-
Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets
May 24, 2013 | 8 comments
-
McCain-Feingold Gave Us the IRS Scandal
May 21, 2013 | 122 comments
-
It’s.The.Law
May 20, 2013 | 20 comments
-
The Taxman Cometh (for Tea Partiers)
May 13, 2013 | 150 comments
-
Farrell’s Fallacies
May 9, 2013 | 25 comments
Political Hay
Mitt versus Newt
When all is said and done, which one is is, for lack of a better word, preferable?
People have talked for months, perhaps years, about Mitt Romney’s inconsistencies, about how they feel uncertain as to what position Romney would hold on a particular issue. The story is getting old and tired, but allow me to summarize: for Romneycare, then against the very similar Obamacare; pro-choice, then anti-abortion; pro-gay marriage, then favoring a constitutional definition of marriage.
There are other criticisms of Romney out there: too cautious, too plastic, too “moderate.”
But somehow I remain about as confident in Mitt Romney’s predictability as in Newt Gingrich’s, which is to say not as confident as I’d like but more than confident enough to support him in the general election.
Mr. Gingrich is a good speaker and debater, if prone to occasionally engaging his mouth before his brain. (To be sure, he seems quite focused on rhetorical self-discipline of late.) He’s a tremendous self-promoter; yes, all politicians must be, but Mr. Gingrich is particularly adept.
And he certainly plays a conservative on TV.
But Mr. Gingrich has had at least as many and at least as large changes on policy views as Mitt Romney has.
He was for an individual health care mandate before being against it (while blaming his view on the Heritage Foundation, which does indeed have some responsibility here). He was for some version of cap and trade before he was against it. (Cap and trade would be even more damaging to our nation than Obamacare is.) He was, apparently for profit, for Freddie Mac before he was against it. And I still don’t really understand his positions on U.S. involvement in Libya.
Despite all this, and despite not being able to entirely disagree with Jon Stewart’s assertion that Newt has a certain “dickishness,” I can’t say that I prefer Romney to Gingrich by enough to commit to him. I can say that the argument that Gingrich is somehow the true conservative while Romney is the faux-conservative rings hollow.
One of the most common questions you’ll hear these days in political discussions among Republicans is whether they’re more focused on electability or on principle. (I’m focused on the former, whereas I was focused on the latter in 2008.) The common wisdom throughout this cycle has been that electability is Romney’s strong suit and Gingrich’s Achilles’ heel.
However, even this question is now a head-scratcher. In a CBS News poll released Tuesday, “31 percent of likely Iowa caucus-goers said Gingrich had the best chance among the current GOP field to defeat President Barack Obama in 2012. Twenty-nine percent said Romney had the best chance.” Given that Iowa’s likely caucus-goers are much more conservative than the general population, one must somewhat discount their view on who is most electable in terms of its being representative of the broader electorate.
A pair of recent national polls by Rasmussen Reports shows Gingrich ahead of President Obama by two points, but Obama ahead of Romney by two points. It was the first poll by a major polling company during this entire cycle that showed Gingrich beating Obama, and it was the worst showing for Romney versus Obama in several weeks (among the polls included in the RealClearPolitics average).
However, a poll taken of voters in the very important state of Florida during the same time frame by the liberal-leaning Public Policy Polling showed Romney one point behind Obama, but Gingrich six points behind.
Dick Morris has taken on the issue, to suggest that if your focus is conservatism, you probably are for Newt, whereas if your focus is on the economy and jobs, you probably are for Mitt, saying of Romney that “this guy really understands jobs… He would probably be the best president we ever had when it comes to the economy.” He also notes that a conservative Congress would keep Romney in line if he were to drift leftward.
But “Gingrich on the other hand is a reliable social conservative and a very creative one.” Morris says that while Newt can get too creative for his own good, Gingrich would be “the most intelligent president we’ve had since John Kennedy.”
Morris’s point is that the choice of candidate “really depends less on the candidates than on you. Is your chief priority in this thing turning the economy around and bringing us back to a really good, healthy long-term posture of economic growth? Or is your priority undoing the left-wing radical social-engineering agenda of the Obama presidency?”
About the Author
Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver’s NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (181) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ross Kaminsky
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/12/09/mitt-versus-newt
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Jack in Wi| 12.9.11 @ 6:58AM
Another laughable commentary: The guy with the most fervent supporters and best organization in Iowa is Ron Paul. The person with the worst is Newt Gingrich. I predicted yesterday that Newt would be gone by Martin Luther Kings birthday.
After the debacle of the Trump debate and other things that have happened would not doubt it will be closer to New Years.
The Israeli Press has reported that Newt Gingrich has said he would give a lot of consideration to the full pardoning of the Israeli spy and traitor Jonathon Pollard. The Israeli Press also repors thaht Gingrich is very close to the right wing, Israeli, gambling billionaire Sheldon Adelson. Adelson is the rabid Zionist who funds the extreme rightwing government of Israel. Gingrich has been a long term asset of the Zionist lobby for decades. His second wife was a paid employee of one of the Lobby's front groups.
Now Newt has also proclaimed that he would appoint the rabid, Zionist, chicken hawk, warmonger John Bolton his Secretary of State. Bolton would make Dick Cheney look like Mahatma Ghandi.
Jack in Wi| 12.9.11 @ 7:10AM
Now Willard Romney has said that the first trip he would take as President would be to Israel. He would leave his innaugeration, get on Air Force One and fly to Tel Aviv for instructions. Willard also is a rabid Chicken hawk calling for endless wars. He has most of the Neocon crackpots who got us into Iraq as his foreign policy team.
These 2 warmongers have no chance to be elected in this country. 80% of the people of this country want out of these wars, including 60% of Republicans. Obama will be running against the banks and as the guy who got Bin Laden and is bringing the troops home. How can you beat that with chicken hawks like the Pillsbury dough boy, Mr Fannie Mae. and Mr chicken hawk, investment banker Willard?
The winning ticket is Ron and Rand for Peace Prosperity and Liberty.
Carol| 12.9.11 @ 7:13AM
Ron Paul is a nut.
He is an isolationist who thinks Israel can fend for herself while surrounded by lunatics ready to take her out.
Sorry - I don't hate Jews like you.
Jack in Wi| 12.9.11 @ 7:24AM
Let Israel take care of itself. It is 63 years old and it is time it got a liitle tough love. We are talking about taking granny off dialysis and cuttting grandpa's social Security check, before we cut one penny of the lavish subsidies we give to Israel. This country can no longer borrow money from China to give billions to Israel and the Arabs. To paraphrase Bismark. The whole Middle East is not worth one drop of American blood or one American dollar.
Carol| 12.9.11 @ 7:29AM
Obama is going to take care of granny - to make sure she dies.
I am not Jewish but I stand with Israel.
And so does God.
Are you against God by the way?
emo| 12.9.11 @ 8:44AM
Jack is a vicious anti-semite who lunches with a Norman Finklestein type Jew every once in a while. He can help but mention in nearly every post something about Jews and Israel
chuck| 12.9.11 @ 9:19AM
If Jack were black, he'd fit in perfectly at Rev, Wright's Church.
Anthony| 12.9.11 @ 10:37AM
Well Chuck, you called it. There are more posts on this thread than on the Obozo, Rev. Wright thread.
Ignore Obozo and eat your own.
I'm not playing today.
Jack in Wi| 12.9.11 @ 10:01AM
Carol; My God came for all mankind including Muslims and Jews. That the Jews have rejected him is their problem not mine. The Muslims misinterpert Jesus and get him wrong. They still love and honor him.
I am also sick of being called an anti semite by a bunch of rightwing wackos here. I lived in the most Jewish neighborhood in my state for any years. In my immediate neighborhood over 50% were Jewish. I found most Jews to be reasonable, peaceful people who got along with everyone, unlike the rightwing crackpots that often post here. In fact I am going out with an old Jewish friend for lunch today. We have done that weekly for many years. He loves Ron Paul and like most American Jews is a Zionist. He also, like most American Jews thinks the present government in Israel is way too extreme. He was very against the Iraq wars, again like most Jews. He also is against the attack on Iran. He is very well read and knows what a disaster for the world and Israel that would be.
Meir Dagon the just retired head of the Mossad has called the idea of bombing iran the stupidist idea possible. He has been joined by another former Mossad head Ephriam Halevey and former Shin Bet head Yuval Diskin as well as other members of the Israeli intelligence and military community.
Jack in Wi| 12.9.11 @ 10:08AM
As I said I lived in a very Jewish neighborhood. There were also a lot of Muslims in the neighborhood and the high school. I had both groups in my house together in my house on numerous occassions. They went to the prom together, Jew, Muslim and Christian. My daughter went with a Jew by the way. I have a picture of the group to prove it. They played on sports teams together. All this nonsense that people can't live together spouted here is just so much hooey.
Mike D.| 12.9.11 @ 10:40AM
Jack in Wi| 12.9.11 @ 10:01AM
I am also sick of being called an anti semite by a bunch of rightwing wackos here.
Jack in Wi.| 9.10.11 @ 1:58AM
With all due respect: Israel with all it's nuclear weapons, crazed leadership, the Samson option, the Masada complex and its CONTROL of most of our government is a terrible black cloud on the world. I don't see any light coming through that darkness.
