The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Loose Canons

Newt Gingrich, Grownup

By on 11.28.11 @ 6:10AM

Of the Republican Eight, he is best prepared to take a 3 a.m. call to the White House.

(Page 2 of 2)

We need to be able to discuss the threats that face us in a clear and open manner. The courage to be free is only sustained by the moral capacity to distinguish between good and evil. If evil cannot be called by name, we will not be able to deter — or even recognize — threats to our nation. Likewise, if we cannot proclaim the righteousness of our values, then we won’t be able to mobilize the spirit necessary to defend America.… We need a new strategy that is as decisive and comprehensive as our bold and unprecedented response to the rise of the Soviet threat after World War II. It will streamline our security, intelligence and diplomatic departments, and recapitalize our military infrastructure.”

There are at least two important trains of thought in that. First, Gingrich sees the need to structure our military and intelligence communities based on the threats we face, not on some arbitrary budget number. As I’ve written repeatedly, that is the only sound foundation for defense and intelligence planning and budgeting.

Second, Gingrich apparently understands the most ignored point about the war we are fighting. It is as much an ideological war as a kinetic one. Gingrich captured the idea that we have to fight the ideological war, which George Bush refused to do and Barack Obama has preemptively surrendered.

Endorsing Gingrich this past weekend, the New Hampshire Union Leader writes:,

Newt Gingrich is by no means the perfect candidate. But Republican primary voters too often make the mistake of preferring an unattainable ideal to the best candidate who is actually running. In this incredibly important election, that candidate is Newt Gingrich. He has the experience, the leadership qualities and the vision to lead this country in these trying times.

Every president inherits a margin for error that is determined by factors such as the strength of our economy, the aggressiveness and capabilities of our enemies, and the speed of world events. Since Obama took office, that margin for error has shrunk to the thinness of a razor’s edge.

So who do we want answering that 3 a.m. phone call to the White House? On defense and national security, Newt Gingrich is the candidate best prepared to do so.

Page:   12

About the Author

Jed Babbin served as a Deputy Undersecretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush. He is the author of several bestselling books including Inside the Asylum and In the Words of Our Enemies. You can follow him on Twitter @jedbabbin.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (253) |

aware| 11.28.11 @ 6:47AM

Neo cons of a feather flock together. War is the health of the State, right Babbin? At least till expanding military commitments underpinned by a rotten centrally planned crony economy leads to national collapse. A slow motion train wreck is already under way.

Dick Nome| 11.28.11 @ 6:48AM

???????????????? Huh???????????

ENOUGH ROPE| 11.28.11 @ 9:59AM

If the Republican nominee is Gingrich or Romney, are any of you who object to either one going to vote for Obama?

ENOUGH ROPE| 11.28.11 @ 10:30AM

Obama's Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FACTA) will be in full force on 1/1/14. Per a Washington Post article "FATCA will cause the departure of an estimated $14 trillion of private foreign investment, destroying as many as 10,000,000 jobs in the United States."
http://www.americanthinker.com.....onomy.html

BobbyONJ| 11.29.11 @ 4:49PM

That could be one of the funniest things I've ever read in a post. In all of my online readings, I've heard from many who voted for Obama, now regret it, and will not vote for him in '12. I'm still waiting for the first who voted for McCain and regrets it.

rpm| 11.29.11 @ 7:04PM

OK, I voted for McCain and regret it. I shouldn't have voted at all. If neither party puts up an adequate candidate, I am staying home. The lesser of two evils is still evil.

NoMoBO| 11.29.11 @ 9:03PM

If you do that, Obama will get the benefit. Don't do that to your country. Please. Vote Republican. You won't regret it. Thank you.

RA0725| 11.29.11 @ 11:55PM

I voted for Sarah Palin, which by default gave my vote to McCain. I've always thought that he was the Democratic choice for a Republican nominee.

Jack in Wi| 11.28.11 @ 8:09AM

Newt Gingrich has been a total failure in every big job he ever had. He was a flop as husband, Speaker, and now human being. He would never get elected, if he somehow got nominated. Remember how Clinton used him as a punching bag the whole 1996 election. He could not answer back. He was so ineffective and crooked that the Republicans heaved him out as Speaker, and he was condemned for many ethics violations.

He has 3 marriages and 2 brutal divorces.
He has been a shill for every rotten lobby in Washington and collected 38 million to do their dirty work. He still can't answer a straight question about how he got all that loot.
The fact that he got 1.8 million from Fannie Mae and can't tell us what it was for should be enough to disqualify him from the thoughts of sane people.

He is for endless war and bailouts for the kleptocrats and criminals who run israel.
He has been in the pocket of these people his whole political career.The people in huge majorities want an end to all foreign aid, an end to foreign wars and the troops home. Newt promises us nothing but war, war, war, and total destruction of our Constitution and civil liberties. Dispite the fact that the was a huge chickenhawk everytime he had a chance to go in the military during Vietnam.

His record of being blackmailed and rolled by Clinton does not bode well for any political leader. For Newt it is proof positive that he would always take the easy way out. He is hated by most of the population and is unelectable. He also can't get the nomination with the mountain of baggage he carries.

The people of this country are sick and tired of the the corruption and lies of the political elite with their endless warmongering, graft, lies, theft, and general disgusting behavior. Newt Gingrich has been a poster boy for all this stuff his whole career.

Now I understand that Mr. Babbin is desperate, like most neocons, because the country is moving far far away from his and the other neocons insanity. But please how desperate are these people to put up Newt Gingrich as the answer?
Well I guess it doen't matter to them if the Republicans are wiped out. They own Obama, Gingrich, Romney, Cain and 95% of both parties.

Teaghan| 11.28.11 @ 8:23AM

I take it you don't care for Newt?

Herman| 11.28.11 @ 8:32AM

Nominate Newt at your peril...
First Lady Callista, wife #3, was an employee
having an affair with her boss, Newt, who was
married to wife #2 at the time....

chuck| 11.28.11 @ 8:48AM

And, yet, still much preferable to the couple now occupying the White House.

Mike Hawk| 11.28.11 @ 8:48AM

Yea, we want the good old days of Bill Clinton back. He was a man of integrity. Or maybe we should have elected Gigolo John aka Lurch. Sigh!!

MikeG| 11.28.11 @ 2:49PM

We shouldn't use Clinton as the standard.

rpm| 11.29.11 @ 7:08PM

I agree, Clinton is not the standard. However, you can be reasonably certain that those howling over Newt's miserable personal life defended Clinton.

BTW, Clinton was impeached for lying, not for get a b-job in the Oval Office.

america| 11.29.11 @ 11:41PM

Maybe we should annex Canada and pay for US debt. Maybe we shouldn't have a Presidency at all. Whether Republican or Democrat it really doesn't make a difference. Can you imagine Cain/Palin in the White House? Can you imagine Hilary? All bets are off. Ironic that the author of this article was instrumental in starting the problem and is now pointing fingers in other directions. Cronyism at its best.

Hank| 12.7.11 @ 12:02PM

Clinton should have gone to prison for perjury. Under federal law perjury is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. An average citizen who commits perjury is tried and put in prison, but in this country we have a pattern of not punishing the powerful when they commit crimes.

CrackerHound| 11.28.11 @ 11:08AM

Herman....so what?!
What does ANY of that have to do with electing the most competent person to deal with the most trying time in US history.

It has to be Newt or we are screwed. I have gotten past the "my guy or bust" mentality and see Gingrich as the only option (he was not my first or second choice even until my eyes were opened to the reality of each candidates capabilites).

Now that I have evaluated in a purely analytical way as opposed to ideolgical, I am so glad that Newt is rising. Is he a REAL conservative? Conservative enough given the circumstances.

Bottom line...I believe he will get the things done that we expect while some of his actions might disappoint or not be to our liking. What do you want...100% line item litmus testing? It won't happen.

None of the other candidates are capable of holding the office as much as I like them. That is the harsh reality when you look at what will be on their plate.

Buck Ofama| 11.28.11 @ 3:01PM

>Newt Gingrich has been a total failure in every big job he ever had. He was a flop as husband, Speaker, and now human being

You can't face reality, so you PISS WHINE and MOAN about NOTHING.

Ever since I saw the first debate, I knew that Newt is our only chance.

We must chase the rat vermin out of the white house ASAP.

Anthony| 11.28.11 @ 4:12PM

I agree!! The media has us doing a circle firing squad to our candidates until only the weakest will survive to lose to Obozo.
I've been a harsh critic of Newt over the years on this site, however, we are missing the forest through the trees.
AMERICA IS IN GRAVE DANGER. I no longer have the luxury to give a rat's rear end about his personal foibles, the ship is sinking and some here worry about the Captain having divorced his wife, as the ship sinks.
I believe Newt is a conservative at heart, and has wandered only to appease a broader base. I'm not crazy about his wanderings, but I believe with a R congress, he'll have the balls and the brains to get us back on track.
FOCUS on what's important folks!!! OBOZO MUST BE DEFEATED.

NoMoBO| 11.29.11 @ 9:06PM

I agree with you 110%. You are right on the money. Keep talking Anthony, maybe those on the fence will wise up and do what's right for this country. Obama's presidency has been an utter nightmare. Those that don't see that are blind.

Jack in Wi| 11.28.11 @ 6:47PM

Newt has been a total failure in everything he has undertaken. I can remember how the House Republicans gave him the boot for being a blowhard and ineffective. He is the poster boy for the worst of the GOP. I am convinced that a Gingrich or Romney nomination will lead to a viable 3rd party who will possibly get more votes then the national Republican ticket. Over 50% of the population is fed up with more of the same. Obama, Gingrich and Romney are more of the same.

Doctor Right| 11.28.11 @ 7:51PM

A "total failure"..???

You're projecting again, Jack.

Alan Brooks| 11.28.11 @ 8:53PM

Newt's 'conservative futurism' is an oxymoron.
Majority of it is GOBBLEDYGOOK.

MOS 1 1 2 | 11.29.11 @ 11:48AM

@ aware: Your words, "War is the health of the state" may or may not accurately portray the philosophy of Leo Strauss, reputed father of the neo-cons, but such a suggestion does not appear in Mr. Babbins article. Try reading the article again without preconceived ideas and judge it on its own merits.

Clint| 11.28.11 @ 7:04AM

" The New Hampshire Gazette

The Chickenhawk Hall Of Shame.

name:
Newton Leroy "Newt" Gingrich
rank:
Chickenhawk First Class with Distinguished Fleeing Cross
date-of-birth:
June 17, 1943
home state:
Georgia
missed opportunity:
Vietnam War
preferred activity:
Attending grad school
occupation:
Congressman

A virtuoso in the art of hypocrisy, the former Speaker of the House now claims the Vietnam War was a splendid idea, but at the time he opposed going himself. Newtie also speaks highly of morality, but as a serial adulterer he doesn't want to get too close."

Alan Brooks| 11.28.11 @ 8:57PM

"A virtuoso in the art of hypocrisy"

His entire worldview is double-talk, Clint. Newt is part John Naisbitt, part Woodrow Wilson.
At least Ron Paul isn't an Astro-nut, a techno-prat.

Alan Brooks| 11.28.11 @ 8:58PM

Gongrich said "honeymoons in space by 2020".
But when the spacecrafts blow up, the insurance rates will be astronomical.
Newt is full of it.

Alan Brooks| 11.28.11 @ 8:59PM

No wait, Gingrich said honeymoons in space will be "common" by 2020!
What HYPE.

Mimi| 11.28.11 @ 7:08AM

Jed...That is the best article I've read for support of Newt Gingrich...the quotes you used were priceless GEMS.
When all the un-necessary dribble stops...The grave and awsome duty to country, lies upon the good people of this nation. At no time in our memories has such importance to an American election come to this land. The burden of citizenship...most of the time taken with such casualness is placed upon our back with heaviness felt. Never have we seen the nation so in need of our wisdom!

Rose| 11.28.11 @ 7:10AM

NEWT the pone to answer the 3AM calls? LOL! I saw Newt in action, Pelosi, Hillary, McCain Kennedy Shamnesty laughing 45 air time minutes at Sean Hannity while siding with Alan Colmes... He's a Jack donkey in a RINO suit.
He isn't fit to ........
Well, he ain't fit! I won't vote to help the Democrat Party by condoning Newt in any part of American Politics.

Buck Ofama| 11.28.11 @ 3:02PM

You think that Newt is unfit because you saw one tv show? You should not be allowed to vote at all you dumb ass.

Budman| 11.29.11 @ 6:08PM

You got that right?

NoMoBO| 11.29.11 @ 9:09PM

You don't make any sense. Do you have any? I doubt it.

Loadmaster| 11.28.11 @ 7:15AM

Jeb and I agree. These are special times that require special people to lead this nation. Of all the candidates that in the GOP field, I will feel a lot better knowing Newt was sitting at 1600 Pa Ave. Is he without faults...who isn't?

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 11.28.11 @ 7:16AM

Hillary Clinton quipped that we don't have the resources to deport 12 million illegal aliens. Now Newt Gingrich is stating the same thing and according to the Republican establishment he's a wonderful candidate.

This pinpoints the disease class rampant within Washington, D.C. Incorporated.

Obama came to D.C. and quickly sized up the fact that the city's real foundation is one of corruption. He noticed immediately there wasn't that much difference between the galling corruption in Chicago and the ever present and never ending corruption inside the beltway.

