Can We Spare Newt Gingrich? He Fights. (Video Added)
The campaign of Newt Gingrich had flagged in the weeks leading up to the Iowa caucuses. But after defeat there and some ill-advised attacks on Mitt Romney’s career in the private sector, Newt Gingrich found new life when Fox News’ Juan Williams tried to goad him, in the debate on Martin Luther King Jr. day, on Gingrich’s comments about making it easier for poor kids to obtain work experience. Williams suggested that Gingrich’s comments were racially insensitive. Gingrich won a standing ovation for going toe-to-toe with Williams, rejecting Williams’ fundamental take on those comments, and by most accounts that moment won him that debate. He moved up in the South Carolina and national polls in the following days.
Gingrich opened tonight’s debate again dueling with the media. Under a cloud created by his ex-wife Marianne and an ABC interview with her yet to air, CNN’s John King opened the Charleston debate with a direct question to Gingrich about his past. “Do you want to take a moment to address that?” King asked.
“No, but I will,” Gingrich replied. And he wound up his ire and spent the next few minutes pulverizing the media for digging into his past on the eve of the South Carolina primary. When King tried to deflect Gingrich’s wrath back off onto ABC, Gingrich would have none of it: King has brought up the issue in the debate, after all. King looked visibly cowed.
In the hotel bar in Charleston, SC where I ended up watching the debate, cheers went up to match the standing ovation Gingrich earned from the live audience. The other candidates all found themselves, rather than criticizing Gingrich’s past infidelity, piling onto his attack on the media.
Looking back at previous GOP debates this cycle, Gingrich always rose most when he directly attacked the media. His strongest applause lines have consistently come after sparring with moderators, rejecting the premises of their biased questions, and getting in their faces. When Newt Gingrich fights, he wins.
Newt Gingrich was not my preferred candidate, and still isn’t. But in these debates he has proven that Republicans love a fighter. We are tired of a biased media belittling us and denigrating, even undermining, us. We are tired of an ignorant media inflating nonsense and avoiding asking the other side the tough questions Republicans deal with every day. Like a Civil War general once accused of letting his personal problems get in the way of doing his duty, we may not be able to spare Newt Gingrich. He isn’t perfect, far from it. But he fights.
That general later became president despite the accusations against him. For what it’s worth.
Watch video on the next page.
Meh. I don’t like him. I don’t like the others either. There’s no candidate left for a Perry supporter, imho. I’ll vote against Obama in the general, but I’m sitting out the presidential primary now.
If you read Perry’s book, “Fed Up!”, with the forward/intro by Gingrich,
you should read “A Nation Like No Other” and “To Save America” written by Gingrich himself; they might persuade you that Gingrich *is* the best of this bunch to beat Obama and lead America forward.
And Rick Perry endorsed him! The perfect is the enemy of the good.
I just want a republican candidate that can PUT THOSE DEMOCRAT JERKS IN THEIR PLACE IN THE DEBATES. Then, let him be president. The man, as you say, is Newt! Tonight made up my mind and my checkbook!
Newt! You are not dead to me anymore.
Personally, with Perry and Cain both out of the race, I’m defaulting to ABO. Anybody But Obama.
Palin was my first choice. After she refused to commit, it was Cain. Now I too am down to ABO. Too bad the best ones decided to sit this one out or were assassinated by the MSM simply because the RNC establishment are a bunch of wimps begging for approval from the MSM and refused to support the most stalwart conservatives.
Find out what brand of rum he drinks and send a case to the other candidates…
Imagine… Newt is President and there is a reversal of the roles from 1994. As President, using his executive powers he shuts down the government until Congress addresses the current budget imbalances.
Imagine, the Republican establishment must be very afraid. Witness the debt ceiling follies again. No, it is better to nominate a silver spoon, Harvard educated, Private Equity executive, “conservative” squish with four years of government service in Mass. notable only for having instituted “mandatory” government health care…
This primary race is not finished yet.
From your keyboard to G-d’s ears !
I am sick of RINO’s, people who can reach across the aisle with spines made out of soft spaghetti!
I will only vote for strict Constitutional Conservatives. If Newt loses the GOP nomination, then I will write in Sarah Palin’s name in the general election.
Sydney, can’t fault your logic. Mitt now and forever!!
Uh, Traye? You might want to re-read Sydney’s comments.
He just praised Newt and slammed your guy.
I’m sorry, but Newt is scarier than Obama to me. Obama is just a crook, Newt had delusions of grandeur, if not goodhood, and is arguably far more “progressive”. Obama is just looting the country, Newt would try to transform it into his own image, which isn’t pretty.
Hey Jeremy, do you remember the contract with America? Do you remember four years of a balanced budget? Do you remember welfare reform? Do you remember a Republican Congress for the first time in over forty years? Do you remember the biggest tax cut in history? Sure Reagan got the credit but who do you think got it through Congress? Do you know who was responsible for all of that? I didn’t think so. Newt is an idea man and not a manager or go a long to get along guy. He will come up with some bad ideas but he will come up with some damn good ones too. He’s scarier than Obama? Please! Would you elaborate on that fantasy a little for us?
“Delusions of grandeur,” eh Jeremy? Try this on:
We should not have been surprised that the Democrat Party would build a Greek Temple to serve as a stage for Obama. (And it is fitting that the columns were made of styrofoam plastic.)
i think you are speaking of the president who would be god that is currently in office. not one candidate on the stage is close to being a progressive socialist compared to obama. he is proving that every day…
I think this sums it up rather nicely…
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/now_we_know_who_was_right_about_obama.html
Wow — really impressive piece. She’s made a good start on cataloguing all of the Obama pathologies … and those of our fellow citizens who elected him in their blindness and self-delusion. The first step to retrieving this country is getting O out and Mr. Reid demoted.
We have an unusual and fortuitous confluence of interests here. Gingrich is an historian and realizes the danger the Republic is in. He sees the opportunity to become recognized as a “Great President” if he restores the Constitution and the economy. Gingrich will do what is in his OWN self interest and it just so happens that coincides with whats best for the Country.
What a bunch of gibberish. “Obama is just a crook”? The fact is Obama isn’t “just” anything. He is a hardcore, dedicated, Marxist who isn’t simply wandering around trying to loot the country. How could you have greater delusions of grandeur than to state that you are going to fundamentally transform the greatest, most proven successful, nation on earth when you never have accomplished anything of significance in your entire life. A frequently lying punk from the street makes a boast like that and you ascribe “delusions of grandeur” to the former Speaker of the House? In Obama we have a man who would destroy the greatest experiment in individual freedom and liberty ever known to mankind and “transform” it into a nation of sniveling handout recipients and you are scared by Newt Gingrich. You scare me. Please stay at home on election day.
http://ts4.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=1592147064951&id=8200d460f15072baef3f15aaa82f6610
Yup…looks like a punk to me…pimp too?
…the great 0 was “just a crook”. Seriously.
If you think Barack Obama is merely a petty theif, you haven’t got the first clue about what is going on in this country.
Newt has a lot of problems, and he’s a loooong way from being my preferred candidate, but he’d be a whale of a lot better than Obama OR Romney.
No, Obama is NOT just a crook. He is working steadily and determinedly to undermine and extinguish all the common knowledge we have in regard to our Civil Compact. He’s doing it on purpose. (Yeah, he’s a crook, too.)
You’re seeing Newt through the filters provided by the liberal media.
This may sound strange but, I like that he is the only feisty one with the media since we lost Herman Cain. Which is why I sent Gingrich some money after Iowa. We need someone who is not lukewarm in the mix. However, as I’ve said in other threads, Gingrich wrote this script himself, why does he merit support? In this the Republicans are reaping exactly what they’ve sewn. You cannot simultaneously advocate government imposition of your moral code (no abortions, no gay marriage, no drug use) and not expect scrutiny of your behavior. You’ve made morals a plank, so don’t whine when it’s brought up on cross examination.
So you’re not allowed to advocate morals unless you yourself are a saint? Just because someone hasn’t lived up to the perfection of the ideal, doesn’t mean that we should reject the message.
Ever notice that no Democrat politician is ever accused of being a hypocrite? Since they have no morals, they can’t be accused of violating that which they don’t have. Is that what you want for our side?
Yes, you have to be perfect or you are a hypocrite. If you’re running on an agenda of tough laws on drugs, there better be no footage of you with a bong. If you’re running as a defender of the family, you better have done an exceptional job keeping your’s intact. If you’re running on an anti-abortion platform you better not have had one or helped someone have one. Why is this difficult to comprehend? If you want to force your beliefs on the rest of the country – you need to, at the very least, be 100% consistent with what you want to force everyone else to be.
