-
Anyone Still Believe Me?
May 21, 2013 | 38 comments
-
What Those Who Boycott Israel Really Want
May 14, 2013 | 143 comments
-
Mitt on Marriage
May 8, 2013 | 38 comments
-
The One Constant
May 1, 2013 | 118 comments
-
Trudeaus and Terrorism
April 22, 2013 | 15 comments
Campaign Crawlers
Newt Gingrich and Corn Flakes
Voters are having a taste of him again for the first time.
The best way I can describe Newt Gingrich’s ascendancy in the polls is like a bowl of Kellogg’s Corn Flakes.
Over the years Newt Gingrich has been likened to many things. But I think this is the first time he has even been compared to cereal. But allow me to explain.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Kellogg’s embarked upon a new marketing campaign for its flagship product. The commercial would begin with a black screen with the words, “Introducing a cereal from Kellogg’s.” We then see a man or woman presented with a bowl of cereal. The individual would not be impressed with its appearance since it didn’t have fruits, nuts, oats or marshmallows. In one of the spots a young man says, “Looks like a best seller to me. I mean there’s nothing here but flakes.” But then after tasting the cereal, he has a change of heart. Then the narrator chimes in, “Kellogg’s Corn Flakes.” The young man, stunned, asks, “Corn Flakes?” The narrator replies, “Kellogg’s Corn Flakes. Taste them again for the first time.”
I submit that this is precisely what is happening with Newt Gingrich. At first glance, Newt’s candidacy appeared to have nothing going for it. He did not look like a best seller or a winner. But after listening to what he has said in various GOP debates over the past several months, Republican voters are having a taste of him again for the first time.
Consider some of Newt’s poll numbers. According to Gallup, after polling at 4 percent nationally amongst Republicans in August as of the first week of December his poll numbers have increased more than nine fold to 37 percent — fifteen points ahead of Mitt Romney. Most significantly, among voters 55 years old and older, Newt is preferred over Romney by a two to one margin (46% to 23%).
It is also worth noting that in the same poll Newt leads both Romney and Ron Paul among voters between the ages of 18 and 34, albeit by a smaller margin (26% to 21% to 18%). Yet these numbers are also significant. This entire demographic was too young to vote when Newt led Republicans to their first congressional majority in forty years back in 1994. This means if Newt captures the GOP nomination next year there will be a crop of first time voters who were born the year of Newt’s greatest triumph. These voters could very well take him even higher. Let’s keep in mind that Newt has not held elected office since 1999. While younger voters know who Newt is, they are more likely to know him as a pundit rather than a politician. This bloc of younger voters is actually having its first taste of Newt.
Of course, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that during his time as Speaker, Newt left some Republicans with a bitter taste. Many of those people are still sour on him to this day and probably think a bowl of flakes would be a fitting description of him. However, we must consider the source of this discontent. To be precise, we must consider from where it is emanating.
Most of the bile can be found along the Beltway in and around Washington D.C. In recent days, we have seen articles assailing Newt from the likes of Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review, Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post as well as my American Spectator colleague Quin Hillyer. Newt’s rise is also arousing uneasiness amongst some Republicans on Capitol Hill such as John McCain and Orrin Hatch. But let us consider a Gallup Poll released late last week which indicated that 76 percent of registered voters believe most members of the House and Senate do not deserve to be re-elected. With Congress being held in about the same esteem as ex-football coaches from Penn State, there’s a good chance that the public won’t be inclined to listen to long held grudges against Newt from Washington.
This isn’t to say that Newt is guaranteed to be the Republican standard bearer and one could rightly fault him for immodesty when he declared he would be the GOP nominee earlier this month. Yet while it is possible that an event or a series of events could cause Newt to fall out of favor as one Newt supporter recently put it, “I can’t imagine what dirt they’ll dig up on Newt that hasn’t already been dug up. There’s not going to be any surprises, I think.”
People who are supporting Newt understand that he is far from perfect. But then again, who amongst us is? In 2008, we elected a President who claimed that his time in office would mark the point in history when “the rise of the oceans began to slow and the planet began to heal.” In June 2009, Evan Thomas of Newsweek said this man was “standing above the country, above the world, he’s sort of God.” As recently as a week ago, Piers Morgan described him as “just perfect.”
Well, President Obama is not God and he is certainly isn’t perfect. He’s not even Jimmy Carter. Somehow I doubt God would leave us $15 trillion in debt and travel all over the world to apologize for America’s deeds. America voted for perfection in 2008 and look where it has got us. At this point, Americans will take palatability over perfection. It could very well be that Americans will decide that Newt Gingrich will leave America with a better taste in its mouth and will pour a bowl for him.
About the Author
Aaron Goldstein writes from Boston, Massachusetts.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (102) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Aaron Goldstein
More Articles From Campaign Crawlers
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/12/13/newt-gingrich-corn-flakes
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
JayDick| 12.13.11 @ 9:53AM
The only really important question is who is most likely to beat Obama. I would say only Romney and Gingrich have realistic chances. So, which of those two would be the stronger candidate?
Gingrich seems risky in a way but, as with many risky propositions, the upside potential is enormous. He might end up beating Obama by 10 points or more and carrying lots of Senators in with him. That would be wonderful. On the other hand, the Democrats might succeed in demonizing him and beating him. This would be unlikely except for the fact that the media will be a really big help; they don't seem to like Gingrich much either. Newt will fight this tooth and nail and will present effective arguments about how bad Obama really is. It's really hard to tell which way this will go, but I think Newt can fight off the attacks that will surely come and take the fight to Obama.
Romney just doesn't look like an effective campaigner to me. Obama will beat him over the head with the health care issue and he doesn't seem to have a convincing response. I think he would be a good President, but he would have to win first.
Bob Grant| 12.13.11 @ 10:02AM
We should proceed with caution in supporting Newt.
If you haven't noticed, current and former congressmen/women, FOX news analysts, former acquaintances, and many others who have dealt with him in the past have stated in no uncertain terms that he is not qualified to be president and is unelectable.
I tend not to listen to the political class when making a decision on whom to support but usually when there's smoke, there's fire.
Grzmlyk| 12.13.11 @ 10:49AM
The bad news is that Newt might get the nomination.
The good news is that it doesn't matter who the GOP nominee is.
Turning this country around is not possible; the government will keep metastasizing - with either the covert or overt blessing of whomever is president in 2012 - until it chokes off entirely the private sector and the entire oxygen-deprived edifice collapses in on itself.
A mass embrace of the lie of limitless money is what the critical mass of culture, media, politicians and citizens want, partly because most people think "collapse can't happen here (this is AMERICA, after all)" and partly because the reality of where we ALREADY ARE is simply too horrific to contemplate. Might as well keep the orchestra playing as the Titanic slips beneath the waves.
