I never thought I’d see so many purported conservative writers, and once proud conservative websites, shilling for Mitt Romney. Michael Graham of WTKK-FM in Boston certainly isn’t one of them. He has “Smoke Gets In Mitt’s Guise” in today’s Boston Herald:
After the electoral fiascoes of ’06 and ’08, it wasn’t the Washington GOP that turned things around. It was the conservative base and the Tea Party. They helped elect Sen. Scott Brown here and handed the House back to the GOP.
And now party bosses wonder why the base refuses to take our “Mitt medicine” and do as we’re told. Maybe it’s because we’re tired of losing.
AdvertisementThat’s the real message Republican voters are trying to send. No more losing politely with some moderate squishy candidate who cares more about what East Coast elites think of him than conservative voters do.
You really want to stop Newt? It’s simple. Dump Mitt. Stop whining about Gingrich winning, stop flogging the GOP’s “designated establishment loser of 2012″ and back someone else.
Graham predicts that if Romney is nominated, he will lose. Which brings me to the taking names part.
Obviously if Romney wins the nomination, only the irrational wouldn’t prefer a Romney presidency to an even more radicalized second Obama term. But if Graham is right, that Romney can’t beat Obama, then we need to hold those in the conservative movement accountable that shilled so. . . demonically for Mitt. We need to remember who they were, and hold them accountable.
Holding them accountable means ignoring them the next time.
It won’t be hard to find them. Elliot Abrams can top the list. There are many many more. Keep the list handy in 2016. When we hear from the Dole-over-Gramm crowd the next time, or the McCain-over-Huck corner, we can check to see if they were part of the Mitt-over-Newt establishment panic of 2012, and appropriately disregard them in 2016.
Of course it is not too late to disregard them now, particularly those who cling to an obsolete linear political model from a generation ago. A candidate does not become more electable the closer they are to the center. Favorable coverage on NBC Nightly News no longer swings elections. In today’s polarized political landscape, the opposite may be true. A candidate that creates no excitement, even if nicely positioned in the non-offensive middle, cannot win. It is a lesson some conservatives have yet to learn, particularly inside the Beltway.
I’m losing all respect for the PJ Media site. You’re all so blind to Gingrich’s manifest flaws and ideological flitting from one maniac idea to the next. With Gingrich as the face of the Republican Party in Novenber we face the loss of the House, no gaining the Senate, and an even more radicalized Obama. Look for a lot of other down-ticket losses if this loudmouth, sociopathic, egomaniacal liar and serial cheater is the top of the ticket.
The list grows. Add “Buzz”.
Mr. Adams. Your list is a waste of time. You are backing the wrong horse. Have you seen this video of Newt’s heresies out of his own mouth?
Not “backing” any horse Terry. Just suggesting the people who are backing Horse Romney be held accountable for their claims that he can beat Obama – the central argument for his nomination.
I agree 100% with you J. Christian Adams.
Romney is no conservative, and we need to run a conservative in 2012. Romney voted for Jummy Carter, Walter Mondale and Paul Tsongas. Romney, as Massachusetts Governor, raised taxes, was adamantly pro-abortion rights, appointed with few exceptions pro-abortion Democrats to the state judiciary and championed RomneyCare, the precursor to ObamaCare. Romney did not run for a second term as Governor because polls showed he would lose. And I don’t buy the electabiliy argument: it is Romney who would lose to Obama.
Newt, in contrast, was responsible for leading gthe GOP to a House majority for the first time in decades.
Mr. Adams,
I agree with what you said in your article. If Reagan was running for president today, he would be treated the same as Newt. The elite republicans want to keep the status quo. Anyone who does not fit into their mold and speaks their own mind instead of the elite groupspeak is beneath them. They do not understand the mindset of the large conservative population in this country. We want a president with the courage and leadership ability to undo Obama destructive policies and to save our economy and our country. I’m praying that Newt will be that person. Thanks for all you do!
J. Conner
“I agree with what you said in your article. If Reagan was running for president today, he would be treated the same as Newt.” Maybe not.
Could there be any other factors? Like temperament? Or serial and cruel adultery? Or calling the Ryan plan “right wing social engineering.” Or supporting the federal individual mandate? (Of course, Romneycare only involves the completely legal state mandate, but why quibble with oh-so-brilliant and indignant PJ readers who don’t quite get the constitutional distinction). Or lack of executive experience running something other than an organization named after himself (newt.org)?
Here is a question: If candidate A had a demonstrated executive capability – including the ability to understand that the economy has to shed dead weight, and had a demonstrated ability to work with the other side, and was likely to preside over an economy that saw more private job growth and national prosperity, and be more successful than candidate B, who would you support. Would it matter to you if he was black or white, supported by the Koch brothers or George Soros, supported by the establishment or the tea party, etc? Maybe those issues would diminish in importance. Maybe perceived ideological purity is not as important as saving the nation. Some of us think that Newt is candidate B. We have arrived at that conclusion honestly and in full view of the judgment of the Almighty, no less. Maybe we are right. Maybe we are wrong. But no, there is no chance that anyone reading this knows the future, no matter how much their self-regard suggests otherwise.
Virginia voters don’t have the option of voting for Newt in the primaries, thanks to the Virginia Romney National Committee.
Yes, isn’t that convenient? The AG was on to something and the Governor (who endorsed Romney) and Lt Gov (who backs Romney) stopped it.
I will stay home on that day.
“Buzz” translated into English: “Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!”
Add me too because Buzz is right. Romney is the castor oil in a field of arsenic. He’s terrible but at least he won’t kill us on election day.
And Flip Romney won’t kill obamacare if he actually could beat President Downgrade.
I will say one positive of Flip Romney is he has clearly shown how many progressives are in the Republican party.
“Flip Romney won’t kill us”… spoken like a true 25%er.
Add me three, because Buzz is right. If I have to vote for a guy that backed TARP, the individual mandate, Dede from NY and whose personal life will make Obama look like “Father knows Best” by fall- well, we lose anyway. I like your idea about dumping Mitt and while we are at it- dump Newt too! This isn’t a two horse race and we have time to get behind someone else. Maybe we could look at substance for a change? Santorum has the right plan to get a large segment of the population back to work- manufacturing. Perhaps some “alleged” conservative writers might take notice of Santorum because Obama sure has- our deceiver-in-chief has already started attempting to co-opt the manufacturing plan as his own to secure the very people who could decide the election- the Reagan Democrats.
No one cares about people’s personal lives. What is your substance and what is your vision for America? Romney has neither and what he does have is shown in his record and recorded statements.
Enough with the John Boehner Republicans.
Romney will lose because who wants to get off his duff to vote for Obama-lite? I probably will (I even voted for Bush 41 while in labor, on my way to the hospital, so I think I get the “Ultimate Nose-Holding” prize) but there isn’t enough of a difference between the two to inspire a whole nation to overcome SEIU, Black Panthers, and my dead father’s vote.
Gingrich is this year’s Sharron Angle.
The GOP base learned NOTHING from the Angle debacle.
Harry Reid was even more vulnerable than Obama is now.
Reid should have lost.
And he would have lost to Sue Lowden.
So the GOP base went with Sharron Angle instead.
It’s the GOP base that should be apologizing. It’s THEIR fault that Reid is still Majority Leader.
good point
also, because harry reid was so vulnerable it FORCED the d’s to expend resources more than usual– in other words, significant pressure was applied in nevada and deleware to get them (dems) extremely worried with minimal resources being expended by angle and odonnell– the country was providing the resources for them—wow, imagine that– take the fight to the enemy and things begin to happen in your favor- who would have thought?
Actually it was the Republican progressive establishment undercutting and doing everything in their power to fight Tea Party, grassroot conservatives which helped Reid retain control. You know those same ones who backed Specter over Toomey.
You know, the one who defected to the democraps and gave them a 60 Senator super majority.
Your kind of thinking gave us obamacare and two years of Senate democrat filibuster proof rule.
Now these same progressive elite democra.. er Republicans are doing their shtick on Newt.
I have more respect for President Downgrade than the republican establishment.
…and the Republican establishment has learned nothing from the McCain debacle…
We don’t have to wait till Mitt loses to start taking names; they are the same names that shilled for McCain.
The ‘Tea Party Base’ did lose a couple battles in 2010 (Angle, O’Donnell) but
they were responsible for winning the overall war. The House went to Republicans
only because of the passion of the conservative base not because of anything the
‘losers’ in the Republican Leadership did. Do you really think the Boehners,
Cantors, McConnells etc. were responsible for the House switching hands?
If the base had listened to their establishment masters they might have
beaten Reid in Nevada but would have lost pretty much everywhere else.
Sadly, since Republicans won the House they predictably have done nothing
to slow down Obama’s spending spree. Who would have seen that coming?
When Gingrich was Speaker, Republicans passed a Capital Gains Tax Cut, Welfare
Reform and produced budget surpluses. All of this was done over the protests
of a liberal Democrat President. Since the ‘sociopath’ Gingrich was removed as Speaker all Republicans have done is add trillions in new debt and basically turned
the country over to Obama and his minions. What am I missing? Once the impediment
to change, Gingrich, was removed, Congressional Republicans should have marched
on to even greater victories. Especially with a Republican President in tow.
Instead they did nothing, except spend and lose. Could it be that Gingrich
was far more instrumental in the successes of the 90′s than the current
establishment wants to admit?
I have never liked Mitt Romney. He is a political opportunist who will say
anything to get elected. I am trying to convince myself to vote for him anyway
if he wins the nomination (his passionate defense of the individual mandate
doesn’t help) but it’s getting harder. After his smear campaign against Gingrich
I am actually coming to despise Romney. I don’t believe anything Romney says.
In the immortal words of Frank Tattaglia ” Your father did business with Mitt
Romney, your father respected Mitt Romney but your father never trusted Mitt
Romney”.
By the way, when Romney said he never supported Reagan/Bush, does that mean
he actually voted for Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale and Bill Clinton?
KDW got it right, I am in agreement with you all the way. Except one thing. That was Frankie Pantangeli. (Frankie 5 angels) you got it mixed up with Bruno Tattaglia. But the quote was right and on the money. For the first time in my life I am truly disgusted with the GOP, and all the commentators who are against Newt, NRO boys, Weekly Standard boys, Coulter, Krauthammer, Hume etc. I enjoyed these pundits for years and have never ever found myself in direct conflict with them as I am now. Sad. Can’t they see that we have learned the lesson of moderates losing with G.H. Bush, Dole & McCain. Don’t they know that as they savage Newt they will raise the ire of the Conservatives / Tea Partiers and we will create our own party and leave the GOP. It will be a tough couple of cycles but as things really disintegrate the country will beg for our solutions and leadership.
The GOP base learned NOTHING from the Angle debacle.
Marco Rubio.
Mike Lee in Utah.
See how that workis, sinz54?
In other words, you cast one name where the Tea Party did not triumph and we throw two who did back at you.
Swallow fast, pal.
This is the SAME D*MNED post you’ve put a number of times elsewhere…YAWN!!!
NOT convincing…
GINGRICH IN 2012!!!
Comparing Newt to Sharron Angle is silly.
Sharron was an obscure state legislator. Gingrich is the most important conservative politician and thinker since RR, rivalled only by Dubya, for those who consider Dubya conservative.
Ah, but his first sentence is right. The Establishment is treating Newt the same way they treated Angle; if he wins the nomination, all talk of “time to come together and hold your nose and support the party candidate” will all go out the window, just like it did with Sharron Angle.
Jeanette, you even capitalize establishment. Who are those guys?
Newt isn’t this year’s Sharon Angle.
On the contrary, Mitt is this year’s John McCain.
Have fun with the four additional years of Obama you’re gonna get.
Christian is absolutely correct and you miss the point, Buzz. It’s not about which candidate you support (see post #2) – the response of the conservative media and establishment politicos in support of Mitt reveals a lot about THEM.