Ken,
There is no one who meets your 100% consistent criteria. No one. The only people who live up to their own standards are those who have no standards. Now, you can elect someone who has the “appearance” of consistency. And you can elect someone who makes a good faith effort to be consistent, and is mostly successful.
But you cannot judge the efficacy of the standard by the success rate of those who attempt to live according to it. Because none of us are perfect in the way you demand – not even yourself. Demanding perfection from a candidate is a form of insanity. It also robs the nation of good and effective leaders who can never live up to your stated standard of perfection.
The harsh reality is that we elect flawed people. That is why it is more important to elect someone who believes in the standard more than they believe in their own ability to uphold it personally 100% of the time.
And think about it rationally. By your standard, anyone who ever had a car accident is disqualified from teaching how to drive. Parents are disqualified from punishing their children for just about anything you can imagine because they once did the things they now condemn.
What you are advocating for, in a backward way,is the elimination of moral values based on our collective inability to keep them. That is the equivalent of saying we should eliminate stop signs, traffic signals, speed limits, right of way rules and all other traffic laws because just about every citizen has violated them at one time or another. But you cannot create an orderly traffic system by eliminating all traffic laws. And just because someone has sped before should not disqualify them to speak favorably about traffic laws.
Doesn’t that suggest that if YOU can choose different behavior when YOU feel differently about moral issues that OTHERS should be allowed the same freedom? My point is that I don’t think you should be able to impose your moral feeling of the moment on everyone else. That sanctimonious attitude is what drives people away from the Republican party.
Sometimes, perhaps most of the time, those who have strong moral views are people who have experienced the pain caused by the issue/behavior they are addressing, directly or indirectly. For example, I have a very dear friend who strongly believes that divorce is not a good option in a marriage (except in cases of abuse, infidelity and the like), but that it’s better to work hard at it. Why would he hold that position? Because he has gone through a divorce and experienced the horrible emotional pain, and he saw his children suffer immensely as well. So, to automatically discount someone because they’re not perfect doesn’t allow room for growth. Personally, I think that seeing someone who has grown through their struggles is a sign of some strength. Of course if the person is still participating in the behavior they condone, then they’re a hypocrite, or perhaps an addict. But if they’re humble enough to look back and say, “That was a stupid thing I did, and I really do not recommend it because of the damage it caused me and others” (something you probably won’t hear from Obama in our lifetimes), AND they’ve changed how they handle this issue in their own live (which we may or may not be able to see for ourselves) I think that’s a sign of strength. It’s obviously hard to judge/rate humility, sincerity, etc.
I forgot to mention that what I want for our side, is for us to get out of people’s private lives and stick to the massive task of reforming government into what it is supposed to be: lean, limited, and constrained by the Constitution.
Lucky us. Just what we need most- a good performer. Oh, wait….
I have always felt Newt was Billy Jeff Clinton’s evil twin, but you have to love someone calling out the elite media . The blow-dried metrosexual eunuch King was tongue-tied. For years the GOP has cried themselves to sleep in a fetal position at the first bad press in the Washington Post or New York Times. Grow a pair if you want our votes.
I’m no Newt fan. Our absolute hatred for the utter corruption of the mainstream media, which lied, cheated, and dishonored over two centuries of American Constitutional tradition and responsibility, is fundamental.
Ulysses S. Grant came to my mind, too.
Newt makes the perfect vice presidential candidate: smart, aggressive, articulate, and willing to take the battle to the opponents rather than just take the attacks they dish out. And he’d guarantee that the Democrats would never impeach the president.
But having Newt as a VP would drive a squish like Mitt nuts. Can’t you just see Newt pounding on Mitt for yet another RINO decision at a Cabinet meeting?
Gingrich could be Mitt Romney’s Spiro Agnew.
There is zero chance that Mitt would pick Newt. Mitt won’t do anything to piss off the establishment.
Newt might pick Mitt though. All Newt wants to do is win and get the country back on course. If putting the weasel on the ticket opens the money floodgates and gets the squishes to vote for him, Newt will do it. And Mitt would accept, becuase it would give him an even better chance next time.
That’s what Lincoln said when he finally settled on Grant and Sherman to take the war to the Confederates. I couldn’t agree more.
http://madmenunbuttoned.com/search/don+draper/page/2
Dear Dr. Bones,
This peanut-gallery diagnosis is anatomically sound, as it were; it sets forth the bare bones of the matter accurately. But the bones have been dressed up in entirely the wrong sentimental finery.
What we need as neocomradologists, Dr. Bones, is to locate a kiddie selfservative bestembright enough to realize that these supposedly damnin’ objections to Don Neutrino–opportunism, betrayal, narcissism, &c.–are in fact why she has a crush on him. Cindy from Wasilla might not last five minutes if she started behavin’ like a Freelord Newton Leroy herself, but she dearly wishes she could. An’ one touch of Newtin’ turns Wally Wombschool into Walter Mitty.
Obviously ’Mittens’ Romney has gotten away with many times more skullduggery than Don Neutrino, but he leaves Mizz Cindy cold, partly because most of it was technically legal (an’ Mittens will tell you so even before you ask), but mostly because the poor crook never really seems to be *enjoyin’* his own crookery. Kinda like Milhous. The only thing even close is that picture of the fruits of the H*rv*rd Victory School throwin’ Federal Reserve notes all over themselves, which dates from so long ago as to render it inoperative. Expecting Mizz Cindy to warm to the Onlie Begetter of Romneycare because of that is about like hoping to impress her with an album of snapshots of his freelordship at the age of eighteen months.
It amazes me that no decent political grown-up has yet recycled “the little man on top of the wedding cake” from 1948. ¿Have I missed it?
Happy days.
Newt has a long history of betraying the trust place on him. He’s betrayed his wives’ trust, he’s betrayed the trust of his congressional colleagues, and he’s betrayed the conservative principles that he’s espoused. And, he will betray the trust that voters place on him if he is elected president. For you see, it has always been about Newt and what was in his best interest. He is an opportunist and a self-promoter – not what we need when the country is under attack from the left.
BS! Name me one candidate that has not failed in many ways. Everyone is flawed and if you use marriage as the yardstick for success then you are a bigger fool than you make Newt out to be. Look at all of your great examples in history and you will see that a happy marriage is not the key to success. A president that cheats on his wife? Are you saying that if he does he is not going to be a good president? Would you like to look over our nations presidents and pick out the ones that were good and the ones that cheated on their wives? It’s not set in stone but your theory is total BS. And for anyone to step into another’s divorce and take one side as the truth has never been in a divorce or knows nothing about the human ego.
Yep…I wonder why as soon as you said that..LBJ,Roosevelt, JFK,Clinton & Edwards came to mind…all Dems.
True. Still only two people in the last 100 years has been able to cut government spending and create a balanced budget: Calvin Coolidge and Newt Gingrich.
2 PEOPLE! out of roughly a billion people that has been electable citizens in this period. And thousands of congressmen and senators – 2 PEOPLE! one of them Newt Gingrich.
If the next President does not cut spending and create a balanced budget, the US is doomed.
Grant failed at everything he did, except winning the Civil War.
Grant seemingly devoted his presidency to helping his new best friends get rich and getting back at his enemies in the army. However, he wrote a pretty good memoir.
Which would be a helluva lot better than little lenin, no?
But if that isn’t persuasive enough, who do you think would be more eager to please his friends between Gingrich and Romney? Newt, the guy who apparently pissed off every Ruling class republican alive in the late 90′s, or Newt, the guy that the ruling class republicans are fighting tooth and claw to win the nomination for?
Of course, Mitt might change his spots and become a warrior for the constitution and the Tea Party president. I’ve actually predicted that he would govern conservatively. But I wouldn’t bet any money that I have safely stashed in the Caymans on that.
On the other hand, who would NOT predict that Gingrich will make DRAMATIC changes if he was elected President, and that those changes would completely reverse obamunism.
Newt is a refutation of something even worse than little lenin, or even Lenin. Newt’s election would function as the final humiliation of the Clintons and hopefully a judgment on the good ol’ days of the 90s. The payment for the decade was 9/11 and the Crash and election of B, but it still is remembered, unjustifiably, fondly. Compared with now, I feel nostalgic.
Of course, the daughter of the woman in question says that story’s a lie. But what should she know? She was just there.
The woman in question has no daughters.
Well, it’s hard to keep all those cheated upon wives straight.
It’s like trying to keep track of Newtie’s religion. He has a new one every week or two (seems like).
I think he’s bouncing from sect to sect looking for the one that is most likely to look the other way at violations of the Commandments.
To paraphrase Lincoln:
Well, I wish some of you would tell me the brand of whiskey that Newt drinks. I would like to send a barrel of it to my other candidates.