Jack in Wi.| 9.10.11 @ 10:04AM
Whatever good INDIVIDUAL Jews have done in the world pails in comparission to the bad of the last 200 years. Atheism, communism, Socialism, Nuclear Weapons, expansionist Zionism, nuclear blackmail and abortion.
Jackboot, I just can't understand why anybody would call you an anti-semetic paranoid jew hater, you poor misunderstood thing.
Jack in Wi| 12.9.11 @ 11:10AM
The book of Leviticus tells you Jews, Mike, to treat the aliens among you as you do yourselves. Further along it tells you again to love your neigbors as yourselves. The book of Exodus tells you Jews to treat the aliens and strangers among you well, for you were once aliens and strangers in the Land of Egypt.
The Ten Commandments were given first to you Jews. Then you gave them to the world. You and the Christian Zionists here, seem to have fogotten a few of them.
Tou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bare false witness.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors property.
Reject the false gods of Communism, Socialism, Zionism, Mammom, Moluch, [ Love of abortion ] and Atheism. Return to the One True God of all mankind, which you Jews first told the world about. Return to the Torah. Return to the Commandments. Happy Hannakah. Shalom.
Mike D.| 12.9.11 @ 11:38AM
Nice bloviating self righteous speech Reverand Jackboot, go look in the mirror apply it to yourself because YOUR the one with the ethnic/religious group problem. As far as Right Wing wackos, now that IS funny coming from the likes of you. Most of them LOVE to quote bible, its always the mis-used self-rightous theological basis for the next mass slaughter episode for all our own good.
SpiralArchitect| 12.9.11 @ 4:52PM
Being such a dedicated Paul follower would it not be more approiriate to address him as Reverand Jackbot?
The Paulbot revolution lives on
Wayne| 12.11.11 @ 8:25PM
What's laughable is your lame attempt to pretend to be a conservative. We see through your nonsense.
Rhoetus | 12.9.11 @ 7:17PM
Obama thinks he can dictate to Israel its borders. Ron Paul respects Israel's sovereignty.
Alan Brooks| 12.9.11 @ 8:19AM
Here we agree, Jack: Ron Paul is an honest person (if a bit swayed by conspiracy-gobbledygook), Newt is full of it and probably wont be elected president- yet if he is it will say something very bad about America. It would be worse than Nixon's administration because Nixon, like Carter, was a good person with the wrong career.
Gingrich is a liar pure and simple. His ideology has the head of Toffler and the body of Reagan, his ideology is a chimera.
More specifically, Gingrich blatantly lies in saying he will build a border fence by 2014. Gingrich lies even when there is no reason to; he is a brilliant opportunist who ought to be destroyed not only politically, but also ideologically. He must be cast down so his influence is destroyed.
Newt is nothing new: he is merely another political abortion like Nixon and Carter, plus all those who sought office yet thankfully failed in their quests.
canuckistani| 12.9.11 @ 8:27AM
Well put, but get ready for the equivocators on here.
Alan Brooks| 12.9.11 @ 9:59AM
Canuckistani,
they are completely fantasizing in this: not only will a border fence not be built by 1/1/'14, it will never be built. Even if the willpower and funds were in existence, an enormous border 'fence' (even calling it a 'fence' is an underestimation) would have to be manned and maintained- so the cost would be out of proportion to any gain. The only way to do it would be to mobilize the National Guard, and conscript youths.
Even then it probably would be too ambitious an endeavor. Overly-ambitious.
Many issues are matters of opinion; this one is based on sheer wishful, wistful, thinking that Gingrich is taking advantage of. He knows border 'fencing' is a pipe dream.
Even Rube Goldberg would avoid such a scheme.
SpiralArchitect| 12.9.11 @ 4:55PM
Incredible you say all those things Brooks yet make no mention of Napeleon or his exploits as he resides in the white house.
Ah, you, like Zero find he can do no wrong, I understand.
Dai Alanye | 12.9.11 @ 11:52AM
At the risk of sounding out of place on this thread, I'd like to offer Kaminsky half a plaudit for a perceptive bit of writing. The reliance on Dick Morris as a seer, however, does little to reinforce his arguments. Morris' record includes a number of hugely inaccurate predictions, and his analysis here rings false to me. Assuming no major stumbles, Gingrich's verbal talent gives him a better chance than Romney to take Hussein. Assuming...
Regardless of the eventual nominee it should come down to this -- anyone, even Joe Biden, is preferable to Obama. For the sake of the nation electability is more important than purity of policy.
Carol| 12.9.11 @ 7:10AM
I will never, ever vote for Romneycare.
He gives me the creeps.
More than Newt.
I never thought I would rally around Gingrich but now that everybody is attacking him - the GOP especially - the more I will be for him.
Keep it up Newt haters - you're doing the work for him.
c. j. acworth| 12.9.11 @ 7:27AM
Anybody but Obama! Sure, I'd like to write in zombie Reagan, but tossing Obama out on his butt is the #1 priority. I'll hold my nose and pull the "R" lever whichever name is next to it. The key line in Mr. Kaminskys' article is the one about a conservative congress keeping Mitt in line if he tries to drift left-ward. Can we get such a congress? Even if Republicans take the Senate, with squishies like the Maine-iac sisters (Snowe&Collins;) will there be the iron will to defy a President who wants to bring back "compassionate conservatism"? I'll hope and pray for the best, but it's hard to be an optimist.
Carol| 12.9.11 @ 7:32AM
Mitt is left-ward!
There isn't an ounce of conservatism in him.
He has no passion - he's a new car salesman.
Make the sale to whatever crowd he is talking to, then go next door to a different crowd and preach something they want to hear.
No way!
Bo| 12.9.11 @ 3:12PM
Yes, Romney had to pretend to be kind of liberal to win in Massachusetts. You have a problem with that? It's certainly better than pretending to be conservative to snow you into voting for a has-been that will get pummeled by Obama.
Nancy in NC| 12.9.11 @ 8:00AM
Anybody but Obama is my mantra too. But I dislike Newt very much. He is the consummate politicians and I don't know if he has any principles at all...and they are certainly not conservative in my books. Limited government, Constitution, and founding principles? Like the current WH occupant, I think he uses the Constitution instead of Charmin.
canuckistani| 12.9.11 @ 8:33AM
Do you get the feeling that the conservative agenda is a losing one when you're left with Paul and Santorum as the trench?
When your left with a flip-flopper noone wants and a disgraced opportunist as your likely a and b, you have to think this whole conservative project is DOA. Is it BHO miasma or something more fundamentally flawed?
CrackerHound| 12.9.11 @ 10:16AM
No Canuckistan...conservatism is not only NOT dead, it is surging tremendously as even left of center (good people for the most part) have awakened to the fact that the Democrats have moved too far left. It has become glaringly obvious to everyone that the leftward shift of government over the last few decades has failed miserably. Obama opened the books on what the Democrats really want and even tried implementing the agenda and it is bringing our nation down hard. Not to worry, whoever runs against Obama will prevail.
But there is some truth to your post. The Republicans are no steward of conservatism. The Tea Party with help from thinking Americans will force the RINO party out of the statist game and BACK to individual freedom, private sector capitalism, smaller government and in general, back to a Constitutional Republic.
Don't let the media and left wing propaganda fool you. Democrats are in BIG trouble. With a Republican Senate & House, Newt or Mitt will be forced to govern in a fairly conservative way.
Alan Brooks| 12.9.11 @ 12:05PM
You are downright desperate promoting Gingrich, his era was 1995- '99, not today.
Now, if you were to run Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann on the ticket, I would vote GOP. But you are so macho it was obvious from the get-go that Palin was a female token as Cain was a black token.
So I wont vote for your warmed-over Reagans.
SpiralArchitect| 12.9.11 @ 4:58PM
I like Morris & agree with a lot of his conclusions.
That makes me wonder if Brooks likes Dick...
9thID| 12.9.11 @ 9:59AM
As long as the GOP establishment convinces the party "masses" that a lesser-of-two-evils, Obama-lite candidate is the way to go, you will end up with another McCain fiasco. Even if a McCain type were to be elected, they would only slow the run away train down by a year or two. As an independent who left the GOP over McCain, I'll put my money on Bachmann or Santorum...
Bo| 12.9.11 @ 3:14PM
If you really think the "Establishment GOP" is behind the wheel, then you're not getting enough oxygen to your brain. You really think the inside the beltway crowd is pleased right now?
Alan Brooks| 12.9.11 @ 8:22AM
"Keep it up Newt haters - you're doing the work for him."
Helping Newt unintentionally is almost as wrong as helping such a dishonest person intentionally. Newt has to be destroyed politically and perhaps personally.
Interested Conservative| 12.9.11 @ 1:28PM
Please use quotes when citing Mr. Axelrod.
Thanks.
Vern Crisler | 12.9.11 @ 8:27AM
Dittos Carol. For all Newt's faults, for all his "Newtness," he's still probably the most experienced candidate for office we've had in years. Plus, he can outdo anyone in debate, and articulate conservative views without stumbling.
Unlike Ron Paul, Newt also realizes we have real enemies in this world, who hate us not because we're over there but because we're over here.
He has a lot of baggage, but it's all in the attitude. He has confessed his sins and mistakes; he hasn't blamed the messenger like Bill-bo did with Monica.
He's not the ideal candidate, but conservatives will have to wait a very long time if they think they'll ever have an ideal candidate. Let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good enough.
