The Fourth Act of the Un-Romney Circus
The new factor in the race, and the latest rising star, is Newt Gingrich. Gingrich has stood alone in the debates as an articulate Obama critic, and refused to enter the bash-the-leader demolition derby that is often instigated by debate moderators. His rise in the polls is different than Bachmann’s, Perry’s, and Cain’s since his support appears to be coming as much from Romney as from conservative challengers to Romney. That unchangeable 23-25% national support level for Romney has now dipped below 20% in one survey and to the low 20s in others as Gingrich’s numbers have risen. In essence, Gingrich plays to both the establishment side of the GOP field with Romney and Huntsman, and the conservative side with the other five contenders.
The winner in Iowa will get a lot of national attention, a boost to his fundraising effort, and a jolt in the polls nationally and in the next primary and caucus states. Romney will need to make a decision soon on whether he makes a big investment to win Iowa, which might, with a near certain New Hampshire victory the next week, put him in position to win four of the first five contests (Nevada and Florida are likely to be good states for him), with only South Carolina a real challenge. That would effectively end the race by early February. On the other hand, if Romney makes a big effort and loses, or makes a more modest effort and loses, he provides an avenue for new momentum to one or more challengers in the states to follow Iowa.
Romney has, to some extent, benefited from having a collection of challengers on the right who have divided up the non-Romney vote. If several of these candidates drop out after disappointing finishes in Iowa, it could spell trouble in one-on-one contests, or three-way contests between Romney, Gingrich and the surviving conservative challenger. Ron Paul will take a ticket out of Iowa, as the vernacular goes, regardless of his final position in the caucus. So will Romney. Will Iowa stem Gingrich’s momentum, or boost it? Will Perry, or Santorum, or Bachmann gain support if Cain stumbles in the next few weeks and loses his base of support? Cain held the lead in the last Iowa poll.
But there could well be a new leader in the next survey, either Romney or Gingrich.
New Hampshire surveys have consistently shown big leads for Romney. If Romney does not win Iowa, he is still likely to win New Hampshire, with the Iowa winner taking second in the Granite State. South Carolina is a bit more of a problem for Romney, with conservative voters dominating the state GOP and Cain leading the most recent survey, with Gingrich second and Romney third. If Cain’s recent stumbles cost him support here, Gingrich could take the lead. Were Gingrich to win Iowa and South Carolina and finish second in New Hampshire, he would be the leader going into the next contests in Florida and Nevada. On the other hand, if Romney wins Iowa and New Hampshire, he may have enough momentum to win in South Carolina too. Even a second place finish in South Carolina would not damage him badly and he would be well positioned in Florida and Nevada .
Much like the Democratic primary race in 2004, where John Kerry and John Edwards came from well off the pace to pass the leaders — Howard Dean and Richard Gephardt – seven weeks out from the caucuses, there could be lots of movement in the race in Iowa and nationally the next few weeks. The biggest wild card is Herman Cain. If his supporters begin to abandon him, or his lack of organization means he underperforms his support level in Iowa, then several candidates could get a boost — really all of the other seven, other than Ron Paul or Jon Huntsman.
Romney owns the died hard Bushites. Unfortunately, most Americans, Republicans included, have BFS- Bush Fatigue Syndrome. I got BFS when he signed that stupid and unconstitutional McCain-Feingold Bill into law.
Gingrich is ruined by the fact that women are going to vote for the man with the most sex appeal, and he doesn’t have it, but the same cabal that gave the GOP the aisle jumping, left appeasing, white haired, jowled, phony, and gnome-like candidate in ’08 are still calling the shots, so it shouldn’t surprise anyone if he wins the nomination.
Romney has a better chance than Gingrich, but it’s impossible for some of us to get excited about either of them.
You need to “get excited” about just one thing — getting rid of You Know Who.
So the Republican candidates are imperfect, big deal. It’s time we grew up, and remembered that the real world is not made up of unicorns and pixie dust.
And anyway, we’re conservatives, and have no business “getting excited” about politicians in the first place — “getting excited” about political candidates is liberal girlie-man stuff.
Holding your nose while voting for the lesser of two evils is practically the definition of conservatism.
Newt’ll do. Heck, ANY of ‘em’ll do. (Except Paul).
Newt can’t beat Obama and it’s not certain that Romney can either. And if Romney is elected, is he any more principled than Obama? He seems to bend for the wind that blows the hardest from any direction. What issue hasn’t he flopped on?
First of all, the problem with Obama isn’t that he’s “unprincipled” — he’s plenty “principled”, alright — with far-left principles.
At worst, Romney would be a hundred times better than the disaster we’ve got now. If you need your perfectionist’s mind brought back to reality, just imagine Obama making two more Supreme Court appointments.
If Romney “seems to bend for the wind that blows the hardest from any direction”, (as you put it), then it’s our job to be that “hardest wind”. And not to sit on our hands and let Obama finish his self-appointed job of destroying America as we know it.
Let’s get real here.
Well, Jack, here I am imagining whom Romney would nominate to the Supreme Court:
Jeb Bush? Carl Rove? Colin Powell? Mayor Bloomberg? John McCain?
Ah, poor Jack Jolis. So binded by hate he really believes Obama’s “plenty ‘principled’, alright — with far-left principles.”
Well, let’s look at the left to right range on one issue – health care:
Left: Doctors as government employees (Like the UK)
Moderate left: Single payer like Medicare, Canada, most European countries
Moderate central: Requirement to have health coverage – either through private insurance or a government option (as was suggested by some in Congress).
Moderate right: Requirement to have health coverage from private insurance – 1990s GOP and AEI position, put into effect by Republican Mitt Romney
Right: What we’ve had until now – lots of people not covered by insurance, and reliance on the most expensive treatment, hospital emergency rooms.
And you see where Obama falls on this scale: moderate right.
As he has on most issues, except in the feverish imagination of Mr. Jolis and his ilk.
Just a few words of wisdom from the reality based community.
And now back to your regular programming….
Romney is the best bet to defeat Obama. For every “conservative” who stays home because he didn’t get his way, Romney will get 10 Independent votes. Newt will make a very good VP.
Maybe so, but if we nominate Romney, we’ve already lost. President Romney is no win for America. Cain, Gingrich, Paul, or draft Huckabee.
The myth that only Romney can beat Obama is just that. A myth put forth by the liberals and the MSM (and some would say the Washington Republican establishment) to prevent a real conservative from becoming president. They can’t stand the thought of another Reagan. If we can’t elect a real conservative during this sweeping tide, then all hope is lost for America.
Romney is the most electable …
Except that he can barely break 20% in Iowa after promising to not cut ethanol subsidies.
Oh, and he almost reaches 25% in liberal NH.
It is past time for the Oba-romney to retire from the race for the good of the party.
Getting rid of you-know-who is an honorable goal, but some of us can’t forget the pivotal role Republicans have played in bringing the current circumstances about.
The Democratic Party is the arm of the left wing. The Republican Party, all too often, has been the party of enabling the left wing. There is no such thing as a big-government conservative; there are only liberals who have found a new marketing tool.
If Romney and Gingrich are conservatives, then putting lipstick on a mop makes Marilyn Monroe. Don’t worry though. Once they’re safely elected, the rouge will come off and we’ll have another Republican president who accommodates the Left.
Never buck a trend.
So what do you suggest? Sitting out the election in a peevish huff? Making some foolishly empty gesture by riding some third party hobby-horse to nowhere? Or petulantly writing in some name?
What alternative is there to supporting whichever imperfectly conservative candidate the GOP ends up nominating?
What, in short, “trend” are we not to “buck”?
(One thing I do know — you can disabuse yourself of letting Obama have four more years, and then, by God, we’ll finally be ready, we’ll have all our “Young Guns” in place — Rubio, Ryan, Jindal, Christie, McDonnell, etc. etc.