Gingrich is getting standing ovations, not so much as for his “positions”, but because he seems to be the only candidate who reflects the anger, the outrage, at what is this administrations’ clear intent: to “transform” this Republic into a Euro-style Socialist paradise. He’s coming from where the Tea Partiers stand and also the substantial number of conservative voters who believe that the GOP seized defeat out of the opportunity for victory in’08.
The Democrat/Socialist leaders elected to play by dirty, sleezy, deceitful Chicago rules – and they won, easily defeating a GOP candidate who was more worried about offending “our friends across the aisle” and “not lowering ourselves to their level.” The Ayers/Axelrod team are truly desperate to attain a second term and will be the guns at a knife fight. We need a candidate who has a fire in the belly, and goes into attack mode rather than “rapid reponse.” We are not seeing that in Romney.
If someone promised to kick the media and obama in the nuts every day until election day, I’d vote for him. Newt is the closest to that ideal.
And when they bend over from the nut kick, use a good uppercut!
Romney=Obama
The political achievements of Romney and Obama are identical
Romneycare=Obamacare
Romney raised taxes=Obama wants to raise taxes
Romney increased spending=Obama really increased spending
Romney is a 1 term Governor=Obama will be a 1 term President
Gingrich on the other hand, took over congress, balanced the budget, reformed welfare, and cut taxes, they are exact opposites.
“Actions speak louder than words” Gingrich’s actions are conservative, Romney’s are not, he is a conservative of convenience and cannot be trusted.
“we may not be able to spare Newt Gingrich. He isn’t perfect, far from it. But he fights.”
Exactly! I for one am sick of prom-king-presidents: “leaders” who succeed by offending the fewest.
Newt reminds me of Churchill: overweight, kinda ugly, smart, a little ticked-off, and very spontaneous.
Newt can think on his feet, the opposite of the telepromter-driven politicians we’ve had to endure for the last decade or so.
I’ve been saying for weeks that Newt is better compared to Churchill. Pugnacious, reviled, unstoppable, ignored, irrepressible, a historian, an author, and a happy warrior.
Go Newt!
Cain was the citizen warrior that everyone has missed since Joe the plumber got directly in Obama’s face and heard “spreading the wealth around”. Now we are left again with holding our nose and voting (R) vs (D)! Paulbots, don’t even bother. Paul wasn’t good enough last time just like Romney isn’t good enough this time. Best wishes AMERICA!!!!!
I salute Newt. First, with regards to the ex-wife, why assume she is the aggrieved party? I always assume the wife was the problem, not the man. Second, while you may want to fault Newt for bad judgement for marrying the ex-wife in the first place I think you have to be impressed that he ditched her. He has been vindicated! She comes out after 15 years and trying to torpedo his candidacy? What kind of human being does that? A nutter. Third, what kind of fool marries a divorcee and doesn’t think it won’t happen to them? Duh. Forth, Reagan was divorced and pro-choice and everyone seems to love him. Fifth, Newt wanted an open marriage? Sounds like he should be a Mormon not a Catholic.
Lastly, I want a rat bastard scumbag politician on my side for a change.
Are you saying you want a man with true grit? I think we have found him.
Should the woman who broke up the first marriage (the one with CHILDREN) by committing adultery sit in moral judgement on anyone?
By Heavens! Finally a Republican who has called out the MSM/LSM = Politburo for who and what they are. He just grew in stature in my eyes.
And all of you RINO squishes and DNC/Commie/Marxists plants can just STFU.
Your are right.
One thing for sure I am getting damn tired of character assassination after character assassination.
Sarah. Perry. Cain. Newt.
From now one I look at a scandal on a republican’s resume the same as a boxers broken nose. Sign he’s been in a fight.
Anyone who contemplates going up against Gingrich had better think at least twice. We need a straight shooter!
My choice is Newt. A somewhat distant second is Santorum.
Newt as VP, if allowed into the cabinet meetings, would be perfect for determining how to sell (and defend) the policy to the presidents advantage. If Newt isn’t vice president, make him the press secretary. Press conferences would be worth watching!
Newt is a more intelligent, less ethical Republican version of Bill Clinton. That being said, he’s still better than voting for a democrat (Romney).
Amen.
Someone is always quoting Lincoln or Grant on PJM, or comparing this or that political battle to Gettysburg. Buncha yankees
Santorum. Newt can be the press secy:)
So, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence. Do you want the perfect person, James Stewart, or the less than perfect John Wayne?
Results matter, credit, not so much.
“But in these debates he has proven that Republicans love a fighter.”
That’s probably because there are so damned few of them in the Republican Party.
He Fights.
He is certainly good at bad-mouthing other Republicans, I’ll give him that. I just don’t see why that’s supposed to be a GOOD thing.
Yes, that is the exact reason I finally rejected Romney.
I simply can’t tolerate a man who claims the moral high-ground while he serially, dishonestly, and unethically destroys the character of at least three of his opponents; Perry, Cain, and Gingrich. Anybody who wants to win that badly can’t be trusted to do what’s right.
he wound up his ire and spent the next few minutes pulverizing the media for digging into his past on the eve of the South Carolina primary.
But the media did not actually “dig into his past on the eve of the South Carolina primary”. What happened was that one of his former wives made some damaging allegations about him. No digging was required.
And instead of wondering whether we want a man of Newts character to be our Presidential candidate, Republicans are cheering him for saying mean things about the media.
You can’t possibly be that naive – can you? The ex-wife just happened to stroll into ABC’s studio one day to make the classless accusations? The timing, just happens to coincide with the primary? You can’t be serious. This is a hit. Period.
Who put the hit together, the Dems, the media or Romney? I tend to think Romney. He’s been playing that game the whole season.
“… Republicans are cheering him for saying mean things about the media.”
No, Republicans are cheering him for saying truthful things about a media that is mean, dishonest, spiteful, hateful, hysterical, irrational and wrong (and that is the operating definition of liberals).
Looking back at previous GOP debates this cycle, Gingrich always rose most when he directly attacked the media. His strongest applause lines have consistently come after sparring with moderators, rejecting the premises of their biased questions, and getting in their faces.
There was nothing remotely biased about the question King asked, which was “Do you want to address the stories about your ex-wifes allegations?”
You’re kidding, right?
Newt is at least smart enough to know that seeing grass grow in factory parking lots is not a sign that the planet is healing.
Let’s not forget that what Newt primarily took issue with was CNN leading off a presidential debate with this type of garbage – and the MSM’s protection of 0 by attacking republicans. How insulting to the electorate.
Newt’s willingness to call out the press would make him a great press secretary, not necessarily a great president. In fact, as president you hire dogs rather than doing your own barking — otherwise you’re always “punching down.”
I’m with jessea above. I was a Perry supporter and there is no one left for us. Gingrich prattles off whatever wild idea seems to be at the top of his brain at that instant. He sat on a couch with Pelosi touting a big government solution to a non-problem, and he historically folds like a cheap suit in negotiations. I have no trust in his moral core, and in fact I don’t think he has one. This is buttressed by the fact that he left two wives, one of them after a six year adulterous affair — and then married the adulteress. That’s not repentance. That’s like robbing the bank and saying it’s okay because you’ll pay income tax on it. Then the lecture tonight to John King about “people have pain.” etc. But who caused that pain? You and that that slut you were sleeping with who knew you were married to someone else. A fine upstanding Roman Catholic girl. Were they married in the Roman Catholic Church after two divorces and a six-year course of adultery? I’d really like to know the answer that question.
I enjoy the media bashing as much as anyone and so I appreciate Newt’s antics when he goes off on the debate moderators. But when the sun comes up it’ll be back to the serious business of defeating Obama. And if you’re serious about it then Romney is still the best choice.
“Can We Spare Newt Gingrich? He Fights.”
Well, he didn’t have to fight too hard. It was prety easy to get deferments during the Vietnam War.
Grant fought. Gingrich just talks.
And, I can spare him real easily.
I went into the military and volunteered for Vietnam. I don’t whine about educational deferments that many of my friends had at the time. That was the law. Gingrich does indeed fight. If you think it’s all “talk,” take a look at his historic achievements in the 1990′s. No, we CAN’T spare him. He has my vote.
Patton used to say war was all about dying for your country. But if you wanted to win you had to make the other SOB die for his country. Well, politics is all about compromise, but to win at politics you have to make the other guy compromise. That’s what Newt made the Democrats and RINOs in congress and Clinton do to get the Contract of America passed; balance the budget; and produce a surplus when he was speaker. Something the McCains, Boehners, Mitchells, etc. have no idea how to do. We need a junk yard dog in the white house, a guy that can drag the Democrats across the aisle to our way of thinking instead of letting them always get the upper hand. Newt knows how to do that, too bad if some wing tips get scuffed in the process. This country is too far down the road to big government socialism to pussyfoot around with some goody-two-shoes for four years. A lot of corrective measures have to be made FAST to get the train back on the right track.
