The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Political Hay
Print Email
Text Size

Political Hay

Gingrich Rises Up to Glass Ceiling

By on 11.4.11 @ 6:09AM

He’s gone about as far as he can go — but he might be ideal in a more ceremonial role.

(Page 2 of 2)

But, I hear you say, voters did that already. And correct you are, but now that the fog of Obama’s “historic” candidacy has been blown away by the persistent foul wind of over-nine percent unemployment, people are free to focus on the true destructiveness and economic idiocy of this administration, and what better representative of both than “Plugs” Biden?

Whatever good things you may believe of Sarah Palin and even if you believe she beat Biden in their October 2008 debate (which was watched by a stunning 70 million people) she was roughly in Biden’s rhetorical weight class in that contest. Gingrich-Biden would be like putting the current UFC heavyweight champion, Cain Velasquez, against Ralph Macchio, though comparing Macchio to Biden is patently unfair to Mr. Miyagi’s eye for talent.

Going back to the conventional wisdom that Romney is the major gainer from Herman Cain’s troubles and considering the fact that betting odds have only Gingrich with significant gains in the past week, I think they’re both right.

Yes, Gingrich has moved up substantially… to the point where his betting odds are one tenth of Romney’s instead of one twentieth. So while Mitt Romney’s betting odds have been fairly stable, the real story is that despite consistently mediocre poll numbers across the nation (except for in New Hampshire) his odds have remained stable at roughly twice the entire rest of the field combined.

Now that the “anybody but Romney” wing of the GOP, which seems, at least temporarily, to be a majority of the party base, has cycled its way through Tim Pawlenty, Michele Bachmann, Donald Trump, Rick Perry, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, and is halfway through Herman Cain, it makes sense for Gingrich’s odds to rise. Meanwhile bettors continue to believe that the “anybody but Romney” crowd, as large as it is, will be unsuccessful in their quest to find an other-than-Romney candidate whom William F. Buckley would approve of as “the most conservative electable candidate.” (Emphasis mine.)

Republicans are properly and intensely focused on beating Barack Obama, a fact that limits Newt Gingrich’s potential success despite his repeatedly winning debates and showing himself as an intelligent and mature candidate. For those who like betting on such things — and I do — I’ll be looking to sell my Gingrich “futures” soon. Perhaps unfortunately — but perhaps not — the “anybody but Romney” wing of the GOP is running out of options.

Page:   12

About the Author

Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver’s NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (127) |

Clinton| 11.4.11 @ 6:26AM

If Newt had Perry's solid conservative record or Perry had Newt's debate style we'd have the perfect candidate. As it is Mitt Romney's buddy the liar Herman Cain is undercutting conservatives and helping only his good friend Mitt Romney.

Considering how friendly the Liar and Mitt are with each other could Cain have leaked the news about his bad behavior to help Mitt?

Mimi| 11.4.11 @ 7:00AM

Where do you get such "NUTTY" ideas...This one takes the cake!

Lee Ghume| 11.4.11 @ 7:10AM

Honkies for Herman!

Cosmo| 11.5.11 @ 5:58AM

Newt should run for the House and become Speaker again to replace the worthless Boner.

Jack in Wi| 11.4.11 @ 7:12AM

I predicted that Newt would be the next one put forward by the elites to divide the conservative vote. I said Herman Cain was done weeks ago and it had nothing to do with sexual harrasment. It had to do with his idiotic tax plan and his stands on abortion, foreign policy, the Federal Reserve, and his general lack of knowledge about history, foreign policy, geography, economics, etc.

Now I have been advocating a long and intelligent debate over where this country is going by the only 2 candidates who have a chance of beating Obama Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. They both polled the best against Obama in pre Herman Cain polls. Ron Paul does the best by far of any Republican among the young, the independent 40% of the electorate, and conservatve Democrats.

Romney has the elites and the Mormons behind him. Ron Paul has the issues, the solutions, and a huge personal following. Let there be a long, intelligent, honest debate about where this country is headed. Then lets hold the primary elections and see if we can unite the party and country. If they put Newt up there as well I wouldn't object. At least he is intelligent, but totally unelectable.

Moe Blotz| 11.4.11 @ 9:04AM

Ronald Reagan was considered unelectable to national office in 1976, so Gerald Ford was nominated by the Republican ewstablishment. (accidental misspelling, but I think I will leave it in there)

Doctor Right| 11.4.11 @ 11:07AM

"I predicted that Newt would be the next one put forward by the elites to divide the conservative vote."

WOW!! You are, like, sooooooo smart!

Actually, you're not, and the fantasy world you inhabit is rich, indeed.

Nobody "put" Cain at the top; he did it based on the strength of his debate performance, his personality, his common-sense approach, his personal approachability, and his business experience.

The tail is NOT wagging the dog, Jack...once again, you have it exactly backwards.

Same with Gingrich. He's flat-out impressive in debates, and unlike Ron Paul, he can point to a record of acomplishment as a Legislator.

In other words, Ron Paul is a talker; Newt is a do-er.

Ron Paul will NEVER be President, Jack...ever.

And if he goes 3rd Party and hands the election back to Obama, then we'll know how much of a true patriot he and his robotic followers really are...

...my guess is not much.

Mal_Content| 11.4.11 @ 12:12PM

Your tearing the conservative community apart, Simon!

Occam's Tool| 11.4.11 @ 11:10PM

Mal, how MANY times have you watched "The Room?" (A Tommy Wiseau production)

sirbourbon| 11.4.11 @ 2:33PM

"In other words, Ron Paul is a talker; Newt is a do-er" - Dr.Right
In other words, Newt is a "doer" like in arm twisting his fellow Republicans in the House to vote for the Clinton jobs killing NAFTA?

Oh,yes, Newt is a "doer" but everything he touches turns to dooie.

The doctor rights of GOPville get a whiff of s**t from Newt and delude themselves into believing that it's not crap at all but food from the gods.

Ron Paul may not be your cup of Tea Party but he votes according to the rules of the Constitution. In other words while your hero Newt was voting along socialist lines, Ron Paul stuck to the Constitution and voted accordingly.

Doctor Right| 11.4.11 @ 2:56PM

Without Newt, the Republicans would NEVER have gained majority status in '94.

Nice try, but like most Paulies, you're wrong about mostly everything.

Paul = Talker

Paul = 5%

Paul = 1 guy who will NEVER be President.

Paul = Blame America Kook

Mal_Content| 11.4.11 @ 3:58PM

So it's OK to vote BIG Government like Newt as long as the GOP stays in power?

Riiight.

sirbourbon| 11.4.11 @ 4:34PM

You avoid addressing the Newt and Clinton tag-team that forced the job-killing North American Free Trade Agreement down the throats of Americans.