Trust me, 4 more years of Obama and there won’t be anything left to rescue.)
Third party works for me, and you’re free to label that act with all the question-begging epithets at your disposal.
Because what you call “meaningless”, “peevish”, and “petulant”, I call communication.
I have three ways of communicating to the GOP that I don’t like what they’re peddling: my words, my money, and my votes.
It’s easy for them to ignore my words.
Since I quit giving them money eight years ago, threatening to give them less isn’t going to help either.
But a vote for a third party says, here’s a vote you could have had.
It’s not much, but it’s all I’ve got.
“Or petulantly writing in some name?” Yeah, if Romney’s the nominee I choose that one – probably my dog’s name. She’s really cute.
You can huff and puff and call us all the names you want, but the milquetoast establishment got us into this mess by “reaching across the aisle” and “searching for bipartisan solutions” – not the conservatives. So here’s the message: Nominate a conservative or your votes goodbye.
The above should read “kiss your votes goodbye.” But hey, I’m just an ignorant flag-waving tea partier. What do you expect?
Jack, you are arguing like Obama setting up his straw-men illogicalities. “Some say we need to nominate Nazis for the Presidency. Some say a Stalinist would be better. But I, like Lincoln, say blah blah blah.”
Reformed,
You had enormous bat speed on that pitch and got the sweet spot right on the ball.
The Republicans are equally guilty of not adhering to the limited government principals outlined in the Constitution. They are just as progressive as the Dems. Teddy Roosevelt was the first progressive in office and the only two republican Presidents in the last 110 years who were not progressive were Coolidge and Reagan. The leftist agaenda has been on the march for over 100 years now and it hasn’t mattered which party controlled 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in terms of its implementation. Remember Nixon gave us the EPA and Bush gave us Medicare part d and No Child Left Behind.
I will vote for a Republican candidate on occasion, but the days of me voting for Bush, Dole, and McCain are over. Compromising and holding my nose has gotten us to the brink of bankruptcy. I would rather see it come apart than compromise again. I am done.
That is not a peevish huff, that is a carefully calculated decision to reject further assault on the Constitution and liberty which Romney will surely do. He learned how to do it in Mass and he will perfect his progressivism in Washington. He is no different than Obama, he will just take us over the cliff at 120 miles an hour, instead of 180.
By 2016 the country will either be ready for a correction to liberty and free markets or it will be in its death throes as socialism runs its inevitable path to our destruction. For a model see most of the countries in western Europe. Just watch what happens to them over the next 2 years.
I am good with either outcome as I have carefully been preparing for the consequences of poor decision making by the majority of the electorate for almost 3 years now. I am a descendent of survivors and my children will survive to carry forward. We have planned it that way. Many Americans have not, and there will be consequences for them for their allegiance to socialism, rather than liberty and free markets.
I am ready to react to the inevitable outcomes of the poor decisions of some of my neighbors. I am even ready to help them.
I am not going to vote for Romney or provide any support for him or his supporters. Its over progressives, get used to it.
I know Jack above means well, but I used to think the way he does and it has gotten us nothing but further astray and deeper into trouble. The enableing needs to stop.
Samizdat, you say: “By 2016 the country will either be ready for a correction to liberty and free markets or it will be in its death throes as socialism runs its inevitable path to our destruction. … I am good with either outcome as I have carefully been preparing for the consequences of poor decision making by the majority of the electorate for almost 3 years now.” While I can appreciate your sense of bravado, I’m afraid this is wandering into the realm of millennial blowhard claptrap and it’s not going to do anybody any good, including, (whatever you might think), you and yours.
And you speak of “enabling”? The truth is that it’s you guys who make “the perfect the enemy of the good” who are the real enablers here.
Shake Hands. You are not alone in perspective and determination. My family members too, are descendants of Continental Army, one taken prisoner and held on a NY prison ship. You know what that means. He escaped. Went back to join his group and was advised the Brits were angry he escaped and were going to get his wife and kids. Left, sold his acreage in NY for much less than value and escaped with family westward. Other members stayed and continued the fight to the end. We are grateful to our ancestors and humbled by their courage, and believe we will all meet on the other side. We will not disappoint them in life, and will defend this country and our freedoms to the death. We are people who love this country and have traveled across it to OR, down to Tucson. Just look at what mindset was developed in Greece to get them to accept and live under Socialism. They show some of that “change” Obama said he’d give to USA. The people have lived under Socialism long enough to believe they are “entitled.” Entitled to have the government feed clothe entertain and make life easy for them. Big surprise. Sad to see grown men pounding and stomping in the used to be Great country of Democracy, Greece. They gave it away, and Obama thinks we are a soft touch for him now, after the previous communists have worked setting us up for destruction. The protesters in OWS are similar. They are enraged at situations but they have been directed away from the institutions they would be effective in protesting/occupying. They have been used, certainly by their Professors and Communist activists. If those young people come to their senses by some miracle and turn on the wrecking crew that is demolishing this country, they could have a real effect on winning. As it is, they will fade, and their event will be experience to brag about for a while, but when they are older and look back, they will feel like the young people who protested the Iraq Attack. How clever the manipulators are. Slipped in a “one of us” claimer and herded them to the voting booth where they later realized they were duped. Many still carry that anger. They will not vote for the communists in office or candidates. This country is worth saving, and when the hypnotic spell cast by clever communist professors and Senators and Reps is shattered, it will be returned to leadership of everything good in the world, and the world will respect us. The time is soon.
Samizdat … you are 100% correct. I could not have said it better myself. Romney is a fraud, pure and simple.
Perfectly said. I cannot prepare, because of my infirmities, but I am okay with it killing me, as long as there is a better future for my kids. We must actually fix it, one way or another.
As to the comment, “making the perfect the enemy of the good”, Romney is NOT “the good”. He is a stealth Leftist. He even said so years back to Dems, that he would pull the Pubs to the Left. Those who practice taqiyya are purposeful, professional liars.
The thing to understand is that Romney seriously divides us, so why would you choose him? Why go there at all. We Conservatives will hold our noses and support any of the others, even (gulp) Paul. Why, then, choose Romney, who will drive Conservatives away? Because you think he is the best of the lot or is “most electable”? A guy who divides us is exactly the opposite of “most electable”.
So, why him? Do moderates hate/fear Conservatives that much? Or is it just to spite us? Or do you just think this is just another election, that it is business as usual?
> And you speak of “enabling”? The truth is that it’s you guys who make “the perfect the enemy of the good” who are the real enablers here.
Jack, if only that were true. I’d be happy to take the good rather than chase the elusive perfect. What the GOP asks conservatives, every election, is to accept and in fact to sponsor the bad, or else we’ll get worse.
Republicans have hated conservatives for a very long, going back at least to Goldwater. They hated Reagan long before they began wearing him and his record like a badge of honor. George W. Bush was never a conservative, but he really showed how much he hated them when he campaigned for Arlen Specter, when he insulted them for opposing Miers’ SCOTUS nomination (her reward for being a crony, and the conservatives’ punishment for being there for two elections), and when he reviled them for opposing Shamnesty.
I voted Republican in every election since 1972 until it finally sunk into my thick skull in 2008, with McCain’s nomination, how much the GOP despised conservatives like me.
The only thing that has changed is that now I despise them back.
I can’t speak for all disgruntled conservatives, but if they want my vote back, they have some convincing to do, and I don’t consider Romney to be a good argument.
Jack I couldn’t agree more. I have been a Cain Gingrich fan for a long time. I like Romny for his business acumen. but Newt Gingrich is by far the brightest bulb in the chandaleir, him and Cain in any order would be the winning team. thats why the damned democrats sent their hatchet woman gloria alred after Cain. I would give fity dollars to see and hear Newt debate obama. he would devastate obama,
>> women are going to vote for the man with the most sex appeal
????? Oh that’s right; I forgot. We don’t have minds that allow us to form balanced opinions or make legitimate choices. Maybe you would prefer we didn’t vote at all.
