Gingrich’s Temperament a Major Stumbling Block for GOP Voters
Newt Gingrich’s mercurial temperament has been on display since he entered the race for the GOP nomination for president. It helped him in South Carolina when in the last debate before the election, CNN’s John King asked him if he would like to comment on his second former wife’s claim in an interview with ABC that he had approached her about having an open marriage relationship. The response was classic Newt. “No,” he replied, “but I will.” Then he launched into an ad hominem attack on the mainstream media and John King. It resonated with the audience and with voters, and Gingrich won the Palmetto State primary in a landslide.
After that humiliating defeat, Romney went on the offensive. With laser-guided precision, he pummeled Gingrich in Florida with tag lines such as “unhinged” and “Dr. Newt and Mr. Hyde,” hoping that the former House speaker would lose his cool. It worked to perfection. As the Sunshine State campaign drew to a close, Romney said, “He [Gingrich] has been flailing around a bit trying to go after me for one thing or the other. You just watch it and shake your head. It has been kind of painfully revealing to watch.”
That was an apt assessment — one to which GOP voters across the nation have been gravitating slowly but surely since the Iowa caucus in early January despite Romney’s well-publicized gaffes about enjoying firing people and the poor not needing help. Romney was suggesting in a not-so-subtle way that Gingrich’s South Carolina victory was a fluke by conjuring up a mental image of the former speaker as a punch-drunk boxer staggering around the ring swinging wildly at nothing in particular and occasionally landing a punch. Romney staffers admitted “that they were pleased with how rattled Gingrich seemed to be.”
C. Edmund Wright, a copywriter and consultant for Winning Our Future, a PAC that supports Newt Gingrich and other conservative causes, described Gingrich’s Florida effort as “a childish food fight.” He said,
[F]or some inexplicable reason, he [Gingrich] wiped that campaign gold [from South Carolina] off his hands and abandoned the gold mine. He quickly returned to the tar pit of the food fight with Mitt. And it has been all downhill from there. Frankly, it was stunning to observe.
Emmett Tyrrell, founder and editor-in-chief of The American Spectator, said,
Newt lost support in his last week in Florida because conservatives gave him a closer look. Sure, we loved his one-liners singeing the tail feathers of the liberal media and politicians. Yet, we have to put someone up against President Barack Obama who can win. Moreover, we have to put someone in the White House who can govern. With Newt, we would be explaining his gyrations every few days during the campaign. And in the unlikely event that he should win, we would be spending the next four years apologizing for his extravagance.
Florida Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam probably gave the most succinct appraisal of Gingrich’s Florida performance:
You know, I worked with Speaker Gingrich when I was in Washington. And I feel that his troubled past, his record, his erratic temperament, is ill-suited for the presidency. He was a great speaker, he was a revolutionary leader. But you want a real practical, conservative temperament in the White House, and I have concerns about Newt’s temper.
Dick Morris, a political guru and a former adviser to President Clinton, had a similar view:
Mitt Romney’s win in Florida reflects a basic fear voters have of nominating former Speaker Newt Gingrich. Despite his obvious brilliance, creative ideas, and stimulating turns of phrase, they worry that he will come across as too strident to voters and will cost the Republican Party the presidency.
Women in particular are concerned about Gingrich. Morris says that they “worry that his personal baggage may impair his ability to defeat Barack Obama in November” and that Romney is “the more electable of the two [candidates].” Clearly, Gingrich has a gender gap problem, and it’s probably caused by his unpredictable behavior. Whatever the cause may be, though, it would spell disaster in a general election.
Contrasting Romney and Gingrich, Yuval Levin, writing in the National Review, said,
Romney has a thoroughly executive disposition: He appears to have a very organized mind, intense discipline, a general sense of calm and restraint, and a systematic approach to everything he does.He expects change to result from a process, and so thinks about politics in terms of process. He exhibits each of these qualities to a fault. …
I think Gingrich has the intensity and the understanding of the importance of the moment that many Republican voters are looking for — he radiates a sense that the choice before us is utterly crucial and decisive…, and with regard to the coming election a lot of Republicans share that sense. I certainly do. He also of course has a record in high office that includes some impressive accomplishments during his speakership — welfare reform, the balanced budget — though also some very costly failures that seemed to flow from deficiencies in his temperament or his style of management.
On Thursday, just two days before the Nevada primary, Newt’s temperament and his campaign’s overall lack of discipline came into play again. The saga began on Wednesday, when real estate tycoon and reality TV star Donald Trump announced that he would be traveling to Nevada to make a “major announcement.” Immediately, Gingrich advisers spread the news that Trump was coming to Las Vegas to support their man, but he took the stage with Romney instead and endorsed him. With Trump at his side, Romney feigned surprise: “There are some things you just can’t imagine happening. This is one of them.” An obviously dejected Gingrich responded by saying that he hadn’t expected Trump’s endorsement and that he couldn’t “be bothered with the drama.”
Despite his strong showing in South Carolina, Gingrich hasn’t demonstrated the kind of discipline, enthusiasm, effort, and temperament that will be required to win the 2012 presidential election. According to Jack Cashill, an independent writer and producer and the executive editor of Ingram’s magazine,
Were he not running, the other candidates would likely have contented themselves with wrapping pre-packaged platitudes around debate questions, much as candidates of both parties have done in every election post-Reagan. … It also forced the survivors to hone their own speaking and debating skills. As Mitt Romney accurately argued in his Florida acceptance speech, “A competitive primary does not divide us. It prepares us.”
Cashill is correct. Gingrich has forced the other candidates, particularly Mitt Romney, to elevate their performance to a higher level. That seems to be all that GOP voters want from Newt. They are winnowing the field, and it looks as though Romney is their choice. They see him as a safer bet than Gingrich in a head-to-head showdown with President Obama. Political leanings aside, that’s what the facts suggest.






It’s time to get over his temperament – he and Santorum are the best candidate for the future of the world during this coming crisis. If Iran was not building nuclear arms, Romney would be fine.
It’s true, Newt is his own man, and he has *real* reactions. The very things that pundits keep saying are his negatives … are the things I like.
Here’s Lindsay Grahm – a contemporary of Newt’s while he was Speaker – saying he thinks they were too hard on Newt, and the charges of being erratic aren’t the whole picture of the difficulties of governing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=achGLEewq88
p.s. has anyone noticed that Romney spent about $20 per vote in Florida while Newt spent about $6 for each vote he got? And that where Newt won, turnout was higher, and where Romney won, turnout was lower. And that Romney is getting less of a percentage of votes in Nevada this year compared to his take in 2008?
Gawd, I wish the pundits would quit telling us Romney is “electable” and that’s the reason to vote for him. It’s not true.
What has Romney done to earn the voters trust? I don’t mean “talked about”. I mean what has he DONE?
I like what Romney is saying. If he does everything he says, it will be wonderful. But talk is cheap. I want to know what he has done to earn my trust?
For comparison Gingrich was responsible for the biggest spending cuts and created the only balanced budget since Calvin Coolidge was President in 1929.
Now tell me what has Romney done?
Your point is well taken. But the issue is not about what Romney has done but about what in the mind of the average voter he will do. Sadly, most voters probably have little idea who the man is. “He was a governor or somethin’ ” would probably be the response of a large segment of potential voters when asked. Like it or not, his image in their minds will be shaped by the mainstream media. The MSM will have a far easier time making Newt look like an incompetent boob as opposed to the much more presidential appearing persona of Mitt. Obama must be defeated and Mitt can do that. That having been accomplished our work has just begun. We must then use everything at our disposal to force Mitt to preside as a conservative by constantly pushing conservative legislation at him. The choice is either that scenario or the nomination of a candidate who sounds good but gets whipped by the Chicago thugs and their MSM propaganda machine. Said it before….Ronnie is dead.
On what foundation do you base your conclusion that Mitt better can beat Obama?