How is NAFTA a plus for sovereignty and free markets when the NAFTA Newt helped pass is nothing but managed and over-regulation of trade and more big government bureaucracy?

Your score card is titled toward the socialist scale and that is a losing card.

When US manufacturing exists America dur e toi Newt's NAFTA and WTO treaties it equals =
ZERO for Americans
Two for the International socialists

Newt suggested that those wishing to define him should define him as a "futurist." Okay fair enough.

Newt the Futurist
In 1994, Gingrich described himself as “a conservative futurist.” He said that those who were trying to define him should look no further than The Third Wave, a 1980 book written by Alvin Toffler. The book describes our society as entering a post-industrial phase in which abortion, homosexuality, promiscuity, and divorce are perfectly normal, even virtuous. Toffler penned a letter to America’s “founding parents,” in which he said: “The system of government you fashioned, including the very principles on which you based it, is increasingly obsolete, and hence increasingly, if inadvertently, oppressive and dangerous to our welfare. It must be radically changed and a new system of government invented — a democracy for the 21st century.” He went on to describe our constitutional system as one that “served us so well for so long, and that now must, in its turn, die and be replaced.”

In comes Newt
Gingrich recommended The Third Wave as essential reading to his colleagues when he became Speaker of the House. In his forward to another Toffler book, Creating a New Civilization: The Politics of the Third Wave, he grieved at the lack of appreciation for “Toffler’s insight” in The Third Wave and blamed politicians who had not applied his model for the “frustration, negativism, cynicism and despair” of the political landscape. He went on to explain that Toffler advocated a concept called “anticipatory democracy,” and bragged that he had worked with him for 20 years “to develop a future-conscious politics and popular understanding that would make it easier for America to make the transition” to a Third Wave civilization.

Does that sound like a "winner" to you. If he does then what does that make you? A newted 'futurist'?

Jack in Wi| 11.4.11 @ 10:21PM

According to Real Clear Politics and their compilation of polls, as of October 31st. Ron Paul is second to Obama head to head. He is 6 points behind. Romney is no 1 about one point behind Obama. Nobody polls over 50% including Obama. As I have stated for weeks it is down to Romney and Ron Paul. They are the only ones who can beat Obama. I think Romney would be a disaster as a candidate. But have to say, in my opinion, he is the best of the elite candidates left. Cain and Perry are dead men walking and Gingrich is Billy Kritol's and the Weekly standards favorite guy. Need I say more. Newt is never going to be President, but is intelligent and could be part of the debate between Ron and Willard. Let the real debates begin and then we will have the primaries. Lets hope the party can be united and we can beat Obama.

Romney has paid flacks in every state. He has gotten the most face time from the media and he has his own and the Mormon money and organization behind him. Ron Paul has by far the greatest number of contributors and activists. He gets the most financial support from active military people then all other candidates combined. Ron Paul, in studies of the media, is dead last in face time from the main stream media. His huge undergound support on the internet and elsewhere is the thing keeping him competive. Of course he has been right about the problems and issues facing this country for decades and is by far the most intelligent and best debater. He also does the best of all the Republicans among Independents, Democrats and the young without which no Republican can be elected.

Jack in Wi| 11.4.11 @ 10:26PM

Dr. Wrong Ron Paul is number 2 in polling against Obama. According to Real Clear Politics, the combined polls as of October 31st put Ron Paul in second place of all Republicans against Obama.Romney is in first place. I have told people like you for weeks that it was down to Ron and Willard. For a further comment of more length scoll down the page.

Mike Hawk| 11.4.11 @ 12:19PM

Paulbots are not a huge following, they are miniscule. They are however vocal and active. They travel around and vote as many times as they can to skew the actual numbers.

Clint| 11.4.11 @ 12:59PM

Dr.Reich's The RINO-CINO Who Said He Will Vote For Romney.

We Are Being Set Up By These RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges For The Ruling Elites' Frontman Mittens Romney.

These Are The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges Who Gave Us The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain Of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy,McCain-Lieberman,Gang Of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003,TARP.

Now They Are Trying To Give Us RomneyCare,TARP, Cynical Flip-Flops On Abortion, Gays, Refuses to Sign Pro-Life Pledge, Illegal Immigrants, "Little Chain Saw Al" At Bain, Crony Capitalism Campaign Money Trail.....

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

sirbourbon| 11.4.11 @ 2:38PM

Newt has a record of helping take down American that he runs away from but he can't hide from his record. It's a bad one, indeed, more so than sitting next to Nancy pitching "global warming" theories and winking at "carbon taxes." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWPz1Qdq1uI

Clint| 11.4.11 @ 1:01PM

In a recent Harris Poll, 2012 Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul beats President Obama 51 percent to 49 percent in a general election race.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Doctor Right| 11.4.11 @ 3:00PM

Your poll results are months old, and useless, since Ron Paul will NEVER be President.

Will you vote for the GOP candidate on election day if it's NOT Paul?

Or will you prove that you're an un-patriotic baby, and stay home?

NO obfuscations, Clint. ANSWER the question.

No "asked and answered" coward.

ANSWER the Question.

NOW.

Or take your moronic, ill-informed, uneducated, 8th-grade opinions somewhere else.

No more games, Clint.

Patriot?

Or selfish, deluded pansy?

Your choice, and we're ALL waiting.

You've been called-out.

Now be the pussy we all know you are, and tell us the truth.

NOW.

Mal_Content| 11.4.11 @ 3:33PM

Simon is calling you out, Clint. You're either voting GOP, or you're an unpatriotic traitor.

Uh-oh. I just had a flashback to 2002.

"You're either for invading Iraq, or you're an America-hating, unpatriotic traitor" - GOP talking point early last decade.

You're tearing this conservative community apart, Simon.

dw| 11.4.11 @ 5:17PM

No, you are either voting against Obama or you are an unpatriotic traitor.

Foru more years of the idiot in chief will destroy whats left of this country. Do not make the mistake of adhering to an obsession at the cost of an imperitive.

Anybody but obama!!!

Mal_Content| 11.4.11 @ 5:38PM

I'll vote for who represents me, and it won't be a red-tie liberal like Cain or Romney.

LOTE is for losers, dw. Don't be a statistic.

dw| 11.4.11 @ 6:44PM

If voting against obama makes me a statistic than so be it. Better that than wallowing in a stagnate socialist state brought about by the likes of you and your fellow collectivist.

Mal_Content| 11.4.11 @ 7:00PM

I'm not voting Obama either, friend. Honestly though, what are the significant differences between Romney and Obama? Romney is enough of an opportunist that he could plausibly run to the LEFT of Obama, and his (currently shameful) liberal bona-fides would probably allow Romney to be taken seriously as a (D) candidate.

