The American Spectator

Big J| 9.24.09 @ 7:08AM

Thank you for invoking Steve Forbes' name. The man is a strong conservative genius in my opinion.

Thanks also for saving Mitt Romney's name for last. You lost me there.

Michael L. Hauschild| 9.24.09 @ 8:41AM

Big J,
Gingrich is steeped in the beltway feces. Clinton took him to the woodshed and he had to resign his office. He is not a “brilliant” political strategist and was the first to behind the scenes to abandon the “Contract With America” after tricking the public into thinking things would be different.
Romney? Have you lost your minds? He is so politically and morally supple that he achieved the governorship of the most liberal state in the Union. He spent forty million dollars to sustain his lust for influence and power and could not outpoll the most virulent RINO in Washington history. He could not even beat out a fiscally irresponsible Jenny Craig refugee base player.
You cannot continue to make the same mistakes over and over and expect different results.
The ONLY political figure to move the right side of the political spectrum foreword is Palin. We have to have someone who is not a “player” but can handle those who play the beltway game. She alone has credentials of being able to “clean up” the system in a bipartisan manner, shown an excellent comprehension of the stewardship of a pristine environment while tapping our natural resources, and taught one of the largest enterprises (oil) the concept of “sharing.”

s.sridhar| 9.24.09 @ 12:35PM

Amen 'Bro'. I can not understand why conservative pundits either ignore or choose to belittle Palin. She is the only one out there with the 'braun' and the 'brains'. She somehow needs to team up with someone like Forbes ,Kasich , Armey or Jeb Bush to get some 'street cred'. Newt is a wonk and should stay so. He is notorious for shooting himself in the foot and shooting his supporters in their heart.

Margie| 9.24.09 @ 1:54PM

I think that anyone who calls themselves a conservative and doesn't like Sarah Palin isn't a real conservative. They are too busy up on their high horses looking down their noses. Sarah Palin absolutely represents every single thing that is good and right about America. And she says it in terms everyone understands. Heck, even my brainwashed by the Left Sister actually likes her. She is the female version of the late great Ronald Reagan. OK guys~now go pick on my words. One more thing though. I LOVE Steve Forbes. I do believe that regular people like my Dem Parents would be ready to listen to him this time around. I come from a whole family of Dems and I know how they think. EXACTLY how they think. And I think there are SO many Dems ready to give up the ghost of Left wing wackoism at this point because of the Hell they are being put through because of the Obamamaton. I'm not that naive though, don't worry, but I do know there are lots ready for a change BACK to reality. We need not a change but a RESTORATION of TRUE conservative values. the original ones of Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln and George Washington. Steve Forbes and Sarah Palin would be awesome.

Michale L. Hauschild| 9.24.09 @ 2:49PM

I worked as the NRA liaison for a young Republican challenger to a Democratic incumbent (ninety six percent of incumbents were re-elected during that period).
Due to an incredibly effective and brilliant campaign manager we pulled off the coup of the decade and beat the six term democrat. This campaign manager went to Washington to function as the Chief of Staff for our new congressman. This same campaign manager to give you some idea of his dedication and love for the conservative movement spent his own money to travel to California to have an audience and photo taken with Ronald Reagan in his declining years. To this day that photo is his most valued position.
He lasted in Washington ONE MONTH. In one of the “closed sessions” he was told that the “Contract with America” would have to be “prioritized” and that the regular business as usual would have precedence.
He quit on the spot, as would of I.
How could anyone be so ignorant as to want Newt Gingrich involved in any way with what it will take to recover this democracy? He is the problem, not the solution.

Margie| 9.24.09 @ 4:27PM

To M. Hauschild,
(By the way, your first name is spelled wrong in your 2nd post?)
"He lasted in Washington ONE MONTH. In one of the “closed sessions” he was told that the “Contract with America” would have to be “prioritized” and that the regular business as usual would have precedence."

Since I wasn't there I don't exactly know know how prioritizing the Contract with America would be a bad thing? What was it that this young man was wanting to do? Why did he leave, really?

And if your first name was spelled wrong I'm wondering if it's a troll in here trying to use your name?

Michael L. Hauschild| 9.24.09 @ 6:31PM

Margie,
No, that was me (and some have called me a troll anyway). The "prioritization" meant that some of the parts of the Contract would be given "face value", the symbolic ones with no effect, and some would simply become the typical campaign promise rhetoric (conveniently forgotten). The real precedence was the "Business as usual." That brilliant young man not only quit that job, he became so disillusioned that I have not heard a word of him. What a loss.

Margie| 9.24.09 @ 9:27PM

Thanks for your answer.. maybe you could try and seek this young man out? Just to see how he is.

Michael L. Hauschild| 9.24.09 @ 10:02PM

Margie,
For one of my projects I performed an analysis on the voting patterns of the largest and most influential county (containing the largest city) in our state. Part of the analysis was simple geography, which billboards in the area would produce the most visual message recognition by utilizing traffic patterns and volume. There was a second tier of this analysis that used precinct-voting tallies to create a candidate “strength” hierarchy. Many candidates “climb the ladder” and the mapping software allowed us to hypothetically create synthetic elections running the various candidates from each party against each other to allow (in this instance Republicans) a “prediction” or insight about possible “strong” candidates and determining the statistical “best” candidate for a certain area or which candidate that would resonate best with a certain “platform.” After building this application and creating the database I looked up the “young man” (he probably is thirty five by now) to offer him first priority to the analysis and at that time (2002) he had explained to me “he was done.” I have not heard a word from him or about him since.

Margie| 9.24.09 @ 11:10PM

M. Hauschild,
How good of you!
How awfully sad for the young man. But we know that God looks out for His own. That's what matters. I hope he is doing well. Politics is what is is. And it sure isn't like the early days where there really was some honor among men. I hope someday you get to see him again.

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.24.09 @ 9:24AM

TEAM AMERICA ....URGENT RESEARCH NEEDED

We received this LETTER from one of our teammates early this morning. We have NOT had a chance to research the underlying facts of the matter, but I am posting it here raw, HOPING someone on the Spectator Staff will sic someone on the story.
IF THIS IS ANY WHERE NEAR ACCURATE, "HOUSTON, WE HAVE A PROBLEM!"
If you POSESS a firearm, be sure to read this:

Now 'all Guns' must be listed on your next (2010) tax return! As if we didn’t have enough to get upset about! Senate Bill SB-2099 will require us to put on our 2009 1040 federal tax form all guns that you have or own. It will require fingerprints and a tax of $50 per gun. | This bill was introduced on Feb.. 24, 2009, by the Obama staff. BUT . . this bill will only become public knowledge 30 days after the new law becomes effective ! This is an amendment to the Internal Revenue Act o f 1986. This means that the Finance Committee has passed this without the Senate voting on it at all. The full text of the IRS amendment is on the U.S. Senate homepage, U.S. Senate You can find the bill by doing a search by the bill number, SB-2099. You know who to call; I strongly suggest you do. Please send a copy of this e-mail to every gun owner you know.
Congress now seems to be starting on the firearms confiscation process. If it passes, gun owners will become criminals if you don't fully comply. It has begun . . . Is....this is just the 'tip of the iceberg?"' Very Important for you to be aware of a new bill HR 45 introduced into the House. This is the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Ac t of 2009.| Even gun shop owners didn't know about this because the government is trying t o fly it under the radar as a 'minor' IRS revision, and, as usual, the 'political' lawmakers did not read this bill before signing and approving it ! To find out about this - go to any government website and type in HR 45 or Google HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sales Act of 2009. You will get all the information. Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm - any rifle with a clip or ANY pistol unless: -It is registered -You are fingerprinted -You supply a current Driver's License -You supply your Social Security # -You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their choosing -Each update - change or ownership through private or public sale must be reported and costs $25 - Failure to do so you automatically lose the right to own a firearm and are subject up to a year in jail. -There is a child provision clause on page 16 section 305 stating a child-access provision. Gun must be locked and inaccessible to any child under 18. -They would have the right to come and inspect that you are storing your gun safely away from accessibility to children and fine is punishable for up to 5 yrs. in prison. If you think this is a joke - go to the website and take your pick of many opt ions to read this. It is long and lengthy. But, more and more people are becoming aware of this. Pass the word along. Any hunters in your family pas s this along. This is just a "termite" approach to complete confiscation of guns and disarming o f our society to the point we have no defense - chip away a little here and there until the goal is accomplished before anyone realizes it. This is one to act on whether you own a gun or not.. : Please.. copy and send this out to EVERYONE in the USA , whether you support the Right to Bear Arms or are for gun control.
***********

We will update you as further research is completed.

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.24.09 @ 10:26AM

UPDATE UPDATE!
I just got off the phone with the NRA (National Rifle Association).
They assured me they are all over the newest bill introduced in the House of Reps. HR 45

There are only 2 co-sponsors in 8 months, and the NRA believes with only 2, the chances of the bill coming to the floor for a vote are minimal.

We will work with them to keep you all posted.
http://judgeroy.wordpress.com

Tim| 9.24.09 @ 10:27AM

You shouldn't flag incredible claims without credible evidence.

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.24.09 @ 11:12AM

Tim
I read excerpts of the House bill early early before posting here. I personally called the NRA at the opening moment of their business hours and talked extensively with them.

What have you done?

Did you read my discalimer at the top of my post?
Since you are so lazy, I will paste it here.
>>We received this LETTER from one of our teammates early this morning. We have NOT had a chance to research the underlying facts of the matter, but I am posting it here raw, HOPING someone on the Spectator Staff will sic someone on the story.

Tim| 9.24.09 @ 2:12PM

Ken
If not for running my mouth, I wouldn't get any excercise at all...

Johnno| 9.24.09 @ 2:49PM

Tim, why are you such an asshole? I just hope the number of people like you are few or we're really screwed.

I'll email Rush--he'll be all over this story.

Great job, Ken. Thank you for all you do.

victor| 9.25.09 @ 8:46PM

Or jumping to conclusions?
How about flying off the handle?
Or grasping for straws?

Kerry Marvin| 9.24.09 @ 12:32PM

Please forgive my bluntness, but the United States Government thinks you’re a terrorist.

And now they’re trying to pass a bill allowing gun-grabbing Attorney General Eric Holder to revoke all your Second Amendment rights at will if he has “a reasonable belief” you could pose a “threat.”

I know this sounds unbelievable, but read on.

As you know, in a recently released report, the goons at Barack Obama’s Department of Homeland Security classified gun owners, honorably discharged veterans and little old church ladies as threats to the security and stability of the United States of America.

Even a gesture as simple as placing a pro-gun bumper sticker on your car, or supporting a pro-gun candidate makes you a potential “domestic terrorist” in the eyes of the thugs running our government.

Obviously, your First Amendment rights of free speech mean as much to Obama’s Department of Homeland Security as your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

And to add insult to injury, Barack Obama’s Surveillance Czar Janet Napolitano sees no difference between law-abiding gun owners like you and violent racists who murder and vandalize.

But if that’s not shocking and outrageous enough, it gets worse...

Republican quislings Peter King of New York, Mark Kirk of Illinois and Mike Castle of Delaware have just introduced a new gun control bill that comes right out of this so-called “Rightwing Extremist” report.

I’m talking about H.R. 2159, the shockingly misnamed “Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009.”

I call it the “Disarming American Citizens Act of 2009.”

These anti-gun Republicans-in-Name-Only want to disarm you because they fear your pro-liberty views.

In fact, your love of freedom frightens them so much that they’re now going to great lengths to label you a domestic terrorist.

It’s the perfect way to silence “troublemakers” like you and me, and to marginalize our influence.

And make no mistake: If Congress passes H.R. 2159, Eric Holder would have the authority to deny thousands of innocent Americans their constitutionally protected rights.

But this bill isn’t just about Eric Holder taking away your Second Amendment rights if you’re “appropriately suspected” for “terrorism.”

H.R. 2159 also allows Holder and his team of gun-grabbing henchmen to “withhold” any and all evidence from you or a court if Holder & co. “determine” that it might “compromise national security.”

These are the same people who labeled small government advocates potential “domestic terrorists”! Who cares what they “determine”?!

Even more ridiculous, H.R. 2159 says that the courts “must” rely on Eric Holder’s personally “redacted versions” or “summaries” of the “evidence” he supposedly has against you ...

... and he never has to release the evidence he claims to have!

They could annul your Second Amendment rights and convict you in a court of “law” without a shred of actual evidence ... legally!

NAGR needs your help today to stop H.R. 2159 from progressing any farther. Click here to contribute.

You already know Attorney General Eric Holder is Barack Obama’s most ruthless anti-gun henchman.

And we all know what Barack Obama himself thinks of gun owners.

As a candidate, he claimed you and I were “bitter” uneducated folks “clinging” to guns out of hatred and frustration.

And now as President, he and Surveillance Czar Janet Napolitano have gone a step further in declaring gun rights activists and pro-gun voters domestic terrorist threats.

To make matters worse, Republican scalawags Mike Castle and Mark Kirk -- both notorious anti-gunners -- are working with Obama and Carolyn McCarthy to strip you of your most fundamental freedoms.

If H.R. 2159 becomes law, Eric Holder -- or any other Attorney General for that matter -- will be allowed to disarm you based on your political views without having to provide any evidence for his claims.

The National Association for Gun Rights is ready to stop H.R. 2159, the Disarming American Citizens Act.

I’m committed to this fight. Are you?

Mike| 9.24.09 @ 10:39PM

Hey Old Texican,
I can throw some cold water on your post here right away! SB 2099 is not a bill in this congress. The last time that number was used was back in the 105th congress. Most of the claims in your post are not true. The house bill is but it is a licensing bill not a registration bill and says nothing about taking guns away! Also this bill has no co-sponsors and will surely die a slow death so you can quit hyperventilating.

No Trolls| 9.25.09 @ 10:53AM

You've proven nothing, Mike. We don't know you, why should we believe you? We'll do our own research.

Don't let the door hit ya where the Good Lord split ya!