Ann Coulter is a prime example, though I think she lost her cred in the President-choosing arena by swearing undying allegiance to Chris Christie as the one and only best-ever GOP Presidential candidate. I like Christie and he’s done a lot of good as Governor of NJ, but he’s hardly THE top champion of conservative principles and is certainly not ready to lead the free world (as he himself acknowledged). So when Christie endorsed Mitt, Ann jumped on board. Fine. Promote your guy to the hilt, broadcast his opponents’ faults (there are many), hammer on the candidates and issues. But when Newt won in SC, Ann attacked the GOP VOTERS as being too ignorant to make the “right” choice (layering onto her earlier attacks against the Tea Party as the source of all inter-party troubles in the GOP). All of this tells me less about Mitt or Newt, and more about Ann, who writes great books and knows how to take it to the Left, but goes on the “Not to Be Listened to When Choosing a Presidential Candidate” list.
And Bob Dole – really? How many Presidential-loser “compromise conservative” endorsements does Mitt need? Dole blasting Newt’s performance as Speaker (translation: Newt made ME look really bad) again tells me nothing new about Newt or Mitt, but plenty about Dole (also not new) – that he’ll cling to the status quo because he’d rather hold second place than no place.
And still I have NO idea why Mitt is supposed to be the best man for the job. He raised a family and worked in the private sector? He’s got tons of money and is “electable”? Newt’s evil? Paul is crazy? Santorum can’t win? I’ll certainly vote for Mitt if he’s the nominee, but if I’m going to convince even one other undecided voter to go for him rather than stay home, Team Romney better produce a lot more convincing PRO-Mitt arguments. Because we’ve already seen (thanks, John McCain) that the GOP establishment doesn’t perform well against the REAL smear-meisters in the Democrat-Media Complex.
Very well said. The dissembling by Abrams and published by the NRO is poisonous. There is much to be appalled with in this campaign for the presidency on many sides. Next time the Republicans candidates should agree to debates run by organizations such as Heritage, Cato, Federalist Society, and let the media do its job of covering it or not as they chose. However the talking heads of media, the media celebrities should have NO role in posing, asking, moderating othe debate. No contact with the candidates. No more stupid questions. No more trivialities. No more set ups and “gotcha games”. This is serious business. The first step is for the candidates themselves and their campaigns to treat it seriously.
Fine then- let’s go with “none of the above.” We may not want Newt to win the nomination, but we definitely want to deny the nomination to Romney. That means getting Newt, Santorum and Paul enough delegates to force a brokered convention, or at least a floor fight where we can pressure the unpledged delegates (and there are over 300 of them in a field of 2300) to vote against nominating Mitt. After that, the convention can draft Mike Huckabee (don’t delude yourselves about drafting Christie, Jindal, Rubio, Jeb Bush or Daniels- only Huckabee and Palin have a chance to be accepted by the nation if drafted because they’ve been through the vetting process four years ago, whereas the others would be last-minute newcomers that the nation would be asked to vet nine weeks before the election).
If Gingrich is the best horse you can find to support, all of your well deserved credibility re: Justice Department injustice, is gone. It is not rational to shill for the fatally flawed moonbeam Gingrich.
This is not about Newt. This is about the Republican establishment’s propensity for attacking its own side more ferociously than it’s opponents.
During the Republican primary in Arizona, John McCain campaigned far more aggressively against JD Hayworth (his Republican primary opponent) than he ever did against Obama. This cycle we’ve had a series of good men (Perry, Cain, Bachmann, Newt) all come under withering attack from Romney’s machine. Because of their nature, these attacks were originally thought to be coming from the Obama campaign. Newt however has flushed Romney out as the source of the smear machine.
Christian is correct. A lot of us are taking notes.
I’m taking notes and taking action.
I will, under no circumstances, support or vote for Romney. He will not win without the base, and therefore, he will not win.
If we don’t have Newt as the nominee in 2012, than Romney will not win either. The message of humiliation to the Establishment GOP after at 2012 loss will be devastating and will cause a serious leadership shake-up. Plan B is stopping obama with an aggressive Congress.
You’ll note CGW I never opined about who the best horse is, only who is smearing. But thanks for spelling the name of the book correctly. Like it or not, it is a two person contest. So I can understand why my criticism of the people smearing Newt might sound like promotion of Newt. At the same time, I may well reluctantly support Romney and simply not like what is happening to Newt.
Come on, Christian. It’s not that Romney is “smearing” Gingrich because there’s a lot of “smearing” going around these days and Gingrich is as guilty of it as anybody else. The deal here is that the “smear” is effective, in large part because Gingrich’s own ego sets him up for this kind of thing. Do you really think this is worse than Gingrich attacking Romney from the Left about Bain? Class warfare rhetoric is a Lefty tactic and doubly disgusting when it comes from a fellow candidate in the GOP primary. It has about the same credibility as Gingrich attempting to portray himself as an “outsider” compared to Romney, which is ridiculous. Nobody is more of a beltway insider than Gingrich, which he himself emphasizes everytime he talks about all the wonderful things he did for Reagan.
Also, there’s zero evidence that Gingrich would do better against Obama than Romney so the premise that Romney supporters are destroying the “only hope” of beating Obama is simply false. Frankly, given that Gingrich and his supporters want to portray him as the tougher fighter, I’m surprised at how frail and sensitive they suddenly are. Apparently the tide-turning victory in South Carolina and one good blasting of John King was more of a mirage than reality. Don’t hate on Romney and his supporters (of which I am one) because there’s a fight in progress.
Still love ya!
I call your BS.
Romney drew first blood. And that is heck of a difference. Newt had no choice but to attack right back after Iowa. What you are saying is essentially the same as blaming the US for WW2 – “Yeah but the US are bombing Germany too”.
Romney behaved exactly the same way against McCain. Romney IS the reason the campaigns are getting so nasty. He is the one that initiate the nastiness every time. And don’t you dare insult my intelligence by claiming otherwise.
Actually Ron Paul was the first to go negative in Iowa; but Gingrich was the first to negative with the left’s talking points. The reason so many people are smearing Newt is because they can see the train wreck up ahead if Newt get the GOP nod. Newt made mincemeat out of Juan Williams and John King; but they aren’t running for president. It gave him a short lived bump while the rest of the country scratched their heads wondering why “values voters” were giving a serial adulterer a standing ovation. When “the most despicable thing” Newt can imagine was a tawdry question about his three overlapping marriages, some people thought a former mistress as first lady–came to mind as pretty despicable.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-23-2012/indecision-2012—the-gingrich-who-stole-south-carolina
Conservatives have in my memory stood for actual family values and decried skanks like Sanford, Clinton, Weiner, Spitzer, –and Gingrich. Of course violating the 11th commandment doesn’t seem like such a big deal when we’re willing to ignore violating the rest of the ones the really count.
What should he do? Stand on the stage, like a pansy, and let Newt have the nomination? Then you would rip him for being a pansy. In a street fight, he who lands the first punch usually wins. Same for politics. I am glad Romney will fight for the nomination. If you like Newt and think him to be more righteous, that is your right and you should express your support for him. I sure won’t vote for Newt because you are trashing Romney for playing hardball in a game of hardball.
While I agree that there’s a lot of smearing going on, I can’t agree that Gingrich is just as guilty as anyone else. If you want to say that Newt has given at least as good as he got, that’s one thing, but after watching the personal destruction of Cain, Perry, and Newt, (all the leading “not-Romney” candidates), while all of the “also rans” seem to escape notice, it doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to realize that Mitt has run a dirty campaign from the start. If Newt has had to resort to tit-for-tat, let’s not forget that he didn’t start out that way. Mitt is dirty and, because he’s a progressive, he hasn’t had to defend himself against anyone but Newt.
When Santorum was surging in Iowa, I heard him complaining that Romney was using robocalls with Santorum’s endorsement of Romney from 4 years ago, without mentioning the date. A dirty trick, indeed.
You’re all so blind to Gingrich’s manifest flaws and ideological flitting from one maniac idea to the next.
The choice is between the ‘Contract With America’ and RomneyCare. Those are the major accomplishments of the two candidates. All the rest are words — none of which are definitive.
There certainly does seem to be an awful lot of Newt hysteria. Is it warranted? I’m not sure I can say for sure one way or the other. On the other hand I certainly don’t consider myself a Hobbit.
I know Newt talks the conservative talk, but if elected, would he walk the walk? Thats the pertinent question here and I don’t know if anyone – even Newt – knows the answer to that. Many claim to.
That having been said, you have to admit that there is a full court press on by the majority of conservative media (some would say RINOmedia) to guarantee that Romney is the nominee. It was, at least in part, these same people that tried to collect on the contract hit against Herman Cain, and I will not forget that.
Agree completely, that’s how I see the contrast. The prosperity of the mid 1990s vs. Romney|ObamaCare. A hand up vs. a hand out. People vs. the elites. An opportunity to win the upcoming election vs. the battle of two weaklings who have had every advantage. The more the R-establishment tries to clear the field, the weaker Romney looks. I’ll still vote for Romeny because I’ll always support a patriot over a communist.
Amen!
Exactly! If we agree that Newt is a deeply flawed candidate, does that mean that Romney is not??? Romney is a deeply flawed candidate as well. So, the question is “Which candidate is more deep-down conservative?” Does anyone remember the “Contract with America”? Regardless of what you may think of it, it was a fundamentally conservative effort. It also worked! It was also a Gingrich project. Where has Romney EVER actually done anything conservative? (crickets)
I like Newt but I find myself torn. Do we need a rockstar or someone who can do what is needed?
1: Balance the budget.
2: Push for reforms requiring that future Congresses pass a budget before any other business. REAL budgets. Not 2 month kickbacks. Neither side is doing their job in that regard.
3: Remove as much politics as possible from the budget. No symbolic defunding of things you disagree with. No pet projects that don’t apply to government function.
4: Whip the Senate and Congress into doing their jobs. Their ideologies are fine to have but it’s keeping them from doing their jobs. It needs to stop and both sides need to put on their big boy pants and start doing grownup work. Not arguing like children in kindergarten.
5: Reform how Congresspeople and senators are paid. As it stands they are getting paid generous sums to argue like little brats when they should be working.
Ideology is fine but it’s worth nothing when you’re poor and we are most assuredly poor.
If your ideology is keeping you from doing the work you are obligated to do then your ideology needs to get in the back seat with Idealism and Symbolism and be quiet because we can’t afford it.
We are getting collectivly screwed while both sides playfight with the other when they should be working.
What makes you think that Mitt wants to do any of those things?
Let alone that he has the ability to accomplish them.
“As it stands they[Congress] are getting paid generous sums to argue like little brats when they should be working.”
Working on what? It does matter just a little bit, doesn’t it, what they are working on? I smell NYT Cool Aide.
Then your nose is broke since I don’t read that rag.
But let’s look at this.
When Liberals had the majority Conservatives blocked everything they could. Even when the president made his picks for various positions which ALL presidents are allowed to do Conservatives raised the hue and cry.
Fast forward and now Liberals are doing the same exact thing.
How many years since they’ve put down a budget? How many times have BOTH sides proposed ideas that they KNEW the other side would reject just so that they can scream about the rejection. “How DARE THEY reject our ideology-driven ideas because of their ideology! HOW DARE THEY!”
Right now everything should be devoted to passing a budget and making cuts and a good place to start is to stop playing politics and pay for government as it stands today.
Put forward a budget with no allocation towards ideological goals. No bridges, no funding of a state institution, no pay raises or anything else.
Then call for the other side to do the same.
Because right now operating with no budget is making sure that neither party is without some egg on their faces.
NYT for sure!
I think Newt has the balls, the will and the tough hide needed to get all that done. I think Mitt Romney is amazingly lifelike and will manage to ohgodpleasedon’tmakemefinishthistrainofthought. I think I’m going to go exercise my Second Amendment rights now…
I wonder if the democrats are secretly (and erroneously)congratulating themselves for the infighting amongst the GOP? Not that I think its true – just that maybe they think (and think we do too) that Obama is just too damned smart and wonderful to be beaten and that thought is driving republicans nuts.
I get the feeling that some republicans get that idea about Obama – that he can’t be beaten. I know more than a few people – friends and family. The general mood of nearly all of them is that this guy has to go – in 2008 many of them voted for Obama. Very few are willing to entertain a vote for him this year. My admittedly unscientific poll calculates as much as 25% drop off in Obama’s support around here.