Also, do you honestly believe that the US became a "stagnant socialist state" right when Obama got elected? We've been heading toward corporate-managed socialism for the better part of 50 years, and you think it's all Big Bad Obama's fault?

It's almost endearing how little you know about history. Almost...

dw| 11.4.11 @ 7:45PM

Now you're just throwing out ad hominen attacks and mis managed talking points. Corpoarate managed socialism...who planted that in your pea brain.

Corporations are comprised of people who are employed and compensated to produce product for profit. When corporations compete they are forced by free market pressures to maximize quality and quantity in that product and thus provide goods and services that the public requires and needs. Yes, owners who have risked their money can reap vast rewards but in doing so they also provide others with an ability to support themselves and their families. And in a fully functioning free market America anyone can have the opportunity to achieve wealth.
And if you learned your history in the public school systems of today its no wonder that you would have this negative view of free markets and the freedom to create a corporation. Whatever history you think you learned is no doubt tainted by your affinity to be indoctranated by those who would teach you.

Clint| 11.4.11 @ 6:39PM

We Tea Party Patriots Don't Take Orders From RINO-CINO Punks Like You Dr.Reich.

Keep Playin' Your RINO-CINO Games & Find Out, Cupcake.

Dr.Reich's The RINO-CINO Who Said He Will Vote For Romney.

We Are Being Set Up By These RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges For The Ruling Elites' Frontman Mittens Romney.

These Are The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges Who Gave Us The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain Of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy,McCain-Lieberman,Gang Of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003,TARP.

Now They Are Trying To Give Us RomneyCare,TARP, Cynical Flip-Flops On Abortion, Gays, Refuses to Sign Pro-Life Pledge, Illegal Immigrants, "Little Chain Saw Al" At Bain, Crony Capitalism Campaign Money Trail.....

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Doctor Right| 11.5.11 @ 2:22PM

"We Tea Party Patriots Don't Take Orders From RINO-CINO Punks Like You Dr.Reich."

Yes, you do.

That's because you come from the society of malcontents and losers.

You've spent all your life thinking you're special, but your accomplishments (or lack thereof) just don't back it up.

You're nobody, in a nowhere part of Pennsylvania, pretending to be smart, and making a fool of yourself in the process.

So you blame others for your under-achievement, and look to "leaders" like Ron Paul (LOL!) to fix everything, and settle scores.

Guys like you take orders from guys like me EVERY DAY, Clint.

I thought you'd be used to it by now.

Now shut your stupid pie hole, and ANSWER THE QUESTION.

NOW.

chuck| 11.6.11 @ 8:56AM

He just can't answer the question because that would require thinking for himself. Cultist are never allowed to do that.

Clint| 11.6.11 @ 10:26AM

Caniac Chuckie seems very upset this morning.

Apparently, The Reuters report has Chuckie all PMS'Y.

" Reuters- Allegations that Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain sexually harassed women in the 1990s have begun to damage his bid for the White House, a Reuters/Ipsos poll found.

The poll showed the percentage of Republicans who view Cain favorably dropped 9 percentage points, to 57 percent from 66 percent a week ago".

Clint| 11.6.11 @ 10:29AM

But You Ain't A Guy Dr.Reich.

You're A RINO-CINO ManieGirl Pussy, Dr. Reich.

Dr.Reich's The RINO-CINO Who Said He Will Vote For Romney.

We Are Being Set Up By These RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges For The Ruling Elites' Frontman Mittens Romney.

These Are The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges Who Gave Us The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain Of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy,McCain-Lieberman,Gang Of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003,TARP.

Now They Are Trying To Give Us RomneyCare,TARP, Cynical Flip-Flops On Abortion, Gays, Refuses to Sign Pro-Life Pledge, Illegal Immigrants, "Little Chain Saw Al" At Bain, Crony Capitalism Campaign Money Trail.....

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

dw| 11.4.11 @ 5:09PM

Can you say delusional? Paul has no chance. His foriegn policy is naive at best, ignorant at worse.

Alan Brooks| 11.4.11 @ 5:14PM

Newt will continue to write big, glossy books about THE FUTURE.

The Techno Kandy Flake Deluxe Neon FUTURE.

Alan Brooks| 11.4.11 @ 6:31PM

"Gingrich recommended The Third Wave as essential reading to his colleagues when he became Speaker of the House. In his forward to another Toffler book, Creating a New Civilization: The Politics of the Third Wave, he grieved at the lack of appreciation for “Toffler’s insight” in The Third Wave and blamed politicians who had not applied his model for the “frustration, negativism, cynicism and despair” of the political landscape. He went on to explain that Toffler advocated a concept called “anticipatory democracy,” and bragged that he had worked with him for 20 years “to develop a future-conscious politics and popular understanding that would make it easier for America to make the transition” to a Third Wave civilization."

Perhaps "Third Wave" civilization will work for China rather than America?

Alan Brooks| 11.4.11 @ 6:32PM

Maybe America looks back to 1776, while China looks forward to 2076?

RJ| 11.4.11 @ 7:04AM

We are in unusual times and it is too soon to count out Gingrich. Romney illustrated again last week that he blows with the wind. He could get the nomination, but he would be chewed up in the national election. He runs for cover to much to inspire people. If Perry can re-start his campaign, he can be the nominee. If not, Newt. He is brilliant, but erratic. His history includes a lot of baggage. The same was thought of Winston Churchill in 1939. He was probably the only leader who could save Britain and his postwar reputation is unrecognizable from his prewar reputation. Who knows, maybe Newt can have a Churchillian moment. We are definitely in a crisis where many of the normal rules and expectations will not apply.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 11.4.11 @ 7:11AM

While it may appear that Mitt Romney is getting his teeth kicked in, not much has changed.

Newt Gingrich has too much baggage and as soon as he gets higher in the polls nasty comments will soon surface about him and his past.

This will all play to Perry's and Romney's favor and they soon will be the last men standing.

Ross Kaminsky | 11.4.11 @ 8:58AM

I don't see how Perry remains standing. Nobody is even listening to the guy anymore.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 11.4.11 @ 9:16AM

You appear to believe Newt has a chance. People may be listening somewhat, but Newt has no chance because Newt has no principles.

Perry at least has some principles. If he sticks to them he should start to turn it around.

Newt is a political chameleon and that's precisely why he's having problems.

Newt has no real infrastructure in place which would appear to indicate he has few followers but even further, it indicates he's out for a boat ride not a boat race.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 11.4.11 @ 9:25AM

By the way, you appear to believe Newt would have a chance against Biden in a debate and I don't see that happening.