I have heard it over and over again. They said the same about McCain. The Democrats said it about John Kerry. People like you think that people who do not evoke emotions are stronger candidates. Why? It’s like saying, a woman, you don’t love, will be a better wife, because you don’t dislike her. I think Romney will have problems getting the vote out. I think a lot of Republican voters will stay home. With that said, if he can convince me that he wont be another Scott Brown disappointment, I will support him.
Sarah Palin can evoke strong political emotions. I would gladly vote for her for president. Or Herman Cain. But the MSM has done their dirty work. They are damaged goods and would likely lose in a general election. Whatever baggage Newt does not have the MSM will give to him and the baggage he does have will make their accusations plausible to the average uninformed voter. They turned Herman into a sexual predator and Sarah into an airheaded ditz in the eyes of most potential voters. Yet both speak with passion and love of country. What do you think they’ll do to Newt? We live in a country which had a majority percentage of the voting public that was dumb enough to vote for some unqualified jerk who dashed around the podium shouting “hope and change” as his only qualification. That’s the scary reality.
Read Jim Baker directly below….he nails it:
“I feel we need to convince stupid people that they aren’t living their lives for the benefit of their government, first. It has taken over five generations for the collective regressionists to do this much damage to our republic and we won’t get it all back in just a few years.”
We have to work at this by methodically going about it. This can’t be a crap shoot where we offer a risky candidate whose main attribute is a message that we love but who is easily painted by the MSM as some off-the-wall loon to the uninformed majority. I say Mitt is a starting point only and he can win. That’s vital. Then our work begins. Nominate Newt and you get a great message but risk having no starting point. By the way, I predict that Republicans will pour out of the woodwork for this election since so deep and widespread is the revulsion for the Obama administration. Enough to carry Newt? I doubt it.
Newt is erratic and unfit to be president. His vaunted ‘big ideas’ stem from a superficial fund of knowledge and a shallow intellect. If I have to hear ‘frankly’ and ‘the fact is’ endlessly until November, I will puke. Two out of three wives think that he is a jerk; majority rules.
Why is it that women see through him and many men do not? I agree with Carla and find his supporters unfathomable. See http://clarespark.com/2012/01/21/the-persistence-of-white-racism/. It has a few lines about Newt wife #2.
If that WERE true – which it ISN’T – tell us just WHY it is that SOuth Carolina women overwhelmingly supported Gingrich?!
Perhaps it’s different for women WITHOUT an axe to grind……..
The South Carolina primary took place BEFORE the revelations about Gingrich’s “open marriage” suggestion to his mistress 1.0/wife 2.0.
Those revelations came a week before the FL primary, and clearly appalled a lot of female Republican voters. Romney beat Gingrich by 22 points among female GOP voters in FL.
“Open marriage” is something that 98% of married women never want to hear from their husbands.
The ranting of Gingrich’s ex-wife was the occasion that prompted Newt’s evisceration of John King during last debate before the South Carolina primary. Why do you categorize her claims as Gingrich’s proposal?
Pretty, rich guy on the left, fat old guy on the right; your decision process is obvious.
yep another pro Romney anti everybody else article, the media is all in for mcRomney Rhino.
Why is it that women faint at Obama rallies?
I don’t see through Sarah Palin for visceral reasons.
Like me she has a disabled child and I guess I’ve heard some of the horrible things she has. Actually thats enough reason right there for me.
Add to that, she is a stupid hick from a state college who doesn’t know her place and well she’d have to be pretty damn bad not to get my vote. Same reason I have to admit I liked Perry.
I would turn it around and wonder why women always managed to be catty about female candidates. But I didn’t because they dont always.
Ex-wives are not good indicators or a person. They are ususally vengeful. Newt has displayed his temper and justly so. Romney, the media, and x-wives have ganged up on him with the sole purpose of destroying any chance to win. What is wrong with a candidate that has the knowledge, the know how, and a dream. Romney plays the weather vain rather well, he will blow in which ever way the winds of potential voters prevail. He constantly lauds MA health care, continues to spread the same lie about Gingrich even in face of evidence that proves his accusations to be untrue. He supports the NDAA despite its inflamatory portion that allows the government to apprehend American citizens as terrorist even when there are avenues through charges of treason or sedition. So what makes him more electible?
Well said, Carla:
You must have watched the hour long Video on YouTube of Newt bloviating about being a “Wilsonian PROGRESSIVE” and saying our Constitution is obsolete! He is a lying HYPOCITE to now run around the country, waving the Constitution and saying he is a “Reagan Convervative.” Newt will be anything he has to be to reach his goals. He is a classic Narcissistic Megalomaniac. Here’s Newt, in his own words:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eyeB36ctO5I
Gingrich’s TemperamentRomney’s Bootlicking Shills a Major Stumbling Block for GOP Voters.Enough already of the Newt spitballs.
+1.
Newt’s temperament is sometimes a problem. Romney is ALWAYS a problem.
VOTE FOR
Mitt “I Like Firing People” Romney,
Mitt “I’m Not Concerned About the Very Poor” Romney, or
Mitt “Don’t Believe My Record, I’m a true Conservative” Romney.
Because GOP Voters don’t see Romney as a problem…
…noooooooooooo………not at all……………../s
“Mitt “I Like Firing People” Romney,
Mitt “I’m Not Concerned About the Very Poor” Romney, ”
Well, sadly it appears that the MSM has gotten to you. Both of those statements in full context are sensible. Wouldn’t you like to have the option of firing an unsatisfactory health insurance provider? That’s the context of Mitt’s statement. Do we need to provide more government services to the already largely “professional poor”? We have showered our concern on the poor to the tune of trillions of dollars. How much more of a shower do they need? That’s the context of that statement and it makes sense. “Mitt “Don’t Believe My Record, I’m a true Conservative”. In full context, where did you you read or hear him say that? Anyway, here’s a great idea. Let’s nominate Newt and lose the election. At least we will have stood on principle. How’s that for great thinking?
what about romney’s idiotic sentiments regarding the minimum wage?
conservatism is a foreign language to romney
Here’s “what about” it. Romney can win. Newt can’t. Romney has all indications of being a RINO. However, legislation is developed in the congress. Romney should face the chioce of vetoing conservative legislation or accepting it. He will accept it IF it is presented to him. It’s that “if” that we conservatives must insist upon thru pressure on the Congress. I’ll gladly take that option to re-electing a Marxist. It’s the hand that we have been dealt so let’s make the most of it. The Democrats know how to win elections. They get behind their candidates and they go all out. Give them credit. Any party that can take a lightweight blowhard community organizer and propel him to the White House, or a half-witted bug-eyed woman and make her Speaker of the House drserves credit. Republicans whine that their candidate isn’t exactly what they want and lose elections and the country to Marxists. Great!