Even if one of our candidates had the courage to challenge the Leviathan - and neither Gingrich nor Romney is that person - that individual would be a bug on the windshield of juggernaut government.
Democrat presidents have a prayer of bringing the bureacracy to heel (at least temporarily) because their ultimate goals are the same: More people in government, more taxypayer money funneled into the public sector.
Republican presidents - those that are truly conservative - are antithetical to the enormous entrenched status quo and are no match for it; therefore, a GOP chief executive either goes along to get along or else becomes utterly irrelevant.
Stormzeye| 12.13.11 @ 11:02AM
Griz, you forget that any "moderate" President faced with a conservative House and/or Senate would necessarily have to toe the mark; with one or both of those bodies giving him his marching orders. Someone as malleable as Romney would easily go along and someone ego-driven as Gingrich would find such a "transformative moment in history" irresistible.
ENOUGH ROPE| 12.13.11 @ 11:24AM
Elsewhere, that intemperate loose cannon named Michael Savage wrote this about Gingrich: "On television, he will come off badly compared to Obama and look like nothing more than what he is: a fat, old, white man.
And what did Churchill look like and do?
ENOUGH ROPE| 12.13.11 @ 11:34AM
Churchill had become drunk at a dinner party and was chastised by a nearby woman who said to him "You are drunk." Churchill replied "Madam, in the morning I shall be sober, but in the morning you will still be ugly." The body is transportation for the mind. Newt can slim down for better transportation of his conservative and brilliant mind. A wiser choice is mind over matter.
Grzmlyk| 12.13.11 @ 11:41AM
Well, Stormzeye, the problem is that, even now, even with a GOP-controlled house (where all spending bills originate), the feckless GOP is merely fighting - half-heartedly, I might add - to limit the GROWTH of government (remember Boehner and the debt ceiling canard?). That's it. And they're losing that battle, which they're not really all that interested in winning (after all, no matter which party you belong to, the key to reelection is handing out goodies that someone else has paid for to your constitutents).
Paul Ryan, a man everyone would agree is a fiscal conservative, is in fact engaged in trying to save the welfare state, not kill it.
The truth is that congress is only 535 people. That is dwarfed by the number of career professional staffers they have - which is where the REAL work of the Congress gets done, where bills are written and corrupt deals are made.
Not to mention the ever-expanding pool of lobbyists (where ex-congresspeople go to cash in), NOT ONE of whom is arguing for LESS taxpayer lucre; lawyers, who are looking for a loophole that will afford them and their clients a taxpayer-funded windfall; the rest of the entrenched federal bureaucracy, from the lowliest secretary to the SEIU/NEA rank-and-file to the ruling oligarchs - a class of Americans that is only going to continue to grow, with each new employee joining his fellow myriad public-sector workers in spending 90% of his working days zealously protecting/growing his gold-plated benefits/pension packages; the ever-burgeoning regulator class - which is 100% progressive no matter who is president, and which justifies its existence by inventing ever-more ways to constrict the freedom of markets to work; the judiciary at every level which is almost entirely liberal at this juncture; the crony capitalists like Warren Buffet, George Soros, all of Wall Street - who are looking for an easy public-treasury score - shall I go on?
It does no good to toe the line that Congress draws in the sand when congress itself is taking its marching orders from the corrupt status quo.
Not to mention the almost 50% of Americans who now depend on government for some aspect of their well being - who has the balls to take stuff away from constituents?
Remember, what on Monday is a gift from government is by Wednesday an entitlement and by Friday a civil right.
The corruption that liberalism has brought to our government is now all-encompassing.
And don't forget, it's pretty predictable what's going to happen if the GOP sweeps the White House and both houses of Congress in 2012 (unlikely): The conservative majority won't be able to stanch the hemorrhaging of money into the public sector in a mere four years even if they had a political interest in doing that - which they won't. And, as long as we can monetize our debt and/or get suckers like China and Japan to buy our debt, for all intents and purposes, the party will still be going strong. Who's going to have the political courage to take the punch bowl away at the height of the orgy?
Which means that, come 2016, guess who will be back in charge in Congress if not the presidency? DEMOCRATS.
If we make it to 2016.
CrackerHound| 12.13.11 @ 12:29PM
Well Grzmlyk....your premise that no one can change the staus quo in time to save the Republic, and most politicians don't even desire to take that punch bowl away is probably correct. Therefore the ONLY opportunity that exists is letting it all fail and learn through the catastrophe that will ensue.
We could have probably avoided the amount of pain that is coming by not bailing anyone out and letting the chips fall where they may (no borrowing and no "stimulus").
It was a choice of another great depression or total collapse and I fear we may have made the wrong choice.
simplified: when you are heading over a cliff, you don't hit the accelarator, you hit the brakes.
We not only did not curb the actions or policies that caused the problem, we prescribed more of it in an extremely dramatic way (it had to be intentional)...and both parties are to blame.
Grzmlyk| 12.13.11 @ 12:53PM
Sadly, I agree.
Sure, I'd rather have a real conservative as president than another Obama term. But even Reagan couldn't really put the brakes on; his great achievement was delivering more revenue to the government by allowing the economic engine a little oxygen. But he really didn't make a dent in the overall trajectory of government that began in earnest with FDR.
And I do believe that trajectory will reach its inevitable, inexorable end; it is now too late to change it. As Mark Steyn always says, we borrow about $200 million every hour, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, just to meet our current obligations. And STILL we grow government. That's not just unsustainable, it is patently insane. But nobody wants to put two (hundred trillion) and two (hundred trillion) together. Because to do so would be to admit we've gone too far to come back. Even if we had the will to do so, which we do not.
All empires collapse, and very often for the same reasons: fiscal profligacy and a dilution of the people, a fragmenting of a once-homogenous culture. This happened in Rome such that the army - spread too thin in any case - was splintered and populated largely by barbarians who did not have a vested interest in keeping Rome intact, resulting in a political realm that was run by a series of corrupt, incompetent emperors. And it had a metastasized welfare state where loyalty was for sale to the highest bidder - and the lucre that supplied these bribes came from dwindling conquests of increasingly unruly subjects. This, coupled with natural entropy, brought Rome down.
Every empire collapses.
I'm not saying we shouldn't continue to do what we think is right - vote for conservatives, live our lives, fight the good fight, etc. After all, most of the men aboard the Titanic still observed the chivalric rule of "women and children first." They were doomed, but they wanted to preserve their honor to the last.
The fact is, we are already over the cliff. Like the roadrunner in the cartoon, we've run out of terra firma and are now running on nothing but air. The minute we look to the ground far below - i.e., the minute the illusion of funny money becomes impossible to ignore - we will go "splat."