In that sense he's not much different than Hillary or Newt. They are both champion political prize fighters who would do little to stifle the corruption inside Washington, D.C. Inc.

This is precisely why McCain had to edge out Romney. And precisely why Perry is ridiculed as a political good looking bumpkin.

The establishment inside the beltway which comprises the ruling class can't afford to see the living organism of corruption inside the beltway even have a hiccup or burp. The corrupt state must be protected and at all costs.

The reason Obama won was he was seen as an alternative to the corrupt state. Now the public has learned he's a King of the corrupt state so they are looking for alternatives.

The corrupt state wants no alternatives so they must weed out the candidates who may reform the government and the corrupt state can't take any chances.

Therefore, long live Newt! Who in reality is Obama of a different father. Or Hillary of a different Motha!

chuck| 11.28.11 @ 8:53AM

End the corruption, you must change Congress. Throw out the insider-trading, life-time, carry-me-out feet first Congressmen, and elect a new batch of bums. And keep on doing it until they end the corruption. No President is going to be able to reform Congress, only new Congressmen can.

rpm| 11.29.11 @ 7:53PM

To quote the inimitable Ted Hayes :"They got theyselves here, didn't they? They can get theyselves home.".

JimP| 11.28.11 @ 8:00AM

Newt makes me really angry. I can't understand his apostacies against conservatism. He has made some really bad mistakes during his career and pesonal life. But, me too. His tax plan doesn't go far enough IMO, but neither does Herman's and to heck with that 9% sales tax. No Sales Tax, EVER! STARVE THE BEAST. I digress. I also hope those calling Newt a chickenhawk and neo-con are Vietnam Vets and are Goldwater conservatives like me. I didn't see Newt in 'Nam, but in following his career I missed the neo-con chickenhawk war stances he took. Guess I was suffering a bout of malaria at those times. I like much of Ron Paul's small 'l' libertarianism, but he has a long record of earmarking, and let's be honest, it's not 1811 anymore. We can't hide behind our oceans. Michelle is swell, but she just doesn't have Newt's prescence. Romney was a great corporate fixer, but no matter what he says, he chose to become governor of an ultra blue state. It's not fair, but that tells me everything I need to know.

All the other candidates all have some appeal for me. 'Unfortunately', Mr. Babbin makes a great point. I'm not thrilled by Newt after his leftward shifts, but I'm leaning toward him and have been keeping an open mind all along about him because I remember how much good he accomplished and not just his mistakes.

richard ryan| 11.28.11 @ 8:15AM

Most of the Anti-Gingrich posts here are without substance. Lots of name-calling and generalities, implying he is for blanket amnesty, was "for" the VietNam war, etc. Have any of you actually read his words on these issues? Let's take immigration- Newt is basically saying we cannot deport 12 million people. Anyone care to refute that point? That being the case, he aims to focus on the criminals and recent immigrants (a big chunk of the problem). He never suggested citizenship for ANY illegals. He merely suggested we identify those who are the biggest problem for our citizens and get rid of them first.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 11.28.11 @ 8:36AM

We bought 12 milllion in while sending a probe to Mars. Maybe we should focus less on outer space and handle some more pressing problems.

I never heard that "we can't" will lead to success unless it's being promoted by the electable class of Washington, D.C.

Ironically the same group is claiming we can't cut spending, we can't solve our social security problem, etc.

If we can't solve the problem of 12 million illegal aliens then we have no chance of solving problems involving 320 million Americans.

To quote the political class "It can't be done!"

chuck| 11.28.11 @ 9:07AM

I thought Newt had a decent proposal. First secure the border, for real this time. Once the flow is cut off, then determine what to do with those already here. For those who have long-standing ties to the community, those who have actually contributed to our society, find a way to let them stay. For the newer arrivals, those who are just here to send money to momma, and are eventually headed back, round them up and send them back. We can distinguish between the two.
Also, stop paying people not to work. The unemployed refuse to take manual labor jobs because we are paying them for 99 weeks to sit on their asses!
Secure the border.
Determine who gets to stay and who must go.
Stop paying Americans not to work.

Problem solved!

scotchieguy| 11.28.11 @ 9:26AM

An oversimplification to be sure, but I like it.

richard ryan| 11.28.11 @ 9:24AM

I totally agree with getting serious, and diverting more resources to the illegal problem. If we could get 12 million people out of this country, it would be an amazing feat. The long established families to which NG refers? I don't have a problem adding them to the list of deportees because they have broken the law to get here in the first place. Again, to defend Newt, I do not, however, think it is an unreasonable thing to consider legalizing the established families who are contributing to this economy. And the distinction between legalizing and granting citizenship must again be made. The border issue, of course, is priority 1 as Perry mentioned. Makes little sense to address deportation with a porous border as we now have.

Wayne| 11.28.11 @ 11:54AM

Nobody suggests deportation. What I hear is arrest the employers and the jobs dry up. When the jobs dry up and they no longer get wellfare, they will leave on their own.

DTOM| 11.28.11 @ 9:23AM

Sure, I'll refute it.

On it's face deporting 12,000,000 people is a herculean task. But the belief that the only way to deport people is to physically locate, capture, and transport them is a simpleton's belief.

To deport 12,000,000 or even 20,000,000 people you simply have to convince them that this is not a comfortable place to stay as an illegal alien. Then they will deport themselves, for free. It's called: self-deportation.

Here's how you start a wave of self-deportation:

A. Tighten up border security, significantly. This stops new and re-entrant illegals from entering and also communicates to would be illegals that the US has actually changed its illegal immigration policy.

B. Make significant efforts to enforce employment laws, penalizing employers, including jail time for supervisors knowingly employing undocumented workers. This would quickly end the one of the two reasons why illegal immigrants come to the US, employment. It would also increase citizen employment, wages, and investment in equipment to replace some of the lost, illegal labor. None of that would be too unpleasant, these days.

C. Perform strategic sweeps for illegals thusly: pick a mid-sized area, say a city of 100,000, and intensively locate and deport ALL illegals in that city. Then go to the next city, the illegals are not stupid, they know that the US government, once it has actually decided to do something will keep repeating its efforts. Subsequent sweeps in other areas will result in the objective of this whole exercise: self-deportation.

The only illegals who will remain are those who are enjoying the ill-gotten gains of their criminal pursuits. Thus the illegals you collect will be criminals on a number of counts, and the deportation should be rather straightforward. How many gang banger, narco-terrorists could we deport if we were also deporting seemingly innocuous, so-called "hardworking" illegals.

It could be done within one Presidential term and would come with the following side effects: There would be a decrease in housing demand as 4% of the population departs - this could be offset by increasing legal immigration of desirable immigrants, those with education, skills, means of their own.

So it's bologna, baloney on "You can't deport 12,000,000 people." Yes, you can, after all we didn't Import them, they self-imported. They will leave if they are convinced that we are serious. Newt Gingrich has never shown himself to be serious with respect to the illegal immigrant issue.

P.S.
We also need to re-visit the erroneous concept that aliens managing to give birth on American soil confers automatic US citizenship on the baby. This is a fallacy that has been maintained for far, far too long. If a US citizen gives birth to a baby in Mexico, that baby is not a Mexican citizen, it is a US citizen. So if a Mexican citizen gives birth to a baby in the US, it is still a Mexican citizen. Period. You can lay all kinds of blather about no, it's not true. But the principles of international law have always been that being born some place does not make a newborn a citizen of that place unless its parents are citizens of that place, too.

In the 1700's and in the 1800's, we were a population-poor nation. Now we are not. If we want to have immigration, it should be allowed and promoted legally. It should (and does) require allegiance to our Constitution and our laws.

After all, we are a nation of laws. Aren't we?

richard ryan| 11.28.11 @ 9:33AM

That's a great point, DTOM. May not require as many buses if they leave the way they came. Getting tough on those who employ illegals would probably make a huge difference.

MikeBee| 11.28.11 @ 11:13AM

RR,
You're absolutely correct! Illegals are here for one reason only: to take advantage of the U.S. economic system, to work here and earn more than they can at home. Employers, like Nancy Pelosi, who illegally employ these workers without reporting their earnings to the U.S. government, are the source of the problem. Simply auditing employers who knowingly underreport their wages would close up jobs to illegals. Most of these jobs would be taken by U.S. citizens who need work.

Brief example: my brothers owned a commercial plumbing company which performed contract work with the Dept. of Defense (DOD) in SoCal. However, they began to lose contracts to an employer who continually beat them on bids for contracts. DOD contracts in SoCal require plumbing contractors to pay a prevailing wage to their workers, at the time $30 per hour. My brothers hired U.S. citizen plumbers, and paid them $30 per hour. But, this contractor who was beating them on bids hired illegals, instead, paying them only $8 per hour under the table. On his bids for contracts with the DOD, this contractor simply underreported the hours needed to perform job functions, to make up for the lower pay. DOD never audited him. My brother found out what his workers were being paid by simply walking up to them on jobsite and asking them. Because my brothers kept losing contracts, they went out of business, getting rid of $30/hour skilled jobs paid to U.S. citizens. The other contractor still exists, paying illegals $8 per hour.

Audit the dishonest employers who are taking advantage of the lower wage rates illegals demand, put them out of business, and the illegals they hired will return to Mexico, while U.S. citizens will find more work.

Clint| 11.28.11 @ 9:48AM

" Dr.Ron Paul's COMMON SENSE REFORMS

If elected President, Dr. Ron Paul will work to implement the following common sense reforms:

* Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.

* No Amnesty - The Obama Administration’s endorsement of so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, will only encourage more law-breaking.

* Abolish the Welfare State – Taxpayers cannot continue to pay the high costs to sustain this powerful incentive for illegal immigration. As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.

* End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.

* Protect Lawful Immigrants – As President, Dr. Ron Paul will encourage legal immigration by streamlining the entry process without rewarding lawbreakers.

As long as our borders remain wide open, the security and safety of the American people are at stake."

idalily| 11.28.11 @ 4:24PM

DTOM, and all my fellow conservatives who think sending these illegals back is an option (even one city sweep at a time) please GET REAL.

WE ARE BROKE. We cannot afford the manpower, not at the local, state or federal level to find millions of illegals, process the paperwork, and hold them in jails while we pay the lawyers to fight the inevitable lawsuits, before we are able (maybe) to ship them back home. Nor can we endure the endless and brutal attacks we will face as a result of our "heartlessness" at separating families and the sob stories that would be played over and over on the MSM about the poor, helpless people we are sending back to tyranny, war and poverty. It's a PR nightmare and one conservatives cannot afford and would LOSE. Not to mention the international relations nightmare if/when other countries simply refuse to take back these people. What are we going to do? Push granny over the border? Fly the plane round and round Honduras while we tangle with the government that won't let granny's plane land? WE CAN'T AFFORD IT. Any conservative who thinks the government has a spending problem has to come to terms with this issue. An "enforce the law we have" philosophy is all very well, but enforce it HOW? With what government employees? Paid out of what funds? With what money? Please, fellow conservatives, get real about what can be done here. We can't afford to find and remove every illegal already here. We're trying to CUT our deficit, remember?

As for those who think just upping the fine on businesses will solve the problem, uh, no. Companies are required now to take copies of all paperwork (DL, Green Card, SSN card, etc) from every employee they hire, and are fined if they don't. Guess what? Most of those papers are FAKE. How is a small business going to tell the difference between a real SSN Card and a fake one? Most can't. And the way to verify authenticity of documents with the INS is a hundred times worse than dealing with the IRS. And who is going to find and police these evil employers? Again, we don't have the money to hire the manpower to do this.

Gingrich is right, sadly, and props to him for being the first and ONLY one to tell the brutal truth. A hard, but possible, path to citizenship is the only viable alternative going forward, BUT ONLY IF we secure the border, get rid of anchor babies and welfare, and find a way to help businesses genuinely and efficiently verify the legality of people's documents. That's the harsh reality, folks.

As for those who think these people will voluntarily go home, no, they won't. Why should they? Yes, getting rid of anchor babies will help for the FUTURE, but it won't magically send back all the people here now. Please, people, stop these pipe dreams. I have never seen normally rational conservatives more pig-headed about anything than about this issue.

DTOM| 11.29.11 @ 6:08PM

YOU DID NOT READ MY POST. How can you reasonably disagree? You can only unreasonably disagree, because you don't even know what I said.

idalily| 11.30.11 @ 12:01PM

I did read your post. I understand exactly what you said. I disagreed with you. We can't afford to take even one city, find and deport the illegals there. The money, the lawsuits, the jails...we can't afford it. Just doing this in a city like LA would be impossible, especially given the fact that the state and city government there would fight you tooth and nail. What are you going to do? Send in the national guard?

I also disagree with you that these people will self-deport. No, they won't, they will just keep moving to another place. Who's going to find them? Jail them, arrange for their deportation, pay for it? WE ARE BROKE. We can't afford it. Just purging LA would cost billions, and they'd just move to San Diego. Big whoop.

And you advocate jail time for employers who hire illegals, which I also say is also unworkable. Again, who is going to monitor and enforce this law? And how are you going to make sure that these employers hired these illegals "knowingly"? Can you imagine prosecuting every employer who did this in court? The cost is astronomical. Who's going to pay the legal fees and costs for this enforcement? The already overburdened taxpayer?