Sorry for the sarcasm but this comment by you really came across as quite neanderthal and, although likely typed thoughtlessly, was really out of line.
Neanderthal? Maybe, but 70% of women voted for Obama over McCain and O.J.Simpson was acquitted of murdering his ex-wife by a jury of women, after sitting through a nine month trial. Now I ask you who had more sex appeal? O.J. or Marcia Clark? Obama or McCain? This Neanderthal does have some empirical evidence to support his thesis. And every trial lawyer in America knows what I’m writing here is true.
or Bill (‘better put some ice on that’) Clinton vs, Bob Dole.
[& just to show that it isn't a generational thing ...]
or Jack Kennedy vs. Richard Nixon
I am not sure where the animosity towards Newt comes from. He spent a few decades in the pit fighting “Progress” as defined by the Democrats. For sure, he is no RINO.
Points in his favor:
The Democrats don’t want him as evidenced by the Demopundits all telling us he can’t win, that we should go with Romney. That right there is a major argument in his favor. If they thought he’d earn Obama the nickname, “The Landslide Kid”, they’d be telling us he was the best choice.
He is the most knowledgeable of our candidates. He has actually given thought to problems beyond, “How do I get elected President”.
He has the most experience fighting Democrats. He has been ducking flying kitchen sinks longer than the rest put together.
Every one of his scandals is old news and has a well developed defense.
He is the best at redirecting the media away from the diversion du jour and back to the issues.
He is the most articulate.
There is a lot to like.
That being said, I still pledge to vote for whoever the nominee is, no matter what, if I can make my way to the polls and I will get an absentee ballot if I am incapacitated, and I challenge every Conservative/Libertarian to take the same pledge. You either vote Obama out of office or you don’t. Excuses won’t count for Bleep if he gets a second term.
Saving America from Obama takes precedence over ideological purity.
Well said… Follows my line of thinking right down the line and better articulated than I could manage at the moment! =) I still have to worry that all his closets are truly cleaned out. And of course the left isn’t adverse to creating new ones…..
I would prefer Cain, despite all his fumblings. (He really lacks political acumen.) Still, if Newt is the candidate, despite his huge character flaws and the forthcoming damage from it, I will still support him. If he is the candidate, I will campaign for him.
I would support Gingrich, Cain, Bachmann, Santorum, even Paul (ugh.) ABO: Anyone But Obamney.
I prefer Cain too. I believe the Presidential race is a likability contest, and Cain is the most likable candidate we have this time. However, I am afraid the harassment ambush is going to sink him. I hope it doesn’t, but they are using it because it works so well. That they are dragging it out now is a measure of how much they fear Cain. I guess it is better to find out of he can survive this now than next October.
Newt has other strengths. He has been in more than a few debates with Democrats. He has been in big games before. He knows the issues and can speak at length on them. He is the most qualified person running, including Obama or Hillary if they dump Comrade O.
And despite viewing Romney as our version of the Algore, Biden, Kerry, Edwards style empty suit weather-vane careerist apparatchik, I’ll vote for him if he is our candidate.
I have voted Republican all my life, I am 52, but if Mitt Romney is the Republican candidate I will write in a conservative’s name. I have heard threats from the Republicans for the last 12 years. You know what I mean that we MUST vote for the lesser evil, well I choose not to vote for evil at all.
The Republican party better think long and hard about nominating Romney because there are millions just like me saying no more and never again to non-conservative candidates. There will be a third party if they push us to the wall.
Just like 1 ‘Oh Sh–’ wipes out 100 ‘good jobs’
One Newt sitting on a soda sucking up to Polosi and pushing the gore-bull warming myth wipes out much of Newt’s “conservative” points
Still, I would vote for him if the choice was between him and Mittens(‘Obama-lite’) Romney
I still think Pres. Bush was a good president, certainly head and shoulders above our current model, which isn’t saying much. We’ll leave that argumnet to history.
This die hard Bushie is not for Romney, and I suspect there are a lot more of us that would say the same. President Bush was the same man when he left office that he was when first sworn in; Romney isn’t even the same man he was at the beginning of this campaign season. I will not vote for him in the primary, and might not even if he is the GOP choice.
You want sex appeal? Even with his slight build and small stature, The Herminator has it.
That’s one of the reasons we know the allegations against him are false. Attractive men are constantly plagued with skanky, disgusting women who make passes at them and then get vengeful and vicious because they are rebuffed.
It’s been that way ever since there were men and women. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned…and long before that, there was Potiphar’s Wife. Google it if you aren’t familiar.
Q.E.D. Case closed. That’s all there is and there ain’t no more.
Baehr observes the ebb and flow of popularity over time. This is a natural phenomenon that occurs as voters vet each candidate. Sometimes there is a seminal event that seals a candidates fate. One such event occured yesterday when Herman Cain’s candidacy came to crashing conclusion with his complete incompetence in responding to questions on Libya and public sector collective bargaining. Cain knows precious little about Libya and is left of FDR on collective bargaining. Take a look at the video, it tells you all you need to know.
I am saddened by this outcome. Cain is a jovial and likeable guy who obviously knows his way around a boardroom and understands the corporate world. That, however, is not enough to qualify one to be President, as the events of yesterday reveal. Cain doesn’t know enough about our world or what his position as a conservative should be on collective bargaining in the public sector to qualify to be President. His clear confusion is disqualifying.
Conservatives will be relocating to another candidate. My guess is that Gingrich will benefit in the short term.
I saw that on the network news, but not on O’Reilly. Did any of the Foxies carry it?
Yes, I saw it on Brett Baer and Sheppard Smith’s evening programs.
Don’t recall seeing it on O’Reilly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAGGpK7bSWc
Starts at 0:17
Let’s be honest. Romney has the business experience (even more than Cain) that would be helpful in digging us out of the hole in which banking experts, Schumer, Frank, Dodd, Pelosi, Obama et al have thrown us into. He has the political experience of being the governor of a hostile (at least to conservative politicians) state and managed to play nice and get things accomplished with people who disliked him immensely. (And yes I remember “his’ health care program. Riddle me this Batman, what would MA’s health care look like if he hadn’t tried to bring some reality to it, because they were going to have universal health care whether of not the governor got on board, You can take that to the bank).
So what else could it be. He’s not a serial philander like Bill Clinton, he’s not a liar and prevaricator like Obama, he’s not an aw’ shuks poser like Jimma’ Carter. He obviously has integrity, loyalty and an impressive work ethic. I wonder what else it is that makes Romney such a non starter to many.
Kind of makes you say hmmmmmmmm doesn’t it Mr. Huckabee, Mr. Jeffress, Mr. Perry?
Unfortunately, there are some in the GOP base who think that a Republican president who is able to work with Democrats to get things done is a sellout to his own party’s base.
It’s the mirror image of Moveon.org, who regard Obama’s appointment of bipartisan commissions as a sellout to the Left.
Sorry to disappoint both party’s bases,
but America is a center-right country, not a right-wing country nor a left-wing country.
The “silent majority” are centrists. They aren’t political junkies and they don’t even pay much attention to Presidential politics till Labor Day–just two months before the Presidential Election. But they are confirmed pragmatists, and rigid ideologies turn them off.