Mike| 9.25.09 @ 3:37PM

Hey No Trolls,
If you would take the time to do the research you will see that I'm correct. Simply go to: www.senate.gov/reference/common/faq/SB2099.shtml and it reveals the myth of SB 2099. There is also another tidbit in Old Texican's post saying that on Page 16 of Section 305 of the bill ....... well No Trolls, the bill only has 13 pages! Shall I go on sir?

victor| 9.25.09 @ 9:01PM

found this at thomas.gov
perhaps you should take a peek, eh?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/.....06XosQq4::

Bill| 9.25.09 @ 3:43PM

This email has been floating around for months, and has been debunked on several sites, including Snopes. A quick look at Thomas.gov shows it is not a bill up for consideration. Nothing to get excited about here.

Mike| 9.25.09 @ 6:26PM

Exactly Bill, Thank You!

victor| 9.25.09 @ 8:49PM

Steve Forbes must have overslept the day he supported a man who is against the Flat Tax.
Christie Christie is a regular (read RINO) republican.

martin j smith| 9.24.09 @ 7:31AM

I am not a conservative but I am very concerned about the extreme left direction that the Demcratic Party has gone. So I am open to voting a viable opposition. This country cannot and should not be ruled by one party--power currupts don't you know...
But free enterprise, America as a guiding light supporting freedom and democracy at home and abroad--that is what I support. Hopefully a leader woho is articulate and inspiring will come around

Bram| 9.24.09 @ 12:43PM

Martin,

Got news for you. If you really believe in free enterprise, you are a conservative. Welcome aboard.

Margie| 9.24.09 @ 2:00PM

I second that emotion Bram, and welcome you aboard too, Martin!

victor| 9.25.09 @ 8:52PM

""But free enterprise, America as a guiding light supporting freedom and democracy at home and abroad--that is what I support. ""
And if you believe in the 10th amendment and Article I section 8, then you're a Conservative and welcome home.

P Spike| 9.24.09 @ 7:34AM

I would like to see Pete DuPont enter the fray. He is a former State executive and a solid conservative at the National Center for Policy Analysis.

Bram| 9.24.09 @ 12:47PM

I like DuPont too although he is probably too old for another run at this point. I saw him give HW Bush a savage mauling with conservative logic in an '88 New Hampshire debate.

Schnauzer| 9.24.09 @ 7:50AM

Off-hand, I can't think of a current or past office holder who will be getting either my vote or check. I admire Forbes but would need to know the team behind the quarterback.

Melvin| 9.24.09 @ 7:54AM

People, people, people. Wish in one hand and crap in the other and see which one fills up first.
Steve Forbes, and Pete Dupont would be exactly what this Country needs to correct itself economically.
But these two esteemed gentlemen have one massive failure that is a requisite for government duty. Their not bureaucrats, they don't spend countless hours of debating, attending workshops, symposiums, and debating all over again.
Steve and Pete are executive managers who make critical decisions in a matter of minutes and take full responsibility for these decisions good or bad. Unlike government bureaucrats who take months upon months to decide and spends millions of dollars in studies to decide what color to paint the bathroom walls.
For example, lets say that there is a gravel road that has a rather large pothole in it. For the government bureaucrat to fix this whole 20 or 30 government drones would have to first come out and study the whole, and then say, "Yup, its a pothole alright."
Then if Steve and Pete were to be tasked with filling up the pothole, all they would do is, "Fill the hole up with gravel, tamp it and move on to the next one."
In order for Steve or Pete to be successful, they first would have to change Americans mindsets to be first resourceful and take responsibility for,
their actions.
Do we think that America is ready to make that jump? Hell they can't even pull themselves out of the floodwaters when a hurricane hits.

Melvin| 9.24.09 @ 7:59AM

I apologize for my gross misspelling of, "hole" not whole. What can I say, I'm a product of government run education system, but its not my fault, must have beens traumatic in my childhood. Now where did I put my Ritalin?

Tim| 9.24.09 @ 10:28AM

You did yoor best, That is all that matter.

Robert Rosencrans| 9.24.09 @ 8:03AM

Whomever rises to the top of the sea of sorrow, they better have a plan. The last election was defined by vagueness. As vague as Obama was, he appeared determined. I think that factor alone netted him the win. The Republicans should prepare everything now down to the last detail. That's all they need. The public has wised up to the fact that promises made are often promises not kept. They've also wised up to the fact you can't spend you're way out of Hell.

S.L. Toddard| 9.24.09 @ 8:11AM

How anyone can look to Newt Gingrich for conservative leadership after the failure of the Contract with America is beyond me. They failed to decrease the size and scope of the federal gov't, failed to stop Clinton's military adventurism, and failed to close the border with Mexico. That they failed even more spectacularly under the following Republican president (albeit without Newt) demonstrates the utter futility and naivete of relying on establishment beltway elites to return America to anything resembling a conservative constitutional republic.

Ryan| 9.24.09 @ 8:18AM

The Contract didn't fail - it probably succeeded in the best manner it could at the time with Clinton as President. I think that the problem was it wasn't adhered to in the Bush administration like it should have been. The leadership got complacent, and started thinking too much about being reelected than governing.

Margie| 9.24.09 @ 2:05PM

No one was "looking to Newt Gingrich" for conservative leadership. Put a lid on it, troll.

JBobs| 9.24.09 @ 8:23AM

Romney is not the answer. We conservatives will make a big mistake if we hitch our wagon to him. Let's please avoid Huckabee as well. I fear more lame choices for the electorate in 2012 if these two are top candidates. Newt may be our best choice to stand toe to toe with Obama and debate conservative principles with the Dems.

TennesseeVolunteer| 9.24.09 @ 8:49AM

"People don't want more big government, they want more freedom"
Less corporate taxes,
less individual taxes,
more personal freedom.
Develop every kind of energy.
Sarah!

Alec| 9.24.09 @ 9:04AM

If only Newt was conservative. I will never again follow anyone down the neoconservative path.

Red Phillips| 9.24.09 @ 9:15AM

"Listening to Newt," if you are an authentic conservative, is bound to make you pull your hair out. Newt is not now and never has been a conservative. He is a moderately free-market futurist. A conservatives should talk a whole lot more about Henry, Madison, Washington, etc. than he does Toffler. And on foreign policy, he is completely unhinged. His bellicosity makes the neocons blush. As the right is trending non-interventionist, the last thing we need is another Chicken Little fearmonger.

jack| 9.24.09 @ 9:22AM

the first clue that George Bush was not a conservative,just as his father wasnt,was when he coined the phrase Compassionate Conservative,yet Republicans flocked to this clever play on words worthy of Clinton. Now you are telling me the same republicans have some real conservatives? Dont you remember Newts Contract with America? funny thing about the contract with american,never heard much about it before the election but afterwards the idiot republicans claimed it was the reason for their victory and then immediately flushed it down the toilet. Newt sounds great,but unfortunately does not possess the star quality needed in todays society for political success as a presidential candidate. No more Bushes,no more Doles,and please no more McCains. Thats what got us into the present mess with entire republic in danger

Anthony| 9.24.09 @ 9:24AM

For all of Newt's genius, he is still a policy wonk at heart and a beltway insider. Too often Newt falls prey to admiring his own intellect; a John Edwards in love with his I.Q. rather than his G.Q.
As a result, he stubs his toe on some lefty construct like Anthropogenic Global Warming. The Contract failed in one important aspect, they didn't even give Term Limits a serious thought, it was a bone thrown to us, and as many have noted, the Republicans failed because their re-election was more important than conservative policy.
I'm tired of the usual has beens, give me Sarah Palin!! (If for no other reason, she drives the Left bonkers!!)