Like most deluded liberals and apostates of big government, Biden actually has sincerity about his beliefs.

Newt is like a flag in the wind and although he's been on the public scene for many years portraying himself as a conservative, Biden would actually take him apart because Newt is a big government progressive when all is said and done.

In that sense he's just like Biden and it's difficult to argue against one's self.

buckeyeman| 11.4.11 @ 10:16AM

"Perry at least has some principles"

You mean like the principle that taxpayers must be forced to subsidize the college educations of illegal aliens?

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 11.4.11 @ 10:28AM

If you pay in state rates it's not a subsidy, you're paying. However, it will lead to other subsidies in housing, health care, etc.. I agree that it's wrong but in the scheme of things America faces much worse problems. In fact, Perry is telling the truth of his plans and record unlike the other politicians running in the campaign.

Example: Obamneycare.

Ross Kaminsky | 11.4.11 @ 11:09AM

I didn't say he has NO chance but I think his chances are quite limited for reasons that both you and I lay out.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 11.4.11 @ 1:24PM

Gingrich will soon be hired by another campaign as an overpaid advisor.

sirbourbon| 11.4.11 @ 4:45PM

Maybe it has a lot do with Governor Perry sounding like Ron Paul?

Perry has mentioned Austrian economics and has even bashed the Federal Reserve and its current chaiman suggesting that "the Bernanke" should perhaps be tried for treason if Bernanke continues inflation of the US dollar by excess printing of them!

The Paul bashers need to take note that Paul's words and philosophy are spilling over to Perry and Newt that borrow from the good doctor's political lexicon everytime they are the debating stage and out on the stump.

Paul quipped that Governor Perry makes him sound like a "moderate." http://thenewamerican.com/usne.....-moderateq
But the reality is that Perry understands that Paul's decades long fight on the Fed's inflationary policies are bearing fruit!

Mimi| 11.4.11 @ 8:21AM

I have been leaning toward Newt , for some time now....the heck with 'BAGGAGE" and Intrade.com....The DEMS have put this country in outright, deliberate peril....!
If Newt take's off and boldly goes after OBAMA and calls him out on what he has DONE,.....And impresses enough American people...he certainly
will be elected.......BAGGAGE ? We are not in position to have the LUXURY of worrying about that WE HAVE AN EMERGENCY and we all have a job to do....Tell me, just WHO is the BEST leader???

Ouch| 11.4.11 @ 8:32AM

Note to Republican party: Who so many wimps? It will take a person who intends to fight Obama and his clan (or is it tribe?) bare fisted. Our crybaby speaker of the House will retreat to smoke a fag while playing a round of golf, Mitt will continue to counsel his four sons not to enter American military service, and Cain will order up a pizza while questioning if his "updated" cowboy hat he bought in Conn. might have been the wrong signal to offer for a sexual rebuttal. Michelle is so hot...Rick too young in his presentation...Gary Johnson's supporters too stoned to vote...Hunstman too pretty and arrogant...Perry too insecure, even with that super blown up chest he leads with in every encounter.

Newt...Bill Clinton's older brother, just might have a real score to settle with Obama-Mao. Could be the "Thrilla in Manila" for politics.

It'll be the aftershocks that gets us, though.

Tomp| 11.4.11 @ 8:47AM

We need Newt.

sirbourbon| 11.4.11 @ 9:42PM

"we need newt" like the nation needs another Obama!

Teaghan| 11.4.11 @ 8:49AM

It is indeed "tribe" OUCH. Don't insult my Scottish heritage!

Dmac| 11.4.11 @ 8:50AM

I could care less about Newt's personal baggage. It's just that, personal. I will not vote for Romney, period. I doubt I will vote for Perry. I'll stay home if Romney get the nomination. As far as intelligence goes, Ron Paul and Newt are the winners. I wish Rick Santorum could get a little more attention. He seems to be the most level headed and moral of them all.
No Romney, no way. He's just more of the same old crap we've had for the last 40 yrs (with the exception of RR).

Ross Kaminsky | 11.4.11 @ 8:59AM

I don't like Santorum at all. Anyway, at the end of the day I wonder if people like you (and me) will actually stay home if Romney is the nominee. I tend to doubt it because the prospect of 4 more years of Obama is too horrible.

David T| 11.4.11 @ 9:23AM

You may not like Santorum, but he'd be an excellent choice for VP.

I'll vote for Romney if it's not raining and I don't have a root canal scheduled.

Ross Kaminsky | 11.4.11 @ 11:10AM

Please tell me why he'd be a good choice for VP. I don't think there's much good about the guy, electorally speaking.

David T| 11.4.11 @ 11:56AM

Rick Santorum is well-versed in all the major issues--defense, foreign policy, economy, budget, energy, social security, health, welfare, immigration, and abortion/social issues. He's definitely in tune with 90% of Republicans--his 16-year record of accomplishment in the House and Senate attests to his solid conservative principles. And, electorally speaking, I think he would appeal to a broad spectrum of voters who might see him as a vast improvement over the incumbent, even though you think "people rarely cast votes based on the VP candidate."

Ross Kaminsky | 11.4.11 @ 12:40PM

Santorum always looks like he's very constipated. His commitment to the constitution is tenuous because he's willing to trample it to implement social issues policies that he supports. He's very much what I don't like in Republican candidates even though he is smart.

David T| 11.4.11 @ 1:51PM

Santorum may not win Mr. Congeniality, but, as VP, he'd be a loyal water carrier for the president, and someone who could step up and do the job if the unthinkable happened. His "commitment to the constitution" seems no more tenuous than that of any of the other candidates--save possibly for Ron Paul, who would let Iran go nuclear rather than risk overstepping what he thinks are his constitutional bounds.

Mal_Content| 11.4.11 @ 2:08PM

Yes, of course. Our founding fathers were notorious opponents of national sovereignty.

David T| 11.4.11 @ 3:14PM

Well, they didn't have to contend with nuclear weapons. I can't imagine Washington or Jefferson putting the country at risk of serious harm because he thought the Constitution prohibited a pre-emptive strike.

Mal_Content| 11.4.11 @ 3:46PM

I think you should read more Washington and Jefferson.

"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities." - Washington

"War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses." - Jefferson

"Peace and friendship with all mankind is our wisest policy, and I wish we may be permitted to pursue it." - Jefferson

Not to mention the fact that pre-emptive, aggressive war is a war-crime.

skip| 11.5.11 @ 6:04PM

Do you mean the 'Washington' who led our upstart nation in 'war' against the 'foreign nation' of England and who desperately sought the assistance of other 'foreign nations' particularly France?