Stormzeye| 12.13.11 @ 10:04PM
Griz, I am sooo depressed. After reading your well-written posts I want to go home and gargle Draino. Is there no hope for the Republic. Have the "Progressives" lured the citizenry into a golden cage of entitlements from which they dare not escape?
Stormzeye| 12.13.11 @ 10:06PM
Griz, I am sooo depressed. After reading your well-written posts I want to go home and gargle Draino. Is there no hope for the Republic. Have the "Progressives" lured the citizenry into a golden cage of entitlements from which they dare not escape?
idalily| 12.13.11 @ 2:32PM
I agree with this assessment. The brutal truth is that it is up to the American people to vote in candidates that will move us and whoever is POTUS to responsible fiscal policy. That may or may not happen. Also, I think Gingrich is more likely to recognize that this is his moment to be Churchill, and I believe he is capable of rising to the occasion. Will he? Who knows? Will he be hated for it? Yes, by people from both parties.
But I can at least see Gingrich as capable of taking the bold, Churchill-like steps required to make sustainable changes. Try as I might, I just can't see Romney ever stepping up and acting like a Churchill. If he wins, I can only pray I have underestimated him.
Buck Ofama| 12.13.11 @ 1:35PM
Not qualified? WHAT THE FVCK DID YOU THINK OF OVOMIT, YOU BLATHERING MORON?
Maybe you ought to try listening to your own instincts... oh, you pay too much attention to the media. OK, just stay home.
CrackerHound| 12.13.11 @ 10:50AM
I agree with your post and am sold on Newt for now.
However, when it comes to polls, I am suspicious.
How can a sample poll of say 1,000 people predict how the other thousands of people will vote? If I ask six of my co-workers who they are voting for and then a different six...and so forth ...the results would be all over the place. It doesn't seem logical to me but maybe I am naive.
It just seems to me that sample polls are a very effective tool for shaping HOW people vote.
I'll be honest...if Newt were still in the 6% range, I probably wouldn't be voting for him because removing President Obama is my goal.
Also, if Republicans truly wanted a conservative, they would not necessarily be inclined towards Newt. In fact, I think Rick Santorum or Bachmann who are the only true conservatives, are entirely electable against Obama.
Are our candidates being chosen for us once again?
Patrick| 12.13.11 @ 1:16PM
In the end, Newt is a whore. He has sold himself out in every way and every manner at least once. Global warming, entitlements, ethanol, the list goes on.
No, he is not "corn flakes", but rather a bowl of % *#.
Petronius| 12.13.11 @ 1:39PM
Roger that. Newt can't shave his palms often enough to be credible.
CrackerHound| 12.13.11 @ 2:30PM
Well there's always Romney I guess. I just don't think holding my nose for that one is going to cut it. I also don't want to waste my vote on Bachmann who truly is the most qualified AND pure conservatism.
For some reason unknown to me, she is despised by many...including so called conservatives. Too looney tunes (really?) a ditz (huh?).
My only complaint about her is that she tends to speak in platitudes but I have also heard her sound very informed and articulate....no flip-flopping in her record.
TrueBlue| 12.14.11 @ 5:57PM
I don't like her because she's a lawyer. Enough lawyers in DC, where she already is, without giving her an upgrade. There needs to be a new requirement that anyone running for president has to have had at least 8 years in the private sector or something similar.
Alan Brooks| 12.13.11 @ 3:58PM
Newt is the antipode of Dole:
Dole was a dopey but principled old guy.
Newt is a brilliant lying old bastard. If Newt somehow claws himself into the White House, all his games will be exposed-he will be destroyed worse than Nixon.
CallMeIshmael| 12.13.11 @ 5:17PM
Everything said about Newt is correct. He IS deeply flawed. And like a hand grenade rolling around in your foxhole, you know it's going to explode, you just don't know when. Newt is his own October Surprise waiting to happen. If he is the nominee we will all be on the edge of our seats until the polls close on election day waiting for him to throw it all away with one outrageously stupid and narcissistic barb. But then again, HE FIGHTS! We need a fighter. All the other fighters seem to be out of the picture. When it comes to fighting, Mitt ain't IT.
"I can't spare this man. He fights." -- Abraham Lincoln
Jack in Wi.| 12.13.11 @ 4:42PM
Newt is already burnt toast, as I predicted here a couple of weeks ago. The latest poll in Iowa, the PPP poll has Newt 22% and Ron Paul, a statistical tie. Mitt Romney comes in at 16%. Both Ron's voters and Mitt's are far more committed then Newt's. Ron has by far the youngest and most committed voters. In New Hampshire Newt is at 22% Willard at 33 % and Ron at 18%. I predicted days ago that Newt will be gone by Martin Luther King day, maybe just after just New Years. The more the voters remember and learn more about Newt, the more they hate him.
Jack in Wi.| 12.13.11 @ 8:07PM
The correct poll in Iowa is Newt 22% and sinking, Ron 21 and rising and Mitt at 16%. The Pillsbury doughboy's yeast has lost it's levening.
TrueBlue| 12.14.11 @ 6:03PM
You mean liberal Iowa who accepts a huge amount of government subsidy money? The state with only 7 electoral votes who has only voted Republican once since 1988? Kind of like New Hampshire, with their 4 that since 1992 has only voted Republican once. People place way too much credibility on states that aren't even close to a significant portion of the country and don't even vote R the majority of the time in the last THIRTY YEARS.
Bob K.| 12.13.11 @ 10:05AM
His reckless comments on the Palestinian situation are causing some concern worldwide. It was described as "bomb throwing" here.
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ML14Ak01.html
Does he really have the self discipline to think twice before shooting from the lip when it comes to foreign policy problems?
Stormzeye| 12.13.11 @ 11:05AM
Don't you remember when Reagan was criticized for calling the Soviets "the Evil Empire"? He was vilified in the press for being a cowboy every time he challenged those he saw as enemies of the US. How about when W labelled Iran, N.Korea and Iraq the Axis of Evil? There's nothing wrong with bomb throwing as long as it's accurate.
TW in SC| 12.13.11 @ 11:34AM
Oh no...mustn't say things that might anger the sand-people. Noooooooo. They might...they might DO something like...terrorize us.
Seriously, Bob. Screw the middle east and their trumped up anger at the West. It's time to call a spade a spade and to hell with them.
"Palestinians" are Arabs. And, by the media buying into the "palestinian" schtick, they are all useful idiots for the hoped-for destruction of Israel.
Bob K.| 12.13.11 @ 2:27PM
Why did he bring the Marines home from Lebanon after many were killed when their
barracks was destroyed by a suicide sand jockey driving a truck?
