about a murderous, racist, anti-semitic pogrom artist? It’s worrying enough that MSNBC gave him a show, but this is really serious.
Does anybody care any more about the old-fasioned sort of anti-semitism, the kind that kills people?
I’m afraid Newt has gone further down in my estimation.
Ed Wallis,
Newt Gingrich is not who you think he is. Quite the opposite. Educate yourself. Please. Romney’s heresies are trivial by comparison.
Oh, *I’m* educated, chump.
YOU just seem to be stuck on the soothing, hollow words from someone who holds positions on both sides of the most important issues of our day…except for one: he steadfastly defends ORomneyCare.
UNLEASH GINGRICH IN 2012!
perhaps in your eagerness to support Gingrich, you overlooked how a small govt conservative can:
–pander to NASA with visions of a moon base (how’s that going to be funded?)
–suggest kicking adult janitors to the curb and replace them with kids so youths can learn how to work. Hint: that’s what McDonald’s is for.
–slam a businessman for making money. That alone should disqualify Gingrich from serious consideration. Well, that and his repeated inferences that he practically invented Ronald Reagan, whom today’s conservative commentariat would view as a moderate.
When did Newt suggest committing Federal money to that idea? And since when is it legal for 13-year-olds to work at McDonald’s? Should we repeal child labor laws? Perhaps, but if you’re going to make that argument, make it explicitly, rather than hiding behind ambiguities in the proposition.
You might benefit from THIS video of Nancy Reagan and her remarks about Gingrich:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/01/nancy-reagan-ronnie-turned-the-torch-over-to-newt-gingrich-video/
RomneyCare = ObamaCare
http://michellemalkin.com/2012/01/26/confirmed-romneycare-obamacare/
My problem with Mitt Romney isn’t his “heresies” but the fact that he is totally amoral and untrustworthy and corrupt in every way.
In reality, it’s “do-or-die” for Gingrich. That’s common sense. Anything else is just wishful thinking on people’s parts.
Exactly right, Moira. Unless a miracle candidate is pulled out of a ‘magic hat’ soon, Gingrich is our only hope of really putting the nails in 0bie’s coffin.
What I wrote about Romney here was.
***Quoting (sorta), Dale Franks-
“He speaks about conservative ideals, but his entire political history is one of (fix)failing(/fix) them. This may have been a necessity in a deep blue state like Massachusetts, but it translates poorly to a far more conservative national GOP electorate.”
If he is little enough of a Republican for Massachusetts to tolerate, he is not enough of one to do the country any good.
***
Why am I not troubled about Gingrich making “anti-capitalist”, populist noises at Romney? Because he not attacking capitalism, he’s attacking Romney.
He is attempting to prevent the abject disaster which the nomination of Romney would represent. The failure of the GOP to represent it’s members interests.
Again for the billionth time.
The hyperbole on the issue was fanned by the Romney campaign. It’s effects were wholly intended and so many folks took the bait that you have to wonder if anybody is thinking anymore.
Newt and Perry were not denigrating Capitalism/Free Market Economics. They were making a comment on a specific form of business that Romney and his cronies conducted.
Strip Clubs are legal money making businesses… That I don’t like them and think that the business is sleazy has no reflection on the Free Market. I put corporate raiders right up there with strip clubs on my crappy business list. That’s my prerogative.
The CEO of a successful Strip Club chain will never get my vote if he chooses to run for political office, especially using his “business” creds as a reason to vote for him. I feel the same way in regard to corporate raiders/vultures.
Vultures are useful in nature… But a flock of buzzards in the backyard is not what I wanted in my real estate portfolio.
r/TMF
So you are in violent agreement with me?
Yes I am. My attempt to re-enforce your comment and to further illuminate the issue.
I tire of the unjustified vitriol. I also get really perplexed at the half-thought out responses that come from folks who should know better. Your comment was spot on.
r/TMF
The CEO of a successful Strip Club chain will never get my vote if he chooses to run for political office, especially using his “business” creds as a reason to vote for him. I feel the same way in regard to corporate raiders/vultures.
And yet Romney clobbers Gingrich on the issue of character. Stick to the false idea that Gingrich is more of a “fighter” than Romney. You have a better chance of sounding credible. Attempting to make the case for Gingrich on moral grounds is a non-starter. And so is attacking Romney from the Left, which is exactly what Gingrich and Perry attempted to do.
It’s shocking to me that there are actually people on our side who are suddenly terrified of OWS. Or are they? Perhaps expressing fear of Al Sharpton is simply a questionable tactic on behalf of candidate who really is doomed if he doesn’t win Florida. That candidate, of course, is Newt Gingrich. All you have to do is take a look at where the next several contests will be to understand that.
> “And yet Romney clobbers Gingrich on the issue of character.”
There is more than one way to show bad character. Adultery is only one way.
Here’s another way: govern like a liberal in a liberal state, and then present yourself to conservatives nationally as their guy.
According to Ezra Klein, when Romney met with left-leaning groups in Massachusetts in 2002 to assure them he was no threat to their interests, he went the extra step and bragged to them that they needed a man like him in the Republican Party, someone who would raise their concerns at the national level.
> Klein: ““You need someone like me in Washington,” [Romney] reportedly told the advocates. The GOP had swung too far right, and he would be “a good voice in the party” for left-leaning groups. His support for their agenda would mean more than the support of another Democrat. His would be “widely written about.””
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/why-republicans-trust-gingrich-but-not-romney/2011/08/25/gIQA34FQsO_blog.html
As Klein goes on to point out, this goes well beyond pointing to congruencies in policy positions. Romney, in effect, said to liberals: I’m one of you.
And now, nine years later, he’s one of us. Or so he says. Some people may call that “character.”
There are many disadvantages to having to fight a liberal Democratic president. But one advantage is the knife goes in the front. Nothing I hate more than facing the Democrats from the trenches and suddenly spotting a Republican bayonet coming out of my solar plexus. That tends to happen to conservatives a lot, all the way from “No New Taxes!” to “I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market.”
As a conservative, I understand all too well that the Republican Party is a coalition of which we’re just a part, and that we can’t always have things our way. I was fine with that for forty years. I guess I’m a slow learner. But at some point during the past decade, though, the GOP convinced me that they despise their conservative base and would like to keep them sequestered from any decision-making — “Break glass in case of election.”
Newt may be no conservative, either. But the GOP establishment clearly hates him, so for now the enemy of my enemy is my friend. If Newt wins the presidency, Lord only knows which direction he’ll run off in. But if he reaches into the RNC’s mouth all the way to his shoulder, grabs its tail, and yanks it back all the way through its teeth, I say, payback is a pregnant lady dog. It is not good for a party to anger its base.
Newt may be no conservative, either.
Thank you for acknowledging what some of us have long known. The “Gingrich is the true Conservative” meme is bogus.
But the GOP establishment clearly hates him, so for now the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
The fact of the matter is that Gingrich has been an inside-the-beltway Washington insider for a long time, which is something that he doesn’t deny. In fact, he repeatedly talks about his time in Washington while trying to equate himself with Ronald Reagan. The “establishment” hates Gingrich? Gingrich IS the establishment. No, it’s not “hatred” of Gingrich that motivates many of the leaders of the party. It’s his obvious unelectability that is troubling.
If Newt wins the presidency, Lord only knows which direction he’ll run off in.
More brutal honesty. That’s more like it! That’s why he’s unelectable.
But if he reaches into the RNC’s mouth all the way to his shoulder, grabs its tail, and yanks it back all the way through its teeth, I say, payback is a pregnant lady dog. It is not good for a party to anger its base.
So now we get to the heart of the matter. It’s not about defeating Obama in the general election. It’s about some sort of weird vendetta against the leaders of our own side. Apparently the pathological obsession with “going rogue” is what’s most important to Gingrich supporters.
> The fact of the matter is that Gingrich has been an inside-the-beltway Washington insider for a long time, which is something that he doesn’t deny.