Do you mean the 'Jefferson' who urged our upstart nation to go to 'war' against the 'foreign nation' of England with the 'Declaration of Independence' and who desperately sought the assistance of other 'foreign nations' particularly France?

David T| 11.6.11 @ 1:30PM

Mr. Mal Con--In your vast reading on the Founders you must have missed the part where Washington invaded Canada.

Doctor Right| 11.4.11 @ 3:02PM

One word.

4 syllables.

PENNSYLVANIA.

RJ| 11.4.11 @ 1:26PM

Ross - It is not so much that conservatives will stay home if the nominee is Romney. It is that our contributions and volunteer work will be shifted to other races where we can support candidates enthusiastically. Romney is another John Boehner and will certainly not provide decisive limited government leadership.

I don't like Santorum either. He is too much of a whiner. I spoke with one of his colleagues a while back who indicated that he was a lapdog for the leadership.

chuck| 11.4.11 @ 1:32PM

I'm with you there Ross. He reminds me of that guy in The DaVinci Code that flogs himself everyday. Enough of the "good Catholic" thing, makes me want to gag!

dw| 11.4.11 @ 5:33PM

It is impossible to believe that any so called conservative, republican or paulbot could refuse to vote for whoever is on the repub ticket after experiencing the regime of obama the socialist. The prospect of his re election should trump all differences between those on the "right".

Four more years of The One Who Stopped the Rise of the Oceans is not an not option.

Alan Brooks| 11.5.11 @ 6:03PM

"I don't like Santorum at all. Anyway, at the end of the day I wonder if people like you (and me) will actually stay home if Romney is the nominee. I tend to doubt it because the prospect of 4 more years of Obama is too horrible."

Obama will do as well as Clinton-- which means better than Bush, Ford, Nixon.

Mimi| 11.4.11 @ 9:17AM

Don't even THINK of not voting... Every vote is going to save the AMERICA we know and love.
Mitt will not be the NOMINEE....The BASE will never allow it they are the die-hards they come out , even if they have to walk in snow barefoot! they show up for the primaries!
Not one has been cast yet!!!

sirbourbon| 11.4.11 @ 9:52PM

Dmac, it isn't just "personal," Newt is a total socialist, big spender, big government, Nancy Pelosi buddy and weirdo environmentalist.

Newt's Contract on America
The Republican Party’s supposed answer to big government. It turned out to be a public relations smokescreen to cover various unconstitutional measures that Congress planned to pass under Gingrich’s leadership. The Contract included a “balanced budget amendment,” which amounted to a Republican excuse to continue spending while claiming to fight for fiscal conservatism. If the government only spent money on constitutional programs, the deficit would take care of itself.

Other areas of the Contract on America dealt with measures to reduce welfare programs and relieve tax burdens on families and businesses. The Constitution prohibits welfare programs. Newt's "contract" only proposed to nip at them around the edges. If Gingrich had been loyal to his oath of office, he would have worked not to trim themm but end them!

Federal spending in all the areas addressed by the 1994 Contract rose in subsequent years. Edward H. Crane, president of the Cato Institute, observed that “the combined budgets of the 95 major programs that the Contract With America promised to eliminate increased by 13%.”

Cato Institute's Crane said: "Over the past three years the Republican-controlled Congress has approved discretionary spending that exceeded Bill Clinton’s requests by more than $30 billion.”

Newt's police state affinity
The Contract asked for stronger federal crime-fighting measures, despite the Constitution’s prohibition on federal involvement in police matters outside of piracy and treason. Countries that do not have such strict constitutional safeguards on federal police end up with Gestapos, KGBs, and Departments of Homeland Security. But that's okay with your man Newt.

You need to know that you will be supporting a Constitution violator in Newt.

David T| 11.4.11 @ 8:52AM

Newt will continue to gain as Cain and the rest of the pack inevitably fade. By the end of January, it will be a two-horse race between Newt and Mitt.

martin j smith| 11.4.11 @ 9:05AM

Ross--Let the voters decide. Please do not decide for us. Thank you very much.

buckeyeman| 11.4.11 @ 10:18AM

So are you saying that we are not supposed to render opinions on how things are proceeding? Then why are you on this site?

Ross Kaminsky | 11.4.11 @ 11:11AM

Martin, I will be sure to show up at your home on election day and prevent you from voting. In the meantime, if you don't want my opinion then don't read my column.

RGK

Michael Tomlinson| 11.4.11 @ 9:30AM

B.H. O'Stalin:
Sound analysis of a complicated race and I believe accurate. One need only look back at the 1980 race when Reagan lost Iowa and was counted out, G.H.W. Bush was struggling to break out of the pack before Iowa and McCain's obituary was being written at this time four years ago, because he was polling around 6%. If I had to bet right now I’d put my money on Romney, but I know Perry’s tenacity and know better to count him out.

sclemens| 11.4.11 @ 9:37AM

Despite the Scozzfava support and his couch lap-dance with Pelosi, I would dearly love to see Newt in a debate with Obama.

Unfortunately, I view him as a loose cannon who does unpredictable things that undermine his conservative credentials.

Casey Abell| 11.4.11 @ 9:54AM

Russ, you may put too much faith in Intrade, which is a fun site but hardly representative of the electorate. Romney is not nearly the lock that Intrade makes him, and Perry may rate a buy.

Gingrich is fun to watch in the debates. He's fun to watch on TV at any time, which is where he should stay as a pundit. I agree that he can't be the nominee due to crushing personal baggage, and I can't even see him as Veep. But as Cain implodes (and I believe he is imploding, though slowly) Gingrich's numbers almost have to improve by default. See the latest Rasmussen poll, for instance, where Gingrich is up to 14% behind Cain at 26% and Romney at 23%.

Inside punditry note: Bill Kristol may be converting Weekly Standard into Gingrich For President. First it was Ryan, then Christie, now maybe Newt. For Kristol it's anybody but Romney, whether he's to the left or right.

Well, I don't expect Bill to ever support Ron Paul (wink).

Ross Kaminsky | 11.4.11 @ 11:13AM

To be sure, Casey, bettors at intrade can be and have been wrong. There are lots of examples. One was when I was able to sell Huntsman at 17% to get the nomination!

I still find it quite interesting and think there is something to be learned there from time to time.

Casey Abell| 11.4.11 @ 1:19PM

By the way, latest ABC/WashPo GOP nom numbers (10/31-11/3 438 RV): Romney 25, Cain 23, Perry 14, Gingrich 12, Paul 9, Bachmann 4, Santorum 1, Huntsman 1.

http://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

You know, my guy Perry may not be dead after all. I exepct Cain to coast down into the teens, and Rick should pick up some of those folks.

dw| 11.4.11 @ 5:25PM

I beleive Newts daughter has come out and said that it is not true that Newt handed his wife at the time divorce papers while she was in the hospital with cancer.