Do you think Newt would have done that?
As for his statements about the "Evil Empire" and "W's" "Axis of Evil," you can be sure they were thought out and considered fully before they were uttered. These 2 guys did not shoot off their mouths and damn the consequences later. And neither of them had a history of doing it before they were elected President either. They considered the responsibility of the office they were seeking and conducted themselves accordingly.
And it should be clear by now to anyone that the anger of the Arabs in the Near East is not "trumped up."
idalily| 12.13.11 @ 2:38PM
Look, EVERY Republican POTUS or candidate to be POTUS gets accused of cowboy politics, firing from the hip, etc. They would say these things regardless of which candidate said what. It's all part of the MSM scare-tactic strategy.
And again, can we please STOP the circular firing squad? It only discourages the entire base to see every candidate maligned by different factions. Whoever the R candidates are, they are ALL better than Obama, and that is our ONLY concern right now. We'll worry about the other stuff later.
Mike W| 12.13.11 @ 3:11PM
All W did was shoot from the hip. Don't even mention him in the same breath with Reagan. He was a total buffoon who gave us Obama.
Alan Brooks| 12.13.11 @ 4:05PM
And notice how Reagan's family did not try to start a dynasty as Bush did.
But you have got to admire Bush's toughness-- he had the intestinal fortitude of Andy Jackson.
Grzmlyk| 12.13.11 @ 4:54PM
I don't agree that Bush was a total buffoon. That's not to say I think he was a brain surgeon, either (the Harriet Meyers fiasco was one of the stupidest moves anyone has made in politics EVER).
But I believe his biggest problem was that, like his father, he was a born dyed-in-the-wool progressive - hence "compassionate conservatism."
Which, by the way, is what Newt is.
Buck Ofama| 12.13.11 @ 1:36PM
Reckless, you say? The pali's are certainly an "invented" people. Get over it.
Alan Brooks| 12.13.11 @ 4:02PM
With friends such as Newt, Israel doesn't need ememies.
Newt is shooting his mouth off to be president in the most provocative way, he is showing off not at a think tank, but with a whole nation.
Newt must be wiped out of politics, and perhaps being the 2nd president to resign will have to do- because he is a genius and might very well be elected president 11 months from now.
Alan Brooks| 12.13.11 @ 4:11PM
"With friends such as Newt, Israel doesn't need ememies."
ENemies, 'ememies' is my public school background showing. All I really want to know about Gingrich:
will he colonize space before or after he is re-elected?
Tired Taxpayer PRM| 12.13.11 @ 10:39AM
Any politician who can upset the Arab world with “bomb throwing” comments, has earned the distrust of Washington insiders, aroused the uneasiness of John McCain, and has the cajoles to call Obama and the Dimocrats liars is good enough for me.
The Dimocrats and MSM will demonize whoever is the Republican Nominee. Let us pick someone who will actually fight back.
C Smith| 12.13.11 @ 10:49AM
Who is "bomb throwing" here? Could it be those who refuse to admit the most obvious of realities, such as that betrayed by the text of Palestinian textbooks e.g., "if there are 13 Jews and 9 Jews are killed, how many Jews are left?"
Alan Brooks| 12.13.11 @ 4:12PM
Tell it to Duke and Stormfront- they not the Palestinians are the real enemy.
conservativelady| 12.13.11 @ 10:58AM
Newt's not fit. He goes off on too many tangents, misspeaks and then has to try to do damage repair. He talks about history as if he was alive during Lincoln's time, which dates him to a distant era. He has been caught with his hand in the Washington cookie jar (Freddie Mac). He had an affair with an office aide that ruined his marriage because he loves his country so much... Romney is soft spoken but steady and reliable and will be a great president who won't shoot off his mouth and cause international problems even before the election! Can't anyone see that this guy is just too flawed and too conflicted?
Grzmlyk| 12.13.11 @ 12:04PM
He sat on a couch with Nancy Pelosi and decried "man-made global warming." He supported cap-and-trade. He called Paul Ryan's plan to save social security (a very, very modest plan) "right-wing social engineering."
Anybody - anybody - who thinks Gingrich is not a statist is kidding themelves. He sees himself as a Master Builder. Beware the Master Builder.
He is in fact a callow narcissist.
I'm kind of tired of having a callow narcissist as president.
Performing well in debates is ONE skill. Gingrich has proven time and again that he cannot build a sustained coalition of various factions in order to advance the ball down the field (and if you think the goal line on that field has "small government" written on it I would disagree); he's the idea guy who comes up with beautiful architectural designs (if you don't look too close) but doesn't have the skill - or the temperament - to realize them. And remember, the zeitgeist was very different when he gave us the Contract with America - the political costs of which (i.e., backlash) we are still living with.
If he's the nominee, I'll vote for him. But I won't like it. I voted for McCain. I'm used to having to swim through raw sewage on election day.
Grzmlyk| 12.13.11 @ 12:12PM
Sorry - I accidentally posted this below - it was meant to be an addendum to this post:
By the way, according to national broadside:
"The Federal government and the National Debt actually grew while Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House. As Ed Crane, president of the Cato Institute lamented in 2000: “the combined budgets of the 95 major programs that the Contract with America promised to eliminate have increased by 13%.” Newt Gingrich has only one record: and that is a record of growing government. He has only one consistent platform, and that is a platform of defending big government “solutions” and a more active role for Washington D.C. in every aspect of your life from cradle to grave. These are the facts and they are a matter of record."
I couldn't have said it better.
CrackerHound| 12.13.11 @ 12:40PM
1994 was a different time. The national debt was not seen as the nation killer it has become today. It has become unmanageable for many countries. The numbers here in America are staggering and if we are to face the facts, default is the only option.
Perhaps the situation will cause a man like Newt or Romney to become actual fiscal conservatives. Throughout history, great leaders have emerged in times of crisis who were transformed by the times. We can hope I guess.
VBMax| 12.13.11 @ 11:00AM
We need a fighter this time around who can withstand the slings and arrows. Choose wisely.
conservative academic| 12.13.11 @ 11:11AM
As far as the Beltway types you mention, these are people who either worked with Gingrich (Republican polticians) or observed him closely (conservative writers). Their opinion carries weight with me because it is based on their personal experience.
Who Knows?| 12.13.11 @ 11:27AM
“Inventing”?
The problems with being a truth teller---welcome worms!
As in, opening a can of them.
Or, going back to an anciently invented saying---opening Pandora’s box.
And then, there’s “You can’t handle the truth” as a pert warning for MOST people, when it comes to opening sesame.
Allow me to expand the invention play.
What country ISN’T an invention?
What “peoples” ISN’T an invention?