A … MEN!!!
Well said!
‘AshleyMadison.com, a website that promotes adultery, has endorsed admitted adulterer Newt Gingrich for president and erected a giant billboard in Pennsylvania to announce it. Next to a picture of Gingrich making a “shh” gesture, the billboard reads: “Faithful Republican, Unfaithful Husband.”’
‘AshleyMadison.com, which serves people looking to cheat on their spouses, welcomes visitors with the tag line, “Life is short, Have an affair.”’
Good news for the Newtster. He definitely has the adulterer vote locked up.
Newty Fruity “Dr. Jeckle and Mr. Hyde” Gingbat should be running for both the Republican and Democrat nominations. Nitro Newt’s worst enemy is not “the media”, it is he himself and his unstable phasing from Dr. Jeckle to Mr. Hyde. As President it would be like the “guess what” selection in the old candy bar machines. No thanks. I want someone more mentally stable.
Oh, puh-LEASE. The perfect is the enemy of the good.
Gingrich will be *just fine*, warts and all.
(from your other posts, I know you support “psycho RoNpAuL”, so I’m not holding my breath until you realize that)
that if she were in south carolina she’d vote for newt, and whddya know, folks are doing just that! atta way, sarah!
Hooray for Newt and for all of us. The last time the MSM picked a candidate it didn’t work out so well, for the country. Ask both sides tough questions or call yourselves what you are, not journalists but Obama campaign workers.
I used to love CNN. Now I wouldn’t tune in if they actually found Elvis in a Burger King in the midwest (or wherever he’s been sighted).
????
Why?
There’s never been a day when CNN didn’t stand for Communist News Network.
If you didn’t realize that a long time ago, you need to ask yourself some hard questions.
“Newt Gingrich was not my preferred candidate, and still isn’t. But in these debates he has proven that Republicans love a fighter. We are tired of a biased media belittling us and denigrating, even undermining, us. We are tired of an ignorant media inflating nonsense and avoiding asking the other side the tough questions Republicans deal with every day. Like a Civil War general once accused of letting his personal problems get in the way of doing his duty, we may not be able to spare Newt Gingrich. He isn’t perfect, far from it. But he fights.”
That “Civil War General” was U.S. Grant, also known as “Unconditional Surrender” Grant. And you are very, very, RIGHT!!! I’m sick and tired of Republicans being used as punching bags. To heck with this “bipartisan” nonsense. When did the Democrats, ESPECIALLY Obama, ever show one once of bipartisanship? Remember during the Obamacare debate? Obama said point blank to McCain “We won and you lost.” Screw all of them. The only person who takes the battle to them on a daily basis (and they hate him for it) is Rush Limbaugh. We don’t need any more people looking for any fictitious “bipartisanship,” which never really existed.
Do NOT be ashamed of conservatism and don’t be afraid of leading the country with conservatism. The country is yearning for it, probably even screaming for it. And if we pick a candidate, a fighter, like U.S. Grant, we will get it, no matter what his background. Newt has many flaws, but he DID have a long list of accomplishments as Speaker of the House. And I don’t care about people who say he was “mean” as speaker. I couldn’t care less about that. The only way you are going to get anything done in Washington is if you have a person who can bust some stones of the people in power in Congress. All I care about is results, and Newt is one of the few people who has gotten them. So yes, U.S. Grant was a drunk and not the most creative general in the world, but he got results, and that’s what we need now more than ever.
Good General; bad President.
Exactly right!
While Newt is not perfect, what do you want from the four left in the race? The nutty foreign policy of Dr. Paul? The Romneycare Romney whose plan was the basis for Obamacare? And Romney will NOT disavow Romneycare. In spite of running for the Presidency for 5 years, he can not adequately defend his wealth or his venture capitalism. Or Santorum, who is socially conservative, but his voting record on other issues is not that conservative.
The one thing Newt does really well is to throw the Liberal questions right back at them. He puts them back on their heels and on the defensive. Newt is “good enough”. He balanced the budget once and he has the best track record of forwarding conservatism than any other candidate left. Talk is cheap; but actions speak louder.
” . . . he can not adequately defend his wealth or his venture capitalism.”
He can’t defend . . . ?!
Why would someone need to defend their wealth? Is wealth bad? Personally, I aspire to wealth.
Luckily for me, I live in a place where productive ability – meaning, the ability to produce something that is valued by others – is one of the two requirements for becoming wealthy.
Sadly for me, the other one of the two requirements for becoming wealthy is a willingness to work hard for long hours – constantly, actually – you need to be driven to work hard and be very focused on deferred rewards.
But to you, wealth is something to apologize for? You’ll be voting for BHO again, won’t you?
“We are tired of a biased media belittling us and denigrating, even undermining, us. We are tired of an ignorant media inflating nonsense and avoiding asking the other side the tough questions Republicans deal with every day.”
In other words, you want a partisan who can wreak vengeance on your perceived political enemies.
I want a Chief Executive who can handle the job.
Reagan didn’t have to go after the media to get the job done.
President Nixon did. And look what happened to him. The media has got the First Amendment and dozens of Supreme Court decisions on their side. If Newt became President, his attacks on the media would end up the same way as the Nixon/Agnew attacks.
Whatever Marianne Gingrinch may feel about the character of Newt Gingrinch, she needs to remember this–if his character be not that which it should (and it isn’t), getting mad at the man you had an adulterous affair with when he has another affair, and getting mad as if you are some agent of unbridled virtue who has been uniquely wronged, does not speak well of your character either. Ms. Gingrich might want to think of that the next time she tries to play the “absolute moral authority card”.
If Newt Gingrinch does not have the moral authority to serve as President, then it is because of what happened *with* her as well as *to* her. The lady doth protest too much.
I don’t like Mitt Romney; he’s a lib pretending to be conservative,
I don’t like Newt Gingrich; he’s a walking ego trip who is the smartest guy in the room and he isn’t afraid to tell you about it.
But if I get a choice of who to vote for, I’m going with Gingrich. We need a guy who will stand up and fight for a change.
That sucking sound you hear is a giant pucker from liberal sycophants everywhere.
Gingrich is the perfect nominee if you want the election to be about the conservative values hypocrisy of the Republican Party. Do as I say not as I do.
and Obama is the perfect candidate if you want a lying corrupt Chicago commie who either by design or stupidity is destroying what it took 225 years to build, America, the shining city on a hill. I’ll take the morally flawed Gingrich any day over the fool in the oval office.
NEWT’S RONALD REAGAN MOMENT
Last night a fiercely defiant Newt Gingrich had his rousing Ronald Reagan (Nashua) moment in one of the most eventful and exciting days in American campaign history where he won a two hour debate in its first five minutes by lashing out at CNN’s John King and the despicable Obama lapdog media. And where was our immature, adolescent Mickey Mouse president yesterday? At Disney World’s fantasyland wishing upon a star that the American people will give his failed presidency a second term-to turn a disastrous, miserable four years into an utter national catastrophe.
55. Terry Gain
sorry dumbass but when did Newt ever say he didn’t have 9 ex-wives or however many? I don’t like him but it was great when he dunked on Juan Williams.
Over your head. I referred to the hypocrisy of the “conservative values” GOP running Gingrich, not the hypocrisy of Gingrich.
Folks Newt at best will be VP material because he would be a great junk yard dog. But for POTUS you’re stuck with Plastic man who does not want to release his tax returns because just maybe some years he paid nothing or under 15%. Santorum has no hope because the north will not vote for people who run around with Jesus on their sleeve and while Paul is admirable even the Republicans don’t like his foreign policy and draconian cuts in the budget.
Between now and election day, most of the truly ‘undecideds’ will form most of their opinions based upon the 30-second sound bites they see on their television set. Newt demonstrated last night that he is the only candidate who can do sufficiently well with those 30-second soundbites to sway them.
Didn’t we learn our lesson in 08, nominating that milksop McCain? I think we’ve found our Grant. Now let’s help him find his Sherman.
You are precisely correct, Bryan.
There IS a visceral reaction to punching back at a media that has picked a fifty year fight with non-leftists, Christians, Jews who don’t “toe the leftist line”, Southerners, people who want smaller government, flyover country, and faith-based people in general.
After having ZERO “protection” from national politicians, who ALL cowered in a corner and trembled like a dog passing razor blades every time the propaganda machine cranked out yet another haymaker to the chin of non-leftists…Newt bumping chests with them and balling up his fists doesn’t just feel good…it feels great.