The country-club GOP is doing to us in 2012 what they did to us in 2008 and 2010. Anyone remember Christine O’Donnell? Karl Rove and Charles Krauthammer were instrumental in undermining her senate run. Both have been pushing for Mitt and against Newt at every opportunity – both are self-described conservatives. You can add them to the list – and Ann Coulter and Chris Christy – both are shilling for Mitt – and no surprise – McCain too.
The list of Americas enemies grows long.
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Christie is taking that step in NJ. Maybe he won’t have the right ideas as we move down the road, but for now he does. We need more examples like him and Scott Walker to hold up against the Dems failures. Don’t trash Christie because he supports Romney. He has a right to his opinion.
We all have a right to our opinion, but it’s opinions like Christie’s on Romney and who’s the appropriate choice by the establishment’s standards that helped get us into this mess. Enough.
Just remember without McCain you wouldn’t know who Sarah Palin was.
By the way that list is getting pretty long. One day you may wake up to find yourself on that list. Lists are tricky that way. Someday a conservative with tea party affiliation has an idea you don’t fully agree with, you mention it out loud and Wham! your on the list. I don’t know about anyone else, but I don’t agree with my husband 100% of the time. Yep, that list of “them establishment types” can get pretty long. When Ann Coulter and Chris Christy are on it as not conservative enough, the Tea Party Enemies List is getting pretty long.
I’ll just note a couple of things.
One, Gingrich took the high road in the debates early on, not attacking the other candidates. Romney didn’t get around to attacking Gingrich till Gingrich was the only “Not-Romney” still left standing.
Romney’s attack (mostly through surrogates) was nasty, and provoked Gingrich, after his Iowa loss, to get nasty in turn. I don’t think anyone can argue this bit of history.
Second, Romney’s massive, intricate, thorough connections with the Republican establishment–honed, I suppose, in the last four years, since McCain was the party insider four years ago–shows when Romney can get Abrams to distort facts and cover himself, Abrams, with mud. Pretty amazing.
Second fact, Part B, a lot of Republican establishment types opposing Newt honestly think he’ll go down in flames against Bam. Maybe. Maybe not. But NO ONE really thinks Romney would fight this dirty against Bam, because of course the MSM would be all over Mitt like his Mormon underwear. Romney might pick Christy as a running mate to do the slamming, though. We’ll (probably) have to see.
So what to conclude from all this?
One thing is Mitch Daniel’s wife was right to fear the Romney slime machine. However, conversely, Mitch could get in now and Newt has effectively made any such personal sliming utterly reprehensible, should Mitch get in. Newt has done us all a favor that way.
But I doubt Mitch Daniels (or Jeb Bush) would get in now. However, it might be just the ticket to save the presidency for the Repubs this year. We should be making that case–that while Gingrich rouses strong emotions in many people–pro and con–and is problematic as a candidate, Romney has proven himself too slimey a shape-shifting eel for anyone to trust him, ever.
Gingrich as prez will do a lot more conservative things than Romney, but he’ll be his own worst enemy, too. Romney will weather-vane everything till we die of dizziness. (Also, a vote for Romney to be the nominee takes Obamacare off the table, and that to me is a total disqualifier.
Otherwise, I shudder at our prospects if Romney is the nominee. We’ll just have to see if he wants it so bad he’ll slime the Bamster (SO damned easy to do, really, if you are fearless, right?).
What a mess.
An Préachán
re how Romney or Gingrich would govern if elected, they have a track record on that matter. Romney governed as a liberal (Romneycare, increased government spending and taxes). Gingrich governed as a conservative (balanced budgets, welfare reform, lower taxes). One has to suspend reality to think it would be otherwise if one of them one won the presidency.
Which one would be smeared more by the leftists is moot. But why hasn’t Nancy Pelosi crawled out of the woodwork to smear Romney? Come to think about it, pravda has had very little to say about Mitt either, but quite a bit to say about Newt. So the opposition has been rather clear about which one they think is a bigger threat.
Pelosi takes a swipe at Romney every chance she gets. So do all the Democrats. We should nominate our best candidate and forget about the flak we get from Democrats. I think that process is working and we will have one hell of an entertaining convention this year. Obama still doesn’t know what is coming for him, but there is a light in that tunnel now.
from: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150516734848435
Cannibals in GOP Establishment Employ Tactics of the Left
EXCERPTS: “We know that Newt fought in the trenches during the Reagan Revolution. As Rush Limbaugh pointed out, Newt was among a handful of Republican Congressman who would regularly take to the House floor to defend Reagan at a time when conservatives didn’t have Fox News or talk radio or conservative blogs to give any balance to the liberal mainstream media. Newt actually came at Reagan’s administration “from the right” to remind Americans that freer markets and tougher national defense would win our future. But this week a few handpicked and selectively edited comments which Newt made during his 40-year career were used to claim that Newt was somehow anti-Reagan and isn’t conservative enough to go against the accepted moderate in the primary race. (I know, it makes no sense, and the GOP establishment hopes you won’t stop and think about this nonsense. Mark Levin and others have shown the ridiculousness of this.) To add insult to injury, this “anti-Reagan” claim was made by a candidate who admitted to not even supporting or voting for Reagan. He actually was against the Reagan movement, donated to liberal candidates, and said he didn’t want to go back to the Reagan days. You can’t change history. We know that Newt Gingrich brought the Reagan Revolution into the 1990s. We know it because none other than Nancy Reagan herself announced this when she presented Newt with an award, telling us, “The dramatic movement of 1995 is an outgrowth of a much earlier crusade that goes back half a century. Barry Goldwater handed the torch to Ronnie, and in turn Ronnie turned that torch over to Newt and the Republican members of Congress to keep that dream alive.” As Rush and others pointed out, if Nancy Reagan had ever thought that Newt was in any way an opponent of her beloved husband, she would never have even appeared on a stage with him, let alone presented him with an award and said such kind things about him. Nor would Reagan’s son, Michael Reagan, have chosen to endorse Newt in this primary race. There are no two greater keepers of the Reagan legacy than Nancy and Michael Reagan. What we saw with this ridiculous opposition dump on Newt was nothing short of Stalin-esque rewriting of history. It was Alinsky tactics at their worst.”
“But this whole thing isn’t really about Newt Gingrich vs. Mitt Romney. It is about the GOP establishment vs. the Tea Party grassroots and independent Americans who are sick of the politics of personal destruction used now by both parties’ operatives with a complicit media egging it on. In fact, the establishment has been just as dismissive of Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. Newt is an imperfect vessel for Tea Party support, but in South Carolina the Tea Party chose to get behind him instead of the old guard’s choice. In response, the GOP establishment voices denounced South Carolinian voters with the same vitriol we usually see from the left when they spew hatred at everyday Americans “bitterly clinging” to their faith and their Second Amendment rights. The Tea Party was once again told to sit down and shut up and listen to the “wisdom” of their betters. We were reminded of the litany of Tea Party endorsed candidates in 2010 who didn’t win. Well, here’s a little newsflash to the establishment: without the Tea Party there would have been no historic 2010 victory at all.”
“As I said in my speech in Iowa last September, the challenge of this election is not simply to replace President Obama. The real challenge is who and what we will replace him with. It’s not enough to just change up the uniform. If we don’t change the team and the game plan, we won’t save our country. We truly need sudden and relentless reform in Washington to defend our republic, though it’s becoming clearer that the old guard wants anything but that. That is why we should all be concerned by the tactics employed by the establishment this week. We will not save our country by becoming like the left. And I question whether the GOP establishment would ever employ the same harsh tactics they used on Newt against Obama. I didn’t see it in 2008. Many of these same characters sat on their thumbs in ‘08 and let Obama escape unvetted. Oddly, they’re now using every available microscope and endoscope – along with rewriting history – in attempts to character assassinate anyone challenging their chosen one in their own party’s primary. So, one must ask, who are they really running against?”
The person who should be running for president is writing facebook posts.
The people who are running for president should be writing facebook posts.
And the man who is president should have his face on a wanted poster.
“The person who should be running for president is writing facebook posts.
The people who are running for president should be writing facebook posts.”
Bingo!
You don’t win the big game when your best quarterback is on the bench.
I am hoping for a brokered Convention where the Tea Party nominates Sarah Palin.
And I will remember all the supposed Conservatives who turned Establishment RINO for Romney.
I promise I will vote for whoever is nominated. I just hope all the Romney RINOs can bring themselves to do the same. Because the truth is, Sarah Palin’s dog would be a better president than the one we have.
If the RINOs force Romney down our throats, they should pray that he wins because they aren’t gonna like what happens next if he loses.
I don’t dislike Romney. If he’s gonna do what he says, then I think he’s fine. So far he hasn’t convinced med that he’s actually gonna do the things he says.
Gingrich has actually cut spending and balanced the budget in 1994-98. And he’s the only politician to do so in modern history. before him, congress was on a virtual spending spree. And as soon as he was out the door, the spending went crazy again.
Therefore Gingrich has credibility. The others are basically just talking. That doesn’t mean that they absolutely wont do it. But the odds are fairly small. Glen Glen Beck calls Gingrich a progressive. I wonder what he calls the rest of them then. Gingrich is still the only one, in the entire history of the US who could match Calvin Coolidge in cutting spending and balancing the budget. And Beck claims that Coolidge is his favorite president.
And if Washington doesn’t curb it’s spending, the US is no more. The debt is already at a level where growth is no longer possible. And the deficit is more than a trillion every year.
The two things Romney has demonstrated with ACTIONS, not words are that he has no ethics whatsoever when it comes to runing for the presidency, and that he governed as a liberal when he had the chance.
Between Romney and Gingrich, only one guy has actually faced the law for violating ethics regulations, and that was Gingrich. His ethics fine was $300,000, and it took a GOP establishment type (Bob Dole) to get him out of the hole because Gingrich couldn’t afford to pay the fine, so Dole let him borrow the money. Now, of course, Gingrich is a multi-millionaire. And how did he become so fabulously wealthy? Well, by becoming a Beltway Bandit – a DC contractor – who used his influence and connections from 20 years in Congress, to peddle his influence and to pander.
How did Romney become a millionaire?? Romney worked in private sector for over 20 years, creating thousands of jobs at name-brand companies like Sports Authority, Sealy, etc. So there you have a proven job creator, on the one hand, and, on the other, a guy who only created jobs for himself, one Government contract after another, and with, of all things, an incredibly corrupt and broke organization like Freddie Mac. Gingrich is the penultimate Washington insider.
Perhaps you aren’t aware that the IRS cleared Newt of the charge that our honorable congress convicted him of…the 1 of 99 charges that they could jam through.
But since congress is a law unto itself, the “conviction” still is on the fatasy books.
It’s kind of like the death row gang convicting one of there own of spitting on the cell block floor.
Who are they really running against? Its a great question and one that deserves an answer. Its the American people they’re running against. Those running the apparatus of the Republican Party are the elistist that want to micromanage your life, so ever so slightly less than the Democrats. Its those Bible, thumping, bitter people, clinging to their guns and traditional, (mostly) Christian conservative Americans who are revolting against the tyranny of the elitists.
Butch and Sundance kept asking, “Who are those guys?” We need to get some perspective here. The problem we are having is that we are a little too afraid that we can’t beat Obama. This man is toast. All we have to do is go out and vote for his opponent. Pointing fingers before the fact is a little bit paranoid, I says. I thought this article was pretty shrill. I am for our guy, whoever he turns out to be. I have been very impressed with the improvement in the campaigning skills of all of these candidates since they started last summer.
one of my main objections to this cannibalism is the fact that these same people will call for decorum and high roads when dealing with obamanation as greek chorus songs of “dirty air, dirty water, millionairebillionaire, grandma-off-a-cliff” reverberate for months on end
i, for one, am sick and tired of these secluded and over-their-heads eunuchs of the republican establishment willfully accepting the disintegration of the nation to sate some nickel and dime notion of vengeance/revenge/payback against newt for never falling in line
We need someone who won’t fall in line. I never thought I’d vote for Newt Gingrich, but I can see how much better he is than those sad men on the stage with him. Why are the Republicans so afraid to fight? I’m baffled and frustrated by their attitude and behavior. The Dems know they’re afraid, too. They’re playing on that, banking on it. God, I’m so pissed.