You got any ideas for how we eliminate minimum wage laws? It is a stupid political football that the Democrats kick every fourth summer and will kick again this year. And Republicans, who are committed to the ideas of the free market, will oppose it again. And once again, they will be pounded for not caring about the poor because of their opposition. And a couple of them will lose their re-election bid over this. And so, we will get our cost of living increases in the minimum wage as sure as the sun comes up. Why give the Democrats a vote on this every election season? Sometimes, smart is knowing when you can’t win. Now if you and a lot of other good people decide to make opposition to minimum wage laws your avocation, and manage to make sense to the stupid among us, you can make opposing the minimum wage laws an issue a Republican candidate for President can run on. I feel we need to convince stupid people that they aren’t living their lives for the benefit of their government, first. It has taken over five generations for the collective regressionists to do this much damage to our republic and we won’t get it all back in just a few years.
romney could very easily and without committing himself explained that the minimum wage permanently inhibits a certain percentage of the potential workforce from ever getting work– the minimum wage is a tool for the unions to maintain their monopoly and stifle competition from those people, who after a couple years of getting the basic and necessary skills to advance, would be in position to compete with the union workers
to not have this debate (which like most others would benefit conservatism by discrediting leftism) plays into the hands of the left
the left will tar and spin and lie about anything so to be fearful of what one says because of “how it may scare independents” is the same course the republicans choose election in and election out– this is total deja vu from 2008
if i am going to cast my vote for romney he better show me something- even if it is lip service- right now i am being painted into a corner by the establishment spin and being asked to vote for a candidate who, from my perspective, is mushy moderate at best
I don’t get the “conservative” kneejerk objection to a federal or state minimum wage. The Fair Labor Standards Act was one of the most successful New Deal laws when one considers what it was enacted for. An emerging industrial America and its attendent technological development and consumer economy both spelled the end of subsistence farming and ranching and caused a tremendous surplus of labor in all the farming and ranching areas of the Country and especially in the former Confederate States which had in the main been exploited for commodities but otherwise left to their own devices since US troops departed in 1876. In The South virtually the entire Black population was engaged tenant farming, share-cropping, and intermittent agricultural and other low skill labor and lived in penury and, all to often, crime. The non-landowning Whites lived little better. Attempts to introduce manufacturing to The South had brought little change in the low standard of living because any attempt by labor, almost entirely White, to improve wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment was met by the threat to bring in cheaper Black labor. Consequently, Southern labor was in an economic death spiral and the appalling poverty in rural America, especially the rural South was an embarrassment to a Country now a major power. Additionally, the South and other rural areas were a hotbed of populist and racialist political agitation, see, e.g., Tom Watson, Huey Long, various KKK leaders, etc. The FLSA put a floor under wages and conditions to stop the death spiral and end some of the more abusive conditions. This never was really a prop for unions because until WWII almost all unionization was in the North and the West Coast and in the mining and railroad industries and union wages and conditions were far, far above the minima established by the FLSA.
Fast forward to today the equivalent death spiral is only played out with low-skill labor versus illegal immigrants and in the “competition” between minimum wage/low wage work and social welfare benefits. Frankly, in the more affluent states if one only has entry level skills, one is foolish to work at the minimum wage rather than live on welfare, which offers a much higher standard of living. The only people who care about the minimum wage for other than perceived ideological reasons are chicken plants in The South, fast food operators in the less affluent parts of the Country, some retail in the less afluent parts of the Country, and the hotel, restaurant, and cabaret operators though for somewhat different reasons. Outside those circumstances, NO experienced employee works for the federal minimum wage ANYWHERE in the Country and many states have considerably higher state minima for wages, hours, and conditions.
The most common heart-tugger on federal MW is the perceived deleterious effect on youth employment. I think if Gingrich were successful in replacing union janitors with high school kids in the inner city, the kids would quickly quit and go back to welfare which pays better and requires less work. But, if one really does believe that MW is a deterrent to youth employment there is a simple solution: do it the way the unions do apprentices. First, I support child labor laws generally; kids should be in school and to be successful, they need to study, so there should be stringent limits on child labor. So, we put a floor under child labor with, say, a prohibition below 12-13, four hours a day and 20 hours a week during the school year from 14 to graduation or 18. Then we do wages the way apprenticeship programs work: for the new, completely inexperienced employee, say, 50% of the federal minimum wage as a minimum, after 1000 hours, about two years, then 75% MW, and that should pretty much get a young worker out of school, give them some actual experience, and prepare them for fulltime adult work. I’m not sure I buy the compulsory school attendence until 18 that some are talking about, but I certainly would support considering anyone a “youth worker” up until HS graduation or 18, whichever comes first. But all should understand that the greatest competitor to the young worker in retail and similar traditional “starter” jobs is the fact that the tax code greatly favors a computer purchase over a wage payment. Knowing that you can only work 20 hours a week and for only 75% wages until you graduate might provide some incentive to finish school but more like would just provide more incentive to go on welfare in the states that don’t take work requirements seriously.
So, instead of bleating about repealing minimum wage laws, something the unions and Democrats can reliably prod conservatives/Republicans to do at will, and thus produce more Democrats, somebody could perhaps propose doing something positive with MW laws. And, yes, I know, that puts me squarely in the Romneyesque statist, technocrat, squish, or whatever word Rush, Mark, Glen, and Sean are teaching you these days, but those of us who’ve actually had to deal with passing laws and developing labor policy sometimes have a different view of government than those who see it only through a computer screen.
Principles of freedom and individual rights–the rights of an employer and employee (or group of employees) to freely trade and barter their jobs and labor–is the best and only moral argument to make here. A principled politician would not stoop to arguing AGAINST mimium wage laws–instead argue morally and passionately FOR freedom and against all the impediments to freedom these laws represent. It is a moral, self-confident defender of freedom people hunger for.
If only a national candidate would discover this, they would win and win big–even with all the statists trends going on today. Most Americans still profess a love of freedom and none want to be seen as in opposition to it. But no national politician seems to know how to tap into the American passion for freedom properly.
@David Wall – Well, David, a national candidate might discover all that if he suddenly discovered that more than about 10% of the electorate would accept a libertarian argument about it.
Art–
You might be right, but yours is a hard position to support empirically since no one has tried to run on a pricipled platform of economic freedom in our lifetime, certainly not Mr. Paul–who, by the way, I would never vote for.
That horse ran out of the barn seventy-odd years ago; there is some level of state support and intervention that the vast majority of the American people demand. They may scream for reduction of government, but they really mean reduction of government that doesn’t benefit them personally. The policymaker’s job is to find the line between enough and too much.
i have a small business with a few employees earning minimum wage and as i run on really thin margins this has a direct impact on my family’s livelihood–
not only does the minimum wage prevent some from ever being hired it also seems to provoke a minimum amount output in the quality of the labor received
if the minimum wage goes up in my state i will be laying off my hourly employees–each of whom has never had the muster to rise to a managerial caliber (which would not require very much as i own a coin laundromat and the main skills are showing up to work on time and doing some janitorial (god forbid) work as well as keeping their sticky fingers out of the change box) and, as a result, allow me to expand my business
the very thought that a disconnected third party can arbitrarily change the wage and, basically, “tax” me again throws me into a fit…
Art Chance — That horse ran out of the barn seventy-odd years ago; there is some level of state support and intervention that the vast majority of the American people demand.
That’s exactly what’s wrong with the liberal Romney; he actually believes in the right of the majority over the freedom and liberty of individuals.
@daxypoo – there’s a legitimate argument as to whether you’re engaged in interstate commerce and thus subject to US jurisdiction. Defeating Comrade Obama might help with deciding that.
@MSM or whatever – why don’t you people use your names? The US is republican democracy, not some libertarian utopia. The Founders were a lot smarter than to turn governance over to the general run of idiots.
Art Chance: The Founders were a lot smarter than to turn governance over to the general run of idiots.
Art Chance channels Mitt Romney’s view of America.
Art Chance: why don’t you people use your names?
‘You people’ as in Mitt?
Yeah, I’m sure these are “out of context” to. I think something other than the MSM has gotten to you.
“I think people recognize that I’m not a partisan Republican, that I’m someone who is moderate, and my views are progressive,”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu0zQRUCDlM
“We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts. I support them; I won’t chip away at them,” he said as governor. “I believe they help protect us and provide for our safety.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HzYTdM9b5F4
Sorry, hit “submit” too early, this top one should be deleted.
Thanks,
Yeah, I’m sure these are “out of context” to. I think something other than the MSM has gotten to you.
“I think people recognize that I’m not a partisan Republican, that I’m someone who is moderate, and my views are progressive,”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu0zQRUCDlM
“We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts. I support them; I won’t chip away at them,” he said as governor. “I believe they help protect us and provide for our safety.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HzYTdM9b5F4
“Each governor gets an outgoing portrait of himself to hang in the State House and he chose to have an image of a notebook with a medical symbol on it to immortalize that policy. It was his biggest accomplishment,” says Sarah Iselin, president of the Blue Cross Foundation of Massachusetts, a non-profit organization dedicated to healthcare and part of the Blue Cross Blue Shield insurance company.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/01/23/the-one-success-story-romney-cant-discuss/
I’ve very sorry, but to speak of Mitt Romney as anything other than a mirror image of Obama is “out of context”.