Margie| 9.24.09 @ 2:13PM

"a John Edwards in love with his I.Q. rather than his G.Q." ~ Good one!
(Not towards Newt personally, though).

Bob in Western NY| 9.24.09 @ 9:27AM

I'd have a hard time supporting Romney. He would need to explain how the coercive health insurance scheme in Mass. was in keeping with free people and free markets.

tonypal| 9.24.09 @ 9:33AM

I don't think the column is proposing Newt as a front man. In other words, Newt will lead as an intellectual force, which he is. But he is a spent force as a politician, which he surely knows. Same goes for Dick Armey, a man with many wonderful ideas.

I agree with JBobs regarding Romney. While he seems like an attractive politician, he's been a bit too flexible on the issues over the years.

Clearly, no one has emerged yet. My guess is no one will until after next year's mid term elections. Many of us here hold Sarah Palin in high esteem and I've thought all along that her decision to step down as Governor of Alaska was a shrewd political move. Given the hatred she inspires among leftists and elite, country club republicans, she certainly intrigues me as a candidate.

What I find simply astounding is the ascendancy of the republican party in the polls in relation to the democrats in spite of the fact that they have not really done anything except reject Obamaism. They've little to earn a higher standing among the voters. What this means is that a vacuum exists and it's waiting to be filled.

That's where a Newt-style leader circa early 90's comes in. Republicans need to put forth an updated Contract for America, 10 ideas rooted in free market principles that will appeal to a broad base of Americans, not just ideological conservatives. This person will not necessarily be a presidential candidate in '12, just someone who has the ability to bring congressional republicans and future candidates together with one coherent and unifying message.

Bohred| 9.24.09 @ 9:35AM

Really people, you should come out to the "Heartland", where we mine coal, make steel and grow corn. Ask around, only one name brings a smile in these Obama days.
Sarah Palin.

S.L. Toddard| 9.24.09 @ 1:24PM

That is truly sad. That the same heartland that produced true American heroes like Charles Lindbergh and Mark Twain, that birthed the prairie populists and swelled the ranks of the Anti-Imperialist League, where once dwelt Americans who put America first - that this heartland would succumb to the superficial charms of a puerile media celebrity like Sarah Palin is disheartening in the extreme.

The most enduring bastion of Americanism has gone to rot. Requiescat in pace.

Margie| 9.24.09 @ 2:18PM

Poor Toddard. .."and I won't forget to put roses on your grave."

tonypal| 9.24.09 @ 10:57PM

Another reason to love Sarah Palin - S.L. Toddard dislikes her.

Bydand76| 9.24.09 @ 11:20PM

You are a joke turd burglar Toddard!
Isn't BHO from.....the midwest?
Superficial indeed sir!
Once again another empty shell of a statement from a simple minded liberal. Pathetic really.
I will take the Sarah Palins over the Barry Obamas every single time. Character speaks volumes, and the company you keep is an even stronger statement. Make the comparison and then get back to me. BTW? Are you from the East Coast?
PRO LIBERTATE!

Margie| 9.24.09 @ 2:17PM

Bohred,
I'm there with you in spirit, brother. And here's mine ;^)

JimP| 9.24.09 @ 9:36AM

RE: Eric Cantor. I can't agree with the idea of Cantor being a conservative leader based on what I have seen of him. He was one of the organizers of the GOP 'Listening Tour' from earlier this year. Remember that(?): they rolled out 'Ole Cranky' McCain along with Jeb Bush et al to "listen" while telling us to let go of the past (had to beReagan). Cantor was also instrumental in garnering GOP votes condemning the AIG bonuses- just political posturing not principled, IMO. Cantor appears to be an inside the beltway Republican to me. Anyone with contrary info, please post. I'm open to changing my mind.

Thomas| 9.24.09 @ 9:38AM

Realistically, there is no true conservative leader on the national scene, including Sarah Palin [being a short term governor, she lacks a proven track record]. Newt has proven, through his recent collaboration with Nancy Pelosi, that he is a politician first and a conservative second. The same can be said for Romney and Huckabee, and that is being charitable. And that is it, on the national scene. Forbes and Dupont are still standing out in the hallway and probably will be for life.

The problem with politicians and political parties is that they do not represent the people. They have no core values, except getting elected to office and remaining in office. They reflect what they feel the majority of people want and then they become that. If it is raining, they don't go outside with an umbrella until they have checked to see if everyone else is carrying one and, if so, they pick one that most closely matches those that they see the majority of people carrying. They run as conservatives, espousing conservative values, and then, once in office, they become moderates, progressives or liberals. Conservatives want to be able to vote for a person who will not abandon the principles that they stood for when they were campaigning once they get into office.

No Newt is not the voice or face of conservatism. He is just another politician trying to get some face time.

Doctor Right| 9.24.09 @ 10:14AM

Sometimes I think Newt is 100% right-on.

Other times I think he's lost his mind, such as when he makes pro-"green" adds with Hillary Clinton.

Newt is a good strategist, but I don't think he's our "Champion in the Wings". Newt is first and foremost about Newt. Once you realize that, he becomes less attarctive as a Candidate.

And frankly, why are we Conservatives constantly kvetching about "A Leader"??? What are we, a bunch of leftist-lemmings waiting for our marching orders? Or waiting to be "inspired" by a fancy speech-maker?? That kind of bullshit logic gave us morons like Obama.

We have a leader in the Conservative movement. In fact, based on the turn-out at last week's march in D.C., we have about 2 million of them, and we know what we need:

1. Less Government
2. A commitment to national security
3. Cuts in out-of-control spending
4. Elected representatives who put their country first.
5. The guts to stand-up to foreign tyrants.

Any Candidate who will strongly and unapologetically cahmpion those causes will win in 2010 and 2012.

The Libs ARE on the run. Their agenda has been revealed, and most of the public does NOT like it. United, we will crush them in 2010 and 2012. Now is not the time to go wobbly with an unreliable person like Newt, or a complete fool like John McCain.

WE will lead this time. Whoever gets the nomination just better make damn sure they're listening.

Alec| 9.24.09 @ 10:45AM

Apparently we are rightist-lemmings, or else we would never have followed George Bush and the Republican apparatchiks off the cliff and ended up where we now are.

Margie| 9.24.09 @ 4:35PM

"And frankly, why are we Conservatives constantly kvetching about "A Leader"???"

...what? we're not allowed to kvetch now?