I agreed with you about anchor babies. I agreed with you about securing the border. I disagree with you that the illegals already here will go back where they came from. They won't. Many have NOTHING back where they came from but war and poverty. If you lived in LA, and the city was being swept for illegals, would you just pack up and go back to Somalia? Haiti? Cuba? Honduras? San Salvador? No, you wouldn't. No sane person would. They'd move to another city.

I read your post. I disagree with you. I think you are being unrealistic about what can be done regarding those already here. I also think NO politician would be able to implement what you are suggesting. It would be a legal nightmare, a PR nightmare, and we would lose. Please, accept reality. All we can do is go forward to keep more illegals from coming in; we can't do much about the ones already here. That's just the way it is. Any politician who tells you they can do what you want here is lying to you. Why do you think Bachmann hasn't laid out any specifics of how she intends to deport these people if she becomes POTUS? Because she knows she will be told just what I've told you, and she knows she can't refute it. Please, people, get real about deporting illegals. It won't happen.

DTOM| 11.30.11 @ 7:14PM

Over the last three years ICE has removed about 350,000 illegals per year. By radically stepping up enforcement in a single location you will inspire self-deportation. I understand that New York City did that in the face of a large IRish immigration wave a few years ago and in very short order, they had about a ten to one self - to ICE deportation factor. It does work. And your saying it won't based on nothing other than your "feelings."

Your repeated assertion based on your emotions that nothing can be done certainly has the feeling of a self-fulfilling prophesy. If nothing can be done, then that's what we'll do.

If nobody in your house is going to make breakfast, how do you eat?

No politician has had the courage to say they want to enforce the law because they have all consumed the political consultants' blather that you have to be nice to illegals or you'll lose the Hispanic vote. What poppycock. Legal immigrants resent those who snuck in and jumped ahead of the legals relatvies who are coming in legally.

Hope your house doesn't get broken into by illegals with no respect for the law. But then you'll only have yourself to blame.

Self-defeating dolt.

And 'that's just the way it is' is the lamest, most irrational justification for not even bothering to act in the face of a problem. What happens when you have to got to the bathroom? Just wait till somebody comes to change you? Good grief. Attitudes like yours are the biggest part of the problem.

idalily| 12.1.11 @ 2:31PM

First, what did I do to deserve to be insulted by you and called a dolt? You also imply that I'm incapable of going to the bathroom by myself because I disagree with you? Can't you simply agree to disagree without hurling personal insults?

Second, 350,000 illegals is NOTHING. Pfft. I'd like to see the cost per illegal that the taxpayers had to pay to get those people out. I'd also like to know how many of them came back first chance they had.

Third, this isn't about my "feelings." It's about the efficient use of my tax dollars by the government. You are the one employing "feelings" here, which is evident by your anger and your insulting tone.

It's not about being "nice" to illegals. It's about practicalities. We can close the border, so I agree with you there. We can change the law re: anchor babies, I agree with you there. Illegals who have no ties here MIGHT self-deport, but those who have ties here won't. Like I said, would YOU go back to Cuba? I wouldn't. I'd move to another American city.

You thing I'm the problem? Fine. I think YOU are the problem You are the reason the conservatives are engaged in a circular firing squad. Because you have no willingness to compromise. It's your way or no way with you, and that hard line is what is going to drive Obama right back into the White House.

And I've known how to cook breakfast since I was nine years old, thank you very much.

Jack in Wi| 11.28.11 @ 9:35AM

There is no name calling. We are just pointing out his record in politics. He is the worse guy running in both paries and that is saying a lot.

DTOM| 11.28.11 @ 10:18AM

Jack, Clint;

The problem with Ron Paul is two-fold.

Fold 1. He's not a doer, he's a whiner. Twenty years in Congress and all he has to show for it is a long string of complaints and no votes. (Oh, and maybe some earmarks, before they were unpopular.) No legislation, no leadership, just criticism and complaint.

Fold 2. Ron Paul believes that foreign enemies will go away if we're nice to them. Hitler did not, Mussolini did not, Hirohito did not, Stalin did not, Castro did not. Ahmadinejad will not, Kim Il Sung will not, Putin will not. No sane American believes what Ron Paul believes about foreign policy.

These are demonstrable facts. They are they twin yokes that will forever relegate Ron Paul to the non-electable category.

Sorry, but it is that simple. Time to face these facts and get real.

Con Chef (NB) | 11.28.11 @ 10:25AM

Cue the "Israel Firster/Necon" tag lines...

DTOM| 11.28.11 @ 10:33AM

Jack,

Before you all unload: I DO agree with you about Newt. And I hope you give some serious thought my two points. I know you to be a very engaged citizen with a long involvement with our polity. But look at my two points and really think on them. If I got it wrong show me. But if not, ya gotta do the right thing. Or at least stop doing the wrong thing.

E pluribus unum.

Clint| 11.28.11 @ 11:46AM

Dr.Ron Paul,
“Our military’s purpose is to defend our country, not to police the
Middle East.

“As the President prepares to send even more support to Egypt, we should
be reminded that it was our foreign aid that helped Mubarak retain power
to repress his people in the first place. Now we have to deal with the
consequences of those decisions, yet we keep repeating the same mistakes.

“I am not the only one who can see the absurdities of our foreign
policy. We give $3 billion to Israel and $12 billion to her enemies.
Most Americans know that makes no sense.

“We need to come to our senses, trade with our friends in the Middle
East (both Arab and Israeli), clean up our own economic mess so we set a
good example, and allow them to work out their own conflicts.”

Ronald Reagan,
"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

Clint| 11.28.11 @ 11:41AM

" Bills Sponsored by Dr. Ron Paul

H.R. 219: Social Security Preservation Act
H.R. 150: Senior Citizens Tax Elimination Act
H.R. 147: Prescription Drug Affordability Act
H.R. 151: Seniors' Health Care Freedom Act
H.R. 2044: Health Freedom Act
H.R. 1096: Sanctity of Life Act
H.R. 1102: Affordable Gas Price Act
H.R. 1139; Tax Free Tips Act (Many Senior Citizens work part time in the service industry)
H.R. 1146: American Sovereignty Restoration Act "

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

Drunken Sailor| 11.28.11 @ 12:58PM

Many of these are good idea's but why did he sponsor all of them except one just this year? And half of them couldn't even get co-sponsors.

H.R. 219: Social Security Preservation Act (2005)
H.R. 150: Senior Citizens Tax Elimination Act (Jan 2011)
H.R. 147: Prescription Drug Affordability Act(Jan 2011)
H.R. 151: Seniors' Health Care Freedom Act (Jan 2011)
H.R. 2044: Health Freedom Act (May 2011)
H.R. 1096: Sanctity of Life Act (June 2011)
H.R. 1102: Affordable Gas Price Act (March 2011)
H.R. 1139; Tax Free Tips Act (Many Senior Citizens work part time in the service industry) )March 2011)
H.R. 1146: American Sovereignty Restoration Act " (March 2011)

Clint| 11.28.11 @ 1:44PM

Look Them Up At Link:

http://www.thepoliticalguide.c.....d=47384468

You Can Ask The Democrats & The RINO-CINO Committee Members & Fellow Travelers , Why They Didn't Co-Sponsor Or Vote For Dr.Ron Paul's Bills.

DTOM| 11.28.11 @ 2:40PM

Only Drunken Sailors sweat details like that!

HeeHaw.

Drunken Sailor| 11.29.11 @ 9:15AM

Then maybe I should buy some more people a round of drinks. Cheers

DTOM| 11.29.11 @ 6:09PM

Nah! They should buy 'em for you...

john dubose| 11.29.11 @ 4:34PM

Ron Paul certainly has not made many deals as a congressman or elsewhere. That would make him seem like a bad candidate for president. But his reason.. a darn good one. He disagrees with so much that there is no way he could get into the backroom discussions. His deal making skills were never tested. Alas, they probably will not be as the Republican establishment does whatever it takes to keep him out of the white house. The only question is whether they throw a big enough bone to his supporters to stay with whatever neocon they pick.

BobbyONJ| 11.29.11 @ 4:51PM

John, are you from NJ?

WJ| 11.28.11 @ 10:46AM

I'll refute his point about the deporting 12 million people. It's another straw man argument from a pro amnesty open border politician.

Seal the border, enforce existing laws, pass E -Verify and we would have on a national scale, what Alabama and Arizon already know, illegals will leave.

Not shot down any attempts at controlling our illegal alien problem while in the House. He is a fat troll who talks too much and can't focus.

If I am Obama and I see Newt as the nominee, I think "How do I want to re-decorate the White House in my second term?"

mildred bean| 11.28.11 @ 8:31AM

We dont care about Newt's pretty words.

We care about his deeds. Look at what he accomplished.

On that score he has the character of a Clinton, and the effectiveness of a Carter.

chuck| 11.28.11 @ 8:57AM

Snatched control of House of Representative from Democrats, reformed welfare, balance the budget, just as a starter.
Personal baggage? A mountain of it. Don't care. I'm going to vote for whomever the GOP nominee is, because O gotta go!

DTOM| 11.28.11 @ 10:20AM

chuck,

Miss Millie may have a point 'bout the Clinton character issue. Newt does seem to spend a lotta time triangulatin' his ass off...

chuck| 11.28.11 @ 11:08AM

DTOM,

I agree, and at times Newt has REALLY pissed me off. This coming from a Georgian, who was once living in his Congressional district. Newt has a mountain of baggage, and has said some extraordinarily stupid things. But my point was, he has been successful as Speaker, balancing the budget and reforming welfare. This while having a President of the opposite party. I am hoping that with age, he has more discipline than he had before.
My first choice is Cain, been with him since the start, and will be there until the end. But Newt or Perry would be my back-up candidate. Bachmann would be okay, I just have some reservations. I could hold my nose to vote for Romney, but Huntsman, Santorum, and the nut-case Paul are out.
Of course I will vote for whomever the GOP nominee is.
O gotta GO!

DTOM| 11.28.11 @ 2:49PM

I'm with Herman, too.

Every day I pray that by election day I'll be able to hold my nose tight enough so that I can actually vote for the RINO-CINO I fear they're going to serve me up. I built up these muscles voting for Ford, Bush I, Bob Dole, Bush II, and Knucklehead McCain. Those muscles really atrophied in 1980 and 1984, though.

P.S. I revere and hold in highest esteem the military service of Senator McCain-it's just that he seems so ready to throw away what he fought so hard to protect. McCain is a complete anomaly to me.

And in no way do I intend any slight to the military service of Jerry Ford, GH Bush and Bob Dole in WWII, nor GW Bush's National Guard service. Thank you all, gentlemen.

richard ryan| 11.28.11 @ 11:32AM

I will take any Republican candidate. I prefer Newt or Cain, but I'll take Romney too. The BIGGEST threat to the nation is a democrat Senate or Presidency. We must take them both or we are finished.

LoachDriver| 11.29.11 @ 5:29PM

Richard,

Like you, I'll support any Republican nominated-- except in my case, Romney. For him I'll neither campaign nor vote.

Teaghan| 11.28.11 @ 8:32AM

With today's media hounds of hell, the internet and the democrats who want to destroy anyone that gets close to unseating their boy, there is no way any candidate will look squeaky clean. If they don't find something on you they will just make it up like they did with Cain. They destroyed any chances at all of him being the nominee. I mean, has anyone heard a word from those gals who accused him of harrassment? EVERYONE will come with "baggage". I agree with Mr. Ryan above. Lots of name calling and bombs being thrown at Newt here. Lots of venom with not a lot of substance. Who would you suggest? That could win.

KennesawJack| 11.28.11 @ 10:49AM

I'm not so sure Obamarx is going to be their boy this time around. I think even the media, not including MSNBC, understands the threat to our nation this fool has become. Maybe, just maybe, there will be a little less bias this go 'round.

bobbatree| 11.28.11 @ 8:43AM

When it mattered (in the 90's & debates), Newt mostly got it right. There's no perfect candidate but he will wipe the floor clean using BHO as the prime example of crony capitaism and Washington run amuck. What I "sense" is that he knows what is right for all (i.e. Contract with America) and he will get our financial house (and economy) in order by applying historically proven methods of rationality at a vexing array of problems that confront our nation. Personally, I think Perry gets it too and a Gingrich/Perry ticket would be a sure long term bet.

DTOM| 11.28.11 @ 9:33AM

His $1.2 million consulting fee from Fannie Mae will make his plaints about crony capitalism sound, maybe just a little, tinny and unbelievable.

It really aggravates me how this race is being played by the media as a "whack-a-mole!"

The real conservatives have take steady fire, each in their turn, until they have either fled or been swamped in the totally artificial, non-serious political polls paid for by MSM types. Now we are being fed Gingrich as the more 'electable' type. In two weeks he will be mangled beyond recognition and we will be left with Mitt Romneycare unscathed. His scathing will begin after he locks up the nomination and it won't end until next November. When its over, his wife won't vote for him - hell, HE won't vote for himself.

So screw this stupid, orchestrated parade of hopefuls, who march lockstep into the range of the statists guns.

Mr. Cain, please hang in there, please keep calling spades, spades, and please win this thing.