Ah, I well remember reading Michener’s “The Source” as a wide-eyed youth. Anybody else remember how the novel played with space-time and “peoples” in the Middle East, over thousands of years, before there was even an INVENTED religion of Judaism, or even people called Jews?
Indeed, a la the enlightening book, “The Book”, by the Zen explicator, Alan Watts, from circa 1966---which saved “my sorry ass”---the great taboo is to recognize that even each of us is an INVENTION.
We live with invented and ASSUMED to be permanent self images, or egos, whereas in truth, this INVENTION is always being changed over time. I am, that I am, of course.
And, this “I”? What does “I” know about it? I IS it!
Get it?
So, join ”me”, as “I” always and already simply enjoy the undressing acts of ALL people, and “peoples” or “countries”.
Don’t forget, though, that the “invention”-invoking Gingrich is richly deserving of his own---dis-invention.
You can already see it in the inevitable ads thrown together and out there, culling the “best” and the “worst” recorded “inventions” that came from Newt’s overflowing mouth.
Reality is like a spinning ball, with infinite layers, which at any space-time seem to be shimmering and REAL. And simultaneously each layer is oh so tempting for those who want to peel it away.
We’re all like children, always and already sitting under the Christmas tree, with a plethora of “gifts” demanding unwrapping.
Me---I can picture “unwrapping” Gingrich, even physically, so we can see his gross fat-infused body.
Technology has allowed many TV tubes showing all the NFL games, in an array, as they are happening at once. Picture a wall with, say only three by three of them with nine replays of Newt at pertinent times in his past. With the sound turned down, simply being able to see his “body” and especially his “mouth” in varying degrees of motion would be a hoot!
What a great INVENTION!
I “invented” this!
Buck Ofama| 12.13.11 @ 1:37PM
How
about
you
learn
to
write
more
than
one
sentence
in
your
pointless
paragraphs?
Nanette| 12.13.11 @ 5:38PM
Amen
Who Knows?| 12.13.11 @ 5:47PM
I
S
e
e
DTOM| 12.14.11 @ 9:59AM
You obviously are not the one "who knows..."
Maybe you should listen more and talk less. You might find you know more than you used to, after a while...
TW in SC| 12.13.11 @ 11:29AM
I submit that the conservative women who flame Newt more often than not do it on the basis of the marital infidelity schtick. This grates on me. We never seem to hear about the many cases of female marital infidelity, of which there are at least as many women engaging in it as men. But, in keeping with the liberal chant, "it's always the men, always the men, always the men", I submit that it always seems to be a broken record with women looking for that "ideal man" who must be a complete boy scout in all things. I like Newt because he can destroy Obama. Conversationally, logically, morally, empirically. He can eat Obama's lunch and leave him a whimpering curled-up lump in a fetal position.
Is Newt perfect? Of course not. But neither is he a narcissistic petulant child that thinks he knows everything, either. Mistakes made when in politics are magnified, perhaps appropriately for the very reason we see them as egregious errors but we must disassociate errors against failures or lack of character. I think Gingrich's strengths far outweigh his weaknesses. Coulter wants to bash the guy into the ground because he has a fidelity problem. But I also submit that failure of fidelity in marriage has little to do with fidelity to one's country. Look at boy-wonder Barack. He's still married to the same woman after all this time. But I ask you, in spite of the fact that she probably holds a kitchen knife to his genitals and threatens him with "staying faithful" to her, does that in any way concur with his desire to do incredible damageto the United States? In spite of his "faithfulness" to his wife, he's still the worst thing for this nation. Newt is 180 degrees out from the Marxist Generalissimo vactioner-in-chief.
Margie| 12.13.11 @ 2:37PM
Yup.
Better is a repentant forgiven serial Adulterer than an unrepentant Socialist.
Bill| 12.13.11 @ 11:47AM
Newt is rising as Mitt is falling.
They both have controversial stances on the TARP, immigration, cap and trade.
It's time to look at a candidate who has records, like Rick Perry. He can deliver the South, along with NE and the Midwest, unifying the GOP voters from coast to coast.
Nanette| 12.13.11 @ 5:40PM
Perry is done. He's too tongue-tied to be of any use going forward.
Grzmlyk| 12.13.11 @ 12:11PM
By the way, according to national broadside:
"The Federal government and the National Debt actually grew while Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House. As Ed Crane, president of the Cato Institute lamented in 2000: “the combined budgets of the 95 major programs that the Contract with America promised to eliminate have increased by 13%.” Newt Gingrich has only one record: and that is a record of growing government. He has only one consistent platform, and that is a platform of defending big government “solutions” and a more active role for Washington D.C. in every aspect of your life from cradle to grave. These are the facts and they are a matter of record."
I couldn't have said it better.
Bill| 12.13.11 @ 12:14PM
It's a blessing for GOP the fact that Rick Perry is rising and dominating the GOP field. Because he is the next President of America.
How about?
President: Rick Perry
VP: Rick Santorum
AG: Rudy Giuliani
Treasury: Michelle Bachmann
Any one agree with me?
Grzmlyk| 12.13.11 @ 12:32PM
I like Santorum, but, as for Perry, I'm sorry - we don't need another inarticulate cowboy from Texas who cannot string two words together as our nominee. He has proven time and again that he cannot think on his feet, and America will not vote for Perry en masse.
I'm also not thrilled with his approach to illegal immigration.
I like Santorum for president, but everyone's decided that his loss in his last run for Senate by 20 points makes him toxic. I wish that weren't the case, because I think he's the real deal.
Giuliani as AG? I think there's not enough political gain to be had from such an appointment. Americans now remember 9/11 as the moment at which our Islamophobia went mainstream. They don't remember that little incident at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and Shanksville, PA, and most people probably think Guiliani was "mean-spiritied" by not imposing Sharia law on Manhattan in an effort to atone for the murder of innocent Americans, which, clearly, was our own fault.
Seriously, though, I lived in NYC when he became mayor, and, overnight, the city became more liveable. But, on the national scene, Giuliani has proven to be wobbly on conservative principles and, in any case, he's a has-been. I also doubt whether he'd be a stalwart guardian of the constitution.
bill| 12.13.11 @ 1:23PM
If you don't like Perry, then you have to choose between Mitt and Newt, and they both somehow embrace the individual mandate, cap and trade, and for pro-choice and for gun control.
Rick Santorum cannot win the GOP node, may be only the IA caucus. That left Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann. Between Perry and Bachmann, Perry is rising and Bachmann is stuck in the single digit in many polls.
Perry put $400 million and the TX National Guard in the border, combating the illegals. He opposed amnesty. Bachmann has some electability issue, and that's why she kept falling since winning the IA straw poll.
Perry is articulate and authentic. He can dissolve Obama in the debate and defeat him in a landslide.