Clint| 12.9.11 @ 8:38AM
Mr.Neutered Is A Serial Traitor To Conservatism.
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.”
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
chuck| 12.9.11 @ 9:25AM
Clint posts canned response #23 for the 512th time.
Thank you, Clintie-poo.
chuck| 12.9.11 @ 9:30AM
At least Jack makes up some new crap every once in a while.
Dai Alanye | 12.9.11 @ 11:23AM
Do I understand this correctly -- Ron Paul favors giving Israel $15 billion? Bravo! I take back every negative comment about the whiny little hypocrite.
Badger Sam| 12.9.11 @ 8:42AM
Dittos Carol and Vern. It's time we got off the dime and choose an electable, strong Conservative voice who won't wimp out when the Dims start putting on the pressure. As you said, don't make the perfect the enemy of the good enough.
SpiralArchitect| 12.9.11 @ 5:03PM
+1
chuck| 12.9.11 @ 9:24AM
Right on, Vern. No one candidate is perfect, but they are all better than Obummer. Remember that Reagan was hated by the party elite as well. So if the party elite are all against Newt, maybe he's got a few things going for him.
Remember, the elites want Romney, not Newt.
Clint| 12.9.11 @ 9:58AM
Gingrich And Romney Are Serial Traitors To Conservatism.
"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.
chuck| 12.9.11 @ 3:48PM
Clint canned response #42, posted for the 78th time.
Thank you Clintie-poo
Alan Brooks| 12.9.11 @ 11:06AM
I'm starting to feel bad about the negative things I wrote about Jack in Wi., because you are overplaying the antisemite card.
Even if Jack secretly hates Jews, which doesn't appear to be the case, he is forthright in all other ways.
Newt Gingrich is the opposite.
Your support of the token Cain indicates you don't deep down appreciate blacks any more than Jack appreciate Jews.
Main point is : Newton Gingrich cannot be trusted across the street with his mother, his dad, and two Safety Patrol officers.
daddio| 12.9.11 @ 7:14AM
Newt versus the Mitten? None of the above!!!
9thID| 12.9.11 @ 10:02AM
I'm starting to wonder of the GOP is in a suicide pact with Obama...
JayDick| 12.9.11 @ 11:35AM
None of the above equals Obama. Is that what you want?
SpiralArchitect| 12.9.11 @ 5:05PM
Too complex of an equation for most of America, sad.
Jack in Wi| 12.9.11 @ 7:18AM
Carol by all means vote for Newt. Who has been in the pocket of the healthcare cartels for decades, and has received tens of millions to be their bag lady and fixer. Gingrich and Romney are birds of a feather on healthcare and most everything else. They have to be the 2 worst candidates to run for the Republican nomination in my lifetime. Either one of them as the nominee, is giving Obama a guarenteed ticket back to the White House.
Carol| 12.9.11 @ 7:27AM
And Ron Paul is the guy who can take Obama out?
All politicians are sleaze. Ron Paul puts pork in bills - then votes against them when he knows they will pass.
Paul is not the puritan you think he is.
How you can be for someone who cannot see another Holocaust coming is beyond insane!
Clint| 12.9.11 @ 7:34AM
Gingrich Is A TARPSTER.
Dr.Ron Paul,
" I have never voted for an earmark. I voted against all appropriation bills. So, this whole thing about earmarks is totally misunderstood.
Earmarks is the responsibility of the Congress.
If you cut off all the earmarks, it would be 1 percent of the budget. But, if you vote against all the earmarks, you don't cut one penny. That is what you have to listen to. We're talking about who has the responsibility, the Congress or the executive branch?
I'm saying, get it out of the hands of the executive branch. Just listen again about what I have said about the TARP funds. We needed to earmark every penny. Now we gave them $350 billion, no earmarks, and nobody knows..."
Dr.Ron Paul Gets It About Earmarks & Congress Having It's Responsibility Usurped By The Executive Branch.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Carol| 12.9.11 @ 8:03AM
I'm part of the Tea Party Rebellion and Ron Paul is not a part of the Tea Party!
Clint| 12.9.11 @ 8:12AM
No You're Not RINO-CINO Carol ( Joisey ).
You're A Poseur.
" Leaders of Ohio Tea Party groups endorse Ron Paul.
Calling him the "singular defender of liberty" in the GOP field, about 30 leaders of Ohio tea party groups this week endorsed U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas for the Republican presidential nomination.
The leaders, stressing they were endorsing Paul as individuals and not on behalf of groups they represent, said in a press release they are "tired of typical Republican establishment candidates whosw rhetoric do not match their record."
Referring to Paul as a fighter "against big government in Washington for over 40 years," the tea party leaders said, "Ron Paul's record of fiscal discipline is unmatched. In 12 congressional terms he has never voted for a tax increase. He has never voted for an unbalanced budget. He has never voted for a bailout. He has never voted for raising the debt ceiling."
Among prominent signers of the release endorsing Paul: Joe Bozzi, co-founder of the Ohio Freedom Alliance and Ohio Liberty Council; Maurice Thompson, executive director of the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law; and Chris Littleton, co-founder, Ohio Liberty Council and board member of the Cincinnati Tea Party."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa And In Ohio.
9thID| 12.9.11 @ 10:05AM
True. Ron Paul has not gained any endorsement from any major Tea Party group. Liberal-tarians, like their Liber-al cousins, co-opt movements like the Tea Party for their revisionist ends...
chuck| 12.9.11 @ 9:29AM
Clint canned response #12, posted for the 356th time.
Thank you Clintie-poo.
Clint| 12.9.11 @ 9:40AM
I got chuckie trained to follow me around.
Now, go fetch Bibi's bone, chuckie.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And I Iowa.
SpiralArchitect| 12.9.11 @ 5:11PM
You learned from RP well, WTG.
Nancy in NC| 12.9.11 @ 8:07AM
Jack, your constant Ron Paul drum beating is old. Now Rand Paul might be a different story unless she shares his father's views on isolationism.
If the country had followed his ideas starting 200 years ago, I could see a different outcome, But it didn't, and we are where we are, living in a dangerous world with a good portion of it wanting to destroy the Western way of life. They've made inroads in Europe and are digging into this country, with Sharia law being discussed using the 1st amendment to throw the rest of the Constitution under the bus. (I don't imagine our founders thought that some would use the first amendment and freedom of religion to behead their wife.)
Jews have been persecuted through the ages; I don't want to see another Holocaust and the swords are rattling in that direction. The Arabs have the rest of the Middle East; why can't the Jews have tiny little Israel?
I stand with Israel.
9thID| 12.9.11 @ 10:07AM
Good luck trying to convince Ron Paul's cult of Blame America Firsters and 9-11 Truthers...
JayDick| 12.9.11 @ 11:42AM
The only two Republican candidates that have a reasonable chance against Obama are Romney and Gingrich. So, realistically, your choices right now are Romney, Gingrich, or Obama. I'm for the person who is most likely to beat Obama. Contrary to this article, I think Gingrich would be a stronger candidate because of his campaigning ability. He will attack Obama on all fronts with intelligence and vigor; I think that approach has the best chance of success.
SpiralArchitect| 12.9.11 @ 5:12PM
Well said.
CrackerHound| 12.9.11 @ 1:33PM
I agree Jack, these are probably the least "wanted" candidates the Republicans could have put up.
I disagree that either one of them is a one way ticket for Obama...He is history barring cheating (which is possible).
I am supporting Newt because Mitt doesn't seem capable of fighting...and we need a fighter.
We will just have to pray that he fights for the right things and keep the pressure on.
SpiralArchitect| 12.9.11 @ 5:19PM
ACORN was disbanded (go learn why) but it's members are still active.
Dead people do vote - seriously. They likely always have but many more are Libs.
Check out what happened with voter fraud (assisting) getting Zero on the '08 ballot in Indiana:
http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....-heats-up/
Rhoetus | 12.9.11 @ 7:23PM
No, it's a toss-up between: McCain, Dole, Ford, Romney, Gingrich, Nixon and Eisenhower as the worst Republican candidates.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 12.9.11 @ 7:18AM
There is no way Bill Clinton will sit this one out no matter who is the candidate. However, the candidate can rightfully point out that Bill Clinton sits on a mountain of sleezy episodes, the latest being that Clinton received somewhere between $50,000 and $200,000 a month from MF Global for about 6 months before the firm collapsed. In that sense Clinton is like Newt, working behind the scenes with faux lobbying efforts which are just on the right side of the law to prevent them from being called lobbying.
I think either Romney or Perry are better candidates simply because the Republicans have a knack for picking someone like McCain, who Ann Coulter rightfully referred to as a dickweed in a recent comment on a national show.
The fact that Gingrich is gaining ground in the Republican primaries proves beyond any doubt that most Republican voters are idiots who are down on their knees begging for more of the same as 2008.
Although Gingrich would be a better debater than McCain, Gingrich has more baggage lost than a poorly run airline.
Republicans are righht to be hesitant about Romney, as he appears to be a political willow, bending with any breeze. I often marvel at his ability to avoid taking a stand. Someone needs to take Mitt out to a cabin for a poker game and teach him to cuss and slap him around a little and tell him to man up.
As far as Perry, he's the court jester. The class clown and a man with some principles. If he took things a little more seriously he would be far ahead of the others.