That doesn’t change the fact that they obviously hate him.
> It’s his obvious unelectability that is troubling.
Yeah. The RNC and its famously electable candidates. Like Dole and McCain. The same people said Ronald Reagan was unelectable.
> It’s about some sort of weird vendetta against the leaders of our own side.
That’s one way to characterize it. “Our side”, indeed. Another way is that they went rogue first. Who gave us the largest new entitlements in American history, at least before ObamaCare? GW Bush. Who joined hands with Teddy Kennedy and passed a whopper of an education bill? GW Bush. Who joined hands with the Dems and tried to pass Shamnesty, and when called on it, insulted and derided his own base? GW Bush. Who signed McCain-Feingold into law, though tsk-tsking that he thought it was unconstitutional? GW Bush.
And it isn’t all Bush. Who got on nationwide television and torpedoed a Tea Party candidate in Delaware for the crime of beating an incumbent RINO? Karl Rove. (If O’Donnell wasn’t unelectable before Rove’s outburst, she certainly was afterward.) Who sent money to Dede Scozzafava and derided her Tea Party challenger, only to have her actually throw her support to the Democrats when she lost? The RNC. Who sent money and support to Arlen Specter’s sagging candidacy even though he was a thorn in conservatives’ sides for years? The RNC, Bush, and even Santorum.
As I said, at some point the GOP decided they hated conservatives. But I’m the one with the “weird vendetta.”
You think the goal is electing Republicans. I think the goal is getting conservative policy. The RNC thinks the goal is the snout in the trough. I think that about sums it up.
You think the goal is electing Republicans. I think the goal is getting conservative policy. The RNC thinks the goal is the snout in the trough. I think that about sums it up.
Yes, I don’t apologize for wanting to get Republicans elected. And I know for a fact there when it comes to the executive branch there is ZERO chance of getting Conservative policy if Obama is re-elected. For the record, Gingrich doesn’t have a problem with getting his snout in the trough. He’s the long-time Washington insider.
> Yes, I don’t apologize for wanting to get Republicans elected.
I am indifferent as to whether the party that signs off on socialistic policy or spends trillions in debt is Democratic or Republican. When Republicans try to curry favor with the left by instituting Democratic polices, let the Republicans find out how many Democrats will vote for them.
We don’t need two liberal parties, that’s for certain. The incentives of politics seem to move office holders inexorably to the left. That’s understandable, since even right-wingers like money. It’s understandable, but it’s not acceptable. There is no ill will generated by Democrats with their base when they overspend and overreach — that’s what their base wants. But with Republicans, it’s different. On the one hand, they want the money, power, and good press; on the other hand, they risk inflaming their base if they go for it. This has created a perverse incentive, where for years Republicans had to work with the inconvenience of pretending to hate big government in public, while working with Democrats behind the scenes to cave on key votes and make it look unintentional. We had two big-government parties, only one of them had to deny it.
But all that changed with Bush, who bragged to the Wall Street Journal that he had transformed the Republican Party. He did indeed. With Bush, the pretense was no longer on display. It was the conservative base that was now the inconvenience. And transform the GOP he did — from totally in power, to totally out of power. There’s your “electable” mainstream Republican, right there. Bush did more to damage the Republican Party than a thousand people like me with “weird vendettas” could have ever done, and all by blurring the Republican name brand.
> And I know for a fact there when it comes to the executive branch there is ZERO chance of getting Conservative policy if Obama is re-elected.
There is zero change of getting conservative policy if the Republican Party continues to play the Quisling. They are lukewarm, and as our Lord suggested, I spit them out.
I am indifferent as to whether the party that signs off on socialistic policy or spends trillions in debt is Democratic or Republican. When Republicans try to curry favor with the left by instituting Democratic polices, let the Republicans find out how many Democrats will vote for them.
Now you’re arguing on behalf of a third party. That’s off topic and I’m not interested in that nonsense. If the purity of your position trumps the obvious need to defeat Obama and the ideology he promotes then we’re done here. Throwing the election to Obama is not an option.
> Now you’re arguing on behalf of a third party. That’s off topic and I’m not interested in that nonsense.
It’s nonsense that you’re inventing on the spot, right here. I didn’t say a word about “third party” anything. I’m talking about bringing discipline back to our relationship within the existing party.
The issue is over who is to be the master, the voters or the Party. I have no interest in a Party that thinks it is in charge and that their base must stifle their vision in order to fill Republican coffers. The GOP establishment is the tail that believes it has the right to wag the dog. Nothing good will happen until it is divested of that notion.
humm Moira.. very Irish name…
Well, I am Catholic, that fact brings with it all of the human foibles of my church (the human run part). It also brings with it the admonition from the Lord, Himself, to lay down the stone of judgement – especially when I am a sinner myself. (Just short of 25 years married, and faithful but there are many other failings that I have had over the years… I am not without sin.)
What transpired between Newt and his former wives was between him and them. His daughters both back and forgive him. Even is first wife bears him no public malice.
And above it all, he has since his self-removal from elective office, gone through RCIA, which is a rigorous self-examination of soul, Confession, Confirmation, and full Communion with my church. He has conducted himself as a practical Roman Catholic for a decade. He is forgiven, period.
I drop my stone, I have no place to cast it, except at myself.
“Judge not, lest ye be judged likewise.” Mat ch 7,1-6
His Blessings be upon you.
John
Yes, I am an Irish-American and a Catholic. And as such I certainly do take the sacraments seriously, including penance and reconciliation. However…
While it is true that Gingrich can and has been forgiven, that does not require the rest of us to suffer amnesia. In othe words, forgiveness and forgetfulness are not synonymous. In the political world character is an issue and does play a part in the decision-making process. Whether it’s right or wrong is immaterial. Since we’re talking about which candidate is better able to withstand the relentless attacks from the Left then it’s totally appropriate to mention the character issue. I’m not judging Gingrich as a person but as a political candidate and therefore I’m obligated to point out where the weaknesses are.
At least Newt admits he was an adulterer. Romney lies to your face and expects you to be gullible enough to believe him.
Good analogy. But I often see this distaste for corporate vultures among conservatives, most notably from Ben Stein when he wrote about the issue back in the 1980s with the American Spectator. From memory, he decried that sort of business as serving no valuable purpose whatsoever. And him the son of Herbert Stein, the great economist, no less.
The way I look at corporate vultures is simple: if a company’s management has gone so sour that the company is worth more in pieces than it is whole, then that company has been badly mismanaged and it’s time to put the assets in the hands of someone who’s better at managing them.
If that’s what Romney did for a living, I see nothing dishonorable about it. But, with Ben Stein as my template, I believe that a conservative can sincerely believe that.
Most of the business people I know acknowledge the economic benefits that come from financial chop shops like Bain but they do not like many of the methods used nor the glee that some practitioners of “creative destruction” take in the destructive part. When it comes to creation they don’t give much of the credit for the new jobs to the private equity firms that put together the deals. They think the real credit belongs to the boots on the ground executives and managers who met customer needs day in and out, not the suits who put up the money.
> “Others have argued that Romney is a RINO (Republican in name only) and that his record as governor of Massachusetts suggests that he is pro-gun control, pro-abortion, and pro-Obamacare.”
“Suggests”. Such a bland little word.
So I guess that Beck, Rush and Drudge are going to be called RINOs now. Have you been listening the last couple of days? Its over for Newt. Hopefully the word will get out before the Florida election.
The class warfare stuff within the Republican Party has only helped Obama. Have you seen the polls this morning?
I’m voting with my head and not my feelings, like a good Republican should. This is not just a reality show, it is real.
Just a tiny couple of things.
1. Beck is NOT a Republican. He is “sort” of Conservative, but more accurately is closer to Libertarian Populist. Some of his views are very astute and well thought out, and some of them come from a parallel universe.