We have showered our concern on the poor to the tune of trillions of dollars. How much more of a shower do they need?
Well, under a President Romney, whatever kind of shower is needed to fix the safety net.
I’m pretty sure Romney is of the school that believes “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
Less so that MSM has gotten to *ME*, chump…
…YOU clearly are not thinking how Romney’s incompetent brain and mouth comes across to most Americans.
Yeah, yeah…“in context, it makes sense”. BULL!
You MEAN: if you argue, explain and excuse away the utterly thoughtless and offensive nature of Romney’ owrdsw, they make sense in an academic context.
Nice try…but FAIL in November with the voters.
UNLEASH GINGRICH IN 2012!
dont believe the brainwashing rhetoric of the media constantly repeating the same line that Romney is the more “electable” and the “only one” who can beat Obama.
Ed Wallis is an Obama campaign worker. He uses criticism of Gingrich as his launching pad for his trashing of Romney. These one sentence tagging lines are being planted everywhere because the Obama campaign knows how stupid most people are. That is how they got this communist elected last time and they are working hard at a repeat performance. But I am not complaining about Ed, at least he will work for his candidate.
Ed Wallis is an Obama campaign worker.
You LIE! This is FALSE, moron.
He uses criticism of Gingrich as his launching pad for his trashing of Romney.
I trash Romney with HIS OWNstupid non-conservative statist words, moron.
These one sentence tagging lines are being planted everywhere because the Obama campaign knows how stupid most people are.
Don’t like my writing style? Bite me…then go to NRO for more flowery RINO-speak.
That is how they got this communist elected last time and they are working hard at a repeat performance. But I am not complaining about Ed, at least he will work for his candidate.
MY candidate is GINGRICH, moron. It is you RomneyBots who use Obama’s tactics and project their own conduct onto others. THAT WON’T WORK WITH ME. You FAIL!
By the way, Jim…do you realize that YOU YOURSELF are saying WITH OUR OWN WORDS that Romney IS THE WRONG CANDIDATE, because he uses words which
the other candidate (let me spell it out for you, fool: O-B-A-M-A)
can and will use for he himself to win!
GEE…you’re *so* intellectual…for a Romney supporter.
What I should have said is that I believe you are either an Obama troll or you are just plain stupid. It could be the latter. If you are just plain stupid, I apologize for calling you an Obama troll.
stop drinking the Arnold Romney koolaid
Anyone who is a Real Conservative who is thinking about voting for Newt Gingrich needs to see the YouTube Video that is Gingrich on Steriods, in his own words. He says he is a “Wilsonian PROGRESSIVE” who greatly admires one of the most vile,racist, propaganda-pushing Democrat President in our history, Woodrow Wilson. When asked who is favorite U S President is, he quickly, unequivocally said Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He also says our sacred document, the U S Constitution is “obsolete.”
Now Newt is running around the country, waving the Constitution and saying he is a “Ronald Reagan Republican.” Really, Newt? Can you say HYPOCRITE?
It didn’t take me long to find this Video because I wanted to make sure of my candidate before I voted for him. Now you couldn’t pay me enough to vote for this liar. Here it is, nothing is taken out of context. Newt in his own words:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eyeB36ctO5I
Ed Wallis:
Cheap Trick, Ed Wallis. Those words were taken out of context. If you want to see some of Newts’ explosive statements stating his is a LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE which he refer’s to as a “Wilsonian PROGRESSIVE,” you can see him here in his own words:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eyeB36ctO5I
PS: Newt also says our Constitution is Obsolete. This man is NOT a Conservative!!!
If you want the perfectly coifed, tell me what you want me to be, and I’ll say it, for President, then Mitt’s your man. He’ll be the best manager of the welfare state. Just listen to his rhetoric. He’s just fine with the people sitting on welfare because well that’s what we have to offer the poor. Make ‘em comfortable and let ‘em live “over there”. Where are the aspirations of getting these people off welfare? Where’s the vouchers for better schools? By the way, this would be a much better use for the Education Department.
So Newt’s isn’t perfect. But he was Saul Alinskied by Romney. Yes, by the Mormon with the perfect wife and sons. Underhanded and very dirty. Makes one think that old Tricky Dick is back. Then he gets that weird smile and looks above it all, and says, Newt is failing about. Creepy. We need a fighter who will not only corral the Demoncrats, but also the big spenders in the Repubrats. If you want the same old spending wrapped up in a new package, then Mitt your man.
Romney is far from perfect but your attack fails to acknowledge the leftist attack by Gingrich and Perry on Romney being a “vulture capitalist” for his work at Bain. Newt is probably right that Romney is a moderate who does not have a firm grasp on conservative principles. But Newt hasn’t always towed the conservative line either. There is a story from back in the 1980s that Newt asked Senator Bob Dole, “Why do so many here in Washington seem to take an instant dislike to me?” Supposedly Dole replied, “It saves them time.” Remember that Reagan said the perfect is the enemy of the good. The GOP will stand a better chance of winning with a Massachusetts moderate than a Georgia jerk.
Massachusetts moderate = statist = jerk
What leftist attack was that? Do you mean to imply that Romney’s business experience is untouchable simply because it took place in a capitalist system?
Bob its thinking like that which is destroying the true conservative movement in this country.
Romney is a liberal Democrat by record and not a conservative, political, ideological or social.
He has a trail of unprincipled but highly-profitable business dealings and has changed his views and positions so often that it is obvious he has not strong convictions, conservative or Christian.
Then he gets that weird smile and looks above it all, and says, Newt is failing about. Creepy.
Remind you of anyone?
If you want a lying, cheating, corrupt man who says he is a Reagan Conservative but is on Video many times saying just the opposite, your man is NEWT GINGRICH!
This man is a disorganized, erratic, smart, duplicitous Hypocrite. See him in his own words:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eyeB36ctO5I
Romney told seven lies, at least, during the last debate, live on stage in front of God and millions of voters:
1. He denied accusing Newt of exaggerating/lying about his part in Reagan’s administration only three days before on Monday night in Tampa.
2. He lied about his own ‘ghetto language’ ad that bore his voice
3. He claimed all his business was run by a blind trust, a tactic that Mitt himself called ‘the oldest ruse in the book’ in a previous campaign.
4. He said he voted for republicans in the past when there was a republican to vote for, but if you look back at the Gingrich ad exposing his lies, it turns out when George H.w. Bush and Buchanan were running, he voted for a liberal democrat.
5. He denied the cost of Romneycare to taxpayers in Massachusetts. “Half of those people got insurance on their own. Others got help in buying the insurance.”
False. In fact, 98% of the additional people insured after Romneycare was passed have it paid for or subsidized by the federal government or Massachusetts government. Of the 412,000 additional people who had health insurance in 2010 who did not have it in June 2006 (pre-reform), only 7K of the 412K (1.7%) had unsubsidized health insurance. The rest were covered through Medicaid, Commonwealth Care, or a program of subsidized care for the unemployed.
6. He denied the impact of Romney care on citizens of Massachusetts. Romneycare has increased the price of healthcare premiums for every citizen of Massachusetts. Premiums have increased by 55 percent since Mitt Romney became Governor, a rate 13 points higher than the national average and the third highest growth rate among the states.
7. He said he lowered taxes in Massachusetts 19 times. Yet he raised fees and corporate taxes twice. No wonder Massachusetts was rated at the bottom of all the states (47-49th) in job and business growth.
Romney’s departures from reality and truth are so frequent, they are disturbing…seemingly pathological.
If there’s a temperament or character problem, it Romney.