Grzmlyk| 12.13.11 @ 1:49PM
Hey, in some ways I like Perry.
But come on - if you think Americans are going to vote for an inarticulate Texan "cowboy" after Bush - good luck with that.
And he IS inarticulate. Those debate and interview gaffes continue to mount up. If you say he's articulate, I'm sorry - you are showing that you are being highly tendentious to the point of willfully ignoring empirical evidence that we have witnessed with our own eyes about your man - just as many Cain defenders conveniently ignored or explained away his utter and complete ignorance of anything that had anything to do with policy.
Also, paying for the education of the kids of illegals is a magnet for more illegals. I realize that he had political reality to deal with, and I realize the situation is complex. And, in truth, conservatives have lost that battle. We have a tacit agreement in this country that, sure, we may put on a show of being anti-illegal immigration but the fact is, anybody who can make it into this country is able to sign up for the goodies. The very few Jan Brewers who still exist out there will be brought to heel very soon. We have long ago ceded our sovereignty when it comes to our borders, our language and our culture (and not much remains after those are gone).
No politician is serious about stopping illegal immigration or dealing properly with the 20 million that are here. And I include Perry in that group.
Anything can happen in an election - although suddenly there's not a lot of time. I like some things about Perry. Really. And I have no doubt that, on occasion, he CAN be articulate (and, off camera, Bush was reputed to be highly articulate, but what good did it do? The public never saw that).
So, like Santorum, no matter what, Perry is not going to be the nominee, and if he were, he wouldn't get the independent vote.
That's something I hate - allowing a class of people (so-called "independents") who have no political vision or direction whatsoever to be the deciders of who gets the nomination - but it's a reality.
Also, I'm not interested in getting into pissing contests about "my candidate is THE guy." I never fall in love with politicians, because that will only lead to heartbreak. They ALWAYS disappoint eventually. And my opinion is that it really didn't matter who was wearing the Captain's uniform on the Titanic after it hit the iceberg.
But if I'm wrong, and Perry's the nominee, I'll vote for him without batting an eyelash.
Bill| 12.13.11 @ 2:16PM
Rick Perry is not a perfect candidate but he is far better candidate than Mitt or Newt.
Perry has a comprehensive plan on taxes, regulations, and getting America's economy on track, unlike nobody else.
Perry is articulate and needs no teleprompter.
Grzmlyk| 12.13.11 @ 2:53PM
So, Bill, you didn't watch the debates, obviously. Let me be the first to tell you, then: He made a fool of himself. About 5 times. All because he could not ARTICULATE his point effectively.
Or maybe you've seen the gaffes and you're just denying that they were inarticulate moments. You've put your fingers in your ears and are shouting "la la la! I can't hear you!" and that ought to take care of it.
Come on. You're telling me those moments didn't happen? Just a few days ago, he didn't refer to Sotomayor as "Montemayor?" He didn't assert that there were 8 Supreme Court Justices, not 9? Or are all of these gaffes simply anomalies that happened to an otherwise silver-tongued orator? Do you think most Americans, for whom these debates have been their first look at Rick Perry, agree that he's been articulate? What ARE you smoking?
Well, you may not have seen these lapses, but I did. And you may want to look at them on Youtube.
And, again, please get this: He's got a "cowboy" image. Like the hated George Bush. And he's from Texas. Like the hated George Bush. And he's inarticulate - like the hated George Bush (well, to everyone on the planet except you, I guess). And he has a Texas drawl - like the hated George Bush. So the media will paint him as "George Bush: The Sequel."
He may be popular among Tea Partiers, which is great, but the story is different among independents and other wishy-washy Republicans who have had their fill of politicians from Texas for the time being (and yes, Ron Paul has successfully disassociated himself from that particular albatross). It ain't fair, but there you have it.
As for "comprehensive plans," please. You are sounding like a Ron Paul sycophant, like Clint. We all know what happens to "comprehensive plans" the minute a new president finishes taking the oath of office. They go "poof." "Comprehensive Plans" are springboards into office. They have as much to do with governing as a surf board has to do with a cactus.
Again, there are some things about Perry I like. He seems like a genuinely decent, basically conservative guy. It's a pity that he can't think on his feet.
And, like the Ron Paulites, you do your cause no good by simply ignoring that truth.
Bill| 12.13.11 @ 4:17PM
I give up on you, but not on Rick Perry.
Grzmlyk| 12.13.11 @ 4:55PM
So Perry didn't make those gaffes during the debates? You're literally blotting that out of your memory?
I'm sorry, but we need to have open eyes when we elect politicians to represent us. School-girl crushes and tabula rasa fantasies are ridiculous.
Grzmlyk| 12.13.11 @ 2:57PM
Oh, PS:
I agree that he very well might be better than Newt or Mitt. Truly.
I just think his window of opportunity has closed, and it's closed in large part because of his gaffes.
Nanette| 12.13.11 @ 5:50PM
Absolutely correct on all counts, Grzmlyk. Perry will never be the nominee. He's good, but who would ever know in the land of "image is everything"? He comes across as a complete idiot, tongue firmly tied as he stutters and stumbles through his various ordeals. Too bad.
Grzmlyk| 12.13.11 @ 6:31PM
Yeah - and we already know how the mainstream media portrays 99% of GOP contenders - as morons. I mean, Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush Jr., Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum - that's the theme. If you believe in fiscal sanity, you're stupid (and obviously the Bushes didn't believe in fiscal sanity, but their abject embrace of liberal spending habits did nothing to ingratiate them).
I find it ironic in the extreme that the mainstream media props up total jackasses in the Democrat party with the same faux earnestness that it excoriates any Republican: Morons like Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi - and on and on.
It sucks that we have no choice but to play in the arena the mainstream media has built, on a playing field that is tilted all the way to the left.
I question the wisdom of our potential candidates doing, what, 500 debates - most of which are with liberal media outlets. Why? Who is forcing them to go on these liberal stations and subject themselves to liberal abuse? This is beyond ridiculous.
Nevertheless, we simply cannot nominate a slow-witted Texan who is far too easy to portray as "all hat and no cattle" for a second Republican presidency in a row.
scotchieguy| 12.13.11 @ 9:41PM
Grzy, I agree. WHY are they allowing the MSM to belittle them with so many debates. You knew that zinger was coming about 'fidelity' sat. night. Is there anyone more sanctimonious than Diane Sawyer? (Roll my eyes)
scotchieguy| 12.13.11 @ 9:35PM
You must be kidding. I can't watch him anymore without holding my breath, thinking he will implode on stage again. He reminds me of Quayle. Too bad, so sad. I really like him, but the party is STARVING for someone who can for a sentence. Hence, the rise of Newt. But Newt, I fear, will also implode for different reasons, but also related to his mouth. What the hell is wrong with this party?