If true at least that negative can be subtracted from the list for what it is worth. Make sure you are accurate as you denounce the Newter.

skip| 11.5.11 @ 1:57PM

True or false: 'the Newter' accepted $300,000 from Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac to shill for the necessity of both 'GSEs'.

True or false: 'the Newter' agreed jointly with Pelosi complete with photo op to shill for the necessity of federal regulations to reduce 'anthropogenic global warming'.

Clint| 11.4.11 @ 10:30AM

We Are Being Set Up By These RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges For The Ruling Elites' Frontman Mittens Romney.

These Are The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges Who Gave Us The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain Of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy,McCain-Lieberman,Gang Of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003,TARP.

Now They Are Trying To Give Us RomneyCare,TARP, Cynical Flip-Flops On Abortion, Gays, Refuses to Sign Pro-Life Pledge, Illegal Immigrants, "Little Chain Saw Al" At Bain, Crony Capitalism Campaign Money Trail.....

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Old Blevins| 11.4.11 @ 10:58AM

The reason we endure (and enjoy) the silly season of primary debates and primary voting is for the party to decide who we desire to be our presidential candidate. Basing our decision on the most "electable" candidate should not, in my opinion, be the primary consideration. None of our candidates are perfect---they never are. But the idea that political handicappers believe that Newt cannot win the presidency, therefore he should be ignored by the primary voters, pretty much nullifies the intent of the primary season. If our primary voters do not want Newt as our candidate, no problem. But there are a lot of voters who don't won't Romney as our candidate, either. I have no idea how the primary will play out. I do remember that until a few days before the 1980 presidential election, it looked like Jimmy Carter was going to be re-elected, because the national polls indicated that a small majority of the voters preferred Mr. Carter over Mr. Reagan. Ronnie won by a landslide.

Al Adab| 11.4.11 @ 11:15AM

Same conversation about Newt as yesterday. he is one of the best theoriticians and strategists in the party so his ideas need serious consideration. Certainly he has a significnat role to play in the next administration. We need to be thinking in terms of the team required to undo the havok of the last three years and focus on which people fill which role. The actual individual nominee is secondary to forming and implementing corredt policy changes.

Interested Conservative| 11.4.11 @ 11:39AM

Mr. Kaminsky - this is well stated, but more a review than breaking new ground.

One question or observation - like all others, you reference the "personal baggage". I wonder how that breaks out along the lines of the gender gap - namely, do men no longer care about that (I see most of the ire recaps the Pelosi/Dede/Sharpton episodes, while Mr. Hillyer adds more) while women cannot overcome that?

Which leads to question two - isn't Newt counting on time and age having somewhat lessened the perception? Is he in the curious spot of wanting to be perceived as older rather than younger? It's interesting that he's 68, and Rep. Paul is 77, yet he seems younger, and Rep. Paul sometimes verges into Stockdale mannerisms.

Just curious.

Ross Kaminsky | 11.4.11 @ 12:43PM

Newt may be counting on time and age to help him, but the media and feminist groups won't care. They'll crucify him, and the Tiffany's thing won't help either. Yes, he's wanting to be perceived as older, and I don't blame him for that, but the whole package just isn't electable, in my view. I do not say this with any sense of happiness as I do think he'd be a decent candidate (and decent president) other than this baggage. But again, I think it's too heavy.

I don't think men will care as much as women about Newt's various marital shenanigans.

Al Adab| 11.4.11 @ 12:52PM

The man who will leave his wife does not demonstrate commitment to his oaths, beliefs or principles. When we need just such a one, we find ourselves lacking. I do believe men care about character but I recognize the caveat "as much".

W| 11.4.11 @ 1:16PM

Newt is a pompous windbag. He had a great opportunity as Speaker, and did a good job for a few years, then was replaced because he could not get along with fellow House Republican members. He became more interested in writing books and giving speeches rather than do his job as the first Republican Speaker in 50 years.
The picture of Newt and Nancy Pelosi on a couch talking about global warming speaks volume, much more that the long winded speeches by Newt.

nohussein| 11.4.11 @ 12:27PM

Newt is by far the sharpest one of the bunch, we'll see how this plays out.

Mattled| 11.4.11 @ 12:38PM

Jackie Cushman Gingrich (or whatever) just came out and said that the whole asking for a divorce by a dying wife's bedside is not true. If she goes and gets this out day in day out, he might make it.
I recall in early 2009 Karl Rove said nearly 6 million Evangelicals stayed home as did 2 million veterans. Just because McCain was a vet didn't inspire them. Rove knew how to GOTV and reach those 8 million.

I'm pretty sure after 4 years of Obamunism, they will be out. Lets elect ABO----then at least we can hold them accountable and perhaps replace in the next cycle.

By that time----Ryan, Rubio, Christie, Daniels, Pence, Jindal may all be available and ready. I would love to see Ryan/Rubio now (that's just MY opinion)----but it is what it is and let's take back our country.

We simply cannot afford 4 more of Obama.

Ross Kaminsky | 11.4.11 @ 12:44PM

The left is obviously petrified of Rubio, which makes me also want to see him run. He's leading the betting odds to be VP candidate, but I'm skeptical of that. He's just had a feel of the long knives and I bet he's not enthusiastic about getting more of those in the back.

Al Adab| 11.4.11 @ 12:47PM

Frankly Mr K, it has reached such depths that few if any would desire to have themselves- or their families- put through the gaunlet.

RCV| 11.4.11 @ 3:45PM

Sad but true.

Butch| 11.4.11 @ 4:51PM

I'm guessing impressionable-aged children at least partially deterred Ryan and Christie. With Daniels, it was his wife. Yeah, it's true . . . and it is sad.

al carmona| 11.4.11 @ 1:32PM

If you think Gingrich is more of a risk than four more years of Obama, you're a PINHEAD

Mazzuchelli| 11.4.11 @ 2:13PM

I took my registered Independent better half over to see Newt at a little golf course several weeks ago. The turn out was very light. Still, the man and his baggage hosted their documentary on American exceptionalism and spoke to it in moving terms. My better half was moved beyond his cynicism to volunteer for the campaign. If Newt can get his ideas in front of enough people, momentum can be built. He still has a year. The one risk not yet mentioned is that Callista Gingrich bears a striking resemblance to Cindy McCain albeit with less terra-forming. While she is not a lightweight, the lacquered, platinum look invites distrust from a broad swatch of women. Surface, I know, but you see who is the current president.

Mimi| 11.4.11 @ 2:48PM

Sorry sir but I saw and heard Calista , on a book review on T.V. She sounded and came off as the sweetest person on the WORLD totally nice.! That makes her one heck of an asset! The country will adore her!