HoweeCarr| 9.24.09 @ 10:29AM

Romney?! Just come look @ Ma$$achu$ett$ costly health-care plan, courtesy in large part of Mitt Romney, to be quickly dissuaded of his ability to govern. Plus, just who is the REAL Romney? The moderate Republican who ran against Kennedy in '94? The Weld-like Republican he campained as in '02? The social-con he became when he got a whiff of Potomac Fever circa '05?

One other name just to keep in mind... Rudy Giuliani. Yes, he ran a horrid campaign last year. But he also had one of the most successful fiscally-conservative records of governance as NYC mayor... kinf of like what will be needed by '12.

Doctor Right| 9.24.09 @ 10:32AM

Rudy??

Please...

GREAT Mayor. He'd probably be a great Governor.

But he's no Conservative.

And his crappy 2008 campaign does raise questions about his national political judgment.

Margie| 9.24.09 @ 4:36PM

I think you just kvetched. ;^)

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.24.09 @ 10:33AM

Doctor Right.....what you said! (smile)

I read Senator Jim DeMint's 2009 book, "SAVING FREEDOM". I like him!

Perhaps each of you will go to www.youtube.com
and listen to some speech clips. See what you think.

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.24.09 @ 10:42AM

Here is a great look at DeMint. He is talking about what WE as citizens are saying!
I really like that!
http://judgeroy.wordpress.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHznHl9_fA4

mimipalmer| 9.24.09 @ 10:58AM

A lover of this nation, one who articulates the true conservative message, outspoken and well known and highly respected,author of a book about conservatism....LIBERTY vs TYRANNY our man who could lead us out of this present mess with courage and truth..... is MARK LEVIN!!!!!

Margie| 9.24.09 @ 2:24PM

I would vote for Mark in a nano second!

TennesseeVolunteer| 9.24.09 @ 11:03AM

Great comments all!
I don't want a leader, I want someone to do what the hell we want them to do.
Dr. Right, anyone who is willing to follow through on the platform you espoused is fine by me. I understand that our President has to have proven leadership skills because of the trials and tribulations that will arise but the reality is WE know what we want them to do on a day to day basis and it begins with small government and more individual freedom!
2010 and 2012 are our Independence Days!

Margie| 9.24.09 @ 2:28PM

Yes, and to that Tennessee Volunteer, I ask: So why COULDN'T Sarah Palin win? Why count her out? What are the actual requirements to be President? We all know them. Why do we make it so hard?

Martin McPhillips| 9.24.09 @ 11:03AM

The conservative leadership problem is real, and Newt is not the solution. Nor is Romney.

The GOP Senators are long gassed out. The comers in the House are speculative, at best.

Dick Armey? Not happenin', sorry.

As reluctant as I am to look to the military for leadership, given that it naturally overcultivates an appreciation for the abilities of the state to solve problems, I suggest a look at General David Petraeus.

First, he has the national security bona fides struck in gold. But where is he on entrepreneurial capitalism and questions of life?

As far as I know, no one knows. Does he understand the power of the free market?

Does he understand the priorities of the life issues?

That's the conservative coalition: national security, free market, and life.

Giuliani failed on the life question, and went right down.

Romney was unconvincing on the free market and on life, and left a monster of socialist health care behind him in Massachusetts after his visit there as governor.

Mrs. Palin might have all three right, but she cannot weave three extemporaneous sentences together and sounds sometimes like an angry elementary school principal.

General Petraeus could lead the conservatives if he can convince them he understands the vital importance of the free market and understands the sanctity of life. Let's give him a look. Now.

Mr. Tyrrell: call him up and interview him.

davelnaf| 9.24.09 @ 11:15AM

Excellent article Mr. Tyrrell. Obama and crew are in sight of the rocks and seem blind to the coming wreck they are about to make of the Chosen One's presidency. Conservatives are not losing sleep over this prospect. But the damage he is likely to do to the country over the remaining three years of his presidency certainly concentrates the mind during the waking hours.

Martin McPhillips| 9.24.09 @ 11:25AM

The damage he has already done has yet to be properly calculated. And I'm not saying that it will be less than anticipated.

Louis Jenkins| 9.24.09 @ 11:27AM

“Now Newt proclaims boldly in the Times that "the conservative hour in America has once again arrived." In sum and in fine, Newt argues that the combination of Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid has loosed an avalanche of left-wing policy revisions that alarms this center-right nation.”

Yes, the conservative hour has arrived. But, conservatives, do not be mis-led by the posers, the RINOs, the wolves in sheep’s clothing, or the whimps!! They are awaiting their coming opportunity to feed at the taxpayer financed buffet, to enhance their personal wealth, their reputation, load more excessive taxation and laws on the backs of the groaning taxpayers, and reshape this country into their own image, not retain the image of our founding fathers. They will babble forth any conservative message to get elected. And once elected it will be “inside the beltway” DC business as usual.

If Newt is appearing on the state run media every Sunday that should be a message to each of us. They like what he says, and if the media likes it, well, draw your own conclusions. Newt, Romney, McCain, et al, should fall on their swords for the sake of the conservative movement. The Tea Parties, the 09/12 March, are grassroots movements. They were not the work of Steele, McCain, Romney or Newt. To include these current and former leaders in the movement is to kill it. Do not mix old wine with the new!!

Jeremy Jester| 9.24.09 @ 11:50AM

If Calvin Coolidge were alive today he probalby wouldn't be in politics. There in lies the problem...

William R| 9.24.09 @ 12:10PM

No Forbes. He's to closely linked in with the NeoCons that took Bush and the Republican party over the cliff. Kristol, Kagan and their new think tank The Foreign Policy Initiative.

http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/

Never ending war.

S.L. Toddard| 9.24.09 @ 1:34PM

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied : and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

- James Madison
1790

realist| 9.25.09 @ 3:24PM

must be why progressives/liberals constantly cry for wars on: poverty, drugs, ignorance, inequality, environmental degradation...etc....etc....etc.....

obama...huh yea....what is he good for?
absolutely nothing
uh-huh

Obama! huh yea
what is he good for?
absolutely nothing
say it again y'all

....

Ohhhh? Obama! I despise
because he means destruction?
of innocent lives

.....

Tim| 9.24.09 @ 2:22PM

"Eye of newt and toe of frog,
Wool of bat and tongue of dog,
Adder's fork and blind-worm's sting,
Lizard's leg and owlet's wing,
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble."

CUFFS| 9.24.09 @ 2:27PM

How about Mr. Boehner????
Steve Forbes is wonderful; his intellect is really sexy!!!!

Greg| 9.24.09 @ 2:48PM

We need a younger version of Ron Paul. Someone who believes that the Constitution is the law of the land and believes the Fed should be done away with.

S.L. Toddard| 9.24.09 @ 2:55PM

http://www.randpaul2010.com/

R. Hines| 9.24.09 @ 3:02PM

RET is so very good. Drinking beer and avoiding the library. I really do love The American Spectator ... Good insight too!

Hiram Ulysses Grant| 9.24.09 @ 3:09PM

Students of the War Between the States might recall that great leaders often arise out of thin air in the midst of a conflict, if given the chance to display their genius, courage and determination.