God bless these United States.

bobbatree| 11.28.11 @ 10:02AM

DTOM
Gingrich has some heavy baggage but he also has fortitude to withstand the media barrage with candor and I think comit(ed)y. I can't blame him for making a living consulting (I happen to be one). I like Mr. Cain and his ideas but his outside the beltway experience is not condusive for getting things done quickly and more importantly, forcefully.
What I have enjoyed about these debates is the sheer volume of well thought and principaled ideas on how to rectify our ship of state and all participants have been taking pointers from their participation.

DTOM| 11.28.11 @ 10:27AM

bobba;

It's the outside the beltway that we need right now! Is there anything going on in Washington that is not broken because of the unending history of kicking the can down the road? People with corporate experience have an understanding that actions have real, tangible, palpable effects on real, tangible, palpable people. The DC crowd lives in a wealth bubble that they have created for themselves with absolutely no notion that it could ever end. IT CAN. And more inside the Beltway can kicking will expedite that ugly, ugly end.

Some good ol' fashioned can kicking as practiced in the private sector is what IS needed now. In the corporate world, non-productive and expescially, counter-productive people's cans are what get kicked.

WE DON'T NEED MORE WASHINGTON WISDOM. WE NEED COMMON SENSE BASED ON LOGIC WORKING WITH TRUE FACTS.

Good intentions are the road to hell, and that's what is considered good thinking inside Washington, on BOTH sides of the aisle!

WE NEED AN OUTSIDER!

bobbatree| 11.28.11 @ 10:53AM

DTOM
I don't mind an outsider if they have proven "executive" experience (all the GOP candidates have this). My point is that an insider (Gingrich) knows where the bones (cronies) are buried and bring them to light. I would fully expect Gingrich to be a one-termer tutaleging Perry (or other) as the outsider to succeed him.

I guess my point is that we need someone with a proven track record of getting things done IN Washington to right this great ship of state and listen to/pass the mantle to a true outsider.

MAY GOD BLESS AMERICA! I pray that we do it right for this and future generations!

DTOM| 11.28.11 @ 2:51PM

bobba'

I respect your opinion, I just don't agree with you. Neither of us really knows.

I'm with you in the rest. GBA!

Susan| 11.28.11 @ 8:46AM

Great article, and correct. He is the guy I would want answering the phone. He has the experience and the leadership. I say, GINGRICH 2012.

DTOM| 11.28.11 @ 2:52PM

Susan;

Think about Newt answering the phone. How long would it take him to transfer your call to the person you actually want to talk to?

See what I am talking about?

OLDRAY| 11.28.11 @ 9:22AM

Gingrich is the man for the tough years ahead. The others have none of the guts and understanding of the dangerous world situations we all face. Another Winston? Could be.

bobbatree| 11.28.11 @ 9:32AM

I agree! Newt has a similar background of being a very experienced beltway veteran similar to Churchill (British parliament) and Dick Cheney. All of them, at least, were honest peddlers of their beliefs (right or wrong), not like BHO or Mittt.

Clint| 11.28.11 @ 9:43AM

In May, when Gingrich sharply criticized Paul Ryan​’s Medicare reform plan, FreedomWorks Chairman Dick Armey reminded National Review that Gingrich had been a serial offender:

Citing Gingrich’s support of Dede Scozzafava in the 2009 congressional election in New York’s 23rd district, his backing of Medicare Part D and TARP, and his commercial with Nancy Pelosi​ about climate change, Armey observes that “Newt entered the race with serious ground to make up with these 2 million Tea Party activists.”…

Brendan Steinhauser, director of Federal and State Campaigns for FreedomWorks, reports that the Tea Partiers he’s talked to are “irate” at Gingrich… “I never met a single Tea Party activist that supported Newt Gingrich for president,” he adds."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

bobbatree| 11.28.11 @ 11:08AM

Clint
I agree that Newt has committed some verbal diarrhea (as all the candiates have) but when he settles on a path (usually the right one), he beomes committed and follows it through, typically to the benefit of the nation. His past questionable positions are nuanced and I don't feel stongly held or well thought out. The direction he would take the country would be.

Clint| 11.28.11 @ 1:55PM

Newt Gingrich Settled On TARPSTERISM, Part D, Amnesty, Scozzafava, Global Warming, Etc.
Gigrich is an elitist RINO-CINO , who thinks he can take either side of an issue, as it suits his agenda and sell the voters his crap sandwiches.

Most of Us,Tea Party Patriots ain't those of his 'brain full of mush' college students , who buy them.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here & In Iowa.

Bob| 11.28.11 @ 9:30AM

Telephone call from Callista to Newt's Blackberry 3 AM 01/21/13 from the White House:
Callista: Where are you, the Joint Chiefs just called, war in the Middle East.
Newt: Relax, I'm across the street in the Blair House sleeping with my new gal, it's my patriotic duty to do so.

W| 11.28.11 @ 10:27PM

When any phone call comes for Obama he is on th golf links or playing basketball with Reggie Love. Who really is president? Biden? Reggie Love?

Con Chef (NB) | 11.28.11 @ 9:48AM

Newt's the only one with any balls when it comes to foreign policy. His knowledge of history backs his decisions & I admire that. You don't lecture at the National War College with a barely room temp IQ. He'll keep the nation safer than any of the other candidates & CERTAINLY more so than the current douchebag in the White House.

As for his infidelities, I ain't trying to marry the guy. I'm looking for the guy who can best un "eff" everything that MaoBama has "effed" up in his brief stint in the White House. The man in the White House is the enemy of the ideals of the American Republic. And you "sunshine patriots" who vote third party, should it come to that, will carry as much blame for the hastening of the destruction of our Republic as MaoBama will.

Bill| 11.28.11 @ 9:52AM

Newt is a flawed candidate and is another Mitt Romney, who has many questionable positions on global warming, immigration, entitlement; that will hurt him in the long run. Newt will have hard time reaching out to the GOP conservative voters, let alone the independents. Unlike Newt or Romney, Gov. Rick Perry is more electable and has a solid conservative record on fiscal and social issues and on entitlement.

Pete| 11.28.11 @ 9:53AM

The country is in such a mess that any conservative answering the proverbial the 3:00 AM phone call is going to disappoint many of his/her current supporters.

And don't kid yourselves, there are indeed many Tea Party people who support Newt. I'm one of them.

But I don't support Gingrich without reservation. And yes, I know his record. It's ust that that I see the GOP alternatives as being worse.

KennesawJack| 11.28.11 @ 11:03AM

Pete, I agree with you. Many of the Tea Party members will support Newt simply because he IS the grown-up in the room. Something else no one seems to bring up about Newt, and this involves purely political calculation; Newt is from Pennsylvania, not Georgia. Newt was born in Harrisburg and began life in Hummelstwon. After his mother and father were divorced (Newt was the product of a teen marriage that didn't last very long) his mother married his step-father, an Army officer, who later adopted Newt and gave him his name. To say Pennsylvania's electoral vote will be important in the next election is an understatement, at best. Obamarx didn't pick Joe Biden for his erudition and statesmanlike qualitites. He picked him because he, too, was from the Keystone state which had handed Hillary a stunning primary victory over him. Newt makes Pennsylavania a lock for the Republicans, not that it isn't already one, given the results from 2010. Is the man flawed? Yes, but who isn't? I believe him when he says at 68 he is not the man he was in the 80's and 90's. I also believe he, more than any of the other candidates, understands the existential threats, both externally and internally, that face the nation.

CrackerHound| 11.28.11 @ 3:11PM

Drudge is carrying an op-ed from the NYT saying that Obama will not be courting the "white working class vote". The article says that he will be seeking the academia, artist, teachers, and minority vote.

So in a nutshell, Independents, Republicans, and moderate Democrats will be voting for whoever runs against Obama.

I am now convinced more than ever that whoever runs against Obama will win in a landslide. That is why it is more important than ever to put the right person in that spot. My vote is with Gingrich...his "baggage" won't cost him the election and it is all already out there for all to see.

It's either Newt or Romney and I trust Newt to go full bore on turning the economy around and undoing Obamacare the most. Just as important will be dealing with foreign policies/threats. There again, I believe Newt is most equipped to deal with this.

I say all of this and have made this decision because I feel it is necessary to leave personal politics at the door. It has become so petty and inconsequential in these times and is mostly media manipulated opinions. Gingrich winning the CrakerHound endorsement doesn't mean he's my ideological soul mate....it just means he is close enough. I think many conservatives have fallen in to the trap of believing we can have the perfect candidate or that someone who doesn't score 100% on the litmus test is a RHINO (and I despise RHINO's).

Gingrich wil give the unions, OWS types, and tax & spend liberals hell. He is a states rights guy and a proponent of smaller government and I believe he can actually pull the right levers to get it done.

ENOUGH ROPE| 11.28.11 @ 9:56AM

If the Republican nominee is Gingrich or Romney, are any of you who object to either one going to vote for Obama?

Con Chef (NB) | 11.28.11 @ 10:05AM

The Paulites will, by casting a 3rd party vote, if he goes that way. I only got JackWI to admit it last week. Clint just robo-posts his insipid canned screeds.

Clint| 11.28.11 @ 10:19AM

RINO-CINO Gingrich Endorsed Liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava.

"More troubling, Scozzafava in past elections has embraced the ballot line of the Working Families Party — a socialist outfit whose political DNA is intertwined with scandal-ridden ACORN. ACORN and the WFP have shared office space in New York City, Arkansas and Illinois. ACORN head Bertha Lewis, a close Scozzafava friend and political supporter, wears a second hat as vice chairman of the WFP. The WFP has been listed in ACORN documents dating back to 2000 as an “affiliate.”

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

Con Chef (NB) | 11.28.11 @ 10:26AM

Thanks for making my point, for me, Clint.

Clint| 11.28.11 @ 10:29AM

Gingrich Is a TARPSTER.

We Are Being Set Up By RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges.

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.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

Con Chef (NB) | 11.28.11 @ 10:47AM

And you STILL keep making my point for me. Has an original thought come through your fingers & onto the keyboard in the last 3 months, or do you just keep recycling this same canned bullshit?

WJ| 11.28.11 @ 10:51AM

Canned bs or not, he happens to be right about a lot of things about Newt. The man is a political turd in a punch bowl and we are hosed if he gets the nomination.

Con Chef (NB) | 11.28.11 @ 11:04AM

Who would be worse, WJ? Newt or Mitt? And would either of them be better than the current douchebag who's "Occupying" the White House?

I know this: As big a turd in the punch bowl as Newt is (I love that phrase, BTW), he's NOT as big a turd as the neo lib/neo Chamberlain & perpetual candidate for President, Ron Paul.

Clint| 11.28.11 @ 11:53AM

Ronald Reagan,
"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."

Dr.Ron Paul,
I Will Ask Congress For A Declaration Of War Against Iran, If Necessary.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

Con Chef (NB) | 11.28.11 @ 1:29PM

Funny how you post this cherry picked robo bullshit that took place before Paul did a Benedict Arnold on Reagan & turned his back on him.

But why bother with facts, right?

Mal_Content| 11.28.11 @ 1:53PM

Paul supported Reagan until Reagan stabbed fiscal conservatives in the back...yet I hear no mention from you of Reagan's lust for Big Government.

Reagan ran on limiting the size and scope of government and cutting spending...which is why Paul supported him.

Once elected, Reagan did the exact opposite of what he promised by increasing spending and the size of government bureaucracy.

It's not rocket science...Paul supports those that wish to cut spending, and is against those who wish to increase the size of government.

DTOM| 11.28.11 @ 3:01PM

Oh, Mal:

If you take a quick look at the Constitution, you'll find that the House of Representatives writes a budget and then the Senate passes it and the President signs it. RWR had a Democratic House and Democratic Senate to contend with. Furthermore the Democrats lied in their budget negotiations with Reagan, promising spending cuts that never happened.

Ron Paul is against our protecting our interests overseas. The logical conclusion of attempting to protect your interests at your border means that you fight all attacks on your own land.

Let me see now, would it have been better to let Hitler and Hirohito defeat the rest of the world and then attack us on two coasts simultaneously when nobody else was free to help us? Hmm. I bet the Empire State Building and the big Hollywood sign would both have been bombed in that battle. Oh and by then, the Nazi's would have had nukes and long range missiles. That would have been a much smarter way to fight WW II, wouldn't it.

You cannot really claim ignorance as your excuse, because 'so much of what you know is wrong.' So you really want to be a Democrat?

Mal_Content| 11.28.11 @ 4:51PM

I want to cut it all DTOM. Deep cuts. No exceptions.

Why dont you explain to the class why Defense spending should be a sacred cow, and how protecting the (anti-free market) no-bid contracts and subsidies that the DOD and Pentagon give out makes you a better conservative than I (who wants to cut everything across the board).

The Bruce| 11.28.11 @ 11:25PM

Um, Mal? By the time Reagan left office in 1989, the federal workforce had been reduced to 85% of its original size in 1981. I'd call that a damn good record, given that he was working against a Democrat controlled House and Senate.

MikeG| 11.28.11 @ 8:27PM

Clint,
You can stop a lot of these nonsensical back and forth garbage. Just state that you will vote for the Republican candidate against Obama.

Mal_Content| 11.28.11 @ 10:00AM

5 Myths about Newt Gingrich

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....story.html

Drunken Sailor| 11.28.11 @ 10:45AM

Interesting article but I noticed it is a bit one sided. All the so called "Myths" debunked against Newt. What about the negative myths that have also been debunked that make Newt look better?