If Newt is the Republicans best hope they can hang it up. It shows they don't have much to offer because, in essence, there isn't much Obama is doing now that Newt wouldn't have gone for except the Stimulus. That's not much of a difference in a Presidential election.
canuckistani| 12.9.11 @ 8:37AM
Agreed.
There have been few if any manoevers by BHO that suggest a marxist takeover is imminent.
The absolutists on here prefer to think in revolutionary extremes rather than an incremental approach to policy making.
Clint| 12.9.11 @ 8:40AM
Ah !
Good Thinkin'.
The Ole Arlen Specter, John McCain Approach.
al222| 12.9.11 @ 9:22AM
perhaps 15 trillion dollars of national debt and a gov't that borrows forty cents of every dollar it spends has something to do with it.
Harry the Horrible| 12.9.11 @ 10:03AM
Incrementalism has worked so well for us in the past.
Not.
For some obscure reason, it only seems to work for the Left. Take half now, wait a while, engineer a new crisis and take the rest.
richard ryan| 12.9.11 @ 9:39AM
Some of Newt's solutions:
1. Healthcare-free up choices for seniors by allowing them to purchase their own health plans. Block grant medicaid to states. Real tort reform with caps on awards for non-economic damage. Allow interstate competition by private insurers. Reduce government mandates on insurers.
2. Energy- get serious about energy independence by incentivising and deregulating exploration in this country. Reward states that allow drilling off their shores. Use the abundant natural gas and shale oil reserves available in this country.
3. Executive orders on Day one- all conservative ideas.
Newt has a very long track record in politics. It's not surprising that there are some things in there that upset us conservatives. However, in my opinion his plan for America is filled with well reasoned, practical solutions. Shouldn't we allow for some changes in opinion and screw ups over the years? This is good stuff he is putting out there, and I think we should put more emphasis on that.
Regarding electability, I think Romney's Mormanism is a bigger problem than Newt's history (a sad commentary on our voters but true). Without a sweep of the south, there will not be a republican victory. It is the southern Christian vote that is most uneasy about LDS folks.
JayDick| 12.9.11 @ 11:47AM
It seems Gingrich's baggage is all known at this point and is old news. He has effectively countered the lies about his record and has explained the reasons he changed positions in some cases. Romney won't admit he ever made a mistake; that will hurt him.
Most importantly, however, Gingrich is a far more effective campaigner than Romney. I could vote for either over Obama, but I think Gingrich would have a better chance.
CrackerHound| 12.9.11 @ 1:42PM
Yea, I don't get Rick Perry. I have lived in Texas my whole life and he NEVER came off as this stupid. He is a consumate politician with command of the facts normally. With his record of success..our state going in the opposite direction of the country at an even faster pace, he would have been a shoe-in.....and I can guarantee you he is a conservative despite the hit against him of being a RINO.
I would still vote for him but he is the one candidate who would struggle in a debate with Obama and could blow it in the general election. Plus it would be a wasted vote in the primary because he can't win now. After his showing and deer-in-the-headlights performance on even the simple stuff, I don't know if I'd want him now.
SpiralArchitect| 12.9.11 @ 5:20PM
Not a peep about any opposition to Zero from within the (D) party. Interesting not even some Biden quality wack/hack has not said a thing.
martin j smith| 12.9.11 @ 7:19AM
Mitt is the Establishment preferred candidate--as well as the Socialists preferred candidate. Not Mitt-
Not Ron Paul,Not John Huntsman--anyone else please thank you and good night.
donserge| 12.9.11 @ 7:24AM
My preferred candidate is polling in the single digits but I do know one thing: The Republican establishment is pulling out all the stops and trying their best to derail Gingrich.
canuckistani| 12.9.11 @ 8:46AM
Good on them.
Newtie would be a disaster if given actual power. When he came close to actual power before, he was rolled by Willie and despised by the caucus.
The thing that scares me the most about a Newtie admin would be the array of sycophants scurrying around DC looking for "consensus" on everything with Newtie turning the Situation Room into a vote counting whiteboard. With nearly all GOPers openly throwing Newtie under the bus, he's left with the likes of Barton to defend him. Barton. Nuff said.
emo| 12.9.11 @ 8:52AM
The conservative base hates the GOP establishment more than it hates Obama
scotchieguy| 12.10.11 @ 1:43AM
I think you have it backwards.
Clint| 12.9.11 @ 7:30AM
Gingrich And Romney Are Serial Traitors To Conservatism.
We Are Being Set Up By The RINO-CINO Agendists.
These Are The RINO-CINO Agendists 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.
canuckistani| 12.9.11 @ 8:54AM
name one "conservative" pres that left the country's finances in better shape when they left office.
You can't.
The fact is the greater economy has grown and declined under presidents from both parties. What has grown under "conservatives" is the government debt, the deficit and a decline in the general trust in the managers of the people's treasury.
You will discount 100 years of "conservative" administrations as not being conservative enough, but the trap that creates is then you have no idea what a true conservative would do to the country after all. Applying 19th century examples, as people here use like a crutch, is as pertinent as bloodletting to modern medicine, so keep it recent.
Clint| 12.9.11 @ 9:30AM
Apparently, The Faux Canuck Is OneCranky RINO-CINO This Fine Mornin'.
Dr. RON PAUL'S “PLAN TO RESTORE AMERICA”
SPENDING:
Cuts $1 trillion in spending during the first year of Ron Paul’s presidency, eliminating five cabinet departments (Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and Education), abolishing the Transportation Security Administration and returning responsibility for security to private property owners, abolishing corporate subsidies, stopping foreign aid, ending foreign wars, and returning most other spending to 2006 levels.
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the.....e-america/
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Dai Alanye | 12.9.11 @ 11:32AM
I admire the way Ron Paul's groupies believe they can help their candidate by insulting potential allies. Politics in America, at least, is about making friends not enemies, but the Paulites can't seem to recognize this.
Should every other candidate crash and burn, leaving only Paul standing at the end to face Obama, will enthusiasts like Clint come to realize their basic error?
CrackerHound| 12.9.11 @ 1:47PM
Most of the Paul die-hards are desperate to get weed legalized...that's their MAIN goal...not very serious people.
I don't think Clint is in that group but most Paulites in my area are 20-something pseudo liberals.
Rhoetus | 12.9.11 @ 7:25PM
I'm going to vote for Ron Paul again.
SpiralArchitect| 12.9.11 @ 5:24PM
First Conservative House in 40 years for Clinton.
You think it was all Clinton creating a budget surplus??
No, you don't. Thats why you selectively posed the question.
Jane| 12.9.11 @ 7:30AM
John Huntsman would make a wonderful President. I go gaga and goo-goo. I’m so hooked on him I fantasize about him. When my husband is out of town I would invite John to my house for dinner serve him a nice hot meal with wine and then cuddle up with him on the couch. Later I would put on a pair of my husband’s pajamas. I’m a tall woman lean and well-built and look super sexy in a pair of man’s pajamas. I would then get on all fours and chase him around the bedroom and when I cornered him I would put the bite on him…goo-goo. Love, Jane.
Nancy in NC| 12.9.11 @ 7:56AM
I can't believe an adult woman would write such putrid trash...you sound like an Obama Zombie.
Bay Stater| 12.9.11 @ 8:09AM
Wow! Sexy Jane, you can put the bite on me anytime!
Hipe N. Chinge| 12.9.11 @ 8:14AM
Jane is Clint.
Clint| 12.9.11 @ 8:26AM
Wrong, Israel Firster Propaganda Squad Poeur Flunkie Stooge.
Jane Swings With Tarzan.
The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On Israel Firster Poseur Flunkie Stooge.
chuck| 12.9.11 @ 9:16AM
Either Clint, or maybe Alan Brooks. If it was Clint, the fantasy would have Huntsman wearing that over-sized Ron Paul suit. I guess it must be Alan.
Hide the gerbils!
Clint| 12.9.11 @ 9:42AM
I got chuckie trained to follow me around.
Now, go fetch Bibi's bone, chuckie.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And I Iowa.
JimP| 12.9.11 @ 7:39AM
Dick Morris predicted that Oprah would back Hillary as the '08 Dem nominee and thereby bring 30 million first time female voters to the polls and thus elect Hillary as the first woman President.
Just some added perspective.
Willis| 12.9.11 @ 8:24AM
Morris is a lot like Gingrich--a font of ideas, many of them dead wrong.
canuckistani| 12.9.11 @ 8:55AM
and a peculiar taste in women
POST American| 12.9.11 @ 7:46AM
"SOCIALISM
----COMMUNISM
-----FASCISM
-------GLOBALISM ---tyranny ALWAYS
uses the high tech pitch to get itself into power.
------ALWAYS!"
-ALEX JONES
LENIN/TROTSKY/ STALIN
HITLER/MUSSOLINI
MAO TSE UNG----------------one and all, SO MODERN!
Romney IS a Globalist front.
Gingrich is an ardent Globalist, EUGENIST,
RED China traitor and PSYCHOPATH.
"The NWO is going to be run on a kind
of EUGENICS 'SO--SHELL---ism' to manage
those below, with a FASCISM for those
above."
RON PAUL is NOW officially #2 in latest
polls.
---------------------TAKE HEART-----------------------
------------HUAC/ Nuremberg 2012 is coming.
canuckistani| 12.9.11 @ 8:59AM
With 7 billion on the planet, those eugenists are really making an impact.