He has no principles he would not sell for a dollar and no moral convictions he wouldn’t deny for a vote.
I’ll take Gingrich’s chancy temperment over a liberal from Massachusetts. What are the differences between Mitt Romney and John Kerry? I mean…really. Both support government health care, homosexual marriage, abortion on demand…even the demand of a twelve year old girl who doesn’t want to tell her parents.
Can you believe that the GOP is about to nominate a liberal Democrat?
Tragically, yes.
It is the self serving Newt Gingrich, that blows his horn about the Massachusetts liberal. And you mimic him. Just what Obama is hoping to see you do.
Jim Baker projects his own behavior and thoughts onto others…RomneyBots act just like ObamaBots. Bravo, Jim, Alinsky taught you WELL.
Can you believe you are endorsing a man whose favorite Presidents are two DemocRATS, one being Woodrow Wilson, the most vile, RACIST, propagandist ever to occupy the Oval Office? The other is Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Socialist. Newt describes himself as a “Wilsonian PROGRESSIVE” over and over again. He says our US Constitution is “obsolete!” He wrote the FORWARD and endorsed a book by Alvin Toffler, a Globalist, entitled “Creating a New Civilization.” Toffler also thought the Constitution was obsolete and called for our governing system to “die and be replaced.” Newt is also a Globalist, by his own admission.
Newt is for AMNESTY for illegals and is for Gun CONTROL, according to his own words. He gave “soft support” for Partial Birth Abortion. Newt Gingrich is NO CONSERVATIVE!! And he calls Mitt Romney a flip-flopper. Pfft! Here’s Newt, in his own words:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eyeB36ctO5I
“Republican voters want a candidate they can count on. And it’s probably not Newt.”
And it is DEFINITELY not Romney.
So where does that leave us?
Huh? Huh?
If you can’t support the nominee of the GOP–whichever one it turns out to be–then that leaves you with a second Obama term.
Take a look at the RealClearPolitics poll average among GOP voters:
Romney: 30.0%
Gingrich: 26.6%
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html
Romney is beating Gingrich among *Republican* voters.
*Some* Republicans must like Romney.
The GOP is a national party, and there still are Republicans outside the Deep South and the Mountain States. FL for example, which went heavily for Romney.
I never said I would not vote for Romney.
For now I remain ABO.
I only said that I *know*, as a conservative, that I cannot *count on* Romney. He’s no more a conservative than Nixon or Bush I.
IOW:
If I vote for Romney in the general, I will do it in the full knowledge that he will, with, say, 97.5% certainty, betray conservative principles.
Romney certainly leans a bit to the left but I think he’s pretty malleable. With conservative majorities in both houses of Congress, he will probably do pretty well. But we need heavy participation on our side this fall to ensure that we get those conservatives voted in. Romney is far from ideal but a vote for him (obviously) cancels out a vote for Obama.
bobbcat: I totally agree. Romney lived in s State that was 85% Democrat and had a very Liberal Congress to work with. Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neal used to have a drink together at the end of a hard day’s negotiations on important issues. I think Romney will be a straight-up Conservative if we give him a Conservative House and Senate to work with. If not, he will have to cross the aisle to get something done for our country. Ronald Reagan was a former Democrat and made a fine Conservative President. So will Mitt Romney. He is an honorable man who hasn’t a speck of scandal in his life, going back to his high school days. I’ve checked them all out!
I was quite surprised to find out that Newt, who professes to be a Reagan Conservative is NOT who he says he is. Here is the proof:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eyeB36ctO5I
Romney has thrown small tizzy fits but not as loudly as Newt. Romney’s ornery side came out in Florida with his degrading but not exactly true ads towards Newt. I think it showed us that Romney is not the sweet handsome guy he would like us to think he is and the RNC is in cahoots on that one. I think none of them want the conservative ideas partially coming from the Tea Party people to lead the party. Getting to be much like the Democrats it seems to me. What I want to know is if Romney will blast Obama like he has Newt. I think not and he is the real devil to go after. Just like with John McCain, the old line Republicans have decided that Romney is the one they want in office no matter what the people may want. Any way they can get him in there will be fine with them.
This is an interesting post with several issues to look at:
Romney’s “…degrading but not exactly true ads towards Newt….” A number of people who were there say Newt did not resign in disgrace. They are talking about the House process that ultimately led Newt to resign. From my point of view, as a conservative voter, it was a terrible disgrace, to see a Republican Speaker apparently booted from office, only to be followed by another adulterer, Bob Livingstone, who ALSO resigned. We seemed hopeless laughingstocks at the time.
“…none…want the conservative ideas partially coming from the Tea Party people to lead the party….” In the last election, Romney worked hard for Republican candidates across the country, many of them Tea Party candidates. That’s the chief reason, I think, that Marco Rubio stepped into to the Newt-Mitt fray in Florida.
“…will blast Obama like he has Newt. I think not…” Why not? Prior to South Carolina, Mitt spent most of his time in debates blasting Obama. He’s run numerous ads blasting Obama. His victory speech in Florida was mostly devoted to blasting Obama. He seems committed to blasting Obama at every possible opportunity.
This argument that the extablishment Pubs are forcing Romney on us is starting to ring a little hollow as greater percentages are supporting Romney. Who is putting the gun to their heads? The people have done their best to support other candidates but unfortunately, none of them has managed to best Romney for a host of reasons, most for which they themselves are accountable, not Romney.
I believe firmly that if Newt Gingrich had stayed the course with his initially positive campaign, he would be doing far better. His lack of organization & poor discipline on the stump has done him more harm than good. I hope it’s not too late for him to turn it all around.
I don’t think it’s his temperament that’s the problem. Americans are angry, except for the 1.2 million that just disappeared yesterday, and they want a candidate who reflects that anger. They want somebody to stand up to the Thieves Guild and say “enough already”! They don’t want somebody who “cares about them” in some nebulous manner, they want jobs, cheap energy, lower taxes, sound fiscal policy, a strong military and a Constitutional Government. They’re tired of mush politics, they want red meat. Newt provides that.
What the voters don’t like is Newt’s ego. In responding to Romney’s attacks Newt came across as a megalomaniac. He thinks his Presidential run is about him; it’s not, it’s about the Country – at least it should be. You’re right about his lack of discipline, his remarks and his campaign are all over the place. He needs to distill his message down to 10-12 points, another Contract With America, and hammer those points 36/8 (he’s going to need to work overtime ) if he wants the nomination.
The cure for a lack of discipline is a focused plan and Newt desperately needs a plan. He should turn every debate question back to one of the 10-12 points, he should talk those specifics day-in and day-out and he can win the nomination. The GOP won the House because they had a plan. Now don’t misunderstand, Romney has a 85,000-page PowerPoint presentation fully indexed with plans, plans for plans and plans to plan the planning plans but they’re non-specific minutia. The Country needs “Big Ideas”, we need “Transformational Change” and Newt can provide that if he understands that the election isn’t all about him.
Precisely, Chris. I’ve been saying this same thing for some time now, too, and not just for Newt.
Each of the remaining candidates needs to distill his plan into a handful of key points and hammer on them relentlessly. Every question needs to be tied back to one or more of those points. Every MSM or debate attempt to lead the idiots, er, candidates into superficial territory needs to be deflected and then related back to the key points.
Hear, hear, we can’t have a POTUS us actually says what he thinks and doesn’t mind stepping on toes to advance a more conservative government than Mittens has proven he’d do. . . that just won’t do! I mean, what if he hurt the democrats’ feelings, or got the islmastis angry? Lions and tigers, and bears. . . oh my.
Here’s a little clue about Mitt’s “temperament”. It’s easy to appear calm is you don’t really have to worry about what any of the “little people” have say since your funded by deep pockets:
http://floppingaces.net/2012/02/04/romneys-9-reader-post/
Excerpt from above link: Obama’s total intake so far $124,333,258 of which $58,498,953 came from Small Individual Contributions. A percentage of 47%.