Mal_Content| 11.28.11 @ 10:50AM

Such as....

Drunken Sailor| 11.28.11 @ 1:45PM

For starters how about the whole "asking his wife for a divorce while she was on her deathbed".

If I am going to be swayed by a article proclaiming to debunk myths it should list myths both for and against a canidate to be viewed impartial. Otherwise it's simply another hatchet job.

Mal_Content| 11.28.11 @ 1:58PM

I've never seen a credible news-outlet run that story, but I could be wrong.

I always thought that was just a rumor.

Mike Hawk| 11.28.11 @ 2:27PM

For starters, Jackie, the first wife, is still alive. They married very young and a contentous split was in the works. Probably more congenial that the one my Ex gave us. If we dissed all the pols with multiple marriages, I'd suggest dumping gold digger Gigolo John Kerry aka Lurch on the first round.

Drunken Sailor| 11.28.11 @ 2:39PM

My point exactly Mike. Guess I must be scum too since my first wife arranged for me to come home from deployment to a empty house. I don't hold a failed marriage against anyone. Takes two to tango.

Mike Hawk| 11.28.11 @ 8:28PM

It may take two to Tango, but not when one doesn't want to dance. Then too it's like she poked holes in the ship and while I was trying to stop the leaks, she jumped ship. NO, a failed marriage isn't something to hang around someone's neck. You have to know why. Some people should never get married. Then there are the Clintons. Married in a sense, but never see each other or are seen together. She can't throw any more lamps at him that way.

Mike Hawk| 11.28.11 @ 8:30PM

I forgot. You want to know what scum I am?? Ask my Ex.

Bill| 11.28.11 @ 10:09AM

Newt, Mitt, or Romney will never be able to close the deal. In a head to head match up with Obama, they only get 45% vote, while Gov Rick Perry, considering a huge turnout in Texas and his popularity as a conservative governor for 10 years, Gov Perry will easily defeat Obama in a landslide, carrying every states that the GOP won in the 2010 midterm.

Narf| 11.28.11 @ 1:06PM

In a head to head match up with Obama, they only get 45% vote

Huh? In head to head matchups Romney polls within the margin of error against Obama, essentially a tie at this point. Gingrich is a few points behind that now, and rising.

Perry is ten points behind Obama. Cain and Santorum are about the same. Even Huntsman and Paul do better than that. Only Bachmann is further behind than Perry.

I don't know what you think a "huge turnout in Texas" has to do with winning the national election. Are you thinking the other candidates would lose Texas??

Here's how you make the case for Perry: if the GOP nominates a liberal candidate like Romney or Huntsman or Paul there will very likely be a conservative Tea Party challenger, and if there is then it's no longer a two-way race and Obama almost certainly wins.

traveler| 11.28.11 @ 10:17AM

Gingrich, Romney or Obumma? None of the above. I'd sooner vote for Daffy Duck! Gingrich had me untill he surrendered to the invaders. The invaders that are unarmed (at first visual). What the FbidenK would he do if they were armed military invaders? Go to France.

idalily| 11.28.11 @ 4:32PM

People like you are the ones who REALLY piss me off. Obama is ONE and only ONE Supreme Court Justice away from destroying our entire Republic, and you are pissing away your vote like a two year old who didn't get the Christmas present he wanted. GROW UP.

David T| 11.28.11 @ 10:20AM

You nailed it, Mr. Babbin. Newt is the grownup in the room, politically and professionally. He's also weathered the personal storms and come out stronger and wiser. He's the best one to lead us out of this existential crisis.

The Bishop| 11.28.11 @ 10:22AM

Without question, he is the best debater in the field. However, when Bill Clinton speaks in a complimentary manner (besides all the baggage noted above), the red flags are flying all over the place. I deeply regret that Michele Bachmann has lost traction. I think she's brilliant and a true constitutional conservative. I will vote for a shoebox before I would vote for Obama, but I fear that the Repubs can offer only a slight improvement. We've slid too far too fast to significantly disrupt the bad momentum.

Bill| 11.28.11 @ 10:36AM

Newt Gingrich has to wait until 2020 because Gov Rick Perry Will win the GOP nomination and defeat Obama in a landslide.

WJ| 11.28.11 @ 10:48AM

Sarcasm I assume?

Con Chef (NB) | 11.28.11 @ 10:48AM

Not downing Perry, but I'm not so sure about that one, Brother.

Alleena| 11.29.11 @ 1:56AM

I've lived in Texas for almost thirty years, and the entire time that Rick Perry has been governor. I think he's done a good job. I'm happy living in Texas, but I don't want to live in Massachusetts. The debates are a bore. It's a candidate's record and positions that matter.

ChasVoice | 11.28.11 @ 10:52AM

The Real Newt Gingrich
http://chasvoice.blogspot.com/.....art-1.html

The Irrelevance of the Republican Party
http://chasvoice.blogspot.com/.....party.html

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.28.11 @ 10:58AM

Ah yes…
That 3 AM phone-call.
Bottom line, there are only two Republicans on these debate stages I would feel comfortable about responding well to that phone-call. Newt is one of course. If you don’t think he has already thought it all through and pretty much understands the issues and the dangers, read “One Second After”.

It is future-fiction of course, similar to my own novel ;
www.americaalonesaidno.com

What genuinely frightens me is that the “3 AM phone-call” will be, (or has already), been placed before February 2013 with an inauguration of a responsible Commander In Chief.

Our enemies KNOW that Obama is a ditherer… if not a fellow traveler. He loves the Muslim call to prayer, as he has stated in public.

So, the only other candidate standing up there in these debates I KNOW is able and willing to make the really tough life and death decisions…based on track record and background…is Governor Perry.
Of them all, only Governor Perry has flown troops into combat…and out again…. (Big brass ones).

Some of those missions were so hairy, he cannot even speak of them…certainly not disclose them.

Not only that…Governor Perry has already been Commander in Chief… of the Texas Rangers…for TEN YEARS! He understands what it means to send men in harm’s way.
If elected, there is no question in my mind who Governor Perry would recruit first; John Bolton for Secretary of State. Soon after that call, there is no doubt in my mind that he would call Newt to be a key advisor.
Last thought; to every idiot question in these debates, I wish Governor Perry would begin by simply saying: “Been there, done that, got the holes in my T-shirt.”

Margie| 11.29.11 @ 1:33AM

Liars will get to count their blessing in Hell where they will be going... unless they repent.

Where's that "evidence" you claimed to have in the form of e mails, Ken~ to the effect that I, according to you, wanted to cheat on my husband?

Do you really believe you will be able to get away with this false charge?

Do you not believe the Scriptures when God says that He will throw you into Hell for bearing false witness against me?

How can you say you count your blessings when you have sought to destroy me here publicly?

"He who speaks the truth gives honest evidence, but a false witness utters deceit." Prov. 12:17.

Bill| 11.28.11 @ 10:59AM

Newt is as controversial as Mitt, Cain, and so we have to pray fro Gov Rick Perry, otherwise Obama will be the President for another 4 years.

Con Chef (NB) | 11.28.11 @ 11:10AM

Still haven't picked a horse to back yet. And I won't for a while. The actual primaries are still a little while away. One day at this level of politics is equal to 2 weeks otherwise. Its like dog years. In the primary, I'm an anyone but Mitt & Paul voter. But when it comes to the general election, I'm an anyone but Obama voter. Even if I have to take a Prilosec & pull the lever for Mittens or for the inspiration for the most Jew haters since David Duke (being Jewish, this would irk the shit out of me), Ron Paul, should he get the nomination.

Those who would take their ball & go home by voting 3rd party, or staying home, are casting de facto votes for the enemy in the White House we currently have.

Gazinya | 11.28.11 @ 11:06AM

Newt is one of eight cadidates. Just one. Rather than just slam him on 'his sins' I am trying to figure out what he brings to the recovery of this nation. Bachmann was shutdown almost immediately after taking the top spot. Remember Foxs' M.Wallace asking her if 'she is a flake'. Then Cain popped up and he was marginalized. Huntsman is given TV exposure but not much else. Ron Paul is supposed to be the 'tin hat' and there is no reason to even look at Gary Johnson. Perry and Romney had some fun but nothing to inform me came from it.

Newt is just one of eight whom we really know nothing about except what the media, RINO RNC and the Dems want us to know. Pay attention and do some homework is what I'm attempting to do.

Clint| 11.28.11 @ 12:13PM

"I strongly support Ron Paul. We very badly need to have more Representatives who understand in a principled way the importance of property rights and religious freedom."
- Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize Economist

os| 11.28.11 @ 1:47PM

Know nothing about? Really? Really? Were you around in the '90's?

idalily| 11.28.11 @ 4:35PM

There's a lot of info out there on Gingrich. Everything, his plans, his history, even his baggage, are an open book. That's a good thing, IMO. Better the devil you know.

Bill| 11.28.11 @ 11:14AM

Newt is just another Herman Cain, flip flop and scandal. Mitt will never win because of Romneycare. Then, we have to settle with Gov Perry, who can turn Obama into ashes.

Bill| 11.28.11 @ 11:31AM

NEWT=ROMNEY=CAIN=RINO.

PERRY=BACHMANN=SANTORUM=CONSERVATIVE

idalily| 11.28.11 @ 4:36PM

Bull. The terms RINO and moderate are not interchangeable, despite what is sometimes said on Am Spec's comments board.

Louis Jenkins| 11.28.11 @ 11:47AM

"As Obama's third year in office ends, we know him and his aberrant worldview."

Dear Mr. Babbin:

Most of us knew Obama before he was elected. What's got us worried is Obama's second term. Anyone but Obama. A second term of scare-meat will do the USA in. I'll hold my nose like I did in the last election and pull the lever. I have no love lost for Newt, but I'll vote for him if I have to. Go ahead and brag on the boy, but does anyone know what their first action will be when 3 am call comes?

Who Knows?| 11.28.11 @ 11:53AM

“I want to know, have you ever kissed the rain----“

Seriously, meine freunde, and especially you, Jed Babbin, who I’ve followed and considered to be quite in synch with my own take on worldly affairs---

Isn’t it way past time to learn the Newt lesson?

I write as an old farmer who relished Gingrich’s backbencher attacks on the entrenched Jim Wright nomenklatura, and rejoiced when he became Speaker of the House. But, even I was a slow learner, as it’s taken YEARS for me to observe and process the IRREFUTABLE actions the Newtster wrought---most of which illustrate the Peter’s Principle: one rises to one’s level of incompetence.

As time passes, the GOP primary process will necessarily fulfill another basic form—nature abhors a vacuum. The other contenders will surely fight to remind voters of all the bad history, bad character and bad results that Newt carries as baggage, since he rose to become Speaker.

Never underestimate the hubris of national political contenders, or their utter disdain and contempt for the average voter!

America always seems to offer people who exhibit the WOW! factor, whether attractive or repulsive.

Each generation gets to experience both types---in WWII, I’m thinking of the pinup “girls”. In my generation, it was Raquel Welch, who every hot male desired.

Well, in the political sphere, dear EX-leader Newt is currently providing us our own WOW! example.

He should join an ashram, and meditate! And, stop bothering us.

idalily| 11.28.11 @ 4:38PM

Do you have specific Gingrich sins to list? Or is hyperbole all you can give us?

Who Knows?| 11.28.11 @ 6:40PM

As I've mentioned before, please go to Right Turn, Jennifer Rubin's blog at the Washington Post.

I'm too lazy AND I have too many other things to do to spend my time listing his "sins".

If you really don't know any of Newt's "sins", either you're a newbie and/or you haven't been paying attention---or, maybe, you've forgotten all the troubles that came in Gingrich's wake.

IMHO, Jennifer Rubin is ALMOST as essential as Mark Steyn. Her forte is that she writes a lot every day but Saturday, as she acts like a widely read and observing critic of all things political, whereas Steyn doesn't put out as much of his admittedly great stuff as often.

Just you wait, though---Gingrich is TOAST!

As I already put it---passing time and awake competitors will surely provide the education about Newt that so many people need!

idalily| 11.29.11 @ 9:57AM

So the answer to my question is no. Thanks for playing. I didn't ask it as a snark, by the way. I asked because you went on an anti-Gingrich rant with NO specifics as to what YOUR problems with the man are. You refused to answer my question and pointed me to the views of third parties. So hyperbole, generalities and other people's opinions are all you have.

For the record, I already know pretty much everything there is to know about Gingrich, good and bad. I was there in the 90's. I'm no "newbie" and I have been paying attention since I was old enough to vote (decades ago). I have forgotten nothing. Please don't use the liberal tactic of attacking the intelligence or awareness of those who disagree with you, or (God forbid) Jennifer Rubin. I think at this point Gingrich as the best chance of defeating Obama. IMO, he is the only candidate running who has a proven record of fighting liberal policies and forcing change from the other side. He can manipulate Congress to cooperate with his ideas. He has ideas. I like the plan he outlined on his website. I like how he tells the truth as he sees it, even knowing some conservatives like you will be pissed off. I believe he is older and wiser than he was, and that his wilder days are behind him. I also find it hard to believe that a man surging to the front of the polls is "toast" just because you say so. So again, why do YOU dislike him? What specific concerns do you have? Of the candidates running, which do you think has a BETTER chance of defeating Obama and why.