If there’s anything that grates on me more than that putrid phrase “get something done”, i can’t think of it. Stop and ask yourself, what does “getting something done” mean? Our constitutional mandate is NOT to “get something done”. Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” got so many things done; our great, great, great grandchildren will still be paying for that giant leap forward at the end of this century. It would be a true statement to say we’ve got a lot of things done in the last one hundred years, 90% of those things are the “things” that have brought us to our current crisis. The vast majority of the things we’ve gotten done have mired us in bankrupting the country, destroying our school systems, corrupting all three branches of our government and diminished our military standing in the world. Whenever truth compromises with a lie, you can only end up with diluted truth. There’s no such thing as a diluted lie. By “getting things done”, what we’ve been doing for the last 100 years is diluting the constitution. Unfortunately, there’s not much left.
Excellent post!
The Federal government isn’t a business, and was never meant to be one. The business of a business is to turn a profit and GROW! If anything, we’ve elected too many who want to run the government like a business already. Sure the government has a huge debt, so do most large companies.
The POTUS is supposed to be the head law enforcement officer and CinC of the military, not a “manager”. The POTUS, ideally, would not have a personal agenda to “do” anything, other than promote the image and interests of the United States at every opportunity, to enforce the laws made by CONGRESS, and fulfill military missions mandated by CONGRESS.
Looking for a “savior” to “dig us out” with business acumen is not wiser than looking for a savior in academia to engineer a better society. The country can dig itself out quiet nicely if we an shrink the government and the burdens it places on the economy to the appropriate size and scope.
Electing people to “get things done” has left us in a situation where US businesses spend more to meet government mandates than their total profits or taxes! The government has “gotten” plenty done! What we need is to start “undoing it”.
If not for his history of pandering to the left and their looney ideas about “climate change” and social engineering, Newt would have been the ideal candidate. Nobody on the stage (on either side) understands the Constitution as well. I just don’t have the confidence he’d use that understanding to protect it rather than to side step it as so many have.
Bearlyme,
Congratulations on your logical and observant approach to the problem at hand. The solution to our financial distress and our loss of virtue as a people is a return to valueing the rule of law, liberty, and free markets, and rejecting socialism and half truths, and all that goes with those hollowing propositions. In the past when we did this we had the most vibrant economy the world has ever seen.
We won’t get to what is proven to work by retaining the rotting corpse that progressive action has brought into being. Romney is a progressive and will not dismantle the federal leviathan. He lacks the courage to do so. He doesn’t understand the Constitution or the founders; for if he did he would never have participated in socialized healthcare for MA. He still insists he made the right decision by foisting that on the people of MA. He thinks the Feds should subsidize ethanol production and he believes in anthropogenic global warming. This guy is just as much of a progressive as your average, garden variety democrat. He will not get us anywhere near where we need to go to recover as a society. He just can’t imagine how it is done, he can only imagine Fabian thinking. That won’t get us recovery, only more disater.
In the past, “getting things done” meant creating new government programs and growing government. For the future, the things we need to do are unlikely to get any Democrat support. We need to eliminate not just government programs but entire departments. We need to reform those entitlements that are worth saving and eliminating the rest. We need a massive overhaul of the massive and corrupt tax code and a rollback on regulations that are strangling the economy. Reaching across the aisle isn’t going to get those things done. It’s going to require winning a massive conservative victory, not just of the presidency but of both houses of Congress.
Larry J,
All I can say is “Can I have an Amen!?”
Keep spreading the word. The more people that begin to realize the possibilities that freedom and liberty present as compared to the servitude, shackles, and worker drone mindlessness that progressivism dictates, the more likely we are to wake people up. Freedom represents self determination. It represents choice in music and life style. It presents choice in partnership and association. It offers exactly the opposite of what liberals characterize freedom to be.
We are not designed to be cojoined biological units. We are designed to be individuals who can choose conscious cooperation or mindless collectivism. When we conciously cooperate we build and succeed. When we collectivise we fail… every time.
Look at our dynamic in 1900 and compare it to Europe’s critical mass today. Progressivism atrophies and destroys the future. It snuffs out the red blood cells that humans require to create and grow the future dynamicaly. There is no logarythmic possibility in progressivism, no vibrancy, only a zero sum game for losing where collectively things get worse and worse.
What a fool Marx was, only a blind ideologue could follow him and ignore what his bromides do to destroy the human nature in all of us. It is a testament to the mediocrity in higher education that his theory is still fashionable.
“he’s not a liar and prevaricator like Obama”
Yes, he is. WTF do you think flip-flop Mitt effing means?!? Conservatives are sounding the alarm about this stealth Leftist, and you are not listening. Our howls should be raising a red flag with you. You think it is about ideological purity, when we are willing to hold our noses for so many others? Really?
We recognize Romney. We KNOW him! We sounded the alarm about Obama, and still lots of Republicans voted for him. It wasn’t ideological purity, then, either. We KNEW! We TOLD you so!
Well, if I have to have a RINO, I’ll take Newt any day. At least he knows how to get things through Congress and has a ton of experience. He also has a very good knowledge of foreign policy, which will be critical in the next four years. Is he perfect? Not at all. But with him in the White House and with more conservative Republicans taking over Congress, we may actually have a chance here to implement a major part of a conservative agenda (the biggest part of which is the repeal of Obamacare). And in Washington, that is a lot and is sure better than nothing.
I agree, Libertyship! My bumper sticker will read NEWThinking. Won’t it be wonderful to have a highly competent president?? Yesss.
Will Wilkinson: “Newt Gingrich, PhD, now reigns supreme (in some polls), lending some support to the proposition that hot air rises.”
Nicely put!
Any conservative who is so disgusted with the GOP’s candidates that he would prefer to sit home or vote third party (which in our system acts only as a spoiler), should learn about the Earl Warren Supreme Court.
The Warren Court, the most liberal in our history, gave us a rising crime rate and a deteriorating social and moral fabric.
If Obama is re-elected and appoints two more justices to the Supreme Court, we’ll end up with a Supreme Court at least as liberal as the Earl Warren court.
And that will slam the door on conservative efforts for years to come.
Do I repeat myself? Very well then, I repeat myself:
“Fred Beloit
Well, Jack, here I am imagining whom Romney would nominate to the Supreme Court:
Jeb Bush? Carl Rove? Colin Powell? Mayor Bloomberg? John McCain?
November 15, 2011 – 7:15 am Link to this Comment
Fred, now listen closely: (You might even say “read my lips”):
Nobody — I say again, nobody — appointed to the Supreme Court by a President Romney, or a President Gingrich, would even begin to approach the sheer awfulness of what will be, (if you and your fellow purists persist in your “my way or the highway” policy), the next 2 appointments by our current Post-American-in-Chief.
You like repeating yourself? OK, two can play that game: If you insist on the perfect at the expense of the good, we will all surely end up sucking hind you-know-what.
Oh boy. Look, my dear friend and fellow Republican, you state I say my way or the highway. You also state the perfect isn’t as good as the good. Straw-man alert. Who here said any of the candidates are or must be “perfect”? Two can play at that game as well.
I say I won’t vote for a big government librul, which I see Romney as being. You say I must vote for a big government librul or a different big government librul will win. That is an argument I can’t even follow, much less agree with.
Hey you two! Knock it off!
Keep fighting amongst yourselves and you are playing right into enemy hands and doing their work for them.
Pendejos.
Yeah, no chance of a John Paul Stevens or Davy Souter with Romney.
Jack, your slip is showing. Your thinking got us all of the liberals who have done us in. You’re part of the problem Jack, not part of the solution. Your choice as to whether you will wake up or not.
If you want a successful outcome for your kids, time to stop adopting the failed policies of the last hundred years and stop accepting a continued erosion in your political position via one way compromise. Your getting rolled and you don’t seem to realize it.
Time to dig in and start saving your posterity. Or you can just keep yielding and rationalizing until you have nothing left for your kids.
Don’t feel bad, it took me 32 years after the age of majority to learn how wrong my compromises were. Patrick Henry, Washington and Jefferson learned way faster than I did.