Now, that’s chilling. What is wrong with these people?
Mandate Mitt or minimum wage Romney, that’s the ticket the GOP would have. What on Earth has happened to the Republican Party that a liberal governor from Massachussetts is leading in the Republican primary?
Shhhhhhhhh! PJM hasn’t acknowledged Mitt’s position on the automatic minimum wage increases! First Pajamas Media, then PJM, finally to conservatives’ own Pravda.
Facets of liberal ideology have thoroughly permeated the entire political scene. Entitlements, baby!
Mr Snyder is typical of the “media types.” Newt does great in debates because the American voters see him as the best candidate to beat Obama. Mr Snyder and other so called opinionoids are ever so insulted that Newt puts them in their place. Romney is McCain and just the kind of loser that pleases Mr Snyder. McCain was popular with the media because he was constantly sucking up to them. The best snyder can do is gather up his friends on the playground to beat up on someone he doesnt like. Pathetic, cowardly article. Snyder and the RINOs are those with “temperment” issues.
Voters want a president that inspires them. Its probably not Romney.
We going to get that headline soon?
The real story should be about the Romney and Ron Paul alliance. Ron Paul helped Romney eliminate Bachmann and Perry. In exchange, he and Rand Paul will get face time at the convention. What kind of person allies himself with a Jew hating neo-Confederate. I don’t care for Gingrich but Romney and Paul are unacceptable. Of the 4 left, only Santorum seems to be halfway decent. Too bad the Paulbots payed to eliminate the better candidates. Nice going, dorks.
I’m sure I can offer nothing new to the conversation. I’m basically just raising my hand for a candidate that addresses something of what I am concerned about: the astounding debt and intrusions of government. Actually, that candidate was Rick Perry, but he gave Newt his support, and I agree with him. Newt is a veteran of the fight, and a winner. He accomplished something. Not so sure about Romney. The Olympics? Being somewhere in Bain? Governor of Massachusetts? Romneycare? I’m not impressed. Damage control from the Romney supporters hasn’t swayed me. I voted for McCain once he got the nomination, and I would for Romney too, but do we have to do that again? I was a big city fireman, and the best Battalion Chief I ever had had a terrible personal life and said a lot of goofy things, but knew how to lead men and put out a fire. Newt knows how to get it done.
Romney isn’t McCain. I supported Romney against McCain and I supported George Bush against McCain. But I did vote for McCain against the Communist, Barack Hussein Obama. There is no candidate who ever pleased all conservative people and there never will be. We just muddle along and as long as we keep discerning the differences among the candidates as best we can, we will get it right most of the time. Our Constitution protects us from making errors we cannot eventually correct. We will even toss out Obama, I bet.
True: Romney *isn’t* McCain…he’s McCain on steroids mixed with Obama’s well of cash.
‘Atta boy, Ed!
Individual mandates, automatic minimum wage upgrades, taxpayer funded abortions, CO2 emission limits; even Obama has not yet moved as far left as Romney.
conservative pravda never gets tired
I am sure someone once said “Americans have a great nation because they always solve their problems, but not until they exhaust every other possibility first.”
I think you’re paraphrasing Churchill: “America will always do the right thing, but only after exhausting all other alternatives.”
I couldn’t remember where I read it, thank you.
You’re welcome. It’s a great and accurate comment, so thanks for the reminder that this messy process is and has been typical for quite some time.
Yes, it’s his temperament… Not the fact that he has terrible policy ideas, is a stooge to special interest, and is in general a rather odious human being.
No, it’s his ‘temperament’. Must be.
Romney is white bread.
And Newt is toast.
The Newtonian Implosion allows for not a single criticism of their hero. It allows for not a single fact related to his weaknesses. It simply wants to blow things up. That’s what Newtrino is now reduced to…a suicide bomber strapping explosives to his ample belly and wandering into Romney’s path as often as he can, detonating his verbal bombs on himself and the free market and the Republican Party and conservative media.
It’s becoming a sad farce. He’s more spectacle today than candidate.
Santorum’s is still a serious candidacy….without much traction.
Because Gingrich has lost his focus, is disorganized, and cannot be reasoned with…he has no chance. Blowing up the resistance to Obama is all he has left. And everywhere and everything that resistance contains…is under attack by Gingrich…except for his shrinking base.
I would much rather take my chances with Newt than Mitt. Since when is Mitt considered “reliable”?
Agree with you on Mitt.
But when has Newt been really reliable? (even outside of marriage I mean.)
I like that Newt Gingrich has big ideas and talks about them. What do you ever hear Romney say? The same nothing over and over. I can deal with Gingrich’s outbursts and frankly look forward to hearing from a candidate that has passion. Everything you need to know about Mitt can be seen by looking at his hair – fake, glued and not going to get messy. I want messy…get some things done.
Newt’s problem is he talks incessantly, and his mouth gets him in big trouble. He is on a YouTube Video, flip-flopping 10 times more than Mitt Romney ever did. He is all over the map, as far as his ideology goes. He is NOT a TRUE CONSERVATIVE by any stretch of the imagination. He appears on this Video saying he is a “Wilsonian PROGRESSIVE.” He says our Constitution is “obsolete.” He has been for stringent Gun Control. He is for AMNESTY for illegal aliens. On and on and on.
His words are coming out of his own mouth. Here it is, if you are interested:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eyeB36ctO5I
John McCain’s dad and grand dad were four-star admirals. Mitt Romney was born to wealth and expects to die the same way. Newt Gingrich’s dad was a Sargent; he has been throwing rocks all of his life. If he had the temperament of Mitt, he would be working at Home Depot. He warred against Democrats, and forced the first resignation of a Speaker of the House, Jim Wright, on ethics charges. He was hated by the Clinton White House, who spend millions demonizing him, the liberal media, and many Republicans.
It is difficult to know what is in any person’s heart. It is difficult to really know what a conservative who was elected Governor in Massachusetts, arguably the most liberal state in the union, really believes. All politicians morph their views to be elected. All have super egos. Romney is outspending Newt five to one, and can continue this indefinitely. Newt is working on a shoe string budget, and his support is divided among the other conservatives, Santorum and Paul. (I judge neither of the latter two have a chance to do anything except sink Gingrich.)
Our big problems are the fragile economy, unsustainable debt and government borrowing, a possible hot nuclear war with Iran, and an unsustainable shambles of energy policy. The NRC, DOE, EPA, and others that Rick Perry could not remember, must be reformed, destroyed, or ???. However, our biggest problem is a deeply divided nation, filled with self hate. Our dysfunctional Congress is the result.
The choice is ours. Do we want a severe reversal in Washington or a slight shift in governance? Obama will continue to go hard left. Mitt will go slightly to the right, Newt will plow it up, in some unknown direction. I do not know but caution that a desperate Germany once elected Adolf Hitler, and payed the price for that choice.
For now, let them beat on each other.
What a dispicable post.
I wouldn’t call your post “despicable”…but…are you REALLY trying to make an analogy between Germany/Hitler and America/Gingrich?
REALLY?!?!?!?! (Calling Godwin’s Theory…)
You cheapen the difference between a Marxist ideologue (Obama) and a statist politician (Romney) by smearing someone who worked with and for Reagan with your totalitarian trash.
You would do well to read Gingrich’s last 2 books, “A Nation Like No Other” and “To Save America”, before you ever post such ignorant filth again.
UNLEASH GINGRICH IN 2012!
It is impossible to rationally respond to these criticisms as they make no sense; what is despicable (sic) or where is the analogy between Germany/Hitler and America/Gingrich? The article focused on Newt’s temper, but I outlined the basic differences between the candidates, and our issues. If he was not angry, he would not have a following. There are a majority of Americans who are very angry, the Tea Party on the right, and Occupy America on the left. Newt is attempting to tap into this distrust of our economic and political power. People are desperate; their net worth has gone negative. What is the cure?