Alex Jones, really?
Bob K.| 12.9.11 @ 7:58AM
So Newt would be the "most intelligent President we have had since Jack Kennedy" says Dick Morris!
I wonder if Newt had a rich Daddy (like Kennedy did) who paid someone to write his PhD Thesis at Tulane for him?
Will we never be rid of these Kennedy suckups?
canuckistani| 12.9.11 @ 9:01AM
No, we'd have a guy who married his teacher and dumped his sick wife for the fembot Callista.
Bob K.| 12.9.11 @ 10:42PM
Yeah, but he wouldn't be sneaking Mafia whores into the White House to discuss foreign policy either!
Kade| 12.9.11 @ 8:04AM
Both Newt and Mitt are liberal con men tickling the ears of stupid conservatives during primary season. I may not vote for either but if I do I would vote for Mitt ONLY because it would be easier to hold his feet to the conservative fire than Newt. Newt does a better job of sounding like conservative while promoting liberalism and the conservative media for some reason forgives his constant flip-flopping.
And Newt is brazenly campaigning on stealth amnesty whereas at least Mitt isn’t (this time). Alas, looks like the Tea Party has been hi-jacked by the establishment GOP and is pushing for lefty Newt.
Nancy in NC| 12.9.11 @ 8:12AM
I'm a proud tea partier, and I don't buy Newt. In fact, I've been e-mailing my friends with Newt's record...it speaks volumes.
emo| 12.9.11 @ 8:35AM
and who do you support? It is either Newt or Mittens. Choose one...or Obama/Pelosi/Reid
Lesser Weevil| 12.9.11 @ 9:53AM
I'm a none-of-the-above guy, but if it comes down to it, I will probably pull the lever for Mitt, holding my nose and with zero enthusiasm. I can't see myself voting for Newt at all.
R Martin| 12.9.11 @ 8:29AM
All of this conjures-up that old Kingston Trio song from the 1950s, "The Merry Minuet", with the catch phrase, "And I don't like anybody very much".
emo| 12.9.11 @ 8:33AM
Both suck, but at least Newt Gingrich will attack Obama. Mitt Romney will run a more positive campaign, because no doubt he has the same "advisors" who this week said dont attack Obama personally because Obama is personally popular. Most conservatives dont like Newt a whole lot for obvious reasons. But at least he goes after the left, unlike Mitt.
BTW no one should think that if Obama wins its "no big deal" cuz the GOP will hold the House and win the Senate.
2012 isnt 1996. 1996 was a status quo election. The country was happy. Unemployment had fallen from 7.8% in 1992 to 5% in 1996. The deficit had been cut in 1/2. Clinton enacted center right legislation. Millions if not tens of millions of voters who voted for Clinton voted for GOP congressional candidates. Anyone think that Obama voters will vote GOP for congress?? 2012 will be a change election. The country is angry, frightened and disgusted. Come Jan 2013. ONE PARTY will emerge in complete control of congress and the WH. If Obama wins re-election, the Dems will win the House and hold the Senate.
The question is what will the GOP House do next summer if it looks like Obama is going to win re-election?? Will they panic and try to save their majority by throwing the GOP Presidential nominee under the bus?? I think so. And in doing so, theyll ensure an Obama landslide and Nancy Pelosi as Speaker
canuckistani| 12.9.11 @ 9:09AM
He'll attack Obama with what? His laser focused speakership? Nope.
His lily-white personal life? Nope.
His willingness to accept cash from anybody? Nope.
His flip-flopping on Bin Laden, Libya, EU, illegals, mandate, base closures, TARP, Fannie/Freddie? Nope.
His open trashing of the Ryan plan? Nope.
Your last point about the GOP house panicking. Too late.
The smartest guy in the room got rolled by Willie so often it became a joke. BHO is not as slick, but he is also aloof enough to not be baited by Newtie's undisciplined flailings that will come with a nomination.
Kade| 12.9.11 @ 9:22AM
The GOP may lose the House anyway if Newt is our nominee. The Dems will nationalize the election against (flip-flopping and lobbyist) Newt as they did Bush. Newt as our nominee could be a disaster if Obama is elected and the Dems control both Houses.
JimH| 12.9.11 @ 8:37AM
Given the limited choice of a likely Republican nominee it may be of more value for Tea Partiers and other limited government supporters to focus on electing more likeminded people to Congress and capturing the Senate. As much as I admire his principles I don’t think Ron Paul can win a general election. Mitt has so far been playing not to lose. Fellow Republicans are too polite to raise questions about the LDS but other will not be. His conservative Bona Fides are not really established, though he is about as conservative as one can be and still be elected in Massachusetts. A big issue, one not much discussed, is his business background. He likes to talk being a business man, but what business? He was part of a private equity outfit which using massive amounts of debt in the form of what were then termed junk bonds, bought undervalued companies, stripped them and sold anything of value and left the bones for the suckers who did not get out in time. All of this was a forerunner of the collapse which we are still struggling with. Newt has baggage, but we know what it is. He is a very smart man and we can hope that he has learned from his past mistakes, both personal and political. He knows how things work in Washington. We cannot have another four years of a president doing OJT.
emo| 12.9.11 @ 8:41AM
I am duel US/Canadian. Right now the USA and the GOP look an awful lot like Canada and the PC-Party circa 1990-93. The nation is bankrupt, slow growth, chronic high unemployment and a "center right" party that does absolutely nothing to stop the bleeding and in fact aids and abeits.
What happened in Canada was the base of the PC party in Alberta, Sask, MB and BC broke away from the PC and ran their own candidates under the label of the newly created Reform Party lead by a guy named Preston Manning. The result: In the Federal Elections of 1993, the PC went from 170 seats (155 needed for majority) to 2. Even the PC PM Kim Campbell lost her seat. The PCers were completely destroyed. Eventually through many internations and machunations the Reform Party became the Conservative Party of Canada. The remaining PEers (They eventually got to 12 members by the late 1990s) reluctantly joined the Conservatives under the terms of the Conservatives. Today the Conservative Party of Canada has an absolute majority in Parliament and Canada has the most conservative govt it has had since WW2 and has an economy and debt situation that is the envy of the world.
Food for thought.
canuckistani| 12.9.11 @ 9:20AM
Unfortunately the current government had nothing to do with the current state of Canada's affairs. It was the centrist Liberals that laid the foundation for the country's current state. To suggest otherwise is lying.
Harper et al wanted to go into Iraq. Wanted to open the banks to foreign takeovers. Wanted the feds to open the mortgage market to subprimes. He's been proven wrong on every policy he has taken sides on - some economist.
Harper has now punted on the environment, surrendered their border to Washington, and has a cabal of Harris minions slowly eroding the central Canada engine, leaving the country as just a trees and rocks economy.
Harper was insulated from criticism due to an infighting Liberal party the last five years. Now the luster is wearing off and he has to actually govern. My bet he will punt and become even more poplulist than the Liberal regime.
Wanna bet?
Peppermint Tea| 12.9.11 @ 10:06AM
emo,
I guess there is hope. Could Mitt and Newt destroy each other and Ron Paul emerge, reform his defense ideas, and abdicate to his son Rand?
bill| 12.9.11 @ 8:41AM
Between Newt and Mitt, I'll prefer Newt.
Newt tenure as the speaker was controversial, and his stance on immigration, climate change puzzles me.
However, he pledged to make English as the official language, and never criticized his fellow Reps. in the debate, and that showed his statesmanship.
Newt needs organizations and resources, so that he can foil Obama's efforts to sabotage the election.
Also, I'm supporting Rick perry and Michelle Bachmann, right now.
I hope they both will rebound and become the front runners.
I'm praying for them.
chuck| 12.9.11 @ 9:11AM
Ross,
You conveniently leave out the rest of Newt's position on Health-care mandates. Hopefully from ignorance, not from malice.
He was for man-dated health-care coverage, HOWEVER, instead of buying that coverage, you could post a bond that would assure the cost of your health care needs, so the taxpayers would not get stuck with it.
Sounds pretty reasonable to me, that is when you know "the rest of the story".
Ross Kaminsky | 12.9.11 @ 10:38AM
Chuck, there's lots more to say about Newt's positions as well as Romney's, with plenty of good and bad for each. Those things didn't need to all be rehashed to get to my main point about electability and the interesting Morris statement that the choice of candidate is, more than usual, "about you rather than the candidate."
Also, I wanted to emphasize the question of whether GOP voters are (or should be) thinking more about electability or principle -- not that either of these guys is great on either one.
Kade| 12.9.11 @ 9:13AM
Unbelievable, many of the Tea Partiers are backing open-border liberal and Internationalist Newt. The Tea Party has been hi-jacked by Sean Hannity and the like who always backs RINO globalists -- remember his love feast with Arnold and super-liberal Rudy in 2008.
Voting for Newt (or Mitt) is like voting for Carl Rove – we are in deep trouble.
martin j smith| 12.9.11 @ 9:16AM
I distrust the Republican establishment about equal to that of the Socialists. Specifically I thought they purposely threw the 2008 election and are ready to do it again. I would say both are inc collusion with each other. That is what we have. What we have is a situation where voters determine who is the candidate and that Republicans win in spite of themselves--a very tall order.
canuckistani| 12.9.11 @ 9:21AM
They threw it because they know the country is busted due to their incompetence and fiddling.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.9.11 @ 9:20AM
Bill,
I hope you will enjoy the link in my copy/paste here.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.9.11 @ 8:17AM
Jay,
One thing Governor Perry is known for is perseverance. Persistence if you will. He jokes about trying to marry his wife for sixteen years.