The conventional wisdom that one should “never pick a fight with a man who buys his ink by the barrel” has been the guiding force for national politicians …but has only been necessary to heed by the object of their slander, derision, distortion campaigns by ONE side. Leftist Democrats routinely admonish the propaganda machine in their pockets for “getting out of line” by having the temerity to …you know…actually ask a serious question or modestly “vet” a leftist candidate. And the propaganda machine tucks their lapdog tails between their legs and goes to sleep in the doghouse, until they are allowed back in the leftist living room again.
Newt, doesn’t give a damn about conventional wisdom. In fact, Newt doesn’t give a damn about conventional anything. He also has a hair trigger fuse if you offend it, you are going to feel the lash of his tongue.
Look, all the regulars here know I don’t PREFER any of these candidates and Newt is no exception. He is on an ego trip that has never booked a return voyage.
He is brand damaged and polls with frighteningly high negatives. In the general election he is an enormous risk to not pull crossover votes, to lose moderates and independents, to basically give four more years to Obama.
Because I do not have a dog in this primary hunt, I will not lapse into blind fanaticism over any of these candidates. The three sane ones would be “fine” to support in the general election, but they are all so flagrantly flawed…they bring risk of losing to the forefront of my mind…not unwavering support.
Losing to Obama is not an option to my way of thinking. The blind, sometimes irrational fanaticism for any of the three sane candidates…and clearly for the certifiably insane one left in this race doesn’t move my needle TOWARD them…but, away from them.
Newt, again…is no exception. When the blind fanatics ignore obvious risks, dangers, weaknesses and flaws in their “promotion” of candidates…or worse…when the most imbecilic of them start screeching out “RINO” insults and “we don’t need the votes of moderates and independents”…I know the person is devoid of logic, reason, and critical thinking ability…nothing they say would or should be taken seriously.
So, what to do in light of all this?
We are on the horns of a dilemma.
Newt is doing PRECISELY to the media what needs to be done. Whether it is motivated by courage or merely because anyone who crosses him gets under his thin skin, is of little moment. He is leading…on an issue that has lacked courage and leadership for far too long.
That is so viscerally necessary, so cathartic, so deliciously enjoyable…it can be more intoxicating than a gallon of rum. But, it is only ONE major element in deciding upon who we would follow and who should lead us…and who runs the most and least risk of losing …everything to another four years of Obama.
Clearly Romney lacks the courage to confront the propaganda machine. One complete fool above said he has not “defended his wealth”. I read things like that and wonder how some of these people dress themselves or stop drooling long enough to go out in public. But, Romney is not someone to galvanize, inspire, or lead. He’s a milquetoast guy…who wants to back into leadership. Newt leads with his chin. Romney, by backing into everything leads with his ass.
Santorum, simply won’t pick up nearly any high level endorsements. He’s bright, articulate…but he is always on edge and spoiling for a whiny fight.
And, Ron Paul himself doesn’t believe he could get elected. Unless Hamas opened a US division…he shouldn’t be. He will hang around long enough to damage the Republican brand…associating his brand of certifiable insanity with the party…just to do it as much damage as possible.
In the end, if we don’t get one of the “A” teamers at a brokered convention…we have a Hobson’s Choice left to us.
Newt, the brand damaged, thin-skinned, bloated ego, easily distracted, imperious, fighter…who shoots his cannons in all directions simultaneously and is a very high risk of losing our country to another four years of Obama; or
Mitt Romney, a weak, vacillating, uninspiring, “canned ham”, who leads by rote memory slogans, whose computer automatically returns to its default settings, whose entire game plan is to be as non-offensive as possible to as many people as possible. And, non-offensive in every sense of the term…all defense, all the time. He wants to leave no footprints and no fingerprints behind. Cut him and he would bleed evaporated milk.
To be inspired by the fatally flawed or to be lead by a serial hide and go seeker.
Blech.
We are throwing away perhaps the last opportunity to save ourselves. Where Obama takes us after he no longer worries about re-election should be the scariest movie ever made. He already ignores the Constitution, rules, regulations and checks and balances. We are in mortal danger here.
And, we are losing our collective minds. Our ability to think clearly. To reason. In the end…if we decide to go down…I suppose going down fighting is the more noble way to lose everything.
I just think it’s a dirty, rotten shame that our “A” teamers are allowing this to happen. A brokered convention is our only salvation. We are about to pay an awful price for not insisting on our best and our brightest, I’m afraid.
Reason and sanity have left the building.
CFB, do you think you might be giving Gingrich’s record of helping to bring Pub leadership to the House after 40 years in the wilderness, balancing the budget & forging welfare reform a little bit of a short shrift here? Perhaps I am a little drunk on his stellar speeches & fighting resolve to put the MSM hacks in their place but despite all that I do think he’d do a good job as POTUS. Think about how much he knows & understands Washington DC. Shouldn’t that count for something?
bobbcat, I give Newt ALL the credit he deserves…and ALL the blame he deserves.
Then, I weigh the balance.
I don’t forgo one for the other. In the final analysis, his taking the fight to the media won’t get any more support from anyone you read here…and as any regular will attest, it is among the most important things to me in the fight against small c communism and the runaway, rampant leftism that is destroying Western Civilization.
However, his weaknesses are glaring. His negatives poll as high as his positives, especially among swing voters…but even among ardent conservatives.
He turns off co-workers, underlings, subordinates, peers, with equal vigor. People do NOT walk out en masse from a campaign from a leader who inspires their devotion. A public censure for ethics violations and serial marital infidelities matter to some people. More than a few, in fact, and it is not something that can be blindly swept under a rug to pretend that it does not exist.
It may be OVERCOME…but not ignored. To do the latter is myopic and ignorant.
In the final analysis, his bloated ego and imperious nature makes him a fine match for the Fabian in the White House. My preference is for a guy who sees the Presidency as the stewardship of a nation, not a coronation of his personal greatness.
A man with no humility figures he can rule those beneath him from a throne, not serve those who pay his salary. We HAVE a guy who is arrogant and imperious. We HAVE a guy who ignores everything we want, tramples our national will. We HAVE a guy who has grandiose ideas and is piss poor in executing them, leaving the details to “the little people”.
We HAVE a guy who trumpets himself and blames everybody and everything for lack of achievement. Who seizes all the credit and shirks all the blame and responsibility.
While I think the small c communists have nearly completed the destruction of Europe…and ANY sane replacement (thus eliminating Ron Paul) would be an improvement, I think losing to Obama could be the last nail in the free market coffin they are building.
Because of that, I don’t believe any rational person can get blindly giddy over ANY candidate who has a high probability or risk of losing to Obama. We need to make a cold, hard, factually based analysis. Having done that…I think we are in deep trouble with the current slate and have said so for some time now.
However, I LOVE it when Newt grabs a weapon and leads the front line against the propaganda machine. I get a thrill watching it. I appreciate it more than almost anyone…since I have been calling for this very thing for years on these very pages.
If we have to choose between dying with a fighter or living with a coward…I would first like to look around and see if we can find a hero to lead us to victory…and salvation. Losing to Obama is not resonating its danger with people nearly enough. Or else we would all be demanding another option.
“It may be OVERCOME…but not ignored.”
With that I agree. I agree too that Newt’s ego is as big as all out of doors & that he may possibly be the flip side of Obama so to speak. I am still inclined to think though that Newt has the capacity to be a great POTUS. He would certainly, despite his glaring flaws, do a better job than Obama could ever do. Gingrich is a true patriot; this is key.
I don’t think you can be a great POTUS if you can’t get your own team in order. I don’t think you can be a great POTUS if you are flitting from idea to idea, sitting on the couch with Nancy Pelosi one minute, propping up Freddie Mac the next.
I would have no delusions about how an imperious, thin-skinned and off-putting President Gingrich would govern. It would be a likely free for all, with a serial mutiny problem. His OWN staff, his OWN co-workers, his OWN people in constant rebellion.
And, I would take this in a heartbeat over the inner circle of small c communist revolutionaries in disguise currently leading this nation to its demise.
If Gingrich wins the nomination…then so be it. It will certainly be a thrill ride. In golfing movie terms, he is Roy McAvoy…snapping all his clubs except his 7 iron, or hitting balls repeatedly into the water to prove he can hit the low percentage longshot.
Tin Cup Gingrich will have people walk out on him because he is reckless and irrational at times. He is stubborn and won’t listen to reason. But, when he has flashes of brilliance, it is a joy to behold.
Romney is David Simms. Not a hair out of place, dresses the part, …but is mean to little kids when nobody is looking. And..he always plays it safe. Never goes for it. The Great Pretender.
But HE would be better than another four years of small c communism unleashed on the free market.
He would likely govern by compromise. I have no higher expectations than that meager one.
Blech.
John Bolton and Chris Christie and Nikki Haley, and Bobby Jindal have made their choice.