I point out that history has seen this before, in a desperate post WWI Germany; they opted for fascism, a system of governance whereby the central government holds all power. As an energy engineer, entering retirement, I see a government who is grabbing all power from the people. A government who does not tell the truth about expenditures, from Yucca Mountain, the stiffing the GM bond holders, to subsidizing ethanol, solar cells, wind energy, which can never compete, to controlling your air conditioner (the smart grid). Obama promised not to mandate abortion funding to Congressman Stupak, then is doing just the opposite. His power grab includes controlling even your use of your lawn mower, feeling up nuns at airports, and monitoring all wireless communications. This is another topic of discussion, but I raise the awareness that we are sliding into total government control of every aspect of life, except debt (the next baby born owes $45,000 to cover our present decisions).
America is on the wrong track and fascism is just two stops down the track.
My problem is that both Republican and Democratic candidates, for the last two generations have promised rational energy policies, and done the opposite when elected. The last nuke was licensed 36 years ago. There are thousands of NRC employees, responsible for licensing new nukes, who have worked a career, retired and died without doing anything objectively useful. What will Newt, or Romney really do about nuclear power, climate change, coal combustion, native fuel extraction, or over regulation of our energy industries? Our grid has gotten creaky; it could collapse, we have run out of time, but I trust neither’s words. We know Obama’s policies, total central control,over our basic life sustaining industries.
As the lawyers say, let them all contest the issues, to force out the truth. Four centuries ago, they would have done it with axe and sword. For now, let them beat on each other.
Anyone thinking of voting for the most erratic, undisciplined Motor Mouth, Newt Gingrich needs to first view this Video of Newt’s early appearances and speeches where he sides with two of the most LIBERAL Democrat Presidents in our history and never mentions Ronald Reagan who he is NOW trying to immulate because it will benefit him personally. He is such a hypocrite, it is absolutely stunning to watch this man in action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eyeB36ctO5I
More stunning are Romney’s lies on and off video. Seven lies on stage at the last debate alone.
Completely flabbergasted and silenced Newt then, but now he’s ready.
Romney is the one with the pathological character flaws.
We have never seen a more deceptive, negative and brutal campaign on the air (media and pundits) as Romney has waged so far. He beats Obama for brutal campaigning.
Worse are his teams of elves typing ugly adjectives, smears and lies on every blog…same Alinsky tactics the leftists use. They are not a good advertisement for Romney or their religion.
No surprise, Romney’s father consulted Alinsky along with LBJ.
The last straw for me RE Gingrich, was his attack on Capitalism. Romney has problems-sure-but Abraham Lincoln is not running and Romney is the best that is out there. We need the Presidency, the House, and a filibuster proof Senate (the latter is not possible this time). Romney is my choice after CAREFUL consideration of all candidates.
If you are truly SO shallow as to think Gingrich spoke “against capitalism” in his anti-Romney ads,
you MUST therefore ALSO believe that Romney spoke “against Free-Speech and our Constitutional Republic” based on his anti-Gingrich ads in Iowa.
OR…is this just another one-dimensional spam from a Romney troll with “careful” (bwahaha!) consideration?!?
The guy is probably supporting Romney who has a factual legislative history of attacking capitalism. There will be no irony lost on him
Gingrich calls all of his comments “factual”, while all of his opponents comments are “completely devoid of factual information”.
And we all know that can’t be true, don’t we?
Richard: TO affirm your own judgement all you have to do is to to the YouTube Video and watch Newt Gingrich, in his own words, sounding like the “Wilsonian PROGRESSIVE” that he says he is, over and over again. Newt’s mouth always does him in and this Video will be the nail in his coffin. Any Conservative in his right mind will never vote for this radical, undisciplined LOON.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eyeB36ctO5I
It was not an attack on capitalism, but on principles and practices.
Surely you are not so naive that you believe all capitalists are angels and beyond question?
Madoff? Corzine?
Bain’s practice of draining pensions then closing business WHILE paying their own executives handsomely is legal, but NOT ETHICAL OR CONSCIONABLE.
Romney is a reverse Robin Hood – steal from the poor, give to the rich.
The airlines and other big corporations and investment specialists (corporate raiders) may do this, and it may be legal, but it is a mean-spirited, greedy, despicable, devilish practice. It should not be legal just as insider trading should not be legal for members of the House and Senate…or SC Justices.
There is principled capitalism and unprincipled capitalism.
Romney has principal, but not much principle.
Moreover, from his record, Romney has neither conservative convictions or Christian convictions.
Yeah, and when it comes to changing temperaments and in Mitt we trust it’s probably not Romney, Willard, AKA “Mittens” either. Danger, Will Romney, Danger! Boy, you is lost in space. The individual mandate, Will’s crowning Mass. achievement, is still tyranny whether at the Federal level or state level. I notice none of the other 49 states are rushing to the Mass. corporatist model for health care tyranny under a police state of indentured servitude to a “free market” that has no exit. Well, if it’s small consolation, the modern citizen servant can still refuse medical treatment, only he or she just can’t refuse to purchase medical insurance. I suppose in time we’ll be required to purchase life insurance as a condition of being living subjects of the corporate state. The undertakers and grave diggers, like doctors and hospitals, could then enjoy returns on grave digging exceeding the inflation rate, and just in time for the baby boomers.
A few points for my fellow conservatives. (1) Insisting on conservative purity in a national candidate is futile. No such candidate exists, and even if he did, he couldn’t get elected. (2) The Republican Party includes not just conservatives, but moderates as well. We’ll need their votes in November. (3) We aren’t electing a ‘debater in chief,’ but a leader who can manage a large, complex organization and methodically bring it under control. (4) The very real problems that Washington has created are enormous and will not be solved in one election cycle. It’s taken years to get us where we are, and it is just as likely to take years to get us to where we should be. (5) Reforming the Federal leviathan will be hard work. A recent Pew poll found that among Republican voters, maintaining Social Security and Medicare benefits was more important than reforming entitlements by a margin of 2 to 1, which suggests that the rhetoric of reform is much easier than actual reform is likely to be.
Insisting on conservative purity in a national candidate is futile. No such candidate exists, and even if he did, he couldn’t get elected.
That’s an impressive straw man you’ve got there.
Garbage. It’s the lying. The loose canon with the temper is Romney, and he proved it most recently with his clumsy lies.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/newt-did-not-resign-disgrace_620900.html
Republicans who repeat Democrats’ lies are known as LOSERS.
They’re also often known as RINOs….heh!
The problem is both major candidates suck. So we are like shoppers at Walmart trying to choose between two ugly looking shirts, because somehow we can’t afford a better shirt. That’s why the process of trying on candidates has taken so long.
None of them fit. What the heck happened?
If you believe the words, they both suck. If you believe the accomplishments, only Romney sucks. That’s why Romney has to lie.
If Newt can cause Romney to ‘elevate his game’, I will continue to support Newt unto the convention. Newt may be in need of some mood stabilizing drugs but Romney seems to be in need of an education on what the conservative/libertarian/tea party base expect from him. And a personaility.
I read in the WSJ that House and Senate Republicans are worried at the lack of donations toward their re-election campaigns. I would suggest this is due to the dissatisfaction of the party base with the actual performance of the Republican proliticos to whom that base gave their support last election cycle. Romney may be rich enough that he does not need their monetary support but he still needs their votes. At some point he risks losing that even among those advocating ‘anybody but Obama’.
For me it’s temperament. Very hard to know what to believe about the candidates, witness all the squabbling above. But we have, in Ø, an egomaniac already, and I don’t want another. Yes, Newt is very smart, knowledgeable, creative, all that.
The President runs foreign policy, and a temperament like Gingrich’s is not what I’d choose for being in charge of buttons, reset or otherwise.
Both candidates are reliable; Romney passed the individual mandate, CO2 emission limts and raised taxes and fees. Gingrich passed 9 out of the 10 Contract With America items within the first one hundred days of his speakership.