Do RINO’s ever stand and fight?
No.
Yes. They fight with big bucks, TV ads, and amicus articles by fellow travelers.
Even assuming Newt was the perfect Republican conservative (a big leap to be sure), he has a 60% unfavorable rating among independents and Democrats (as cited by Rush on his show Friday). That’s why many of us believe that Newt will “do a Goldwater” (win few states while sinking the chances of the GOP holding the House and taking the Senate). The guy is Mercurial, not reliable. He might make a great President but we’ll never know because he has a snowball’s chance in hell of attracting enough non-Republican voters to win a general election. At least when Reagan started, even his enemies liked him personally. Gingrich has already alienated everyone slightly left of center and quite of few on the right. Obama is preparing for a run against Romney because, if the race is against Newt, he’ll be able to walk in to a second term.
You might want to get some historical perspective. In 1972, Nixon won an
overwhelming landslide over McGovern (Nixon took 49 states) yet Republicans
lost big in the House and Senate. Clinton won big in 1996 over the Republican
Bob Dole and yet lost both the House and the Senate. Winning the Presidency
in no way ensures down the ballot success.
Whether Gingrich or Romney is the nominee, Obama (with his trillions in deficits,
crony corruption and creepy associates) isn’t going to walk over anybody to
re-election. Not many incumbents have been as vulnerable as Obama. His record
truly is toxic.
The people on this site aren’t ‘shilling’ for Gingrich. They are rightly
concerned Romney is nothing more than a liberal B.S. Artist. Romney’s
record definitely suggests just that. So does his smear campaign against
Gingrich.
If Romney does get the nomination, I hope he is as tough on Obama
as he has been on Gingrich.
Have you seen Obama throw a baseball in his ‘mommy’ pants?
“Do we need a rockstar or someone who can do what is needed?”
Judging by your listed criteria, Gingrich would be the only one with the demonstrated record and willpower to “do what is needed.”
Romney has for years said he was a “progressive,” not with the Reagan camp (you know: that guy who made legendary conservative things happen in the 1980′s).
Romney firmly subscribes to both sides of most important issues (except for ORomneyCare, which he staunchly defends). That removes much faith that Romney would *do* anything you claim to desire, even if he “said so.”
Romney’s only “ideology” seems to be Crony DemoPublicanism: say whatever jsut to get elected and then…meh!
UNLEASH GINGRICH IN 2012!
A very nice play of words, Ed Wallis. Especially that new category of political philosophy called “Crony DemoPublicanism”. That will just about include everyone except you and me, of course. I really like the higher amplitude achieved by the bold font here and there. But I will tell you that, if you are from a caucus state, you better show up or Newt2012 will lose in a lot of precincts no matter how many negative names you can make up. Can everyone living in a caucus state hear that?
What a cynical and ignorant comment.
This Floridian (closed primary) is voting for GINGRICH!
(…hope you like the bold *and* italic, twerp…)
It’s NOT a “play of words”, but a reasoned perspective. You only have to open your eyes and get enough information. That seems to be too overwhelming a request for you.
UNLEASH GINGRICH IN 2012!
Oh, now that you put it that way, I have seen the light and I therefore agree with you, Ed Wallis! Tell me where I can sign up. Sheesh.
Christian, you have hit a nerve here, it seems. A bull’s eye, actually. Fundamentally, the GOP appears to have bought into the democrat mantra about finding the “perfect” candidate. We don’t know how to go with the best of 3 or four, so we demonize them all!! I can’t imagine how Reagan would ever have been elected in this day and age with the mentality many have, trying to paint everyone as failed. The dems have co-opted this whole process as a spy would try to handle an asset in a foreign country. Romney looks like the left when throwing stones. And media reflects the left at all levels. Given those observations, it’s understandable how some of the “conservatives” have been “turned”. But is is not acceptable. I really don’t see how a true conservative will make his/her way through this minefield in a run-up to the nomination. No wonder Sarah thought twice.
Dude, where were you in 2008? NRO daily shilled for McCain and Romney back then, too, as well as most of the same list of “usual suspects” who are shilling for Romney this time around. NRO and the rest have been GOP Beltway/Establishment mouthpieces for a long, long time.
And to those Newt critics above and elsewhere. Yes, he kinda sorta sucks as a candidate. And you can thank Mitt Romney and the GOP establishment that’s trying to shove Romney down the throats of conservatives for 90% or more of Gingrich’s support. Neither of these guys was anywhere near the top of my “wish” list for the GOP nominee this year, but I have enough sense to vote AOB (anybody but Obama) in the fall, no matter which one is the nominee. But the Beltway crowd who thinks they should make everyone’s decisions for them (they’re *exactly* like the Dems in that regard) are running a real risk of ticking off large chunks of the base to the point that many of them may very well stay home on election day in the fall. No one likes to be told, “shut up and get used to it…Romney is your nominee whether you like it or not” and that’s exactly what the usual suspects are saying to us.
There’s a reason that the GOP is called The Stupid Party, you know. If the GOP nominated a ham sandwich this time around, they should be able to beat Obama, given his record over 3 years. Apparently the GOP has decided to actually test the ham sandwich theory out and see if it will work.
Very well said. Enjoyed your comment much.
As with John McCain the Old Boy Repubs want the most attractive loser they can find. The ongoing trend toward a bigger government means more power and money for these backstabber Republicans and their media shills. Obama is the secret dream of EVERY politician who wants more money, power, and job insurance in Washington.
A Gingrich win is the biggest threat to the eletes in both Politics and Media.
Graham is right, a Romney win means business as usual. Dont worry – he wont.
Lets not overlook Newt’s greatest accomplishment as Speaker of the House, keeping Bill Clinton from becoming Hillary.
There is a flawed premise here.
That Dole lost, that McCain lost, that Mitt might lose, does not mean that Gramm/Huck/Newt would have won. It might mean Gramm/Huck/Newt would have lost even more states.
Sheesh.
There is that obsolete linear thinking I mention in the post.
What is obsolete about knowing that if a+b+c=l then e+f+g=w is flawed logic?
By the Way, if O’bama is re-annointed, who SAYS there will be a 2016??? I suggest you won’t even recognize our country after another 4 years of the king and his executive orders. At that point…they will be taking OUR names!!
Exactly…and at least one and possibly as many as 3 or 4 lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court. If Obama gets to make those, it won’t make a bit of difference who gets elected in 2016 even if we do have elections.
– but at least take names for posterity.
You are bang on with that point, in my opinion, so lets get behind whoever gets the nomination. Our survival as a free nation could be depending on it.
Gingrich’s Connection to the Housing Collapse and Eventual Global Recession:
According to Gingrich’s released contract document, the period that Gingrich worked for Freddie Mac the first time around was from 1999 to 2000. That means Gingrich was “consulting” and giving history lessons to Freddie Mac at the time that Freddie Mac was destructively implementing Clinton’s infamous Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which forced banks and mortgage lenders to give mortgage loans to uncreditworthy people and those who wanted to refinance or buy investor or vacation homes which later they couldn’t afford, and which later became toxic loans which were sold to other financial institutions including overseas banks.
The 2nd released contract document between Gingrich and Freddie Mac has a consultant term starting in 2006. That means, Gingrich was working for Freddie Mac at the very time that the Bush Administration was endlessly trying to reform both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but were prevented in doing so by Barney Frank, Todd and a little known senator named Barack Obama.
So What? Ever heard of figure heads? get a clue, please. these organizations are so big as to swamp any one person. Please go to the library and get Thomas Sowell’s book “The Housing Boom and Bust” before you try to make connections to anyone. I doubt if you have a clue how these organizations really run. Get the book.
Gingrich wasn’t some GS-3 clerk or receptionist when he worked for that Government-subsidized organization. He got paid $1.6 million for giving them advice. If he’s so smart, forward-thinking and strategic-thinking, why didn’t he advise Freddie Mac back then, BEFORE the housing collapse, to transform Freddie Mac’s operations and internal policies and even lobby the administration and Congress to repeal CRA, so that all those loans would not have been so easily obtained by just about anyone, including those on welfare?
And if he was just a “figure head”, then he’s an expensive one at $1.6 million dollars for mere history lessons. Reminder that Freddie Mac is half-Government owned, so his salary as a Government contractor was paid by taxpayer dollars. See, there’s that revolving door — he left Congress after 20 years there and then became a sought-after Government contractor because of his insider knowledge and Washington connections and influence. Gingrich is the ultimate Washington insider.
This is exactly why the establishment needs to be defeated.
It’s entirely reasonable to make the point that Newt consulted with Fannie Mae, just as it’s reasonable to make the point that Romney made a fortune as a corporate raider.
But what isn’t even close to reasonable is the implication that Gingrich is responsible for the collapse of the housing market, or that he wasn’t one of Reagan chief lieutenants. That stuff is stupid and poisonous.
That’s why the Tea Party is getting increasingly angry with the people who are fighting tooth and claw to maintain the status quo.
I don’t know where choosing Romney or Gingrich or Paul or Santorum over the incumbent President could be construed as the status quo or a “soft echo”, but maybe I think the current direction of our country would be a radical change if one of them gets elected instead of Obama.
Those “conservatives” aren’t exactly shilling for Mitt, they’re shilling for the status quo.
When we went into Iraq the enlightened opinion was that the Iraqis would love us, that there would be an outbreak of peace, tranquility and democracy. That same opinion held sway for Egypt and Libya. Inherent in that opinion is the assumption that those who benefited under the old regime would just walk away and let new people take over. Inherent in that opinion is the notion that thugs, murderers and rapists behave better than our “civilized politicians”. Inherent in that opinion is the notion that those who would be slaughtered, along with their families, will freely give up power while our “civilized politicians” bequeath their “elective office” to their children.
What we’re seeing is actually very positive. It’s real evidence of a power struggle for the future of the GOP. It’s a rebuke to the George H.W. “read my lips, I’m no Conservative” Bush wing of the party, it’s proof of a fight against the “go along to get the Democratic Party platform passed” of Bob Dole and John McCain, and it’s a realization that the Boehner-MConnell spend-a-thon of the last decade would continue unabated unless drastic change takes place. And, perhaps most importantly, it’s pointing to the desperation that’s taking hold in the Establishment. They’ve been banking on reacquiring power simply because Obama is such a dreadful President but they’re stymied because many of us have learned the secret – we don’t have a 3rd party so our only power is to either grant or not grant the GOP power. If we refuse to listen to their enlightened opinion, and remember to ask the Middle Easterners how useful that opinion is, then they lose. And they want to win, they want power more than anything else under the sun. They have no concern for us, the country or the future; their only concern is power and they may be denied the keys to the Treasury because of riff-raff Tea Partiers and their ignorant reading of an outdated Constitution. Imagine! Uninformed hicks want to adhere to an outdated document when the best and brightest have brought us a national debt of $17 trillion, a deficit reduction deal that increases spending, unfunded liabilities over $100 trillion, +12% unemployment, an ongoing housing collapse, an ongoing energy crisis and a incandescent light bulb shortage. Funny… we’re getting pretty incandescent ourselves…
Here’s a simple message for the GOP “Go Conservative or Go Home”.
To all at PJ Media and especially ChrisS (who hit the nail on the head) – this is all about the “Players” trying to maintain the status quo. The top characters of the GOP (and for that matter the Dems as well) are what conservatives call them by the many names: NE Repub Elites, Country Club Repubs, the ruling class, etc. What it comes down to is that they have theirs, in the bank and at the top of the party, and they will do ANYTHING to keep it. Rush likes to say “follow the money” and that’s a good guide to spot these people. They’re not all politicians, some are pundits, some are ‘consultants’, or lobbyists. These individuals have reached a point in “the game” where they make the good money, go to all the right parties and know all the right people. But they are just players in a game. The political game in the US and globally is directly linked to the global financial game. The “players” at all levels of this game are the same people. They made the rules, run the game and appoint the officials that enforce the rules in the game. It has all been a game for almost a century, and we who were and are continuing to be “invited” to play, cannot win. Everything in investment financial structures the world-over is designed to benefit the “big-boys” and to drain the money out of the middle-class and funnel it back to them. More and more of us “little people” have tripped to this since 2008 (remember Lehman Bros and Bear-Stearns) and are fleeing the markets in ever-growing numbers. The stats on middle class (or consumer investment as it’s referred to) flight from all levels of the financial markets is out there to be read. The only safe places right now are US Dollars and physical precious metals. The Powers That Be will not allow the US Dollar to suffer too badly, they all have too much of their money invested in Dollars and the financial instruments that depend on the Dollar. The same goes for the political “structures” of the game. The Tea Party frightens them because mass movements that they don’t control can upset the game. Thus, movements like the Tea Party must be crushed, coopted, or otherwise controlled. Look out for people at the top to “invited into the game”, in order to control or destabilize the Tea Party. Whatever happens this year, especially in November… Remember – it’s all a game to some, and they will do ANYTHING to win.