Lastly, you're right about one thing. You ARE lazy. You're on a debating forum, yet you refuse to debate. You simply hurl insults when challenged. That's lazy. If you don't want to give your opinions and convince others of the rightness of your views, why are you here at all?

Who Knows?| 11.29.11 @ 11:26AM

You spent precious time spewing your hate to an anonymous blogger.

Is that your life's essence?

By the way---I don't consider this site a debating society. And even if it is sort of one, it is up to the readers of any entry to deal with whatever is written.

I;m not interested in changing minds--if you don't like or agree with me, so be it.

You'll come around, eventually---just kidding!

Who Knows?| 11.29.11 @ 11:27AM

You spent precious time spewing your hate to an anonymous blogger.

Is that your life's essence?

By the way---I don't consider this site a debating society. And even if it is sort of one, it is up to the readers of any entry to deal with whatever is written.

I;m not interested in changing minds--if you don't like or agree with me, so be it.

You'll come around, eventually---just kidding!

idalily| 11.30.11 @ 12:09PM

Look, I'm not your enemy. I didn't spew any hate. I simply disagreed with you and asked for specifics as to your point of view. You spewed hate by accusing me of ignorance and naivete simply because I disagreed with your viewpoint. If you don't view this site as a debating forum, fine. Don't debate. But conservatives have got to discuss their various points of view in a rational fashion and be able to articulate them to others. This is a battle of hearts and minds for the sake of our nation. Spewing hate for Gingrich without offering concrete thoughts on alternatives accomplishes nothing and informs no one and makes you part of the problem, not part of the solution.

RJ| 11.28.11 @ 12:35PM

The reason that Hillary's "3 AM Phone Call" ad didn't work is that she was no more qualified than Obama to take the call. Her record as Secretary of State has reconfirmed that she is not up to the job.

Naturalborn Texicanette| 11.28.11 @ 12:36PM

I am backing Rick Perry. He is the most well rounded, experienced, knowledgeable candidate in this race....

He truly HAS " been there, done that, got the holes in his t-shirt!!!!"

He has dealt with the horrific problems that only people who live on the border understand. He has served his country and knows the military, and will continue to maintain the best armed forces in the world. He has brought business into the state of Texas at a phenominal rate, and can do the same for thethis country. The list goes on and on....

Ken and Bill thank you for giving me hope that others will do some homework on Perry and NOT allow the media to tell them what to think and how to decide about this pivitol election.

We are hanging in the gap and MUST elect a president who can do what is best for the continued safety, growth, and prosperity of the United States of America!!!!

Bill| 11.28.11 @ 12:44PM

Newt reminds me John McCain, Mitt has become Bob Dole (may win the GOP node but never the presidency), Herman Cain needs to talk to Bill Clinton (they both have so much commonality), Michelle Bachmann is Sarah Palin (i'm sorry formthe poll numbers), Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum have no chance. So, it's time for Gov Rick Perry, a Regan like rock solid conservative, the most electable and articulate among the GOP race, who will win the WH in a landslide.

idalily| 11.28.11 @ 4:39PM

If Perry is the nominee, I will vote for him. But Perry is no Reagan. Sorry. Reagan knew how to debate.

WJ| 11.28.11 @ 5:47PM

Why is Perry being discussed? Stick a fork in him. He is done.

The Bruce| 11.28.11 @ 10:44PM

Interesting, as the same thing was said about Newt last summer.

Bill| 11.28.11 @ 12:56PM

Naturalborn Texicanette, we need more people like you we will never desert their fellow conservatives and support a rock solid conservative like Rick Perry, despite of media bashing and liberal propaganda. Rick Perry is another Reagan, and can defeat Obama in a landslide.

PJ| 11.28.11 @ 2:28PM

Rick Perry is not another Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan knew how to express his ideas clearly under almost any circumstances. In this day & age & esp what's happening around the world, we need someone who has a command of the English language.

--------- & definitely not someone who's addicted to the teleprompter.

somnolence| 11.28.11 @ 1:07PM

If Gingrich is any kind of MAN at all (never mind Conservative, which he most certainly isn't), he will verbally condemn the latest proposal by McLame and Grahmnesty today to let the military arrest citizens merely for suspicion in their own backyards. IF Gingrich is a MAN he will voluntarily do this today in front of the cameras and call McCain a bleeping idiot.

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.28.11 @ 1:22PM

Bill, Texicanette,

Mr. Perry detests "debating" fellow Republicans. It shows doesn't it?

He has set his sights on Obama from day one, but never gets a question in that regard. He maybe needs to take a page from Newt...i.e. shame the so-called moderators and step over their questions to reality.

Narf| 11.28.11 @ 1:43PM

Remind me, how many times did he debate his Democratic opponents in Texas over the last ten years?

He doesn't just detest debating his fellow Republicans, he detests debating period, and for obvious reasons.

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.28.11 @ 1:58PM

Narf,
Perry never needed to "debate" here in Texas. His actions...rather than words...won the smart vote.
.....over and over again.

Narf| 11.28.11 @ 2:14PM

Funniest comment of the day.

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.28.11 @ 5:20PM

Hey, Narf,
Texas is doing just fine... how is your piddly ass State smart guys doing?

somnolence| 11.28.11 @ 1:25PM

In other words, in response to the anyone but Obama poster above, this latest action sanctioned by pillars of the GOP is all too much of a reminder that it will not make a damned bit of difference-------the military industrial complex that Ike warned us about is now reality. If this legislation comes to pass along with the looming spectre of National Health Care compliance I'd like to think some of us here would gladly die fighting instead of submission, but my faith remains shaky, since I'm seeing too much relaxing by those content with the offering of a small sugar tit.

somnolence| 11.28.11 @ 1:33PM

The Bishop is right on target: "we've slid too far too fast to significantly disrupt the bad momentum".

idalily| 11.28.11 @ 4:44PM

I do not believe this. I completely and totally reject this defeatist crap. I'm sick of it. When the Founding Fathers gave us this Republic, they assumed we would be informed, hard working, voting, caring, proactive citizens, not whiny children sobbing, "It's too late. It's too hard."

Bill| 11.28.11 @ 2:00PM

Rick Perry is not the best debater but he is the solid conservative among the GOP contenders.

WJ| 11.28.11 @ 5:45PM

Al Gore's campaign manager in 1988 and he believes that if you resist an invasion from the third world then you have no heart.

Some conservative.

Bill| 11.28.11 @ 2:18PM

No to Newt

Maybe for Mitt

Cannot for Cain

Seldom for Santorum

Money-honey for Michelle Bachmann

Jealousy for Jon Huntsman

Presidency for Perry!!!!!!!!!

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.28.11 @ 2:31PM

Narf,
here is the President I want.... no adultry...no scandals...no bullshit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDV8IjHDBXM

Bill and Texicanette, please put this simple speech in your favorites and keep posting it here and everywhere you visit.

somnolence| 11.28.11 @ 2:34PM

I started out supporting Bachmann, then went to the Cain camp. The media has successfully diminished these two candidates. So, who do I go to in the final protest, keeping in mind that I am as PRO-ISRAEL as can be. Why, Ron Paul, of course. To say that I am becoming fed up with the crap that Ike warned us vehemently about a half century ago would be an understatement. I'm about ready to say "Tear down the F---ing walls!

bull-gator| 11.28.11 @ 2:39PM

Rick Perry is the only one of the eight with the cajones to act and fight like a true American.

Nelson H.| 11.28.11 @ 3:00PM

In the primary, vote your conscience and don't settle. In the general election be an adult, don't vote out of spite, and pick the lesser of two evils because very, very rarely will your primary choice be the nominee. Only Reagan made it all the way through in my lifetime.

BackToBasics| 11.28.11 @ 3:25PM

Gingrich is only above Huntsman and Romney and Paul for me in the primaries. But Conservatives and Republicans should remember that Republicans will probably control both the Senate and the House. I know they will not give conservatives everything they want but we still need a Republican president, even if its Gingrich, to sign the bills they pass into law. It's far, far better than the alternative of having a Democrat president.

Bill| 11.28.11 @ 3:33PM

Help Rick Perry get the GOP nomination, and he will do the rest, defeating Obama in a landslide, and governing America on conservative principals, and restoring America's pride and glory. who can do better than Gov Rick Perry ? Rick perry is invincible.

Bill| 11.28.11 @ 3:39PM

Fact Check:

Newt: supported the individual mandate, TARP, global warming initiatives, amnesty

Mitt: helped passed Romney care, and supported abortion, gay marriage, auto bailout, gun-control, and .................

Cain: supported TARP, abortion, gay marriage, gun control, and ..................

Rick Perry: OPPOSED Obama care, TARP, abortion, gay marriage, auto bailout, gun-control, global warming, cap and trade.................

Bill| 11.28.11 @ 3:40PM

and the winner of the GOP Primary:

RICK PERRY

OHHHHHHHHHHHHH........................

OLS| 11.28.11 @ 4:11PM

Dude we get it, Perry is your guy.

Chef Schnauzer| 11.28.11 @ 3:52PM

Nowhere did you address the man's lack of character and active distain of attempting to live a life of virtue. The current american political methodology of choosing the least odious is why we are where we are. Newt maybe be 'all-growd-up' but he is not an ethical or emotional adult. Period.

Bill| 11.28.11 @ 4:05PM

Newt, Mitt, Cain, any of these three will hand in a victory to Obama, but Rick Perry as the GOP nominee, Obama is doomed.

Narf| 11.28.11 @ 4:13PM

When did all the Perry supporters start to sound like Paulbots?

Suggestions for future posts:

"It's Perry or perish"

"Uh oh! Looks Like Newt Boy Put His Foot In It!"

"Ice Cream"

Bill| 11.28.11 @ 4:24PM

You like Obama, don't you?

Narf| 11.28.11 @ 4:53PM

Obviously everyone who laughs at you likes Obama. What other explanation could there be?

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.28.11 @ 5:31PM

Hey, Narf
I do support Governor Perry. He is a pretty good man.
In the primary here I will vote for him. In the general...anybody but Obama.
Who do you respect the most?

Bill| 11.28.11 @ 4:17PM

Breaking News!!!!!!

Reporter: Did you support TARP, cap and trade ?

Newt: I'm running against Obama, and Cain is my VP

Reporter: Did you leave your wife sick on the bed?

Newt: NO.......................

Reporter: Do you listen to Lady Gaga?

Newt: Is it close to Cancun ?

Con Chef (NB) | 11.28.11 @ 4:45PM

Who's Lord Gaga?

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.28.11 @ 5:17PM

The Indians of North America were a different kettle of fish than the vast majority of Indians in the "empires" of the Aztecs and their southern brothers. (duh ...senior moment).

Most of the Indians in Mexico and south were ALREADY enslaved when the Spanish got here.
Conversely,
the tribes of North America were free-ranging hunter gatherers as a whole, with a few free-farmer communities mixed in.

A couple of hundred years stealing Spanish horses brought on the "flowering" of the north American Indian culture of mounted barbarism people point to as the "knoble red men" of legend.

Before horses...North American Indians were few and short lived primitive type stone age dead-enders.

WJ| 11.28.11 @ 5:44PM

Babbin is a total neocon clown. Listening to him on Jerry Doyle he can't even get names straight. He was calling Romney, Newt Romney.

Babbin is the same guy who thought George W. was a genius or at least he was someone that could be manipulated easily.

Newt is a fat troll. He will go nowhere.

Reagan Loyalist| 11.28.11 @ 6:04PM

A.S. - PLEASE give us the ability to block certain posters. I am tired of having to sift through the same one note spammers. Please, allow those of us who enjoy a discussion of the topic of the article, not another RP screed. PLEASE!

RCV| 11.28.11 @ 6:30PM

It will be interesting to see what effect the fallout from today's story on Herman Cain's 13 year affair with a Georgia woman will be. The statement issued by Cain's attorney simply says he will not discuss this claim of a "private, consensual affair" no matter what the political fallout.

It looks like Cain's support will likely quickly evaporate. The issue is whether these defecting social conservatives will now coalesce around the Gingrich candidacy, or whether the other conservatives -- Perry/Bachmann/Santorum -- will fight for those former Cain supporters. If this internal conservative self-destruction persists, Romney's chances look quite good.

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.28.11 @ 7:20PM

RCV,
I do hope you will view Governor Perry's speech.

Very low key...no hyper-punched rhetoric.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDV8IjHDBXM

RCV| 11.29.11 @ 12:02AM

I'm not discounting the possibility of a resurgence of Perry if Gingrich falters and/or Cain social conservatives flock back to him. It's still a longshot though.

florin| 11.29.11 @ 5:21PM

Well, RCV, I think it makes more sense to think that Mr. Cain's supporters would go to Perry rather than Gingrich. If they're upset at Mr. Cain's ALLEGED adultery, why would they flock to Mr. Gingrich who is known for his adultery?

Sunnyr| 11.29.11 @ 5:36PM

I am sticking with Rick Perry through the Primary Election and, hopefully, on to the White House. He is the only candidate with 11 years Executive experience at border security, job creation, balancing budgets, tort reform, crisis management (Katrina refugee's) etc. and he has vowed to have the entire border SEALED during is first 12 months in office. I don't want a dang Debater, I want a REAL LEADER who will do what he says! We have already had one "Professor" who gives a good speech. Now we need a LEADER to clean up his mess!