2. Rush is a super force in the Conservative Movement, but he has his blind spots; one being the business vs free market issue – he tends to conflate the two. He has not endorsed any particular candidate that I can see. He seems to have positive and negative things to say about each one. One day I “hear” him leaning toward Romney, only to be corrected by listening the next hour and “hear” him kicking Romney in the shins, or praising Newt or Santorum.
3. There was no class warfare stuff. Just Romney oriented Establishment people feeding that impression. See my prior comment (I am not feeling the burn of cutting and pasting it up again.). Business is NOT the Free Market. Businesses and how they are run is fair game for criticism. To not be allowed to do so is definitely NOT Free Market.
-TMF
Your points, one and two are noted and in another time with rational thought would be entirely correct. But, you have to admit that that both men have been considered conservative leaders especially with the Sarah Palin/Tea Party movement.
Your issue three is where I really disagree with you. You said:
3. There was no class warfare stuff. Just Romney oriented Establishment people feeding that impression. See my prior comment (I am not feeling the burn of cutting and pasting it up again.). Business is NOT the Free Market. Businesses and how they are run is fair game for criticism. To not be allowed to do so is definitely NOT Free Market.
I say to you, have you read the posts on this site or any other from the pro-Newt people? This is not simply a free market debate or a debate over some fine point of investments. This is flat out us vs. them, rich vs. poor, Nascar vs. Country Club, ‘we’ll show those suits who’s boss’ class warfare within the Republican Party. That sounds more like the Democratic Party to me. And please don’t give me the Reagan vs the establishment excuse and reference again. Besides the fact that Newt spoke against Reagan on a regular basis; Reagan never used class warfare and had a “sunny disposition” about almost everything. Ronald Reagan was a Southern California Republican; about as establishment as you can get. The ‘blue-blood’ republicans from the Northeast died a long time ago and their children are Democrats and employed as hedge fund managers, heads of universities or public relations experts. If you don’t believe me just look at what has happened to the NE Episcopal Church; the faith bastion of all things establishment.
When I see true Reagan conservatives called RINOs and Newt Gingrich praised as a conservative in the image of Reagan I know there is something terribly wrong in the universe.
No class warfare in the sense of rich vs. poor, but plenty in the sense of free citizens vs. a self-anointed aristocracy, and the latter has every place in every party in America. We don’t believe in aristocracy, period, and anyone who thinks he deserves to be elected to office has proven himself unfit for any office whatsoever, because he is too arrogant to be trusted with any power.
Yes.
The idea that Newt engages in Class Warfare is silly. The fact that the RoveRomney campaign engages in the tactic is outragsous. The fact that so many conservative have fallen for the con game is sad.
Rush hasn’t come out for Romney by any means. It is quite obvious that he simply wants the most consistent and articulate conservative with a chance to win. Since Newt is a smart politician who says things to appeal to the middle when he thinks it is appropriate, Rush isn’t going to endorse him. Santorum is very consistent, but the fact that Rush HAS NOT endorsed Rick shows that Rush is concerned about his electability. From one day to the next, depending on the topic of the show, it might appear that Rush is leaning one way or the other, but if you listen the next day, he will seem different. If Romney buys the nomination, Rush won’t be happy, and if Newt dances too many times with non-conservative ideas, Rush won’t be happy either.
Why would any Conservative want Romney to be the next President? If you take a critical view of Romney’s time as Governor, if you recall his past run, if you reflect on what he’s saying now then you must conclude that nothing much will come of his Presidency. Yes, he’s more “pro-business” than Obama, he’s more “pro-America” than Obama, he’s more “pro-capitalism” than Obama but none of those “pros” will manifest themselves into meaningful action. Mitt Romney talks a wimpy game and he walks a wimpy walk, so can anybody realistically expect him to actually make any meaningful changes?
In addition, the day after the inauguration the media will report that the “true” unemployment rate is 12%, the “true” underemployment rate is +20%, the unemployment rate among Black youth is +30%, there is a vast legion of homeless, the housing market will never return, your “101K” won’t recover, those jobs that left will never return, health care cost are soaring, the cost of a college education is rising faster than inflation under Carter, food costs are soaring, energy costs are through the roof, and, lastly, that America is doomed, doomed, doomed. And we’ll get those stories 24/7, 365 days per year for 4 years plus the phrase “under Conservative Mitt Romney”.
Now, again, why would any Conservative want Mitt Romney to be President? You know going in he’ll do nothing useful, you know “Conservatism” will be blamed for everything that Obama’s and Bush’s policies have caused (and how many times did you hear “the Conservative Bush Administration?), you know that it will be as if the Obama Presidency never happened, and you know that the media will be relentlessly negative. Why put up with all that if you know there’s zero chance of any meaningful change with Romney? And there is zero chance since the focus of the GOP is on “independents” who don’t know that they’re Conservatives. A vote for Romney is a vote to gradually implement the Democratic Party Platform. Why would I give power to the GOP Establishment to implement policies with which I disagree and that I know are disastrous for the Country? Because it’s better that they have power instead of the people who’re honest enough to call themselves Democrats?
What does the Country gain if Romney is President? If the best you can come up with is “we don’t lose as much as we would if Obama gets another term” then our focus must be on the House and Senate.
Gingrich endorsed Dede Scozzafava. Was that the action of a grassroots, “true Conservative” political outsider? She, of course, went on to drop out of the primary in NY-23 and endorse the Democrat (Bill Owens) in order to sink the Tea Party candidate, Doug Hoffman. To quote Gingrich:
“The special election for the 23rd Congressional District is an important test leading up to the mid-term 2010 elections,” Gingrich said in a statement to supporters. “Our best chance to put responsible and principled leaders in Washington starts here, with Dede Scozzafava.”
That kind of stupidity is an example of why the claim that Gingrich is the “real Conservative alternative” is not only false but ludicrously false. A real Conservative would have to mistrust Gingrich’s judgment. Certainly at the time there were many Tea Partiers who did.
Yes he did. If you hadn’t noticed, Newt is a Republican. With that brings a certain obligation to support Republicans nominated for public office.
Hoffman was NOT a Republican, and was not listed on the ballot under the Republican Line. He was listed as a Conservative. I don’t know where you are from, my family is from upstate New York, the two lines are different. The New York Conservative Party is not the New York Republican Party. Sometimes those two cooperate in nominating each others candidates, and sometimes they do not.
In that particular special election, Dede was chosen by the Republican party power clique to represent them on the ballot. There was no primary, no real discussion, and no chance for other candidates to vie for the nomination.
Newt endorsed the Republican line, like a good loyal Republican would do, it’s a party sort obligation.
As to the Santorum (not specifically your issue, but it will probably rear it’s head – I like Santorum a bunch but don’t think that he can hang with the big dogs…) Santorum also did the Party Loyalty thing. As an elected Republican he was expected to support his fellow elected Republican for the nomination, especially because Club Senate depends on head count and seniority for its power structure. If Toomey had been nominated, Santorum would have enthusiastically supported him for the general election.
Politics is an odd business, and it often does not make sense to the outside world.
Judgements are rendered without full information or knowledge of the subject.
Newt was asked to back certain Republican candidates. He did as asked. And got burned, by the Establishment. I think that they were snickering in the back room some where. “Here. Touch this. I dare ya!.”
-TMF
Romney is no less a Republican than Gingrich. If you haven’t noticed, the #1 argument that folks are making against Romney is that he’s not a “Conservative.” So that’s the context of this discussion. I’m aware of the fact that in New York “Conservative” is not just a state of mind but a separate political party. For purposes of this discussion, however, that’s simply hair-splitting. Gingrich can’t claim to be an outsider if he’s dutifully obeying the establishment to support a Democrat-supporting fake like Scozzafava. If they had given it some thought, there’s no doubt that South Carolinians would have wanted Gingrich to support Hoffman, not Scozzafava.