I have not made mine.
Newt leads with his chin.
But aren’t those guys the first ones to get knocked out? And they probably don’t even see it coming.
Newt has shown he can duck and weave.
Obama has to run on his record of Progressive, liberal opinions and accomplishments.
Come to think of it, running on a list of Progressive, liberal opinions and policy accomplishments sounds like Romney.
Grant was a great general but not a great president. Newt is a great debater but a lousy executive. I’ll take Romney at this point and hope to stock up on TEA so that we’ll have plenty for more elections. This is a long term war and not a 2 hour debate we are in.
OMG!! When Gingrich was surging in December, I wholeheartedly supported the surge because I said, “As Abe Lincoln said of U.S. Grant, ‘I cannot spare this man, he fights’”. These were my exact words on a forum.
Just think of the dilemma during the civil war: Lincoln’s union army couldn’t find a competant general to lead the troops against the confederates. Then, General Grant came along with his record of victories — except he had a well-known drinking problem that Lincoln’s cabinet members found offensive. Then Lincoln uttered these truthful words. And, yes. Ulysses S. Grant became president just a few short years later.
If Sarah has chosen not to run in 2012, then I will wholeheartedly support Newt for president for THE BIGGEST REASON — HE FIGHTS!
I have not overturned all the rocks out there in medialand, but I want to see somebody ask ABC how much $$ it paid Marianne to vomit vitriol all over Newt for the benefit of the SC voters.
I doubt it was ABC but maybe someone in the race who said – give her a call. Now just who has those connections – not Santorum or Paul. Let’s not be naive here as this helps only Romney. It was Romney who all of a sudden was starting to feel the heat in SC after having a large lead. Romney is smart enough to never leave his fingerprints on things although I would never put something past him. Romney’s on a mission to absolve the embarrassment his family suffered in the 1968 Presidential race when his father said he was brainwashed by the military. That was the end as the media had a feeding frenzy and all he was saying was that he was misled. Romney adored his father and was for the war when his father was for it and then abruptly was against it when his father ran and said that.
In his heart he has no core beliefs.
I agree with Rush that pravda was trying to knock both Mitt and Newt out in the same week.
Since the first mistress’s story was so well known, it just doesn’t make sense that the Romney camp was the instigator.
Pravda did this one on their own.
As I age, I am more convinced that liberalism is does not come close to the basic and honest instincts of our species.Man developed and evolved always encompassing the true nature of man. Liberalism has become what is coming to be more pronounced a mental disorder. Liberalsim is subverting and undermines the human species sense of personal freedom by promoting a philosophy that bears no philosophers stone; that seeks to undermine the true natureof man in the guise of social andpolitical advancdement.
Well maybe you can name me one law that conservatives (not talking republican or democratic parties here) have fought for and passed that liberals opposed that helped everyone and made this country great.
I’ll give you just two of many that liberals fought for that conservatives opposed:
Social Security and Civil Rights
I see why you have your qualifier in there of not Republicans or Democrats when you speak about the civil rights movement. Bull Connor, George Wallace, Lester Maddox,Ross Barnett, Bill Clinton’s mentors William Fulbright and Orville Faubus were all card carrying Democrats and rabid segregationists. The Civil Rights Act was opposed by the majority of Democratic Senators including Al Gore Sr. and of course Klansman, Robert Byrd.
The antislavery movement prior to the Civil War was utterly a movement of Republicans and northern pastors . So your claim is utterly specious, that dog won’t hunt.
And those dixicrats migrated to the Republican Party. So maybe you can proudly list all those conservatives who voted for civil rights? Most people who understand history know that early in our history the parties had both liberals and conservatives in their midst. However recently in the last 20-30 years there has been a sea change and the Rockefeller republicans have been savaged in the Republican Party. Dems still have some Blue Dogs but they are getting harder and harder to find as well.
My comment stands – I can’t think of one law that conservatives have fought for and passed that made our country great. Hide if you want but if one is conservative they should be welling up with pride about all their accomplishments. Yet the cupboard is bare.
Here are two more in which conservatives opposed:
Child Labor Laws
Womens Right to Vote
When did Bull Connor, Robert Byrd, the Arkansas racists, Ross Barnett, Lester Maddox, etc. become Republicans? Only in your imagination. As a matter of fact Nathan Bedford Forrest, the founder of the Klan was a democrat. In 1964, at the Democrat convention, the party refused to seat the black delegates from the Mississippi Freedom party, instead seating the racist state delegation. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican. Your history is packed with lies and disinformation.
Child labor laws were largely the product of Christian work in the early Methodist movement not liberals. Susan B. Anthony, the suffragette was a Republican. The Susan B. Anthony list , a conservative group supports pro life candidates , mostly Republican while your party are shills for Planned Parenthood founded on the racist eugenic, pro Nazi views of the hideous Margaret Sanger.
“My comment stands – I can’t think of one law that conservatives have fought for and passed that made our country great.”
Off hand, I can think of at least ten. We call them the Bill of Rights.
– Everett Dirksen on the Senate floor during that debate; he had worked closely with President Johnson to write the civil rights legislation and to deliver the Republican votes.
Social Security did not “make the country” better. It is and always has been a way to make the citizens of the country weaker and more dependent on government.
I don’t recall KKK Byrd from WV who filibustered the civil rights bill “migrating” to the GOP.
If you don’t think SS made this country better then thankfully you and I have nothing in common except breathing I hope. It took the poorest segment in our society that was a burden to their children and turned them into the wealthiest segment. Without SS even today many elderly would have nothing other than hoping for charity. Now that may please you but most civilizations that call them selves great do at least try to take care of the ones that need caring for and many elderly do. Now if you want to means test it fine with me and hopefully Obama will suck you into doing just that.
But please continue to avoid answering the question of what laws did conservatives pass that liberals opposed that made this country great?
Flaming Liberal assumes that Social security is a magnificent piece of legislation which it is not because someone is putting their hands in my pocket and taking monies for a future benefit which as evident today what happens when you give the powers that be the right to legislate social security into a ponzi scheme (mafia here?)transfering wealth plus tax revenues to augment, supplement in increasing amounts going beyond the intended beneficiaries in order to curry favor and accumulate power at my expense. Now everybody and their grandmother here in the USA and abroad can receive benefits, alive or dead (who is to verify?). Insofar as civil rights are concerned we have the Constitution and public education (maintaining standards…ie,no entitlements to encourage rising above your station in life and making for a civilized society..as eveidenced today with illegal aliens,wigth more children than they can afford sucking up resources that belong to others who followed the dictum” BUY IT NEW, USE IT OUT, MSAKE IT DO, DO WITHOUT……Its now public knowledge that LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER and undermnines personal freedoms..(Our constitution is now a tattered document)
Conservatism, by it’s very nature, is not about heaping on sweeping and dramatic new programs in the hopes of fixing all of society’s ills. A better question might be, what hair-brained, poorly thought-out, consequences-be-damned utopian schemes have conservatives successfully and/or loudly railed against in the pursuit of keeping this nation whole, working and reasonably solvent.
The answers to that are multitudinous, starting with PelosiCare.
Yeah, you really put your finger on it. For all of Gingrich’s other flaws, he is the only one who seems like an effective fighter for what conservatives believe in. He is willing and able.
Using Lincoln’s comment regarding Grant is dead-bang on target here.
Obama and Lee are NOT the same, but the need for someone who fights … is.
It’s the core point of differentiation.
Do we want someone who will do everything conceivable to please pravda, or someone who will represent the people, no matter the risk to his position in life.
Do we agree with the republican ruling class that this to will pass and they will soon get their regular turn to distribute the goodies, or someone who believes that the country is on the verge of collapse and that this is the line in the sand.
Do we want someone who thinks that obama makes too many mistakes or someone who believes that obama is the most dangerous person in our lifetime.
But I would set all of that aside if I thought that Romney has a better chance to win than Gingrich. I just don’t buy the propaganda. Why is a person whose main faults are an imperfectly controlled libido, an active mind, and an inclination to piss off the ruling elites less electable that a person who is the poster-boy for Wall Street, a member of a religion that millions perceive as a cult, and someone who changes positions at the drop of a hat. The propaganda isn’t wrong, it’s dead wrong.
Sharp post.
I wonder how many people are taking into account that the MSM hasn’t scratched the surface of it’s scorched-Earth smearing campaign for Romney should he overcome Gingrich’s surge in the polls & ultimately win the nomination. By no means should anyone rest their laurels upon the notion that Romney is any more electable than Gingrich. JMO.