There is a great tape of him visiting with Fox news on their website today.
See what you think.
Reply to this
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.9.11 @ 8:21AM
Jahttp://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/12/08/rick-perry-president-obama-and-war-on-christianity/y,
here is the link to Perry's visit with FOX
bill| 12.9.11 @ 9:52AM
Rick Perry was right.
He is an Evangelic Christian. I like the commercial "War on Religion" because it's based on facts.
Obama is a Muslim and went to Madrasa (a school that teaches Jihad and the Sharia laws) in Indonesia, that's why his middle name is "Hussein."
Obama lied about his religion and supported LGBT, that's a crime.
God will forgive him.
Margie| 12.9.11 @ 2:28PM
Not unless he repents first.
No repentance, no forgiveness.
bill| 12.9.11 @ 2:37PM
YOU'RE RIGHT.
NOTHING WILL SAVE OBAMA FROM HELL OF FIRE.
OBAMA IS A HALL OF SHAME.
Ryan| 12.9.11 @ 9:25AM
I find the "electability" argument mostly erroneous. Even some of the candidates polling in the single digits could be Obama IF their campaign was well-run.
Whoever is the nominee simply needs a good organization to win.
Simon Templar| 12.9.11 @ 9:26AM
Then put them both on the same ticket and move on!
martin j smith| 12.9.11 @ 9:34AM
Right now the main difference between Mitt and New is this: The Establishment Republicans APPEAR to favor Mitt. Notice I said APPEAR. In this world nothing is real. So thus I am OK with Newt ( OK in a very general sense not really OK. )
But here is the deal You mean to say that Obama would be BETTER than any of the candidates even the dufusuz ? If your answer is yes then please retire from writing.
Kade| 12.9.11 @ 9:51AM
I understand your argument but what if Newt causes us to fail to regain the Senate and we also lose the House ? He has little appeal to many women, Independents and conservative Dems. He will hurt the down ticket – Flip Romney will not.
Gussie Fink-Nottle| 12.9.11 @ 9:34AM
I say! Newt, please!
Notary Sojac| 12.9.11 @ 10:53AM
Well played, Gussie. You win the thread - have an orange juice on me!
Kade| 12.9.11 @ 9:45AM
I guess the GOP rallying cry should be: Yeah, Newt is a liberal but he is our liberal and a shade to the right of Obama.
Alas, the GOP is nearly all RINO – a Third Party will arise from the ashes of this disastrous election.
9thID| 12.9.11 @ 10:14AM
I, along with El Rushbo fear you are right. As long as it in not based upon a Ron Paul Liberal-tarian mindset, I'm all for it. The Whigs gave way to the GOP and now it may be time for the Reagan Tea Party...
Kade| 12.9.11 @ 10:27AM
El-Rushbo will cling to the bitter end of his beloved RINO Party. Rush is part of the problem. His continual praising of liberal George W. Bush (who the Dems made their poster-child of conservatism) gave us a Dem congress and Obama. Now liberal Newt will be presented (falsely) as the face of conservatism by both the left and right media.
Margie| 12.9.11 @ 2:30PM
"Rush is part of the problem."
Yeah, and Ron Paul is the answer, right?
Whew.
Kade| 12.9.11 @ 4:23PM
Yes Rush is part of the problem and no Ron Paul is not the answer; I would never vote for him. Rush still calls W. a conservative and Newt too -- please explain that.
Both apparently loved pr0-abort Harriet Miers and Newt loved Dede too -- this is just one of many examples.
Margie| 12.9.11 @ 5:04PM
I don't think this is correct, he didn't LOVE them, and in fact as far as I know, he withdrew his support for Scozzafava.
There are no perfect or pure politicians, if there were, they get devoured. Like Herman Cain and Sarah Palin, as close to perfect conservatives as you can get, IMHO. And Michele Bachmann too~ where's the support for her?
As to Rush, I'd say he's pretty honest about the candidates, and I see him backing conservatives where they deserve it. He pretty much always says what I'm already thinking.
Hail Maha Rushie! Hee hee.
Hey, they can worship the Pope, I can love El Rushbo, can't I?
They're both sinners like the rest of us, (some repentant and some not), and in fact Rush is far more real than the Pope by leaps and bounds.
Anyhow~ I say anybody but Obama or Ron Paul 2012!
missbosslady| 12.9.11 @ 5:18PM
Kade,
You clearly dont listen to Rush's program.
Your post is factually incorrect.
Kade| 12.9.11 @ 6:15PM
I do listen to Rush quite a bit. He only infrequently criticizes liberal Republicans (which are most of them, including TARP supporter Paul Ryan) and when he does it is timidly.
Bush was one of the most liberal Republican presidents ever and Rush always made excuses for him even after a host of liberal policies.
Rush effectively enabled the left to (falsely) label Bush as a conservative thus misrepresenting and devaluing conservatism, and it will be dittos with Newt.
Janeway| 12.9.11 @ 9:55AM
Mitt Romney was never for gay marriage, you have no evidence for this anymore than he is not conservative but Newt is - being unwilling to hang gay people from the nearest tree is not the same as being pro gay marriage. Facts and opinions are not the same.
Ross Kaminsky | 12.9.11 @ 10:41AM
There is plenty of evidence on Romney and "gay rights", though I personally don't care much about the issue and think the more it's talked about the worse the GOP will do next year.
People who think that gays are going straight to hell are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
canuckistani| 12.9.11 @ 11:23AM
People who think they've been able to decipher the Bible and then make the leap to apply it to contemporary circumstances are the problem.
The Bible makes no mention of the gene or the atom, and yet, here we are without our eyes burned and our hearts blackened.
The Knife| 12.9.11 @ 1:02PM
That is so gay Mr. stani. You Obama trolls are so transparent.
DGinGA| 12.9.11 @ 10:08AM
As I recall, Newt Gingrich was run out of Washington in disgrace in 1999. Not exactly a guy we want as President. I'm all for fiscal conservatism, and I don't want a President who is all out to "reach across the aisle" and hold hands with the Dems and sing "Kum By-Yah." I want a kick-ass conservative who can bring Republican control of Congress along on his or her coattails. All of this "bi-partisan reaching across the aisle" crap is what got us in this mess in the first place. So Kennedy-lite Romney and "I'm not really sure what I believe but move over and make more room on the couch, Nancy" Gingrich are both unacceptable in my book. Ron Paul is just nuts. I really don't think the right candidate for us is even running...right now.
canuckistani| 12.9.11 @ 11:26AM
DG, this congress, yes this activist GOP congress, has voted down the BBA and larded every bill with pork and irrelevant bits.
Check the record from HR 1 and you tell me if it has had a laser focus on the economy.
No congress will be populated by more Tea-bots than today and yet you get no action.
There is no right candidate because the American people apparently don't want one.
TommyFrisco| 12.9.11 @ 10:09AM
Ross, almost everything you wrote in this article is wrong. It's not surprising you would quote Dick Morris because he's seldom right either. Remember when he said there's no way Hillary would not beat Obama? I can understand why the martini crowd in DC would be out of touch, but what's up with you? Why are you echoing the same thing everyone else in DC and in the media are saying?
If Romney is more electable because he is a moderate, why wouldn't that same philosophy apply to Gingrich? If Gingrich is not conservative enough for you, why won't you endorse Santorum or Bachman instead of Romney?
BTW, for all of you Ron Paul supporters, he should have been laughed off the stage when he said we shouldn't have a border fence because it could be used to keep us in. He's always been an old fool trying to get attention.
missbosslady| 12.9.11 @ 5:32PM
Tommy,
Thank you. You are the voice of reason and logic.
I was thinking the same thing about Mr. Kaminsky and have recently come to the conclusion that conservative writers have decided to sit at the knee of Dr. Krauthammer.
The establishment Republican politicians and media are married to the notion that the American public, as a whole, are morons. It oozes from their pores. Frankly, I am sick of it!
Mr. Kaminsky, just a few posts up has dragged out one of the DC elites favorite tropes:
"There is plenty of evidence on Romney and "gay rights", though I personally don't care much about the issue and think the more it's talked about the worse the GOP will do next year."
This is pure DC/elitist invention. Everytime I hear one of these memes I know that the writer has taken up residence in the cocoon of the establishment.
These guys know that if they go against Dr. Krauthammer, et al they won't be taken seriously in Republican establishment circles. No lunch or cocktail party invitations for those who stray.
Gary Gross | 12.9.11 @ 10:10AM
I wrote here that Mitt's experience in the private sector isn't what he pretends it to be:
http://www.letfreedomringblog.com/?p=11837
Mitt's list of conservative accomplishments doesn't exist. Meanwhile, Newt's list of conservative accomplishments is lengthy.
I don't worry what a person says as much as I worry what a person does.
Speaking of which, Mitt complains about Newt & Cap & Tax. That's stunning because Mitt hired John Holdren to advise him on the environment, then implemented job-killing CO2 emission standards. Mitt's gone further to implementing Cap & Tax than Obama's EPA has.