“Gingrich endorsed Dede Scozzafava”
Yes, he did. That, however, isn’t a reason to support Romney, it’s a reason to avoid Gingrich. At best, Gingrich has “some ‘splaining to do”; at worst, as TMF details the issue, it’s emblematic of the problem with the Establishment GOP – they’re not Conservatives. They want power and, as they saw it, Dede was their best avenue to secure that power. It’s up to us as the base of the Party to hold the “Party Leaders” accountable, it’s up to us to question what they’ll do with the power that we grant them, and it’s something we failed abysmally at over the past few decades.
But you shouldn’t take anything that I wrote as an endorsement of Gingrich because in many ways he’s much worse that Romney. Gingrich will fight to make changes, Gingrich will take on the Establishment, and much of what he proposes is decidedly not Conservative. Gingrich has a lot of ideas, some good, some bad, some very forgettable but what he doesn’t have are any real Conservative Principles. When he has a idea he should be asking himself “is this something that falls within the purview of the Federal Government?” but he doesn’t, he wants to “do big things”, he wants the credit; instead he should want the Country to do those things and the people to get the credit. He should be working to get the Government out of the People’s way instead of implementing Government Solutions that get in the way.
Yes, he did. That, however, isn’t a reason to support Romney, it’s a reason to avoid Gingrich. At best, Gingrich has “some ‘splaining to do”; at worst, as TMF details the issue, it’s emblematic of the problem with the Establishment GOP – they’re not Conservatives.
That’s not my reason for supporting Romney. That’s simply part of my argument against the misguided notion that Gingrich is the “real Conservative” in this primary and that his statements and actions have “earned” the support of “the base.” The results in South Carolina had nothing to do with the real Gingrich and everything to do with the primal scream of outrage at the relentless Left-wing bias in the media. It was a great moment. But that’s all. An examination of Gingrich’s record doesn’t suggest that he’s either an outsider or a “true Conservative” in the way that many primary voters conceive of that word.
My take on the issue of candidates is this: The country is at war! Make no mistake about it. We’ve allowed the liberal progressives to ruin the economy, install Marxists in every area of the federal government, re-institute class
warfare, drag the needy into slavery for welfare instead of jobs. Now we nit-pick our way through the candidates’ capability of beating a failed president.
You can’t pound a nail with a tack hammer. We need–must have–the strongest,
most knowledgable, real American to return the USA to its deserved greatness.
Vet them we must. But don’t dirty them in the process. God Bless the U S A !!
Even if Romney “wins” like he did on Iowa (but only on election night; later Santorum won), he loses. If Gingrich or Santorum lose by only one or two points, Romney could still be finished. There is just something about the guy that most conservative Republicans just don’t like. Whether it is his flip-flopping on issues or his backing of RomneyCare, people just don’t like him or trust him. If Newt has another great debate performance tonight, it could be over for Romney.
As for anybody else being drafted at this late date, I doubt it. The days of the brokered conventions are over. Even if someone gets in the race now, he or she could only win a handful of states since you have to be registered on ballots by now. I doubt Jeb would want to get into a race he knows he’ll lose just because filing deadlines are up. Nope, it’s either Newt, Romney, or Santorum.
There is just something about the guy that most conservative Republicans just don’t like. Whether it is his flip-flopping on issues or his backing of RomneyCare, people just don’t like him or trust him.
A lot of Tea Partiers were saying much the same thing about Newt until a week ago. The boom for Gingrich in South Carolina was artificial and temporary. Tuesday’s results in Florida will bear that out. And then I invite you to take a look at the next few primaries and caucuses. It’s not friendly terrain for Gingrich.
Early polls and the fools who promote them come off to me as nothing more than a mix of campaign advertising and agitprop.
In the last days before the South Carolina Primary, all the polling and talk was, “Romney has the lead, even though Gingrich is gaining steam.”
Even right up to the final hour before polls closed, Fox News – among other stations – were claiming “it’s going to be neck and neck.”
Then, the polls closed at 7pm…and within five seconds, Fox announced, “we’re calling this race for Gingrich.”
TRANSLATION: “we’ve been lying to you all along to make you vote for Romney.”
Nothing else is going on here. Don’t believe the stories.
UNLEASH GINGRICH IN 2012!
You are absolutely correct! I have been in Florida for the last ten days on business and my impression is Gingrich wins Florida. Romney is not acceptable to many Conservatives. He is too polarizing to the base. See Ya John F’ing Romney!
Ed Wallis alert,
Gingrich admits lying during John King debate.
Terry Gain Alert:
Did Romney lie about being PRO-CHOICE, or
did Romney lie about being PRO-LIFE?!?
Like most issues important to many Americans,
Mitt “I Like Firing People” Romney
thinks he can get away with pretending to be on BOTH sides.
Isn’t THAT a lie…or WORSE?!?
I can’t stand either one of them. I can’t believe after three years of this cr@p admin we are stuck with these two. Heck, in Virginia I have one choice – Romney. No one else (except Paul – but he doesn’t count) managed to get on the ballot.
I’m afraid that I have to accept the fact that my country is destroyed and that I will merely be a witness to the decay and implosion that will shortly unfold.
I’m glad my dad (a WWII and Korean War veteran) has passed on and never had to see this once great country in such a pathetic state. I am SO ashamed of my countrymen.
Why don’t you recall how you felt about the two of them before RoveRomeny decided to go nuclear negative on Newt two weeks before the Iowa debate.
If you hated Newt at that time, then your disgust is consistent and reflects your real thoughts on the matter.
If you favored Newt at that time, you have been sucked in by the Romney smear machine.
So vote for Paul then; that’s what I’m doing. In Virginia, Paul is simply the generic not-Romney. If he wins, Romney is denied those delegates.
Vote Paul & pray for a brokered convention where a first-string dark horse might have a chance.
Fine to be disgusted by the downfall of the country but do what you can to turn it around; otherwise it’s just a case of allowing evil to continue as a result of “good men doing nothing.”
Here’s the way I see it. I have no real bias in all of this, I supported Michele Bachmann and I will not be voting in the primaries now that she’s gone. I do not support either Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich.
The Republican establishment decided long, long ago (perhaps before the 2008 election ended) that Mitt Romney was going to be the candidate for President in 2012. Of course there had to be a contest and the establishment was just fine with this. As long as the real race was over by Florida and the rest of the primaries would simply be part of Mitt’s cornotation leading to a glittering three day infomercial at the convention.
The Republican establishment knew that the peasants (that’s those of us who vote and volunteer and donate small amounts) might have other ideas about who should run, but the little pipsqueak peasants would be shouted down by super PACs and good honest conservatives like Michele Bachmann (yes, I’m a bit bitter about her showing in Iowa) would be eliminated early so we could get down to the coronation.
This is not a particularly good time for party elitists to be giving orders to the people. The establishment looked at the Tea Party movement with glee because they thought we were toy robots that would accept whatever the establishment told us to do. They made a serious miscalculation. The Tea Party movement was not willing to let the powers that be make our choices for us. We don’t like it when the government tells us what to do, we also don’t like being told who to vote for. The more the establishment tried to shove Romney down our throats, the more we resisted. Anti-Romneys rose up only to fall again. Bachmann, Perry, Cain even Donald Trump. If the party elites had been listening to the members they would have tried harder to recruit Thune, Rubio or Christie. But the establishment had made their choice and were sticking to Romney.
Newt Gingrich was considered an also-ran just a few months ago. He had no money, no organization and was polling in single digits. But a funny thing happened on the way to the coronation. Gingrich started cleaning the floor with Romney in the thousands of debates we’ve seen so far. Gingrich has Washington experience but he’s not an insider. Gingrich can overcome Mitt’s big pile of money. Gingrich has lofty ambitions (at least as far as the space program’s concerned) that can excite voters (Romney is as far from exciting as one can get). Gingrich is not scared of the Republican establishment.