Well, I don’t have a program with the players numbers listed, so I don’t know who is in the “Republican ruling class” and who isn’t without a scorecard, but there is SOME RUMOR going around that at least SOME OF THEM…don’t like anybody on the slate and are praying for a brokered convention.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2012/01/20/scarborough-conservative-leaders-all-tell-me-they-want-brokered-co
In fact…it is RUMORED…that they don’t like Romney’s act and DON’T WANT HIM TO WIN THE NOMINATION.
If we can only appeal to those who hate the free market and “Wall Street” and add in a little religious bigotry for its appeal, it would be one more fine step toward getting the entire “B” team off the field.
Heck, Sarah Palin might choose someone else…because she only said if she was in South Carolina who she would vote for…not at the national convention.
Here’s to hoping Mitch Daniels knocks it out of the park in his response to the SOTU address.
(and no, I don’t take Joe Scarsborough’s rumors as truth…but if it is true…remember where you heard it first)
Has Mitch’s wife changed her mind and decided to let him run?
I can only hope she saw Newt eviscerate pravda on marital topics…and saw that it might not be as savage as she expected.
It would seem that these nameless, faceless Republican powerbrokers these talking heads are referring to must not think that any of these candidates is too terribly electable.
Someone in the comment section posted a link to a site everyone should look at, as it covers where all the candidates stand on the issues: http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm
I am not at all sure a brokered convention is going to get us what we really want: A first-string candidate. I really appreciated the bit Newt said in response to King’s dumb query about the fodder shared to the public by his second wife: (putting it into my own words) It’s because of this type of nonsense the really sharp people don’t want to run for office.
Sarah is smart enough to keep her powder dry and watch the field until someone gets the nomination. I guarantee you that, be it Newt or Romney, Sarah will then use the podium she’s created to accentuate the positive, generate excitement, parry the inevitable MSM obfuscation and nonsense and get that person elected.
I’m sure she has a preference, but she’s not going to risk tarnishing the eventual winner by supporting the losing candidate early on.
All of you think the enemy is Obama, but Obama is nothing but a shill. The media is the enemy, and Newt knows that. Even more, he knows how to deal with those troglodytes. Romney can’t, Cain couldn’t, neither could Perry or Palin. Newt hands the media hacks their asses on a plate. I love it. Although his personality couldn’t be more different Canada’s Harper has never let himself be intimidated by the media, either. And just like Newt, many of the attacks against Harper come from the right. The way I see it, Newt is a pragmatist, and that’s why he’s a conservative. If you want to have a prosperous, free and liberal country you have to be a conservative because that’s what works. And for society as a whole, traditional morality and values are also pragmatic. They work. Newt’s not the only one of us who found out the hard way that the ’60′s were a dead end.
I disagree only in that I think Palin handles them superbly. Don’t take the fact that she’s not running for President herself as being equivalent to having lost, somehow. She’s more focused right now on winning the White House for the Republican party than she is on winning it for herself.
That’s why we haven’t heard too much from her recently. She needs to keep her powder dry and not let people get so accustomed to hearing her voice that they just tune her out.
The fact that folks recently jumped and squealed at her playful use of the term ‘arse’ goes to show that she still has the public discourse at her beck and call. When the time comes, we’ll hear plenty from Sarah as she hamstrings the mass media’s attempt to manipulate the discourse and perception of the coming election and whatever candidate makes it to the primaries.
Re: trangbang68
You want this to denigrate into Republican vs Democratic Party and that is not my point at all. It’s Conservative vs Liberal. My point is that Conservatives have opposed and fought against almost every law that has helped make this country great. Pointing one or two that might have a conscience and eventually side with liberals does not cut it. Conservatives have been and continue to be a break on America becoming greater than we can be. But don’t worry time has always been on our side.
Here are some more laws that conservatives opposed:
Equal Rights
Medicare
So where are all those laws that proud conservatives have passed?
is this lovely earth’s new character?
LOL. Your argument is laughable since conservatives try to fit to the tenet of “That government is best which governs least”, so no sorry, makes more laws is not something a true conservative should be proud of. Many people failed to live up to this standard, but it doesn’t mean this is not good standard.
You speak in platitudes like “conservatives have opposed nearly every law that has made America great”……what does that mean? I state facts and you dismiss them with more platitudes. What about Johnson’s War on Poverty where things like Aid to Families with Dependent Children , in the commentary of Democrat stalwart Daniel Patrick Moynihan largely destroyed the black family. Look at Detroit or Camden , New Jersey to see what naive, feel good liberal public policy has wrought. At the risk of offending you by mentioning his name, I have to agree with commentator Dr. Michael Savage; liberalism really is a mental disorder.
“You want this to denigrate into Republican vs Democratic Party and that is not my point at all.”
Obviously, because when it comes to standing up for people’s rights, the Republicans have a much better record than the Democrats do.
“time is really on your side”. What’s that the Marxist dialectic that the triumph of the proletariat is inevitable and can’t be stopped? I was in Viet Nam and Cambodia this year. The people in those countries absolutely despise the socialist/communist/liberal claptrap that you fools continue to embrace. Only in America do we suffer leftist fools and their idiotic destructive ideologies.
Well, let’s see:
From what I can tell, Rick, Newt and Mitt ALL support the indefinite detention without trial bill.
I was hoping that would be brought up in last night’s debate. If you saw before and after commercial breaks, they would show people’s questions that they were posting from the net, and it came up several times there, but it was never asked of the candidates.
Well, one person on the stage was against this Constitution shredding deal, but you know, he’s all “KKRRRAAAAZZZYYY”…. You’d have to be crazy to not want the president to be able to throw out due process, I guess.
Shhhh, dont’ say it to Georgians. Substitute John Bell Hood perhaps.
I shudder at the thought of Gingrich as president, but I’ll give this to him: he’s not afraid to say what everybody’s thinking. And I’ve been wrong about my presidential picks before (besides which, I’d cut my fingers off before I voted for Barack Obama).
I know what you mean, Rebecca. Gingrich is a Godawful candidate, and so is Romney.
But, their supporters do have one compelling argument.
Damn near anything is better than Barack Obama.
“Here are some more laws that conservatives opposed:”
“Equal Rights”
Unfortunately for your argument, the political party you support always led the fight AGAINST equal rights. Champions of race-based slavery, creators of and defenders of Jim Crow, opponents of Women’s Suffrage. That’s the heritage of YOUR party. It’s also one of the reason why folks like myself will NEVER vote for a Democrat, period.
If you want to, therefore, redefine the Democrat Party as conservative, that’s o.k. by me. Use any descriptor you want, the record of the Democrat Party is what it is.
As for your support for various federal government handout programs (that all take more from the citizenry than they give) that are transforming everyone in this country into serfs and wards of the state, you can stick said programs where the sun don’t shine.
I want to be free, not a slave dependent on government giveaways (especially if the giveaways are coming from a pack of turds like the Democrats, I’d just as soon take handouts from the Nazis); giveaways that all originate from my wallet anyway.
Social Security: The government takes my money, sticks some of it in their pocket (’cause they don’t “work” for free), and then MAYBE if I’m a good boy, they return the money when I’m old and gray (unless I die before I get old enough, in which case, that money goes to whoever they designate as being worthy to recieve it).
There’s only two kinds of people that would voluntarily sign up for Social Security: fools, and deadbeats.
sorry but that dog don’t hunt. I could care less about parties as I have always been independent. What I do see is that conservatives wrap themselves in the flag whether Democratic or Republican and do crap to help their fellow Americans. A bunch of more selfish creatures I have never seen before but then that’s probably how they were brought up.
You want to denigrate SS fine but bring some facts to the table other than what you bring which is “it’s my money.” What do you think this country would be without SS – Oh wait I know you don’t care what it would be would you.
What do you think this country would be without SS
>>> More Free?
Well maybe you can come up with some civilized countries that have no social safety net for their citizens as they age. Of course if we get rid of SS then Santorum will not have to worry about larger families or maybe that’s over your head.
“More Free”
Yup, and that’s what I want. To be as free from tyrannical “liberal” governments as I can possibly be.
We have a major fight coming next four (8, 12, 16?) years to remodel the government and the attitude our employees in the government have towards us, We The People. We need a very strong fighter who will back Congress’ efforts with clearly enunciated throat ripping for the hyper-biased racist socialistic main stream media. When the media suggests a Congressional action is racist, we need a POTUS who will enunciate intents of actions and why doing something radically different and possibly retro is the right thing to do and is not racist. We need a candidate who can also mention that it is mathematically impossible to soak the rich and make up our budget deficit. We can’t make up a fifth of our deficit this year with the higher income tax returns of 2008 on the backs of the top 3% (down to $200k/year) let alone top 1% with a 100% tax rate. (Why did *I* have to go to http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08in11si.xls and do some arithmetic the candidates should be doing?)