Bob Grant| 12.13.11 @ 1:55PM
I agree with you about Perry. I'm quite tired of being concerned about whether "our guy" can sting a few thoughts together, whether they've eaten their Wheaties on any given morning, e.g., John McCain, GW Bush, Bob Dole, HW Bush, and to a lesser degree, even Ronald Reagan.
Say what you will about Newt, this will not be a problem.
Perry needs to come home to Texas and be governor for life!
David T| 12.13.11 @ 12:32PM
I could certainly support Rick Santorum as VP.
bill| 12.13.11 @ 1:24PM
How about Rick Perry as the President ?
Josephine| 12.14.11 @ 12:50AM
My ticket:
President: Ron Paul
Vice-President: Rick Santorum
Secretary of State: Michelle Bachman
That's a ticket I could vote FOR, instead of usually having to choose the lesser of two evils.
Overheard: Michelle Bachman called the Newt a frugal socialist. Too funny.
SUSEYQUE| 12.13.11 @ 12:38PM
We live in a vain society…appearance counts in the workplace. Newt is a rerun of McCain in
appearance. Not good when he stands side to side with tall,trim 000. Not to mention both men are mavericks.
Newt’s tongue can be like a whiplash; he accused Mitt of laying off thousand and bankrupting companies. There are times when that is necessary for poorly managed companies.
Our upcoming workers need to realize that in today’s economy a worker must have more than one salable skill. In the 1960′s companies stood in line to hire you. In 2011 the worker stands in line to be hired.
Interested Conservative| 12.13.11 @ 12:59PM
To date Newt has made all the right enemies. If somebody can get the POTUS to react, the nomination is all but his. So far Axelrod is rising to the bait, but he may be sharp enough to shut up.
Until Mitt starts (begins?) cultivating the right enemies, Newt has the field to himself.
Perry finally seems to have come alive, but just wait for the MSM to start asking about the back surgery, the painkillers, he capacity to hold the office under such conditions, etc. ad nauseum. Still, the Governor's timing seems too far off.
I'd expect Newt to start playing to the Paul/Johnson/Trump crowd, simply to curtail a loose base. The dead-enders may be gone, but the bulk should be in play. Again, haven't seen any indication that Mitt intends any such move.
Margie| 12.13.11 @ 2:43PM
Interesting insights there I hadn't thought of.
And yep, timing is everything, isn't it? And it just may be Newt's time.
sirbourbon| 12.13.11 @ 1:16PM
Your analogy of the bowl of corn flakes cereal and Newt has one common denominator- flakiness.
Newt's lobbying on behalf of the government[taxpayer] subsidized ethanol industry earns Newton one flake award from the facist corporate world that uses up more energy "producing" gasoline from corn at taxpayer expense.
Other Newton Flakes: mortgage giant bankruptsy poster icons Fannie and Freddie, the two "government sponsored enterprises" that historians used to call fascism, Newton still defends dispite the red ink they left the nation and the inflation bucks that Newt pocketed from his association with Facist R Us Mortgage.
Super global flake award goes to Newton for helping Bill Clinton push through the NAFTA treaty and the GATT "trade" scheme which Newt and Slick Willy turned over US commerce to an international collection of bigger flakes at the World Trade Organization.
More flakiness on Newton Gingrich if you can stomach his betrayal of America: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related
Fred| 12.13.11 @ 1:54PM
I just hope Newt self-destructs during the primaries and not during the election.
Jack | 12.13.11 @ 1:59PM
Gingrich is unelectable and unexceptable. No sane Independent, woman , young person or disaffected Democratwould vote for him. His warmongering is dispised by about 80% of the population, including about 60% of Republicans. he is dropping like a rock in Iowa and is being destroyed by negative adds. I predict Iowa will be won by Ron Paul, then Perry, then Romney, last Gingrich.
idalily| 12.13.11 @ 2:44PM
This is nonsense. Anyone who claims to know how all sane Independents, women, young people, and disaffected Democrats will vote is full of crap. And Gingrich is only "dropping like a rock" on your planet. On Earth, he is in the lead or a close second, depending on which poll you look at.
Cicero| 12.13.11 @ 2:07PM
I love the arguments on all sides. This is what the primaries are all about. Make all candidates clarify their ideas for leading this great country, and try to explain away their previous mistakes. Then, support the one who comes out of the process in front.
None are perfect, but then again, no president is qualified except in retrospect. In any event, any of the possible Republican candidates are preferrable to the current administration.
SusyQue| 12.13.11 @ 2:38PM
Looks & Money Count:
When a man says, “Mom, I found the woman I want to marry.” Mom says, “What does she look like?”
When a woman says, “Mom I found the man I want to marry.” Mom says. “What kind of work does he do?”
Mitt has both money and looks. Newt doesn't.
idalily| 12.13.11 @ 2:49PM
I don't give a crap about money or looks. Leadership is what counts, and so far, Newt's in first place there, IMO. I think Gingrich is also smarter than Romney. But I would vote for a ham sandwich over Obama, and I suspect a lot of other people agree with me on that.
Grzmlyk| 12.13.11 @ 3:16PM
I'm trying to figure out how we can get a ham sandwich to run.
Because, right now, a ham sandwich is looking like the best option among what we have.
I've often said I'd vote for Elmer Fudd over Obama, but I reached out to Elmer's people and they told me that Elmer may be a myopic fool who can be outsmarted by a carrot-chewing rodent, but even Elmer's not stupid enough to run for president of the US.
Kingofthenet| 12.13.11 @ 3:51PM
Now if we are talking about a honey ham sandwich on pumpernickel, we have a deal....
Drunken Sailor| 12.13.11 @ 3:19PM
Your mom sounds pretty shallow. I don't care if the president has a face a bulldog would feel sorry for. As long as they can turn this disaster around and fix our issues.
DTOM| 12.14.11 @ 10:02AM
And the acorn didn't fall far from the tree...
SusyQ - what did the algore-tipper kiss do to you back in 2000? Anything? Honestly?
Margie| 12.13.11 @ 2:51PM
Romney may have money, but what about substance?
Most everyone works for a living, but what do they believe in?
I personally don't happen to trust Romney, and I'd rather not he become the nominee, but if he happens to, I'll vote for him, as I will for Newt.
And Rick Perry just may be the most conservative out of the three, I don't know.. It's too bad they so destroyed Herman Cain, my favorite.
Michele Bachmann is also excellent, but she's also "too conservative" just as Herman Cain was. I guess they aren't able to find anything on her~ or just don't bother creating something like they did on Herman Cain, because she's so far behind the rest of them.