PJ| 12.9.11 @ 10:14AM
Ross,
I tend to agree with your analysis. But, there are 2 situations that you have not used that could help to decide who the Republican candidate & the next president will be.
What about the various international events occurring around the world? Ultimately a presidential election is about the economy but international affairs is still counted. I'm not too sure I would trust Mitt to do the right thing using American principles. And---What if Hillary runs? She would definitely unite the Democrats w/some Independents. I would think Mitt would look like another McCain. Newt or any other Republican against Hillary? With the current field I'm not too sure they can pull it off.
Citizen Jerry| 12.9.11 @ 10:20AM
I think the campaign has divided itself into Willard supporters and Anyone But Willard supporters. I'll just be thankful when the the campaign is over and we're no longer annoyed by the true believer Paulbots who endlessly tell us the miracle cure for everything that's ever ailed society is Ron Paul. He's not.
Stormzeye| 12.9.11 @ 10:29AM
I hate to say this because there's so much I love about the guy, but Newt will destroy himself either before he gets the nomination or after. It's a guarantee that his ego and love of the outrageous position and outlandish statement will undo him. I have to reluctantly go with Romney. He'll guarantee most of the Independent vote and insure that Obozo gets his walking papers. The cultural revolution can wait. We have to clean out the White House first. Congress will keep Romney from straying to the Left.
Mike Hawk| 12.9.11 @ 10:40AM
Paulbots haven't had this much fun in weeks. SoS though. Reruns get boring.
Conservative Gator| 12.9.11 @ 10:42AM
How can you say that Newt is "more conservative" when he supports Human Embryo Destruction with tax payer monies, and has not done his homework on this serious moral issue? Newt does not believe that life begins at conception but at implantation.
Read here from National Review:
http://www.nationalreview.com/.....sh-ponnuru
I have researched Romney's record on this and he is 100% prolife including the fact that as governor, Mitt VETOED a bill which would have changed the definition of life beginning at conception to implantation, which is what Gingrich believes.
I am a lifelong Catholic, Newt says he is a Catholic, Newt's position on ESCR is diametrically opposed to the teaching of the Church on this issue.
Mitt Romney is a Mormon bu he gets it. Jesus said, "by their fruits you shall know them." This issue is paramount to which man is better doing due diligence. Romney has been married once. The evidence for ESCR has been out there for years.
http://www.crisismagazine.com/.....l-research
Newt should know better. Mitt Romney would be the better President.
bill| 12.9.11 @ 10:51AM
MY 2012 GOP DREAM TEAM:
President: Rick Perry
VP: Mitch Daniel
AG: Michelle Bachmann/ Rudy Giuliani
Treasury: Paul Ryan
Secretary of State: Rick Santorum/John Bolton
Any one agree with me?
loulou| 12.9.11 @ 10:52AM
Newt supported Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court. He also supported Dede Scozzofava in NY. He is not a conservative.
Mitt is not a conservative either.
Mitt is a Romneyite.
Perry is somewhat conservative.
Bachmann is conservative.
Santorum is conservative.
bill| 12.9.11 @ 11:03AM
I agree with you 100%.
Dai Alanye | 12.9.11 @ 11:53AM
Santorum, if only he can learn how to better present himself. Did well in his last two performances, however.
Kade| 12.9.11 @ 12:08PM
So Newt was for pro-abort Harriet Miers (and Dede too). Do the Iowan Evangelicals know this? Looks like (many of) the Republican voters have lost their soul.
missbosslady| 12.9.11 @ 5:40PM
Or, they're just grown-ups.
How do you take seriously one who pronounces that those who don't see things as they do "have lost their souls"?
Some of you here are a tad too hardcore and sound extreme.
Owen K.| 12.9.11 @ 11:20AM
I have to be honest here. I don't like either Mitt or Gingrich. Gringrich is not a true Conservative, nor is Mitt. Looks like we will have to accept whomever we feel is the least of two evils. The Republican primary debates have been disappointing. With the media set to ambush the true Conservatives, now Gingrich is the front runner. I had hoped this wouldn't happen. Its sad to see so many good Conservatives trailing a professional politician the likes of Gingrich and Mitt. But, there is no way I would stay home in this election. I will have to swallow a bitter pill and vote for Gingrich (or Mitt) if he gets the nomination.
Paul McGrath| 12.9.11 @ 12:08PM
I disagree with you Owen, to the extent that I think both of these men are outstanding candidates. As most of us agree, it would be nice if Romney was a little more conservative. But as I've said before, if elected, he will be ten times better than the horrible Bush. By the way, check out Romney's CV on Wikipedia. It is very, very impressive.
As to Newt? Don't worry about him. He'd be a great president. If he can get there.
james wilson| 12.9.11 @ 12:50PM
Earth to Dick Morris: Only Jack Kennedy's adoring hagiographers had his IQ at 160, in reality it was 119.
Romney is probably less despicable than Gingrich, which is just as well since Gingrich may be too ugly, to fat, and to badly named to be elected President.
LMajito| 12.9.11 @ 1:18PM
I get a big chuckle to read all those predicting outcomes based on polls of less than a thousand folks...isn't the country over 300 million?
second, elections elect folks not talking heads or wannabe pundits...
third, it does not matter who occupies the white house...the folks in both chambers of congress are the ones that should be targeted...
with a congress and senate that have the us middle class as their first priority, they'll be able to bring the executive branch along...that's what newt did with wjc.
if the senate remains under the guidance of that nevadan wimp, nothing will happen. if the congress remain under the control of that ohioan wuzzy, nothing will happen...need to change these chambers occupants...they need to select leaders based on leadship qualities and not seniority...to get rid of this seniority bs, vote the senior bums out...
let new blood come in...the old tarnished and dried up generation need to go back home and tend to their grandchildren, tomatoes and chickens.
come on fellow citizens, let quit arguing over this electable or that, or this can talk and that can't...look what we got now, an electable, articulate, presidential, harvard graduate guy...how's that working out?
we need folks from the hard knocks university, with common and horse sense and a truly american middle of the road upbringing, hopefully not from an urban setting to help us come back to a place where this nation thrives again...
look at that brilliant crook testifying yesterday....a billion plus bucks...er, er, i don't know where it went...it was not my intention to steal, it was not my intention to syphon it away, but i can't recalled what happened...
well so much for brilliant, ivy league degreed, 'honorable' clown...so please quit the garbage about electability...
folks want to vote for a sure thing...well nothing is sure in this life pal, get used to it.
Paul McGrath| 12.9.11 @ 6:19PM
It's called a capital letter. Try it some time.
The Big E| 12.9.11 @ 1:39PM
As between Mitt and Obama, I will choose Mitt.
As Between Newt and Obama, I will choose Newt.
As between Mitt and Newt, I would rather have someone else entirely.
I think this idea that conservatives are rallying around Newt is inaccurate. I think many conservatives simply dislike Mitt far more than they dislike Newt, and seeing that any true conservative will be hounded out of the race before he or she ever gets a sniff at Obama, is deciding that if they're going to have a say in the outcome, they're left to choose between two candidates they really do not like. I know that's how I feel.
So as between the two, I would have to fall on the Newt side, for two reasons: First, while Newt may screw up from time to time, at least he admits his mistakes and (hopefully) learns from them. Mitt screws up to, but he doesn't seem to recognize his own errors.
Mitt is still trying to defend Romneycare while claiming to oppose Obamacare. It's like he's either incapable, or unwilling, to admit his mistake. Mitt should have explained his signing of Romneycare as being the best he could do in the environment that he was in at the time. He should have explained it like this: "I didn't like it, I didn't want to do it, but I couldn't stop it so I did what I could to minimize it's negative impact on the people who had elected me their Governor." If Mitt had taken that position from the start, I would probably forgive his signing of Romneycare and give him the benefit of the doubt on the other issues he's changed his mind on - though honestly, how he squares a pro-abortion position with "deeply held" Mormonism is beyond me.
Newt has certainly screwed some things up on his own, in part, I think, because he is too impulsive and lacks an adequate filter between his brain and his mouth. But Newt will admit when he screws up - such as when he did that ridiculous commercial on global warming with Nancy Pelosi, or when he savaged Paul Ryan's budget plan. I'd rather deal with a man who knows his limitations than with one who seems to think he doesn't have any.
Second, Newt is probably a better fit (with all his flaws) for what we need in this country right now. Mitt seems to me to be too concerned about being liked to get the tough jobs done. There have been times in our nations history when Mitt would have made an outstanding President. But these are not such times. He would be an outstanding manager of the Federal apparatus, but right now, we don't need a skilled manager, we need a skilled demolitions expert, and that, Mitt is not.
Newt however, might be. He did lead the charge to reform welfare, and a Newt led House did give us the first balanced budget in many, many years. Newt's not afraid to piss people off, and he's not too concerned about whether the New York Times readership likes him or not, so if we can get him pointed in the right direction, he might be enough of a bull in a china shop to get the job done, or at least get it started.
All that said, I cannot believe that we conservatives, who apparently make up the majority of the Republican party, cannot find one of our own near the top of the polls to vote for. Herman Cain is a good man. Inexperienced, yes, but with a transformational vision on economics which we so desperately need right now. But he's gone. Sarah Palin is gutsy and has a knack for cutting through the noise to get to the heart of the matter, but she's nowhere to be seen on any ballot. John Bolton was my personal favorite, simply because I think we can not truly fix our economic woes until we address our energy problems in a sensible manner, and he seems to understand that better than anyone. But like Palin, he's nowhere to be found on any ballot.