Pacifists in the Presidency will not cut it in the future. It becomes OUR job to keep Gingrich’s temperament turned in constructive directions.
{^_^}
Romney is the classic “Establishment Republican”:
rich as hell, but still has Leftist Guilt about it.
IT’S TIME TO WIPE THE STAGE free of such flotsam.
So, Romney is rich. Fine.
So, Romney defends the free market conceptually insofar as to how he got rich. Fine.
SOROS likes the free market system, too. He just games it a bit differently.
I only hope Gingrich can point this out in his inimitable manner.
UNLEASH GINGRICH IN 2012!!!
By far the most important thing is beating obama. Romney, Gingrich or Santorum will all be good presidents. None will please everybody. All will reverse a lot of obamunism.
But none of them can do it unless they can beat obama. The ability to win has to be the most important consideration in this election.
And the race so far has been a pretty good test tube:
- Romney, smooth and glib, dances and parries, let’s his attack dogs dismember anybody who threatens him, and parses his positions so he can pivot in 16 directions in the general election. Put him in a corner, taxes, and he needs a week with his moneymen to decide the safe approach to responding. Mustn’t make a mistake you know. He will smile and say “obama has failed” thousands of times in the months before the election.
- Santorum, God love him, hasn’t been tested in the least. His strategy is to be a consistent, pro-government conservative. But when challenged in a difficult environment in 2006, he lost by a huge margin in his home state, when a few million dollars was spent against him.
- Gingrich was running a unifying campaign until he was viciously attacked by Romney’s paid surrogates. He has fought back like a rabid dog, making some mistakes, defending himself and his record with a vicious disregard for his legacy and showing a willingness to damn the torpedoes and fight back with every tool available. He’s a genius on camera, and they can’t keep him off camera. Not in this country anyway, not this year.
If you figure the election will be an orderly, pre-2008 contest of policies and personalities, you should support Romney enthusiastically. He won’t piss anybody off, and the angry people will vote against obama and for him.
If you are willing to lose in a blaze of glory as a principled conservative while Axelbama uses every dirty trick in the book against you, then you should support Santorum. He won’t disappoint you.
If you suspect the Marxists will go nuclear against any republican candidate, you might consider hiring a yard dog who bites and snarls at everything around him when cornered, and one who just happens to be the architect of the last conservative revival, the one overturned by George Romney Bush, then I suggest you swallow hard and go with the only guy who has a bat’s chance in hell against the billion dollar smear and crisis machine that will be throwing everything in their war to cross finish line of the takeover of your country.
Well I’m sure Gingrich has the women’s vote secured. At least the ones who like to be subservient to their man
Do some research on Callista Gingrich. She is no trophy wife.
Whole heartedly agree. We need a guy with some big ones to stop the downward spiral. He has such a fabulous grasp of history. I think everyone in the country would enjoy the Lincoln/Douglas debate. We missed it the first time. It is time for another one.
Since we are throwing around the names of Generals, I will note that Benedict Arnold was a great fighter, a lot more inspiring (and erratic) than Grant, actually. He was terrific at Saratoga, essentially the turning point of the Revolution. But after that really bad sh*t happened. George Washington won at Trenton and Princeton and generally lost or avoided most other battles. Picking a general to Patton oneself after is appealing, but politics is not war…and every war is different.
Grant was solid and usually brought great logistic support and generally unlimited Union power to most of his battles. He had the will and resolve to have a third of his army get butchered so that it could eventually win. He was the man for that terrible job. As a President, he had no sense of how to rein in subordinates or develop any sense of who was creating the biggest scandals. He was a good man ambushed by bad men around him and he was clueless as to how to deal with them.
As for liberals dealing with a flawed philosophy, I have to scratch my head at folks like Bob Bennett and Newt who lecture on values, family values, blah, blah, and then do what they do. It seems to be a hollow recitation of a message that makes people stand up and salute, but….?
Not sure where any of this leads us other than…to Mitt.
I am a distant observer of this process, a citizen of the GREAT WHITE NORTH,Canada.
Back in the day, I was one of those who was part of the vastly bigger counter current, those Canadians that mustered for Viet Nam…and other matters.
This bring to mind the difference between leadership and command authority. The Soviets long past recognized that groups/units naturally, unconsciously mustered to natural leaders.
During the debate, I noted that Newt lead and the other candidates followed his lead. The natural selection process annoited Newt as leader…and the polls reflect the reaction to that.
Thank You for your service and I agree entirely. With this Final Four Newt is far and away the leader. If Romney or Santorum were leaders they could have anticipated the question from King last night and interrupted as they must have known Newt would hit this out of the park. Heck even I was cheering. But no they thought this was going to be an embarrassing moment for Newt. If Romney interrupted and said at the beginning what he said when he was asked to comment he could have taken the wind out of Newt. Santorum just embarrassed himself trying to pile on Newt.
Rick Santorum consistently advocates himself as against Newt Gingrich because he (Rick) is predictable whereas Newt is not. He is probably right in identifying the two differing personality types but I do not necessarily agree that predicatability trumphs non-predictability (to the extent that Newt is “non-predictable”). In some sense, Rick appears to be the kind of man that as a student would have had his homework done on time with all the blanks filled in correctly just the way the teacher expected whereas Newt would have made some “mistakes” due to his approach of questioning certain platitudes and challenging the given truths. Newt is, by far, the more exciting but less predictable of the two. One of the questions we need to answer is “What does America need right now?” Their respective political philosophies and past activities suggest that both fall into the broad area where Republican sympathizers meet. In other words, both candidates would be acceptable challengers to Obama based on political philosophies. In my estimation, the U.S. is in such straights right now, however, both domestically and externally, that we require a man of Gingrich’s creativity as opposed to Santorum’s stability. Yes, it may be a risk but we are at one of those points in history when a leader with vision must arise and, of all the current candidates, that would be Newt. Having said that, should Gingrich eventually win the nomination, I think his choice of a vice-presidential running mate should be someone who would provide him with the kind of personality characteristics represented by Rick Santorum himself or, perhaps, Mr. Romney or Rick Perry. Incidentally, I would (sincerely) appreciate any responses to my above stated comments.
The world’s best minds, best leaders were not necessarily predictable. The greatest were typically the ones who thought “outside the box” & were not typically the types to follow convention.
There are several reasons Gingrich excites & inspires people. He has a history of forging groundbreaking changes from which the country has benefitted. He is very articulate & is not afraid to go to bat for the interests of the people he wants to represent.
Gingrich/Santorum would be good. Gingrich/Romney would be unacceptable.
The articles analogy with USS Grant was right in more ways than one. Grand did have personal problems, did fight, and did become president. Unfortunately the Grant presidency was mostly unsuccessful.
That is what worries me about Newt. Yes he has some great ideas (along with some really bad ones). Yes he fights. But I dont thing he would govern well. Remember that Newt only lasted about 4 yrs as speaket, when he was ousted by his own party, after the impeachment battle turned against them and they lost seats. And I worry his very penchant for coming up with ideas for what gov can do, would lead him down the path of using gov to solve all our problems, the very thing we have to stop. And his absurd attack on Bain makes me suspect his desire to foment populist anger for votes, outweighs his committment to free market capitalism.
Romnay is not that exciting, but I think he is much less risky, both for the campaign, and for governing. And since Romney is himself a capitalist, I think his committment to free market capitalism is more ingrained. I loved it when Romney said that while Newt was in DC battling with the dems, he was at Bain hoping that the gov would stay as far away as possible.
They can’t be a successful president if they can’t get elected.
Any of them will be orders of magnitude better than little lenin. Even a failed presidency by any of the three remaining candidates will be a miracle for the country because it will halt the tide of marxism.
What you think about their ability to govern is dwarfed by their electability.
Support the one who has the best chance of winning.
Republican’s need to keep punching MSM in the nose. The next level, is when they are asked a frivolous question, tell the questioner, let’s talk about serious issues. Then take over the debate by bringing up ,fast and furious, Solyndra, etc. Ask each other for opinions about Obama’s corruption. Completely take the debate away from the liberal MSM pukes.
I could imagine Gingrich giving air traffic controllers 24 hrs to get back to work!
… to save the Union, after several “better choices” disappointed [sound familiar], Lincoln went with a cigar smoking drunk who had only one redeaming quality: “HE FIGHTS…”. Between Cold Harbor and the Wilderness, Grant lost HALF his army. Still, he wept and said… attack.
… to save the Union now, go with an irrasible Grandfather, who we can only hope has learned his lessons, but elect Republicans to the Senate in case Newt needs a governor when his motor over-revs.
This country needs a businessman not another politician. Newt is a liar, a thief, and an egomaniac = politician = Obama! Same cut of cloth if you ask me. Gingrich/Obama all the same. We can’t afford either one of them.