I don’t like Newt Gingrich and I won’t be voting in the primaries. But when I see and hear the pure panic he’s caused the elites in the Republican Party I have to laugh. This contest wasn’t supposed to be a free election, it was supposed to be a sham vote followed by a coronation. It serves the Romney backers right. Now they have to actually tell us why we should support Romney. Here’s a small piece of advice. Give us a better reason to support Mitt Romney than “You must vote for Mitt because we say so and we’re superior to you in every way.”
And THIS is what I am talking about.
You said: I don’t like Newt Gingrich and I won’t be voting in the primaries. But when I see and hear the pure panic he’s caused the elites in the Republican Party I have to laugh. This contest wasn’t supposed to be a free election, it was supposed to be a sham vote followed by a coronation. It serves the Romney backers right. Now they have to actually tell us why we should support Romney. Here’s a small piece of advice. Give us a better reason to support Mitt Romney than “You must vote for Mitt because we say so and we’re superior to you in every way.”
Class warfare within the Republican Party. People in what you call the establishment did not tell you to vote for Romney because we’re superior to you. We did say that Romney was the only one in the field that could beat Obama. I’m sorry Mrs. Bachman could not beat Obama. Newt cannot beat Obama. Yes, party leaders did try to get others in the race, but they would not run. So of those left only Romney stood a chance of beating Obama. Now, after the ugliness and protracted campaign, even that is questionable.
Next, November when you are presented with a ballot the only person I know that will be on that ballot will be Obama; not the media, not the Republican establishment. You are fighting another war entirely. It is a bitter(your words), self serving little war you are fighting when the real battlefront is far far away and probably won’t be solved in your lifetime. If Obama wins a second term, it won’t be solved in your grandchildren’s lifetime.
What you keep labeling as class warfare within the Republican party is more correctly described as the base telling the leadership of the party — No more Doles, No more McCains, No more people who will reach across the aisle and surrender to the other party, No more people who are proud of their ability to “work” with their opponents to get liberal policies enacted.
We’ve tried the go-along-get-along way — It has resulted in the first Bush’s “Thousand Points of Liberal Light” programs, followed up his son’s “Compassionate Liberalism”, and two old guys who acted like they really didn’t want the job — one of whom actually stopped his campaign shortly before the election, said that there was nothing to fear if his “esteemed colleague” was elected and who fired anyone on his staff who fought back against the liberal lies.
Enough is enough.
In short — No more holding our noses and pulling the lever for a someone just because we have been told that its his turn.
Willard may be a good and honorable man. But he needs to stop praising his role as the originator or Obama-romneycare and start spending much money and venom attacking our opponents.
[And hint to Mittens -- the opponent is the man ruling by executive fiat, the unelected officials in DC and the media -- not a former speaker of the house or a former senator from PA]
Two things really tick me off about the establishment: 1. Acting entitled and 2. Lecturing me about electability. Screw electability; it doesn’t exist. Nominate a conservative and sell conservatism. One more thing: I don’t care about beating Obama; I care about electing a conservative. Beating Obama with someone who won’t reverse anything he has done is pointless.
“This contest wasn’t supposed to be a free election, it was supposed to be a sham vote followed by a coronation.”
good summary
I would add, just like every other election since 1984, and probably most before than as well.
They have their candidate and we have ours. Somehow, theirs usually wins, and then when he usually loses the general election, we are supposed to be happy because that is the best that could have been done. Meanwhile, the republican heads in washinton carry on with the normal business of feathering their own nests, just like they have during the first three years of the marxist’s reign.
Since you asked..
1. Romney is basically a Liberal Democrat. He governed Massachusetts as a Liberal Democrat. Before it was convenient for him to declare that he was a “Republican”, he was a declared “Independent”. He ran his failed Senate campaign to the Left of Teddy Kennedy. His “conservatism” is self-professed, and he has a history of self-professing anything that seems to get him what he wants. Northeastern Establishment Republicans are basically moderate Democrats who cannot stomach the union gig. This is from long experience in my family. My grandfather started his young adult life as a registered Republican, he voted for Coolidge. This was no small affair for an 1st generation Italian-American Catholic in the 1920′s. My parents switched registrations in the late ’60′s when they voted for James Buckley. That’s my history. Romney’s history is that of being and espousing whatever he felt was convenient to get what he wanted. As to the time thing… Gingrich was a Republican from his very early days. Romney nozzomush.
Newt did the loyal Republican Party thing and got shafted.
2. And yes Gingrich is an outsider, he was an outsider to the Establishment back in the 80′s (leader of the “Young Turks” – With Jack Kemp. They gave Bob Michael huge headaches.), and into the ’90′s – the Contract with America was greatly pooh-pooh’ed by the Establishment.)
He ran afoul (maybe afowl would be an interesting pun) of the Establishment as he continued to buck the power elites and push for budget freezes and confrontations with Clinton. Eventually the Establishment abandoned and allowed the wolves to attack him.
And I will re-assert. Politics is a business with rules not well understood by the laity. People think they know how things work. They are sorely mistaken.
Romney won’t do anything that he is “promising” and is already hedging his bets. Newt isn’t perfect, but he knows where all of the skeletons are buried… which is what scares the Establishment the most about him.
-TMF
Romney won’t do anything that he is “promising” and is already hedging his bets. Newt isn’t perfect, but he knows where all of the skeletons are buried… which is what scares the Establishment the most about him.
-TMF
That’s an opinion. My opinion is exactly opposite. So that’s a wash. Newt knowing where all of the skeletons are buried is not serious attribute for a presidential candidate. He’s not the only one who knows where the skeletons are buried and, furthermore, some of those skeletons may very well rise up and destroy him before it’s all over. The only problem that the “Establishment” (let’s pretend for the sake of the argument that Newt isn’t actually a part of the Establishment) has with Gingrich is that he’s an egotistical screw-up who embarrassed the party, becoming the first Speaker to be reprimanded and fined for ethics violations. And if you’re claiming that Gingrich is the most competent candidate then I submit that he should have been able to successfully negotiate the requirements for getting on the ballot in Virginia.
Just one last response… mostly because I really like the give an take and you have been gracious enough to debate with dignity. I appreciate that.
1. There are two ways to read knowing where the skeletons hide. The first is that you might have your own, and knowing where the other guy’s are becomes insulation against attack. The second is that once your closet is open, and all of your skeletons are known, there is a certain liberation that happens. There is also an equal massive fear from the other side. If my sins are public and the other guy’s are still private, and I have measurably overcome mine… The other guy has no leverage over the long run. Yes, this is hardball, but the old much repeated aphorism is that “…politics ain’t beanbag…” fits here. Most voters are well aware of Newt’s stumbles, so much so that Queen Nancy and her smear attempts (2 so far) of “things that she knows” have gone into remission. Newt challenged her to bring it on, she back down. When you have the courage to challenge smear tactics you are very troubling to your opposition.
2. I know from experience of almost 20 years in Virginia local politics, the ballot rules are tricky, and if you “own” the County Committees where the foot soldiers reside, you own the “fast track” to the primary ballot. Romney has owned the levers of access since 2008. (McDonnell finally came out of his closet and endorsed Romney- as expected- Bowling has been a Romney-ite since the beginning.)
Santorum and Perry also ran afoul of the law. It was written by the Democrats during the fading shadows of the old Byrd machine era, so that they could control who was on their ballot, since Virginia has no party registration, anyone can vote in on or the other primary. With the right “influence” it is difficult to get on a primary ballot here. RuPaul managed it because he has the “Ronulan Cult” that has been active for at least four presidential elections. Remember I said “FAST TRACK”, and a presidential campaign needs people – when denied the ready supply of folks from the various county committees, the Results are not enough signatures for the Primary ballot. What state law is doing governing ballot access to political party primaries is beyond me, parties should be setting their own rules.
So I am encouraging all of my friends in the Commonwealth to go out and vote for BLANK in the primary. Yup… put the card in the machine, and push done, unless there is another issue or office on that particular ballot.
It looks like we might finally get party registration in the Commonwealth. That, in and of itself will be clarifying.
God Bless,
John
That was a very helpful explanation of Virginia law/politics.