I don’t want a Third Party. I want a second that is actually conservative.
Once all the conservatives wake up and leave the GOP, that is what we’ll get.
Oldy, but Goody,
Boy do I agree. Time to get rid of the progressive infection, not compromise with it and rubber glove embrace it.
> Any conservative who is so disgusted with the GOP’s candidates that he would prefer to sit home or vote third party (which in our system acts only as a spoiler), should learn about the Earl Warren Supreme Court.
Y’know, as much as I hate to point out the obvious, Chief Justice Earl Warren was a Republican appointee.
So was Harry Blackmun, a.k.a. Mr. Roe V. Wade.
So was David Souter.
So was John Paul Stevens.
So was Sandra Day O’Connor, who, like King Solomon and the contested baby, never met a principle she couldn’t split in two.
So, explain to us all, please, how electing a Republican necessarily means more conservative court appointees.
My worries about Newt stem from a couple of things.
First, he is brand damaged. Like it or don’t, the propaganda machine has shredded him…and they have plenty of ammunition to do even more damage. They don’t like him at a level and with a vigor reserved in the Cheney, Rumsfeld,Bush, Palin league.
Second, Newt is a thinker who likes to tinker. He believes he is always the smartest guy in the room on all topics…an ego faceoff with Obama would be interesting, but a likely turnoff to the independents.
There is much to like with Newt as well. He will not only school Obama in debates, he would school the cheating moderator. Newt gets the small c communist “playbook” and he can articulate better than ALL the other candidates how the attempted crashing and overthrow and “transformation” is destroying this land of ours.
Significantly better and with more vigor than Romney.
But, he’s a high risk to lose to Obama. His damaged brand with those who get their news from the propaganda machine…who might otherwise throw Obama out on his open cab door ears….could easily flinch…or, much more worrisome to me…be attracted to a Tony Blair type headfake…a third way.
Romney is the “Tootsie of 2012″. An actor getting the role of his life, playing something he’s not, to prove a point he doesn’t embrace, wearing a disguise that allows him to cross dress as a Republican and a Democrat.
The reason that there have been so many ABM’s launched his way…is 80% of the non-leftist audience is not quite ready to marry Tootsie, who is not all things to all people…but rather, one thing to some people and a completely opposite other thing to other people.
The ABM launchings (anybody but Mitt)Bachman, Perry, Cain, Newt will stop here…unless there is a brokered convention. (Please, Paul Ryan…answer the call).
For all intents and purposes, we are likely to be down to Tootsie and Newt. (who, has a strange resemblance to Charles Durning, by the way)
We aren’t going to get a consensus candidate and we run a huge risk of a third party spoiler if Mitt wins. Less likely a third party candidate makes a serious bid if Newt runs, but the propaganda machine will brutalize him.
The theme song for this election “It Might Not Be You” is quite appropriate.
We are going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, I’m afraid.
Paul Ryan…your phone is ringing.
Yes, please, let’s have a brokered convention. We disagree about who we should draft, but by all means, let’s do it.
cf,
One thing you have to factor in is the endorsements that will come as the field narrows. If popular and trusted people can give convincing reasons for supporting a candidate, they could influence voters. Ultimately, our ability to defeat Obama depends on our ability to stand together with a clear sensible program and to push the sniping (and sometimes flaky utterings) to the back of the voters’ minds. Right now people are probably thinking: I thought Obama was bad, but these Reps think vaccines cause retardation, they want to take away social security, they harass women, and they want to start another war.
“Right now people are probably thinking:…”
Gee, what a great gift, to be able to intuit what Americans are thinking. I stand, or sit, in awe.
Wonderful imagery, Mittens as an invention of the Crony Capitalists, “He’s not real, but he’s our guy/gal sort of.” Don’t let him get that first ballot and it begins to get MUCH more interesting. There are better candidates out there folks, the system is being gamed from so many angles right now it isn’t funny. The deep cynicism that drives the Establishment Republican/Romney wing creates NO enthusiasm in the base. The mainstream media are doing their ‘Republicans have Cooties’ coverage. Mitt’s sainted cheering section adds a new and special layer to the cycle. Right now, the way it looks, the only way this can improve is to deny Mitt that nomination. We are a year out, we can have this fight now and roll into 2012 on fire, but it won’t be a normal cycle, it will be unorthodox.
Re Newt: he has been around a long time qnd people have heard about his three marriages and so forth. He is surging nonetheless. If Bill Clinton is persona grata with the American people–and he seems to be–surely Newt can overcome attempts to shred him.
*sigh* Politics as a circus. Did you think that up all by yourself?
The most important thing to remember is”HE who currently sits on the throne presently MUST be unseated”! Time to stop voting for The most charming,the best looking,the most polished,the sexiest and the media favorites. Gingrich and Cain are the real deal!!!
Baxter you are spot on. I have been saying the same thing for a long time now. I love both of them and Newt showed he could get things don when ole slick willie was in the whitehouse getting his weeny washed by monica lewinsky and no telling who else. you can watch for the democrats to crank it up big time now throwing everything they can dream up at Newt because they are deathly afraid of him and Herman Cain,
Happy I have an ally Vagabond,I hope many believe the same!
Baxter,
Cain, God love him, is to the left of FDR regarding collective bargaining for public employees. Please, if you are at all conservative, get that fact through your head.
Cain put a.45 up against his upper palate yesterday in Milwaukee and ended his Presidential campaign. I feel badly for him, but worse for me. You see, I gave him money.
If you don’t understand what I am talking about pull him up on YouTube and check out his pure idiocy on collective bargaining and Libya. It is 5 of the most painful minutes of political tv I have had to endure. The man doesn’t know enough about the world to be President. It is embarrasing that FDR had better sense about the dangers of collective bargaining than Cain does. You can’t be an authentic consrvative by any definition and F’ up that badly. It’s breath takingly ignorant.
I’d be pleased to have a beer with the guy and talk corporate turn around, but President?
No Way.
Newts closets have all been opened and emptied. Morals, the kind Newt has had troubles with, take a back seat when the country is in a crisis. We could afford to put greater emphasis on morals from around the end of Viet Nam, and we did.
Perry made a tiny mistake. It was very public, hence very embarassing. Who wants to reject a candidate for president becaus his main flop is that he couldn’t win at Jeoprady? That’s what it boils down to.
Romney got elected in Ted Kennedy’s back yard. Would a black man infiltrate a Klan rally without a sheet? Neither would Romney operate as governor of MA without playing ball with the bluest of the blue states. He can unveil himself if we tell him its OK to be yourself. I think he got the message. Now, do we believe him?
Santorum, Bachmann, Cain- excellent in certain areas but too narrow overall.
Paul- Ron Paul is to Republicans what water, exercise, sunshine, vitamins, minerals and good nutrition are to everybody. You know its the best thing for you but you can’t bring yourself to do it. The only way to beat Ron Paul in a debate is to not ask him questions or to sound bite him if you do. His logic and completeness are impeccable. Or maybe he is like a bitter medicine we know will make us better but the taste would be awful.
Nicely put MM!
I have been listening closely to Paul with each debate. I am beginning to like what I hear.
Our biggest issue is our economy. His proposals are excellent with only Newt and Cain as competitors. He proudly states which departments he will end; who else has put forth the cutting of any departments other than Ooops. He attacks the runaway Fed, unbalanced budget, base-line budgeting and entitlements although I would like to read more of his views on SS and Medicare…
But he goes futher and stands above the rest when you read his views on our military obligations around the world, illegal immigration, and energy to name a few.
Sure the left call him crazy as do the blue-blood GOPers and RINOs. Remember the left will tell who they fear by how they attempt to destroy that person. He has been under attack for the last several years.
As for who debates well: Newt and Paul I think are the best. Who beats Odummer? Despite the assault by the left both Paul and Newt can beat the marxist One.