> Uninformed hicks want to adhere to an outdated document when the best and brightest have brought us a national debt of $17 trillion, a deficit reduction deal that increases spending, unfunded liabilities over $100 trillion, +12% unemployment, an ongoing housing collapse, an ongoing energy crisis and a incandescent light bulb shortage. Funny… we’re getting pretty incandescent ourselves…
Agreed. The reason the rest of us want to adhere to that “outdated document” is to protect us from people like the ones who run both parties.
Mr. Adams: You rock. Keep writing.
My thing is this: Bill Clinton is arguably the most popular modern democrat president since Roosevelt. I mean, how many millions did the guy make in speaking fees last year (I’ve read 80, but that’s not my research). Now, you want to talk about a flawed individual. I can’t begin to count the ways…And liberals and many “moderates” would elect him in a heartbeat, if they had the chance (well, ok. I might right now over who we currently have in office).
Yes, Newt is flawed. But that is not really the problem.
The problem is that the MSM absolutely HATES the guy. Always has. That, in and of itself, speaks volumes to me.
The MSM is going to toxify any candidate that the right side of the isle puts up as a candidate. Firstly, they destroy anyone who MIGHT have a chance at winning…then they destroy WHO EVER is running against their guy.
I’ve watched the Republican party go through the “We need to pick the guy who the MSM dislikes the least” dance since the Ford vs Carter election. And I guess it’s makes sense on some level. But electing some middle-of-the-road hopeful has one pitfall that doesn’t seem to register. If the guy wins, he does nothing but plow the field for the next liberal politician to come behind him and plant a bumper crop of destruction to our republic.
I’m an old military intelligence guy (I routed it, I didn’t make any of the decisions), and I’ve been studying military history for over two decades (which to those who haven’t, involves a lot of politics…just kind of sped up). My knowledge gets a little thin before the 20th century. But what is going on RIGHT NOW has been festering to the last 100 years.
I was selected in the navy for intelligence because of my logic test scores, ability to recognize patterns and a skill to spot the “lie” (the untruth, the part that doesn’t fit…what ever makes you the least uncomfortable). But I’ve pretty much quit trying to talk with folks about politics, ’cause they tend to view life through their feelings. And feelings will lie to you.
I wish people would read more books (those, to the un-initiated, was what we read before blogs. They are kind of like a blog that you can carry around with you without the need for batteries).
I’m getting older now. I’m finding myself longing to hit that point where I just start forgetting everything. It’s becoming a bit too heavy of a burden for me.
JW
might as well necro this gem for those who havent seen it
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-and-the/print
I don’t think a lot of them are shilling for mittens as much as abhorrent of Newt. As a christian conservative who thinks all the time on just how God sees us, mankind and America in particular, it saddens me to see Gingrich put forward. He is an awful human being. Perhaps he has reformed. I hope so. But even his candidacy is a disgrace for this nation. A sick sick joke.
And all the while stands a perfectly, even wonderfully qualified-obviously-presidential-timber candidate on the debate stage being largely discounted. Shame on this country. We surely deserve the leadership presently lording it over us.
“And now party bosses wonder why the base refuses to take our “Mitt medicine” and do as we’re told. Maybe it’s because we’re tired of losing.”
I’ve never seen so many Party Bosses afraid of conservatives and Tea Party members. If the Tea Party’s formula for success, which was to put all of our faith in basic conservative principles, worked so well in 2010, why won’t it work now in 2012? Listen to us, for God’s sake! The country is yearning for some tough conservative politicians who will take the battle to Obama. We do NOT want another John McCain, another “go along to get along” RINO Republican destined to LOSE. The Democrats have absolutely no qualms about fighting a nasty, ugly, campaign. You’re going to have to be a lot tougher to beat the Chicago machine in November, and Mitt certainly ain’t it. We need to have a Republican who will bring a gun to a knife fight, and Newt knows how to do that. Unless the Republican establishment has any better ideas other than Romney, Newt will have to get the job done.
The scared of their own shadows establishment republicans hated Ronald Reagan too. Who, won in convincing fashion over his opponents. We had a conservative candidate already who had comparable treatment by the establishment types in being blamed for wrongdoing by individuals who, at best, had little credibility.
As far as Newt goes, even with his poor track record in many areas, we have the only one remaining with the chance to come face to face with the Marxist lover we have in a President & prevail. Newt is skilled at espousing ideas to gain support FOR anything close to what this country, that I love, needs.
Newt talks the talk, but my concern is will he walk the walk? On the other hand, none of the other candidates even talk the talk. And Newt does have a record of actually doing some things, even though he didn’t (or wasn’t allowed) to follow thru. I remember the perfect media storm when he was Speaker as they accused him of anything and everything in an attempt to blunt his effectiveness. Mark Levin has an emotional and amusing take on the current slandering of Newt (http://www.therightscoop.com/mark-levin-newt-did-more-for-the-conservative-movement-than-virtually-all-of-his-critics-today/).
All of the attacks and the comments make me wonder if we really deserve a good candidate and how few would recognize one if we did. In 1776 only about a third of the population was supporting the Revolution, with a third supporting the King, and the rest just wanting to “drink beer and watch the basketball game”. And those people were a lot more self-reliant and conservative than almost all of us.
Just getting rid of Obama won’t be a victory. The real problem is the “multitude of fools” who elected him. Replacing him with Romney isn’t going to be a victory. Maybe things need to get a lot worse before the average American begins to wake up. But our “education system” and our media have turned us into such an ignorant rabble that the awaking may not produce a Renaissance. More likely a French Revolution.
Abrams is gone. That skinny blonde female–what’s her name?–is gone. (Obviously, I never paid much attention to her.) National Review is gone. Drudge is out of my Safari bookmarks. Christie’s fine in NJ, but I don’t want him on the national scene. Etc. Etc. Makes life much simpler.
That’s it! I have much more time on my hands now that I don’t read Drudge, Rubin, Coulter, NRO, Commentary and check in only occasionally on PJM and HotAir. It’s like they’ve either lost their collection minds and memories or are being paid handsomely to do so. I do, however, still like Legal Insurrection, RedState, and can tolerate Lucianne.com.
Poor Newt. I get sick and tired of Obama blaming everyone else for the mistakes he’s made, and I feel the same way about everyone trying to say Newt is being sabotaged by the “establishment”, the “RINOs”, the “elites”, the “country-club repubs”, the “liberal media”. I think Newt does a great job of shooting himself in the foot all by his lonesome. Wise up – this guy is unelectable.
First time I can ever remember disagreeing with a single word you have written, Christian.
I don’t buy into almost any of your premises.
1)I don’t buy into some super secret “establishment” bogeyman.
2)I don’t think we ought to keep some “list”, in case Romney becomes the nominee…should we keep a similar “list” if Gingrich becomes the nominee and loses? Or worse, takes down the Senate, the House, and the Supreme Court with him? Hmmm, maybe you are right on this one after all.
3)Maybe…just maybe…there are Republicans who are center-right, who actually…I don’t know…prefer…a certain type of candidate over a different type of candidate. And…when BOTH Gingrich and Romney started kicking and punching below the belt, they chimed in FOR THEIR PREFERRED CANDIDATE.
4)This isn’t “the establishment” or some super-secret plot, it’s politicians and pundits chiming in for their candidate and some of them jumped into the discussion…just like you did today. You cited some guy from Boston I’m not familiar with…to take down Romney. How is that different from Ann Coulter, Charles Krauthammer, ACE, John Hinderaker, Allahpundit…saying that they don’t think Newt is the wisest choice?
I don’t have a dog in this hunt, (my dogs are all sitting in front of the fire chewing on a bone).
It seems the “not Romney’s” don’t like the fact that he has ANY support…and that someone who does support him is automatically suspicious. They aren’t. And, they aren’t some evil cabal, taking away anyone’s ability to vote for Newt or Santorum or…heaven forbid…Paul.
Nobody is “forcing Mitt down the throats” of voters. After our 19th Nervous Breakdown (also called Republican primary debates), voters have been given ample opportunity to witness the candidates.
Then, it seems to me…they can accept or not accept…ANY third party’s analysis of those candidates, opinions about those candidates, and the relative merits, pros, cons, flaws, frailties, weaknesses and strengths of those candidates.
This is NOT the same as Obama…who was not vetted by the propaganda machine and was instead actively protected and promoted by a Journolist CONSPIRACY.
Newt has given as well as he’s gotten.
In a center right country…and with independents (and possibly crossover Democrats) in the mix, there are going to be people who PREFER candidates who are not hard right. That’s simply a fact. (not that Newt qualifies, in the slightest for the description of hard right…or even predictably right)
Some people argued with quite a bit of um…vigor…that Sharon Angle and Christine O’Donnell were imbecilic choices…AND…that they took down the chance for us to take back the Senate from the “no budget, no respect for the Constitution, pass massive legislation in reconciliation, load up the DOJ with radical extremists, …Democrats”.
I wrote to Ron Radosh in an article he had written…that it was time for people to let the Tea Party make their mistakes. To have the center right folks hold their nose and vote for a candidate.
The “Republican” Party is not one thing. Which is why I think shouting out RINO is so ignorant. Frankly, if the folks yelling the loudest that the “establishment” is always pushing a Romney or a McCain or a Dole…wouldn’t that mean that the “shouter” was the RINO?
We need to stop this veiled threat stuff about keeping lists …or we need to apply the rules equally when a Sharon Angle or Christine O’Donnell loses. Unless someone can make a convincing argument that we ought to keep “a list” if Gingrich got the nomination and then proceeded to get his brains beaten in by losing the independents, women, suburbanites in the general.
Romney and Gingrich are deeply flawed candidates. But, I’m not keeping any list after one of them gets the nomination. Just praying we don’t get another four years of Marxist infiltration into our DOJ and elsewhere because of it.
I am wholeheartedly in favor of pundit accountability. If that means remembering who explained why gingrich is the most likely to beat Obama, and the doesn’t, then they should be discounted the next go round. Otherwise you have brand mastheads insulating unreliable copy. The vitriol directed at Newt from a few corners of the conservative media is like nothing we’ve ever seen. Those who claim that Mitt can beat Obama, and argue about electability… Those are the ones we get to test. If in fact he doesn’t win, why should they be listened to again? If we hadn’t heard this so many times in the past, I wouldn’t raise it now. But the internet and webstorage gives all of us the chance to remember who said what.
Do you know Gingrich personally — spent significant amounts of time talking to him one-on-one? Lot’s of these pundits have. Maybe you should think about that.
The vitriol directed at Newt from a few corners of the conservative media is like nothing we’ve ever seen.
Hmmm. I don’t have a vitriol measuring device, but I suspect if we tried we could amass some pretty impressive stuff to weigh in that department against Romney.
These are deeply flawed candidates. “B” teamers. The missives aimed at them have been vicious, vehement and vitriolic. Heck, I’ve seen some pretty heavy vitriol aimed at Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan and Chris Christie. Why? It certainly can’t be because the “establishment” is shoving them down anyone’s throat.
Those who claim that Mitt can beat Obama, and argue about electability… Those are the ones we get to test. If in fact he doesn’t win, why should they be listened to again? If we hadn’t heard this so many times in the past, I wouldn’t raise it now.
Well, ok. But, if the argument is…Mitt is MORE electable than Gingrich, Paul or Santorum…how will we know that they were “wrong”?