Dear Moira,
Gingrich was exonerated, there were NO “fines”; he repaid $300k in fees. SEE:
http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=115822
THIS IS A LEFTIST LIE WHICH MUST DIE.
Selling himself to Republican voters would be a lot easier if he occasionally sounded like a Republican and/or conservative and then stuck with that position for longer than 15 minutes. He has almost zero credibility with the GOP base, and it’s entirely his own fault.
“Romney must prove that GOP voters will accept him as their nominee.”
at any cost, apparently
Let’s see, who do we want to pick your candidate for us this year? Obama or his republican ruling class enablers.
Maybe you should just cede your vote to Boehner or Rove. They will take care of you.
I sure hope for Rick Santorum’s sake that he doesn’t get in the way of RoveRomney’s march to victory. And heaven forbid if he does get ahead for a few moment’s and has the audacity to fight the steamroller when it is rolling over him.
Isn’t money wonderful? It can be put to so many useful purposes.
Serfs!! Get back in your hovels.
Here’s where Mitt Romney, Ann Coulter, Matt Drudge, Hugh Hewitt, and numerous other Republican big wigs show their true colors.
What reliable sources tell me is happening is this.
To begin with, Mitt Romney has his mits on more money for his own good.
And I’m convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that he’s offering it in gobs (hidden in various ways only Cayman bankers can explain) to the Drudges, Hewitts and Coulters of the world to produce {presto} gobs of anti Gingrich articles.
“Gingrich insulted Reagan” shouts today’s Drudge headline, an article having as much substance as a certain Dan Rather story on George Bush’s National Guard service; the one that got Dan Rather unceremoniously booted off of CBS news.
Of course, this is also Obama’s modus operandi. You might say birds of a feather.
Instead of going to church, both put their faith in the politics of personal destruction, trying never to talk about their radical liberal records, from RomneyCare to unborn slaughter, to new and improved gun control laws to open borders and closed secret meetings. Instead they throw mud bought and paid for.
Let’s face it, if Gingrich can be accused of insulting Reagan, Obama, in his State Reelection Address just days ago, packed with one lie on top of another, insulted the intelligence of the American people.
Should enough Floridians start adding up the dollars Mitt’s throwing around to the so called conservative king makers to get them to defame Newt, then Mitt’s gonna end up long in divied out money and short in votes. Because most Americans just naturally are repulsed by covert attempts to buy elections by bribing bloggers, TV personalities and so called, water carrying reporters.
Honor, integrity and truthfulness are three things (unfortunately for Mitt) that money can’t buy. A fact that makes people like Alan West and Michelle Malkin two of the richest people in town.
Well, you got your pravda and you got your conservative pravda.
But don’t call them hypocrits.
And don’t think even for a second that they are influenced by anything other than cool objectivity.
For example, Romney opposed Reagan and even conservatism itself very publicly in 1992 (when he ran to the left of Ted Kennedy for the senate) and by actions every moment up to 2007, when he had a conversion moment. But Mitt is a good guy and he is a conservative now that he is running for president for the 5th year in a row, so it’s ok.
Newt, on the other hand…what a hypocrit he is. Two or three people have flown out of the woodworks to scream how he insulted RR to his face (pretty plausible, right?) in the 70′s and 80′s. Sure, Newt went on to build a conservative coalition that took the House for the first time in 40 years, and stopped Hillarycare, and balanced the budget, and cut taxes, and implemented welfare reform but..hey conservatives…did you get a load of what he said about Reagan? And that is DEFINITELY not ok.
What this fight boils down to is the role of “moderates” is selecting the president. The pundits want to attract moderates with a non-threatening, non-conservative Romney-like candidate with the belief that the base will be persuaded to turn out. This is a losing strategy in my opinion. Give me a candidate like Gingrich who fires up the base and can persuade moderates to join in.
Once again, Mitt Romney supporters are ignoring my really good advice to their candidate’s detriment.
If Mitt Romney wins, I will vote for Mitt Romney with enthusiasm. Same holds true for Santorum.
But you are not going to get us “soft supporters” of Newt Gingrich to hop on board until you have taught Mitt Romney to toughen up and talk straight about Barack Obama and his toadies in the media. Newt Gingrich, warts and all, is an asset to the Conservative cause, I don’t give a damn how many personal foibles you can count.
I don’t want some prettier, smarter version of John McCain to enter three debates with Barack Obama and mealy mouth issues. I want a candidate that will go to the mat with Barack Obama and his horrendous record, tell the media to kiss his *ss and be articulate enough to do it, call liberalism, progressivism, socialism what it really is – an abject failure, ultimately leading to destruction.
So here’s my advice once again. Quit with the leftist tactics of attacking and degrading Newt Gingrich – he is not your enemy. Barack Obama and the MSM are your enemy. Frame your support of Romney in that manner to encourage him to get tough against Democrats – not his Republican opponents.
Romney has the talent and we will follow. But not with the make nice tactics, worry about being accepted by the Washington dinner crowd, milquetoast approach. This election is far too important to follow in Bob Dole, George Bush Sr 1992, and John McCain’s persona. That will surely lose an election and Mitt Romney will join the band of losers if he doesn’t change his approach, his message, and his attitude and change immediately.
I don’t know, Tex. This cuts both ways.
I have never been on Romney’s bandwagon. In fact, I have been strongly opposed to his bandwagon for months. I just never jumped on Newt’s or Santorum’s or most certainly not Paul’s.
However, the Newt assault on the free market (that had Rush comparing it to Fidel Castro, had Hannity slamming it, VDH hammering it, yet it’s “silly” to say???? I don’t consider any of those guys “silly” nor do I think that Romney’s “deep pockets” are paying them, Krauthammer, Ann, Drudge, ACE, Allahpundit, the Powerline guys, the Commentary guys…or anyone else. Talk about silly.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72000.html
I have come to the conclusion that Newt is a sure loser. He is brand damaged and he just can’t keep the lid on his irrational and irresponsible side. He would blow up the entire country for his own vainglory.
I can’t stand Prom King Romney’s “take a knee” approach. It sickens me.
But Romney is not taking down the entire country and is not universally despised by virtually his entire party. He’s a guy that people would “settle” for, not embrace…except the foaming and frothing supporters of Paul and Gingrich….who say they will stay home and shout RINO at the top of their lungs at Chris Christie, Nikki Haley, Mitch Daniels, ….which, after a while, is so ignorant as to lose any credibility.
Gingrich has as many RINO badges as any other “B” team candidate on global warming, individual mandate, ROMNEYCARE, amnesty, …and I still don’t know what he did to help Fannie/Freddie camouflage the leftist collapse of the real estate/mortgage/financial crisis.
Putting all that aside… I would still support Gingrich if he got the nomination, but I am convinced he would lose. Sorry. And that is simply not an option to me.
Romney sucks. I am not now, nor have I ever been on his bandwagon. I have been for months saying we need to erase this horrific mistake of a slate.
But, your point above…cuts both ways. Gingrich is doing the leftists’ dirty work for them. And if virtually EVERY great voice on our side agrees, it’s hardly “silly” to say so.
We don’t disagree this is the backup squad of the best candidates. Not a one of my guys made the list. Don’t mistake my soft support of Gingrich as he being my true choice of candidate. I was more than bothered by Gingrich’s attack on Bain Capital. That was an outrage.
Losing is not an option for me either, hence my ‘undying support’ for Mitt Romney if he gets the nomination.
Anybody that is screaming RINO and threatening to not vote, is a moron that undoubtedly has little clue or fogged memory of how much of an epic failure Barack Obama has been. Worse, running unimpeded without threat of reelection, Obama would only grow more bold and more dangerous. I don’t jest when I say I don’t think America can take four more years of Barack Obama. I’m not entirely sure that we will make it unscathed through the election, much less Jan 2017. I have no idea what is holding this market up, but the current state of affairs goes against every fundamental I was professionally taught years ago, and I since have removed most of my dwindling savings to cash for the first time in my adult life.