I’m not at all worried about what either candidate will do; rather than liberalism, I choose conservatism.
Don’t be fooled into thinking Newt Gingrich is a CONSERVATIVE! He is 10 times more of a flip-flopper and much more LIBERAL than Mitt Romney. He can be seen here on YouTube Video, in his own words. One hour of Vintage Motor Mouth Newton Leroy Gingrich: If you dare to watch, you will never vote for this man if you are truly a Conservative.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eyeB36ctO5I
So Newt is an undisciplined blowhard; there, I said it. Big fricking deal; major requirement for the job is to have an ego as big as all out of doors. I have enough faith in our form of gov’t with its balance of powers to appropriately control presidential excesses (with the notable exception of Obama, however, who has no respect at all for the Constitution; this cannot be said of Gingrich) to rein in Newt’s brand of hubris. His ideas are exemplary, his experience is extensive, his understanding of the Washington way make him the best prepared of the current field of candidates to be POTUS. This is key!
‘Republicans who repeat Democrats’ lies are known as LOSERS.’
‘They’re also often known as RINOs….heh!
‘The problem is both major candidates suck.’
-
I don’t give a Shite what any of you say,
or who the Republican nominee is.
I am voting for him/him him/her.
Last time Independents were mislead by all your BS,
and look at the BULLSHITE we got,
OBAMAS TROLLS CAN KISS MY @SS THIS TRIP..
“Then he launched into an ad hominem attack on the mainstream media and John King.”
You might try to choose your words better in describing that confrontation. Much has already been written on that episode. King may have been ‘picked’ by higher-ups to assault Newt – Newt did the right thing in my mind. I’d have done the same. There is no place in presidential debates for crap like that. You like Romney – OK I’m fine with that but how about you quit carrying water for the GOP elites and just go out on the stump for Romney? Newt still gets my money until he either quits or is elected. I’m not going to donate one red cent to the GOP until they can at least support candidates like O’Donnell and Angle in some meaningful way. The GOP elites would rather these types of candidates fail and let a democrat win.
A GOP elite that would rather let a leftist democrat win than help a conservative? That tells me a lot about which way the GOP elite lean.
The time for a third party is fast approaching. Maybe after this election cycle.
Exactly. Dump Obama in 2012. Death to the GOP 1 day later. TEA PARTY 2016!
Yes. I’ve been having dreams of a “Constitution Party” that will replace the Republican Party should they stick us with Romney. I don’t even think that Romney can win, frankly. Obama has his destruction machine, the White House pulpit, lapdog MSM, money, and fervent fans. Romney is the poster boy for a rich wall street corporate Republican, who’s running on the theme that he can create jobs. He’ll get crushed. Bain Capital is why:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmrEUHdwAwQ&feature=youtu.be
Newt’s a legend in his own mind. As a Georgian I apologize for the Jimmeh debacle. Let us not repeat a national humilation.
And in my mind. It isn’t bragging if you can deliver; Newt delivers.
I used to be okay with the thought of newt. No more. For the last six weeks or so, he has been demonstrating at an increasing pace, a temperment more appropriate for a bratty preschooler than someone seeking the presidency of the US.
The GOP voters should be counting on the Lord. There is no man that can solve the problems of the US, without His help.
Mormons follow a book of female acquistion. This is NOT pleasing the the Most High. If He is not pleased it does not matter how much money a candidate throws into the bid. His leadership will be dismal, at best.
The people will get what they asked for.
Newt is a hand gernade waiting to pull out his own pin. The problem is when he blows himself, who will he take wih him. That pin is almost out and Romney is making Newt’s fingers grip that pin a little tighter each passing day.
Why doesn’t the title to this article read “Romeny’s Bain Capital business a major stumbling block for voters?” Or in reply to the comment above, “Romney’s business practices are a hand grenade waiting for the pin to be pulled by the MSM” Study Bain – Romney will be CRUSHED in the general election because of it. Here’s a video with a Republican Venture Capitalist discussing Bain. It’s easy to understand. And the link below it to a detailed article in the conservative New American.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmrEUHdwAwQ&feature=youtu.be
http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/10538-romneys-skeletons-his-bain-capital-received-millions-in-bailouts
Now is the time to have a president with a temper, there’s a heck of lot to be PO’ed about. Foreign enemies, foreign “friends”, a bankrupt nation spending itself into oblivion. The other major party and their MSM lackies all the while egging our destruction on. Yeah, I’d love to have a president with a temper right about now.
Absolutely right!
Give us some Temper. My heart beat stronger when Newt said in one of the earlier debates (about BinLaden being found in Pakistan, living in comfort across the street from a military academy) “I’d be furious.”
Listening to Newt is almost like getting to breathe after holding your breath underwater or in a room full of flatus for a long, long time. He has been giving us permission to think and hold to the ‘inconvenient truth’ as he calls it. His speeches never fail to encourage and clear the air.
Newt in the campaign is like a professional musician playing the finale after having spent the afternoon listening to novices and students.
Or a better analogy, the conservative electorate feel like a mare in heat finding mature stallion in a pasture full of young colts, yearlings and geldings. He has the proper working equipment and knows what to do with it…and he isn’t afraid to do it. :8->
Blessed relief at last.
The irony of course is that the Speaker of the House was usually the back room guy who dealt with political realities and would be the guy would say such things as “I know you are great on the issues kid but you’ve got a bleeped up personal life and that is no one’s fault but your own. Personally I don’t care about your personal life but because its one of the ways voters evaluate their fellow humans, and it often works because no one wants to do business with a cad. If a man would cheat on his wife he would cheat a business partner. Americans want a guy they feel they can trust. The job of the party is to find someone Americans feel they can trust and still represents the party. So step aside kid! We’ve got an election to win!” Surely Newt understands this political calculus and it was somebody else in the exact same situation I would not be surprised if he would feel the party should look elsewhere.
Huh? Gingrich has been self-controlled as any candidate in the line-up. He’s taken punches, smears, a barrage of Romney rockets with grace and poise.
He was silenced, however, by the seven brazen lies Romney told at the last debate…live on stage in front of God and millions of voters… it was breath-taking:
1. He denied accusing Newt of exaggerating/lying about his part in Reagan’s administration only three days before on Monday night in Tampa.
2. He lied about his own ‘ghetto language’ ad that bore his voice
3. He claimed all his business was run by a blind trust, a tactic that Mitt himself called ‘the oldest ruse in the book’ in a previous campaign.
4. He said he voted for republicans in the past when there was a republican to vote for, but if you look back at the Gingrich ad exposing his lies, it turns out when George H.w. Bush and Buchanan were running, he voted for a liberal democrat.
5. He denied the cost of Romneycare to taxpayers in Massachusetts. “Half of those people got insurance on their own. Others got help in buying the insurance.”
False. In fact, 98% of the additional people insured after Romneycare was passed have it paid for or subsidized by the federal government or Massachusetts government. Of the 412,000 additional people who had health insurance in 2010 who did not have it in June 2006 (pre-reform), only 7K of the 412K (1.7%) had unsubsidized health insurance. The rest were covered through Medicaid, Commonwealth Care, or a program of subsidized care for the unemployed.
6. He denied the impact of Romney care on citizens of Massachusetts. Romneycare has increased the price of healthcare premiums for every citizen of Massachusetts. Premiums have increased by 55 percent since Mitt Romney became Governor, a rate 13 points higher than the national average and the third highest growth rate among the states.
7. He said he lowered taxes in Massachusetts 19 times. Yet he raised fees and corporate taxes twice. No wonder Massachusetts was rated at the bottom of all the states (47-49th) in job and business growth.
Romney’s departures from reality and truth are so frequent, they are disturbing…seemingly pathological.
If there’s a temperament or character problem, you sir, had better spend your time and typing on Romney.
There’s the big story.