Your nominee will have his howling winds to contend with. Two, in fact. Us and the new congress will temper and guide the outlier positions of any nominee.
We’ll be fine. In fact the bottom is right now. Soon the nation will wake up to the fact that a new dawn is just around the corner.
“the new congress will temper and guide the outlier positions of any nominee.”
You mean like they did with Bush?
Isn’t that how we got 2006 and 2008?
Today America is fighting a war on two fronts. And make no mistake… it is a war.
One is the outside war against Radical Islam. The other is the inside war against our free market system and the jobs it provides. Both are very real and very present dangers, and most Americans are a quite aware and just little more than concerned.
Extraordinary times like these have always been about the search of a bulldog or equivalent. But since our mama grizzly has gone back into the woods, America now seems to be turning their attention to their bulldog, warts and all – Newt. Just like England during WWII turned to their bulldog, warts and all – Winston Churchill. And boy, did he have some warts.
If Newt comes in first or second in Iowa and second in NH, I believe he will be in a full sprint towards S. Carolina and it will be just about over. Because most Americans are increasingly starting to realize that this nation, the one we know today, may not survive another four years of Obama.
We need a bulldog… warts and all.
I agree, scottK. I was (and remain) a big Palin supporter — in fact, my choice would have been a Sarah Palin-Allen West ticket.
But such is not to be, (at least not yet), and we live in the world of now, where Newt is the best of the remaining bunch.
He is an instinctive conservative, with a nimble, creative mind. Plus he has the inestimable advantage of being able to distill and explain complicated truths to the broad population.
He may not be perfect, but he’s certainly articulate — wouldn’t that be nice for a change?
In 2008 the MSM got the general public in a Frenzy of “Making History” and the folks got right on that bandwagon. They were So Committed to “Making History” they forgot to investigate Who they were “Making History” with.
Explain to me exactly how that is different from those who express their support for Romney in the terms of “Unseating Obama?”
It’s the Primary! And I’m tired of being told that it is so important that we “Unseat Obama” that we take no time to Investigate who we are going to “Unseat Obama” with.
Romney has shown, by his previous actions, that he has no stomach for a fight with the MSM and whatever meme they establish. He has proven his “Go along to get along” credentials as Governer of Massachusitts. (Can you say RomneyCare?)
In 1994 he showed that he has no vision when he sidestepped the Contract with America, a move that sank him in the polls, and allowed his Media Cow Tow to lose his election during a Sea Change, thus giving us 16 more years of Ted Kennedy.
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree, Romney can manage a liberal mess better than any Democrat ever could.
But that’s not what we need.
We need a leader who will change the direction of this country.
That is NOT Mitt (that’s the House, I’m running for the Senate) Romney.
We should be very happy to have two strong candidates, Romney and Gingrich, both of whom are far better than McLame was in 2008. Each of the two is now more likely to win than the rest of the field combined, thank goodness. The other candidates have all played exclusively to the far right, and all of those strategies failed. Romney and Gingrich have remembered that the end zone is in November 2012, not the Republican convention. Somehow, enough voters have figured that out to put the two of them in the clear lead.
Gingrich is my preference, but he is going to receive a Borking like nobody has ever been Borked, so it is likely he will fade back into the pack within a few weeks. That means Romney is the most likely winner.
Both Newt and Mitt appear able to beat little lenin. The key skills for each are the ability to maintain composure and represent their positions effectively under pressure, and their extensive experience in government. Little lenin will look like a petulant child compared to either one of them.
Please be very careful about placing any credence in the result of the Iowa caucus. You have to understand the nature of it. Let me explain.
In order to participate in a caucus here you must be registered in the party whose caucus you are attending. That’s supposed to weed out the non-believers. But in a year when the incumbent is running for re-election it does exactly the opposite. It allows the voters of the incumbent’s party to cross over temporarily and skew the results in favor of the candidate they want to run against.
In Iowa, the percentage of voters who participate in the caucuses is miniscule. It averages about 6%. Yes, you read that right. Six percent of the voters in Iowa determine who wins the first delegates. That’s tragic enough but what’s even worse is that it makes it pathetically easy to game the system. At the 2008 Republican caucus in our town of four thousand there were roughly thirty participants. How difficult do you suppose it would be for Dems to field thirty crossovers to force the nomination of the candidate they think easiest to defeat?
The same is true of states which hold primaries to some extent but it’s a little more difficult there due to the numbers. More people participate in the primaries than in the caucuses so it takes a larger effort to affect the outcome.
This is what Barack Obama excels at…gaming the system. The games begin in Iowa.
If they do, watch for Ron Paul to do better than expected for a few of reasons: 1. They are leery of running against Romney, 2. They don’t want to chance a Conservative actually winning the election, and 3. Ron Paul agrees with them on some issues.
I knew that Newtie would be the flavor of the month. Everyone (except Santorum and Huntsman) had had their shot, it was Newts turn.
On the other hand, I can’t believe that anyone in their right mind could say “That Mitt Romney is no conservative. I’m voting Gingrich.” It makes zero sense.
Yes, Newt is a pretty smart guy. As someone with a degree in history I like the idea of an historian running for President. It hasn’t happened in 100 years. But I have heard things come out of Gingrich’s mouth that would have been D- history at best. It may not annoy some, but it gets under my skin.
So, I guess it’s Newt’s devotion to family values that has gained him support among conservatives. Oh wait, if serial adultery is a family value I must be missing something. I don’t fall into the “He’s no worse than Clinton” argument because if I never supported Clinton.
Anyway, Newt is flavor of the month. He appeals to Republicans. It’s not like he’s a RINO like Romney. You’d never catch Newt doing something like sitting on a couch and agreeing with Nancy Pelosi.
What?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaZFfQKWX54
As Rick Perry would say, OOPS!
Full Disclosure. I’m backing a real conservative. Michele Bachmann.
Who are you backing when Michelle drops out?
Not Newt and Not Mitt.
Look, I always vote on election day and I’m not voting for Obama. That’s for sure.
But casting a vote might be all I do. If it’s Newt or Mitt I won’t donate a penny nor will I volunteer (I have volunteered for various campaigns since the 70s). If the Republicans want me excited they’d better find a conservative. If they just want me to hold my nose and pull a lever anyone will do.
Let’s see…four years ago Romney lost to McCain in the Republican Primary because the establishment Republicans thought that McCain would appeal more to the independents. Bad idea, eh! Four years later, the establishment Republicans want to run Romney because he will appeal more to independents than the other Republican candidates. Perfect logic, if you are a Progressive.
I also love the persistent assumption that independents are politically half-way between Democrat Progressives and Republican Progressives. This as opposed to–they don’t care for either and will simply vote their interests if they bother to vote at all. In this crappy economy, I bet they will vote overwhelmingly for the candidate who they perceive will most change the status quo in a way that will benefit themselves…and that is NOT Romney.
Four years ago the Republican nominee stated that he didn’t understand economics. He was then handed the election via the banking crisis caused by the Democrat created CRA boondoggle. He muffed this gift because he didn’t understand it. Unbelievably he stood silent while Obama blamed the crisis on the Republicans lack of regulations.
The GOP won’t make the same mistake this time. There are only two viable candidates with the knowledge of the economy and the communication skills needed to destroy Obama. And those two people are Mitt and Newt.
A very astute observation. I am a registered independent myself and am quite to the right of statist republican’ts. I seek a pipe dream I know, but I believe in the government following the constitution as written in plain English.
How the legislatures of the several states ratified such a document without the brilliance of Harvard law is beyond me. Perhaps they were fool enough to believe it would actually be heeded, as read in plain English.
Cain’s not dead. He actually gave a good answer to the question posed.
That’s why all of his detractors implore you to “watch the video.”