Don't waste too much time trying to predict who will bring conservative values back into the White House - it's still early in the war.

Margie| 9.24.09 @ 4:38PM

Yessir.. we know that. But we do like to kvetch.

Richard| 9.24.09 @ 3:15PM

Yes, there is great potential in conservative leadership in the future. Please keep in mind, it will take more than a person who can articulate conservative values. It will take a person who can take on the new liberal bureaucratic establishment within the government and cut out the rot. That will be the hard work of governing going into the future. We can elect a conservative leader in 2012, let's hope they have the management style to eliminate the enemy within.

RJ| 9.24.09 @ 3:39PM

Re. DeMint: yeah, but did he hew to those principles when the GOP was running the show? Sad to say, I didn't see much in the way of Constitutionally limited governance from '01-'07. A lot of spending, and more than a little bit of social activism, but little in the way of limiting- and limited- government.

Just because NoBama and the Dems are worse is no reason not to hold those on the Right who are now talking the talk but didn't walk the walk when they had the opportunity to to the fire.

gene hauber| 9.24.09 @ 3:52PM

Dear RET,
ALL THREE NAMES: STEVE FORBES, NEWT GINGRICH and DICK ARMEY Are all the talent we need.
President, Vice President and Secretary of State and it doesn't matter in which order.
ALL EXCELLENT CHOICES...TALK TO THEM.

Daisy| 9.24.09 @ 3:53PM

Same-o, same-o: I for one, am tired of the GOP good ole boys network. It's way past time to infuse our party with some fresh energy and dynamism.

No one on the Right has Palin's verve or charisma and it's downright stupid to ignore her.

Millions of us won't!

stmichrick| 9.24.09 @ 4:00PM

All three are the smartest guys in the room. But presidential candidates these days, unfortunately, have to be rock stars or women.

Newt is tainted, a la Bubba.
Dick is terminally charisma-challenged.
Steve is like your dad.

I'd vote for Steve again.

Margie| 9.24.09 @ 4:17PM

stmichrick,
You are right. Steve would have my vote, if nominated. But what do you think of Sarah Palin?

Daisy| 9.24.09 @ 4:11PM

I loved my dad--but he was definitely charisma challenged, as is Forbes. It's piggish to insist that only men can represent republicans, very piggish.

Women are 1/2 of the republican party, why shouldn't we get a shot? It's not like you men have been burning up the success meter on behalf of Conservatives, you know?

After the debacle of RINOs, George W and McCain, many of us just don't trust you any more. Deal with it.

Charles Jackson| 9.24.09 @ 4:41PM

Forbes, Armey? Surely you jest.

Newt & Sharpton on the couch| 9.24.09 @ 4:42PM

Newt is one of the fools I want to stay out of conservative politics and whoring around with Sharpton & Pelosi.

He is as big a tool as the Squirrel in the Popocorn Popper with help me relate to the common man Rev. Huckersterbee.

Keep both of these fools off the national stage.

They are part of the problem, not the solution.

jr| 9.24.09 @ 5:05PM

And one or two more things Newt. Your NAFTA, open borders, free trade, bring on the aliens, are out of order, so quit trying. Don't you have enough money now? That sure would be a matchup. Droll talking drone-on Newt without sincere gusto versus blather spinning head Obama reading from a prompter. Think you all could get to sleep at night with Harry Reid or Queen Nancy talking?

Run as a Dem Newt| 9.24.09 @ 5:20PM

Newt should pick up Pelosi as a running mate to solidify the RepubliCrat ticket for 2012.

He could bring in Van Jones as Diversity Czar. The guy Obama picked is way to tame.

Gingrich is one of the tools that sold the country down the toilet and should never get another dime of tax money.

Go hang out with your race hustling, tax loving buddies and change your name from Newt to TOADY.

RINO Sighting| 9.24.09 @ 5:29PM

Newt the Rino should shut his mouth along with Al Gore if he is so interested in slowing global warming (actually global cooling over the last decade). Unless, of course, he is just interested in another revenue source for his ilk to line thier pockets.

Newt needs to stay with his Rainbow Coalition and disassociate himself from conservative thought.

He is a self centered, vain, bloviating fool who helped put us in the mess we are and bears huge personal responsibility for aiding, abetting and enabling the socialist revolution being attempted right now against the American people's will.

Go crawl back under your rock Newt. You have done enough damage to this country already.

Die Rechte Ecke| 9.24.09 @ 10:20PM

Newt Gingrich is a political whore - the only such appropos the university products of the 60s, 70s, and early 80s deserves.
I hope Mark Kirk goes down in flames and is turbo-douched back to his Lincolnwood/Deerfield, Il. hell on earth and I hope it's my vote that sends him back there.
Eat bean sprouts, leftist Kirk.
Cisco Cotto for Senate!

Margie| 9.24.09 @ 10:52PM

Some of you people kill me. I think.

Themistocles| 9.25.09 @ 1:27AM

"turbo-douched back to his Lincolnwood/Deerfield, Il. hell on earth"

Beautiful!

Alan Brooks| 9.24.09 @ 10:35PM

Forbes has got what it takes. But how about Richard Brookhiser for potus? I've never read eloquence and wisdom-- what good is one without the other?-- like this (NR '95):
"Alvin and Heidi Toffler, though they are the most abstract of Newt's authors, are very grounded indeed. Before advising a don or a saint, they would want to know what wave of history he or she belonged to. In the Foreword to Creating a New Civilization, Gingrich says the Tofflers have been "writing about the future for a quarter century." Does the futurism of 1970 hold up better than the lava lamp?
The Tofflers make a number of specific predictions and analyses. They see the leaner, meaner organizations discussed by Miss Boone and Mr. Drucker as prototypes for all social units, which can be decentralized, "de-massified," and "deliberately hollowed out." They apply this model to government and to the family, which has gotten them some bad ink during the Republican takeover. Gingrich was echoing the Tofflers when he speculated that majority rule might be
passe and social conservatives have noticed that the Tofflers take shots at "the values and morality of the 1950s, a time before universal television, before the birth-control pill." This book qualifies these opinions somewhat: demassified government could lead to devolution along the lines of the Tenth Amendment The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. as well as to balkanization along the lines of Lani Guinier, and the Tofflers call for a revival of extended families, and family autonomy: "forget peripheral issues, accept the diversity, and return important tasks to the household. Oh yes, and make sure the parent keeps control of the remote." Such backing and filling also explains the Tofflers' success as seers : big bull's-eyes make good marksmen.
Everything the Tofflers say is trivialized by their theory of history. Humanity has gone through three waves: agriculture, industrialism in·dus·tri·al·ism
n.
An economic and social system based on the development of large-scale industries and marked by the production of large quantities of inexpensive manufactured goods and the concentration of employment in urban factories. , and the wave that's happening now, the information age. I first heard the big theory in my interview with Gingrich ten years ago and that was the best way to be exposed to it. It's the kind of thought you come up with at a dinner party when you've had a few drinks and you're on a roll. It's sweeping, plausible, partly true; in that context, the holes don't matter. But the Tofflers have built an entire world view on it.