The syllogism doesn’t work that way.
M has a better chance of beating O than G.
M loses.
Ergo, G would have had a better chance to win.
Sorry, from my classes in Logic, this fails.
M losing to O doesn’t prove a single thing about how G would have done against O.
It still may be true that M DID (or does) have the BETTER chance. And, list or no list, we won’t be able to come to any conclusion that isn’t pure speculation.
This is true with H vs O instead of McCain. McCain was a LOUSY candidate, don’t get me wrong. But, it does not equate to a win by H or anyone else in the Republican Party running last time.
So, had we run the most conservatively pure candidates the last several elections…and lost…would it be our logical conclusion that running an “establishment” candidate this time is automatically the “best” course of action?
It’s a fallacy to suggest that, based upon only that major and minor premise.
And there is no cure for it…except speculation and opinion. Which is exactly what pundits do.
McCain lost by 6 points (while it is possible to lose the election despite winning the popular vote, the probability becomes vanishingly small in a two-man race if you win the popular vote by more than .5 percentage points). Besides personality and positions, there’s another major difference between Huckabee and McCain- TARP. McCain suspended his campaign for a week to go draft TARP and vote in favor of it, while Huckabee blasted TARP the whole time.
If Obama had been running against Huckabee when that happened, one of two things would have happened: either Obama goes back to Washington to vote in favor of TARP while Huckabee is ripping him to shreds over it, or Huckabee forces Obama to disregard his handlers and vote against TARP, at which point Wall Street yanks their support for Obama- they still wouldn’t back Huckabee, but Huckabee wouldn’t need their help anyway. The third possibility is Obama refuses to return to Washington at all, but that’s when the 3 AM phone call ads start getting recycled. Huckabee and co. wouldn’t have attacked Obama for voting against TARP, but they would attack him if he didn’t show up, and they’d use Hillary’s ad to do it, pointing out that not showing up for that vote was dereliction of duty or “voting present” during a major crisis- is that the man you want to hand the nuclear football to? McCain suspending his campaign to work on and then vote for TARP not only gave Obama free campaign time, but also cover to vote for TARP himself. My analysis: instead of losing by six points, Huckabee would have won by two.
cfbleachers: I’m fully behind what you wrote above, except that maybe I will start a list too, the inverse of Adams’s list.
Regarding his response to you, we will remember who did what in this election. There are some “cannibals” (one of Sarah Palin’s characterizations) in this affair, but I don’t think it’s Mitt Romney. He has support from Nikki Haley, Christine O’Donnell, Marco Rubio, Matt Drudge, Ann Coulter, and others – people who until a few days ago were upstanding members of the Tea Party, or commentators who set liberals’ pants on fire, or otherwise good conservatives. Guess who are now being attacked and vilified as “…idiot tools or stand to benefit from R cronyism…” (to borrow a phrase from an idiot).
When this election is over, there possibly won’t be one Republican of any stripe – conservative, Tea Party, you name it – who won’t want to kill any other Republican he happens to run into. Maybe we should call ourselves “scorpions”.
> I don’t buy into some super secret “establishment” bogeyman.
So all of these pinpoint attacks on Gingrich right before a do-or-die primary election, the only credible obstacle between Mitt and the candidacy — Florio, Abrams in National Review, Scarborough, the various high-level GOP endorsements of Romney — are not a circling of the wagons, so to speak, by the GOP establishment, they’re just all a big coincidence.
You’re absolutely correct. And, hey, have you ever given any thought to buying a bridge? I just happen to have a deed here to the Brooklyn Bridge, and do I have a deal for you…
If you owned such a bridge, I would worry about you jumping off of it when Gingrich loses.
There is NO “conspiracy”.
The Journolist IS a conspiracy. To hide an attempt to join forces in order to conceal weaknesses of a candidate.
The fact that X or Y or Z came out in favor of one candidate and/or opposed to another…in a close race…for an important state…is not proof of anything other than X, Y and Z like or don’t like certain candidates.
For heaven’s sake…if Drudge, Adams and Scarborough had come out in favor of Gingrich…would that prove a “conspiracy” by them? Or is there only a conspiracy by the exact same behavior…if it is pointed in one direction.
This is so silly.
Newt is currently polling at a double digit loss to Obama. Is that a “conspiracy” by Rasmussen and Real Clear Politics? What a cosmic joke.
One of Newt’s supporters said Newt has 100 ideas, 97 of which are great and 3 that will blow up the world. HIS SUPPORTERS say he is erratic, distracted, unstable.
Perhaps…just perhaps…there are some people who look at Romney and Gingrich and simply toss a coin…or some who say that between two horrible choices, Romney is less horrible.
And SOME of those people, do not completely discount current pollsters whom they trust and admire…and see a double digit loss to Obama as a tragedy they wish to avoid.
Now…ONE response to ALL those people…is to thrash about and call them names and put on a tinfoil hat and conjure up some fantasy about a super-secret club of Republicans…that have somehow enlisted the membership of Drudge and Scarborough and Ann Coulter…and EVERYONE who doesn’t surrender their free will to the Newtonian Implosion.
Another response would be to simply say that people…in a two person race, are now declaring between them.
And finally, there is a third option. They both suck. They are both “B” teamers…and their most ardent supporters have blinders on regarding their massive inadequacies. The Newtonian Implosion has lost its collective mind.
They have lost the ability to reason. Everyone not for them is an “enemy”.
With a secret intent.
And imaginary bridges to sell. If there are ANY left…after burning all of them behind them.
Mr. Adams, regarding smear campaigns; POLITICO has a piece quoting one of President John Tyler’s grandson’s.. apparently this ‘oh so important’ insider doesn’t like Newt either.. unbelievable.
Some posters are saying Gingrich will end as Goldwater ’64 had. I think it’s ridiculous to assume as such.
LBJ had the public’s empathy from JFK and smearing Goldwater as a racist (yep the DNC doesn’t change its modus operandi much) amongst other things.
Of the top candidates, Gingrich would eat Uhbama alive in the debates. Handily.
I don’t feel the same regarding Romney.. whose shown to choke BIG TIME when given ~ softball-like questions. I don’t and know many Conservatives of all stripes don’t want that.
I had enough of Juan ‘My friends’ McCain in ’08 groveling for votes, spoke of himself as the guy who ‘crosses the aisle’ – he actually used that s hit as a selling point! Bragging about it.. what an asshole.
When ‘ol Juan told O’Reilly in Spring ’08 he’s a Conservative – no.. not again.
First, let me say that I with fear and trepidation lean towards Gingrich because I think we need a revolutionary candidate to beat Comrade Obama, a soft echo hasn’t a prayer of defeating Obama. That said:
“Of the top candidates, Gingrich would eat Uhbama alive in the debates. Handily.” This certainly represents Republican/conservative conventional wisdom, but I’m not nearly so sure. First, if we think this, you can safely assume at least some of Comrade Obama’s handlers think it too. So, why would they subject an incumbent President, leading in the polls, which he will always lead, to the potentially humiliating loss in a debate? They have no reason to debate Gingrich and you can be damned sure their lackeys in the media will back them up in their refusal. Second, Gingrich is an ageing, somewhat portly White man who speaks authoritatively and in complete sentences and fully formed paragraphs. Consequently, he just scares the living Hell out of lots of women, castrati, and children, the bulk of which are either independents or uninvolved unless highly motivated by rock music, easy drugs and sex, or the other sorts of things that get the college kiddies to vote early and often. For the college aged/twenty-somethings Gingrich is the awful professor who gives Bs or the boss who corrects you and criticizes your performance.
So, were there to be a debate(s), I’m certain if it were graded like academic debate is supposed to be graded, Gingrich would win handily. Almost all Democrat positions and grievances are nothing more than subjectivist fallacies and it is easy to attack their positions on logic alone. But, when was the last time anyone in this Country outside law school, and often not even there, had a formal logic course. For vast number so Americans, “I feel strongly” is a compelling, logical argument so Comrade Obama’s meally-mouthed platitudes are compelling to them and the mean old man is just scary – and mean – and probably a racist.
Art, excellent albeit depressing points.
Many voters are lemmings to nonsensical ideology. The talentless turd, ‘P Diddy’ tapped into such Jim Jones-esque people when coining the phrase, ‘Vote or Die’ some 4 years ago when strong-arming youth, uninformed Independents to pull the lever for Uhbama. Some scoffed at such juvenile pandering but a majority ate up this slogan of this d-bag.
Even with disgustingly low employment/under employment for those same youth and even senior citizens who’d advocated for Ubamacare (wow..) – many are still (?) enamored with the empty vessel at 1600 Pennsylvania.
Let’s not forget the many unemployed who feel they’re ‘owed something’, folks who have NO IDEA what Capital gains tax means (apparently Uhbama is cashing in on this naiveté, ignorance of many.. in the name of ‘fairness’), private sector stealing union meatheads, hundreds of thousands of government employees who receive so many caveats for their ‘low pay’ it’s ludicrous.
Hey, I have to believe Gingrich’s handlers would inform Newt to be more specific in his verbal assault on and over Uhbama’s bow.
To paraphrase Gene Wilder’s ‘Jim’ from Blazing Saddles, “You’ve got to remember that these are just simple VOTERS. These are people of the ENTITLEMENT land. The common clay of the new AMERICA. You know… morons”.
Being a Conservative I’d love to see JC Watts and/or Jim DeMint make a guest appearance or want the VP ticket.
Many of the recent attacks on Gingrich have been very misleading. It is extremely disappointing that Romney and his elite establishment supporters have taken this approach.
This humorous cartoon titled “Nancy and Mitt’s New Ad” at http://drawfortruth.com/2012/01/26/nancy-and-mitt/ sums up my feeling of what is happening.
Of course it is not too late to disregard them now, particularly those who cling to an obsolete linear political model from a generation ago. A candidate does not become more electable the closer they are to the center. Favorable coverage on NBC Nightly News no longer swings elections. In today’s polarized political landscape, the opposite may be true. A candidate that creates no excitement, even if nicely positioned in the non-offensive middle, cannot win. It is a lesson some conservatives have yet to learn, particularly inside the Beltway.
In the unlikely event he’s the nominee Gingrich will create considerable excitement – in favor of Obama, particularly among those whose capacity to stomach hypocrisy isn’t unlimited.
This election will be decided by the middle, as was the last one.
“This election will be decided by the middle, as was the last one.”
Is THAT why President McCain won?!?…what a STUPID suggestion, Terry FAIL.
The middling folks went for Obama because he used the media effectively and ran from the middle. The comment wasn’t as stupid as the criticism.
Please learn to READ. “…from the middle…” just like PRESIDENT McCain, right, fool?!
S:)A:)N:)T:)O:)R:)U:)M:)
(:Come on sunshine state ~ bring it on:)
There ain’t gonne be a ‘Next Time’ if Obama is Re-Elected.
We’re back to the two kinds of Conservatives/Republicans.
1) Wants to Elect Republicans for the Sole Purpose of Electing Republicans.
See Arlin Spectre vs. Pat Toomie round 1 for how that worked out.
2) Wants wto Elect Republicans in order to Accomplish Something.
See Christine O’Donnell and Sharon Angle for how Type 1s react when they win.
Also note that Type 1 insist that you support their candidate when he/she is top of ticket; But immediatly pull the rug out of Type 2′s choice when they are top of ticket.
We can take names, but all that will be is a list of those who betrayed us when the nation falls apart, great for finger pointing, lousy for fixing the unfixable.
> Also note that Type 1 insist that you support their candidate when he/she is top of ticket; But immediatly pull the rug out of Type 2′s choice when they are top of ticket.
That is exactly, precisely correct.
Yeah, I held my nose in 1992, 1996, 2008. But when it was Karl Rove’s turn to hold his nose in 2010, he threw a temper tantrum instead. Bob Dole’s endorsement? hahahahahaplop
Great comment. I wish I had a dime for everyone I’ve heard say “Anybody But Obama” or “I’d vote for a ham sandwich if the Republicans nominated it”, but go apoplectic when Ron Paul’s name is mentioned. I’m at the point where I’d like to see him get the nomination just to watch the look on their faces. “Well, you said ABO, didn’t you? It’s put up or shut up time.”