John C.| 11.4.11 @ 2:38PM

Just a few weeks ago old Newtie was on Greta advocating a guest worker program as part of his so-called comprehensive immigration reform. Newt is the poster child for being a one-world globalist -- he is from the cheap labor, pro-China wing of the RINO Party disguising himself as a conservative.

Gary B| 11.4.11 @ 3:01PM

Here's a test: Would you vote for Joe the Plumber over Obama? If so, why?

Now, compare the Republican candidates with Joe the Plumber . How does he or they stand up? Which ones place America first? Which ones will make American taxpayers their "cronies" for a change?

Gary B| 11.4.11 @ 3:05PM

I really want to like Newt for all the usual reasons. But, as you say, lots of baggage there. I wonder if his behavior would change for the better if he was elected president.

Would I vote for Newt over Obama? Hell yes!

John C.| 11.4.11 @ 3:09PM

I like Joe the Plumber. He is a patriot -- puts America first, wheras none of the pro-China GOP candidates do.

sirbourbon| 11.4.11 @ 3:28PM

Newt's colors change according to whom he is addressing. Recently he took words right out of Ron Paul's speech that Paul delivered on the floor of the House. Paul proposed using power granted to Congress to clip the wings of the Supreme Court's Roe v.wade decision via Article III, section 2.
{click for text} http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A3Sec2.html

Newt ignored Paul's bill to check the SC's appellate jurisdiction when Paul introduced it way back when Newt was apparently too busy chumming up to Bill Clinton's "jobs" killing act- NAFTA.

At a GOP televized debate Newt burst forth with great enthusiasm on using article III, section 2 to check Roe v.Wade never giving credit to Paul for bringing this Congressional power up years ago in Paul's Sanctity of Life bill. But Newt has always been that way- a self-serving newt.

Simon Templar| 11.4.11 @ 3:53PM

Kaminsky,

Stop putting a glass ceiling above him, stop helping the opposition to install this ceiling.

Al Adab| 11.4.11 @ 3:59PM

There is one heck of an east coast bias in much of this. It is the South (including FLA) and West who have the electoral votes to pick the GOP President, adding Ohio and NC to the mix. Why by any reason should NY, NJ, IL, CA have any say in selecting the GOP nominee? They will never deliver an electoral vote to the Republican.

RJ| 11.4.11 @ 4:42PM

As a Californian, I have no problem with that. It is also how Abraham Lincoln won the Republican nomination in 1860. The delegates' top priority was to win and they looked at who had the support from the 4 key battleground states. The states were Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and, if I recall correctly, New Jersey.

Al Adab| 11.4.11 @ 5:52PM

So RJ, Who among the group can carry the battleground states of NC, Ohio and FLA? That is who we need. No state that went with McCain will change sides so it requires us to pick some from Obama.

RJ| 11.4.11 @ 6:11PM

Yes, sir, the 9 states that Bush won in 2004 which Obama carried in 2008 are the states to look at first. (Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico & Nevada). I would add New Hampshire to the priority list since Bush won it in 2000 and it seems to be getting slightly more reddish. I don't know which candidate is strongest in those states, but I am sure they will let us know when the time comes.

As far as California is concerned, we had a sad story this week. Chuck DeFore, the conservative candidate for the GOP Senatorial nomination in 2010 has given up his campaign for Orange County Supervisor and moved to Texas. It is hopeless out here.

chuck| 11.6.11 @ 9:01AM

Moved to Texas.......smart man. How much longer until they change the signs from "Welcome to California" to "Moved to Texas"?

RJ| 11.6.11 @ 4:50PM

Probably a long time, because California is basically bankrupt. There is no money for new signs. The one plus we have these days is watching the government fed sharks each each others programs. They killed the golden-egg producing goose, so now the big government types are beginning to engage in cannibalism.

zelda| 11.4.11 @ 4:08PM

Romney and his supporters must be worried about Gingrich. My support is behind Bachmann but you can be assured if she leaves the race my support is going to Gingrich. What I see with Romney is someone with no core, someone who is beyond desperate to be president, and would NOT get rid of Obamacare but instead keep parts he agree's with. In short, Romney would be a better manager of "big government" and it really doesn't make me want to go out to vote.

gary siebel| 11.4.11 @ 5:35PM

Just out of curiosity, do you ever talk to people randomly on the street about politics, or are you stuck in the current Repub hall of mirrors talking to ghosts and reflections?

My policy/philosophy has always been to talk to (and read) EVERYBODY, so long as they appear to be sane, which leads to a better sampling of opinions. Based on my research, it doesn't matter which of the Repubs winds up as the candidate, Obama will win.

Where else will the Dems go? But the Repubs are hopelessly fragmented because of a severe case of intransigence.

I am calculating that the Las Vegas housing market will show significant signs of life by next June, which would be a harbinger of general improvement in the economy, which would politically benefit -- guess who?

George S| 11.4.11 @ 5:36PM

I find it puzzling that there are studies that definitively state Palin was a drag on the 2008 Election while at the same time liberals viciously eviscerate her. How both can coexist is... illogical.

Also, what exactly would motivate an undertaking of such a study? When was the last time any VP candidate was similarly a subject of scholarly study?

gary siebel| 11.4.11 @ 5:46PM

btw By bizarre coincidence I happened to be watching C-Span live when Gingrich pulled his grandstanding act in the House, and Tip O Neill had the cameras rotated to reveal Gingrich speaking to an empty House. Newt is still doing essentially the same thing today: grandstanding.

chuck| 11.6.11 @ 9:03AM

Truth be told, even when they speak to a full chamber, no one is listening. It might as well be empty.

Chad| 11.4.11 @ 6:13PM

You say that people would not allow Biden to be a step away from the Presidency if we saw Newt debate Biden. While this is true, it is equally true that if he debated Obama, people wouldn't want Obama to be in the Presidency.

sirbourbon| 11.4.11 @ 10:03PM

In 1995, Time magazine named Newt Gingrich “Man of the Year.” The Time article lied that Newt was a states’ rights conservative.

Like professional wrestlers that hate each other in the ring but buy each other drinks away from the screaming crowds, Gingrich and Clinton both agreed at a debate in Clare-mont, New Hampshire, that they were “not far apart” in their views. Later Clinton publicly thanked Gingrich for his support of the President’s pet projects in areas such as welfare, education, labor, the environment, and foreign affairs. Clinton made special mention of Gingrich’s support of the $30 billion Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that shackled gun owners with new restrictions, federalized a number of crimes, and handed the feds police powers that the Constitution reserves to the states.