It looks like history, but it is really trendology, or the game of threes: posit two eras, and predict a third. If you win, you not only foresee the future, you own it. This is why the witches played the game on Macbeth, hailing him as Thane thane
n.
1.
a. A freeman granted land by the king in return for military service in Anglo-Saxon England.

b. A man ranking above an ordinary freeman and below a nobleman in Anglo-Saxon England.

2. of Glamis, Thane of Cawdor, and "King hereafter." In the hands of the Tofflers, the game of threes will probably have less drastic results, issuing only in verbiage verbiage - When the context involves a software or hardware system, this refers to documentation. This term borrows the connotations of mainstream "verbiage" to suggest that the documentation is of marginal utility and that the motives behind its production have little to do with and confusion.

Trendology ignores the persistence of previous eras into their successors. The Tofflers acknowledge that the clash of one wave and the next causes turbulence, but they don't see that the turbulence lasts for millennia. The era before the first wave, the era of hunting and gathering, still shapes our notions of warfare and masculinity, so that nearly half the men elected President in second-wave America had fought in battle. Dying and reviving gods, the myths of agriculture, haunt Christmas trees and The Waste Land. This is a criticism of trendology on its own terms. The more serious criticism is that trendology's terms ignore the question of truth, whether framed by philosophers, prophets, or poets. Plato, St. Paul, and Shakespeare would all be baffled by the Tofflers. So would the authors on Gingrich's first team, who cared passionately that the United States be not just the coming thing, but the right thing. "We hold these truths to be self-evident. . ."
The lacuna of The Indispensable Man is pertinent here. Although Washington had only the equivalent of a grade-school education, he read all his life, and most of what he read was first rate. He kept up with the political literature of North America for over thirty years, when it was of the highest order. When he needed elaboration he turned to George Mason, Madison, Hamilton. He did not read the prophecies of Condorcet, or Nostradamus.

Why do the critical faculties that guide Gingrich in judging men who lived before 1840 desert him when he comes to the Tofflers? One reason is curiosity. Considering Gingrich's love of dinosaurs, make that boyish curiosity. Boyish curiosity is a good thing; it precedes all inquiry. Washington, D.C., the most timid and status-conscious of cities, starves for lack of it. Tip O'Neill never read the Tofflers, not because he was too wise, but because he was too busy robbing civilians.

Another reason is Gingrich's rise through the ranks since 1978, and the Republicans he had to supplant and outflank. Before Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp, the congressional GOP was a party of inertia and self-defeat. I remember once hearing former Minority Leader Bob Michel reminisce about his first political experience: passing out sunflower buttons for Alf Landon. No wonder he expects to get kicked in the head, I thought. In the long years of fretting as the minority of the minority, Gingrich had to sustain himself with the hope that he was the wave of the future - and there were the Tofflers, to tell him that it was so.
Curiosity and hope explain Newt Gingrich's strange weakness for trendology, but they do not excuse it. Statesmanship is hard. The more we tell politicians there is an easy way, the more we trap them. If the Speaker wants to fulfill the mission he has set himself, he and his followers will have to bring the second half of their reading list up to the level of the first.

Alan Brooks| 9.24.09 @ 10:39PM

In short, Gingrich's mind has been too marinated in Tofflerism for his worldview to be of much use to us. It's not what he says, but what he doesn't.

Can't teach an old futurist new tricks.

Margo| 9.25.09 @ 3:45AM

Several of the bloggers at Belmont Club are Palin admirers. Those guys aren't political amateurs. With Petraeus watching her back, w/Rudy @ Justice, Forbes @ Commerce (abolish State Dept) etc. believe she could put together a pretty fair cabinet. If Petraeus really does mean No, then Forbes would be a steady influence as 2nd in command. Give Sarah another year of polishing her speaking skills and political message , that plus her innate charisma and common sense-- believe she has the potential to be our "Iron Lady". And it's also important to note that the military loves Palin. After Obongo, it has been proven beyond any doubt that a deep political resume isn't a requirement. Anyway, a lot can happen in the next three years. If conservatives can recover some lost ground in 2010 elections, maybe we'll still have a nation to govern. Let us pray, seriously.

Margie| 9.25.09 @ 3:07PM

Margo~ Absolutely awesome post! Boy do I like that line-up. Can you just imagine it? The Liberals/Socialists/Commies would be passing out with "dread" and "fear" in droves everywhere. Of course their dread and fear is all fantasy. If they could just wake up from their Uptopian dreams! No, we are the ones that have to do the leading. Sarah could very well be our "Iron Lady". For those of you (Libs) who don't know who that is, do a Google of Margaret Thatcher. Ha!

Paul| 9.25.09 @ 6:00AM

Very interesting exchange of views here. I'd like to add my two cents' worth, but I'm in a hurry and have to kvetch my bus!

aware| 9.25.09 @ 6:24AM

RET, what the hell??!!! Newt , Forbes, Huckabee???!! Holy Crap! The neo cons REALLY have taken over.

These have no problem with the multi-teeted Frankenfed monster, they just want to rearrange the pecking order. Neo cons are 50% of the problem and 0% of the solution.

Dr Newt, et. al., proscribe the scalpel when clearly the meat ax is needed.

Margie| 9.25.09 @ 2:57PM

I have to say.. I like Forbes, but actually.. Sarah Palin outdoes him in gusto alone by about a million degrees. He's a simmer. With Sarah in the pot the lid would fly off!

bluecollarbytes| 9.25.09 @ 9:27AM

from the sidelines...

Newt strikes me as a good ideas-man and real thinker, with personal baggage that mainstream media would simply 'turn on again' should he run for the presidency. I also remember Newt sitting in the back of limos as he held court for the media as new majority leader...as though stardom went to his head and ego (competing with the Clinton PopPhenom). but what do I know?

Steve Forbes is rock-steady in his beliefs, going for substance rather than a typical politician's facade. But mediadom seems to Want politicians hiding behind a carefully constructed front. Come to think of it, many voters expect that as well. Forbes is also not 'especially pretty', which seems to rank high on media's expectations list . Forbes is a sober-minded voice, who I'd expect to lead in the same fashion. This kind of steady leadership is what we need in the
Days Of Obama; especially in the aftermath of his destruction. REPEAL should become a key word in any Republican stump speech...that is if the fears of Obama policies are well-founded. True conservatives would demand nothing less than repeal of policies that are set to destroy our future and the futures of today's children.

Mitt Romney might have been the very best available candidate last time around given the economic implosion we've entered. But, as the Huskster pointed out so rudely and crudely over and over again, Mitt's a Mormon. I ask all who opposed him last time around for this reason alone to think about Romney the American, Mitt the successful businessman. We need Both if we are to prevent this nation from drowning in Obama's socialist actions.

This is not an endorsement for any particular candidate. Perhaps there are others waiting in the wings who can grab the imagination of concerned citizens.

The country may not have the luxury of waiting for the Republican Party to sort through its internal ideological conflicts through a second Obama presidency. This is now a non-violent civil war we're in, with nothing less than the future at stake. Obama's Leftist horizon is a moving target. We'll never satisfy his cravings for an ObamaLand. Republicans need to come to grips with what's really on the line here. That will require all the 'unity' they can muster.