(Note: I’m not shilling for Paul. I’m just trying to make a point.)
There’s a good reason to take names now for something that’s going to happen well in advance of 2016. If (as I fear) the fix is truly in and Mitt’s the nominee, then when (not if) he loses in November all of those most actively shilling for him today are immediately going to blame conservatives for the loss.
Last time around Palin was such a lightning rod that she ended up taking a whole lot of the blame that would have usually accrued to conservatives in general. This time around there will be no such cover. Romney’s loss will be due solely to the fact that conservatives are such a bunch of bitter, freaky, inbred, toothless, knuckle-dragging, snake-handling rednecks that independents are terrified of voting for a GOP that includes them in its base. The solution in 2014 and 2016 both will be to find candidates that are even more liberal than Romney. Only then will their winning message of “we’re more efficient tax collectors for and administrators of the welfare state” finally win over the independent voter.
I agree that if Romney wins the nomination, he will lose against Obama. He has a shown that he sways with the wind when it comes to dealing the opposition or pressure.
The last debate when Newt was giving the smackdown to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer about comments he made about about Romney, Romney could’ve taken the high road and said to Blitzer to just stay on topic about the issues at hand. But as he is known to do, Romney swayed with the media and used the moment to put Newt in an even tighter spot than he was already in.
So much for Romney sticking to his guns on not throwing sh1t-packs at his fellow candidates.
As difficult as it is for many people to give another look at Newt, they just may want to try and do so. I’ll admit I’m not a fan of Romney this time around (I voted for him in the last election) and the more I see of Newt, the more he seems to me to be the only candidate who can and will stand up, fight and give no quarter to Obama and the liberal main stream media
Began with the Newsweek post-1994 election cover.
There are three camps in the country: the leftists, the establishment republicans and the Tea Party.
It’s a damn shame that the establishment treasures their positions more than they treasure saving the country.
I won’t vote for Romney in the primary, even if he is the only candidate on the ballot. And I’m beginning to wonder whether signing on to protect the establishment if he wins the nomination is the right thing to do. Romney is a sure loser and a nasty nasty person. If he is the republican candidate the only hope is to take the House and Senate, and block everything little lenin attempts to do. How will fluffing up Romney’s vote total in a certain losing cause do anything but convince the establishment republicans that they can maintain their power as the left hand of the statist king?
Yup. I’m voting for the only “not-Romney” I have available to me-Ron Paul.
Same page, pro. Fasten your seatbelt and move your dining tray to the forward, upright position, this is going to be a rocky son of a gun.
Taking names, eh? Personally, I was fantasizing about a NRO cruise ship, swinging close to an Aegean island so the Captain could bask in the adoration of the trophy babe on his arm…when tragedy strikes! “This is Captain Romney speaking, everyone remain calm, there is no need to abandon ship, I have never touched myself ‘down there’! Everything is fine, I have never drunk coffee!”
Christian,
With all due respect, I disagree with you. The national polls show Obama beating Romeny with a small lead—but beating Gingrich with a giant lead.
Moreover, you and others should read Joe Scarborough’s column on Politico, at
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72084.html.
Scarborough notes how Gingrich turned against all the conservative members of Congress in the 90′s, and was erratic and writes “In April 1997, Gingrich told The New York Times he was ready to be a kinder and gentler Republican by negotiating away the very tax cuts that he had once called “the crown jewels of the contract.” Soon, conservatives were being pressured to vote for big spending appropriations bills. In his final speech from the floor of Congress, Newt Gingrich lashed out wildly at the same freshmen who had made him speaker — mocking us as cannibals who made up “the perfectionist caucus.”
There are many valid reasons why Gingrich should be stopped. Those who argue this are as conservative as you, and should not be rudely condemned.
I give very little credence to the members of congress (and more importantly their staff’s) who gripe about 14 year old slights.
The only relevant question is who is more conservative now, Romney or Newt. That Newt, as so many Repulicans who lost their way did, supported stupid spending priorities in the 1990s bothers me less than a governor who oversaw the takeover of a state’s health care. Most of the arguments I hear against Newt rarely involve policy. It is always this or that slight. This or that complaint about his interest in big ideas. This or that gripe. Most everyone agrees the GOP lost its way on spending priorities. But that does not mean conservatives should be personally attacking one candidate the way they are Newt simply to push support toward a candidate they (perhaps mistakenly) believe is a more likely November victor simply becuase he is risk adverse. One cannot criticize Newt with intellectual honesty without an equal dose of criticism for Mitt. Period.
It’s irresponsible for Gingrich to pander for votes to those in Florida who’ve lost NASA-related jobs by promising them unaffordable, billion dollar moon colony BS if he got elected. Far from being a conservative, Gingrich seems like the typical ‘tax-n-spend’ liberal when he distorts reality and promises jobs that are not going to materialize, at least, not right now when we’re facing trillion dollar deficits and debt. What Gingrich is saying to the ‘space coast’ is reminiscent of the liberal establishment promising everything under the sun to poor blacks, yet generation after generation, their lot in life remains the same. Amazingly, poor blacks continue to vote for liberal Democrats who have not done a thing to improve their lives. Hopefully, the space coast voting bloc isn’t fooled by the empty promises of the fast-talking, Washington insider, Gingrich.
“With all due respect, I disagree with you. The national polls show Obama beating Romeny with a small lead—but beating Gingrich with a giant lead.”
A GIANT lead you say?
How big is Giant?
Something like say…….
Obama 63%
Gingrich 32%
Is it that big?
No, not even close.
But I can tell you that it was that bing once…
January 10, 1980 Gallup Poll
Carter 63%
Reagan 32%
How did that one work out again?????
Newt ain’t no Ronald Reagan.
You’re under 40 aren’t you.
Mr. Radosh.. did you seriously rebut Mr. Adams article regarding Gingrich with Scarborough’s op-ed at POLITICO? Seriously?
Scarborough, a guy whose intern was found dead at his office.
Scarborough, whose been on the Bill Maher show countless times.
Scarborough, who was such a Bill Clinton cheerleader he wanted the dude to change the Constitution and run for a 3rd term!
Scarborough, chastising Gingrich for making ~$3 mill in 3 years for speaking engagements whereas Clinton’s made in excess of $100 mill in that time!
Scarborough.. whose book tanked, radio program bombed and now has a LAST PLACE VIEWING AUDIENCE program on ‘Obama’s awesome at everything’ MSNBC. Sitting opposite the most partisan, idiotic sounding, frightening to look at, early 40-something year old woman on television. Honestly, that woman’s a ghoul..
Scarborough, who didn’t run for Congressional reelection because the dude KNEW he’d accomplished next-to-nothing. Except the dead intern thing I guess.
Mr. Radosh, did you read Scarborough’s, John Kerry-Congressional Testimony-like book attacking his colleagues? No? newsbusters has a fun take on the book from a few years back.. newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/06/20/joe-scarborough-conservative-bashing-book-flops-bigtime
Mr. Radosh, that Joe Scarborough?
Come on, Mr. Radosh. I know your past political pedigree comes out at times but.. Scarborough as your reasoning?
As long as Michael Lewis enjoys support a mile wide, but an inch thick, amongst those who have their grubby paws on the levers of power, and those who want their grubby paws on the levers of power – Terra Firma, we have a problem.
Take a look at who sides overtly or covertly with Lewis amongst those who write books, or business columns. There is enough there to point fingers at those in Wall Street, and other places where financial barons congregate, and those in Beltway (and other places where windbags pontificate when they are supposed to be writing and debating legislation) – and the likelihood of they escaping their fate is the same as having an easy time pushing string, or herding cats.
I understand Gary Johnson is running as the Libertarian candidate, I will vote for him before I will vote for Mitt “Obamneycare” Romney. It will be better for the Right to have the foil of Obama for another 4 years, than to have another Big Government Republican like Romney discrediting the fiscal conservatives, by failing to fight for and implement the changes necessary for the US to thrive.
If having the support of Rush Limbaugh and his merry band of yappers, along with Fox News, the Wall Street Journal and a cadre of have gun will travel bloggers whose primary objective is access to the seat of power is the mark of the perfect candidate, then Newt Gingrich is the man.
But can a minor league narcissist such as Gingrich who will say and promise anything he thinks an audience wants to hear to earn him applause and adulation, realistically be expected to defeat the King of all narcassists and panderers, President Obama? I don’t think so. This election is not going to be for a cheer leader, it’s going to be about trying to elect a Leader to take care of some serious business.
Hard Right wing Republicans without some moderate support cannot defeat the incumbent Marxist and they are whistling past the graveyard in La-La Land if they think they can. Rather than anybody but Romney, it should be anybody but Gingrich, who is an accident waiting to happen.
Who started the mud slinging contest? Fox News and the Wall Street Journal have been on a six month long, 24/7 campaign, to destroy Mitt Romney’s chance to get the nomination. You need look no farther than the propagandists at the Fair and Balanced Murdoch operation for a starting point, with nothing out of bounds along the way.
During that same period and as of now, most credible polls have shown and continue to show that Mitt Romeny has the best chance to win against Obama in November. Opinions may differ but facts are facts and that one fact is all I need to know.
I’m not sure what edition of the WSJ you’re reading, but in mine, they, and the preponderance of their commenters, are in the bag for Romney.
I’m sure there’s a federal program out there to assist the blind. Check into it.
I don’t see any statesmen running for POTUS.
I would like to ask Newt if he has gone to Bilderberg meetings, and if he thinks that is breaking the Logan Act?
No matter who wins the primary of the Republican Party will get my vote. However, isn’t it about time we have someone that isn’t a RINO, who has instituted his own brand of ObamaCare, who hasn’t been endorsed by the New York Times? Remember, Gingrich took back the House of Representatives for the first time in 60 years, he worked for small government and with Reagan, read what Nancy Reagan [the person who knew Ronald Reagan best] said about Gingrich. We have Obama’s Alinsky tactics in play here again don’t fall for it a second time, remember what happened the last time.
No way Newt can win, he cant get the votes. The Paul wing of the party will vote Johnson and it will be game over. In 1994, Gingrich described himself as “a conservative futurist.” He said that those who were trying to define him should look no further than The Third Wave, a 1980 book written by Alvin Toffler. The book describes our society as entering a post-industrial phase in which abortion, homosexuality, promiscuity, and divorce are perfectly normal, even virtuous. Toffler penned a letter to America’s “founding parents,” in which he said: “The system of government you fashioned, including the very principles on which you based it, is increasingly obsolete, and hence increasingly, if inadvertently, oppressive and dangerous to our welfare. It must be radically changed and a new system of government invented — a democracy for the 21st century.” He went on to describe our constitutional system as one that “served us so well for so long, and that now must, in its turn, die and be replaced.
Gingrich recommended The Third Wave as essential reading to his colleagues when he became Speaker of the House. In his forward to another Toffler book, Creating a New Civilization: The Politics of the Third Wave, he grieved at the lack of appreciation for “Toffler’s insight” in The Third Wave and blamed politicians who had not applied his model for the “frustration, negativism, cynicism and despair” of the political landscape. He went on to explain that Toffler advocated a concept called “anticipatory democracy,” and bragged that he had worked with him for 20 years “to develop a future-conscious politics and popular understanding that would make it easier for America to make the transition” to a Third Wave civilization.
This man is a walking disaster for the GOP, and he cannot win. People will vote against Newt in large numbers. Sadly I don’t think Romney can either but he may win by default. Fear not our spending will end faster under democrat leadership as we collapse.
Anyone but Obama, 2012!
It has taken us generations to get here, it may take generations to get us back. It is high time conservatives took up the actual battles. Until a full conservative awakening commences, we can only work to make sure we make more steps forward than we make backwards. That awakening seems to be building, but largely because of media bias, Frankfort School inspired “government skrewls”, and the timidity of the so-called “conservative leadership”, (aka. “The Republican Establishment”),we are somewhat behind the curve.