Now we have to deal with the usual~ choosing from the ones that are left.
Santorum lost me when he jumped on the trashing of Herman Cain bandwagon~ he proved that instead of being a God fearing man, he was willing to lie like the MSM and other so-called conservatives in his demise. He doesn't have a chance.
Money isn't everything. Money AND looks doesn't cut it necessarily, either.
Substance does.
Bill| 12.13.11 @ 3:23PM
Rick Perry is the real deal, the trump card for GOP in 2012.
You don't like Rick Perry then you get Obama for four more years.
Newt and Mitt will never get the GOP node. Remember Rudy and Fred Thompson in 2008. McCain trailed both but secured the nomination.
It's Perry time.
Bill| 12.13.11 @ 3:27PM
Rick Perry never gets enough time in the debate to elaborate his views in issues like taxes, regulations, debt, and deficit.
His "cut, balance, and grow" plan will rescue America from the current fiscal mess.
He is articulate and smart, and a proven leader.
Kingofthenet| 12.13.11 @ 3:48PM
I don't want to 'taste' newt, the mere thought is repulsive.
Jack in Wi.| 12.13.11 @ 4:30PM
the latest poll in Iowa the PPP poll has Ron Paul in a virtual tie with the neutster. newt haS 22% and Ron Paul has 21%. Mitt has 16%. Ron Paul's supporters are far more positive about him then Newt's are about him.
Kingofthenet| 12.13.11 @ 4:44PM
Actually the worst thing about Newt is he WASN'T a lobbyist, that would be OK, Congress knows how to deal with those people.What he actually was doing was 'lobbying' the American people DIRECTLY, with his sold to the highest bidder 'opinions'.
PattyMor| 12.13.11 @ 5:04PM
Newt is just better at blathering and debating than Mitt, otherwise they are pretty similar. Both are flipfloppers and loved global warming until it became unfashionable. I just can't sign onto anyone who falls for a hoax (or it is really just another part of the money chase?).
Newt was for the individual mandate before he was against it. He endorsed Dede Suzzy... over the conservative. And Gingrich was tossed out of the Speakership by HIS OWN party.
And, Newt wasn't just writing history lessons for the over $1 Million Dollars he earned from Freddie Mac. He just another insider working the system for his own benefit and pocketbook.
Sorry, but Newt just has too much baggage and too many ties to "big gov'ment" to bring reforms.
CallMeIshmael| 12.13.11 @ 5:50PM
PattyMor: "I just can't sign onto anyone who falls for a hoax.."
So you prefer Obama Patty? Who else in the Republican Primary Race has shown an ability to win the nomination? Will you vote for the Republican candidate even if it's Newt or will you sit this one out and watch the next three Supreme Court justices be appointed by Obama?
Naturalborn Texicanette| 12.13.11 @ 7:51PM
Most Texans I know are pretty plain spoken. We don't tend to wander to and fro, but instead head straight down the path we need to follow to get where we want to be in our thought processes.
That's what Perry does when he speaks. He doesn't follow the wandering path. He doesn't use flowery phrases and such. He just spits it out.
Despite his "gaffes" and "mis-speakings" ( is that a word?) I still believe he is the best candidate. I won't reiterate why again, because you've all seen a few of my comments, along with Bill's, Ken's and others.
Nuff said.
Naturalborn Texicanette| 12.13.11 @ 8:11PM
Latest Newsmax poll:
Gingrich 27%
Paul 17%
Perry 13%
Bachman 10%
Santorum 7%
Huntsman 4$
Naturalborn Texicanette| 12.13.11 @ 8:14PM
OOps!!!
Romney 12%
Simon Templar| 12.13.11 @ 8:23PM
Just another day in Republican election land. Now, I do not claim to be the expert on Newt as some have you so eloquently and not so eloquently have postulated to be but I know one thing for sure. That is.... I have never seen such contradiction about any candidate in my lifetime. Just look at the various articles on the net and throughout the media. Newt IS a conservative, Newt is a progressive, Newt is NOT a conservative, Newt is a threat to the WH, Newt is not a threat..they want him to be nominated, Newt is a truth teller, Newt is a liar, Newt is part of the establishment, Newt is really an outsider...the establishment want Romney. Newt is smooth, no Newt is bombastic. Do I have to keep going or do you get the picture?
Which is it?
Whatever it is, he is a damn sight better than the dangerous fool in there now. Some of you keep forgetting that. In fact, any of them are...
Simon Templar| 12.13.11 @ 8:54PM
Some more to think about. Let us put the focus on us this time.
Let us review what have I heard on this blog consistently over the past year.
We need a candidate that is a true conservative or the closest we can get!
Oh really, ya got Bachmann and Santorum and the complaint is they are too conservative, out there, too extreme, crazy, etc.
We need a debater..someone who can really debate Obama, communicates like a champion our values, ideas, and conservative thoughts on all the issues. These debates count for so much!
Just look at the pitiful performance of poor Perry! Not the one, that is for sure.
Oh really, ya grand communicator has come forth, he happens to be Gingrich. He nearly won them all. Nope, he just won't do. Now, these debates really are not that important now, you know?
Mitt is our man, he is the only electable one as you know it all comes down to electability..not much else matters. Oh, my gosh the polls just do not seem to reflect that..what are we to do?
We need someone who has governed, damn it!!Somebody with a PROVEN record of job creation! Oh, sorry but that Perry guy did not do well in those circus debates that we used to think meant so much and were so critical.
We want someone who is real..talks to us like he is not a politician, we do not want a politician but a real person!
Cain who? Oh, that guy, the one harrased out of the race with alleged allegations, no evidence, that we expected to act like a politician when handling those falsehoods.
Ya see something wrong with this picture? Ya think maybe we lost focus and need a new prescription or perspective?
CallMeIshmael| 12.13.11 @ 9:05PM
Just means we're letting the Drive-Bys lead us around by the nose again. Time to grow a pair!
Otis the Hand | 12.13.11 @ 9:35PM
Speaking with Bill O'Reilly on Fox tonight Krauthammer stated that the reason "establishment" Republicans dislike Newt so much is that they fear his unreliability. They are afraid he is not a "real" conservative and that he will go off on a government mandate or global warming tangent. I find that really difficult to believe. That actually sounds like a good description of the cowardly establishment country-club wing of the party themselves. We've already seen what they are capable of when given the reins of power. Nothing. Try again. Why don't you like Newt, really? And don't give me that "because he's too much like us" hogwash.
POST American| 12.13.11 @ 10:12PM
-----GMO 'cornflakes' surely. . .
shipley130| 12.14.11 @ 1:34PM
I don't consume breakfast cereal anymore and I won't vote for Gingrich.