Rick Perry has a good track record as governor of Texas, but shot himself in the foot so many times, and Rick Santorum . . . well . . . WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY HE IS NOT A TOP-TIER CANDIDATE? He's certainly preferable to either Mitt or Newt. Bachman says the right things, but I can't escape the feeling that she's just not ready for prime time.
I have opined in this space before, and will do so again now, that we are letting our enemies choose our nominee. I think the Democrats want Mitt, either because they think they have the best chance to beat him, or because they feel they're likely to lose to anybody, and Mitt's the one Republican who is LEAST likely to dismantle the monstrosity they have created over the last 3 years. I think they're getting comfortable with Newt, too, for similar reasons.
The fact is that with the current ideological makeup of the Republican party, neither Mitt nor Newt should have a prayer of getting the Republican nomination. But the reality is, one of them probably will, not because Republicans will select them, but because Democrats will. In 2012, the Democrats will not be having a Presidential primary. Their voters can go to the polls in our open primaries and select whichever Republican they want their man to run against. That's what they did in 2008, and they got the man they wanted. I fear that's what they're going to do again.
I will go to the polls in November 2012 and vote for whoever the Republican nominee is. But if that nominee is either Newt or Mitt, that may be the last vote I ever cast as a Republican. If the Republican apparatus is incapable of producing a candidate which actually represents the core beliefs of the majority of the party membership for two consecutive Presidential elections, then it will be clear that, regardless of the outcome next November, the Republican part will have ceased to exist as a viable alternative to the Democrats, and at that time, I will change my registration to unaffiliated, and await the arrival of a party which is willing to actually produce a candidate I WANT to vote for.
bill| 12.9.11 @ 2:46PM
IF NEWT GETS THROUGH THE GOP PRIMARY,
I WILL SUPPORT HIM, AND IT'LL BE NICE IF HE BECOMES TOUGH ON IMMIGRATION AND THE BORDER SECURITY, AND PLEDGES TO MAKE NO DELA WITH THE DEMS.
NEWT MIGHT WIN IN FL, RICK PERRY HAS BETTER CHANCE IN SC.
THE DILEMA IS THAT GOP SUCCESS DEPENDS ON SOUTH, NEWT AND PERRY BOTH ARE FROM THE SOUTH, AND THAT WILL SPLIT THE EVANGELIC VOTES, THAT MITT MIGHT PREVAIL, CARRYING MOST OF THE NE AND THE MIDWEST STATES.
I PREFER PERRY THAN NEWT, AND NEWT IS FAR BETTER THAN ROMNEY.
Kevin| 12.9.11 @ 2:51PM
None Of The Above.
Which is which Republican got my vote in '08, too.
I'm amazed by the idea that the answer to Obama is a Ford Republican.
Kade| 12.9.11 @ 3:10PM
I just read on Newsmax that Michelle Bachmann also refused the Trump debate so she is off my list. Looks like they are all afraid to answer questions on China and other important questions by Trump, yet they eagerly kowtow to lefties Wolf Blitzer and company.
Santorum is also a no because he backed most of Bush’s liberal policies and campaigned relentlessly for partial birth abortion advocate Arlen Specter. I forgot about weak-kneed Romney also backing out so I take back about possibly voting for him. And I could never vote for Ron Paul just on his foreign policy views alone.
They are all weasels. Unfortunately I am left with none of the above too, which is most distressing.
Earle Belle| 12.10.11 @ 4:59AM
Return Of The War Party?
http://www.theamericanconserva.....r-party-2/
Ron Paul: Israel “Our Best Friend”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....FZpL8F4FgU
missbosslady| 12.9.11 @ 5:42PM
I'm amazed that you think the answer to Obama is more Obama.
Kade| 12.9.11 @ 6:34PM
No I want Obama out but will not vote for a liberal Republican – like a Trojan horse they too are very dangerous. Let’s hope we can win the Senate and cause gridlock.
I would vote for a RINO if the conservative media would hold their feet to the fire instead of covering for them becuase they have an R next to their name. The Tea Party needs to get a promise from these pundits to keep Newt conservative if he becomes president.
bill| 12.9.11 @ 2:53PM
MITT HAS MONEY AND ENDORSEMENTS, WHILE NEWT BETS ON CHARISMA AND EXPERIENCE.
MITT'S PROBLEM IS THE ROMNEYCARE. IT'S REALLY HARD TO DIGEST WHAT WE SEE AFTER THE OBAMACARE.
NEWT'S TENURE AS SPEAKER WAS CONTROVERSIAL, BUT HE SHOULD FOCUS ON ISSUES, AND STAY ON THE MESSAGES.
IF RICK PERRY FAILS TO SECURE THE GOP NODE, NET IS THE BEST NOMINEE TO TAKE ON OBAMA.
NEWT IS A HALL OF WISDOM WHILE OBAMA IS A HALL OF SHAME.
David| 12.9.11 @ 3:08PM
Everyone please take a good hard look at Santorum. He is the only candidate who has been consistently conservative throughout his entire political career. He has abundant qualifications for the job. He won his races in heavily democratic Pennsylvania. He knows what he believes, and as well as Newt, can explain why he believes it. He is a very good debater.
bill| 12.9.11 @ 4:23PM
Santorum lost his senate bid in 2006.
PA is heavily democratic state, GOP took control of the executive branch including all statewide offices and the state house, with Sen. Toomey and flipped the balance of power in the congressional delegation 12-7.
PA is a red state. GOP lost in 2006 because they abandoned they conservative values and made deals with the liberals in Congress.
Santorum supported Spector and voted for the Medicare part D. And that's why he lost his re-election bid.
Santorum is articulate but a very aggressive debater. That brought him down in 2006 and we can see his poll numbers as a GOP contender.
Presidency depends on charisma, records, and leadership.
Santorum failed to demonstrate any of these core values.
I like Santorum as VP, considering the fact that PA has 21 electoral votes, and GOP must win PA.
Santorum as VP, O.K.
scotchieguy| 12.9.11 @ 6:40PM
But he is unelectable. Remember what Buckley said?
copp| 12.9.11 @ 3:55PM
It's probably wise to stop reading when a journalist confidently informs you that Mitt was ever in favor of gay marriage. I mean at what point do these guys ever learn? Good God.
shipley130| 12.9.11 @ 4:54PM
If we don't consider either Romney or Newt, then we won't have to hold our nose in November.
ml| 12.9.11 @ 4:58PM
I consider Gingrich; not Romney.
scotchieguy| 12.9.11 @ 6:51PM
" Again, we will have to decide whether we want the more conservative candidate or the more electable candidate. I wonder what William F. Buckley would say about this match-up." -- Here is what Rush said: " The repub establishment and the libs both fear Newt for different reasons. The republican establishment (Rove, Kristol, Brooks, etc) hate Gingrich almost as much as they hate Obama because they think Newt is too conservative (I doubt that), and he will scare all the moderates/indeps back to the dem party, therefore he will lose to Obama. On the other hand, the libs hate Newt (fear him) because they think he will win (convervatism always wins).
He cites Reagans two landslides, and the tea party victories in 2010 as examples of conservatism being triumphant. He also said, ever since '64, the repub party is nearly paranoid of another Goldwater defeat, that is why they tend to go more moderate. But it doesn't work. Bush 41 in '92 after he raised taxes, Dole in 96 (yawn), and McCain in '08 yawn). The guy is a loudmouth, but he is a genius. He knows his shit. I trust what he says.
Earle Belle| 12.10.11 @ 4:55AM
Des Moines Register - "Republicans would take a giant step backward by choosing Gingrich":
http://www.desmoinesregister.c.....0025/Rand-
National Review - "A Choice of Two Temperaments":
http://www.nationalreview.com/.....uval-levin
martin j smith| 12.10.11 @ 8:40AM
You know there is a point that I heard Rush Limbaugh make that I think needs to be considered. If we look at Obama and his qualifications --before his being President--did he really qualify ? My view --He should NEVER --have been elected. So compare our candidates which have far more than Obama. Then lets look at Obama's record: You mean to tell me that Newt would not be better than having Obama. ( I am not talking about Newt's flaws ) If you prefer Obama over Newt ( as an example ) then there is no use or any hope.. What I am saying is --and this includes all candidates--even those that for certain political reasons I would not vote for--they ALL QUALIFY. Its a matter of who would be best for the nation and before that who can win and stand up to Obama.
Kingofthenet| 12.11.11 @ 2:06PM
The President is NOT a 'Genius' and I say that as a ardent supporter. What He is a man with a 'basic' well thought out, mildly left leaning philosophy. It can be be described as 'On the one hand, and on the other' and 'let's bring a little fairness to the situation' he looks at BOTH sides of an issue and tries to broker a compromise that brings us to slightly left of the middle of the road. This is something I think will resonate well with the 'undecided' voters, it's not all 'my way or the highway' of the Republican field with NONE of them willing to take a One dollar revenue increase for ten in spending cuts. That hard line is going to hurt them in a general election.
Jim 1952| 12.18.11 @ 2:07AM
Some tough choices but anything, I mean ANYTHING or ANYONE is better then what we have now. We absolutely have NOTHING but a spend thrift, egotistical, self centered, corrupt gangster from Chicago who immulates Al Capone