Massive style fail, probably due to exhaustion. But he got the answer right.
If it’s polish that you seek in the candidate, no one beats Newt.
But why would you trust him?
One word answer, Bumr50: substance.
Newt 2012, just gave Newt some money, plan to give every month until election day. Remember, anybody but Obomney!
Without realizing it all the pundits and whatever here and at other places on the Right side of the innertubes are just playing the Tranzis game for them. You are letting them decide who and what you will vote for. If you think the race is over and we have to choose one of “The Enemies of the Perfect” vetted for you by the MSM sponsored “debates” you are just as stupid as they think and perhaps know. You deserve the fate they have in mind for you.
Frakk ‘em. Let the conversation go on for a long, long, long time. Beyond the first caucuses and primaries. Keep it going into the summer to the conventions. Makes sure the subject is the failure of miserable failure of Ogabe and his policies. Show the states where there is not work because of them like SC. The path of the Keystone pipeline should be featured in each and every Conservative ad – TV or print media. When the Keystone pipeline owners decide to build that pipeline to the west coast of Canada and they start selling the cheap oil to Asia make sure that each dollar that is sent to MENA and it’s dictators who hate us is earmarked in a Conservative ad.
Unless we actually start acting like we know what they are attempting to do to us we deserve the hosing ‘cum Astroglide they will give us.
Start acting like free men and women or accept the chains they have planned for you.
Me – Molon Labe.
Probably like a lot of posters at PJ Media, I am beginning to conclude that we are not going to have an electable rightist standard bearer this election cycle. We are down to Gingrich & his bonafides are just as sketchy as Romney’s and he is much less electable. Reluctantly and finally, I find myself agreeing with Ann Coulter, Sir Charles Krauthammer, Myra Adams, et. al. We’ve got to get behind this legless lizard and hope the congressional and senatorial candidates that are presumably going to be swept into office with him will keep this snake straight. Specifically, political pressure will have to be applied to fight any Bushy-headed “compassionate conservative” squirms aimed at placating an implacable enemy. Romney is very likely to go this way, but he is a scardy cat as well as a snake, so the great rightist unwashed may be able to maintain his attention.
America’s great, positive sense of life, its optimism, its self confidence, its can-do attitude–whatever you want to call it–is being squeezed out of our culture right now. We have to support the best chance to stop it before it is killed. If we loose that sense of ourselves, we loose America and the progressives win. Romney will not save us, but he won’t kill us either.
Many say that anyone is better than Obama, I disagree. A choice that has no principles to guide the nation into a brighter future would do more damage than good for America. He would discredit fiscal conservative solutions by failing to properly implement them. He would crumble in the face of even the least resistance to reform, looking to “go along in order to get along” rather than fighting for the limited constitutional government we must have to thrive. We should be patient and leave Obama in for another 4 years if necessary rather than discredit the right with a failure of implementation. We must be successful immediately after taking control, in turning the economy around as the American people have run out of patience and 2014 could be as good for the Left as 2010 was for the Right, if we pick a leader without principles to guide us.
JL–Many respect what you are saying, but it seems very high risk. The risk is in assuming the public is educated and sophisticated enough to grasp what has destroyed our culture after it is destroyed. There is still too much intellectual education that is needed to make that assumption.
Think of the progressive’s triumphantalism that will result if they win another 4 years. The defeat of the right will be devastating & I argue that the causes of the cultural destruction that will ensue will never be properly placed.
Are the people here clamoring for “real conservatives” and forming a third party talking about social conservatism, or fiscal conservatism?
Because I think if there’s one guaranteed way to lose to Obama, it’s social conservatism.
If it doesn’t include social conservatism, it’s not conservative. We’re Republicans, not Whigs.
Too bad. I guess we’ll lose in 2012, but maybe we’ll pull our heads out in 2016.
I doubt it. If you can’t assess threats enough to put social conservatism on the back burner, then we’re dead.
I wouldn’t be against a 3rd party made up solely of social conservatives…then at least we’d have a chance to get a fiscal conservative in office before the financial tornado hits.
Never trust a fishcon to be a conservative. Social conservatives, like the ones who made the Republican Party, are generally reliably fiscal conservatives. If you can’t accept that, you deserve to lose. Besides, any sort of fiscal conservatism that is not based first and foremost in human rights is doomed to failure. If we do not have a right to life and liberty, it is farce to say we have a right to property.
Amen, brother.
Like Bush 41 and Bush 43? Social cons out the wazoo, 41 allowed taxes to be raised and 43 expanded the cost of “social” programs more than anyone since LBJ.
You simply have zero proof that a socon is a fiscon. And, since we’ve never actually elected a fiscon due to the confused view you present, maybe we should give it a try.
Socons can only be trusted to be socons which typically has led to more debt, bigger government, more foreign aid and bravado and less liberty.
Gingrich ripping off Freddie Mac for two million won’t sit well with thrifty Iowans. I think you can stick a fork in him.
Looks bad. Of course, everything we’re going to hear about Newt is going to look bad at this point. He’s in the hot seat. When you need your skeletons to come out of the closet to carry your baggage, you know it’s going to be rough. But in the fashion of some other public figures, he may have a comeback or two in him. http://bit.ly/rwQuhA
The guys who run PJMedia.
I like em’ all. The writers are all interesting to great. Granted, I have my favorite commenters (CFBleachers is my no.one) but I think virtually all of you are on the ball. I like the way you’ve chased away most of the leftist plants.
Rich Baehr, thank you for writing an article that lets me easily segway into my contribution for the day. Actually, I was waiting for the PJMedia regular staff to pick up on my subject today, but I guess you’ve all discounted it or missed it completely.
But time till elections is getting too close for me to not leak Obama’s main re-election strategy, which he’s kept hidden extremely well.
At this point, gang, Obama knows that his only hope of re-election is to run against Ron Paul who Democrats nationwide are working for undercover. If you saw the Fox polls over the last six months, you should have noticed Ron Paul winning most debates; to the point O’Reilly stopped publishing them.
The people at Fox mistakenly thought avid Paul supporters were “stuffing the ballot boxes”. They weren’t. It was Democratic operatives laying the groundwork for a believable Ron Paul victory in Iowa.
How many paid Dem operatives for Obama are embedded in the real Ron Paul campaign I don’t know. But more than fifty million has been spent so far to skew voting results. The latest Iowa poll has Paul first or second. Without the ObamaLeftist pumping up Paul, he’d be at 5 or 6 percent.
How long is it going to take until Republicans realize paid Obama operatives are helping Paul’s campaign in every way? From money to organizing to votes. The Paul people are turning a blind eye to this because they’d love Paul to run against Obama.
Of course, this is another example just how corrupt and nefarious Obama really is.
We need a team of Republican lawyers who specialize in voter corruption to ferret out Obama’s plan. At the least it’s unethical. Worst, it could give the election to Obama. It’s his only hope.
Net, Republicans, if you want to be outfoxed, you’ll say, “Rachel is just seeing conspiracies where they don’t exist.” One warning, though. A second Obama term presents the kind of clear and present danger to America that has me shaking in my expensive boots.
During a second Obama term, Israel is definitely in danger of being blown off the map with Obama not doing anything substantive about it. I’m talking no retaliatory strike. During a second term, inflation may hit the United States so hard you’d be taking barrels of cash to the supermarket to buy groceries.
Folks, this is the equivalent of the Dec. 7, 1941 radar practice done by Joe Elliot and George Lockhard, the guys who say the Jap sneak attack coming; which Lt. Kermit Tyler ignored.
Obama is out to run against Ron Paul because he’d beat Ron Paul.
This nation can’t afford to let this happen. Don’t be a Kermit Tyler.
Rachel Peepers isn’t just a political writer. She’s a whistleblower. If you don’t want to blow this election, somebody’s got to dig into the veracity of my claims. The stakes are too high to ignore this.