Jerry| 9.25.09 @ 10:58AM

Not Mitt Never. RINO!

solon the thinker| 9.25.09 @ 11:47AM

Without individual rights being the center peice of any candidate dont expect the gop to be back in power any time soon.

ATLmedia| 9.25.09 @ 1:39PM

Palin may not have the serial philandering that Newt brings, but w/o platitudes her speeches are
just Cliff Notes of a real agenda.
Quitting the Govs Job just to cash in a little sooner?
Sounds kinda Martinez-esque to me.

Margie| 9.25.09 @ 3:11PM

I do believe, ALTmedia, that if you would be so kind as to come down off your high horse you would be able to actually understand English.

realist| 9.25.09 @ 3:35PM

hmmmmm......the charge from now to then is to highlight in bold relief the failings of the current occupant. condition the public to accept - just as the Dems did with Bush - that the man is...in the end...an incompetent not equal to the task who has worsened life/liberty and security in all respects. then flush an unknown through the system at the last moment who is telegenic and well trained when it comes to focus group rhetoric. worry about substance after the prize is captured....that's the way things work these daze....right?

Margie| 9.25.09 @ 4:06PM

Who is this "unknown" that are are speaking of?

realist| 9.25.09 @ 5:54PM

at this point...who cares? The First Fascist wasn't even a blip on the political radar screen 8 mos into Bush's second term. folks will make their calculations mid-way into the term and the vetting will begin.

ATLmedia| 9.25.09 @ 7:18PM

OK Ms Margie, I'll bite- whats the positives to Palins credit quitting on (the overwhelming job of
governing) Alaska & cashing in early.
Yes she needs to broaden her resume but...who is she saving us from w/ her million dollar speeches abroad?

Margie| 9.25.09 @ 7:48PM

Saving us from?

I was addressing your insult.

PCP Smoker| 9.25.09 @ 7:51PM

The only thing more annoying that NG is the pop up I get when I open this page.

Gingrich, like Barack, can talk a good game but the execution is never there. He got rolled by Billy Blow Job and then decided to quit after a few years in the most important position in the government. Pathetic.
He then followed that performance with commercials with Stretch Pelosi for some global warming crap.
Enough of him. Let him retire already

Floridaman| 9.25.09 @ 11:49PM

Mr Tyrrell. The conservative hour is upon us. But none of the names you mentioned as potential leaders make my hair stand on end with excitement.

Cant we do better? Are there not any capable young, hispanic, females that can be considered high qality leaders of the movement?

I continue to believe that the conservative movement is victimizing itself y continuing to recruit people that look like me - white middle aged guys.

We are missing a huge opportunity.

laptop accessory| 9.26.09 @ 12:08AM

acer aspire 3000 power ac adapteracer aspire 3000 power ac adapter
acer aspire 3500 ac adapteracer aspire 3500 ac adapter

Jeff| 9.26.09 @ 4:40AM

Assorted wing nuts and nut jobs that seem to inhabit this, im sorry, but what planet are you guys living on? I mean really, what is even going on in your heads? The public option is by far the most controversial aspect of health care reform, agreed? The New York Times/CBS poll that came out yesterday had public support at almost 65%. 65%!, are your mathematical skills that impaired? Im sorry, but the country is changing. You can either come to terms with reality or continue championing Sarah Palin as the savior of America.

Your choice.

aware| 9.26.09 @ 11:08AM

Jeff....do you believe everything the NYT and CBS has to say? Nice little conformist thinking exactly what you are told to.

Either you are a fool or a knave or both. Wonder if this was the usual "sample" these polls use.....80% Democrat, 18% "independents", 2% "Republican", and 0% conservative.

Margie| 9.26.09 @ 3:01PM

Conservative republicans don't look to a "savior" as you Leftists do. We know who our Savior is. And it isn't Obama. Obviously, your savior isn't doing such a bang up job of saving anyone or anything, is he?

S.L. Toddard| 9.28.09 @ 2:24PM

NYT/CBS Poll--yeah, that's a true reflection of American opinion. LMAO! The liberal losers weighted the poll 2 to 1 against republicans and didn't ask likely voters. POS Poll!

Margo| 9.27.09 @ 7:03PM

ATLmedia--have you read her Hong Kong speech? I thought not. Your leftwing friends in Alaska had made her job impossible and she did the only smart thing. I said at the time, I hope she becomes the biggest burr under Obongo's saddle. And so she is becoming. What is so dumb about speaking your mind to important people and getting paid in six figures?

Ron| 9.27.09 @ 7:19PM

I was surprised to see how smart Palin is. She also stays on message. The left hates her which is a very good sign. I like Haley Barbar (sp) also, but he does not seem interested. Palin is the one in my opinion. I really would like Catherine the Great who drove islam back like a bunch of sheep. Maybe Palin is another Catherine the Great who will make war on the left and drive islam back into the middle east.

hypocrites_are_everywhere| 9.27.09 @ 11:38PM

Sure bring Palin, Gingrich, Joe Wilson, Steele, Romney, Pawlenty (GOP's great white hope!) on. Obama will trounce them all. Like the seas pirates, right wingnuts won't even know what hit them. Just watch!

And for your 'religious morality' reading pleasure...

- Mike Duvall - bit.ly/sNB1D
- Rick Pitino - bit.ly/tT9E4
- Evangelist Tony Alamo - bit.ly/11Ud33
- Jim Bakker - bit.ly/p9VSO
- Newt Gingrich & his affair - bit.ly/4dX72b
- Larry Craig - bit.ly/4DWshz
- Ted Haggard - bit.ly/1qULN
- Rev. Alberto Cutie - bit.ly/cEvPT
- Gov Sanford - //bit.ly/43ALCZ
- Boston child abusing priests - 550 alleged victims over decades!!! OK, try to convince the world that the Vatican folks have been innocent all along! bit.ly/VA14U
- Bill Clinton -- sorry, this guy got too many links! Biggest Dick? :)

hypocrites_are_everywhere| 9.28.09 @ 12:22AM

Of course, you'll need to cut/paste as URL -- e.g. http://bit.ly/sNB1D

And for your 'religious morality' reading pleasure...

- Mike Duvall - bit.ly/sNB1D
- Rick Pitino - bit.ly/tT9E4
- Evangelist Tony Alamo - bit.ly/11Ud33
- Jim Bakker - bit.ly/p9VSO
- Newt Gingrich & his affair - bit.ly/4dX72b
- Larry Craig - bit.ly/4DWshz
- Ted Haggard - bit.ly/1qULN
- Rev. Alberto Cutie - bit.ly/cEvPT
- Gov Sanford - bit.ly/43ALCZ
- Boston child abusing priests - 550 alleged victims over decades!!! OK, try to convince the world that the Vatican folks have been innocent all along! bit.ly/VA14U
- Bill Clinton -- sorry, this guy got too many links! Biggest Dick? :)

S.L. Toddard| 9.28.09 @ 2:31PM

No, tiny dick--big ego. I should know.