Rick Perry - 2012!

Drunken Sailor| 11.29.11 @ 9:19AM

Unfortunately I don't find much fault with your logic, except mayber where the Cain voters will go next. I had high hopes for Cain but I just don't see him making it anymore.

florin| 11.29.11 @ 5:23PM

Why do people think that Mr. Cain's followers would go to Gingrich...if they are bailing out on Mr. Cain because of ALLEGED adultery why would they go to Gingrich who had FACTUAL adultery against his multiple wives...?

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.28.11 @ 6:38PM

Hey Loyalist,
use your scroll button and quit whining. I for one appreciate the open forum here.

somnolence| 11.28.11 @ 6:40PM

I'm a Cain supporter. I may very well take my vengeance out by just not voting next year. Why? I'm tired of the public gullibility in buying media coverage of unverified, unproven allegations. So to hell with the process. Really, how many on here believe Gingrich can beat Obama? I don't for one second, and Clinton's endorsement speaks volumes. 'Nuff said.

RCV| 11.28.11 @ 6:51PM

I didn't believe the earlier allegations at all. This woman has come forward with fairly detailed allegations, including staying together with Cain at the Ritz Carlton and other hotels. They ought to be easy to refute if untrue. But the statement issued today by Cain's atorney is quite Clintonesque:

"Mr. Cain has been informed today that your television station plans to broadcast a story this evening in which a female will make an accusation that she engaged in a 13-year-long physical relationship with Mr. Cain. This is not an accusation of harassment in the workplace -- this is not an accusation of an assault -- which are subject matters of legitimate inquiry to a political candidate.

"Rather, this appears to be an accusation of private, alleged consensual conduct between adults -- a subject matter which is not a proper subject of inquiry by the media or the public. No individual, whether a private citizen, a candidate for public office or a public official, should be questioned about his or her private sexual life. The public's right to know and the media's right to report has boundaries and most certainly those boundaries end outside of one's bedroom door.

"Mr. Cain has alerted his wife to this new accusation and discussed it with her. He has no obligation to discuss these types of accusations publicly with the media and he will not do so even if his principled position is viewed unfavorably by members of the media."

If this is in fact the line Cain holds to, he's toast.

W| 11.28.11 @ 8:33PM

This reads like an admission. Cain's support comes primarily from the evangelical Christians so an admission of adultery will hurt Cain. Many of Clinton's supporters did not care about the adultery with Jennifer Flowers and others, but conservative evangelicals do care.

Narf| 11.28.11 @ 9:14PM

I hate to defend Cain, but Cain has absolutely denied that he had an affair with that woman. The lawyer's statement sounds bad but it's not what Cain himself is saying. Plus, she's got some credibility issues, and the only actual evidence so far only shows that he called her cell phone fairly often. This might be Cain's undoing but there's no proof at this point.

I say I hate to defend Cain because I think he's one of the worst candidates up there. Ignoring the scandal allegations completely, he's still a very poor campaigner, his advisors and spokesmen gaffe more often than he does which speaks poorly of Cain's ability to surround himself with good people, and his 999 plan also calls into question his ability to find make good policy decisions based on advice from experts. That's especially important from a candidate who is disturbingly unfamiliar with important issues but says that should be overlooked because he'll surround himself with good advisors -- if he can't do that now, what makes anyone think he could start doing it after the election?

As tempting as it is to invoke the "where there's smoke there's fire" axiom, nothing's been proven. There are plenty of other reasons to reject him.

florin| 11.29.11 @ 5:19PM

W, if conservative evangelicals do care about adultery then why is Sean Hannity broadcasting that all of Cain's supporters will go to Gingrich who is an adulterer? It doesn't make sense...Cain is ALLEGED to have cheated on his wife while Gingrich is known to have cheated on his multiple wives...so why is it okay for Gingrich and not for Cain????

W| 11.29.11 @ 7:53PM

florin,
I don't know all the facts of the Gingrich women, maybe he was separated at the time, or separating.
The evangelicals have a tough choice: Newt or Mitt.

BackToBasics| 11.28.11 @ 11:38PM

I agree about supporting Cain, Somnolence. The new allegations are just as false as the previous ones. Look at this quote from the new accuser, Giner White, “It was pretty simple,” White said. “It wasn't complicated. I was aware that he was married. And I was also aware I was involved in a very inappropriate situation, relationship.”

Translated, "It was pretty simple," so don't ask me a lot of questions about it.

Ginger White, "And I was also aware I was involved in a very inappropriate situation, relationship"

Translated, " I was involved in a very inappropriate situation, errr, ah, I mean a relationship, yes that's what it was, a relationship. It was definitley MORE than a situation going on here."

somnolence| 11.28.11 @ 6:50PM

I said at the outset of this campaign that I wanted "new blood" to run. Marco Rubio, maybe even Paul Ryan, fits that model prototype. I may very well have cast my last vote in a national election in 2008. I'm so tired of all these old bastards running I could scream. Repeat, Gingrich will be McCain all over again, save for a few states that will fall short when the final electoral tally is seen.

The Bruce| 11.28.11 @ 10:12PM

I'm not sure I'm willing to wait until 2017 to attempt to undo the damage another four years of Obama would entail (on top of the damage that's already been done).

I like Marco Rubio as much as you do, but he's stated repeatedly and emphatically that he's not going to run in 2012. Wishful thinking does not, a candidate, create.

somnolence| 11.28.11 @ 7:09PM

The proven allegations against Gingrich are far more serious in that realm of social adherence if you are detracted by Cain. Like I say, Cain falls for good, to hell with them all. I do not care if Obama is reelected, and when, just when, will the GOP develop a cerebrum?

Leveut| 11.28.11 @ 9:30PM

I like Babbin.

Something like this, however, just makes me shake my head and wonder what is going on.

PCP Smoker| 11.28.11 @ 9:30PM

Good piece. As long as the candidate is not Kook Paul, all will be good.

The Bruce| 11.28.11 @ 10:31PM

I fear that Paul or maybe Trump will run as an Independent, guaranteeing a split in the Republican vote and allowing an easy reelection of Obama.

You see, with Trump, who's voted Democrat 90% of the time, I find it hard to believe that he isn't simply a foil for the Republican party sponsored by Democrats. None of his rhetoric is to be believed.

Narf| 11.29.11 @ 12:47AM

If Paul runs he might do more damage to Obama than to the GOP nominee.

Paul's positions on Israel, marijuana, prostitution, gay marriage, etc., won't win him any votes from social conservatives. On the other hand, Paul has pretty good support among independents and higher favorable numbers from liberals than any other GOP candidate, so he'll be taking votes away from Obama there. It could go either way.

The Bruce| 11.28.11 @ 10:03PM

Come election time, I'm putting on the beer goggles, and voting for the sexiest candidate. I promise it'll be the person with the "R."

The "R" candidate might not (in reality) be very sexy, but I've seen the current WH occupant stone-cold sober. And, to turn a phrase from the the Book of Genesis on its head, it ISN'T good.

Casey Abell| 11.28.11 @ 10:16PM

I don't know about a 3:00AM call. But Herman Cain can apparently have interesting phone conversations at 4:26AM. Just trying to help financially, that's all.

Sunnyr| 11.29.11 @ 5:26PM

Stick a fork in this serial LIAR! He's done.

POST American| 11.28.11 @ 10:27PM

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

Tavistock TTT-Rick PERRY

SUB-Mitt ROME--knee

HER-MAN CAIN

ME--SHELL BALK--MEN

and 'KNEW IT' GETTING RICH

are, one and all, Rockefeller Globalist front ops.

Hardly the sort who should be being considered
in this, the 11th hour of the Globalist RED China
EUGENICS and world TREASON OP.

---------------------------------MOVE ON . NOW!

Ken Royall| 11.28.11 @ 10:33PM

Newt has more baggage than a 747 and Obama with the help of the left-wing media will destroy him easily in the general. He has backed so many left-wing ideas you can't even count them all. He is on his 3rd wife and cheated on the first two. He left Congress under and ethical cloud. Those pictures of him hanging out with Pelosi and Sharpton will be everywhere. This is all a bad joke.

BackToBasics| 11.29.11 @ 1:12AM

I get the impression about Gingrich that he wants to be accepted by all sides. His core beliefs seem to shift as do large personal-life decisions like marriage, faithfulness.

Having a lot of ideas does not constitute being the "adult in the room," having a strong conservative core and center is a more fitting description for an adult. Cain knows less about politics than Gingrich but has a stronger conservative core. I'll take Cain over Gingrich in the primaries.

In the general election, I'll go with the Repub candidate as long as it's not Huntsman. The others will sign most of the bills passed by a more conservative House and Senate.

florin| 11.29.11 @ 5:15PM

And yet, backtobasics, Sean Hannity is telling everyone that Herman Cain's supporters will go to newt if Cain drops out. Why would they? If voters turn against Mr. Cain for ALLEGED infidelity, adultery, why would they then turn to Gingrich for his PROVEN infidelities/adulteries? Gingrich is for gingrich and no one and nothing else. And he is not and has never been a conservative - so voters will turn out a black conservative man who is ALLEGED to have been unfaithful to his wife and turn to a white progressive RINO man who is KNOWN to have been unfaithful to his multiple wives...have we all gone mad?!

BackToBasics| 11.30.11 @ 12:08AM

You raise valid questions, florin. I've never seen anything like this election in my lifetime.

When Cain was rising, many new names appeared with posts on this site. They attacked Cain and his supporters here. But once Cain dropped these new names disappeared. Most of them claimed to be supporters of Rick Perry or Ron Paul. The level of vitriol they displayed was the same as that by any liberal.

In truth, Republicans are more factionalized than Democrats. There is an appearance of unity but in reality it is only when conservatives vote for a Republican Establishment candidate. Establishment people will NOT vote for true Republican conservative.

"Perceived" intellect seems to be more important than conservative principles or morality with many Republicans. Gingrich has a lot of ideas but the ideas range across the entire political spectrum. I also believe he'd be likely to think that he has all the answers himself. I'll take the thinking of a trained engineer like Cain with a much more solid conservative core over a malleable policy wonk like Gingrich.

But because there is a little ray of hope due to a more conservative House and Senate next year, I will reluctantly vote for the Republican candidate unless it is Huntsman. There's no measure to how much more damage a lame duck Obam will do than he did in the first term.

Unfortunately, this time the vote will be for national survival.

BackToBasics| 11.30.11 @ 12:39AM

To Clarify I will reluctantly vote for the Republican candidate even if it is someone I do not want now, unless it is Huntsman.

BackToBasics| 11.30.11 @ 12:08AM

You raise valid questions, florin. I've never seen anything like this election in my lifetime.

When Cain was rising, many new names appeared with posts on this site. They attacked Cain and his supporters here. But once Cain dropped these new names disappeared. Most of them claimed to be supporters of Rick Perry or Ron Paul. The level of vitriol they displayed was the same as that by any liberal.

In truth, Republicans are more factionalized than Democrats. There is an appearance of unity but in reality it is only when conservatives vote for a Republican Establishment candidate. Establishment people will NOT vote for true Republican conservative.

"Perceived" intellect seems to be more important than conservative principles or morality with many Republicans. Gingrich has a lot of ideas but the ideas range across the entire political spectrum. I also believe he'd be likely to think that he has all the answers himself. I'll take the thinking of a trained engineer like Cain with a much more solid conservative core over a malleable policy wonk like Gingrich.

But because there is a little ray of hope due to a more conservative House and Senate next year, I will reluctantly vote for the Republican candidate unless it is Huntsman. There's no measure to how much more damage a lame duck Obam will do than he did in the first term.

Unfortunately, this time the vote will be for national survival.

john nazzaro| 11.29.11 @ 3:34PM

The implication is that Newt's foriegn policy experience makes him the only man for the job. Using the same logic, Romney's entreprenurial and private business experience would make him the only man for the job of rebuilding the economy-which quite obviously is the topic on which the election will turn. More to the point Gingrich's truly abysmal political history (multiple overwrites of checks at the House bank, fines by the House ethics committee, removal of speakership by his own party, misstatement of his GSE advocacy role, etc.) are likely to become highly visible in a general election. And there is no doubt more there: the premise this history doesn't matter because its already well known is BS: the general electorate doesn't know the Newt story, yet.

vicky bennett | 11.29.11 @ 3:43PM

NEWT IS THE MAN. He is the smartest of all, including Obama.
Newt has baggage, but they mostly all do..
I choose Newt.

Sheila| 11.29.11 @ 9:18PM

Newt is NOT the man. You are delusional if you think Newt can beat Obama.

NO ONE could carry Newt's baggage as a serial adulterer.

The man has little ethics professionaly as well, he lied about what he was paid by Fannie and Freddie.

I'm sure the list will get bigger. He is in fact the only Speaker of the House that was removed by his own party.

I think a lot of Republican's have amnesia.

Derek F| 11.29.11 @ 3:46PM

Babbin says: "Iran is on the verge of producing nuclear weapons and, perhaps, the ability to deliver them by ballistic missiles with sufficient range to reach most of Europe. "

If you've read the latest IAEA, you have to admit there is nothing new in the report. Iran is not any closer to producing a nuclear bomb, let alone mounting it on a ballistic missile, than they were last year or the year before, etc. To suggest otherwise is simple neocon warmongering. After all, these guys can't even make enough gas for themselves. Are we to believe that the Iranians are imminently close to producing a "nuke," but not so when it comes to making their own fuel?