Gingrich showed himself a friend to Clinton’s military policies, with a flagrant disregard for the constitutional mandate that Congress alone may declare war. He made a formal appeal to the House of Representatives in 1995 to “increase the power of President Clinton” by repealing the War Powers Act. He praised Clinton’s unconstitutional use of the U.S. military to inflict a communist regime on Haiti in 1994, the same year he voted for an extra $1.2 billion for United Nations “peacekeeping” missions. He also urged the President to expand U.S. military presence in Bosnia the following year.

Gingrich’s support of abortion and anti-family measures, federal welfare, a presidential line item veto, the National Endowment for the Arts, confiscation of private property, amnesty for illegal immigrants, higher taxes, and a myriad of other unconstitutional legislation.

bluecollarbytes| 11.4.11 @ 10:04PM

If Romney essentially leaves Wall Street alone, isn't that really all wall street cares about? I believe so.

POST American| 11.4.11 @ 10:46PM

---------------------FINAL WORD-----------------------

Globalist meets presiding figure from the
KEY decade of the now CON-consolidating
sellout and TREASON OP.

"I find the Republican debates SO
ridiculous as to be unwatchable."
-JESSE VENTURA

You heard the man.

----------WAKE UP KIDDIES!

----------------TSA n' GMO

-----------------------WAKE UP!

D Roamer | 11.5.11 @ 1:09AM

Newt would be excellent as our Secretary of State. He would restore our nation as a world leader and he would make the post a place for him to really shine with his eminence in history and politics. He would be a God send for our nations' world affairs.

POST American| 11.5.11 @ 6:47AM

----ONCE AGAIN, for the reality challenged:

Newt Gingirich was not just an avid
Globalist and EUGENICS promoter
---BUT, a KEY presiding figure during
the KEY decade of the RED China
sellout and TREASON OP.

We are ALLLLL paying for his 'visionary'
leadership.

Wayne| 11.5.11 @ 2:41PM

It wasn't Palin who cost the election in 2008. It was the tag team of Bush and Mc Cain, two establishment GOP members, who combined to make Obama look credible. Palin changed that narrative, but got no support from the RINOs.

Felix Sullen, Sad Cat Herder| 11.7.11 @ 5:12AM

Paul has no foreign policy other than abdication. Cain has none but ignorance. Romney's electability is hamstrung by Romneycare and Perry's by his Bushiness under pressure. Bachmann has fringed herself with amateurish and ill though rhetoric. Absent a brand new candidate, and despite the fact he was literally my least favorite choice excepting Paul The Elder, I've gotta go with Newt. I'm hoping his ability to string several coherent thoughts together without gaffing himself will continue to distinguish him from the most undistinguisable pile of incompentent mush I have seen since 1996.

Felix Sullen, Sad Cat Herder| 11.7.11 @ 5:18AM

Oh, sorry. I missed POST American's comment about how Newt sold us to China. My bad. In the absence of any explanation as to how that occurred, I guess I must yield to CAPS as an argument.

Paulbot.

Jeff| 11.8.11 @ 3:52AM

Ross,
We "anybody but Romney" crowd always have one other option on election day 2012 if Romney is the nominee and I intend to exercise it. Better a Democrat statist than a GOP statist. If Romney is the nominee I will vote for Obama.
My lovely bride is more principled than I. She has announced that if Romney is nominee she will simply stay home.

Somebody tell how Obama loses under those circumstances. I WILL NOT HOLD MY NOSE AND VOTE FOR MCCAIN JR!

Give us a real conservative that can be trusted and Obama is toast.

Ray| 11.10.11 @ 4:16PM

"that the flip side of flip-flopping may be to enhance Romney's ability to portray himself as a moderate, potentially a major benefit in the general election. "

Since being moderate worked out so well for John McCain? The "Anybody but Romney" group actually remembers how 2008 was lost and how 1980 and 1984 were won.

e pearse| 11.10.11 @ 8:26PM

The little tete-a-tete between Gingrich and Maria last night prompted the best headline post (includingt video) from www.robbingamerica.com
"Sexual Harassment? Gingrich Gives Bartiromo a 'Dressing Down' ".

topeka| 11.16.11 @ 9:56AM

I am not so sure:

Rombama will not be an asset for the nation and may be the end of the conservative movement.

Gin-grinch may turn out to be alright, but his track record is not good... as several good comments have pointed out.

Honestly, I don't know where you are sitting... but 4 more years of Obama will be worse than another Republican progressive how?

Elect someone who will undo nothing: And every slight pro-American decision will lead to howls of rage and hate from the Left. The fool will then implement Lefty-ism with special guarantees to a few Republican friends on Wall Street... assuring them that the taxpayers will pay through the nose until the end of the Republic. The Left will rage and spew more lies and hate.

At the end of it... nothing will be accomplished except we might be one thin dime less in debt... just enough action to allow pundits to blame everything from the economy to the alignment of the stars on conservatives without making any noticeable dent in the taxes or the debts or the deficits.

More Articles by Ross Kaminsky

More Articles From Political Hay

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

June 18, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

The Biggest Fool of All

June 17, 2013 | Doug Bandow

The IRS Ten: The New Keating Five

June 13, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

Mark Levin: The Constitution’s Churchill

June 11, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

Chris Christie Is Smarter Than You

June 7, 2013 | Benjamin Brophy

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/11/04/gingrich-rises-up-to-glass-cei

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|82 comments

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord|94 comments

Obama’s Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield|55 comments

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut|23 comments

The Woman Who Wrote Liberty Valance

Bill Croke|28 comments

Not Super, But Pretty Good

Aaron Goldstein|17 comments

The Loss of Trust

Thomas Sowell|30 comments

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin|87 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Thoughts on New U.S.-Taliban Peace Talks

Aaron Goldstein | 6:34PM

Thank You, Bobby Jindal

Matt Purple | 6:01PM

Buzzfeed Faces $3.6 Million Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement

Kaylin Bugos | 4:55PM

Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder

Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM

Pro-Life is Smart Politics

Rich Lizardo | 4:01PM

Gerson, Wehner, and the Losing Old Ways Crowd

Jeffrey Lord | 2:46PM

Are Young People Souring on Obama?

Matt Purple | 2:24PM

Boehner to Enforce Hastert Rule with Immigration Reform

Jordan Gonzalez | 1:10PM

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin | 6.17.13

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

The Biggest Fool of All

Doug Bandow | 6.17.13

Can Liturgical Music Be Saved?

Patrick O'Hannigan | 6.17.13

Revenge of the Fruitcakes

Peter Hitchens | 6.17.13

Obama's Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield | 6.18.13

The Mole in Don Draper

James Bowman | 6.17.13

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut | 6.18.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.