In order to get reliably conservative candidates, we must begin to produce more people, more citizens who know at least as much about, American history, as about American Idol. We need citizens that understand the “rule of law”, the difference between a “profit” and a “profit margin”, the advantages of a “republic” over those of a “democracy”, and people who understand that fifteen percent of millions, just might be considerably more than thirty percent of thousands. We need citizens who distrust and dislike people buying their votes, as the Demoncrat Party has been doing continuously since FDR’s “New Deal”.
First things first. Neither the strongest economy in history, nor even the freest, most prosperous nation in history, can withstand the unrelenting attacks of hate and envy filled, rabid marxists and communist apparachik wannabes forever. We must rush to the defense of our nation against it’s most visible and imminent threat. The second term of Barack Hussein Obama.
I will gladly harangue Mitt, Newt, Rick, or anyone else the GOP nominates, to assist them in governing as conservatives, after they are elected President of the United States of America.
Mr. Adams is certainly correct in asserting the need for conservatives to remember who has gone beyond attacking candidates, to attacking conservatism.
This is for 2016 and beyond.
For all his flaws, Newt is the most conservative over the course of a long history, on issues that matter the most, still in the race. The “Legacy Media” and the “Republican Establishment” have assured that. Romney, touted as our only hope, has strong economic bona fides, but very weak conservative ones. This is a huge problem, no doubt, and illustrates the need, the imperative, to uproot both of those establishments. But again, first things first.
If we don’t excise BHO from the White House in November, the damage he causes may pass from incalculable, to irreversible. A “progressive popularity contest” is how he got there. Would it not be an awful irony if a “conservative popularity contest” allowed him to remain?
Anyone But Obama, 2012!
romney isn’t dem lite… he’s dem heavy… romney=white obama.. i don’t think people are capable of learning anything… geez louise..dumb and dumber..don’t cry to me if romney gets in… it ain’t gonna get any prettier than what it is now.. he’s not a good man.. people who don’t own business or property shouldn’t be allowed to vote.. period.. they have no stake in it.. except food stamps and free crap…..
Apparently Newt is getting down and dirty himself. According to a report in the Daily Rash, somebody in the Gingrich campaign paid a man to stare at Mitt Romney “in an intimidating manner” during the debates. You go, Newt! http://www.thedailyrash.com/gingrich-campaign-denies-hiring-man-to-stare-at-romney-during-debate
Please, don’t make me have to vote for Romney. I will if I have to, but I looked at him hard in 2008, and could not see why I would support him.
As for Newt? Well, I’m aware of his flaws, his haring off after some very odd ideas (the curse of the very smart, I suspect), and his tangled marital history, and it gives me pause. But he keeps saying things that really resonate with me about the dignity of work, of self-sufficiency, of lack of government and ownership of one’s own life. So…I’d rather this man than Romney.
I respect others’ views on this. I hope when the fighting is done, and the nominee has been chosen, that we can rally around the candidate.
Jesus said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Right now, the Republican Party is a house divided, as is the nation. There can be no compromise solution because the parties in question do not wish to reconcile- the only possible outcomes are one side defeating the other and conforming them to their own likeness or the entire house collapsing.
If you think that Fox News is in the bag for Newt, you might be establishment.
There is something blood chilling about Gingrich being quoted as saying Romney was the most dishonest candidate in history.
That is not something a successful party leader is going to say of a major player in his won party.
I’m getting badly lost in the sea of accusation and vitriol. Im no politician maybe independent voters will not be as turned off by this as my heart tells me they will be.
Now, if Gingrich wins, will he be better for the country? Or will he start fight after fight? Will the republicans in the senate also find themselves the most dishonest senators in history?
UPDATE: HERMAN CAIN ENDORSES GINGRICH!
(…and Tom Brokaw endorses Romney…heh)
http://electad.com/videos/herman-cain-endorses-newt-gignrich/
Something is missing. We need to know why Tom Brokaw, Coulter, Christie, others have endorsed Romney: And why others, assumedly in the know, have endorsed Gingrich. Looks like the doves want Mitt and the hawks want Newt. Doves flock around waiting for a few crumbs and the hawks go after their own meals, fighting for every scrap. Go figure. Go Gingrich !!!!!
God Bless the USA !!!!!!
Heh. I’m already taking names. Any “conservative” pundit who backs Mitt Romney is no conservative at all in my book. I’ll remember who they were, and I won’t take much of what they say seriously ever again. They are traitors to the base who gave the GOP their House majority in 2010…a majority, by the way, that career GOP politicians have squandered in the interim.
That “not a dime’s worth of difference” Will Rogers talked about is truer than I ever wanted to acknowledge. The professional class of both parties wants nothing more than to keep the big government machine rolling so they can keep their comfy jobs and exercise personal power.
And Mitt his their guy. The Republicans figure he’ll nibble around the edges of our problems and refrain from doing anything embarassing, like actually trying to fix anything…and he’s the Dem’s guy because they know he’ll be easy to beat.
Let’s face it…our country is headed the way of Greece. Our elected “leaders” are too corrupt to stop it, and the majority of the American people are either too stupid, self-interested, or uninformed to stop it. Those of us “in the know” are left to prepare as best we can. Saying “I told you so” to the people who put these boobs in office will be small consolation, but consolation nonetheless. Just don’t be surprised when the solution offered (and accepted) in the aftermath is even MORE big government socialism.
Elliot Abrams lies in his hit piece about Gingrich.
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/01/27/elliott-abrams-caught-misleadi
THAT’S THE ROMNEY CAMP FOR YOU.
UNLEASH GINGRICH IN 2012!
While we’re putting together a list of uber Mitt backers that are pushing like crazy for Mitt to get the nomination, the ubers are putting together a list of excuses why backing Mitt was the only sensible choice.
Coulter, Cristie, Hewitt et al, six ways till Sunday, are breathlessly planning how to explain the loss to Obama.
As per usual, J. Christian Adams is so dead on correct that you mouth breathing Republicans, by carrying Romney’s water like basketball groupies, are paving the way for Obama’s re-election. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Go McCain.
I don’t know about the other members of your uber list, but Ann Coulter is a warrior and she doesn’t whine when she loses. She doesn’t like it when she loses, and she will be Newt’s biggest booster if he does get the nomination, because she knows her real enemy. I thought this article was a bunch of whining by a Newt supporter when, even with a live audience, Newt got beaten by a better debate performance. Cover is being given to Newt while he licks his wounds and that is what his supporters should try to do. Newt will still be around, except for the four states where he wasn’t organized enough to even get on the ballot.
Right on!
First, Mr. Baker, calling J. Christian Adams a whiner is a, shall I say, slight tip off that you have no idea what or whom you’re talking about.
Next, you say Ann “is a warrior and she doesn’t whine when she loses.” Okay, I’m curious. I want to know.
When did Ann Coulter lose without whining?
Other posters have said it on other blogs and I agree with them regarding the, ‘Voices of Conservatives’ – you can have ‘em!
Limbaugh, Levin, Hannity, O’Reill, Rove, Coulters, etc., – these folks speak of/for ‘Conservative’ the ‘middle class’ and all the other Lee Greenwood themed platitudes but the aforementioned DON’T uphold nor lead the ‘Conservative’ lifestyle in any shape or form.
In no am I envious or jealous of their lifestyles, successes. It’s nice to see people reap the fruits of their labors and most importantly the Capitalist construct.
However, when reaching the ‘highest of highs’, the aforementioned are so removed from that former reality the cut of their gib seems phony and disingenuous at best.
These folks have numerous high end vehicles, multiple grotesquely large homes, accompanied with gigantic pools Hearst would be envious in which they OBVIOUSLY don’t swim laps in.
As well as home addresses within stone’s throw of actors, actresses and politicians they ridicule on a daily basis yet share the same zip code, paperboy of these ‘hypocrites’ etc.,
If any of these supposed Conservatives lived in a 2-3k sq. ft home (it’s as if the smaller their family unit the bigger their home. I’m no green but come on.. in which they supposedly speak for me/us regarding the burdening costs of heat, a/c and other home costs being exponential.. gtfoh), gotten a gym membership rather than a 1-2k sq ft gym at each of their homes, did their own yard work, were stronger philanthropists or job creators themselves for starters I may give them some attention.
Instead most times their touting ANOTHER book tour, speaking engagements, rallying the troops and getting a reasonably large slice of the pie which goes directly to their multiple offshore accounts.
There’s political-leaning lemmings from every spectrum but the aforementioned are maestros at fleecing the Conservative base.
Again good for them of shaving the following they have. All I ask is they stop with being the supposed spokesman/ spokeswoman for my family. Walk the walk..
Mr. Adams is one more conservative divider. Do not listen!
I have my favorite, but if he doesn’t win the Republican nomination I will unite with the fellow that does. No regrets, no finger pointing.
No, Mr. Adams, I won’t hold anybody accountable. Please, get a life and grow up. Any Republican will be better than Obama; not by a little, but by a long shot.
Stop acting like Obama; stop dividing.
No dividing here dsevilla. All I’m saying is that the people who are telling us Romney is the right choice because he can beat Obama, those people need to be held accountable in 2016 if he can’t, period. Accountability is no more than discounting those same people the next time. If you think that’s “dividing” people, I suppose it is – between those worthy of listening to in 2016, and those not. I’ll take that divide, and so will others.
LOL, Gee Wiz, calm down. The fact is, your guy is losing to Romney and trying to make it all seem like an establishment conspiracy is nutty. Newt described himself as the coequal of Reagan and it pissed off alot of folks who actually server in RR admin., Abrams is not alone on that score. This is all sounding like sour grapes because the candidate you backed didnt win. Grow up, thats the way politics is, many lose, few win and, this is not Burger King, you dont get it your way all the time.
Romney Explains Why He Can’t Beat Obama
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/01/30/romney-explains-why-he-cant-be
DON’T BELIEVE THE POLLS: UNLEASH GINGRICH IN 2012!
Mark Levin: Newt did more for the conservative movement than virtually all of his critics today Posted by The Right Scoop on January 26th, 2012
http://www.therightscoop.com/mark-levin-newt-did-more-for-the-conservative-movement-than-virtually-all-of-his-critics-today/
Of course we all know Newt never smeared Romney and there isn’t any hypocrisy whatsoever in Palin’s pronouncement of Newt as a Washington “outsider”.
Mitt – Newt – Newt – Mitt – Newt – Mitt …. and on and on and on.
You would think by now more people would recognize that the RNC and the DNC have more in common than they have differences. Mitt “Obama Lite” Romney is just alright with the RNC; and if, by some miracle he can beat the “Uber O” – the DNC can live with that. Romney Care by any other name is still the Liberal dream. Romney never saw an anti-gun / kill the 2nd Amendment move that he couldn’t support; the DNC could get right behind Romney on that issue.
Gingrich, if for no other reason than it would give the RNC a stroke, is deserving of all the support he can get. If Gingrich had the brains of a goat he would start trying to cut a deal with Ron Paul, on the VP seat. That would get Newt the energy and enthusiasm of an entire new generation of voters that he can’t touch at the moment. In addition, an alliance between Newt and Ron Paul might terminally palpitate enuf of the Republican power structure to get that cesspool down to a septic level that might be dealt with permanently in the future.
Until the Tea Party, the Libertarians, the Patriots and the serious Conservatives can admit that there is in truth no longer any “Two Party System” to work within – the U.S. will continue to slide into the dustbin of history. The RNC and the DNC are intent on the same goal – The Status Quo of a steady progress into liberal socialism and Federal tyranny. The primary difference in the so called two Parties, is the relative speed at which that socialist slide is dictated.
It were not such a sad thing, the undeniable state of American political affairs would be amusing in the extreme; the naysayers will declaim and their righteous anger at my words here will resound in volumes of knowing discourse on the subject. But, in that disclaimer let them explain the almost seamless, flowing continuance of general political, military and social Government policy pursued by the past five U.S. presidents.
I, for one, intend to believe what I can plainly observe – never again will I believe what some group of crooked politicians tell me I am supposed to see. Try it – it will make you mad as hell when the truth of it all sets in on you. Our Children and Grandchildren are depending on us to see past the obfuscations, the lies and the statist politics that are destroying this Nation. Next time around may be to late.
Romney is the new John McCain,Bob Dole,Gerald Ford,Walter Mondale, Al Gore and John F.ing Kerry you get the idea LOSER