Get a grip. More and more of the American public see this for what it truly is: NONSENSE!!!

CPS| 11.29.11 @ 3:48PM

Hard to stop laughing at the title to read the rest of the article

vicky bennett | 11.29.11 @ 3:48PM

Actually my first choice would be Palin if she were running...............

florin| 11.29.11 @ 5:12PM

You've got to be kidding?! gingrich is the only grown-up in the room??? A man who has hissy fits every time he doesn't get his way?! A man who can't settle with one wife but needs multiple women to satisfy his vast and dysfuntional ego/needs? A man who spouts off anything that comes into his head without thinking things through because he truly believes he is the most brilliant man in creation and so writes notes to himself about how he is going to save the world??? A man who is on a constant see saw, changing sides according to whoever submits to his self serving agenda??? Gingrich is a dangerous man - he truly believes he is almost god-like and is therefore incredibly condescending to others - because he is the best and the brightest. Why stoke his massive ego...? Why not instead try to get younger, less tainted, more emotionally balanced men and women of good character and intelligence to run - such as Paul Ryan, John Thune, Marco Rubio, Nikki Halley, Mitch Daniels...Gingrich is a self-absorbed progressive seriously dysfunctional RINO...stop pandering to his out of control delusions and get some real conservatives to run who love their country and others more than themselves...that's not Gingrich to be sure!

Sunnyr| 11.29.11 @ 5:24PM

This is pure BS! Do we really want another "Professor" who has a way with words during a Debate but who has personal and professional baggage out the ying-yang? I don't want a Debater, I want a REAL LEADER!

Rick Perry has an eleven year record of border control, job creation, tort reform, balanced budgets, crisis management (Katrina refugee's) and oil exploration. He is my candidate through the Primary election and, hopefully, on to the White House.

No Gingrich for me!!

Rick Perry - 2012! A REAL Leader who will be a REAL Commander in Chief!

pggyverdad| 11.29.11 @ 11:33PM

there are three reasons why perry wont get the nomination. 1 he just doesnt have the intellect 2 he is inarticulate 3 er er er

BCanuck| 11.29.11 @ 5:29PM

What about Huntsman?
Wouldn't his foreign relations experience top Newt's?

theduke| 11.29.11 @ 11:09PM

Newt is far and away the best candidate for President since Reagan. Republicans will be utterly stupid if they don't nominate him. There is no better debater or orator in politics today. I've heard several of Newt's long speeches and I can tell you that no one in America can deliver a more inspirational speech than Newt Gingrich.

I also like his insolence in dealing with the mainstream media. He's the only one running who will not be cowed by them.

pggyverdad| 11.29.11 @ 11:27PM

he will be cowed by obama . newt has so much baggage the dems could run specials on his immorality and hypocricy

Jorge Ramos| 11.29.11 @ 6:09PM

3 AM may not be a problem for Mr Babbin. But its the other 23 hours I'd be worried about. As Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich sabotaged every effort to control illegal immigration, keeping enforcement bills from coming to votes and engineering their defeat when they did. He is an open-borders, cheap labor champion of the big business cabal.
He is quick to call on the sympathies of citizens to amnesty between twelve to twenty million illegal immigrants with no reliable system in place to determine who amomng these millions are fifth columnists sent in by Iran's mullahs, who might be members of Hizbollah or Hamas, Al Queda or other various and sundry nefarious terrorist groups. That's not even counting members of MS-13, the Mexican mafia, the Russian mafia or human smuggling networks. Yeah, let's make all these people citizens so they can be protected by the Constitution while strapping on their suicide belts.
But why should any of this be of concern to Mr Babbin? After all, if Mr Gingrich is tough abroad, what matters if Al Quds and Al Queda have sleeper cells already in place in the good ole USA?
To paraphrase Mao in his little Red Book - guerrillas, terrorists and fifth columnists need a sea to swim in. Thanks to Speaker Newt and our last three presidents that sea of illegal aliens is vast. If a shooting war starts in Iran, where will the shahids of asymetric warfare strike?
Trust Gingrich with our national security? No way, Jose.

Glenn Koons| 11.29.11 @ 6:56PM

Jed is correct and so btw is the new US NewsWorldReport article on 11 reasons it will be Newt. Time for all wings of the Pubs, Indies, Reagan Dems, TEAS, Libertarians to realize that the real enemy is Obama , not Newt or Mitt. I would vote for Mitt but so many nit pickers might not;same with Mitt. That is bothersome. So we circle our wagons so tightly that we get....Obama? Oh please. Newt has more experience now than Bama does in the WH. Every Bama policy has failed for Americans. Newt first, and Mitt if that is the people's decision in the primaries. Anyone but Obama.

Sheila| 11.29.11 @ 9:10PM

Those 11 reasons can't erase this fact about Newt.
BTW, This is NOT nitpicking:

Flashback: Gingrich Championed The Mandate As ‘300 Million-Payer System’ — In 2005

“I mean, I am very opposed to a single-payer system — but I’m actually in favor of a 300 million-payer system." Newt Gingrich

pggyverdad| 11.29.11 @ 11:23PM

what ever happened to the party of family values ? you deserve a candidate like newt the immoral hypocrite. he looks good on you.

Sheila| 11.29.11 @ 9:06PM

Newt Gingrich is not the best man to be President. He is a hypocritical, serical adulterer and thinks way too highly of himself. The only detectable attribute that I can see is that he's a good debater.

Frankly I can't stand his condescending way of speaking.

He will lose against Obama and not by a small margin...it will be huge. Obama pulverizes Newt in the General election.

Gavin Volaire| 12.1.11 @ 8:34AM

Well said. Everyone who knocked Obama for acting arrogant ought to be doubly offended by the professor's pedantic pompousness.

Sam McGowan | 11.29.11 @ 9:55PM

Newt Gingrich isn't qualified to be president of a kindergarten class. I've been a Republican all of my life (I'm 66), but I'd rather see Obama in for another four years than Gingrich for five minutes.

Bob| 11.29.11 @ 11:12PM

Jed Babbin. Worked for G. H. W. Bush, who thought that Ronald Reagan was a dangerous and stupid American president. Bush thought he was an international U.N. kind of nominal President. Babbin has nothing to say about who is ready or not to be President. Sorry Sam, but no one believes that you are a life long Republican who wants to see Obama as president for another 4 years instead of Gingrich for 5 minutes. Obama is insufferable and wrong all of the time, Gingrich is insufferable and right at least half the time.

pggyverdad| 11.29.11 @ 11:17PM

how many wives and affairs does a republican presidential candidate have to have before he is deemed morally unacceptable to be president. you folks must really despise romney to support this crud

Chris| 11.29.11 @ 11:34PM

What's with the sudden strain of thought that Newt Gingrich is a principled "conservative"? Really?! This is the same genius who voted "Yea" to create the Department of Education in 1979. The Department of Education! He's consistently shown himself to be all about big spending and federal bureaucracy, and yet he hides behind this pretense of small-government conservatism. Gingrich actually voted for an increase in the national debt ceiling in 1979, 1980, 1981, and 1984. At least he's consistent; I can give him that.

Newt Gingrich, a "conservative," who wholeheartedly supported a $16 trillion increase in unfunded Medicare liabilities in 2003? The same guy who's advocated an individual mandate to purchase health insurance even as recently as this year (on Meet the Press)? He thought we should have used STRONGER military force in Libya. He was in favor of the TARP bailouts. He was a multi-million-dollar-earning “strategic adviser" for Freddie Mac, who we know quite well was a major beneficiary of the bailouts.

I don't know why conservatives can't just wake up, and finally vote for someone like Ron Paul. He was absolutely the only one who saw the housing and economic crisis coming. He predicted it in 2003, at least 5 years before it even started. Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney and Rick Perry were clueless. A mere week before the housing collapse, Herman Cain assured his column readers that the economy was doing great. And "conservatives" trust these clowns?

Concerned Citizen Doe| 11.29.11 @ 11:44PM

And, of course, the pseudo-conservatives who like to carry the Old Left's banner of military interventionism/expansionism are going to call Ron Paul's foreign policy stances "loony." Their esteemed columnists are paid to tell you that very thing, aren't they? The one man whose Top 3 donors this cycle are active members of the U.S. Navy, the Air Force , and the Army. This man's also a war veteran and he's served for quite a while on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. But, sure, he's a completely incompetent boob...

In actuality, Dr. Paul provided a fantastic insight on this Israel issue during the last debate. In 1981, when Israel bombed the Iraq nuclear reactor, Paul was one of the ONLY congressmen to refuse to condemn Israel for doing it. If Israel were attacked, as an ally, there's NO doubt in my mind that Ron Paul would support them. That doesn't mean he would necessarily send U.S. troops over there to fight at Israel's side if they struck Iran (unless a war were declared by Congress, of course). But Israel didn't send troops to help us fight in Iraq in 2003, nor did they help us during the Gulf War (because, of course, the United States told Israel not to!). This whole "defend Israel" pretense that some conservatives think they tout is actually some pretty rank hypocrisy. It's a complete misunderstanding of the role of individual nations, and the need for independence and sovereignty.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said himself, before the U.S. Congress in May of this year: “My friends, you don’t need to do nation building in Israel. We’re already built. You don’t need to export democracy to Israel. We’ve already got it. You don’t need to send American troops to defend Israel. We defend ourselves.”

And besides, as Ron Paul always concludes, we just don't have the money to play this game anymore. I'd love to see someone explain how bankrupting ourselves through non-Congressionally-approved wars provides any kind of lasting "military strength." Are you serious?! We know full-well that unchecked military spending has been one of THE major factors in our rising national debt. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan alone have added between $1.1 and $2 trillion to the debt, plus another $45 billion annually in interest. How much longer do you think our country can handle the spending? How could we ever adequately defend ourselves if something ever hits home, with such an overextended presence around the world?

"Conservatives" are supposed to think this is okay? Really?

southernjew| 11.30.11 @ 12:49AM

Newt cannot beat Obama. Even though he would beat him soundly in debates and would make a good or great president, he cannot win the general election.

Here's why: Independent women will not vote on him. Romney is better looking and has no baggage with the ladies. We need the independent female vote and this group is not ideological. They will vote on the "nice" guy, whether that be Obama or Romney

bolsen00| 11.30.11 @ 5:21AM

It's Gingrich's fault he's an unethical cheating lobbyist who ruined his own political career! I don't think this country wants Callista to be first lady after being his mistress for Six years behind his second wifes back either!

bolsen00| 11.30.11 @ 5:24AM

So sick of hearing Gingrich is grown up now, when he was in his 40's and 50's cheating on his wives with staffers! He was plenty old enough to know better! This shows a lifelong lack of character!!

Richard Baker| 11.30.11 @ 10:54AM

While not condoning his personal failures/lapses, he has become a Catholic Christian (can Margie be far behind?) and has said it has helped him to grow up and realize his personal faults. If he is sincere then I'll grant him that. I've heard him answer these questions put directly to him on various media forum and remember that we are to "Hate the Sin and Love the Sinner." That includes Clinton, FDR, and each other. Who here knows what is truly in Newt's heart and between him and God, except Margie?

K2KR| 11.30.11 @ 4:41PM

Newt knows his stuff and will show Obama to be a poser. Mitt's a nice guy, but his instincts are way less conservative than Newt's. Ron Paul is good to have around, he reminds us about limited government, but he is not a conservative, he is a libertarian.

I will vote for Newt in the primary or Mitt in the general if he gets the nomination. Then I will prepare to be disappointed on occasion, as I have with every single person I ever voted for.

Vote for the best, because you're not going to get everything you want out of any candidate.

Gavin Volaire| 12.1.11 @ 8:31AM

How much of Newt's lobbying treasure chest did you get to write this advertisement, Jed?

More Articles by Jed Babbin

More Articles From Loose Canons

Obama’s Thin Red Line

April 29, 2013 | Jed Babbin

Why Has No One Taken Credit?

April 22, 2013 | Jed Babbin

Dusty Springfield’s Pentagon Budget

April 15, 2013 | Jed Babbin

Guns Responsible for Global Warming

April 8, 2013 | Jed Babbin

When Blackmail Fails

April 1, 2013 | Jed Babbin

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/11/28/newt-gingrich-grownup

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

We Will Remember

Roger Kaplan|27 comments

Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets

Ross Kaminsky|80 comments

Enough With the Bipartisanship

Matt Purple|45 comments

The United States of El Norte

Larry Thornberry|60 comments

Vodka = Vodka = Vodka

Daniel J. Flynn|94 comments

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer

Tornado Chasers

Claire Healey|35 comments

The Chinese Waltz

George H. Wittman|2 comments

The Spectacle Blog

The #FreeKate Narrative Melts Down: Lies Exposed in Florida Teen Sex Case

Robert Stacy McCain | 5.25.13

Jimmy Wray, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 5.25.13

The Spectator’s Spectacular: May 18-May 25

Patrick Ryan | 5.25.13

Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

Felonious Attorney General?

Kaylin Bugos | 5.24.13

Did the Boy Scouts Cave to Pressure?

Claire Healey | 5.24.13

BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity

Aaron Goldstein | 5.24.13

Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

H/T to National Review Online

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.