There’s a mole in the White House. Don’t let him steal the next Presidential election. Remove him before he destroys America.
Ms. Peepers,
If you have a grain, a shred of evidence I’d really like to hear it. Right now this reads like the work of the craziest conservative that doesn’t actually support Ron Paul.
You either have facts you don’t want to present, or this is all some weird delusion that came to you after a particularly bad acid flashback.
Show some proof or adjust your tinfoil hat.
Full Disclosure: I support Michele Bachmann and not Ron Paul. Even so, this smells fishy to me. Actually, it smells more like a bird. Cuckoo!
NORTHERN LIGHT, YOU JUST MIGHT BE THE DIMMEST BULB IN THE PLACE.
HEADLINE:
Why Obama Supporters Should Vote for Ron Paul in the Primaries
Obama’s supporters should purchase tee-shirts with serious American slogans, Don’t Trend on Me, Protected by Smith & Wesson, or even dress up in tea-party garb (it might even evoke a thrill akin to cross-dressing) before they tramp down to register as Republicans. It would do well to stuff their clothes a bit to create the “Republican pouch” and puff their faces out to give that aura of a regime that includes two pounds of bad deli meat a day and lots of macaroni salad. All questions should be answered with “hell yeah” and “take it to me”- a Caterpillar cap might be a nice finishing touch.
If those who voted for Obama still believe in the dream, still can hear Obama’s brilliant discourse echoing around the world, than they should take to the Republican primaries like disciplined sailors rocked to action by the sounds general quarters.
Once Ron Paul is nominated, Obama has won a second term. He just has to appear at the first debate relatively sober (he could even smoke on the stage, it would detract from his victory). As soon as Wolf Blitzer begins asking questions of Ron Paul the President can just lean back and start planning four more.
Wolf – Congressman, do you really want to end the Federal Reserve and bring us back to the gold standard?
Congressman Paul: Not exactly. I would favor competing currencies, some of which would be backed by gold or silver while others could be backed by oil, land or maybe even work. The market will decide which one works best.
Wolf- Congressman, would you legalize drugs and prostitution if elected President.
Congressman Paul- No, I would simply get the Federal Government out of legislating what people drink, smoke or do with their bodies. What states and local governments decide to do is completely up to them.
Wolf – Congressman Paul, do you really believe the United States should leave NATO and close all our foreign bases?
Congressman Paul- Yes, they are unconstitutional and we have no business keeping bases all over the world, especially when we are bankrupt.
Wolf – The United States and Israel have had a special relationship based on very deep cultural and religious feelings that are keystones to the survival and defense of both nations. Would you, if elected President, stop all aid to Israel?
Congressman Paul- Yes, absolutely, we should do what we can to have good relations with Israel as well as all the other nations of the Middle East and cultivate them as trading partners. But we should end all military and financial aid to all countries.
Wolf- What if Israel were attacked by Iran, you wouldn’t send the US military in to protect Israel?
Congressman Paul- No, it is not our place to get involved in regional turf battles. We should only fight wars when we are attacked.
Within hours all the news outlets, talking heads, and opinion writers of all persuasions and political affiliations would be clamoring to support the President and the fundamental values they all share. From The New York Times to The Wall Street Journal, MSNBC to Fox, Glen Beck will join hands with Olbermann, Rush Limbaugh will embrace Rosie O’Donnell (maybe not a bear-hug, but an embrace) and all will celebrate their shared values and support Obama. It will be a great day for America.
Vote for hope, vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primaries.
That was a lot of fun.
But I was asking for evidence. Got any?
You’re a naive amateur. Now the Obama people are offering him money to make a third party run. You have no idea what lengths Obama will go to win. He’s the most corrupt President in the history of the United States.
Incidentally, you show your stupidity when you ask for evidence. Are you talking in a legal sense? If you are, you don’t have the sense to realize the place for that is a courtroom. If you’re talking about your definition of evidence, that could be anything.
All I really have evidence of in this venue is that you’re a bothersome, downscale mind, with no intuitive ability.
Have a nice day. Rachel
Rachel: Your unpleasant ad hominems add nothing to your contention. Northern Light is a bright man and has every reason to ask for the source of your information.
57. max krotman
Report: Obama Admin Will “Push” Ron Paul “Behind The Scenes” To Run As 3rd Party In Hopes Of Splintering GOP Vote
October 14th, 2011 (36) Posted By Toro520.
Douglas MacKinnon – Townhall
I spoke recently with a senior Democrat strategist who offered up a quite logical and incredibly frightening scenario for those who are desperate to vote Barack Obama out of office in 2012.
His theory goes like this: That the Obama White House and the Obama re-election team are going to work overtime behind the scenes to push enough of Texas Republican Ron Paul’s “libertarian” buttons to eventually have him declare as a third-party candidate.
This strategist believes that as unemployment continues to remain above 9%, as the president’s poll numbers continue to slide, and as more and more of the American people are finally awakening to the self-destructive ways of Washington, that a “libertarian” third-party candidate running in 2012 may be the only thing that could save Obama in 2012.
If you are one of the tens of millions of Americans who feel that for the good of the nation Obama must be defeated in 2012, then there is real reason to fear a Paul third-party candidacy. While he would not be able to win, he very easily could ensure a second Obama term should he run.
Ron Paul is Ross Perot without the baggage. He is a very decent and thoughtful man who cares deeply about his nation.
More than that, he has a very strong following and for that reason alone his experienced voice must be heard and respected.
Plain Language
One obvious way for team Obama to push the Ron Paul buttons is to entice the Republican leadership to compromise further and further away from Paul’s core beliefs.
One could certainly argue — as Ron Paul himself is now doing — that with the debt-ceiling “solution,” the Republican establishment has signed onto and in fact endorsed a deal that is unsustainable and a clear threat to the financial security of the American people.
One of the reasons Paul does have such a loyal and growing following — and why his fellow Republican candidates need to beat a path to his door and engage him in serious discussions before it’s too late — is because he offers up common-sense solutions in easy to understand language.
In a recent op-ed for The Hill newspaper, Paul argued, “Our revenues currently stand at approximately $2.2 trillion a year and are likely to remain stagnant as the recession continues. Our outlays are $3.7 trillion and projected to grow every year. Yet we only have to go back to 2004 for federal outlays of $2.2 trillion, and the government was far from small that year.
“If we simply returned to that year’s spending levels … we would have a balanced budget right now … . In Washington terms, a simple freeze in spending would be a much bigger ‘cut’ than any plan being discussed.”
Strong Connection
Agree with him or not, he is putting his name on the line and offering up practical solutions to our coming financial meltdown. Beyond that, if you do happen to be one of his GOP competitors for the Republican presidential nomination for 2012, it also does not really matter whether you agree with him.
What matters is if you take Ron Paul seriously, understand that his voice is connecting with millions of Americans, and truly believe that he might — regardless of who ultimately pushes his buttons — become so frustrated with the nonaction of both parties as to make an independent run for the White House.
If you are a fellow Republican candidate or one of their supporters and just don’t see this as a credible threat, then I would simply suggest you look back at recent history and do some very basic electoral math.
Who would have won the election in 1992 had Ross Perot stayed out of the race? Who would have won the state of Florida in 2000 had Ralph Nader stayed out of the race? How many relatively few votes does it take to move one state’s electoral votes from one candidate to another?
In 1992, Perot got almost 19% of the popular vote. In 2000, Nader got about 2.75% of the popular vote. Both, in my opinion, changed the course of history. Should Ron Paul decide to run as a third-party candidate, I have no doubt his vote total would fall between the numbers of Perot and Nader.
Such an effort, however noble, would be disastrous for the republic should it create a path of victory for Obama.
0
Disqus