But I do disagree that you can flip the script completely. Mitt Romney has shown no stomach for taking the fight to Obama and calling him what he is – a red diaper baby and statist, heavily influenced by a really bad set of characters. Romney resting on his laurels of financial success and being the gentleman will not win this election. You and I know it.
I consider Romney’s debating skills marginally better than Obama, and he has shown absolutely no penchant for calling the media on their propaganda.
Either way, whoever the Republican candidate is short of Ron Paul has my guaranteed vote. I just think Romney must learn the “good traits” of Newt Gingrich that Gingrich possesses to win the election.
“Gingrich has as many RINO badges as any other “B” team candidate on global warming, individual mandate, ROMNEYCARE, amnesty, …and I still don’t know what he did to help Fannie/Freddie camouflage the leftist collapse of the real estate/mortgage/financial crisis.”
And, just what are the ACCOMPLISHMENTS of Gingrich or Romney on those issues?!?
If you’re going on talk alone, Romney is Mister-I-Take-Positions-On-Both-Sides…
…except for ROMNEYCARE.
but I guess accomplishments don’t count…either Socialist ones like RomneyCare or :
“You want a leader? Gingrich led the entire party to an historic victory in 1994 to the first Republican takeover of Congress in 40 years, something even Reagan didn’t accomplish. Then in 1996 and 1998, Gingrich as Speaker led the first reelection of Republican House majorities in since the 1920s. Some embarrassment.”
from: http://spectator.org/archives/2012/01/25/gingrich-frames-the-debate/1
From the start, we were presented with a Republican circus clown car full of state supremicists and no-hopers. The exception, of course, is Ron Paul, this election cycle’s Lyndon LaRouche/Ralph Nader analogue.
Then we have the Lovecraftian monsters inhabiting the White House.
The abyss beckons.
Romney was an Independent before morphing as a RINO to make a name for himself by running against Ted Kennedy in 1994. Just two years earlier as an Independent he donated to Paul Tsongas a very very liberal Senator who was to the left of Kennedy. Tsongas won the NH primary and Clinton finished way behind in 2nd but had more money and spread lies about him in FL and we got saddled with Clinton.
While Newt is not the ideal candidate he will turn out the base to keep the house and maybe win the Senate. Pick Romney and we lose everything.
Listening to talk radio yesterday, it seemed that some people were attacking Marco Rubio for what he said about Newt. What none of them seemed to grasp was that Newt was attacking Romney on illegal immigration. Rubio was simply defending Romney’s position on amnesty. Newt is pro-amnesty. To use John McLame’s expression you can call it a kumquat, but it still is what it is. Rubio is against amnesty for illegals as are many Latinos. Numbers USA gives Newt a D on immigration. Only Ron Paul and Obama are graded lower among Presidential candidates. If illegal immigration is not considered a security issue then what is? If illegal immigration is not a job killer then what is?
Its clear, there are no angels running for President. They all have flaws, shortcomings, and inconsistencies. And, the mud is hip deep being slung, by Newt, Mitt, super pacs, and unions which support Obama.
YOu have to look at their records during their terms in government. Romney has Romneycare to overcome. This takes a lot of the punch against Obamacare off the table. And Mitt’s surrogates have said they will not repeal Obamacare in total. His advisors dreamed up the new Obama housing bailout.
Ok, Newt has lots of inconsistencies. He’s been in and around government a long time. He supported global warming and the individual mandate. Now he’s backed off. But he’s the one who took over the House after 40 years and balanced the budget.
Rick Santorum has sided with the unions on several bills. And he voted in nearly all of bush’s big gov’ment programs. He’s mostly seen as a warrior against abortion and other social issues.
Ron Paul loaded up bills with pork for his district, then voted against the bills when they came up, knowing they would pass anyway. And, his position on Islam is just plain nutty and dangerous.
The only two people I can support are Gingrich or Santorum. But I don’t think Santorum can go the distance. And, Ginrich is just enough a warrior go up against Obama. He’s the one bringing up Obama’s Alinsky tactics and calling him the “food stamp” president. I’m putting my money on Newt, as imperfect as he is.
The problem I have with Romney is that he is not a strong alternative to Obama. He does indeed ‘talk the conservative talk’ but he hasn’t in his actions, shown that he is actually, operationally, a conservative.
Obama is also a slick talker and also, his actions contradict his words.
Therefore, is there much choice between them?
I certainly support the conservative rather than the socialist ideology but, does Romney really offer up even a moderate conservative history?
Gingrich seems to, in contrast to Romney, have less of a gap between his words and his actions.
I’m not a Gingrich fan; I consider him too much part of the Washington establishment and the old guard – but – if I have to choose between him and Romney, and only those two, then, I’d go with Gingrich.
The sole reason is because he is more differentiated from Obama. My concern is that unless the GOP offer up a candidate who is clearly distinct from Obama, then, the focus-on-continuity will enable Obama to win.
Romney differentiates himself but it’s only in his drone-speeches; he doesn’t seem to be ‘bone-deep’ into those differences, ‘bone-deep’ as a conservative. He’s too much like Obama and doesn’t offer a strong and trustworthy alternative.
Can the GOP offer us a different candidate – one whom we can TRUST is a genuine conservative, one who emotionally FEELS that he is a conservative, and one without the baggage of Gingrich? Can they? WILL THEY?
You just know that were Romney to become President, he’d just surround himself with a bunch of weenies with MBAs from Ivy League schools who’d plan, analyze, task force,focus group, Gantt Chart, MS Project, and all that crap every single thing they did. It would be like Democrats with their “We Can Do It Better” game that they use to stop any popular Republican initiative.
I don’t know how many of you have worked with a large organization where a new boss brings in a bunch of weenies with MBAs who don’t know a damned thing about what you do or why you do it but who immediately tell you how stupid you are. It is a good way to get hated.
No one, in these comments, has addressed the true issue with these candidates. Lets look at, accountability, responsibility, morals and #1, INTEGRITY. And these people are role models for our children? NOT. Open your brain, look and SEE what you have going on here. The only candidate with the above is Ron Paul. If you believe all the hype and choreographed rhetoric of these people then I do have the Brooklyn Bridge out here in the desert for sale…
Please define what you mean by ‘integrity’.
You are missing a key attribute: intelligence and knowledge. Ron Paul’s absymal ignorance of the causes of Middle East unrest, and his attributing such merely to US ‘imperialist interference’ in their nations – is an example of a profound lack of knowledge. And – doesn’t he have the intelligence to do some research and examine the history of the ME, the nature of their societal and economic structures, the vast demographic changes over the past few decades – and come up with some other causes than ‘the US’?
Ron Paul is an anti-Jewish, neo-Confederate. That is a role model for what?
bobi becker,
Newt has ADMITTED TO and MARRIED his ‘affairs’.
This why RoveRomney has to be defeated.
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2012/01/video-of-newt-bashing-reagan-is-bogus.html
It shows the full context of one of the Drudge smears this morning.
What Gingrich said was that Bush I would lose in 1988 if he tried to stand pat on Reaganism without adapting it to the new issues that America was concerned about AFTER the successes of the prior eight years. He wasn’t slamming RR at all.
The smear is a flagrant lie. It’s a distillation of the RoveRomney campaign, not different in any way from what Axelrod will do to any Republican candidate.
Romney has to run a smear campaign. He can’t run on his record, because his record is liberal.
Note: the relevant part is about 3 1/2 minutes into the video, not 2 1/2 minutes.
Michael Reagan fully supports Newt too.
“If Sowell is correct, and I think that there’s a better than even chance that he is, then if Romney doesn’t win the Florida GOP primary, he is toast.”
Wishful thinking.
They told us that Mittens Romney IS the inevitable champion for the GOP canditacy! Even the Marxist media told us it was cast in stone! And when that Evile Newt went on the (lookie whats coming) attack from ZerO`s on arrow quiver. That ZerO had his reelection camaign up and running since the day he walked in to the White House! And all that prep to take out Mr.Romneycare going up in dust! It was not what Zero saw in his tea leaves or the stinking GOP!
They told us that Mittens Romney IS the inevitable champion for the GOP canditacy! [sic]
That may have been the well deserved kiss of death for his candidacy. Many of us don’t appreciate being told that sort of thing.
The people who are slamming Gingrich for the various associations and contracts he’s had since leaving office are either disingenuous or simply naive. If you have been a Republican officeholder, appointee or prominent operative at any level and have be embroiled in controversy of any sort, whether or not of your making, you are toast with Republicans. If you’re not of independent means, you have to take work where and from whom you can get it. Republican insiders and officeholders are so conflict averse, so afraid of confrontation, that anyone who has caused conflict is almost persona non grata among the Beltway Bandits and the officeholders.
Gingrich was a lightning rod for controversy from the time he entered the House and became the personification of evil to the Left while at the same time upsetting the applecarts of a lot of “old boys” on the Republican side of the aisle. When he was lynched, both sides of the aisle piled on and he was left with good connections who didn’t want to be seen with him.
The avoid controversy at all costs is the reason Republicans have been so singularly inept in dealing with the Saul Alinsky/public employee union tactics that the Democrats began using against GWB and that inform everything the the Soros/Obama Junta does. I don’t know that Newts baggage and in your face manner can get him elected, but I know from first hand experience that if you think being nice to Democrats will get you anything, you’d best stock up on the K-Y.
Art,
Am I the only one who ‘sees’ the irony in the fact that a guy like Newt married his ‘paramours’ vs a guy like Romney who comes from a ‘religion’ where men believed in having ‘multiple’ spouses?
*chuckles*
And in which many still do believe in it; yeah, more than a little ironic. I ain’t going to get too righteous about Gingrich because I know first hand how incredibly attractive an aging, balding guy starting to develop a bit of a paunch can be to all the young hotties around government if he has a little money and power, or controls money and power. A Speaker of the House could probably have a different one every night during budget time if he were so inclined. That said, I’m not giving him any kudos because I was a big a horndog as any and I managed to never break up a marriage, provoke a scandal, or get a headline, and if I can, anybody can.
Nobody is perfekt!
Romney is already finished. He is like the dear a hunter shot in the lung. He is still walking but death will come soon to his campain. Since Reagan the GOP candidate who wins Iowa loses the nomination. The candidate who wins South Carolina wins the nomination. History says Gingrich is going to win the nomination. Superstitious republicans will vote for Gingrich making the self fulfilling prophecy stated above come true.
NO 0bama/McCain redux 2.0.
My heart can’t take it!
More essential reading for Ed Wallis and the withnewt-twits. Is it any wonder that so few of those who worked with Gingrich in Congress support him.
An excerpt:
Here is Gingrich: “Measured against the scale and momentum of the Soviet empire’s challenge, the Reagan administration has failed, is failing, and without a dramatic change in strategy will continue to fail. . . . President Reagan is clearly failing.” Why? This was due partly to “his administration’s weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail”; partly to CIA, State, and Defense, which “have no strategies to defeat the empire.” But of course “the burden of this failure frankly must be placed first on President Reagan.” Our efforts against the Communists in the Third World were “pathetically incompetent,” so those anti-Communist members of Congress who questioned the $100 million Reagan sought for the Nicaraguan “contra” rebels “are fundamentally right.” Such was Gingrich’s faith in President Reagan that in 1985, he called Reagan’s meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev “the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with Neville Chamberlain in 1938 in Munich.”
Mark Levin, who says he would vote for Santorum if the election was held today, has devoted about an hour of his show today to rebutting the outrageous lies about Gingrich’s Reagan credentials. I’ve never heard him more worked up. How significant is it when somebody who isn’t even supporting a candidate devotes an hour of airtime to defending him? A lot, I’d say.
Of course, Levin was in the RR administration, and is PUBLICALLY and OPENLY defending Newt, not writing snide asides and pulling little clips out of context from 20 year old clips. Or in other words, Levin is being honest…a alien concept to the RoveRomney fans.
Anybody can find the full context of the lies on the internet.
I posted one of them higher up in this thread.
Turns out that the McRomney defenders of “principles” are equivalent to obama when it comes to protecting their own tickets to the big house. The word I use to describe the tactic is “criminal”, because it’s a lot worse than lying. Now they have done it to Guiliani, Fred Thompson, McCain, Huckabee, Perry, Cain, Gingrich and who knows how many before them. Why, it’s almost like there is a pattern.
And they have a lot of apologists too.
This Terry Gain tool is a particularly breathless one.
But he is a nothing. What makes you wonder is what motivates people like Coulter, Steyn, CK and Wills. In CK’s case, of course, he was on Mondale’s campaign team, so you can see how conservative he is. The others? Who knows. Jealousy, money, hatred…it could be a lot of things.
I take it you have never been mistaken in an assessment. Virtually every one of the Republican establishment had made similar statements about RR. History informs us of our mistakes, hopefully we recognise them as such. Are you srue Newt retains that opinion?
You lost me at “Newtwit”.
FONGU
It is categorically true that it was as dangerous for Reagan to meet with Gorbachev as it was for Chamberlain to meet with Hitler, maybe moreso. In both England and America, Hitler enjoyed considerably more support in ’38 than the Soviets enjoyed in either Country in the late ’70s. Spinning on the Republican side is no more attractive nor less vulnerable logically or factually than spinning on the Democrat side.
Most of the damage done to Romney, he did to himself. First, ObamaCare=RomneyCare that is pretty much accepted fact by most voters. He insists they are different, but can’t make the case. Second, Instead of getting out front and explaining how Bain Capital salvaged the companies they could, thereby saving jobs and prividing a platform to create jobs, he allowed someone else to define the issue. Third, being too cute by half with his financials made him look like he had something to hide, and therefore a crook. Gingrich did him a favor! If Romney survives those two issues are dead.
Great break-down.
I will vote for ‘Rom0bama’ with my nose held.
I will vote for Gingrich with my fists in the air full of adrenalin.
I will vote for Paul as a last ditch death knell.
God save America.
Something to consider; 2/3!!! House & Senate!!
Like O’dumbo, like Romney.
Avoid at all costs talking about your policies and your record. Smear your opponent with lies and innuendo at every opportunity.
Romney and B. Hussein are much more alike than different.
Between the two of them, you’ll find not one ball.
Exactly, my dear friend. I hope all is well with you (by the way).
It’s ear-tweaking that Romney is so ‘overtly endorsed’ by the Left AND the Right. Very discomfiting.
It makes you wonder how many Leftists have infiltrated the ‘right’ in order to ‘cheat’ the system of ‘checks & balances’. Blue dogs and Rinos and Dinos oh my!
Romney isn’t afraid of money or capitalism but that hardly makes him a ‘Conservative’. Soros anyone? Anyone?
Balderdash!
DOUBLE balderdash evennnnnnnnn!
♥♥
Here’s another voter who does not want Romney as the Republican nominee, and the more that the Repulican establishment and the lame stream media manuever on his behalf the less use I have for him.
Newt’s no Washington outsider either, but he makes the insiders nervous and that’s a point in his favor. If he’s nominated, though, we are going to have to endure one h’ll of a lot of lies, vitriol, and personal attacks- on him and on us- to see him elected.
For now, one Mich. primary vote for Santorum. He’s not a Newt, but has been strong enough to stay consistant and effective on the issues that matter, he comes across as honest and accessible, and he is a real conservative.
I still think a dead-locked and then open Convention may be our best hope; maybe a new candidate now, even if he’s too late to win enough delegates, is a way to that end. Better be a strong, hard charger with a good record and not a lot of unchecked baggage. Sarah?
I think this postmortem of Romney’s eventual loss and who is to blame is a tad premature so I won’t bother to read it.